' s 333.95978414 F2gbmp 2002 GRIZZLY BEAR Management Plan for Southwestern Montana 2002-2012 DRAFTPROGRAMMA TIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSTATEMENT Prepared by: With Input From The Montana Grizzly Bear Working Group and other interested parties April 2002 - nnr.i^MEMTS en' ' ' r'" 17 2002 r.lONTAr.'A STATE Liu.. .-<t 1515 E. 6th AVE •-' rt'A t.'.ONTANA b=,oJ- MONTANA STATE LIBRARY MONTANASTATELIBRARY 3 0864 1001 6855 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements c Introduction 1 Process for Plan Development 1 & Montana Fish, Wildlife Parks Goals forthe Grizzly Bear 1 Purpose and Need 2 History ofBears and Bear Biology in the Greater Yellowstone Area 4 Montana Fish, Wildhfe & Parks Commission Pohcy 7 Description ofGrizzly Bear Management Area for Southwestern Montana 9 General Description 9 Size and Human Population 9 Land Ownership 10 Special Management Areas 11 Agricultural Interests 11 Recreational Opportunities 12 Summary ofGrizzly Bear Biology 13 Habitat 13 Habitat for Denning 15 Habitat for Security 16 Population Dynamics 16 Issues Identified and Considered 19 Human Safety 20 Inform and Educate 21 Enforcement ofFood Storage Rules and Regulations 22 Bear Repellents and Deterrents 22 Aversive Conditioning 23 Management Control 23 Hunting to Address Human Safety Concerns 23 Habitat/Habitat Monitoring/Restrictions on Human Use ofBear Habitat 24 Specific Habitat Guidelines 26 Management 26 Population Monitoring 28 Future Distribution 31 Trails 36 Livestock Conflicts 37 Property Damage 39 Nuisance Guidelines 41 Bear-Human Interaction Risk Management Protocols 44 Rapid Response Protocols 44 Guidelines for Nuisance Bear Determination and Control 45 General Criteria 45 Definitions 46 Criteria for Nuisance Grizzly Bear Determination and Control Outside the PCA 46 Disposition Criteria for Bears Removed in Management Actions 47 1 Hunting 47 Enforcement 52 Education/Public Outreach 53 Future Research 56 Costs and Funding 57 Expanded Local Involvement 58 Secondary and Cumulative Impacts 59 Irreversible/Irretrievable Resource Commitment 60 Glossary 61 Literature Used to Assist in Preparation ofthis Plan 62 List ofFigures Figure 1. Location ofthe recovery zone/primary conservation area within Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 3 Figure 2. Location ofCarbon, Stillwater, Sweet Grass, Park, Gallatin, Madison, and Beaverhead counties 7 Figure 3. Grizzly bear distribution in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1990- 2000. Map represents the outer edge ofa composite polygon constructed by overlaying fixed kernel ranges constructed from (1) observations ofunique unduplicated females with cubs ofthe year, (2) relocations ofradio-collared bears, (3) locations ofgrizzly bear-human conflicts, confrontations, and mortalities. Points represent data not contained within this coverage 32 Figure 4. Grizzly bear distribution in the GYE 33 Figure 5. Grizzly bear distribution from information on radio-collared animals 34 Figure 6. Light gray = areas occupied by black bears. Dark gray = areas with the potential to encounter grizzlies in Montana 35 Figure 7. Grizzly bear/human conflicts in Southwest Montana, 1991-2001 42 Figure 8. Grizzly bear conflicts in Southwest Montana, 1991-200 43 List ofTables Table 1. Selected size, population, and agricultural attributes ofthe seven counties in the grizzly bear conservation area 10 Table 2. Number ofunduplicated females with cubs-of-the-year, number ofCOY, and average litter size at initial observation for the years 1990-2000 in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Six-year running averages were calculated using only unduplicated females with COY observed in the PCA and 10-mile perimeter 18 Table 3. Grizzly bear mortalities in southwest Montana, 1992-2001 31 Acknowledgements Many people participated in the development ofthis plan. Montana Fish, Wildhfe & Parks (FWP) would like to express gratitude to all ofthose who committed their time and energy to make ourprogram adequate to meet the needs ofbears and the people who live with them. Special recognition is due to the following individuals and organizations fortheir assistance through participation in our workshops. By recognizing their participation, we are by no means implying that they support the plan in part or in its entirety. However, their openness and willingness to contribute have made this a better plan. These meetings were productive because ofthe skill ofour facilitator, Virginia Tribe, and we thank her as well. Individuals Tim Mulligan Organizations Elaine K. Allestad Sterling Miller American Wildlands Mark Anderson Randy Newberg Big Sky Trail Preservers Chuck Bennett John Oldemeyer Beaverhead Outdoorsman Dan Bjomlie Steve Pilcher Association Tony Biel Steve Primm Billings Motorcycle Club Marion Cherry Daryl Reimers Defenders ofWildlife Jack Clarkson Ross Rodgers Greater Yellowstone Sandra Cooper Jim Roscoe CoaHtion Lance Craighead Patti Rowland Louisiana Pacific Frank Culver Chuck Schwartz Montana Stockgrowers Kim Davitt Michael Scott Association Jim DeBoer Claire Simmons Montana Wilderness Mark Donovan Tim Stevens Association David Ellenberger Geoffi-ey Suttle National Wildlife Victor Fesolowitz Gary Ullman Federation Hank Fischer J.W. Westman Predator Conservation Tom France Louisa Wilcox Alliance David Gaillard Louise Willcox Sierra Club Heidi Godwin Becca Wood Safari Club International Don Griffis Linda Young Trade Research Center Lorents Grosfield Lorents Grosfield Agencies Joe Gutkoski Bureau