[Federal Register: November 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 221)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69853-69884]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17no05-25]
[[Page 69853]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem 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; Proposed Rule
[[Page 69854]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AT38
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 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
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public hearing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
establish a distinct population segment (DPS) of the grizzly bear
(Ursus arctos horribilis) for the greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and
surrounding area. We also propose to remove the Yellowstone 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 (ESA), based
on the best scientific and commercial information 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 proposed delisting of the Yellowstone DPS would not change the
threatened status of the remaining grizzly bears in the lower 48
States, which will remain protected by the ESA. If this proposed action
is finalized, 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. Additionally, prior to
finalizing the proposed action, the Service will--(1) finalize the
Conservation Strategy that will guide post-delisting management of the
grizzly bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area; (2) append habitat-based
recovery criteria to the Recovery Plan; (3) append genetic monitoring
information to the Recovery Plan; and (4) finalize revised methodology
for calculating total population size, known to unknown mortality
ratios, and sustainable mortality limits for the Yellowstone grizzly
bear population. Both the Conservation Strategy and the supplemental
information to be appended to the Recovery Plan have already undergone
public review and comment (62 FR 19777, April 23, 1997; 62 FR 47677,
September 10, 1997; 64 FR 38464, July 16, 1999; 64 FR 38465, July 16,
1999; 65 FR 11340, March 2, 2000). In a subsequent notice, the revised
methodology pertaining to population parameters will be made available
for public review and comment. It will be finalized, with public
comments incorporated, before this proposed rule is finalized. Finally,
the U.S. Forest Service will finalize their Forest Plan Amendments for
Grizzly Bear Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National
Forests prior to the Service finalizing this action.
DATES: We will consider comments on this proposed rule received until
the close of business on February 15, 2006. We will hold one public
hearing on this proposed rule scheduled hearing for November 15, 2005.
In addition, we have scheduled four open houses (see ADDRESSES section
for locations).
ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, you may submit your comments and
materials concerning this proposal by any one of several methods:
1. You may submit written comments to the Grizzly Bear Recovery
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University Hall 309,
University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812.
2. You may hand deliver written comments to our Missoula office at
the address given above.
3. You may send comments by electronic mail (e-mail) to
FW6_grizzly_yellowstone@fws.gov. See the Public Comments Solicited section
below for file format and other information about electronic filing.
Comments and materials received, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparation of this proposed action, will be
available for inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours,
at our Missoula office (see address above). In addition, certain
documents such as the Conservation Strategy and information to be
appended to the recovery plan are available at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm
.
The public hearing will be held at the following location:
January 10, 2006, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the Cody Auditorium,
1240 Beck Avenue, Cody Wyoming.
The open houses will be held at the following locations:
January 9, 2006, from 4 to 8 p.m. at the Holiday Inn, 5
Baxter Lane, Bozeman, Montana.
January 10, 2006, from 4 to 7 p.m. at the Cody Auditorium,
1240 Beck Avenue, Cody Wyoming.
January 11, 2006, from 4 to 8 p.m. at the Snow King
Resort, 400 E. Snow King Avenue, Jackson, Wyoming.
January 12, 2006, from 4 to 8 p.m. at the Shilo Inn, 780
Lindsay Boulevard, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at our Missoula
office (see address above) or telephone (406) 243-4903.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Species Description
Grizzly bears are generally larger and more heavily built than
other bears (Craighead and Mitchell 1982; Schwartz et al. 2003a).
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). A wide
range of coloration from light brown to nearly black is common (LeFranc
et al. 1987). 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). 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). Grizzly bears are long-lived mammals, generally living to be
around 25 years old (LeFranc et al. 1987).
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; Servheen 1999). Early taxonomic
descriptions of U. arctos based primarily on skull measurements
described more than 90 subspecies (Merriam 1918), but this was later
revised to 2 subspecies in North America, U. a. middendorfi on the
islands of the Kodiak archipelago and U. a. horribilis in the rest of
North America
[[Page 69855]]
(Rausch 1963). Subsequent analyses (Hall 1984) suggested seven North
American subspecies. DNA analyses provide an additional tool for
evaluating taxonomic classification. Using mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of
brown bears across their worldwide range, five lineage groups or clades
have been described: Clade I brown bears from Scandinavia and southern
Europe; Clade II from Admiralty, Baronoff, and Chichagof islands in
Alaska; Clade III from eastern Europe, Asia, and western Alaska; Clade
IV from southern Canada and the lower 48 United States; and Clade V
from eastern Alaska and northern Canada (Cronin et al. 1991; Taberlet
and Bouvet 1994; Kohn et al. 1995; Randi et al. 1994; Taberlet et al.
1995; Talbot and Shields 1996; Waits et al. 1998a; Waits et al. 1999).
The two North American subspecies approach of Rausch (1963) is
generally accepted by most taxonomists today. The original listing has
been inadvertently modified in the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife to U. arctos and the range to holarctic. We propose to correct
this error to reflect the original listed entity of U. arctos
horribilis with a historic range of North America.
Behavior
Although adult bears are normally solitary (Nowak and Paradiso
1983), home ranges of adult bears frequently overlap (Schwartz et al.
2003a). 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; Schwartz et al. 2003a). This type
of movement makes dispersal across landscapes a slow process. For
instance, McLellan and Hovey (2001) documented male and female
dispersal over 20 years and found that grizzly bears gradually move
farther from the center of their mother's home range over the course of
1 to 4 years. Females established home ranges an average of 9.8
kilometers (km) (6.1 miles (mi)) away from the center of their mother's
home range, whereas males generally strayed further, establishing home
ranges roughly 29.9 km (18.6 mi) away from their mother's (McLellan and
Hovey 2001). Similarly, Proctor et al. (2004) used genetic analyses to
find that, on average, females disperse only 14.3 km (8.9 mi) and males
disperse 42.0 km (26.0 mi) from the center of their mother's home
range.
The home range of adult male grizzly bears is typically 3 to 5
times the size of an adult female's home range (LeFranc et al. 1987).
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; Craighead et al. 1995).
Grizzly bear population densities of 1 bear per 20 sq km (8 sq mi) have
been reported in Glacier National Park (Martinka 1976), but most
populations in the lower 48 States are much less dense (LeFranc et al.
1987). For example, estimates of grizzly bear densities in the
Yellowstone area 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; Craighead and
Mitchell 1982).
Grizzly bears have a promiscuous mating system (Hornocker 1962;
Craighead and Mitchell 1982; Schwartz et al. 2003a) with genetic
studies confirming that cubs from the same litter can have different
fathers (Craighead et al. 1998). Mating occurs from May through July
with a peak in mid-June (Craighead and Mitchell 1982; Nowak and
Paradiso 1983). Age of first reproduction and litter size may be
related to nutritional state (Stringham 1990; McLellan 1994;
Hilderbrand et al. 1999). Age of first reproduction varies from 3 to 8
years of age, and litter size varies from one to four cubs (Schwartz et
al. 2003a). 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. 2005). 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. 2003a). 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; Schwartz et al.
2003a). Given the above factors and natural mortality, it may take a
single female 10 years to replace herself in a population (Service
1993). Grizzly bear females cease breeding successfully some time in
their mid-to late 20s (Schwartz et al. 2003b).
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). Grizzly bears in the lower 48 States
spend up to 4 to 6 months in dens beginning in October or November
(Linnell et al. 2000). During this period, they do not eat, drink,
urinate, or defecate (Folk et al. 1976; Nelson 1980). Hibernating
grizzly bears exhibit a marked decline in heart and respiration rate,
but only a slight drop in body temperature (Nowak and Paradiso 1983).
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) or by human activity (Swenson et al. 1997). 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; Linnell et al. 2000). Females display stronger area fidelity
than males and generally stay in their dens longer, depending on
reproductive status (Judd et al. 1986; Schoen et al. 1987; Linnell et
al. 2000).
In preparation for hibernation, bears increase their food intake
dramatically during a stage called hyperphagia. 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). 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). 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.
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; Schwartz et al.
2003a). 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; Mattson et al. 1991a; Schwartz
et al. 2003a). 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). High-quality foods such as berries,
nuts, insects, and fish are important in some areas (Schwartz et al.
2003a).
The search for food has a prime influence on grizzly bear
movements. In the Yellowstone area, four food sources have been
identified as important to grizzly bear survival and reproductive
success (Mattson et al. 2002). Winter-killed ungulates serve as an
important food source in early spring before most vegetation is
available (Greene et al.
[[Page 69856]]
1997; Mattson 1997). During early summer, spawning cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarki) are a source of nutrition for grizzly bears in
the Yellowstone population (Mattson et al. 1991a; Mattson and Reinhart
1995; Felicetti et al. 2004). 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 (Pritchard and Robbins 1990;
Mattson et al. 1991b; French et al. 1994). Lastly, whitebark pine seeds
(Pinus albicaulis) serve as a crucial fall food due to their high fat
content and abundance as a pre-hibernation food (Mattson and Reinhart
1994). The distribution and abundance of these grizzly bear foods vary
naturally among seasons and years. In some years, whitebark pine seeds
are an important food and in other years, few seeds are available and
bears switch to alternate foods.
On average, approximately 79 percent of the diet of adult male and
45 percent of the diet of adult female grizzly bears in the Greater
Yellowstone Area (GYA) is terrestrial meat (Jacoby et al. 1999). In
contrast, in Glacier National Park, over 95 percent of the diets of
both adult male and female grizzly bears is vegetation (Jacoby et al.
1999). Ungulates rank as the second highest source of net digestible
energy available to grizzly bears in the GYA (Mealey 1975; Pritchard
and Robbins 1990; Craighead et al. 1995). Ungulates provide a high-
quality food source in early spring before most plant foods become
available. Grizzly bears with home ranges in areas with few plant foods
depend extensively on ungulate meat (Harting 1985). Grizzly bears in
the Yellowstone area 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; Green et al.
1997; Mattson 1997). Carcass availability fluctuates with winter
severity because fewer ungulates die during mild winters.
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; Pritchard and Robbins 1990). Grizzly bears are known
to prey on cutthroat trout in at least 36 different streams tributary
to Yellowstone Lake (Reinhart and Mattson 1990). From 1997 to 1999,
Haroldson et al. (2000) identified 85 different grizzly bears that had
likely fished spawning streams tributary to Yellowstone Lake. While
importance varies by season and year, few bears develop a dependence on
this food source. Only four individuals visited spawning streams
consistently every year, suggesting that this resource is used
opportunistically. Fishing activity can occur any time during the
spawning runs but generally coincides with peak spawning numbers in
mid-June through mid-July. In contrast to earlier studies which used
different assumptions and methods (Reinhart and Mattson 1990; Mattson
and Reinhart 1995), Felicetti et al. (2004) showed 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). 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). Some bears may feed almost
exclusively on moths for a period of over 1 month (French et al. 1994).
Moths have the highest caloric content per gram of any other bear food
(French et al. 1994). 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). 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). Moths are also 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.
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; Mattson et al. 1991a).
Yellowstone grizzly bears consume whitebark pine seeds extensively when
whitebark cones are available. Bears may feed predominantly on
whitebark pine seeds when production exceeds 22 cones per tree (Mattson
et al. 1992). 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; Knight and
Blanchard 1995; Gunther et al. 1997, 2004).
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). For example, during years when
these food sources are abundant, there are few grizzly bear/human
conflicts in the GYA (Mattson et al. 1992; Gunther et al. 1997; Gunther
et al. 2004). Grizzly bear/human conflicts are incidents in which bears
kill or injure people, damage property, kill or injure livestock,
damage beehives, obtain anthropogenic foods, or damage or obtain garden
and orchard fruits and vegetables (United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) 1986). In contrast, during years when there are
shortages of natural food sources, 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; Gunther et al. 2004). A
nuisance bear is one that seeks human food in human use areas, kills
lawfully present livestock, or displays unnatural aggressive behavior
towards people (USDA 1986). 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). The effects of invasive species
on food supply and human/bear conflict are discussed in more detail in
the five 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; Wright
1909; Merriam 1922; Storer and Tevis 1955; Rausch 1963; Herrero 1972;
Mattson et al. 1995; Schwartz et al. 2003a). Pre-settlement population
levels for the western contiguous United States were believed to be in
the range of 50,000 animals (Servheen 1999). 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; Wright 1909; Storer and Tevis
1955; Leopold 1967; Koford 1969; Craighead and Mitchell 1982; Mattson
et al. 1995). 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 (Service 1993; Mattson et
al. 1995; Servheen 1999). Of 37 grizzly populations present in 1922, 31
were extirpated by 1975 (Servheen 1999).
