[Federal Register: March 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 60)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14865-14938]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29mr07-14]
[[Page 14865]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part II
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
[[Page 14866]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT38
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule
Designating the Greater Yellowstone Area Population of Grizzly Bears as
a Distinct Population Segment; Removing the Yellowstone Distinct
Population Segment of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List as
Endangered the Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment of Grizzly Bears
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; notice of petition finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, we or us), hereby
establish a distinct population segment (DPS) of the grizzly bear
(Ursus arctos horribilis) for the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) and
surrounding area (hereafter referred to as the Yellowstone DPS,
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS, or Yellowstone grizzly bear population)
and remove this DPS from the List of Threatened and Endangered
Wildlife. The Yellowstone grizzly bear population is no longer an
endangered or threatened population pursuant to the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Endangered Species Act or the Act) (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), based on the best scientific and commercial data
available. Robust population growth, coupled with State and Federal
cooperation to manage mortality and habitat, widespread public support
for grizzly bear recovery, and the development of adequate regulatory
mechanisms has brought the Yellowstone grizzly bear population to the
point where making a change to its status is appropriate.
The delisting of the Yellowstone DPS does not change the threatened
status of the remaining grizzly bears in the lower 48 States, which
remain protected by the Act. In an upcoming but separate notice, we
will initiate a 5-year status review of the grizzly bear as listed
under the Act based on additional scientific information that is
currently being collected and analyzed. Finally, we announce a 90-day
finding on a petition (submitted during the public comment period for
the proposed rule) to list the Yellowstone grizzly bear population as
endangered on the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife
under the Act and to designate critical habitat. We find that the
petition and additional information in our files did not present
substantial scientific information indicating that listing the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population as endangered may be warranted.
Therefore, we are not initiating a status review in response to this
petition.
DATES: This rule becomes effective April 30, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparation of this final rule, are available for
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at our
Missoula office, Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, University Hall,
Room 309, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812. Call
(406) 243-4903 to make arrangements. In addition, certain documents
such as the Strategy and information appended to the recovery plan are
available at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm
.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at our Missoula
office (see ADDRESSES above) or telephone (406) 243-4903. Individuals
who are hearing-impaired or speech-impaired may call the Federal Relay
Service at 1-800-877-8337 for TTY assistance.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Prior to publication of this final rule, we--(1) Finalized the
Conservation Strategy (Strategy) that will guide post-delisting
monitoring and management of the grizzly bear in the GYA; (2) appended
the habitat-based recovery criteria to the 1993 Recovery Plan and the
Strategy; and (3) appended an updated and improved methodology for
calculating total population size, known to unknown mortality ratios,
and sustainable mortality limits for the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population to the 1993 Recovery Plan and the Strategy. Additionally,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service finalized the
Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the GYA
National Forests and made a decision to incorporate this Amendment into
the affected National Forests' Land Management Plans. Yellowstone and
Grand Teton National Parks also appended the habitat standards
described in the Strategy to their Park Superintendent's Compendiums,
thereby assuring that these National Parks will manage habitat in
accordance with those habitat standards.
Species Description
Grizzly bears are generally larger and more heavily built than
other bears (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 517; Schwartz et al.
2003b, p. 558). Grizzly bears can be distinguished from black bears,
which also occur in the lower 48 States, by longer, curved claws,
humped shoulders, and a face that appears to be concave (Craighead and
Mitchell 1982, p. 517). A wide range of coloration from light brown to
nearly black is common (LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 17-18). Spring
shedding, new growth, nutrition, and coat condition all affect
coloration. Guard hairs (long, course outer hair forming a protective
layer over the soft underfur) are often pale in color at the tips;
hence the name ``grizzly'' (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 517). In
the lower 48 States, the average weight of grizzly bears is generally
200 to 300 kilograms (kg) (400 to 600 pounds (lb)) for males and 110 to
160 kg (250 to 350 lb) for females (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, pp.
518-520). Grizzly bears are long-lived mammals, generally living to be
around 25 years old (LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 47, 51).
Taxonomy
Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) are vertebrates that belong
to the Class Mammalia, Order Carnivora, and Family Ursidae. The grizzly
bear is a member of the brown bear species (U. arctos) that occurs in
North America, Europe, and Asia; the subspecies U. a. horribilis is
limited to North America (Rausch 1963, p. 43; Servheen 1999, pp. 50-
53). Early taxonomic descriptions of U. arctos based primarily on skull
measurements described more than 90 subspecies (Merriam 1918, pp. 9-
16), but this was later revised to 2 subspecies in North America (U. a.
middendorfi on the islands of the Kodiak archipelago in Alaska and U.
a. horribilis in the rest of North America) (Rausch 1963, p. 43). The
two North American subspecies approach of Rausch (1963, p. 43) is
generally accepted by most taxonomists today, and is the approach we
use. Additional discussion of this issue can be found in the proposed
rule (70 FR 69854-69855, November 17, 2005). The original 1975 listing
(40 FR 31734-31736, July 28, 1975) had been inadvertently modified in
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to U. arctos with a
historic holarctic range. With this final rule, we have corrected this
error to reflect the original listed entity of U. arctos horribilis
with a historic range of North America.
[[Page 14867]]
Behavior
Although adult bears are normally solitary (Nowak and Paradiso
1983, p. 971), home ranges of adult bears frequently overlap (Schwartz
et al. 2003b, pp. 565-566). Grizzly bears display a behavior called
natal philopatry in which dispersing young establish home ranges within
or overlapping their mother's (Waser and Jones 1983, p. 361; Schwartz
et al. 2003b, p. 566). This type of movement makes dispersal across
landscapes a slow process. Radio-telemetry and genetics data suggests
females establish home ranges an average of 9.8 to 14.3 kilometers (km)
(6.1 to 8.9 miles (mi)) away from the center of their mother's home
range, whereas males generally stray further, establishing home ranges
roughly 29.9 to 42.0 km (18.6 to 26.0 mi) away from their mother's
(McLellan and Hovey 2001, p. 842; Proctor et al. 2004, p. 1108).
The home range of adult male grizzly bears is typically three to
five times the size of an adult female's home range (LeFranc et al.
1987, pp. 27-30). The large home ranges of grizzly bears, particularly
males, enhance genetic diversity in the population by enabling males to
mate with numerous females (Blanchard and Knight 1991, pp. 46-51;
Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 303-305). Grizzly bear population densities
of one bear per 20 square kilometers (sq km) (8 square miles (sq mi))
have been reported in Glacier National Park (Martinka 1976, p. 150),
but most populations in the Lower 48 States are much less dense
(LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 47, 52-53). For example, estimates of grizzly
bear densities in the GYA range from one bear per 50 sq km (20 sq mi)
to one bear per 80 sq km (30 sq mi) (Blanchard and Knight 1980, pp.
263-264; Craighead and Mitchell 1982, pp. 537-538).
Grizzly bears have a promiscuous mating system (Hornocker 1962, p.
70; Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 522; Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 563)
with genetic studies confirming that cubs from the same litter can have
different fathers (Craighead et al. 1998, p. 325). Mating occurs from
May through July with a peak in mid-June (Craighead and Mitchell 1982,
p. 522; Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. 971). Age of first reproduction and
litter size may be related to nutritional state (Stringham 1990, p.
433; McLellan 1994, p. 20; Hilderbrand et al. 1999, pp. 135-136;
Mattson 2000, p. 110). Age of first reproduction varies from 3 to 8
years of age, and litter size varies from one to four cubs (Schwartz et
al. 2003b, p. 563). For the Yellowstone grizzly bear population, the
average age of first reproduction is approximately 6 years old, and the
average litter size is 2.04 cubs (Schwartz et al. 2006a, p. 19). Cubs
are born in a den in late January or early February and remain with the
female for 2 to 3 years before the mother will again mate and produce
another litter (Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 564). Grizzly bears have one
of the slowest reproductive rates among terrestrial mammals, resulting
primarily from the late age of first reproduction, small average litter
size, and the long interval between litters (Nowak and Paradiso 1983,
p. 971; Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 564). Given the above factors and
natural mortality, it may take a single female 10 years to replace
herself in a population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 4).
Grizzly bear females cease breeding successfully some time in their
mid-to-late 20s (Schwartz et al. 2003a, pp. 109-110).
For 3 to 6 months during winter, grizzly bears across their range
enter dens in an adaptive behavior which increases survival during
periods of low food availability, deep snow, and low air temperature
(Craighead and Craighead 1972, pp. 33-34). Grizzly bears in the lower
48 States spend between 4 and 6 months in dens beginning in October or
November (Linnell et al. 2000, p. 401). During this period, they do not
eat, drink, urinate, or defecate (Folk et al. 1976, pp. 376-377; Nelson
1980, p. 2955). Hibernating grizzly bears exhibit a marked decline in
heart and respiration rate, but only a slight drop in body temperature
(Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. 971). Due to their relatively constant
body temperature in the den, hibernating grizzly bears can be easily
aroused and have been known to exit dens when disturbed by seismic or
mining activity (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278) or by human activity
(Swenson et al. 1997a, p. 37). Both males and females have a tendency
to use the same general area year after year, but the same exact den is
rarely used twice by an individual (Schoen et al. 1987, p. 300; Linnell
et al. 2000, p. 403). Females display stronger area fidelity than males
and generally stay in their dens longer, depending on reproductive
status (Judd et al. 1986, pp. 113-114; Schoen et al. 1987, p. 300;
Linnell et al. 2000, p. 403).
In preparation for hibernation, bears increase their food intake
dramatically during a stage called hyperphagia (Craighead and Mitchell
1982, p. 544). Hyperphagia is defined simply as overeating (in excess
of daily metabolic demands) and occurs throughout the 2 to 4 months
prior to den entry. During hyperphagia, excess food is deposited as
fat, and grizzly bears may gain as much as 1.65 kg/day (3.64 lb/day)
(Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 544). Grizzly bears must consume foods
rich in protein and carbohydrates in order to build up fat reserves to
survive denning and post-denning periods (Rode and Robbins 2000, pp.
1643-1644). These layers of fat are crucial to the hibernating bear as
they provide a source of energy and insulate the bear from cold
temperatures, and are equally important in providing energy to the bear
upon emergence from the den when food is still sparse relative to
metabolic requirements (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 544).
Although the digestive system of bears is essentially that of a
carnivore, bears are successful omnivores, and in some areas may be
almost entirely herbivorous (Jacoby et al. 1999, pp. 924-926; Schwartz
et al. 2003b, pp. 568-569). Grizzly bears are opportunistic feeders and
will consume almost any available food including living or dead mammals
or fish, and, sometimes, garbage (Knight et al. 1988, p. 121; Mattson
et al. 1991a, pp. 1620-1624; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 568-569). In
areas where animal matter is less available, grasses, roots, bulbs,
tubers, and fungi may be important in meeting protein requirements
(LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 111-114). High-quality foods such as berries,
nuts, insects, and fish are important in some areas (Schwartz et al.
2003b, pp. 568-569).
The search for food has a prime influence on grizzly bear movements
(Mattson et al. 1991a, pp. 1625-1626). In the GYA, four food sources
have been identified as important to grizzly bear survival and
reproductive success (Mattson et al. 2002, p. 2). Winter-killed
ungulates serve as an important food source in early spring before most
vegetation is available (Green et al. 1997, p. 140; Mattson 1997, p.
165). During early summer, spawning cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus
clarki) are a source of nutrition for grizzly bears in the Yellowstone
population (Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1623; Mattson and Reinhart 1995,
p. 2072; Felicetti et al. 2004, pp. 496, 499). Grizzly bears feed on
army cutworm moths (Euxoa auxiliaris) during late summer and early fall
as they try to acquire sufficient fat levels for winter (Mattson et al.
1991b, p. 2432; French et al. 1994, p. 394). Lastly, in some years,
whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis) seeds serve as an important fall food
due to their high fat content and abundance as a pre-hibernation food
(Mattson and Reinhart 1994, p. 212). The distribution and abundance of
these grizzly bear foods vary naturally among seasons and years.
[[Page 14868]]
On average, approximately 79 percent of the diet of adult male and
45 percent of the diet of adult female grizzly bears in the GYA is
terrestrial meat (Jacoby et al. 1999, p. 925). In contrast, in Glacier
National Park, over 95 percent of the diets of both adult male and
female grizzly bears are vegetation (Jacoby et al. 1999, p. 925).
Ungulates rank as the second highest source of net digestible energy
available to grizzly bears in the GYA (Mealey 1975, pp. 84-86;
Pritchard and Robbins 1990, p. 1647; Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 250-
251). Grizzly bears with home ranges in areas with few plant foods
depend extensively on ungulate meat (Harting 1985, pp. 69-70, 85-87).
Grizzly bears in the GYA feed on ungulates primarily as winter-killed
carrion from March through May although they also depredate elk calves
for a short period in early June (Gunther and Renkin 1990, pp. 330-332;
Green et al. 1997, p. 1040; Mattson 1997, pp. 165-166). Carcass
availability fluctuates with winter severity because fewer ungulates
die during mild winters (Mattson et al. 1991a, pp. 1622-1623).
Due to their high digestibility and protein and lipid content,
spawning cutthroat trout are one of the highest sources of digestible
energy available to bears during early summer in Yellowstone National
Park (Mealey 1975, pp. 84-86; Pritchard and Robbins 1990, p. 1647).
Grizzly bears are known to prey on cutthroat trout in at least 36
different streams tributary to Yellowstone Lake (Reinhart and Mattson
1990, pp. 345-346). From 1997 to 1999, Haroldson et al. (2000, pp. 32-
35) identified 85 different grizzly bears that had likely fished
spawning stream tributaries to Yellowstone Lake. While importance
varies by season and year, few bears develop a dependence on this food
source (Haroldson et al. 2005, pp. 173-174). Only 23 individuals
visited spawning streams more than 1 year out of the 4 years sampled,
suggesting that this resource is used opportunistically (Haroldson et
al. 2005, pp. 174-175). In contrast to earlier studies which used
different assumptions and methods (Reinhart and Mattson 1990, pp. 345-
349; Mattson and Reinhart 1995, pp. 2078-2079), Felicetti et al. (2004,
pp. 496-499) found that male grizzly bears are the primary consumers of
cutthroat trout, accounting for 92 percent of all trout consumed by
Yellowstone grizzly bears.
Alpine moth aggregations are an important food source for a
considerable portion of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
(Mattson et al. 1991b, p. 2434). As many as 35 different grizzly bears
with cubs-of-the-year have been observed feeding at moth sites in a
single season (Ternent and Haroldson 2000, p. 39). Some bears may feed
almost exclusively on moths for a period of over a month (French et al.
1994, p. 393). Moths have the highest caloric content per gram of any
other bear food (French et al. 1994, p. 391). Moths are available
during late summer and early fall when bears consume large quantities
of foods in order to acquire sufficient fat levels for winter (Mattson
et al. 1991b, p. 2433). A grizzly bear feeding extensively on moths
over a 30-day period may consume up to 47 percent of its annual energy
budget of 960,000 calories (White et al. 1999, pp. 149-150). Moths also
are valuable to bears because they are located in remote areas, thereby
reducing the potential for grizzly bear/human conflicts during the
late-summer tourist months (Gunther et al. 2004, p. 15).
Due to their high fat content and potential abundance as a pre-
hibernation food, whitebark pine seeds are an important fall food for
bears in the GYA (Mattson and Jonkel 1990, p. 223; Mattson et al.
1991a, p. 1623). Yellowstone grizzly bears consume whitebark pine seeds
extensively when whitebark cones are available. Bears may feed
predominantly on whitebark pine seeds when production exceeds 20 cones
per tree (Blanchard 1990, p. 362; Mattson et al. 1992, pp. 433, 436).
During years of low whitebark pine seed availability, grizzly bears
often seek alternate foods at lower elevations in association with
human activities (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Knight and Blanchard
1995, p. 23; Gunther et al. 1997, pp. 9-11; Gunther et al. 2004, p.
18).
The production and availability of these four major foods can have
a positive effect on reproduction and survival rates of Yellowstone
grizzly bears (Mattson et al. 2002, p. 5). For example, during years
when whitebark pine seeds are abundant, there are fewer grizzly bear/
human conflicts in the GYA (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Gunther et al.
2004, pp. 13-15). Grizzly bear/human conflicts are incidents in which
bears kill or injure people, damage property, kill or injure livestock,
damage beehives, obtain anthropogenic (man-made) foods, or damage or
obtain garden and orchard fruits and vegetables (USDA Forest
Service1986, pp. 53-54). During poor whitebark pine years, grizzly
bear/human conflicts are more frequent, resulting in higher numbers of
human-caused grizzly bear mortalities due to defense of life or
property and management removals of nuisance bears (Mattson et al.
1992, p. 436; Gunther et al. 2004, pp. 13-14). A nuisance bear is one
that seeks human food in human-use areas, kills lawfully present
livestock, or displays unnatural aggressive behavior toward people
(USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 53-54). Introduced organisms (e.g.,
white pine blister rust and lake trout), habitat loss, and other human
activities can negatively impact the quantity and distribution of these
four primary foods (Reinhart et al. 2001, pp. 285-286). Potential
effects to food supply and human/bear conflict are discussed in more
detail in the 5-factor analysis.
Recovery
Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the grizzly bear occurred
throughout the western half of the contiguous United States, central
Mexico, western Canada, and most of Alaska (Roosevelt 1907, pp. 27-28;
Wright 1909, pp. vii, 3, 185-186; Merriam 1922, p. 1; Storer and Tevis
1955, p. 18; Rausch 1963, p. 35; Herrero 1972, pp. 224-227; Mattson et
al. 1995, p. 103; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 557-558). Pre-settlement
population levels for the western contiguous United States are believed
to be in the range of 50,000 animals (Servheen 1999, p. 50). With
European settlement of the American West, grizzly bears were shot,
poisoned, and trapped wherever they were found, and the resulting range
and population declines were dramatic (Roosevelt 1907, pp. 27-28;
Wright 1909, p. vii; Storer and Tevis 1955, pp. 26-27; Leopold 1967, p.
30; Koford 1969, p. 95; Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 516; Mattson et
al. 1995, p. 103). The range and numbers of grizzlies were reduced to
less than 2 percent of their former range and numbers by the 1930s,
approximately 125 years after first contact (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1993, p. 9; Mattson et al. 1995, p. 103; Servheen 1999, p. 51).
Of 37 grizzly populations present in 1922, 31 were extirpated by 1975
(Servheen 1999, p. 51).
By the 1950s, with little or no conservation effort or management
directed at maintaining grizzly bears anywhere in their range, the GYA
population had been reduced in numbers and was restricted largely to
the confines of Yellowstone National Park and some surrounding areas
(Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 41-42; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 575-579).
High grizzly bear mortality in 1970 and 1971, following closure of the
open-pit dumps in Yellowstone National Park (Gunther 1994, p. 550;
Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 34-36), and concern about grizzly population
status throughout its remaining range prompted the 1975 listing of the
grizzly bear as a threatened species in the lower 48 States under the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (40 FR
[[Page 14869]]
31734-31736, July 28, 1975). When the grizzly bear was listed in 1975,
the population estimate in the GYA ranged from 136 to 312 individuals
(Cowan et al. 1974, pp. 32, 36; Craighead et al. 1974, p. 16;
McCullough 1981, p. 175).
In 1981, we hired a grizzly bear recovery coordinator to direct
recovery efforts and to coordinate all agency efforts on research and
management of grizzly bears in the lower 48 States. In 1982, the first
Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) was completed (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1982, p. ii). The Recovery Plan identified five
ecosystems within the conterminous United States thought to support
grizzly bears. Today, grizzly bear distribution is primarily within,
but not limited to, the areas identified as Recovery Zones (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 10-13, 17-18), including--the GYA in
northwest Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and southwest Montana (24,000 sq km
(9,200 sq mi)) at more than 500 bears (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study
Team 2006, p. 15); the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) of
north central Montana (25,000 sq km (9,600 sq mi)) at more than 500
bears (Kendall 2006); the North Cascades area of north central
Washington (25,000 sq km (9,500 sq mi)) at less than 20 bears (Almack
et al. 1993, p. 4); the Selkirk Mountains area of north Idaho,
northeast Washington, and southeast British Columbia (5,700 sq km
(2,200 sq mi)) at approximately 40 to 50 bears (64 FR 26730, May 17,
1999; 70 FR 24870, May 11, 2005); and the Cabinet-Yaak area of
northwest Montana and northern Idaho (6,700 sq km (2,600 sq mi)) at
approximately 30 to 40 bears (Kasworm and Manley 1988, p. 21; Kasworm
et al. 2004, p. 2). There is an additional Recovery Zone known as the
Bitterroot Recovery Zone in the Bitterroot Mountains of east-central
Idaho and western Montana (14,500 sq km (5,600 sq mi)), but this area
does not contain any grizzly bears at this time (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1996, p. 1; 65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2000, p. ix). The San Juan Mountains of Colorado also
were identified as an area of possible grizzly bear occurrence (40 FR
31734-31736, July 28, 1975; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982, p. 12;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 11), but no confirmed sightings
of grizzly bears have been found in the San Juan Mountains since a bear
was killed there in 1979 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 11).
In the initial Recovery Plan, the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
Ecosystem, later called the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, was
defined as an area large enough and of sufficient habitat quality to
support a recovered grizzly bear population within which the population
and habitat would be monitored (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982,
pp. 55-58; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41). In 1993, we
revised the Recovery Plan to include additional tasks and new
information that increased the focus and effectiveness of recovery
efforts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41-58).
However, recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are
instead intended to provide guidance to us, States, and other partners
on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and on criteria that
may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. There are many
paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and recovery may be
achieved without all criteria being fully met. For example, one or more
criteria may have been exceeded while other criteria may not have been
accomplished. In that instance, we may judge that the threats have been
minimized sufficiently, and the species is robust enough, to reclassify
the species from endangered to threatened or delist the species. In
other cases, recovery opportunities may have been recognized that were
not known at the time the Recovery Plan was finalized. These
opportunities may be used instead of methods identified in the Recovery
Plan. Likewise, information on the species may be learned that was not
known at the time the Recovery Plan was finalized. The new information
may change the extent that criteria need to be met for recognizing
recovery of the species. Recovery of a species is a dynamic process
requiring adaptive management (defined as a 6-step feedback loop
including assessment, design of management actions and associated
monitoring and research, implementation of management according to the
design, monitoring, evaluation of outcomes, and adjustment of
management based on evaluation of initial management actions) that may,
or may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan. In
the end, any determination of whether a species is no longer in need of
the protections of the Act must be based on an assessment of the
threats to the species.
Grizzly bear recovery has required cooperation among numerous
Federal agencies, State agencies, non-government organizations, local
governments, and citizens. In recognition that grizzly bear populations
were unsustainably low, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
(hereafter referred to as the Study Team) was created in 1973 to
provide detailed scientific information for the management and recovery
of the grizzly bear in the GYA. Current members of the Study Team
include scientists from the Service, U.S. Geological Survey, USDA
Forest Service, academia, and each State game and fish agency involved
in grizzly bear recovery. The Study Team has developed protocols to
monitor and manage grizzly bear populations and important habitat
parameters.
In 1983, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee was created to
coordinate management efforts and research actions across multiple
Federal lands and States within the various Recovery Zones to recover
the grizzly bear in the lower 48 States (USDA and U.S. Department of
the Interior 1983). Its objective was to change land management
practices to more effectively provide security and maintain or improve
habitat conditions for the grizzly bear (USDA and U.S. Department of
the Interior 1983). The Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee is made up
of upper level managers from all affected State and Federal agencies
(USDA and U.S. Department of the Interior 1983). Also in 1983, the
Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee, a subcommittee of the Interagency
Grizzly Bear Committee, was formed to coordinate recovery efforts
specific to the GYA (USDA and U.S. Department of the Interior 1983, p.
3). Members of the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee are mid-level
managers and include--the Service; representatives from the six GYA
National Forests (the Shoshone, Custer, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-
Teton, Gallatin, and Targhee); Yellowstone National Park; Grand Teton
National Park; the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD); the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MTFWP); the Idaho Department
of Fish and Game (IDFG); the Bureau of Land Management (BLM); the Study
Team; county governments from each affected State; the Northern
Arapahoe Tribe; and the Eastern Shoshone Tribe (USDA and U.S.
Department of the Interior 1983).
In 1994, The Fund for Animals, Inc., and 42 other organizations and
individuals filed suit over the adequacy of the 1993 Recovery Plan
(Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D. D.C. 1995); 967 F.
Supp. 6 (D. D.C. 1997). In 1995, the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia issued an order that remanded for further study
and clarification four issues that are relevant to the GYA--(1) The
method used to measure the status of bear populations; (2) the impacts
of genetic isolation; (3) monitoring of the mortalities related to
livestock; and (4)
[[Page 14870]]
the monitoring of disease (Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96
(D. D.C. 1995); 967 F. Supp. 6 (D. D.C. 1997)). Following this court
decision, all parties filed appeals. In 1997, the parties reached a
settlement whereby we agreed to append habitat-based recovery criteria
to the Recovery Plan (Settlement dated March 31, 1997, and approved by
the court on May 5, 1997, Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 967 F. Supp. 6
(D. D.C. 1997)) (hereafter Fund for Animals v. Babbitt). These four
issues and the necessary supplement to the Recovery Plan as required by
the court order and subsequent settlement are discussed in detail in
this section and in the threats analysis.
Habitat Management and Development of Habitat-based Recovery
Criteria--In 1979, the Study Team developed the first comprehensive
Guidelines for Management Involving Grizzly Bears in the GYA (hereafter
referred to as the Guidelines) (Mealey 1979, pp. 1-4). We determined in
a biological opinion that implementation of the Guidelines by Federal
land management agencies would promote conservation of the grizzly bear
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979, p. 1). Beginning in 1979, the six
affected National Forests (Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton,
Caribou-Targhee, Custer, Gallatin, and Shoshone), Yellowstone and Grand
Teton National Parks, and the BLM in the GYA began managing habitats
for grizzly bears under direction specified in the Guidelines.
In 1986, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee modified the
Guidelines to more effectively manage habitat by mapping and managing
according to three different management situations (USDA Forest Service
1986, pp. 35-39). In areas governed by ``Management Situation One,''
grizzly habitat maintenance and improvement and grizzly bear/human
conflict minimization received the highest management priority. In
areas governed by ``Management Situation Two,'' grizzly bear use was
important, but not the primary use of the area. In areas governed by
``Management Situation Three,'' grizzly habitat maintenance and
improvement were not management considerations.
Accordingly, the National Forests and National Parks delineated 18
different bear management units within the Recovery Zone to aid in
managing habitat and monitoring population trends. Each bear management
unit was further subdivided into subunits, resulting in a total of 40
subunits contained within the 18 bear management units (see map at
http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm
). The bear management units are analysis areas that
approximate the lifetime size of a female's home range, while subunits
are analysis areas that approximate the annual home range size of adult
females. Subunits provide the optimal scale for evaluation of seasonal
feeding opportunities and landscape patterns of food availability for
grizzly bears (Weaver et al. 1986, p. 236). The bear management units
and subunits were identified to provide enough quality habitat and to
ensure that grizzly bears were well distributed across the recovery
zone as per the Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp.
20, 41, 44-46). Management improvements made as a result of these
Guidelines are discussed under Factor A below.
Another tool employed to monitor habitat quality and assist in
habitat management is the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Cumulative Effects
Model. The model was designed to assess the inherent productivity of
grizzly bear habitat and the cumulative effects of human activities on
bear use of that habitat (Weaver et al. 1986, p. 234; Dixon 1997, pp.
4-5; Mattson et al. 2002, p. 5). The model uses Geographic Information
System (GIS) databases and relative value coefficients associated with
human activities, vegetation, and key grizzly bear foods to calculate
habitat value and habitat effectiveness (Weaver et al. 1986, p. 237;
Mattson et al. 2002, p. 5). Habitat value is a relative measure of the
average net digestible energy potentially available to bears in a
subunit during each season. Habitat value is primarily a function of
vegetation and major foods (Weaver et al. 1986, p. 236; Dixon 1997, pp.
62-64). Habitat effectiveness is that part of the energy potentially
derived from the area that is available to bears given their response
to humans (Weaver et al. 1986, pp. 238-239; Dixon 1997, pp. 4-5;
Mattson et al. 2002, p. 5). More specifically, habitat effectiveness is
a function of relative value coefficients of human activities, such as
location, duration, and intensity of use for motorized access routes,
non-motorized access routes, developed sites, and front- and back-
country dispersed uses (Mattson et al. 2002, p. 5). The Cumulative
Effects Model, which represents the best available scientific
information in providing managers with a comparative index of how much
habitat values have changed through time, is updated annually to
reflect changes in vegetation, major foods, and the number and capacity
of human activities.
As per the court settlement (Fund for Animals v. Babbitt) and as
recommended by the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan's Task Y423, we have
worked to ``establish a threshold of minimal habitat values to be
maintained within each Cumulative Effects Analysis Unit in order to
ensure that sufficient habitat is available to support a viable
population'' (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 55). On June 17,
1997, we held a public workshop in Bozeman, Montana, to develop and
refine habitat-based recovery criteria for the grizzly bear. A Federal
Register notice notified the public of this workshop and provided
interested parties an opportunity to participate and submit comments
(62 FR 19777, April 23, 1997). After considering 1,167 written
comments, we developed biologically-based habitat recovery criteria
with the overall goal of maintaining or improving habitat conditions at
levels that existed in 1998.
There is no published method to deductively calculate minimum
habitat values required for a healthy and recovered population.
Recognizing that grizzly bears are opportunistic omnivores and that a
landscape's ability to support grizzly bears is a function of overall
habitat productivity, the distribution and abundance of major food
sources, the levels and type of human activities, grizzly bear social
systems, bear densities, and stochasticity, we selected 1998 levels as
our baseline level. We chose this year because it was known that these
habitat values had adequately supported an increasing Yellowstone
grizzly bear population throughout the 1990s (Eberhardt et al. 1994, p.
362; Knight and Blanchard 1995, pp. 5, 9; Knight et al. 1995, p. 247;
Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 10-11) and that levels of secure habitat
(defined as areas more than 500 meters (m) (1650 feet (ft)) from a
motorized access route and greater than or equal to 4 hectares (ha) (10
acres (ac)) in size (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 41)) and
the number and capacity of developed sites had changed little from 1988
to 1998 (USDA Forest Service 2004, pp. 140-141, 159-162).
The habitat-based recovery criteria lay out detailed management
objectives and approaches to manage motorized access, maintain or
increase secure habitat, limit increases in site development, and
assure no increase in livestock allotments. As each of these management
objectives are central to potential present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of habitat or range, each of these
criteria are discussed in detail
[[Page 14871]]
under Factor A below. These habitat-based recovery criteria have been
met.
Additionally, we developed four general habitat-based parameters
that will be monitored and related to demographic and population
monitoring results--(1) Productivity of the four major foods; (2)
habitat effectiveness as measured by the Cumulative Effects Model; (3)
grizzly bear mortality numbers, locations, and causes; grizzly bear/
human conflicts; nuisance bear management actions; bear/hunter
conflicts; and bear/livestock conflicts; and (4) development on private
lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 25-60). The agencies
will monitor, and the Study Team will annually analyze and report on
the relationships between grizzly bear population and demographic data,
and the availability and distribution of the four most important bear
foods, habitat effectiveness, nuisance bear control actions, numbers
and distribution of bear/human and bear/livestock conflicts, hunter
numbers, and development on private lands. This information will be
used to calculate an index of habitat sufficiency and to monitor
relationships between decreases in foods or increases in human
activity, and increasing bear mortality or changes in bear distribution
that might impact the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. These
analyses will use the demographic values of a stable to increasing
population as a benchmark to be maintained. The current habitat-based
recovery criteria have been appended to the Recovery Plan and are
included in the Strategy.
Population and Demographic Management--In 2000, we began a process
to reevaluate the methods used to measure the status of the bear
population, the methods used to estimate population size, and the
sustainable level of mortality in the GYA. This process was initiated
both in response to the 1995 court order (Fund for Animals v. Babbitt)
and Task Y11 of the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1993, p. 44), which suggested that we ``Reevaluate and
refine population criteria as new information becomes available.'' The
Wildlife Monograph: Temporal, Spatial, and Environmental Influences on
the Demographics of Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem,
and the report entitled Reassessing Methods To Estimate Population Size
and Sustainable Mortality Limits for the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
(hereafter referred to as the Reassessing Methods Document)
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005; Interagency Grizzly Bear
Study Team 2006) were produced to respond to the need to reevaluate and
refine the population criteria. The Wildlife Monograph is divided into
separate chapters (Haroldson et al. 2006b, pp. 33-42; Harris et al.
2006, pp. 44-55; Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 18-23; Schwartz et al.
2006c, pp. 25-31; Schwartz et al. 2006d, pp. 9-16; Schwartz et al.
2006e, pp. 57-63), and we reference these chapters individually as
applicable. Relevant portions of the authors' analyses are summarized
below, as well as relevant findings on the likelihood of population
persistence (as defined in a population viability analysis (PVA)) into
the foreseeable future for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
Harris et al. (2006, pp. 44-45) used the survival rates calculated
by Haroldson et al. (2006b, p. 35) and Schwartz et al. (2006c, p. 27),
and the reproductive rates calculated by Schwartz et al. (2006a, p. 19)
to model population trajectory for the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population between 1983 and 2002. Because the fates of some radio-
collared bears were unknown, Harris et al. (2006, p. 48) calculated two
separate estimates of population growth rate (see our response to Issue
5 under subheading B in the Responses to Public Comments section for
additional detail on this methodology). They found that the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population increased at a rate between 4.2 and 7.6 percent
per year between 1983 and 2002 (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48).
Schwartz et al. (2006c, p. 29) concluded that grizzly bears are
probably approaching carrying capacity inside Yellowstone National
Park. Their conclusion resulted from the analysis of survivorship of
cubs and yearlings, and of independent bears, inside Yellowstone
National Park, outside the Park but inside the Primary Conservation
Area (PCA), and outside the PCA, as well as the analysis of bear
distribution in those three zones of residency.
Population viability analyses are often used to describe a
population's likelihood of persistence in the future. We consider the
findings of Boyce et al. (2001, pp. 1-11) in the following paragraphs
because they reviewed the existing published PVAs for Yellowstone
grizzly bears, and updated these previous analyses using data collected
since the original analyses were completed. They also conducted new
PVAs using two software packages that had not been available to
previous investigators. They found that the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population had a 1 percent chance of going extinct within the next 100
years and a 4 percent chance of going extinct in the next 500 years
(Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 1, 10-11). However, these analyses did not
consider changes in habitat that may occur, so Boyce et al. (2001, pp.
33-34) did not consider any of the PVAs to be sufficient. Instead, they
recommended that a habitat-based PVA be developed that would link a
grizzly bear population model with a resource selection function
rigorously derived from the existing GIS databases compiled for the
Cumulative Effects Model. However, given the uncertainty in
parameterizing the habitat databases and the relationships between food
availability and grizzly bear vital rates, we do not believe such an
exercise, if it is ever possible to complete, is necessary to make
informed management decisions and maintain a recovered grizzly bear
population in the GYA in the foreseeable future. Such uncertainty could
result in a model that is even less indicative or representative of
potential responses of bears to habitat variation than what is
available now. This rule relies upon the best scientific and commercial
information available, which we view as more than adequate to support
this action.
Mortality control is a key part of any successful management
effort; however, some mortality, including human-caused mortality, is
unavoidable in a dynamic system where hundreds of bears inhabit large
areas of diverse habitat with several million human visitors and
residents. In 1977, Eberhardt documented that adult female survival was
the most important vital rate influencing population trajectory
(Eberhardt 1977, p. 210). Low adult female survival was the critical
factor causing decline in the GYA population prior to the mid-1980s
(Knight and Eberhardt 1985, p. 331). In the early 1980s, with the
development of the first Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1982, pp. 21-24), agencies began to control mortality and increase
adult female survivorship (USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 1-2; Knight et
al. 1999, pp. 56-57). The 1982 and 1993 Revised Recovery Plan (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1982, pp. 33-34, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1993, pp. 20-21) established three demographic (population)
goals to objectively measure and monitor recovery of the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population:
Demographic Recovery Criterion 1--Maintain a minimum of 15
unduplicated (only counted once) females with cubs-of-the-year over a
running 6-year average both inside the Recovery Zone and within a 16-km
(10-mi) area immediately surrounding the
[[Page 14872]]
Recovery Zone. Status: This recovery criterion has been met (Haroldson
2006b, p. 12).
Demographic Recovery Criterion 2--Sixteen of 18 bear management
units within the Recovery Zone (see map at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm
) must be
occupied by females with young, with no 2 adjacent bear management
units unoccupied, during a 6-year sum of observations. Status: This
criterion is important as it ensures that reproductive females occupy
the majority of the Recovery Zone and are not concentrated in one
portion of the ecosystem. This recovery criterion has been met
(Podruzny 2006, p. 17).
1993 Demographic Recovery Criterion 3--The running 6-year average
for total known, human-caused mortality should not exceed 4 percent of
the minimum population estimate in any 2 consecutive years; and human-
caused female grizzly bear mortality should not exceed 1.2 percent of
the minimum population estimate in any 2 consecutive years. Status: The
4 percent limit on total human-caused mortality has not been exceeded
since 1995. Because female mortality averaged 7.5 female bears per year
for the time period from 2001 to 2004 (Haroldson and Frey 2006, p. 30),
even though there were only 2 female mortalities in 2005 and 3 female
mortalities in 2006, the high mortality in the preceding years made the
6-year average exceed the 1.2 percent limit in 2004, 2005, and 2006.
This means that this component of 1993 Demographic Recovery Criterion 3
was not met in the last consecutive 2-year period of 2005 to 2006.
2007 Demographic Recovery Criterion 3--For independent females (at
least 2 years old), the current annual mortality limit, not to be
exceeded in 2 consecutive years and including all sources of mortality,
is 9 percent of the total number of independent females. For
independent males (at least 2 years old), the current annual mortality
limit not to be exceeded in 3 consecutive years and including all
sources of mortality, is 15 percent of the total number of independent
males. For dependent young (less than 2 years old), the current annual
mortality limit, not to be exceeded in 3 consecutive years and
including known and probable human-caused mortalities only, is 9
percent of the total number of dependent young (Interagency Grizzly
Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 36-38). Status: Applying the current
methodology to the 1999 to 2006 data, mortality limits have not been
exceeded for consecutive years for any bear class and, therefore, this
criterion has been met (Schwartz, in press).
We no longer consider 1993 Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 to
represent the best scientific and commercial data available, nor the
best technique to assess recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population because--(1) There is now a method to calculate the total
number of independent females from sightings and resightings of females
with cubs (Keating et al. 2002, p. 173), and this method allows
calculation of total population size (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study
Team 2005, pp. 12-26) instead of minimum population size as used in the
old method (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41-44); (2) There
is now a method to calculate the unknown and unreported mortalities
(Cherry et al. 2002, pp. 176-181), and this method allows more
conservative mortality management based on annually updated information
rather than the estimate of unknown and unreported mortality used in
the Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 20, 43); and
(3) There are now improved and updated data on reproductive performance
of Yellowstone grizzly bears (Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 19-23),
updated data on survival of cub and yearling Yellowstone grizzly bears
(Schwartz et al. 2006c, pp. 25-28), updated data on survival of
independent Yellowstone grizzly bears (Haroldson et al. 2006b, pp. 33-
35), updated data on the trajectory of the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population under alternate survival rates (Harris et al. 2006, pp. 44-
54), and new data on the impacts of spatial and environmental
heterogeneity on Yellowstone grizzly bear demographics (Schwartz et al.
2006e, pp. 58-61). These improved data and analyses, since the
development of the 1993 Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41-44), allow improved mortality management
based on more accurate calculations of total population size, and the
establishment of sustainable mortality for independent females,
independent males, and dependent young.
As stated above, the update to 1993 Demographic Recovery Criterion
3 began in 2000, as per Task Y11 of the 1993 Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 44) and the court remand to the Service
for further study and clarification (Fund for Animals v. Babbitt). When
this review began in 2000, the 1993 Demographic Recovery Criterion 3
had been achieved since 1998 (Haroldson and Frey 2006, p. 35). It was
only since 2004, 4 years after the reassessment work began, that the
1993 criterion was not met (Haroldson and Frey 2006, p. 35).
Although the 1993 Recovery Plan suggested calculating sustainable
mortality as a percentage of the minimum population estimate (as
outlined in Demographic Recovery Criterion 3), this method no longer
represents the best scientific and commercial data available
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 8-9). The Study Team
conducted a critical review of both current and alternative methods for
calculating population size, estimating the known to unknown mortality
ratio, and establishing sustainable mortality levels for the
Yellowstone grizzly population (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
2005, pp. 13-41). The product of this work is the aforementioned
Reassessing Methods Document, which evaluates current methods, reviews
recent scientific literature, examines alternative methods, and
recommends the most scientifically valid techniques based on these
reviews (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 41-45). This
Reassessing Methods Document was sent out to three peer reviewers, and
the comments of the reviewers were incorporated into the final document
that was released to the public in November of 2005 (70 FR 70632,
November 22, 2005). These peer reviews are available in the
administrative record for this final rule. We requested public comment
on the Reassessing Methods Document (70 FR 70632-70633, Nov. 22, 2005).
In response to the comments received, the Study Team prepared a
Supplement to the Reassessing Methods Document, which addresses many of
the concerns raised during the public comment period (Interagency
Grizzly Bear Study Team 2006). This Supplement also underwent peer
review. Both the Reassessing Methods Document and its Supplement are
accessible at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm
.
The end result of this critical review and analysis are revised
methods for calculating population size, estimating the known to
unknown mortality ratio, and establishing sustainable mortality levels
for the Yellowstone grizzly population based on the best available
science. These methods and the 2007 Demographic Recovery Criterion 3
were appended to the Recovery Plan as a supplement and included in the
Strategy (72 FR 11376; 72 FR 11376-11377).
The current method is a much more comprehensive mortality
management approach. Between 1980 and 2002,
[[Page 14873]]
approximately 21 percent of all known grizzly bear deaths were from
undetermined causes (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 15). These deaths could
not be counted against the 4 percent human-caused mortality limit using
the previous method because the cause of death could not be confirmed.
The previous method also assumed a 2-to-1 ``known-to-unknown''
mortality ratio. Many researchers hypothesize that unknown mortality is
much higher than that suggested by a ratio of ``known-to-unknown'' of
2-to-1 (Knight and Eberhardt 1985, pp. 332-333; McLellan et al. 1999,
p. 916). After careful consideration and using the best available
science, the Study Team adopted a new more conservative ``known-to-
unknown'' mortality ratio of approximately 1-to-2 that is recalculated
each year based on the number of known, reported deaths (Cherry et al.
2002, p. 179; Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 39-41).
Annual allowable mortality limits for each bear class (independent
female, independent male, and dependent young) are calculated annually
based on total population estimates of each bear class for the current
year (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 5-9). The Study
Team calculates both the total population size and the mortality limits
within an area designated by the Strategy (see The Conservation
Strategy section of the rule below) that overlaps and extends beyond
suitable habitat (see Figure 1 below). For independent females, a 9
percent limit was considered sustainable because simulations have shown
that this level of adult female mortality rate allows a stable to
increasing population 95 percent of the time (Harris et al. 2006, p.
50). For independent males, a 15 percent limit was considered
sustainable because it approximates the level of male mortality in the
GYA from 1983 to 2001 (Haroldson et al. 2006b, p. 38), a period when
the mean growth rate of the population was estimated at 4 to 7 percent
per year (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). Independent males can endure a
higher rate of mortality compared to females without affecting the
overall stability or trajectory of the population because they
contribute little to overall population growth (Mace and Waller 1998,
pp. 1009-1013; Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, p. 39).
Similarly, the 9 percent limit on human-caused mortality for dependent
young was chosen because this level of mortality is less than the 15
percent human-caused mortality documented for each sex of this age
group from 1983 to 2001, a period of population growth and expansion
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 9, 36-38). Although it
is known that dependent bears experience far higher natural mortality
rates than independent bears (Schwartz et al. 2006c, p. 30), there is
no known way to sample these mortalities directly in the field.
Instead, these rates are calculated from consecutive years of observing
radio-collared females with cubs-of-the-year.
These mortality limits can be reduced by individual management
agencies of the multi-agency Yellowstone Grizzly Coordinating Committee
(hereafter referred to as the Coordinating Committee and further
described in Factor D below) within their jurisdictions, as part of the
Coordinating Committee management process to meet the Strategy and the
State plans' management objectives. These mortality limits, as
described above in the Conservation Strategy Management Area (Figure
1), cannot be increased above the limits of 9 percent for independent
females, 15 percent for independent males, and 9 percent for dependent
young, unless such an increase is justified or supported by new
scientific findings using the best available science, and the basis for
this increase is documented by the Study Team in a report to the
Coordinating Committee. Any such recommendation to increase mortality
limits would be considered an amendment to the Strategy open for public
comment, and requiring a majority vote by the Coordinating Committee
before finalization (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 63).
The Study Team will reevaluate mortality limits every 8 to 10
years, or as new scientific information becomes available (Interagency
Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, p. 45), or at the request of the
Coordinating Committee. Allocation of mortality limits within the
Conservation Strategy Management Area (see Figure 1 below) among
management jurisdictions is the responsibility of the Coordinating
Committee, but total mortality for independent females, independent
males, and dependent young within the Conservation Strategy Management
Area (see Figure 1 below) must remain at or below the sustainable
mortality limits established by the Study Team. This allocation process
may be used to adjust mortality numbers among jurisdictions to achieve
management objectives while staying within the overall mortality
limits.
The Conservation Strategy--In order to provide adequate regulatory
mechanisms after delisting and ensure the long-term maintenance of a
recovered population, the Recovery Plan calls for the development of
``a conservation strategy to outline habitat and population monitoring
that will continue in force after recovery'' (Recovery Plan Task Y426)
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 55). To accomplish this goal,
in 1993, we created the Interagency Conservation Strategy Team. This
team included biologists from the Service, the National Park Service,
the USDA Forest Service, the IDFG, the WGFD, and the MTFWP.
In March 2000, a draft Conservation Strategy for the GYA was
released for public review and comment (65 FR 11340, March 2, 2000).
Also in 2000, a Governors' Roundtable was organized to provide
recommendations from the perspectives of the three States that would be
involved with grizzly bear management after delisting. In 2003, the
draft Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the GYA was
released, along with drafts of State grizzly bear management plans (all
accessible at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm
). We have responded to all public comments received on
the Strategy and finalized the Strategy (72 FR 11376). The Strategy
will become effective once this final rule takes effect.
The purpose of the Strategy and associated State and Federal
implementation plans is to--(1) Describe, summarize, and implement the
coordinated efforts to manage the grizzly bear population and its
habitat to ensure continued conservation of the Yellowstone grizzly
bear population; (2) specify and implement the population, habitat, and
nuisance bear standards to maintain a recovered grizzly bear population
for the foreseeable future; (3) document the regulatory mechanisms and
legal authorities, policies, management, and monitoring programs that
exist to maintain the recovered grizzly bear population; and (4)
document the actions which the participating agencies have agreed to
implement (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 5-6).
The Strategy identifies and provides a framework for managing two
areas, the PCA and adjacent areas of suitable habitat where occupancy
by grizzly bears is anticipated as per the State plans. The PCA
boundaries (containing 23,853 sq km (9,210 sq mi)) correspond to those
of the Yellowstone Recovery Zone (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993,
p. 41) and will replace the Recovery Zone boundary (see Figure 1
below). The PCA contains adequate seasonal habitat components needed to
support the recovered Yellowstone grizzly bear population for the
foreseeable future and to allow bears to continue to expand outside the
PCA.
[[Page 14874]]
The PCA includes approximately 51 percent of the suitable habitat
within the DPS and approximately 84 to 90 percent of the population of
female grizzly bears with cubs (Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66).
The Strategy will be implemented and funded by both Federal and
State agencies within the Yellowstone DPS. The USDA Forest Service,
National Park Service, and BLM will cooperate with the State wildlife
agencies (MTFWP, IDFG, and WGFD) to implement the Strategy and its
protective habitat and population standards. The USDA Forest Service
and National Park Service (which collectively own and manage
approximately 98 percent of the PCA) are responsible for maintaining or
improving habitat standards inside the PCA and monitoring population
criteria. Specifically, Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National
Park, and the Shoshone, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-
Targhee, Custer, and Gallatin National Forests are the primary areas
with Federal responsibility for implementing the Strategy. Affected
National Forests and National Parks have incorporated the habitat
standards and criteria into their Forest Plans and National Park
management plans via appropriate amendment processes so that they are
legally applied to these public lands within the Yellowstone DPS
boundaries (Grand Teton National Park 2006, p. 1; USDA Forest Service
2006b, p. 4; Yellowstone National Park 2006, p. 12).
Outside of the PCA, grizzly bears will be allowed to expand into
suitable habitat as per direction in the State management plans. Here,
the objective is to maintain existing resource management and
recreational uses, and to allow agencies to respond to demonstrated
problems with appropriate management actions. The key to successful
management of grizzly bears outside of the PCA lies in their
successfully utilizing lands not managed solely for bears, but in which
their needs are considered along with other uses. Currently,
approximately 10 to 16 percent of female grizzly bears with cubs occupy
habitat outside of the PCA (Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66). The area
of suitable habitat outside of the PCA is roughly 83 percent Federally
owned; 6.0 percent Tribally owned; 1.6 percent State-owned; and 9.5
percent privately owned. State grizzly bear management plans (Idaho's
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002; MTFWP 2002; WGFD
2005), the Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2006a), and other
appropriate planning documents provide specific management direction
for areas outside of the PCA.
This differential management standard (one standard inside the PCA
and another standard for suitable habitat outside the PCA) has been
successful in the past (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 19). Lands within
the PCA/Recovery Zone are currently managed primarily to maintain
grizzly bear habitat, whereas lands outside of the PCA/Recovery Zone
boundaries are managed with more consideration for human uses (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 17-18). Such flexible management
promotes communication and tolerance for grizzly bear recovery.
As the grizzly bear population within the Recovery Zone has
rebounded in response to recovery efforts, there has been a gradual
natural recolonization of suitable habitat outside of the PCA/Recovery
Zone (Pyare et al. 2004, p. 6). Today, most suitable habitat within the
DPS boundaries is occupied by grizzly bears (68 percent) but
approximately 14,500 sq km (5,600 sq mi) are still available for
recolonization (see suitable habitat analysis in Factor A of this final
rule below).
The Strategy is an adaptive, dynamic document that establishes a
framework to incorporate new and better scientific information as it
becomes available or as necessary in response to environmental changes.
Ongoing review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the Strategy is
the responsibility of the State and Federal managers and will be
updated by the management agencies every 5 years, or more frequently as
necessary. Public comments will be sought on all updates to the
Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 14).
