FR Final YGB Rule 03292007

Thursday,
March 29, 2007
Part II
Department of the
Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Grizzly Bears; Yellowstone Distinct
Population; Notice of Petition Finding;
Final Rule
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:50 Mar 28, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\29MRR2.SGM 29MRR2
14866 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR under the Act and to designate critical Parks will manage habitat in accordance
habitat. We find that the petition and with those habitat standards.
Fish and Wildlife Service additional information in our files did
Species Description
not present substantial scientific
50 CFR Part 17 information indicating that listing the Grizzly bears are generally larger and
RIN 1018–AT38 Yellowstone grizzly bear population as more heavily built than other bears
endangered may be warranted. (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 517;
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife Therefore, we are not initiating a status Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 558). Grizzly
and Plants; Final Rule Designating the review in response to this petition. bears can be distinguished from black
Greater Yellowstone Area Population DATES: This rule becomes effective April bears, which also occur in the lower 48
of Grizzly Bears as a Distinct 30, 2007. States, by longer, curved claws, humped
Population Segment; Removing the shoulders, and a face that appears to be
ADDRESSES: Comments and materials
Yellowstone Distinct Population concave (Craighead and Mitchell 1982,
Segment of Grizzly Bears From the received, as well as supporting
p. 517). A wide range of coloration from
Federal List of Endangered and documentation used in preparation of
light brown to nearly black is common
Threatened Wildlife; 90-Day Finding on this final rule, are available for
(LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 17–18). Spring
a Petition To List as Endangered the inspection, by appointment, during
shedding, new growth, nutrition, and
Yellowstone Distinct Population normal business hours, at our Missoula
coat condition all affect coloration.
Segment of Grizzly Bears office, Grizzly Bear Recovery
Guard hairs (long, course outer hair
Coordinator, University Hall, Room
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, forming a protective layer over the soft
#309, University of Montana, Missoula,
Interior. underfur) are often pale in color at the
Montana 59812. Call (406) 243–4903 to
tips; hence the name ‘‘grizzly’’
ACTION: Final rule; notice of petition make arrangements. In addition, certain
(Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 517).
finding. documents such as the Strategy and
In the lower 48 States, the average
information appended to the recovery
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife weight of grizzly bears is generally 200
plan are available at http://mountain-
Service (Service, we or us), hereby to 300 kilograms (kg) (400 to 600
prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/
establish a distinct population segment pounds (lb)) for males and 110 to 160
grizzly/yellowstone.htm.
(DPS) of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos kg (250 to 350 lb) for females (Craighead
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. and Mitchell 1982, pp. 518–520).
horribilis) for the Greater Yellowstone
Area (GYA) and surrounding area Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear Grizzly bears are long-lived mammals,
(hereafter referred to as the Yellowstone Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and generally living to be around 25 years
DPS, Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS, or Wildlife Service, at our Missoula office old (LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 47, 51).
Yellowstone grizzly bear population) (see ADDRESSES above) or telephone
(406) 243–4903. Individuals who are Taxonomy
and remove this DPS from the List of
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife. hearing-impaired or speech-impaired Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis)
The Yellowstone grizzly bear may call the Federal Relay Service at 1– are vertebrates that belong to the Class
population is no longer an endangered 800–877–8337 for TTY assistance. Mammalia, Order Carnivora, and Family
or threatened population pursuant to SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Ursidae. The grizzly bear is a member of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as the brown bear species (U. arctos) that
Background
amended (Endangered Species Act or occurs in North America, Europe, and
the Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), based Prior to publication of this final rule, Asia; the subspecies U. a. horribilis is
on the best scientific and commercial we—(1) Finalized the Conservation limited to North America (Rausch 1963,
data available. Robust population Strategy (Strategy) that will guide post- p. 43; Servheen 1999, pp. 50–53). Early
growth, coupled with State and Federal delisting monitoring and management of taxonomic descriptions of U. arctos
cooperation to manage mortality and the grizzly bear in the GYA; (2) based primarily on skull measurements
habitat, widespread public support for appended the habitat-based recovery described more than 90 subspecies
grizzly bear recovery, and the criteria to the 1993 Recovery Plan and (Merriam 1918, pp. 9–16), but this was
development of adequate regulatory the Strategy; and (3) appended an later revised to 2 subspecies in North
mechanisms has brought the updated and improved methodology for America (U. a. middendorfi on the
Yellowstone grizzly bear population to calculating total population size, known islands of the Kodiak archipelago in
the point where making a change to its to unknown mortality ratios, and Alaska and U. a. horribilis in the rest of
status is appropriate. sustainable mortality limits for the North America) (Rausch 1963, p. 43).
The delisting of the Yellowstone DPS Yellowstone grizzly bear population to The two North American subspecies
does not change the threatened status of the 1993 Recovery Plan and the approach of Rausch (1963, p. 43) is
the remaining grizzly bears in the lower Strategy. Additionally, the U.S. generally accepted by most taxonomists
48 States, which remain protected by Department of Agriculture (USDA) today, and is the approach we use.
the Act. In an upcoming but separate Forest Service finalized the Forest Plan Additional discussion of this issue can
notice, we will initiate a 5-year status Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat be found in the proposed rule (70 FR
review of the grizzly bear as listed under Conservation for the GYA National 69854–69855, November 17, 2005). The
the Act based on additional scientific Forests and made a decision to original 1975 listing (40 FR 31734–
information that is currently being incorporate this Amendment into the 31736, July 28, 1975) had been
collected and analyzed. Finally, we affected National Forests’ Land inadvertently modified in the List of
announce a 90-day finding on a petition Management Plans. Yellowstone and Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to
(submitted during the public comment Grand Teton National Parks also U. arctos with a historic holarctic range.
period for the proposed rule) to list the appended the habitat standards With this final rule, we have corrected
Yellowstone grizzly bear population as described in the Strategy to their Park this error to reflect the original listed
endangered on the Federal List of Superintendent’s Compendiums, entity of U. arctos horribilis with a
Threatened and Endangered Wildlife thereby assuring that these National historic range of North America.
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14867
Behavior reproduction is approximately 6 years as 1.65 kg/day (3.64 lb/day) (Craighead

Although adult bears are normally old, and the average litter size is 2.04 and Mitchell 1982, p. 544). Grizzly bears
solitary (Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. cubs (Schwartz et al. 2006a, p. 19). Cubs must consume foods rich in protein and
971), home ranges of adult bears are born in a den in late January or early carbohydrates in order to build up fat
frequently overlap (Schwartz et al. February and remain with the female for reserves to survive denning and post-
2003b, pp. 565–566). Grizzly bears 2 to 3 years before the mother will again denning periods (Rode and Robbins
display a behavior called natal mate and produce another litter 2000, pp. 1643–1644). These layers of
philopatry in which dispersing young (Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 564). Grizzly fat are crucial to the hibernating bear as
establish home ranges within or bears have one of the slowest they provide a source of energy and
overlapping their mother’s (Waser and reproductive rates among terrestrial insulate the bear from cold
Jones 1983, p. 361; Schwartz et al. mammals, resulting primarily from the temperatures, and are equally important
2003b, p. 566). This type of movement late age of first reproduction, small in providing energy to the bear upon
average litter size, and the long interval emergence from the den when food is
makes dispersal across landscapes a
between litters (Nowak and Paradiso still sparse relative to metabolic
slow process. Radio-telemetry and
1983, p. 971; Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. requirements (Craighead and Mitchell
genetics data suggests females establish
564). Given the above factors and 1982, p. 544).
home ranges an average of 9.8 to 14.3
natural mortality, it may take a single Although the digestive system of
kilometers (km) (6.1 to 8.9 miles (mi))
female 10 years to replace herself in a bears is essentially that of a carnivore,
away from the center of their mother’s
population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife bears are successful omnivores, and in
home range, whereas males generally
Service 1993, p. 4). Grizzly bear females some areas may be almost entirely
stray further, establishing home ranges
cease breeding successfully some time herbivorous (Jacoby et al. 1999, pp.
roughly 29.9 to 42.0 km (18.6 to 26.0 mi)
in their mid-to-late 20s (Schwartz et al. 924–926; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp.
away from their mother’s (McLellan and 2003a, pp. 109–110).
Hovey 2001, p. 842; Proctor et al. 2004, 568–569). Grizzly bears are
For 3 to 6 months during winter, opportunistic feeders and will consume
p. 1108). grizzly bears across their range enter
The home range of adult male grizzly almost any available food including
dens in an adaptive behavior which living or dead mammals or fish, and,
bears is typically three to five times the increases survival during periods of low
size of an adult female’s home range sometimes, garbage (Knight et al. 1988,
food availability, deep snow, and low p. 121; Mattson et al. 1991a, pp. 1620–
(LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 27–30). The air temperature (Craighead and
large home ranges of grizzly bears, 1624; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 568–
Craighead 1972, pp. 33–34). Grizzly
particularly males, enhance genetic 569). In areas where animal matter is
bears in the lower 48 States spend
diversity in the population by enabling less available, grasses, roots, bulbs,
between 4 and 6 months in dens
males to mate with numerous females tubers, and fungi may be important in
beginning in October or November
(Blanchard and Knight 1991, pp. 46–51; meeting protein requirements (LeFranc
(Linnell et al. 2000, p. 401). During this
Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 303–305). et al. 1987, pp. 111–114). High-quality
period, they do not eat, drink, urinate,
Grizzly bear population densities of one foods such as berries, nuts, insects, and
or defecate (Folk et al. 1976, pp. 376–
bear per 20 square kilometers (sq km) (8 fish are important in some areas
377; Nelson 1980, p. 2955). Hibernating
square miles (sq mi)) have been reported (Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 568–569).
grizzly bears exhibit a marked decline in
in Glacier National Park (Martinka 1976, heart and respiration rate, but only a The search for food has a prime
p. 150), but most populations in the slight drop in body temperature (Nowak influence on grizzly bear movements
Lower 48 States are much less dense and Paradiso 1983, p. 971). Due to their (Mattson et al. 1991a, pp. 1625–1626).
(LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 47, 52–53). For relatively constant body temperature in In the GYA, four food sources have been
example, estimates of grizzly bear the den, hibernating grizzly bears can be identified as important to grizzly bear
densities in the GYA range from one easily aroused and have been known to survival and reproductive success
bear per 50 sq km (20 sq mi) to one bear exit dens when disturbed by seismic or (Mattson et al. 2002, p. 2). Winter-killed
per 80 sq km (30 sq mi) (Blanchard and mining activity (Harding and Nagy ungulates serve as an important food
Knight 1980, pp. 263–264; Craighead 1980, p. 278) or by human activity source in early spring before most
and Mitchell 1982, pp. 537–538). (Swenson et al. 1997a, p. 37). Both vegetation is available (Green et al.
Grizzly bears have a promiscuous males and females have a tendency to 1997, p. 140; Mattson 1997, p. 165).
mating system (Hornocker 1962, p. 70; use the same general area year after During early summer, spawning
Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 522; year, but the same exact den is rarely cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki)
Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 563) with used twice by an individual (Schoen et are a source of nutrition for grizzly bears
genetic studies confirming that cubs al. 1987, p. 300; Linnell et al. 2000, p. in the Yellowstone population (Mattson
from the same litter can have different 403). Females display stronger area et al. 1991a, p. 1623; Mattson and
fathers (Craighead et al. 1998, p. 325). fidelity than males and generally stay in Reinhart 1995, p. 2072; Felicetti et al.
Mating occurs from May through July their dens longer, depending on 2004, pp. 496, 499). Grizzly bears feed
with a peak in mid-June (Craighead and reproductive status (Judd et al. 1986, on army cutworm moths (Euxoa
Mitchell 1982, p. 522; Nowak and pp. 113–114; Schoen et al. 1987, p. 300; auxiliaris) during late summer and early
Paradiso 1983, p. 971). Age of first Linnell et al. 2000, p. 403). fall as they try to acquire sufficient fat
reproduction and litter size may be In preparation for hibernation, bears levels for winter (Mattson et al. 1991b,
related to nutritional state (Stringham increase their food intake dramatically p. 2432; French et al. 1994, p. 394).
1990, p. 433; McLellan 1994, p. 20; during a stage called hyperphagia Lastly, in some years, whitebark pine
Hilderbrand et al. 1999, pp. 135–136; (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 544). (Pinus albicaulis) seeds serve as an
Mattson 2000, p. 110). Age of first Hyperphagia is defined simply as important fall food due to their high fat
reproduction varies from 3 to 8 years of overeating (in excess of daily metabolic content and abundance as a pre-
age, and litter size varies from one to demands) and occurs throughout the 2 hibernation food (Mattson and Reinhart
four cubs (Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. to 4 months prior to den entry. During 1994, p. 212). The distribution and
563). For the Yellowstone grizzly bear hyperphagia, excess food is deposited as abundance of these grizzly bear foods
population, the average age of first fat, and grizzly bears may gain as much vary naturally among seasons and years.