By the 1950s, with little or no conservation effort or management
directed at maintaining grizzly bears anywhere in their range, the
Yellowstone area population had been reduced in numbers and was
restricted largely to the confines of Yellowstone
[[Page 69857]]
National Park and some surrounding areas (Craighead et al. 1995;
Schwartz et al. 2003a). High grizzly bear mortality in 1970 and 1971,
following closure of the open-pit dumps in Yellowstone National Park
(Gunther 1994; Craighead et al. 1995), 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 ESA (40 FR 31734). When the grizzly bear was listed in
1975, the population estimate in the Yellowstone Ecosystem ranged from
229 (Craighead et al. 1974) to 312 (Cowan et al. 1974; McCullough 1981)
individuals.
In 1981, the Service 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 was completed (Service
1982). The 1982 Grizzly Bear 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 (Service 1993), including
the Yellowstone area in northwest Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and southwest
Montana (24,000 sq km (9,200 sq mi)) at more than 580 bears
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (Study Team) 2005); the Northern
Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) of north central Montana (25,000 sq
km (9,600 sq mi)) at more than 400 bears (70 FR 24870; May 11, 2005);
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); 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 26725, 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; Kasworm et al. 2004). 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 (Service
1996; 65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000; Service 2000). The San Juan
Mountains of Colorado also were identified as an area of possible
grizzly bear occurrence (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975; Service 1982,
1993), but no evidence of grizzly bears has been found in the San Juan
Mountains since a bear was killed there in 1979 (Service 1993).
In the initial Grizzly Bear 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 (Service 1982, 1993). A
revised Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (Service 1993) included additional
tasks and new information that increased the focus and effectiveness of
recovery efforts.
Grizzly bear recovery has required cooperation among numerous
Federal agencies, State agencies, non-government organizations (NGOs),
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 Yellowstone area. Currently, members of the
Study Team include scientists from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), the Service, academia, and each State game
and fish agency involved in grizzly bear recovery. The Study Team has
developed protocols to monitor grizzly bear populations and some
important habitat parameters. These parameters have been used in
demographic and habitat management.
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. Its objective was to change
land management practices to more effectively provide security and
maintain or improve habitat conditions for the grizzly bear. The
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee is made up of upper level managers
from all affected State and Federal agencies. Also in 1983, the
Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee, a subcommittee of the Interagency
Grizzly Bear Committee, was formed to coordinate efforts specific to
the Yellowstone area and to coordinate activities with the Interagency
Grizzly Bear Committee. Members of the Yellowstone Ecosystem
Subcommittee are mid-level managers and include representatives from
the Shoshone National Forest; the Custer National Forest; the
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest; the Bridger-Teton National
Forest; Gallatin National Forest; Targhee National Forest; Yellowstone
National Park; Grand Teton National Park; the Wyoming Game and Fish
Department (WGFD); the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
(MDFWP); the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG); the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM); the Study Team; county government from each
affected State; and the Service.
In 1994, The Fund for Animals, Inc., and 42 other organizations and
individuals filed suit over the adequacy of the 1993 Recovery Plan. 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 Yellowstone Ecosystem: (1) The method used to
measure the status of bear populations; (2) the impacts of genetic
isolation; (3) how mortalities related to livestock are monitored; and
(4) 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
decision, all parties filed appeals. In 1996, the parties reached a
settlement whereby the Service also agreed to append habitat-based
recovery criteria to the Recovery Plan. These issues and the necessary
supplements 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 Habitat-based Recovery Criteria. In 1979,
the Study Team developed the first comprehensive Guidelines for
Management Involving Grizzly Bears in the Yellowstone area (hereafter
referred to as the Guidelines) (Mealey 1979). The Service (1979)
determined in a biological opinion that implementation of the
Guidelines by Federal land management agencies would promote
conservation of the grizzly bear. 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 BLM in the Yellowstone area 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:
Management Situation (1) Grizzly habitat maintenance and
improvement, and grizzly bear/human conflict minimization receive the
highest management priority;
[[Page 69858]]
Management Situation (2) Grizzly bear use is important,
but not the primary use of the area; or
Management Situation (3) Grizzly habitat maintenance and
improvement are not management considerations (USDA 1986).
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. 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). 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 area.
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; Dixon 1997; Mattson et
al. 2002). The model uses GIS databases and relative value coefficients
of human activities, vegetation, and key grizzly bear foods to
calculate habitat value and habitat effectiveness (Weaver et al. 1986;
Mattson et al. 2002). 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; Dixon 1997). 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; Dixon 1997; Mattson et al. 2002). 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). The
Cumulative Effects Model is updated annually to reflect changes in
vegetation, major foods, and the number and capacity of human
activities.
As per a court settlement (Fund for Animals v. Babbitt) and as
recommended by Recovery Plan Task Y423, the Service has 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''
(Service 1993, p. 55). On June 17, 1997, the Service 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, the Service developed
biologically-based habitat criteria with the overall goal of
maintaining or improving habitat conditions at 1998 levels.
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, there is no known way to
deductively calculate minimum habitat values. The Service instead
inductively selected 1998 levels because it was known that these
habitat values had adequately supported an increasing Yellowstone
grizzly bear population throughout the 1990s (Eberhardt et al. 1994;
Knight and Blanchard 1995; Knight et al. 1995; Boyce 2001) and that
levels of secure habitat and the number and capacity of developed sites
had changed little from 1988 to 1998 (USFS 2004). Specific habitat
conditions or criteria include limiting road densities inside the
Recovery Zone, maintaining or increasing levels of secure habitat,
maintaining or improving habitat effectiveness values in secure
habitat, and limiting further site development and livestock grazing
allotments on public lands within the Yellowstone grizzly bear Recovery
Zone. Additionally, the Service developed four general habitat-based
parameters to monitor and relate to population information: (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. A copy of the habitat-
based criteria is available at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm.
This revised habitat-based recovery
criteria will be appended to the Recovery Plan and is included in the
Conservation Strategy. These habitat-based criteria have been
maintained successfully at 1998 levels, and the Conservation Strategy
ensures they will continue to be met in the foreseeable future (see
Conservation Strategy).
Population and Demographic Management. 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 thousands of square miles of diverse
habitat with several million human visitors and residents. In 1977,
Eberhardt documented that adult female survival was the most important
of the vital rates influencing population trajectory. Low adult female
survival was the critical factor causing decline in the Yellowstone
area population prior to the mid-1980s (Knight and Eberhardt 1985). In
the early 1980s, with the development of the first Grizzly Bear
Recovery Plan (Service 1982), agencies began to control mortality and
increase adult female survivorship (Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee
1983; USDA 1986; Knight et al. 1999). The Recovery Plan (Service 1982,
revised 1993) 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 Recovery Zone. This recovery
criterion has been met.
Demographic Recovery Criterion 2--Sixteen of 18 bear management
units within the Recovery Zone must be occupied by females with young,
with no 2 adjacent bear management units unoccupied, during a 6-year
sum of observations. 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.
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
[[Page 69859]]
consecutive years; and human-caused female grizzly bear mortality
should not exceed 30 percent of the above total in any 2 consecutive
years. These recovery criteria have not been exceeded in 2 consecutive
years since 1997.
Although the 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 information available
(see pages 9-11 of Study Team 2005). As per a court settlement (Fund
for Animals v. Babbit) and as recommended by Recovery Plan Task Y11,
the Service has worked to ``determine population conditions at which
the species is viable and self-sustaining,'' and to ``reevaluate and
refine population criteria as new information becomes available''
(Service 1993, p. 44). Beginning in 2000, the Study Team, at the
request of the Service, began a comprehensive evaluation of the
demographic data and the methodology used to estimate population size
and establish the sustainable level of mortality to grizzly bears in
the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Accordingly, the Study Team conducted a
critical review of the current methods for calculating population size,
estimating the known to unknown mortality ratio, and establishing
sustainable mortality levels for the Yellowstone grizzly population
(Study Team 2005). The product of this work is a 60-page report
compiled by the Study Team that evaluates current methods, reviews
recent scientific literature, examines alternative methods, and
recommends the most valid technique based on these reviews (Study Team
2005) (accessible at http:// mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/
grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The end result of this review is a revised
method customized for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population for
calculating total population size rather than minimum population size
(Study Team 2005). This revised method will be appended to the Recovery
Plan and included in the Conservation Strategy.
As with the previous method, the revised method uses counts of
unduplicated females with cubs-of-the-year as the baseline data upon
which the total population is calculated. From this, the total number
of independent females (>2 years old) in the Yellowstone population is
calculated (Keating et al. 2002). This number is then divided by the
modeled sex ratio (Schwartz et al. 2005) of grizzly bears in the
Yellowstone population to determine the total number of independent
males (>2 years old) in the population. The last component of
calculating a total population is to add the number of cubs less than 2
years old (i.e., dependent young.). This number is extrapolated from
the number of females with cubs-of-the-year (Study Team 2005). Finally,
by adding the number of independent males, independent females, and
dependent young, the total population is determined. The revised method
for calculating total population size produces a larger estimate than
the current method which only calculates the minimum population size.
For example, using the current method, the minimum population size in
2004 was 431 bears. Using the revised method, the total population
estimate of Yellowstone grizzly bears in 2004 was 588 (Study Team
2005). The total population estimate is considered a more accurate
representation of actual population size (Study Team 2005). Total
population size is critical in determining sustainable mortality.
Also outdated is the Recovery Plan's total human-caused mortality
limit and female human-caused mortality limit as outlined in
Demographic Recovery Criterion 3. In 1986, Harris (1986) concluded that
healthy grizzly bear populations could sustain approximately 6.5
percent human-caused mortality without population decline. To account
for unknown/unreported deaths, the Service assumed that for every two
bears known to be killed by human causes, there was one that was
unknown. This approach on unknown mortalities resulted in the Service
adopting a more conservative 4 percent limit on known human-caused
grizzly bear mortalities in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (Service
1993).
After critically reviewing the current method of establishing
human-caused mortality limits, alternative methods, and scientific
literature, the Study Team concluded that Harris' (1986) method was no
longer the best available nor the most biologically valid (Study Team
2005). As a result of this effort, the Study Team recommended revising
the sustainable mortality limits for the Yellowstone population (Study
Team 2005). The revised mortality limits are derived from a more
accurate model for establishing sustainable mortality limits for
grizzly bear populations (Schwartz et al. 2005).
The refined method resulted in new, calculated mortality limits for
independent females, males, and dependent young. Unlike the previous
method, which only counted human-caused mortalities against a 4 percent
limit, the revised method counts all deaths of grizzly bears from any
source against the limits. This includes: (1) Known and probable human-
caused mortalities; (2) reported deaths due to natural and undetermined
causes; and (3) calculated unreported human-caused mortalities. This
new method is a much more comprehensive mortality management approach.
Between 1980 and 2002, approximately 21 percent of all known grizzly
bear deaths were from undetermined causes (Servheen et al. 2004). 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 the
ratio of known-to-unknown mortality is much higher than 2-to-1 (Knight
and Eberhardt 1985; McLellan et al. 1999). After careful consideration
and using the best available science, the Study Team adopted a known-
to-unknown mortalities ratio of 1-to-1.7 (Cherry et al. 2002; Study
Team 2005).
For independent females, the revised annual mortality limit, not to
be exceeded in 2 consecutive years, which includes all sources of
mortality, is 9 percent of the total number of independent females.
Simulations have shown that a 9 percent adult female mortality rate
allows populations to increase at 3 percent per year with a stable to
increasing population 95 percent of the time (Schwartz et al. 2005).
