APPENDIX 14. BITTERROOT ECOSYSTEM RECOVERY PLAN CHAPTER -
SUPPLEMENT TO THE GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY PLAN
Supplement: Bitterroot Ecosystem Recovery Plan Chapter
(Original Recovery Plan Approved: January 29, 1982)
Prepared by: Dr. Christopher Servheen
Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildife Service
Forestry Sciences Laboratory
University of Montana
Missoula, MT 59801
BITTERROOT ECOSYSTEM GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY PLAN CHAPTER
TO BE APPENDED TO GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY
PLAN REVISED SEPTEMBER 10, 1993
BACKGROUND ON THE BITTERROOT ECOSYSTEM
The Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE) is one of the largest
contiguous blocks of Federal land remaining in the lower 48
United States. The core of the BE contains theSelway-Bitterroot
Wilderness and Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness.
Together these two wilderness areas make up the largest block of
wilderness habitat in the Rocky Mountains. The BE also contains
significant areas of multiple use lands where wildlife and
fisheries values coexist with resource use and recreation. The BE
formerly contained grizzly bears, but they are gone today due to
excessive human-caused mortality. The demise of the grizzly from
the BE was due to the actions of humans. Bears were actively
killed for their fur, for sport, and to eliminate possible
threats to humans and domestic livestock. The killing of bears
for livestock protection reached its highest level in the early
1900's when domestic sheep grazing in what is now the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and Frank Church-River of No Return
Wilderness reached its peak. The last bears were killed in the
north end of the BE. Bud Moore, who was born in the Bitterroot
Valley and was a former District Ranger for the Powell Ranger
District of the Clearwater National Forest, has written an
account of the last grizzlies of the BE (Moore, in press). He
interviewed more than 25 old outfitters, hunters, trappers, and
users of the ecosystem for his book. The last verified grizzly
bears were seen in the 1940's. Since that time, there have been
no verified sightings, verified tracks, accidental kills of
grizzlies by black bear hunters, trapping of grizzlies by the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game as part of their black bear
research, sightings of grizzlies on annual aircraft wildlife
surveys, or verified photos of grizzlies at baited cameras placed
by management agencies.
The last verified death of a grizzly bear in the BE occurred in 1932 and the last tracks observed by Moore were in 1946 (Moore 1984). 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 since the 1940's. A limited 2-year remote-sensitive camera study in the Clearwater region did not detect the presence of grizzly bears (Servheen et al. 1990, Kunkel et al. 1991). This lack of any verified evidence for more than 50 years is evidence that there are no grizzly bears in the BE today. Based upon the best scientific evidence available, there are no grizzly bears in the BE at this time.
RECOVERY OF GRIZZLY BEARS IN THE BITTERROOT
The BE is unique among the six established grizzly bear
recovery areas in the United States in that there are no grizzly
bears. Recovery of grizzly bears in the BE through natural
recolonization is considered a remote possibility because of the
lack of movement or dispersal by grizzly bears in the northern
Rocky Mountains. Therefore, grizzly bear recovery will require
reintroduction of bears from other areas.
A variety of reintroduction alternatives could be feasible.
These include reintroduction under its current classification
done as a fully threatened species; reintroduction as
experimental, nonessential under section 10(j); and
reintroduction under experimental essential status under section
10(j). Experimental, essential status would be legally the same
as being listed as a threatened species. Section 10(j) allows the
Fish and Wildlife Service to reintroduce animals into former
range that is currently unoccupied and to develop special
management rules for the reintroduced bears by publication in the
Federal Reqister. These special management rules can be
crafted to the specific situation of the reintroduction area and
they can be written to allow additional management flexibility.
This management flexibility can add to acceptance of the
reintroduction by accommodating local conditions and needs and
thereby increase the possibility of success of the effort. A
possible application of this increased management flexibility
under section 10(j) status would be the use of a citizen
management committee which would allow local interests to
participate in the management of the experimental population. No
section 7(a)(2) reviews of Federal actions are necessary within
the reintroduction area under experimental nonessential status,
except for actions on National Wildlife Refuges and National
Parks within the reintroduction area (no National Wildlife
Refuges or National Parks exist within the BE). All bears
reintroduced under experimental, nonessential status would be
protected under the Endangered Species Act from illegal take, but
the take requirements are only those specified in the Special
Rule for that experimental population. A Federal Register
publication of a Final Special Rule would establish, for a
nonessential experimental population of bears, their
experimental, nonessential status, define the experimental area
within which this status will apply, and establish any special
management provisions such as sanitation on public lands, public
education efforts, or habitat management that will apply within
the experimental area.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an appropriate NEPA document must be prepared on any proposed Special Rule published in the Federal Register. An environmental impact statement (EIS) will examine the social, economic, and environmental consequences of a full
range of grizzly bear recovery alternatives for the BE,
including no action. Alternatives should include no
reintroduction, release of bears classified as essential, and
release of some grizzly bears as an experimental, nonessential
population under section 10(j) authority. Considerations of an
area for recovery would be centered upon a core area identified
in the evaluation process, with adjacent lands considered, as
necessary, to achieve the objectives of grizzly bear recovery.
Any proposed Special Rule will be published in the Federal
Register simultaneously with the release of the draft EIS.
Comments on both the Proposed Rule and the draft EIS will be
solicited. After comments have been received and considered, any
Final Rule and final EIS would then be followed by a signed
Record of Decision which will determine what action, if any, to
This chapter contains tasks that address the five factors in
section 4(a)(1) pertaining to the listing or delisting of any
species under the Endangered Species Act. These factors must be
addressed in any rule published in the Federal Register to
list or delist a species. The details of which tasks address
which factors are presented in Table 6-16.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR MANAGEMENT ACTION DURING THE FIRST
5-YEAR PERIOD OF RECOVERY ARE AS FOLLOWS: (references to
chapter sections are identified in parentheses)
1. Publish a Proposed Rule in the Federal Register to
designate grizzly bears reintroduced into the BE as a
nonessential experimental population to achieve recovery.
Evaluate the impacts of the Proposed Rule by preparing an EIS
which will analyze the impacts of the Proposed Rule and
alternative courses of action, including no action. The Proposed
Rule and draft EIS will be published simultaneously. Solicit
public comments on both the Proposed Rule and the draft EIS for
at least 60 days. Finalize documents based on public comment and
publish Final Rule or a Withdrawal Notice in the Federal
Register detailing the action and release final EIS to be
followed by a signed record of decision.
2. Initiate a public information program designed to inform
the public on grizzly bear recovery efforts. (B6)
3. Develop during the NEPA process a schedule for
implementation of appropriate management measures. (Bl33, B21144,
4. Continue to evaluate reported sightings of grizzly bears
in the BE. (B12, B33, B34, B41)
5. At the end of the first 5-year period, revise as necessary
the subgoals and review a plan of action for the second 5-year
FUTURE TASKS FOR ACHIEVING AND MAINTAINING RECOVERY
ONCE THE METHOD FOR RECOVERY OF GRIZZLY BEARS IN THE BE HAS BEEN
DETERMINED THROUGH THE RULE MAKING AND EIS PROCESSES:
Subgoal: For the BE, 14 females with cubs over a
running 6-year average, subject to revision as more information
becomes available; delineation and occupancy of Bear Management
Units (BMU's) will be determined at a future date; the subgoal
for known, annual human-caused mortality remains zero until at
least 90 grizzly bears are established. At that time, known,
human-caused mortality is not to exceed 4 percent of the minimum
estimate based on the most recent ar sum of females with cubs;
furthermore, no more than 30 percent of this mortality limit
shall be females.