On average, approximately 79 percent single season (Ternent and Haroldson use areas, kills lawfully present
of the diet of adult male and 45 percent 2000, p. 39). Some bears may feed livestock, or displays unnatural
of the diet of adult female grizzly bears almost exclusively on moths for a aggressive behavior toward people
in the GYA is terrestrial meat (Jacoby et period of over a month (French et al. (USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 53–54).
al. 1999, p. 925). In contrast, in Glacier 1994, p. 393). Moths have the highest Introduced organisms (e.g., white pine
National Park, over 95 percent of the caloric content per gram of any other blister rust and lake trout), habitat loss,
diets of both adult male and female bear food (French et al. 1994, p. 391). and other human activities can
grizzly bears are vegetation (Jacoby et al. Moths are available during late summer negatively impact the quantity and
1999, p. 925). Ungulates rank as the and early fall when bears consume large distribution of these four primary foods
second highest source of net digestible quantities of foods in order to acquire (Reinhart et al. 2001, pp. 285–286).
energy available to grizzly bears in the sufficient fat levels for winter (Mattson Potential effects to food supply and
GYA (Mealey 1975, pp. 84–86; Pritchard et al. 1991b, p. 2433). A grizzly bear human/bear conflict are discussed in
and Robbins 1990, p. 1647; Craighead et feeding extensively on moths over a 30- more detail in the 5-factor analysis.
al. 1995, pp. 250–251). Grizzly bears day period may consume up to 47
Recovery
with home ranges in areas with few percent of its annual energy budget of
plant foods depend extensively on 960,000 calories (White et al. 1999, pp. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the
ungulate meat (Harting 1985, pp. 69–70, 149–150). Moths also are valuable to grizzly bear occurred throughout the
85–87). Grizzly bears in the GYA feed bears because they are located in remote western half of the contiguous United
on ungulates primarily as winter-killed areas, thereby reducing the potential for States, central Mexico, western Canada,
carrion from March through May grizzly bear/human conflicts during the and most of Alaska (Roosevelt 1907, pp.
although they also depredate elk calves late-summer tourist months (Gunther et 27–28; Wright 1909, pp. vii, 3, 185–186;
for a short period in early June (Gunther al. 2004, p. 15). Merriam 1922, p. 1; Storer and Tevis
and Renkin 1990, pp. 330–332; Green et Due to their high fat content and 1955, p. 18; Rausch 1963, p. 35; Herrero
al. 1997, p. 1040; Mattson 1997, pp. potential abundance as a pre- 1972, pp. 224–227; Mattson et al. 1995,
165–166). Carcass availability fluctuates hibernation food, whitebark pine seeds p. 103; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 557–
with winter severity because fewer are an important fall food for bears in 558). Pre-settlement population levels
ungulates die during mild winters the GYA (Mattson and Jonkel 1990, p. for the western contiguous United States
(Mattson et al. 1991a, pp. 1622–1623). 223; Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1623). are believed to be in the range of 50,000
Due to their high digestibility and Yellowstone grizzly bears consume animals (Servheen 1999, p. 50). With
protein and lipid content, spawning whitebark pine seeds extensively when European settlement of the American
cutthroat trout are one of the highest whitebark cones are available. Bears West, grizzly bears were shot, poisoned,
sources of digestible energy available to may feed predominantly on whitebark and trapped wherever they were found,
bears during early summer in pine seeds when production exceeds 20 and the resulting range and population
Yellowstone National Park (Mealey cones per tree (Blanchard 1990, p. 362; declines were dramatic (Roosevelt 1907,
1975, pp. 84–86; Pritchard and Robbins Mattson et al. 1992, pp. 433, 436). pp. 27–28; Wright 1909, p. vii; Storer
1990, p. 1647). Grizzly bears are known During years of low whitebark pine seed and Tevis 1955, pp. 26–27; Leopold
to prey on cutthroat trout in at least 36 availability, grizzly bears often seek 1967, p. 30; Koford 1969, p. 95;
different streams tributary to alternate foods at lower elevations in Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 516;
Yellowstone Lake (Reinhart and association with human activities Mattson et al. 1995, p. 103). The range
Mattson 1990, pp. 345–346). From 1997 (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Knight and and numbers of grizzlies were reduced
to 1999, Haroldson et al. (2000, pp. 32– Blanchard 1995, p. 23; Gunther et al. to less than 2 percent of their former
35) identified 85 different grizzly bears 1997, pp. 9–11; Gunther et al. 2004, p. range and numbers by the 1930s,
that had likely fished spawning stream 18). approximately 125 years after first
tributaries to Yellowstone Lake. While The production and availability of contact (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
importance varies by season and year, these four major foods can have a 1993, p. 9; Mattson et al. 1995, p. 103;
few bears develop a dependence on this positive effect on reproduction and Servheen 1999, p. 51). Of 37 grizzly
food source (Haroldson et al. 2005, pp. survival rates of Yellowstone grizzly populations present in 1922, 31 were
173–174). Only 23 individuals visited bears (Mattson et al. 2002, p. 5). For extirpated by 1975 (Servheen 1999, p.
spawning streams more than 1 year out example, during years when whitebark 51).
of the 4 years sampled, suggesting that pine seeds are abundant, there are fewer By the 1950s, with little or no
this resource is used opportunistically grizzly bear/human conflicts in the GYA conservation effort or management
(Haroldson et al. 2005, pp. 174–175). In (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Gunther et directed at maintaining grizzly bears
contrast to earlier studies which used al. 2004, pp. 13–15). Grizzly bear/ anywhere in their range, the GYA
different assumptions and methods human conflicts are incidents in which population had been reduced in
(Reinhart and Mattson 1990, pp. 345– bears kill or injure people, damage numbers and was restricted largely to
349; Mattson and Reinhart 1995, pp. property, kill or injure livestock, the confines of Yellowstone National
2078–2079), Felicetti et al. (2004, pp. damage beehives, obtain anthropogenic Park and some surrounding areas
496–499) found that male grizzly bears (man-made) foods, or damage or obtain (Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 41–42;
are the primary consumers of cutthroat garden and orchard fruits and vegetables Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 575–579).
trout, accounting for 92 percent of all (USDA Forest Service1986, pp. 53–54). High grizzly bear mortality in 1970 and
trout consumed by Yellowstone grizzly During poor whitebark pine years, 1971, following closure of the open-pit
bears. grizzly bear/human conflicts are more dumps in Yellowstone National Park
Alpine moth aggregations are an frequent, resulting in higher numbers of (Gunther 1994, p. 550; Craighead et al.
important food source for a considerable human-caused grizzly bear mortalities 1995, pp. 34–36), and concern about
portion of the Yellowstone grizzly bear due to defense of life or property and grizzly population status throughout its
population (Mattson et al. 1991b, p. management removals of nuisance bears remaining range prompted the 1975
2434). As many as 35 different grizzly (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Gunther et listing of the grizzly bear as a threatened
bears with cubs-of-the-year have been al. 2004, pp. 13–14). A nuisance bear is species in the lower 48 States under the
observed feeding at moth sites in a one that seeks human food in human- Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (40 FR
31734–31736, July 28, 1975). When the area large enough and of sufficient created in 1973 to provide detailed
grizzly bear was listed in 1975, the habitat quality to support a recovered scientific information for the
population estimate in the GYA ranged grizzly bear population within which management and recovery of the grizzly
from 136 to 312 individuals (Cowan et the population and habitat would be bear in the GYA. Current members of
al. 1974, pp. 32, 36; Craighead et al. monitored (U.S. Fish and Wildlife the Study Team include scientists from
1974, p. 16; McCullough 1981, p. 175). Service 1982, pp. 55–58; U.S. Fish and the Service, U.S. Geological Survey,
In 1981, we hired a grizzly bear Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41). In 1993, USDA Forest Service, academia, and
recovery coordinator to direct recovery we revised the Recovery Plan to include each State game and fish agency
efforts and to coordinate all agency additional tasks and new information involved in grizzly bear recovery. The
efforts on research and management of that increased the focus and Study Team has developed protocols to
grizzly bears in the lower 48 States. In effectiveness of recovery efforts (U.S. monitor and manage grizzly bear
1982, the first Grizzly Bear Recovery Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41– populations and important habitat
Plan (Recovery Plan) was completed 58). parameters.
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982, p. However, recovery plans are not In 1983, the Interagency Grizzly Bear
ii). The Recovery Plan identified five regulatory documents and are instead Committee was created to coordinate
ecosystems within the conterminous intended to provide guidance to us, management efforts and research actions
United States thought to support grizzly States, and other partners on methods of across multiple Federal lands and States
bears. Today, grizzly bear distribution is minimizing threats to listed species and within the various Recovery Zones to
primarily within, but not limited to, the on criteria that may be used to recover the grizzly bear in the lower 48
areas identified as Recovery Zones (U.S. determine when recovery is achieved. States (USDA and U.S. Department of
Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 10– There are many paths to accomplishing the Interior 1983). Its objective was to
13, 17–18), including—the GYA in recovery of a species, and recovery may change land management practices to
northwest Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and be achieved without all criteria being more effectively provide security and
southwest Montana (24,000 sq km fully met. For example, one or more maintain or improve habitat conditions
(9,200 sq mi)) at more than 500 bears criteria may have been exceeded while for the grizzly bear (USDA and U.S.
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team other criteria may not have been Department of the Interior 1983). The
2006, p. 15); the Northern Continental accomplished. In that instance, we may Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee is
Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) of north judge that the threats have been made up of upper level managers from
central Montana (25,000 sq km (9,600 sq minimized sufficiently, and the species all affected State and Federal agencies
mi)) at more than 500 bears (Kendall is robust enough, to reclassify the (USDA and U.S. Department of the
2006); the North Cascades area of north species from endangered to threatened Interior 1983). Also in 1983, the
central Washington (25,000 sq km or delist the species. In other cases, Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee,
(9,500 sq mi)) at less than 20 bears recovery opportunities may have been a subcommittee of the Interagency
(Almack et al. 1993, p. 4); the Selkirk recognized that were not known at the Grizzly Bear Committee, was formed to
Mountains area of north Idaho, time the Recovery Plan was finalized. coordinate recovery efforts specific to
northeast Washington, and southeast These opportunities may be used the GYA (USDA and U.S. Department of
British Columbia (5,700 sq km (2,200 sq instead of methods identified in the the Interior 1983, p. 3). Members of the
mi)) at approximately 40 to 50 bears (64 Recovery Plan. Likewise, information on Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee
FR 26730, May 17, 1999; 70 FR 24870, the species may be learned that was not are mid-level managers and include—
May 11, 2005); and the Cabinet-Yaak known at the time the Recovery Plan the Service; representatives from the six
area of northwest Montana and northern was finalized. The new information may GYA National Forests (the Shoshone,
Idaho (6,700 sq km (2,600 sq mi)) at change the extent that criteria need to be Custer, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-
approximately 30 to 40 bears (Kasworm met for recognizing recovery of the Teton, Gallatin, and Targhee);
and Manley 1988, p. 21; Kasworm et al. species. Recovery of a species is a Yellowstone National Park; Grand Teton
2004, p. 2). There is an additional dynamic process requiring adaptive National Park; the Wyoming Game and
Recovery Zone known as the Bitterroot management (defined as a 6-step Fish Department (WGFD); the Montana
Recovery Zone in the Bitterroot feedback loop including assessment, Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
Mountains of east-central Idaho and design of management actions and (MTFWP); the Idaho Department of Fish
western Montana (14,500 sq km (5,600 associated monitoring and research, and Game (IDFG); the Bureau of Land
sq mi)), but this area does not contain implementation of management Management (BLM); the Study Team;
any grizzly bears at this time (U.S. Fish according to the design, monitoring, county governments from each affected
and Wildlife Service 1996, p. 1; 65 FR evaluation of outcomes, and adjustment State; the Northern Arapahoe Tribe; and
69624, November 17, 2000; U.S. Fish of management based on evaluation of the Eastern Shoshone Tribe (USDA and
and Wildlife Service 2000, p. ix). The initial management actions) that may, or U.S. Department of the Interior 1983).