The revised mortality limit for independent males (>=2 years old),
not to be exceeded in 3 consecutive years, is 15 percent of the total
number of independent males and, like the limit for independent
females, includes all sources of mortality. This level of mortality was
sustainable under different population growth model scenarios simulated
by Schwartz et al. (2005). The Study Team chose this limit because it
approximates the level of male mortality in the GYA from 1983 to 2001,
a period when population size was calculated to have increased at 4 to
7 percent each year (Schwartz et al. 2005). Independent males can
endure a relatively high mortality rate without affecting the overall
stability or trajectory of the population because they contribute
little to overall population growth (Mace and Waller 1998; Wielgus
2002; Study Team 2005; Schwartz et al. 2005).
For dependent young (< 2 years old), the mortality limit, not to be
exceeded in 3 consecutive years, is 9 percent of the total number of
dependent young (Study Team 2005). However, this only includes known
and probable human-caused mortalities. This limit is less
[[Page 69860]]
than the 15 percent human-caused mortality documented for each sex from
1983 to 2001, a period of population growth and expansion (Study Team
2005). Although it is known that dependent bears experience far higher
natural mortality rates than independent bears, 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.
Annual allowable mortality limits for each bear class (independent
female, independent male, dependent young) are calculated as a running
3-year average based on total population estimates of each bear class
for the current year and the 2 preceding years (Study Team 2005). This
dampens variability and provides managers with inter-annual stability
in the threshold number of mortalities allowed. The Study Team
calculates both the total population size and the mortality limits
within an area designated by the Conservation Strategy (see The
Conservation Strategy section) that overlaps and extends beyond
suitable habitat (Figure 1, see Application of the Distinct Population
Segment Policy section). Future changes to either of these methods will
be based on the best scientific information available. This revised
methodology for calculating total population size and establishing
sustainable mortality limits will be appended to the Recovery Plan
prior to our making a final determination on this proposed action and
included in the Conservation Strategy. Applying this method to 1999 to
2004 data, these mortality limits have not been exceeded for
consecutive years for any bear class.
Maintaining Genetic Diversity. As per a court settlement (Fund for
Animals v. Babbitt), measurable criteria to assess genetic isolation
will be appended to the existing Yellowstone chapter of the 1993
Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (Service 1993) before we make a final
determination on this proposed action. Changes in genetic diversity
must be monitored over time in order to make sound decisions regarding
the need for augmentation of new individuals to increase diversity if
it is being lost. When the Recovery Plan was revised in 1993, many of
the genetic techniques and markers commonly used today to assess
genetic diversity and isolation were just being developed. Following
direction from the Court, the Service reviewed the best available and
most recent scientific information pertaining to genetic monitoring and
established measurable genetic criteria based on this review. This
document was made available for public review in 1997 (62 FR 47677;
September 10, 1997). A draft of this document is available for viewing
online at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm.
This revised genetics recovery criteria will be
appended to the Recovery Plan and included in the Conservation
Strategy. Long-term management of genetic diversity is discussed in
more detail under Factor E.
The Conservation Strategy. In order to ensure the long-term
preservation of a viable 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) (Service 1993, p. 55). To accomplish this
goal, in 1993, the Service created the Interagency Conservation
Strategy Team which included biologists from the National Park Service
(NPS), the USFS, the Service, the IDFG, the WGFD, and 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 2002, the
draft Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater
Yellowstone Area (hereafter referred to as the Strategy) was released,
along with drafts of State grizzly bear management plans (all
accessible at http:// mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/
yellowstone.htm). The Service will sign the Strategy, and it will go
into effect if we finalize this proposed action.
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.
The Strategy identifies and provides a framework for managing two
areas, the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) and adjacent areas of
suitable habitat where occupancy by grizzly bears is anticipated. The
PCA boundaries (containing 23,853 sq km (9,210 sq mi)) correspond to
those of the Yellowstone Recovery Zone (Service 1993) and will replace
the Recovery Zone boundary if this proposed delisting is finalized
(Figure 1 (see Application of the Distinct Population Segment Policy
section)). 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. The PCA includes approximately 51 percent of the suitable habitat
within the DPS and approximately 90 percent of the population of female
grizzly bears with cubs (Schwartz 2005, unpublished data).
The Strategy will be implemented and funded by both Federal and
State agencies within the Yellowstone DPS. These Federal agencies will
cooperate with the State wildlife agencies, MTFWP, IGFD, and WDFG, to
implement the Strategy and its protective habitat and population
standards. The USFS and NPS (which own and manage approximately 98
percent of the PCA) will be 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, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, the Bridger-Teton, the Caribou-
Targhee, the Custer, and the Gallatin National Forests are the primary
areas with Federal agencies responsible for implementing the Strategy.
Affected National Forests and National Parks are currently in the
process of incorporating 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 proposed Yellowstone DPS boundaries. The Service would
not finalize this proposed action until these amendments to current
management plans are completed.
Outside of the PCA, grizzly bears will be allowed to expand into
suitable habitat. 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
[[Page 69861]]
percent of female grizzly bears with cubs occupy habitat outside of the
PCA (Schwartz 2005, unpublished data). The area of suitable habitat
outside of the PCA is roughly 82.3 percent federally owned and
administered by one of the six National Forests in the region, the BLM,
the NPS, or the Service; 9.5 percent privately owned; 6.0 percent
tribally owned; 0.7 percent State-owned land; and 2 percent in other
ownership (such as private conservation trusts or other Federal
ownership). State grizzly bear management plans, Forest Plans, 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 (see USFS 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 (Service 1993). Such
flexible management promotes communication and tolerance for grizzly
bear recovery. As grizzly bear populations within the Recovery Zone
have rebounded in response to recovery efforts, there has been a
gradual natural recolonization of suitable habitat outside of the PCA/
Recovery Zone. Today, most suitable habitat outside of the Recovery
Zone is occupied by grizzly bears (68 percent).
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 as necessary,
allowing public comment in the updating process.
Previous Federal Actions
On July 28, 1975, the grizzly bear was designated as threatened in
the conterminous (lower 48) United States (40 FR 31734). On November 5,
1976, the Service proposed critical habitat for the grizzly bear (41 FR
48757). This proposed rule was never finalized and we withdrew this
proposed designation in 1979 because the 1978 amendments to the ESA (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) imposed additional obligations on the Service,
such as economic analysis, that had not been adequately addressed in
the proposal.
At the time of listing, special regulations were issued in
conjunction with the listing determination, and were incorporated into
50 CFR 17.40(b). These rules provided general protection to the
species, but allowed take under certain conditions to defend human
life, to eliminate nuisance animals, and to carry out research. Legal
grizzly bear mortality has been almost entirely due to removal of
chronic nuisance bears by government bear managers due to repeated
human/bear conflicts or to killing by humans in self-defense or defense
of others (Gunther et al. 2004; Servheen et al. 2004). In addition, a
limited sport hunting season was authorized in a specified portion of
northwestern Montana; these rules were modified in 1985 (50 FR 35086;
August 29, 1985) and 1986 (51 FR 33753; September 23, 1986). A similar,
limited hunt was proposed for the Yellowstone Ecosystem in October of
1989 (54 FR 42524; October 17, 1989), but this rule was never
finalized. The Service withdrew the hunt provisions of 50 CFR 17.40(b)
(see 57 FR 37478) in response to a court decision that declared 50 CFR
17.40(b)(1)(i)(E) invalid and enjoined the Service from authorizing a
grizzly bear hunt (Fund for Animals, Inc., v. Turner, Civil No. 91-2201
(MB), September 27, 1991) (57 FR 37478; August 19, 1992).
According to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (Service 1982, 1993),
individual populations could be delisted as recovery goals were
achieved (Service 1982, 1993). In the 1990s, the Service received a
number of petitions to change the status of several grizzly bear
populations. The Service issued warranted-but-precluded petition
findings to reclassify the grizzly bear in the North Cascade Ecosystems
as endangered in 1991 and 1998 (56 FR 33892, July 24, 1991; 63 FR
30453, June 4, 1998). The Service also issued warranted-but-precluded
petition findings to reclassify the grizzly bear in the Cabinet-Yaak
Ecosystems as endangered in 1993 and 1999 (58 FR 8250, February 12,
1993; 64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999). Finally, the Service issued a not
warranted petition finding to uplist the Selkirk Ecosystem bears in
1993 (58 FR 8250; February 12, 1993), followed by a warranted-but-
precluded petition finding in 1999 (64 FR 26725; May 17, 1999). The
Service reviewed these warranted-but-precluded findings in the 1999 (64
FR 57533; October 25, 1999), 2001 (66 FR 54808; October 30, 2001), 2002
(67 FR 40657; June 13, 2002), 2003 (69 FR 24876; May 4, 2004), and 2004
(70 FR 24870; May 11, 2005) Candidate Notices of Review. These actions
remain precluded by higher priority actions. The Service's decision to
manage each population separately, including each population's listing
status, predated our DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). None of
the above decisions included formal DPS analysis, although the
warranted uplisting petition finding in 1999 (64 FR 26725; May 17,
1999) included a preliminary DPS analysis. In preparation for future
application of the DPS policy, beyond this action, including that
required to implement warranted-but-precluded uplistings or any
additional reclassification proposals, we are currently collecting
additional genetic and bear movement information. The Service expects
that this information will be available within the next few years. In
anticipation of this information, the Service intends to initiate a 5-
year review of all listed grizzly bear populations in the conterminous
States, including an evaluation of the appropriate application of the
DPS policy and the threats facing each listable entity should this
proposed rule be finalized. Adequate information of this type already
exists for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
This proposed delisting action was not prompted by a petition.
However, there was a March 31, 2004, petition from the Wyoming Farm
Bureau Federation requesting that we declare the grizzly bear in the
GYA as a DPS (Hamilton et al. in litt. 2004). This petition did not
seek to change the status of grizzly bears as a threatened species in
any or all of the species' range. On May 17, 2004, the Service
responded that section 4 of the ESA limits petitionable actions to
listing, delisting, designation or modification of critical habitat, or
reclassification of the status of a species (meaning whether a species
is classified as endangered or threatened) and that this petition did
not fit any of these categories (Blankenship in litt. 2004). Instead,
petitioners were informed that the requested action falls within the
authority of the Administrative Procedures Act; that the Service was
currently considering the Yellowstone population for delisting; and
that an evaluation of the Yellowstone grizzly bear recovery area as a
potential DPS was a part of this process. The Administrative Procedures
Act provides no statutory time periods for processing petitions, but
this action, if finalized, will address this petition.
[[Page 69862]]
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview
Pursuant to the ESA, we shall consider for listing 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 ESA 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 ESA
and invited public comments on it (59 FR 65884). 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). This policy
addresses the establishment of DPSs for potential listing actions.
Under our DPS policy, three factors are considered in a decision
regarding the establishment of a possible 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., U. a. horribilis); (2) the significance of the
population segment to the taxon to which it belongs (i.e., U. a.
horribilis); and (3) the population segment's conservation status in
relation to the ESA's standards for listing (i.e., is the population
segment, when treated as if it were a species, endangered or
threatened).
Application of the Distinct Population Segment Policy
Although the Vertebrate Population Policy does not allow State or
other intra-national governmental boundaries to be used in determining
the discreteness of a potential DPS, an artificial or manmade boundary
may be used as a boundary of convenience in order to clearly identify
the geographic area included within a DPS designation. Easily
identifiable manmade projects, such as interstate highways, Federal
highways, and State highways, also can serve as a boundary of
convenience for delineating a DPS. Thus, the proposed Yellowstone DPS
consists of: That portion of Idaho that is east of Interstate Highway
15 and north of U.S. Highway 30; and 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 (Figure 1, below).
The core of the proposed Yellowstone DPS is the Yellowstone
Recovery Zone (24,000 sq km (9,200 sq mi)) (Service 1982, 1993). The
Yellowstone Recovery Zone includes Yellowstone National Park; 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 (Service 1993). 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; Schwartz 2005, unpublished data). No grizzly bears
originating from the Yellowstone Recovery Zone have been suspected or
confirmed beyond the borders of the proposed Yellowstone DPS.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U
[[Page 69863]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17NO05.000
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
[[Page 69864]]
Analysis for Discreteness
Under our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments, 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., U. a. 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 ESA.
