[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30502-30633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13160]
[[Page 30501]]
Vol. 82
Friday,
No. 125
June 30, 2017
Part III
Book 3 of 3 Books
Pages 30501-30720
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 30502]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042; FXES11130900000C6-178-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BA41
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; availability of final Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan
Supplement: Revised Demographic Criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The best available scientific and commercial data indicate
that the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of grizzly
bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) is a valid distinct population segment
(DPS) and that this DPS has recovered and no longer meets the
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act, as amended (Act). Therefore, we, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), hereby revise the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife, under the authority of the Act, by establishing a
DPS and removing the GYE grizzly bear DPS. The Service has determined
that the GYE grizzly bear population has increased in size and more
than tripled its occupied range since being listed as threatened under
the Act in 1975 and that threats to the population are sufficiently
minimized. The participating States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and
Federal agencies have adopted the necessary post-delisting plans and
regulations, which adequately ensure that the GYE population of grizzly
bears remains recovered.
Concurrent to this final rule, we are appending the Grizzly Bear
Recovery Plan Supplement: Revised Demographic Criteria to the 1993
Recovery Plan. Moreover, prior to publication of this final rule, the
Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee finalized the 2016 Conservation
Strategy that will guide post-delisting monitoring and management of
the grizzly bear in the GYE. Additionally, the U.S. Forest Service
finalized in 2006 the Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear
Conservation for the GYE National Forests and made a decision to
incorporate this Amendment into the affected National Forests' Land
Management Plans. Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National
Park appended the habitat standards to their Park Superintendent's
Compendia, thereby ensuring that these national parks would manage
habitat in accordance with the habitat standards. The States of Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming have signed a Tri-State Memorandum of Agreement
and enacted regulatory mechanisms to ensure that State management of
mortality limits is consistent with the demographic recovery criteria.
DATES: This final rule becomes effective July 31, 2017.
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 the
Grizzly Bear Recovery Office, University Hall, Room #309, University of
Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812. To make arrangements, call 406-243-
4903.
Document availability: This final rule and supporting documents are
available on http://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2016-0042. In addition, certain documents, such as the final 2016
Conservation Strategy, the final Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Supplement:
Revised Demographic Criteria, and a list of references cited, are
available at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php.
The Service will complete the decision file shortly.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University Hall,
Room #309, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812; telephone 406-
243-4903; facsimile 406-329-3212. For Tribal inquiries, contact Roya
Mogadam, Deputy Assistant Regional Director, External Affairs, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; telephone: 303-236-4572. Persons who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay
Service at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE)
Previous Federal Actions
Background
Population Ecology--Background
Recovery Planning and Implementation
--Background
--Recovery Planning
--Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria
--Suitable Habitat
--Demographic Recovery Criteria
[cir] Demographic Recovery Criterion 1
[cir] Demographic Recovery Criterion 2
[cir] Demographic Recovery Criterion 3
--The 2016 Conservation Strategy
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview
Past Practice and History of Using DPSs
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Analysis
--Analysis of Discreteness in Relation to Remainder of Taxon
--Analysis of Significance of Population Segment to Taxon
[cir] Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting
[cir] Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon
[cir] Marked Genetic Differences
Summary of Distinct Population Segment Analysis
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
--Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range.
