CHAPTER I
PURPOSE OF
AND NEED FOR ACTION
INTRODUCTION
This section of the draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) discusses the purpose and
need for the action, background of why the DEIS is being
developed, project location, legal constraints of any decision,
how the planning process was developed, scoping of the DEIS, and
major issues and concerns that were considered in detail in this
document.
This DEIS relies on the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and
the Bitterroot Ecosystem Recovery Plan Chapter (USFWS 1982, 1993,
1996); and the Endangered Species Act, Proposed Rule 10(j),
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of
Grizzly Bears in the Bitterroot Area of Idaho and Montana (USFWS
1997). The Bitterroot Ecosystem Recovery Plan Chapter (USFWS
1996) is included as Appendix 14, and the Endangered Species Act,
Proposed Rule 10(j), Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental
Population of Grizzly Bears in the Bitterroot Area of Idaho and
Montana is included as Appendix 13.
PURPOSE OF THE ACTION
Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) are a part of
America's rich wildlife heritage and once ranged throughout most
of the western United States. However, distribution and
population levels of this species have been diminished by
excessive human-caused mortality and loss of habitat. Today, only
800 to 1000 grizzly bears remain in a few populations in Montana
(Northern Continental Divide, Yellowstone, and Cabinet-Yaak
Ecosystems), Idaho (Yellowstone, Cabinet-Yaak, and Selkirk
Ecosystems), Wyoming (Yellowstone Ecosystem), and Washington
(Selkirk and North Cascades Ecosystems). Wildlife species, like
grizzly bear, are most vulnerable when confined to small portions
of their historical range and limited to a few, small
populations. Expansion of the range of the species will increase
the number of bears within the lower 48 states and increase
habitat size and extent, and further conservation of the species.
The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1982) called for
evaluation of the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE) as a potential
recovery area. The best scientific evidence available indicates
there are no grizzly bears in the BE at this time (USFWS 1996).
Based on the results of a 5-year study (Davis and Butterfield
1991) of the BE, bear scientists estimate that the area could
eventually support more than 200 grizzly bears (Servheen et al.
1991). The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) endorses the
BE as a grizzly bear recovery area. The IGBC is a group of
high-level administrators that represent the federal and state
agencies involved in grizzly bear recovery, and coordinate agency
efforts in implementing the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan.
The USFWS, with support of the IGBC, proposes to recover the
grizzly bear and restore this component of the BE by
reestablishing the species within this portion of its historical
range. The recovery of grizzly bears in the BE will allow the
return of this prominent native omnivore now missing from this
large block of Rocky Mountain wilderness habitat. The USFWS has
determined that there are no grizzly bears in the BE at this
time, that recovery of grizzly bears in the BE would facilitate
conservation and recovery of the species in the lower 48 States,
and that recovery of grizzly bears in the BE would require
reintroduction of bears from other areas (USFWS 1993, 1996). The
action proposed in this DEIS is to reintroduce a minimum of 25
grizzly bears over a 5-year period from which a population could
grow over time.
A public survey conducted in 1995 (Duda and Young 1995)
indicated that 64% of local, 74% of regional, and 77% of national
respondents were supportive of reintroducing grizzly bears into
the BE. The two most popular reasons given by respondents for
supporting reintroduction were the desire to save the grizzly
bear from extinction, and to return this species as a missing
component of the ecosystem.
The BE is one of the largest contiguous blocks of federal land
remaining in the lower 48 United States. The core of the
ecosystem contains the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church-River
of No Return Wilderness Areas. Together these two wilderness
areas make up the largest block of wilderness habitat in the
Rocky Mountains south of Canada. Of all remaining unoccupied
grizzly bear habitat in the lower 48 States, this area in the
Bitterroot Mountains has the best potential for grizzly bear
recovery, primarily due to the large wilderness area. As such,
the BE offers excellent potential to recover a healthy population
of grizzly bears and to boost long-term survival and recovery
prospects for this species in the contiguous U. S. The potential
for grizzly bear recovery will be enhanced in the lower 48 States
by inclusion of the BE because habitat will be increased by
almost 10,000 square miles or almost 25% (including the
wilderness area and outside buffer zones). In addition, any new
or additional populations of grizzly bears will add to the known
populations and therefore provide for a higher recovery potential
for the species as a whole, decreasing the amount of time the
species is on the Endangered Species List and the regulatory
burden placed on the public. Other outcomes of reintroduction of
the grizzly bear to the BE include its potential delisting and
eventual return to state management where human uses could
include hunting. The recovery of the grizzly bear in the BE would
also aid in restoration of Nez Perce Tribe cultural and spiritual
values related to the grizzly.
NEED FOR THE ACTION
Legal. The grizzly bear
was listed as a threatened species in the lower 48 States under
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1975 (Federal Register, V.40,
No.145, Part IV-3173-4). As such, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service was mandated by Congress to conserve listed species and
the ecosystems upon which they depend.
The USFWS is the primary agency
responsible for recovery and conservation of threatened species,
including grizzly bears in the U.S. The Revised Grizzly Bear
Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993) and the Bitterroot Ecosystem Recovery
Plan Chapter - Supplement to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan
(USFWS 1996) identify actions necessary for conservation and
recovery of the species. The ultimate goal of the plan is removal
of the species from threatened status in the conterminous 48
States. The BE Recovery Chapter calls for the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the proposed
action and a range of alternatives to recover the grizzly bear in
the BE. This action is supported by the IGBC.
Biological. A
metapopulation can be defined as a set of spatially disjunct
populations, among which there is some potential immigration
(Wells and Richmond 1995). Given understanding of population
biology and metapopulation dynamics, the chances of survival of
grizzly bears south of Canada increase as more populations are
added to a grizzly bear metapopulation. Each additional
population decreases the overall total number of grizzly bears
that are necessary for long-term survival of the metapopulation.
Also, each additional population reduces the number of bears that
are necessary in each individual population within the
metapopulation. This suggests that for grizzly bears to survive
in the lower 48 States, each additional population with potential
linkage to other populations increases the probability of
survival. Therefore, one way to achieve recovery of grizzly bears
in the lower 48 States and assure survival is to establish
several smaller populations of grizzly bears. The ability of the
Yellowstone population to contribute to a metapopulation has been
questioned because of geographic distance to other populations
and habitat fragmentation, although evaluation of this
possibility is continuing (USFWS 1993). The addition of the BE to
the grizzly bear recovery effort will increase long-term survival
probabilities and conservation of grizzly bears within the lower
48 States.
BACKGROUND
For thousands of years, grizzly bears lived in a variety of habitats throughout most of western North America. An estimated 50,000 grizzly bears roamed the American West prior to European settlement (USFWS 1993). Due to loss of habitat and excessive and intentional killing by people, grizzly bears have been eliminated from all but approximately 2 percent of their historic range in the lower 48 States (USFWS 1993).
Historically, the grizzly bear was a widespread inhabitant of
the Bitterroot Mountains in central Idaho and western Montana.