Previous Federal Actions
On July 28, 1975, the grizzly bear was designated as threatened in
the conterminous (lower 48) United States (40 FR 31734-31736). On
November 17, 2005, we proposed to designate the GYA population of
grizzly bears as a DPS and to remove this DPS from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. This notice was followed by a 120-
day comment period (70 FR 69854, November 17, 2005; 71 FR 8251,
February 16, 2006), during which we held two public hearings and four
open houses (70 FR 69854, November 17, 2005; 71 FR 4097-4098, January
25, 2006). Included in the public comments was a petition to uplist the
Yellowstone DPS to endangered status. All assertions of this petition
are addressed either in the Summary of Public Comments section below,
in the 5-factor analysis that follows, or in the Reassessing Methods
Document's issues and responses summary. A 90-day finding on whether
the petition presented substantial information indicating whether the
petitioned action may be warranted is included below. Similarly, this
final rule addresses the 2004 Administrative Procedure Act petition
from the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation to designate the grizzly bear
in the GYA as a DPS (Hamilton et al. 2004). Finally, between 1991 and
1999, we issued warranted-but-precluded findings to reclassify grizzly
bears in the North Cascades (56 FR 33892-33894, July 24, 1991; 63 FR
30453-30454, June 4, 1998), the Cabinet-Yaak (58 FR 8250-8251, February
12, 1993; 64 FR 26725-26733, May 17, 1999), and the Selkirk Ecosystems
(64 FR 26725-26733, May 17, 1999) from threatened to endangered. These
uplisting actions remain precluded by higher priority actions. We hope
to further evaluate each of these ecosystems during our upcoming 5-year
review. Please refer to the proposed rule for more detailed information
on previous Federal actions (70 FR 69861, November 17, 2005).
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview
Pursuant to the Act, we shall consider for listing or delisting any
species, subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa if
there is sufficient information to indicate that such action may be
warranted. To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the Act and
congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service published, on December 21, 1994, a draft Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments under the Act
(DPS Policy) and invited public comments on it (59 FR 65884-65885).
After review of comments and further consideration, the Services
adopted the interagency policy as issued in draft form, and published
it in the Federal Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722-4725). This
policy addresses the establishment of DPSs for potential listing and
delisting actions.
Under our DPS policy, three factors are considered when determining
whether or not a population can be considered a DPS. These are applied
similarly for additions to the list of endangered and threatened
species, reclassification, and removal from the list. They are--(1)
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of
the taxon (i.e., Ursus arctos horribilis); (2) the significance of the
population segment to the taxon to which it belongs (i.e., Ursus arctos
horribilis); and (3) the population segment's conservation status in
relation
[[Page 14875]]
to the Act's standards for listing (i.e., is the population segment
endangered or threatened).
Application of the Distinct Population Segment Policy
Although the DPS Policy does not allow State or other intra-
national governmental boundaries to be used as the basis for
determining the discreteness of a potential DPS, an artificial or
manmade boundary may be used to clearly identify the geographic area
included within a DPS designation. Easily identifiable manmade
projects, such as the center line of interstate highways, Federal
highways, and State highways are useful for delimiting DPS boundaries.
Thus, the Yellowstone DPS consists of--that portion of Idaho that is
east of Interstate Highway 15 and north of U.S. Highway 30; that
portion of Montana that is east of Interstate Highway 15 and south of
Interstate Highway 90; and that portion of Wyoming south of Interstate
Highway 90, west of Interstate Highway 25, Wyoming State Highway 220,
and U.S. Highway 287 south of Three Forks (at the 220 and 287
intersection), and north of Interstate Highway 80 and U.S. Highway 30
(see Figure 1 below). Due to the use of highways as easily described
boundaries, large areas of unsuitable habitat were included in the DPS.
The core of the Yellowstone DPS is the Yellowstone Recovery Zone
(24,000 sq km (9,200 sq mi)) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p.
39). The Yellowstone Recovery Zone includes Yellowstone National Park;
a portion of Grand Teton National Park; John D. Rockefeller Memorial
Parkway; sizable contiguous portions of the Shoshone, Bridger-Teton,
Targhee, Gallatin, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, and Custer National Forests;
BLM lands; and surrounding State and private lands (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1993, p. 39). As grizzly bear populations have
rebounded and densities have increased, bears have expanded their range
beyond the Recovery Zone, into other suitable habitat. Grizzly bears in
this area now occupy about 36,940 sq km (14,260 sq mi) in and around
the Yellowstone Recovery Zone (Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 207; Schwartz
et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66). No grizzly bears originating from the
Yellowstone Recovery Zone have been suspected or confirmed beyond the
borders of the Yellowstone DPS.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 14876]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR29MR07.030
Analysis for Discreteness
Under our DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
conditions--(1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the
same taxon (i.e., Ursus arctos horribilis) as a consequence of
physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors
(quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may
provide evidence of this separation); or (2) it is delimited by
international governmental boundaries within which differences in
control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or
regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) (``the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms'') of
the Act. Our DPS policy does not require complete reproductive
isolation among populations in order to determine that a population is
markedly separated from other populations, and allows for some limited
interchange among population segments considered to be discrete (61 FR
4722).
[[Page 14877]]
The Yellowstone grizzly bear population is the southernmost
population remaining in the conterminous States and has been physically
separated from other areas where grizzly bears occur for at least 100
years (Merriam 1922, pp. 1-2; Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4334). The
nearest population of grizzly bears is found in the NCDE. These
populations are separated by land ownership, vegetation, and
topographic patterns unsuitable for grizzly bears. The end result is a
functional barrier to grizzly bear movement across the landscape and
connectivity between the GYA and the NCDE. Grizzly bears from the GYA
have not migrated north of the current location of Interstate 90 (the
northern boundary of the DPS), probably for at least the last century
(Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4334). Meanwhile, during the last decade,
there have been periodic reports of grizzly bears from the NCDE as far
south as Highway 12 near Helena, Montana. In the last 25 years, two
male grizzly bears have been killed near Anaconda, Montana, and the
Flint Creek mountains southwest of the NCDE. Both of these reports are
approximately 120 km (75 mi) northwest of the most northerly
Yellowstone grizzly bears. This distance is too far for normal grizzly
bear dispersal distances of roughly 10 to 40 km (6 to 25 mi) (McLellan
and Hovey 2001, pp. 841-842; Proctor et al. 2004, p. 1108) to
effectively connect the NCDE population or other neighboring
populations with the Yellowstone DPS. There is currently no
connectivity, nor are there any known resident grizzly bears in this
area between these two grizzly bear populations.
Because the Yellowstone Ecosystem represents the most southerly
population of grizzly bears, connectivity further south is not an
issue. Connectivity to the east also is irrelevant to this action as
grizzly bears in the lower 48 States no longer exist east of the GYA,
and most of the habitat is unsuitable for grizzly bears. Finally,
connectivity west into the Bitterroot Mountains is irrelevant to this
action because no bears have been documented in this ecosystem in the
past 25 years (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 12; 65 FR 69624,
November 17, 2000; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000, p. viii).
Genetic data also support the conclusion that grizzly bears from
the GYA are demographically markedly separated from other grizzly
bears. Genetic studies involving heterozygosity (which provides a
measure of genetic variation in either a population or individual)
estimates at 8 microsatellite loci show 55 percent heterozygosity in
the GYA grizzly bears compared to 69 percent in the NCDE bears (Paetkau
et al. 1998, pp. 421-424). Heterozygosity is a useful measure of
genetic diversity, with higher values indicative of greater genetic
variation and evolutionary potential. High levels of genetic variation
are indicative of high levels of connectivity among populations or high
numbers of breeding animals. By comparing heterozygosity of extant
bears to samples from Yellowstone grizzlies of the early 1900s, Miller
and Waits (2003, p. 4338) concluded that gene flow and, therefore,
population connectivity between the GYA grizzly population and
populations to the north was very low historically, even prior to the
arrival of settlers. The reasons for this historic limitation of gene
flow are unclear. Increasing levels of human activity and settlement in
this intervening area over the last century further limited grizzly
bear movements into and out of the GYA, resulting in the current lack
of connectivity.
Based on our analysis of the best available scientific data, we
find that the GYA grizzly population and other remaining grizzly bear
populations are markedly separated from each other. This contention is
supported by evidence of physical separation between populations (both
current and historical) and evidence of genetic discontinuity.
Therefore, the Yellowstone DPS meets the criterion of discreteness
under our DPS Policy.
Analysis for Significance
If we determine a population segment is discrete, its biological
and ecological significance will then be considered in light of
congressional guidance that the authority to list DPS's be used
sparingly while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In
carrying out this examination, we consider available scientific
evidence of the population's importance to the taxon (i.e., Ursus
arctos horribilis) to which it belongs. Our DPS policy states that this
consideration may include, but is not limited to, the following--(1)
Persistence of the discrete population segment in an ecological setting
unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) Evidence that loss of the discrete
population segment would result in a significant gap in the range of
the taxon; (3) Evidence that the discrete population segment represents
the only surviving natural occurrence of a taxon that may be more
abundant elsewhere as an introduced population outside its historic
range; and/or (4) Evidence that the discrete population segment differs
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic
characteristics. Below we address Factors 1, 2, and 4. Factor 3 does
not apply to the Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--Grizzly bears in the GYA
exist in an unusual and unique ecosystem that has greater access to
large-bodied ungulates such as bison (Bison bison), elk (Cervus
elaphus), and moose (Alces alces), and less access to fall berries than
any other interior North American, European, or Asian grizzly bear
populations (Stroganov 1969, p. 128; Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1623;
Jacoby et al. 1999, p. 925; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 568-569). The
GYA ecosystem contains extensive populations of ungulates with an
estimated 100,000 elk, 29,500 mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) and
white-tailed deer (O. virginianus), 5,800 moose, 4,000 bison and,
relative to other ungulate populations in the area, a small population
of pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1994, p. ix; Toman et al. 1997, p. 56; Smith et al. 2003, pp.
337-338). Although grizzly bears are successful omnivores, grizzlies in
the rest of the conterminous States (Jacoby et al. 1999, p. 925), most
of Europe (Berducou et al. 1983, pp. 154-155; Clevenger et al. 1992,
pp. 416-417; Dahle et al. 1998, pp. 152-153), and Siberia (Stroganov
1969, p. 128) rely on plant and insect materials for the majority of
their diet. In contrast, grizzlies in the GYA rely on terrestrial
mammals as their primary source of nutrition, as indicated by bear scat
(Mattson 1997, p. 162), feed site analysis (Mattson 1997, p. 167), and
bear hair isotope analysis (Jacoby et al. 1999, p. 925). Concentration
of isotopic nitrogen (\15\N) in grizzly bear hair from Yellowstone
grizzly bears suggests that meat constitutes 45 percent and 79 percent
of the annual diet for females and males, respectively (Jacoby et al.
1999, p. 925). These high percentages of meat in Yellowstone grizzly
bears' diet are in contrast to the 0 to 33 percent of meat in the diet
of bears in the NCDE and 0 to 17 percent of meat in the diet of bears
from the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (Jacoby et al. 1999, p. 925).
Furthermore, the source of this animal meat is primarily large-bodied
ungulates, not fish, as in other populations of brown bears in Alaska
and Siberia (Stroganov 1969, p. 128; Hilderbrand et al. 1996, pp. 2086-
2087). Of particular relevance is the Yellowstone grizzly bears' use of
wild bison, a species endemic to North America, but eradicated in most
of the lower 48 States except the GYA by the
[[Page 14878]]
end of the 19th century (Steelquist 1998, pp. 16, 30). Although bison
numbers have increased since this time, the vast majority of today's
bison are found in managed or ranched herds (Steelquist 1998, pp. 33-
37). Their habitat, bunchgrass prairie (tallgrass, mixed-grass, and
shortgrass prairie), has been almost entirely converted to agricultural
lands (Steelquist 1998, p. 11), leaving little opportunity for
existence in areas outside of the isolated refuges and ranches where
they are commonly found today. Mattson (1997, p. 167) found that wild
bison comprised the second largest source of ungulate meat (24 percent)
consumed by Yellowstone grizzly bears, second only to elk (53 percent).
The Yellowstone grizzly population also exists in a unique
ecological setting because it is able to use whitebark pine seeds as a
major food source. Whitebark pine, a tree species found only in North
America (Schmidt 1994, p. 1), exhibits annual variation in seed crops,
with high seed production in some years and very low seed production in
other years (Weaver and Forcella 1986, p. 70; Morgan and Bunting 1992,
p. 71). During these years of high seed production, Yellowstone grizzly
bears derive as much as 51 percent of their protein from pine nuts
(Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 767). In fact, grizzly bear consumption of
ungulates decreases during years of high whitebark pine seed production
(Mattson 1997, p. 169). In most areas of North America where whitebark
pine distribution overlaps with grizzly bear populations, bears do not
consistently use this potential food source (Mattson and Reinhart 1994,
pp. 212-214). This may be due to different climatic regimes that
sustain berry-producing shrubs or simply the scarcity of whitebark
pines in some areas of the bear's range (Mattson and Reinhart 1994, p.
214). Dependence of Yellowstone grizzly bears on whitebark pine is
unique because in most areas of its range, whitebark pine has been
significantly reduced in numbers and distribution due to the introduced
pathogen white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) (Kendall and
Keane 2001, pp. 228-232). While there is evidence of blister rust in
whitebark pines in the GYA, the pathogen has been present for more than
50 years (McDonald and Hoff 2001, p. 210) and relatively few trees have
been severely impacted (see Factor E below). Also, although several
berry-producing shrubs occur in the area, these are relatively limited
by climatic factors and most grizzly bears in the GYA do not rely on
berries as a significant portion of their diets.
Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon--Loss of the Yellowstone
DPS would represent a significant gap in the range of the taxon. As
noted above, grizzly bears once lived throughout the North American
Rockies from Alaska and Canada, and south into central Mexico. Grizzly
bears have been extirpated from most of the southern portions of their
historic range. Today, the Yellowstone DPS represents the southernmost
reach of the grizzly bear. The loss of this population would be
significant because it would substantially curtail the range of the
grizzly bear by moving the range approximately 4 degrees of latitude to
the north. Thus, the loss of this population would result in a
significant gap in the current range of the taxon.
Given the grizzly bear's historic occupancy of the conterminous
States and the portion of the historic range the conterminous States
represent, recovery in the lower 48 States where the grizzly bear
existed in 1975 when it was listed has long been viewed as important to
the taxon (40 FR 31734-31736, July 28, 1975). The Yellowstone DPS is
significant in achieving this objective, as it is 1 of only 5 known
occupied areas and constitutes approximately half of the remaining
grizzly bears in the conterminous 48 States. Finally, the Yellowstone
DPS represents the only grizzly bear population not connected to bears
in Canada.
Marked Genetic Differences--Several genetics studies have confirmed
the uniqueness of grizzly bears in the GYA. The GYA population has been
isolated from other grizzly bear populations for approximately 100
years or more (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4334). Yellowstone grizzly
bears have the lowest relative heterozygosity of any continental
grizzly population yet investigated (Paetkau et al. 1998, pp. 421-424;
Waits et al. 1998a, p. 310). Only Kodiak Island grizzly bears, a
different subspecies (Ursus arctos middendorfi), have lower
heterozygosity scores (26.5 percent), reflecting as much as 12,000
years of separation from mainland populations (Paetkau et al. 1998, p.
421; Waits et al. 1998b, pp. 412-413). Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338)
conclude that gene flow between the GYA and the closest remaining
population was limited prior to the arrival of European settlers but
could only speculate as to the reasons behind this historical
separation. The apparent long-term difference in heterozygosity between
Yellowstone and other Montana populations indicates a unique set of
circumstances in which limited movement between these areas has
resulted in a markedly different genetic situation for the Yellowstone
population.
We conclude that the Yellowstone grizzly population is significant
because it exists in an unusual and unique ecological setting; the loss
of this population would result in a significant gap in the range of
the taxon; and this population's genetic characteristics differ
markedly from other grizzly bear populations.
Conclusion of Distinct Population Segment Review
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, as
described above, we find that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
is discrete from other grizzly populations and significant to the
remainder of the taxon (i.e., Ursus arctos horribilis). Because the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population is discrete and significant, it
warrants recognition as a DPS under the Act.
It is important to note that the DPS Policy does not require
complete separation of one DPS from other populations, but instead
requires ``marked separation.'' Thus, if occasional individual grizzly
bears disperse among populations, the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS
would still display the required level of discreteness per the DPS
Policy. And, as stated in the 1993 Recovery Plan, we recognize that
natural connectivity is important to long-term grizzly bear
conservation and we will continue efforts to work toward this goal
independent of the delisting of the Yellowstone DPS (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1993, p. 53). This issue is discussed further under
Factor E below. In addition, the conclusion regarding the conservation
status (step 3 of the DPS analysis) of the Yellowstone DPS follows the
5-factor analysis discussion below.
Summary of Public Comments
In our proposed rule, we requested that all interested parties
submit information, data, and comments concerning the status of grizzly
bears in the GYA, their habitat, and their management (70 FR 69882,
November 17, 2005). The comment period was open from November 17, 2005,
through March 20, 2006 (70 FR 69854, November 17, 2005; 71 FR 8251,
February 16, 2006). During this time, we held two formal public
hearings and four informational meetings (70 FR 69854, November 17,
2005; 71 FR 4097-4098, January 25, 2006). In addition, there were
numerous press releases, a press conference with the Secretary of the
Interior, and a conference call with
[[Page 14879]]
numerous environmental groups and non-government organizations
discussing the proposed rule. Comments could be hand delivered to us or
submitted to us via e-mail, mail, or public hearing testimony.
During the 120-day comment period, we received comments from
164,486 individuals, organizations, and government agencies. Those
comments arrived in 193,578 letters, form letters, public hearing
testimonies, and email messages. Numerous respondents submitted
multiple comments, so the total number of comments received (193,578)
is greater than the total number of people/groups responding (164,486).
Twelve of these letters were signed as ``petitions'' with 974
signatures. Finally, one of the above comment letters also formally
petitioned the Service to list the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS as
endangered under the Act and designate critical habitat. All assertions
of this petition are addressed either in this section, in the 5-factor
analysis that follows, or the Reassessing Methods Document's issues and
responses summary.
We have read and considered all comments received. A content
analysis of these comments is available upon request (see ADDRESSES
section above) or online at: http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm.
We updated the proposed rule where it
was appropriate, and we respond to all substantive issues received,
below. We have grouped similar comments together in ``Issues,'' each of
which is followed by our ``Response.''
A. General Comments
Issue 1--Numerous comments suggesting corrections to facts and data
in the proposed rule such as correcting typographical errors, including
omitted cooperators, and modifying the presentation of statistical
results. One commenter noted our reference to the DPS as both a
``population'' and an ``area.'' This commenter also noted
inconsistencies in our use of the words ``population'' and
``populations'' in the proposed rule and asked if there is one
population or multiple populations within the DPS boundaries.
Response--There is one population within the DPS boundaries and the
appropriate changes have been made in the text of the final rule to
clarify this, as well as the other matters raised in Issue 1.
Issue 2--A few commenters disputed the Service's claim that the
nearest grizzly bear population to the Yellowstone DPS is 130 km (80
mi) away. According to these commenters, grizzly bears originating from
the NCDE have been documented near Anaconda, Montana, and one grizzly
bear originating from the Yellowstone DPS was sighted north of Bozeman,
Montana, in the Bridger Mountains. Furthermore, one commenter noted
that the Tobacco Root Vegetation Management Plan Final Environmental
Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2001, p. 44) describes the
Tobacco Roots as habitat occupied by grizzlies on both a resident and
transient basis. This puts the two populations only 72 km (45 mi)
apart.
Response--We know of two records of grizzly bears near Anaconda,
Montana. In one case, the carcass of a subadult male grizzly bear was
discovered by a hunter in 1980. The other report notes a 2005 incident
in which a hunter mistakenly shot a grizzly bear 11 km (7 mi) west of
Anaconda that was determined to be from the NCDE with DNA analysis.
There are no other verified reports of grizzly bears within 76 km (45
mi) of Anaconda. The Study Team has no record of any grizzly bears in
the Bridger Mountains or in the Tobacco Root Mountains. Despite what
the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Tobacco Root
Vegetation Management Plan may identify as occupied habitat, a study
conducted in the Tobacco Roots in 1999 and 2000 failed to document
grizzly bear presence (Lukins et al. 2004, p. 171). In the final rule,
we corrected the distance between the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population and the nearest bears to account for these two records near
Anaconda, Montana. This resulted in the closest possible distance
between the Yellowstone population and the nearest record of a grizzly
bear as 120 km (75 mi) instead of 130 km (80 mi) as reported in the
proposed rule.
Issue 3--One commenter disputed our claim that 30 percent of
suitable habitat outside the PCA within the DPS is protected by
official Wilderness Area designation, instead suggesting only 15
percent of occupied habitat outside the PCA within the DPS is protected
as Wilderness.
Response--This numeric disparity centers around a difference in our
frame of reference. Our calculation is the percentage of ``suitable
habitat'' outside the PCA within the DPS (6,799 sq km (2,625 sq mi))
that is protected by Wilderness Area designation (22,783 sq km (8,797
sq mi)). In contrast, this comment is referring to ``occupied habitat''
outside the PCA within the DPS protected by Wilderness Area
designation. We considered suitable habitat because we expect grizzly
bears to naturally recolonize much of the remaining unoccupied suitable
habitat in the next few decades.
Issue 4--Several commenters noted that our definition of suitable
habitat does not consider Wyoming's habitat criteria of ``socially
acceptable.'' They request that this inconsistency in definitions be
remedied.
Response--Our definition of suitable habitat is based on biological
criteria. Some considerations of social acceptance entered into the
considerations of suitable habitat in the Wyoming plan. The Wyoming
plan does not restrict grizzly bears from areas outside their
definition of suitable habitat. Instead, it establishes management
objectives in these areas to minimize conflicts between bears and human
activities. Because most grizzly bears do not come into conflict with
humans, the impact of this difference in designation of suitable
habitat between the Service and Wyoming will have little functional
impact on grizzly bear occupancy or mortality.
B. Population Concerns
Issue 1--Several commenters noted their concern about the
occurrence of high levels of female mortality since 2000 and requested
that the impact of this trend be analyzed. It was noted that the
allowable adult female mortality was exceeded in 2004 and 2005;
therefore, the recovery goal that adult female mortality cannot be
exceeded in 2 consecutive years has not been met. These commenters
asked that we explain why delisting is being proposed when one of the
recovery goals has not been met.
Response--Recovery plans are intended to provide guidance and are
subject to revision as new data are reported. They are not regulatory
documents. Recovery of species requires adaptive management that may,
or may not, fully follow the guidance provided in a recovery plan. That
said, we no longer consider 1993 Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 to
represent the best scientific and commercial data available nor the
best technique to assess recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population. Therefore, the 1993 mortality management system for the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population has been reevaluated and revised
using a recent and more accurate model (Harris et al. 2006, pp. 51-55).
This approach was consistent with a 1995 court order to reevaluate this
issue (Fund for Animals v. Babbitt) and Recovery Plan Task Y11, which
suggested we work to ``determine population conditions at which the
species is viable and self sustaining,'' and to ``reevaluate and refine
[[Page 14880]]
population criteria as new information becomes available'' (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 44). Under the revised methods for
calculating sustainable mortality, female mortality was not exceeded in
either 2004 or 2005. These changes have been appended to the Recovery
Plan and the Strategy.
Issue 2--Some commenters felt that delisting was premature without
a PVA based on future habitat conditions and that PVAs based simply on
past population trends are inadequate. A habitat-based PVA could
determine how future habitat conditions such as the availability of
major food sources, climate change, increasing human populations, and
resource extraction may affect the long-term persistence of the
Yellowstone DPS. One commenter referred to a similar PVA conducted by
``Boyce et al. (2005)'' on grizzly bears in Alberta, Canada, and
suggested that Boyce be contracted to do this analysis for the
Yellowstone DPS.
Response--When we contacted the commenter who suggested we consider
employing a technique similar to ``Boyce et al. (2005)'', we were told
that the correct citation for that article was Nielsen et al. 2006.
Nielsen et al. (2006, pp. 219-221) predicted adult female grizzly bear
occupancy and mortality across the landscape. Their exercise did not
make any attempt to predict the long-term viability of the grizzly bear
population in Alberta and, in this sense, was not a habitat-based PVA.
Instead, Nielson et al. (2006, pp. 226-227) attempted to provide a
useful tool to managers that linked not only occupancy, but also
survival, to habitat conditions.
In our view, a PVA based on possible future habitat conditions
relies upon too many speculative variables to be relied upon to
determine long-term persistence. Given the compound uncertainties
associated with projections of possible future habitat changes, and the
grizzly bear's corresponding responses to those changes, it is unlikely
that a habitat-based PVA would provide an accurate representation of
future population viability for Yellowstone grizzly bears. The
management system outlined in the Strategy depends on monitoring of
multiple indices including production and availability of all major
foods; and monitoring of grizzly bear vital rates including survival,
age at first reproduction, reproductive rate, mortality cause and
location, dispersal, and human/bear conflicts. These data will be used
in an adaptive management system to monitor the real-time status of the
population and its relationship with major foods and environmental
variables, allowing managers to implement actions that respond to
changes in ecological conditions and/or vital rates. The continued
monitoring of these multiple indices will allow rapid feedback on the
success of management actions in maintaining a viable population. In
addition, please see our response to Issue 12 under subheading F in the
Summary of Peer Review Comments section below for more information on
the models the Study Team is pursuing.
Issue 3--One commenter stated that the Yellowstone DPS range has
not expanded as much as we claim according to the 1980 Study Team
report of verified sightings near Ketchum, Idaho, and Cody, Wyoming.
Response--Because the cited 1980 Study Team report provides no
information regarding the verification of the reported sighting near
Ketchum, Idaho, it is impossible to make any conclusions on the
sighting's credibility. There is no reason to connect this supposed
sighting to the Yellowstone ecosystem or to indicate that a bear
sighted there might have come from Yellowstone. We did not rely solely
on sightings of grizzly bears to make the statement that the
population's range had expanded. Instead, we used peer-reviewed
literature that documented this range expansion through multiple data
sources, including initial observations of unduplicated females with
young, locations of radio-collared bears, and locations of grizzly
bear/human conflicts (Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 204; Schwartz et al.
2006b, p. 63). We are confident that the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population's range has expanded significantly since 1980 and the
sightings from this time do not contradict the conclusions established
by Schwartz et al. (2002, p. 207) and Schwartz et al. (2006b, p. 66).
Issue 4--One commenter noted that because ``persistence time
depends strongly on the magnitude of the variance in population growth
rate'' and the Yellowstone population size estimates are extremely
variable, we should consider this and other sources of stochasticity in
our decision.
Response--These variations have been considered in detail. The
considerations of the variation of results is thoroughly evaluated and
discussed in Harris et al. (2006, p. 46), Schwartz et al. (2006d, p.
14), Schwartz et al. (2006e, pp. 62-63), the Reassessing Methods
Document (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 25, 35-36), and
its Supplement (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2006, pp. 2-10).
Throughout the rulemaking process we also carefully considered the
matter of uncertainty and its implications to management decisions. For
additional discussion about sources of stochasticity and their effects
on population persistence, see our response to Issue 5 under subheading
R below.
Issue 5--One commenter noted that the Service presents the
estimated annual population growth rate as between 4 and 7 percent per
year. This presentation deceptively makes it seem that these are the
upper and lower bounds of a confidence interval, not merely two point
estimates based on different assumptions; and, the Service claims that
the total population size in 2004 was 588 individuals but does not
disclose the confidence intervals around this estimate.
Response--The 4 to 7 percent annual population growth rate is based
on analyses conducted by Harris et al. (2006, p. 48) using survival
estimates of grizzly bears determined by Haroldson et al. (2006b, p.
36). Haroldson et al. (2006b, p. 34-35) used a data set of 323
independent (greater than 2 years old) radio-collared bears, but
analyzed the data two different ways to address the bears with unknown
fates. Specifically, they estimated the survival rate for each of those
data sets, assuming bears whose fates were unknown either all lived or
all died, to establish the most conservative and most optimistic
survival rates. The true estimate must be bracketed by those two
bounds. The resulting annual survival rates of independent female bears
were either 92.2 percent or 95.0 percent depending on which
interpretation of unknown fate is used.
Harris et al. (2006, p. 48) then used the two survival estimates
produced by Haroldson et al. (2006b, p. 35) to estimate the growth rate
of the GYA grizzly population from 1983 to 2002. For the estimate of
population growth rate based on the assumption that all females with
unknown fates died at last contact, the mean value of lambda is 1.042,
with an approximate 95 percent confidence interval of 0.969-1.093. For
the estimate of population growth rate when adult survival was
estimated assuming females with unknown fates survived, the mean value
is 1.076, with an approximate 95 percent confidence interval of 1.003-
1.113.
These population growth rates mean that the Yellowstone grizzly
bear population was increasing at a rate of 4.2 percent or 7.6 percent
per year between 1983 and 2002 (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). Those
estimates are often reported as ``a growth rate between 4 percent and 7
percent.'' That does not refer to a 95 percent confidence interval.
[[Page 14881]]
Instead, it refers to an estimate based on the assumption that all
bears whose fates were unknown died at the time their radio
transmissions stopped (4.2 percent), and an estimate based on the
assumption that all bears whose fates were unknown were alive at the
time their radio transmissions stopped (7.6 percent). Those assumptions
result in conservative bounds, because some bears assumed to have died
in the 4 percent growth rate data set were probably still alive, and
because some bears assumed to be alive in the 7 percent growth rate
data set were probably dead. The true population growth rate from 1983
to 2002 was probably between 4 and 7 percent.
Regarding the confidence interval around the total population
estimate, the index of total population size is produced using the
total number, an estimate of the total number of females with cubs-of-
the-year (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 24-26), and the
proportions of females in the population applied to the proportions of
sex and age classes in the population. The Chao2 estimator, a
statistical tool used to correct sighting variability, was chosen by
the Study Team to estimate the number of females with cubs-of-the-year
(Keating et al. 2002, p. 170; Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005,
pp. 25-26) because it consistently returns results that are correct or
biased low (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, p. 20).
Confidence intervals for the total population index from years 1983 to
2005 are reported in the Supplement to the Reassessing Methods Document
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2006, p. 15). For 2005, the total
population index is 546 bears with a 95 percent confidence interval
between 491 and 602 (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2006, p. 15).
Issue 6--Several commenters questioned why we were not using
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) based methods, like the survey conducted in
the NCDE during the summer of 2004, to get an accurate estimate of
total population size. They considered DNA to be the best available
method and wondered why this method was not employed before proposing
to delist this population.
Response--The methods developed for producing a population index in
the Yellowstone ecosystem are based on the best available science and
built on intensive sampling of this population for almost 26 years.
These methods produce annually updated population size indices and
continuously updated population trend estimates. Although the use of
DNA to estimate population size has become more common in recent years
(Mowat and Strobeck 2000, p. 183; Bellemain et al. 2005, p. 150;
Solberg et al. 2006, p. 158), the method used to make a one-time total
population estimate for the NCDE would be less useful in the GYA than
current methods. DNA was chosen as the population estimate system in
the NCDE because this ecosystem did not have the long-term consistent
sampling data that exists in Yellowstone. The final point estimate for
population size in the NCDE will be available in early 2007 and will be
a one-time estimate for 2004--the year the sampling was done. Once
completed, this DNA-based system will have taken 4 years and cost $4.5
million, to produce a 2004 population estimate. Given that the long-
term intensive data were available in Yellowstone, population size
estimates based upon peer-reviewed, published methods existed, and
because the methods used in Yellowstone allow continuously updated
population indices rather than a one-time estimate, the application of
a DNA-based system was unnecessary for the Yellowstone ecosystem.
Issue 7--One commenter noted that we violated the Administrative
Procedure Act and the Endangered Species Act by not disclosing the
apparent ``population crash'' that occurred in 2005 using the revised
methods described in the Reassessing Methods Document (2004 = 588, 2005
= 350) and discussing its implications for the population.
Response--No population crash occurred in 2005. In 2004, a large
number of females had cubs. Because female grizzly bears usually
produce litters once every 3 years, high cub production years are
typically followed by years with fewer cubs because less of the adult
female population is available for breeding. The index of total
population size described in the Reassessing Methods Document
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 5-9) is not equivalent
to an exact number of animals in the population due to this natural
biological variation associated with cub production in grizzly bear
populations (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2006, pp. 1-2).
Fluctuations in the estimate of population size are expected and
addressed through the use of a modeling average technique to estimate
the total number of females with cubs-of-the-year (Interagency Grizzly
Bear Study Team 2006, pp. 2-7).
Issue 8--One commenter stated that we claim that the Act only
mandates that a species be ``viable,'' rather than ``recovered.'' They
believed that this perceived interpretation has led us to focus on
reducing mortality within occupied habitat rather than restoring
formerly wide-ranging species to historically occupied habitat. This
commenter noted that the courts have repeatedly rejected this
interpretation and that true recovery requires connectivity or linkage,
protection and enhancement of existing populations, meaningful habitat
protections, adequate regulatory mechanisms, and recolonization of
historic suitable habitat such that ecological effectiveness (Trombulak
2006) is restored.
Response--We disagree with the assertion that we have focused on
viability instead of recovery. The principal goal of the Act is to
return listed species to a point at which protection under the Act is
no longer required (50 CFR 424.11(d)(2)). A species may be delisted on
the basis of recovery only if the best scientific and commercial data
available indicate that it is no longer endangered or threatened within
all or a significant portion of its range (50 CFR 424.11(d)). As
described later in this rule, we believe the Yellowstone DPS meets
neither of these definitions for listing, thereby justifying delisting
due to recovery.
We also disagree with the claim that we have over-emphasized
mortality control at the expense of other recovery goals. To date,
recovery efforts have focused on sufficient mortality control, habitat
monitoring, population levels, distribution, management of habitat
effectiveness and habitat security, monitoring of all grizzly bear/
human conflicts, genetic analyses, and linkage zone maintenance. This
comprehensive approach to recovery has led to reduced mortality,
increasing population numbers, and significant increases in range,
allowing grizzly bears to reoccupy habitat they have been absent from
for decades, as well as demographic and habitat security into the
foreseeable future. Grizzly bears now occupy 68 percent of suitable
habitat within the DPS and will likely occupy the remainder within the
foreseeable future. However, the Service does not believe that
restoration of grizzly bears to all historic habitats (particularly
those no longer capable of supporting grizzly bear populations) within
the DPS boundaries is necessary or possible.
While some have suggested recolonization of historically suitable
habitat to achieve ``ecological effectiveness'' (Trombulak 2006), the
Act neither requires us to consider ecological effectiveness, nor do we
have any objective way of measuring this
[[Page 14882]]
type of success currently. We do not believe the restoration of the
grizzly bear as a top predator and scavenger throughout all
historically occupied habitat is feasible or required. Instead, we have
restored grizzly bears to most of their suitable habitat within the DPS
and anticipate the State management plans will lead to re-occupancy of
the remaining suitable habitat in the near future. Other issues such as
linkage are only relevant to this rulemaking to the extent that they
impact the Yellowstone DPS. For example, connectivity or a lack
thereof, has the potential to impact this population's genetic fitness.
As such, this issue is discussed and addressed in our five factor
analysis (see Factor E below) and in the Strategy.
C. Public Involvement
Issue 1--Several commenters believe that the Service did not
provide meaningful ways for the public in areas other than Bozeman,
Montana, Cody and Jackson, Wyoming, and Idaho Falls, Idaho, to
participate in a dialogue about this national issue, except via Web
sites and mail. Numerous commenters at public hearings, in letters, and
in emails encouraged the Service to give greater consideration to
opinions of people that live in grizzly bear country than opinions of
those that do not have to deal with grizzlies in their daily lives.
Conversely, many argued that the grizzly bear is a national and
international treasure and that all Americans should have an equal
voice in how they are to be managed.
Response--The public comment process considers all comments equally
and gives no preference based on where commenters live or what format
commenters use to comment. We believe that providing multiple formats
for commenting on the proposed rule, including hand delivery, e-mail,
and U.S. mail lessened the need for formal hearings throughout the
country. Because all comments are considered equally, it does not
matter whether comments were submitted via hand delivery, e-mail, mail,
or public hearing. In fact, commenting via e-mail, hand delivery, or
letter allowed unlimited space to express comments, as opposed to the
public hearing format, which limited comments to three minutes in order
to provide an opportunity for all attending to speak.
Issue 2--Several commenters stated that asking the public to
comment on the proposed rule when none of the supporting documents
(Reassessing Methods Document, Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria, the
Strategy, and the Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat
Conservation for the GYA National Forests) have been finalized does not
allow the public to know what they are commenting on; furthermore, the
Act requires an analysis of existing regulatory mechanisms, not those
that will be added in the future.
Response--The Strategy and the Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria
supplement to the Recovery Plan have been finalized (72 FR 11376; 72 FR
11376-11377). There have been no significant changes from the drafts of
Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria, the Strategy, and the Forest Plan
Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the GYA National
Forests. All the supporting documents have been available for full
public review, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (62
FR 47677, September 10, 1997; 64 FR 38464, July 16, 1999; 64 FR 38465,
July 16, 1999; 70 FR 70632, November 22, 2005). The proposed rule also
noted that these draft documents were available online at--http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm.
As
envisioned by the Administrative Procedure Act, changes to the
Reassessing Methods Document were made in response to public comments.
These changes did not affect our final determination from that
described in the draft rule. We responded to comments in the final
documents. The Strategy and the Forest Plan Amendment are existing
regulatory mechanisms that are currently in existence and take effect
upon implementation of this final rule. Therefore, we considered these
mechanisms when determining if the regulatory mechanisms were
sufficient to protect the Yellowstone DPS' recovered status.
Issue 3--Some commenters stated that the Service violated the
Endangered Species Act and Administrative Procedure Act by not
providing the raw data upon which it relied, thereby hindering the
public's ability to comment on the proposed rule; ``[T]he
Administrative Procedure Act requires the agency to make available to
the public, in a form that allows for meaningful comment, the data the
agency used to develop the proposed rule.''
Response--We have a responsibility to rely upon the best scientific
and commercial data available. In this case, we relied upon numerous
peer reviewed and published documents that we made available upon
request. Much of this information was publicly available when we
published our proposed rule and during our public comment period. For
example, mortality information, including date of death, sex, age,
certainty of death, if the bear was marked or not, and location are
published annually in the Study Team's annual reports, available at:
http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-home.htm. However, requests
received for exact locations of grizzly bears obtained via radio-
telemetry and GPS radio-collars (i.e., ``raw data'') could not be
honored because this information was not in our possession.
Additionally, without the permission of the Secretary of the Interior,
the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 5937)
prohibits the release of specific locations of threatened species that
spend any part of their lives within National Parks.
D. Compliance With Court Settlements
Issue 1--Some commenters claimed that the Service violated the Fund
for Animals court settlement (Fund for Animals v. Babbitt), by
publishing the proposed rule to delist before finalizing the Habitat
Based Recovery Criteria. They noted that the Fund for Animals
settlement stated that ``Prior to publishing any proposed rule to
delist any grizzly bear population, the Service will establish habitat-
based recovery criteria for that population's ecosystem * * * . In any
such rulemaking to delist a grizzly bear population, the Service will
utilize the Habitat Based Recovery Criteria, as well as all other
pertinent recovery criteria that have been established, when addressing
the 5 factors set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the Act.''
Response--In 1994, The Fund for Animals, Inc., and 42 other
organizations and individuals filed suit over the adequacy of the 1993
Recovery Plan (Fund for Animals v. Babbitt). The court remanded the
Recovery Plan to us for further study, and in 1996 the parties reached
a settlement agreement. As part of the settlement we agreed to hold a
workshop on the habitat-based recovery criteria and to append habitat-
based recovery criteria to the Recovery Plan. On June 17, 1997, we held
a public workshop in Bozeman, Montana, to develop and refine habitat-
based recovery criteria for the grizzly bear. A Federal Register notice
notified the public of this workshop and provided interested parties an
opportunity to participate and submit comments (62 FR 19777, April 23,
1997).
After considering 1,167 written comments, we developed
biologically-based habitat criteria with the goal of maintaining or
improving habitat conditions at 1998 levels. These draft criteria were
published in the Federal Register on July 16, 1999 (64 FR 38464-38465),
and a copy of the habitat-based
[[Page 14883]]
criteria also is available at--http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm.
These revised habitat-based recovery
criteria were relied upon in the proposed rule and have since been
appended to the Recovery Plan and incorporated into the Strategy (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 39-43). Importantly, these habitat-
based recovery criteria have not changed significantly since being
drafted and being made available for public comment in 1999. The
Strategy ensures they will continue to be met in the foreseeable
future. Our proposed rule and this final rule utilized the habitat-
based recovery criteria, as well as all other pertinent recovery
criteria, when addressing the 5 factors set forth in section 4(a)(1) of
the Act.
Issue 2--Some commenters noted that we cannot claim that the
demographic recovery goals have been met because the goals cited have
been found inadequate by the courts.
Response--The demographic recovery goals have not been found
inadequate by the courts. The court opinion (Fund for Animals v.
Babbitt, p. 30) stated, ``Based on the record the court does not find
that the defendant's designation of population targets is arbitrary and
capricious.'' The court directed us to ``reconsider the available
evidence and its decision to adopt the population monitoring
methodology that it has incorporated into the Grizzly Bear Recovery
Plan.'' We did so in a formal response to public comments regarding the
supplemental information (accessible at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm
) and found
these methods were the best available methods when the Recovery Plan
was written in 1993. In order to apply the best available methods at
the time of proposing delisting, we worked with the U.S. Geological
Survey and the Study Team to begin the process detailed in the
Reassessing Methods Document (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005,
pp. 12-41) to consider and apply newer science to the issues of
population monitoring and the establishment of sustainable mortality.
This effort has resulted in the improved methods appended to the
Recovery Plan and incorporated into the Strategy.
E. Significant Portion of Range
Issue 1--Many commenters expressed dissenting views and
interpretations of the Act's phrase ``significant portion of its
range'' as it is used to define a threatened species, or in this case,
a recovered species. Some stated that range does or should mean
historical range, thereby obligating us to recover species across a
significant portion of their historical range to be considered
recovered. Some commenters disagreed with our definition of range and
said that it was the same as the court-invalidated wolf rule (68 FR
15804, April 1, 2003), which stated that range, when defined as ``the
area within the DPS boundaries where viable populations of the species
now exist,'' was circular because if we define range as where grizzlies
currently are and then conclude that they are therefore recovered
within a significant portion of that range, this would have meant they
were recovered in 1975. Several commenters noted that we must explain
why the Yellowstone grizzly bear is no longer threatened by the loss of
its historical range.
Response--A species may be delisted according to 50 CFR 424.11(d)
if the best scientific and commercial data available demonstrate that
the threats to that species, as described in section 4(a)(1), have been
removed such that it is neither endangered nor threatened. The Act
defines an ``endangered species'' as one that ``is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.'' A
``threatened species'' is one that ``is likely to become endangered in
the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' One consideration in deciding whether a species meets either
of these definitions is the interpretation of ``significant portion of
its range.''
For a detailed discussion of ``range'' under the Act, see the
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species portion of this rule below.
That said, historical range is only relevant to the discussion of
``significant portion of the range'' to the extent that it may offer
evidence whether a species in its current range is likely to become
endangered in the foreseeable future. In such situations, historical
range is considered in the listing factor section 4(a)(1) analysis.
Our 5-factor analysis was conducted over the entire current and
foreseeable range of the grizzly bear including all ``suitable
habitat'' within the DPS (defined and discussed under Factor A below).
While grizzly bears once occurred throughout the area of the
Yellowstone DPS (Stebler 1972, pp. 297-299), records indicate that even
in the early 19th century, grizzly bears were less common in these
eastern prairie habitats than in mountainous areas to the west and
south (Rollins 1935, p. 191; Wade 1947, p. 444). Today, these habitats
are no longer biologically suitable for grizzly bears as they lack
adequate food resources (i.e., bison). These unsuitable areas are not
relevant to the current or foreseeable status of the Yellowstone DPS.
The current range of the DPS supports a population of adequate quantity
and distribution to ensure a recovered population into the foreseeable
future. And, additional unoccupied suitable habitat will provide
opportunities for continued population growth. Finally, as discussed
below, a lack of occupancy of all historic habitat within the DPS will
not impact whether this population is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
Issue 2--One commenter noted that because grizzly bears experience
negative growth rates outside the PCA, they are in danger in this
portion of their range. The commenter believes that the area outside
the PCA constitutes a significant portion of their range because we
include all grizzly bears and the lands they currently occupy to make
the statement that they are recovered within a significant portion of
their range.
Response--We agree that the suitable habitat outside the PCA
represents a significant portion of the range, albeit less significant
than suitable habitat within the PCA. See the Significant Portion of
Range discussion under Factor A below for a more detailed discussion of
this issue. That said, grizzly bears are not in ``danger'' in areas
outside the PCA. The Yellowstone grizzly population is a single
population with mortalities counted in all areas inside the
Conservation Strategy Management Area (Figure 1) and sustainable
mortality limits established for the entire population. The overall
population growth rate will be managed for a stable to increasing
population as per the methods and direction in the Reassessing Methods
Document (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 5-11). Although
the population may experience negative growth rates in some areas, this
is not biologically significant. It would be inappropriate to suggest
one ``segment'' is declining, while another ``segment'' is increasing
because the population is contiguous and is considered as a whole
entity per our DPS analysis above. The overall trajectory of the
population will remain stable to increasing.
F. DPS Policy
Issue 1--Some commenters believe that the DPS policy is to be used
only in listing decisions and that using it in a delisting decision
violates Congressional intent and the legislative and statutory
structure of the Act.
Response--We disagree with this interpretation of the DPS policy.
The
[[Page 14884]]
Act, its implementing regulations, and our DPS policy provide no
support for this interpretation. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act directs the
Secretary of the Interior to determine whether ``any species'' is
endangered or threatened. Numerous sections of the Act refer to adding
and removing ``species'' from the list of threatened or endangered
plants and animals. Section 3(15) defines ``species'' to include any
subspecies ``and any distinct population segment of any species of
vertebrate fish or wildlife * * * .'' The Act directs us to list,
reclassify, and delist species, subspecies, and DPSs of vertebrate
species. It contains no provisions requiring, or even allowing, DPSs to
be treated in a different manner than species or subspecies when
carrying out the listing, recovery, and delisting functions mandated by
section 4. Furthermore, our DPS Policy states that the policy is
intended for ``the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying
species under the Act'' (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), and that it
``guides the evaluation of distinct vertebrate population segments for
the purposes of listing, delisting, and reclassifying under the Act''
(61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996).
The comment also overlooks the untenable situation that would arise
if DPSs could be listed but could never be delisted after they have
been successfully recovered. Clearly Congress did not envision such an
outcome when amending the definition of species to include vertebrate
DPSs.
Issue 2--A commenter noted that the DPS analysis in the proposed
rule created a remnant population, contrary to a court decision. They
stated that the Act allows us to ``consider listing only an entire
species, subspecies, or DPS'' (Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F.
Supp. 2d 1154, 1162 (D. Or. 2001)); therefore, we cannot declare part
of a listed subspecies a DPS without also designating the remaining
listed subspecies as DPS(s). This commenter suggests that we reconsider
the status of all other lower 48 grizzly bear populations
simultaneously and should not delist the GYA population until we uplist
all other populations in the Lower 48 States.
Response--While in some situations it may be appropriate to
designate multiple DPSs simultaneously, the lack of such a requirement
provides useful flexibility, allowing the Service to subsequently list
or delist additional DPSs when additional information becomes available
or as the conservation status of the taxon changes. Importantly, courts
have upheld this flexibility. In National Wildlife Federation v. Norton
(1:03-CV-340, D. VT. 2005, p. 20), the court found that ``Nowhere in
the Act is the Secretary prevented from creating a `non-DPS remnant'
designation, especially when the remnant area was already listed'' * *
*. Our current designation of a Yellowstone DPS, while retaining the
remaining lower 48 State grizzly bear listing intact as threatened, is
consistent with this aspect of the District Court's ruling.
Furthermore, just as the Yellowstone DPS is discrete from the
remaining populations in the lower 48 States, the remaining populations
are discrete from the Yellowstone DPS. The amended lower 48 State
listing is discrete from Canadian populations of Ursus arctos
horribilis as delineated by the United States/Canadian international
boundary with significant differences in control of exploitation,
management of habitat, conservation status, and regulatory mechanisms.
The amended lower 48 State listing is significant in that the loss of
the lower 48 State population would result in a significant gap in the
range of the taxon (U. a. horribilis). Therefore, the amended lower 48
State listing is discrete and significant.
Additional analysis is required to determine if the amended lower
48 State listing warrants further splitting into additional DPSs. For
now, the warranted-but-precluded findings for uplisting (from
threatened to endangered) the Selkirk, the North Cascades, and the
Cabinet-Yaak populations remain precluded by higher priority actions
(71 FR 53755, 53835, September 12, 2006). While these warranted-but-
precluded findings are reviewed annually, we intend to review the
status of the entire amended lower 48 State listing that results from
this final rule in an upcoming 5-year review, as per section 4(c)(2)(A)
of the Act.
Issue 3--One commenter recommended that the Service use
evolutionary divergence (Hall's subspecies) to designate DPSs across
their historical range and that these should replace or supplement the
current recovery zones.
Response--The subspecies approach identified by Hall (1984, pp. 2-
11) suggested seven different North American grizzly bear subspecies
and is not in accordance with accepted scientific taxonomic literature
and approaches. We accept the holarctic species concept and North
American subspecies designations established by the works of Couterier
(1954, p. 5), Rausch (1953, pp. 95-107; 1963, p. 43), and Kurten (1968,
p. 127-128). This literature establishes one single holarctic species
(Ursus arctos) and two North American subspecies, U. a. horribilis and
U. a. middendorfi. U. a. horribilis is the subspecies that occurs in
North America outside of Kodiak Island, Alaska. Therefore, the current
recovery zones consider recovery in light of this taxonomy.
Issue 4--Some commenters noted that we violated the DPS policy
because we failed to consider the effect of delisting the Yellowstone
DPS on rangewide recovery of the species, especially in the Bitterroot
Ecosystem, which is currently unoccupied by grizzly bears but
considered vital to the metapopulation dynamics of grizzlies in the
Lower 48 States.
Response--The DPS policy was carefully followed in designating the
Yellowstone DPS. The delisting of the Yellowstone DPS will not have
detrimental impacts on grizzly bear recovery actions in other recovery
zones, as the grizzly bears in these areas remain threatened under the
Act. As such, coordinated recovery efforts will continue in these
areas.
Issue 5--Several commenters disagreed with the delineation of the
boundaries for the Yellowstone DPS. Some believe that because the
boundaries were mainly highways, they were arbitrary and not based on
sound biological principles. Others believe that the DPS should be
expanded to the north to allow for more dispersal because, currently,
suitable habitat on the northern edge extends nearly to the DPS
boundary. Others believe that the DPS boundaries should include the
entire State of Wyoming to lessen confusion and allow for management by
the State of Wyoming if bears disperse south of Interstate 80.
Response--As noted in the proposed rule, an artificial or manmade
boundary (such as Interstate, Federal, and State highways) may be used
as a boundary of convenience in order to clearly identify the
geographic area included within a DPS designation. The Yellowstone DPS
boundaries were defined along easily identifiable boundaries and
included the entire recovery zone, the primary conservation area, the
conservation strategy management area, all suitable habitat within the
GYA based on biological information, and all occupied habitat. We
believe this represents the most appropriate DPS for this population.
Expansion of the DPS boundaries is not necessary to maintain a
recovered grizzly bear population and is not justified biologically,
given the limited dispersal capabilities of grizzly bears.
Issue 6--Some commenters pointed out that it would be confusing for
State and Federal managers to have a grizzly bear roam outside of the
boundaries, for
[[Page 14885]]
instance west of Interstate 15, and then be considered a threatened
species. To address this confusion, some commenters believe that any
grizzly bear originating from the Yellowstone DPS should be considered
part of that DPS, regardless of where they are geographically.