[cir] Habitat Management Inside the Primary Conservation Area
[ssquf] Motorized Access Management
[ssquf] Developed Sites
[ssquf] Livestock Allotments
[ssquf] Mineral and Energy Development
[ssquf] Recreation
[ssquf] Snowmobiling
[ssquf] Vegetation Management
[ssquf] Climate Change
[ssquf] Habitat Fragmentation
[cir] Habitat Management Outside the Primary Conservation Area
[cir] Summary of Factor A
--Factors B and C Combined. Overutilization for Commercial,
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes; Disease or
Predation
[cir] Human-Caused Mortality
[cir] Disease
[cir] Natural Predation
[cir] Summary of Factors B and C Combined
--Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
[cir] Genetic Health
[cir] Changes in Food Resources
[cir] Climate Change
[cir] Catastrophic Events
[cir] Public Support and Human Attitudes
[cir] Summary of Factor E
--Cumulative Effects of Factors A Through E
Summary of Factors Affecting the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Grizzly Bear Population
Summary of and Responses to Peer Review and Public Comment
--General Issues
--Delisting Process and Compliance With Applicable Laws,
Regulations, and Policies Issues
--Geographic Scope of Recovery and Delisting Issues
--Working With Tribes and Tribal Issues
--Recovery Criteria and Management Objective Issues
--Other Comments on Whether To Delist
--Measurement of and Interpretation of Population Parameters
Issues
--Habitat Management Issues (Factor A)
--Human-Caused Mortality Issues (Factors B and C Combined)
--Adequate Regulatory Mechanisms and Post-Delisting Monitoring
Issues (Factor D)
[[Page 30503]]
--Genetic Health Issues (Factor E)
--Food Resource Issues (Factor E)
--Climate Change Issues (Factor E)
--Other Potential Threat Factor Issues (Factor E)
--Cumulative Impacts of Threats Issues
--Distinct Population Segment and Significant Portion of Its
Range Issues
Determination
Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis
--Background
--Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis for the GYE Grizzly
Bear DPS
Effects of the Rule
Post-Delisting Monitoring
--Monitoring
--Triggers for a Biology and Monitoring Review by the
Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
--Triggers for a Service Status Review
Required Determinations
--Clarity of the Rule
--National Environmental Policy Act
--Government-to-Government Relationships With Tribes
Glossary
References Cited
Authors
Executive Summary
(1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations in part 424
of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set
forth the procedures for revising the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Rulemaking is required to remove a
species from these lists. Accordingly, we are issuing this final rule
to identify the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear
distinct population segment (DPS) and revise the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by removing the DPS from the List. The population
is stable (i.e., no statistical trend in the population trajectory),
threats are sufficiently ameliorated, and a post-delisting monitoring
and management framework has been developed and has been incorporated
into regulatory mechanisms or other operative documents. The best
scientific and commercial data available, including our detailed
evaluation of information related to the population's trend and
structure, indicate that the GYE grizzly bear DPS has recovered and
threats have been reduced such that it no longer meets the definition
of threatened, or endangered, under the Act. To better articulate
demographic criteria that adequately describe a recovered population,
we are releasing a supplement to the 1993 Recovery Plan's demographic
recovery criteria for this population of grizzly bears. In addition,
the 2016 Conservation Strategy was finalized and signed by all partner
agencies in December 2016. Identifying the GYE grizzly bear DPS and
removing that DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
does not change the threatened status of the remaining grizzly bears in
the lower 48 States, which remain protected by the Act.
On September 21, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana vacated and remanded the Service's previous final rule
establishing and delisting this DPS. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the district court finding that the Service had not adequately
analyzed the effects of whitebark pine as a food source for this DPS,
but reversed the district court finding that the Service had
permissibly and appropriately considered the 2007 Conservation Strategy
under section 4 of the Act. Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen,
665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011). This final rule completes that remand
order by addressing the effects of whitebark pine, as well as the other
applicable factors under section 4 of the Act.
(2) Major Provision of the Regulatory Action
This action is authorized by the Act. We are amending 50 CFR
17.11(h) by revising the listing for ``Bear, grizzly'' under
``Mammals'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to remove
the GYE grizzly bear DPS.
(3) Costs and Benefits
We have not analyzed the costs or benefits of this rulemaking
action because the Act precludes consideration of such impacts on
listing and delisting determinations. Instead, listing and delisting
decisions are based solely on the best scientific and commercial data
available regarding the status of the subject species.