San Juan Mountains of Colorado also may not, fully follow the guidance In 1994, The Fund for Animals, Inc.,
were identified as an area of possible provided in a recovery plan. In the end, and 42 other organizations and
grizzly bear occurrence (40 FR 31734– any determination of whether a species individuals filed suit over the adequacy
31736, July 28, 1975; U.S. Fish and is no longer in need of the protections of the 1993 Recovery Plan (Fund for
Wildlife Service 1982, p. 12; U.S. Fish of the Act must be based on an Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D.
and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 11), but no assessment of the threats to the species. D.C. 1995); 967 F. Supp. 6 (D. D.C.
confirmed sightings of grizzly bears Grizzly bear recovery has required 1997). In 1995, the U.S. District Court
have been found in the San Juan cooperation among numerous Federal for the District of Columbia issued an
Mountains since a bear was killed there agencies, State agencies, non- order that remanded for further study
in 1979 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service government organizations, local and clarification four issues that are
1993, p. 11). governments, and citizens. In relevant to the GYA—(1) The method
In the initial Recovery Plan, the recognition that grizzly bear populations used to measure the status of bear
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Ecosystem, were unsustainably low, the Interagency populations; (2) the impacts of genetic
later called the Yellowstone Grizzly Grizzly Bear Study Team (hereafter isolation; (3) monitoring of the
Bear Recovery Zone, was defined as an referred to as the Study Team) was mortalities related to livestock; and (4)
the monitoring of disease (Fund for mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The As per the court settlement (Fund for
Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D. bear management units are analysis Animals v. Babbitt) and as
D.C. 1995); 967 F. Supp. 6 (D. D.C. areas that approximate the lifetime size recommended by the 1993 Grizzly Bear
1997)). Following this court decision, all of a female’s home range, while Recovery Plan’s Task Y423, we have
parties filed appeals. In 1997, the parties subunits are analysis areas that worked to ‘‘establish a threshold of
reached a settlement whereby we agreed approximate the annual home range size minimal habitat values to be maintained
to append habitat-based recovery of adult females. Subunits provide the within each Cumulative Effects Analysis
criteria to the Recovery Plan (Settlement optimal scale for evaluation of seasonal Unit in order to ensure that sufficient
dated March 31, 1997, and approved by feeding opportunities and landscape habitat is available to support a viable
the court on May 5, 1997, Fund for patterns of food availability for grizzly population’’ (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Animals v. Babbitt, 967 F. Supp. 6 (D. bears (Weaver et al. 1986, p. 236). The Service 1993, p. 55). On June 17, 1997,
D.C. 1997)) (hereafter Fund for Animals bear management units and subunits we held a public workshop in Bozeman,
v. Babbitt). These four issues and the were identified to provide enough Montana, to develop and refine habitat-
necessary supplement to the Recovery quality habitat and to ensure that grizzly based recovery criteria for the grizzly
Plan as required by the court order and bears were well distributed across the bear. A Federal Register notice notified
subsequent settlement are discussed in recovery zone as per the Recovery Plan the public of this workshop and
detail in this section and in the threats (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, provided interested parties an
analysis. pp. 20, 41, 44–46). Management opportunity to participate and submit
Habitat Management and improvements made as a result of these comments (62 FR 19777, April 23,
Development of Habitat-based Recovery Guidelines are discussed under Factor A 1997). After considering 1,167 written
Criteria—In 1979, the Study Team below. comments, we developed biologically-
developed the first comprehensive based habitat recovery criteria with the
Another tool employed to monitor
Guidelines for Management Involving overall goal of maintaining or improving
habitat quality and assist in habitat
Grizzly Bears in the GYA (hereafter habitat conditions at levels that existed
management is the Yellowstone Grizzly
referred to as the Guidelines) (Mealey in 1998.
Bear Cumulative Effects Model. The
1979, pp. 1–4). We determined in a There is no published method to
model was designed to assess the
biological opinion that implementation deductively calculate minimum habitat
inherent productivity of grizzly bear
of the Guidelines by Federal land values required for a healthy and
habitat and the cumulative effects of
management agencies would promote recovered population. Recognizing that
conservation of the grizzly bear (U.S. human activities on bear use of that
habitat (Weaver et al. 1986, p. 234; grizzly bears are opportunistic
Fish and Wildlife Service 1979, p. 1).
Dixon 1997, pp. 4–5; Mattson et al. omnivores and that a landscape’s ability
Beginning in 1979, the six affected
2002, p. 5). The model uses Geographic to support grizzly bears is a function of
National Forests (Beaverhead-Deerlodge,
Information System (GIS) databases and overall habitat productivity, the
Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer,
relative value coefficients associated distribution and abundance of major
Gallatin, and Shoshone), Yellowstone
with human activities, vegetation, and food sources, the levels and type of
and Grand Teton National Parks, and
key grizzly bear foods to calculate human activities, grizzly bear social
the BLM in the GYA began managing
habitat value and habitat effectiveness systems, bear densities, and
habitats for grizzly bears under direction
(Weaver et al. 1986, p. 237; Mattson et stochasticity, we selected 1998 levels as
specified in the Guidelines.
In 1986, the Interagency Grizzly Bear al. 2002, p. 5). Habitat value is a relative our baseline level. We chose this year
Committee modified the Guidelines to measure of the average net digestible because it was known that these habitat
more effectively manage habitat by energy potentially available to bears in values had adequately supported an
mapping and managing according to a subunit during each season. Habitat increasing Yellowstone grizzly bear
three different management situations value is primarily a function of population throughout the 1990s
(USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 35–39). vegetation and major foods (Weaver et (Eberhardt et al. 1994, p. 362; Knight
In areas governed by ‘‘Management al. 1986, p. 236; Dixon 1997, pp. 62–64). and Blanchard 1995, pp. 5, 9; Knight et
Situation One,’’ grizzly habitat Habitat effectiveness is that part of the al. 1995, p. 247; Boyce et al. 2001, pp.
maintenance and improvement and energy potentially derived from the area 10–11) and that levels of secure habitat
grizzly bear/human conflict that is available to bears given their (defined as areas more than 500 meters
minimization received the highest response to humans (Weaver et al. 1986, (m) (1650 feet (ft)) from a motorized
management priority. In areas governed pp. 238–239; Dixon 1997, pp. 4–5; access route and greater than or equal to
by ‘‘Management Situation Two,’’ Mattson et al. 2002, p. 5). More 4 hectares (ha) (10 acres (ac)) in size
grizzly bear use was important, but not specifically, habitat effectiveness is a (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007,
the primary use of the area. In areas function of relative value coefficients of pp. 41)) and the number and capacity of
governed by ‘‘Management Situation human activities, such as location, developed sites had changed little from
Three,’’ grizzly habitat maintenance and duration, and intensity of use for 1988 to 1998 (USDA Forest Service
improvement were not management motorized access routes, non-motorized 2004, pp. 140–141, 159–162).
considerations. access routes, developed sites, and The habitat-based recovery criteria lay
Accordingly, the National Forests and front- and back-country dispersed uses out detailed management objectives and
National Parks delineated 18 different (Mattson et al. 2002, p. 5). The approaches to manage motorized access,
bear management units within the Cumulative Effects Model, which maintain or increase secure habitat,
Recovery Zone to aid in managing represents the best available scientific limit increases in site development, and
habitat and monitoring population information in providing managers with assure no increase in livestock
trends. Each bear management unit was a comparative index of how much allotments. As each of these
further subdivided into subunits, habitat values have changed through management objectives are central to
resulting in a total of 40 subunits time, is updated annually to reflect potential present or threatened
contained within the 18 bear changes in vegetation, major foods, and destruction, modification, or
management units (see map at http:// the number and capacity of human curtailment of habitat or range, each of
mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ activities. these criteria are discussed in detail
under Factor A below. These habitat- Team 2006) were produced to respond within the next 100 years and a 4
based recovery criteria have been met. to the need to reevaluate and refine the percent chance of going extinct in the
Additionally, we developed four population criteria. The Wildlife next 500 years (Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 1,
general habitat-based parameters that Monograph is divided into separate 10–11). However, these analyses did not
will be monitored and related to chapters (Haroldson et al. 2006b, pp. consider changes in habitat that may
demographic and population 33–42; Harris et al. 2006, pp. 44–55; occur, so Boyce et al. (2001, pp. 33–34)
monitoring results—(1) Productivity of Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 18–23; did not consider any of the PVAs to be
the four major foods; (2) habitat Schwartz et al. 2006c, pp. 25–31; sufficient. Instead, they recommended
effectiveness as measured by the Schwartz et al. 2006d, pp. 9–16; that a habitat-based PVA be developed
Cumulative Effects Model; (3) grizzly Schwartz et al. 2006e, pp. 57–63), and that would link a grizzly bear
bear mortality numbers, locations, and we reference these chapters individually population model with a resource
causes; grizzly bear/human conflicts; as applicable. Relevant portions of the selection function rigorously derived
nuisance bear management actions; authors’ analyses are summarized from the existing GIS databases
bear/hunter conflicts; and bear/livestock below, as well as relevant findings on compiled for the Cumulative Effects
conflicts; and (4) development on the likelihood of population persistence Model. However, given the uncertainty
private lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife (as defined in a population viability in parameterizing the habitat databases
Service 2007, pp. 25–60). The agencies analysis (PVA)) into the foreseeable and the relationships between food
will monitor, and the Study Team will future for the Yellowstone grizzly bear availability and grizzly bear vital rates,
annually analyze and report on the population. we do not believe such an exercise, if
relationships between grizzly bear Harris et al. (2006, pp. 44–45) used it is ever possible to complete, is
population and demographic data, and the survival rates calculated by necessary to make informed
the availability and distribution of the Haroldson et al. (2006b, p. 35) and management decisions and maintain a
four most important bear foods, habitat Schwartz et al. (2006c, p. 27), and the recovered grizzly bear population in the
effectiveness, nuisance bear control reproductive rates calculated by GYA in the foreseeable future. Such
actions, numbers and distribution of Schwartz et al. (2006a, p. 19) to model uncertainty could result in a model that
bear/human and bear/livestock population trajectory for the is even less indicative or representative
conflicts, hunter numbers, and Yellowstone grizzly bear population of potential responses of bears to habitat
development on private lands. This between 1983 and 2002. Because the variation than what is available now.
information will be used to calculate an fates of some radio-collared bears were This rule relies upon the best scientific
index of habitat sufficiency and to unknown, Harris et al. (2006, p. 48) and commercial information available,
monitor relationships between calculated two separate estimates of which we view as more than adequate
decreases in foods or increases in population growth rate (see our to support this action.
human activity, and increasing bear response to Issue 5 under subheading B Mortality control is a key part of any
mortality or changes in bear distribution in the Responses to Public Comments successful management effort; however,
that might impact the Yellowstone section for additional detail on this some mortality, including human-
grizzly bear population. These analyses methodology). They found that the caused mortality, is unavoidable in a
will use the demographic values of a Yellowstone grizzly bear population dynamic system where hundreds of
stable to increasing population as a increased at a rate between 4.2 and 7.6 bears inhabit large areas of diverse
benchmark to be maintained. The percent per year between 1983 and 2002 habitat with several million human
current habitat-based recovery criteria (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). visitors and residents. In 1977,
have been appended to the Recovery Schwartz et al. (2006c, p. 29) Eberhardt documented that adult female
Plan and are included in the Strategy. concluded that grizzly bears are survival was the most important vital
Population and Demographic probably approaching carrying capacity rate influencing population trajectory
Management—In 2000, we began a inside Yellowstone National Park. Their (Eberhardt 1977, p. 210). Low adult
process to reevaluate the methods used conclusion resulted from the analysis of female survival was the critical factor
to measure the status of the bear survivorship of cubs and yearlings, and causing decline in the GYA population
population, the methods used to of independent bears, inside prior to the mid-1980s (Knight and
estimate population size, and the Yellowstone National Park, outside the Eberhardt 1985, p. 331). In the early
sustainable level of mortality in the Park but inside the Primary 1980s, with the development of the first
GYA. This process was initiated both in Conservation Area (PCA), and outside Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
response to the 1995 court order (Fund the PCA, as well as the analysis of bear Service 1982, pp. 21–24), agencies
for Animals v. Babbitt) and Task Y11 of distribution in those three zones of began to control mortality and increase
the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan residency. adult female survivorship (USDA Forest
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. Population viability analyses are often Service 1986, pp. 1–2; Knight et al.