When Lewis and Clark traveled through the Bitterroot country in
1806, grizzly bears were abundant. They killed at least 7 grizzly
bears including 1 female and 2 cubs while camped near present-day
Kamiah, Idaho (Thwaites 1959). Grizzly bears were common in
central Idaho until the early 1900's (Wright 1909, Merriam 1922,
Burroughs 1961). Wright (1909) wrote of killing dozens of grizzly
bears over several years in the Bitterroot Mountains. A major
influx of hunters, trappers, and settlers at the turn of the
century, and later sheepherders were responsible for direct
mortality and elimination of grizzly bears from the BE.
Conservative estimates indicate trappers and hunters killed 25 to
40 grizzly bears annually in the Bitterroot Mountains during the
early 1900's (Moore 1984, 1996). The last verified death of a
grizzly bear in the BE occurred in 1932 and the last tracks were
observed in 1946 (Moore 1984, 1996). Although occasional
unverified reports of grizzly sightings persist in the BE
(Melquist 1985), no verified tracks or sightings have been
documented in more than 50 years.
In 1975, the grizzly bear was listed as a threatened species in the 48 contiguous States under the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). At that time the BE, along with the Northern Continental Divide and Yellowstone Ecosystems were listed as areas where grizzly bears were known or thought to exist and where recovery should be emphasized. The BE was initially described as the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and surrounding National Forest Land. As enacted by Congress, the purposes of the ESA are "to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species, threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth..." The ESA "further declared to be the policy of Congress that all Federal Departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species and shall use their authorities in furtherance of this Act." The ESA also states, "The Secretary shall develop and implement plans (herein referred to as 'recovery plans') for the conservation and survival of endangered species and threatened species..."
A Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan,
finalized in 1982, called for the evaluation of the
Selway-Bitterroot country as a potential recovery area. At that
time the BE was classified as an Evaluation Area because it was
in need of more research to determine habitat quality and whether
grizzly bears still occurred there. The Bitterroot Evaluation
Area (BEA) encompassed about 5,500 square miles. The boundary
ranged from the St. Joe River Watershed divide in the north, to
the Salmon River in the south, the transition of roaded and
unroaded National Forest land in the west, to the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness boundary and Fish Creek road in
Montana in the east.
Attempts to verify presence of
grizzly bears continued through the 1980's and are ongoing.
Numerous studies have failed to verify the presence of grizzly
bears in the BE (Melquist 1985, Groves 1987, Servheen et al.
1990, Kunkel et al. 1991). Three different habitat studies were
conducted from 1979 through 1991 to investigate habitat
suitability of the BE (Scaggs 1979, Butterfield and Almack 1985,
Davis and Butterfield 1991). The authors suggested that using an
established set of criteria (Craighead et al., 1982), habitat in
the BEA was sufficient to support grizzly bears. An interagency
group of grizzly bear scientists reviewed the information and
concurred, suggesting the BEA could support between 200 and 400
bears (Servheen et al. 1991). Following these efforts in 1991,
the IGBC endorsed the BE as a recovery area and authorized the
USFWS to pursue grizzly bear recovery.
In 1992, with the endorsement of
the IGBC, the USFWS organized a Technical Working Group to
develop a Bitterroot Ecosystem Chapter to append to the Grizzly
Bear Recovery Plan. This group was comprised of biologists from
the USFWS, USDA Forest Service (USFS), Idaho Department of Fish
and Game (IDFG), and the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks (MDFWP). During the development process a Citizen's
Involvement Group was organized, and several public scoping
meetings were conducted in local communities of central Idaho and
western Montana to gather public comments. Public involvement
guided preparation of the BE Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Chapter.
The IGBC authorized creation of the Selway-Bitterroot Ecosystem Subcommittee (SBES) in 1993. The SBES is comprised of officials that are responsible for management decisions within the recovery zone boundaries, to include; a USFWS regional field office supervisor, IDFG and MDFWP Regional Supervisors, and USFS Forest Supervisors. In addition, the Idaho State Legislature passed House Bill 317, which established a grizzly bear Oversight Committee for the purpose of guiding the development of conservation plans for each recovery area in Idaho. Committee members include chairmen of both Idaho house and senate resource subcommittees, IDFG, Animal Damage Control, and representatives from timber, mining, livestock, wildlife, and recreation industries. The Oversight Committee integrated public comments received during scoping meetings, with recommendations of the Technical Working Group, and a review of pertinent information, and proposed the following for inclusion into the BE Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Chapter:
1) If grizzly bears must be reintroduced, one alternative should include the designation of an experimental population under Sect. 10(j) of the ESA.
2) Grizzly bears should only be introduced within the boundaries of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness, and bears that move outside the wilderness should be captured and returned.
3) A communications program should be established to keep the public informed of the recovery program.
4) The boundaries of the recovery "zone" should be adjusted.
5) No special land management
accommodations for grizzly bears should occur outside the
wilderness boundary.
The Oversight Committee recommendations for the BE Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Chapter were similar to those made by the Citizen's Involvement Group. These proposals received close scrutiny by the USFWS and the Technical Working Group biologists and were discussed and reviewed by the SBES. The USFWS integrated these proposals into the BE Recovery Plan Chapter (USFWS 1996). This chapter developed for the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan calls for the preparation of an EIS to evaluate a full range of grizzly bear recovery alternatives, including the reintroduction of a small number of grizzly bears into the BE as a nonessential experimental population under section 10(j) of the ESA.
PROJECT LOCATION AND
DESCRIPTION
This project involves the area defined as the Bitterroot
Ecosystem of central Idaho and western Montana in the northern
Rocky Mountains. The analysis area considered in this draft EIS
is referred to as the Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Primary Analysis
Area (PAA) and includes USDA Forest Service lands potentially
affected by grizzly bear recovery in the BE of Idaho and Montana
(Figure 1-1). The heart of the PAA is centered around Wilderness
Areas of central Idaho, while a small portion extends over the
crest of the Bitterroot Mountains into western Montana.
The PAA includes about 16,686,596 acres (26,073 square miles)
of contiguous national forest lands in central Idaho and western
Montana (see Figure 3-2 in Chapter 3). These include all or parts
of the Bitterroot, Boise, Challis, Clearwater, Nez Perce,
Payette, Sawtooth, Salmon, and Panhandle National Forests in
Idaho, and the Bitterroot and Lolo National Forests in western
Montana. A few
scattered parcels of private and state land are interspersed
throughout this area, but total acreage is minor.
The center of the PAA is characterized by 3 large wilderness
areas covering a contiguous area of almost 4 million acres (6,250
mi2). These include the Frank Church-River of No
Return (2,361,767 acres; 3,690 mi2), the
Selway-Bitterroot (1,340,681 acres; 2,095 mi2) and the
Gospel Hump (200,464 acres; 313 mi2) Wilderness Areas
(Figure 3-3).