Bl. Establish Objective for Recovery and Identify Limiting
Factors According to the Rules and Procedures Established for
Grizzly Bears in the BE. The long-term subgoals stated above
for grizzly bear recovery are tentative and may be altered as
more information becomes available. Subgoals were established to
ensure that sufficient numbers of grizzly bears exist throughout
the BE to allow for a self-sustaining number of bears. The
subgoals are based on the three key items monitored females with
cubs, occupancy of BMU'S, and known, human-caused mortality, and
indicate the status of the grizzly bears in the BE.
At this time, approximately 280 grizzly bears is the tentative
long-term recovery objective for the BE (see item No. 3 below).
This number would not be reached for perhaps 40-50 years. This
number is based on the size of the evaluation area, the relative
quantity and quality of grizzly bear habitat, and the reported
densities of grizzly bears in studies of similar habitats in
British Columbia and the United States. The evaluation area is
about 14,200 square kilometers (km2) in size (5,500
square miles (mi2)) (Figure 6-5), so a recovered
number of bears would equate to about one bear per 50 km2
within this area (one bear per 20 mi2).
There is no information on historical grizzly bear habitat
use or historical density in the BE. Therefore, the subgoals
detailed in this chapter are based on reasonable extrapolations
of knowledge gained through grizzly bear research conducted in
other areas and should be revised as additional information
becomes available. Provisional recovery subgoals for the BE were
developed using the following assumptions and methods:
1. Recovery of grizzly bears in the BE depends upon
verification of meeting the criteria for a recovery. A recovered
number of grizzly bears is defined as one that:
(a) Can sustain the existing and anticipated level of known and
unknown, unreported, human-caused mortality that exists
within the BE, and,
(b) Is well distributed throughout the recover area in the BE
2. There is a relationship between the sustainable
human-caused mortality level and the number of unduplicated
females with cubs. Therefore, the number of females with cubs can
be useful in establishing acceptable levels of mortality.
3. As grizzly bears in the BE recover, it is expected that
the grizzly density could reach at least one bear per 50 km2
(one bear per 20 mi2). This estimate is based on an
average of density estimates from grizzly research in British
Columbia, the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), and
the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Ecosystem. Habitat within the BE
varies in quality from highly productive sites to poor quality
habitat. Density potentials are based on habitats in other
ecosystems with habitats similar to those in the BE. Based on
habitat information provided in the Bitterroot Evaluation Area
study (Davis and Butterfield 1991), habitat within the BE has
been divided into three equal parts. Division criteria are
moisture and subsequent vegetation types, road densities, and
availability of spring range. Grizzly bear density for the best
habitat was estimated to approach one bear per 29 km2
(one bear per 11 mi2), one bear per 58 km2
(one bear per 22 mi2) for moderate habitat, and one
bear per 138 km2 (one bear per 53 mi2) for
poor habitat. Based on 4,677 km2 (1,805 mi2)
in each of the divisions, the minimum number of bears the BE
could support is 163 in the high density area, 81 in the
moderate, and 34 in the low. This suggests that the BE could
sustain an average of at least 278 grizzly bears, or
approximately one bear per 50 km2 (one bear per 20 mi2).
4. As the BE grizzly bears approach recovery, human-caused grizzly mortalities will
occur at some long-term rate due to inevitable interactions
between bears and people throughout the BE. Grizzly bear
mortality will probably increase as numbers of bears increase and
bear-human interactions increase.
5. The reporting efficiency for female grizzlies is 60 percent in selected areas of the
NCDE in Montana (Aune and Kasworm 1989). Until better data
are available, a 60 percent reporting efficiency will be used in
estimates of the number of grizzly bears in the BE. Thus, of all
females with cubs in the BE in a given year, it is assumed that
on average 60 percent will be detected/seen and reported. This is
a conservative estimate of females with cubs. Because of the
unroaded and densely forested nature of much of the BE, the
reporting efficiency is most likely lower than 60 percent, but
this figure is used to err toward a minimal estimate. The
calculated minimum number of females with cubs based on a 60
percent reporting efficiency will underestimate the actual
number. As more information is obtained in the BE, specific goals
based on better data will be developed.
6. On average, 33 percent of adult females (at least 5 years
old) will be with cubs each year. This is based on an average
3-year reproductive interval for adult females. Thus, the annual
average number of females with cubs can be multiplied by 3 to
estimate the minimum number of adult females in the area.
7. As is common in other grizzly bear ecosystems, the numbers
of grizzlies in the BE is expected to be 50 percent adults and 50
percent subadults (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, 1987, pp.
8. As common in other grizzly bear ecosystems, the sex ratio
of both adults and subadults is expected to approximate 1:1
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, 1987. pp. 47-59).
9. The maximum human-caused grizzly bear mortality level that
can be sustained without decline with the above-assumed
characteristics is 6 percent when no more than 30 percent of
these mortalities are females (Harris 1984).
10. Unknown, unreported, human-caused mortality will occur
each year at some level as the BE grizzly bear population
11. A running 6-year average of unduplicated females with cubs is based on a 3-year
reproductive cycle and will allow at least 2 years when each
adult female alive can be reported with cubs. A running 6-year
tally also will stabilize the average and make it less sensitive
to annual changes in reporting efforts.
12. Using the facts and assumptions about the grizzly bears
in the BE as stated above, and assuming that approximately 280
bears is a reasonable objective based on the size of the
ecosystem and the quality of grizzly habitat within the recovery
area, the subgoal for the minimum number of unduplicated females
with cubs on a running 6-year average is 14 verified reports,
both inside and within 10 miles of the recovery area boundary.
The subgoal of 14 females with cubs is sufficient to indicate
a minimum of at least 276 bears (using method of Knight et
Fourteen females with cubs seen divided by 0.6 (sightability
correction factor) = 23 total females with cubs; 23 X 3 = 69
adult females; 69 divided by 0.25 (the assumed proportion of
adult females, see items No. 7 and No. 8 above) = a minimum of
276, or approximately 280, grizzly bears in the BE.
13. A minimum of 280, as indicated by recovery subgoals, could sustain a maximum
human-caused mortality level of 6 percent per year without
280 X 0.06 = 17 human-caused bear mortalities
14. The current human-caused mortality subgoal to
facilitate recovery of the grizzlies in the BE is zero. In
reality, this goal may not be realized because human-bear
conflicts are likely to occur at some level within the BE.
Management should strive to prevent all human-caused mortality in
15. The annual subgoal should remain zero known,
human-caused mortalities. The female mortality subgoal
should remain zero until the 3 key parameters indicate a
minimum of at least 90 grizzly bears. Management should strive to
prevent all human-caused mortality within and surrounding the BE.
If control action is deemed absolutely necessary, the bears
probably would not experience overall decline if human-caused
mortality remains less than 4 percent. For instance, at least 86
grizzly bears could theoretically sustain a total of three
mortalities or one female mortality annually (86 X 0.04 = 3, and
3 X 0.30 = 1). Twenty-five grizzly bears could theoretically
sustain only-one male mortality annually (25 X 0.04 = 1).
However, these calculations do not account for demographic,
genetic, or other problems that can be dramatically amplified in
such small numbers of bears.
In the future, to facilitate recovery of grizzly bears
in the BE, and to allow for both error in minimum estimates of
the number of bears and for unknown, unreported mortality, the
maximum allowable human-caused mortality for the BE grizzly bears
should be 4 percent of the minimum estimate, 30 percent of which
may be females. In order to account for changes in numbers of
grizzly bears, and to establish a link between grizzly
bear numbers and allowable known, human-caused mortality, the
allowable mortality level should be recalculated annually using
the most recent 3-year sum of females with cubs as described in
N1, item No. 8 (above). This allowable human-caused mortality is
(a) It is applied to a minimum estimate of the number
of bears based on the number of females with cubs seen in the BE,
corrected by a conservative sightability factor (as detailed in
Bl, item No. 5). It is recognized that the actual total number of
bears is likely higher than the estimate.
