By implementing an active community based augmentation program, we believe there is potential to 

 vastly improve the recovery prospects for this recovery zone. 



Under this alternative, in cooperation with USFWS and USPS, 10-15 sub-adult male or female, or 

 appropriate adult females, would be relocated from other areas (Yellowstone, NCDE, or Canada) within 

 the next 3-5 vears. At the present time, the emphasis for augmentation will be on females because it is 

 believed that there are still sufficient males within the area to support recovery. No conflict or habituated 

 and/or food conditioned bears would be used for augmentation, and released animals would be 

 intensively monitored. After an initial effort, the program would be evaluated for its successes or 

 potential problems and if successful ongoing augmentation of sub-adult females would continue to occur 

 until population objectives, 90-120 bears, had been achieved through a combination of augmentation and 

 natural reproduction. 



Modeling suggests that if human-caused mortality is not reduced, successful augmentation will require 

 far more bears. Furthermore, if linkage between the Cabinets and Yaak are not established, augmentation 

 would be required well into the future. As a consequence, this approach also recognizes the need to 

 include programs aimed at reducing human-caused mortality and improving or creating population 

 linkage. 



Benefits 



• Active involvement of the local community would be higher and public opposition would be 

 lessened. 



• The potential for more rapid recovery of this population. 



• There are genetic benefits associated with reducing the length of time a population remains 

 demographicallv small or isolated during recovery. 



• While current programs have provided for some connection between the NCDE and the Yaak portion 

 of the ecosystem, this approach would probably speed connection between the Cabinets and the Yaak 

 as well by increasing population size and eventual occupancy of the Highway 2 area between them. 



• With a more robust population in the area, we may be able to better determine which areas and 

 management prescriptions are necessary to maintain grizzly bears in this recovery zone. In turn, this 

 could result in more flexible management in other portions of the ecosystem. 



• Recovery and delisHng of the population could occur in a much shorter timeframe than the no-action 

 alternative. 



Challenges 



• Local support would be critical to any successful augmentation. Support and tolerance for grizzly 

 bears may be tested with increasing distribution and number of translocated animals. 



• There is some uncertainty of the survival level for translocated animals. 



• Some people may feel threatened by a recovered population. 



• It may be difficult to capture sufficient subadult females to meet the shortened timeframe. 



• Higher population levels will result in the need to have conflict management programs in place. 



• This approach would require significant funding commitments over existing programs. 



Alternative 3. Endangered Status 



The decision to change the status under the Endangered Species Act is not ours to make. Rather this 

 decision lies within the authority of the Department of Interior through the USFWS. Under Montana 

 State law, FWP does have authority within state statutes and processes to list the grizzly bear as 



72 