44), which suggested that we used to describe a population’s 1999, pp. 56–57). The 1982 and 1993
‘‘Reevaluate and refine population likelihood of persistence in the future. Revised Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and
criteria as new information becomes We consider the findings of Boyce et al. Wildlife Service 1982, pp. 33–34, U.S.
available.’’ The Wildlife Monograph: (2001, pp. 1–11) in the following Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 20–
Temporal, Spatial, and Environmental paragraphs because they reviewed the 21) established three demographic
Influences on the Demographics of existing published PVAs for (population) goals to objectively
Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Yellowstone grizzly bears, and updated measure and monitor recovery of the
Ecosystem, and the report entitled these previous analyses using data Yellowstone grizzly bear population:
Reassessing Methods To Estimate collected since the original analyses Demographic Recovery Criterion 1—
Population Size and Sustainable were completed. They also conducted Maintain a minimum of 15
Mortality Limits for the Yellowstone new PVAs using two software packages unduplicated (only counted once)
Grizzly Bear (hereafter referred to as the that had not been available to previous females with cubs-of-the-year over a
Reassessing Methods Document) investigators. They found that the running 6-year average both inside the
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team Yellowstone grizzly bear population had Recovery Zone and within a 16-km (10-
2005; Interagency Grizzly Bear Study a 1 percent chance of going extinct mi) area immediately surrounding the
Recovery Zone. Status: This recovery and, therefore, this criterion has been the reassessment work began, that the
criterion has been met (Haroldson met (Schwartz, in press). 1993 criterion was not met (Haroldson
2006b, p. 12). We no longer consider 1993 and Frey 2006, p. 35).
Demographic Recovery Criterion 2— Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 to Although the 1993 Recovery Plan
Sixteen of 18 bear management units represent the best scientific and suggested calculating sustainable
within the Recovery Zone (see map at commercial data available, nor the best mortality as a percentage of the
http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ technique to assess recovery of the minimum population estimate (as
mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm) Yellowstone grizzly bear population outlined in Demographic Recovery
must be occupied by females with because—(1) There is now a method to Criterion 3), this method no longer
young, with no 2 adjacent bear calculate the total number of represents the best scientific and
management units unoccupied, during a independent females from sightings and commercial data available (Interagency
6-year sum of observations. Status: This resightings of females with cubs Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 8–
criterion is important as it ensures that (Keating et al. 2002, p. 173), and this 9). The Study Team conducted a critical
reproductive females occupy the method allows calculation of total review of both current and alternative
majority of the Recovery Zone and are population size (Interagency Grizzly methods for calculating population size,
not concentrated in one portion of the Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 12–26) estimating the known to unknown
ecosystem. This recovery criterion has instead of minimum population size as mortality ratio, and establishing
been met (Podruzny 2006, p. 17). used in the old method (U.S. Fish and sustainable mortality levels for the
1993 Demographic Recovery Criterion Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41–44); (2) Yellowstone grizzly population
3—The running 6-year average for total There is now a method to calculate the (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
known, human-caused mortality should unknown and unreported mortalities 2005, pp. 13–41). The product of this
not exceed 4 percent of the minimum (Cherry et al. 2002, pp. 176–181), and work is the aforementioned Reassessing
population estimate in any 2 this method allows more conservative Methods Document, which evaluates
consecutive years; and human-caused mortality management based on current methods, reviews recent
annually updated information rather scientific literature, examines
female grizzly bear mortality should not
than the estimate of unknown and alternative methods, and recommends
exceed 1.2 percent of the minimum
unreported mortality used in the the most scientifically valid techniques
population estimate in any 2
Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife based on these reviews (Interagency
consecutive years. Status: The 4 percent
Service 1993, p. 20, 43); and (3) There Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 41–
limit on total human-caused mortality
are now improved and updated data on 45). This Reassessing Methods
has not been exceeded since 1995.
reproductive performance of Document was sent out to three peer
Because female mortality averaged 7.5
Yellowstone grizzly bears (Schwartz et reviewers, and the comments of the
female bears per year for the time period
al. 2006a, pp. 19–23), updated data on reviewers were incorporated into the
from 2001 to 2004 (Haroldson and Frey
survival of cub and yearling final document that was released to the
2006, p. 30), even though there were Yellowstone grizzly bears (Schwartz et public in November of 2005 (70 FR
only 2 female mortalities in 2005 and 3 al. 2006c, pp. 25–28), updated data on 70632, November 22, 2005). These peer
female mortalities in 2006, the high survival of independent Yellowstone reviews are available in the
mortality in the preceding years made grizzly bears (Haroldson et al. 2006b, administrative record for this final rule.
the 6-year average exceed the 1.2 pp. 33–35), updated data on the We requested public comment on the
percent limit in 2004, 2005, and 2006. trajectory of the Yellowstone grizzly Reassessing Methods Document (70 FR
This means that this component of 1993 bear population under alternate survival 70632–70633, Nov. 22, 2005). In
Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 was rates (Harris et al. 2006, pp. 44–54), and response to the comments received, the
not met in the last consecutive 2-year new data on the impacts of spatial and Study Team prepared a Supplement to
period of 2005 to 2006. environmental heterogeneity on the Reassessing Methods Document,
2007 Demographic Recovery Criterion Yellowstone grizzly bear demographics which addresses many of the concerns
3—For independent females (at least 2 (Schwartz et al. 2006e, pp. 58–61). raised during the public comment
years old), the current annual mortality These improved data and analyses, period (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study
limit, not to be exceeded in 2 since the development of the 1993 Team 2006). This Supplement also
consecutive years and including all Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 (U.S. underwent peer review. Both the
sources of mortality, is 9 percent of the Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41– Reassessing Methods Document and its
total number of independent females. 44), allow improved mortality Supplement are accessible at http://
For independent males (at least 2 years management based on more accurate mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/
old), the current annual mortality limit calculations of total population size, mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm.
not to be exceeded in 3 consecutive and the establishment of sustainable The end result of this critical review
years and including all sources of mortality for independent females, and analysis are revised methods for
mortality, is 15 percent of the total independent males, and dependent calculating population size, estimating
number of independent males. For young. the known to unknown mortality ratio,
dependent young (less than 2 years old), As stated above, the update to 1993 and establishing sustainable mortality
the current annual mortality limit, not Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 levels for the Yellowstone grizzly
to be exceeded in 3 consecutive years began in 2000, as per Task Y11 of the population based on the best available
and including known and probable 1993 Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and science. These methods and the 2007
human-caused mortalities only, is 9 Wildlife Service 1993, p. 44) and the Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 were
percent of the total number of court remand to the Service for further appended to the Recovery Plan as a
dependent young (Interagency Grizzly study and clarification (Fund for supplement and included in the
Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 36–38). Animals v. Babbitt). When this review Strategy (72 FR 11376; 72 FR 11376–
Status: Applying the current began in 2000, the 1993 Demographic 11377).
methodology to the 1999 to 2006 data, Recovery Criterion 3 had been achieved The current method is a much more
mortality limits have not been exceeded since 1998 (Haroldson and Frey 2006, p. comprehensive mortality management
for consecutive years for any bear class 35). It was only since 2004, 4 years after approach. Between 1980 and 2002,
approximately 21 percent of all known and expansion (Interagency Grizzly Bear conservation strategy to outline habitat
grizzly bear deaths were from Study Team 2005, pp. 9, 36–38). and population monitoring that will
undetermined causes (Servheen et al. Although it is known that dependent continue in force after recovery’’
2004, p. 15). These deaths could not be bears experience far higher natural (Recovery Plan Task Y426) (U.S. Fish
counted against the 4 percent human- mortality rates than independent bears and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 55). To
caused mortality limit using the (Schwartz et al. 2006c, p. 30), there is accomplish this goal, in 1993, we
previous method because the cause of no known way to sample these created the Interagency Conservation
death could not be confirmed. The mortalities directly in the field. Instead, Strategy Team. This team included
previous method also assumed a 2-to-1 these rates are calculated from biologists from the Service, the National
‘‘known-to-unknown’’ mortality ratio. consecutive years of observing radio- Park Service, the USDA Forest Service,
Many researchers hypothesize that collared females with cubs-of-the-year. the IDFG, the WGFD, and the MTFWP.
unknown mortality is much higher than These mortality limits can be reduced In March 2000, a draft Conservation
that suggested by a ratio of ‘‘known-to- by individual management agencies of Strategy for the GYA was released for
unknown’’ of 2-to-1 (Knight and the multi-agency Yellowstone Grizzly public review and comment (65 FR
Eberhardt 1985, pp. 332–333; McLellan Coordinating Committee (hereafter 11340, March 2, 2000). Also in 2000, a
et al. 1999, p. 916). After careful referred to as the Coordinating Governors’ Roundtable was organized to
consideration and using the best Committee and further described in provide recommendations from the
available science, the Study Team Factor D below) within their perspectives of the three States that
adopted a new more conservative jurisdictions, as part of the Coordinating would be involved with grizzly bear
‘‘known-to-unknown’’ mortality ratio of Committee management process to meet management after delisting. In 2003, the
approximately 1-to-2 that is recalculated the Strategy and the State plans’ draft Final Conservation Strategy for the
each year based on the number of management objectives. These mortality Grizzly Bear in the GYA was released,
known, reported deaths (Cherry et al. limits, as described above in the along with drafts of State grizzly bear
2002, p. 179; Interagency Grizzly Bear Conservation Strategy Management Area management plans (all accessible at
Study Team 2005, pp. 39–41). (Figure 1), cannot be increased above http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/
the limits of 9 percent for independent mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm). We
Annual allowable mortality limits for
females, 15 percent for independent have responded to all public comments
each bear class (independent female,
males, and 9 percent for dependent received on the Strategy and finalized
independent male, and dependent young, unless such an increase is the Strategy (72 FR 11376). The Strategy
young) are calculated annually based on justified or supported by new scientific will become effective once this final
total population estimates of each bear findings using the best available rule takes effect.
class for the current year (Interagency science, and the basis for this increase The purpose of the Strategy and
Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 5– is documented by the Study Team in a associated State and Federal
9). The Study Team calculates both the report to the Coordinating Committee. implementation plans is to—(1)
total population size and the mortality Any such recommendation to increase Describe, summarize, and implement
limits within an area designated by the mortality limits would be considered an the coordinated efforts to manage the
Strategy (see The Conservation Strategy amendment to the Strategy open for grizzly bear population and its habitat to
section of the rule below) that overlaps public comment, and requiring a ensure continued conservation of the
and extends beyond suitable habitat (see majority vote by the Coordinating Yellowstone grizzly bear population; (2)
Figure 1 below). For independent Committee before finalization (U.S. Fish specify and implement the population,
females, a 9 percent limit was and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 63). habitat, and nuisance bear standards to
considered sustainable because The Study Team will reevaluate maintain a recovered grizzly bear
simulations have shown that this level mortality limits every 8 to 10 years, or population for the foreseeable future; (3)
of adult female mortality rate allows a as new scientific information becomes document the regulatory mechanisms
stable to increasing population 95 available (Interagency Grizzly Bear and legal authorities, policies,
percent of the time (Harris et al. 2006, Study Team 2005, p. 45), or at the management, and monitoring programs
p. 50). For independent males, a 15 request of the Coordinating Committee. that exist to maintain the recovered
percent limit was considered Allocation of mortality limits within the grizzly bear population; and (4)
sustainable because it approximates the Conservation Strategy Management Area document the actions which the
level of male mortality in the GYA from (see Figure 1 below) among management participating agencies have agreed to
1983 to 2001 (Haroldson et al. 2006b, p. jurisdictions is the responsibility of the implement (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
38), a period when the mean growth rate Coordinating Committee, but total Service 2007, pp. 5–6).
of the population was estimated at 4 to mortality for independent females, The Strategy identifies and provides a
7 percent per year (Harris et al. 2006, p. independent males, and dependent framework for managing two areas, the
48). Independent males can endure a young within the Conservation Strategy PCA and adjacent areas of suitable
higher rate of mortality compared to Management Area (see Figure 1 below) habitat where occupancy by grizzly
females without affecting the overall must remain at or below the sustainable bears is anticipated as per the State
stability or trajectory of the population mortality limits established by the plans. The PCA boundaries (containing
because they contribute little to overall Study Team. This allocation process 23,853 sq km (9,210 sq mi)) correspond
population growth (Mace and Waller may be used to adjust mortality to those of the Yellowstone Recovery
1998, pp. 1009–1013; Interagency numbers among jurisdictions to achieve Zone (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, p. 39). management objectives while staying 1993, p. 41) and will replace the
Similarly, the 9 percent limit on human- within the overall mortality limits. Recovery Zone boundary (see Figure 1
caused mortality for dependent young The Conservation Strategy—In order below). The PCA contains adequate
was chosen because this level of to provide adequate regulatory seasonal habitat components needed to
mortality is less than the 15 percent mechanisms after delisting and ensure support the recovered Yellowstone
human-caused mortality documented the long-term maintenance of a grizzly bear population for the
for each sex of this age group from 1983 recovered population, the Recovery Plan foreseeable future and to allow bears to
to 2001, a period of population growth calls for the development of ‘‘a continue to expand outside the PCA.