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE)
The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) refers to the larger
ecological system containing and surrounding Yellowstone National Park
(YNP). The GYE includes portions of five National Forests; YNP, Grand
Teton National Park (GTNP), and the John D. Rockefeller Memorial
Parkway (JDR; administered by GTNP); and State, Tribal, and private
lands. The GYE is generally defined as those lands surrounding YNP with
elevations greater than 1,500 meters (m) (4,900 feet (ft)) (see USDA FS
2004, p. 46; Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 9). While we consider the terms
``Greater Yellowstone Area'' and ``Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem'' to
be interchangeable, we use GYE in this final rule to be consistent with
the 2016 Conservation Strategy. The Primary Conservation Area (PCA)
boundary is the same as and replaces the existing Yellowstone Recovery
Zone as identified in the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993,
p. 41) to reflect the paradigm shift from managing for recovery as a
listed species under the Act to one of conservation as a non-listed
species (figure 1). Monitoring of the demographic criteria for the GYE
grizzly bear population will occur, by the Interagency Grizzly Bear
Study Team (IGBST), within the demographic monitoring area (DMA) to
ensure a recovered population (figure 1).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
[[Page 30504]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN17.251
BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
Previous Federal Actions
On July 28, 1975, we published a rule to designate the grizzly bear
as threatened in the conterminous (lower 48) United States (40 FR
31734). Accordingly, we developed a Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1982) and updated that plan as necessary (72
FR 11376, March 13, 2007; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, 2007a,
2007b, 2017). On November 17, 2005, we proposed to designate the GYE
population of grizzly
[[Page 30505]]
bears as a DPS and to remove (delist) this DPS from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (70 FR 69854). On March 29, 2007, we
finalized this proposed action, designating the GYE population as a DPS
and removing (delisting) grizzly bears in the GYE from the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 14866). This final
determination was vacated and remanded by the U.S. District Court for
the District of Montana on September 21, 2009, in Greater Yellowstone
Coalition v. Servheen, et al., 672 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009). The
District Court ruled against the Service on two of the four points
brought against it: That the Service was arbitrary and capricious in
its evaluation of whitebark pine and that the identified regulatory
mechanisms were inadequate because they were not legally enforceable.
In compliance with this order, the GYE grizzly bear population was once
again made a threatened population under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) (see 75 FR 14496, March 26, 2010), and the Service withdrew the
delisting rule.
The Service appealed the District Court decision, and on November
15, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion
affirming in part and reversing in part the district court's decision
vacating and remanding the final rule delisting grizzly bears in the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Greater Yellowstone Coalition v.
Servheen, et al., 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011)). The Ninth Circuit
held that the Service's consideration of the regulatory mechanisms was
permissible, but that the Service inadequately explained why the loss
of whitebark pine was not a threat to the GYE grizzly bear population.
In compliance with this order, the GYE population of grizzly bears
remained federally listed as ``threatened'' under the Act, and the
IGBST initiated more thorough research into the potential impact of
whitebark pine decline on GYE grizzly bears. In this final rule, among
the other findings, we respond to the District Court's remand and the
Ninth Circuit's determination that the Service failed to support its
conclusion that whitebark pine declines did not threaten GYE grizzly
bears.
On March 11, 2016, we proposed to designate the GYE population of
grizzly bears as a DPS and to remove (delist) this DPS from the Federal
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (81 FR 13174). In addition,
our proposed rule included a notice announcing the availability of the
draft Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Supplement: Revised Demographic
Criteria and the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy. The proposed rule
was followed by a 60-day comment period, during which we held two open
houses and two public hearings (81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016). The
public comment period was later reopened for an additional 30 days in
light of the receipt of five peer reviews and the States of Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming finalizing regulatory mechanisms to manage human-
caused mortality of grizzly bears (81 FR 61658, September 7, 2016).
Please refer to the proposed rule for more detailed information on
previous Federal actions (81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016).
Background
Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) are 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). Grizzly bears are
generally larger than other bears and average 200 to 300 kilograms (kg)
(400 to 600 pounds (lb)) for males and 110 to 160 kg (250 to 350 lb)
for females in the lower 48 States (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, pp.
517-520; Schwartz et al. 2003, p. 558). Although their coloration can
vary widely from light brown to nearly black (LeFranc et al. 1987, pp.
17-18), they can be distinguished from black bears by longer curved
claws, humped shoulders, and a face that appears to be concave
(Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 517). Grizzly bears are long-lived
mammals, generally living to be around 25 years old (LeFranc et al.
1987, pp. 47, 51).
Adult grizzly bears are normally solitary except when females have
dependent young (Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. 971), but they are not
territorial and home ranges of adult bears frequently overlap (Schwartz
et al. 2003, pp. 565-566). Home range size is affected by resource
availability, sex, age, and reproductive status (LeFranc et al. 1987,
p. 31; Blanchard and Knight 1991, pp. 48-51; Mace and Waller 1997, p.
48). The annual home ranges of adult male grizzly bears in the GYE are
approximately 800 square kilometers (km\2\) (309 square miles (mi\2\)),
while female home ranges are typically smaller, approximately 210 km\2\
(81 mi\2\) (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, p. 3). The large home ranges of
grizzly bears, particularly males, enhance maintenance of genetic
diversity in the population by enabling males to mate with numerous
females (Blanchard and Knight 1991, pp. 46-51; Craighead et al. 1998,
p. 326).