The PAA contains 3 major mountain ranges; the Salmon River
Mountains (south of the Salmon River), the Clearwater Mountains
which extend from the Salmon River north to the upper Clearwater
River drainage, and the Bitterroot Mountains which form the
eastern border of the PAA along the Montana-Idaho state line.
LEGAL CONTEXT
Endangered Species Act
Purposes of the ESA (16 USC 1531, et seq.) are "to
provide a means whereby ecosystems upon which endangered species
and threatened species depend may be conserved, to provide a
program for the conservation of such endangered species and
threatened species, and to take such steps as may be appropriate
to achieve the purposes of the treaties and conventions set forth
in subsection (a) of this section." Conserve, conserving,
and conservation are defined within the Act as to use and the use
of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring any
endangered or threatened species to a point at which the measures
pursuant to the Act are no longer necessary. "Such methods
and procedures include, but are not limited to, all activities
associated with scientific resources management such as research,
census, law enforcement, habitat acquisition and maintenance,
propagation, live trapping, and transplantation, and in the
extraordinary case where population pressures within a given
ecosystem cannot be otherwise relieved, may include regulated
taking."
USFWS Policy
"The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to
conserve, protect, and enhance fish and wildlife and their
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people".
(USFWS National Policy Issuance #94-11, Aug. 18, 1994).
USDA Forest Service Creative Act of 1891
National forests are established under the Creative Act of March 3, 1891, which allows the President to set aside and reserve national forests from the public domain (16 USC 471). Management of national forests by the USFS was established under the Organic Act of June 4, 1897, stating "No National Forest shall be established, except to improve and protect the Forest within the boundaries, or for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the U.S." (16 USC 473).
USDA Forest Service Policy
The National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 USC 472a et
seq.) directs the management of national forests. Plans are
prepared for each Forest as required by the Forest and Rangeland
Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 (16 USC 1600-1614).
These forest plans guide natural resource management activities
on national forests and, along with the associated laws and
regulations, are the basis for management of national forests,
production of outputs, use by the public, and protection of not
only natural and cultural resources located there but protection
of millions of people visiting national forests.
Animal Damage Control Act of 1931
The USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal
Damage Control (ADC) program is conducted pursuant to the Animal
Damage control Act of March 2, 1931 (7 USC 426-426b), as amended,
which states, in part:
"The Secretary...is authorized and directed to conduct
such investigations, experiments, and tests as he may deem
necessary...on public domain...State, ...privately owned lands
of...animals injurious to agriculture, ...forestry, ...wild game
animals,...and for the protection of stock...and to
conduct...control...of such animals...and may cooperate with
States, individuals and public and private agencies,
organizations and institutions."
The overall mission of the ADC Program is to: "Assist in
protecting the wildlife resource by providing national leadership
in the control of conflicts between wildlife and man."
Wilderness Act of 1964
This act provides the framework for designation by Congress of
units of the National Wilderness Preservation System and
prescribes policy for their management. A wilderness is
recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life
are untrammeled by man. Wilderness areas shall be administered
for the use and enjoyment of the American people in such manner
as will leave them unimpaired for future use and enjoyment as
wilderness and the preservation of their wilderness character (16
USC 1131 et seq.).
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)
This act requires that the responsible official submit a
detailed report on major federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment prior to taking major
federal actions (42 USC 4321 et seq.). Implementation of any one
of the alternative plans for reintroduction of grizzly bears into
the BE of central Idaho and western Montana is considered such a
major action and this planning effort is, therefore, subject to
NEPA requirements.
Treaty with the Nez Perce, 1855
The Nez Perce Treaty of 1855 (12 Stat. 957), signed by
Territorial Governor Isaac I. Stevens, ceded to the U.S., title
to lands occupied or claimed by the Nez Perce Tribe. Treaty
rights reserved by the Nez Perce Tribe in the ceded lands as
described in the 1855 Treaty include "the right of taking
fish at all usual and accustomed places in common with the
citizens of the Territory," "together with the
privilege of hunting, gathering roots and berries, and pasturing
their horses and cattle upon open and unclaimed land."
Indian Self Determination Act
"The Congress declares its commitment to the maintenance
of the Federal Government's unique and continuing relationship
with and responsibility to the Indian people through the
establishment of a meaningful Indian self-determination policy
which will permit an orderly transition from Federal domination
of programs for and services to Indians to effective and
meaningful participation by the Indian people in the planning,
conduct, and administration of those programs and services"
(P.L. 93-638).
Montana State Law
Montana statute (87-5-301)
mandates the preservation, protection and management of the
grizzly bear as a rare species. Under the Nongame and Endangered
Species Conservation Act (87-5-109), taking of grizzly bears is
authorized for scientific, zoological, or education purposes, for
propagation in captivity, or for other special purposes by permit
issued by the Director, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks. Where necessary to alleviate property damage, state
endangered species may be taken under a permit issued by the
Director of MDFWP, and where possible under the supervision of
Department personnel. Grizzly bears may also be taken without a
permit in emergency situations involving an immediate threat to
human life. In 1923, the state of Montana declared the grizzly
bear a game animal.
Idaho State Law
The grizzly bear is listed as a state threatened species in
Idaho. State statutes and regulations allow taking of wildlife,
including grizzly bears, to protect human life and property.
Reporting the taking of animals under these situations is
required. The Idaho Legislature has authorized the Idaho
Legislative Oversight Committee to be actively involved in the
process and development of the DEIS and to oversee all activities
regarding grizzly bear recovery in Idaho.
International Treaties
Several treaties affect how the federal government manages
federal land and wildlife (including endangered species) under
federal authorities, including the Convention on Nature
Protection and Wildlife Preservation in the Western Hemisphere
and Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species
(CITES). These treaties differ in emphasis and species of primary
concern, but collectively provide clear mandates for identifying
and protecting important habitats and ecosystems, and protecting
and managing individual species.
PLANNING AND EIS PROCESS
The process used to develop alternatives for grizzly bear
reintroduction into the Bitterroot Ecosystem was designed to
fulfill legal mandates cited above. Two alternatives in this DEIS
represent long-range strategies to achieve grizzly bear recovery.
One alternative is a no action alternative and could result in
natural recovery over an extended period of time. One alternative
prevents grizzly bear recovery. When alternatives require changes
in existing law to be implemented, those changes are clearly
identified.
Scope of This Document
This document covers the actions
of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating agencies in
evaluating alternatives to recover the grizzly bear in the BE of
Idaho and Montana. The actions evaluated in this document involve
the listed grizzly bear and relate to actions involving grizzly
bears and the management of these grizzly bears. Actions
involving allocation of public resources such as timber, mining,
road building, or grazing on National Forest lands and State
lands are not a part of this document. Decision documents
involving allocation of these resources on National Forest and
State lands are the legal responsibility of the USDA Forest
Service, and the states of Idaho and Montana, through appropriate
Forest and State planning processes.