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; Miller and Waits 2003). The nearest population of
grizzly bears is found in the NCDE. These populations are separated by
land ownership, vegetation, and topographic patterns which have
promoted human occupation, development, and land uses in the
intervening valleys between large blocks of mountainous, public lands
(Servheen et al. 2003). These human activities increase grizzly bear
mortality risk by increasing the frequency of encounters with humans,
which increases the chances for grizzly bear/human conflicts (Mattson
et al. 1996). The end result of this increased mortality risk in the
intervening valleys is a functional barrier to grizzly bear movement
across the landscape and connectivity between the GYA and the NCDE.
As of 2005, grizzly bears from the Yellowstone area have not
migrated north across Interstate 90 (the northern boundary of the
proposed DPS), probably for at least the last century (Miller and Waits
2003). Meanwhile, during the last decade, there have been occasional
anecdotal reports of grizzly bears from the NCDE as far south as
Highway 12 near Helena, Montana. These unverified reports are
approximately 130 km (80 mi) north 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; Proctor et al. 2004) to effectively connect the NCDE
population with the proposed Yellowstone DPS. There is currently no
connectivity, nor are there any resident grizzly bears in the area,
between these two separate grizzly bear populations. Although future
connectivity through this area may be possible as grizzly bear
populations expand, grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area remain an
island population separated from other grizzly bears further north by
about 210 km (130 mi).
Because the Yellowstone Ecosystem represents the most southerly
population of grizzly bears, connectivity further south is not an
issue. Additionally, connectivity east also is irrelevant to this
action as grizzly bears in the lower 48 States no longer exist east of
the Yellowstone area, 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 30 years (Service 1993; 65 FR 69624, November 17,
2000; Service 2000).
Genetic data also support the conclusion that grizzly bears from
the Yellowstone area are markedly separated from other grizzly bears.
Genetic studies involving heterozygosity (provides a measure of genetic
variation in either a population or individual) estimates at 8
microsatellite loci show 55 percent heterozygosity in the Yellowstone
area grizzly bears compared to 69 percent in the NCDE bears (Paetkau et
al. 1998). 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)
concluded that gene flow and therefore population connectivity, between
the Yellowstone area 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 Yellowstone area, resulting in even less connectivity
than in the past.
Based on our analysis of the best available scientific information,
we find that the Yellowstone area grizzly population and other
remaining grizzly bears populations are markedly separated from each
other. This contention is supported by evidence of physical separation
between populations and evidence of genetic discontinuity. Therefore,
the proposed Yellowstone DPS meets the criterion of discreteness under
our Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population
Segments.
Analysis for Significance
If we determine a population segment is discrete, we next consider
available scientific evidence of its significance to the taxon (i.e.,
U. a. 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 because it is not
the only surviving wild population of the species and, therefore, this
factor is not included in our analysis for significance.
Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting. Grizzly bears in the
Yellowstone area exist in a 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
population (Stroganov 1969; Mattson et al. 1991a; Jacoby et al. 1999;
Schwartz et al. 2003). Unlike most other areas in the world where brown
or grizzly bears still exist, the Yellowstone area ecosystem contains
extensive populations of ungulates with an estimated 100,000 elk,
29,500 mule (Odocoileus hemionus) and white-tailed deer (O.
virginianus), 5,800 moose, 4,000 bison and relatively smaller
population of pronghorn antelope (Antilocapra americana) (Service 1994;
Toman et al. 1997; Smith et al. 2003). Although grizzly bears are
successful omnivores, grizzlies in the rest of the conterminous States
(Jacoby et al. 1999), most of Europe (Berducou et al. 1983; Clevenger
et al. 1992; Dahle et al. 1998), and in Siberia (Stroganov 1969) rely
on plant and insect materials
[[Page 69865]]
for the majority of their diet. In contrast, grizzlies in the
Yellowstone area rely on terrestrial mammals as their primary source of
nutrition, as indicated by bear scats (Mattson 1997), feed site
analysis (Mattson 1997), and bear hair isotope analysis (Jacoby et al.
1999). 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). These high percentages of meat in
the diet for Yellowstone grizzly bears 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 in bears from the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (Jacoby et
al. 1999). 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; Hilderbrand et al. 1996).
Of particular relevance is grizzly bear use of wild bison, a species
endemic to North America, but eradicated in most of the 48 States
except the GYA by the end of the 19th century (Steelquist 1998).
Although bison numbers have increased since this time, the vast
majority of bison are found in managed or ranched herds (Steelquist
1998). Their habitat, bunchgrass prairie (tallgrass, mixed-grass, and
shortgrass prairie), has been almost entirely converted to agricultural
lands (Steelquist 1998), leaving little opportunity for existence in
areas outside of the isolated refuges and ranches they are commonly
found today. Mattson (1997) 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), 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; Morgan and Bunting 1992). 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). In fact, grizzly bear consumption of ungulates decreases during
years of high whitebark pine seed production (Mattson 1997). 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). This may be due to different
climatic regimes which sustain berry-producing shrubs or simply the
scarcity of whitebark pines in some areas of its range (Mattson and
Reinhart 1994). 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 whitepine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola)
(Kendall and Keane 2001). While there is evidence of blister rust in
whitebark pines in the Yellowstone area, the pathogen has been present
for more than 50 years (McDonald and Hoff 2001) but very few trees have
been infected (see Factor E). Due to this dependency of Yellowstone
grizzly bears on animal and plant species endemic to North America and
currently limited to the GYA, the population is significant to the
taxon because of its unique ecological setting.
Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon. Loss of the proposed
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 proposed 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). The proposed 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 proposed 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 Yellowstone area. The
Yellowstone area population has been isolated from other grizzly bear
populations for approximately 100 years or more (Miller and Waits
2003). Yellowstone grizzly bears have the lowest relative
heterozygosity of any continental grizzly population yet investigated
(Paetkau et al. 1998; Waits et al. 1998b). 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;
Waits et al. 1998b). Miller and Waits (2003) conclude that gene flow
between the Yellowstone area 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 a 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 available scientific information, 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., U. a. horribilis). Because the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population is discrete and significant, it warrants recognition as a
DPS under the ESA. Therefore, the remainder of this proposed rule will
focus on the Yellowstone DPS.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the ESA and regulations promulgated to implement the
listing provisions of the ESA (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.
The analysis for a delisting due to recovery must be based on the five
factors outlined in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA. This analysis must
include an
[[Page 69866]]
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 ESA are removed.
A recovered population is one that no longer meets the ESA's
definition of threatened or endangered. The ESA 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 an endangered species in the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
The ESA defines ``species'' to also include any subspecies or, for
vertebrates, any DPS. Because the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
is discrete and significant, as defined above, it warrants recognition
as a DPS under the ESA and our policy (61 FR 4722). Therefore, our
analysis only covers the DPS.
For the purposes of this proposed rule, ``foreseeable future''
shall refer to approximately 100 years. This definition is based on 10
grizzly bear generations where a single female may take 10 years to
replace herself in a population. This time period is also commonly used
in population viability analyses of grizzly bear populations (Boyce
1995; Saether et al. 1998; Boyce et al. 2001).
For the purposes of this proposed rule, the ``range'' of this
grizzly bear DPS is the area within the DPS boundaries where viable
populations of the species now exist. As previously noted, we have
defined the overall DPS boundary by existing roads for ease in
determining its location. Bears occupy or can occupy all suitable
habitat within the DPS boundary and a few individual bears occasionally
occupy or pass through the areas we define as unsuitable habitat.
Suitable habitat provides food, seasonal foraging opportunities, cover,
denning areas, and security. 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/human conflicts.
Unsuitable habitat consists of those areas within the DPS boundary that
cannot support viable populations of grizzly bears.
The Statutory standard is whether the species is threatened in
``all or a significant portion'' of its range. Because the grizzly bear
occupies all of its range within this DPS, we conducted the following
threats assessment over the entire current range of the grizzly bear
and throughout all suitable habitat within the DPS.
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 ESA in 1975 (40 FR 1734). Both the dramatic decreases
in historical range and land management practices in formerly secure
grizzly bear habitat lead to the 1975 listing (40 FR 1734). 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 for Management Involving Grizzly
Bears in the Yellowstone area (USDA 1986) to manage grizzly bear
habitat in the Yellowstone Recovery Zone. The Service considers
implementation of these Guidelines to be a primary factor contributing
to the Yellowstone grizzly bear population's recovery in the last 2
decades.
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
animal months inside the Yellowstone Recovery Area; and (7) expanded
Information and Education (IE) programs in the Yellowstone Recovery
Area 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 Greater Yellowstone Area 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. What follows is an
assessment of present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of current suitable habitat, or range, in both of these
areas.
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 security area for grizzlies where human impacts on
habitat conditions will be maintained at or below levels that existed
in 1998 (Service 2003). The 1998 baseline for habitat standards was
chosen because several studies (Boyce et al. 2001; Schwartz et al.
2005) showed that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population was
increasing at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year between 1983 and 2001,
and 1998 was within the time that this rate of increase was occurring.
Because levels of secure habitat and developed sites remained
relatively constant in the 10 years preceding 1998 (USFS 2004), the
selection of 1998 assured that the habitat conditions that allowed this
rate of population increase 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.
[[Page 69867]]
Secure habitat refers to those areas with no motorized access that
are at least 4 hectares (10 acres) in size and more than 500 meters
(550 yards) from a motorized access route or reoccurring helicopter
flight line (USFS 2004). 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; McLellan and Shackleton 1988; McLellan 1989; Mace et al.
1996; Mattson et al. 1996). Secure habitat is especially important to
the survival and reproductive success of grizzly bears, especially
adult female grizzly bears (Mattson et al. 1987; Interagency Grizzly
Bear Committee 1994). In the 1998 baseline, secure habitat comprised
45.4 to 100 percent of the total area within a given subunit with an
average of 86.2 percent throughout the entire PCA (Table 2 in Appendix
F of the Strategy). These levels of secure habitat have been
successfully maintained and will continue to be maintained and
improved, where possible, as directed by the Conservation Strategy
(Service 2003).
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 the average for all subunits of 5.3 percent
(Table 2 in Appendix F of the Strategy). These levels of motorized
access have been effectively maintained or improved from 1998 levels,
as per the habitat-based recovery criteria. The Conservation Strategy
assures that they will continue to be managed at 1998 levels if this
proposed delisting action is finalized (Service 2003).
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 (Appendix G in the Strategy). The
Gallatin National Forest is working on several land exchange efforts
with private parties in these subunits. These land exchanges 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. The Travel Plan will amend
the Gallatin Forest Plan and set a 1998 baseline for access values in
these subunits. This travel Plan for the Gallatin National Forest is in
revision as of 2005.
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 exchange, secure habitat and motorized access route
density in these subunits will improve from the 1998 baseline (see
Appendix F in the Strategy).
The Strategy 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 upon full implementation of the
access management changes in the revised 1997 Targhee Forest Plan,
those subunits will have acceptable levels of road densities and secure
habitat due to the decommissioning of roughly 433 miles of roads within
the PCA (Service 2003). As of June 2005, the Targhee National Forest
has completed approximately 80 percent of this decommissioning work
with the remaining 20 percent likely to be completed in 2005, after
site-specific National Environmental Policy Act analyses are completed
(USDA Forest Service 2005). The 1998 baseline (see Appendix F in the
Strategy) for these subunits was modified to reflect increased road
closures with the full implementation of the 1997 Targhee Forest Plan.
Henry's Lake subunit No. 1 still has high levels of motorized access
density and a low secure habitat level due to motorized access routes
on private lands (see Appendix F of the Strategy).
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 (Service 2003). 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. Additionally, sheep and cattle 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). 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.
A total of 88 livestock allotments existed inside the PCA in 1998.
Of these 1998 allotments within the PCA, there were 71 active and 2
vacant cattle allotments and 11 active and 4 vacant sheep allotments
with a total of 17,279 animal months for sheep (Service 2003). 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). 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 Yellowstone area.
As of 2005, there are a total of four active sheep allotments within
the PCA: Two on Targhee National Forest and two on the Gallatin
National Forest. The permittee of the two allotments on the Gallatin
National Forest has agreed to waive the grazing permit back to the
Gallatin National Forest without preference. The Gallatin National
Forest plans to close these two allotments along with three other
vacant allotments when they revise their current Forest Plan. This
Forest Plan revision process is scheduled to be
[[Page 69868]]
completed by 2010 (USDA Forest Service 2005).
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.