(b) According to Harris (1984), a grizzly bear population can sustain 6 percent
human-caused mortality without experiencing a decline.
For the subgoal of 14 females with cubs, which
indicates a minimum of 280 bears, 4 percent annual, known,
human-caused mortality is equivalent to:
280 X 0.04 = 11 total known human-caused bear mortalities,
or 11 X 0.30 = 3 known human-caused female bear
Bll. Determine Conditions at Which the Species is Viable and Self-Sustaining.
Reevaluate and Refine Criteria as New Information Becomes
Available. Grizzly bears in the BE will be viable when
monitoring efforts indicate that recruitment and mortality are at
levels supporting a stable or increasing number of bears, and
reproducing females are distributed throughout the recovery area.
The BE grizzly bear population should be judged as meeting
recovery requirements when, as determined through systematic
monitoring throughout the recovery area, it meets each of the
(a) The average number of unduplicated female grizzly bears
with cubs is at least 14 annually on a running 6-year average
(this number is subject to revision as new information becomes
(b) At this time no BMU's have been delineated. Delineation and occupancy of
BMU's will be determined at a future date as data on home
range size and habitat use becomes available.
(c) The female mortality subgoal for this ecosystem is zero
until the 3 key parameters monitored indicate at least 90 bears.
At that time, the known, human-caused mortality level is not to
exceed 4 percent of the number of bears based on the most recent
3-year sum of females with cubs, minus known adult female
mortality. Additionally, no more than 30 percent of known,
human-caused mortality shall be females.
Blll. Determine Monitoring Methods and Criteria According
to the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the
BE. The maintenance of a secure and robust number of grizzly
bears will require ongoing careful monitoring. This monitoring
should provide data to allow reasonable assurance that the
numbers of bears are secure. The greater the number of parameters
monitored, the greater the assurance that the information is
representative of the status of the bears.
With this in mind, a system has been developed to monitor a wide range of parameters, with three being of primary importance. These include: unduplicated number of females with cubs seen annually, the distribution of females with young throughout the ecosystem, and the annual number of known human-caused mortalities. Other factors also should be monitored to increase the confidence in the information, but these three parameters should be the key criteria used to judge the status of the bears. The subgoal of distribution by females with young is designed to demonstrate adequate dispersion of the reproductive cohort within the recovery area. Distribution of reproducing females also provides evidence of adequate habitat management assuming that successful reproduction indicates habitat sufficiency. Finally, adequate distribution of family groups can indicate future occupancy of these areas because grizzly bear offspring, especially female offspring, tend to occupy habitat within or near the home range of their mother after weaning.
B112. Establish Reporting Procedures and Systems to Gather and Evaluate
Information on Numbers of Bears According to the Rules and
Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. All
cooperating agency personnel should report females with cubs of
the year on a standard form. Agency personnel should be assigned
to and responsible for one or more BMU's to ensure consistency in
collection of reporting information. It should be the
responsibility of such personnel to submit an annual report of
the number of verified females with cubs for their respective
BMU's to the appropriate reporting point by December 1 for
To eliminate duplicate reports, all sightings and track data
should be reviewed by agency representatives at an annual
meeting. A running 6-year average of unduplicated females with
cubs should be calculated using the annual report data. All
unduplicated females with cubs outside the recovery area line but
within 10 airline miles of the line shall be counted as part of
the total number seen within the recovery area during that year.
Additionally, observations of females with young should be
plotted annually for a running 6-year cumulative total for
determination of occupancy.
B12. Determine Current Conditions on the Number and Status of the Bears
According to the Rules and Procedures Established for
Grizzly Bears in the BE. The last documented death of a
grizzly bear in the BE occurred in 1932. Although occasional
reports of grizzly sightings persist in the BE (Melquist 1985),
no verified tracks or sightings have been documented in recent
years. A limited 2-year remote-sensitive camera study in the
Clearwater region did not detect the presence of grizzly bears
(Kunkel et al. 1991). Based upon the best scientific evidence
available, there are no grizzly bears in the BE.
B121. Gather Information on Behavior, Physiological Condition,
Distribution, Density, Food Habits, Home Range, Reproduction, Survivorship, Denning Activities, Genetic Diversity, and Disease. There is no biological information on grizzly bears in the BE because no studies were conducted before grizzly bears were extirpated and because there are no grizzly bears presently in the BE. Information on grizzly bears in other regions has been gathered since the 1960's through various research studies sponsored by universities; the Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; Wyoming Department of Fish and Game; National Park Service; Fish and Wildlife Service; and the Forest Service. These data are presented in biological journals and in annual project reports. If bears are reintroduced, these biological factors should be monitored in the BE.
B13. Identify the Man-Related Limiting Factors.
Mortality from direct and indirect sources within and surrounding
the recovery area must be addressed if grizzly bears are to
B131. Identify Sources of Direct Mortality. Sources of direct mortality
include illegal killing, accidental deaths and
management-associated removals. Accidental deaths include
mistaken identities by black bear hunters and other big game
hunters, and road kills (automobiles, trains, etc.) or handling
error when bears are captured for management or research.
Mortality also can result from control actions by private
citizens such as livestock operators, apiarists, outfitters, and
resort operators, for protection of property, and by hunters
defending their kills. Direct mortality also may occur during
agency control of nuisance bears for livestock conflicts,
property damage, or situations threatening to human life. Live
removal of a grizzly to a zoo or another ecosystem also is
considered a mortality because the bear is lost from the BE.
Mortality occasionally results from actions of private citizens
for self- defense or defense of others.
B132. Identify Sources of Indirect Mortality. Sources
of indirect mortality are those actions that bring bears and
people into conflict such as road use, land development, and
B133. Determine Effects of Human Activities on Bears and
Bear Habitat and Incorporate the Results Into Management Plans
and Decisions on Human Activities According to the Rules and
Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Conduct
research and monitor to document the effects of timber harvest,
road use, oil and gas exploration, hard rock mining, and
recreation on behavior, physiological condition, distribution,
density, food habits, home range, reproduction, survivorship, and
B2. Redress Limiting Factors on Numbers Should Bears be
Reintroduced According to the Rules and Procedures Established
for Grizzly Bears in the BE.
B21. Reduce Sources of Direct Mortality According to the Rules and Procedures
Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Recommended
annual human-induced grizzly bear mortality subgoal for
expediting species recovery is zero. This mortality
subgoal may not be achieved because some level of human-bear
conflict within the BE is inevitable, but every effort should be
made to limit mortalities to zero in the initial phases of
recovery when the numbers of bears will be low.
Known, human-caused mortalities in excess of a level
sustainable at a given number of unduplicated female with cubs
reports could result in decline while mortalities below this
level would likely result in an increase in numbers of bears. As
numbers of grizzlies increase, the number of sustainable, known,
human-induced mortalities also increases. The number of known
females with cubs should be used to calculate what is believed to
be a conservative estimate of the number of bears present.
Therefore, the projected limit of known, human-caused mortalities
set at less than 4 percent of this number is conservative.
However, in the near term after the initial reintroductions,
there will be insufficient numbers of bears in the BE to sustain
even very low levels of human-caused mortality. Management should
strive to prevent all human-caused mortality.
B211. Reduce Illegal Killing Should Bears be Reintroduced
According to the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly
Bears in the BE. Use all methods possible to minimize illegal
B2111. Coordinate State, Federal, and Tribal Law
Enforcement Efforts According to the Rules and Procedures
Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Provide a concerted
law enforcement effort by designating a specially trained law
enforcement team coordinated by the Fish and Wildlife
Service to minimize the illegal kill of grizzly bears. One or
more persons representing the Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest
Service, State of Montana, and
State of Idaho should be appointed. Each member should
receive specialized training to work on illegal kills of grizzly
bears. The team should be trained initially by the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks; Fish and Wildlife
Service; Idaho Department of Fish and Game; and other biologists
in such matters as distribution, home ranges of identifiable
bears, movements by season, mating habits, current location of
radio-marked bears and other biological information that may be
helpful to the team. Representatives from the Forest Service
should be encouraged to obtain training in order to more ably
assist in gathering field evidence.