Grizzly bears are extremely omnivorous, display great diet
plasticity--even within a population (Edwards et al. 2011, pp. 883-
886)--and shift and switch food habits according to their availability
(Servheen 1983, pp. 1029-1030; Mace and Jonkel 1986, p. 108; LeFranc et
al. 1987, pp. 113-114; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 63-71; Schwartz et
al. 2003, pp. 568-569; Gunther et al. 2014, p. 65). Gunther et al.
(2014, p. 65) conducted an extensive literature review and documented
over 260 species of foods consumed by grizzly bears in the GYE,
representing 4 of the 5 kingdoms of life. The ability to use whatever
food resources are available is one reason grizzly bears are the most
widely distributed bear species in the world, occupying habitats from
deserts to alpine mountains and everything in between. This ability to
live in a variety of habitats and eat a wide array of foods makes
grizzly bears a generalist species.
Grizzly bears use a variety of habitats in the GYE (LeFranc et al.
1987, p. 120). In general, a grizzly bear's individual habitat needs
and daily movements are largely driven by the search for food, mates,
cover, security, or den sites. The available habitat for bears is also
influenced by people and their activities. Human activities are the
primary factor impacting habitat security and the ability of bears to
find and access foods, mates, cover, and den sites (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; Nielsen et al.
2006, p. 225; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661). Other factors influencing
habitat use and function for grizzly bears include overall habitat
productivity (e.g., food distribution and abundance), the availability
of habitat components (e.g., denning areas, cover types), grizzly bear
social dynamics, learned behavior and preferences of individual grizzly
bears, grizzly bear population density, and random variation (LeFranc
et al. 1987, p. 120).
For detailed information on the biology of this species, see the
``Taxonomy and Species Description, Behavior and Life History,
Nutritional Ecology, and Habitat Management'' sections of the March 11,
2016, proposed rule Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Population of Grizzly Bears from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife; proposed rule (81 FR 13176-13186).
Population Ecology--Background
The scientific discipline that informs decisions about most
wildlife population management is population
[[Page 30506]]
ecology: The study of how populations change over time and space and
interact with their environment (Vandermeer and Goldberg 2003, p. 2;
Snider and Brimlow 2013, p. 1). Ultimately, the goal of population
ecology is to understand why and how populations change over time.
Wildlife managers and population ecologists monitor a number of factors
to gauge the status of a population and make scientifically informed
decisions. These measures include population size, population trend,
density, and current range.
While population size is a well-known and easily understood metric,
it only provides information about a population at a single point in
time. Wildlife managers often want to know how a population is changing
over time and why. Population trend is determined by births, deaths,
and how many animals move into or out of the population (i.e.,
disperse) and is typically expressed as the population growth rate
(represented by the symbol [lambda], the Greek letter ``lambda''). For
grizzly bear populations, lambda estimates the average rate of annual
growth, with a value of 1.0 indicating a stable population trend with
no net growth or decline. A lambda value of 1.03 means the population
size is increasing at 3 percent per year. Conversely, a lambda value of
0.98 means the population size is decreasing at 2 percent per year.
In its simplest form, population trend is driven by births and
deaths. Survival and reproduction are the fundamental demographic vital
rates driving whether the grizzly bear population increases, decreases,
or remains stable. When wildlife biologists refer to demographic vital
rates, they are referring to all of the different aspects of
reproduction and survival that cumulatively determine a population's
trend (i.e., lambda). Some of the demographic factors influencing
population trend for grizzly bears are age-specific survival, sex-
specific survival, average number of cubs per litter, the time between
litters (i.e., interbirth interval), age ratios, sex ratios, average
age of first reproduction, lifespan, transition probabilities (see
Glossary), immigration, and emigration. These data are all used to
determine if and why a population is increasing or decreasing (Anderson
2002, p. 53; Mills 2007, p. 59; Mace et al. 2012, p. 124).
No population can grow forever because the resources it requires
are finite. This understanding led ecologists to develop the concept of
carrying capacity (expressed as the symbol ``K''). This is the maximum
number of individuals a particular environment can support over the
long term without resulting in population declines caused by resource
depletion (Vandermeer and Goldberg 2003, p. 261; Krebs 2009, p. 148).