Response--A DPS is a geographic designation determining the listed
status for all individuals of said species in that area. Bears outside
the DPS area, no matter their origin, are listed as threatened under
the Act. The State and Federal agencies are aware of and understand the
management implications of the DPS boundaries. We used easily
identifiable boundaries such as the center line of major highways to
minimize management confusion. If a grizzly bear goes beyond the
Yellowstone DPS boundaries, it would become a threatened grizzly bear.
Similarly, if a grizzly bear from another population enters the
Yellowstone DPS boundaries, it would be managed according to the
Strategy and State management plans.
Issue 7--One commenter stated that the DPS designation would
preclude augmentation because it would destroy the genetic uniqueness
of the DPS.
Response--Designation of the DPS would not preclude future
augmentation, if we determine augmentation to be necessary to maintain
genetic fitness. The DPS Policy does not require complete separation of
one DPS from other populations, but instead requires ``marked
separation.'' As stated in the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, natural
connectivity is important to long-term grizzly bear conservation, and
we will continue efforts to work toward this goal (whether accomplished
naturally or through augmentation) independent of the delisting of the
Yellowstone DPS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 53). Thus, if
occasional individual grizzly bears disperse among populations or are
moved intentionally, the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS would still
display the required level of discreteness, per the DPS Policy. Gene
flow through either linkage or augmentation is discussed further under
Factor E below.
Issue 8--One commenter stated that he could not find the ``genetic
monitoring information'' to be appended to the Recovery Plan.
Response--This document was made available for public review and
comment in 1997 (62 FR 47677, September 10, 1997) and noticed again in
1999 (64 FR 38465, July 16, 1999). As noted in the proposed rule, the
document also was posted on our website for the Yellowstone grizzly
bear population (http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm
). This document does not describe recovery
criteria, as current levels of genetic diversity are consistent with
known historic levels and do not threaten the long-term viability of
the species, and instead proposes a post-delisting monitoring strategy
to ensure that necessary levels of gene flow occur so that this
population retains its recovered status for the foreseeable future.
This 1999 information was never formally appended to the 1993 Recovery
Plan. Due to the continuous and rapid evolution of the genetics field,
this information no longer reflects the most up-to-date and
scientifically sound approach. Therefore, we have determined that it is
no longer appropriate to append the 1999 genetic monitoring methods and
management responses to the Recovery Plan. Instead, a new genetic
monitoring approach which reflects the most recent, best available
science will be applied to the future management of the Yellowstone
grizzly bear DPS as described in the Strategy's updating process (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 63). The Coordinating Committee will
commence this genetic monitoring information updating process, which
will include a public comment process, within 6 months of this final
rule becoming effective.
G. Definition of Suitable Habitat
Issue 1--Several commenters requested that we explain why lands
excluded from our definition of suitable habitat or the State's
definitions do not constitute a significant portion of the grizzly
bears' range.
Response--None of these unsuitable areas, either individually or
collectively, are capable of contributing, in a meaningful way, to the
overall status of the Yellowstone DPS. Therefore, these unsuitable
areas do not represent a significant portion of the Yellowstone DPS
range because their exclusion will not influence population trajectory
or population health. Suitable habitat inside the PCA, which contains
84 to 90 percent of the population of females with cubs (Schwartz et
al. 2006b, p. 64), the most important age and sex group to population
trajectory, will be protected by the habitat standards in the Strategy.
Grizzly bears also will be allowed to expand into currently unoccupied
suitable habitat as per the State plans. Outside the PCA, 60 percent of
suitable habitat is protected by its status as Designated Wilderness,
Wilderness Study Area, or Inventoried Roadless Area. Areas outside of
suitable habitat will not affect the trajectory or health of the
Yellowstone population now or in the future. A lack of occupancy of
historic habitat will not impact whether this population is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Issue 2--Several commenters believe that the decision to exclude
sheep allotments as suitable habitat was based upon social
considerations rather than biology. Instead, they stated that ``* * *
mortality rates in these areas are not a function of the habitat
itself, but of land-use decisions'' and that the habitat could be made
suitable by regulatory mechanisms. One commenter suggested that the
Service be upfront and clear that the definition of suitable habitat
``* * * is not based solely on an evaluation of the grizzly bear's
resource needs.'' Another commenter requested that we prepare an
analysis of what proportions of their lives individual grizzlies spend
in ``suitable'' versus ``unsuitable'' habitat.
Response--Our determination that sheep allotments were not suitable
for grizzly bears was based on mortality rates, which is a biological
issue. In areas of high conflict potential such as campgrounds,
management actions are taken to limit grizzly bear presence or use. The
sheep allotments outside suitable habitat are not necessary to ensure
that this population avoids becoming threatened within all or a
significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. Because of
the habitat protections inside the PCA and the large percentage of
suitable habitat outside the PCA (60 percent) that is currently a
Designated Wilderness Area (6,799 sq km/4,225 sq mi), Wilderness Study
Area (708 sq km/440 sq mi), or Inventoried Roadless Area (6,179 sq km/
3,839 sq mi), the long-term persistence of the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population is assured without the sheep allotments.
Our definition of suitable habitat reflects the best available
science and is adequate to ensure that the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The three
criteria we used to define suitable habitat in the proposed rule are--
(1) being of adequate habitat quality and quantity to support grizzly
bear reproduction and survival (i.e., within the Middle Rockies
ecoregion--please see discussion below in Suitable Habitat section
under Factor A); (2) contiguous with the current distribution of
Yellowstone grizzly bears such that
[[Page 14886]]
natural re-colonization is possible; and (3) having low mortality risk
as indicated through reasonable and manageable levels of grizzly bear
mortality. Upon the request of one peer reviewer and in response to
this issue, we undertook additional analyses to examine how much
suitable habitat would exist in the GYA under different definitions of
suitable habitat.
If grizzly bears were given priority over all other land uses, we
found that an additional 13,837 sq km (5,342 sq mi) of habitat exists
that meets the first two criteria for our definition of suitable
habitat (found within the Middle Rockies ecoregion and contiguous with
the current population distribution). Of that ``potentially'' suitable
habitat, nearly 16 percent (2,184 sq km (843 sq mi)) is privately
owned. The remaining habitat is 70 percent National Forest (9,637 sq km
(3,720 sq mi)), 8.5 percent BLM (1,171 sq km (452 sq mi)), 4 percent
State-owned (545 sq km (211 sq mi)), and less than 2 percent in other
Federal ownerships (200 sq km/77 sq mi).
Although management direction could change on these Federal and
State-owned lands to favor grizzly bears by eliminating all other uses
(e.g., livestock grazing allotments, oil and gas development), this
action is not biologically necessary to maintain the recovered status
of the Yellowstone grizzly bear. These areas do not constitute a
significant portion of the range. If this habitat became biologically
necessary in the future due to decreases in habitat quality or
excessive mortality, the adaptive management approach described in the
Strategy would allow managers to modify the management within what is
currently ``potentially'' suitable habitat on public lands.
When we examine all areas found within the DPS boundaries that are
within the Middle Rockies ecoregion and do not consider whether these
areas are contiguous with the current grizzly bear population, an
additional 7,178 sq km (2,771 sq mi) of habitat meets this sole
criterion. Of this ``potentially suitable'' habitat that is not
contiguous with the current distribution of grizzly bears, 6,341 sq km
(2,448 sq mi) is contained within the Bighorn Mountains and 837 sq km
(323 sq mi) within the Pryor Mountains on the Wyoming and Montana
border. Distances between these mountain ranges, the current
distribution of grizzly bears, and land uses in the intervening habitat
will preclude dispersal of most males and most, if not all, females.
Without constant emigrants from suitable habitat, it is highly unlikely
that the Bighorns or the Pryor Mountains can support a self-sustaining
grizzly bear population. Again, this ``potentially suitable'' habitat
is not biologically necessary to maintain the recovered status of the
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS.
We have determined that an analysis examining the proportion of
time grizzly bears spend in suitable and unsuitable habitats is
unnecessary. Although this information may be useful when modeling
source-sink dynamics, the sustainable mortality limits that have been
established for the entire population ensure that mortality will not
exceed recruitment. The Study Team will continue to monitor habitat use
by radio-collared grizzly bears post-delisting and attempt to quantify
why and where grizzly bears experience different mortality rates.
Issue 3--Some commenters noted that we considered more than
strictly biological criteria in the recovery process when we introduced
the term ``socially acceptable'' in the Strategy.
Response--The presence of grizzly bears in places with high levels
of human activity and human occupancy results in biological impacts to
grizzly bears in terms of increased mortality risk and displacement.
The level of this impact is directly related to the location and
numbers of humans, their activities, and their attitudes and beliefs
about grizzly bears. The consideration of human activities is
fundamental to the management of grizzly bears and their habitat.
Issue 4--Many commenters questioned whether the 1998 baseline
applied exclusively inside the PCA was adequate to ensure the continued
viability of the Yellowstone DPS. They noted that in 1998, the
population was already occupying a large area outside of the recovery
zone and, therefore, to conclude that habitat conditions inside the PCA
are what contributed to the observed 4 to 7 percent population growth
is to portray an incomplete picture of what occurred. Many commenters
believed all currently occupied habitat should be protected since it
has contributed to the growth of the population. Many commenters
suggested that protections must be extended to all suitable habitat to
ensure long-term viability of the Yellowstone DPS. One commenter
recommended that we employ a reserve design approach with the PCA
designated as the protected core of the GYA Reserve (with no hunting)
and the rest of the GYA managed as a buffer zone (with all protections
currently provided in the PCA being extended to the entire GYA). One
commenter also noted that we must have data on habitat conditions
outside of the PCA to draw a conclusion about future risks and habitat
changes there.
Response--The Service has applied a reserve design approach by
designating the PCA. The PCA, which is a subset of the suitable
habitat, contains between 84 to 90 percent of the females with cubs
(the population's most important age and sex group) (Schwartz et al.
2006b, p. 64). The population has been growing at 4 to 7 percent per
year since the 1990s (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48), with most of the
growth occurring inside the PCA (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 64). The
best available information demonstrates that the PCA contains the
habitat necessary for a healthy and viable grizzly bear population in
the long-term. Strict habitat protection within the PCA is guaranteed
to assure the future of the population. Sixty percent of suitable
habitat outside the PCA is Designated Wilderness, Wilderness Study
Area, or Inventoried Roadless Area. This amount of protected habitat
combined with the GYA National Forests' commitment to manage habitat
for a viable grizzly bear population, forest-wide food storage orders,
and designation of the grizzly bear as a species-of-concern on GYA
National Forests, gives the Service reasonable assurance that grizzly
bears outside of the PCA will continue to be protected adequately. In
addition, allowable hunting mortalities will be determined and limited
by the total sustainable mortality limit.
H. Habitat Protections
Issue 1--Some commenters questioned the adequacy of the habitat
protections that we developed for the PCA and advocated more meaningful
habitat protections including baseline values for major foods,
restrictions on private land development, and limits on both motorized
and non-motorized recreation.
Response--Our habitat protection criteria are adequate and
biologically sound. There is no biological way to define ``baseline''
levels for various foods because the natural foods for grizzly bears
naturally fluctuate, annually and spatially, across the ecosystem.
Instead of establishing artificial baseline values for major grizzly
bear foods, the protocol in place for the monitoring of major foods
will provide annual indices of the variation of these foods, and will
compare changes in these foods to grizzly bear vital rates such as
mortality causes and locations, cub production and survival, adult
female survival, and numbers and distribution of bear/human conflicts.
The results will guide adaptive management responses to changes in
foods such as enhanced Information and
[[Page 14887]]
Education (I & E) efforts, limiting grizzly bear mortality, planting
whitebark pine, controlling exotic species, and/or prescribed burning.
Private lands comprise 2.1 percent of the PCA. Limits on developing
private lands to reduce conflicts with resident wildlife are the
responsibility of the counties and the States. County representatives
are members of the Coordinating Committee and will insure that efforts
to limit conflicts on private lands will continue. Their cooperation
with the State wildlife agencies to promote outreach, education and
management of land development activities in grizzly habitat to reduce
bear/human conflicts will continue upon delisting. These efforts to
limit conflicts on private lands will continue under the Coordinating
Committee's management.
Limiting motorized recreation is a fundamental component of the
Strategy, hence the requirement for no net decrease in secure habitat
inside the PCA. This measure directly limits the total area impacted by
motorized recreation, so that grizzly bears have adequate secure
habitat regardless of the number of people using motorized trails.
Limitation of non-motorized recreation throughout the GYA is not
currently necessary, as evidenced by the increasing grizzly bear
population since the 1980's (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). The adaptive
management approach in the Strategy will allow managers to respond to
detrimental levels of non-motorized recreation on a case-by-case basis
and also provide managers with the data necessary to determine if
ecosystem-wide limitations may be necessary in the future.
Issue 2--Numerous comments stated that grizzly bears must be
allowed access to habitat in the Southern Wind Rivers, Palisades, and
Wyoming Range so that they can find food in light of declining food
sources. These areas are currently deemed as socially unacceptable
habitat by the Idaho and Wyoming State management plans. Many
commenters thought that the States should throw out their concept of
``socially acceptable'' areas and should, instead, encourage
colonization of all biologically suitable habitat while improving
efforts to manage conflicts in those areas.
Response--The Idaho Plan does not limit or restrict bears in the
Palisades. The Idaho Plan acknowledges this area as one of many outside
the PCA where grizzly bear occupancy is anticipated in the next 5 to 10
years (Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002,
pp. 8-9). The Wyoming Plan calls for management emphasis to limit
conflicts in the southern Wind River and the Wyoming Ranges by
discouraging grizzly bear dispersal and occupancy of these areas. The
Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management Plan (WGFD 2005, pp. 12-16) does not
exclude grizzlies from the southern Wind Rivers; rather, it recognizes
a higher potential for grizzly bear/human conflicts if they move into
areas such as the southern Wind River or Wyoming Mountain ranges. The
presence of grizzly bears in places where there are high levels of
human activity and occupancy results in biological impacts to grizzly
bears in terms of increased mortality risk and displacement.
Consideration of these potential biological impacts was a critical
element in the determination of suitable habitat. As the grizzly
population increases in area and density, an emphasis will be placed on
education, conflict prevention, relocation, or removal of bears to
limit conflicts. Because there have been few if any bears in these
areas for many decades and the population has continued to grow during
this time, these areas are presently not necessary to include in the
PCA.
Issue 3--Commenters requested that we consider potential changes in
management of Inventoried Roadless Areas resulting from the 2005
Roadless Areas Rule (70 FR 25654) under which management decisions will
be made based on State Governor's petitions and individual Forest
Plans. Some thought we should undertake a more detailed analysis of ``*
* * roadless areas that are specifically threatened [and] identify
which formerly-protected areas are especially important to present and
future grizzly bear conservation.''
Response--The State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area
Management Rule (70 FR 25654, May 13, 2005) that replaced the Roadless
Area Conservation Rule (``Roadless Rule'') (66 FR 3244, January 12,
2001) was overturned September 19, 2006 (People of the State of
California ex rel. Bill Lockyer, et al. v. U.S. Department of
Agriculture; Mike Johanns, Secretary of the Department of Agriculture,
et al., C05-03508 EDL). The State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless
Area Management Rule was set aside and the 2001 Roadless Rule was
reinstated. The USDA Forest Service was enjoined from taking any
further action contrary to the 2001 Roadless Rule without undertaking
environmental analysis consistent with the court opinion. Because this
court decision voided the State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area
Management Rule, the 2005 Roadless Areas Rule has no impacts. Even if
the State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management Rule is
sustained in a possible appeal of the September 19, 2006, court
decision, the majority of roadless areas are likely to remain
undeveloped. The six GYA National Forests are committed to managing for
a viable grizzly bear population. If any roads are proposed to be built
in roadless areas, the USDA Forest Service must first complete a formal
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) process and
specifically consider the project's impacts on species of concern,
which the Yellowstone grizzly bear population will be classified as
post-delisting (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26). State Petitions for
Inventoried Roadless Area Management only allow the Governors to
comment on the Forest Service process of considering management of
Inventoried Roadless Areas and do not provide the Governors any
authority to make decisions on road building. Any comments from the
Governors would be considered during the EIS process.
Issue 4--Several commenters suggested that we provide habitat
protections for identified linkage zones between the GYA and other
occupied and unoccupied grizzly bear habitat to the north and west.
Response--A process to identify, maintain, and improve wildlife
movement areas between the large blocks of public land in the Northern
Rocky Mountains is ongoing (Servheen et al. 2003, p. 3). This
interagency effort involves 13 State and Federal agencies working on
linkage facilitation across private lands, public lands, and highways
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 2001, pp. 1-2). To date, this
effort has included: (1) Development of a written protocol and guidance
document on how to implement linkage zone management on public lands
(Public Land Linkage Taskforce 2004, pp. 3-5); (2) production of
several private land linkage management documents, including ``Making
Connections from the Perspective of Local People'' (Parker and Parker
2002, p. 2), and the Swan Conservation Agreement (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1997), which is a collaborative linkage zone
management document; (3) analyses of linkage zone management in
relation to highways, including identification of multiple linkage
areas in southeast Idaho from Idaho Falls to Lost Trail Pass (Geodata
Services Inc. 2005, p. 2) and the effects of highways on wildlife
(Waller and Servheen 2005, p. 998); and (4) a workshop in the spring of
2006 on implementing management actions for wildlife linkage, the
proceedings of which are available
[[Page 14888]]
online at: http://www.cfc.umt.edu/linkage. The objective of this work is to
maintain and enhance movement opportunities for all wildlife species
across the northern Rockies. This linkage work is not directly
associated with the Yellowstone grizzly population and will continue to
address ways to improve cooperation and affect management on public
lands, private lands, and highways in linkage areas across the northern
Rockies regardless of the listed status of the Yellowstone grizzly bear
DPS.
Issue 5--Numerous commenters believed that resource extraction
industries would dominate the landscape if delisting occurred. Some
stated that the overall trend for habitat quality has been declining,
at least in part, due to high-density oil and gas development. Some
commenters believe that we did not fully evaluate or acknowledge the
potential impacts from oil and gas development or increased logging in
the GYA on the grizzly bear population. One commenter noted that,
although there are large areas of land in the GYA that are not open to
surface occupancy, such stipulations are routinely waived upon request
and do not adequately address concerns of ``full field development''
that may occur in grizzly bear habitat.
Response--Service-defined suitable habitat inside or outside the
PCA (see Figure 1 above) does not contain active oil or gas wells.
Timber is the primary resource extracted in grizzly bear habitat.
Habitat quality (as a function of road density and timber harvest) has
improved as a result of declining timber harvest and road construction
and increasing road decommissioning since the mid-1990s (USDA Forest
Service 2006a, pp. 156, 200).
Inside the PCA, the potential for increased oil and gas development
in the future is guided by the Strategy and its limitations on road
density and development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 41).
We do not anticipate a dramatic increase in oil and gas development
outside of the PCA due to moderate to low potentials for both
occurrence and development throughout most of the six GYA National
Forests, with the exception of the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USDA
Forest Service 2006a, pp. 210-213). Even with the high potential for
occurrence and development in the Bridger-Teton, only 14 active oil and
gas wells are currently inside that National Forest and none are within
Service-defined suitable grizzly habitat.
Issue 6--Many commenters were concerned about the rapid human
population growth in the GYA and the resulting increases in houses,
recreationists, and grizzly bear/human conflicts. Some commenters
suggested that overall habitat quality in the GYA had already declined,
and would continue to do so, primarily due to houses and off-highway-
vehicle (OHV) use. Commenters believe that we must ensure future human
population growth does not affect the grizzly bear population and
recommended that we quantify current levels of use in the GYA for
consideration in a risk assessment. They also recommended we develop a
comprehensive monitoring, management, and enforcement plan for OHV and
snowmobile use in the GYA before considering delisting.
Response--Human populations in the GYA, and the rest of the United
States, are expected to increase (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 229).
In the six Wyoming counties where grizzly bears are, or are expected to
be, in the next few decades, the human population is projected to
increase by roughly 15,000 residents between 2000 and 2020 (from
105,215 in 2000 to 120,771 by 2020) (Wyoming Department of
Administration and Information Economic Analysis Division 2005). In the
Montana counties of Gallatin, Madison, Beaverhead, Park, Sweet Grass,
Stillwater, and Carbon, total populations are expected to increase by
roughly 35,000 people during this same time (from 120,934 in 2000 to
154,800 by 2020) (NPA Data Services 2002). We anticipate similar levels
of population growth in the Idaho counties of the GYA given that the
West, as a region, is projected to increase at rates faster than any
other region (U.S. Census Bureau Population Division 2005). Increasing
human populations do not necessarily lead to declining predator
populations, when adequate management programs are in place with
policies that promote the conservation of the species (Linnell et al.
2001, p. 348) such as mortality control, research and monitoring, and
outreach and education about living with wildlife.
Recent reports (Gosnell et al. 2006, pp. 749-750) demonstrate that
the majority of land sales over 162 ha (400 ac) in size in the greater
Yellowstone ecosystem from 1990 to 2001 were to amenity buyers (39
percent) (those who purchase for ambiance or recreation and who have
little interest in the economic viability of the property), or to
traditional ranchers (26 percent). Less than 6 percent of 605,814 ha
(1.497 million ac) sold from 1990 to 2001 were to land developers, and
12 percent were to investors whose ultimate intention was unknown. This
report suggests that ongoing changes in land ownership may result in
reduced conflicts between livestock and predators, and a lowered level
of land development sales than previously projected. While there may be
conservation benefits in this overall land ownership change, there are
uncertainties as to the eventual land uses on these properties.
The Service has no authority to limit or manage future human
population growth. Current levels of human use of public lands are
quantified (USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 180-185) and managed to
limit resource impacts in the management plans of the National Forests
and the National Parks in the Yellowstone ecosystem. A modeling
exercise to further predict the impacts of future population growth on
the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS would be of minimal use due to
multiple uncertainties regarding assumptions about human behavior and
how humans will react to grizzly bears. As human populations and
recreational activity have increased in the GYA National Forests,
additional regulations have been implemented to limit bear/human
conflicts such as the food storage orders in all suitable habitat on
National Forest lands and comprehensive State and Federal I & E
programs that explain how to coexist with bears. These efforts will
continue upon delisting so that the potential negative impacts of
increasing human populations on the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS are
adequately mitigated.
Under the Strategy, designated motorized access routes will not be
increased inside the PCA, and OHV use is restricted to designated
motorized access routes. The USDA Forest Service Final EIS on the
Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for The
Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2006a,
p. 192) states that, ``It is likely that revised plans will revise, and
possibly limit motorized access to address wildlife security needs,
better manage conflicting recreation uses, and protect areas from
resource damages.'' Quantification and management of OHV use and
snowmachine use on public lands are presented in the management plans
of the National Forests and the National Parks in the GYA. Any
detrimental impacts on grizzly bear habitat use and/or mortality will
be monitored as part of the comprehensive monitoring systems in the
Strategy.
Issue 7--Many commenters were concerned that declines in all four
of the major foods that Yellowstone grizzlies rely upon will decrease
the carrying capacity of the GYA, with resulting negative effects on
long-term grizzly bear population viability. The
[[Page 14889]]
commenters stated that the proposed rule was too optimistic regarding
grizzly bear response to decreases in major foods and noted that the
alternative foods for grizzly bears in the GYA are not of the same
quality and quantity found as the four major foods grizzlies currently
use.
Response--The amounts of major foods for grizzly bears will likely
fluctuate due to possible changes in average temperature,
precipitation, forest fires, introduced species, and resident insects.
Changes in environmental conditions and resulting changes in foods for
grizzly bears have been recognized by management agencies throughout
the recovery process. That such changes will occur is neither
exceptional nor unexpected. The key issue is determining how management
agencies will quantify and respond to such changes. Presently, a system
has been implemented to monitor changes in the production and
distribution of foods in relation to grizzly bear vital rates (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 25-60). The Study Team will report
the monitoring results on food production, extent and impact of insect
and disease on food production, bear mortality, reproductive success,
and age-specific survival annually to the Coordinating Committee. The
relationships between these factors will detect any impacts of changes
in foods on bear viability in the ecosystem and will be the basis for
an adaptive management response by the Coordinating Committee.
Issue 8--Some private landowners in the GYA were concerned about
the direction given in the Strategy that encourages citizens to become
involved in private land issues and questioned what authority we have
to make such a recommendation.
Response--We have no direct authority over private lands nor can we
require private citizen actions. Instead, the Strategy put forward
voluntary recommendations. The consideration of private land activities
on grizzly/human conflicts is fundamental to the proper management of
grizzly bears and to human safety because a disproportionate number of
grizzly bear/human conflicts occur at site developments on private
lands (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 15).
Issue 9--Some commenters were concerned about the amount of denning
habitat both inside and outside of the PCA that will be open to
snowmachine use.
Response--The Forest Plan Amendment includes guidance that inside
the PCA, localized area restrictions are to be used to mitigate
conflicts, where conflicts occur during denning or after bear emergence
in the spring. Much of the grizzly bear denning habitat identified in
the Forest Plan Amendment Final EIS as being open to snowmobiling is
not actually used by snowmachines (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 92).
Bears tend to den in remote areas with characteristics that are not
conducive to snowmachining (i.e., steep, forested habitats). Eighty-
eight percent of the known dens in the Yellowstone ecosystem are
located in areas where snowmachine use does not occur (USDA Forest
Service 2006a, p. 92).
Suitable denning habitat is well distributed on the forests. Five
of the six GYA National Forests consulted with us in 2001 regarding the
effect of snowmachines on denning grizzly bears. Our best information
suggests that current levels of snowmachine use are not appreciably
reducing the survival or recovery of grizzly bears. While the potential
for disturbance exists, USDA Forest Service and Study Team monitoring
over the last three years has not documented any disturbance (Gallatin
National Forest 2006, p. D-68). Monitoring will continue to support
adaptive management decisions to limit snowmachine use in areas where
disturbance is documented or likely to occur.
I. 1998 Baseline for Secure Habitat, Developed Sites, and Livestock
Allotments
Issue 1--Many comments questioned the logic and supporting evidence
for using 1998 as the baseline year. Some commenters said that the 1998
baseline was chosen arbitrarily and that the Service did not analyze
the implications of selecting any other particular year within the time
of 4 to 7 percent population increase (1983-2001).
Response--The year 1998 was chosen because secure habitat and site
developments had been roughly the same during the previous ten years
(USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 27) and the population was increasing
during these years (Eberhardt and Knight 1996, p. 419; Harris et al.
2006, p. 48). The selection of any other year between 1988 and 1998
would have resulted in approximately the same baseline values for roads
and developed sites. We did not select baseline habitat values from
years before 1988 because habitat improvements that occurred after the
implementation of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Guidelines
(USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 6-21) would not have been reflected.
Issue 2--Several commenters said that the 1998 baseline did not
adequately consider alternative hypotheses and processes that may have
lead to positive growth rates for the grizzly population from 1983-2001
(e.g., good whitebark pine years in the early 1990s), and that it is
overly simplistic to assume that levels of secure habitat, developed
sites, and livestock allotments are adequate to explain the observed
population growth.
Response--Numerous studies have confirmed that secure habitat,
developed sites, and livestock allotments affect grizzly bear survival
on a landscape scale (Mattson et al. 1987, p. 271; Mace et al. 1996,
pp. 1402-1403; Servheen et al. 2004, p. 20). We used these variables as
surrogates for habitat effectiveness because the annual variability in
the abundance and distribution of major foods precludes the Service
from establishing baseline values for them.
We believe that high whitebark pine cone production in the early
1990s does not adequately explain the observed population growth during
this time (Haroldson et al. 2006b, p. 41). The Annual Study Team
reports document that the early 1990s were not particularly good
whitebark pine production years as evidenced by average counts of less
than 20 cones per tree from 1990 through 1995. In fact, the only 2
years during the 1990s with cone counts above 20 cones per tree were
1996 and 1999 (Haroldson and Podruzny 2006, p. 45). We also note that
the Yellowstone grizzly bear population was declining in the 1960s and
1970s, regardless of whitebark pine production. Declines continued
until management intervention occurred with the implementation of the
Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 6-21) by the affected
National Parks and Forests. These Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 1986,
pp. 6-21) focused on improving habitat quality and limiting human-
caused mortality resulting from grizzly bear/human conflicts. Because
of the subsequent success of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population in
the decades following implementation of the Guidelines, it is
reasonable to infer that the Guidelines played a significant role and
that the continuation of such management actions will ensure the
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS remains recovered.
Issue 3--Some commenters suggested that subunits on the Gallatin
National Forest need to improve levels of secure habitat before
delisting occurs even if this means closing additional USDA Forest
Service roads to compensate for adjacent, highly roaded, private lands.
Response--The Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS increased 4 to 7 percent
per year between 1983 and 2002 (Harris et
[[Page 14890]]
al. 2006, p. 48) with the current level of road density on the Gallatin
National Forest. There is no biological reason to conclude that
additional road density reductions on the Gallatin National Forest are
necessary before delisting can move forward.
Issue 4--Several commenters believe that the 1998 baseline is
unrealistic because habitat changes are already occurring due to oil
and gas extraction, human population growth, pine beetles, and other
threats to food sources. One commenter said that the 1998 baseline
contained inaccuracies in its road data thus making its use as a
baseline value ineffective.
Response--Habitat conditions relating to the habitat standards
described in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 38-
56) have either remained stable or improved since 1998 for road
densities, levels of secure habitat, site developments, and livestock
allotments. The 1998 baseline was not developed to address specific
projects such as oil and gas development or timber harvest. Using the
adaptive management approach described in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 5-11), management agencies will respond with
adequate restrictions and enforcement if recreation on public lands due
to increased human populations in the GYA becomes detrimental to the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population. The 1998 baseline does not contain
threshold values for any of the major foods due to the natural
variability in their abundance and distribution that occurs annually.
The 1998 baseline attempted to establish realistic habitat standards
that ensure adequate habitat security and minimum livestock conflicts
within the PCA. We consider the establishment of habitat thresholds for
human population growth, food sources, and specific projects to be
unrealistic and that the 1998 baseline will address these issues
adequately through access management and limitations on site
development. Regarding the accuracy of road data, the 1998 baseline for
roads is calculated using the best available road layers compiled by
each GYA National Forest.
Issue 5--Some commenters suspected that the 1998 baseline would not
be enforced and noted that we have already allowed three projects that
violate the terms of the Strategy--(1) the Togwotee Pass road
expansion, (2) Grand Teton National Park's plan to build miles of paved
pathways, and (3) Yellowstone National Park's installation of large
trailer-home developments at Lake and Canyon for employees and
contractors.
Response--The 1998 baseline values are being maintained and
enforced. With their signatures on the Strategy, the agencies have
committed to implement the habitat standards by adhering to the 1998
baseline (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 13, 63-67), amending
the forest plans on the six GYA National Forests, and implementing
changes to the Superintendent's Compendiums regulating habitat
management within Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks. One phase
of the Togwotee Pass road expansion that would have violated the secure
habitat terms of the Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp.
39-44) has been reevaluated and abandoned because it violated the
agreed-upon habitat standards (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp.
38-56). The paved pathways in Grand Teton National Park's plan are for
exclusive use by bicyclists and pedestrians and, therefore, do not
violate the established limits on motorized access routes. The addition
of trailer homes at Lake and Canyon in Yellowstone National Park does
not violate the developed site standard because administrative site
expansions for improvement of management on public lands, for temporary
construction camps, or for temporary housing for major maintenance
projects are exempt.
Issue 6--Many commenters objected to the exceptions that we allow
to the 1998 baseline regarding the 1 percent rule for temporary changes
and the application rules for permanent changes in secure habitat and
developed sites. They believe that these allowances are unacceptable
and not based on biology. Some commenters asked why replacement habitat
used to mitigate permanent changes in secure habitat would only be
maintained for 10 years and suggested that this would lead to a net
loss of secure habitat over time. Other commenters noted that
exceptions allowed in the USDA Forest Service's Draft EIS (USDA Forest
Service 2004, p. 141) could result in an increase in developed sites
above 1998 levels. Some groups believe that the 1 percent rule was too
restrictive and questioned why the Service would implement more strict
standards than those in use while the grizzly population was increasing
(i.e., the Guidelines).
Response--Regarding developed sites, the habitat standard in the
Strategy states that there will be no net increase in the capacity or
number of developed sites from the 1998 baseline (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2007, p. 42). Any proposed expansion of an existing
developed site or any new developed sites will be analyzed, with the
potential detrimental and positive impacts on grizzly bears documented,
through a biological evaluation or assessment. This evaluation/
assessment would determine the mitigation necessary for any proposed
increases in number or capacity of developed sites. The final EIS
states that any project that changes the number or capacity of
developed sites must follow specific application rules requiring that
any new sites be mitigated by removing an existing site within that
subunit to offset any increases in human capacity, habitat loss, or
human access to surrounding habitats (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p.
36). The application rules allow for an expansion of developed
campgrounds if an equivalent capacity of dispersed campsites is
eliminated. Administrative site expansions are exempt from human
capacity mitigation expansion only if they are necessary for
enhancement of management of public lands and other viable alternatives
are not available.
The requirement to maintain secure habitat for 10 years is
considered a minimum, and cannot be eliminated after the 10 years
unless mitigated by an equal quantity and quality of secure habitat
that then must be retained for at least 10 years. There will be no net
loss of secure habitat in any subunit. Temporary changes in secure
habitat may reduce secure habitat for a period no longer than 3 years
and can be no larger than 1 percent of the largest subunit size within
that Bear Management Unit. All secure habitat would be restored upon
completion of a temporary project. There are no biological data that
demonstrate that the temporary 1 percent level of secure habitat
disturbance in any subunit has had any detrimental impact on the
grizzly bear population.
J. Whitebark Pine
Issue 1--Numerous commenters noted the importance of whitebark pine
to grizzly bear survival and reproductive success. They believe that we
were overly optimistic about the severity of the decline of whitebark
pine in the GYA and the potential impacts to the Yellowstone grizzly
bear DPS. These commenters suggested that we complete a more thorough
analysis of impacts of potential decreases in whitebark pine cone
production. Several commenters were concerned that the monitoring
systems described by the Strategy will not detect changes in the
grizzly bear population related to decreases in whitebark pine cone
production soon enough, and that there is no clear management response
if this occurs.
Response--We have added additional information to the final rule
concerning potential threats to whitebark pine and possible impacts to
grizzly bears. The
[[Page 14891]]
extent to which whitebark pine nut production will be affected across
the landscape is unknown and difficult to calculate with any degree of
certainty. Instead, managers will use an adaptive management approach
that addresses poor food years with responsive management actions.
The Strategy commits the agencies to intensive monitoring of all
grizzly bear vital rates, and the relationship of these rates to
changes in major foods and levels and types of human activities. Vital
rates that are more sensitive to habitat changes such as litter size
and cub survival also will be monitored. Due to the reproductive
biology of grizzly bears in which fertilized eggs are not implanted
into the uterus if the nutritional status of the female is inadequate,
poor whitebark pine production resulting from a landscape scale
decrease in overall carrying capacity would be detected by a decreased
number of females with cubs-of-the-year.
In the short-term, management responses to poor whitebark pine cone
production years will include immediate limitation on all discretionary
mortalities; enhanced outreach and education to minimize bear/human
conflicts and the availability of attractants in bear habitat that
might promote such conflicts; notice to residents and users of bear
habitat about the possible increased foraging of bears in peripheral
habitats; detailed monitoring of food habit shifts and possible changes
in home range size and locations, particularly for adult females;
limitation of human activities in new or expanded feeding areas should
there be changes in range or feeding area; and requests for a status
review and/or immediate emergency relisting. The long-term response to
decreases in whitebark pine will be continued efforts to replant
whitebark pine, habitat management that encourages whitebark pine
recruitment and growth, and enhancing secure habitat availability in
specific areas outside the PCA where healthy whitebark pine may be
available.
Issue 2--Some commenters critiqued the current monitoring protocol
for whitebark pine. Specifically, one commenter suggested that the
Service update the monitoring protocol for whitebark pine to count dead
trees as cone production equal to zero, so that whitebark pine
mortality due to pine beetle and blister rust is reflected in total
cone production estimates. Other commenters recommended that any
delisting proposal be intimately tied with whitebark pine restoration
and protection from mountain pine beetle attack via verbenone (a
hormone that decreases mountain pine beetle success).
Response--We believe that the current whitebark monitoring system
provides a representative, ecosystem-wide index of cone production,
numbers of dead trees and the sources of death, and changes in pine nut
production over time. This comprehensive monitoring system is made
possible by the synergistic work of the Study Team, the Greater
Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group, and the Whitebark
Pine Subcommittee.
Currently, the Study Team monitors 19 whitebark pine cone
production transects within the PCA, 9 of which have been monitored on
an annual basis since 1980 (Knight et al. 1997, p. 14). The purpose of
monitoring these transects is to assess whitebark pine production,
because Blanchard (1990, p. 362) demonstrated that grizzly bears in the
GYA use whitebark pine seeds almost exclusively when pine cone
production averages more than 20 cones per tree. As such, counting dead
trees which have no cone production produces an unreliable estimate of
cone production of live trees.
We agree that it is important to monitor mortality of whitebark
pine trees due to blister rust infection and mountain pine beetle
infestation. One of the three stated objectives of the Greater
Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group is to ``* * *
estimate survival of individual whitebark pine trees greater than 1.4 m
high'' (Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group
2005, p. 96). To assess whitebark pine mortality, the Greater
Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group has established
more than 70 transects outside the PCA and works closely with
statisticians to ensure a representative sample and a high power of
inference (Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group
2006, p. 76) for more accurate results.
The Whitebark Pine Subcommittee, formed in 1998, is an interagency
group comprised of members from the USDA Forest Service, the National
Park Service, the Study Team, and the Whitebark Pine Ecosystem
Foundation (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 148). The Whitebark Pine
Subcommittee coordinates the implementation of restoration techniques,
management responses, and gathering whitebark pine status information.
Current work on whitebark pine includes planting in several areas, cone
collection from healthy trees, silvicultural treatments to improve
growth and establishment, prescribed burning to encourage natural
whitebark pine seedling establishment, and surveys for healthy trees
that may possess blister rust resistant genes.
Verbenone is an anti-aggregation pheromone of the mountain pine
beetle (Kegley and Gibson 2004, p. 1). It has usefulness in protecting
individual trees or small areas 0.4 ha (1 ac) from pine beetle attack
(Kegley et al. 2003, pp. 4-5, Kegley and Gibson 2004, p. 1), but its
use is limited to individual high-value trees or very small areas. Its
use is impractical over thousands of square kilometers throughout an
ecosystem.
Under the Strategy, the Study Team will continue to work with the
Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group and the
Whitebark Pine Subcommittee to monitor whitebark pine cone production,
the prevalence of white pine blister rust, whitebark pine mortality,
and to actively restore whitebark pine in the GYA.
Issue 3--One commenter stated that the Service failed to consider
the threat of dwarf mistletoe to whitebark pine.
Response--While dwarf mistletoe can infect and kill whitebark pine
trees, it has only ever been detected on one whitebark pine tree in the
GYA of the thousands surveyed each year (Greater Yellowstone Whitebark
Pine Monitoring Working Group 2005, p. 111). There is no evidence to
suggest that dwarf mistletoe represents a serious threat to whitebark
pine as a food source for grizzly bears, but the Greater Yellowstone
Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group will continue to monitor for
its presence on the transects it has distributed throughout the GYA.
K. Cutthroat Trout
Issue 1--Some commenters suggest delisting be delayed until the
Yellowstone cutthroat trout status review is complete and the findings
can be considered in our decision.
Response--The Yellowstone cutthroat trout was found to be not
warranted for listing under the Act on February 21, 2006 (71 FR 8818).
Issue 2--Some commenters noted that we did not assess the threat to
cutthroat trout from direct competition for food between non-native,
invasive New Zealand mud snails and cutthroat trout fry.
Response--The New Zealand mud snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) is a
recently arrived invasive species that was first observed in the GYA in
1994 (Hall et al. 2006, p. 1122). They are most abundant in the mid-
elevation geothermal streams in Yellowstone National Park. New Zealand
mud snails can occur in such great abundance that they out-compete and
displace native
[[Page 14892]]
aquatic invertebrates that are the preferred foods of cutthroat trout.
However, the Service's 12-month finding on a petition to list
Yellowstone cutthroat trout stated that ``While it is likely this
organism (New Zealand mud snail) is increasingly becoming more
widespread and will continue to spread, to date there is no evidence
that implicates the New Zealand mud snail in the collapse of any
conservation populations of Yellowstone cutthroat trout'' (71 FR 8829,
February 21, 2006). Because cutthroat trout are not as important to
reproductive female grizzly bears as previously thought (Felicetti et
al. 2004, p. 496, Reinhart and Mattson 1990, p. 349; Mattson and
Reinhart 1995, pp. 2076-2079), we do not foresee New Zealand mud snails
as a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in all or a significant
portion of its range in the foreseeable future.
Issue 3--A few commenters noted that the Yellowstone National Park
lake trout removal program has not succeeded in reversing the decline
in the number of cutthroat trout spawning in the tributaries to
Yellowstone Lake.
Response--Over 100,000 lake trout were removed from Yellowstone
Lake between 1994 and 2004. The average length of captured lake trout
and the catch per unit effort have declined during this time,
suggesting that lake trout control efforts are impacting the
population. Fewer and smaller lake trout will have a reduced impact on
cutthroat trout. The lake trout removal program will continue. Overall,
we do not foresee a decline in Yellowstone cutthroat trout as a threat
to the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in all or a significant portion of
its range in the foreseeable future (see Factor E below).
Issue 4--One commenter stated that the decline in availability of
spawning cutthroat trout may be forcing more grizzlies out of
Yellowstone National Park where they are at greater risk of human-
caused mortality.
Response--Only a small proportion of the Yellowstone grizzly bear
DPS eat cutthroat trout and the nutritional contribution of cutthroat
trout to the overall diet of those few bears is minimal (Felicetti et
al. 2004, p. 496). Movement data from radio-collared grizzly bears who
consume trout do not indicate these bears move outside Yellowstone
National Park any more than bears eating foods other than trout. The
Strategy and the Study Team have established biologically sustainable
mortality limits for the entire GYA and if bears experience
unsustainable mortality levels as a result of leaving Yellowstone
National Park in search of alternative foods to cutthroat trout, this
trend will be detected and addressed.
L. Army Cutworm Moths
Issue 1--Most comments we received about army cutworm moths
addressed the proposed rule's lack of a discussion about the impacts of
global climate change and pesticide use on the moths. Some commenters
believe that we should analyze the impacts of human recreation on
grizzly bear use of army cutworm moth sites and that identified sites
should be protected from heavy recreation and development.
Response--The final rule contains a discussion of the potential
effects of global climate change and pesticides on army cutworm moths.
The Study Team is sponsoring research on the geospatial prediction of
army cutworm moth sites that will help managers identify sites that are
potentially exposed to human recreational use. It is highly unlikely
that any of the high-elevation sites used by the moths, all of which
are on public lands, will be exposed to development.
M. Availability of Ungulates
Issue 1--Some commenters noted that we failed to consider the
multiple factors that may affect the availability of ungulate carcasses
to grizzly bears in the future. These include brucellosis control and
management plan impacts on the availability of elk and bison, the
potential for chronic wasting disease to afflict elk populations,
competition with wolves at carcasses, displacement of female grizzlies
with cubs, loss of winter habitat and migration routes due to human
housing trends, and fewer carcasses available to grizzlies in the
spring due to milder winters.
Response--The final rule contains a discussion of all of these
issues.
Issue 2 --One commenter noted that we failed to consider the large
declines of the northern Yellowstone elk population and how or if this
may affect the grizzly bear population.
Response--The northern elk herd declined from about 17,000 elk in
1995 to about 8,000 elk in 2005. The decline has been attributed to a
variety of factors including severe winters, drought, hunter harvest,
and increased predation on elk calves by grizzly bears, black bears,
and wolves (Vucetich et al. 2005, pp. 266-268; Barber et al. 2005, pp.
42-43). The grizzly bear population has continued to increase at 4 to 7
percent per year during this time period, meaning there is no
detectable cause and effect relationship between the elk population
decline and the health of the grizzly population.
N. Hunting
Issue 1--Many commenters were concerned that the Yellowstone
population cannot sustain additional human-caused mortality and that
this will lead to a decline in the population and eventually to their
extinction.
Response--Because the revised sustainable mortality limits for
independent males and females include mortalities from all sources
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 6-7), including hunting,
and are applied ecosystem-wide within the Conservation Strategy
Management Area (Figure 1), hunting should never threaten the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population. Hunting is a discretionary
mortality source and will occur only if the mortality limits from all
causes have not been exceeded (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p.
31).
Issue 2--Some commenters requested that we discuss the potentially
negative impacts on grizzly bear population dynamics that can be caused
by hunting, particularly when large males are targeted.
Response--When large males are removed from the population, new
male bears may move into an area and kill resident females' cubs
(Swenson et al. 1997b, p. 450). This process of sexually-selected
infanticide has been documented in Scandinavia (Swenson et al. 1997b,
p. 450). However, the only study of sexually-selected infanticide
conducted in North America concluded that a limited hunting season
under a sustainable mortality regime does not decrease cub survival
(McLellan 2005, p. 146). This issue is still being debated in the
scientific community. For more discussion about this issue, please see
Issue 2 under subheading A in the Summary of Peer Review Comments
section below. Because hunting in the Yellowstone ecosystem will be
limited, it is unlikely to have an impact on the population dynamics of
the Yellowstone ecosystem population.
Issue 3--Many commenters are opposed to sport hunting of any kind
and believe such practices to be barbaric, unnecessary, and unethical.
Response--While we respect the values and opinions of all
commenters, we are required by law to make decisions based on the best
available science. As such, the various values that people hold about
sport hunting are outside the scope of our decision-making authority.
The Study Team has established sustainable mortality limits for the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population that ensure that hunting will not
threaten the overall status of the
[[Page 14893]]
population (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 5-9).
Issue 4--One commenter noted that hunting mortality would not be
compensatory, because it would take place mostly in Wilderness Areas
rather than developed areas, where most human-caused mortalities occur.
Response--Hunting will always be a source of compensatory mortality
for the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS because all hunting mortalities
will fall within the sustainable mortality limits established by the
Study Team and the Strategy. Hunting permits will not be issued by the
States if mortality limits are exceeded.
Response--One commenter suggested that we research the effects of
hunting on grizzly bear/human conflicts.
Response--We agree that it would be useful to compare grizzly bear/
human conflicts before and after the implementation of a hunting season
to demonstrate its effects on the frequency of grizzly bear/human
conflicts. The Study Team and State agencies collect data on grizzly
bear/human conflicts, and will continue to do so after delisting. These
data are reported and displayed spatially in the Study Team's Annual
Report. If the effects of any change in the frequency, location, or
nature of grizzly bear/human conflicts are detectable, the data will
indicate these changes.
O. Disease
Issue 1--Most comments we received that mentioned disease did so in
the context of increased susceptibility to diseases as a result of
genetic isolation and are discussed below in the genetic concerns
section. Some commenters referenced the 2005 outbreak of parvovirus in
the Yellowstone wolf population and suggested that, because this
outbreak was not anticipated, we should have a plan to manage a
potential epidemic disease in bears.
Response--Approximately 10 percent of the Yellowstone grizzly
population is currently tracked using radio collars. The Study Team
examines all bears captured for research or management purposes, and
performs post mortem examinations on the carcasses of dead bears. If a
disease outbreak were to occur, it would be identified promptly. Due to
the lack of evidence that diseases and parasites play any significant
role in grizzly bear population dynamics in the GYA (see Factor C
below), we do not view developing a management plan to respond to a
potential outbreak as necessary.
P. Human-caused Mortality, Poaching, Grizzly Bear/Human Conflicts, and
Information and Education Programs
Issue 1--Several commenters were concerned that poaching would
increase without the deterrent of prosecution under the Act. Many more
questioned how much enforcement would occur after delisting and whether
the States had the infrastructure or the desire to pursue poaching
investigations. Some commenters noted that the number of State
enforcement officers is lower than Federal enforcement officers, and
that enforcement would be reduced under State management.
Response--The States are committed to prosecuting illegal grizzly
bear kills, as per the State plans (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2007, p. 15), and they have the legal authorities to do so under State
law (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 72-76). There are no data
to suggest that the jurisdiction under which poaching is prosecuted
affects the willingness of poachers to commit the crime.
State and Federal conservation officers are usually cross-
commissioned, so that Federal conservation officers cite State law
violators when they encounter them, and vice versa. National Park
Service rangers would have little occasion to encounter State
conservation law violators, but State conservation officers, our
special wildlife agents, Tribal conservation officers, and USDA Forest
Service enforcement officers will continue to cooperate in the
investigation of poaching incidents.
Issue 2--We received numerous comments suggesting how and why we
should focus on reducing grizzly bear/hunter conflicts. Many thought we
should expand efforts to reduce grizzly bear/hunter conflicts with
black bear and elk hunters either through I & E or stricter
regulations. Some commenters recommended that all hunters be required
to carry bear spray and hang their meat immediately when hunting in
grizzly bear territory. Several commenters believed that the practice
of black bear baiting, (currently permitted in Idaho and Wyoming)
should be illegal in all suitable grizzly bear habitat or outlawed
entirely.
Response--The Strategy prioritizes outreach and education to
minimize grizzly bear/human conflicts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2007, pp. 57-62). The State plans also contain direction on ways to
minimize grizzly bear/hunter conflicts (Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly
Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. 15; MTFWP 2002, pp. 24, 62; WGFD
2005, pp. 31-35). Although the States do not currently require hunters
to carry pepper spray, it is strongly encouraged in hunter education
courses and other educational materials. Elk hunters in Grand Teton
National Park are required to carry bear spray, and this may prove to
be a research opportunity to quantify how much, if any, this
requirement reduces grizzly bear conflicts with elk hunters.
Montana does not allow black bear baiting in any areas and black
bear baiting inside the PCA is not allowed in Idaho or Wyoming
(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 11). In areas outside the PCA in Idaho and
Wyoming, State wildlife agencies will monitor grizzly bear mortality
associated with black bear hunting to respond to problems if they
occur. The Yellowstone grizzly bear population has increased while
black bear baiting has been allowed in Idaho and Wyoming outside the
PCA, so it cannot be identified as a significant factor that will
threaten the recovered status of the Yellowstone DPS.
Issue 3--One commenter noted that we must consider the impacts of
increased poaching in habitat surrounding areas of high-density oil and
gas production.
Response--Poaching violations may increase in the vicinity of
resource extraction boom towns, and the magnitude of increase relative
to population growth is greater at industrial sites than at
agricultural or recreational sites (Berger and Daneke 1988, pp. 285-
287). State agencies are aware of this potential and will manage
accordingly through increased Information and Education efforts and
enforcement near boom towns.
Issue 4--To prevent grizzly bear/human conflicts before they occur,
many commenters recommended that proper sanitation and garbage storage
be implemented in all occupied habitat and, preferably, in all suitable
habitat. These preventative measures should be in place before
delisting occurs and are especially important in light of projected
increases in human population and private land development over the
next several decades.