All incidents of grizzly bear kills, suspected illegal
activities and rumors of kills should be communicated between the
enforcement team and their respective agencies on a daily basis
or as often as is practical.
The Enforcement Team Leader should keep all members of the
enforcement team, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks informed and
should organize coordination meetings and protocol as needed.
Special emphasis should be directed at covert operations which
may be operating commercially.
The Enforcement Team should operate through an interstate,
interagency agreement under the direction of the Fish and
It is imperative that the group leader establish a line of
communications and rapport with all field personnel, field office
staff and local law enforcement agencies in order that he may be
notified immediately on a violation or threat of a violation.
Public assistance should be solicited in reporting suspected
or known illegal kills. Persons furnishing information which
leads to a finding ofcivil violation or a conviction of a
criminal violation of 50 CFR, Part 17.40 regarding grizzly bears,
can be rewarded up to one-half of the fine or civil penalty.
States having toll free numbers for reporting violations or
for information should publicize their numbers as means of
reporting grizzly problems and grizzly bear deaths.
B2112. Reduce Mortality Associated with Big Game Hunting and
Mistaken Identity Killing by Black Bear Hunters According
to the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the
BE. State conservation agencies should provide information to
big game hunters to avoid conflicts with grizzly bears, including
camp sanitation, food storage, and game retrieval. Agencies will
continue to make information available to all black bear hunters
to assist them in distinguishing between black and grizzly bears.
State agencies should issue special warnings to black bear
hunters and other big game hunters using areas frequented by
grizzly bears. Black bear hunting regulations should be modified
as appropriate to reduce areas of significant conflicts or time
periods of conflict. Special attention should be given to
evaluate and modify, as necessary, bear baiting and the use of
hounds for bear hunting in the recovery area.
B2113. Investigate and Prosecute Illegal Killing of
Grizzly Bears. The special enforcement team should
investigate all grizzly bear mortalities and recommend
prosecution when appropriate.
B2114. Reduce Accidental Deaths According to the Rules and
Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Minimize those activities that result in attraction of bears to sites of potential conflict and management error that might result in losses.
B21141. Increase Efforts to Clean Up Carrion and Other
Attractants in Association With Roads, Human Habitation,
and Developed Areas Within Recovery Areas According to the Rules
and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. All
agencies should evaluate and improve warning signs along highways
and roads in high-use grizzly bear areas. All agencies should
increase efforts to clean up carrion and other attractants along
highways and other routes within occupied grizzly bear range.
B21142. Reduce Losses Due to Handling of Bears During
Research and Management Actions According to the Rules
and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. To
reduce losses due to handling of bears (e.g. an overdose of
immobilizing drugs or improper handling), only experienced
personnel that are certified by a sponsoring unit having the
required permits and knowledge in the application of capture
techniques, immobilizing drugs, transportation of drugged
animals, and scientific data collection should handle grizzly
bears. Only the safest, most effective drugs available should be
used. A detailed manual for trapping, immobilizing, transporting
and handling grizzly bears has been prepared for use by all
agencies as a training and reference manual.
B21143. Reduce Losses Due to Predator and Rodent Control
and Ensure That Such Control is Accomplished According to the
Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE.
Agencies responsible for licensing, conducting, or in any way
overseeing rodent damage control programs, using toxic substances
in occupied grizzly bear habitat, should try and minimize the
potential for grizzly bears to consume poisoned rodents or bait.
B21144. Ensure That Control of Nuisance Bears is
Accomplished According to the Rules and Procedures Established
for Grizzly Bears in the BE. All management control actions
should be carried out according to the Special Rule for grizzly
bears in the BE. The law enforcement team should carefully
investigate every case of grizzly bear mortality including those
alleged to be self-defense or defense of others.
B212. Appoint a Grizzly Bear Mortality Coordinator for the
BE. The Fish and Wildlife Service should appoint an employee
of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game as grizzly bear
mortality coordinator for Idaho. His/her duties should include
the tabulation of annual grizzly bear mortalities for all grizzly
bear ecosystems in Idaho, and assuring that all cooperating
agencies and the public have current mortality data. The
coordinator should maintain key contacts with all agencies and
keep detailed records of all conditions surrounding each grizzly
bear death. A standard form meeting the needs of all agencies
should be used. All reports of mortalities from Idaho should be
sent to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) grizzly
bear mortality coordinator for central record keeping.
B22. Identify and Reduce Sources of Indirect Mortality
According to the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly
Bears in the BE. Ongoing human actions in grizzly habitat
contribute to bear-human conflicts that often result in bear
deaths. Management of these activities in consideration of the
needs of bears will reduce indirect mortality.
B221. Ensure That Livestock Grazing is Accomplished According to the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Applicable guidelines regarding spatial and habitat requirements for grizzly bears will be addressed during development of the EIS. On Federal lands, Forest Plan standards and guidelines for other resources (fisheries, watershed, elk) will be adhered to. On State and private lands, agencies and field personnel of agencies involved in grizzly bear management should strive to educate grazers about ways to minimize potential conflicts with grizzly bears through a cooperative extension effort.
B222. Ensure That Timber Harvest and Road Building are
Accomplished According to the Rules and Procedures Established
for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Applicable guidelines regarding
spatial and habitat requirements for grizzly bears will be
addressed during development of the EIS. On Federal lands, Forest
Plan standards and guidelines for other resources (fisheries,
watershed, elk) will be adhered to. On State and private lands,
agencies and field personnel of agencies should adhere to
applicable state forest practices and water quality laws.
B223. Ensure That Mining and Oil and Gas Exploration and
Development is Accomplished According to the Rules and Procedures
Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. On Federal lands,
Forest Plan standards and guidelines for other resources
(fisheries, watershed, elk) will be adhered to. On State and
private lands, agencies and field personnel of agencies should
adhere to applicable state forest practices and water quality
B224. Ensure That Recreation is Accomplished According to
the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE.
On Federal lands, Forest Plan standards and guidelines for other
resources (fisheries, watershed, elk) will be adhered to. On
State and private lands, agencies and field personnel of agencies
involved in grizzly bear management should communicate ways to
minimize bear-human conflicts as a cooperative extension effort.
B225. Coordinate With State and County Governments to Provide
Information on How Land Development and Land Use Decisions Can Be Made Compatible with Grizzly Bear Habitat Needs According to the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Land management agencies, State regulatory agencies, county commissioners, and county zoning boards should be encouraged to give consideration to the needs of grizzly bears in any actions requiring their approval. When homes, summer homes, cabins, camps, farm operations, dog kennels, pig farms, garbage dumps and other attractants, and livestock carcass disposal sites are allowed within habitat occupied by grizzly bears, they will directly or indirectly effectively reduce the space and habitat necessary for bear survival. On private lands, wildlife managers should give consideration to contacting local landowners about sanitation practices to minimize conflicts and to purchase, lease or obtain easements if habitat components are necessary to the survival of the species.
B23. Coordinate, Monitor and Report on Activities Relating to Redressing
Limiting Factors According to the Rules and Procedures
Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. This should be
accomplished through the activities of the Recovery Coordinator
and the management system outlined in the Special Rule for the
BE. Actions should be taken by the management committee as
necessary to address needs and to ensure implementation of the
Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Chapter and procedures
established for grizzly bears in the BE.
