and their response to oil and gas development and other human activities. FWP has recognized that 

 ecological requirements of grizzly bears differed between the more open and dry Rocky Mountain East 

 Front and the moister habitats to the west of the Continental Divide. These differences and the lack of 

 ecological information on grizzly bears in western habitats suggested a west-side study would be 

 necessary. 



Studies of grizzly bears in the lower reaches of the South Fork Flathead River were initiated in 1987. This 

 study, termed the "South Fork Project" was situated in the northern Swan Mountains. The goal was to 

 document factors limiting population size and to test methods for monitoring population trend. Habitat 

 objectives included evaluaHon of seasonal habitat selechon, and the effect of roads on grizzly bear 

 distribution and survival. 



Alternative 1. Continue Existing Program - ¥\NPs preferred alternative 



Recovery programs to date have resulted in successes in portions of this ecosystem. Basic grizzly bear 

 management programs and activities are in place and current processes allow for periodic updates and 

 changes. Furthermore, evidence from previous reviews indicated a large and healthy population that 

 remains connected to the population in Canada. As many program changes needed to benefit grizzly 

 bears have already occurred and have been or are being implemented, FWPs preferred alternative in the 

 NCDE is to continue these successful efforts. In the formal language of MEPA, this consHtutes the "no 

 action" alternative. 



Benefits 



• Grizzly bears already occupy the majority of the recovery zone and have expanded beyond it in 

 many places. 



• Connections may have been, or are close to being, established through natural migration with the 

 Yaak portion of the Cabinet-Yaak recovery zone. 



• Programs and commitments are in place to maintain this population at recovered levels. 



• Habitat protection is already significant, including large areas in national park and designated 

 wilderness areas. Additional habitat adjacent to these areas is being managed in a way that 

 addresses grizzly bear issues. 



Challenges 



• A review of exisHng commitments and agreed upon long-term measures has not been established. A 

 conservation strategy needs to be prepared and approved to document commitments among 

 managing agencies within and beyond the recovery zone. 



• Tolerance for bears is being tested in some places at current population levels. 



• Mandatory habitat protection is impacting economic viability of important resource industries. 

 Maintaining an adequate balance between resource industry needs and grizzly bear habitat needs is a 

 challenge. 



• DNA estimate may indicate the need to adjust and/or modify the current program. 



Alternative 2. Accelerated Recovery 



FWP believes that an accelerated recovery process is probably not warranted for this recovery zone. 

 There may be small peripheral portions where additional animals could be augmented to bolster 

 densities (example: Rattlesnake Wilderness area), but cost effectiveness is questionable. 



74 