Developed sites refer to sites on public land developed or improved for
human 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). 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. 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. In areas of suitable habitat inside the
PCA, the NPS and the USFS enforce food storage rules aimed at
decreasing grizzly bear access to human foods. These regulations will
continue to be enforced and will be applied to all suitable habitat
within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries.
Gunther (1994) 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). All changes in
developed sites since 1998 have been evaluated against the baseline and
have been determined acceptable under the standard for developed sites
identified in the Strategy (Service 2003). For a new developed site to
be determined acceptable, it must be demonstrated that it will have no
effect on grizzly bears. For example, a cell phone tower would fit this
criteria 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. No changes in the 1998 baseline have occurred in
terms of site developments.
Management of oil, gas, mining, and timber development also are
tracked as part of the developed site monitoring effort. There were no
oil and gas leases inside the PCA as of 1998. There are approximately
552 sq km (213 sq mi) of secure habitat potentially available for oil,
gas, or timber projects within the PCA. This comprises only 2 percent
of all suitable habitat within the PCA. Additionally, 1,354 mining
claims existed in 10 of the subunits inside the PCA (Table 1 in
Appendix F of the Strategy), 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 (Service 2003). 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. For projects that temporarily change the
amount of secure habitat, only one project is allowed in any subunit at
any time. Mitigation of any project will occur within the same subunit
and will be proportional to the type and extent of the project.
Finally, the Service established a habitat effectiveness baseline
by documenting habitat effectiveness values using the Cumulative
Effects Model and 1998 habitat data (Service 2003). 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; Knight and Blanchard 1995; Gunther et
al. 1997, 2004). 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. Should we finalize delisting, the Study
Team would 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 Forest Service calculated habitat effectiveness within each subunit
for four important bear seasons: Spring (March 1-May 15); estrus (May
16-July 15); early hyperphagia (July 16-August 31); and late
hyperphagia (September 1-November 30) (Table 6 in Appendix F of the
Strategy). High habitat effectiveness values during estrus are
associated with cutthroat trout spawning streams. Similarly, high
habitat effectiveness values during early hyperphagia and late
hyperphagia are associated with moth aggregation sites and whitebark
pine, respectively. 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. As such, values varied widely
among seasons and across seasons within subunits (Table 6 in Appendix F
of the Strategy). Because the National Park Service and the 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.
At this point, habitat effectiveness values have remained at sufficient
levels to support grizzly bears since other more frequently measured
and monitored habitat baseline (such as road densities, secure habitat,
site development, and livestock allotments) have not changed. If this
rule is finalized and the Strategy is implemented, the USFS could
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 (Service
[[Page 69869]]
2003). The Cumulative Effects Model databases would be reviewed
annually and updated as needed (Service 2003).
The Strategy calls for maintaining or improving the existing
habitat effectiveness values in secure habitat in each subunit (Service
2003). Private land development would also 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 would
monitor adherence to the secure habitat, developed site, and livestock
standards inside the PCA, as established by the Strategy (Service
2003). If we finalize delisting, the Study Team would 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 would 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 multi-agency Yellowstone Grizzly
Coordinating Committee (hereafter referred to as 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
throughout the entire GYA (both inside and outside of the PCA) evaluate
the impacts of the project on grizzly habitat connectivity during the
NEPA analysis process (Service 2003). By identifying areas used by
grizzly bears, officials can mitigate potential impacts from road
construction both during and after a project. Federal agencies would
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 would 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 would
incorporate warning signs and crossing structures such as culverts or
underpasses into projects when possible to facilitate safe highway
crossings by wildlife.
Suitable Habitat: Because we used easily recognized boundaries to
delineate the Yellowstone DPS, the DPS includes both suitable and
unsuitable habitat (Figure 1, above). For the purposes of this proposed
rule, suitable habitat is considered the area within the DPS boundaries
where viable populations of the species now exist or are capable of
being supported in the foreseeable future. Suitable habitat provides
food, seasonal foraging opportunities, cover, denning areas, and
security. 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.
Our definition and delineation of suitable habitat is built on the
widely recognized conclusions of extensive research (Craighead 1980;
Knight 1980; Peek et al. 1987; Merrill et al. 1999; Pease and Mattson
1999) 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 and the topographic variation
necessary to ensure a wide variety of seasonal foods and the steep
slopes required for denning (Judd et al. 1986; Aune and Kasworm 1989;
Linnell et al. 2000). Higher elevation, mountainous regions in the GYA
(Omernik 1987, 1995; 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; Mattson et al. 1991a) and army cutworm moths
(Mattson et al. 1991b; French et al. 1994).
For our analysis of suitable habitat, we considered the Middle
Rockies ecoregion (Omernik 1987; 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). 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), many of these habitats are not,
today, biologically suitable for grizzly bears. There are records of
grizzly bears in eastern Wyoming near present-day Sheridan, Casper, and
Wheatland, but 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 and south (see Rollins
1935; Wade 1947). Grizzly bear presence in these drier, grassland
habitats was associated with rivers and streams where grizzlies used
buffalo carcasses as a major food source (Burroughs 1961; Herrero 1972;
Stebler 1972; Mattson and Merrill 2002). Wild buffalo herds no longer
exist in these areas. Thus, we did not include drier sagebrush,
prairie, or agricultural lands because these land types no longer
contain adequate food resources (i.e., bison) to support grizzly bears.
The negative impacts of humans on grizzly bear survival and habitat
use are well documented (Harding and Nagy 1980; McLellan and Shackleton
1988; Aune and Kasworm 1989; McLellan 1989; McLellan and Shackleton
1989a; Mattson 1990; Mattson and Knight 1991; Mattson et al. 1992; Mace
et al. 1996; McLellan et al. 1999; White et al. 1999; Woodroffe 2000;
Boyce et al. 2001; Johnson et al. 2004). These effects range from
temporary displacement to actual mortality. Mattson and Merrill (2002)
found that grizzly bear persistence in the contiguous United States
between 1920 and 2000 was negatively associated with human and
livestock
[[Page 69870]]
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). 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; Knight and Judd 1983; Orme and Williams 1986;
Anderson et al. 2002). If repeated depredations occur, managers either
relocate the bear or remove it from the population, resulting in such
domestic sheep areas becoming population sinks (Knight et al. 1988).
Because urban sites and sheep allotments possess high mortality
risks for grizzly bears, we did not include cities or large contiguous
blocks of active sheep allotments as suitable habitat (Knight et al.
1988). Our elimination of domestic sheep grazing areas on public lands
from suitable habitat is based on current conditions. Should the
grazing management of these areas change in the future it is possible
that such areas could become suitable grizzly bear habitat. Based on
2000 Census data, we defined urban areas as census blocks with human
population densities of more than 50 people/sq km (129 people/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
Salt River and Wind River Mountain Ranges on the Bridger-Teton and the
Targhee National Forests (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; Yahner 1988; Mills 1995). 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). 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.
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 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 Yellowstone
area to the Bighorns occasionally, 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; Schwartz 2005,
unpublished data). 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.
Based on these factors and subsequent Geographic Information System
(GIS) analysis, we found there are 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 (Figure 1, above).
Grizzly bears currently occupy about 68 percent of that suitable
habitat (31,481 sq km (12,155 sq mi)) (Schwartz et al. 2002; Schwartz
2005, unpublished data). 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 90 percent of females with cubs-of-
the-year) are found within the PCA (Schwartz 2005, unpublished data).
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). An additional 14,554 sq km (5,619 sq
mi) of suitable habitat is currently unoccupied by grizzly bears
(Figure 1, above) (Schwartz et al. 2002; Schwartz 2005, unpublished
data). These areas would allow for the continued growth and expansion
of the population within the proposed Yellowstone DPS as grizzly bears
naturally recolonize them in the next few decades (Pyare et al. 2004).
Habitat Management Outside the Primary Conservation Area: In
suitable habitat outside of the PCA within the DPS, the USFS, BLM, and
State wildlife agencies will monitor habitat and population criteria to
prevent potential threats to habitat from inhibiting the population's
viability. 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 a
viable Yellowstone grizzly bear population is maintained (see also
Factor D--Inadequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms). In suitable habitat
outside of the PCA, restrictions on human activities are more flexible
but still the USFS, 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.
Currently, there are 22,783 sq km (8,797 sq mi) of suitable habitat
outside of the PCA within the DPS. About 10 percent of the population
of female grizzly bears with cubs occurs outside the PCA (Schwartz
2005, unpublished data). Of this, 17,292 sq km (6,676 sq mi) are on
National Forest lands. Management decisions on USFS lands will continue
to consider potential impacts on grizzly bear habitat and will be
managed so as to allow grizzly bear expansion in terms of numbers and
distribution. Approximately 79 percent of USFS suitable habitat outside
the PCA 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
[[Page 69871]]
inventoried roadless area (6,179 sq km (2,386 sq mi)) (USFS 2004). 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.
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 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 a permanent wilderness area. 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 are currently secure habitat for grizzly
bears outside of the PCA within the DPS. A USFS Interim Directive (69
FR 42648; July 16, 2004) which instructs National Forests to preserve
the ``roadless characteristics'' of roadless areas will remain in
effect until at least November 2006. State governors have the option to
submit petitions with management recommendations to individual National
Forests in their State by November 2006 (70 FR 25653; May 13, 2005). If
no petitions are received by this time, individual National Forests
will continue operating under the Interim Directive until they revise
their Forest Plans to include direction on managing roadless areas.
Technically, the only management direction given in roadless areas is
that no new roads may be constructed. However, this restriction makes
mining activities, oil and gas production, and timber harvest 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 Forest Service lands within the DPS could experience
permanent or temporary changes in road densities. Because grizzly bears
would remain a sensitive species on the USFS Sensitive Species list if
we finalize this proposed delisting, any increases in roads on National
Forests would have to comply with National Forest Management Act and be
subject to environmental assessment 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 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 maintaining average road densities of < 1.6
km/2.6 sq km (< 1 mi/sq mi) in these areas (MTFWP 2002; WGFD 2002). 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). 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 61 percent of
existing secure habitat outside of the PCA (USFS 2004).
In suitable habitat outside the PCA within the DPS, there are
roughly 150 active cattle allotments and 12 active sheep allotments
(USFS 2004). The Targhee Forest Plan calls for the closing of two of
these sheep allotments while the others are likely to remain active
(Jerry Reese, USFS, pers. comm. 2005). The USFS 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 significant mortality
for grizzly bears, with population-level impacts if established
sustainable mortality limits are exceeded in several consecutive years,
the Strategy should prevent this. The Strategy directs the Study Team
to monitor and spatially map all grizzly bear mortalities (both inside
and outside the PCA) and their causes of death, identify the source of
the problem, and alter management to maintain a recovered population
and prevent the need to relist the population under the ESA (Service
2003).
There are over 500 developed sites on the 6 National Forests in the
areas identified as suitable habitat outside the PCA within the DPS
(USFS 2004). Grizzly bear/human conflicts at developed sites are the
most frequent reason for management removals (Servheen et al. 2004).
Existing USFS 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 ESA. Due to the USFS's commitment to managing National Forest
lands in the GYA such that a viable grizzly bear population is
maintained (Service 2003), the Service does not expect livestock
allotments or developed sites in suitable habitat outside of the PCA to
reach densities that are detrimental to the long-term persistence of
the Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
Less than 19 percent (3,213 sq km (1,240 sq mi)) of suitable
habitat outside the PCA within the DPS on USFS 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
[[Page 69872]]
increases in human access, grizzly bear/human encounters, and human-
caused grizzly bear mortalities (McLellan and Shackleton 1988, 1989;
Mace et al. 1996). Although seismic exploration associated with oil and
gas development or mining may disturb denning grizzly bears (Harding
and Nagy 1980, Reynolds et al. 1987), actual den abandonment is rarely
observed, and there has been no documentation of such abandonment by
grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area. 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 (USFS 2004).
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
(USFS 2004).
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. Because the grizzly bear will be classified as a sensitive
species, under Forest Service Manual direction, land management
activities will be managed so as not to contribute to a trend for
listing or loss of viability for the grizzly bear. There must be no
impacts to sensitive species without an analysis of the significance of
adverse effects on the populations, its habitat, and the viability of
the species (USFS 2004). Any road construction, timber harvest, or oil
and gas projects would require compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4331) 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 (Service 2003). Outside the PCA, State agencies will assist
NGOs and other entities to identify and prioritize potential lands
suitable for permanent conservation through easements and other means
as possible (Service 2003).