B3. Establish the Habitat Based Recovery Criteria Required
for a Recovered Number of Grizzly Bears According to the Rules
and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Careful
definition of the experimental population area will allow
agencies and the public to know where grizzly bears and grizzly
habitat will be managed. Information on range and the biology of
bears as well as the nature and quality of habitat is necessary
to ensure that habitat is properly managed and that the habitat
delineated has sufficient quality and quantity to support a
B31. Define the Experimental Population Area Within Which the Grizzly Bear Will be Managed According to the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE if Designation of an Experimental Population Under Section 10(j) is Selected Through the EIS Process. In 1986, the grizzly habitat evaluation area for the BE was delineated by members of the Northwest Ecosystem Management Subcommittee of the IGBC (Figure 6-5). This was a geographic evaluation area delineated to ensure a timely and critical examination of a central core area in the Bitterroot Mountains. Because of limited data, the evaluation area did not include potentially suitable habitat south of the Salmon River or north along the Idaho-Montana border. The results of this evaluation demonstrated that there exists a core area of 14,200 km2 (5,500 mi2) that is suitable grizzly bear habitat. The habitat evaluation did not extend beyond the area shown in Figure 6-5 and it is probable that suitable grizzly bear habitat exists beyond both the northern and southern boundaries of this initial evaluation area. It is proposed that the experimental area be designated as part of the EIS process and during the development of the Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Special Rule. Considerations of the area for recovery would be centered upon the core area identified in the evaluation process, with adjacent lands considered, as necessary, to achieve the objectives of grizzly bear recovery.
B32. Delineation of BMU's According to the Rules and Procedures Established for
Grizzly Bears in the BE. Delineation of BMU's will be
determined when data on home range size and habitat use are
available or existing data are deemed applicable to the BE.
B33. Conduct Research to Determine the Extent of Grizzly
Bear Range According to the Rules and Procedures Established for
Grizzly Bears in the BE. A concerted effort is needed by
cooperating agencies to conduct studies on home range and range
expansion of grizzly bears within the Bitterroot Recovery Area
after reintroduction should that be the approach selected through
the EIS process.
B34. Conduct Research to Determine Habitat Use, Food
Habits, Home Range Size, and Seasonal Habitat Preference
According to the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly
Bears in the BE. These data should be used to ensure that
habitat values are available and that ongoing management actions
do not significantly degrade these habitat values. Research
should be conducted as needed by cooperating agencies. Results
are to be used to judge the effectiveness of management policies.
Policies should be adjusted as necessary when research
demonstrates the need to do so according to the rules and
procedures established for grizzly bears in the BE.
B35. Conduct Research to Determine the Relationship Between Habitat Values,
Physiological Condition of Bears, and the Ability of the Habitat to Sustain a Bear Density Necessary to Achieve Viable Size After Reintroduction Should That Be the Approach Selected Through the EIS Process. Research should be conducted as needed by cooperating agencies. Results are to be used by management agencies to judge the effectiveness of management policies. Policies should be adjusted as necessary when research demonstrates the need to do so.
B4. Monitor Numbers of Bears and Habitat. Monitoring
is necessary for determination of status and to assess the
success of conservation efforts associated with recovery. An
increasing number of bears validates ongoing management efforts,
while a decreasing number indicates a failure to address
B41. Monitor Bears During and After Reintroduction, Should
That Be the Approach Selected Through the EIS Process, According
to the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the
BE. Develop and apply techniques to ensure the number of
bears is carefully monitored.
B411. Develop and Conduct an Intensive Monitoring System to Measure the
Annual Number of Females with Cubs, Family Groups, and
Number of Human-Caused Mortalities According to the Rules and
Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. (The
method is detailed in Bll and Blll.)
B412. Develop a System of Agency Responsibilities to Collate, Analyze, and
Report Annual Information on Number of Bears According to
the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE.
(The system is detailed in B112.)
B413. Standardize Observation Report Forms and Methods, and Develop
Training Methods for all Persons Involved in Reporting
Sightings of Females With Cubs and Family Groups According to the
Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE.
(Reporting system detailed in B112.) Training methods should
involve identification materials to enable all individuals
involved to be able to identify the bear species seen or to be
able to report unknown species. Training methods should be
distributed to all agency reporting personnel and should be
formally presented in training sessions to seasonal and staff
personnel at the beginning of each year in order to ensure
quality observation data.
B42. Monitor Habitat Before, During, and After Recovery According to the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Develop and apply techniques to ensure the habitat is carefully monitored and that habitat is sufficient to sustain a recovered number of grizzly bears.
B421. Report Management Activities Used to Successfully Manage Habitat
According to the Rules and Procedures Established for
Grizzly Bears in the BE. To be completed as part of the
ongoing business of the management agencies, the Bitterroot
Ecosystem Management Committee, and the Recovery Coordinator.
Standards for report content and format should be developed.
B422. Develop a System to Ensure Habitat Monitoring and
Monitoring of Bear Numbers That Will Continue in Force After
Recovery According to the Rules and Procedures Established for
Grizzly Bears in the BE. To be completed as status data
indicate attainment of the recovery targets. The purpose of this
is to ensure proper habitat and monitoring so that the species
will remain recovered without protection under the Act.
B5. Manage Populations and Habitat According to the Rules
and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Apply
the best management techniques to achieve recovered populations.
B51. Refine Procedures for Relocation of or Aversively
Conditioning Nuisance Grizzly Bears According to the Rules and
Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Develop
and coordinate procedures to expedite the relocation of nuisance
bears, review and update interagency agreements. Relocate bears
within 24 hours and continue searches for new release areas.
Research and develop methods to deal with problem bears and test
and develop aversive conditioning of bears, if possible.
B52. Develop and Test Procedures for Reintroducing Grizzly Bears Into the BE
According to the Rules and Procedures Established for
Grizzly Bears in the BE, If That Alternative is Selected as Part
of the EIS Process. Sources of bears would be ecosystems with
larger populations, including those in Canada. If reintroduction
of bears was selected, initially a small number of bears would be
released over a period of several years. This is due to logistic
concerns and the need to evaluate the reintroductions before any
further reintroductions would be considered. Both male and female
bears would be released to establish the basis for a breeding
population. Only bears with no history of human conflict would be
Public safety and maximizing the probability of the success
of the effort would be primary considerations in selecting
reintroduction sites and the types of bears that would be moved.
Therefore, reintroduced bears would be released into high quality
habitat in back-country areas in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness
where the potential for human-bear conflict would be minimal. All
reintroduced bears would be closely monitored. Strict interagency
guidelines and agreements would be developed to allow for the
aversive conditioning, relocation, or removal of any reintroduced
bear that came into conflict with people.
B53. Manage Populations and Habitats on Private and State
Lands According to the Rules and Procedures Established for
Grizzly Bears in the BE. Review existing grizzly bear
standards and guidelines utilized by the Forest Service and other
agencies and landowners. Develop and apply management actions
prior to recovery that maintain or enhance habitats. Recommend
land use activities compatible with grizzly bear requirements for
space and habitat; minimize potential for human/bear conflicts.
Implement cooperative efforts with State lands agencies and
private land owners to assist in application of methods and
actions sensitive to grizzly bear habitat needs. Cooperative
efforts between county, State, and Federal land management
agencies would facilitate this.
B6. Develop and Initiate Appropriate Information and
Education Programs According to the Rules and Procedures
Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Managing
human-caused grizzly mortalities is a major factor in effecting
the recovery of the grizzly bear. Therefore, it is crucial to the
recovery effort that the public understands reasons for actions
in order to generate favorable or tolerant attitudes toward the
bear. The IGBC has appointed an Information and Education
subcommittee to work on the development of education programs and
information dissemination. Private conservation organizations
interested in the recovery of grizzly bears could be of
assistance by including appropriate information in their
publications and news releases.
