APPENDICES 4-10

APPENDIX 4. HISTORICAL EVIDENCE AND CURRENT STATUS OF

GRIZZLY BEARS IN THE BITTERROOT ECOSYSTEM

Historical Status. -- Grizzly bears were once common in the Bitterroot Mountains. Historical evidence of their existence and abundance is clear in oral accounts of local Indian tribes including the Nez Perce Indians in the north and Shoban Indians in the southern part of the Primary Analysis Area, as well as numerous written accounts by explorers, hunters, and historians. Nez Perce dictionaries indicate the term for grizzly bear was Xaxat, and the grizzly bear is common in their stories and legends. Merriweather Lewis while traveling through and visiting with Nez Perce Indians wrote that the Indians considered the grizzly bear "tremendious animals to them; they esteem the act of killing a bear equally great with that of an enimy in the field of action". Clark wrote: " The Indians of this country seldom kill the bear they are very much afraid of them and killing of a White or Grizly bear is as great a feet as two of their enimey. The fiew of those animals which they chance to kill is found in the leavel open lands and pursued on horses and killed with their arrows. They are fond of the flesh of this animal and eate imoderately of it when they have a sufficiency to indulge themselves." The local Nez Perce museum in Spalding, Idaho has many artifacts obtained from the local Indians by Reverend Spalding in the late 1800's. Included in these artifacts are necklaces of grizzly bear claws.

Because most versions of the Lewis and Clark Journals are heavily edited for space and content, it is difficult to clearly identify their descriptions of the wildlife encountered. However, the "Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 1804-1806, edited by Reuben Gold Thwaites, LL.D., Antiquarian Press LTD., New York, 1959, were much more complete in their descriptions of wildlife. This version was printed from the original manuscripts and notebooks of Lewis and Clark as well as other members of the expedition. Their journals were for the first time published in full and exactly as written.

While Lewis and Clark were in the "Upper Kooskooske" (Upper Clearwater River) in May and June, 1806, they spent several weeks waiting for the snows to melt before heading back over the Bitterroot Mountains. While camped near present-day Kamiah, Idaho, their hunters spent many days afield attempting to kill game for consumption. The salmon had not yet started their run and game was scarce. The expedition spent many days with the local Indians, and pursued game as far down river as Collins creek (Lolo Creek), and up on the benches above the Clearwater River. During their first few weeks at the camp, they killed many bears, but were confused as to how many different species of bears there were. They attempted to speciate by differentiating the bears by color of the pelage. In exasperation, Lewis indicated on May 15, 1806 that, "...if we were to attempt to distinguish them by their collours and to denominate each colour a distinct species we should soon find at least twenty" (Thwaites 1959). They did however identify the grizzly bear and called it the "grizzly, white, or variagated bear." Their confusion came when trying to identify the black bear and its different color phases common in this part of the west. They felt it different than the common east coast and pacific coast black bear.

On May 31, 1806, their attempts to properly categorize the distinct species made a break through when Lewis recorded the following: "Goodrich and Willard visited the Indian villages this morning and returned in the evening. Willard brought with him the dressed skin of a bear which he had purchased for Capt. C. This skin was an uniform pale redish brown colour, the Indians informed us that it was not the Hoh-host or white bear. That it was the Yack-kah. This distinction of the Indians induced us to make further enquiry relative to their opinions of the several speceis of bear in this country. We produced the several skins of the bear which we had killed at this place and one very nearly white which I had purchased. The white, the deep and pale red grizzle, the dark brown grizzle, and all those which had the extremities of the hair of a white or frosty colour without regard to the colour of the ground of the poil, they designated Hoh-host and assured us that they were the same with the white bear, that they ascosiated together, were very vicisious, never climbed the trees, and had much longer nails than the others. The black skins, those which were black with a number of intire white hairs intermixed, the black with a white breast, the uniform bey, brown and light redish brown, they designated the Yack-kah; said they climbed the trees, had short nails and were not vicious, that they could pursue them and kill them with safety, they also affirmed that they were much smaller than the white bear. I am disposed to adopt the Indian distinction with respect to these bear and consider them two distinct speceis" (Thwaites 1959).

Based on this account and the descriptions of the hides separated by the Indians, and previous and following descriptions in the journals of bears killed, it is apparent that they killed at least 7 grizzly bears while camped near Kamiah, including a female with 2 cubs that Collins killed on May 14. Lewis writes: " the mail bear was large and fat the female was of moderate size and rather meagre. We had the fat bear fleaced in order to reserve the oil for the mountains. Both these bear were of the speceis common tho the upper missouri" (Ed. Note, they identified the grizzly as the only species of bear in the upper Missouri). Clark writes for the same day, May 14: "Collins returned in the evening with the two bears which he had killed in the morning one of them an old hee was in fine order, the other a female with Cubs was meagure" (Thwaites 1959).

Another interesting excerpt on May 15 by Lewis read: "the most striking differences between this species of bear and the common black bear are that the former are larger, have longer tallons and tusks, prey more on other animals, do not lie so long nor so closely in winter quarters, and will not climb a tree tho' ever so heardly pressed. The variagated bear I believe to be the same here with those on the missouri but these are not so ferocious as those perhaps from the circumstance of their being compelled from the scarcity of game in this quarter to live more on roots and of course not so much in the habit of seizing and devouring living animals. The bear here are far from being as passive as the common black bear they have attacked and fought our hunters already but not so fiercely as those of the Missouri. There are also some of the common black bear in this neighbourhood" (Thwaites 1959).

Written accounts of grizzly bears are rare during the late 1800's. However, there are various records of grizzly bear hides being sold at the Lolo Creek Hudson Bay outpost near present-day Lolo, Montana (Bud Moore, pers. comm.) during the late 1800's. However, it is not clear how many of those bears came from the Idaho side of the Bitterroot Mountains.

William H. Wright, a hunter - naturalist wrote about hunting grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Mountains at the turn of the century in a book entitled "The Grizzly Bear", first published in 1909. During his first excursion he stated, "So one spring, having made up my mind to go after them (grizzly bears) and not return until I had one, I started out in May with a few pack-horses and went to the Bitter Root Mountains, which form the dividing line between Montana and Idaho. ...For nearly three months we cruised about this rugged wilderness and enjoyed life to the utmost. We killed plenty of black bears, but up to September had not bagged a grizzly. We found an abundance of their tracks and saw three bears, but they were so wild that we could not get near enough to them for a shot. ...We therefore left the divide we had been following and struck off to the right to reach a stream of considerable size flowing into the main north fork of the Clearwater River. We had been told by an old miner that there was a large lick on this stream about twenty miles from the trail, and he directed us as to where to leave the ridge, and...find the lick." Wright then explains his encounter with a grizzly at the lick while waiting for an elk, and how he proceeded to kill the grizzly following an exciting few minutes after his gun jammed (Wright 1909).

Wright also wrote of watching and hunting many grizzly bears while they were fishing in the Bitterroot Mountains. "In the streams tributary to the Clearwater River in Idaho there are two or three runs of salmon...between the middle of August and the middle of September, what are known as the dog salmon make their way up all the little streams...and the grizzlies gather to feast." Wright explains how they would catch the fish, and also how during one encounter he killed two grizzlies while they were fishing. Wright also wrote of an encounter in 1891 on the Middle Fork of the Clearwater River at an Indian fishing site, where he killed a grizzly with a hunting knife and help from a couple of dogs. While photographing in the Bitterroot Mountains with a Mr. W. E. Carlin, they spent the most of one summer and early fall on one of the divides between the South and Middle Forks of the Clearwater River. There he explains observing a bear feeding in a brushy meadow, and Carlin shot it with his .30-.40 bullet through the shoulders. The bear was a female and had two cubs that they also killed. They remarked that this was, "the first time that either of us had the opportunity of observing the effect of high-power bullets on living targets" (Wright 1909). Wright's book also contains a photograph of the female with cubs with the caption, "In the Bitter roots-the old grizzly and her two cubs" (Figure 6-2). Wright enjoyed hunting, photographing, and camping in the Bitterroot Mountains and detailed many more of his colorful hunts and numerous encounters with grizzly bears during his travels.

The now well-known Carlin party expedition into the Bitterroot Mountains in the fall of 1893 that resulted in the death of George Colgate has been documented in several publications including Conley (1982). Conley indicated that Carlin's party camped at Jerry Johnson flat on the Lochsa River and hunted a nearby mineral lick (now named for Colgate) for game. "Carlin bagged an elk with rocking chair antlers after half-a-dozen shots, but much game was missed or wounded, including a grizzly bear with two cubs."

A female and 2 cubs shot by Wright and Carlin on a divide between the Middle and South Forks of the Clearwater River (late 1800's).


During the same time that Wright and Carlin hunted the Bitterroot Mountains, and into the early 1900's a famous taxonomist and zoologist by the name of Dr C. Hart Merriam was classifying grizzly bears and attempting to speciate them. At that time he also developed a distribution map based on his samples and records of dead and live bear locations. Already by the year 1922, the grizzly bear had been reduced in distribution to the mountainous areas of national parks and remote and rugged wilderness ranges. Grizzly bears still existed in the Bitterroot Mountains and to the south of the Salmon River in Idaho (Figure 6-3).