Scoping Process and Public Participation
A public participation and interagency coordination program
was developed to identify issues related to grizzly bear recovery
in the BE and alternatives to be considered, as required by the
NEPA process. Seven public scoping sessions, in the form of open
houses were held in Grangeville, Orofino, and Boise, Idaho; in
Missoula, Helena, and Hamilton, Montana; and Salt Lake City,
Utah, from July 5 to 11 with a 45-day public comment period on
the proposal (see Appendix 16) ending July 29, and extended to
August 21, 1995. Written comments on preliminary issues and
alternatives were received from more than 3,300 individuals,
organizations and government agencies. About 80 percent of
written responses were from residents of counties in Montana and
Idaho adjacent to the proposed recovery areas. Results of the
public scoping process were summarized in the document,
"Summary of Public Comments on the Scoping of Issues and
Alternatives for Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot
Ecosystem" (USFWS 1995). The introduction and summary of
issues chapters from this document are included in Appendix 19.
In addition, a survey was conducted for the Interagency
Grizzly Bear Committee to assess public attitudes on grizzly bear
reintroduction. The survey was performed as part of the initial
public involvement process to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for proposed reintroduction of grizzly bears to the BE
of central Idaho. Several drafts of the survey were developed by
Responsive Management, a private company specializing in surveys.
Several pretests of the questionnaire were conducted during the
week of June 5, 1995. A total of 919 telephone surveys was
completed between June 9 and June 24, 1995: 311 locally, 306
regionally, and 302 nationally.
SCOPING OF ISSUES
Introduction
The public identified 46 grizzly bear recovery issues during
the scoping process. These issues were either, addressed /
included in one or more alternatives (26 issues), analyzed in
detail as an issue or potential impact of grizzly bear recovery
(11 issues), or not analyzed further with the reason explained (9
issues). The determination to classify an issue as a major issue
or concern to be analyzed in detail in the DEIS is made solely on
its relevance to the decision being made, or based on the best
scientific judgement that the issue is significant to the
decision being made. For instance, some people were concerned
about the impact of grizzly bears on invertebrates. Because
grizzly bears are not documented to have impacts on populations
of these types of animals, the issue is not significantly
impacted by grizzly bear recovery and therefore not analyzed
further. In contrast, the decision about how grizzly bears are
recovered and managed will have impacts on the extent of land-use
restrictions. Consequently, this issue was classified under a
major issue and concern heading, "What kind of land-uses
will be altered solely for grizzly bears?" and is addressed
as an impact of grizzly bear recovery in the DEIS. All issues
raised by the public were considered, but not all were analyzed
because some were not significant, as explained later.
The issues and alternatives identified and their resulting
impacts were divided into two categories: those analyzed in
detail and those not considered in detail. Issues and
alternatives analyzed in the DEIS are divided into two additional
categories: those incorporated into alternatives, and those
evaluated as impact topics. The following list represents issues
evaluated in the DEIS. Descriptions of the reasons for evaluating
or eliminating issues and alternatives and their impacts from
consideration follow each list.
Issues and Impacts Evaluated in the DEIS
Issues Addressed as Part of Alternatives -- these 26 issues and impacts are addressed / included as part of one or more alternatives in the DEIS (see Chapter 2 for a description of Alternatives).
Management Strategies
Strategies to Control Nuisance Bears
Illegal Killing of Grizzly Bears
Recovery Area (Geographic Boundaries, Size & Range)
Recovery Time
Monitoring and Evaluation
Experimental, Nonessential Population & Area
Private Property Rights
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Ecosystem Management
Grizzly Bears as a Missing Component of the Ecosystem
Definition of Population Viability for Grizzly Bears
Travel Corridors & Linkages (Range of Grizzly Bears)
Habitat Protection Requirements
Laws, Restrictions, Rights, Authority
Federal, State, Local, and Tribal Authority
Compliance with Forest Plans
Are Grizzly Bears Native to the Bitterroot Ecosystem
Effects on Grizzly Bears from Human Incursions Outside Wilderness
Population Corridor Linkages
Effects "to" Grizzly Bears (Genetics, Disease, Colonization, etc.)
Habitat Security
Cost of Program to Taxpayer
Education
Political Influence
Enjoyment of Grizzly Bears
(Viewing, etc.)
Management Strategies. - Proposed
management strategies were outlined briefly in the description of
alternatives provided in the scoping brochure (Appendix 16) and
the question & answer pamphlet for the proposal to recover
grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Most respondents saw a
"gap" in "how-to" manage the reintroduction
as presented. Some new alternatives were generated from various
coalitions with numerous individuals rallying to support the
inclusion of a particular alternative for analysis in the DEIS.
Overall, there was more support for these new alternatives and
their management strategies than for the proposed alternatives
described in the scoping brochure and pamphlet.
Strategies to control nuisance
bears.-- Bears that frequent areas of high human use, act
aggressively toward humans, or kill livestock would be dealt with
under protocol already established for other grizzly bear
recovery areas by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee.
Nuisance grizzly bears would be relocated rapidly to remote areas
or killed by authorized personnel of state, tribal, or federal
agencies (see Appendix 15, IGBC Nuisance Grizzly Bear Management
Guidelines (IGBC 1986)). Many respondents didn't want bears that
wander out of the wilderness boundary to automatically be
considered problem bears. They feel the bears will move where
there is an adequate food source and question whether the
proposed site has adequate habitat to keep the grizzly bear
contained in the recovery area. There were other people, mostly
local residents, who support the concept of relocation or
disposing of problem bears.
Illegal Killing of Grizzly
Bears.-- It is legal to kill a grizzly bear in self-defense
or defense of others. The kill must be reported within 24 hours,
and an investigation will take place to determine whether it was
indeed a case of self-defense. Grizzly bears cannot be killed by
members of the public in defense of property. Several people felt
that enforcement should be severe and surveillance increased.
Others felt that killing grizzly bears in self-defense is
acceptable as is killing grizzly bears by mistake during the
spring black bear season. Some respondents were unclear about the
provisions of the ESA for killing a grizzly in self-defense.
Recovery Area (Geographic
Boundaries/Size/Range).-- An experimental population must be
identified by a geographic boundary, a visible mark of
identification as a member of a released group of animals, or
other means specified in the special rule. Bears that occur
outside of a designated experimental population area would
receive full protection as a threatened species under the ESA
unless they were otherwise identifiable. Most people who
commented on this particular issue provided their own
interpretation of recovery area boundaries. A popular comment was
to, "allow bear recovery on all of our public lands, not
just designated wilderness areas." Other comments pertained
to buffer zones of adjacent roadless areas needing to be included
in the recovery area boundary. Conversely, others felt the
boundary needs to be restricted to only wilderness area
boundaries particularly around the Bitterroot Valley. Other
people needed more information and wanted clarification in the
DEIS.
Monitoring and Evaluation.--
All released bears would be fitted with radio transmitters and
their movements monitored frequently. The most popular comment on
this issue was to solicit peer review, from the independent
scientific community, during all aspects of reintroduction. The
process for verification of sighting reports was questioned.