B61. Evaluate Public Attitudes Toward Grizzly Bear Management, Grizzly Habitat
Protection and Maintenance, Land Use Restrictions, Mitigating Measures, Relocation of Bears, Hunting, Nuisance Bear Control Actions, and Habitat Acquisition or Easement According to the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Public attitudes are a major part of the success or failure ofgrizzly bear recovery efforts. Understanding of these attitudes and the basis for public sentiment is important. Research surveys designed by qualified scientists experienced in such sampling should be initiated. The basic questions and attitudes of interest should be formulated by the management subcommittee members. The data would be useful in designing public outreach programs to foster public support for recovery programs.
B62. Formulate Ways to Improve Public Attitudes Toward Grizzly Bears and the
Grizzly Bear Recovery Program According to the Rules and
Procedures Established for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Agencies
should use the data on public attitudes to formulate public
relations and information and education (I&E) programs
through the respective I&E offices of each agency and the
I&E subcommittee of the IGBC. Agencies having the authority
and responsibility for control actions should institute and carry
out information and education programs. Citizens who live in or
near grizzly habitat should be kept informed of the appropriate
agency contacts for assistance should a bear-human conflict
B7. Ensure That Regulations are Consistent and Up To Date
According to the Rules and Procedures Established for Grizzly
Bears in the BE, and that International Cooperation and
Communication are Maintained with all Other Countries Where Brown
Bears are Being Managed.
B71. Recommend Revisions in Federal and State Regulations,
as Necessary According to the Rules and Procedures Established
for Grizzly Bears in the BE. Regulations may be revised to
ensure regulatory adequacy. These regulations include CFR
regulations, and national forest regulations regarding
sanitation. State regulations involved include regulations on the
taking of bears.
B72. Coordinate and Exchange Information and Expertise Concerning Bear Research and Management with Canada and Other Countries. This Will Increase Information Exchange of the State-Of-The-Art in Bear Research and Management, Promote International Cooperation, Improve Management, and Facilitate Recovery Efforts. All agencies and the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator should exchange information and expertise concerning recovery activities with Canada and other countries managing bears. This exchange will promote international cooperation and improve management and recovery efforts. International cooperation is important to the success of the grizzly bear recovery effort. Four grizzly populations span the United States/Canada border and the cooperation and involvement of Canadian management authorities will facilitate conservation of grizzlies in the United States. Management authorities from British Columbia and Alberta need to be full participants in all aspects of the recovery program. Research conducted in Canada on grizzly bears is applicable to situations in the United States and cooperation in funding such research, cooperative efforts involving personnel from both countries, and sharing of research results is vital. Joint United States/Canadian management of bears and bear habitat is necessary for the four ecosystems that lie along the United States/Canada border, as well as for international cooperation to obtain bears for reintroduction into the BE.
B8. Ensure That the Bitterroot Chapter Recovery Tasks Address the Five Factors in Section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act. The five factors in section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act are: (1) the present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or range, (2) over utilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes, (3) disease or predation, (4) inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms, and (5) other natural or manmade factors affecting the continued existence of grizzly bears in the BE. There is overlap between the five factors and the tasks in this chapter. Many tasks address several of the factors. To simplify the relationships, Table 6-16 presents a matrix of the relationships between the tasks and the factors. All tasks are in this Bitterroot grizzly bear recovery chapter.
The tasks in this chapter address these five factors as
Table 6-16. The relationship between the five factors in
section 4(a)(1) and the tasks in this chapter.
1. Present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of habitat
B1, Bll, Blll, B12, B121, B131, B132, B133, B21141, B21143, B22, B221, B222, B223, B224, B225, B3, B31, B32, B33, B34, B35, B4, B42, B421, B422, B5, B53
B1, Bll, Blll, B112, B12, B13, B131, B132, B133, B2, B21, B211, B2111, B2112, B2113, B2114, B21141, B21142, B21143, B21144, B212, B22, B221, B222, B223, B224, B225, B4, B41, B411, B412, B413, B5, B51, B6, B61, B62
3. Disease or predation
Bll, Blll, B121, B211, B2111, B2112, B2113, B2114, B21141, B21143, B21144
4. Inadequacy of regulatory mechanisms
Bl, Blll, B112, B132, B133, B2, B21, B211, B2111, B2112, B2113, B2114, B21141, B21142, B21143, B21144, B212, B22, B221, B222, B223, B224, B225, B23, B413, B4, B42, B421, B422, B53, B6, B61, B62, B7, B71, B72
5. Other factors
B21144, B51, B52, B7, B71, B72
Aune, K. and W. Kasworm. 1989. Final report East Front
grizzly bear study. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and
Parks. Helena, Montana. 332 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
Harris, R. 1984. Harvest age structure as an indicator of
grizzly bear population status. M.S. Thesis, University of
Montana, Missoula. 204 pp.
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 1987. Grizzly bear
compendium. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana.
Knight, R.R., D.J. Matson, and B.M. Blanchard. 1984. Movements and habitat use of the
Yellowstone grizzly bear. Unpublished report to the
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. National Park Service,
Forestry Sciences Lab., Montana State University, Bozeman. 177
Knight, R.R., J. Beecham, B. Blanchard, L. Eberhardt, L.
Metzgar, C. Servheen, J. Talbot. 1988. Equivalent population size
for 45 adult females. Report of Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
Population Task Force. Unpublished. National Park Service,
Bozeman, Montana. 7 pp.
Kunkel, K.E., W.E. Clark, G. Servheen. 1991. A remote camera
survey for grizzly bears in low human use areas of the Bitterroot
Grizzly Bear Evaluation Area. Draft Report, Idaho Fish and Game,
Boise. 11 pp.
Melquist, W.E. 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. 54 pp.
Moore, W. 1984. The last of the Bitterroot grizzly. Montana
Magazine. (November-December): 8-12.
Moore, W. 1996. The Grizzly Bear in the Bitterroot. In
Servheen G., M. Nadeau, and C. Queen. 1990. A survey for grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Evaluation Area. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. Unpublished Report. Boise, Idaho. 11 pp.
APPENDIX 15. PLAN FOR DETERMINING GRIZZLY BEAR
NUISANCE STATUS AND FOR CONTROLLING
NUISANCE GRIZZLY BEARS
THE INTERAGENCY GRIZZLY BEAR COMMITTEE RECOGNIZES THAT:
WHEREAS, it is mutually recognized that it is necessary to:
A. Comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act which
requires Federal agencies to protect the grizzly bear (Ursus
arctos horribilis), a threatened species, and its habitat.
B. Comply with Fish and Wildlife Service rules and
regulations relating to the removal of nuisance bears (FEDERAL
REGISTER, Vol. 40, No. 145 - Monday, July 28, 1975).
C. Comply with Fish and Wildlife Service rules and
regulations relating to interagency cooperation under the
Endangered Species Act with emphasis on formal consultation
related to management actions affecting grizzly bears (FEDERAL
REGISTER, Vol. 43, No. 2 - Wednesday, January 24, 1978).
D. Identify the responsibilities of the respective agencies
for determining grizzly bear nuisance status and for controlling
nuisance grizzly bears.
E. Provide a mutually developed and mutually acceptable plan
which contains a uniform interagency approach for management of
grizzly bears and their habitat and for determining grizzly bear
nuisance status and for controlling nuisance grizzlies.
F. Provide for an Aggregate Consultation on all management
actions related to grizzly bears specified in the IGBC
Guidelines, including nuisance bear control measures.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above premises, the parties hereto agree as follows:
A. To accept the "Guidelines" as the primary source
for management decisions involving grizzly bears and their
habitat and not to determine grizzly bear nuisance status or
control nuisance bears without assistance of other appropriate
parties to the agreement.
B. The Forest Service, as the public land administering
agency on National Forests, shall:
Coordinate all actions and participate in decisions relating to the determination of grizzly bear nuisance status and controlling nuisance grizzly bears on National Forest lands. Coordination means requesting assistance and participation of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the Departments, and, in some cases, the Park Service.