The PCA includes approximately 51 management direction for areas outside responses summary. A 90-day finding
percent of the suitable habitat within of the PCA. on whether the petition presented
the DPS and approximately 84 to 90 This differential management substantial information indicating
percent of the population of female standard (one standard inside the PCA whether the petitioned action may be
grizzly bears with cubs (Schwartz et al. and another standard for suitable habitat warranted is included below. Similarly,
2006b, pp. 64–66). outside the PCA) has been successful in this final rule addresses the 2004
The Strategy will be implemented and the past (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. Administrative Procedure Act petition
funded by both Federal and State 19). Lands within the PCA/Recovery from the Wyoming Farm Bureau
agencies within the Yellowstone DPS. Zone are currently managed primarily to Federation to designate the grizzly bear
The USDA Forest Service, National Park maintain grizzly bear habitat, whereas in the GYA as a DPS (Hamilton et al.
Service, and BLM will cooperate with lands outside of the PCA/Recovery Zone 2004). Finally, between 1991 and 1999,
the State wildlife agencies (MTFWP, boundaries are managed with more we issued warranted-but-precluded
IDFG, and WGFD) to implement the consideration for human uses (U.S. Fish findings to reclassify grizzly bears in the
Strategy and its protective habitat and and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 17–18). North Cascades (56 FR 33892–33894,
population standards. The USDA Forest Such flexible management promotes July 24, 1991; 63 FR 30453–30454, June
Service and National Park Service communication and tolerance for grizzly 4, 1998), the Cabinet-Yaak (58 FR 8250–
(which collectively own and manage bear recovery. 8251, February 12, 1993; 64 FR 26725–
approximately 98 percent of the PCA) As the grizzly bear population within 26733, May 17, 1999), and the Selkirk
are responsible for maintaining or the Recovery Zone has rebounded in Ecosystems (64 FR 26725–26733, May
improving habitat standards inside the response to recovery efforts, there has 17, 1999) from threatened to
PCA and monitoring population criteria. been a gradual natural recolonization of endangered. These uplisting actions
suitable habitat outside of the PCA/ remain precluded by higher priority
Specifically, Yellowstone National Park,
Recovery Zone (Pyare et al. 2004, p. 6). actions. We hope to further evaluate
Grand Teton National Park, and the
Today, most suitable habitat within the each of these ecosystems during our
Shoshone, Beaverhead-Deerlodge,
DPS boundaries is occupied by grizzly upcoming 5-year review. Please refer to
Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer,
bears (68 percent) but approximately the proposed rule for more detailed
and Gallatin National Forests are the
14,500 sq km (5,600 sq mi) are still information on previous Federal actions
primary areas with Federal
available for recolonization (see suitable (70 FR 69861, November 17, 2005).
responsibility for implementing the
habitat analysis in Factor A of this final
Strategy. Affected National Forests and Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment
rule below).
National Parks have incorporated the The Strategy is an adaptive, dynamic Policy Overview
habitat standards and criteria into their document that establishes a framework Pursuant to the Act, we shall consider
Forest Plans and National Park to incorporate new and better scientific for listing or delisting any species,
management plans via appropriate information as it becomes available or as subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS
amendment processes so that they are necessary in response to environmental of these taxa if there is sufficient
legally applied to these public lands changes. Ongoing review and evaluation information to indicate that such action
within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries of the effectiveness of the Strategy is the may be warranted. To interpret and
(Grand Teton National Park 2006, p. 1; responsibility of the State and Federal implement the DPS provision of the Act
USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 4; managers and will be updated by the and congressional guidance, the Service
Yellowstone National Park 2006, p. 12). management agencies every 5 years, or and the National Marine Fisheries
Outside of the PCA, grizzly bears will more frequently as necessary. Public Service published, on December 21,
be allowed to expand into suitable comments will be sought on all updates 1994, a draft Policy Regarding the
habitat as per direction in the State to the Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
management plans. Here, the objective Service 2007, p. 14). Population Segments under the Act
is to maintain existing resource (DPS Policy) and invited public
management and recreational uses, and Previous Federal Actions
comments on it (59 FR 65884–65885).
to allow agencies to respond to On July 28, 1975, the grizzly bear was After review of comments and further
demonstrated problems with designated as threatened in the consideration, the Services adopted the
appropriate management actions. The conterminous (lower 48) United States interagency policy as issued in draft
key to successful management of grizzly (40 FR 31734–31736). On November 17, form, and published it in the Federal
bears outside of the PCA lies in their 2005, we proposed to designate the GYA Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR
successfully utilizing lands not population of grizzly bears as a DPS and 4722–4725). This policy addresses the
managed solely for bears, but in which to remove this DPS from the Federal List establishment of DPSs for potential
their needs are considered along with of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. listing and delisting actions.
other uses. Currently, approximately 10 This notice was followed by a 120-day Under our DPS policy, three factors
to 16 percent of female grizzly bears comment period (70 FR 69854, are considered when determining
with cubs occupy habitat outside of the November 17, 2005; 71 FR 8251, whether or not a population can be
PCA (Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64–66). February 16, 2006), during which we considered a DPS. These are applied
The area of suitable habitat outside of held two public hearings and four open similarly for additions to the list of
the PCA is roughly 83 percent Federally houses (70 FR 69854, November 17, endangered and threatened species,
owned; 6.0 percent Tribally owned; 1.6 2005; 71 FR 4097–4098, January 25, reclassification, and removal from the
percent State-owned; and 9.5 percent 2006). Included in the public comments list. They are—(1) discreteness of the
privately owned. State grizzly bear was a petition to uplist the Yellowstone population segment in relation to the
management plans (Idaho’s Yellowstone DPS to endangered status. All assertions remainder of the taxon (i.e., Ursus
Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team of this petition are addressed either in arctos horribilis); (2) the significance of
2002; MTFWP 2002; WGFD 2005), the the Summary of Public Comments the population segment to the taxon to
Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest section below, in the 5-factor analysis which it belongs (i.e., Ursus arctos
Service 2006a), and other appropriate that follows, or in the Reassessing horribilis); and (3) the population
planning documents provide specific Methods Document’s issues and segment’s conservation status in relation
to the Act’s standards for listing (i.e., is Montana that is east of Interstate contiguous portions of the Shoshone,
the population segment endangered or Highway 15 and south of Interstate Bridger-Teton, Targhee, Gallatin,
threatened). Highway 90; and that portion of Beaverhead-Deerlodge, and Custer
Wyoming south of Interstate Highway National Forests; BLM lands; and
Application of the Distinct Population
90, west of Interstate Highway 25, surrounding State and private lands
Segment Policy
Wyoming State Highway 220, and U.S. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p.
Although the DPS Policy does not Highway 287 south of Three Forks (at 39). As grizzly bear populations have
allow State or other intra-national the 220 and 287 intersection), and north rebounded and densities have
governmental boundaries to be used as of Interstate Highway 80 and U.S. increased, bears have expanded their
the basis for determining the Highway 30 (see Figure 1 below). Due
discreteness of a potential DPS, an range beyond the Recovery Zone, into
to the use of highways as easily
artificial or manmade boundary may be other suitable habitat. Grizzly bears in
described boundaries, large areas of
used to clearly identify the geographic unsuitable habitat were included in the this area now occupy about 36,940 sq
area included within a DPS designation. DPS. km (14,260 sq mi) in and around the
Easily identifiable manmade projects, The core of the Yellowstone DPS is Yellowstone Recovery Zone (Schwartz
such as the center line of interstate the Yellowstone Recovery Zone (24,000 et al. 2002, p. 207; Schwartz et al.
highways, Federal highways, and State sq km (9,200 sq mi)) (U.S. Fish and 2006b, pp. 64–66). No grizzly bears
highways are useful for delimiting DPS Wildlife Service 1993, p. 39). The originating from the Yellowstone
boundaries. Thus, the Yellowstone DPS Yellowstone Recovery Zone includes Recovery Zone have been suspected or
consists of—that portion of Idaho that is Yellowstone National Park; a portion of confirmed beyond the borders of the
east of Interstate Highway 15 and north Grand Teton National Park; John D. Yellowstone DPS.
of U.S. Highway 30; that portion of Rockefeller Memorial Parkway; sizable BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
Analysis for Discreteness ecological, or behavioral factors 4(a)(1)(D) (‘‘the inadequacy of existing
(quantitative measures of genetic or regulatory mechanisms’’) of the Act. Our
Under our DPS Policy, a population morphological discontinuity may DPS policy does not require complete
segment of a vertebrate species may be provide evidence of this separation); or reproductive isolation among
considered discrete if it satisfies either (2) it is delimited by international populations in order to determine that
one of the following conditions—(1) It is
governmental boundaries within which a population is markedly separated from

markedly separated from other differences in control of exploitation, other populations, and allows for some
populations of the same taxon (i.e., management of habitat, conservation limited interchange among population
Ursus arctos horribilis) as a status, or regulatory mechanisms exist segments considered to be discrete (61
consequence of physical, physiological,
ER29MR07.030</GPH>
that are significant in light of section FR 4722).
The Yellowstone grizzly bear loci show 55 percent heterozygosity in species in its genetic characteristics.
population is the southernmost the GYA grizzly bears compared to 69 Below we address Factors 1, 2, and 4.
population remaining in the percent in the NCDE bears (Paetkau et Factor 3 does not apply to the
conterminous States and has been al. 1998, pp. 421–424). Heterozygosity is Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
physically separated from other areas a useful measure of genetic diversity, Unusual or Unique Ecological
where grizzly bears occur for at least with higher values indicative of greater Setting—Grizzly bears in the GYA exist
100 years (Merriam 1922, pp. 1–2; genetic variation and evolutionary in an unusual and unique ecosystem
Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4334). The potential. High levels of genetic that has greater access to large-bodied
nearest population of grizzly bears is variation are indicative of high levels of ungulates such as bison (Bison bison),
found in the NCDE. These populations connectivity among populations or high elk (Cervus elaphus), and moose (Alces
are separated by land ownership, numbers of breeding animals. By alces), and less access to fall berries
vegetation, and topographic patterns comparing heterozygosity of extant than any other interior North American,
unsuitable for grizzly bears. The end bears to samples from Yellowstone European, or Asian grizzly bear
result is a functional barrier to grizzly grizzlies of the early 1900s, Miller and populations (Stroganov 1969, p. 128;
bear movement across the landscape Waits (2003, p. 4338) concluded that Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1623; Jacoby et
and connectivity between the GYA and gene flow and, therefore, population al. 1999, p. 925; Schwartz et al. 2003b,
the NCDE. Grizzly bears from the GYA connectivity between the GYA grizzly pp. 568–569). The GYA ecosystem
have not migrated north of the current population and populations to the north contains extensive populations of
location of Interstate 90 (the northern was very low historically, even prior to ungulates with an estimated 100,000
boundary of the DPS), probably for at the arrival of settlers. The reasons for elk, 29,500 mule deer (Odocoileus
least the last century (Miller and Waits this historic limitation of gene flow are hemionus) and white-tailed deer (O.
2003, p. 4334). Meanwhile, during the unclear. Increasing levels of human virginianus), 5,800 moose, 4,000 bison
last decade, there have been periodic activity and settlement in this and, relative to other ungulate
reports of grizzly bears from the NCDE intervening area over the last century populations in the area, a small
as far south as Highway 12 near Helena, further limited grizzly bear movements population of pronghorn antelope
Montana. In the last 25 years, two male into and out of the GYA, resulting in the (Antilocapra americana) (U.S. Fish and
grizzly bears have been killed near current lack of connectivity.
Wildlife Service 1994, p. ix; Toman et
Anaconda, Montana, and the Flint Creek Based on our analysis of the best
al. 1997, p. 56; Smith et al. 2003, pp.
mountains southwest of the NCDE. Both available scientific data, we find that the
GYA grizzly population and other 337–338). Although grizzly bears are
of these reports are approximately 120
remaining grizzly bear populations are successful omnivores, grizzlies in the
km (75 mi) northwest of the most
markedly separated from each other. rest of the conterminous States (Jacoby
northerly Yellowstone grizzly bears.