Classical studies of population growth occurred under controlled
laboratory conditions where populations of a single organism, often an
insect species or single-celled organism, were allowed to grow in a
confined space with a constant supply of food (Vandermeer and Goldberg
2003, pp. 14-17). Under these conditions, K is a constant value that is
approached in a predictable way and can be described by a mathematical
equation. However, few studies of wild populations have demonstrated
the stability and constant population size suggested by this equation.
Instead, many factors affect carrying capacity of animal populations in
the wild, and carrying capacity itself typically varies over time.
Populations usually fluctuate above and below carrying capacity,
resulting in relative population stability over time (i.e., lambda
value of approximately 1.0 over the long term) (Colinvaux 1986, pp.
138-139, 142; Krebs 2009, p. 148). For populations at or near carrying
capacity, population size may fluctuate just above and below carrying
capacity around a long-term mean, sometimes resulting in annual
estimates of lambda showing a declining population (figure 2). However,
to obtain a biologically meaningful estimate of average annual
population growth rate for a long-lived species like the grizzly bear
that reproduces only once every 3 years and does not start reproducing
until at least 4 years old, we must examine lambda over a longer period
of time to see what the average trend is over that specified time. This
is not an easy task. For grizzly bears, it takes at least 6 years of
monitoring as many as 30 females with radio-collars to accurately
estimate average annual population growth (Harris et al. 2011, p. 29).
[[Page 30507]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN17.252
When a population is at or near carrying capacity, mechanisms that
regulate or control population size fall into two broad categories:
Density-dependent effects and density-independent effects. Generally,
factors that limit population growth more strongly as population size
increases are density-dependent effects, or intrinsic factors, usually
expressed through individual behaviors, physiology, or genetic
potential (McLellan 1994, p. 15). Extrinsic factors, such as drought or
fire that kill individuals regardless of how many individuals are in a
population, are considered density-independent effects (Colinvaux 1986,
p. 172). These extrinsic factors may include changes in resources,
predators, or human impacts and may cause carrying capacity to vary
over time. Population stability (i.e., fluctuation around carrying
capacity or a long-term equilibrium) is often influenced by a
combination of density-dependent and density-independent effects. Among
grizzly bears, indicators of density-dependent population regulation
can include: (1) Decreased yearling and cub survival due to increases
in intraspecific killing (i.e., bears killing other bears), (2)
decreases in home range size, (3) increases in generation time, (4)
increases in age of first reproduction, and (5) decreased reproduction
(McLellan 1994, entire; Eberhardt 2002, pp. 2851-2852; Kamath et al.
2015, p. 5516; van Manen et al. 2016, pp. 307-308). Indicators that
density-independent effects are influencing population growth can
include: (1) Larger home range sizes (because bears are roaming more
widely in search of foods) (McLoughlin et al. 2000, pp. 49-51), (2)
decreased cub and yearling survival due to starvation, (3) increases in
age of first reproduction due to limited food resources, and (4)
decreased reproduction due to limited food resources.
As a result of these sometimes similar indicators, determining
whether a population is affected more strongly by density-dependent or
density-independent effects can be a complex undertaking. For long-
lived mammals such as grizzly bears, extensive data collected over
decades are needed to understand if and how these factors are operating
in a population. We have these data for the GYE grizzly bear
population, and the IGBST examined some of these confounding effects to
find that density-dependent effects are the likely cause of the recent
slowing in population growth factors. The slowing of population growth
since the early 2000s was primarily a function of lower survival of
dependent young and moderate reproductive suppression (IGBST 2012, p.
8). Survival of cubs-of-the-year and reproduction were lower in areas
with higher grizzly bear densities but showed no association with
estimates of decline in whitebark pine tree cover, suggesting that
density-dependent factors contributed to the change in population
growth (van Manen et al. 2016, entire). In addition, female home range
sizes have decreased in areas of greater bear densities, as would be
expected if density-dependent regulation is occurring (Bjornlie et al.
2014b, p. 4) (see Changes in Food Resources under Factor E, below, for
more detailed information).
Population viability analyses (PVAs) are another tool population
ecologists often use to assess the status of a population by estimating
its likelihood of persistence in the future. Boyce et al.