By the mid 1920's grizzly bears were apparently becoming quite rare in the Bitterroot Mountains. William (Bud) Moore, a longtime resident of the area, wrote a book on the history of the Bitterroot area. Moore was a trapper and hunter, and worked as a sheepherder, and later a USDA Forest Service Ranger in charge of the Powell Ranger Station, nestled in the middle of the Bitterroot area. He lived and worked in the Bitterroot area during the early and mid 1900's and interviewed many trappers, homesteaders, reviewed journals and historical records to obtain information on the Bitterroot grizzly bear. Moore described the typical trapper/hunter routine by describing trapper Wes Fale's routine. "During early March, 1908, Fale lugged his winter's catch marten, lynx, mink, and ermine from his home cabin at Big Sand Lake over Blodgett Pass and out of the mountains to Hamilton. He sold


Figure 6-3. Historical grizzly bear distribution in the conterminous 48 States, by C. H. Merriam in 1922 (from Outdoor Life,Dec. 1922; reprinted with permission from the Popular Science Publishing Company), in Earle F. Layser 1978.


his furs, then returned to Big Sand Lake in late April to set bear traps. In six days he placed 10 sets at promising locations in the surrounding mountains. Some days he caught one bear, some days none, and three times he caught two bears in the same day. During late May, on the last round of his trapline, Fales caught a large female grizzly below the Hidden Fork of Big Sand Creek. He wanted a photograph. While he waited for good light, a cub jumped up on a log followed by another and another, then all three ran along the log to the mother who fought for freedom from the trap. He photographed the trapped mother and her cubs" (Moore 1984, 1996). He killed the female and caught one of the cubs. Fales described the killing of five black bears and four grizzlies during the spring of 1908. He implied to Moore that he had killed several more. And he was one of 6 to 10 trappers who combed the Bitterroot Mountains each spring. By conservative estimate writes Moore, "trappers near the turn of the century killed 25 to 40 grizzly bears annually in the Bitterroot Mountains."

Following the 1910 fires, sheep herders and cattlemen grazed their livestock in newly created meadows and open areas high in the Bitterroot Mountains. Although the Selway Game Preserve was created in 1919, grizzly bears and other predators were not protected. Livestock operators, homesteaders, hunters and trappers continued to kill grizzly bears whenever they were seen. Moore saw a grizzly bear in the upper Lochsa River area in 1930, and he and his father shot a big grizzly near a band of sheep they were tending in 1931. In 1932, Moore found nine bear scalps nailed on a tree at Packer's Meadows, and some of those scalps according to Moore were grizzly bear. This was believed to be the last verified evidence of a dead grizzly bear in the Bitterroots. Moore reported some sightings of bears and tracks and a report of a dead bear during the 1930's but he never saw it. The last track Moore saw was along the North Fork of Spruce Creek in 1946. "The mud had dried around the imprint of the big paw and long claws in what seemed to me an attempt by nature to preserve some sign of the great bear's passing" (Moore 1984). Moore was attributed as having killed the last grizzly bear at Colt Creek in 1956 while stationed at Powell Ranger Station. However, Moore disclaimed that report saying he had killed a large black bear that someone saw and mistook for a grizzly bear.

Current Status - Current evidence suggests that grizzly bears no longer exist in the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the USDA Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service continue to receive sporadic reports of grizzly bears and continuously attempt to verify the sightings. All observation reports received are classified, documented, and investigated, if timely and of high quality. All verification attempts have resulted in either; various colored black bears that were misidentified as grizzly bears, or were inconclusive based on insufficient evidence or information. Verification efforts are typically conducted by trained bear biologists on the ground, with occasional aerial survey efforts following reception of likely reports.

Melquist (1985) conducted a preliminary survey to determine the status of the grizzly bear in the Clearwater National Forest. The survey consisted of ground and aerial searches, soliciting new grizzly bear observation reports, and compiling and evaluating 88 reports of grizzly bears recorded from 1900-1984. The survey failed to provide conclusive evidence of current presence of grizzly bears in the Clearwater National Forest. No sign of grizzly bears were found during aerial or ground searches and no observation reports received during the survey could be verified. In reviewing the 88 records of grizzly bear observations, Melquist reported the last grizzly bear was killed in 1956 along Colt Creek near Powell. Subsequent verification efforts have shown that report to be erroneous.

Groves (1987) continued Melquist's original work by compiling and reviewing a total of 175 historical grizzly bear reports for central and northern Idaho through 1986. Groves compiled 77 reports of grizzly bears from within the Primary Analysis Area including all National Forests except the Sawtooth and Bitterroot National Forests. The majority (62) of reports were received for the Clearwater National Forest. Groves efforts could not document additional evidence to confirm any grizzly bear reports.

Based on historical reports of sightings, Servheen et al. (1990) and Kunkel et al. (1991) conducted surveys for grizzly bears in the North Fork of the Clearwater River drainage and a few other locations on the Clearwater National Forest during two consecutive summer field seasons (May - September). These surveys consisted of placing remote infrared sensitive cameras over bait, to photograph wildlife as they walked in front of the cameras and triggered the shutter. During a total of 480 camera days, 559 photographs of wildlife were taken, 265 of them were of bears. None of the photos were of grizzly bears.

The failure of all current verification efforts to produce a confirmed grizzly bear observation indicates that no grizzly bears are presently in the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Grizzly bears may occasionally travel through the area. However, the evidence strongly suggests that grizzly bear presence is nonexistent or so rare that despite thousands of visitors, hunters, management and research biologists in the Bitterroot Ecosystem annually, grizzly bears have not been verified either by a photograph, track, or hair sample since 1946.

Literature Cited

Conley, C. 1982. Idaho for the curious - a guide. Backeddy Books, Cambridge, Ida. 704pp.

Groves, C. 1987. A compilation of grizzly bear reports for central and northern Idaho.

Endangered Species Projects E-III, E-IV. Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Boise, Ida. 85pp.

Kunkel, K., W. Clark, and G. Servheen. 1991. A remote camera survey for grizzly bears in low human use areas of the Bitterroot grizzly bear evaluation area. Idaho Department of Fish and Game unpubl. report. Boise, ID. 12pp.

Melquist, W. 1985. A preliminary survey to determine the status of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Clearwater National Forest of Idaho. Idaho Coop. Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. University of Idaho, Moscow, ID. 54pp.

Merriam, C. H. 1922. Distribution of grizzly bear. U. S. Outdoor Life (December):

405-406.

Moore, W. R. 1984. Last of the Bitterroot grizzly. Montana Magazine (November-

December) : 8-12.

Moore, W. R. 1996. The Lochsa story. Mountain Publishing Co., Missoula, Mont. 461pp.

Servheen, G., M. S. Nadeau, and C. Queen. 1990. A survey for grizzly bears in the Bitterroot

Grizzly Bear Evaluation Area. Idaho Department of Fish and Game unpubl. report. Boise, Ida. 11pp.

Tisch, E. L. 1961. Seasonal food habits of the black bear in the Whitefish Range of northwest Montana. M. S. Thesis, Univ. of Mont., Missoula. 108 pp.

Thwaites, G. R., L.L.D. 1959. Original journals of the Lewis and Clark expedition 1804-1806. Antiquarian Press Ltd. NY.

Wright, W. H. 1909. The grizzly bear. Charles Scribner's Sons, N.Y. 274pp.

APPENDIX 5. PUBLIC ATTITUDES ABOUT GRIZZLY BEARS:

A REVIEW OF RECENT SURVEYS

Research Overview

Many research studies have focussed on American's attitudes, beliefs and values of bears, few of them entail grizzly bears alone except in site-specific studies. The majority of American site-specific studies of people's relations with grizzly bears have been done in the pacific northwest states and Alaska. Several other studies of a similar scope have been done in Canada.

First, the attitudinal, belief, and value studies relevant to grizzly bears from the broader public perspective will be summarized. Then the same kinds of research done for site-specific populations of grizzly bears in the United States and Canada will be reviewed. Finally, a more detailed summary of the available information that is directly related to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's proposal to augment or reintroduce grizzly bears in the northern Rocky Mountains will be covered. Locations include the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem in northwestern Montana and the Selway-Bitterroot ecosystem in east central Idaho and west central Montana.

General Research

Views. -- Kellert (1994) wrote that attitudes toward bears, and more generally wildlife, result from,

"4 interrelated factors including: basic wildlife values, perceptions of particular species, knowledge and understanding of wildlife, and people-animal interactions." Kellert describes several "demographic distinctions" regarding how people view or value wildlife species, and in particular their perspective of bears. These demographic distinctions include: 1) "human dependence on land and natural resources as reflected in rural residency, property ownership, and agricultural and other resource-dependent occupations"; 2) "socioeconomic status as measured by education and income"; and 3) "age and gender."

The first distinction is that people who can be described this way tend to have highly utilitarian and dominionistic wildlife values (e.g., would likely endorse bear exploitation and subordination for enhancing human interests and needs), while expressing little support for moralistic and humanistic wildlife values. The second distinction is that people who are highly educated and earn more than most, tend to express highly naturalistic and ecologistic wildlife values (e.g., would likely endorse bear conservation and protection and have a pronounced interest in the outdoor recreational experience of bears). The third distinction is that younger and female respondents tend to have pronounced moralistic and humanistic wildlife values (e.g., would likely express strong affection for bears as well as strongly oppose consumptive use).

Kellert (1994) further asserts, "that knowledge and understanding of wildlife represents an additionally important influence on people's attitudes toward animals, although perhaps to a less degree than often assumed...greater knowledge is often more a basis for reinforcing and rationalizing attitudes than a cause for attitudinal convergence or change."

The bear's actual "conservation status" (i.e., threatened standing as defined by the Endangered Species Act) has greatly affected North American attitudes (Kellert 1994). In a national survey (Kellert 1985), a significant majority of respondents expressed their willingness to protect millions of acres of national forests, despite job and timber losses to protect grizzly habitat. However, only a minority of elderly, rural, and lower socioeconomic Americans supported that degree of sacrifice nationwide.

An example of the application of Kellert's work comes from Alberta, Canada, where to determine the value of bears held by the population of Waterton National Park visitors, Maw (1989) took the responses to two questions and assigned each respondent to one of ten attitude groupings described by Kellert (1979). These questions were: 1) "In your opinion of what value, if any, is a bear?"; and 2) "What do you like most about bears?" The results of this assignment are reported in Table 6-1. The most common value indicated for bears was ecologistic, which shows a strong concern that the bear is a part of the environment, and is related to other ecosystem parts. For the purposes of the analysis, Maw combined scientific with ecologistic and also humanistic with moralistic.