Experimental/Nonessential
Population and Area.-- In 1982, Congress amended the
Endangered Species Act to permit greater management flexibility
for species that are reintroduced to their historic range. The
purpose of added flexibility was to garner more local support for
restoration efforts. Such populations may be designated as
"experimental" and managed within a delineated area
according to special rule designed to balance needs of both
people and listed species. Support and opposition were split
evenly for this designation. Supporters maintained that
flexibility in management would win local support. Opponents said
the designation is contrary to the purpose of the ESA and reduces
the level of protection for the grizzly bear.
Private Property Rights.--
Grizzly bears cannot be killed by members of the public in
defense of property. A few respondents expressed concern about
not having the right to protect their private property from the
grizzly bear. They felt they should have the legal option to kill
a bear in defense of life or property. They point out that the
burden of regulations on property owners would be
"oppressive."
Endangered Species Act
(ESA).-- The grizzly bear in the conterminous 48 States was
listed as a threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) in 1975. A threatened species is one that is
"likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range." An endangered species is further defined as
one "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range..." The grizzly bear is also listed as
a threatened species under Idaho state regulations and as a game
species under Montana state regulations. A great number of
respondents believe the bear must be reintroduced as fully
protected under the ESA and feel any attempt to do otherwise is
against the law. They believe the experimental nonessential
designation would not ensure the safety of reintroduced bears or
the safety of bears that might already be there. However, a few
respondents felt experimental nonessential designation would give
needed flexibility. Many respondents feel the grizzly bear is not
a threatened species due to the numbers that already exist in
other areas. Some people feel the ESA should be abolished,
particularly those who favor the "no action"
alternative.
Ecosystem Management. -- A majority of respondents who favor
reintroduction feel the grizzly bear is a necessary component of
the ecosystem that is now missing. However, some people feel the
ecosystem has evolved with the absence of the grizzly bear, and
that its return would upset the existing ecology. Quite a few
people mention there is a lack of food supply particularly
grasses and forbs, berries, pine nuts, and that anadromous fish
are lacking.
Grizzly Bear as a Missing
Component of the Ecosystem.-- Many people feel the grizzly
bear embodies the "wild" in wilderness. Several people
stated that survival of the grizzly indicated a healthy ecosystem
for all species, including humans. One person felt bears are
necessary for human health research because of the unique bone
and kidney function they display during hibernation. Several
people felt that humans should leave nature alone, and not
reintroduce bears to the BE. Others thought the habitat needs
improving before reintroducing bears. They suggest returning
anadromous fish runs and fire to the ecosystem to improve food
availability.
What is a Viable Grizzly Bear
Population? Number of Bears?-- Ecological conditions in the
Bitterroot Mountains appear comparable to other grizzly bear
ecosystems in the Rocky Mountains. Bear biologists estimate that
the food resources in the BE could eventually provide for an
average density of about 1 bear for each 20-30 square miles of
public land. Similar densities of grizzly bears occur in portions
of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) and
Yellowstone Ecosystem (YE) (USFWS 1993) . Monitoring the
movements and diets of reintroduced bears would provide a more
definitive answer. Many people favoring reintroduction felt that
the rate of reintroduction should be increased and that the
population recovery goal is too low. Others feel the goals of
recovery should be set before reintroducing bears. A few people
stated that bears are a nuisance on the Rocky Mountain Front and
"no one is doing anything about it." Some said it is
not necessary to reintroduce bears in the BE to recover a
population. A few people stated that a lack of grizzly bear
sightings in the BE could indicate that bears don't want to live
in that area.
Travel Corridors &
Linkages (Range of Grizzly Bears).-- This issue relates to
the relatively large areas that grizzly bears require, and the
fact that, by their nature the bears will not be confined to a
specific area. This issue is addressed by identifying management
strategies for grizzly bears in specific areas in the various
alternatives. Certain types of management will restrict the range
of grizzly bear populations. Many people felt that travel
corridors between ecosystems must be identified, established and
maintained. Comments indicated corridors are essential to link
isolated populations of grizzly bears for dispersal and genetic
interchange, and are thus critical for long-term survival of the
grizzly bear.
Population Corridor Linkages.--
Because grizzly bears do not readily colonize distant areas, most
bear biologists consider recovery by natural recolonization
unlikely. Corridors between grizzly bear habitats would have to
be created because remaining areas of suitable grizzly bear
habitat are fragmented by human development. Linkage zones
between ecosystems are currently being studied by the USFWS for
their necessity and feasibility. Many people responded that
recovery of the grizzly bear is dependent on habitat corridors
connecting bear populations. Many believe current populations are
not adequate to sustain the species due to isolation and limited
numbers. Several people believe that reintroducing bears to the
BE could begin to link existing isolated bear populations in
northwest Montana and Yellowstone National Park. One person
stated that "to isolate Bitterroot Recovery...is politics,
not science." Another stated that the Bitterroot is no
longer an intact ecosystem.
Habitat Protection
Requirements.-- Extensive access into occupied grizzly bear
habitat can increase the risk of human-caused mortality and
reduce effective use of habitat by grizzly bears and other
wildlife including elk and fish populations. Existing standards
and guidelines for elk, fish and riparian habitat management
appear adequate for grizzly bear security. Direct human-caused
mortality of grizzly bears is the major impediment to population
recovery. Most people who commented on habitat protection
requirements felt it should be protected either throughout the
entire recovery area or only inside wilderness boundaries. Those
who support reintroduction efforts prefer protection throughout
the entire recovery area. Those who oppose recovery prefer no
protection requirements, or protection only in the wilderness.
This latter group sees requirements for habitat protection as
interfering with other consumptive uses of the forest, i.e.,
logging, building roads, access, etc.
Laws, Restrictions, Rights,
Authority.-- A large number of comments addressed the need
for a local citizen=s management committee or local advisory
committee. Several stated that management should remain with the
USFWS, States, and Tribes. A Citizen's Management Committee will
be evaluated in one or more alternatives.
Federal, State, Local &
Tribal Authority.-- Existence of a nonessential experimental
grizzly bear population in the Bitterroot Ecosystem will not
change the authority of local, state, tribal, or federal
government except as specified in the proposed rule establishing
the Bitterroot grizzly bear population. However, the various
alternatives do place different emphasis on the level of state or
tribal involvement in implementing various recovery strategies.
Public comment during issue and alternative scoping indicated
that people believed that a citizen management committee would be
a fair way to implement management of grizzly bear recovery. This
concern is reflected in one or more alternatives. There were
numerous comments regarding who should have jurisdiction over
management of the grizzly bear. While several respondents support
local citizen involvement, they also stated that overall
day-to-day bear management responsibilities should reside with
the USFWS.
Compliance With Forest Plans.--
Two respondents commented on compliance. One was critical of
Forest Plans and questioned their adequacy in terms of protecting
and maintaining suitable grizzly bear habitat. The other comment
stated that current wildlife management will be deemed adequate
unless the Citizen Management Committee decides otherwise. This
issue is examined in more than one alternative.