Response--The USDA Forest Service currently has food storage orders
in most Service-defined suitable habitat, and food storage orders will
be implemented in all suitable habitat found within National Forests by
2008. For a complete map of when and where food storage orders will
take effect on National Forest lands in the GYA, please see http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm.
Extensive collaborative efforts involving State
[[Page 14894]]
wildlife agencies, NGOs, waste management companies, and private
landowners to improve garbage storage and to avoid future grizzly bear/
human conflicts on private lands will continue (Servheen et al. 2004,
pp. 6-7). Over two-thirds of the suggested budgets created by the
States and Federal agencies responsible for managing the grizzly bear
post-delisting are for managing grizzly bear/human conflicts and
Information and Education efforts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007,
p. 154). This level of commitment by responsible agencies demonstrates
their understanding that I & E efforts and conflict management and
prevention are crucial elements of maintaining a healthy Yellowstone
grizzly bear population.
Issue 5--Some commenters believe that aversive conditioning, not
management removals, should be emphasized when conflicts with livestock
occur or when conflicts are the result of human attractants.
Response--The Federal and State management agencies emphasize
preventative measures and aversive conditioning whenever possible
(Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 15-
16; MTFWP 2002, pp. 46-49; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 59-
60; WGFD 2005, pp. 28, 31). Management removal is only used as a last
resort.
Issue 6--Some commenters thought that grizzly bear conflicts with
livestock grazing on public lands should always be settled in favor of
the grizzly bear.
Response--Inside the PCA, numerous sheep allotments have been
retired or relocated to other, less-conflict-prone areas to accommodate
grizzly bears (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 170). As of 2006, there
are only two remaining active sheep allotments inside the PCA (USDA
Forest Service 2006a, p. 168). In areas inside the PCA, grizzly bears
involved in any livestock conflict will be given a second chance and
relocated at least once before removal is used (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007, p. 59). Management of grizzly bear conflicts with
livestock grazing on public lands outside of the PCA will be guided by
the respective State wildlife agency's grizzly bear management plan and
will remain within the sustainable mortality limits established for the
Conservation Strategy Management Area. As such, this source of
mortality will not threaten the Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
Q. Adequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms
Issue 1--Several commenters noted that the Strategy, the State
plans, and the revised mortality methods cannot be considered adequate
regulatory mechanisms because they are not legally enforceable.
Numerous commenters also noted that the habitat standards described in
the Strategy will be unenforceable due to the 2005 USDA Forest Service
Planning Regulations, which revoked the use of ``standards'' in Forest
Land Management Plans (70 FR 1023).
Response--By signing the Strategy, responsible agencies demonstrate
that they are committed to implementing the features within their
discretion and authority. The Strategy provides adequate assurance that
the participating agencies will implement the agreement, which is
sufficient to meet the reasonableness required for regulatory
mechanisms. Furthermore, the USDA Forest Service finalized the Forest
Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the GYA
National Forests and has incorporated this Amendment into the affected
National Forests' Land Management Plans (USDA Forest Service 2006a,
2006b, p. 4). This amendment was completed pursuant to the 1982
planning regulations and supported by full Environmental Impact
Statement analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act and
would not be invalidated by a revision of the Forest Plan pursuant to
the 2005 planning regulations. Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks appended the habitat standards to their Park Superintendent's
Compendiums, thereby assuring that these National Parks would manage
habitat in accordance with the habitat standards (Grand Teton National
Park 2006, p. 1; Yellowstone National Park 2006, p. 44). These issues,
and the use and impact of the various forest planning regulations (1982
and 2005), are discussed under Factor D below.
Issue 2--One commenter noted that the States of Wyoming, Montana,
and Idaho do not currently have sufficient State laws to prevent
excessive mortality. Some commenters suggested that the Interagency
Grizzly Bear Committee petition Congress for legally binding, habitat
protection for the PCA as a prerequisite for delisting, resulting in a
piece of legislation that provides permanent, Federal, legal protection
for the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS similar to that afforded to bald
eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) by the Bald Eagle Protection Act of
1940.
Response--State agencies have the authority and the necessary State
laws to limit human-caused mortality (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2007, pp. 72-76) and have committed to do so by signing the Strategy
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 13).
Issue 3--Some commenters noted that because of the 2005 Roadless
Rule (70 FR 25653, May 13, 2005), Inventoried Roadless Areas cannot be
considered secure habitat protected by adequate regulatory mechanisms.
Response--The State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area
Management Rule (70 FR 25654, May 13, 2005) that replaced the Roadless
Area Conservation Rule (``Roadless Rule'') (66 FR 3244, January 12,
2001) was overturned September 19, 2006. Management of roadless areas
must comply with the provisions of the 2001 Roadless Rule. Such areas
are protected by adequate regulatory mechanisms. For further
discussion, see Factor D below and our response to Issue 3 under
subheading H above.
Issue 4--Some commenters noted that the proposed rule failed to
include significant habitat on the Wind River Reservation. These
commenters recommended that the final rule recognize the Eastern
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes as active participants and discuss
their plans to create grizzly bear management plans for the Wind River
Reservation.
Response--The Eastern Shoshone and the Northern Arapaho Tribes of
the Wind River Reservation manage wildlife within their Federally
recognized boundaries (see Figure 1 above). Both of these tribes have
been invited to participate as representatives on the Coordinating
Committee under the Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p.
9). They are working with us to develop a Grizzly Bear Management Plan
specific to their lands. Less than three percent of all suitable
habitat will be affected by Tribal management decisions. We anticipate
that their management plan will encourage grizzly bear occupancy in
areas of suitable habitat on the Wind River Reservation. We have
recommended that the Tribal Grizzly Bear Management Plan (currently
being drafted) include grizzly bear occupancy of the Wind River
Mountains on the Reservation, as this will allow grizzly bears
continued access to high-elevation whitebark pine and army cutworm
moths in these mountains.
Issue 5--Some commenters noted that case history (Federation of Fly
Fishers v. Daley, 131 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1167-68 (N.D. Cal. 2000))
suggests that the Strategy cannot be considered an adequate regulatory
mechanism because ``no reliable source for its future funding'' exists.
Response--It is not possible to predict with certainty future
governmental
[[Page 14895]]
appropriations, nor can we commit or require Federal funds beyond those
appropriated (31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)), but by signing the Strategy,
State and Federal management agencies have committed to implement the
protective features that are within their discretion and authority, and
to seek adequate funding for implementation. The Strategy provides
adequate assurance that the participating agencies will implement the
agreement, which is sufficient to meet the reasonableness required for
regulatory mechanisms. We are authorized to provide grants to States to
assist in monitoring the status of recovered species under section 6(d)
of the Act.
Issue 6--Some commenters disagreed with our assertion that the NEPA
will adequately protect habitat outside of the PCA regarding road
construction and resource extraction. They noted that reliance on NEPA
or ``sensitive species'' designation to adequately protect suitable
habitat outside of the PCA is not adequate because of the 2005 USDA
Forest Service Planning regulations, which eliminated species'
viability requirements.
Response--We believe that the potential effects on grizzly bears of
any proposed projects on public land will be fully and adequately
considered through the requirements of NEPA. The USDA Forest Service is
designating the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS a ``species of concern''
upon delisting (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26). This designation
means that the GYA National Forests must ``* * * provide the
appropriate ecological conditions (i.e., habitats) necessary to
continue to provide for a recovered population'' (USDA Forest Service
2006b, p. 26). For further discussion of the USDA Forest Service
Planning regulations, see Factor D below.
Issue 7--Some commenters disputed the adequacy of State management
plans because none of the plans contain clearly defined standards or
methods of enforcing compliance of their population goals, and because
States cannot compel Federal land management agencies to manage their
lands in accordance with the State plans or the Strategy.
Response--It is true that States cannot compel Federal agencies to
manage their lands in accordance with their State plans. However, as
participants in the Strategy, both State and Federal agencies have
agreed to carry out all provisions of the Strategy, including the
appended State plans.
Issue 8--Some commenters expressed concern about the
decentralization of grizzly bear monitoring and management efforts,
believing that it would be confusing and challenging to effectively
implement monitoring and management efforts across multiple
jurisdictions without the cohesive force of the Act.
Response--All monitoring, reporting results, and management actions
are centralized under the Coordinating Committee and the Study Team, as
described in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 25-
67), which all the State and Federal agencies have signed and agreed to
implement. The agencies responsible for managing the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population upon delisting helped develop the Strategy and
have been effectively cooperating and communicating with each other
about grizzly bear management decisions for the last 25 years.
R. Genetic Concerns, Isolation, and Connectivity With Other Grizzly
Bear Populations
Issue 1--Numerous commenters expressed concern that, due to the
isolation of the Yellowstone population, we should maintain an
effective population size of at least 500 individuals to ensure long-
term viability. Therefore, many commenters believe that we should set a
population objective of 2,000 to 3,000 bears in the GYA or reestablish
connectivity among all grizzly bear populations in the Lower 48 States
(so that the total population size is approximately 2,000) before
delisting occurs.
Response--Although the effective population size (i.e., the number
of breeding individuals in an idealized population that would show the
same amount of dispersion of allele frequencies under random genetic
drift or the same amount of inbreeding as the population under
consideration) of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is lower than
recommended for evolutionary success in the absence of management in
published literature on evolutionary theory (e.g., Franklin 1980,
p.136), the genetic program for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
will effectively address future genetic concerns (Hedrick 1995, p.
1004; Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). As Miller and Waits (2003, p.
4338) recommend, we will continue efforts to reestablish natural
connectivity, but our partners will transplant one to two effective
migrants per generation if no movement or genetic exchange is
documented by 2020 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 37).
Issue 2--Several commenters believe that the reduced heterozygosity
of the Yellowstone population increases their vulnerability to disease
epidemics due to a likely decrease in allelic diversity at the major
histocompatibility complex locus. They noted that because the
Yellowstone DPS has been isolated for the last 100 years and has not
been challenged with any epidemic diseases, disease-resistant genetic
material may have decreased, thereby ensuring that if an epidemic does
occur, it will be severe.
Response--We do not know that allelic diversity has declined at the
major histocompatibility complex locus in the GYA grizzly population.
Because overall allelic diversity has declined some over the 20th
century (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4337), it may have declined at the
major histocompatibility complex locus too. We do not know that the GYA
population has not been challenged by epidemic diseases in the past 100
years. We can say that epidemic diseases are not known to have caused
high mortality in any grizzly or brown bear population, including the
Kodiak Island, Alaska population, in which heterozygosity, and
presumably allelic diversity, is much lower than in the GYA population.
The Study Team monitors the health of GYA grizzlies by examining all
bears captured each year (approximately 60-80 captures per year) and
all known mortalities. If disease or an epidemic occurs, it will be
detected promptly and responded to appropriately.
Issue 3--Some commenters noted that relatively modest decreases in
heterozygosity values (the proportion in an individual of loci that
have more than one allele) correspond to much larger decreases in
allelic diversity (due to inbreeding) and that the proposed rule does
not contain an adequate discussion of this effect or its conservation
implications. In other words, they believe that a population could be
experiencing declines in allelic diversity that would not be detected
if the only measure of genetic diversity was heterozygosity, and that
we should evaluate the biological and conservation implications of a
reduction in allelic diversity, if this is occurring in the Yellowstone
DPS.
Response--Although allelic diversity has declined in the GYA
population over the 20th century, the decline was not as precipitous as
previously anticipated (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). As measured by
Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4337), allelic richness decreased from
approximately 5.89 alleles per locus at the beginning of the 20th
century (1910s) to 5.50 at the end of the century (1990s). Considering
all of the information available that
[[Page 14896]]
examines heterozygosity and allelic diversity of grizzly bears in the
GYA, Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338) conclude that ``the viability of
the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is unlikely to be compromised
by genetic factors in the near future * * *'' and that ``* * * one to
two effective migrants per generation from the NCDE to the YE
(Yellowstone ecosystem) is an appropriate level of gene flow.'' We
considered these conclusions pertinent to the genetic management of the
DPS and incorporated them into the Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007, p. 37).
Issue 4--One commenter noted that our statement in Appendix D of
the Strategy that ``current levels of genetic diversity * * * are not
resulting in deleterious effects'' is not supported by the literature
and that Miller and Waits' (2003, p. 4335) study was not designed to
answer this question. Another commenter noted that deleterious effects
to the Yellowstone population as a result of genetic isolation have
already been documented by Dr. Michael Gilpin in his guest commentary
in the Bozeman Chronicle newspaper on January 23, 2006, and that the
level of inbreeding in the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is
analogous to mating with first cousins.
Response--Indicators of fitness in the Yellowstone population
demonstrate that the current levels of genetic heterozygosity are
adequate, as evidenced by measures such as litter size, little evidence
of disease, high survivorship, an equal sex ratio, normal body size and
physical characteristics, and an increasing population. These
indicators of fitness will be monitored annually, in perpetuity. The
assertion by Dr. Gilpin that grizzly bears in the GYA are experiencing
inbreeding coefficients of 12.5 percent, equivalent to mating with
their first cousins, is incorrect (Miller 2006). Dr. Gilpin did not
cite a source for his reported inbreeding coefficient for GYA bears,
and we are unaware of this figure being reported elsewhere. Miller
(2006) estimated an inbreeding coefficient for the GYA population of
approximately 6 percent over the last 10 generations, not 12.5 percent
over a single generation, as implied by a scenario in which first
cousins mate with each other. The very low rate of loss of
heterozygosity over the 20th century, in combination with the
introduction of 1 or 2 effective migrants per generation (naturally or
through augmentation), will ensure long-term genetic viability, and the
recovered status, of the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS (Miller and Waits
2003, p. 4338).
Issue 5--A few commenters believed that we failed to consider the
relationship between isolation and elevated extinction risk. Extinction
of isolated populations can occur simply as a function of their
isolation and habitat size or due to increases in the magnitude of
population fluctuations resulting from environmental and demographic
stochasticity. They believe that we should fully consider these sources
of stochasticity on the extinction risk of the Yellowstone grizzly bear
DPS.
Response--This comment refers to PVAs and questions whether the
persistence of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population will be
significantly impacted by the effects of environmental and demographic
stochasticity due to its isolation. The Service has considered
population viability in considerable depth (Boyce et al. 2001, p. 2).
Boyce et al. (2001, p. 1) concluded that the available data ``provide
optimistic projections of the likelihood of persistence for grizzly
bears in the GYE; a 99.2% probability that the GYE grizzly bear
population will persist for 100 years.''
Boyce et al. (2001, pp. 30-31) discuss the implications of several
types of stochastic (random) events on the likelihood of persistence
for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. Catastrophes were believed
merely to represent extreme environmental events that had a low
probability of occurrence and were unpredictable. They believe that
there are insufficient data on grizzly bear genetics to understand or
model genetic stochasticity, such as inbreeding depression or genetic
drift. Boyce et al. (2001, p. 30) believe that demographic
stochasticity, such as chance events associated with births and deaths,
only affects viability when populations are very small (e.g., 30 to 50
bears). Similarly, Harris et al. (2006, p. 50) found that demographic
stochasticity had little effect on the growth rate estimates unless
population size fell below 100 females.
Environmental stochasticity is generally thought to be more
important than demographic stochasticity when calculating extinction
risk (Lande 1988, p. 1457). In light of this, Boyce et al. (2001, pp.
31-32, 34) recommend that the best possible analysis of population
viability for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population would be based on
relationships between grizzly bear vital rates (survival and
reproduction) and habitat factors (a habitat-based PVA). However, the
range of possible outcomes of such a modeling exercise, based on
compound uncertainties, provides little management value and minimal
confidence about future viability. Instead, the Strategy will ensure
monitoring of multiple indices and use an adaptive management system
that allows rapid feedback about the success of management actions
designed to address the maintenance of a viable population.
Because it is generally accepted that isolated populations are at
greater risk of extinction over the long-term, we will continue efforts
to reestablish natural connectivity between the GYA and other grizzly
bear ecosystems. Although natural connectivity is the best possible
scenario, isolation does not constitute a long-term threat to the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population because of intensive monitoring and
adaptive management strategies that will remain in effect post-
delisting.
Issue 6--One commenter requested that we undertake an in-depth
discussion of what inbreeding depression is and the three ways in which
it is manifested: (1) The unmasking of recessive, lethal alleles; (2)
unmasking of partially recessive, deleterious alleles; and (3)
decreases in genetic diversity; and what conservation implications
these have for the Yellowstone DPS.
Response--This issue is discussed in the Supplemental Information
Appended to the Recovery Plan, its supporting literature, and the
literature cited in this final rule. Both the Strategy and this final
rule recognize that declines in genetic diversity due to inbreeding
effects are expected in isolated populations (Ralls et al. 1986, p. 35;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 37). We agree that inbreeding
depression has the potential to negatively affect the Yellowstone
grizzly bear DPS if genetic diversity declines below current levels.
For this reason, we have reviewed relevant literature about this topic
(Ralls and Ballou 1983, pp. 147-179; Allendorf and Leary 1986, pp. 72-
76; Ralls et al. 1986, pp. 35-37; Lande 1988, pp. 1455-1456, 1460;
Roelke et al. 1993, pp. 344-348; Hunter 1996, pp. 88-90; Wang et al.
1999, pp. 168-176) and, upon the recommendation of Miller and Waits
(2003, p. 4338), our partners will translocate grizzly bears from other
populations into the GYA to maintain current levels of genetic
diversity if natural movement of grizzly bears into the GYA from other
areas is not documented by 2020.
Issue 7--We received numerous comments regarding the plan to
augment the Yellowstone DPS with grizzly bears from the NCDE population
to address genetic concerns should connectivity between these two
[[Page 14897]]
ecosystems not occur naturally by 2020. Some of these comments
pertained to the feasibility of transplanting bears from the NCDE to
Yellowstone. These commenters noted that, based on augmentation
experiments in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem, we may have to move eight
bears to get two to stay and reproduce successfully (i.e., become
effective migrants). Some commenters also questioned whether survival
of augmented bears would be affected by interactions with other grizzly
bears and/or a bear's willingness to stay in a new environment instead
of one it was highly familiar with. Finally, some commenters suggested
that high mortality in the NCDE may preclude this option, because
moving bears from the NCDE to Yellowstone would count as a mortality in
the NCDE ecosystem.
Response--The feasibility of translocating grizzly bears for
genetic augmentation is not untested. Translocation has been
successfully employed in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (Kasworm et al., in
press, p. 6). Kasworm et al. (in press, pp. 6, 8) were only able to
document successful reproduction by one of the three bears that
remained in the area after being translocated; confirmation of
successful reproduction events for the other two bears was not possible
because they lacked reference genetic material. Any bear that is
translocated from the NCDE into the GYA will be radio-collared and
monitored to determine whether it remains in the area and survives. As
in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem, genetic analysis will be used in
subsequent years to confirm whether a transplanted bear has
successfully reproduced in the GYA. The exact number of translocated
migrants into the GYA will be determined through these monitoring
activities. Any bear translocated from the NCDE to the GYA would be
counted as an NCDE mortality. Please see our response to Issue 12 in
this section below for more discussion about the adequacy of the NCDE
to serve as a source population. Augmentation in the GYA may not be
necessary if natural immigration occurs before 2020.
Issue 8--One commenter questioned our use of the ``one-migrant-per-
generation rule'' and believed that our definition of ``effective
migrant'' was incorrect. Another commenter believed we failed to
consider the effects of other evolutionary processes (mutation,
directional, or stabilizing selection) on the one-migrant-per-
generation rule. Both recommended more research to answer whether the
one-migrant-per-generation rule was appropriate and adequate to address
genetic concerns for the Yellowstone DPS.
Response--Our recommendation to augment the population with one
migrant per generation is based on Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338),
who conclude that one to two effective migrants per generation is
appropriate to maintain current levels of genetic diversity. ``The
viability of the Yellowstone grizzly population is unlikely to be
compromised by genetic factors in the near future as we hypothesized
based on modern samples. Rather, the genetic consequences of inbreeding
and isolation are likely to transpire over longer time periods (decades
or centuries)'' (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). Regarding our
definition of an ``effective migrant'' as one which remains in the
area, survives, and successfully reproduces, we recognize that a more
complete definition involves measures of relatedness between the source
and recipient population, as well as other genetic measures (Wang 2004,
p. 335). If translocation is required in the future, our partners will
consult with geneticists and use the best available science to
determine how many bears must be translocated from the source
population to equal one effective migrant to the Yellowstone grizzly
bear DPS. Regarding the effects of other selective forces on the one-
migrant-per-generation rule, Wang (2004, p. 341) concluded that, ``In
general, the one-migrant-per-generation rule is robust to the
systematic forces of selection and mutation.''
Issue 9--Most commenters preferred the idea of natural connectivity
over artificial augmentation and noted that connectivity is a vital
component of recovery and should be restored before delisting can
occur. Numerous commenters wanted population connectivity re-
established with the NCDE and Bitterroot ecosystem and the Bitterroot
population reintroduction implemented. Conversely, some commenters
supported the augmentation plan because they viewed it as effectively
nullifying the need to establish natural population connectivity.
Response--We prefer natural reconnection as well and are actively
involved in efforts to maintain and expand the opportunities for
grizzly bears to move into and out of the Yellowstone ecosystem via the
linkage zone program. However, we cannot control bear movement and as
discussed in the final rule (see Behavior section above), they have
limited dispersal mechanisms. By working to maintain current movement
opportunities while implementing conservation actions to recover
populations in other grizzly bear ecosystems, we anticipate that bears
will naturally reestablish themselves between recovery ecosystems and
achieve connectivity. We agree that the establishment of a grizzly bear
population in the Bitterroot Recovery Zone would contribute to recovery
of the grizzly bear in the Lower 48 States (Boyce 2000, p. 6-243).
However, the lack of natural connectivity will not threaten the
Yellowstone DPS because of the genetic management plan described in the
Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 37).
Issue 10--Several commenters objected to relocating bears from the
NCDE to the GYA to address genetic concerns because it would violate
the Act's vision of ``self-sustaining populations,'' ``recovery of
populations in the wild,'' and ``natural recovery.'' They cited the
need for augmentation as evidence that the Yellowstone DPS is not truly
recovered.
Response--The Act does not require a ``hands off'' approach as a
prerequisite for delisting. In fact, the presence of adequate
regulatory mechanisms to ensure that appropriate management and
monitoring activities continue is required before delisting can occur.
For the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS to remain unthreatened in all or a
significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future, active
management is necessary to limit mortality, provide adequate habitat,
respond to grizzly bear/human conflicts, and maintain genetic diversity
either through natural connectivity or through translocation. In this
way, the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is a ``conservation-reliant
species'' (Scott et al. 2005, p. 383). Augmentation is proposed as a
precautionary measure based on the recommendations of Miller and Waits
(2003, p. 4338) to maintain current levels of genetic diversity, should
grizzly bear movement into the GYA not occur over the next 20 years.
Issue 11--One commenter suggested that we analyze the benefits and
disadvantages of genetic augmentation before concluding that benefits
outweigh potential negatives.
Response--The recommendation to either allow bears to move into the
Yellowstone ecosystem or to use augmentation in lieu of natural
movement was made by genetics experts in Miller and Waits (2003, p.
4338). They detail the biological and genetic rationale for this
recommendation, and we agree with their analysis and conclusions.
Should future genetic data challenge the conclusions of Miller and
Waits (2003, p. 4338), the Study Team and the Coordinating Committee
will rely upon the best available scientific
[[Page 14898]]
information to guide management of the Yellowstone DPS.
Issue 12--A few commenters noted that our plan to augment the
Yellowstone DPS with one to two bears per generation was flawed because
it violated a key assumption that the source population is infinite in
numbers. They believe that the proposed rule also overlooked the
possibility that the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS could go extinct as a
result of the NCDE going extinct; and furthermore, we failed to
consider the genetic issues affecting the NCDE, which may itself be an
isolated population from Canada, due to ongoing and increasing
development just north of the border.
Response--We make no assumption that the NCDE or any other
population is infinite in numbers. The NCDE is not genetically isolated
from areas in Canada, and male grizzly bear movement across Highway 3
has been documented (Proctor 2003, p. 24). The NCDE population has
higher allelic diversity and heterozygosity values than the Yellowstone
grizzly bear DPS (Paetkau et al. 1998, p. 421) and its relative
proximity and short time of separation from the Yellowstone grizzly
bear DPS make it an ideal genetic source population. The NCDE
population is larger than previously thought, with more than 500
individuals (Kendall 2006), and the portion of the population that is
located in the North Fork of the Flathead Valley just north of the
United States/Canadian border is the highest density grizzly bear
population anywhere in North America outside of Alaska (LeFranc et al.
1987, pp. 52-53; McLellan 1994, p. 21; Mowat et al. 2005, p. 41). We
will continue to cooperate with Canadian wildlife and land management
agencies to promote grizzly bear conservation and to mitigate projects
in Canada that have the potential to negatively impact U.S. grizzly
bear populations.
The placement of bears into the Yellowstone by augmentation would
be a precautionary approach to assure that genetic issues are not a
factor in the survival of the Yellowstone population. As stated by
Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338)--``The viability of the Yellowstone
grizzly population is unlikely to be compromised by genetic factors in
the near future.'' Although we view the NCDE as the most likely source
population, many other appropriate grizzly bear populations in Canada
could serve as source populations, should the NCDE population not be
adequate for some unforeseen reason. We have previously cooperated with
international partners to translocate bears from the North Fork of the
Flathead River in Canada to the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem (Kasworm et al.
1998, p. 148).
S. Comments About The States' Management Approach
Issue 1--Numerous commenters expressed concern over the management
approach that will be taken by the States of Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming. In general, commenters questioned the desire of the States to
manage the population in the best interest of grizzly bears, and cited
the historical and current anti-predator attitudes frequently displayed
by residents and State wildlife agencies and commissions, as evidence
that State management of the Yellowstone DPS could result in severe
decline.
Response--The States are committed to manage grizzlies in
accordance with the Strategy and its appended State grizzly bear
management plans. By signing the Strategy, all management agencies have
agreed to adhere to the sustainable mortality limits.
Issue 2--Some commenters noted that the head of WGFD has said that
Wyoming intends to manage the population down to the minimum allowed by
the Strategy (500 bears) and other WGFD Commissioners have said they
plan to push for an increase in allowable mortality from the recently
revised 9 percent to 12 percent. They note that four Wyoming counties,
which encompass most grizzly bear habitat in Wyoming, have outlawed
grizzlies within their borders and asserted that their State-authorized
land use planning legislation trumps the bear management
responsibilities of WGFD.
Response--In response to concerns about the ordinances,
regulations, or resolutions passed by county governments in Wyoming
regarding the presence or distribution of grizzly bears in these
counties, we requested a letter from the Wyoming Attorney General's
office clarifying the authority of counties in Wyoming to legislate in
the area of grizzly bear management. The Wyoming Attorney General's
office's response, dated August 8, 2006, states on p. 2, `` `* * * as
an arm of the State, the county has only those powers expressly granted
by the constitution or statutory law or reasonably implied from the
powers granted.' Laramie Co. Comm'rs v. Dunnegan, 884 P.2d 35, 40 (Wyo.
1994). Neither the Wyoming Constitution nor the legislature has
provided the counties in Wyoming with any expressed or implied
authority over management of grizzly bears. Therefore, counties lack
the authority to enact any ordinances(s), regulation(s), or
resolution(s) which would affect the (Wyoming Game and Fish)
Commission's Grizzly Bear Plan on mortality or distribution of grizzly
bears in Wyoming'' (Martin 2006).
This letter clearly indicates that Wyoming county governments have
no authority to affect grizzly bear management in county ordinances and
have no legal standing or impact on commitments made by the Wyoming
Game and Fish Commission.
Wyoming has committed to the revised (9 percent) thresholds as per
their signature on the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission approved
Strategy. Changes in mortality limits cannot be completed unilaterally
by Wyoming, or any one management agency, but instead must be based on
the best available science, and documented by a Study Team lead process
that is opened to public comment and approved through a Coordinating
Committee majority vote (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 63).
T. Lack of a Secure, Long-Term Funding Source
Issue 1--A number of comments received maintained that, before
delisting can occur, a long-term secure funding source must be
obtained. They stated that this funding issue must be addressed to
ensure that the extensive monitoring and management plans, as well as
conflict prevention through I & E programs described in the Strategy,
are carried out. Some commenters suggested that long-term funding
security could be achieved by creating a trust fund as the Yellowstone
Ecosystem Subcommittee has discussed at several meetings. Other
commenters suggested that inadequate funding in any given year be a
trigger for a Biology and Monitoring Review and potential relisting.
Response--It is true that there is no guarantee of long-term
funding for grizzly bear management by any of the States or the Federal
Government. However, the funding issue remains whether the Yellowstone
grizzly bear DPS is delisted or not. It is not possible to predict
future governmental appropriations, nor can we commit or require
Federal funds beyond those appropriated (31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)), but
by signing the Strategy, responsible agencies demonstrate that they are
committed to implementing the features within their discretion and
authority, and to pursuing adequate funding. The Strategy provides
adequate assurance that the participating agencies will implement the
agreement, which is sufficient to meet the reasonableness
[[Page 14899]]
required for regulatory mechanisms. The creation of a trust fund has
been explored by the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, but would
require the acquisition of an estimated $40 million to endow the fund.
In response to these concerns, we have made inadequate funding in
any given year a trigger for a Biology and Monitoring Review. The
purpose of such a Review would be to determine whether the fiscal
short-coming is a threat to the implementation of the Strategy to such
an extent that it also threatened the long-term viability of the
Yellowstone DPS.
U. Triggers for Relisting and Monitoring Plan
Issue 1--Many commenters were uncomfortable with the process that
could lead to relisting, fearing that the process would be slow,
bureaucratic, or subject to political influence. Many recommended
additional, clearly defined thresholds leading to immediate relisting,
rather than merely to the first step in a long process that may lead to
relisting (i.e., a Biology and Monitoring Review). Some recommended
that we develop an emergency response process specifically designed for
the Yellowstone population that gives us authority to bypass the
traditional Act listing methods.
Response--The listing procedures described in the Act allow prompt
emergency listings if necessary. For instance, the desert tortoise was
petitioned in May 1989 and listed on August 7, 1989, in an emergency
listing rule (54 FR 32326, August 4, 1989). An emergency relisting can
be pursued independently by the Service or in response to a
recommendation by the Study Team or Coordinating Committee. This
process is adequate to respond to a precipitous decline in the
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS or a significant threat to its habitat in
a timely manner and precludes the need for a specific trigger that
would begin an emergency response process.
Issue 2--Several commenters believe that because a decline in any
of the four major foods represents a decrease in the GYA's carrying
capacity, we should include threshold values for these food sources
that either trigger a response action or plans to protect additional
habitat.
Response--Aside from the well-documented association between
whitebark pine cone crop size and subsequent management actions on
grizzly bears (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 432), we have not been able to
detect any statistically significant relationships between abundance of
the other three major foods and grizzly bear vital rates. Those foods
have either fluctuated (e.g., ungulates, army cutworm moths), or
declined (e.g., cutthroat trout), during the period when the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population was increasing at a rate between 4
and 7 percent annually. Due to this natural annual variation in
abundance and distribution, there is no known way to calculate minimum
threshold values for grizzly bear foods. Instead, managers will use an
adaptive management approach that addresses poor food years with
responsive management actions, such as limiting grizzly bear mortality,
increasing Information and Education efforts, and considering
relisting, if appropriate.
Issue 3--Several commenters believe we failed to address the issue
of lag time between habitat degradation and loss, and changes in vital
rates. They believe that the proposed rule relies almost exclusively on
monitoring population parameters rather than habitat parameters to
detect a future threat, and because of this time lag, we should include
habitat thresholds that act as triggers for a Biology and Monitoring
Review.
Response--The Strategy commits the management agencies to intensive
monitoring of all grizzly bear vital rates, and their relationship to
changes in major foods and the levels and types of human activities in
their habitat. This monitoring does not solely rely on vital rate
monitoring to indirectly infer changes in habitat, but will produce
annual results on any changes in habitat values, key food production,
and possible disease in key foods. Please see our response to Issue 2
in this subheading, above, for more information.
Issue 4--Many commenters criticized our use of unduplicated counts
of females with cubs-of-the-year to estimate population size. They
suggested we should abandon this measure for a more reliable and
accurate method because of the biases such as observer variability and
differences in detection in different habitat types.
Response--The Study Team reviewed the feasibility of several
different population estimation methods (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study
Team 2005, pp. 12-13, 17-31). Because of the high cost of DNA-based
population surveys ($3.5 million to $5 million) and the lag between
sampling and a resulting population estimate (3 years), annual use of
DNA-based population surveys is not feasible or appropriate for our
objectives of establishing annual population estimates and sustainable
mortality limits. The Study Team rejected the idea of using capture-
mark-recapture techniques with the radio-collared sample of grizzly
bears due to unreasonably large confidence intervals (Interagency
Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, p. 12).
Because of the strict rule set used to collect females with cubs-
of-the-year data (Knight et al. 1995, p. 246), it is inherently
conservative and tends to underestimate the number of females with
cubs-of-the-year. The Study Team chose to use the Chao2 estimator to
correct many of the biases associated with females with cubs-of-the-
year data concerning sighting heterogeneity (Keating et al. 2002, pp.
170-172; Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, p. 20). The Chao2
estimator and the model averaging approach described in the Supplement
to the Reassessing Methods Document (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study
Team 2006, pp. 2-10) reflect the best available scientific method for
calculating an annual population index and establishing biologically
sustainable annual mortality limits for the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population.
Issue 5--Some commenters stated that a DNA-based survey would be a
better monitoring method and that it would provide much more
information about the population. One commenter noted that the proposed
monitoring of genetic diversity does not specify the point at which
population augmentation would be considered necessary. Another believed
that the proposed monitoring of genetic diversity would not be
sufficient to detect the expected slight decline in heterozygosity, due
to inadequate sample size and inadequate statistical power.
Response--We agree that DNA-based surveys may offer more
information about the population than population size alone, but
because the most immediate factors likely to impact the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population will come from habitat degradation and loss,
and human-caused mortality, we believe addressing these two sources of
potential decline is a more appropriate and relevant approach to
ongoing conservation efforts in the GYA. The Strategy clearly
establishes that augmentation of the Yellowstone population with
grizzly bears from other populations will be pursued if no movement is
detected between these two populations by 2020 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007, p. 37). Based on the best available science, we have
concluded that any threats to genetic diversity will be adequately
addressed through this approach (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). There
is no defined threshold for acceptable heterozygosity values because
there is no consensus as to what value would constitute a
[[Page 14900]]
biologically significant threat in any specific bear population. We do
not propose to monitor changes in genetic diversity, as the statistical
power would likely be insufficient to detect changes over time. To
monitor genetic isolation, we will establish a repository for all
samples from the Yellowstone population to document any bears moving
from the NCDE into the GYA. Such movement will be detected by using an
``assignment test,'' which identifies the area from which individuals
are most likely to have originated based on their unique genetic
signature (Paetkau et al. 1995, p. 350; Waser and Strobeck 1998, pp.
43-44; Paetkau et al. 2004, pp. 56-57; Proctor et al. 2005, pp. 2410-
2415).
Issue 6--A few commenters wanted clearly formalized monitoring
programs established outside the PCA, and some wanted monitoring
programs inside and outside the PCA to determine trends in use of roads
and trails, OHV use, and private land development.
Response--Data on private land development are available from the
counties. The Park Service and Forest Service monitor traffic volumes
on some roads, and the Park Service controls, through its permit
system, overnight use of its backcountry sites. We do not know what
predictive value those measures would have for grizzly bear management.
Issue 7--One commenter noted that the planned extent of trapping
and radio-collaring of bears was unethical, and that this intensive and
invasive monitoring approach should be abandoned in favor of keeping
the bears listed as threatened.
Response--Since 1982, there has not been a single capture mortality
associated with research trapping in the Yellowstone area spanning more
than 468 grizzly bear captures (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Because
of rigorous protocols dictating proper bear capture, handling, and
drugging techniques used today, this type of scientific overutilization
is not a significant factor impacting the Yellowstone DPS. The Study
Team, bear biologists, and researchers will continue implementing these
protocols after delisting.
The Act requires us to delist species that no longer meet the
definition of threatened or endangered. As discussed in the final rule,
the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS does not meet either of these
definitions. We cannot leave the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS listed in
perpetuity, or neglect to gather data on its status. We are required to
use the best available science to recover grizzly bears in the Lower 48
States and monitor their status post-delisting. With existing funding
and technology, radio-telemetry is the best way to obtain that
information. When equivalent or more effective non-invasive techniques
become economically available, they will be employed.
Issue 8--A few commenters suggested that Resource Selection
Functions be used to monitor habitat rather than the Cumulative Effects
Model. Supporters of Resource Selection Functions said they are more
grounded in an empirical approach and, therefore, are superior to the
Cumulative Effects Model. Some commenters noted that if we are going to
rely on the Cumulative Effects Model so heavily, it should be validated
and a protocol developed for training additional personnel on how it
works.
Response--The use of Resource Selection Functions offers many
advantages over the use of the existing Cumulative Effects Model.
However, critics point out that estimated Resource Selection Functions
are not always proportional to the true probability of use (Keating and
Cherry 2004, p. 788). The Cumulative Effects Model represents the best
available scientific information in its ability to provide managers
with a comparative index of how much habitat values have changed
through time. This remains the case even though the validity of all
coefficients has not been confirmed. This method will remain in use
until the research community arrives at a consensus or a better method
to replace the Cumulative Effects Model is developed.
The Cumulative Effects Model is one of many tools used to monitor
habitat in the Yellowstone ecosystem. However, it is not the only tool
nor is it the dominant tool. The Forest Service is contracting with a
computer programmer to make the Cumulative Effects Model a more user
friendly, Windows compatible format. The Study Team is committed to
using the best scientific methods and models available to them. Use of
such models will change as the science changes.
Issue 9--Some commenters recommended that we monitor litter size
and cub survival of radio-collared females as indicators of habitat
quality and carrying capacity.
Response--The monitoring program does annually monitor litter size
and cub survival. These data are compared to indicators of habitat
quality such as annual production and availability of major foods.
Issue 10--Some commenters recommended that we monitor human values
and attitudes toward grizzly bears in the GYA. This information could
contribute substantially to our understanding of human-caused mortality
in the GYA and the human dimensions of grizzly bear management.
Response--Some social science research has been conducted in the
GYA on attitudes toward grizzly bears (Kellert 1994, pp. 44-45;
Responsive Management 2001, pp. 5-14), but we are not sure of its
utility in predicting or reducing human-caused mortalities. Our current
methods to reduce human-caused grizzly bear mortality by preventing
conflicts and addressing conflicts in a systematic, fair, and prompt
manner were adequate to accommodate an increasing Yellowstone grizzly
bear population during the last two decades. These efforts to address
grizzly bear conflicts will continue to comprise the vast majority of
fiscal expenditures post delisting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2007, p. 154).
V. Using the Best Available Science
Issue 1--Many commenters questioned the quality or interpretation
of the data used to support the proposed rule. Some offered alternative
explanations for the increases in the population estimates that would
not require an actual increase in bear numbers while others were
satisfied that the best available science and data had been used in the
development of the proposed rule.
Response--The peer-reviewed scientific journal articles used in the
final rule represent the best available science. The science available
on the Yellowstone grizzly bears and their habitat is the best
information available on any bear population in the world. None of the
alternative explanations offered for the increasing population size
were compelling.
Issue 2--Some commenters objected to the use of data that they
believed were out-of-date, particularly regarding the spread of
diseases and parasites of whitebark pine, and advocated the use of
readily available and more recently collected data sets.
Response--The science and data in the proposed rule were the most
recent information available when the rule was written and submitted
for review and publication in the Federal Register. The final rule
incorporates newer data on blister rust and mountain pine beetle (see
Factor E below) available since the proposed rule was written.
Issue 3--Some commenters specifically critiqued sources that we
used in the proposed rule. One described problems associated with the
Monograph cited in the proposed rule as Schwartz et al. (2005) [note:
the Schwartz et al. 2005 citation has been
[[Page 14901]]
updated in this final rule as Schwartz et al. 2006]. Major commenter
concerns included--(1) the study sample is not representative of the
population, (2) habitat-based demographic analysis is needed, and (3)
heterogeneous mortality rates violate assumptions described in the
Monograph. Another comment received was about our assertion that nearly
90 percent of females with cubs-of-the-year occur inside the PCA. The
commenter noted that because Schwartz et al.'s (2002, pp. 204-205;
2006b, pp. 63-64) survey methods focused primarily on sighting bears
within the PCA, these publications do not provide reliable information
on what portion of grizzly bears spend any time outside the PCA.
Response--The Monograph fully discusses the assumptions that must
be satisfied in order to draw the conclusions stated in the document.
These assumptions and conclusions in the Monograph went through
extensive independent peer review prior to being accepted for
publication. Schwartz et al. (2006d, pp. 9-12) clearly describe their
experimental design to obtain a representative sample. For our
discussion about the need for, and the caveats associated with,
habitat-based demographic analysis, please see our response to Issue 2
under subheading B above. Regarding the assertion that heterogeneous
mortality rates violate assumptions made in the Monograph, we recognize
that mortality rates are heterogeneous. The fact that mortality rates
are different inside Yellowstone National Park, outside of Yellowstone
National Park but inside the PCA, and outside of the PCA was one of the
key findings of the Monograph (Haroldson et al. 2006b, p. 40). This
comment is suggesting that, because mortality rates are different in
the three different areas (i.e., heterogeneous), then we must know the
movement rates of bears among those areas. Heterogeneous mortality
rates do not violate assumptions made in the Monograph because the
study sample is representative of bears living in all three areas of
differing mortality rates. We consider the Monograph to be the best
available scientific data about the demographics of the Yellowstone
grizzly bear DPS.
Regarding the sampling method used by Schwartz et al. (2002, pp.
204-205; 2006b, pp. 63-64), the monitoring system for females with cubs
includes all areas where bears are known to occur, both inside and
outside the PCA. Thirty-seven search areas are flown each year, 12 of
which are completely or partially outside the PCA. For an example of
the effort in observation flights alone, 74 observation flights were
flown in 2005, totaling more than 172 hours of flight time and covering
all 37 observation areas. There also were more than 411 hours of
telemetry flights in 2005. These telemetry flights also contribute to
the total sightings of females with cubs. The details of capture
efforts both inside and outside the PCA, along with details on these
flights and the efforts to sight females with cubs both inside and
outside the PCA, are reported in the Study Team's Annual Reports
(Haroldson et al. 2006a, pp. 4-10; Haroldson 2006b, pp. 11-16; West
2006a, pp. 18-22; West 2006b, pp. 23-24). The Study Team, the
Coordinating Committee, and the responsible agencies will continue to
use the best available science to update protocols and direct
management responses.
Issue 4--A few commenters suggested that we incorporate the
findings of Mattson et al. (2002) into the discussion about threats to
major foods because it ``provides a solid empirical basis for
understanding the extent to which grizzly bears will be able to switch
to alternative foods when whitebark pine and cutthroat trout decline.''
Response--Mattson et al. (2002, p. 32) cautioned that ``it is
unclear to what extent bears can compensate by reverting to extant
alternate foods'' if any currently important food were to diminish in
abundance. We agree that the extent of the bears' potential
compensation is unknown. However, the management response to decreases
in carrying capacity established by the Strategy and State management
plans includes limiting human-caused mortality, enhancing Information
and Education efforts in poor food years, actively restoring whitebark
pine communities, eradicating lake trout, minimizing disturbance at
known army cutworm moth sites, and monitoring female reproductive
parameters.
Issue 5--Some commenters disagreed with the levels of secure
habitat and road density standards in the Strategy and noted that these
were not based on the best available science. They thought that we
accepted road densities present in 1998 instead of defining acceptable
road densities based on habitat selection by female grizzly bears.
Similarly, some commenters thought that our definition of secure
habitat did not include any biological requirements (such as food,
denning, and breeding grounds) and ignored the minimum core sizes of
approximately 1,012 ha (2,500 ac) preferred by female grizzly bears in
other ecosystems as documented by Mace et al. (1998) and Kasworm
(1997).
Response--The secure habitat levels and road densities in the
Yellowstone ecosystem are more secure than the required road density
and secure habitat in either the NCDE or the Cabinet/Yaak and Selkirk
ecosystems. The best measure of the direct effect of habitat on a
population is the trajectory of the population. Under the 1998 levels
of road density and secure habitat, the Yellowstone grizzly population
has been increasing at between 4 and 7 percent per year. From 1986 to
2002, there was a net reduction of more than 1,000 miles of road on the
6 Yellowstone Ecosystem National Forests (inside and outside the PCA)
(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 200). Inside the PCA on the National
Forests, roads were reduced an average of 42.7 miles per year from 1986
to 2002 (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 200). Outside the PCA, an
average of 40.5 miles of road were decommissioned for the same time
period (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 200). The 1998 road density
levels are lower than previous road densities and are at a level that
has allowed the population to increase.
Regarding secure habitat, the average percentage of secure habitat
in each of the 40 subunits inside the PCA is 85.6 percent, and 20 of
these 40 subunits contain more than 90 percent secure habitat (USDA
Forest Service 2006a, pp. 368-369). These levels of secure habitat are
higher than the percentage of secure habitat in the home ranges of
adult female grizzly bears reported by Mace et al. (1996, p. 1400)
(Note that the commenter was incorrect in the date of this citation)),
where 56 percent of the composite adult female home range was inside
secure habitat. We could not find a publication by Kasworm in 1997 that
addressed the issue of road densities and female home range size, but
believe the commenter was referring to Wakkinen and Kasworm (1997, p.
24), who found that 44 to 68 percent of adult female home range was in
secure habitat. Again, the levels of secure habitat in each subunit
within the PCA (approximately the size of an annual female's home
range) are greater than what was observed in these studies.
The large secure areas of these subunits do include important
feeding and denning areas. The secure or core area size was not limited
to areas greater than 1,012 ha (2,500 ac) because that would eliminate
protection for all secure habitat areas less than this size. We believe
that all secure habitats are important and that secure pockets are very
important for grizzly bears, particularly in peripheral habitats.
Issue 6--Some commenters noted that there is no social or
scientific literature
[[Page 14902]]
to support our contention that delisting will build public support and
tolerance for grizzly bear conservation.
Response--We agree that there is no scientific literature
documenting that delisting would or could build public support and
tolerance for grizzly bears. This result is inferred by professional
wildlife biologists familiar with local community attitudes in the
Yellowstone ecosystem. We have eliminated this rationale from the final
rule.
W. Miscellaneous
Issue 1--A few commenters suggested that we could improve the
Coordinating Committee structure by including an opportunity for public
involvement on proposed actions and including a conservation
organization representative.
Response--The Coordinating Committee process is open to the public,
and public comment and involvement at meetings is allowed and
encouraged. Although a conservation organization representative is not
formally a member of the Coordinating Committee, all conservation
organization representatives will continue to be able to comment and be
involved in Coordinating Committee meetings.
Issue 2--Numerous commenters suggested that we take a more
conservative or precautionary management approach. Some cited Schwartz
et al. (2006e, p. 62) as supporting this idea, especially in relation
to long-term, irreversible habitat alterations such as private land
development.
Response--The Reassessing Methods Document and its Supplement
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 6, 20, 35; Interagency
Grizzly Bear Study Team 2006, p. 15-16) advocate a precautionary
management approach by establishing biologically sustainable mortality
limits to ensure that the population trajectory of the Yellowstone
grizzly bear DPS is stable to increasing. The adaptive management
system in the Strategy incorporates the results from intensive
monitoring of population vital rates, habitat standards, and major
foods into management decisions.
Issue 3--Many comments received did not pertain directly to this
decision or were outside of our scope and authority. These included
comments opposing all livestock grazing on public lands, opposing the
sale of public lands proposed in the Fiscal Year 2007 President's
budget, favoring the need to switch to alternative energy sources, and
opposing or supporting Act reform. Also included was a comment
proposing the transfer of public lands in the PCA from the USDA Forest
Service and BLM to the National Park Service. A large number of
commenters expressed some degree of mistrust about the motivations
behind delisting and accused us of catering to the oil and gas
industry, timber industry, developers, livestock owners, and hunting
interests. Numerous commenters also expressed value-based reasons as to
why they opposed delisting, such as animal rights, spiritual
importance, the grizzly bear as a national treasure and symbol of
wilderness, and that humans should behave as caretakers and stewards of
the grizzly bear, not as pillagers of its habitat.
Response--Our decision to delist the Yellowstone DPS is based
solely on our assessment of the best scientific and commercial data
available, which indicate that the population is neither threatened nor
endangered. Otherwise, these comments are either not relevant to the
management decision or are outside the scope and authority of the final
rule.
Summary of Peer Review Comments
In accordance with the Service's 1994 Peer Review policy (59 FR
34270, July 1, 1994) and the peer review requirements of the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Final Information Quality Bulletin for
Peer Review (OMB 2004), the Service selected and solicited peer review
of the proposed rule (70 FR 69854, November 17, 2005) from nine
independent scientific experts. Eight of the nine reviewers accepted
the opportunity to review the proposed rule and answered questions
pertaining to the logic of our assumptions, arguments, and conclusions.
These reviewers were experienced bear biologists and researchers who do
not work for the Service, although two of the reviewers are employed by
the Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. They were
chosen based on their direct research experience with bears and their
experience with the conservation and management of bears. The names and
affiliations of the reviewers are--(1) Dr. Joseph D. Clark, Research
Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, Southern Appalachian Field Branch;
(2) Dr. Piero Genovesi, Italian National Wildlife Institute, Italy; (3)
Dr. Steven Herrero, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science,
University of Calgary, Canada; (4) Dr. Djuro Huber, Biology Department,
University of Zagreb, Croatia; (5) Dr. Bruce McLellan, Wildlife
Research Ecologist, British Columbia Ministry of Forests Research
Branch, Canada; (6) Dr. Gordon Stenhouse, Alberta Sustainable Resource
Development and Foothills Model Forest Grizzly Bear Research Program,
Canada; (7) Dr. Jon Swenson, Department of Ecology and Natural Resource
Management, Norwegian University of Life Sciences, Norway; and (8) Dr.
Frank T. van Manen, Research Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey,
Southern Appalachian Field Branch.
Each reviewer was paid $500 (U.S.) for their analysis (with the
exception of those who also work for the U.S. Government, who were not
paid for their services). The purpose of seeking independent peer
review is to ensure that the best biological and commercial data are
being used in the decision-making process, as well as to ensure that
reviews by recognized experts are incorporated into the review process
of the rulemakings. Peer reviewers were asked to consider, but not
limit their comments, to the following questions and provide any other
relevant comments, criticisms, or ideas--(1) Does the proposed rule
provide adequate review and analysis of the factors relating to the
persistence of the grizzly bear population in the GYA (demographics,
habitat, adequate regulatory mechanisms, disease and predation, and
genetics)?; (2) Is our establishment of this population as a DPS
logical and adequate? Specifically, are our arguments pertaining to the
discreteness and significance of the population sufficient according to
the DPS policy, as described in the rule?; (3) Are our assumptions and
definition of suitable habitat logical and adequate?; (4) Are the
conclusions we reach logical and supported by the evidence we provide?;
(5) Are our conclusions relating to food resources logical and
adequate?; (6) Is the post-delisting monitoring program for habitat and
population criteria logical and adequate to ensure survival of this
population of grizzly bears in the foreseeable future?; and (7) Did we
include all the necessary and pertinent literature to support our
assumptions/arguments/conclusions?