Table 6-1. The value of bears as stated by visitors to Waterton National Park


Value Grouping

Number

Percent
Ecologistic
127
34.4
Aesthetic
81
21.9
Naturalistic
62
16.7
Moralistic
43
11.6
Utilitarian
28
7.6
Negativistic
21
5.7
Humanistic
3
0.8
Scientific
2
0.5
Dominionistic
0
0
Neutralistic
0
0
Unknown
3
0.8
Total
370
100.0

MacCracken et al. (1994) address "value and cultural barriers" in regard to grizzly recovery in Idaho. They make an interesting observation: "Although federal agencies are required to listen to...competing views of how natural resources should be managed, their own professional value and bureaucratic cultural systems are sometimes disproportionately represented in policy decisions due to the lack of a public consensus on management direction or action."

But at the local level in Idaho; "fears of loss of livelihood and property, as well as possible attacks, can lead to deliberate killings of grizzlies. In addition, poaching grizzlies for valuable parts...may be viewed as a means to offset perceived job losses or decreased economic opportunities from protection and recovery actions" (MacCracken et al. 1994).

These authors also point out that within one generation, some local populations living near or in Idaho's grizzly country have seen the emphasis shift from trying to eradicate grizzly bears to their augmentation or reintroduction. Furthermore, in certain areas, religious teachings are used to justify promoting human welfare over other animals. They assert that; "information that would allow recovery teams to predict how cultural attitudes might influence the success of recovery efforts would be valuable, as it would suggest specific groups that could be targeted for education programs or enforcement efforts."

Additionally, MacKracken et al. (1994) say that some people may resent grizzly bear protection and recovery as a means to restrict traditional land uses akin to what they perceive the designation of wilderness to be. Others believe the mining, logging and grazing of public lands are causing long term harm to natural systems and thus support grizzly protection and recovery because of the habitat management implications.

Values. -- Swanson et al. (1994) examined the economic value of grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone area. They argued that two categories of economic value need to be defined when looking at the value of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone Recovery Zone (6 national forests and 2 national parks), namely economic impact and net economic efficiency. The former refers to expenditures and other economic activity generated in a region because the grizzly bears are there. Whereas the latter refers to the benefit received beyond the expenditures related to a resource - in other words, what would individuals be willing to pay beyond current expenditures if costs associated with bear-related activities increased or access fees were charged to view bears (Swanson et al. 1994).

Several different types of values are associated with the concept of net economic efficiency for grizzly bears, including use value, option value, existence and bequest values. Such values can be negative as well as positive, in that some people may be willing to pay to receive benefits derived from the absence of grizzly bears.

In 1983 a study of Wyoming hunters' willingness to pay for the future continuation of grizzly bear hunting (option value) and how much they'd pay to maintain grizzlies even if they could not hunt them in the future (existence value) was conducted (Brookshire et al. 1983).

Overall, Swanson et al. (1994, p. 579) contended that, " (t)here is virtually no information on the economic impact associated with threatened or endangered species".

Site-specific Studies

Waterton National Park. -- In a random sample survey study of people's attitudes toward and knowledge of grizzly bears in Waterton National Park, Alberta, Maw (1989) describes several major findings:

- Nearly 80% of visitors thought grizzly bears were dangerous animals.

- More than half (54%), of these 80% who identified grizzlies as dangerous, failed to take precautions regarding possible encounters with bears.

- Half of the visitors perceived that the reason why people were injured by bears was due to their own fault or carelessness.

- "The value that the visitor held for bears was found to be related to the visitor's: 1) level of biological bear knowledge; 2) age; 3) educational level; 4) population size of current home area; and 5) type of user."

- "There was a relationship between higher levels of biological bear knowledge and ecological, aesthetic, and naturalistic values for bear, while the lower levels of biological bear knowledge were related to utilitarian and negativistic values."

- "In contrast to perceived opinions among park staff, there was strong support for bears to receive management priority for the use of a valley in the park. Many visitors indicated a willingness to give up their use of a valley in order to preserve bear populations."

Yellowstone National Park. -- Trahan (1987) conducted a mail survey in 1985 of backcountry hikers who had self-registered at trailheads in Yellowstone National Park. A total of 210 questionnaires were returned, yielding a 49% response rate.

When asked if having grizzly bears present had any effect on their decision to hike Yellowstone backcountry, 53% said no. Of those who said yes, their comments included they took more care with the choice of trail, they asked for or looked for more information, or they took precautions. Fifteen percent of all respondents said they felt "very safe," 67% felt "safe," 11% "did not think about" it, 12% felt "unsafe," and 1% felt "very unsafe." Fourteen percent felt that the amount of danger grizzly bears present to backcountry hikers was "significant" to "very significant." Two-thirds (66%) felt "some" danger, whereas 20% felt "insignificant" to "very insignificant" danger was presented.

Even though a two-thirds of respondents felt "some danger" was presented by grizzly bears to backcountry hikers, over half (56%) would still like to "view a grizzly from a great distance." A fifth (22%) wanted to "never encounter" one and another fifth (22%) wanted to be "close enough to get a good look." No one wanted to get "quite close." More than three-fourths (78%) felt that they were at least well informed versus 5% who felt that they were at least poorly informed about potential grizzly bear dangers in the backcountry of Yellowstone.

Trahan (1987) reported some interesting relationships occurred among several of these variables that may be relevant for this review. Inexperienced hikers were more likely than experienced hikers to want to get close enough to "get a good look," although these inexperienced hikers were more likely to admit uncertainty as to what to do if they encountered a grizzly. Experienced hikers were more likely to report feeling very well informed than the less experienced ones.

Other studies dealing with possible courses of action to insure the safety of both visitors and wildlife, including grizzly bears have been conducted in the Yellowstone area (Compton 1993).

Glacier National Park. -- Braithwaite (1989) surveyed backcountry campers who visited Glacier National Park and Jewel Basin in 1987 about their perceptions of how social influences affected their backcountry behavior. She found that informational and social influences do affect certain types of backpackers. Those affected include groups composed of family members or family and friends, and relatively inexperienced or novice backpackers.

McCool and Braithwaite (1989) reported that Jewel Basin backpackers showed strong negativistic beliefs toward grizzly bears. Yet those backpackers with ecologistic beliefs tended to participate more in appropriate behavior than those with negativistic beliefs. These authors then asserted that by sensitizing Jewel Basin visitors through written communication to an ecologically oriented perspective of the grizzly, behavioral compliance may have increased.

Mission Valley. -- Frost (1985) undertook a study in May 1984 of 154 Mission Valley (in northwestern Montana) residents' attitudes toward grizzly bears and many of the findings have relevance for consideration in the Bitterroot Mountains reintroduction proposal.

When asked if their neighbors had seen grizzly bears on their property, 88.5% of the population said yes, 56% of the population had observed grizzlies on their own land. When asked if neighbors or friends manage their property to maintain and protect grizzly bear habitat, only 4% answered a definitive yes, whereas 20% of the respondents said that they were managing their own property in this way. Seventy percent said that some of their local neighbors, friends, or relatives have had a problem which was caused by grizzly bears, while only 17% of the respondents indicated that they themselves had a problem with grizzlies. Forty percent said their nearby neighbors left food items around that could attract grizzly bears onto the property.

Other findings about respondent knowledge of grizzly bears and their behavior include:

- Only 34% knew that the Montana grizzly is "threatened."

- Their knowledge about the size of the grizzly population was poor - only 18% of the population was correct (between 16-32 bears).

- Three-fourths (74%) properly identified grizzly bear exploratory behavior correctly; 14% incorrectly interpreting it as a sign of imminent attack.

- Three-fifths (61%) properly identified huffing and teeth clacking as threat behavior, however, 39% were unaware that this was a threat display.

Findings about grizzly bears adding to the quality of life include:

- Over one half (55%) of respondents felt that having grizzly bears in the Missions added to their quality of life; 32% felt the presence of grizzly bears did not add to their quality of life, and 13% didn't know.

- Respondents who felt grizzly bears added to their quality of life had a higher overall knowledge of grizzlies and their behavior than those who felt the species didn't add to their quality of life. These respondents were also more likely to be younger, and were more likely to at least have seen a grizzly bear (the more encounters with grizzlies the more likely an individual felt the species added to their quality of life).

Overall, 61% of the respondents agreed that they liked grizzly bears; 27% disagreed, and 12% were uncertain. Those individuals who agreed were more likely to have higher grizzly bear scores. Those who disagreed that they liked grizzlies were more likely to: disagree that grizzlies are in danger of disappearing, agree that the disappearance of the grizzly bear is unavoidable if human needs are to be met, have had less encounters with grizzly bears, and be older in age.

Frost (1985) concludes that, "nurturing the active involvement of resident landholders is a necessity, to obtain a holistic protection of grizzly habitat on private, as well as federal, lands", especially in regard to the three grizzly bear ecosystems designated as "recoverable" in Montana.

Grizzly Bear Augmentation and Reintroduction Efforts

Cabinet-Yaak Augmentation Effort. -- In 1988, the FWS held a 60 day public comment period (2/1-3/31) for public response to the Draft Environmental Assessment (DEA) for grizzly bear population augmentation in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem. A total of 892 comments were received: 90% originated from Lincoln and Sanders Counties; 8% came from the rest of Montana, all of northern Idaho, and eastern Washington; 2% came from across the U.S. Ninety-five percent of the comments (843) were from individuals, 2% came from industry/ business, 1% from community/civic organizations and 1% from environmental/ conservation groups (FWS 1988). Overall response to the augmentation proposal was negative, people were not in favor of increasing the grizzly bear population in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem.

The number of comments per issue and a summary of the comments by issue follows:

1. The effects on public safety - 131 comments.

Fear comments outweighed other comments almost 2 to 1 and ranged from not wanting bears in their back yards to not wanting to give up trips to the wilderness area due to fear of bear attacks.

2. The effects on recreational opportunities, public land uses, and public attitudes - 146 comments.

One-fourth of the comments made said that an increased bear population would decrease wilderness activities because of more road closures. A little more than a third of the comments made indicated that respondents lacked trust in land management agencies, their policies, and practices.

3. The effects on local economies - 62 comments.

Nine-tenths of the comments perceived adverse effects on the local economy with any increase in grizzly bear numbers. Responses indicated that no logging or mining would occur with grizzlies present in larger numbers which would both jeopardize jobs and prohibit these industries from expanding.