[[Page 30508]]
(2001, pp. 1-11) reviewed the existing published PVAs for GYE 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 GYE 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). The authors cautioned that their analyses were not
entirely sufficient because they were not able to consider possible
changes in habitat and how these may affect population vital rates
(Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 31-32). Based on the recommendation that the
population models incorporate habitat variables, Boyce worked with
other researchers to develop a habitat-based framework for evaluating
mortality risk of a grizzly bear population in Alberta, Canada (Nielsen
et al. 2006, p. 225). They concluded that secure habitat (low mortality
risk) was the key to grizzly bear survival. Schwartz et al. (2010, p.
661) created a similar mortality risk model for the GYE with similar
results. Both studies suggest that managing for secure habitat is one
of the most effective management actions to ensure population
persistence.
Recovery Planning and Implementation
Background
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; Schwartz et
al. 2003, pp. 557-558). Pre-settlement population levels for the
western contiguous United States are believed to have been in the range
of 50,000 animals (Servheen 1999, p. 50). With European settlement of
the American West and government-funded bounty programs aimed at
eradication, grizzly bears were shot, poisoned, and trapped wherever
they were found, and the resulting declines in range and population
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; Servheen 1999, pp. 50-51). The
range and numbers of grizzly bears were reduced to less than 2 percent
of their former range and numbers by the 1930s, approximately 125 years
after first contact with European settlers (USFWS 1993, p. 9; Servheen
1999, p. 51). Of 37 grizzly bear populations present within the lower
48 States 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 GYE
population had been reduced in numbers and was restricted largely to
the confines of YNP and some surrounding areas (Craighead et al. 1995,
pp. 41-42; Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 575-579). High grizzly bear
mortality in 1970 and 1971, following closure of the open-pit garbage
dumps in YNP (Gunther 1994, p. 550; Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 34-36),
and concern about grizzly bear 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 (40 FR 31734,
July 28, 1975). When the grizzly bear was listed in 1975, the
population estimate in the GYE ranged from 136 to 312 individuals
(Cowan et al. 1974, pp. 32, 36; Craighead et al. 1974, p. 16;
McCullough 1981, p. 175).
Grizzly bear recovery has required, and will continue to require,
cooperation among numerous government agencies and the public for a
unified management approach. To this end, there are three interagency
groups that help guide grizzly bear management in the GYE. The IGBST,
created in 1973, provides the scientific information necessary to make
informed management decisions about grizzly bear habitat and
conservation in the GYE. Since its formation in 1973, the published
work of the IGBST has made the GYE grizzly bear population the most
studied in the world. The wealth of biological information produced by
the IGBST over the years includes 30 annual reports, hundreds of
articles in peer-reviewed journals, dozens of theses, and other
technical reports (see: https://www.usgs.gov/science/interagency-grizzly-bear-study-team?qt-science_center_objects=4#qt-science_center_objects). Members of the IGBST include scientists and
wildlife managers from the Service, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), academia, and
each State wildlife agency involved in grizzly bear recovery.
The second interagency group guiding grizzly bear conservation
efforts is the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). Created in
1983, its members coordinate management efforts and research actions
across multiple Federal lands and States to recover the grizzly bear in
the lower 48 States (USDA and USDOI 1983, entire). One of the
objectives of the IGBC is to change land management practices to more
effectively provide security and maintain or improve habitat conditions
for the grizzly bear (USDA and USDOI 1983, entire). IGBC members
include upper level managers from the Service, USFS, USGS, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), and the States of Idaho, Montana, Washington,
and Wyoming (USDA and USDOI 1983, entire). The IGBST Team Leader, the
National Carnivore Program Leader, and the Service Grizzly Bear
Recovery Coordinator are advisors to the subcommittee providing all the
scientific information on the GYE grizzly bear population and its
habitat.
The third interagency group guiding management of the GYE grizzly
bear is a subcommittee of the IGBC: The Yellowstone Ecosystem
Subcommittee (YES). Formed in 1983 to coordinate recovery efforts
specific to the GYE, the YES includes mid-level managers and
representatives from the Service; the five GYE National Forests (the
Shoshone, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Custer Gallatin, and
Caribou-Targhee); YNP; GTNP; the Wyoming Game and Fish Department
(WGFD); the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP); the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG); the BLM; county governments
from each affected State; and the Shoshone Bannock, Northern Arapahoe,
and Eastern Shoshone Tribes (USDA and USDOI 1983). The IGBST Team
Leader and the Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator are advisors
to the subcommittee providing all the scientific information on the GYE
grizzly bear population and its habitat. Upon implementation of the
2016 Conservation Strategy, the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating
Committee (YGCC) will replace the YES.