Are Grizzly Bears Native to
Bitterroot Ecosystem.-- Historical evidence indicates that
grizzly bears were common in the Bitterroot Mountains. Members of
the Lewis and Clark expedition killed 7 grizzly bears in 1806
near present-day Kamiah, Idaho. During the late 1800s, the
Bitterroot area was well-known for grizzly hunting. For example,
a hunter named Wright killed 5 grizzly bears in one episode on
the Clearwater River, and over several years killed dozens of
grizzly bears in the Bitterroot region. One report estimated that
trappers killed 25 to 40 grizzly bears in the Bitterroot
Mountains every year around the turn of the century. Some people
feel that a few grizzly bears still exist. Many people questioned
that this species was ever in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness
Area because the habitat is "questionable" and
"historical records don't support the existence of grizzly
bears there."
Effects on Grizzly Bears from Human Incursions Outside Wilderness (Logging, Road Building, Mining & Off-Road-Vehicles).-- This would vary by land designation and by grizzly bear recovery alternative. More than one-half of the Bitterroot Primary Analysis Area (Figure 3-1) lies in designated wilderness (Figure 3-3) where no timber harvest or mining can occur by law. On National Forest lands outside Wilderness, Forest Plans determine areas suitable for timber harvest, mining, vehicle access, etc. Many people stated the necessity to keep the recovery area off-limits to road building and logging. Many respondents provided suggestions for restructuring logging and logging practices. Several respondents feel the area won't support bears because of indirect incursions, i.e. the Columbia Dams have blocked salmon migration and fire suppression has altered the habitat/vegetation.
Genetics, Disease,
Colonization Effects on Grizzly Bears.-- Numerous people
responded that recovery of the threatened grizzly bear is
dependent on habitat corridors connecting bear populations.
Corridor linkage is critical and necessary for genetic viability.
Several comments indicated there was inadequate food for bears in
the area.
Habitat Security.-- The
5,500-square mile Bitterroot Evaluation Area (BEA) extends from
the Salmon River north to, and including, the North Fork of the
Clearwater River. Approximately 97% of the area is public land,
managed by the USFS; the remaining area is private or state
owned. About 50% of the area is in the Selway-Bitterroot and
Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness Areas. One partially
paved highway bisects this area. Minimal cattle or sheep grazing
occurs within the area at present. Thus there is a large core of
remote country. Other portions of the River of No Return
Wilderness south of the current evaluation area might also be
suitable. A great number of people commented on the importance
and necessity of roadless areas for adequate grizzly bear
habitat. Many feel road density standards need to be enforced.
Several people stated the importance of closing roads to all
motor vehicles to curtail use. Several commented on the critical
need for low elevation bear habitat in the spring.
Cost of Program to Taxpayer.--
Cost of grizzly bear recovery will vary between alternatives and
is displayed for each alternative (Appendix 7). This issue was of
concern to many of the respondents. Many felt that grizzly bear
reintroduction is a waste of taxpayer's money. Several stated
that they would like the money spent on other programs, while
others said that the money should be used for the national
deficit. Questions were raised about the validity of actual
costs. Some felt it would be higher than predicted.
Education.-- This issue
addresses public education about camping, hiking precautions,
food storage, bear identification, etc. Several people commented
on the importance of having an education program to teach humans
how to coexist with grizzly bears. They stressed the need to
teach people about proper disposal of garbage, how to handle
food, and how to hike and camp safely in grizzly bear country. A
few people that were against grizzly bear reintroduction
commented that education wouldn't help.
Political Influence.--
Several people commented about how they think political influence
will affect the reintroduction of grizzly bears. Many respondents
conveyed their exasperation with the political system and the
role they believe it plays in determining the outcome of the
proposed reintroduction. Some believe that politics instead of
science is the guiding force in reintroduction efforts. Many
respondents against reintroduction reiterated their view that the
political process has not worked to their advantage. Some see a
"hidden agenda" by pro-grizzly advocates to "lock
up the land." Many respondents also resent people or groups
outside the local community or state as having undue influence on
reintroduction efforts into the area in which they live. Some
also say they think the Endangered Species Act is being
misinterpreted for political means.
Enjoyment of Grizzly Bear
(Watching, etc.).-- The ability of people to enjoy either the
presence or absence of grizzly bears is reflected in the various
alternatives. Several people mentioned that they would like
nothing more than to see a grizzly bear in the wild. Several
commented that they would appreciate being able to see a grizzly
bear in the wilderness rather than behind bars in a zoo. One said
there is a need to restore the top carnivore on earth.
Issues/Impacts Analyzed in the DEIS. -- The 11 issues / impacts identified by public scoping (and briefly explained below) will be addressed/analyzed for each alternative. They have been consolidated into the following 7 major areas, and will be presented as such in Chapter 4.
Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery on Human Health and Safety
Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery on Source Populations of Grizzly Bears
Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery on Land-Use Activities - to include Timber Harvest,
Minerals Extraction, and Livestock Grazing
Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery on Wildlife
Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery on Public Access and Recreational Use
Social Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery
Economic Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery
Human Health and Safety
(Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery on Human Health & Safety).--
Numerous people responded that they feel the grizzly bear poses
problems with human safety. Safety is a very volatile issue with
many respondents speaking from the heart with anger and emotional
pleas concerning the danger they see for themselves and their
family. Several say to "put human safety first." Many
people speak of the negative effect grizzly bears would have on
relaxing enjoyable trips to the backcountry. Some refer to the
problems with grizzly bears in other areas such as Glacier
National Park and the Bob Marshall Wilderness. Only a few people
stated that human safety was not a concern; most of those
promoted public education and commented that the issue of safety
is exaggerated.
Capturing and Release Methods
(Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery on Source Populations of
Grizzly Bears).-- Many people wanted grizzly bears removed
from healthy donor populations that are not listed as threatened,
and wanted scientific studies to verify and document the impacts.
People are concerned about humane handling of bears, and duration
of their contact with humans during transportation. There were
requests to limit media to trained professionals. Comments also
indicated concern about removal of bears from British Columbia.
Restrictions on Use of Public
Lands (Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery on Land-Use
Activities).-- Grizzly bear recovery can have an impact on
types of land-use restrictions implemented on public lands.
Restrictions affecting open road density, motor vehicle use,
hunting, and hiking have been used in some limited areas to
enhance recovery where illegal killing or disturbance by humans
was a major factor affecting grizzly bear survival. In some
areas, habitat manipulation (logging or fire) was used to enhance
habitat for grizzly bears. Various alternatives reflect different
levels of land-use restrictions. One of the major reasons
respondents oppose the reintroduction is fear of additional
access closures in the area. Most of these comments came from
local residents who enjoy the amenities of the backcountry and
feel that reintroduction of grizzly bears will affect them
directly. They feel areas will be closed to protect people as
well as bears and traditional uses of the area will not continue.