4. The expense, coordination, complexity, and potential success of an augmentation program - 33 comments.

All comments were opposed to the immediate and long term costs of the project.

5. Biological/ecological effects of moving bears from one area and placing more bears in the Cabinet Mountains - 265 comments.

A fourth of the comments indicated that not enough area/habitat was available for more bears in the proposed augmentation area. The balance of the comments were related to concerns that were indirectly related to the augmentation.

The Public and Grizzly Bear Reintroduction in the Bitterroot Ecosystem

The FWS and the Idaho Fish and Game Department (IDFG) authorized a survey of public opinion regarding the reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot Ecosystem (Duda and Young 1995). The contractor, Responsive Management, conducted the random digit dial telephone survey in June, 1995. Nine hundred interviews were administered to randomly selected people selected from national, regional, and local samples. Tables 6-2 through 6-6 summarize the responses to several questions received from completed interviews. The type of response is further tallied by the three geographically defined groups. The balance of Duda and Young's (1995) findings are summarized within this section.

Attitudes. --

Table 6-2. In general, do you support or oppose reintroducing grizzly bears to the Bitterroot Mountains? (N = 919 respondents)


RESPONSE

LOCAL (%)

REGIONAL (%)

NATIONAL (%)
Strongly support
33
39
42
Moderately support
29
34
35
Neither
8
10
10
Moderately oppose
8
5
5
Strongly oppose
18
5
3
Don=t know
4
7
4

Table 6-3. What is the main reason you support grizzly bear recovery in the Bitterroot Mountains? (N = 650 respondents)


REASON

LOCAL (%)

REGIONAL (%)

NATIONAL (%)
Save from extinction
34
28
41
Part of ecosystem
33
37
24
Aesthetic
6
5
4
Were here before we were
17
18
17
Preserve for future generations
3
4
6
Other
7
8
7

Table 6-4. What is the main reason you oppose grizzly bear reintroduction in the Bitterroot Mountains? (N = 137 respondents)


REASON

LOCAL (%)

REGIONAL (%)

NATIONAL (%)
Bears are dangerous
48
40
54
Will kill pets / livestock
7
7
8
No need for them
16
13
8
Reintroduction wouldn=t work
9
7
N/A
Costs too much
3
3
4
Land restrictions
7
10
4
Other
10
20
23

Table 6-5. I would derive satisfaction from just knowing grizzly bears are present in the Bitterroot Mountains. (N = 919 respondents)


RESPONSE

LOCAL (%)

REGIONAL (%)

NATIONAL (%)
Strongly agree
30
37
33
Moderately agree
40
41
49
Moderately disagree
10
12
8
Strongly disagree
16
4
3
No opinion
5
7
7

Table 6-6. I dislike the idea of grizzly bears being present in the Bitterroot Mountains. (N = 919 respondents)


RESPONSE

LOCAL (%)

REGIONAL (%)

NATIONAL (%)
Strongly agree
15
6
3
Moderately agree
9
8
5
Moderately disagree
26
29
32
Strongly disagree
45
52
53
No opinion
4
6
8

Management Options. -- A range of management options for the reintroduction of grizzly bears were presented for consideration by the respondents. These options included: no special accommodations in land use were made for grizzly bears, such as logging or recreation; if grizzly bears were released only in areas already designated as Wilderness; if a State or Tribal wildlife manager was stationed in the area to help track bears, inform and educate people, and resolve conflicts; if costs for capture, release and monitoring were tightly controlled and kept at a minimum; if non-government groups covered some of the costs of the program; if local communities around the Bitterroot area had more input in grizzly bear management decisions; if a Citizen Conservation Council with local and national representatives of various interests, such as logging, ranchers, and conservationists were granted management responsibility; and if grizzly bears that lingered in areas of high human use, acted aggressively toward humans, or killed livestock were removed promptly.

Six of the eight ways resulted in a majority of local, regional and national respondents to state that they would be more supportive of bear reintroduction. Less than a majority said that they would be more supportive from all 3 samples; "if a Citizen Conservation Council with local and national representatives of various interests, such as logging, ranchers, and conservationists were granted management authority and no special accommodations in land use, such as logging or recreation were made specifically for grizzly bears" (Responsive Management, 1995).

Social Assessment of the Bitterroot Valley (of western Montana). -- In this study, 51 residents shared their opinions about important issues relative to natural resources management. Interviewees were classified based on their primary relationship with forest management and so were identified as the "amenities", "commodities", or "neutral" groups (Bitterroot Social Research Institute 1994).

Interviewees who were oriented to amenities most commonly mentioned; "their affinity for the forest and outdoors, observing that they spent a lot of time in the forest recreating and being close to nature." Those who are commodity oriented related forest management to their business and livelihood and commonly had; "concern for the Bitterroot Valley's economic stability, wilderness prescribed fire escapes, soil conservation, and water storage." Those interviewees with a neutral outlook on amenity or commodity interests tended to have no particular interest in ecosystem management (EM) and fire management or they had a variety of personal interests in the way the forest was managed.

These three groups had specific comments about grizzly bears which were shared by respondents under the topic "threatened and endangered species." The amenity group's response regarding grizzly bears follows: "Some support reintroduction because they want to know everything is in the system for now and the future. Supporters of reintroduction differed among themselves relative to the potential threat of grizzly bears to forest visitors. They acknowledged opponents of reintroduction feel personally and economically threatened by the proposed reintroduction" (Bitterroot Social Research Institute 1994).

Additionally, some specifically felt that the well-being of humans needs to be considered as much as the well-being of grizzly bears. The commodity group had several members who were willing to accept grizzly bears living in their current habitat, but didn't want their range expanded to the Bitterroot Ecosystem.

Many believed that direct conflicts would result from the reintroduction of a large number of bears (e.g., up to 250) into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness with visitors to the Bitterroot Forest which has had use increasingly encouraged by the USDA Forest Service over the past several decades. Furthermore, when an area, like the Bitterroot Valley has had agriculture for more than 100 years, respondents in this group wondered why the FWS was so determined to reintroduce grizzly bears.

Half of the neutral group (neither commodity nor amenity oriented) felt grizzly reintroduction was wrong and commented, "I can't see the benefit of reintroducing grizzlies". These individuals believed that in the presence of grizzlies, stockmen were more likely to practice "the three S's rule" where one "shoots, shovels and shuts up". Some neutralists, who perceived that the economic influence of agriculture in the Bitterroot Valley was declining, thought that if grizzly bears were reintroduced, the economic effect would be minimal. An argument was also presented, "...where humans ought to be the ones having to adapt to grizzlies..." (Bitterroot Social Research Institute 1994).

Literature Cited

Braithwaite, A. M. 1989. The effects of normative and informational social influence on visitor behavior in occupied grizzly bear habitat. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 139 pp.

Brookshire, D. S., Eubanks, L. S. and Randall, A. 1983. Estimating option prices and existence values for wildlife resources. Land Econ. 59 (Feb.):1-15.

Clarkson, P. L. and Gray, P. A. 1989. Presenting safety in bear country information to industry and the public. Pages 203-207 In Bear-people conflicts - proc. of a symposium on management strategies (1989). Northwest Territories Dept. of Renewable Resources.

Compton, G. W. 1993. Visitors and wildlife: Yellowstone National Park. Eastern Michigan University, 8 pp.

Duda, M. D. and K. C. Young. 1995. The public and grizzly bear reintroduction in the Bitterroot Mountains of Central Idaho. Responsive Management, Harrisonburg, Virginia. 141 pp.

Duffield, J. 1989. Nelson property acquisition: social and economic impact assessment. Rep. to Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Helena, MT.

Frost, J. R. 1985. Living with the grizzly: perceptions of mission valley residents. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 96 pp.

Green, J. S. and R. A. Woodruff. 1989. Livestock-guarding dogs reduce depredation by bears. Pages 49-54 In Bear-people conflicts - Proc. of a symposium on management strategies (1989). Northwest Territories Dept. of Renewable Resources.

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 1987. Grizzly bear compendium. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Missoula, Mont. 540pp.

Jope, K. and B. Shelby. 1984. Hiker behavior and the outcomes of interactions with grizzly bears. Leisure Sciences, Vol 6., No. 3: 357-270.

Jorgensen, C. 1979. Bear-livestock interactions, Targhee National Forest. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Montana, Missoula. 162pp.

Kellert, S. R. 1979. Public attitudes toward critical wildlife and natural habitat issues. Dept. of the Interior, U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 138pp.

__________. 1985. Public perception of predators, particularly the wolf and coyote. Biol. Cons. 31:167-189.

__________. 1994. Public attitudes toward bears and their conservation. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. 9(1):43-50.

MacKracken, J. G., D. Goble and J. O'Laughlin. 1994. Grizzly bear recovery in Idaho. Rep. 12 of the Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Policy Analysis Group. University of Idaho, Moscow.

Martinka, C. J. 1982. Keeping people and bears apart, people management in Glacier National Park. Western Wildlands 8(1):8-11.

Maw, R. R. 1987. Visitor attitudes, perceptions and knowledge concerning bears and bear management practices, Waterton Lakes National Park, Canada. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Alberta, Edmonton.

McArthur, K. L. 1979. Behavior of grizzly bears in relation to people in Glacier National Park. Paper presented to Second Conference on Scientific Research in the National Parks, San Francisco. November 26-30, 1979.

McCool, S. F. and A. M. Braithwaite. 1989. Beliefs and behaviors of backcountry campers in Montana toward grizzly bears. The Wildl. Soc. Bulletin. 17:514-519.

McCrory, W. P., S. Herrero and G. Jones. 1989. A program to minimize conflicts between grizzly bears and people in British Columbia Provincial Parks. Pages 93-98 In Bear-people conflicts - Proc. of a symposium on management strategies (1989). Northwest Territories Dept. of Renewable Resources.

Miller, S. M., S. D. Miller and D. W. McCollum. (In Press) Attitudes toward and relative value of Alaskan brown and black bears to resident voters, resident hunters, and nonresident hunters. Int. Conf. Bear Res. and Manage. Vol. 10.