In summary, the primary factors related to past habitat destruction
and modification have been directly addressed through changes in
management practices. Within the PCA, the Service and the Study Team
have developed objective and measurable habitat criteria concerning
secure habitat, road densities, human site developments, and livestock
allotments which will be standards on public lands should we finalize
delisting. In addition, the Study Team, State wildlife agencies, NPS
biologists, and USFS 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. The
Coordinating Committee will respond to these monitoring data with
adaptive management as per the Strategy (Service 2003). Accordingly,
the PCA, which comprises 51 percent of the suitable habitat within the
DPS boundaries and is occupied by approximately 90 percent of all
females with cubs (Schwartz 2005, unpublished data), will be a highly
secure area for grizzlies should we finalize delisting with habitat
conditions maintained at or above levels documented in 1998.
Maintenance of this area as described above is sufficient to support a
recovered grizzly bear population.
In suitable habitat outside the PCA on Forest Service lands, 74
percent (12,860 sq km or 4965 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 about 10 percent of GYA's females
with cubs (Schwartz 2005, unpublished data). 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 NGOs and State and county agencies
will seek to minimize bear/human conflicts on private lands.
A total of 88 percent of all suitable habitat within the DPS
boundaries (40,293 sq km (15,557 sq mi)) is managed by the USFS or NPS.
These public lands are already managed and will continue to be managed
such that adequate habitat for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
is maintained. Habitat and population standards described in the
Strategy must be incorporated into National Parks and National Forests
management plans before the Service makes a final determination on this
proposed action (see Factor D--The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory
Mechanisms). We conclude that the combination of these actions
regarding habitat will allow for adequate habitat to continue
supporting a viable grizzly bear population with continued expansion
into adjacent areas of public land in the GYA.
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 potentially anticipated post-
delisting, if this action is finalized, 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--The Inadequacy of
Existing Regulatory Mechanisms). Should such a season be implemented,
all hunting mortalities will be counted toward the mortality limits for
the population and will be strictly controlled to assure that mortality
limits are not exceeded 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--Human Predation section.
Since 1980, three accidental trap mortalities were associated with
scientific research (Servheen et al. 2004). All three mortalities
occurred between 1980 and 1982. 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). 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
[[Page 69873]]
population. The Study Team, bear biologists, and researchers will
continue implementing these protocols should we delist. Therefore,
mortalities associated with scientific research will not be a threat to
the Yellowstone grizzly bear population in 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) and do not appear to have population-
level impacts on grizzly bears (Jonkel and Cowan 1971; Kistchinskii
1972; Mundy and Flook 1973; Rogers and Rogers 1976). 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;
Zarnke and Evans 1989; Marsilio et al. 1997; Zarnke et al. 1997).
However, based on 30 years of research by the Study Team, mortalities
in the wild due to any of these bacteria or pathogens are negligible
components of total mortality in the GYA (Study Team 2005). Disease is
not common in grizzly bears, has only very rarely been documented in
Yellowstone grizzly bears (Craighead et al. 1988), and is not
considered a threat to long-term viability of the Yellowstone grizzly
bear population.
Natural Predation: Grizzly bears are killed by other wildlife on
occasion. Adult grizzly bears kill cubs, sub-adults, or other adults
(Stringham 1980; Dean et al. 1986; Hessing and Aumiller 1994; McLellan
1994; Schwartz et al. 2003). This type of intraspecific killing seems
to occur rarely (Stringham 1980) and has only been observed among
Yellowstone grizzly bears in the GYA 14 times between 1986 and 2004
(Mark Haroldson, USGS 2005, unpublished data). 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) 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 negligible to population dynamics.
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 19th
and 20th centuries (Leopold 1967; Koford 1969; Servheen 1990; Servheen
1999; Mattson and Merrill 2002; Schwartz et al. 2003), 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. Many of the early settlers in grizzly
bear country were dedicated to eradicating large predators, and grizzly
bears were shot, poisoned, and killed wherever humans encountered them
(Servheen 1999). By the time grizzlies were listed under the ESA 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.
From 1973 to 2002, a total of 372 known grizzly bear deaths
occurred in the GYA (Haroldson and Frey 2003). Of these, 272 (73
percent of total) were human-caused (Haroldson and Frey 2003). Since
1975, levels of human-caused mortality have remained relatively
constant (see Figure 4 in Servheen et al. 2004). Although humans have
been and remain the single greatest cause of mortality for grizzly
bears (McLellan et al. 1999; Servheen et al. 2004), rates of human-
caused mortality are low enough to allow Yellowstone bear population
growth and range expansion (Schwartz et al. 2005). Implementation of
the revised mortality limits ensure that mortality will be managed at
sustainable levels. Below we consider human predation impacts including
illegal poaching, defense of life and property; accidental mortality,
and management removals.
Vandal killing, or poaching, is defined as malicious, illegal
killing of a grizzly bear. 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). Regardless of the reason,
poaching continues to occur. We are aware of at least 27 vandal
killings between 1980 and 2002 (Servheen et al. 2004). 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 should we finalize this delisting.
State and Federal law enforcement agents have cooperated to ensure
consistent enforcement of laws protecting grizzly bears. 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. If
this proposed action is finalized, 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
(see Chapter 7 of the Strategy). In other words, it will still be
illegal for private citizens to kill grizzly bears unless it is in self
defense or they have a hunting license issued by State wildlife
agencies. 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; Schwartz et al. 2002).
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). 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, IE programs aim to
change perspectives on the danger and behavior of grizzly bears (for a
detailed discussion of IE programs, see Factor E--Other Natural or
Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence). Another option is a
limited hunt to foster a sense of ownership and obligation toward the
grizzly bear. Areas with grizzly bear hunting seasons experience lower
levels of poaching (McLellan et al. 1999). Hunting is further discussed
under Factors B and D.
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). 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
[[Page 69874]]
many options to potentially reduce these conflicts by modifying human
behavior (Servheen et al. 2004). By promoting the use of pepper spray
and continuing current IE programs, many of these grizzly bear deaths
may be avoided (for a detailed discussion of IE programs, see Factor
E--Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence).
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.
Accidental human-caused mortality accounts for a total of 9 percent of
known mortality for this time period (Servheen et al. 2004). 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 (see Servheen et al. 2004). 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 IE programs
targeted at hunters that emphasize patience, awareness, and correct
identification of targets help reduce grizzly bear mortalities from
inexperienced black bear and ungulate hunters (Service 2003). 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). Since implementation, no grizzly bears have
been mistakenly killed by black bear hunters in Montana's portion of
the GYA (Study Team 2005, unpublished data). In addition, Montana and
Wyoming include grizzly bear encounter management as a core subject in
basic hunter education courses.
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 are the regulatory
documents that would guide nuisance bear management if we delisted. The
Strategy is consistent with current protocol as described in the
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee Guidelines (USDA 1986), 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 bear,
health/age/sex of bear, and demographic characteristics are all
considered in any relocation or removal action. If we delisted, State
and Park Service bear managers would continue to consult with each
other and other relevant federal agencies (i.e., USFS, BLM) before any
nuisance bear management decision is made but consultation with the
Service would 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 (Service 2003). In addition,
an IE team would 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 management of grizzly bear/human conflicts
will require an integrated, multiple-agency approach to continue to
reduce human-caused grizzly bear mortality.
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). In fact, 20 percent (59 of 290) of known
mortalities between 1980 and 2002 were related to site conflicts. 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 IE programs are
aimed primarily at reducing grizzly bear/human conflicts proactively by
educating the public about potential grizzly bear attractants. To
address public attitudes and knowledge levels, IE programs will present
grizzly bears as a valuable public resource while acknowledging the
potential dangers associated with them (for a detailed discussion of IE
programs, see Factor E--Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence).
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). Several steps to reduce livestock
conflicts are currently underway. The USFS and NPS are phasing out
sheep allotments within the PCA as opportunities arise. The USFS also
has closed sheep allotments outside the PCA to resolve conflicts with
species such as bighorn sheep as well as grizzly bears. Livestock
grazing permits include special provisions regarding reporting of
conflicts, proper food and attractant storage procedures, and carcass
removal. The USFS monitors compliance to these special provisions
associated with livestock allotments annually (Servheen et al. 2004).
If we delist, the USFS would 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; Judd and
Knight 1983; Anderson et al. 2002).
The Study Team coordinates an annual analysis of the causes of
conflicts, known and probable mortalities, and proposed management
solutions (see Servheen et al. 2004 for an example of the form such
reports will take). 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, if we delist, the Study Team would continue to
summarize nuisance bear control actions in their Annual Reports and the
Coordinating Committee will continue with their review (Service 2003).
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.
Overall, from 1980 to 2002, the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
incurred an average of 12.6 grizzly bear mortalities per year. Despite
these natural and human-caused mortalities, the Yellowstone grizzly
bear population has continued to increase in size and
[[Page 69875]]
expand its distribution in the last 2 decades. Disease and natural
predation are not a threat to the long-term persistence of the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population. 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 IE.
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--The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms). 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 no longer considered a threat
to the future viability of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
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; July 28, 1975). Upon listing under the ESA, the grizzly
bear immediately benefited from a Federal regulatory framework that
included prohibition of take, which is defined broadly under the ESA to
include killing, injuring, or attempting to kill or injure; 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
program for the species. These protective measures have improved the
status of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population to the point where
delisting can now be proposed.
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 (Chapter 7 of the Strategy). Forty Federal
laws, rules, guidelines, strategies, and reports and 33 State laws,
statutes, and regulations in place apply to management of the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population (Appendix J in the Strategy). 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 education and outreach
programs to control conflicts, monitoring populations and habitats, and
requesting management and petitions for re-listing if necessary.
Recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is the result
of partnerships between Federal and State agencies, the governors of
these States, county and city governments, educational institutions,
numerous NGOs, private landowners, and the public who live, work, and
recreate in the Yellowstone area. Just as recovery of the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population could not have occurred without these excellent
working relationships, maintenance of a recovered grizzly population
depends on continuation of these partnerships.
The Strategy is the management 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 (see the Post-
Delisting Monitoring Plan) (Service 2003). The Strategy is an adaptive
and dynamic document that allows for continuous updating based on new
scientific information. 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. It represents a decade-long collaborative
effort among the USFS, NPS, BLM, USGS, the Service, 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). 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 before
being revised (65 FR 11340; March 2, 2000). With the exception of the
Service, all the other State and Federal agencies which are party to
the agreement have signed a memo of understanding (MOU) in which they
have agreed to implement the Strategy. If this proposed action is
adopted, the Service will sign the MOU prior to finalization.
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, 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 for the foreseeable future. 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 Conservation Strategy and the
State grizzly bear management plans provide assurances to the Service
that adequate regulatory mechanisms exist to maintain the Yellowstone
grizzly bear population after delisting.
In areas of suitable habitat outside of the PCA, individual
National Forest Plans and State grizzly bear management plans apply.
Should we delist, the USFS would place grizzly bears on its Sensitive
Wildlife Species list. This requires the USFS to conduct a biological
evaluation for any project which may ``result in loss of species
viability or create significant trends toward Federal listing'' (USFS
Manual 2600). Under the revised Forest Planning Regulations (70 FR
1023; January 5, 2005), Yellowstone grizzly bears will be classified as
a ``species-of-concern'' or a ``species-of-interest''. 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.
The USFS conducted a NEPA analysis and produced a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (Draft EIS) regarding the potential
options available and the effects of implementing the Strategy (USFS
2004). This analysis was undertaken by all six affected National
Forests in suitable habitat (Beaverhead, Bridger-Teton, Custer,
Gallatin, Shoshone, and Targhee) and was completed in July 2004
(accessible at http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm
). The overall purpose of the Draft EIS is to analyze
the impacts of incorporating the
[[Page 69876]]
habitat standards outlined in the Conservation 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 USFS Final EIS is scheduled to be released in 2005. The
preferred alternative in the Draft EIS is to amend the Forest Plans to
include all the habitat standards described in the Strategy. If the
preferred alternative is selected, the minimum standards in these
Forest Plan amendments will be the habitat standards required in the
Strategy. These habitat standards must be appended to current Forest
Plans before the Service would finalize this rule.