Several respondents are concerned by the possible closure of the
Magruder Corridor. A few respondents feel that restrictions are
necessary to protect the grizzly bear and to protect the habitat.
Effects of the Grizzly on Big
Game Species (Effects of the Grizzly Bear Recovery on
Wildlife).-- A few people stated their concern for the
welfare of wildlife populations in the recovery area. The most
common concern is for elk herds and how they would be affected by
the grizzly bear. Many point out that grizzly bears can devastate
elk calf populations. People are also concerned with effects on
black bear, deer populations, and big game hunting opportunities.
Effects of Grizzly on Other
Predators (Effects of the Grizzly Bear Recovery on
Wildlife).-- A handful of respondents were concerned with
effects the grizzly bear would have on other predators. Most felt
there are already enough predators in the area especially
considering the prey base and food supply.
Effects of Grizzly on Hunting
Opportunities (Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery on Public Access
and Recreational Use).-- Several people stated that potential
conflicts with spring black bear hunting in the recovery area
need to be addressed to avoid accidental killing of grizzly
bears. Some people favor a moratorium on spring black bear
hunting. Some hunters are concerned with the restrictions on
access that might come with grizzly bear reintroduction. A few
people stated that when the grizzly bear is recovered, there
should be a hunting season on them. Other hunters voiced their
support for a recovered grizzly bear population that would not be
hunted.
Effects of Grizzly on
Outfitters/Guides (Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery on Public
Access and Recreational Use).-- A few outfitters and guides
stated that they were concerned about hunting opportunities and
for the safety of their clients. They feel their livelihood would
be directly affected by grizzly bears in the area. Some say their
clients will stop coming to hunt in the area if there are grizzly
bears there. They contend that their clientele comes to the area
to have an option for good hunting without grizzly bears like in
the Bob Marshall Wilderness. They also felt that the grizzly bear
would prey upon elk and deer and therefore reduce the game
available for harvest.
Effects of Grizzly on Other
Recreational Opportunities (Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery on
Public Access and Recreational Use).-- Several people who use
the BE for hiking and camping were very concerned about
reintroduction of the grizzly bear. They avoid the Bob Marshall
Wilderness and Glacier National Park because of the presence of
grizzly bears. Some feel grizzly bears would infringe upon the
safety and solitude they enjoy in the Bitterroot Mountains, and
that there will be more closures and restrictions in the areas
they use for hiking and camping. There was concern for the safety
of people who float the Salmon River.
Economic/Social (Social
Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery and Economic Effects of Grizzly
Bear Recovery).-- Grizzly bear recovery will have an impact
on economics of the affected areas. Several people are concerned
that the grizzly bear is being considered more important than the
livelihood of humans. Some commented on the economic impact that
reintroducing grizzly bears would have on the livestock industry.
Some also feel their "quality of life" would be
threatened, and their lives would have to change. Numerous
comments point to the high cost of implementing the
reintroduction efforts in particular and the high cost of
government spending in general. A handful of respondents feel the
grizzly bear would actually bring more tourists to the area and
therefore benefit the economy.
Effects on Local Economy
(Economic Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery).-- This issue
reflects the economic concerns of people in communities near the
grizzly recovery area. Comments focus on perceived negative
impacts from grizzly recovery, such as reduction in forestry,
mining, ranching, and tourism. Positive impacts that were
mentioned include an increase in tourism brought by the grizzly,
and the attraction of living in a "wild" area.
Effects of Grizzly on
Livestock and Pets (Economic Effects of Grizzly Bear Recovery).--
Several people expressed their concern regarding loss of
livestock and pets to grizzly bears. They feel it is probable
that grizzly bears will supplement their diets with domestic
livestock and domestic pets. Some stated their concerns for the
cattle ranchers and said that compensation for livestock
depredation should be part of the plan. Several commented that
the grizzly bear was not a threat to livestock.
Significant Issues/Impacts and Concerns
The specific issues / impacts (listed and discussed above) that were identified by the public and incorporated into the DEIS, as either parts of the alternatives (26 issues), or as areas potentially impacted by grizzly bear recovery (11 issues grouped into 7 major impact areas), share a common set of management concerns. All of these issues / impacts can be summarized into an examination of the who, what, when, where and how of grizzly bear recovery and management. To clarify how various alternatives address the issues / impacts and concerns of the public, they were grouped into 7 general grizzly bear management questions / concerns that the USFWS considers most significant. An example of how they were grouped is demonstrated by the question, "Where will grizzly bears be obtained, reintroduced, and recovered? This question incorporates parts of the issues of grizzly bears as a missing component of the ecosystem, travel corridors and linkages, range requirements, ecosystem management, habitat security, and recovery areas. The other 6 questions incorporate a variety of these and other issues/impacts that were also important to the public. These 7 questions form a basis to consistently describe and compare each alternative being analyzed in the DEIS, and assess how the alternatives are responsive to all significant public issues/impacts and concerns.
The 7 major grizzly bear management questions / concerns were developed from the 37 pertinent issues / impacts raised during public scoping. The USFWS considers these most significant and they will be used to describe the alternatives:
1. What will be the risk to human safety?
2. What kind of land uses will be altered solely for grizzly bears?
3. How much will implementation cost?
4. How does this alternative address linkage zones?
5. Are habitat quality and size of the recovery area sufficient for recovery?
6. How will grizzly bears and their habitat be managed?
7. Where will grizzly bears be
obtained, reintroduced, and recovered?
Issues and Impacts Not Evaluated in the DEIS
Consultation with Fish & Wildlife Service
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Guidelines
State or Private Bear Management Specialist
Wilderness Act
Effects of Grizzly Bear on Other Endangered Species
Effects of Grizzly Bear on Other Animals, Fish, Birds, etc.
Spiritual/Cultural
Visitor Use
Miscellaneous
These 9 issues / impacts that are not within the scope of the
decision to be made in the DEIS, or will not be significantly
impacted by the alternatives, are not analyzed further in the
DEIS. Issues not analyzed in detail and the reasons why they were
not chosen for detailed analysis in the DEIS are explained below.
Most are addressed in the DEIS and Appendices as noted below.
Consultation with Fish & Wildlife Service.-- Only
two people commented saying the requirement to consult with the
USFWS should remain in place for activities with potential
impacts on roadless areas and other habitat needed for full
recovery. The involvement of the USFWS is mandated by Federal
Law.
Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines.-- There was only
one comment received on this issue. The person stated that the
"decision" seemed to have already been made and why
waste time with public involvement and the NEPA process now.
There were no substantive comments on the guidelines to analyze
in the DEIS.
State or Private Bear Management Specialist.-- There were no public responses to this issue. Concerns for state or private bear management are covered under the Federal, State, Tribal and Local Authority issue that is analyzed in one or more alternatives.