Molitor, A. and S. F. McCool. 1992. Communicating appropriate behavior in occupied grizzly bear habitat to backcountry visitors. Institute for Tourism and Recreation Research, School of Forestry, Univ. of Montana. 90 pp.

Ruediger, B. 1989. Grizzlies in the Cabinet Mountains: augmentation or decline. Western Wildlands, Spring. pp. 3-5.

Servheen, C. 1989. The management of the grizzly bear on private lands: some problems and possible solutions. Pages 195-200 In Bear-people conflicts - Proc. of a symposium on management strategies (1989). Northwest Territories Dept. of Renewable Resources.

Struzik, E. 1989. Problems between wildlife scientists and the media. Pages 209-213 In Bear- people conflicts - Proc. of a symposium on management strategies (1989). Northwest Territories Dept. of Renewable Resources.

Sundstrom, T. C. 1985. An analysis of Denali National Park and Preserve's management program to educate visitors regarding proper behavior while in bear country. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Univ. of Wyoming, Laramie.

Trahan, R. G. 1987. An investigation of hiker attitudes, values and behaviors in relation to the presence of grizzly bears in the Yellowstone backcountry. Paper presented to: The 29th Annual Conference of the Western Social Science Association, El Paso, TX. 18 pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Summary of public input content analysis, grizzly bear population augmentation, Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Service, Missoula, Mont. 15 pp.

__________. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Service, Missoula, Mont. 181 pp.

Vincent, B. 1989. People vs grizzlies: survival of the fittest? Western Wildlands, Spring. pp. 7-9.

APPENDIX 6. SCIENTIFIC TECHNIQUES FOR THE

REINTRODUCTION OF GRIZZLY BEARS

APPENDIX 7. BUDGET ESTIMATES FOR DEIS ALTERNATIVES FOR REINTRODUCTION AND MONITORING OF GRIZZLY BEARS IN THE BITTERROOT ECOSYSTEM

Alternative 1. Reintroduction of a Nonessential Experimental Population

Summary.-- A nonessential experimental population rule would be established by regulation. A minimum of 25 grizzly bears would be captured and moved to the BE during the first 5 years of the program. The capture and transport portion of this budget estimates costs for work that would be accomplished by USFWS personnel, and assumes availability of bears in areas that are accessible for trapping. Bears would be transported to the BE by vehicle from the capture site and transported to the release site by helicopter. All animals would be fitted with radio transmitters and monitored. Population monitoring would be accomplished through recapture and radio monitoring of instrumented animals. Funding for the Citizen Management Committee travel costs is included.

Table 6-7. Estimated Annual Costs of Implementing Alternative 1.



Annual Cost for First 5 Years

Capture and Transport - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Salaries and Benefits

$49,132

Vehicles and Travel

$7,000

Trapping and Miscellaneous Supplies

$5,000

Helicopter Release

$7,500

Helicopter Capture (Canada)

$7,000

Subtotal of Annual Costs for Capture and Transport - U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

$75,632

Monitoring and Management - IDFG, Nez Perce Tribe, MDFWP a


Salaries and Benefits

$100,000

Aircraft Costs for Monitoring

$20,000

Law Enforcement Assistance

$10,000

Equipment (Collars, Receivers, Culvert Trap, Vehicle)

$13,000

Operations (Travel, Supplies)

$10,000

Citizen Management Committee (Travel and Expenses for entire Committee)

$15,000

Subtotal of Annual Costs for Monitoring and Management -IDFG, Nez Perce Tribe, MDFWP a

$168,000

Monitoring and Management - USDA Forest Service


Annual Operating Cost for Sanitation, Information and Education, Law Enforcement, Etc.

$150,000

Annual Cost for the 5-Year Reintroduction Period - All Agencies

$393,632

Total Cost for the 5 - Year Reintroduction Period

$1,968,160

Annual Cost for Monitoring & Citizen Management After the First 5 Yrs.

$168,000

a Monitoring and management through cooperative agreements with IDFG, Nez Perce Tribe, and MDFWP.

Alternative 2. The No Action - Natural Recovery of a Grizzly Bear Population

Summary.-- This alternative relies on natural recovery of grizzly bear populations through immigration from other bear populations and habitat protection for any grizzly bears that might currently exist in the BE. Population establishment would be monitored through sighting reports from agencies and the public.

Table 6-8. Estimated Annual Costs of Implementing Alternative 2.



Estimated Annual Cost

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Salaries and Benefits

$25,000

Operations (Travel, Supplies)

$15,000

USDA Forest Service


Sanitation, I&E, Law Enforcement, Permit Issuance, Etc.

$100,000

TOTAL Annual Cost

$140,000

Alternative 3. No Grizzly Bear Recovery

Summary. -- Special legislation would be prepared for action by congress and the states of Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. Grizzly bears would be removed from the list of threatened and endangered species in that region of the United States. Costs associated with this alternative include staff time and travel to develop the required legislation. The total cost would be spread over several years.

Table 6-9. Estimated Total Cost Over Several Years of Implementing Alternative 3.



Estimated Total Cost

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Salaries and Benefits

$400,000

Operations (Travel, Supplies)

$100,000

Legislative, lobbying, and public relations effort

$1,500,000

TOTAL Cost Over Several Years (minimum estimate)

$2,000,000

Alternative 4. Reintroduction of a Threatened Population With Full Protection of the ESA

Summary. -- The grizzly bear population in the BE would be managed as a threatened population similar to management in other ecosystems. A minimum of 25 grizzly bears would be captured and moved to the BE during the first 5 years of the program. The capture and transport portion of this budget estimates costs for work that would be accomplished by USFWS personnel, and assumes availability of bears in areas that are accessible for trapping. Bears would be transported to the BE by vehicle from the capture site and transported to the release site by helicopter. All animals would be fitted with radio transmitters and monitored. Further monitoring of population changes is anticipated and would be accomplished through recapture and radio monitoring of instrumented animals. Funding for the Scientific Management Committee travel costs is included (Table 6-10).

Table 6-10. Estimated Annual Costs of Implementing Alternative 4.



Annual Cost for First 5 Years

Capture and Transport - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service


Salaries and Benefits

$49,132

Vehicles and Travel

$7,000

Trapping and Miscellaneous Supplies

$5,000

Helicopter Release

$7,500

Helicopter Capture (Canada)

$7,000

Subtotal of Annual Costs for Capture and Transport - U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

$75,632

Monitoring and Management - IDFG, Nez Perce Tribe, MDFWP a


Salaries and Benefits

$100,000

Aircraft Costs for Monitoring

$20,000

Law Enforcement Assistance

$10,000

Equipment (Collars, Receivers, Culvert Trap, Vehicle)

$13,000

Operations (Travel, Supplies)

$10,000

Scientific Committee (Travel and Expenses for entire Committee)

$15,000

Subtotal of Annual Costs for Monitoring and Management -IDFG, Nez Perce Tribe, MDFWP a

$168,000

Monitoring and Management - USDA Forest Service


Annual Operating Cost for Sanitation, Information and Education, Law Enforcement, Etc.

$150,000

Annual Cost for the 5-Year Reintroduction Period - All Agencies

$393,632

Total Cost for the 5 - Year Reintroduction Period

$1,968,160

Annual Cost for Monitoring & Management After the First 5 Yrs.

$168,000

a Monitoring and management through cooperative agreements with IDFG, Nez Perce Tribe, and MDFWP.

APPENDIX 8. GRIZZLY BEAR REINTRODUCTION TO THE

BITTERROOT ECOSYSTEM AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 12630 (GOVERNMENT ACTIONS AND INTERFERENCE WITH CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED PROPERTY RIGHTS)

Under Executive Order 12630, executive departments and agencies should review their actions carefully to prevent unnecessary takings of private property. Governmental actions, including federal regulations or proposed federal regulations, that may have an impact on private property should be scrutinized to avoid undue or unplanned burdens.

The proposed action to reintroduce grizzly bears into the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE) has been designed to avoid affecting private property. If grizzly bears are released in the BE of central Idaho, they will be released and managed so the recovery actions are compatible with existing private land uses (principally ranching) so that the lifestyle and income are not negatively affected. Other wild predators such as gray wolves, coyotes, mountain lions, black bears, foxes, and golden eagles presently utilize lands in public and private ownership and are an accepted part of the natural environment. Private landowners are concerned that grizzly bears will depredate on livestock and that grizzly bear recovery will place restraints on their land management practices or reduce their incomes. Grizzly bears just like other large predators may occasionally attack livestock. Under the proposed action, people could kill grizzly bears in self-defense or in defense of other human life. Following the issuance of a permit by the FWS, the public would be allowed to harass a grizzly bear attacking livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules). A livestock owner may be issued a permit to kill a grizzly bear that is killing or pursuing livestock on private land, if it has not been possible to capture such a bear through agency efforts. Designation of the released population as a nonessential experimental population means the released grizzly bears would be treated as though they are a proposed species. Private property would not be affected by land-use restrictions because of grizzly bear recovery.

We anticipate that grizzly bears would initially be viewed as a novelty by the local community and attract considerable attention. Eventually, however, we believe grizzly bears would be viewed as a normal part of the local resident's natural environment and the bears would receive diminishing attention from the local populace.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service foresees no need to purchase lands as part of this grizzly bear recovery effort. If such a need should arise, acquisition would be only from willing sellers. Land values in northwestern Montana and northern Idaho have not been noticeably affected by grizzly bears recently recolonizing those areas, and there is no reason to suspect that grizzly bear presence would negatively affect land values in other parts of Montana and Idaho.

The reintroduction would undoubtedly attract the interest of wildlife viewers throughout the United States as well as other areas. Tourism is becoming a major industry in central Idaho and western Montana and some tourists would likely include visits to these areas if grizzly bears were present. Federal public land on National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, Bureau of Land Management lands, and National Parks would provide the public with opportunities to visit areas where grizzly bears would be present. Visitors are unlikely to be a trespass nuisance on private lands.

