Benefits 



• Segments of the public resistant to the presence of grizzly bears will likely be supportive. 



• More public support from certain segments of society for natural recovery than a reintroduction. 



• Minimal cost. 



Challenges 



• Protecting adequate habitat components for a recovered bear population would be difficult. Major 

 valley floors and key spring ranges are becoming heavily populated with humans. 



• Public interest in bears would decline or become non-existent. 



• Mortality and management issues in the areas between the Bitterroot and other ecosystems may 

 prohibit recovery from occurring. 



• More severe habitat and land management constraints would have to be placed on lands between the 

 currently occupied areas and this ecosystem. 



• Higher costs involved in purchase and easement programs. 



• In the absence of a preparatory planning program, conflicts would become increasingly severe and 

 difficult to resolve should bears make their way into this ecosystem. 



Alternative 3. Accelerated Recovery Through Reintroduction. 



Under this alternative, should the USFWS grant FWP permission, grizzly bears would be reintroduced 

 into the Montana portion of the Bitterroot ecosystem under the provisions of the ESA (the number of 

 bears would be determined by how fast recovery was to be achieved). 



Benefits 



• Active recovery would begin to occur and grizzly bears may be given deference in land management 

 and human activity decisions. 



• Clear protected status of grizzly bears. 



Challenges 



• Segments of the public resistant to the presence of grizzly bears will likely oppose any reintroduction. 



• Support for reintroduction from adjoining State of Idaho would strengthen program but may be 

 difficult to achieve. 



• Finding sufficient animals to support the reintroduction. 



• Process requirements would be very expensive. 



• Uncertainty about survival of reintroduced bears from other areas. 



• FWP does not have the authority to implement this alternative without prior authorization from 

 USFWS. 



Short Term and Long Term Impacts 



FWP evaluated the significance of potential impacts associated with implementing this DPEIS. Successful 

 implementation of this grizzly bear program may result in a broad range of short term, long term and 

 cumulative impacts within the 17-county region. In general, most adverse impacts associated with 

 implementing this DPEIS are anticipated to be short-term and/or localized, and would be reduced 

 significantly by implementation of mitigation measures. There are unlikely to be direct environmental 

 consequences (i.e. those caused by an action and occur at the same time and place) because actions and 

 preferred alternatives are programmatic in nature and apply in many cases to future management 

 activities. In order to comply with requirements for environmental analysis, the DPEIS analyzes all 



78 