C. The Fish and Wildlife Service, as advisor to the Federal
land management agencies in matters pertaining to fish and
wildlife management, shall:
In those cases when the Fish and Wildlife Service is aware of
the grizzly-human conflict situation first, initiate the
coordination process by notifying the Departments and the Federal
land management agency and participate in the determination of
grizzly bear nuisance status, and shall provide necessary
expertise required for the control of nuisance grizzly bears.
D. The Departments as the agencies responsible for the
management of the States' wildlife resources, shall:
In those cases when the Departments are aware of the
grizzly-human conflict situation first, initiate the coordination
process by notifying the appropriate Federal land management
agency and the Fish and Wildlife Service and otherwise
participate in the determination of grizzly bear nuisance status
and shall contribute necessary expertise, operational services or
other acceptable methods for the control of nuisance grizzly
E. The Park Service, as the agency responsible for the
management and administration of all resources in the National
Govern the taking of grizzly bears in National Parks. Park
Service Personnel shall be invited to participate in the
determination of grizzly bear nuisance status and to participate
in the relocation of those bears judged to be potentially
suitable for relocation into National Parks.
F. It is Mutually Agreed and Understood By and Among the Said
1. All IGBC agencies will exchange phone contact lists of
designated representatives assigned to implement these provisions
and to decide on nuisance bear status.
2. All IGBC agencies will make an effort to have permittees
notify the land management agency of all grizzly bear associated
problems and to notify the respective State wildlife agencies
when property damage occurs.
3. Relocations of bears between grizzly bear ecosystems will
be done in accordance with State and Federal laws, regulations,
4. Amendments to this Plan may be made at any time with
written concurrence of the IGBC and appropriate consultation.
5. Each IGBC agency and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) (Tribes) will coordinate its respective grizzly bear control procedures in full accordance with this Plan.
6. This plan will become effective on the publication of the
final notice in the Federal Register on the Interagency Grizzly
Bear Guidelines. This Plan shall automatically be renewed
annually and remain in force until revoked or amended.
7. Any IGBC agency may terminate participation in this Plan
upon 120 days written notice to each of the other agencies.
8. The attached Plan provides operational guidelines for
determining grizzly bear nuisance status and for controlling
nuisance grizzly bears in the conterminous United States.
Handling and control of nuisance grizzly bears will be governed
by the grizzly bear special rule (50 CFR 17.40) and per
discussions and/or resulting agreements between IGBC member
agencies and APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service)
animal damage control.
9. The "Guidelines and a "Plan" have been
submitted to the Fish and Wildlife Service as a formal aggregate
consultation since the projects, activities, and programs are
logically grouped, their effects should be similar and such an
aggregate consultation should greatly economize consultation
activities related to and required for grizzly management.
The purpose of this document is to:
1. Document management direction agreed upon by participating
agencies with respect to determination of grizzly bear nuisance
status, and the capture, translocation, release and/or disposal
of nuisance grizzly bears.
2. Guide managers in making rapid, effective, and responsible
decisions and initiating action regarding grizzly bear control
II. Guidelines for Determining Grizzly Bear Nuisance
These guidelines apply to the Management Situation Areas
defined in Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines (IGBC
1986). In Management Situations Areas 1 and 2, grizzlies must be
determined to be a nuisance by specific criteria before they can
be controlled. In Situation Areas 3 and 5, any grizzly involved
in a grizzly-human conflict situation is considered a nuisance
and will be controlled. Control must be compatible with Grizzly
Bear Recovery Plan objectives for limiting man-caused grizzly
mortality and with Federal and State laws and regulations.
A grizzly bear may be determined to be a nuisance if any or
all of the following conditions apply:
Condition A. The bear causes significant depredation to
lawfully present livestock or uses unnatural food materials
(human and livestock foods, garbage, home gardens, livestock
carrion, and game meat in possession of man) which have been
reasonably secured from the bear resulting in conditioning of the
bear or significant loss of property.
Condition B. The bear has displayed aggressive (not
defensive) behavior toward humans which constitutes a demonstrable
immediate or potential threat to human safety and/or a minor
human injury resulted from a human/bear encounter.
Condition C. The bear has had an encounter with people
resulting in a substantial, human injury or loss of human
The following are considerations in determining
grizzly nuisance status under Condition A:
Unnatural foods were reasonably secure from grizzlies.
Reasonably secure means all steps were taken to comply with
guideline objectives (a) Maintain and Improve Habitat and (b)
Minimize Grizzly-Human Conflict Potential. The following are
examples of reasonably secure conditions:
(1) sight and/or smell of edibles and/or garbage was not
dominant (i.e., food was canned or in other sealed containers)
and edibles and/or garbage was made unavailable (hung out of
reach or secured in a solid-sided-bear-proof structure).
Livestock use did not occur in habitat components critically
important to grizzlies in time or space;
(2) livestock and wildlife carcasses were removed destroyed
or treated so that the material would not reasonably be expected
to attract grizzlies.
(3) game meat was stored at least 100 yards from any sleeping
(4) no baits were placed for purposes of sport hunting black
bears, nor did any artificial feeding of bears occur.
The following are considerations in determining grizzly
nuisance status under Condition B:
The bear has displayed aggression toward man. Sound evidence must be available to establish that the bear acted aggressively without provocation (not defensively), and that such behavior constituted a threat to human safety and/or a minor human injury occurred as a result of a nondefensive grizzly attack.
The following are considerations in determining grizzly
nuisance status under Condition C:
An encounter with people which resulted in a serious
human injury or loss of human life. A bear that is involved in an
accidental encounter with people, defense of young, or in a
provoked attack (the bear acted defensively not aggressively)
which results in a minor human injury should not be considered a
nuisance under this condition.
If information is insufficient to clearly establish the above
requisites under Conditions A, B, and C, then the involved
bear(s) probably should not be determined a nuisance under that
condition. The criteria in Table 6-17 should be used to guide
Certain specific grizzlies have known behavioral patterns,
which, when combined with location, time and other factors,
indicate that an incident is highly probable. In such situations,
direct preventive action designed to safely remove the bear(s)
from the situation (prior to an occurrence which would result in
nuisance status and possible loss of the bear(s) to the
ecosystem) can be implemented regardless of the Management
Situation involved. Human activities must be in compliance with
applicable guidelines to minimize potential for grizzly-human
conflicts for that Management Situation. Control actions should
be designed to capture and remove the specific target bear(s).
In other situations, a bear may move into a visitor use or
residential area without causing an incident, but there is
indication that due to its persistent use of the area, it may
become overly-familiar with humans and may become habituated. The
animal may be relocated if a suitable release site (free of
circumstances similar to the capture site) is available. This is
an action to prevent a possible incident or habituation of the
bear. It does not count as an offense when determining the
disposition of the bear (using Table 6-17), should the bear be
recaptured in a future control action.
III. Grizzly Bear Control Action
1. If a grizzly bear is not determined to be a nuisance after
consideration of criteria in Section II, no control action will
2. Capture of nuisance grizzly bears outside National Parks
is the primary responsibility of the State Fish and Game Agency
in conjunction with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
National Park Service is responsible for bear capture within
National Parks. Data forms for recording information about the
captured bear(s) and the control action are provided in the
Appendix. Nuisance bear forms should be completed by the onsite
official and forwarded to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator
for subsequent distribution.
3. Nuisance grizzlies that are sick or injured beyond a point
where natural recovery is likely will be removed from the
population. Other nuisance grizzlies will be controlled according
to the guidelines in Table 6-17.
4. After a bear has been captured during a control action,
the decision on where to relocate the bear or whether to kill it
must be made within 24 hours of its capture. The relocation must
be made as expeditiously as possible after the disposition of the
bear is determined. Bears will not be held in a snare but will be
immobilized, marked, and placed in an appropriate holding
facility (can be a culvert trap).