Recovery Planning
In accordance with section 4(f)(1) of the Act, the Service
completed a Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) in 1982 (USFWS
1982, p. ii). Recovery plans serve as road maps for species recovery--
they lay out where we need to go and how to get there through specific
actions. Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are instead
intended to provide guidance to the Service, 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.
The Recovery Plan identified six recovery ecosystems within the
conterminous United States thought to support grizzly bears. Today,
current
[[Page 30509]]
grizzly bear distribution is primarily within and around the areas
identified as Recovery Zones (USFWS 1993, pp. 10-13, 17-18), including:
(1) The GYE in northwestern Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and southwestern
Montana (24,000 km\2\ (9,200 mi\2\)) at more than 700 bears (Haroldson
et al. 2014, p. 17); (2) the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem
(NCDE) of north-central Montana (25,000 km\2\ (9,600 mi\2\)) at more
than 900 bears (Kendall et al. 2009, p. 9; Mace et al. 2012, p. 124);
(3) the North Cascades area of north-central Washington (25,000 km\2\
(9,500 mi\2\)) at fewer than 20 bears (last documented sighting in
1996) (Almack et al. 1993, p. 4; NPS and USFWS 2015, p. 3); (4) the
Selkirk Mountains area of northern Idaho, northeastern Washington, and
southeastern British Columbia (5,700 km\2\ (2,200 mi\2\)) at
approximately 88 bears (USFWS 2011, p. 26); and (5) the Cabinet-Yaak
area of northwestern Montana and northern Idaho (6,700 km\2\ (2,600
mi\2\)) at approximately 48 bears (Kendall et al. 2016, p. 314). The
Bitterroot Ecosystem in the Bitterroot Mountains of central Idaho and
western Montana (14,500 km\2\ (5,600 mi\2\)) is not known to contain a
population of grizzly bears at this time (USFWS 1996, p. 1; 65 FR
69624, November 17, 2000; USFWS 2000, pp. 1-3). The San Juan Mountains
of Colorado also were identified as an area of possible grizzly bear
occurrence (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975; USFWS 1982, p. 12; USFWS 1993,
p. 11), but no confirmed sightings of grizzly bears have occurred there
since a grizzly bear mortality in 1979 (USFWS 1993, p. 11).
In 1993, the Service completed revisions to the Recovery Plan to
include additional tasks and new information that increased the focus
and effectiveness of recovery efforts (USFWS 1993, pp. 41-58). In 1996
and 1997, we released supplemental chapters to the Recovery Plan to
direct recovery in the Bitterroot and North Cascades Recovery Zones,
respectively (USFWS 1996; USFWS 1997). In the GYE, we updated both the
habitat and demographic recovery criteria in 2007 (72 FR 11376, March
13, 2007). We proposed revisions to the demographic recovery criteria
in 2013 (78 FR 17708, March 22, 2013) and proposed additional revisions
concurrent with the proposed rule (81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016) to
reflect the best available science. Although it is not necessary to
update recovery plans prior to delisting, the Recovery Plan Supplement:
Revised Demographic Recovery Criteria was updated to reflect the best
available science because the 2016 Conservation Strategy directly
incorporates the Recovery Plan for post-delisting monitoring. The final
revised demographic recovery criteria are appended to the Recovery Plan
concurrent with this final rule. Below, we report the status of both
the habitat and demographic recovery criteria in the GYE.
In 1979, the IGBST developed the first comprehensive ``Guidelines
for Management Involving Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone
Area'' (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 (USFWS 1979, p. 1). Beginning in 1979,
the five affected National Forests (Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-
Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer Gallatin, and Shoshone), YNP and GTNP,
and the BLM in the GYE began managing habitats for grizzly bears under
direction specified in the Guidelines.
In 1986, the IGBC modified the Guidelines to more effectively
manage habitat by mapping and managing according to three different
management situations (USDA FS 1986, pp. 35-39). In areas governed by
``Management Situation One,'' grizzly bear 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 bear habitat maintenance and improvement were not management
considerations.