This contention is supported by et al. 1999, p. 925), most of Europe
This distance is too far for normal
evidence of physical separation between (Berducou et al. 1983, pp. 154–155;
grizzly bear dispersal distances of
populations (both current and Clevenger et al. 1992, pp. 416–417;
roughly 10 to 40 km (6 to 25 mi)
historical) and evidence of genetic Dahle et al. 1998, pp. 152–153), and
(McLellan and Hovey 2001, pp. 841–
842; Proctor et al. 2004, p. 1108) to discontinuity. Therefore, the Siberia (Stroganov 1969, p. 128) rely on
effectively connect the NCDE Yellowstone DPS meets the criterion of plant and insect materials for the
population or other neighboring discreteness under our DPS Policy. majority of their diet. In contrast,
populations with the Yellowstone DPS. grizzlies in the GYA rely on terrestrial
Analysis for Significance mammals as their primary source of
There is currently no connectivity, nor
are there any known resident grizzly If we determine a population segment nutrition, as indicated by bear scat
bears in this area between these two is discrete, its biological and ecological (Mattson 1997, p. 162), feed site analysis
grizzly bear populations. significance will then be considered in (Mattson 1997, p. 167), and bear hair
Because the Yellowstone Ecosystem light of congressional guidance that the isotope analysis (Jacoby et al. 1999, p.
represents the most southerly authority to list DPS’s be used sparingly 925). Concentration of isotopic nitrogen
population of grizzly bears, connectivity while encouraging the conservation of (15N) in grizzly bear hair from
further south is not an issue. genetic diversity. In carrying out this Yellowstone grizzly bears suggests that
Connectivity to the east also is examination, we consider available meat constitutes 45 percent and 79
irrelevant to this action as grizzly bears scientific evidence of the population’s percent of the annual diet for females
in the lower 48 States no longer exist importance to the taxon (i.e., Ursus and males, respectively (Jacoby et al.
east of the GYA, and most of the habitat arctos horribilis) to which it belongs. 1999, p. 925). These high percentages of
is unsuitable for grizzly bears. Finally, Our DPS policy states that this meat in Yellowstone grizzly bears’ diet
connectivity west into the Bitterroot consideration may include, but is not are in contrast to the 0 to 33 percent of
Mountains is irrelevant to this action limited to, the following—(1) meat in the diet of bears in the NCDE
because no bears have been documented Persistence of the discrete population and 0 to 17 percent of meat in the diet
in this ecosystem in the past 25 years segment in an ecological setting unusual of bears from the Cabinet-Yaak
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. or unique for the taxon; (2) Evidence Ecosystem (Jacoby et al. 1999, p. 925).
12; 65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000; that loss of the discrete population Furthermore, the source of this animal
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000, p. segment would result in a significant meat is primarily large-bodied
viii). gap in the range of the taxon; (3) ungulates, not fish, as in other
Genetic data also support the Evidence that the discrete population populations of brown bears in Alaska
conclusion that grizzly bears from the segment represents the only surviving and Siberia (Stroganov 1969, p. 128;
GYA are demographically markedly natural occurrence of a taxon that may Hilderbrand et al. 1996, pp. 2086–2087).
separated from other grizzly bears. be more abundant elsewhere as an Of particular relevance is the
Genetic studies involving heterozygosity introduced population outside its Yellowstone grizzly bears’ use of wild
(which provides a measure of genetic historic range; and/or (4) Evidence that bison, a species endemic to North
variation in either a population or the discrete population segment differs America, but eradicated in most of the
individual) estimates at 8 microsatellite markedly from other populations of the lower 48 States except the GYA by the
end of the 19th century (Steelquist 1998, berries as a significant portion of their these areas has resulted in a markedly
pp. 16, 30). Although bison numbers diets. different genetic situation for the
have increased since this time, the vast Significant Gap in the Range of the Yellowstone population.
majority of today’s bison are found in Taxon—Loss of the Yellowstone DPS We conclude that the Yellowstone
managed or ranched herds (Steelquist would represent a significant gap in the grizzly population is significant because
1998, pp. 33–37). Their habitat, range of the taxon. As noted above, it exists in an unusual and unique
bunchgrass prairie (tallgrass, mixed- grizzly bears once lived throughout the ecological setting; the loss of this
grass, and shortgrass prairie), has been North American Rockies from Alaska population would result in a significant
almost entirely converted to agricultural and Canada, and south into central gap in the range of the taxon; and this
lands (Steelquist 1998, p. 11), leaving Mexico. Grizzly bears have been population’s genetic characteristics
little opportunity for existence in areas extirpated from most of the southern differ markedly from other grizzly bear
outside of the isolated refuges and portions of their historic range. Today, populations.
ranches where they are commonly the Yellowstone DPS represents the
Conclusion of Distinct Population
southernmost reach of the grizzly bear.
found today. Mattson (1997, p. 167) Segment Review
The loss of this population would be
found that wild bison comprised the Based on the best scientific and
significant because it would
second largest source of ungulate meat commercial data available, as described
substantially curtail the range of the
(24 percent) consumed by Yellowstone grizzly bear by moving the range above, we find that the Yellowstone
grizzly bears, second only to elk (53 approximately 4 degrees of latitude to grizzly bear population is discrete from
percent). the north. Thus, the loss of this other grizzly populations and significant
The Yellowstone grizzly population population would result in a significant to the remainder of the taxon (i.e., Ursus
also exists in a unique ecological setting gap in the current range of the taxon. arctos horribilis). Because the
because it is able to use whitebark pine Given the grizzly bear’s historic Yellowstone grizzly bear population is
seeds as a major food source. Whitebark occupancy of the conterminous States discrete and significant, it warrants
pine, a tree species found only in North and the portion of the historic range the recognition as a DPS under the Act.
America (Schmidt 1994, p. 1), exhibits conterminous States represent, recovery It is important to note that the DPS
annual variation in seed crops, with in the lower 48 States where the grizzly Policy does not require complete
high seed production in some years and bear existed in 1975 when it was listed separation of one DPS from other
very low seed production in other years has long been viewed as important to populations, but instead requires
(Weaver and Forcella 1986, p. 70; the taxon (40 FR 31734–31736, July 28, ‘‘marked separation.’’ Thus, if
Morgan and Bunting 1992, p. 71). 1975). The Yellowstone DPS is occasional individual grizzly bears
During these years of high seed significant in achieving this objective, as disperse among populations, the
it is 1 of only 5 known occupied areas Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS would
production, Yellowstone grizzly bears
and constitutes approximately half of still display the required level of
derive as much as 51 percent of their
the remaining grizzly bears in the discreteness per the DPS Policy. And, as
protein from pine nuts (Felicetti et al.
conterminous 48 States. Finally, the stated in the 1993 Recovery Plan, we
2003, p. 767). In fact, grizzly bear
Yellowstone DPS represents the only recognize that natural connectivity is
consumption of ungulates decreases
grizzly bear population not connected to important to long-term grizzly bear
during years of high whitebark pine
bears in Canada. conservation and we will continue
seed production (Mattson 1997, p. 169).
Marked Genetic Differences—Several efforts to work toward this goal
In most areas of North America where
genetics studies have confirmed the independent of the delisting of the
whitebark pine distribution overlaps uniqueness of grizzly bears in the GYA. Yellowstone DPS (U.S. Fish and
with grizzly bear populations, bears do The GYA population has been isolated Wildlife Service 1993, p. 53). This issue
not consistently use this potential food from other grizzly bear populations for is discussed further under Factor E
source (Mattson and Reinhart 1994, pp. approximately 100 years or more (Miller below. In addition, the conclusion
212–214). This may be due to different and Waits 2003, p. 4334). Yellowstone regarding the conservation status (step 3
climatic regimes that sustain berry- grizzly bears have the lowest relative of the DPS analysis) of the Yellowstone
producing shrubs or simply the scarcity heterozygosity of any continental grizzly DPS follows the 5-factor analysis
of whitebark pines in some areas of the population yet investigated (Paetkau et discussion below.
bear’s range (Mattson and Reinhart al. 1998, pp. 421–424; Waits et al.
1994, p. 214). Dependence of 1998a, p. 310). Only Kodiak Island Summary of Public Comments
Yellowstone grizzly bears on whitebark grizzly bears, a different subspecies In our proposed rule, we requested
pine is unique because in most areas of (Ursus arctos middendorfi), have lower that all interested parties submit
its range, whitebark pine has been heterozygosity scores (26.5 percent), information, data, and comments
significantly reduced in numbers and reflecting as much as 12,000 years of concerning the status of grizzly bears in
distribution due to the introduced separation from mainland populations the GYA, their habitat, and their
pathogen white pine blister rust (Paetkau et al. 1998, p. 421; Waits et al. management (70 FR 69882, November
(Cronartium ribicola) (Kendall and 1998b, pp. 412–413). Miller and Waits 17, 2005). The comment period was
Keane 2001, pp. 228–232). While there (2003, p. 4338) conclude that gene flow open from November 17, 2005, through
is evidence of blister rust in whitebark between the GYA and the closest March 20, 2006 (70 FR 69854,
pines in the GYA, the pathogen has remaining population was limited prior November 17, 2005; 71 FR 8251,
been present for more than 50 years to the arrival of European settlers but February 16, 2006). During this time, we
(McDonald and Hoff 2001, p. 210) and could only speculate as to the reasons held two formal public hearings and
relatively few trees have been severely behind this historical separation. The four informational meetings (70 FR
impacted (see Factor E below). Also, apparent long-term difference in 69854, November 17, 2005; 71 FR 4097–
although several berry-producing shrubs heterozygosity between Yellowstone 4098, January 25, 2006). In addition,
occur in the area, these are relatively and other Montana populations there were numerous press releases, a
limited by climatic factors and most indicates a unique set of circumstances press conference with the Secretary of
grizzly bears in the GYA do not rely on in which limited movement between the Interior, and a conference call with
numerous environmental groups and grizzly bears originating from the NCDE remaining unoccupied suitable habitat
non-government organizations have been documented near Anaconda, in the next few decades.
discussing the proposed rule. Comments Montana, and one grizzly bear Issue 4—Several commenters noted
could be hand delivered to us or originating from the Yellowstone DPS that our definition of suitable habitat
submitted to us via e-mail, mail, or was sighted north of Bozeman, does not consider Wyoming’s habitat
public hearing testimony. Montana, in the Bridger Mountains. criteria of ‘‘socially acceptable.’’ They
During the 120-day comment period, Furthermore, one commenter noted that request that this inconsistency in
we received comments from 164,486 the Tobacco Root Vegetation definitions be remedied.
individuals, organizations, and Management Plan Final Environmental Response—Our definition of suitable
government agencies. Those comments Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service habitat is based on biological criteria.
arrived in 193,578 letters, form letters, 2001, p. 44) describes the Tobacco Roots Some considerations of social
public hearing testimonies, and email as habitat occupied by grizzlies on both acceptance entered into the
messages. Numerous respondents a resident and transient basis. This puts considerations of suitable habitat in the
submitted multiple comments, so the the two populations only 72 km (45 mi) Wyoming plan. The Wyoming plan does
total number of comments received apart. not restrict grizzly bears from areas
(193,578) is greater than the total Response—We know of two records of outside their definition of suitable
number of people/groups responding grizzly bears near Anaconda, Montana. habitat. Instead, it establishes
(164,486). Twelve of these letters were In one case, the carcass of a subadult management objectives in these areas to
signed as ‘‘petitions’’ with 974 male grizzly bear was discovered by a minimize conflicts between bears and
signatures. Finally, one of the above hunter in 1980. The other report notes human activities. Because most grizzly
comment letters also formally petitioned a 2005 incident in which a hunter bears do not come into conflict with
the Service to list the Yellowstone mistakenly shot a grizzly bear 11 km (7 humans, the impact of this difference in
grizzly bear DPS as endangered under mi) west of Anaconda that was designation of suitable habitat between
the Act and designate critical habitat. determined to be from the NCDE with the Service and Wyoming will have
All assertions of this petition are DNA analysis. There are no other little functional impact on grizzly bear
addressed either in this section, in the verified reports of grizzly bears within occupancy or mortality.