With due consideration of mortality risk associated with
immobilization grizzly bears released should be marked
with numbered ear tags, lip tattoo and functioning radio
transmitters. Monitoring will be a cooperative effort between
State and Federal agencies. On-site release may be accomplished
if the bear taken is: (a) determined not to be a nuisance bear
or; (b) on a first offense when the bear cannot be relocated
because of terrain, weather, or inaccessibility to a relocation
site. Females with cubs, where relocation is identified in the
above table, will be released on-site if relocation is not
feasible for previously stated reasons or if the cubs cannot also
be caught and relocated with the female. An on-site release will
not be conducted in developed areas. On-site releases will be
accomplished after approval of the land management agency if the
release is monitored in such a way to determine its success or
failure with respect to bear survival and conflict resolution.
5. If a bear is to be killed, the action will be completed
only by authorized State or Federal or Tribal employees. A
grizzly bear mortality report form should be completed and the
carcass forwarded to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks lab in Bozeman, Montana, for examination and subsequent
6. The initiating agency may "take back" a
relocated bear, according to case-by-case agreements.
7. The State Fish and Game Regional Office will be the
principal coordination point for all control actions, unless
specified other-wise in the initial discussions on a particular
The public and news media are extremely interested in all
operations involving grizzly bears. To insure that they receive
the proper information, it is critical that information be shared
between all involved agencies in an accurate and timely manner.
Planned news releases will be the responsibility of the State
Fish and Game agency in close consultation with the administering
land management agency (or Tribe) and the Grizzly Bear Recovery
Table 6-17. Guidelines for Grizzly Bear Control Action (see Footnotes)
Prime Adult with Young
Old Adult with Young
*REL = Relocate **REM = REMOVE FROM POPULATION ***RLS = RELEASE ON SITE
(Nuisance grizzlies that are sick or injured
beyond a point where natural recovery is likely will be removed.)
Cub = Young of the Year Young = Cub, yearling, or subadult accompanying mother.
Yearling = 12 to 24 months old Old = Indicates advanced age and deteriorated physical state,
Subadult = 24 to 48 months old indicators are
tooth wear and physical appearance.
Literature Cited: Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 1986. Interagency grizzly bear guidelines. U.S. For. Serv., Washington, D.C. 100pp.
APPENDIX 16. GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY IN THE
BITTERROOT ECOSYSTEM - SCOPING OF ISSUES
AND ALTERNATIVES BROCHURE
APPENDIX 17. EXPLANATION OF EXISTENCE VALUE
CALCULATIONS FROM CHAPTER IV ECONOMIC
The economic analysis of the Chapter IV alternatives includes
a calculation of "existence values" associated with the
proposed alternatives. This appendix is intended to provide an
explanation of what existence values are and how they are
calculated. A parallel, more technical explanation of this
subject is included in the discussion of economic effects
associated with Alternative 1. It should be noted that the
following description of existence values and their calculation
within this analysis is intentionally general and non-technical,
and is intended simply as a layman's description of the
techniques used in this report for those not familiar with the
concept of existence values.
Conservation and other advocacy organizations demonstrate
that individuals in the economy attach an economic value to such
things as preserving endangered species, open spaces, and
wilderness areas. This economic value is demonstrated through the
simple fact that individuals are willing to donate money to
organizations working towards these goals. Some of this
demonstrated value is due to the fact that people anticipate
"using" the resources they are paying to help preserve
through activities such as hiking, hunting, or wildlife viewing.
This portion of the value is known in economics as "use
value". Some people, however, may never intend to make any
direct use of a resource, but still attach a value to the
preservation of that resource. They may hold this value for a
number of reasons: 1) they may want to preserve the resource for
future generations (bequest value); 2) they may want to hold open
the option to use the resource in some way in the future although
they have no immediate plans to do so (option value); or 3) they
may simply feel that preservation of a resource is the
"right" thing to do, and thus attach a value to it
(existence value). The term existence value as used in this
analysis collectively includes existence, option, and bequest
values, but does no include any aspect of use value.
People demonstrate their existence values in the marketplace
by contributing to organizations such as the Nature Conservancy,
Ducks Unlimited, or Defenders of Wildlife. However, whether
people enjoy existence values of resources is not contingent upon
whether they donate money to support a cause. The fact that some
individuals are willing to donate money is just the most obvious
manifestation of these existence values.
Given the fact that existence values exist, the problem
facing economists is how to measure these values without actually
collecting the monetary equivalent of these values. The technique
used in this analysis, contingent valuation, is the only method
available to economists to measure existence values. This method
has been used in hundreds of applications worldwide in the past
two decades. Contingent valuation is recognized by governmental
regulatory agencies such as the Department of Interior, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration as the
appropriate tool for use in measuring non-use values such as
In measuring the existence value associated with grizzly
reintroduction to the Bitterroot Ecosystem, a sample of
respondents was contacted by phone and surveyed on their
knowledge and attitudes about grizzly bears and the grizzly
reintroduction into the BE issue (Duda and Young 1995). One
question in this survey asked respondents how much they would be
willing to contribute to either support or oppose grizzly
reintroduction in the BE. The average donation amount stated by
the two distinct groups of respondents (those supporting and
those opposing reintroduction), was used as a measure of
existence value. When these average existence values were
multiplied by the estimated number of people in the country who
supported or opposed reintroduction, the result was an estimate
of total existence values for those supporting reintroduction,
and negative existence value for the group opposing
reintroduction. The net economic existence value associated with
grizzly reintroduction in the BE was calculated by subtracting
the value for the group opposing reintroduction from the value
for the group supporting reintroduction.
A necessary next step in the estimation of existence values
was to make an adjustment to the stated values based on the
understanding that people may say they are willing to
contribute more to a cause than they are actually willing to
contribute. To adjust for this probable overstatement, the net
economic existence value estimates were reduced on the order of
70% to 75%. Finally, these lump-sum existence value estimates
were annualized over a perpetual time horizon at a 7% rate. The
resulting existence value was reported in the summary cost and
benefits tables for the alternatives.
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.
APPENDIX 18. EXPECTED TIMELINE TO COMMENCE IMPLEMENTION OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND
INITIAL IMPLEMENTATION-ASSOCIATED SANITATION
EFFORTS TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS
The USFWS vision for the implementation of Alternative 1
includes a "phase-in" period to establish the Citizen
Management Committee, implement sanitation standards, install
sanitation equipment, and perform public outreach information and
education activities. This first year of implementation would be
a joint effort of the CMC and management agencies and would serve
to lessen social impacts and potential conflicts from the
reintroduction of grizzly bears to the BE.
Figure 6-6 illustrates an expected timeline for the implementation of this alternative. During the spring of 1998, the CMC would be organized after the Record of Decision is signed and the NEPA process is completed. Information and education efforts would commence immediately. A broad outreach program would be initiated to inform the public about plans to reintroduce grizzly bears to the BE, and to educate the public about grizzly bears and their management. A voluntary sanitation program would be implemented during the first year of the program in 1998. The CMC would review sanitation needs and make recommendations regarding the sanitation improvements for the BE during the spring-summer of 1998. Placement of the first reintroduced bears is expected to occur between June-August of 1999. This reintroduction would likely be in the Selway watershed of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area. Simultaneous with placement of the first bears, CMC sanitation improvements would begin to be made in the Clearwater and Selway watersheds. Education and outreach activities to improve sanitation for all species would begin in spring 1998 and continue for the remainder of the reintroduction phase. Placement of the second group of reintroduced grizzly bears would occur between June-August 2000 in the Selway watershed of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness. The CMC would continue to monitor and make management recommendations to improve sanitation, and insure the success of the reintroduction program. Reintroductions of grizzly bears would continue per guidance of the special rule.