Peer reviewers provided individual, written responses during the
public comment period. Copies of individual peer review responses are
available upon request (see ADDRESSES section above). The issues raised
by the peer reviewers are summarized and responded to below. We have
grouped similar comments together under major headings that correspond
to the questions we asked peer reviewers and summarized concerns into
categories called ``Issues,'' which are followed by our ``Responses.''
Not all peer reviewers commented on all questions. The
[[Page 14903]]
comments we received from peer reviewers generally reflected their
areas of expertise, so when we discuss specific issues below, we are
only summarizing those comments we received. The views discussed do not
necessarily reflect all of the peer reviewers' opinions, just the
opinions of the reviewers who responded on that particular issue.
Several reviewers also commented on the Reassessing Methods
Document. A summary of those issues brought up by the reviewers, as
well as responses to their concerns, were incorporated into the final
Reassessing Methods Document as an appendix.
A. Does the proposed rule provide adequate review and analysis of the
factors relating to the persistence of the grizzly bear population in
the GYA?
Issue 1--In general, the peer reviewers believed the Service did an
adequate job of discussing the relevant factors related to the
persistence of the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. One reviewer noted
that the Yellowstone DPS does not meet either the Committee on the
Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (the first stage
toward consideration for protection under the Canadian Species at Risk
Act) or the World Conservation Union (IUCN) standards for a non-
threatened species. However, they further noted that because the
threats to habitat are well understood and manageable (at least in the
short-term) and the population has been expanding in size and
distribution, delisting may be appropriate so long as the laws, plans,
and strategies that are identified in the proposed rule do not get
diluted after delisting.
Response--While we view the IUCN and COSEWIC standards as
informative in our decision-making process, the Act employs different
standards for listing consideration, which are considered below. On the
whole, we agree that the laws, plans, and strategies will provide for
robust habitat protection measures; therefore, allowing the population
to continue to expand and thrive. The Strategy will guide post-
delisting management of the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. The plans
described in the Strategy can change after delisting only if new
science becomes available and through agreement within the Coordinating
Committee (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 63). Any future
changes to the management documents for the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population will be modified in an adaptive management framework as a
result of accumulated knowledge about grizzly bear management.
Issue 2--The reviewers who commented on disease and predation
agreed that disease is not an issue for grizzly bear populations.
Regarding human-caused predation (i.e., mortality), some reviewers
recommended that the Service explore the potential impacts of a hunting
season that targeted adult males. It is possible that decreased cub
survival through sexually selected infanticide may affect population
trajectory. One reviewer also suggested that the final rule be more
clear that although the impact of hunting to the total population is
negligible, some local populations of bears may be reduced. One
reviewer also recommended clarification about whether the penalty for
poaching a grizzly bear will be the same as before delisting.
Response--Sexually selected infanticide is the practice by which a
territory vacated by an adult male is filled by a newly arrived
subadult male, which then kills any cubs in the territory (Swenson et
al. 1997b, p. 450). That behavior can reduce the population growth rate
through cub mortality (Swenson et al. 1997b, p. 450). It has been
documented in two European brown bear populations (Swenson et al. 2001,
pp 75-77), and instances of infanticide by North American grizzly bears
of both sexes also have been documented (McLellan 1994, pp.15-16).
However, Miller et al. (2003, p. 144) and McLellan (2005, pp. 153-154)
could not find evidence of population level effects of sexually
selected infanticide in North American grizzly populations. If sport
hunting preferentially removes adult male bears, and if sexually
selected infanticide is common, sport hunting might result in some
reduction in cub survival in localized areas. However, this would
likely have little impact on overall population growth rate because
hunting mortality on males would be limited in numbers and extent.
The States have control over when and where a grizzly bear permit
holder may hunt, so the targeting of bears in specific areas, or even
specific individual bears, is possible. Sport hunting could be used in
that way as a compensatory mortality source, by killing bears that
would otherwise have to be removed by management action. However,
hunting will be allowed only as long as the overall mortality limits
are not exceeded.
Each of the three States will establish penalties for poaching
grizzly bears in their jurisdictions, and those penalties may not be
the same as before delisting. Judges have discretion to impose fines
under State law. Predicting the average poaching fine is not possible,
due to the variety of circumstances surrounding a poaching incident,
numerous State laws that may apply, and various punishments available
under those State laws. We have been assured by State wildlife agencies
that poaching incidents will continue to be investigated and prosecuted
under State law.
Issue 3--A few reviewers commented on the proposed rule's
discussion of grizzly bear/human conflicts. One reviewer thought that
preventing access to human foods by bears should be better addressed.
Another reviewer recommended that ``Emphasis should be placed on
managing human/bear conflicts on the interface of bear habitat and
humans to ensure that mortality there does not exceed recruitment of
the population as a whole.''
Response--We agree that preventing grizzly bear habituation to
humans and their foods is a priority. More than two-thirds of all
suggested funding to implement the Strategy is designated for managing
conflicts and outreach efforts to minimize conflicts (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2007, p. 154). All suitable habitat on GYA National
Forests will have food storage orders in effect by 2008. Outreach
efforts are directed toward decreasing attractants on private lands.
The sustainable mortality limits will ensure that mortality in the
outer zone of grizzly occupancy (those bears in closest proximity to
private land) does not exceed the recruitment of the population as a
whole.
Issue 4--Although genetic isolation should be a consideration, one
reviewer noted that, ``Within the foreseeable future, demographic or
habitat threats are much more likely than a genetic threat.'' The
reviewers endorsed natural population connectivity and stated that
these opportunities should not decrease after delisting. Connectivity
would increase the chances of long-term population persistence and
would be a good buffer against the uncertainties surrounding major
foods. One reviewer noted that, ideally, connectivity would be
established before delisting occurred. Finally, one reviewer suggested
that the Service analyze the ramifications of delisting on the ability
to naturally recover the Bitterroot Ecosystem and to link the
Yellowstone population with the NCDE.
Response--We agree that demographic or habitat threats are more
likely a threat than genetic factors in the foreseeable future, and
that natural connectivity is desirable. Efforts to promote connectivity
between existing populations will continue after delisting
[[Page 14904]]
as these programs are independent of the delisting of the GYA
population. Due to the habitat protections, population standards,
mortality control, outreach efforts, and the adaptive management
approach described in the Strategy, we do not believe isolation is a
threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear population and, therefore, does
not preclude delisting. Delisting of the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population should have no effect on the potential for natural recovery
of grizzly bears through the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Both the GYA and
NCDE populations are increasing in size and expanding their
geographical ranges, increasing the likelihood of eventual dispersal to
the Bitterroot Ecosystem.
Issue 5--One reviewer believed that one of the biggest threats to
grizzly bear habitat post-delisting ``* * *will come from those who
want to use or develop important grizzly bear habitat and who feel that
their action is such a small part of the whole that it doesn't
matter.'' He recommended that the Service more fully consider and
discuss cumulative impacts of multiple projects.
Response--The intent of the 1998 habitat baseline is to prevent or
mitigate those cumulative effects on bear habitat within the PCA, where
84 to 90 percent of the females with cubs occur. By maintaining the
amount of secure habitat and restricting increases in the total mileage
of roads, the number of developed sites, and livestock allotments, the
PCA will be able to support a stable to increasing bear population. The
USDA Forest Service will continue to apply and improve the Cumulative
Effects Model and run this model at least every 5 years to assess the
cumulative effects of development on bears. The Study Team will
continue to pursue improved methods to assess cumulative impacts.
Outside the PCA, nearly 60 percent of all suitable habitat is
either Designated Wilderness Area, Wilderness Study Area, or
Inventoried Roadless Area. These designations will prevent many
extractive projects from occurring (see Factor D below). All projects
on Federal lands are required to comply with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) process, which
includes a section on the cumulative effects of the proposed project.
Any NEPA process for a project on National Forest lands also will
include an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on USDA
Forest Service species of concern, which will include the grizzly bear
upon delisting (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26).
Issue 6--One reviewer noted, regarding regulatory mechanisms, only
Montana appears to possess a law that mentions the importance of
research and the best-available science to guide grizzly bear
management, and that Idaho and Wyoming should be encouraged to adopt a
similar law. One reviewer asked if the Strategy will have the
regulatory power to ensure that signatories implement management
decisions and that resources are available.
Response--We have no authority to compel the States to enact laws,
nor do we believe it is necessary. The Strategy, signed by all three
affected States, is based on the best available science to guide
Yellowstone grizzly bear management. The adaptive management approach
described in the Strategy ensures that decisions are to be made based
upon the best available science. While the Strategy cannot legally
compel any of the signatories to implement management policies or
obligate funding, the various Federal agencies' and State governments'
signatures on the Strategy clearly indicate their intention to manage
grizzly bears according to the Strategy.
Issue 7--One reviewer commented that the proposed rule focused
solely on current status and how future conditions will be monitored
but failed to discuss carrying capacity of the GYA and ``* * * what
effect population expansion may have on a distinct population unit that
has clear limits to range or habitat expansion.'' He recommended that
the Study Team start to consider this type of issue.
Response--Schwartz et al. (2006c, p. 29) discuss the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population's growth towards carrying capacity. Carrying
capacity has probably already been reached inside Yellowstone National
Park (Schwartz et al. 2006c, p. 29), and its effect has been to reduce
cub survival to levels found in grizzly bear populations at carrying
capacity in Alaska. It does not appear that carrying capacity has been
reached outside of Yellowstone National Park (Schwartz et al. 2006c, p.
29). There are 14,554 sq km (5,619 sq mi) of suitable habitat in the
GYA that are currently unoccupied by grizzly bears. This habitat,
coupled with the sustainable mortality limits, will allow the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population to continue to increase and expand
as per the State management plans.
At some point in the future, monitoring data may demonstrate that
carrying capacity has been reached throughout the GYA and that the
sustainable mortality limits must be revised to accommodate increasing
natural mortality or to stabilize the population. The Study Team will
reevaluate demographic parameters including reproductive rate, survival
rate, annual population growth rate (lambda), stable age distribution,
and transition probabilities--every 8 to 10 years; as directed by a
violation of the population standards (for a complete list of all
population standards and triggers that are considered violations, see
Factor D below); or at the request of the Coordinating Committee.
During these formal evaluations, any impacts that density dependence or
lowered carrying capacity may have will be identified and addressed
through adjustments to methods used to estimate population size,
sustainable mortality, unknown and unreported mortality, or other
management recommendations. The application of adaptive management will
allow prompt application of new data or techniques to management
decisions. Future conditions may not be like past conditions and the
monitoring and adaptive management systems in place are designed to
respond to changes that occur.
B. Is our establishment of this population as a distinct population
segment logical and adequate?
Issue 1--Most of the reviewers agreed with our DPS analysis and
stated that, due to its discreteness and significance, the GYA grizzly
bear population warrants DPS status. Some reviewers did point out that
DPS designation is biologically justified but highlights one of the
major problems faced by the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is its
isolation. Gene flow must be attained, either through natural
connectivity or augmentation. One reviewer also stated that DPS status
can complicate future augmentation efforts if the source population is
not similar enough to the recipient population.
Response--As noted in the final rule, we agree that the Yellowstone
population is both discrete and significant, thus qualifying as a DPS
under our policy. Regarding isolation of the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population, those potential threats are related to genetic concerns and
changes in the population's habitat. Based on the best available
science (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338), the Service concludes that
the genetic diversity of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population will
be adequately maintained by the immigration or relocation of one to two
effective migrants from the NCDE every 10 years. This movement of
grizzly bears between ecosystems may occur naturally or through
management intervention. Regardless of the method, the Service is
confident that genetic impoverishment will not threaten the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population.
[[Page 14905]]
The source population for augmentation, if augmentation becomes
necessary, will be the NCDE population. The NCDE bears are those most
closely related to the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS, having been
separated for roughly 100 years (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4334).
Offspring of individuals from these two populations are unlikely to
experience outbreeding depression. Limited gene flow, as suggested
here, would not compromise the required level of discreteness for DPS
status, as the DPS policy does not require complete separation of one
DPS from other populations, but instead requires ``marked separation.''
Issue 2--Regarding significance, a few of the reviewers responded
that there are other populations of grizzlies that have great access to
ungulates and whitebark pine seeds but that diets have not been
quantified in these areas. One reviewer questioned just how unique the
ecological setting of the GYA really is.
Response--While we recognize that there are populations around the
world that have access to large ungulates (Canada, Alaska, northeast
Asia) and whitebark pine seeds (Canada), what is unusual and unique
about the GYA is that there is relatively high use of ungulate meat.
Also, although several berry-producing shrubs occur in the area, these
are relatively limited by climatic factors and most grizzly bears in
the GYA do not rely on berries as a significant portion of their diets.
It is this combination of reliance on large mammals and whitebark pine
seeds, while having little opportunity to feed on berries, which makes
the ecological setting of the GYA unusual, unique, and significant, as
none of these factors alone differentiates the GYA from other
ecosystems.
Issue 3--One reviewer thought that the Service should reevaluate
the status of all of the grizzly bear populations in the lower 48
simultaneously with the Yellowstone assessment.
Response--The Service intends to initiate a 5-year review of
grizzly bear populations in the conterminous States outside of the
Yellowstone DPS, based on additional scientific information that is
currently being collected and analyzed. This review will likely be
initiated a few months after the publication of this final rule.
C. Are our assumptions and definition of suitable habitat logical and
adequate?
Issue 1--One reviewer thought it would be helpful for the Service
to re-categorize and include an analysis of suitable habitat,
potentially suitable habitat (if management decisions favored grizzly
bears), and unsuitable habitat, stating that this may help direct
management decisions in the future.
Response--In response to this comment and several others received
by the general public, we have conducted additional analyses to
determine how much potentially suitable habitat there is inside the DPS
boundaries that could be made suitable through management actions. We
found that an additional 9,637 sq km (3,720 sq mi) of National Forest
lands (including the Salt River and Palisades Mountain Range) could be
made suitable by eliminating all sheep grazing allotments and existing
oil and gas developments. These areas are not currently suitable and
would require elimination of existing management activities to make
them suitable. Such an action is not biologically necessary to maintain
the recovered status of the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. These areas
do not constitute a significant portion of the range. Please see our
response to Issue 2 under subheading G in the Summary of Public
Comments section above for additional discussion about this concern.
Issue 2--One reviewer agreed with the first two criteria for
suitable habitat but questioned the third criterion (having low
mortality risk as indicated through reasonable and manageable levels of
grizzly bear/human conflicts). This reviewer suggested that the Service
conduct ``Additional work on mortality risk modeling in suitable
habitats (Nielsen et al. 2006, pp. 220-222) [which] would serve as a
valuable supplement to the tracking of conflicts and would have the
added benefit of providing a system that could aid in conflict
reduction.''
Response--The Service agrees that such additional efforts to assess
mortality risk in suitable habitats would be useful and supports such
work. The Study Team is currently developing habitat-based risk
analysis models that will provide insight into mortality risk across
the GYA landscape. One management recommendation (Schwartz et al.
2006e, p. 62) was to obtain funds to explore more spatially explicit
models beyond the three political zones (i.e., inside Yellowstone
National Park, inside the recovery zone but outside Yellowstone
National Park, and outside the recovery zone) that were addressed. In
fact, before Schwartz et al. (2006e) was printed, the Study Team
submitted a proposal to address this recommendation and obtained
funding for this project. It took more than 1.5 years to create the
required spatial layers needed for the analyses. The Study Team then
began to construct models looking at hazards on the landscape and how
they affect grizzly bear survival. These models consider foods, habitat
productivity, and human impacts to the landscape. As part of the
adaptive management approach in the Strategy, the Study Team intends to
link these hazard models with similar models of reproduction to develop
models predicting population change on the landscape. Combined, these
models will yield a projection of population viability. These efforts
will continuously be updated and improved as new methods and
information become available.
The Study Team also analyzes the location of grizzly bear/human
conflicts and mortalities in relation to land ownership and type of
conflict in their annual reports. In this way, the Study Team
identifies ``hotspot'' conflict areas in which I & E and prevention
efforts are likely to be most beneficial.
Issue 3--A few reviewers questioned the simplicity of the Service's
definition of suitable habitat. These reviewers felt that because the
Service and the Study Team have abundant data regarding habitat use,
the Service should have employed a more empirical definition ``* * *
using data-based, statistical techniques, such as logistic regression
(e.g., Mladenoff et al. 1995) or Mahalanobis distance (e.g., Thatcher
et al. 2006).''
Response--We thought it was adequate to use a more generalized,
coarse-scale interpretation of what habitat would meet grizzly bear
needs. Other models predicting where unoccupied suitable grizzly bear
habitat occurs within the GYA produced results similar to ours (Noss et
al. 2002, p. 903; Merrill and Mattson 2003, pp. 182, 184). The results
of our analysis agree with previous studies that have identified the
Wind River Mountains and the Centennial Mountains as potentially
suitable, but currently unoccupied habitat.
Issue 4--Several reviewers felt that the Service should include
some measure of habitat quality in its definition because it also is
important to understand other health parameters in suitable habitat,
such as body condition, movement rates, habitat use, and reproductive
function. A couple of reviewers thought habitat quality was
particularly important to include in any definition of suitable habitat
in light of climate change and possible shifts in habitat use to
respond to declines in food resources. If bears show major shifts in
habitat use in response to changing food availability, suitable habitat
may need to be redefined.
Response--We used the Middle Rockies Ecoregion as a surrogate for
[[Page 14906]]
habitat quality/capacity. This approach is supported by many previous
studies which have found that mountainous regions generally possess the
habitat components necessary for grizzly bear persistence, including
hiding cover, topographic variation necessary to ensure a wide variety
of seasonal foods, steep slopes used for denning, and remoteness from
humans (Craighead 1980, pp. 8-13; Knight 1980, pp. 1-3; Judd et al.
1986, pp. 114-115; Peek et al. 1987, 160-161; Aune and Kasworm 1989,
pp. 29-58; Merrill et al. 1999, pp. 233-235; Pease and Mattson 1999, p.
969; Linnell et al. 2000, pp. 403-405; Mattson and Merrill 2002, p.
1128). We have not assigned numerical quality scores to habitats based
on grizzly bear body condition or productivity because of the
uncertainties surrounding such calculations.
D. Are the conclusions we reach logical and supported by the evidence
we provide?
Issue 1--A couple of reviewers criticized our contention that
hunted grizzly bear populations may experience lower incidences of
vandal killing, and one reviewer noted that data he had collected in
Alberta since 1999 do not support the conclusion that sport hunting of
grizzly bears lowers mortality from poaching.
Response--The reviewer's evidence convinced us to conclude that
sport hunting of grizzly bears may not lower mortality from poaching.
We have removed any such wording and logic from this final rule.
Issue 2--One reviewer suggested that we could strengthen our
assumptions about secure habitat serving adequately as the primary
habitat component monitored, if we expanded the definition of secure
habitat to include a probability of grizzly bear occurrence (through
ongoing monitoring of food resources in space and time) coupled with
mortality risk (Nielsen et al. 2006, pp. 220-222)
Response--The negative impacts of humans on grizzly bear survival
and habitat use are well documented (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278;
McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. 458-459; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp.
83-103; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862-1864; McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp.
377-378; Mattson 1990, pp. 41-44; Mattson and Knight 1991, pp. 9-11;
Mattson et al. 1992, pp. 436-438; Mace et al. 1996, p. 1403; McLellan
et al. 1999, pp. 914-916; White et al. 1999, p. 150; Woodroffe 2000,
pp. 166-168; Boyce et al. 2001, p. 34; Johnson et al. 2004, p. 976). In
light of this, the importance of secure habitat, simply defined as a
function of distance from roads, is indisputable. Although we do not
include any prediction of where grizzly bears may occur or what their
mortality risk in identified secure habitat might be, the Study Team
will monitor food resources and grizzly bear mortalities in the GYA
annually.
E. Are our conclusions relating to food resources logical and adequate?
Issue 1--Many reviewers thought that the proposed rule was too
optimistic in its discussion of how bears may respond to declines in
major foods. They noted that although bears display some foraging
plasticity, the extent to which this behavior might buffer loss of one
of the four major foods is not known. In contrast, one reviewer thought
that food availability was of minor importance in comparison to other
human influences such as roads and human-caused mortality and stated
that preventing grizzly bear use of human garbage and food will become
increasingly important if traditional foods decrease.
Response--While we agree that the extent to which grizzly bears
might be able to compensate for the loss of one of the four major foods
is unknown, the rule reflects the best scientific and commercial data
available. Future food source availability and the possible grizzly
bear reaction to those possible future changes are discussed under
Factor E below and in the Summary to Public Comments' sections J, K, L,
and M above. We also agree that human-caused mortality is probably the
major factor limiting grizzly populations, although mortality can be
mediated by food availability (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 432). The Study
Team will continue to monitor major food abundance and grizzly bear
conflicts and mortalities. The combination of results and Study Team
analyses from these multiple monitoring indices on foods, bear vital
rates, and bear/human conflicts will allow managers to respond to
changes as necessary. Managers will respond to poor food years with
reductions in allowable mortalities and with increased I & E efforts
that forewarn the public about the increased potential for grizzly
bear/human conflicts.
Issue 2--The reviewers thought it was important to continue
monitoring the abundance and distribution of the four major food
sources. One reviewer suggested that the Service use statistical power
analyses ``* * * to determine what level of change in each food source
can be detected with these surveys' and to make adjustments to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of the food monitoring techniques.
Another reviewer recommended that the Service monitor reproductive
rates and define threshold values for these as they might be more
sensitive to food fluctuations than mortality rates would be. One
reviewer suggested that non-invasive methods could be used to monitor
reproductive hormone cycles in adult female bears that may tie directly
to habitat and landscape conditions.
Response--The Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working
Group (2005, pp. 98-107) worked closely with statisticians to ensure
the best possible sampling design in terms of statistical power and
ecological inference. They have established over 70 transects
throughout the GYA to assess the status of whitebark pine. The Study
Team also documents annual whitebark pine cone production through
monitoring of 19 transects inside the PCA. The Study Team has found
that its surveys of whitebark pine cone production can effectively
predict the magnitude of the number of management actions taken on
grizzly bears during each crop year (Haroldson and Podruzny 2006, p.
45). The Study Team's research has resulted in a tentative threshold
value, a mean of 20 cones per tree, which predicts near exclusive use
of cones by bears from August through October, and also predicts that
management actions will be reduced in such years. This level of
predictive ability to detect this effect is adequate for management
purposes. Whitebark pine cone production fluctuates from year to year,
as an evolved strategy on the part of the trees to avoid seed
parasitism and predation. Human management cannot guarantee a large
cone crop.
Abundances of the other three major foods (ungulate carcasses,
cutthroat trout, and army cutworm moths) have not been reliable
predictors of grizzly bear abundance, fecundity, mortality, or
management activity. All have fluctuated in abundance during the period
in which the grizzly population has continued to increase.
Although adult female survival is the factor most important to
population trajectory, the Study Team also monitors reproductive rates
to obtain a complete picture of the overall health of the grizzly bear
population. Annually, the Study Team monitors litter size through
counts of females with cubs-of-the-year. In addition, every 8 to 10
years, the Study Team will recalculate litter size and cub survival
based on the radio-collared sample of female grizzly bears. The Study
Team does not currently monitor reproductive hormone cycles but will
consider its use in the future as it becomes more feasible and cost-
effective.
[[Page 14907]]
Issue 3--One reviewer thought the Service should make it clear that
the four major foods and their potential declines were not included in
any models of future population trajectory.
Response--The potential abundances of the four major foods have not
been employed in any of the PVAs predicting future population
trajectory. The reasons for this and our progress toward this goal are
discussed above in our response to Issue 2 under subheading B in the
Summary of Public Comments section of this final rule.
Issue 4--Two reviewers thought the Service should analyze the
implications of the recently introduced wolf populations on the
availability of ungulates to Yellowstone grizzly bears.
Response--Recent models and investigations in the field suggest
that reintroduced wolves have had little effect on ungulate
availability to grizzly bears in the GYA (Wilmers et al. 2003a, pp.
914-915; Barber et al. 2005, p. 43; Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 259). This
issue is discussed in more detail under Factor E below.
F. Is the post-delisting monitoring program for habitat and population
criteria logical and adequate to ensure survival of this population of
grizzly bears in the foreseeable future?
Issue 1--A couple of the reviewers commented that a clear,
unequivocal set of criteria for automatic relisting should be
established to reduce process-based uncertainty. One reviewer stated
that, given past controversy surrounding listing decisions, relisting
cannot be regarded as a potential solution to future problems.
Response--The Act contains no provision for automatic relisting of
a species based on quantitative criteria. If, at any time, data
indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we
can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency
listing. Any such relisting would be based on the definition of
threatened or endangered and the 5-factor analysis. A petition for
relisting the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS would have to go through the
same procedure as a species newly petitioned for listing. However, the
Service can issue an emergency listing rule independent of the petition
process or in response to a petition, as it did for the Mojave
population of the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii) (54 FR 32326,
August 4, 1989). The Service would then have 240 days to complete a
conventional listing rule before the protections of the emergency rule
expire. The Service believes the process described in this final rule
is sufficient to ensure that relisting will be carried out if
necessary, based upon the best available science.
Issue 2--One reviewer stated that monitoring is not sufficient if
the results of investigations are not promptly incorporated in policy
and management, and that this type of rapid response requires
availability of contingency funds, clear roles and authorities, and the
power to impose the necessary actions on all involved partners. One
reviewer believes that since the effectiveness of the monitoring
program depended ``* * * upon adequate funding to provide research
results with scientifically acceptable confidence limits,'' the
monitoring plan should have secure funding for at least 5 to 10 years
before delisting occurs.
Response--The signatories to the Strategy will practice adaptive
management by incorporating the findings of the monitoring programs
into management of the GYA grizzly bear population. The Federal
Government does not have the statutory or constitutional authority to
compel the States or individuals to participate in managing grizzly
bears if they choose not to, although the responsible agencies'
signatures on the Strategy indicate their willingness to manage the
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. Funding for government programs is never
certain at any level, but the funding to support the grizzly bear and
grizzly bear habitat management activities of the various Federal and
State agencies has been consistently obligated for the past 30 years.
Issue 3--One reviewer encouraged the Service to investigate human
dimensions with a protocol that would allow quantification of changes
in the attitudes of the general public, farmers, hunters, and other
stakeholders.
Response--Although we agree that the values people hold about
grizzly bears may provide some insight into poaching incidents and
successful management approaches, due to the complications associated
with quantifying shifts in public attitudes, we do not see such
research as a priority essential to grizzly bear conservation in the
GYA. Instead, we believe successful conservation of the Yellowstone
grizzly bear should focus on reducing human-caused mortality,
protecting habitat, preventing grizzly bear/human conflicts, and
monitoring demographic and habitat parameters. That said, in 2001, the
State of Wyoming contracted a private business to survey its residents
about their attitudes toward grizzly bear management (Responsive
Management 2001, p. i). This information was used in the development of
the Wyoming State grizzly bear management plan.
Issue 4--The reviewers supported our post-delisting monitoring plan
to maintain a minimum of 25 adult female bears distributed throughout
the GYA with radio collars at all times, to examine the trends and
welfare of the population. One reviewer recommended to us that such
research trapping and radio-collaring should strive to minimize the
number of capture events per individual to minimize stress, perhaps by
using radio transmitters that have a longer operational life.
Response--The minimization of stress during capture events is
always a priority for research-trapped bears. A strict protocol (Jonkel
1993, pp. 1-4) is followed by the Study Team when trapping grizzly
bears for research purposes. In addition, the latest veterinary medical
research is incorporated into the Study Team's protocol when they renew
their veterinary permit annually. These protocols are designed to
minimize restraint time, minimize capture-related stress, monitor the
health of captured animals, administer appropriate levels of
anesthesia, and minimize the duration of anesthesia through the use of
appropriate antagonists. As radio-telemetry technology improves, the
Study Team will incorporate those advances into the monitoring program.
If collars can be safely retained for longer periods, the Study Team
will make use of improved battery life as these advancements are made.
As collar life increases, the total number of capture events will
decrease.
Issue 5--One reviewer believes that the Service should state
clearly how often important population parameters such as female
survival, litter size, litter interval, population growth rates
(lambda), sex ratios, and age ratios will be calculated.
Response--These parameters will be recalculated every 8 to 10 years
based on the radio-collared sample (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
2005, p. 45) or as required by a Biology and Monitoring Review
triggered by a violation of a habitat or population criterion.
Issue 6--Some reviewers suggested that a DNA-based population
estimate be conducted at least once to check the estimate given by
using the methods described in the Reassessing Methods Document. Some
believe that the Service should integrate large-scale, non-invasive
genetic sampling into future monitoring protocol since the data
gathered during such sampling provides much more information than just
a population estimate. Genetic
[[Page 14908]]
sampling also can provide reliable estimates of sex ratio, reproductive
success, effective population size, dispersal, allelic diversity,
heterozygosity, and inbreeding levels.
Response--The current cost of a one-time, point population estimate
using DNA is roughly $3.5 million to $5 million (Interagency Grizzly
Bear Study Team 2005, p. 12). The Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee
decided in 2001 that such funds would be spent more effectively on
other management actions. The Service and the Study Team recognize the
need to improve methods to estimate population size and calculate
sustainable mortality limits and will continue to consider ways in
which this might be accomplished. As the costs associated with DNA
amplification and analysis decrease with time, the Study Team may
revisit this possibility. The Study Team will continue to take DNA
samples opportunistically from all bears trapped for research or
management and all known mortalities so that future analyses of other
genetic or demographic parameters are possible. For now, as long as
mortality continues to remain within the sustainable mortality limits
as evidenced by a Chao2 estimate of at least 48 females with cubs of
the year, there are no data to indicate that this method is inadequate
to manage for a stable to increasing Yellowstone grizzly bear
population.
Issue 7--Several reviewers thought the 1998 baseline gives
reasonable assurance that grizzly bear habitat needs within the PCA
will continue to be met. One reviewer commented that the assumption
that 1998 habitat conditions allowed the population to increase by 4 to
7 percent is ``largely valid,'' but questioned the Service's choice of
the year 1998 and the biological justification behind the criteria for
acceptable road densities and levels of secure habitat. A couple of
reviewers agreed with the Service that, currently, there is no known
way to deductively calculate habitat quality for grizzly bears (e.g.,
security) and that the use of surrogates (e.g., levels of secure
habitat) was appropriate, but reminded us that ``If we are monitoring
the wrong surrogates, however, there is no guarantee that the true 1998
habitat baseline will be met. We should acknowledge this and continue
to strive for better measures of what constitutes true habitat quality
for bears.''
Response--The year 1998 was chosen because we know that levels of
secure habitat and site developments had been roughly the same during
the previous 10 years (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 27), and that,
during these years, the population was increasing (Eberhardt and Knight
1996, p. 419; Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). Therefore, the selection of
any other year between 1988 and 1998 would have resulted in
approximately the same baseline values for roads and developed sites
but the selection of the latter date allowed improvements made since
1988 to be included in the baseline. To address the possibility that we
could be monitoring the ``wrong surrogates,'' the responsible agencies
also will be monitoring a suite of other factors including habitat
parameters, population criteria, mortalities, and conflicts. Our
partners will improve the technique for the monitoring of habitat as
better methods become available and as the relationships between
habitat quality and vital rates are better documented.
Issue 8--A couple of reviewers suggested that in order to truly
maintain 1998 conditions, the level of human use also must be
maintained at 1998 levels because the intensity of human use is the
driving factor behind security, not the sheer number of developed sites
and roads on the landscape; intensity of use will only increase as the
human population in the area increases. One reviewer suggested that the
Service create limits on the numbers of visitors (visitors/days)
allowed in Yellowstone National Park. He believes that this limitation
on human activities is especially important in light of uncertainties
surrounding food sources. One reviewer also noted that, in light of
potential decreases in important foods, it would be preferable to
institute habitat guidelines that are more restrictive toward resource
exploitation than the 1998 baseline.
Response--Human use of the GYA, as measured by the annual number of
people visiting Yellowstone National Park, has increased since the
grizzly was listed as threatened in 1975 (Gunther 2000, p. 48). During
the 1970s, the average annual number of people visiting the Park was
2,243,737. In the 1990s, this number was 3,023,916 (Gunther 2000, p.
48). However, during that period, the grizzly population also has
increased, and the bears within Yellowstone National Park appear to
have reached the carrying capacity of the Park habitat (Schwartz et al.
2006c, p. 29). The Service considers the establishment of habitat
thresholds for human population growth and recreation to be unrealistic
and feels that the 1998 baseline will address these issues adequately
through access management and limitations on site development. Using
the adaptive management approach described in the Strategy, management
agencies will respond with adequate restrictions and enforcement if
recreation on public lands due to increased human populations in the
GYA becomes detrimental to the Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
Resource extraction in grizzly bear habitat is primarily timber
harvest, and it has declined. Habitat quality, as measured by road
density and timber harvest, has increased due to declines in these
activities in grizzly habitat. Timber harvest volumes and road
construction have declined since the mid-1990s. Under the 1998 level of
secure habitat, the Yellowstone grizzly bear population has been
increasing at between 4 to 7 percent per year (Harris et al. 2006, p.
48). From 1986 to 2002 there has been a net reduction of more than
1,600 km (1,000 mi) of road on the six GYA National Forests (inside and
outside the PCA). Inside the PCA on National Forests, there was an
average reduction (elimination) of 59.9 km (37.2 mi) of road per year
from 1986 to 2002 (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 200). Similarly,
outside the PCA, there was an average reduction of 40.7 km (25.3 mi) of
road per year for this time period (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 200).
There are no active oil and gas wells in Service-defined suitable
grizzly habitat. There has never been any high-density oil and gas
development in suitable grizzly habitat in the GYA. Inside the PCA, the
potential for increased resource extraction in the future is severely
limited due to the constraints on road construction and site
development established by the Strategy.
We do not anticipate a dramatic increase in resource extraction
outside of the PCA either due to the quantity of National Forest land
designated as Wilderness Area (6,799 sq km (2,625 sq mi)), Wilderness
Study Area (708 sq km (273 sq mi)), or Inventoried Roadless Area (6,179
sq km (2,386 sq mi)). Approximately 79 percent of all suitable habitat
on National Forest lands outside the PCA falls into one of these
categories.
Issue 9--One reviewer stated that there are no clear management
responses described if habitat threshold values are not achieved.
Another reviewer recommended that threshold values for habitat
effectiveness be established, as these would be helpful for managers,
even if they do not trigger exact management responses like the
demographic criteria do.
Response--Because of the natural annual variability in the
distribution and abundance of grizzly bear foods, there were no
threshold values
[[Page 14909]]
established for these habitat parameters. Instead, the 1998 baseline
attempted to establish realistic habitat standards that ensure adequate
habitat security and minimum livestock conflicts within the PCA. The
Study Team will continue to communicate with managers and the media
about whitebark pine production as they obtain data each year. The goal
of this effort is to inform the public of ways to avoid grizzly bear
conflicts in poor food years.
Issue 10--One reviewer noted that the time lag in the feedback loop
between habitat changes and population size (Doak 1995, p. 1378) poses
a problem for monitoring population size alone. This reviewer suggested
that a major research focus for the future should be to strive to
improve habitat monitoring protocols such that habitat is monitored
directly, not just via grizzly bear vital rates.
Response--The Strategy commits the agencies to intensive monitoring
of all grizzly bear vital rates and the relationship of these vital
rates to changes in major foods and levels and types of human
activities in their habitat. This monitoring does not solely rely on
vital rate monitoring to indirectly infer changes in habitat. Annual
habitat monitoring will produce results on any changes in habitat
values and key food production and possible disease in key foods. Thus,
the system in place will not rely on indirect measures of habitat
values but will produce direct measures of habitat values annually.
Since our partners will be monitoring a suite of vital rates including
survival of radio-collared bears, mortality of all conflict bears, and
fecundity, we feel confident that we will be able to detect the
consequences of significantly reduced habitat productivity.
Issue 11--One reviewer wanted to see more emphasis placed on not
only tracking and categorizing private land development, but predicting
it as well, to allow for proactive management.
Response--Data on private land development are gathered by, and are
available from, the counties. These data are used by nongovernmental
organizations and university researchers to project future growth and
prioritize private lands that are most important to landscape
connectivity and species diversity. For more information on recent land
sale statistics, please see our response to Issue 6 under subheading H
of the Summary of Public Comments section above.
The Service contends that grizzly bears can coexist with projected
human population growth and land use in the foreseeable future, if an
adequate management framework (i.e., the Strategy) is in place to
manage grizzly bear mortality and habitat quality (Linnell et al. 2001,
p. 348).
Issue 12--One reviewer recommended that the Service abandon the
current Cumulative Effects Model in favor of a model that employs
Resource Selection Functions. He contends that Resource Selection
Functions models avoid many of the limitations associated with the
Cumulative Effects Model including ``* * * lack of empiricism, pre-
defined model structure, and arbitrary threshold criteria.'' Another
reviewer also endorsed the use of Resource Selection Functions models
and noted that they are becoming sophisticated enough to incorporate
mortality risk, which would be invaluable to grizzly bear management.
Response--The Study Team is currently exploring alternative habitat
models to the Cumulative Effects Model. Resource Selection Functions
models are not always the best way to describe habitat relationships
because estimated resource selection functions are not always
proportional to the true probability of use (Keating and Cherry 2004,
p. 788). We agree that linking habitat conditions to demographic data
would be an invaluable management tool. The Study Team is currently
developing habitat-based risk analysis models that will provide insight
into these relationships. These models consider foods, habitat
productivity, and human impacts to the landscape. As part of the
adaptive management approach in the Strategy, the Study Team intends to
link these hazard models with similar models of reproduction to develop
models predicting population change on the landscape. Combined, these
models will yield a projection of population viability. These efforts
will continuously be updated and improved as new methods and
information become available.
Issue 13--Several reviewers recommended that the Cumulative Effects
Model be validated with empirical data and suggested that predicted use
may not correlate well with actual grizzly bear use. They believed such
validation would be helpful since the Service relies on the Cumulative
Effects Model as a monitoring tool for habitat effectiveness and
habitat mitigation. One reviewer suggested an approach that could link
habitat (foods) and mortality so that the Cumulative Effects Model is
adequate.
Response--Although we currently view the Cumulative Effects Model
as the best scientific and commercial data available, we agree that it
would be valuable to confirm the Cumulative Effects Model with
empirical data. This criticism of the Cumulative Effects Model is one
reason that the Strategy does not include threshold values for habitat
effectiveness as calculated by the Cumulative Effects Model as a
trigger for management action or a Biology and Monitoring Review. What
the Cumulative Effects Model does provide is a relative measure of
whether habitat quality has increased or decreased in areas across the
landscape. However, it does not provide a reliable estimate of exactly
how those changes in habitat quality will affect the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population. The Study Team is currently exploring
alternative habitat models to the Cumulative Effects Model. As the
science further evolves, the Study Team will continue to use the best
scientific and commercial information available.
G. Did we include all the necessary and pertinent literature to support
our assumptions, arguments, and conclusions?
Issue 1--Several peer reviewers suggested additional literature to
consider and possibly include in the final rule.
Response--The literature used and recommended by the peer reviewers
has been considered and incorporated, as appropriate, in this final
rule.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and regulations promulgated to implement the
listing provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) set forth the
procedures for listing, reclassifying, and delisting species. A species
may be delisted, according to 50 CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific
and commercial data available demonstrate that the species is no longer
endangered or threatened because of (1) extinction; (2) recovery; or
(3) error in the original data used for classification of the species.
A recovered population is one that no longer meets the Act's
definition of threatened or endangered. The analysis for a delisting
due to recovery must be based on the five factors outlined in section
4(a)(1) of the Act. This analysis must include an evaluation of threats
that existed at the time of listing and those that currently exist or
that could potentially affect the species in the foreseeable future
once the protections of the Act are removed.
The Act defines ``species'' to also include any subspecies or, for
vertebrates, any DPS. Because the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
is discrete and significant, as defined
[[Page 14910]]
above, it warrants recognition as a DPS under the Act and our policy
(61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). Therefore, our analysis only covers the
Yellowstone DPS.
In terms of the ``foreseeable future,'' for the purposes of this
final rule, we view ``foreseeable'' as ``such as reasonably can or
should be anticipated: Such that a person of ordinary prudence would
expect it to occur or exist under the circumstances'' (Merriam-
Webster's Dictionary of Law 1996; Western Watershed Project v. Foss (D.
Idaho 2005)). We use this definition, as opposed to an a priori time
period (e.g., 100 years), to avoid placing an arbitrary limit on our
time horizon. The foreseeable future is likely to differ for each
factor potentially impacting the DPS. When evaluating population models
or other modeling efforts (e.g., climate change models), with respect
to foreseeable future, we take into consideration model variance over
time and model outputs along with the decay in confidence as we
forecast further into the future. This approach is more robust than
simply looking at a single time-horizon because it uses all available
data and takes into consideration the predictive value of that data.
However, the Strategy which is intended to guide all management post-
delisting, is anticipated to continue in perpetuity. To provide
assurance that the DPS remains recovered beyond the foreseeable future,
the Strategy provides that if future threats arise or known threats
increase in magnitude, the Study Team and the Coordinating Committee
are to adapt management to address any new or increased threats.
A species is ``endangered'' for purposes of the Act if it is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a ``significant portion of its
range'' and is ``threatened'' if it is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a ``significant portion
of its range.'' The following describes how we interpret the terms
``range'' and ``significant'' as used in the phrase ``significant
portion of its range,'' and explains the basis for our use of those
terms in this rule.
``Range''--The word ``range'' in the phrase ``significant portion
of its range'' refers to the range in which a species currently exists,
not to the historical range of the species where it once existed. The
context in which the phrase is used is crucial. Under the Act's
definitions, a species is ``endangered'' only if it ``is in danger of
extinction'' in the relevant portion of its range. The phrase ``is in
danger'' denotes a present-tense condition of being at risk of a
future, undesired event. To say that a species ``is in danger'' in an
area that is currently unoccupied, such as unoccupied historical range,
would be inconsistent with common usage. Thus, ``range'' must mean
``currently-occupied range,'' not ``historical range.'' This
interpretation of ``range'' is further supported by the fact that
section 4(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to consider the ``present''
or ``threatened'' (i.e., future), rather than the past, ``destruction,
modification, or curtailment'' of a species' habitat or range in
determining whether a species is endangered or threatened.
However, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appeared to conclude,
without any analysis or explanation that the ``range'' referred to in
the ``significant portion of its range'' phrase includes the historical
range of the species. The court stated that a species ``can be extinct
`throughout * * * a significant portion of its range' if there are
major geographical areas in which it is no longer viable but once
was,'' and then faults the Secretary for not ``at least explain[ing]
her conclusion that the area in which the species can no longer live is
not a significant portion of its range.'' Defenders of Wildlife v.
Norton, 258 F.3d 1136, 1145 (emphasis added). This would suggest that
the range we must analyze in assessing endangerment includes unoccupied
historical range--i.e., the places where the species was once viable
but no longer exists.
The statute does not support this interpretation. This
interpretation is based on what appears to be an inadvertent misquote
of the relevant statutory language. In addressing this issue, the Ninth
Circuit states that the Secretary must determine whether a species is
``extinct throughout * * * a significant portion of its range.'' Id. If
that were true, we would have to study the historical range. But that
is not what the statute says, and the Ninth Circuit quotes the statute
correctly elsewhere in its opinion. Under the Act, we are not to
determine if a species is ``extinct throughout * * * a significant
portion of its range,'' but are to determine if it ``is in danger of
extinction throughout * * * a significant portion of its range.'' A
species cannot presently be ``in danger of extinction'' in that portion
of its range where it ``was once viable but no longer is''--if by the
latter phrase the court meant lost historical habitat. In that portion
of its range, the species has by definition ceased to exist. In such
situations, it is not ``in danger of extinction''; it is extinct.
Although we must focus on the range in which the species currently
exists, data about the species' historical range and how the species
came to be extinct in that location may be relevant in understanding or
predicting whether a species is ``in danger of extinction'' in its
current range and therefore relevant to our 5 factor analysis. But the
fact that it has ceased to exist in what may have been portions of its
historical range does not necessarily mean that it is ``in danger of
extinction'' in a significant portion of the range where it currently
exists.
``Significant''--The Act does not clearly indicate what portion(s)
of a species' range should be considered ``significant.'' Most
dictionaries list several definitions of ``significant.'' For example,
one standard dictionary defines ``significant'' as ``important,''
``meaningful,'' ``a noticeably or measurably large amount,'' or
``suggestive'' (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1088 (10th ed.
2000)). If it means a ``noticeably or measurably large amount,'' then
we would have to focus on the size of the range in question, either in
relation to the rest of the range or perhaps even in absolute terms. If
it means ``important,'' then we would have to consider factors in
addition to size in determining a portion of a species' range is
``significant.'' For example, would a key breeding ground of species be
``significant,'' even if it was only a small part of the species'
entire range?
One district court interpreted the term to mean ``a noticeably or
measurably large amount'' without analysis or any reference to other
alternate meanings, including ``important'' or ``meaningful.''
Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F. Supp. 2d 9, 19 (D.D.C. 2002).
We consider the court's interpretation to be unpersuasive because the
court did not explain why we could not employ another, equally
plausible definition of ``significant.'' It is impossible to determine
from the word itself, even when read in the context of the entire
statute, which meaning of ``significant'' Congress intended. Moreover,
even if it were clear which meaning was intended, ``significant'' would
still require interpretation. For example, if it were meant to refer to
size, what size would be ``significant'': 30 percent, 60 percent, 90
percent? Should the percentage be the same in every case or for each
species? Moreover, what factors, if any, would be appropriate to
consider in making a size determination? Is size all by itself
``significant,'' or does size only become ``significant'' when
considered in combination with other factors? On the other hand, if
``significant'' were meant to refer to importance, what factors would
need to be considered in
[[Page 14911]]
deciding that a particular portion of a species' range is ``important''
enough to trigger the protections of the Act?
Where there is ambiguity in a statute, as with the meaning of
``significant,'' the agency charged with administering the statute, in
this case the Service, has broad discretion to resolve the ambiguity
and give meaning to the term. As the Supreme Court has stated:
In Chevron, this Court held that ambiguities in statutes within
an agency's jurisdiction to administer are delegations of authority
to the agency to fill the statutory gap in reasonable fashion.
Filling these gaps, the Court explained, involves difficult policy
choices that agencies are better equipped to make than courts. If a
statute is ambiguous, and if the implementing agency's construction
is reasonable, Chevron requires a federal court to accept the
agency's construction of the statute, even if the agency's reading
differs from what the court believes is the best statutory
interpretation.
Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S.
967, 980 (2005) (internal citations omitted).
We have broad discretion in defining what portion of a species'
range is ``significant.'' No ``bright line'' or ``predetermined''
percentage of historical range loss is considered ``significant'' in
all cases, and we may consider factors other than simply the size of
the range portion in defining what is ``significant.'' In light of the
general ecosystems conservation purposes and findings in section 2 of
the Act, our goal is to define ``significant'' in such a way as to
insure the conservation of the species protected by the Act. In
determining whether a range portion is significant, we consider the
ecosystems on which the species that use that range depend as well as
the values listed in the Act that would be impaired or lost if the
species were to become extinct in that portion of the range or in the
range as a whole.
However, our discretion in defining ``significant'' is not
unlimited. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, while acknowledging that
we have ``a wide degree of discretion in delineating'' what portion of
a range is ``significant,'' appeared to set outer limits of that
discretion. See Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136. On the
one hand, it rejected what it called a quantitative approach to
defining ``significant,'' where a ``bright line'' or ``predetermined''
percentage of historical range loss is considered ``significant'' in
all cases. 258 F.3d. at 1143. As the court explained:
First, it simply does not make sense to assume that the loss of
a predetermined percentage of habitat or range would necessarily
qualify a species for listing. A species with an exceptionally large
historical range may continue to enjoy healthy population levels
despite the loss of a substantial amount of suitable habitat.
Similarly, a species with an exceptionally small historical range
may quickly become endangered after the loss of even a very small
percentage of habitat.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that what is ``significant'' must
``necessarily be determined on a case by case basis,'' and must take
into account not just the size of the range but also the biological
importance of the range to the species. 258 F.3d. at 1143. At the other
end of the spectrum, the Ninth Circuit rejected what it called ``the
faulty definition offered by us,'' a definition that holds that a
portion of a species' range is ``significant'' only if the threats
faced by the species in that area are so severe as to threaten the
viability of the species as a whole. 258 F.3d. at 1143, 1146. It thus
appears that within the two outer boundaries set by the Ninth Circuit,
we have wide discretion to give the definitive interpretation of the
word ``significant'' in the phrase ``significant portion of its
range.''
Based on these principles, we considered the following factors in
determining whether a portion of the grizzly's range is
``significant''--quality, quantity, and distribution of habitat
relative to the biological requirements of the species; the historical
value of the habitat to the species; the frequency of use of the
habitat; the uniqueness or importance of the habitat for other reasons,
such as breeding, feeding, migration, wintering, or suitability for
population expansion; genetic diversity; and other biological factors.
We focused on portions of the grizzly's range important to its
conservation, such as identified ``recovery units''; unique habitat or
other ecological features that provide adaptive opportunities that are
of conservation importance to the species; and ``core'' populations
that generate additional individuals of a species that can, over time,
replenish depleted populations or stocks at the periphery of the
species' range. We did not apply the term ``significant'' to portions
of the species' range that constitute less-productive peripheral
habitat, artificially-created habitat, or areas where the species has
established itself in urban or suburban settings. Such portions of the
species' range are not ``significant,'' in our view, to the
conservation of the species as required by the Act.
The following analysis utilizes these definitions and examines all
important factors currently affecting the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS
or likely to affect it within the foreseeable future. Therefore, this
analysis was conducted over the entire current and foreseeable range of
the grizzly bear including all ``suitable habitat'' (defined and
discussed under Factor A below) within the DPS boundaries.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Habitat destruction and modification were major contributing
factors leading to the listing of the grizzly bear as a threatened
species under the Act in 1975 (40 FR 31734-31736, July 28, 1975). Both
the dramatic decreases in historical range and land management
practices in formerly secure grizzly bear habitat led to the 1975
listing (40 FR 31734-31736, July 28, 1975). To address this source of
population decline, the Study Team was created in 1973 to collect,
manage, analyze, and distribute science-based information regarding
habitat and demographic parameters upon which to base management and
recovery. Then, in 1983, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee was
created to coordinate management efforts across multiple Federal lands
and different States within the various Recovery Zones ultimately
working to achieve recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 States.
Its objective was to change land management practices on Federal lands
that supported grizzly bear populations at the time of listing to
provide security and maintain or improve habitat conditions for the
grizzly bear. Since 1986, National Forest and National Park plans have
incorporated the Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 1-2) to
manage grizzly bear habitat in the Yellowstone Recovery Zone.
Management improvements made as a result of the Guidelines include,
but are not limited to--(1) Federal and State agency coordination to
produce nuisance bear guidelines that allow a quick response to resolve
and minimize grizzly bear/human confrontations; (2) reduced motorized
access route densities through restrictions, decommissioning, and
closures; (3) highway design considerations to facilitate population
connectivity; (4) closure of some important habitat areas to all human
access in National Parks during certain seasons that are particularly
important to grizzlies; (5) closure of many areas in the GYA to oil and
gas leasing, or implementing restrictions such as no surface occupancy;
(6) elimination of two sheep allotments on the Caribou-Targhee National
Forest in 1998, resulting in a 46 percent decrease in total sheep
[[Page 14912]]
animal months inside the Yellowstone Recovery Zone; and (7) expanded I
& E programs in the Yellowstone Recovery Zone to help reduce the number
of grizzly mortalities caused by big-game hunters. Overall, adherence
to the Guidelines has changed land management practices on Federal
lands to provide security and to maintain or improve habitat conditions
for the grizzly bear. Implementation of these Guidelines has led to the
successful rebound of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population, allowing
it to significantly increase in size and distribution since its listing
in 1975.