APPENDIX 9A. INTRA-SERVICE SECTION 7 EVALUATION FOR THE REINTRODUCTION OF GRIZZLY BEARS TO THE BITTERROOT ECOSYSTEM OF CENTRAL IDAHO AND WESTERN MONTANA

Description Of Proposed Action

The Revised Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993) calls for evaluation of the Bitterroot Ecosystem as a potential recovery area. Section 10j of the Endangered Species Act grants authority to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to release animals of a threatened or endangered species outside its current range, such as an area of former range that is currently unoccupied by the species. The area for the introduced population is to be designated along with details regarding the management of the population and its habitat.

The Bitterroot Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Recovery Chapter of the Revised Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996) directed development of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider a range of alternatives, including a Section 10j alternative to reintroduce grizzly bears.

The preferred alternative of the draft EIS proposes to reintroduce a minimum of 25 grizzly bears, of both sexes, over a 5-year period into the Bitterroot Ecosystem of east central Idaho and a portion of western Montana. Grizzly bears would be reintroduced into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness portion of the recovery area. A Citizen Management Committee (CMC) would determine if reintroduction is appropriate for the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. Grizzly bears would be captured in Canada and the United States from areas with healthy populations of grizzly bears and habitat similar to the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Three sources of grizzly bears for the Bitterroot Ecosystem have been identified: Southeast British Columbia, the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem population in northwest Montana, and the Yellowstone Ecosystem population. Capture and reintroduction would occur during periods when optimal food supplies exist for the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Each grizzly bear would be radio-collared and monitored to determine individual movements, use of habitat, and to inform the public of grizzly bear locations and recovery efforts.

The USFWS has determined, based upon the best scientific evidence available, there are no grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Ecosystem at this time (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Based on habitat analysis of the area, the Bitterroot Ecosystem should provide suitable habitat for more than 200 bears (Davis and Butterfield 1991, Servheen et al. 1991, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997).

Location

The project area is defined as the Bitterroot Ecosystem of central Idaho and western Montana in the Northern Rocky Mountains. The analysis area considered in the preferred alternative of the draft EIS is referred to as the Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Experimental Population Area. The experimental population area includes Forest lands or portions thereof within the Bitterroot, Boise, Challis, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Payette, Sawtooth, Salmon, and Panhandle National Forests in Idaho and the Bitterroot and Lolo National Forests in Montana. A few scattered parcels of private and state land occur within the recovery area, but total acreage is minor.

The experimental population area is bounded by U.S. Highway 93 from Missoula, Montana to Challis, Idaho; Idaho Highway 75 from Challis to Stanley, Idaho; Idaho Highway 21 from Stanley to Lowman, Idaho; Idaho Highway 17 from Lowman to Banks, Idaho; Idaho Highway 55 from Banks to New Meadows, Idaho; U.S. Highway 95 from New Meadows to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; and Interstate 90 from Coeur d'Alene to Missoula, Montana.

The center of the experimental population area is characterized by 3 wilderness areas, the Frank Church-River of No Return, the Selway-Bitterroot, and the Gospel Hump Wilderness Areas. The Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area was identified as the area of recovery emphasis, and includes the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Areas of east central Idaho and western Montana. Grizzly bears would likely be introduced into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness portion of the recovery area, north of Moose Creek Station.

Listed Species Or Critical Habitat Considered (see Species List in Project File)

Gray wolf (Canis lupus) LE, XN

Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) LT

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) LT

Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) LE

Macfarlane's four-o'clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei) LT

Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis) LT

Ute's ladies tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) LT

Candidate Species Considered (see Species List in Project File)

Northern Idaho ground squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus brunneus)

Lynx (Felis lynx canadensis)

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus)

List Of Species Of Concern Considered (see Species List in Project File)

Mammals

Long-legged myotis (Myotis volans) Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis)

Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Townsend's big eared bat (Plecotus townsendii)

Yuma myotis (Myotis yumannensis) Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis)

Wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus)

Birds

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus)

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) Black tern (Chlidonias niger)

Columbia sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus)

Fish

Interior redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri)

Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisii)

Plants

Clustered lady's slipper (Cypripedium fasciculatum)

Howell's gumweed (Grindelia howellii)

* Lemhi penstemon (Penstemon lemhiensis)

Hazel's prickly phlox (Leptodactylon pungens ssp. hazeliae)

Jessica's aster (Aster jessicae)

Broad-fruit mariposa (Calochortus nitidus)

Palouse goldenweed (Haplopappus liatriformis)

Clearwater phlox (Phlox idahonis)

Crenulate moonwort (Botrychium crenulatum)

Salmon River fleabane (Erigeron salmonensis)

Spalding's silene (Silene spaldingii)

Hapeman's sullivantia (Sullivantia hapemanii var. hapemanii)

Tobias' saxifrage (Saxifraga bryophora var. tobiasiae)

* Salmon twin bladderpod (Physaria didymocarpa var. lyrata)

* Bartonberry (Rubus bartonianus)

* Aase's onion (Allium aaseae)

* Idaho douglasia (Douglasia idahoensis)

* Slickspot peppergrass (Lepidium papilliferum)

Payson's milkvetch (Astragalus paysonii)

White Cloud's milkvetch (Astragalus vexillifexus var. nubilus)

Douglas' wavewing (Cymopterus douglassii)

Guardian buckwheat (Eriogonum meledonum)

Stanley whitlow-grass (Draba trichocarpa)

* Wavy-leaf thelypody (Thelypodium repandum)

* Alkali primrose (Primula alcalina)

Invertebrates

Columbia pebblesnail (Fluminicola columbianus)

Idaho pointheaded grasshopper (Acrolophitus pulchellus)

Idaho banded mountainsnail (Oreohelix idahoensis)

Boulder pile mountainsnail (Oreohelix jugalis)

Whorled mountainsnail (Oreohelix vortex)

Mission Creek Oregonian (Cryptomastix magnidentata)

Lava rock mountainsnail (Oreohelix waltoni)

Carinated striate banded mountainsnail (Oreohelix strigosa goniogyra)

Explanation Of Impact Of Action On Listed Species Or Critical Habitat

Gray wolf - Not likely to adversely affect. Grizzly bears and wolves coexist throughout the northern Hemisphere and would be expected to coexist in the proposed experimental area. Research on wolf and grizzly bears in and near Glacier National Park indicates only minor interaction between bears and wolves, other than that both species kill ungulates (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Grizzly bears will occasionally usurp wolf-killed prey by driving the wolves away. Wolves and grizzly bears have been documented to kill each other in some areas where they coexist in North America, but such instances are uncommon even in areas with high densities of both grizzly bears and wolves (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994). Wolves and grizzly bears usually avoid direct contact with one another. Wolves may both provide and compete for ungulate carcasses with grizzly bears, but such competition should be insignificant in terms of effect on population levels (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1994).

Grizzly bear - Beneficial effect. This action will lead to recovery of grizzly bear populations in the Bitterroot Ecosystem, enhancing recovery of the species (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). Genetic diversity of grizzly bears will be increased as a result of reintroduction. Reintroducing grizzly bears may result in some individual bears being killed, relocated, or removed from the area because of conflicts with humans, livestock, ungulate populations, and listed salmonid populations. Such losses of individual bears have been considered as part of the bear recovery-reintroduction program and are not expected to significantly affect bear population growth to recovery. There have been occasional, but unverified, sightings of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Ecosystem for decades, however the last verified evidence of grizzly bears was in 1946 (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). The USFWS has determined, based upon the best scientific evidence available, there are no grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Ecosystem at this time (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). If native grizzly bears were subsequently identified in the recovery area, they may become more vulnerable to mortality under an experimental population rule than currently, because these bears would be subject to the same removal criteria as reintroduced animals. However, any increased vulnerability would be mitigated by reintroduction because of increased chances of finding mates and producing young.

Bald eagle - No effect. Grizzly bears are not known to prey on bald eagles or their nests, which are located primarily in trees in the potentially affected areas. Bald eagles could scavenge carrion killed by grizzly bears but are primarily a fish-eating species. Bald eagles and grizzly bears have coexisted in other parts of North America without apparent effect on one another.

Peregrine falcon - No effect. Grizzly bears are not known to prey on peregrine falcons or their nests which are typically located on cliffs. Grizzly bears do not usually prey on small birds or waterfowl and therefore will not compete for food with peregrine falcons (Mattson et al. 1991; Craighead et al. 1995). Peregrine and other falcons and grizzly bears have coexisted in other parts of North America without apparent effect on one another.

Macfarlane's four-o'clock (Mirabilis macfarlanei), Water howellia (Howellia aquatilis), and Ute's ladies tresses (Spiranthes diluvialis) - No effect. Although grizzly bears do eat plants, they primarily eat vegetation that is high in nutritional value such as fleshy fruits, nuts or bulbous roots (Craighead et al. 1995; Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife 1990). Neither Macfarlane's four-o'clock, water howellii, nor Ute's ladies tresses are likely desirable food species for grizzly bears (Edna Vizgirdas, US Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1996). Both water howellia and Macfarlane's four-o'clock are located on the northern and western edges (respectively) of the experimental population area. Ute's ladies tresses is located on the southern edge of the experimental population area. Due to the large expanse of area and varied land uses between the experimental area and the locations of all three species, it is unlikely that grizzly bears will encounter any of the plant species. These plant species and grizzly bears have likely coexisted in the past without apparent effect on one another.

Northern Idaho Ground Squirrel (Spermophilus brunneus brunneus) - No effect. Most populations of the Northern Idaho ground squirrel lie outside the experimental population area boundary, with one possible extant population occurring just inside the western boundary of the experimental area (USDA Forest Service and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). It is unlikely that given the distance and land use practices between the experimental area and the single colony site near the experimental population area, that grizzly bears would encounter this species.