Under the revised Forest Planning Regulation (70 FR 1023; January
5, 2005), revisions to Forest Plans will be based upon a ``need for
change'' approach. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that any changes
relating to the Yellowstone grizzly bear amendments will be identified
during the revision process (Aus and Steering Team, in litt. 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 Conservation Strategy
and its adaptive provisions (Aus, in litt. 2005).
Roughly 29 percent of all suitable habitat outside of the PCA is
within a designated Wilderness Area (6,799 of 23,091 sq km (2,625 of
8,915 sq mi) while another 27 percent is within an Inventoried Roadless
Area (6,179 of 23,091 sq km (2,386 of 8,915 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.
The USDA recently published a rule in the Federal Register
regarding management direction of Inventoried Roadless Areas (70 FR
25653; May 13, 2005). This new rule replaces the former Roadless Rule
(66 FR 3244; January 12, 2001) and establishes a formal petitioning
process that allows governors of affected States until November 2006 to
petition for changes in the management of Inventoried Roadless Areas.
Any petitions received will be reviewed by the Roadless Area
Conservation National Advisory Committee (70 FR 25653, May 13, 2005; 70
FR 25663, May 13, 2005). If the Advisory Committee approves the
petition, the affected National Forest must use the NEPA process and
public involvement to consider the impacts any changes in Roadless Area
management may have on other resources and management goals. The USFS
will monitor any impacts these changes may have on habitat
effectiveness while the Study Team will monitor any increases in
grizzly bear mortality these changes may cause. In the meantime, the
USDA-USFS Interim Directive 1920-2004-1 that became effective July 16,
2004, will continue to regulate activities in Inventoried Roadless
Areas (69 FR 42648; July 16, 2004). Under this directive, little road
building or timber harvest can be done in Inventoried Roadless Areas
until Forest Plans are revised or amended to specifically address
activities in roadless areas. The Targhee National Forest is 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 (USFS 2004).
The NPS also is incorporating the habitat, population, monitoring,
and nuisance bear standards described in the Strategy into their
Superintendent's Compendium for each affected National Park. This would
be completed prior to the final rule should the Yellowstone DPS be
delisted. 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 MOU 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) Ensure the long-term viability of grizzly bears
and preclude re-listing, (2) support expansion of grizzly bears beyond
the PCA, into areas of 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 would be incorporated into
existing game species management plans after delisting.
The Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation has
participated at the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee meetings. At the
2002 Annual Tribal Consultation organized by Yellowstone National Park,
the Service formally briefed the Tribe about the Conservation Strategy,
but the Tribe did not provide input or feedback about the Strategy, nor
did they sign the MOU in the Strategy. In addition, the Eastern
Shoshone Tribe has not designed its own Grizzly Bear Management Plan as
of 2005. However, less than 3 percent of all suitable habitats (1,360
sq km (525 sq mi)) are potentially affected by Tribal decisions. This
does not constitute a threat to the long-term viability of the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
Should the Yellowstone DPS be delisted, the Conservation Strategy
would be implemented, and the Coordinating Committee would replace the
Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee as the leading entity coordinating
implementation of the habitat and population standards and monitoring
(Service 2003). 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,
USGS, IDFG, MTFWP, the 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, by implementing management actions to rectify problems and
to assure that these standards will be met and maintained.
The Conservation Strategy's habitat standards are the 1998 levels
of secure habitat, developed sites, livestock allotments, and habitat
effectiveness (Service 2003). The Strategy signatories have agreed that
if there are deviations from any population goal or habitat standard,
the Coordinating Committee
[[Page 69877]]
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) 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; or (4) failure to meet any of the habitat standards described in
the Conservation Strategy pertaining to road densities, levels of
secure habitat, new developed sites, and number of livestock
allotments.
A Biology and Monitoring Review 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. The Study Team will give management
recommendations to address the deviation. This Review will be completed
and made available to the public within 6 months of initiation. The
Coordinating Committee will respond 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
the Service for relisting (Service 2003). Although anyone can petition
the Service 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 the Service with a strong argument for the petition. Once a
potential petition is received, the Service will 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. The Service
could also consider emergency listing, in accordance with section
4(b)(7) of the ESA, if the threat were severe and immediate. Such an
emergency relisting would be effective the day the proposed regulation
is published in the Federal Register and would be effective for 240
days. During this time, a conventional rule regarding the listing of a
species based on the five factors of section 4(a)(1) of the ESA could
be drafted and take effect after the 240-day limit on the emergency
relisting has expired.
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 address the 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. 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 occurred. 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 (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 ``Information and Education'' section in Factor E--
Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence. All
three State plans allow for preemptive relocation of grizzly bears out
of areas with a high probability of conflicting with humans or their
property, including livestock. In general, humans will be given greater
consideration outside of the PCA so long as human sources of conflicts
are not intentional. 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. Hunting seasons will not be instituted in any of the
States until adequate scientific information exists to ensure that any
such hunting take is within the sustainable mortality limits and the
impact to the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is negligible. The
goal of such a hunting season is to reduce grizzly density in areas of
high grizzly bear/human conflicts so that future management actions
would be reduced. Outside of the National Parks, individual nuisance
bears deemed appropriate for removal may be taken by a licensed hunter
in compliance with rules and regulations promulgated by the appropriate
State wildlife agency commission. A hunt would only occur if annual
mortality limits specified for the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
are not exceeded.
In summary, these State management plans provide the necessary
regulatory framework and guidelines to State wildlife agencies for the
continued expansion of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population into
suitable habitat 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
coexist. Effective nuisance bear management benefits the conservation
of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population and State management plans
adequately address this issue.
In addition to the Conservation Strategy, National Park
Superintendent's Plans, USFS Plans, 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
documents provide an adequate regulatory framework within which the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population will continue to experience
population stability, as well as protocols for future management, IE
programs, and monitoring. In summary, these documents provide
reasonable assurance to the Service and regulatory certainty that
potential future threats to
[[Page 69878]]
the Yellowstone grizzly bear population will not jeopardize its long-
term viability.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Three other considerations have the potential to affect long-term
grizzly bear persistence in the Yellowstone including: (1) Genetic
concerns; (2) invasive species, disease, and other impacts to food
supply; and (3) human attitudes toward grizzly bear recovery and IE
efforts to improve these attitudes.
Genetic Management: 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).
Because the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is an isolated
population, declines in genetic diversity over time due to inbreeding
are expected (Allendorf et al. 1991; Burgman et al. 1993), but will
occur gradually over decades (Miller and Waits 2003). 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; Newman and Tallmon 2001; Miller and Waits 2003). An
effective migrant is defined as an individual that emigrates into an
isolated population from an outside area, survives, and breeds. Based
on Miller and Waits (2003), the Strategy recommends that two bears from
the NCDE be introduced into the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
every 10 years (i.e., one generation) to maintain current levels of
genetic diversity (Service 2003).
Federal and State agencies will continue to monitor bears on the
northern periphery of the Yellowstone DPS boundaries and the southern
edges of the NCDE and collect genetic samples from captured or dead
bears in these areas to document gene flow between these two
ecosystems. To monitor genetic isolation, the Service will establish a
repository for all samples from the Yellowstone population to document
any bears moving from the NCDE into the Yellowstone area. 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 (Waser and Strobeck 1998). The Strategy
dictates that if no movements are detected by 2020, one to two
grizzlies will be transplanted from the NCDE by 2022 to ensure that
genetic diversity in the Yellowstone area does not decline below
existing levels (Service 2003).
As long as adequate measures to address genetic concerns are
continued, these issues will not adversely impact the long-term
conservation of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population or its
expansion into suitable habitat. Through careful monitoring of
movements and levels of genetic diversity, the geographic isolation of
the Yellowstone grizzly bear population will not be a threat to
population persistence.
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. 1991). 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) and are some
of the highest sources of digestible energy available to grizzly bears
in the Yellowstone area (Mealey 1975; Pritchard and Robbins 1990;
Mattson et al. 1992; Craighead et al. 1995). 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. In
response to normal changes in food supplies due to plant phenology and
responses to weather (e.g., frost, rainfall), grizzly bear annual home
ranges change in size and extent. By expanding the distribution and
range of bears into currently unoccupied suitable habitat within the
DPS boundaries, additional areas with additional food resources will be
available. These additional habitats will provide habitat flexibility
for bears to respond to these normal changes in annual food supplies
and distribution.
Several factors have the potential to impact Yellowstone Lake
cutthroat trout populations. In 1994, nonnative lake trout (Salvelinus
naymaycush) were discovered in Yellowstone Lake (Reinhart et al. 2001).
Lake trout are efficient predators of juvenile cutthroat trout and, on
average, consume 41 cutthroat trout per year (Ruzycki et al. 2003). 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). 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). In fact, bear activity (includes
black bear and grizzly bear use) at spawning streams decreased 87
percent between 1989 and 2004 (Koel et al. 2005). This decrease
corresponds temporally with cutthroat trout declines but 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).
In 2001, several environmental and legal organizations petitioned
the Service to list the Yellowstone cutthroat trout as a threatened
subspecies of cutthroat trout (66 FR 11244; February 23, 2001). A 12-
month status review is currently underway and the Service will publish
its findings when completed. We will consider the results of the status
review fully when making a final decision on this proposed delisting.
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).
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.
Currently, there are two noteworthy threats to whitebark pine
communities
[[Page 69879]]
in North America. These are mountain pine beetle infestation and the
introduction of exotic species (Tomback et al. 2001). Fire suppression
and exclusion throughout most of the western United States during the
20th century has allowed shade tolerant tree species to dominate some
whitebark pine communities thereby inhibiting natural regeneration by
whitebark pine (Arno 1986; Tomback et al. 2001). These later
successional whitebark pine communities are more susceptible to
infestations of the native mountain pine beetle (Dendroctonus
ponderosae) (Tomback et al. 2001). Their larvae feed on the inner bark,
which can eventually girdle and kill trees on a landscape scale (Amman
and Cole 1983).
The introduction of white pine blister rust from Europe in the
early 1900s also contributes to whitebark pine declines (Kendall and
Arno 1990; Tomback et al. 2001). While there is evidence of blister
rust in whitebark pines in the Yellowstone area, the blister rust has
been present for more than 50 years (McDonald and Hoff 2001), and only
2 to 13 percent of whitebark pine trees display signs of infection
(Kendall and Keane 2001). This proportion of infected trees 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).
Both mountain pine beetle (Logan and Powell 2001; Williams and
Liebhold 2002) and white pine blister rust (Koteen 2002) outbreaks are
predicted to increase with increasing temperatures associated with
global climate change. However, the ultimate impacts of climate change
on whitebark pine communities are unclear (Kendall and Keane 2001).
Although tree mortality due to white pine blister rust and mountain
pine beetles has been low to date in the PCA, some whitebark pine
stands are infected with blister rust. The extent of the blister rust
infection and the future effects it will have on whitebark pine on the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population are unknown. The USFS formed a
Whitebark Pine Task Group to gather 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. Currently, there
are 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). Under the Strategy, the Study Team will continue monitoring
whitebark pine cone production and the prevalence of white pine blister
rust using current methods (Service 2003).
In general, grizzly bears are notoriously resourceful omnivores
that will make behavioral adaptations regarding food acquisition
(Weaver et al. 1996). Diets of grizzly bears vary among individuals and
years (Mattson et al. 1991; Felicetti et al. 2004; Koel et al. 2005)
reflecting their flexibility in finding adequate food resources as
necessary. Mattson et al. (1991) 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
(Servheen, pers. comm. 2005) despite severe declines in whitebark pine
communities in the last 50 years (Kendall and Keane 2001). Also,
grizzly bear use of cutthroat trout has varied dramatically in the last
three decades (Reinhart and Mattson 1990; Felicetti et al. 2004), most
likely corresponding to fluctuations in the trout population, but the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population has continued to increase and
expand.
Although there is no way to guarantee how the Yellowstone grizzly
bear population will respond to decreases in whitebark pine crops or
cutthroat trout, should they occur, we anticipate that they will
compensate by shifting their foraging strategies to other foods such as
forbs, fungi, ungulates, and small mammals. If there are reductions in
any of these foods, they will likely be gradual reductions over
decades, spanning generations of grizzly bears, thereby making
adjustments to other foods gradual.