In 2002, an interagency group representing pertinent State and
Federal parties released the draft Final Conservation Strategy for the
Grizzly Bear in the GYA to guide management and monitoring of the
habitat and population of Yellowstone grizzly bears after delisting.
The Strategy identifies and provides a framework for managing two
areas, the PCA and adjacent areas of suitable habitat where occupancy
by grizzly bears is anticipated in the foreseeable future. What follows
is an assessment of present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of the grizzly bear's habitat and range. More specifically,
this analysis evaluates all areas capable of supporting grizzly bears
including the PCA and all suitable habitat within the DPS. These terms
and areas are defined below.
Suitable Habitat--Because we used easily recognized boundaries to
delineate the Yellowstone DPS, the DPS includes both suitable and
unsuitable habitat (see Figure 1 above). For the purposes of this final
rule, suitable habitat is considered the area within the DPS boundaries
capable of supporting a viable grizzly bear population now or in the
foreseeable future. We have defined suitable habitat for grizzly bears
as areas having three characteristics--(1) being of adequate habitat
quality and quantity to support grizzly bear reproduction and survival;
(2) contiguous with the current distribution of Yellowstone grizzly
bears such that natural re-colonization is possible; and (3) having low
mortality risk as indicated through reasonable and manageable levels of
grizzly bear mortality. For more information see our response to Issue
2 under subheading G in the Summary of Public Comments section above.
Our definition and delineation of suitable habitat is built on the
widely accepted conclusions of extensive research (Craighead 1980, pp.
8-11; Knight 1980, pp. 1-3; Peek et al. 1987, pp. 160-161; Merrill et
al. 1999, pp. 233-235; Pease and Mattson 1999, p. 969) that grizzly
bear reproduction and survival is a function of both the biological
needs of grizzly bears and remoteness from human activities, which
minimizes mortality risk for grizzly bears. Mountainous areas provide
hiding cover, the topographic variation necessary to ensure a wide
variety of seasonal foods, and the steep slopes used for denning (Judd
et al. 1986, pp. 114-115; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 29-58; Linnell et
al. 2000, pp. 403-405). Higher elevation, mountainous regions in the
GYA (Omernik 1987, pp. 118-125; Omernik 1995, pp. 49-62; Woods et al.
1999; McGrath et al. 2002; Chapman et al. 2004) contain high-energy
foods such as whitebark pine seeds (Mattson and Jonkel 1990, p. 223;
Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1623) and army cutworm moths (Mattson et al.
1991b, 2434; French et al. 1994, p. 391).
For our analysis of suitable habitat, we considered the Middle
Rockies ecoregion, within which the Greater Yellowstone Area is
contained, (Omernik 1987, pp. 120-121; Woods et al. 1999; McGrath et
al. 2002; Chapman et al. 2004) to meet grizzly bear biological needs
providing food, seasonal foraging opportunities, cover, and denning
areas (Mattson and Merrill 2002, p. 1125). The Middle Rockies ecoregion
has Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce forests and alpine
areas. Forests can be open. Foothills are partly wooded or shrub- and
grass-covered. Intermontane valleys are grass- and/or shrub-covered and
contain a mosaic of terrestrial and aquatic fauna that is distinct from
the nearby mountains. Many mountain-fed, perennial streams occur and
differentiate the intermontane valleys from the Northwestern Great
Plains. Recreation, logging, mining, and summer livestock grazing are
common land uses in this ecoregion.
Although grizzly bears historically occurred throughout the area of
the Yellowstone DPS (Stebler 1972, pp. 297-298), many of these habitats
are not, today, biologically suitable for grizzly bears. While there
are records of grizzly bears in eastern Wyoming near present-day
Sheridan, Casper, and Wheatland, even in the early 19th century,
indirect evidence suggests that grizzly bears were less common in these
eastern prairie habitats than in mountainous areas to the west (Rollins
1935, p. 191; Wade 1947, p. 444). Grizzly bear presence in these drier,
grassland habitats was associated with rivers and streams where
grizzlies used bison carcasses as a major food source (Burroughs 1961,
pp. 57-60; Herrero 1972, pp. 224-227; Stebler 1972, pp. 297-298;
Mattson and Merrill 2002, pp. 1128-1129). Because wild bison herds no
longer exist in these areas, these areas are no longer capable of
contributing, in a meaningful way, to the overall status of the
Yellowstone DPS. Thus, we did not include drier sagebrush, prairie, or
agricultural lands within our definition of suitable habitat because
these land types no longer contain adequate food resources (i.e.,
bison) to support grizzly bears. Figure 1 above illustrates suitable
habitat within the Yellowstone DPS.
Unavoidable and uncontrollable mortality also can impact which
habitat might be considered suitable. Some mortality, including human-
caused mortality, is unavoidable in a dynamic system where hundreds of
bears inhabit large areas of diverse habitat with several million human
visitors and residents. The negative impacts of humans on grizzly bear
survival and habitat use are well documented (Harding and Nagy 1980, p.
278; McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. 458-459; Aune and Kasworm 1989,
pp. 83-103; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862-1864; McLellan and Shackleton 1989,
pp. 377-378; Mattson 1990, pp. 41-44; Mattson and Knight 1991, pp. 9-
11; Mattson et al. 1992, pp. 436-438; Mace et al. 1996, p. 1403;
McLellan et al. 1999, pp. 914-916; White et al. 1999, p. 150; Woodroffe
2000, pp. 166-168; Boyce et al. 2001, p. 34; Johnson et al. 2004, p.
976). These effects range from temporary displacement to actual
mortality. Mattson and Merrill (2002, pp. 1129-1134) found that grizzly
bear persistence in the contiguous United States between 1920 and 2000
was negatively associated with human and livestock densities. As human
population densities increase, the frequency of encounters between
humans and grizzly bears also increases, resulting in more human-caused
grizzly bear mortalities due to a perceived or real threat to human
life or property (Mattson et al. 1996, pp. 1014-1015). Similarly, as
livestock densities increase in habitat occupied by grizzly bears,
depredations follow. Although grizzly bears frequently coexist with
cattle without depredating them, when grizzly bears encounter domestic
sheep, they usually are attracted to such flocks and depredate the
sheep (Jonkel 1980, p. 12; Knight and Judd 1983, pp. 188-189; Orme and
Williams 1986, pp. 199-202; Anderson et al. 2002, pp. 252-253). If
repeated depredations occur, managers either relocate the bear or
remove it from the population, resulting in such domestic sheep areas
becoming
[[Page 14913]]
population sinks (Knight et al. 1988, pp. 122-123).
Because urban sites and sheep allotments possess high mortality
risks for grizzly bears, we did not include these areas as suitable
habitat (Knight et al. 1988, pp. 122-123). Based on 2000 Census data,
we defined urban areas as census blocks with human population densities
of more than 50 people per sq km (129 people per sq mi). Cities within
the Middle Rockies ecoregion such as West Yellowstone, Gardiner, Big
Sky, and Cooke City, Montana, and Jackson, Wyoming, were not included
as suitable habitat. There are large, contiguous blocks of sheep
allotments in peripheral areas of the ecosystem in the Wyoming Mountain
Range, the Salt River Mountain Range, and portions of the Wind River
Mountain Range on the Bridger-Teton and the Targhee National Forests
(see Figure 1 above). This spatial distribution of sheep allotments on
the periphery of suitable habitat results in areas of high mortality
risk to bears within these allotments and a few small, isolated patches
or strips of suitable habitat adjacent to or within sheep allotments.
These strips and patches of land possess higher mortality risks for
grizzly bears because of their enclosure by and proximity to areas of
high mortality risk. This phenomenon in which the quantity and quality
of suitable habitat is diminished because of interactions with
surrounding less suitable habitat is known as an ``edge effect'' (Lande
1988, pp. 3-4; Yahner 1988, pp. 335-337; Mills 1995, p. 396). Edge
effects are exacerbated in small habitat patches with high perimeter-
to-area ratios (i.e., those that are longer and narrower) and in wide-
ranging species such as grizzly bears because they are more likely to
encounter surrounding, unsuitable habitat (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998,
p. 2126). Due to the negative edge effects of this distribution of
sheep allotments on the periphery of grizzly range, our analysis did
not classify linear strips and isolated patches of habitat as suitable
habitat.
Finally, dispersal capabilities of grizzly bears were factored into
our determination of which potential habitat areas might be considered
suitable. Although the Bighorn Mountains west of I-90 near Sheridan,
Wyoming, are grouped within the Middle Rockies ecoregion, they are not
connected to the current distribution of grizzly bears via suitable
habitat or linkage zones, nor are there opportunities for such linkage.
The Bighorn Mountains are comprised of 6,341 sq km (2,448 sq mi) of
habitat that is classified as part of the Middle Rockies ecoregion, but
are separated from the current grizzly bear distribution by
approximately 100 km (60 mi) of a mosaic of private and BLM lands
primarily used for agriculture, livestock grazing, and oil and gas
production (Chapman et al. 2004). Although there is a possibility that
individual bears may emigrate from the GYA to the Bighorns
occasionally, this dispersal distance exceeds the average dispersal
distance for both males (30 to 42 km (19 to 26 mi)) and females (10 to
14 km (6 to 9 mi)) (McLellan and Hovey 2001, p. 842, Proctor et al.
2004, p. 1108). Without constant emigrants from suitable habitat, the
Bighorns will not support a self-sustaining grizzly bear population.
Therefore, due to the fact that this mountain range is disjunct from
other suitable habitat and current grizzly bear distribution, our
analysis did not classify the Bighorns as suitable habitat within the
Yellowstone DPS boundaries.
Some areas that are not considered suitable habitat by our
definition are occasionally used by grizzly bears (4,635 sq km (1,787
sq mi)) (see Figure 1 above) (Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 209; Schwartz et
al. 2006b, pp. 64-66). The records of grizzly bears in these unsuitable
habitat areas are generally due to recorded grizzly bear/human
conflicts or to transient animals. These areas are defined as
unsuitable due to the high risk of mortality resulting from these
grizzly bear/human conflicts. These unsuitable habitat areas do not
permit grizzly bear reproduction or survival because bears that
repeatedly come into conflict with humans or livestock are usually
either relocated or removed from these areas.
According to the habitat suitability criteria described above, the
Yellowstone DPS contains approximately 46,035 sq km (17,774 sq mi) of
suitable grizzly bear habitat within the DPS boundaries; or roughly 24
percent of the total area within the DPS boundaries (see Figure 1
above). This amount of suitable habitat is sufficient to meet all
habitat needs of a recovered grizzly bear population and provide
ecological resiliency to the population through the availability of
widely distributed, high-quality habitat that will allow the population
to respond to environmental changes. Grizzly bears currently occupy
about 68 percent of that suitable habitat (31,481 sq km (12,155 sq mi))
(Schwartz et al. 2002, pp. 207-209; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66).
It is important to note that the current grizzly bear distribution
shown in Figure 1 does not mean that equal densities of grizzly bears
are found throughout the region. Instead, most grizzly bears
(approximately 84 to 90 percent of females with cubs-of-the-year) are
found within the PCA (Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66). Grizzly bear
use of suitable habitat may vary seasonally and annually with different
areas being more important than others in some seasons or years (Aune
and Kasworm 1989, pp. 48-62). An additional 14,554 sq km (5,619 sq mi)
of suitable habitat is currently unoccupied by grizzly bears (see
Figure 1 above) (Schwartz et al. 2002, pp. 207-209; Schwartz et al.
2006b, pp. 64-66). We expect natural recolonization of much, if not
all, of this area in the next few decades (Pyare et al. 2004, pp. 5-6).
Significant Portion of Range--We determined whether a portion of
the species range is significant based on the biological needs of the
species and the nature of the threats to the species. As stated above,
the factors we used to determine significance include, but may not be
limited to the following: Quality, quantity, and distribution of
habitat relative to the biological requirements of the species; the
historic value of the habitat to the species; the frequency of use of
the habitat; the uniqueness or importance of the habitat for other
reasons, such as breeding, feeding, migration, wintering, or
suitability for population expansion; genetic diversity (the loss of
genetically based diversity may substantially reduce the ability of the
species to respond and adapt to future environmental changes or
perturbations); and other biological factors (e.g. resilience to
recover from periodic disturbances or environmental variability).
After careful examination of the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in
the context of our definition of ``significant portion of its range,''
we have determined all suitable habitat in the DPS (as per our
definition above) (approximately 46,035 sq km (17,774 sq mi)) (see
Figure 1 above), to varying levels, is a significant portion of its
range. Within suitable habitat, the PCA represents the most significant
portion of the range. As such, this area is designated the ``primary''
conservation area and provides the highest levels of protective
management. This area was originally selected as the focus of our
recovery efforts because it was seen ``as an area large enough and of
sufficient habitat quality to support a recovered grizzly bear
population'' (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982, pp. 55-58; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41). This area includes approximately 51
percent of the suitable habitat within the DPS and approximately 84 to
90 percent of the population of female grizzly bears with cubs
(Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66). Because an estimated
[[Page 14914]]
86.5 percent of the GYA grizzly bears live within the PCA and these
bears have experienced positive annual population increases of 4
percent inside Yellowstone National Park, and 12 percent in the area
inside the PCA but outside of Yellowstone National Park (Schwartz et
al. 2006e, p. 58), the PCA is particularly biologically significant to
the Yellowstone DPS. It serves as a source area from which grizzly
bears can expand into peripheral areas and currently unoccupied
suitable habitat. Additionally, the PCA's geographic location in the
northwest corner of the DPS area adds to its biological significance
because it is the area nearest to other grizzly bear recovery
ecosystems. If and when connectivity is established among grizzly bear
populations in the lower 48 States, the PCA will play a role in
providing dispersers to other ecosystems and providing secure, quality
habitat for dispersers from other grizzly bear ecosystems. This portion
of the range is necessary for maintaining a recovered population.
While the PCA provides for the primary biological needs of the
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS, suitable habitat outside the PCA also
plays a role in ensuring the future viability of the species, in that
it allows for continued population expansion into adjacent areas of
public land in the GYA, and therefore, provides additional ecological
resiliency to respond to environmental change. Given this differential
level of importance, differential levels of management and protection
(one standard inside the PCA and another standard for suitable habitat
outside the PCA) are justified.
As noted above, we do not believe that areas of unsuitable habitat:
Contribute, in a meaningful way, to the biological requirements of the
species; are of especially important historical value; represent unique
habitats or other ecological features that provide adaptive
opportunities that are of conservation importance to the species; or,
are necessary to maintain genetic diversity. Unsuitable habitat, by and
large, constitutes less-productive peripheral habitat. Therefore, we
believe unsuitable habitat, as defined in this section above, is not
``significant'' to the conservation of the species and does not
constitute a significant portion of range. A lack of occupancy in
unsuitable habitat will not impact whether this population is likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Suitable Habitat Management within the Primary Conservation Area--
As per the Strategy and the habitat-based recovery criteria discussed
above, the PCA will be a core secure area for grizzlies where human
impacts on habitat conditions will be maintained at or below levels
that existed in 1998 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 38). The
1998 baseline for habitat standards was chosen because the levels of
secure habitat and developed sites remained relatively constant in the
10 years preceding 1998 (USDA Forest Service 2004, pp. 140-141), and
the selection of 1998 assured that the habitat conditions that allowed
the population to increase at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year (Harris
et al. 2006, p. 48) would be maintained. For each of the 40 bear
management subunits, the 1998 baseline was determined through a GIS
analysis of the amount of secure habitat, open and closed road
densities, the number and capacity of livestock allotments, the number
of developed sites on public lands, and habitat effectiveness.
Secure habitat refers to those areas with no motorized access that
are at least 4 ha (10 ac) in size and more than 500 m (1650 ft) from a
motorized access route or reoccurring helicopter flight line (USDA
Forest Service 2004, pp. 160-161). Grizzly bear habitat security is
primarily achieved by managing motorized access which--(1) minimizes
human interaction and reduces potential grizzly bear mortality risk;
(2) minimizes displacement from important habitat; (3) minimizes
habituation to humans; and (4) provides habitat where energetic
requirements can be met with limited disturbance from humans (Mattson
et al. 1987, pp. 269-271; McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. 458-459;
McLellan 1989, pp. 1862-1864; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402-1403; Mattson
et al. 1996, pp. 1014-1015). Secure habitat is important to the
survival and reproductive success of grizzly bears, especially adult
female grizzly bears (Mattson et al. 1987, p. 270; Interagency Grizzly
Bear Committee 1994, p. 2). In the 1998 baseline, secure habitat
comprised 45.4 to 100 percent of the total area within a given subunit
with an average of 85.6 percent throughout the entire PCA (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 133-144, Appendix F). These levels of
secure habitat have been successfully maintained and will continue to
be maintained and improved, where possible, as directed by the Strategy
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 135, Table 2 in Appendix F).
Because of the positive effect that secure habitat has on grizzly bear
survival and reproduction, it is especially important to maintain these
levels of secure habitat inside the PCA so that it will continue to
function as a source area for grizzly bears.
Open road densities of more than 1.6 km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi) were
calculated for two seasons to account for seasonal road closures. The
percentage of land within each subunit containing road density values
higher than 1.6 km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi) in 1998 ranged from 0 to 46.1
percent, although the average for all subunits was only 10.7 percent.
Lands containing total road density values of more than 3.2 km/2.6 sq
km (2 mi/sq mi) in 1998 comprised 0 to 28.1 percent of the total area
within each subunit, with an average for all subunits of 5.3 percent
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 135). These levels of
motorized access have been effectively maintained or improved from 1998
levels. The Strategy assures that current levels of secure habitat will
be maintained at 1998 levels (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p.
38).
Several subunits within the boundaries of the Gallatin National
Forest (Henry's Lake No. 2, Gallatin No. 3, and Madison No. 2) within
the PCA have been identified as needing improvement in access
parameters. However, the high road density values and subsequently low
levels of secure habitat in these subunits is primarily due to
motorized access on private land (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007,
p. 145-152, Appendix G). The Gallatin National Forest is working on
several land exchange efforts with private parties in these subunits.
These land exchanges would allow management of the roads on these
private parcels and increase the secure habitat in these subunits. All
the above-mentioned subunits on the Gallatin National Forest have the
potential for improvement in the long term. The timing and amount of
improvement will be determined through the Gallatin National Forest
travel management planning process (Gallatin National Forest 2006, pp.
82-85). Improved levels of secure habitat as per the Gallatin National
Forest travel management plan will assure that the habitat security
will be maintained.
The Gallatin Range Consolidation and Protection Act of 1993 (Pub. L
103-91) and the Gallatin Range Consolidation Act of 1998 (Pub. L 105-
267) will result in trading timber for land in the Gallatin No. 3 and
Hilgard No. 1 subunits. The private land involved will become public
land under the jurisdiction of the Gallatin National Forest. In order
to complete the exchange, access values in these two subunits will
temporarily decline below 1998 values. However, upon completion of this
sale and land
[[Page 14915]]
exchange, secure habitat will increase and motorized access route
density will decrease in these subunits from the 1998 baseline (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 133-144, Appendix F).
The Strategy also identified several subunits within the boundaries
of the Targhee National Forest within the PCA in need of improvement in
terms of motorized access (Plateau No. 1, Plateau No. 2, and Henry's
Lake No. 1). The Strategy states that full implementation of the access
management changes in the revised 1997 Targhee Forest Plan would result
in those subunits having acceptable levels of road densities and secure
habitat, due to the decommissioning of roughly 697 km (433 mi) of roads
within the PCA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 43-44). As of
2005, the Targhee National Forest completed this decommissioning work
(USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 200-201). The 1998 baseline (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 133-144, Appendix F) for these subunits
was modified to reflect these road closures. Henry's Lake subunit No. 1
and No. 2 still have high levels of motorized access density and a low
secure habitat level due to motorized access routes on private lands as
well as county roads, State and Federal highways, and roads to special
use sites (such as the Federal Aviation Administration radar site on
Sawtell Peak) that cannot be closed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2007, pp. 133-144, Appendix F). These levels of secure habitat do not
constitute a threat to the grizzly bear population in all or a
significant portion of its range.
At least 3 million people visit and recreate in the National Parks
and National Forests of the GYA annually (USDA Forest Service 2006a,
pp. 176, 184). This volume of people in grizzly bear habitat presents a
potential for grizzly bear/human conflicts, yet the average number of
conflicts per year between 1992 and 2004 was only 135 (Gunther et al.
2006, p. 58). Based on past trends, visitation and recreation are
expected to increase in the future. For instance, Yellowstone National
Park has shown an approximate 15 percent annual increase in the number
of people visiting each decade since the 1930s (USDA Forest Service
2006a, p. 183); however, the number of people recreating in the
backcountry there has remained relatively constant from the 1970s
through 1999 (Gunther 2000, p. 48). Many grizzly bear/human conflicts
with people recreating occur on National Forest lands and are related
to hunting (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21) (also see our discussion under
Factor C below). Black bear hunting is not allowed in either National
Park and elk hunting is only allowed in Grand Teton National Park. Elk
hunters in Grand Teton National Park are required to carry bear pepper
spray in an accessible location. The number of elk hunter visits in the
PCA on National Forests has declined 26 percent from 1991 to 2001 (USDA
Forest Service 2006a, p. 186). Most conflicts between grizzly bears and
people recreating in grizzly bear habitat can be avoided if proper I &
E materials are received and used, especially pertaining to food and
carcass storage, and therefore ensure the Yellowstone DPS is not likely
to become endangered in all or a significant portion of its range
within the foreseeable future.
Recreation in the GYA can be divided into 6 basic categories based
on season of use (winter or all other seasons), mode of access
(motorized or non-motorized), and level of development (developed or
dispersed) (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 187). Inside the PCA, the
vast majority of lands available for recreation are accessible through
non-motorized travel only (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 179).
Motorized recreation during the summer, spring, and fall inside the PCA
will be limited to existing roads as per the standards in the Strategy
that restrict increases in roads or motorized trails. Similarly,
recreating at developed sites such as lodges, downhill ski areas, and
campgrounds will be limited by the developed sites' habitat standard
described in the Strategy. The number and capacity of existing
developed sites will not increase once delisting occurs. For a more
complete discussion of projected increases in recreation in the GYA
National Forests, see the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the GYA
National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 176-189).
Habitat standards described in the Strategy regarding livestock
require that the number of commercial livestock allotments and
permitted sheep animal months within the PCA not increase above 1998
levels (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 43). Livestock
allotments, particularly sheep allotments, decrease habitat security
(i.e., habitat effectiveness) as grizzly bears occupying lands with
sheep are more likely to come into conflict with these sheep. This
increase in encounters between bears and livestock or their human
owners decreases survival rates of grizzly bears in areas of active
sheep allotments, as repeat depredators are removed from the
population. Although sheep and cattle also can compete directly to some
degree with grizzly bears during late spring and early summer for
desired foods such as grasses, sedges, and forbs (Jonkel 1980, p. 12),
this is considered negligible to grizzly bear population dynamics. Due
to the higher prevalence of grizzly bear conflicts associated with
sheep grazing, existing sheep allotments will be phased out as the
opportunity arises with willing permittees (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007, p. 43).
A total of 100 livestock allotments existed inside the PCA in 1998.
Of these allotments, there were--69 active and 13 vacant cattle
allotments; and 11 active and 7 vacant sheep allotments with a total of
23,090 animal months (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 382). Sheep animal
months are calculated by multiplying the permitted number of animals by
the permitted number of months. Any use of vacant allotments will only
be permitted after an analysis is completed to evaluate impacts on
grizzly bears. Since 1998, the Caribou-Targhee National Forest has
closed five sheep allotments within the PCA while the Shoshone National
Forest has closed two sheep allotments (USDA Forest Service 2005, p.
50). This has resulted in a reduction of 7,889 sheep animal months
under the total calculated for 1998 within the PCA, and is a testament
to the commitment land management agencies have to the ongoing success
of the grizzly bear population in the GYA. As of 2006, there are a
total of two active sheep allotments within the PCA, both on the
Targhee National Forest. The permittee of the two allotments on the
Gallatin National Forest that were active in 2005 when the Proposed
rule was published, agreed to waive the grazing permit back to the
Gallatin National Forest without preference and these two sheep
allotments were closed in 2006. The Gallatin National Forest plans to
close three other vacant allotments when they revise their current
Forest Plan. This Forest Plan revision process is scheduled to be
completed by 2010 (USDA Forest Service 2005, p. 11). The mandatory
restriction on creating new livestock allotments and the voluntary
phasing out of livestock allotments with recurring conflicts further
ensure that the PCA will continue to function as source habitat.
The National Parks and National Forests within the PCA will manage
developed sites at 1998 levels within each bear management subunit,
with some exceptions for administrative and maintenance needs (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 38-56). Developed sites refer to
sites on public land developed or improved for human
[[Page 14916]]
use or resource development. Examples include campgrounds, trailheads,
lodges, summer homes, restaurants, visitor centers, oil and gas
exploratory wells, production wells, and work camps. The primary
concerns related to developed sites are direct mortality from bear/
human encounters, food conditioning, and habituation of bears to humans
(Mattson et al. 1987, p. 271). Habituation occurs when grizzly bears
encounter humans or developed sites frequently, and without negative
consequences, so that the bears no longer avoid humans and areas of
human activity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 6). Habituation
does not necessarily involve human-related food sources. Food
conditioning occurs when grizzly bears receive human-related sources of
food and thereafter seek out humans and human use areas as feeding
sites (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 6). In areas of suitable
habitat inside the PCA, the National Park Service and the USDA Forest
Service enforce food storage rules aimed at decreasing grizzly bear
access to human foods (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 23-24).
These regulations will continue to be enforced and are in effect, or
proposed, for all currently occupied grizzly bear habitat within the
Yellowstone DPS boundaries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp.
23-24).
Gunther (1994, pp. 558-559) noted that grizzly bear management in
Yellowstone National Park has shifted from problems involving food-
conditioned bears to problems involving habituated (but not food-
conditioned) bears seeking natural foods within developed areas or
along roadsides. New or expanded developed sites can impact bears
through temporary or permanent habitat loss and displacement, increased
length of time of human use, increased human disturbance to surrounding
areas, and, potentially unsecured bear attractants.
Developed sites on public lands are currently inventoried in
existing GIS databases and are input in the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
Cumulative Effects Model. As of 1998, there were 598 developed sites on
public land within the PCA (USDA Forest Service 2005, pp. 56-57). All
changes in developed sites since 1998 have been evaluated against the
baseline and have been determined to be acceptable under the standard
for developed sites identified in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007, pp. 44-45). For a new developed site to be determined
acceptable, it must be demonstrated that it will have no effect on
grizzly bears (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 42). For
example, a cell phone tower would fit this criterion because there is
no human occupancy, nor human attractants such as garbage or other
potential food sources. However, campgrounds, trailheads, lodges,
summer homes, restaurants, visitor centers, oil and gas exploratory
wells, production wells, and work camps would not be considered
acceptable. Inside the PCA, no changes in the 1998 baseline have
occurred in terms of site developments. The maintenance of the number
and capacity of developed sites at 1998 levels further protects this
significant portion of the DPS' range and ensures the Yellowstone DPS
is not likely to become endangered in all or a significant portion of
its range within the foreseeable future.
Management of oil, gas, and mining are tracked as part of the
developed site monitoring effort (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007,
p. 44). There were no active oil and gas leases inside the PCA as of
1998 (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 209). There are approximately 631
sq km (244 sq mi) of secure habitat potentially available for timber
projects and 243 sq km (94 sq mi) of secure habitat that allows surface
occupancy for oil and gas, projects within the PCA (USDA Forest Service
2006a, Figures 48, 96). This comprises less than 4 percent of all
suitable habitat within the PCA. Additionally, 1,354 mining claims
existed in 10 of the subunits inside the PCA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007, p.134, Appendix F), but only 27 of these mining claims
had operating plans. These operating plans are included in the 1998
developed site baseline. Under the conditions of the Strategy, any new
project will be approved only if it conforms to secure habitat and
developed site standards (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 44-
45). For instance, any project that reduces the amount of secure
habitat permanently will have to provide replacement secure habitat of
equivalent habitat quality (as measured by the Cumulative Effects Model
or equivalent technology) and any change in developed sites will
require mitigation equivalent to the type and extent of the impact, and
such mitigation must be in place before project initiation or be
provided concurrently with project development as an integral part of
the project plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 40-41). For
projects that temporarily change the amount of secure habitat, only one
project is allowed in any subunit at any time (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007, pp. 40-41). Mitigation of any project will occur within
the same subunit and will be proportional to the type and extent of the
project (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 40-41).
Finally, we established a habitat effectiveness baseline by
documenting habitat effectiveness values using the Cumulative Effects
Model and 1998 habitat data (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp.
52-53). Habitat effectiveness values reflect the relative amount of
energy (derived from natural foods) that is available to grizzly bears
given their response to human activities. Important foods are key
habitat-based criteria. The inverse relationship between whitebark pine
cone production and grizzly conflicts in the Yellowstone Ecosystem has
been documented (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Gunther et al. 1997, p.
38; Gunther et al. 2004, pp. 13-14). However, the relationship between
other important foods such as spring ungulate carcasses, cutworm moths,
and cutthroat trout is not as clear cut. Therefore, it is important to
monitor foods and continue to relate major food abundance to
demographics and human/bear conflicts. Monitoring habitat effectiveness
using the Cumulative Effects Model is valuable in understanding and
maintaining important habitats for grizzly bears. The Study Team will
continue coordinating with the National Forests and National Parks
within the PCA to update and evaluate habitat effectiveness against the
1998 baseline.
To establish the 1998 baseline for habitat effectiveness values,
the USDA Forest Service calculated habitat effectiveness within each
subunit for four important bear seasons--spring (March 1 to May 15);
estrus (May 16 to July 15); early hyperphagia (July 16 to August 31);
and late hyperphagia (September 1 to November 30) (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 133-144, Table 6 in Appendix F). High
habitat effectiveness values during estrus are associated with
cutthroat trout spawning streams (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007,
p. 140). Similarly, high habitat effectiveness values during early
hyperphagia and late hyperphagia are associated with moth aggregation
sites and whitebark pine, respectively (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2007, p. 140). Habitat effectiveness values also are directly
influenced by the amount of secure habitat in a subunit. This
combination of the distribution and abundance of natural foods and the
distribution and abundance of human activities produces relative values
indicative of how effective a certain subunit is at supporting grizzly
bear growth, reproduction, and survival (U.S. Fish
[[Page 14917]]
and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 140). As such, values varied widely among
seasons and across seasons within subunits (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007, p 141, Table 6 in Appendix F). Because the National Park
Service and the USDA Forest Service have not changed levels of road
densities, secure habitat, developed sites, or livestock allotments
except to improve upon the 1998 baseline, the 1998 habitat
effectiveness values remain applicable. Regardless of habitat
effectiveness values, the Yellowstone grizzly bear population has
continued to grow and expand in distribution (Harris et al. 2006, p.
48; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66). Upon delisting, the USDA Forest
Service will measure changes in seasonal habitat effectiveness values
in each Bear Management Unit and subunit by regular application of the
Cumulative Effects Model or best available system and compare outputs
with the 1998 baseline values (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp.
52-53). The Cumulative Effects Model provides a relative index of
habitat change over time and how it has increased or decreased since
1998. The Cumulative Effects Model databases will be reviewed annually
and updated as needed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 52-53).
The Strategy calls for maintaining or improving the existing
habitat effectiveness values in secure habitat in each subunit but
recognizes that they change annually and seasonally due to natural
processes such a wildfire and natural variations (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 52-53). The best way to maintain existing
habitat effectiveness values is to manage motorized access and
developed sites, as described in the Strategy. Private land development
also will be monitored and linked to numbers of human-bear conflicts,
causes of human-bear conflicts, and distribution of human-bear
conflicts so as to direct management efforts to improve food supply and
minimize bear/human conflicts in such areas.
Within the PCA, each National Forest and National Park will monitor
adherence to the secure habitat, developed site, and livestock
standards inside the PCA, as established by the Strategy (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2007, p. 64). The Study Team will monitor habitat
effectiveness and track any changes to the habitat from fire, insects,
and disease, and other human activities not measured by the habitat
standard monitoring efforts. The agencies will measure changes in
seasonal habitat value and effectiveness in each bear management unit
and subunit by regular application of the Cumulative Effects Model or
the best available system, and compare outputs to the 1998 baseline.
These databases incorporate information regarding vegetation, the
abundance and distribution of the four major bear foods, location,
duration, and intensity of use for motorized access routes, non-
motorized access routes, developed sites, and front-country and back-
country dispersed uses. The Study Team will review Cumulative Effects
Model databases annually to refine and verify Cumulative Effects Model
assumptions and update them as needed to reflect changes in intensity
or duration of human use. The Coordinating Committee may review and
revise habitat standards based on the best available science, after
appropriate public processes have been conducted by the affected land
management agencies.
To prevent habitat fragmentation and degradation, the Strategy
requires that all road construction projects in suitable habitat on
Federal lands throughout the entire GYA (both inside and outside of the
PCA) evaluate the impacts of the project on grizzly habitat
connectivity during the NEPA process (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2007, pp. 38-39). By identifying areas used by grizzly bears, officials
can mitigate potential impacts from road construction both during and
after a project. Federal agencies will identify important crossing
areas by collecting information about known bear crossings, bear
sightings, ungulate road mortality data, bear home range analyses, and
locations of game trails. Potential advantages of this requirement
include reduction of grizzly bear mortality due to vehicle collisions,
access to seasonal habitats, maintenance of traditional dispersal
routes, and decreased fragmentation of individual home ranges. For
example, work crews will place temporary work camps in areas with lower
risk of displacing grizzly bears, and food and garbage will be kept in
bear-proof containers. Highway planners will incorporate warning signs
and crossing structures such as culverts or underpasses into projects
when possible to facilitate safe highway crossings by wildlife.
``Suitable Habitat'' Management Outside the Primary Conservation
Area--In suitable habitat outside of the PCA within the DPS, the USDA
Forest Service, BLM, and State wildlife agencies will monitor habitat
and population criteria to prevent potential threats to habitat,
ensuring that the measures of the Act continue to be unnecessary
(Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 2-
3; MTFWP 2002, p. 2; WGFD 2005, p. 1; USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp.
44-45; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 5). Factors impacting
suitable habitat outside of the PCA in the future may include increased
road densities, livestock allotments, developed sites, human presence,
and habitat fragmentation. Both Federal and State agencies are
committed to managing habitat so that the measures of the Act are not
required to assure the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is not likely to
become endangered in all or a significant portion of its range in the
foreseeable future (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 12-85;
Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 2-3;
MTFWP 2002, p. 2; WGFD 2005, p. 1) (see Factor D below). In suitable
habitat outside of the PCA, restrictions on human activities are more
flexible but still the USDA Forest Service, BLM, and State wildlife
agencies will carefully manage these lands, monitor bear/human
conflicts in these areas, and respond with management as necessary to
reduce such conflicts to account for the complex needs of both grizzly
bears and humans (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 58; Idaho's
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 16-17; MTFWP
2002, pp. 55-56; WGFD 2005, pp. 25-26; USDA Forest Service 2006b, pp.
A1-A27).
Currently, there are 22,783 sq km (8,797 sq mi) of suitable habitat
outside of the PCA within the DPS boundaries (see Figure 1 above). Of
this, 17,292 sq km (6,676 sq mi) are on National Forest lands. About 10
to 16 percent of the population of female grizzly bears with cubs
occurs outside the PCA (Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66). Management
decisions on USDA Forest Service lands will continue to consider
potential impacts on grizzly bear habitat and will be managed so as to
maintain the habitat conditions necessary to support a recovered
grizzly bear population (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26).
Approximately 79 percent of suitable habitat outside the PCA on
National Forest lands within the DPS is currently designated a
Wilderness Area (6,799 sq km (2,625 sq mi)), a Wilderness Study Area
(708 sq km (273 sq mi)), or an Inventoried Roadless Area (6,179 sq km
(2,386 sq mi). The amount of designated Wilderness Area, Wilderness
Study Area, and Inventoried Roadless Area within each National Forest
ranges from 56 to 90 percent, depending upon the forest. This large
area of widely distributed habitat allows for continued population
expansion and provides
[[Page 14918]]
additional resiliency to environmental change.
Wilderness areas outside of the PCA are considered secure because
they are protected from new road construction by Federal legislation.
In addition to restrictions on road construction, the Wilderness Act of
1964 (Pub. L. 88-577) also protects designated wilderness from
permanent human habitation and increases in developed sites. The
Wilderness Act allows livestock allotments existing before the passage
of the Wilderness Act and mining claims staked before January 1, 1984,
to persist within wilderness areas, but no new grazing permits or
mining claims can be established after these dates. If pre-existing
mining claims are pursued, the plans of operation are subject to
Wilderness Act restrictions on road construction, permanent human
habitation, and developed sites.
Wilderness study areas are designated by Federal land management
agencies (e.g., USDA Forest Service) as those having wilderness
characteristics and being worthy of congressional designation as a
wilderness area. Individual National Forests that designate wilderness
study areas manage these areas to maintain their wilderness
characteristics until Congress decides whether to designate them as
permanent wilderness areas. This means that individual wilderness study
areas are protected from new road construction by Forest Plans. As
such, they are safeguarded from decreases in grizzly bear security.
Furthermore, activities such as timber harvest, mining, and oil and gas
development are much less likely to occur because the road networks
required for these activities are unavailable. However, because these
lands are not congressionally protected, they could experience changes
in management prescription with Forest Plan revisions.
Inventoried Roadless Areas currently provide 4,891 sq km (1,888 sq
mi) of secure habitat for grizzly bears outside of the PCA within the
DPS boundaries. A USDA Forest Service Interim Directive (69 FR 42648,
July 16, 2004) which instructs National Forests to preserve the
``roadless characteristics'' of roadless areas remained in effect until
November 2006. In September 2006, a Federal court remanded the 2005
State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management Rule (70 FR
25653-25662, May 13, 2005) and reinstated the 2001 Roadless Areas
Conservation Rule (66 FR 3244-3273, January 12, 2001) (see Factor D
below for a more complete discussion of this court decision and the two
different Federal Rules issued regarding Roadless Area Management). The
2001 Roadless Areas Conservation Rule prohibits road construction, road
re-construction, and timber harvest in Inventoried Roadless Areas (66
FR 3244-3273, January 12, 2001). This restriction on road building
makes mining activities and oil and gas production much less likely
because access to these resources becomes cost-prohibitive or
impossible without new roads. Potential changes in the management of
these areas are not anticipated, but are discussed further under Factor
D.
An estimated 7,195 sq km (2,778 sq mi) of suitable habitat outside
the PCA on USDA Forest Service lands within the DPS could experience
permanent or temporary changes in road densities. Because grizzly bears
will remain on the USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species list after
delisting and will be classified as a ``species of concern'' (USDA
Forest Service 2006b, p. 26) under the 2005 USDA Forest Service
Planning Regulations, any increases in roads on National Forests would
have to comply with National Forest Management Act and be subject to
the NEPA process considering potential impacts to grizzly bears.
Importantly, all three State grizzly bear management plans
recognize the importance of areas that provide security for grizzly
bears in suitable habitat outside of the PCA within the DPS boundaries
on Federal lands. Although State management plans apply to all suitable
habitat outside of the PCA, habitat management on public lands is
directed by Federal land management plans, not State management plans.
The Montana and Wyoming plans recommend limiting average road densities
to 1.6 km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi) or less in these areas (MTFWP 2002,
pp. 32-34; WGFD 2005, pp. 22-25). Both States have similar standards
for elk habitat on State lands and note that these levels of motorized
access benefit a variety of wildlife species while maintaining
reasonable public access. Similarly, the Idaho State plan recognizes
that management of motorized access outside the PCA should focus on
areas that have road densities of 1.6 km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi) or
less. The area most likely to be occupied by grizzly bears outside the
PCA in Idaho is on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The 1997
Targhee Forest Plan includes motorized access standards and
prescriptions outside the PCA with management prescriptions that
provide for long-term security in 59 percent of existing secure habitat
outside of the PCA (USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 78, 109).
In suitable habitat outside the PCA within the DPS boundaries,
there are roughly 150 active cattle allotments and 12 active sheep
allotments (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 129). The Targhee Forest
closed two of these sheep allotments in 2004 (USDA Forest Service
2006a, p. 168). The USDA Forest Service will allow these allotments
within suitable habitat to persist along with other existing livestock
allotments outside of suitable habitat. Although conflicts with
livestock have the potential to result in mortality for grizzly bears,
the Strategy will prevent mortality from exceeding established
sustainable mortality limits and preclude population level impacts. The
Strategy directs the Study Team to monitor and spatially map all
grizzly bear mortalities (both inside and outside the PCA), causes of
death, the source of the problem, and alter management to maintain a
recovered population and prevent the need to relist the population
under the Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 31-34).
There are over 500 developed sites on the 6 National Forests in the
areas identified as suitable habitat outside the PCA within the DPS
boundaries (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 138). Grizzly bear/human
conflicts at developed sites are the most frequent reason for
management removals (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Existing USDA Forest
Service food storage regulations for these areas will continue to
minimize the potential for grizzly bear/human conflicts through food
storage requirements, outreach, and education. The number and capacity
of developed sites will be subject to management direction established
in Forest Plans. Should the Study Team determine developed sites are
related to increases in mortality beyond the sustainable limits
discussed above, they may recommend closing specific developed sites or
otherwise altering management in the area in order to maintain a
recovered population and prevent the need to relist the population
under the Act. Due to the USDA Forest Service's commitment to manage
National Forest lands in the GYA such that a viable grizzly bear
population is maintained (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 42-
43; USDA Forest Service 2006b, pp. iii, A-6), we do not expect
livestock allotments or developed sites in suitable habitat outside of
the PCA to reach densities that are likely to threaten the Yellowstone
DPS in all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable
future.
Less than 19 percent (3,213 sq km (1,240 sq mi)) of suitable
habitat outside the PCA within the DPS boundaries on
[[Page 14919]]
USDA Forest Service land allows surface occupancy for oil and gas
development and 11 percent (1,926 sq km (744 sq mi)) has both suitable
timber and a management prescription that allows scheduled timber
harvest. The primary impacts to grizzly bears associated with timber
harvest and oil and gas development are increases in road densities,
with subsequent increases in human access, grizzly bear/human
encounters, and human-caused grizzly bear mortalities (McLellan and
Shackleton 1988, pp. 458-459; McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. 377-
379; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402-1403). Although seismic exploration
associated with oil and gas development or mining may disturb denning
grizzly bears (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278; Reynolds et al. 1986, pp.
174-175), actual den abandonment is rarely observed, and there has been
no documentation of such abandonment by grizzly bears in the GYA.
Additionally, only a small portion of this total land area will contain
active projects at any given time, if at all. For example, among the
roughly 1,926 sq km (744 sq mi) identified as having both suitable
timber and a management prescription that allows timber harvest, from
2000 to 2002, an average of only 5 sq km (2 sq mi) was actually logged
annually (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 118). Similarly, although nearly
3,213 sq km (1,240 sq mi) of suitable habitat on National Forest lands
allow surface occupancy for oil and gas development, there currently
are no active wells inside these areas (USDA Forest Service 2004, pp.
170-171).
Ultimately, the six affected National Forests (the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, Gallatin, and
Shoshone) will manage the number of roads, livestock allotments,
developed sites, timber harvest projects, and oil and gas wells outside
of the PCA in suitable habitat to allow for a viable grizzly bear
population and ensure that the Yellowstone DPS is not likely to become
endangered in all or a significant portion of its range within the
foreseeable future. Because the grizzly bear will be classified as a
sensitive species (or a species of concern when Forest Management Plans
are again revised using the 2005 USDA Forest Service planning
regulations and the USDA Forest Service Manual), land management
activities will be managed so as to a provide for the needs of a
recovered population. Any road construction, timber harvest, or oil and
gas projects would require compliance with the NEPA and the National
Forest Management Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 1600), considering all
potential impacts to the Yellowstone grizzly bear population and its
habitat.
Rapidly accelerating growth of human populations in some areas in
grizzly bear habitat within the DPS boundaries but outside of the PCA
continues to define the limits of grizzly habitat, and will likely
limit the expansion of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population onto
private lands in some areas outside the PCA. Urban and rural sprawl
(low-density housing and associated businesses) has resulted in
increasing numbers of grizzly bear/human conflicts with subsequent
increases in grizzly bear mortality rates. Private lands account for a
disproportionate number of bear deaths and conflicts (see Figures 15
and 16 in the Strategy). Nearly 9 percent of all suitable habitat
outside of the PCA is privately owned. As private lands are developed
and as secure habitat on private lands declines, State and Federal
agencies will work together to balance impacts from private land
development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 54). Outside the
PCA, State agencies will assist non-government organizations and other
entities to identify and prioritize potential lands suitable for
permanent conservation through easements and other means as possible
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 54). Due to the large areas of
widely distributed suitable habitat on public lands managed by agencies
committed to the maintenance of a recovered grizzly bear population,
human population growth on private lands is not likely to endanger the
Yellowstone DPS in all or a significant portion of its range in the
foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A--In summary, the primary factors related to
past habitat destruction and modification have been directly addressed
through changes in management practices. Within suitable habitat,
differential levels of management and protection (one standard inside
the PCA and another standard for suitable habitat outside the PCA) are
applied to areas based on their level of importance. Within the PCA,
the most significant portion of the range where 84 to 90 percent of the
females with cubs live (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 66), comprehensive
protections are in place. For this area, the Service developed
objective and measurable habitat criteria concerning secure habitat,
human site developments, and livestock allotments which will be habitat
requirements on public lands once this final rule becomes effective
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 39-45). In addition, the
Study Team, State, National Park Service, and USDA Forest Service
biologists and technicians will monitor the availability and abundance
of the four major foods, and of habitat value and habitat effectiveness
using the Cumulative Effects Model or other appropriate methods (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 45-52). The Coordinating Committee
will respond to these monitoring data with adaptive management (Holling
1978, pp. 11-16) as per the Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2007, pp. 63-64). Accordingly, the PCA, which comprises 51 percent of
the suitable habitat within the DPS boundaries and is occupied by 84 to
90 percent of all females with cubs (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 64),
will be a highly secure area for grizzlies upon delisting, with habitat
conditions maintained at or above levels documented in 1998.
Maintenance of this portion of the range, as described above, will
satisfy the habitat requirements of the species relative the
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS's biological demands and is sufficient to
support a recovered grizzly bear population.
Suitable habitat outside the PCA is also significant, albeit to a
lesser extent, in that it allows for continued population expansion
into adjacent areas of public land in the GYA, and therefore, provides
additional ecological resiliency to respond to environmental change.
These areas will be carefully monitored and managed to ensure that the
measures of the Act are not again required. Management in this area
will provide for the complex needs of both grizzly bears and humans. In
suitable habitat outside the PCA on USDA Forest Service lands, 74
percent (12,860 sq km or 4,965 sq mi) is currently secure habitat, 68
percent of which (8,737 sq km or 3,373 sq mi) is likely to remain
secure. Areas outside the PCA contain 10 to 16 percent of GYA's females
with cubs (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 64). Management of public land
outside the PCA administered by State and Federal agencies also will
continue to consider potential impacts of management decisions on
grizzly bear habitat. Efforts by non-government organizations and State
and county agencies will seek to minimize bear/human conflicts on
private lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 54, 57-59).
These and other conservation measures discussed in this final rule will
allow for continued population expansion so that grizzly bears will
likely occupy the remainder of the suitable habitat within the DPS
within the foreseeable future.
A total of 88 percent of all suitable habitat within the DPS
boundaries (40,293 sq km (15,557 sq mi)) is
[[Page 14920]]
managed by the USDA Forest Service or National Park Service. These
public lands are already managed, and will continue to be managed, such
that adequate habitat for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is
maintained (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 38-56; USDA Forest
Service 2006b, pp. 4-7, 26). Significant areas of the suitable habitat
outside the PCA are designated as wilderness where human development
actions are prohibited. For example, 2,948 sq km (1,138 sq mi) of the
Wind River Range including almost all of the high elevation whitebark
pine stands are in designated Wilderness Areas. Habitat and population
standards described in the Strategy have been incorporated into
National Park Compendiums and National Forest Land Management Plans
(Yellowstone National Park 2006, p. 12; Grand Teton National Park, p.
1; USDA Forest Service 2006b, pp. 4-7, 26) (see Factor D below).
Collectively, these differential levels of management and protection
(one standard inside the PCA and another standard for suitable habitat
outside the PCA) guarantee appropriate protective measures for each
part of the significant portion of range.
Therefore, the lack of present or threatened destruction,
modification, or curtailment of the Yellowstone DPS's habitat and range
ensures this species is not likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of its range. No
current or foreseeable threats to habitat or range imperil the
recovered status of the Yellowstone DPS. And all areas necessary for
maintaining a recovered population are adequately safeguarded so that
this population no longer requires the measures of the Act to protect
habitat or range.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
No grizzly bears have been legally removed from the GYA in the last
30 years for commercial, recreational, or educational purposes. The
only commercial or recreational take anticipated post-delisting is a
limited, controlled hunt. The States will manage grizzly bears as a
game animal, potentially with a carefully regulated hunt (for a more
detailed discussion, see the State Management Plans section under
Factor D below). Should such a season be implemented, all hunting
mortalities will be counted toward the ecosystem-wide mortality limits
for the population and will be strictly controlled to assure that
mortality limits are not exceeded and the Yellowstone DPS is not likely
to become endangered in all or a significant portion of its range by
this discretionary mortality source. Significant take for educational
purposes is not anticipated. Mortality due to illegal poaching, defense
of life and property, mistaken identity or other accidental take, and
management removals are discussed under Factor C below.
Between 1980 and 1982, three accidental trap mortalities were
associated with scientific research (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21).
Since 1982, there has not been a single capture mortality associated
with research trapping in the GYA spanning more than 468 grizzly bear
captures (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Because of rigorous protocols
dictating proper bear capture, handling, and drugging techniques used
today, this type of scientific overutilization is not a threat to the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population. The Study Team, bear biologists,
and researchers will continue implementing these protocols after
delisting. Therefore, mortalities associated with scientific research
are likely to remain an insignificant factor in population dynamics
into the foreseeable future.
C. Disease or Predation
Disease--Although grizzly bears have been documented with a variety
of bacteria and other pathogens, parasites, and disease, fatalities are
uncommon (LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 61) and do not appear to have
population-level impacts on grizzly bears (Jonkel and Cowan 1971, pp.
31-32; Mundy and Flook 1973, p. 13; Rogers and Rogers 1976, p. 423).