ofLand Management Lee Hart Carbon Conservation District Margot Higgins U.S. Forest Service Robin Hompesch U.S. Geological Survey John Huntsberger Biological Resources Ron Ireland Division Minette Johnson Wyoming Game and Fish Noel Keogh Jim Knight Bemie Kuntz INTRODUCTION Process for Plan Development Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) developed this draft plan and programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) through a series ofmeetings with affected agencies, FWP governments, interested persons, and groups. initiated the scoping processes with discussion ofpotential issues and alternatives with biologists, wardens, and representatives from Idaho and Wyoming during the summer of2000. Following those preliminary efforts, FWP held a series of 13 public scoping meetings in southwestern Montana during September and October 2000 (Livingston, Bozeman, Missoula, Big Sky, Big Timber, Dillon, Ennis, Butte, West Yellowstone, Billings, Columbus, Gardiner, and Red Lodge). FWP solicited written comments throughout Fall 2000 through news releases, press interviews, and personal contacts. During FWP these meetings, sought to identify issues likely to involve significant impacts and those issues not likely to involve significant impacts as well as to identify possible alternatives for grizzly bear management. To further develop issues and ideas for possible alternatives, FWT held a meeting in Bozeman consisting ofthe Governor's Roundtable members and other invited interest groups and individuals on December 4-5, 2000. FWP invited the participation ofthose individuals and groups that had expressed interest in additional participation as well as other affected agencies. Following this meeting, a draft management plan was produced and resubmitted to a broader group ofinterested parties including those who attended the December meeting. An additional facilitated meeting was held in Bozeman April 30-May 1, 2001 to review and discuss approaches presented in the preliminary draft plan with the purpose offine tuning a draft. A meeting was held on October 22, 2001, to further review the draft plan for release and formal public hearings. All ofthe meetings were open to the public. Formal public hearings will be conducted through the same area ofSouthwestern Montana as previous scoping sessions. Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) Goals For The Grizzly Bear FWP has statewide goals for wildlife resources. This plan more specifically deals with grizzly bear resources in southwestern Montana. These goals are: 1. To provide the people ofMontana and visitors with optimum outdoor recreational opportunities emphasizing the tangible and intangible values ofwildlife and natural and cultural resources ofaesthetic, scenic, historic, scientific, and archaeological significance in a manner that: a. Is consistent with the capabilities and requirements ofthe resources b. Recognizes present and future human needs and desires, and c. Ensures maintenance and enhancement ofthe quality ofthe environment 2. Wildlife Program Goal — To protect, perpetuate, enhance, and regulate the wise use of wildlife resources for public benefit now and in the future. 3. Grizzly Bear Management Goal ~ To manage for a recovered grizzly bear population in southwestern Montana and to provide for a continuing expansion ofthat population into FWP areas that are biologically suitable and socially acceptable. This should allow to achieve population levels that support managing the bear as a game animal along with other species ofnative wildlife and provide some regulated hunting when and where appropriate. These goals will be achieved by addressing the following issues identified early in the planning process: human safety, habitat, population monitoring, future distribution, trails programs, livestock conflicts, property damage, nuisance guidelines, hunting, enforcement concerns, education, and flinding. The success ofgrizzly bear management in Montana will be contingent upon FWP's ability to address these issues in a way that builds social support for grizzlies. President Theodore Roosevelt stated: "the nation behaves well ifit treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not impaired in value". It is FWP's hope that this plan will allow the next generation ofMontanans to manage a grizzly bear population that has increased in both numbers and distribution in southwestern Montana. Development ofthis plan is further guided by recommendations ofa group ofcitizens referred to as the Governor's Roundtable Group. This group was appointed by the governors ofMontana, Wyoming, and Idaho and was composed offive representatives from each ofthe three states. These citizens were selected to represent a cross section ofthe people interested in grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone area, and their purpose was to review the draft Conservation Strategy for grizzlies prepared by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. The Roundtable was able to reach unanimous agreement on all 26 ofits recommendations (Appendix A). Among the key recommendations was support for continued management ofthe proposed Primary Conservation Area (PCA) as a secure "core" area for grizzly bears within the Yellowstone Ecosystem (Fig. 1). The group also recommended that the three states develop management plans for the areas outside the PCA to: 1. Ensure the long-term viability ofbears and avoid the need to relist the species under the Endangered Species Act. 2. Support expansion ofgrizzly bears beyond the PCA in areas that are biologically suitable and socially acceptable. 