5-factor analysis that follows, or the 76 km (45 mi) of Anaconda. The Study B. Population Concerns
Reassessing Methods Document’s issues Team has no record of any grizzly bears
and responses summary. in the Bridger Mountains or in the Issue 1—Several commenters noted
We have read and considered all Tobacco Root Mountains. Despite what their concern about the occurrence of
comments received. A content analysis the Final Environmental Impact high levels of female mortality since
of these comments is available upon Statement for the Tobacco Root 2000 and requested that the impact of
request (see ADDRESSES section above) Vegetation Management Plan may this trend be analyzed. It was noted that
or online at: http://mountain- identify as occupied habitat, a study the allowable adult female mortality
prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ conducted in the Tobacco Roots in 1999 was exceeded in 2004 and 2005;
grizzly/yellowstone.htm. We updated and 2000 failed to document grizzly therefore, the recovery goal that adult
the proposed rule where it was bear presence (Lukins et al. 2004, p. female mortality cannot be exceeded in
appropriate, and we respond to all 171). In the final rule, we corrected the 2 consecutive years has not been met.
substantive issues received, below. We distance between the Yellowstone These commenters asked that we
have grouped similar comments grizzly bear population and the nearest explain why delisting is being proposed
together in ‘‘Issues,’’ each of which is bears to account for these two records when one of the recovery goals has not
followed by our ‘‘Response.’’ near Anaconda, Montana. This resulted been met.
in the closest possible distance between Response—Recovery plans are
A. General Comments intended to provide guidance and are
the Yellowstone population and the
Issue 1—Numerous comments nearest record of a grizzly bear as 120 subject to revision as new data are
suggesting corrections to facts and data km (75 mi) instead of 130 km (80 mi) reported. They are not regulatory
in the proposed rule such as correcting as reported in the proposed rule. documents. Recovery of species requires
typographical errors, including omitted Issue 3—One commenter disputed our adaptive management that may, or may
cooperators, and modifying the claim that 30 percent of suitable habitat not, fully follow the guidance provided
presentation of statistical results. One outside the PCA within the DPS is in a recovery plan. That said, we no
commenter noted our reference to the protected by official Wilderness Area longer consider 1993 Demographic
DPS as both a ‘‘population’’ and an designation, instead suggesting only 15 Recovery Criterion 3 to represent the
‘‘area.’’ This commenter also noted percent of occupied habitat outside the best scientific and commercial data
inconsistencies in our use of the words PCA within the DPS is protected as available nor the best technique to
‘‘population’’ and ‘‘populations’’ in the Wilderness. assess recovery of the Yellowstone
proposed rule and asked if there is one Response—This numeric disparity grizzly bear population. Therefore, the
population or multiple populations centers around a difference in our frame 1993 mortality management system for
within the DPS boundaries. of reference. Our calculation is the the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
Response—There is one population percentage of ‘‘suitable habitat’’ outside has been reevaluated and revised using
within the DPS boundaries and the the PCA within the DPS (6,799 sq km a recent and more accurate model
appropriate changes have been made in (2,625 sq mi)) that is protected by (Harris et al. 2006, pp. 51–55). This
the text of the final rule to clarify this, Wilderness Area designation (22,783 sq approach was consistent with a 1995
as well as the other matters raised in km (8,797 sq mi)). In contrast, this court order to reevaluate this issue
Issue 1. comment is referring to ‘‘occupied (Fund for Animals v. Babbitt) and
Issue 2—A few commenters disputed habitat’’ outside the PCA within the Recovery Plan Task Y11, which
the Service’s claim that the nearest DPS protected by Wilderness Area suggested we work to ‘‘determine
grizzly bear population to the designation. We considered suitable population conditions at which the
Yellowstone DPS is 130 km (80 mi) habitat because we expect grizzly bears species is viable and self sustaining,’’
away. According to these commenters, to naturally recolonize much of the and to ‘‘reevaluate and refine
population criteria as new information major foods and environmental also carefully considered the matter of
becomes available’’ (U.S. Fish and variables, allowing managers to uncertainty and its implications to
Wildlife Service 1993, p. 44). Under the implement actions that respond to management decisions. For additional
revised methods for calculating changes in ecological conditions and/or discussion about sources of stochasticity
sustainable mortality, female mortality vital rates. The continued monitoring of and their effects on population
was not exceeded in either 2004 or these multiple indices will allow rapid persistence, see our response to Issue 5
2005. These changes have been feedback on the success of management under subheading R below.
appended to the Recovery Plan and the actions in maintaining a viable Issue 5—One commenter noted that
Strategy. population. In addition, please see our the Service presents the estimated
Issue 2—Some commenters felt that response to Issue 12 under subheading annual population growth rate as
delisting was premature without a PVA F in the Summary of Peer Review between 4 and 7 percent per year. This
based on future habitat conditions and Comments section below for more presentation deceptively makes it seem
that PVAs based simply on past information on the models the Study that these are the upper and lower
population trends are inadequate. A Team is pursuing. bounds of a confidence interval, not
habitat-based PVA could determine how Issue 3—One commenter stated that merely two point estimates based on
future habitat conditions such as the the Yellowstone DPS range has not different assumptions; and, the Service
availability of major food sources, expanded as much as we claim claims that the total population size in
climate change, increasing human according to the 1980 Study Team 2004 was 588 individuals but does not
populations, and resource extraction report of verified sightings near disclose the confidence intervals around
may affect the long-term persistence of Ketchum, Idaho, and Cody, Wyoming. this estimate.
the Yellowstone DPS. One commenter Response—Because the cited 1980 Response—The 4 to 7 percent annual
referred to a similar PVA conducted by Study Team report provides no population growth rate is based on
‘‘Boyce et al. (2005)’’ on grizzly bears in information regarding the verification of analyses conducted by Harris et al.
Alberta, Canada, and suggested that the reported sighting near Ketchum, (2006, p. 48) using survival estimates of
Boyce be contracted to do this analysis Idaho, it is impossible to make any grizzly bears determined by Haroldson
for the Yellowstone DPS. conclusions on the sighting’s credibility. et al. (2006b, p. 36). Haroldson et al.
Response—When we contacted the There is no reason to connect this (2006b, p. 34–35) used a data set of 323
commenter who suggested we consider supposed sighting to the Yellowstone independent (greater than 2 years old)
employing a technique similar to ecosystem or to indicate that a bear radio-collared bears, but analyzed the
‘‘Boyce et al. (2005)’’, we were told that sighted there might have come from data two different ways to address the
the correct citation for that article was Yellowstone. We did not rely solely on bears with unknown fates. Specifically,
Nielsen et al. 2006. Nielsen et al. (2006, sightings of grizzly bears to make the they estimated the survival rate for each
pp. 219–221) predicted adult female statement that the population’s range of those data sets, assuming bears whose
grizzly bear occupancy and mortality had expanded. Instead, we used peer- fates were unknown either all lived or
across the landscape. Their exercise did reviewed literature that documented all died, to establish the most
not make any attempt to predict the this range expansion through multiple conservative and most optimistic
long-term viability of the grizzly bear data sources, including initial survival rates. The true estimate must be
population in Alberta and, in this sense, observations of unduplicated females bracketed by those two bounds. The
was not a habitat-based PVA. Instead, with young, locations of radio-collared resulting annual survival rates of
Nielson et al. (2006, pp. 226–227) bears, and locations of grizzly bear/ independent female bears were either
attempted to provide a useful tool to human conflicts (Schwartz et al. 2002, 92.2 percent or 95.0 percent depending
managers that linked not only p. 204; Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 63). We on which interpretation of unknown
occupancy, but also survival, to habitat are confident that the Yellowstone fate is used.
conditions. grizzly bear population’s range has Harris et al. (2006, p. 48) then used
In our view, a PVA based on possible expanded significantly since 1980 and the two survival estimates produced by
future habitat conditions relies upon too the sightings from this time do not Haroldson et al. (2006b, p. 35) to
many speculative variables to be relied contradict the conclusions established estimate the growth rate of the GYA
upon to determine long-term by Schwartz et al. (2002, p. 207) and grizzly population from 1983 to 2002.
persistence. Given the compound Schwartz et al. (2006b, p. 66). For the estimate of population growth
uncertainties associated with Issue 4—One commenter noted that rate based on the assumption that all
projections of possible future habitat because ‘‘persistence time depends females with unknown fates died at last
changes, and the grizzly bear’s strongly on the magnitude of the contact, the mean value of lambda is
corresponding responses to those variance in population growth rate’’ and 1.042, with an approximate 95 percent
changes, it is unlikely that a habitat- the Yellowstone population size confidence interval of 0.969–1.093. For
based PVA would provide an accurate estimates are extremely variable, we the estimate of population growth rate
representation of future population should consider this and other sources when adult survival was estimated
viability for Yellowstone grizzly bears. of stochasticity in our decision. assuming females with unknown fates
The management system outlined in the Response—These variations have survived, the mean value is 1.076, with
Strategy depends on monitoring of been considered in detail. The an approximate 95 percent confidence
multiple indices including production considerations of the variation of results interval of 1.003–1.113.
and availability of all major foods; and is thoroughly evaluated and discussed These population growth rates mean
monitoring of grizzly bear vital rates in Harris et al. (2006, p. 46), Schwartz that the Yellowstone grizzly bear
including survival, age at first et al. (2006d, p. 14), Schwartz et al. population was increasing at a rate of
reproduction, reproductive rate, (2006e, pp. 62–63), the Reassessing 4.2 percent or 7.6 percent per year
mortality cause and location, dispersal, Methods Document (Interagency Grizzly between 1983 and 2002 (Harris et al.
and human/bear conflicts. These data Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 25, 35–36), 2006, p. 48). Those estimates are often
will be used in an adaptive management and its Supplement (Interagency Grizzly reported as ‘‘a growth rate between 4
system to monitor the real-time status of Bear Study Team 2006, pp. 2–10). percent and 7 percent.’’ That does not
the population and its relationship with Throughout the rulemaking process we refer to a 95 percent confidence interval.
Instead, it refers to an estimate based on size has become more common in recent perceived interpretation has led us to
the assumption that all bears whose years (Mowat and Strobeck 2000, p. 183; focus on reducing mortality within
fates were unknown died at the time Bellemain et al. 2005, p. 150; Solberg et occupied habitat rather than restoring
their radio transmissions stopped (4.2 al. 2006, p. 158), the method used to formerly wide-ranging species to
percent), and an estimate based on the make a one-time total population historically occupied habitat. This
assumption that all bears whose fates estimate for the NCDE would be less commenter noted that the courts have
were unknown were alive at the time useful in the GYA than current repeatedly rejected this interpretation
their radio transmissions stopped (7.6 methods. DNA was chosen as the and that true recovery requires
percent). Those assumptions result in population estimate system in the NCDE connectivity or linkage, protection and
conservative bounds, because some because this ecosystem did not have the enhancement of existing populations,
bears assumed to have died in the 4 long-term consistent sampling data that meaningful habitat protections,
percent growth rate data set were exists in Yellowstone. The final point adequate regulatory mechanisms, and
probably still alive, and because some estimate for population size in the recolonization of historic suitable
bears assumed to be alive in the 7 NCDE will be available in early 2007 habitat such that ecological
percent growth rate data set were and will be a one-time estimate for effectiveness (Trombulak 2006) is
probably dead. The true population 2004—the year the sampling was done. restored.
growth rate from 1983 to 2002 was Once completed, this DNA-based Response—We disagree with the
probably between 4 and 7 percent. system will have taken 4 years and cost assertion that we have focused on
Regarding the confidence interval $4.5 million, to produce a 2004 viability instead of recovery. The
around the total population estimate, population estimate. Given that the principal goal of the Act is to return
the index of total population size is long-term intensive data were available listed species to a point at which
produced using the total number, an in Yellowstone, population size protection under the Act is no longer
estimate of the total number of females estimates based upon peer-reviewed, required (50 CFR 424.11(d)(2)). A
with cubs-of-the-year (Interagency published methods existed, and because species may be delisted on the basis of
Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 24– the methods used in Yellowstone allow recovery only if the best scientific and
26), and the proportions of females in continuously updated population commercial data available indicate that
the population applied to the indices rather than a one-time estimate, it is no longer endangered or threatened
proportions of sex and age classes in the the application of a DNA-based system within all or a significant portion of its
population. The Chao2 estimator, a was unnecessary for the Yellowstone range (50 CFR 424.11(d)). As described
statistical tool used to correct sighting ecosystem. later in this rule, we believe the
variability, was chosen by the Study Issue 7—One commenter noted that Yellowstone DPS meets neither of these
Team to estimate the number of females we violated the Administrative definitions for listing, thereby justifying
with cubs-of-the-year (Keating et al. Procedure Act and the Endangered delisting due to recovery.