Researchers have demonstrated that some grizzly bears have been
documented with brucellosis (type 4), clostridium, toxoplasmosis,
canine distemper, canine parvovirus, canine hepatitis, and rabies
(LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 61; Zarnke and Evans 1989, p. 586; Marsilio et
al. 1997, p. 304; Zarnke et al. 1997, p. 474). However, based on 30
years of research by the Study Team, natural mortalities in the wild
are rare (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 34-35) and it
is likely that mortalities due to any of these bacteria or pathogens
are negligible components of total mortality in the GYA. Disease is not
common in grizzly bears, and has only very rarely been documented in
Yellowstone grizzly bears (Craighead et al. 1988, p. 11). Disease is
likely to remain an insignificant factor in population dynamics into
the foreseeable future.
Natural Predation--Grizzly bears are occasionally killed by other
wildlife. Adult grizzly bears kill cubs, sub-adults, or other adults
(Stringham 1980, p. 337; Dean et al. 1986, pp. 208-211; Hessing and
Aumiller 1994, pp. 332-335; McLellan 1994, p. 15; Schwartz et al.
2003b, pp. 571-572). This type of intraspecific killing seems to occur
rarely (Stringham 1980, p. 337) and has only been observed among
Yellowstone grizzly bears in the GYA 14 times between 1986 and 2004
(Haroldson 2005). Wolves and grizzly bears often scavenge similar types
of carrion and, sometimes, will interact with each other in an
aggressive manner. From 1995 through 2003, Gunther and Smith (2004, pp.
233-236) documented 96 wolf-grizzly bear interactions and 2 incidents
in which wolf packs likely killed grizzly bear cubs. Overall, these
types of aggressive interactions among grizzly bears or with other
wildlife are rare and are likely to remain an insignificant factor in
population dynamics into the foreseeable future.
Human Predation--Humans have historically been the most effective
predators of grizzly bears. Excessive human-caused mortality is one of
the major contributing factors to grizzly bear decline during the
nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Leopold 1967, p. 30; Koford 1969,
p. 95; Servheen 1990, p. 1; Servheen 1999, pp. 50-52; Mattson and
Merrill 2002, pp. 1129, 1132; Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 571),
eventually leading to their listing as a threatened species in 1975.
Grizzlies were seen as a threat to livestock and to humans and,
therefore, an impediment to westward expansion. The Federal government,
as well as many of the early settlers in grizzly bear country, was
dedicated to eradicating large predators. Grizzly bears were shot,
poisoned, and killed wherever humans encountered them (Servheen 1999,
p. 50). By the time grizzlies were listed under the Act in 1975, there
were only a few hundred grizzly bears remaining in the lower 48 States
in less than 2 percent of their former range (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1993, pp. 8-12).
From 1973 to 2002, a total of 372 known grizzly bear deaths
occurred in the GYA (Haroldson and Frey 2003, p. 27). Of these, 272 (73
percent of total) were human-caused (Haroldson and Frey 2003, p. 27).
Since 1975, levels of human-caused mortality have remained relatively
constant (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 15). Although humans have been and
remain the single greatest cause of mortality for grizzly bears
(McLellan et al. 1999, pp. 914-916; Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21), rates
of human-caused mortality have been low enough to allow Yellowstone
bear population growth and range expansion (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48;
Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66). Implementation of the revised
mortality limits ensure that
[[Page 14921]]
mortality will continue to be managed at sustainable levels. Below we
consider human predation impacts including illegal poaching, defense of
life and property, accidental mortality, and management removals.
We define vandal killing as poaching, which is malicious, illegal
killing of a grizzly bears. People may kill grizzly bears for several
reasons, including a general perception that grizzly bears in the area
may be dangerous, frustration over depredations of livestock, or to
protest land use and road use restrictions associated with grizzly bear
habitat management (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Regardless of the
reason, poaching continues to occur. We are aware of at least 27 vandal
killings in the GYA between 1980 and 2002 (Servheen et al. 2004, p.
21). Although this level of take occurred during a period where
poaching was enforceable by Federal prosecution, we do not expect
vandal killing to significantly increase after delisting.
State and Federal law enforcement agents have cooperated to ensure
consistent enforcement of laws protecting grizzly bears. Currently,
State and Federal prosecutors and enforcement personnel from each State
and Federal jurisdiction work together to make recommendations to all
jurisdictions, counties, and States, on uniform enforcement,
prosecution, and sentencing relating to illegal grizzly bear kills.
Upon delisting, all three affected States will classify grizzly bears
of the Yellowstone population as game animals, which cannot be taken
without authorization by State wildlife agencies (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 72-75; Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 18-21; MTFWP 2002, p. 2; WGFD 2005,
p. 20). In other words, it will still be illegal for private citizens
to kill grizzly bears unless it is in self defense, they have a hunting
license issued by State wildlife agencies, or in the Montana portion of
the DPS, if a grizzly bear is caught in the act of attacking or killing
livestock (87-3-130 MCA). States will continue to enforce, prosecute,
and sentence poachers just as they do for any game animal such as elk,
black bears, and cougars. Although it is widely recognized that
poaching still occurs, this illegal source of mortality is not
significant enough to hinder the continuing growth and range expansion
of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population (Pyare et al. 2004, pp. 5-6;
Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 203).
One way to address vandal killing is to change human values,
perceptions, and beliefs about grizzly bears and Federal regulation of
public lands (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 27). To address the concerns of
user groups who have objections to land use restrictions that
accommodate grizzly bears, Federal and State agencies market the
benefits of restricting motorized access to multiple species. For
example, both Montana and Wyoming have recommendations for elk habitat
security similar to those for grizzly bears (less than 1.6 km/2.6 sq km
(1 mi/sq mi)) and this level of motorized access meets the needs of a
variety of wildlife species, while maintaining reasonable opportunities
for public access. To address the concerns of citizens who feel that
grizzly bears are a threat to their safety or their lifestyle, I & E
programs aim to change perspectives on the danger and behavior of
grizzly bears (for a detailed discussion of I & E programs, see Factor
E below).
From 1980 to 2002, humans killed 49 grizzly bears in self-defense
or defense of others. This constituted nearly 17 percent of known
grizzly bear mortalities during this time period (Servheen et al. 2004,
p. 21). These grizzly bear/human conflicts occurred primarily over
livestock or hunter-killed carcasses, but also at camp and home sites.
Federal and State agencies have many options to potentially reduce
these conflicts (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 27). By promoting the use of
pepper spray and continuing current I & E programs, many of these
grizzly bear deaths may be avoided.
Humans kill grizzly bears unintentionally with vehicles or by
mistaking them for other species when hunting. From 1980 to 2002, the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population incurred 9 mortalities from
roadkills and 13 mortalities associated with mistaken identification
(totaling 9 percent of known mortality for this time period) (Servheen
et al. 2004, p. 21). Measures to reduce vehicle collisions with grizzly
bears include removing roadkill carcasses from the road so that grizzly
bears are not attracted to the roadside (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 28).
Cost-effective mitigation efforts to facilitate safe crossings by
wildlife will be voluntarily incorporated in road construction or
reconstruction projects on Federal lands within suitable grizzly bear
habitat.
Mistaken identification of grizzly bears by black bear hunters is a
manageable source of mortality. The Strategy identifies I & E programs
targeted at hunters that emphasize patience, awareness, and correct
identification of targets to help reduce grizzly bear mortalities from
inexperienced black bear and ungulate hunters (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007, pp. 61-62). Beginning in license year 2002, the State of
Montana required that all black bear hunters pass a Bear Identification
Test before receiving a black bear hunting license (see http://fwp.state.mt.us/bearid/
for more information and details). In addition,
Montana and Wyoming include grizzly bear encounter management as a core
subject in basic hunter education courses (WGFD 2005, p. 34; MTFWP
2002, p. 63).
Big-game hunters in the GYA are another source of mortality for
grizzly bears. Between 1980 and 2002, 71 percent (35 of 49) of grizzly
bears killed in self defense were hunting-related (Servheen et al.
2004, p. 21). These deaths occur during surprise encounters in heavy
cover, at hunter-killed carcasses or gut piles, or when packing out
carcasses. Elk hunters in Grand Teton National Park are required to
carry pepper spray in an accessible location (WGFD 2006).
The last source of human predation on grizzly bears is associated
with management removal of nuisance bears following grizzly bear/human
conflicts. Effective nuisance bear management benefits the conservation
of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population by promoting tolerance of
grizzly bears and minimizing illegal killing of bears by citizens. The
Strategy and the State grizzly bear management plans will guide
nuisance bear management post-delisting. The Strategy is consistent
with current protocol as described in the Guidelines (USDA Forest
Service 1986, pp. 53-54), emphasizing the individual's importance to
the entire population, with females continuing to receive a higher
level of protection than males. Location, cause of incident, severity
of incident, history of the bear, health, age, and sex of the bear, and
demographic characteristics are all considered in any relocation or
removal action. Upon delisting, State and National Park Service bear
managers would continue to consult with each other and other relevant
Federal agencies (i.e., USDA Forest Service, BLM) before any nuisance
bear management decision is made, but consultation with us will no
longer be required. The Strategy emphasizes removal of the human cause
of the conflict when possible, or management and education actions to
limit such conflicts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007. pp. 57-60).
In addition, an I & E team will continue to coordinate the development,
implementation, and dissemination of programs and materials to aid in
preventative management of human/bear conflicts. The Strategy
recognizes that successful
[[Page 14922]]
management of grizzly bear/human conflicts requires an integrated,
multiple-agency approach to continue to keep human-caused grizzly bear
mortality within sustainable levels.
The largest increase in grizzly bear mortalities since 1994 is
related to grizzly bear/human conflicts at or near developed sites
(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). In fact, 20 percent (59 of 290) of known
mortalities between 1980 and 2002 were related to site conflicts
(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). These conflicts involved food-
conditioned bears actively seeking out human sources of food or bears
that are habituated to human presence seeking natural sources of food
in areas that are near human structures or roads. The increase in site
conflicts during the last decade is likely due to a combination of
encroaching human presence coinciding with an increasing and expanding
grizzly bear population. These conflicts usually involve attractants
such as garbage, human foods, pet/livestock/wildlife foods, livestock
carcasses, and wildlife carcasses, but also are related to attitudes
and personal levels of knowledge and tolerance toward grizzly bears.
Both State and Federal I & E programs are aimed primarily at reducing
grizzly bear/human conflicts proactively by educating the public about
potential grizzly bear attractants. Accordingly, roughly 68 percent of
the total budgets of the agencies responsible for implementing the
Strategy and managing the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS post-delisting
is for grizzly bear/human conflict management, outreach, and education
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, Appendix H, p. 154). To address
public attitudes and knowledge levels, I & E programs will present
grizzly bears as a valuable public resource while acknowledging the
potential dangers associated with them (for a detailed discussion of I
& E programs, see Factor E below).
Management removals due to grizzly bear conflicts with livestock
accounted for nearly 4 percent of known mortalities between 1980 and
2002 (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Several steps to reduce livestock
conflicts are currently underway. The USDA Forest Service and National
Park Service are phasing out sheep allotments within the PCA as
opportunities arise and, currently, only 2 active sheep allotments
inside the PCA remain (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 167). The USDA
Forest Service also has closed sheep allotments outside the PCA to
resolve conflicts with species such as bighorn sheep as well as grizzly
bears. Additionally, the alternative chosen by the USDA Forest Service
during their Environmental Impact Statement process to amend the six
national forest plans for grizzly bear habitat conservation includes
direction to resolve recurring conflicts on livestock allotments
through retirement of those allotments with willing permittees (USDA
Forest Service 2006b, pp. 16-17). Livestock grazing permits include
special provisions regarding reporting of conflicts, proper food and
attractant storage procedures, and carcass removal. The USDA Forest
Service monitors compliance to these special provisions associated with
livestock allotments annually (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 28). Upon
delisting, the USDA Forest Service will continue to implement these
measures that minimize grizzly bear conflicts with livestock. The
Strategy also recognizes that active management of individual nuisance
bears is required. Removal of repeat depredators of livestock has been
an effective tool for managing grizzly bear/livestock conflicts as most
depredations are done by a few individuals (Jonkel 1980, p. 12; Knight
and Judd 1983, p.188; Anderson et al. 2002, pp. 252-253).
The Study Team coordinates an annual analysis of the causes of
conflicts, known and probable mortalities, and proposed management
solutions (Servheen et al. 2004, pp. 1-29). The Yellowstone Ecosystem
Subcommittee reviews these reports and initiates appropriate action if
improvements in Federal or State management actions can minimize
conflicts. As directed by the Strategy, upon delisting, the Study Team
will continue to summarize nuisance bear control actions in their
Annual Reports and the Coordinating Committee will continue with their
review (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 60). The Study Team
also would continue preparing annual spatial distribution maps of
conflicts so that managers can identify where problems occur and
compare trends in locations, sources, land ownership, and types of
conflicts. This will facilitate proactive management of grizzly/human
conflicts.
Summary of Factor C--Overall, from 1980 to 2002, the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population incurred an average of 12.6 human-caused
grizzly bear mortalities per year (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21).
Despite these mortalities, the Yellowstone grizzly bear population has
continued to increase in size and expand its distribution in the last 2
decades (Eberhardt et al. 1994, pp. 361-362; Knight and Blanchard 1995,
pp. 2-11; Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 1-11; Harris et al. 2006, p.48; Pyare
et al. 2004, pp. 5-6; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66). Disease and
natural predation are not currently a threat, nor are they likely to
become a threat to the Yellowstone DPS in the foreseeable future in all
or a significant portion of its range. Although humans are still
directly or indirectly responsible for the majority of grizzly bear
deaths in suitable habitat within the DPS boundaries, we have learned
that this source of mortality can be effectively controlled through
management and I & E.
We have institutionalized careful management and monitoring of
human-caused mortality in the Strategy, Forest Plans, National Park
management plans, and State grizzly bear management plans (see Factor D
below). In addition, we revised our methodology for calculating the
total allowable mortality limits (see the Recovery; Population and
Demographic Management section above) to include natural mortalities
and estimates of unreported/undetected deaths, so that mortality in the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population can be managed at sustainable
levels. Because of these actions, human sources of mortality are not
currently a threat, nor are they likely to become a threat in the
foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of the Yellowstone
DPS's range. All significant areas are adequately protected.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
The lack of regulatory mechanisms to control take and protect
habitat was a contributing factor to grizzly bear population declines
(40 FR 31734-31736, July 28, 1975). Upon listing under the Act, the
grizzly bear immediately benefited from a Federal regulatory framework
that included prohibition of take (defined under the Act to include
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct); prohibition of
habitat destruction or degradation if such activities harm individuals
of the species; the requirement that Federal agencies ensure their
actions will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of the
species; and the requirement to develop and implement a recovery plan
for the species. These protective measures have improved the status of
the Yellowstone grizzly bear population to the point where delisting is
now appropriate.
The management of grizzly bears and their habitat draws from the
laws and regulations of the Federal and State agencies in the
Yellowstone DPS boundaries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp.
68-78). Forty Federal laws, rules, guidelines, strategies, and
[[Page 14923]]
reports and 33 State laws, statutes, and regulations are in place that
apply to management of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 157-160, Appendix J). These laws
and regulations provide the legal authority for controlling mortality,
providing secure habitats, managing grizzly bear/human conflicts,
controlling hunters, limiting access where necessary, controlling
livestock grazing, maintaining I & E programs to control conflicts,
monitoring populations and habitats, and requesting management and
petitions for relisting if necessary.
Recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is the result
of ongoing partnerships between Federal and State agencies, the
governors of these States, county and city governments, educational
institutions, numerous non-government organizations, private
landowners, and the public who live, work, and recreate in the GYA.
Just as recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population could not
have occurred without these excellent working relationships,
maintenance of a recovered grizzly population will be the result of the
continuation of these partnerships.
The Strategy is the plan which will guide the management and
monitoring of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population and its habitat
after delisting. It establishes a regulatory framework and authority
for Federal and State agencies to take over management of the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population from the Service. The Strategy also
identifies, defines, and requires adequate post-delisting monitoring to
maintain a healthy Yellowstone grizzly bear population (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 25-56). The Strategy is an adaptive and
dynamic document that allows for continuous updating based on new
scientific information (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 14).
The Strategy also has a clear response protocol that requires the
agencies to respond with active management changes to deviations from
the habitat and population standards in a timely and publicly
accessible manner (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 63-67). It
represents a decade-long collaborative effort between us and the USDA
Forest Service, National Park Service, BLM, U.S. Geological Survey, the
Study Team, IDFG, MTFWP, and WGFD. State grizzly bear management plans
were developed, reviewed, opened for public comment, revised, and
completed in all three affected States (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming)
(Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002; MTFWP
2002; WGFD 2005). These State plans were then incorporated into the
Strategy to ensure that the plans and the Strategy are consistent and
complementary (accessible at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm
). The Strategy then went through a
separate public comment process (65 FR 11340, March 2, 2000) before
being revised and finalized. All the State and Federal agencies which
are party to the agreement have signed a memorandum of understanding in
which they have agreed to implement the Strategy.
The Strategy and the State plans describe and summarize the
coordinated efforts required to manage the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population and its habitat such that its continued conservation is
ensured. The Strategy will direct management of grizzly bears inside
the PCA, the most significant portion of range, whereas the State plans
will cover all suitable habitat outside of the PCA. These documents
specify the population, habitat, and nuisance bear standards to
maintain a recovered grizzly bear population. The plans also document
the regulatory mechanisms and legal authorities, policies, management,
and post-delisting monitoring plans that exist to maintain the
recovered grizzly bear population. Overall, the measures committed to
in the Strategy and the State grizzly bear management plans provide
assurances to us that adequate regulatory mechanisms exist to maintain
a recovered grizzly bear population in the Yellowstone DPS after
delisting (i.e., they ensure that the species is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
In areas of suitable habitat outside of the PCA (areas considered
``significant'' to the extent that they allow for continued population
expansion into adjacent areas of public land in the GYA, and therefore,
provide additional ecological resiliency to respond to environmental
change), individual National Forest Plans and State grizzly bear
management plans apply. Upon delisting, the USDA Forest Service will
place grizzly bears on its Sensitive Wildlife Species list (USDA Forest
Service 2006b, p. 26). This requires the USDA Forest Service to conduct
a biological evaluation for any project which may ``result in loss of
species viability or create significant trends toward Federal listing''
(USDA Forest Service Manual 2006). Under the revised Forest Planning
Regulations (70 FR 1023, January 5, 2005), Yellowstone grizzly bears
will be classified as a ``species of concern'' (USDA Forest Service
2006b, p. 26). This designation provides protections similar to those
received when classified as a sensitive species and requires that
Forest Plans include additional provisions to accommodate these species
and provide adequate ecological conditions (i.e., habitats) to continue
to provide for the needs of a recovered population.
The USDA Forest Service conducted a NEPA analysis and produced a
Draft Environmental Impact Statement regarding the potential options
available, and the effects of implementing the Strategy (USDA Forest
Service 2004, p. iii). This analysis was undertaken by all six affected
National Forests (Beaverhead, Bridger-Teton, Custer, Gallatin,
Shoshone, and Targhee) in suitable habitat and was completed in July
2004 (accessible at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm
). The overall purpose of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement was to analyze the impacts of
incorporating the habitat standards outlined in the Strategy and other
relevant provisions into the Forest Plans of the six affected forests,
to ensure conservation of habitat to sustain the recovered Yellowstone
grizzly bear population. The USDA Forest Service Final Environmental
Impact Statement and Record of Decision were released in April 2006
(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 1; USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 36).
The chosen alternative from the Final Environmental Impact Statement
was Alternative 2-Modified to amend the Forest Plans to include all the
habitat standards described in the Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2006b,
p. iii). This alternative amends current Forest Plans in the GYA with
the habitat standards required in the Strategy. In addition,
Alternative 2-Modified includes guidance and direction for managing
suitable habitat, as described in the State plans, outside of the PCA.
This guidance and direction includes: a goal for accommodating grizzly
bears outside the PCA; direction on managing livestock allotments with
recurring conflicts through retirement of such allotments with willing
permittees; direction emphasizing the use of food storage orders to
minimize grizzly bear/human conflicts; a guideline to maintain, to the
extent feasible, important grizzly bear food resources; and several
monitoring items that will enhance habitat management outside of the
PCA (USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 34-37). These amendments to the GYA
National Forest Land Management Plans, completed within the framework
[[Page 14924]]
established by the 1982 planning regulations, become effective upon
delisting.
Under the revised Forest Planning Regulation (70 FR 1023, January
5, 2005), future revisions to Forest Plans will be based upon a ``need
for change'' approach. Under this approach, ``it is highly unlikely
that any changes relating to the Yellowstone grizzly bear amendments *
* * will be identified during the revision process'' (Aus 2005). ``This
means that the management direction developed in the amendment(s) will
be transferred to the new planning format and will not change. The
bottom line is that any potential changes to management direction in
either the current plans or during the revision effort will be guided
by the agreements reached in the Strategy and its adaptive provisions''
(Aus 2005). In addition, we received written assurance from the Chief
of the USDA Forest Service (Bosworth 2006) stating, ``It is Forest
Service policy under the new 2005 planning regulations * * * to provide
for both ecosystem diversity and species diversity, including providing
appropriate ecological conditions if needed to help avoid the need to
list under the Act. In our judgment, this management framework provides
adequate regulatory mechanisms to redeem our federal agency
responsibilities under the Act. This is fundamental to our mission and
specifically to our commitment to grizzly bear conservation.'' Finally,
``the National Forest Management Act, requires that all projects
carried out on a forest be consistent with the plans adopted under the
regulations, regardless of whether they are 1982 or 2005 planning
regulations'' (Bosworth 2006).
Roughly 30 percent of all suitable habitat outside of the PCA is
within a designated Wilderness Area (6,799 of 22,783 sq km (2,625 of
8,797 sq mi) while another 27 percent is within an Inventoried Roadless
Area (6,179 of 22,783 sq km (2,386 of 8,797 sq mi)). Another three
percent of all suitable habitat outside the PCA is considered
Wilderness Study Area. The Wilderness Act of 1964 does not allow road
construction, new livestock allotments, or new oil, gas, and mining
developments in designated Wilderness Areas; therefore, about 6,799 sq
km (2,625 sq mi) of secure habitat outside of the PCA will remain
secure habitat protected by adequate regulatory mechanisms. This secure
suitable habitat is biologically significant to the Yellowstone DPS
because it will allow population expansion into these areas that are
minimally affected by humans.
The State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management Rule
(70 FR 25653-25662, May 13, 2005) which replaced the Roadless Area
Conservation Rule (``Roadless Rule'') (66 FR 3244-3273, Jan. 12, 2001)
was overturned on September 19, 2006 (People Of The State Of California
Ex Rel. Bill Lockyer, et al. v. United States Department of
Agriculture; The Wilderness Society, California Wilderness Coalition,
et al. v. United States Forest Service, Dale Bosworth, et al., C05-
03508 EDL). The State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area
Management Rule was set aside and the Roadless Area Conservation Rule,
including the Tongass Amendment, was reinstated. The USDA Forest
Service was enjoined from taking any further action contrary to the
Roadless Area Conservation Rule without undertaking environmental
analysis consistent with the court opinion.
Even if this rule had remained in effect, the affected National
Forest would have used the NEPA process and public involvement to
consider the impacts any changes in Roadless Area management may have
had on other resources and management goals. The USDA Forest Service
would have monitored any impacts these changes may have had on habitat
effectiveness, while the Study Team would have monitored any increases
in grizzly bear mortality these changes may have caused. Before the
2006 court decision, the USDA Forest Service Interim Directive 1920-
2004-1 regulated activities in Inventoried Roadless Areas (69 FR 42648-
42649, July 16, 2004). Under this directive, little road building or
timber harvest could be done in Inventoried Roadless Areas until Forest
Plans were revised or amended to specifically address activities in
roadless areas. The Targhee National Forest was exempt from this
interim directive because it operates under a Revised Forest Plan,
which addresses the management of roadless areas. Motorized access and
other management activities are addressed by specific Management
Prescription direction in the Revised Forest Plan. In general, this
Management Prescription directs that roadless areas in the Targhee
National Forest remain roadless. Similarly, a 1994 amendment to the
Shoshone National Forest Plan implemented a standard for no net
increase in roads (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 73).
The National Park Service has incorporated the habitat, population,
monitoring, and nuisance bear standards described in the Strategy into
their Superintendent's Compendium for each affected National Park. This
was completed prior to the publication of this final rule (Grand Teton
National Park 2006, p. 1; Yellowstone National Park 2006, p. 12).
Because the BLM manages less than 2 percent of all suitable habitats,
they are not modifying existing management plans. Instead, the BLM
expressed their commitment to the long-term conservation of the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population by signing the memorandum of
understanding in the Strategy.
The three State grizzly bear management plans direct State land
management agencies to maintain or improve habitats that are important
to grizzly bears and to monitor population criteria outside the PCA.
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have developed management plans for areas
outside the PCA to--(1) assure that the measures of the Act continue to
be unnecessary for the grizzly bears in the Yellowstone DPS; (2)
support expansion of grizzly bears beyond the PCA, into areas of
biologically and socially acceptable suitable habitat; and (3) manage
grizzly bears as a game animal, including allowing regulated hunting
when and where appropriate. The plans for all three States were
completed in 2002, and grizzly bears within the Yellowstone DPS will be
incorporated into existing game species management plans after
delisting.
Together, the Eastern Shoshone Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe
manage wildlife within the boundaries of the Wind River Reservation
(see Figure 1 above). The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes
have participated in Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee meetings. At
the 2002 Annual Tribal Consultation, organized by Yellowstone National
Park, we formally briefed the Tribe about the Strategy, but the Tribe
did not provide input or feedback about the Strategy, nor did they sign
the memorandum of understanding in the Strategy. The Eastern Shoshone
Tribe is currently working with the Service's Lander, Wyoming office to
develop its own Grizzly Bear Management Plan. We anticipate that the
Tribal management plan will allow for grizzly bear occupancy of
suitable habitat on Tribal land and cooperation on managing and
monitoring population parameters. Less than 3 percent of all suitable
habitats (1,360 sq km (525 sq mi)) are potentially affected by Tribal
decisions, so their management would never constitute a threat to the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population. Their management plan will
facilitate grizzly bear occupancy in areas of suitable habitat on the
Wind River
[[Page 14925]]
Reservation and would allow grizzly bears greater access to high-
elevation whitebark pine and army cutworm moths, thus allowing for
additional resiliency of the Yellowstone DPS in response to changing
environmental conditions.
Once this final rule becomes effective, the Strategy will be
implemented, and the Coordinating Committee will replace the
Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee as the lead entity coordinating
implementation of the habitat and population standards, and monitoring
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 63). Similar to the
Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee, the Coordinating Committee members
include representatives from Yellowstone and Grand Teton National
Parks, the six affected National Forests, BLM, U.S. Geological Survey,
IDFG, MTFWP, WGFD, one member from local county governments within each
State, and one member from each Native American Tribe within suitable
habitat. All meetings will be open to the public. Besides coordinating
management, research, and financial needs for successful conservation
of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population, the Coordinating Committee
will review the Study Team's Annual Reports and review and respond to
any deviations from habitat or population standards. The Coordinating
Committee will decide on management recommendations to be implemented
by appropriate member agencies to rectify problems and to assure that
the habitat and population standards will be met and maintained.
The Strategy's habitat standards are the 1998 levels of secure
habitat, developed sites, livestock allotments, and habitat
effectiveness (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 38). The
Strategy signatories have agreed that if there are deviations from any
population or habitat standard, the Coordinating Committee will
implement a Biology and Monitoring Review to be carried out by the
Study Team. A Biology and Monitoring Review will be triggered by any of
the following causes--(1) a total population estimate of less than 500,
as indicated by a Chao2 estimate (Keating et al. 2002, pp.
167-170) of less than 48 females with cubs-of-the-year, for 2
consecutive years; (2) exceedance of the 9 percent total mortality
limit for independent females for 2 consecutive years; (3) exceedance
of the total mortality limits for independent males or dependent young
for 3 consecutive years; (4) failure to meet any of the habitat
standards described in the Strategy pertaining to levels of secure
habitat, new developed sites, and number of livestock allotments in any
given year; or (5) failure to receive adequate funding to fully
implement the monitoring and management requirements of the Strategy in
any given year.
A Biology and Monitoring Review is led by the Study Team and will
examine habitat management, population management, or monitoring
efforts of participating agencies with an objective of identifying the
source or cause of failing to meet a habitat or demographic goal. This
review also will provide management recommendations to correct any such
deviations. If the Biology and Monitoring Review is triggered by
inadequate funding, the Review would focus on whether this fiscal
short-coming was a threat to the implementation of the Strategy to such
an extent that it required that the measures of the Act would be
necessary to assure the recovered status of the Yellowstone DPS. If the
Review is triggered by failure to meet a population goal, the Review
would involve a comprehensive review of vital rates including survival
rates, litter size, litter interval, grizzly bear/human conflicts, and
mortalities. The Study Team will attempt to identify the reason behind
any variation in vital rates such as habitat conditions, vandal
killings, excessive roadkill, etc., and determine if the reasons that
the measures of the Act are necessary to assure the recovered status of
the population. Similarly, if the Review was triggered by failure to
meet a habitat standard, the Review would examine what caused the
failure, whether this requires that the measures of the Act are
necessary to assure the recovered status of the population, and what
actions may be taken to correct the problem. This Review will be
completed and made available to the public within 6 months of
initiation.
The Coordinating Committee is to respond to a Biology and
Monitoring Review with actions to address deviations from habitat
standards or, if the desired population and habitat standards specified
in the Strategy cannot be met in the opinion of the Coordinating
Committee, then the Coordinating Committee will petition us for
relisting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 66). Although anyone
can petition us for relisting, the Coordinating Committee's petition is
important because it is requested by the actual management agencies in
charge of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. Additionally, the
Coordinating Committee possesses the resources, data, and experience to
provide us with a strong argument for the petition. Once a potential
petition is received, we determine if the petition presents substantial
information. If so, we conduct a full status review to determine if
relisting is warranted, warranted-but-precluded by higher priority
actions, or not warranted. We also could consider emergency listing, in
accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the Act, if the threat were severe
and immediate (16 U.S.C. 1533(g)). Such an emergency relisting would be
effective the day the regulation is published in the Federal Register
and would be effective for 240 days. During this time, a conventional
rule regarding the listing of the species based on the five factors of
section 4(a)(1) of the Act could be drafted and take effect after the
240-day limit on the emergency relisting has expired. Both emergency
listing and the normal listing process also could be undertaken by the
Service independent of the petition process.
The management of nuisance bears within the Yellowstone DPS
boundaries will be based upon existing laws and authorities of State
wildlife agencies and Federal land management agencies, and guided by
protocols established in the Strategy and State management plans.
Inside the National Parks, Yellowstone or Grand Teton National Park
grizzly bear biologists will continue to respond to grizzly bear/human
conflicts. In all areas outside of the National Parks, State wildlife
agencies will coordinate and carry out any management actions in
response to grizzly bear/human conflicts. In areas within the
Yellowstone DPS boundaries that are outside of the PCA, State grizzly
bear management plans will apply and State wildlife agencies will
respond to and manage all grizzly bear/human conflicts. The focus and
intent of nuisance grizzly bear management inside and outside the PCA
will be predicated on strategies and actions to prevent grizzly bear/
human conflicts. Active management aimed at individual nuisance bears
will be required in both areas.
The Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming plans recognize that measures to
reduce grizzly bear/human conflicts are paramount to successfully and
completely addressing this issue. The State of Idaho Yellowstone
Grizzly Bear Management Plan states that such measures must be given
priority, as they are more effective than simply responding to problems
as they occur (Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team
2002, p. 15). Similarly, the Grizzly Bear Management Plan for
Southwestern Montana maintains that the key to dealing with all
nuisance situations is prevention rather than responding after damage
has
[[Page 14926]]
occurred (MTFWP 2002, p. 48). The Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management Plan
also mandates the WGFD to emphasize long-term, non-lethal solutions,
but relocation and lethal removal may occur to resolve some conflicts
(WGFD 2005, pp. 25-25). All three State management plans are accessible
at http:// mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/
yellowstone.htm. The ways in which the Strategy and the State plans
intend to address preventative measures are described in detail in the
Factor E-Human Attitudes Toward Grizzly Bear Recovery and Information &
Education Efforts to Improve these Attitudes section below. All three
State plans allow for preemptive relocation of grizzly bears out of
areas that have a high probability of conflicting with humans or their
property, including livestock. The States are committed to responding
to grizzly bear/human conflicts in an efficient, timely manner.
The killing of grizzly bears in self-defense by humans will
continue to be allowed under both Federal and State management plans.
State management plans do not allow for legal take of grizzly bears by
humans unless it is within the designated seasons and limits for
grizzly mortality or, in the Montana portion of the DPS, if a grizzly
bear is caught ``in the act'' of attacking or killing livestock (87-3-
130 MCA). This would have to be verified by a law enforcement
investigation. Any mortality due to hunting will be within the
sustainable mortality limits, as described in the Strategy (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 126). The goal of such a hunting season
is to reduce grizzly density in areas of high grizzly bear/human
conflicts, in order to achieve management objectives so that future
management actions would be reduced. A hunt would only occur if annual
mortality limits specified for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
are not exceeded.
State management plans provide the necessary regulatory framework
and guidelines to State wildlife agencies for managing and maintaining
a recovered Yellowstone grizzly bear population in significant portions
of the range outside of the PCA. By identifying the agencies
responsible for nuisance bear management and responding to grizzly
bear/human conflicts using a clearly orchestrated protocol, these State
plans create a framework within which grizzly bears and people can both
flourish. Effective nuisance bear management benefits the conservation
of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population and State management plans
adequately address this issue.
Summary of Factor D--In addition to the Strategy, National Park
Superintendent's Plans, USDA Forest Service Amendment for Grizzly Bear
Habitat Conservation for the GYA National Forests, and State grizzly
bear management plans, more than 70 State and Federal laws,
regulations, rules, and guidelines are currently in place. We are
confident that these mechanisms provide an adequate regulatory
framework within which the Yellowstone grizzly bear population will
continue to experience population stability and be appropriately
distributed throughout significant portions of the range for the
foreseeable future. These mechanisms also provide detailed protocols
for future management, I & E programs, and monitoring for the
foreseeable future. In summary, these mechanisms provide reasonable
assurance to us and regulatory certainty that potential future threats
to the Yellowstone grizzly bear population will not jeopardize this
recovered population and ensure that the Yellowstone DPS is not likely
to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Three other considerations warrant discussion as to whether or not
they are likely to appreciably impact the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS
including--(1) genetic concerns; (2) invasive species, disease, and
other impacts to food supply; and (3) human attitudes toward grizzly
bear recovery and I & E efforts to improve these attitudes.
Genetic Management--Levels of genetic diversity in Yellowstone
grizzly bears have been a concern in the past because of small
population size and lack of genetic exchange with other grizzly bear
populations. However, levels of genetic diversity in the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population are not as low as previously feared, and the
need for novel genetic material is not urgent (Miller and Waits 2003,
p. 4338). Because the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is an
isolated population, declines in genetic diversity over time are
expected (Allendorf et al. 1991, p. 651; Burgman et al. 1993, p. 220),
but will occur gradually over decades (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338).
Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338) state, ``In our opinion, it is
unlikely that genetic factors will have substantial effect on the
viability of the Yellowstone grizzly over the next several decades.''
Therefore, we do not view genetic diversity as a current threat to the
Yellowstone DPS. However, low levels of gene flow, as seen
historically, may be necessary in the future to maintain genetic
diversity within the Yellowstone DPS. In order to assure the long-term
genetic health of the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS, we have considered
genetic issues for the period beyond the next several decades.
Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338) recommend that in order to avoid
negative, short-term genetic effects associated with small population
size, the effective population size (i.e., the number of breeding
individuals in an idealized population that would show the same amount
of change in allele frequencies due to random genetic drift or the same
amount of inbreeding as the population under consideration) of the
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS should remain above 100 animals, and this
will likely be achieved by maintaining a total population size above
400 animals. In response to this recommendation, the Strategy states
that it is the goal of the implementing agencies to maintain the total
population size at or above 500 animals to assure that the effective
population size does not decline to less than 100 (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2007, p. 26).
Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338) state that the genetic diversity
necessary for the long-term genetic health of the population can only
be maintained through gene flow from other grizzly bear populations,
either through translocation or natural connectivity. Our DPS policy
does not require complete geographic or reproductive isolation among
populations, and allows for some limited interchange among population
segments considered to be discrete (61 FR 4722). Although movement of
just a few individuals between populations may be sufficient to prevent
loss of genetic diversity, movement of a few individuals would not be
sufficient to create or maintain significant demographic connectivity
between grizzly bear populations. We believe that there is currently no
connectivity between the Yellowstone DPS and other grizzly bear
populations. Future efforts to maintain genetic diversity, either
through translocation or natural connectivity, may provide for genetic
exchange among grizzly bear populations but is unlikely to result in
the Yellowstone DPS becoming no longer markedly separate from other
grizzly bear populations. Natural connectivity will continue to be
monitored after delisting. To document natural connectivity, Federal
and State agencies will continue to monitor bear movements on the
northern periphery of the Yellowstone DPS boundaries and
[[Page 14927]]
the southern edges of the NCDE using radio-telemetry and will collect
genetic samples from all captured or dead bears to document gene flow
between these two ecosystems. Such movement will be detected by using
an ``assignment test'' which identifies the area from which individuals
are most likely to have originated based on their unique genetic
signature (Paetkau et al. 1995, p. 348; Waser and Strobeck 1998, p. 43;
Paetkau et al. 2004, p. 56; Proctor et al. 2005, pp. 2410-2412). This
technique also has the ability to identify bears that may be the
product of reproduction between Yellowstone and NCDE bears (Dixon et
al. 2006, p. 158). In addition to monitoring for gene flow and
movements, we will continue interagency efforts to complete the linkage
zone task in the Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993,
pp. 24-26) to provide and maintain movement opportunities for grizzly
bears, and reestablish natural connectivity and gene flow between the
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS and other grizzly bear populations.
Experimental and theoretical data suggest that one to two effective
migrants per generation is an appropriate level of gene flow to
maintain or increase the level of genetic diversity in isolated
populations (Mills and Allendorf 1996, pp. 1510, 1516; Newman and
Tallmon 2001, pp. 1059-1061; Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). We have
defined an effective migrant as an individual that emigrates into an
isolated population from an outside area, survives, breeds, and whose
offspring survive (we further discuss this issue in Issue 8 under
subheading R in the Summary of Public Comments section above). Based on
Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338), the Strategy recommends that if no
movement or successful genetic interchange is detected by 2020, two
effective migrants from the NCDE be translocated into the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population every 10 years (i.e., one generation) to
maintain current levels of genetic diversity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007, p. 37). Based on previous attempts in other grizzly bear
recovery ecosystems to augment the grizzly bear population (Kasworm et
al. in press, pp. 6-7), the Service recognizes that it may take several
re-located bears to equal one or two effective migrants. Each bear that
would be relocated from the NCDE into the GYA would be radio-collared
and monitored to determine if additional translocations were necessary.
In this way, we can be certain that genetic impoverishment will not
become a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS.
Adequate measures to address genetic concerns will continue and,
thus, genetic concerns will not adversely impact the long-term
conservation of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population or its
expansion into suitable habitat. The Study Team will carefully monitor
movements and the presence of alleles from grizzly populations outside
the Yellowstone DPS boundaries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p.
37) so that reduction of genetic diversity due to the geographic
isolation of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population will not become a
threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in all or a significant
portion of its range in the foreseeable future.
Invasive Species, Disease, and Other Impacts to Food Supply--Four
food items have been identified as major components of the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population's diet (Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1623). These
are seeds of the whitebark pine, army cutworm moths, ungulates, and
spawning cutthroat trout. These food sources may exert a positive
influence on grizzly bear fecundity and survival (Mattson et al. 2002,
p. 2) and are some of the highest sources of digestible energy
available to grizzly bears in the GYA (Mealey 1975, pp. 84-86;
Pritchard and Robbins 1990, p. 1647; Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436;
Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 247-252). Each of these food sources is
limited in distribution and subject to natural annual fluctuations in
abundance and availability. Because of this natural variability,
threshold values of abundance for each food have not been established.
However, whitebark pine, ungulates, cutthroat trout, and army cutworm
moths are all monitored either directly or indirectly on an annual
basis (see Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan section below). Monitoring
these important foods provides managers with some ability to predict
annual seasonal bear habitat use, and estimate, prepare for, and avoid
grizzly bear/human conflicts due to a shortage of one or more foods.
For instance, the Coordinating Committee issues press releases annually
about the abundance of fall foods, particularly whitebark pine. In poor
whitebark pine years, these press releases warn people that bears might
be found in lower elevation areas and that encounters with bears will
likely be more common. In Yellowstone National Park, similar warnings
are issued to people during poor food years when they obtain their
backcountry permits and, in some years, warning signs are posted at
trailheads.
While there is much debate about the rates at which carbon dioxide
levels, atmospheric temperatures, and ocean temperatures will rise, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of leading
climate scientists commissioned by the United Nations, concluded there
is a general consensus among the world's best scientists that climate
change is occurring (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001,
pp. 2-3; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007, p. 4). The
twentieth century was the warmest in the last 1,000 years (Inkley et
al. 2004, pp. 2-3) with global mean surface temperature increasing by
0.4 to 0.8 degrees Celsius (0.7 to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit). These
increases in temperature were more pronounced over land masses as
evidenced by the 1.5 to 1.7 degrees Celsius (2.7 to 3.0 degrees
Fahrenheit) increase in North America since the 1940s (Vincent et al.
1999, p.96; Cayan et al. 2001, p. 411). According to the IPCC, warmer
temperatures increase 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius (2.0 to 11.5 degrees
Fahrenheit) by 2100 (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007,
pp. 10-11). The magnitude of warming in the northern Rocky Mountains
has been particularly great, as indicated by an 8-day advance in the
appearance of spring phenological indicators in Edmonton, Alberta,
since the 1930s (Cayan et al. 2001, p. 400). The hydrologic regime in
the northern Rockies also has changed with global climate change, and
is projected to change further (Bartlein et al. 1997, p. 786; Cayan et
al. 2001, p. 411; Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223-224). Under global
climate change scenarios, the GYA may eventually experience milder,
wetter winters and warmer, drier summers (Bartlein et al. 1997, p.
786). Additionally, the pattern of snowmelt runoff also may change,
with a reduction in spring snowmelt (Cayan et al. 2001, p. 411) and an
earlier peak (Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223-224), so that a lower
proportion of the annual discharge will occur during spring and summer.
Changing climate conditions have the potential to impact several of
the Yellowstone grizzly bear's food sources, including whitebark pine
seeds, winter-killed ungulates, and army cutworm moths. However, the
extent and rate to which each of these food sources will be impacted is
difficult to foresee with any level of confidence. The specific ways in
which climate change may affect each major grizzly bear food in the GYA
is discussed within each of their respective sections that follow.
In response to normal changes in food supplies due to plant
phenology and responses to weather (e. g., frost,
[[Page 14928]]
rainfall), grizzly bear annual home ranges may change in size and
extent (Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 48-62). By expanding the
distribution and range of bears into currently unoccupied suitable
habitat within the DPS boundaries, as per the State plans, additional
areas with additional food resources will be available. These
additional habitats will provide habitat flexibility for bears to
respond to changes in annual food supplies and distribution.
Regarding impacts to cutthroat trout, several factors have the
potential to play significant roles on the abundance of this food
source. In 1994, nonnative lake trout (Salvelinus naymaycush) were
discovered in Yellowstone Lake (Reinhart et al. 2001, pp. 281-282).
Lake trout are efficient predators of juvenile cutthroat trout and, on
average, consume 41 cutthroat trout per year (Ruzycki et al. 2003, p.
23). In 1998, Myxobolus cerebralis, the parasite that causes whirling
disease, was found in juvenile and adult cutthroat trout collected from
Yellowstone Lake. The Intermountain West has experienced drought
conditions for the past 6 years, which has resulted in increased water
temperatures, lowered lake levels, and a reduction in peak stream
flows; all of which negatively affect cutthroat trout spawning success
(Koel et al. 2005, p. 10). This combination of lake trout, whirling
disease, and drought conditions has resulted in declines in the
Yellowstone cutthroat trout population, with subsequent decreases in
grizzly bear fishing activity (Koel et al. 2005, pp. 10-11). In fact,
both black and grizzly bear activity at spawning streams decreased 87
percent between 1989 and 2004 (Koel et al. 2005, p. 14).
Efforts to reduce introduced lake trout populations have been
somewhat successful. The Yellowstone National Park managers have
removed more than 100,000 lake trout since 1994, and the average size
of lake trout caught has decreased, indicating that gillnetting efforts
may be effective. The Yellowstone National Park managers will continue
to monitor the Yellowstone Lake cutthroat trout population using fish
weirs, spawning stream surveys, and hydroacoustic techniques and
continue attempts to suppress nonnative lake trout in Yellowstone Lake
through gillnetting, capturing on spawning grounds, and fishing
regulations which target lake trout (Yellowstone National Park 2003, p.
33). The Yellowstone National Park biologists will continue to assess
the impacts of nonnative lake trout on cutthroat trout populations and
will provide an annual summary to the Study Team regarding the
abundance of both cutthroat and lake trout.
According to Stewart et al. (2004, p. 223), cutthroat trout in the
Yellowstone Lake drainage (a small portion of the overall range of
Yellowstone cutthroat trout) may be affected by climate change and its
effects on the hydrologic regime potentially causing spring runoff to
occur as much as 30 to 40 days earlier and perhaps reduced scouring of
streambeds. Should this scenario be realized, that would require
cutthroat trout to migrate to the tributaries to spawn earlier in the
spring to match their preferred streamflows, and it also would require
them to return to Yellowstone Lake earlier in the summer to avoid low
flows in the tributaries. Such a hypothetical change in the spawning
schedule of cutthroat trout also would require a change in the time
during which grizzly bears frequent the spawning streams. Young (2001)
speculated that warmer water temperatures may be harmful to cutthroat
trout, as evidenced by the failure of some warmer river reaches, such
as the lower Tongue River, to support cutthroat populations. While some
species may shift north in response to climate change, there is no
evidence the introduced lake trout will be hampered by such climatic
range restrictions. Despite these potential factors impacting
Yellowstone cutthroat trout, a 2006 status review concluded that
listing this salmonid was not warranted (71 FR 8818-8831, February 21,
2006). This status review noted that although some Yellowstone
cutthroat trout populations face severe threats, overall, populations
are abundant and well distributed, and that land and water management
practices have significantly reduced habitat degradation.
Although the decrease in bear use of cutthroat trout corresponds
temporally with cutthroat trout declines, this may not have a
significant effect on the grizzly bear population because adult
grizzlies that fish in spawning streams only consume, on average,
between 8 and 55 trout per year (Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499). The
results of Felicetti et al. (2004, p. 499) indicate a lower dependence
on this food source than previously believed (Reinhart and Mattson
1990, pp. 345-349; Mattson and Reinhart 1995, pp. 2078-2079). Of
particular importance is the finding that male grizzly bear consumption
of spawning cutthroat trout was five times more than average female
consumption of this food (Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499) and there was
minimal use of cutthroat trout by female grizzly bears. Haroldson et
al. (2005, p. 175) found that a small proportion of the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population was using cutthroat trout. The number of bears
using trout varied from 15 to 33 per year from 1997 to 2000 (Haroldson
et al. 2005, p. 175). This low reliance on cutthroat trout by the
grizzly bear population in general, and female bears specifically, has
implications for population dynamics, and means that potential declines
in this food resource are not currently, nor are they likely to become,
a threat in the foreseeable future in all or a significant portion of
the Yellowstone DPS's range, even if changing climate conditions cause
a reduction in Yellowstone cutthroat trout abundance.
Regarding Whitebark Pine, two noteworthy factors in North America
warrant consideration here, including mountain pine beetle infestation
and the introduction of exotic species (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 13).
Fire suppression and exclusion throughout most of the western United
States during the twentieth century has allowed shade tolerant tree
species to dominate some whitebark pine communities, thereby inhibiting
natural regeneration by whitebark pine (Arno 1986, p. 93; Tomback et
al. 2001, p. 5). These later successional whitebark pine communities
are more susceptible to infestations of the native mountain pine beetle
(Dendroctonus ponderosae) (Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 14-15). Their
larvae feed on the inner bark, which can eventually girdle and kill
trees on a landscape scale (Amman and Cole 1983, p. 12).
During the last 2 to 4 years, there has been an epidemic of
mountain pine beetles in whitebark pine in the GYA (Gibson 2006, p. 1).
Using aerial detection survey data, Gibson (2006, pp. 1, 3) estimated
that 16 percent of the total area of whitebark pine found in the GYA
(693 sq km / 4,308 sq km (268 sq mi / 1663 sq mi)) has experienced some
level of mortality due to mountain pine beetles. Similarly, the Greater
Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group (2006, p. 77)
reported that 22 percent of their transects showed presence of mountain
pine beetles. Between 2004 and 2005 they surveyed a total of 3,889
trees and found 1.4 percent of the trees (56 trees) sampled showed
signs of mountain pine beetle attack (Greater Yellowstone Whitebark
Pine Monitoring Working Group 2006, p. 77).
The introduction of white pine blister rust from Europe in the
early 1900s also contributes to whitebark pine declines (Kendall and
Arno 1990, pp. 269-270; Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 15-16). While there is
evidence of blister rust in whitebark pines in the GYA, the blister
[[Page 14929]]
rust has been present for more than 50 years (McDonald and Hoff 2001,
p. 210), and infection rates are still relatively low when compared to
whitebark pine communities further north. The Greater Yellowstone
Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group (2006, p. 76) estimated that
after more than 50 years of presence of the pathogen in the ecosystem,
roughly 25 percent of all whitebark pine trees in the GYA are currently
infected to some level with the blister rust. Evidence of infection
does not necessarily mean immediate mortality. Eighty percent of the
rust cankers on 2,425 infected live trees were on branches as opposed
to the bole of the tree. Trees with branch cankers only are less
impacted than trees with bole cankers (Greater Yellowstone Whitebark
Pine Monitoring Working Group 2006, p. 76) and usually produce normal
cone crops. This proportion of infected trees in the Yellowstone
ecosystem is much lower than in whitebark pine communities found in the
nearby Bob Marshall Wilderness (83 percent) or in communities of other
5-needled pines in Colorado, in which 50 percent of pines exposed to
the fungus are infected (McDonald and Hoff 2001, p. 211).
Climate change is predicted to affect several aspects of the
ecology of whitebark pine, including an increase in the length of the
growing season (Cayan et al. 2001, p. 410-411), an increase in fire
frequency and severity (McKenzie et al. 2004, p. 893; Westerling et al.
2006, pp. 942-943), spatial shifts in the distribution of suitable
growing sites (Bartlein et al. 1997, p. 788), and an increase in both
mountain pine beetle (Logan and Powell 2001, pp. 165-170; Williams and
Liebhold 2002, p. 95 ) and white pine blister rust (Koteen 2002, pp.
352-364) outbreaks. However, the ultimate impacts of climate change on
whitebark pine communities, and therefore impact to the GYA bears' use
of whitebark pine seeds as a primary food source, are uncertain
(Kendall and Keane 2001, p. 236).
While an increased growing season may result in increased cone
crops for several decades, accelerated growth of competitive species
such as Abies lasiocarpa (subalpine fir) could eventually lead to them
out competing and replacing whitebark pine (Mattson et al. 2001, pp.