3. Manage the grizzly bear as a game animal including allowing regulated hunting when and where appropriate. Purpose and Need The need for this plan was precipitated by changes in bear management in the Yellowstone Ecosystem dunng the 1980-90s, resulting in increasing numbers and expanding distribution of grizzly bears in this area. Current approaches to land management, wildlife management, and recreation within the PCA appear to be providing the conditions needed to establish a population ofbears outside the PCA. It is FWP's objective to maintain existing renewable resource management and recreational use where possible and to develop a process where FWP, working with local publics, can respond to demonstrated problems with appropriate management changes. By maintaining existing uses, people will be able to continue their lifestyles, economy, and well- being and not feel threatened. This approach builds support and increases tolerance for an expanding grizzly bear population. GelatinNF DeartodgeNF CurtarNF BeaverheadNF ShoshoneNF RBCOveryZone/PrimaryConservationAiea 9210Sq Miles Bridger-TetonNF Figure 1. Location ofthe recovery zone/primary conservation area within Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Along these same lines, the Governors' Roundtable produced a recommendation to allow grizzly bears to inhabit areas that are "biologically suitable and socially acceptable." The level ofsocial acceptance ofgrizzlies in historic habitat is alterable, based on how the issues are approached, and how much faith people have in managers. To maximize the area ofMontana that is "socially acceptable" grizzly bear range, the state planning and management effort will employ an adaptive learning process to develop innovative, on-the-ground management. By demonstrating that grizzly bear conservation can be integrated with broad social goals, public faith in management can be enhanced and human tolerance ofgrizzly bears increased. This approach already has demonstrated success in northwestern Montana along the Rocky Mountain Front where bear populations have increased and bears have reoccupied habitats from which they had been absent for decades. Under such an approach, this document should be a strategy for initiating, implementing, and leaming from a set oflocalized efforts. Once FWP has learned from these localized efforts and changed programs or adapted approaches, they will become part ofthe State Grizzly Bear Management Plan. This process will entail developing a set ofplans on the relatively small scale ofRanger Districts, Conservation Districts, or valleys. FWP, other agencies, local citizens, and wildlife organizations would cooperatively design local strategies tailored to local conditions. These strategies would include monitoring provisions that would require management adaptations as conditions dictate or change. Ultimately, we would all learn from these localized efforts, and develop a basis ofknowledge for replicating efforts elsewhere, incorporating successes in the statewide management ofthis and other species. The underlying basis for this approach is that as bears reoccupy areas from which they have been absent for decades, there are many issues that FWP can't be anticipated or predicted with accuracy. Consequently, this approach allows to adjust the program as necessary. Localized efforts have many advantages: 1. They tend to generate less unproductive controversy and be more focused on solutions. 2. They provide low-conflict settings for trying out innovative ideas. 3. They also have tremendous local importance that can help increase political support (e.g., showing that ranchers can and do get along with grizzlies builds support for the agricultural community and for the benefits they provide to the rest ofsociety). The adaptive learning approach is ongoing, but does produce tangible results. In fact, innovative grizzly conservation efforts are already underway in Montana, so we can make use ofthe lessons already available. This approach will be described in more detail in the local management section. Ultimately this plan and approach will be re-evaluated in ten years to provide for a complete review ofits successes and/or failures. History ofBears and Bear Biology in the Greater Yellowstone Area The Eurasian brown bear and the North American grizzly are considered the same species (Ursus arctos). Current theory holds that this species developed its large size, aggressive temperament, flexible feeding habits, and adaptive nature in response to habitats created by intermittent glaciation. It is believed that ancestors ofthe grizzly bear migrated to North America from Siberia across a land bridge at the Bering Strait at least 50,000 years ago. As the continental ice sheet receded about 10,000 years ago, the species began to work its way south overpost glacial North America. European explorers found grizzlies throughout most ofthe American West, including northern Mexico. It is not known exactly how many grizzlies Hved in the U.S. before 1700, but based on historical sightings and modem-day densities, it is estimated that around 50,000-100,000 bears lived in parts of 17 states. Prior to 1800, grizzly bears were undoubtedly common in the Yellowstone area. With newly acquired access to firearms by indigenous people and westward expansion ofsettlers, bears began to be impacted. With no mechanisms to provide protection on management, almost