The National Forests and National Parks delineated 18 different
bear management units (BMUs) within the GYE Recovery Zone to aid in
managing habitat and monitoring population trends. Each BMU was further
subdivided into subunits, resulting in a total of 40 subunits contained
within the 18 BMUs (see map at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/species/mammals/grizzly/Yellowstone_Recovery_Zone_map.pdf). The BMUs
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 BMUs and subunits were identified to provide enough quality
habitat and to ensure that grizzly bears were well distributed across
the GYE Recovery Zone as per the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2007c, pp. 20,
41, 44-46). Management improvements made as a result of these
Guidelines are discussed under Factor A, below.
Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria
On June 17, 1997, we held a public workshop in Bozeman, Montana, to
develop and refine habitat-based recovery criteria for the grizzly
bear, with an emphasis on the GYE. This workshop was held as part of
the settlement agreement in Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 967 F.Supp.6
(D. D.C. 1997). 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, which were appended to the 1993 Recovery Plan in
2007 (USFWS 2007b, entire), 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. Grizzly
bears are long-lived opportunistic omnivores whose food and space
requirements vary depending on a multitude of environmental and
behavioral factors and on variation in the experience and knowledge of
each individual bear. Grizzly bear home ranges overlap and change
seasonally, annually, and with reproductive status. While these factors
make the development of threshold habitat criteria difficult, these may
be established by assessing what habitat factors in the past were
compatible with a stable to increasing grizzly bear population, and
then using these habitat conditions as threshold values to be
maintained to ensure a healthy population (i.e., a ``no net loss''
approach), as suggested by Nielsen et al. (2006, p. 227). We selected
1998 levels as our baseline year because it was known that habitat
values at that time were compatible with an increasing grizzly bear
population throughout the 1990s (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48) and that
the levels of both secure habitat and the number and capacity of
developed sites (those sites or facilities on federal public land with
features intended to accommodate public use or recreation) had changed
little from 1988 to 1998 (USDA FS 2004, pp. 140-141, 159-162). The 1998
baseline is also described in detail in Factor A, below.
The habitat-based recovery criteria established objective,
measurable values
[[Page 30510]]
for levels of motorized access, secure habitat, developed sites, and
livestock allotments (i.e., ``the 1998 baseline'') for the GYE. The
1998 values will not change through time, unless improvements benefit
bears (e.g., expansion of existing administrative sites to enhance
public land management if other viable alternatives are not available,
modifications to dispersed or developed sites to reduce grizzly bear
conflicts, such as installing bear-resistant storage structures). As
each of these management objectives are central to potential present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or
range, they are discussed in detail under Factor A, below. These
habitat-based recovery criteria have been met since their incorporation
into the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2007b, entire).
Additionally, we developed several monitoring items that may help
inform management decisions or explain population trends: (1) Trends in
the location and availability of food sources such as whitebark pine
(Pinus albicaulis), cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), army cutworm
moths (Euxoa auxiliaris), and ungulates (bison (Bison bison) and elk
(Cervus canadensis)); and (2) grizzly bear mortality numbers,
locations, and causes; grizzly bear-human conflicts; conflict bear
management actions; bear-hunter conflicts; and bear-livestock conflicts
(YES 2016a, pp. 33-91). Federal and State agencies monitor these items,
and the IGBST produces an annual report with their results. This
information is used to examine relationships between food availability,
human activity, and demographic parameters of the population such as
survival, population growth, or reproduction. The habitat-based
recovery criteria were appended to the Recovery Plan in 2007 and are
included in the 2016 Conservation Strategy, which is the comprehensive
post-delisting management plan for a recovered population as called for
in the Recovery Plan.
Suitable Habitat
Because we used easily recognized boundaries to delineate the
boundaries of the GYE grizzly bear DPS, it includes both suitable and
unsuitable habitat (figure 1). For the purposes of this final rule,
``suitable habitat'' is considered the area within the DPS boundaries
capable of supporting grizzly bear reproduction and survival now and 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) being contiguous with the current
distribution of GYE grizzly bears such that natural recolonization is
possible; and (3) having low mortality risk as indicated through
reasonable and manageable levels of grizzly bear mortality.
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; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661) 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 slo