Lynx (Felis lynx canadensis) - Not likely to adversely effect. The experimental population area occurs in the southern limits of lynx distribution (Idaho Department of Fish and Game et al. 1995). Contrary to predator-prey fluctuations documented between lynx and snowshoe hare populations in northern reaches of lynx range, southern reaches do not appear to respond in this cyclic fashion (Ruggiero et al. 1994). This may be due to a greater diversity of predators and competitive species of snowshoe hare in the southern portion of lynx range, thus keeping snowshoe hare populations at a lower level that does not cycle (Idaho Department of Fish and Game et al. 1995). Due to low levels of snowshoe hare and diversity of prey in southern reaches of lynx range, it is unlikely that competition for prey with grizzly bears would adversely affect lynx populations. Natural predation of lynx has been documented to occur but appears to be in low numbers and has been determined to be a non-threat to the species (Idaho Department of Fish and Game et al. 1995).

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) - Not likely to adversely affect. Grizzly bears have been documented to feed on bull trout (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997), but this source of food represents only a minor portion of the grizzly bears main diet if other food sources are available (Mattson et al. 1991; Craighead et al. 1995). Presence of natural predators such as grizzly bears has not been shown to affect local bull trout population numbers (State of Idaho 1996). Bull trout could be utilized by grizzly bears during late summer-fall spawning migration, but due to low population numbers of grizzly bears in the early years of reintroduction and generally dispersed distribution of the bull trout in the recovery area, it is unlikely that grizzly bears will have an adverse effect on bull trout population levels (Steve Duke, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1996).

Long-legged myotis (Myotis volaris), Long-eared myotis (Myotis evotis), Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes), Townsend's big eared bat (Plecotus townsendii), and Yuma myotis (Myotis yumannensis) - Not likely to adversely affect. All referenced bat species are insectivorous, especially on beetles and moths (Groves 1996). While feeding behaviors may overlap (Groves 1996) between time of day and insect species of choice, grizzly bears are not likely to adversely affect the prey base required for these species. There is no documentation available to indicate that bats or their roosting habitats have been affected by the presence of grizzly bears in the past.

Wolverine (Gulo gulo) - Not likely to adversely affect. Wolverines are scavengers, mainly dependent on large mammal carrion (Ruggiero et al. 1994). Due to this scavenging nature, wolverines are dependent on the presence of other predators to provide carrion, but can also become prey of these predators (Ruggiero et al. 1994). However, current wolverine distribution (Idaho Department of Fish and Game et al. 1995) indicates that it is widely distributed and is unlikely that either competition for carrion during the spring or direct predation would adversely affect the population as a whole. Grizzly bears and wolverines likely have coexisted in the experimental area (Idaho Department of Fish and Game et al. 1995) prior to the loss of grizzly bears without known adverse effects.

Pygmy rabbit (Brachylagus idahoensis) - Not likely to adversely affect. Pygmy rabbits are found primarily in big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata) habitats (Green and Flinders 1980a; White et al. 1982) distributed throughout most of the Great Basin and portions of the intermountain West (Green and Flinders 1980b). Although pygmy rabbits could be eaten by grizzly bears, predation events will likely be incidental and are not likely to adversely affect this species. Only the northeast corner of the range of the pygmy rabbit (as shown in Green and Flinders 1980b) occurs within the experimental population area for grizzly bears. This overlap comprises less than 20 percent of pygmy rabbit distribution. The primary food of pygmy rabbits is big sagebrush, although they may consume grasses (Agropyron spp. and Poa spp.) during mid to late summer (Green and Flinders 1980b). Although in some areas pygmy rabbits and grizzly bears could utilize the same forage species, such competition for food is not likely to adversely affect their continued survival.

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) - Not likely to adversely affect. Northern goshawks use a variety of forested habitats during the nesting period, which is generally from April to August (Braun et al. 1996). Northern goshawks prefer to nest in large trees 30 to 40 feet above ground, where clear access is afforded by a stream or other opening (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Goshawks may hunt prey (primarily birds and small mammals) in woodlands, clearings, and open fields (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Goshawks in central Idaho (Boise National Forest) have been known to consume grouse and snowshoe rabbits (Burleigh 1972). Because grizzly bears do not climb trees (Craighead and Mitchell 1982), it is unlikely that they will consume goshawk eggs or individuals. Although goshawks and grizzly bears may eat similar prey items, competition with grizzly bears for food is unlikely to affect populations of this widespread raptor species.

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) - Not likely to adversely affect. Ferruginous hawks feed primarily on birds and mammals including rabbits, ground squirrels, mice, rats, and gophers (DeGraaf et al. 1991). They prefer tall trees for nesting, but will use a variety of sites including low hills, buttes, small cliffs, powerlines, and riverbed mounds (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Tree nests are generally located in the upper canopy, ranging from 6 to 55 feet above ground (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Although grizzly bears do not climb trees (Craighead and Mitchell 1982), they may occasionally consume ferruginous hawk eggs or juveniles when nests are located at or near ground level. Ferruginous hawks and grizzly bears may eat similar prey items; however, competition with grizzly bears for food is unlikely to affect populations of this fairly common raptor species.

Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) - Not likely to adversely affect. Breeding harlequin ducks are generally dependent on rough, turbulent streams, and feed mainly on crustaceans, molluscs, and insects (Ehrlich et al. 1988). Most known breeding sites in Northern Idaho occur in the Clearwater drainage and north (Cassirer and Groves 1990). The species is known to occur as far north as Alaska and includes British Columbia, Alberta, Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Oregon (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 1996). Given current distribution of the species in North America, and that breeding sites occur mainly in the northern most reaches of the grizzly bear experimental area, it is unlikely that grizzly bears would adversely affect harlequin duck populations. It is also unlikely that given the specific and unique habitat requirement for breeding harlequin ducks, that grizzly bears would utilize similar habitats for foraging.

Black tern (Chlidonias niger) - Not likely to adversely affect. Burleigh (1972) considers black terns to be a fairly common, local summer resident over much of Idaho. Black terns require aquatic habitats with extensive stands of emergent vegetation and large areas of open water (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Black terns usually nest on islands or over water two or more feet in depth on top of cattails, reeds, and other vegetation (Burleigh 1972). In migration, black terns can occur along marshes, rivers, lakes, and nearby cultivated fields (DeGraaf et al. 1991). Although it is possible that grizzly bears could disturb black tern nesting sites and consume eggs or juvenile birds, such impacts would tend to be localized and are not likely to affect survival of this wide-ranging species.

Columbia sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus columbianus) - No effect. After closer review of the final recovery area delineation, it is determined that current known range of Columbia sharp-tailed grouse is outside of the experimental area (Ulliman et al. 1996).

Interior redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri) and Westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisii) - Not likely to adversely effect. Grizzly bears have been documented to feed on resident spawning salmonids, but this source of food represents only a minor portion of the grizzly bears main diet if other food sources are available (Mattson et al. 1991; Craighead et al. 1995). Interior redband trout and westslope cutthroat trout both occur within the Bitterroot Ecosystem (Behnke 1992). Grizzly bears could feed on these fish during spawning runs. However, it is unlikely that grizzly bears would adversely affect local or regional populations of interior redband trout or westslope cutthroat trout as a whole.

Broad-fruit mariposa (Calochortus nitidus) - Not likely to adversely affect. Although grizzly bears may consume the bulbs of the broad-fruit mariposa, overall effect of consumption on the population by grizzly bears would likely be negligible. This species likely evolved with grizzly bear consumption and is more widespread than originally thought (Edna Vizgirdas, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1996). In addition, the Cottonwood Resource Area for the Bureau of Land Management has black bears within the proposed experimental population area where broad-fruit mariposa occurs, and there is no evidence that the species is declining due to black bear activity.

Other plant species of concern (see Species List in Project File) - No effect. Although grizzly bears are strongly herbaceous, incidental consumption of any of the remaining plant species of concern is unlikely to affect overall population levels. None of these plants has been documented to be overgrazed by grizzly or black bears to date (Jeri Williams, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1996). All of the plant species of concern have coexisted with bear species in the past with no apparent effect on plant populations.

Invertebrate species of concern (see Species List in Project File) - No effect. Available documentation indicates that grizzly bears may consume large quantities of ants and moths when available (Mattson et al. 1991; Craighead et al. 1995), however there is no evidence that grizzly bears consume molluscs or grasshoppers. None of the invertebrate species of concern has been documented to be overgrazed by bear species to date (Jeri Williams, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1996). Invertebrate species of concern and grizzly bears have likely coexisted in the past without adverse effects on invertebrate population levels.

Literature Cited

Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife. 1990. Wildlife Management Planning Series Number 2. Management plan for grizzly bears in Alberta. Alberta Forestry, Lands and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife, Alberta, Canada. 164 pp.

Behnke, R. J. 1992. Native trout of western North America. American Fisheries Society Monograph 6. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland. 174 pp.

Braun, C.E., J.H. Enderson, M.R. Fuller, Y.B. Linhart, and C.D. Marti. 1996. Northern goshawk and forest management in the southwestern United States. Wildl. Soc. Tech. Rev. 96-2. 19 pp.

Burleigh, Thomas D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. Buteo regalis (Gray): Ferruginous hawk. Caxton Printers, Ltd. Caldwell, Idaho. pp. 67-68.

Burleigh, Thomas D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. Chlidonias niger surinamensis (Gmelin): Black tern. Caxton Printers, Ltd. Caldwell, Idaho. pp. 152-154.

Burleigh, Thomas D. 1972. Birds of Idaho. Accipiter gentilis atricaphillus (Wilson): Goshawk. Caxton Printers, Ltd. Caldwell, Idaho. pp. 59-60.

Cassirer, F.E. and C.R. Groves. 1990. Distribution, habitat use and status of harlequin ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) in Northern Idaho, 1990. Natural Heritage Section, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program, Bureau of Wildlife, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 54 pp.

Craighead, J.J. and J. A. Mitchell. 1982. Wild mammals of North America. Grizzly bear, Ursus arctos. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. pp. 515-518.

Craighead, J.J., J.S. Sumner, and J.A. Mitchell. 1995. The grizzly bears of Yellowstone: their ecology in the Yellowstone ecosystem, 1959 - 1992. Island Press, Washington D.C. 535 pp.