Wilderness Act.-- Although numerous respondents spoke
to wilderness in other issues, the Act itself was only referred
to in the sense that the grizzly bear did not exist in the
Bitterroot Mountains when the Act was passed. The Wilderness Act
is discussed in Chapter 1.
Effects of Grizzly on Other Endangered Species (Such as
Listed Salmon).-- Some concerns were raised about
reintroducing the grizzly bear in an area where the Chinook
salmon and steelhead trout populations are dwindling. They point
out that fish is a food source for the grizzly bear. The USFWS
will prepare an Intra-Service Section 7 Evaluation for the
Reintroduction of Grizzly Bears to the Bitterroot Ecosystem
(Appendix 9), which will analyze and document any impacts from
this proposal to other Threatened and Endangered Species. The
USFWS will also prepare a Biological Assessment for the National
Marine Fisheries Service to document the impacts of this proposal
on salmon and steelhead trout (Appendix 9). Also see Appendix 3
for discussion of potential impacts to salmon.
Effects of Grizzly on Other Animals, Fish, Birds, Etc.-- There
was a request to consider other threatened and endangered
organisms. The USFWS will prepare an Intra-Service Section 7
Evaluation for the Reintroduction of Grizzly Bears to the
Bitterroot Ecosystem (Appendix 9). This will analyze and document
any impacts from this proposal to other Threatened and Endangered
Species.
Spiritual/Cultural.-- This issue relates to the
spiritual symbolism of the grizzly bear, its cultural
significance to the West, preserving the grizzly for future
generations, and benefits of simply knowing that grizzly bears
exist in the reintroduction area. A few commented on the
complexity and mystery associated with wilderness and that
grizzly bear recovery in the area would make the wilderness whole
again. Many speak of their respect for nature and "there
should be some humility on the part of humans so the natural
ecosystems can flourish." Some individuals, particularly
from the local area, say the reintroduction of the grizzly bear
would "decrease the quality of their wilderness
experience." Although these issues were not used to develop
alternatives or analyses, information on spiritual and cultural
issues is included in Chapter 3 and Appendix 5.
Visitor Use.-- This issue reflects the effects grizzly
bears will have on visitor use. There were very few comments
concerning this issue. Visitor use is considered under;
"economic effects of grizzly bear recovery" and
"effects of recovery on public access and recreational
use."
Miscellaneous
There were a few comments and suggestions about fines for people who don=t follow sanitation guidelines in bear country and remarks about political influence. Because these comments weren't substantive to the issues, they won't be considered in the DEIS.
ALTERNATIVE SCOPING
Resource Inventory and Analysis
Information on various issues had
to be compiled to objectively address potential impact of grizzly
bear recovery. During and after scoping, efforts were made to
identify and collect types of information needed for planning
grizzly bear recovery strategies and analyzing potential impacts
of grizzly bears on the environment. Information on grizzly bear
biology, land ownership, status, management, ungulate (mule deer,
white-tailed deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep, and mountain goats)
biology and management, other wildlife (black bears, mountain
lions, small mammals), economics, and use of public land were
gathered from resource agency files, standard technical
references, and current scientific literature. This information
was used to classify and describe resources and uses so the
potential impacts of grizzly bear recovery on those resources
could be identified and analyzed systematically. It was also used
to help formulate grizzly bear management alternatives.
Development and Evaluation of Alternatives
After the resource information was analyzed, and the public
participation process identified a range of various issues and
alternatives, it became necessary to describe grizzly bear
management alternatives, including a proposed action. As a first
step toward developing reintroduction alternatives, issues of
concern to the public were compared to the grizzly bear
management alternatives previously identified by the public or
other groups that had already examined this subject. The USFWS
used preliminary issues identified from public comments received
during scoping meetings for the BE Recovery Plan Chapter, and the
Notice of Intent to complete an EIS for Recovery in the BE, to
formulate three preliminary alternatives. Prior to conducting
formal scoping meetings and a comment period, the USFWS proposed
these three preliminary alternatives for consideration and
published them in a Scoping of Issues and Alternatives brochure
that requested ideas and comments from the public (Appendix 16). The alternatives were: Alternative 1 -
No Action (Natural Recolonization); Alternative 2 -
Reintroduction of an Experimental Population (Proposed Action);
and Alternative 3 - Accelerated Reintroduction of a Standard
(Fully Protected) Population.
Two new alternatives were
suggested during the public scoping period. The first proposed
alternative entitled The Citizen Management Committee Alternative
was submitted by the National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of
Wildlife, the Resource Organization on Timber Supply, and the
Intermountain Forest Industry Association (USFWS 1995). The
second alternative identified was the Alliance for the Wild
Rockies Alternative, which was proposed by the Alliance (USFWS
1995).
Alternatives Identified During Scoping, but not Evaluated Further
Alternative 3 that was identified in the scoping document,
"Accelerated Reintroduction of a Standard Population"
is not evaluated in this DEIS. Securing 10 non-nuisance grizzly
bears per year from similar habitat in the lower 48 States or
southern British Columbia is not feasible because of a lack of a
suitable number of bears from existing source populations. For
this reason the alternative was eliminated.
Alternatives Addressed in the DEIS
Four alternatives that represent different approaches to
grizzly bear recovery and management were developed for
evaluation in the DEIS because they encompass most of the
concerns raised during scoping, and they represent a full range
of alternatives. Two alternatives (Alternatives 2 and 3) do not
necessarily meet the purpose of and need for action, but were
included in the DEIS to be responsive to public comments, to
provide a full range of alternatives for consideration, and to
meet the requirements of NEPA. All four alternatives reflect
public comments and suggestions identified through issue and
alternative scoping. These alternatives are discussed in detail
in Chapter 2.
After review of this DEIS by government agencies, tribes,
tribal agencies, special interest groups and the general public,
the USFWS will revise the alternatives if necessary and adopt one
for implementation. This alternative will become the management
plan for grizzly bear recovery in the BE.
The alternatives considered in this DEIS are:
1. Reintroduction of a Nonessential Experimental Population Alternative (The Proposal):
The goal is to accomplish grizzly bear recovery by
reintroducing grizzly bears designated as a nonessential
experimental population to central Idaho and by implementing
provisions within Section 10(j) of the ESA, conduct grizzly bear
management to address local concerns. A Citizen Management
Committee (CMC), created under a special rule to be published in
the federal register, would be tasked with management of this
grizzly bear population.
2. The No Action Alternative - Natural Recovery:
The goal is to allow grizzly bears to expand from their
current range in north Idaho and northwestern Montana southward
into central Idaho and western Montana, and to recolonize the BE.
The ultimate goal is natural recovery of grizzly bears in the BE.
3. The No Grizzly Bear Alternative:
This alternative would prevent grizzly bear recovery in the
BE.
4. Reintroduction of a Threatened Population with Full Protection of the ESA Alternative:
The goal is to achieve recovery through reintroduction and
extensive habitat protection and enhancement to promote natural
recovery. The grizzly bear would have full status as a threatened
species under the provisions of the ESA.