132-133). Additionally, a changing climate may shift the overall
distribution of whitebark pine north and higher in elevation, resulting
in local extinction and reduced overall distribution in the GYA (Romme
and Turner 1991, p. 382). Fire frequency and severity may increase with
late summer droughts predicted under climate change scenarios for the
GYA. These fires may be advantageous to whitebark pine through
elimination of smaller, shade-tolerant competitive tree species such as
subalpine fir and the creation of open sites that will be used by
Clark's nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) for seed caches, the primary
dispersal agent for whitebark pine (Tomback et al. 2001, p. 17).
However, the intensity of the fire is a key factor. Low intensity fires
may eliminate smaller, shade-tolerant competitive tree species such as
subalpine fir, while high intensity fires may result in direct
mortality of many mature whitebark pine trees (Mattson et al. 2001, pp.
131-132; Koteen 2002, pp. 390-396).
The most substantial way in which changing climate conditions may
affect whitebark pine is through outbreaks of native mountain pine
beetles that might not continue to be regulated by extremely cold
winters, and an increased prevalence of white pine blister rust. As
recently as 2001, Kendall and Keane (2001, p. 136), addressing
primarily the effects of white pine blister rust, concluded that ``the
impact of climate change on whitebark pine is inconclusive,'' even
though they felt it unlikely that any whitebark pine stand would be
safe from damage by blister rust under projected climate conditions.
Subsequent research (Logan and Powell in review, p. 13) suggests that
recent ``unprecedented outbreaks'' of bark beetles in high elevation
pines have been made possible by global climate change, and other
investigators have predicted that mortality caused by blister rust also
will increase with warmer, wetter conditions as predicted by global
climate models (Koteen 2002, pp. 379-384). The current outbreak (Gibson
2006, pp. 1-3) and past outbreaks (Logan and Powell in review, p. 4)
have been associated with unusually warm temperatures which allow
mountain pine beetles to complete their life cycles in one season
(Logan and Powell 2001, p. 161), suggesting that predicted milder
winters will result in increased loss of whitebark pine to beetle-
caused mortality.
Both Gibson (2006, p. 5) and Logan et al. (2003, p. 136) temper
their comments about the speed of spread of mountain pine beetle
infestations. Logan et al. (2003, p. 136) caution that reporting bias
(the tendency to report massive outbreaks and to disregard minor or
receding infestations) may affect perceptions of the problem. Gibson
(2006, p. 5) cites Furniss and Renkin (2003, p. 207), quoting from a
National Park Service report on the mountain pine beetle outbreak in
Yellowstone in the 1930s. The report, issued 70 years ago, stated that
``practically every stand of whitebark pine is heavily infested'' and
that ``it seems inevitable that much of the park will be denuded.''
This 1930s prediction was incorrect, demonstrating the uncertainty of
predicting the impacts of such pine beetle infestations.
It is not anticipated that whitebark pine will disappear entirely
from the GYA in the foreseeable future. Modeling efforts have predicted
that whitebark pine will remain at lower risk for mountain pine beetle
attack in many high elevation habitats in the eastern portion of the
GYA (Logan 2006, p. 3). Many of these high elevation mountain areas
where whitebark is expected to persist (Logan 2006, p. 3) are
designated Wilderness Areas where human developments are prohibited.
For example, the Wind River mountain range (see Figure 1), where
mountain pine beetle impacts are expected to be minimal (Logan 2006, p.
3), is within the Bridger, Popo Agie, and Fitzpatrick Wilderness Areas.
This area includes of 2,948 sq km (1,138 sq mi) of protected habitat.
Similarly, the eastern half of the PCA consists of the North Absaroka,
Teton, and Washakie Wilderness Areas, where whitebark pine is
anticipated to be at lower risk of mountain pine beetle attack in the
foreseeable future (Logan 2006, p. 3). These areas should provide a
large reserve area that will be minimally impacted by mountain pine
beetle infestation and have only negligible human impacts for the
foreseeable future.
While we remain concerned that there will be future changes in
whitebark pine abundance, we believe that the specific amount of
decline in whitebark pine distribution and the rate of this decline are
difficult to predict with certainty. The specific response of grizzly
bears to declines in whitebark cone production is even more uncertain
due to the fact that bears are used to feeding on alternative foods
during the regularly occurring years when whitebark cone production is
minimal (Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1626; Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 767).
We believe any changes in whitebark pine production (positive or
negative), either individually or in combination with other factors,
are not likely to impact the Yellowstone DPS to the point where the DPS
is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. While studies suggest a
decrease in whitebark pine can change both grizzly bear spatial
distribution and the number of bear/human conflicts (Mattson et al.
1992, p. 436; Knight and Blanchard 1995, p. 23; Gunther et al. 1997,
pp. 9-
[[Page 14930]]
11; Gunther et al. 2004, p. 18), grizzly bears are opportunistic
omnivores that will make behavioral adaptations regarding food
acquisition (Weaver et al. 1996, p. 970). The wide current and
projected (Logan 2006, p. 3) distribution of whitebark pine, primarily
in high-elevation Wilderness Areas in the eastern part of the GYA where
human development actions are prohibited, provides biologically
significant habitat to grizzly bears throughout suitable habitat and
increases the resiliency of the Yellowstone DPS to future changes in
whitebark pine availability.
In contrast to annually available coastal salmon runs used by other
grizzly bear populations, whitebark pine nut production is not an
annually predictable food source. Yellowstone DPS bears commonly have
high diet diversity (Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1626) and use alternate
foods in years of low whitebark pine nut production. During years of
poor pine nut availability, 72 percent of GYA grizzly bears make
minimal use of pine nuts while consuming more ungulate meat (Felicetti
et al. 2003, p. 767) and other natural foods. Grizzly bears in the GYA
are accustomed to successfully finding alternative natural foods in
years when whitebark pine nuts are not available. However, because pine
nuts are an important food and because they vary naturally from year to
year as well as in response to insect and disease, the Study Team has
been monitoring cone abundance throughout the GYA since 1980. This cone
monitoring in combination with monitoring tree mortality and beetle and
disease infestation rates will continue under the Strategy (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2007, p 43-56, 60). We believe that this
intensive, annual monitoring of foods, grizzly bear/human conflicts,
survival rates for young, reproductive rates, and the causes and
locations of grizzly bear mortality, as detailed in the Strategy (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 43-56, 60), will provide the
Strategy's signatory agencies with a strong, and biologically
defensible, foundation from which to implement the adaptive management
(Holling 1978, pp. 11-16) actions necessary to respond to ecological
changes that may impact the future of the GYA grizzly bear DPS. These
management changes may involve increased habitat management and/or
protection, increased mortality management, and/or a status review and
emergency relisting of the population if management is unable to
successfully address the problems.
In response to concerns about threats to whitebark pine in the GYA,
the Coordinating Committee, a group of managers from the USDA Forest
Service, National Park Service, and the Service, formed the Whitebark
Pine Subcommittee in 1998 (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 148). The
Whitebark Pine Subcommittee coordinates the implementation of
restoration techniques, management responses, and the gathering of
information on the status of this tree. Current work on whitebark pine
includes planting in several areas, cone collection from healthy trees,
silvicultural treatments to improve growth and establishment,
prescribed burning to encourage natural whitebark pine seedling
establishment, and surveys for healthy trees that may possess blister
rust resistant genes.
In 2003 and 2004, the Whitebark Pine Subcommittee formed the
Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group. This is an
interagency team of resource managers, statisticians, and researchers
established to assess the status of whitebark pine, its threats, and
restoration options in the GYA. The Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working
Group monitors transects throughout the GYA annually for white pine
blister rust infection, mountain pine beetle infestation, and whitebark
pine survival.
Currently, there are 19 whitebark pine cone production transects
within the PCA, 9 of which the Study Team has monitored on an annual
basis since 1980 (Haroldson and Podruzny 2006, pp. 44-45).
Additionally, the Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group has
established more than 70 transects outside the PCA and works closely
with statisticians to ensure a representative sample and strong
inference (Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group
2006, p. 76). Under the Strategy, the Study Team will continue
monitoring whitebark pine cone production, the prevalence of white pine
blister rust, and whitebark pine mortality using current methods.
Regarding impacts to ungulates, potential impacts to elk and bison
(the most important ungulates to grizzlies) warrant consideration here.
Grizzlies primarily consume ungulates as winter-killed carrion in the
early spring, but also kill elk and bison calves opportunistically and
sometimes prey upon adults weakened during the fall breeding season.
Potential threats to the availability of these ungulates include
brucellosis (Brucella abortus) and resulting management practices,
chronic wasting disease (CWD), competition with other top predators for
ungulates, and decreasing winter severity.
Brucellosis is a bacterial disease that causes abortion during the
first pregnancy after infection in many species of mammals, including
elk, bison, domestic cattle (Berger and Cain 1999, pp. 358-359), and
humans (Wyoming Brucellosis Coordination Team 2005, p. 8). The disease
is usually fatal to the fetus, but usually causes no lasting harm to
adults, who are thereafter immune to its effects and capable of
reproducing successfully. Animals are infected by eating material
contaminated with the bacteria in aborted fetuses or vaginal discharges
(Smith 2005, p. 7). Brucellosis is not known to negatively affect
grizzly bears or any other carnivore (Reinhart et al. 2001, pp. 280-
281). Existing vaccines were developed specifically for domestic
cattle, and are not effective in preventing infection or abortion in
bison or elk. Brucellosis was most likely introduced to North America
in domestic cattle imported from Europe (Meagher and Meyer 1994, p.
650).
The effect of the disease itself on bison and elk populations is
minimal, but the possibility of transmission from infected wildlife to
domestic cattle causes economic concern for livestock producers.
Removal of bison, but not elk, to control the spread of the disease to
domestic cattle is currently practiced north of Yellowstone near
Gardiner, Montana, and west of Yellowstone near West Yellowstone,
Montana. While these removals have the potential to deprive grizzly
bears of a carrion source in the spring, since many of the bison
removed would have died over winter (Meagher 1973, p. 73), brucellosis
is not a population-level issue for wild ungulates. The presence of
brucellosis in wild populations of ungulates does not threaten this
food source of grizzly bears. The potential threat to grizzly bears is
created by the removal of wild bison that wander outside of Yellowstone
National Park. The purpose of the Interagency Bison Management Plan,
under which bison that wander outside the boundaries of Yellowstone
National Park into Montana are managed, is to ``maintain a wild, free-
ranging population of bison and address the risk of brucellosis
transmission to protect the economic interest and viability of the
livestock industry in the State of Montana'' (U.S. Department of the
Interior's National Park Service and USDA Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service 2000, p. 22). In light of this goal, we do not
foresee management of Yellowstone bison as a threat to the Yellowstone
grizzly bear DPS in all or a significant portion of its range in the
foreseeable future.
CWD is a member of a group of diseases called transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies, caused by non-living proteins called
prions (Peterson 2005, p. 1). The disease is
[[Page 14931]]
known to occur in only 4 species within the deer family including
white-tailed and mule deer, elk, and moose. CWD is invariably fatal in
deer and elk once they develop clinical signs, but the period between
contracting the disease and death of the animal is usually 2 to 4 years
(Peterson 2005, p. 3). There is no immune response and no immunization
for CWD. The disease-causing prions are shed in feces and the
decomposing carcasses of infected deer and elk. Prions persist in the
ground for at least 2 years and infect deer and elk that eat them while
foraging on low-growing vegetation or human-provided hay or hay
pellets. As is the case for brucellosis, CWD transmission is
facilitated by locally high densities of animals, such as those
occurring at winter feed grounds (Smith 2005, p. 16). CWD has not been
detected in the GYA, but recent cases have been confirmed in mule deer
from Worland and Thermopolis, Wyoming, on the eastern edge of the GYA.
The prospective threat that CWD poses to grizzly bears is the
potential reduction or elimination of deer and elk in the GYA. Unlike
brucellosis, CWD is an emerging disease, so little empirical data exist
concerning the magnitude of its effects on wild populations. In the
absence of such data, modeling of the effects of the disease can
generate predictions about future population sizes of deer and elk. The
two modeling exercises that have been conducted so far have arrived at
very different predictions. Gross and Miller (2001, p. 213) created
their model assuming that transmission of CWD was frequency dependent
(i.e., that the transmission rate is constant and independent of
density) and predicted that the disease would drive infected
populations to local extinction. Schauber and Woolf (2003, pp. 611-612)
noted that all frequency dependent models, as a consequence of their
assumptions, inevitably drive their populations to extinction. They
felt that modeling transmission as density dependent instead (i.e.,
transmission rates are low when population density is low and high when
density is high) was a more realistic assumption. We concur with this
assumption. Under the assumption of density dependent transmission, CWD
would not result in local extinction of deer or elk populations.
Overall, we do not anticipate that either of these diseases will
significantly impact the availability of ungulate carcasses to grizzly
bears or impact the Yellowstone DPS such that it is likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future in all or a significant
portion of its range. The Strategy requires that all signatories
cooperate to monitor historic ungulate carcass transects each spring.
In this way, the Study Team can compare current counts of ungulate
carcasses to previous years. Through monitoring of habitat features and
grizzly bear population statistics, our adaptive management (Holling
1978, pp. 11-16) approach will respond to significant shortages in
spring ungulate carrion, should they occur in the future.
Gray wolves (Canis lupus) were reintroduced to the GYA in 1995 and,
since then, have flourished. Competition between grizzlies and wolves
for carrion, particularly elk carcasses, in late winter and spring
occurs occasionally. Servheen and Knight (1993, p. 136) reviewed the
literature on wolf/grizzly competition and interviewed biologists and
managers familiar with wolf/grizzly interactions in North America and
Eurasia. They concluded that there was no documentation of negative
influence of grizzlies on wolves or of wolves on grizzlies at the
population level. However, they also concluded that the most severe
competition would be likely to occur in the spring, when bears began to
compete with wolves for carrion. Several investigators (Hornbeck and
Horejsi 1986, p. 259; Kuzyk et al. 2001, pp. 75-76; Gunther and Smith
2004, pp. 233-236) have reported grizzly bears displacing wolves from
carcasses and wolves displacing grizzlies from carcasses. In all but a
few cases, those interactions did not result in any injury to either
bears or wolves.
Wilmers and his colleagues, in a series of papers (Wilmers et al.
2003a pp. 914-915; Wilmers et al. 2003b, pp. 999-1002; Wilmers and Getz
2004, pp. 205-205; Wilmers and Getz 2005, p. 574; Wilmers and Post
2006, pp. 405-409) presented the results of modeling exercises
examining the effects of wolf reintroduction on winter carrion
availability to several scavenger species, including grizzly bears. The
models predicted that the effect of wolves on carrion availability
would be to spread carrion availability over the winter. The expected
distribution of carrion in the absence of wolves would be concentrated
in the months of March and April, when it was of most value to
grizzlies.
One potential consequence of climate change could be a reduction in
the number of elk and bison dying over-winter, thus decreasing the
amount of carrion available to bears when they emerge from hibernation.
Wilmers and Getz (2005, p. 574) and Wilmers and Post (2006, p. 405)
predicted that impending global climate change could reduce the
availability of carrion by decreasing winter severity and length.
However, in ecosystems such as Yellowstone, where wolves are present,
these top predators may buffer climatic change impacts to scavengers.
This may occur because the remains of wolf-killed ungulates would
provide a food resource to scavengers. Furthermore, increased over-
winter survival would likely result in overall increases in ungulate
populations, thereby providing an alternative food source to grizzly
bears during poor whitebark pine years (Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 767).
The northern Yellowstone elk herd occupies the northern reaches of
Yellowstone National Park and some adjacent USDA Forest Service and
private lands in the Yellowstone River and Lamar River valleys. The
size of the northern elk herd has declined from about 17,000 elk in
1995 to about 8,000 in 2004 (Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 261). The onset
of the decline was coincident with the reintroduction of wolves, but a
modeling exercise conducted by Vucetich et al. (2005, p. 260)
attributed the decline to weather and hunting harvests, rather than
wolf predation. However, Tom Lemke, a wildlife biologist for MTFWP (as
cited by McMillion 2005, p. 1), felt that the existing age distribution
within the herd, in which very few young animals and many old ones are
present, indicated that predation on elk calves was responsible for the
decline. He pointed to the decline in hunting permits for the Gardiner
winter hunt, from 2,880 permits in 2000 to 100 permits in 2006, as
providing a test of the hypothesis that hunting harvests were
responsible for the decline of the northern herd. Radio-telemetry
studies of calf mortality suggest that grizzly bears and black bears
are the major predators of elk calves, rather than wolves (Barber et
al. 2005, pp. 41-43). Whatever the cause of the decline, reduced elk
numbers may have led to minor reductions in the availability of carrion
to grizzly bears.
In contrast to the northern Yellowstone elk herd, some other elk
herds in the GYA where wolves exist are stable to increasing. For
instance, the Jackson elk herd has remained around 15,000 animals since
the early 1990s (Lubow and Smith 2004, pp. 826-828) and several herds
to the west of the northern Yellowstone elk herd in the Gallatin and
Madison River drainages are stable to increasing (Garrott et al. 2005).
With managers and scientists collaborating to determine the source of
the potential population fluctuations and appropriate management
responses, we feel confident that, although
[[Page 14932]]
different herds may experience differing population dynamics, the GYA
will continue to support large populations of ungulates and that the
Yellowstone DPS is not likely to become endangered in all or a
significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future due to a
decrease in ungulate numbers.
The fourth important food source considered here is army cutworm
moths. Army cutworm moths range from Alberta to New Mexico and from
California to Kansas. Moths begin mating at high elevations, like the
GYA, and then deposit their eggs at low elevations, such as the
agricultural areas where they are exposed to pesticides. The magnitude
of future pesticide use to control moths and the potential effects of
pesticides on moth populations cannot be predicted, but the potential
effects of pesticides on grizzly bears are better documented. Robison
et al. (2006, pp. 1708-1710) screened samples of army cutworm moths for
32 pesticides and found either trace concentrations or undetectable
concentrations that would not be harmful to grizzly bears consuming
them. The populations Robison (2006, p. 86) examined were panmictic
(randomly mating), which indicates that army cutworm moth populations
are more likely to persist through time than similarly-sized
populations that are locally genetically more distinct (Robison 2006,
p. 86). Robison et al. (2006, p. 86) predicted that this type of
genetic structure will act to maintain army cutworm moth migration
patterns into the future by increasing population resiliency to local
weather patterns, pesticide use, and habitat alteration.
Grizzly bears foraging at army cutworm moth aggregation sites are
potentially vulnerable to disturbance by backcountry visitors. Moth
aggregations are located on remote, high-elevation talus slopes, where
the predominant human visitors are rock climbers and hikers. In a study
of Glacier National Park grizzly bears, White et al. (1999, p. 150)
reported that foraging bears that were disturbed by climbers spent 53
percent less time foraging on moths during observation periods. They
recommended that these northern Montana climbing routes be moved to
avoid displacing foraging bears. The Study Team and the WGFD will
cooperate to monitor currently known moth sites, identify new moth
feeding sites so that their location is known to land managers, and
take appropriate management actions as necessary.
Climate change may affect army cutworm moths by changing the
distribution of plants that the moths feed on or the flowering times of
those plants due to an increased growing season (Woiwod 1997, pp. 152-
153). Food plant distribution could be affected by shifting the range
and distribution of alpine plant communities, upon which army cutworm
moths feed. There is a possibility that high elevation alpine plant
communities might disappear entirely in the GYA, as they have been
predicted to do in Britain (Thomas and Morris 1994, pp. 50-51).
However, plant communities in the GYA have a much greater elevational
range in which to move than do alpine plants in Britain. Romme and
Turner (1991, p. 382) predicted that alpine vegetation communities in
the GYA would be reduced in overall area but not disappear entirely.
Changes in the distribution of alpine plants may not affect army
cutworm moths adversely since they display foraging plasticity (Burton
et al. 1980, pp. 12-13). During years of high snow pack when talus
slopes (where moths are normally found) are covered with snow all
summer, the moths must be feeding on flowers in alternative lower
elevation, snow-free areas. Because moths have a one year life cycle,
they must be feeding and reproducing in habitats other than alpine
areas in high snow pack years because they are observed in alpine areas
in subsequent years when snow pack is not a limiting factor. Even under
climate change scenarios in which alpine plants disappear entirely, it
is likely that the lower elevation plants that support moths in high
snow pack years would still be present.
Some have suggested potentially warmer temperatures and increased
winter precipitation that may result from climate change could
positively affect lepidopteran (i.e., the moth and butterfly order)
populations (Roy et al. 2001, p. 214). Migratory generalist species,
such as army cutworm moths, are more likely to respond positively to
climate warming than sedentary habitat specialists (Warren et al. 2001,
p. 66). However, a study of lepidopteran species in Britain, which may
be similar to the highly mobile army cutworm moths in the GYA, found
that human caused habitat loss (unrelated to climate change) outweighed
the positive responses to longer and more productive growing seasons
(Warren et al. 2001, p. 67).
In summary, the best scientific and commercial data available
regarding grizzly bear responses to food losses suggest this issue is
not a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in all or a
significant portion of its range, nor is it likely to become one in the
foreseeable future. Grizzly bears are notoriously resourceful omnivores
that will make behavioral adaptations regarding food acquisition
(Weaver et al. 1996, p. 970). Diets of grizzly bears vary among
individuals, seasons, and years (Mattson et al. 1991a, pp. 1625-1626;
Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 767; Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499; Koel et
al. 2005, p. 14), reflecting their flexibility in finding adequate food
resources as necessary. Mattson et al. (1991a, p. 1625) hypothesized
that grizzly bears are always sampling new foods in small quantities so
that they have alternative options in years when preferred foods are
scarce. In other areas such as the NCDE, where grizzly bears
historically relied heavily on whitebark pine seeds, distributions and
sighting records on the periphery of this ecosystem indicate that the
population, at least in those areas, has continued to increase and
thrive since the 1980s despite severe declines in whitebark pine
communities in the last 50 years (Kendall and Keane 2001, p. 30).
Similarly, although whitebark pine seed production and grizzly bear use
of cutthroat trout varied dramatically in the GYA over the last three
decades due to both natural and human-introduced causes (Reinhart and
Mattson 1990, pp. 345-349; Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499; Haroldson and
Podruzny 2006, p. 45), the Yellowstone grizzly bear population has
continued to increase and expand during this time period (Schwartz et
al. 2006b, p. 66).
Because of the life history strategy of whitebark pine, which
naturally exhibits extreme annual variability in cone production,
grizzly bears have always had to cope with a high degree of uncertainty
regarding this food resource. The potential threat from decreases in
whitebark pine cone production to grizzly bears is not one of
starvation, but one of larger home range size and movements in years of
low or no whitebark cone production. These movement patterns may result
in increased conflicts with humans and increased mortality, as well as
lower reproductive success the following year as females produce
smaller litters. Bear/human conflicts can be reduced through management
responses and intensified I & E efforts. Possible lowered reproductive
success will be detected through monitoring and mitigated in the short
term by reduced mortality limits and efforts to reduce nuisance bear
removals, and in the long-term by continued whitebark pine restoration
and habitat management enhancing secure habitat availability in
specific areas outside the PCA where healthy whitebark pine may be
available.
Although numerous alternative foods are available to GYA grizzly
bears such
[[Page 14933]]
as corms, insects, fungi, and forbs; in terms of calories or nutrition,
these are inferior to the four major foods discussed above and
previously in the ``Behavior'' section. In light of the potential
threats to several of these important, high-energy grizzly bear foods,
especially whitebark pine which has been linked to grizzly bear
survival and reproduction (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Gunther et al.
1997, p. 38; Gunther et al. 2004, p. 15; Mattson 2000, p. 120), we
believe the best approach is one of adaptive management (Holling 1978,
pp. 11-16). The Study Team, working with the USDA Forest Service and
National Park Service will continue to monitor the abundance and
distribution of major grizzly bear foods such that any decline in the
grizzly bear population as a result of these declines is detected in a
sufficient time and addressed through adaptive management (Holling
1978, pp. 11-16) actions by the Coordinating Committee. Because of this
flexible and responsive management framework, we do not anticipate that
the Yellowstone DPS is likely to become endangered in all or a
significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future due to
changes in its food sources.
The Study Team monitors grizzly bear mortality in relation to the
abundance and distribution of all four of the major foods using
measurable criteria. For instance, increases in mortality rates of
radio-collared independent females are measurable criteria that could
reflect decreases in food availability. Because there were no known
natural mortalities of independent adult females from 1983 to 2001
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, p. 35), any change in this
value will be noteworthy and will be investigated thoroughly by the
Study Team to determine whether it is reflective of a landscape-scale
trend or simply an isolated event. Significant declines in important
foods also could result in reductions in cub production and increases
in cub mortality over current rates of 0.362. The Study Team not only
monitors survival but also reproductive population parameters such as
litter size and cub survival that are more sensitive to decreases in
food quality and quantity. Because human-caused mortality, natural
mortality of radio-collared bears, and numbers of cubs, and cub
survival rates are all measurable criteria monitored annually by the
Study Team, any biologically significant decline in important foods
also would be reflected in changes in these measurable population
parameters. When combined with data collected annually about the
quantity and distribution of the four major foods, the Study Team will
have adequate information to determine if declining food sources are
affecting population trajectory.
If declines in any of the four major foods occur and, using the
best available scientific data and techniques, the Study Team concludes
these are related to significant increases in known and probable bear
mortalities, and that such increases could threaten the grizzly
population, the Study Team would recommend appropriate management
responses to the Coordinating Committee, or submission of a relisting
petition to us (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 63-67).
Although we believe such an outcome is unlikely, we can also relist the
Yellowstone DPS independent of the petition process. This final rule
and the Conservation Strategy describe a comprehensive monitoring and
management system that will be in place for the Yellowstone grizzly
bear DPS upon delisting. The dynamic nature of the Conservation
Strategy and its regulatory framework provide us with reasonable
assurance that the Yellowstone DPS is not likely to become endangered
in all or a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future.
Human Attitudes Toward Grizzly Bear Recovery and I & E Efforts to
Improve these Attitudes--Public support is paramount to any successful
large carnivore conservation program (Servheen 1998, p. 67).
Historically, human attitudes played a primary role in grizzly bear
population declines through excessive human-caused mortality. Through
government-endorsed eradication programs and perceived threats to human
life and economic livelihood, humans settling the West were able to
effectively eliminate most known grizzly populations after only 100
years of westward expansion.
We have seen a change in public perceptions and attitudes toward
the grizzly bear in the last several decades. The same government that
once financially supported active extermination of the bear now uses
its resources to protect the great symbol of American wildness. This
change in government policy and practice is a product of changing
public attitudes about the grizzly bear. Although attitudes about
grizzlies vary geographically and demographically, there has been a
revival of positive attitudes toward the grizzly bear and its
conservation (Kellert et al. 1996, pp. 983-986).
Public outreach presents a unique opportunity to effectively
integrate human and ecological concerns into comprehensive programs
that can modify societal beliefs about, perceptions of, and behaviors
toward grizzly bears. Attitudes toward wildlife are shaped by numerous
factors including basic wildlife values, biological and ecological
understanding of species, perceptions of individual species, and
specific interactions or experiences with species (Kellert 1994, pp.
44-48; Kellert et al. 1996, pp. 983-986). I & E programs teach visitors
and residents about grizzly bear biology, ecology, and behavior enhance
appreciation for this large predator while dispelling myths about its
temperament and feeding habits. Effective I & E programs have been an
essential factor contributing to the recovery of the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population since its listing in 1975. Being aware of
specific values common to certain user groups will allow the I & E
working group to disseminate appropriate materials and provide
workshops that address particular values and concerns most adequately.
By providing general information to visitors and targeting specific
user groups about living and working in grizzly country, we believe
continued coexistence between grizzly bears and humans will be
accomplished.
Traditionally, residents of the GYA involved in resource extraction
industries such as loggers, miners, livestock operators, and hunting
guides, are the largest opponents to land-use restrictions which place
the needs of the grizzly bear above human needs (Kellert 1994, p. 48;
Kellert et al. 1996, p. 984). Surveys of these user groups have shown
that they tolerate large predators when they are not seen as direct
threats to their economic stability or personal freedoms (Kellert et
al. 1996, p. 985). Delisting could increase acceptance of grizzly bears
by giving local government and private citizens more discretion in
decisions which affect them. Increased flexibility regarding
depredating bears in areas outside of the PCA may increase tolerance
for the grizzly bear by landowners and livestock operators.
Ultimately, the future of the grizzly bear will be based on the
people who live, work, and recreate in grizzly habitat and the
willingness and ability of these people to learn to coexist with the
grizzly and to accept this animal as a cohabitant of the land. Other
management strategies are unlikely to succeed without useful and
innovative public I & E programs. The primary objective of the expanded
public outreach program will be to proactively address grizzly/human
conflicts by educating the public as to the root
[[Page 14934]]
causes of these conflicts and providing suggestions on how to prevent
them. By increasing awareness of grizzly bear behavior and biology, we
hope to enhance public involvement and appreciation of the grizzly
bear.
Although many human-caused grizzly bear mortalities are
unintentional (e.g., vehicle collisions, trap mortality), intentional
deaths in response to grizzly bear/human conflicts are responsible for
the majority of known and probable human-caused mortalities.
Fortunately, this source of mortality can be reduced significantly if
adequate I & E is provided to people who live, work, and recreate in
occupied grizzly bear habitat. The current I & E working group has been
a major component contributing to the successful recovery of the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population over the last 30 years. Both
Federal and State management agencies are committed to continuing to
work with citizens, landowners, and visitors within the Yellowstone DPS
boundaries to address the human sources of conflicts.
From 1980 through 2002, at least 36 percent (72 out of 196) of
human-caused mortalities could have been avoided if adequate I & E
materials had been presented, understood, and used by involved parties
(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 15). Educating back-country and front-country
users about the importance of securing potential attractants can
prevent bears from becoming food conditioned and displaying subsequent
unnaturally aggressive behavior. Similarly, adhering to hiking
recommendations, such as making noise, hiking with other people, and
hiking during daylight hours, can further reduce back-country grizzly
bear mortalities by decreasing the likelihood that hikers will
encounter bears.
Hunter-related mortalities may involve hunters defending their life
or property because of carcasses that are left unattended or stored
improperly. Grizzly bear mortalities also occur when hunters mistake
grizzly bears for black bears. All of these circumstances can be
further reduced with enhanced I & E programs.
Outside the PCA, State wildlife agencies recognize that the key to
preventing grizzly bear/human conflicts is providing I & E to the
public. State grizzly bear management plans also acknowledge that this
is the most effective long-term solution to grizzly bear/human
conflicts and that adequate public outreach programs are paramount to
ongoing grizzly bear survival and successful coexistence with humans in
the GYA so that the measures of the Act continue to not be necessary.
All three States have been actively involved in I & E outreach for over
a decade and their respective management plans contain chapters
detailing efforts to continue current programs and expand them when
possible. For example, WGFD created a formal human/grizzly bear
conflict management program in July 1990 and has coordinated an
extensive I & E program since then. Similarly, since 1993, the MTFWP
has implemented countless public outreach efforts to minimize bear/
human conflicts, and the IDFG has organized and implemented education
programs and workshops focused on private and public lands on the
western edge of grizzly bear habitat.
Compensating ranchers for losses caused by grizzly bears is another
approach to build support for coexistence between livestock operators
and grizzly bears. In cases of grizzly bear livestock depredation that
have been verified by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Wildlife Services, IDFG, MTFWP, or WGFD, affected livestock owners are
compensated. Since 1997, compensation in Montana and Idaho has been
provided primarily by private organizations, principally Defenders of
Wildlife. The Defenders of Wildlife's Grizzly Bear Compensation Trust
has paid over $140,721 to livestock operators within the Yellowstone
DPS boundaries and in the northern Rockies for confirmed and probable
livestock losses to grizzly bears (Johnson 2006). In Wyoming,
compensation has always been paid directly by the State. Upon delisting
both Idaho and Wyoming's grizzly bear management plans provide for
State funding of compensation programs (Idaho's Grizzly Bear Delisting
Advisory Team 2002, p. 16; WGFD 2005, p. 30). In Idaho, compensation
funds will come from the secondary depredation account, and the program
will be administered by the appropriate IDFG Regional Landowner
Sportsman Coordinators and Regional Supervisors (Idaho's Grizzly Bear
Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. 16). In Wyoming, the WGFD will pay for
all compensable damage to agricultural products as provided by State
law and regulation (WGFD 2005, p. 30). The WGFD will continue efforts
to establish a long-term funding mechanism to compensate property
owners for livestock and apiary losses caused by grizzly bears. The
Montana State management plan does not include a funding mechanism to
compensate confirmed grizzly bear livestock losses, so MTFWP will
continue to rely on Defenders of Wildlife and other private groups to
compensate livestock operators for losses due to grizzly bears while
MTFWP focuses on preventing such conflicts. However, when Defenders of
Wildlife expanded their compensation program to include the GYA, they
agreed to do so while the grizzly bear was listed under the Act.
Internal discussions within Defenders of Wildlife have begun to
determine whether their compensation program will continue in the
Montana portion of the GYA after delisting occurs (Clark 2006).
Summary of Factor E--Overall, these natural and manmade factors
(genetic concerns; invasive species, disease, and other potential
impacts to food supply; and human attitudes toward grizzly bear
recovery and I & E efforts to improve these attitudes), have the
potential to be a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in all or
a significant portion of its range in the foreseeable future. Through
careful monitoring and adaptive management (Holling 1978, pp. 11-16)
practices, the Study Team and the States will be able to identify and
address these concerns before they become problems for the Yellowstone
grizzly bear at a population level. All of these issues have been
scientifically researched and considered so that an adequate management
framework is in place to respond to future concerns as they arise. Due
to the large amount and wide distribution of quality suitable habitat
(46,035 sq km (17,774 sq mi)), the protected status of large areas of
high elevation whitebark pine stands not projected to be substantially
impacted by future mountain pine beetle infestations, the maintenance
of grizzly bears within the PCA as a source population for peripheral
areas and potential dispersers to other grizzly bear populations, the
secure nature of the PCA for potential immigrants to the GYA from other
grizzly bear populations, and the commitment by the responsible
agencies to the maintenance of a recovered Yellowstone grizzly bear
DPS, we do not anticipate that genetic isolation, decreases in major
foods, or human attitudes toward grizzly bears will substantially
adversely impact the Yellowstone DPS. Therefore, these issues will not
impact the Yellowstone DPS such that it is likely to become endangered
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis
As demonstrated in our 5-factor analysis, threats to this
population have been sufficiently minimized over the entire current and
foreseeable range of the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS
[[Page 14935]]
including all ``suitable habitat'' within the DPS boundaries, and there
is no significant portion of the range where the DPS remains threatened
or endangered.
Regarding Factor A, the habitat-based recovery criteria have been
maintained inside the PCA since 1998 and they will continue to be
maintained in perpetuity through implementation of the Strategy. The
PCA will continue to serve as a source area for grizzly bears to expand
into peripheral areas and unoccupied suitable habitat. The PCA will
also be important in achieving connectivity with other grizzly bear
populations as it provides potential dispersers to other ecosystems
outside the DPS boundaries and functions as secure habitat for
immigrants from other grizzly bear populations. Threats to suitable
habitat outside the PCA also have been sufficiently minimized by the
commitment of the USDA Forest Service to manage National Forest lands
in the GYA such that a recovered Yellowstone grizzly bear population
will be maintained (USDA Forest Service 2006b; pp. 4, 26). Outside of
the PCA, grizzly bears will be allowed to expand into suitable habitat,
as per direction in the State management plans. High-quality, suitable
habitat is widely distributed throughout the GYA, providing ecological
resilience for the Yellowstone DPS to respond to environmental changes.
Therefore, sufficient habitat exists to ensure that the Yellowstone
grizzly bear DPS is not likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Regarding Factor B and C, all demographic criteria relating to
sustainable mortality have been, and will continue to be, met
(Schwartz, in press). The threat of overutilization due to commercial,
recreational, scientific, or education purposes has been removed
through cooperation among management agencies that ensures a consistent
approach to mortality management. Sustainable mortality limits,
coordinated conflict management protocols, and conflict prevention
programs ensure that the Yellowstone DPS is not likely to become
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Regarding Factor D, the USDA Forest Service finalized the Forest
Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the GYA
National Forests and has incorporated this Amendment into the affected
National Forests' Land Management Plans (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p.
4). Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks appended the habitat
standards to their Park Superintendent's Compendiums, thereby assuring
that these National Parks would manage habitat in accordance with the
habitat standards (Grand Teton National Park 2006, p. 1; Yellowstone
National Park 2006, p. 44). The State and Federal agencies' agreement
to implement the Strategy's extensive guidelines inside the PCA, the
USDA Forest Service's decision to classify the grizzly bear in the GYA
as a species of concern, and the State management plans ensure that
adequate regulatory mechanisms remain in place in all significant
portions of the Yellowstone DPS' range and that it is not likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Regarding Factor E, the Service concludes other natural and manmade
factors are not a current threat nor will they be in the foreseeable
future due to widely distributed, high-quality suitable habitat that is
protected by regulatory mechanisms. Intensive annual monitoring of
multiple indices combined with the adaptive management approach will
assure that isolation (i.e., genetic diversity or a lack of gene flow),
threats to foods, and human attitudes will not impact the Yellowstone
DPS such that it is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Our current knowledge of the health and condition of the
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS illustrates that it is now a recovered
population. Counts of unduplicated females with cubs-of-the-year have
increased (Knight et al. 1995, p. 247; Haroldson and Schwartz 2002, p.
16; Haroldson 2006a), and counts of cubs have increased (Knight and
Blanchard 1995, p. 9; Knight and Blanchard 1996, p. 8; Knight et al.
1997, p. 2; Haroldson et al. 1998, p. 8; Haroldson 1999, p. 10;
Haroldson 2000, p. 11; Haroldson 2001, p. 14; Haroldson and Schwartz
2002, p. 16; Haroldson 2003, p. 16; Haroldson 2004, p. 11; Haroldson
2006b, p. 12). Grizzly range and distribution has expanded (Basile
1982, pp. 3-10; Blanchard et al. 1992, p. 92; Schwartz et al. 2002, p.
203; Pyare et al. 2004, pp. 5-6; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66).
Calculations of population trajectory derived from radio-monitored
female bears demonstrate an increasing population trend at a rate of 4
to 7 percent per year between 1983 and 2002 (Eberhardt et al. 1994, p.
362; Knight and Blanchard 1995, pp. 18-19; Harris et al. 2006, p. 48),
due in large part to control of female mortality. In total, this
population has increased from estimates ranging from 229 (Craighead et
al. 1974, p. 16) to 234 (Cowan et al. 1974, pp. 32, 36) to 312
(McCullough 1981, p. 175) individuals when listed in 1975 to more than
500 animals as of 2005 (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 2006, p.
15).
At the end of 2006, the number of unduplicated females with cubs-
of-the-year over a 6-year average both inside the Recovery Zone and
within a 16-km (10-mi) area immediately surrounding the Recovery Zone
was 41, more than 2.7 times the Recovery Plan target of 15. The
Recovery Plan target for the number of unduplicated females with cubs-
of-the-year (15) has been exceeded since 1988. In 2006, the 1-year
total of unduplicated females with cubs-of-the-year within the entire
GYA was 47 (Haroldson 2006a).
Within the Recovery Zone, the distribution of females with young,
based on the most recent six years of observations in the ecosystem,
was 18 out of 18 bear management units at the end of 2004. The range of
this population also has increased dramatically, as evidenced by the 48
percent increase in occupied habitat since the 1970s (Schwartz et al.
2002, p. 203; Pyare et al. 2004, p. 5-6; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-
66). Furthermore, the Yellowstone grizzly bear population continues to
expand its range and distribution today. Currently, roughly 84 to 90
percent of the sightings of females with cubs are within the PCA and
about 10 to 16 percent of females with cubs have expanded out beyond
the PCA within the DPS (Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66). Grizzly
bears now occupy 68 percent of suitable habitat within the DPS and will
likely occupy the remainder of the suitable habitat within the DPS
within the foreseeable future. The Yellowstone DPS now has sufficient
numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to ensure that it
is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Applying the current mortality limits (Interagency Grizzly Bear
Study Team 2005, pp. 6-9) to the 1999 to 2006 period, the sustainable
mortality limits have not been exceeded for 3 consecutive years for
males, for 3 consecutive years for dependent young, or for 2
consecutive years for independent females (Schwartz, in press). The
main threat of human predation has been addressed through carefully
monitored and controlled mortality limits established in the Strategy
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 126) and annually monitored
and reported by the Study Team (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
2005, pp. 6-9). In addition, I & E is a
[[Page 14936]]
main component of the program to reduce grizzly bear/human conflicts.
The Yellowstone DPS now has sufficient control of mortality to ensure
that it is not likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
The Act defines a threatened species as one that is likely to
become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. The Act defines an endangered species
as one that is likely to become extinct in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Based on the best
scientific and commercial information available, we have determined
that the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is recovered and no longer meets
the Act's definition of threatened or endangered. Therefore, we are
hereby delisting the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS.
Petition Finding
Additionally, we announce a 90-day finding on a petition (submitted
during the public comment period for the proposed rule) to list the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population as endangered on the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife under the Act and to designate
critical habitat. We reviewed the petition to list the Yellowstone DPS
of grizzly bears and the literature cited in the petition, and
evaluated that information in relation to other pertinent literature
and information available to us. All assertions of this petition are
addressed either in the Summary of Public Comments and in the 5-factor
analysis sections of this final rule, or in the Reassessing Methods
Document's issues and responses summary. After this review and
evaluation, we find that the petition and additional information in our
files did not present substantial information indicating that listing
the Yellowstone grizzly bear population as endangered may be warranted.
Therefore, we are not initiating a status review in response to this
petition.
Effects of the Rule
Promulgation of this final rule will affect the protections
afforded to the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS under the Act. Taking,
interstate commerce, import, and export of grizzly bears from the
Yellowstone DPS are no longer prohibited under the Act. Other State and
Federal laws will still regulate take. In addition, with the removal of
the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, Federal agencies are no longer required to consult
with us under section 7 of the Act to ensure that any action
authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize
the species' continued existence. However, actions within the PCA will
still be regulated by over 70 State and Federal laws, regulations, and
policies ensuring enforcement of the Strategy. Delisting the
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is expected to have positive effects in
terms of management flexibility to the States and local governments.
However, the full protections of the Act will still continue to
apply to grizzly bear in other portions of the lower 48-States outside
the Yellowstone DPS. Those grizzly bears will remain fully protected by
the Act. There is no designated critical habitat for this species.
Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, in cooperation with the
States, to implement a monitoring program for not less than 5 years for
all species that have been recovered and delisted. The purpose of this
requirement is to develop a program that detects the failure of any
delisted species to sustain itself without the protective measures
provided by the Act. If, at any time during the monitoring period, data
indicate that protective status under the Act should be reinstated, we
can initiate listing procedures, including, if appropriate, emergency
listing.
To further ensure the long-term conservation of adequate grizzly
bear habitat and continued recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population, several monitoring programs and protocols have been
developed and integrated into land management agency planning
documents. The Strategy and appended State grizzly bear management
plans effectively satisfy the requirements for having a Post-Delisting
Monitoring Plan for the Yellowstone DPS. Monitoring programs, which we
anticipate will be continued in perpetuity, will focus on assessing
whether demographic standards and habitat criteria described in the
Strategy are being achieved. A suite of indices will be monitored
simultaneously to provide a highly sensitive system to monitor the
health of the population and its habitat and to provide a sound
scientific basis to respond to any changes or needs with adaptive
management actions (Holling 1978, pp. 11-16). More specifically,
monitoring efforts will document population trends, distribution,
survival and birth rates, and the presence of alleles from grizzly
populations outside the Yellowstone DPS boundaries to document gene
flow into the population. Throughout the DPS boundaries, locations of
grizzly bear mortalities on private lands will be provided to the Study
Team for incorporation into their Annual Report. Full implementation of
the Strategy by State and Federal agencies will allow for a sustainable
population by managing all suitable habitat.
Within the Primary Conservation Area--As discussed in previous
sections, habitat criteria established for the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population will be monitored carefully and any deviations from these
will be reported annually. The number and levels of secure habitat,
developed sites, and livestock allotments will not be allowed to
deviate from 1998 baseline measures in accordance with the
implementation protocols in the Strategy.
The Study Team will prepare Annual Reports summarizing the habitat
criteria and population statistics. The Study Team will be responsible
for counting the number of unduplicated females with cubs-of-the-year
and monitoring mortality, distribution, and the presence of alleles
from grizzly populations outside the Yellowstone DPS boundaries to
document gene flow into the population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2007, pp. 155-156, Appendix I). To examine reproductive rates, survival
rates, causes of death, and overall population trends, the Study Team
will strive to radio collar and monitor a minimum of 25 adult female
grizzly bears at all times. These bears will be spatially distributed
throughout the ecosystem as determined by the Study Team.
The Study Team, with participation from Yellowstone National Park,
the USDA Forest Service, and State wildlife agencies, also will monitor
grizzly bear habitats, foods, and impacts of humans. Documenting the
abundance and distribution of the major foods will be an integral
component of monitoring within the PCA as it allows managers some
degree of predictive power to anticipate and avoid grizzly bear/human
conflicts related to a shortage of one or more foods. Major foods,
habitat value, and habitat effectiveness will be monitored according to
Appendices E and I in the Strategy, and as described in Factor A of
this final rule.
Outside of the Primary Conservation Area--Although State management
plans are the guiding documents for management of the Yellowstone
grizzly bear DPS outside of the PCA upon delisting, habitat management
will primarily be the responsibility of the GYA National Forests. State
wildlife agencies will be responsible for monitoring population
parameters in areas outside of the PCA. The GYA
[[Page 14937]]
National Forests will be responsible for monitoring agreed-upon habitat
parameters in suitable habitat outside the PCA, as defined by State
management plans, and will calculate secure habitat values outside of
the PCA every two years and submit these data for inclusion in the
Study Team's annual report (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 6). The GYA
National Forests also will monitor and evaluate livestock allotments
for recurring conflicts with grizzly bears in suitable habitat outside
the PCA as defined in the State plans (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p.
6). The GYA National Forests will be responsible for monitoring
whitebark pine occurrence, productivity, and health in suitable habitat
outside the PCA (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 7). All three States
will document sightings of females with cubs and provide this
information to the Study Team. Finally, State wildlife agencies will
provide known mortality information to the Study Team, which will
annually summarize this data with respect to location, type, date of
incident, and the sex and age of the bear for the DPS area.
In Idaho, the IDFG will be responsible for monitoring population
trends and habitat parameters. Outside of the PCA, the IDFG will
establish data analysis units to facilitate monitoring of grizzly bear
distribution, abundance, and mortality. Habitat criteria will be
monitored within each unit but will not be established strictly for
grizzly bears. Instead, habitat standards will be incorporated into
current management plans for other game species. However, the IDFG will
monitor food sources for grizzly bears including elk, deer, moose,
Kokanee salmon, and cutthroat trout. The IDFG also will encourage and
work with other land management agencies on public lands to monitor
wetland and riparian habitats, whitebark pine production, important
berry-producing plants, and changes in motorized access route density.
On private lands, the IDFG will work with citizens, counties, and other
agencies to monitor development activities and identify important
spring habitat for grizzly bears, then work with landowners to minimize
impacts to bears.
In Montana, the MTFWP will monitor populations using data from
research, distribution changes, DNA samples, confirmed sightings, and
known mortalities. The MTFWP will collect and analyze habitat data and
monitor habitat changes pertaining to key grizzly bear foods, road
densities, road construction and improvements, and coal bed methane
activities. In addition, the MTFWP will continue to use statewide
habitat programs to conserve key wildlife habitats in southwestern
Montana, working closely with private landowners to conserve private
lands via lease, conservation easements, or fee title acquisition.
In Wyoming, the WGFD will establish grizzly bear management units
to collect and analyze demographic and distributional data. Habitat
standards will be monitored in a manner consistent with those already
in place for other wildlife and will not focus specifically on the
habitat needs of grizzly bears. The WGFD will evaluate the effects of
existing and proposed human activities in important wildlife habitat
and work with land management and transportation agencies to ensure
that projects do not adversely affect the grizzly bear population.
Specifically, the WGFD will--(1) identify and evaluate the site-
specific and cumulative effects of proposed projects; (2) monitor and
recommend changes, if justified, in human activities on seasonally
important wildlife habitats; (3) minimize road and site construction
impacts on wildlife habitat; (4) encourage the use of native vegetation
in rehabilitation projects; (5) encourage land management agencies to
manage for open road densities of no more than 1.6 km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/
sq mi) which benefit a suite of wildlife species; (6) recommend
seasonal road closures when warranted; (7) encourage the USDA Forest
Service and BLM to enforce off road/trail motorized use restrictions;
and (8) focus on improving habitat quality in areas of habitually high
human-caused grizzly bear mortality (WGFD 2005, pp. 22-25). In
addition, the WGFD will work with the USDA Forest Service to monitor
bear use of army cutworm moths and the overall status and health of
whitebark pine (WGFD 2005, p. 22).
Monitoring systems in the Strategy allow for adaptive management
(Holling 1978, pp. 11-16) as environmental issues change. The agencies
have committed in the Strategy to be responsive to the needs of the
grizzly bear through adaptive management (Holling 1978, pp. 11-16)
actions based on the results of detailed annual population and habitat
monitoring. These monitoring efforts would reflect the best scientific
and commercial data and any new information that has become available
since this delisting determination. The entire process would be dynamic
so that when new science becomes available it will be incorporated into
the management planning and monitoring systems outlined in the Strategy
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 5-6). The results of this
extensive monitoring would allow wildlife and land managers to identify
and address potential threats preemptively thereby, allowing those
managers and us to be certain that the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population remains a recovered population.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any new collections of information other
than those already approved under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and assigned Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
control number 1018-0094, which expires on September 30, 2007. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. For additional information concerning permit
and associated requirements for endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.21
and 17.22.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that Environmental Assessments and Environmental
Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the NEPA, need not
be prepared in connection with actions adopted pursuant to section 4(a)
of the Act. A notice outlining our reasons for this determination was
published in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Executive Order 13211
On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 on
regulations that significantly affect energy supply, distribution, and
use. Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this final rule is
not expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or
use, this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of
Energy Effects is required.
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited herein is available upon
request from the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator (see ADDRESSES
above).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Regulation Promulgation
0
Accordingly, we amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of
the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
[[Page 14938]]
PART 17--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the listing for ``Bear, grizzly''
under ``MAMMALS'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to
read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
------------------------------------------------------ population where Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed Critical habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAMMALS
* * * * * * *
Bear, grizzly................... Ursus arctos North America..... U.S.A., T 1, 2D, 9, NA 17.40(b)
horribilis. conterminous 759
(lower 48)
States, except--
(1) where listed
as an
experimental
population; and
(2) that portion
of Idaho that is
east of
Interstate
Highway 15 and
north of U.S.
Highway 30; that
portion of
Montana that is
east of
Interstate
Highway 15 and
south of
Interstate
Highway 90; that
portion of
Wyoming south of
Interstate
Highway 90, west
of Interstate
Highway 25,
Wyoming State
Highway 220, and
U.S. Highway 287
south of Three
Forks (at the 220
and 287
intersection),
and north of
Interstate
Highway 80 and
U.S. Highway 30.
Do............................. ......do........... ......do.......... U.S.A. (portions XN 706 NA 17.84(l)
of ID and MT, see
17.84(l)).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: March 20, 2007.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 07-1474 Filed 3-23-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P