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
(Study Team 2005), 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. 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
significant decline in important foods also would be reflected in
changes in these measurable population parameters. In summary, 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 to the Coordinating
Committee that they submit a petition for relisting to the Service (see
Chapter 6 of the Strategy--Implementation and Evaluation, for details
on this process).
Human Attitudes and Societal Acceptance: Public support is
paramount to any successful large carnivore conservation program
(Servheen 1996). 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).
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
[[Page 69880]]
species, and specific interactions or experiences with species (Kellert
1994; Kellert et al. 1996). The IE programs to 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 IE 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 IE 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; Kellert
et al. 1996). 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).
Delisting would increase acceptance of grizzly bears by giving lower
levels of government and private citizens more discretion in decisions
which affect them. Increased flexibility regarding depredating bears in
areas outside of the PCA would increase tolerance for the grizzly bear
by landowners and livestock operators. A future hunting season also may
increase tolerance and local acceptance of grizzly bears and reduce
poaching in the GYA (McLellan et al. 1999).
Overall, through expanded IE programs and continued monitoring of
public opinion, human attitudes will not hinder the continued viability
and success of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
Information and Education: 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 IE 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 causes of these
conflicts. 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 IE is provided to people who live, work, and recreate in
occupied grizzly bear habitat. The current IE 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 working with
citizens, landowners, and visitors within the Yellowstone DPS
boundaries to address the human sources of conflicts.
From 1975 through 2002, as many as 59 percent (135 out of 230) of
human-caused mortalities could have been avoided if adequate IE
materials had been presented, understood, and used by involved parties.
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 usually 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 will
be further reduced with enhanced IE programs.
Outside the PCA, State wildlife agencies recognize that the key to
preventing grizzly bear/human conflicts is providing IE 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 viability and successful coexistence with humans in the GYA. All
three States have been actively involved in IE outreach for over a
decade and management plans contain chapters detailing efforts to
continue current programs and expand them when possible. State wildlife
agencies have years of experience organizing and implementing effective
public outreach programs. For example, WGFD created a formal human/
grizzly bear conflict management program in July 1990 and has
coordinated an extensive IE 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-APHIS-Wildlife Services, IDFG, MTFWP, or
WYDGF, compensation to the affected livestock owners will continue to
occur. Since 1997, this compensation has been provided primarily by
private organizations, principally Defenders of Wildlife. The Defenders
of Wildlife's Grizzly Bear Compensation Trust has paid over $112,000 to
livestock operators within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries and in the
northern Rockies for confirmed and probable livestock losses to grizzly
bears. If this proposed rule to delist the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population is adopted, both Idaho and Wyoming's grizzly bear management
plans provide for State funding of compensation programs. 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. In Wyoming,
the WYDGF will pay for all compensable damage to agricultural products
as provided by State law and regulation. The WYDGF will continue
efforts to establish a long-term funding mechanism to compensate
property owners for livestock and apiary losses caused by grizzly
bears. In Montana, 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.
Overall, these natural and manmade factors--genetic concerns,
declines in natural food sources, public acceptance, and lack of
adequate IE programs, if unaddressed, have the potential to affect
long-term grizzly bear persistence. Through careful monitoring and
adaptive management practices, the
[[Page 69881]]
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 adequately addressed so that removing the proposed
Yellowstone grizzly bear population from the Federal List of Endangered
and Threatened Wildlife would not adversely impact its long-term
survival.
Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis
As demonstrated in our 5-factor analysis, threats to this
population have been sufficiently minimized throughout all of the range
and all suitable habitat within the DPS, and there is no significant
portion of the range where the DPS remains threatened.
Our current knowledge of the health and condition of the
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS illustrates that the Yellowstone grizzly
bear DPS is now a recovered population. Counts of unduplicated females
with cubs-of-the-year have increased (Knight et al. 1995; Haroldson and
Schwartz 2002; Schwartz et al. 2005a), indicating cub production has
increased (Knight and Blanchard 1995, 1996; Knight et al. 1997;
Haroldson et al. 1998; Haroldson 1999, 2000, 2001; Haroldson and
Schwartz 2002; Haroldson 2003, 2004; Schwartz et al. 2005). Grizzly
range and distribution has expanded (Basile 1982; Blanchard et al.
1992; Schwartz et al. 2002; Pyare et al. 2004). 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 since the early 1990s (Eberhardt et al. 1994; Knight and
Blanchard 1995; Boyce et al. 2001; Schwartz et al. 2005), due in large
part to control of female mortality. In total, this population has
increased from estimates ranging from 229 (Craighead et al. 1974) to
312 (Cowan et al. 1974; McCullough 1981) individuals when listed in
1975 to more than 580 animals as of 2004 (Study Team 2005).
At the end of 2004, 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 40, more than double 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 2004, the 1-year total of
unduplicated females with cubs-of-the-year within this area was 46.
Within the Recovery Zone, the distribution of females with young,
based on the most recent six years of observations in the ecosystem,
was eighteen out of eighteen 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; Pyare et al. 2004). Furthermore, the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population continues to expand its range and
distribution today. Currently, roughly 90 percent of females with cubs
occupy the PCA and about 10 percent of females with cubs have expanded
out beyond the PCA within the DPS (Schwartz 2005, unpublished data).
Grizzly bears now occupy 68 percent of suitable habitat within the
proposed DPS and may soon occupy the remainder of the suitable habitat
within the proposed DPS. The Yellowstone DPS now represents a viable
population that has sufficient numbers and distribution of reproductive
individuals to provide a high likelihood that the species will continue
to exist and be well-distributed throughout its range and additional
suitable habitat for the foreseeable future. Both the threats of
habitat destruction and modification, and low population levels, have
been directly addressed through changes in management practices.
As per the criteria laid out in the 1993 Recovery Plan, the 4
percent mortality limit has not been exceeded for 2 consecutive years
since 1987. The human-caused female grizzly bear mortality limit has
not been exceeded for 2 consecutive years since the 1995-1997 period
(Haroldson and Frey 2004). Due to the conservative nature of this
standard designed to facilitate population recovery, even when human-
caused adult female mortality was exceeded for consecutive years during
the mid-1990s (1995, 1996, 1997), the population was increasing (Boyce
et al. 2001; Schwartz et al. 2005) and expanding its distribution
(Schwartz et al. 2002; Pyare et al. 2004). Applying the revised
mortality limits to the 1999-2004 period, these criteria have not been
exceeded for 3 consecutive years for males, for 3 consecutive years for
dependent young, nor for 2 consecutive years for independent females.
The main threat of human predation has been addressed through carefully
monitored and controlled mortality limits through the State management
plans. In addition, information and education is a main component of
the program to reduce grizzly bear/human conflicts.
The State and Federal agencies' agreement to implement the
extensive Conservation Strategy and State management plans will ensure
that adequate regulatory mechanisms remain in place and that the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population will not become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
The threat of overutilization due to commercial, recreational,
scientific, or education purposes has been removed due to the
management of grizzly bears through State management plan mortality
limits. This proposal mentions the possibility, in the future, of a
carefully regulated hunt; however, should this hunt be formally
proposed, all hunting mortalities would be counted toward the mortality
limits for the population.
Based on the best scientific and commercial information available,
we have determined that the proposed Yellowstone DPS is a recovered
population no longer meeting the ESA's definition of threatened or
endangered. Therefore, we are proposing to delist the Yellowstone
grizzly bear DPS.
Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan
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 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 (Lee and Lawrence 1986). More specifically,
monitoring efforts will document population trends, distribution,
survival and birth rates, and genetic variability. 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
[[Page 69882]]
will be monitored carefully and any deviations from these will be
reported annually. The number and levels of secure habitat, road
densities, 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 genetic diversity (see
Appendix I of the Strategy). 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 USFS, 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, ``The Present or
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or
Range'' in this proposed rule.
Outside of the Primary Conservation Area--State wildlife agencies
will be responsible for monitoring habitat and population parameters in
areas outside of the PCA. The three State grizzly bear management plans
detail what habitat and demographic criteria each State will monitor.
All three States will document sightings of females with cubs and
provide this information to the Study Team. Additionally, 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 important 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. The WGFD
will monitor habitat changes, human activities, road densities, and
construction. 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.
Monitoring systems in the Strategy allow for adaptive management as
environmental issues change (Lee and Lawrence 1986). The agencies have
committed in the Strategy to be responsive to the needs of the grizzly
bear through adaptive management 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 the delisting
determination or most recent status review. 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 (Service 2003). The results of this extensive
monitoring would allow wildlife and land managers to identify and
address potential threats preemptively thereby allowing those managers
and the Service to be certain that the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population is not threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future.
Clarity of the Rule (E.O. 12866)
Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to write regulations that
are easy to understand. We invite your comments on how to make this
rule easier to understand including answers to the following: (1) Is
the discussion in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of the preamble
helpful in understanding the proposal?; (2) Does the proposal contain
technical language or jargon that interferes with its clarity?; (3)
Does the format of the proposal (grouping and order of sections, use of
headings, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity; and (4) What else could we
do to make the rule easier to understand?
Send a copy of any comments that concern how we could make this
proposed rule easier to understand to the Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC
20240.
Public Comments Solicited
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we solicit
comments or suggestions from the public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested
party concerning this proposed rule. Generally, we seek information,
data, and comments concerning the status of grizzly bears in the
Yellowstone ecosystem. Specifically, we seek documented, biological
data on the status of the Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bears and their
habitat, and the management of these bears and their habitat.
Submit comments as indicated under ADDRESSES. If you wish to submit
comments by e-mail, please avoid the use of special characters and any
form of encryption. Please also include your name and return address in
your e-mail message.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review during regular
business hours. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their home address from the rulemaking record, which we will honor to
the extent allowable by law. There also may be circumstances in which
we would withhold from the
[[Page 69883]]
rulemaking record a respondent's identity, as allowable by law. If you
wish us to withhold your name or address, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your comment. However, we will not
consider anonymous comments. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. Comments
and other information received, as well as supporting information used
to write this rule, will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at our Missoula Office (see
ADDRESSES). In making a final decision on this proposed rule, we will
take into consideration the comments and any additional information we
receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from
this proposal.
Public Hearing
The ESA provides for public hearings on this proposed rule. We have
scheduled one public hearing on this proposed rule as specified above
in DATES and ADDRESSES.
Public hearings are designed to gather relevant information that
the public may have that we should consider in our rulemaking. During
the hearing, we will present information about the proposed action. We
invite the public to submit information and comments at the hearing or
in writing during the open public comment period. We encourage persons
wishing to comment at the hearing to provide a written copy of their
statement at the start of the hearing. This notice and public hearing
will allow all interested parties to submit comments on the proposed
rule for the grizzly bear. We are seeking comments from the public,
other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific
community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the
proposal.
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR
34270), we will solicit the expert opinions of at least three
appropriate and independent specialists for peer review of this
proposed rule. The purpose of such review is to ensure that decisions
are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analyses. We
will send peer reviewers copies of this proposed rule immediately
following publication in the Federal Register. We will invite peer
reviewers to comment, during the public comment period, on the specific
assumptions and conclusions regarding the proposed DPS and its
delisting. We will summarize the opinions of these reviewers in the
final decision document, and we will consider their input as part of
our process of making a final decision on the proposal.
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
The Service has determined that Environmental Assessments and
Environmental Impact Statements, as defined under the authority of the
NEPA of 1969, need not be prepared in connection with actions adopted
pursuant to section 4(a) of the ESA. A notice outlining the Service's
reasons for this determination was published in the Federal Register on
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
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.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
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.
Sec. 17.11 [Amended]
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) * * *
[[Page 69884]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate population
--------------------------------------------------- Historic range where endangered or Status When listed Critical Special
Common name Scientific name threatened habitat rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* * * * * * *
Bear, grizzly.................. Ursus arctos North America.... U.S.A., conterminous T 1, 2D, 9 NA 17.40(b)
horribilis. (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 of ID XN 706 NA 17.84(l)
and MT, see 17.84(l)).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: November 9, 2005.
H. Dale Hall,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 05-22784 Filed 11-15-05; 1:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-U