Davis, D. and B. Butterfield. 1991. The Bitterroot grizzly bear evaluation area: a report to the Bitterroot Technical Review Team. Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, Denver, Colorado. 56 pp.

DeGraff, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Harnre, L. Ernst, S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the United States, natural history and habitat use: Northern goshawk. Agriculture Handbook 688. pp. 79.

DeGraff, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Harnre, L. Ernst, S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the United States, natural history and habitat use: Ferruginous hawk. Agriculture Handbook 688. pp. 90.

DeGraff, R.M., V.E. Scott, R.H. Harnre, L. Ernst, S.H. Anderson. 1991. Forest and rangeland birds of the United States, natural history and habitat use: Black tern. Agriculture Handbook 688. pp.172.

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook. Harlequin duck. Simon and Schuster, Fireside Books, New York, New York. pp. 88.

Green, J.S. and J.T. Flinders. 1980a. Habitat and dietary relationships of the pygmy rabbit. J. of Range Manage. 33(2):136-142.

Green, J.S. and J.T. Flinders. 1980b. Brachylagus idahoensis. Mammalian Species. No. 125, pp.1-5.

Groves, C. In prep. Excerpts from Annotated atlas of Idaho's terrestrial vertebrates (draft). Idaho Conservation Data Center. Boise, Idaho.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nez Perce Tribe, and Sawtooth National Forest. 1995. Forest carnivores in Idaho (draft). Habitat Conservation Assessments and Conservation Strategies. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Idaho Department of Parks and Recreation, Bureau of Land Management, USDA Forest Service (Region 1 and 4), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 126 pp.

Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 1996. Idaho Wildlife, Summer 1996. Harlequin duck: whitewater bird. pp. 2.

Mattson, D.J., B.M. Blanchard, and R.R. Knight. 1991. Food habits of Yellowstone grizzly bears, 1977-1987. Can. J. Zool. 69: 1619-1629.

Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon, W.J. Zielinski. 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: American marten, fisher, lynx and wolverine in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft Collins, CO: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 pp.

Servheen, C., A. Hamilton, R. Knight, and B. McLellan. 1991. Report of the technical review team: Evaluation of the Bitterroot and North Cascades to sustain viable grizzly bear populations. Report to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Boise, Idaho. 9 pp.

State of Idaho. 1996. Governor Philip E. Batt's State of Idaho bull trout conservation plan. Boise, Idaho 116 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 181 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Appendix 7. Intra-Service section 7 evaluation the reintroduction of gray wolves to Yellowstone National Park and Central Idaho. 62 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Grizzly bear recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem, draft Environmental Impact Statement. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 464 pp.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Bitterroot Ecosystem recovery plan chapter - supplement to the grizzly bear recovery plan. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 27 pp.

US Forest Service and US Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Conservation Agreement: Spermophilus brunneus brunneus - Northern Idaho ground squirrel. 14 pp.

Ulliman, M.J., Sands, A. and Hemker, T. 1996. Conservation strategy for Columbian sharp-tailed grouse and its habitats in Idaho (draft). University of Idaho, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Department of Fish and Game. 23 pp.

White, S.M., J.T. Flinders, R.L. Welch. 1982. Preference of pygmy rabbits (Brachylagus idahoensis) for various populations of big sagebrush (Artemisia tridentata). J. of Range Manage. 35(6):724-726.

APPENDIX 9B. SECTION 7 EVALUATION OF IMPACTS

TO ANADROMOUS FISH RESOURCES FROM THE

REINTRODUCTION OF GRIZZLY BEARS TO THE BITTERROOT ECOSYSTEM OF CENTRAL IDAHO AND WESTERN MONTANA

(Note: The Biological Assessment is currently being reviewed by the Boise, Idaho National Marine Fisheries Service office.)

This Biological Assessment evaluates potential impacts to the following anadromous fish species:

Listed Species Or Critical Habitat Considered

Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) LT

Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) LE

Proposed Species Considered

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) PT

APPENDIX 10. MEMORANDUM REGARDING CONCEPT OF

"HABITAT SECURITY" FOR GRIZZLY BEARS

Interim direction for the management of suitable but unoccupied grizzly bear habitat in the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE) was issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service in a 6 November 1995 Memorandum. The memorandum was issued to the Clearwater, Nez Perce, and Bitterroot National Forests (Nez Perce letter is included as an example, see attached documents). Until an EIS for implementing recovery actions is completed, the following management direction is to be followed: "In the interim, the Forest Supervisors responsible for managing the Selway-Bitterroot evaluation area have agreed to protect suitable grizzly bear habitats by assuring that big game standards are in compliance with Forest Plans."

Standards and guidelines for the management of big game habitat that lies within the Bitterroot Evaluation Area (BEA) (see Figure 3-6) were taken from the Clearwater, Nez Perce, and Idaho Panhandle National Forests. The standards and guidelines for big game habitat management on the Clearwater Forest were reviewed by an interagency group of biologists on 4 May 1995. The group agreed that current standards and guidelines for wildlife and fisheries habitat management appeared adequate to protect bear habitat in the interim. This consensus was reached by reviewing current and projected road densities and limitations due to elk guidelines, bull trout, and other fisheries guidelines for the Clearwater Forest; the juxtaposition of management allocations per the Forest Plan; and known road density requirements for grizzly bear management. The same technique was also used to review the Nez Perce, Lolo, Bitterroot, and Panhandle National Forest lands within the BEA with the added road restrictions implemented for PACFISH direction for anadromous fisheries management. Management areas and road densities for the BEA are grouped and identified below (USFS unpubl. data; S. Blair and D. Davis, Pers. Comm. 1996) (Tables 6-11, 6-12, 6-13).


Table 6-11. Current estimates of road miles within the Nez Perce and Clearwater Forests portion of the BEA.


Management Area Type

Percent of Area (%)

Open Road

(mi)


Restricted Road (mi)

Total Road (mi)

Roaded / developed lands

(154,500 acres approx.)


8 (2/6)a

103 (38 / 65)

41 (21 / 20)

144 (59 / 85)

Unroaded / essentially undeveloped (629,456 acres approx.)

33 (10 / 23)

141 (25 /116)

60 (50 / 10)

201 (75 /126)

Wilderness & proposed lands (Selway-Bitterroot & Frank Church-RNRW)

(1,118,024 acres approx.)


59 (49 / 10)

0

0

0

a Table data presented in format: Total for both Forests (Nez Perce Data / Clearwater Data).



Table 6-12. Current estimates of road densities within the Nez Perce and Clearwater Forests portion of the BEA.


Management Area Type

Open Road (Mi/mi sq.)

Restricted Road (Mi/mi sq.)

Total Road (Mi/mi sq.)

Roaded / developed lands

0.43 (0.7 / 0.35)a

0.17 (0.38 / 0.10)

0.60 (1.08 / 0.45)b

Unroaded / essentially undeveloped

0.14 (0.08 / 0.17)

0.06 (0.16 / 0.01)

0.20 (0.24 / 0.18)

Wilderness & proposed lands (Selway-Bitterroot & FCRNRW)

0

0

0

a Table data presented in format: Total for both Forests (Nez Perce Data / Clearwater Data).

b A separate analysis determined the area of roaded / developed lands having greater than 2 miles / square mile total road density for each Forest. Nez Perce Forest = approximately 60 sections (38,400 acres) : Clearwater Forest = approximately 12 sections (7,500 acres).





Table 6-13. Predicted maximum estimates of road densities assuming current Forest Plan standards and guidelines for the Nez Perce and Clearwater Forests portion of the BEA.


Management Area Type

Open Road (mi/mi sq.)

Restricted Road (mi/mi sq.)

Total Road (mi/mi sq.)

Roaded / developed lands

(241.5 sq. mi. approx.)


0.28 (0.7 / 0.16)a

0.17 (0.38 / 0.10)

0.45 (1.08 / 0.26)

Unroaded / essentially undeveloped

(983 sq. mi. approx.)


(UK / 0.04)

(UK / 0.05)

0.21 (0.48 / 0.09)

Wilderness & proposed lands (Selway-Bitterroot & FCRNRW)

0

0

0

a Table data presented in format: Total for both Forests (Nez Perce Data / Clearwater Data).


Predictions of maximum future road densities are based on the distribution of 25, 50, 75, and 100% elk objectives within each management allocation along with a reasoned estimate of probable road density thresholds and other likely influences of current Forest Plan standards and guidelines. Though no plans are in place to harvest timber from the "unroaded/essentially undeveloped" lands on the Nez Perce Forest at the present time, the estimate above provides a worst-case analysis for the purpose of this estimation only. However, the Clearwater Forest has plans to develop "unroaded/ essentially undeveloped" areas, and the above road densities are calculated to reflect those plans.

Other Forests within the BEA include the Lolo, Bitterroot, Panhandle, and Challis. Of these, the Bitterroot and Challis portions within the BEA are totally wilderness. The Lolo portion is the Great Burn proposed wilderness, which has 2.5 miles of seasonal road, and 1 mile of closed road. The Idaho Panhandle Forest portion of the BEA is contained within the St. Joe Ranger District, and is approximately 50% proposed wilderness (Mallard Larkins Pioneer Area, 78,500 acres) and semi-primitive recreation, and has few or no proposed roads. The remaining approximately 50% is designated as timber production land within important elk summer range, and thus has restricted road densities with long-term road closures. Road density estimates for this small area were not available.

Although much of the Primary Analysis Area for the DEIS lies outside the boundaries of the BEA, most concerns by grizzly bear biologists regarding road densities lie within the BEA. The area within the BEA, and the wilderness and immediately adjacent lands to the south, will probably be the predominant areas of use by grizzly bears within the first few decades following reintroduction. Therefore, the security for bears within the BEA will be paramount in assuring grizzly bear survival and reproduction during the critical initial stages of recovery. It is for these reasons that analyses were conducted for road densities within the BEA (Figure 6-4). And as a result, the USFWS and other agency biologists reached consensus that current Forest Plan standards meet or exceed present grizzly bear road density guidelines over much of the BEA, and therefore are adequate to assure security for grizzly bears within this landscape.