2002, p. 170; Interagency Grizzly Bear Species Act by not disclosing the We also disagree with the claim that
Study Team 2005, pp. 25–26) because it apparent ‘‘population crash’’ that we have over-emphasized mortality
consistently returns results that are occurred in 2005 using the revised control at the expense of other recovery
correct or biased low (Interagency methods described in the Reassessing goals. To date, recovery efforts have
Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, p. 20). Methods Document (2004 = 588, 2005 = focused on sufficient mortality control,
Confidence intervals for the total 350) and discussing its implications for habitat monitoring, population levels,
population index from years 1983 to the population. distribution, management of habitat
2005 are reported in the Supplement to Response—No population crash effectiveness and habitat security,
the Reassessing Methods Document occurred in 2005. In 2004, a large monitoring of all grizzly bear/human
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team number of females had cubs. Because conflicts, genetic analyses, and linkage
2006, p. 15). For 2005, the total female grizzly bears usually produce zone maintenance. This comprehensive
population index is 546 bears with a 95 litters once every 3 years, high cub approach to recovery has led to reduced
percent confidence interval between 491 production years are typically followed mortality, increasing population
and 602 (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study by years with fewer cubs because less of numbers, and significant increases in
Team 2006, p. 15). the adult female population is available range, allowing grizzly bears to
Issue 6—Several commenters for breeding. The index of total reoccupy habitat they have been absent
questioned why we were not using population size described in the from for decades, as well as
deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) based Reassessing Methods Document demographic and habitat security into
methods, like the survey conducted in (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team the foreseeable future. Grizzly bears
the NCDE during the summer of 2004, 2005, pp. 5–9) is not equivalent to an now occupy 68 percent of suitable
to get an accurate estimate of total exact number of animals in the habitat within the DPS and will likely
population size. They considered DNA population due to this natural biological occupy the remainder within the
to be the best available method and variation associated with cub foreseeable future. However, the Service
wondered why this method was not production in grizzly bear populations does not believe that restoration of
employed before proposing to delist this (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team grizzly bears to all historic habitats
population. 2006, pp. 1–2). Fluctuations in the (particularly those no longer capable of
Response—The methods developed estimate of population size are expected supporting grizzly bear populations)
for producing a population index in the and addressed through the use of a within the DPS boundaries is necessary
Yellowstone ecosystem are based on the modeling average technique to estimate or possible.
best available science and built on the total number of females with cubs- While some have suggested
intensive sampling of this population of-the-year (Interagency Grizzly Bear recolonization of historically suitable
for almost 26 years. These methods Study Team 2006, pp. 2–7). habitat to achieve ‘‘ecological
produce annually updated population Issue 8—One commenter stated that effectiveness’’ (Trombulak 2006), the
size indices and continuously updated we claim that the Act only mandates Act neither requires us to consider
population trend estimates. Although that a species be ‘‘viable,’’ rather than ecological effectiveness, nor do we have
the use of DNA to estimate population ‘‘recovered.’’ They believed that this any objective way of measuring this
type of success currently. We do not National Forests) have been finalized certainty of death, if the bear was
believe the restoration of the grizzly does not allow the public to know what marked or not, and location are
bear as a top predator and scavenger they are commenting on; furthermore, published annually in the Study Team’s
throughout all historically occupied the Act requires an analysis of existing annual reports, available at: http://
habitat is feasible or required. Instead, regulatory mechanisms, not those that www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-
we have restored grizzly bears to most will be added in the future. home.htm. However, requests received
of their suitable habitat within the DPS Response—The Strategy and the for exact locations of grizzly bears
and anticipate the State management Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria obtained via radio-telemetry and GPS
plans will lead to re-occupancy of the supplement to the Recovery Plan have radio-collars (i.e., ‘‘raw data’’) could not
remaining suitable habitat in the near been finalized (72 FR 11376; 72 FR be honored because this information
future. Other issues such as linkage are 11376–11377). There have been no was not in our possession. Additionally,
only relevant to this rulemaking to the significant changes from the drafts of without the permission of the Secretary
extent that they impact the Yellowstone Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria, the of the Interior, the Omnibus Parks and
DPS. For example, connectivity or a lack Strategy, and the Forest Plan Public Lands Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C.
thereof, has the potential to impact this Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat 5937) prohibits the release of specific
population’s genetic fitness. As such, Conservation for the GYA National locations of threatened species that
this issue is discussed and addressed in Forests. All the supporting documents spend any part of their lives within
our five factor analysis (see Factor E have been available for full public National Parks.
below) and in the Strategy. review, in accordance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (62 FR D. Compliance With Court Settlements
C. Public Involvement 47677, September 10, 1997; 64 FR Issue 1—Some commenters claimed
Issue 1—Several commenters believe 38464, July 16, 1999; 64 FR 38465, July that the Service violated the Fund for
that the Service did not provide 16, 1999; 70 FR 70632, November 22, Animals court settlement (Fund for
meaningful ways for the public in areas 2005). The proposed rule also noted that Animals v. Babbitt), by publishing the
other than Bozeman, Montana, Cody these draft documents were available proposed rule to delist before finalizing
and Jackson, Wyoming, and Idaho Falls, online at—http://mountain- the Habitat Based Recovery Criteria.
Idaho, to participate in a dialogue about prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ They noted that the Fund for Animals
this national issue, except via Web sites grizzly/yellowstone.htm. As envisioned settlement stated that ‘‘Prior to
and mail. Numerous commenters at by the Administrative Procedure Act, publishing any proposed rule to delist
public hearings, in letters, and in emails changes to the Reassessing Methods any grizzly bear population, the Service
encouraged the Service to give greater Document were made in response to will establish habitat-based recovery
consideration to opinions of people that public comments. These changes did criteria for that population’s ecosystem
live in grizzly bear country than not affect our final determination from * * * . In any such rulemaking to
opinions of those that do not have to that described in the draft rule. We delist a grizzly bear population, the
deal with grizzlies in their daily lives. responded to comments in the final Service will utilize the Habitat Based
Conversely, many argued that the documents. The Strategy and the Forest Recovery Criteria, as well as all other
grizzly bear is a national and Plan Amendment are existing regulatory pertinent recovery criteria that have
international treasure and that all mechanisms that are currently in been established, when addressing the 5
Americans should have an equal voice existence and take effect upon factors set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the
in how they are to be managed. implementation of this final rule. Act.’’
Response—The public comment Therefore, we considered these Response—In 1994, The Fund for
process considers all comments equally mechanisms when determining if the Animals, Inc., and 42 other
and gives no preference based on where regulatory mechanisms were sufficient organizations and individuals filed suit
commenters live or what format to protect the Yellowstone DPS’ over the adequacy of the 1993 Recovery
commenters use to comment. We recovered status. Plan (Fund for Animals v. Babbitt). The
believe that providing multiple formats Issue 3—Some commenters stated that court remanded the Recovery Plan to us
for commenting on the proposed rule, the Service violated the Endangered for further study, and in 1996 the parties
including hand delivery, e-mail, and Species Act and Administrative reached a settlement agreement. As part
U.S. mail lessened the need for formal Procedure Act by not providing the raw of the settlement we agreed to hold a
hearings throughout the country. data upon which it relied, thereby workshop on the habitat-based recovery
Because all comments are considered hindering the public’s ability to criteria and to append habitat-based
equally, it does not matter whether comment on the proposed rule; ‘‘[T]he recovery criteria to the Recovery Plan.
comments were submitted via hand Administrative Procedure Act requires On June 17, 1997, we held a public
delivery, e-mail, mail, or public hearing. the agency to make available to the workshop in Bozeman, Montana, to
In fact, commenting via e-mail, hand public, in a form that allows for develop and refine habitat-based
delivery, or letter allowed unlimited meaningful comment, the data the recovery criteria for the grizzly bear. A
space to express comments, as opposed agency used to develop the proposed Federal Register notice notified the
to the public hearing format, which rule.’’ public of this workshop and provided
limited comments to three minutes in Response—We have a responsibility interested parties an opportunity to
order to provide an opportunity for all to rely upon the best scientific and participate and submit comments (62 FR
attending to speak. commercial data available. In this case, 19777, April 23, 1997).
Issue 2—Several commenters stated we relied upon numerous peer reviewed After considering 1,167 written
that asking the public to comment on and published documents that we made comments, we developed biologically-
the proposed rule when none of the available upon request. Much of this based habitat criteria with the goal of
supporting documents (Reassessing information was publicly available maintaining or improving habitat
Methods Document, Habitat-Based when we published our proposed rule conditions at 1998 levels. These draft
Recovery Criteria, the Strategy, and the and during our public comment period. criteria were published in the Federal
Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear For example, mortality information, Register on July 16, 1999 (64 FR 38464–
Habitat Conservation for the GYA including date of death, sex, age, 38465), and a copy of the habitat-based
criteria also is available at—http:// range, thereby obligating us to recover relevant to the current or foreseeable
mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ species across a significant portion of status of the Yellowstone DPS. The
mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm. their historical range to be considered current range of the DPS supports a
These revised habitat-based recovery recovered. Some commenters disagreed population of adequate quantity and
criteria were relied upon in the with our definition of range and said distribution to ensure a recovered
proposed rule and have since been that it was the same as the court- population into the foreseeable future.
appended to the Recovery Plan and invalidated wolf rule (68 FR 15804, And, additional unoccupied suitable
incorporated into the Strategy (U.S. Fish April 1, 2003), which stated that range, habitat will provide opportunities for
and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 39–43). when defined as ‘‘the area within the continued population growth. Finally,
Importantly, these habitat-based DPS boundaries where viable as discussed below, a lack of occupancy
recovery criteria have not changed populations of the species now exist,’’ of all historic habitat within the DPS
significantly since being drafted and was circular because if we define range will not impact whether this population
being made available for public as where grizzlies currently are and then is likely to become endangered within
comment in 1999. The Strategy ensures conclude that they are therefore the foreseeable future throughout all or
they will continue to be met in the recovered within a significant portion of a significant portion of its range.
foreseeable future. Our proposed rule that range, this would have meant they Issue 2—One commenter noted that
and this final rule utilized the habitat- were recovered in 1975. Several because grizzly bears experience
based recovery criteria, as well as all commenters noted that we must explain negative growth rates outside the PCA,
other pertinent recovery criteria, when why the Yellowstone grizzly bear is no they are in danger in this portion of
addressing the 5 factors set forth in longer threatened by the loss of its their range. The commenter believes
section 4(a)(1) of the Act. historical range. that the area outside the PCA constitutes
Issue 2—Some commenters noted that Response—A species may be delisted a significant portion of their range
we cannot claim that the demographic according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best because we include all grizzly bears and
recovery goals have been met because scientific and commercial data available the lands they currently occupy to make
the goals cited have been found demonstrate that the threats to that the statement that they are recovered
inadequate by the courts. species, as described in section 4(a)(1), within a significant portion of their
Response—The demographic recovery have been removed such that it is range.
goals have not been found inadequate neither endangered nor threatened. The Response—We agree that the suitable
by the courts. The court opinion (Fund Act defines an ‘‘endangered species’’ as habitat outside the PCA represents a
for Animals v. Babbitt, p. 30) stated, one that ‘‘is in danger of extinction significant portion of the range, albeit
‘‘Based on the record the court does not throughout all or a significant portion of less significant than suitable habitat
find that the defendant’s designation of its range.’’ A ‘‘threatened species’’ is one within the PCA. See the Significant
population targets is arbitrary and that ‘‘is likely to become endangered in Portion of Range discussion under
capricious.’’ The court directed us to the foreseeable future throughout all or Factor A below for a more detailed
‘‘reconsider the available evidence and a significant portion of its range.’’ One discussion of this issue. That said,
its decision to adopt the population consideration in deciding whether a grizzly bears are not in ‘‘danger’’ in
monitoring methodology that it has species meets either of these definitions areas outside the PCA. The Yellowstone
incorporated into the Grizzly Bear is the interpretation of ‘‘significant grizzly population is a single population
Recovery Plan.’’ We did so in a formal portion of its range.’’ with mortalities counted in all areas
response to public comments regarding For a detailed discussion of ‘‘range’’ inside the Conservation Strategy
the supplemental information under the Act, see the Summary of Management Area (Figure 1) and
(accessible at http://mountain- Factors Affecting the Species portion of sustainable mortality limits established
prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ this rule below. That said, historical for the entire population. The overall
grizzly/yellowstone.htm) and found range is only relevant to the discussion population growth rate will be managed
these methods were the best available of ‘‘significant portion of the range’’ to for a stable to increasing population as
methods when the Recovery Plan was the extent that it may offer evidence per the methods and direction in the
written in 1993. In order to apply the whether a species in its current range is Reassessing Methods Document
best available methods at the time of likely to become endangered in the (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
proposing delisting, we worked with the foreseeable future. In such situations, 2005, pp. 5–11). Although the
U.S. Geological Survey and the Study historical range is considered in the population may experience negative
Team to begin the process detailed in listing factor section 4(a)(1) analysis. growth rates in some areas, this is not
the Reassessing Methods Document Our 5-factor analysis was conducted biologically significant. It would be
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team over the entire current and foreseeable inappropriate to suggest one ‘‘segment’’
2005, pp. 12–41) to consider and apply range of the grizzly bear including all is declining, while another ‘‘segment’’ is
newer science to the issues of ‘‘suitable habitat’’ within the DPS increasing because the population is
population monitoring and the (defined and discussed under Factor A contiguous and is considered as a whole
establishment of sustainable mortality. below). While grizzly bears once entity per our DPS analysis above. The
This effort has resulted in the improved occurred throughout the area of the overall trajectory of the population will
methods appended to the Recovery Plan Yellowstone DPS (Stebler 1972, pp. remain stable to increasing.
and incorporated into the Strategy. 297–299), records indicate that even in
the early 19th century, grizzly bears F. DPS Policy
E. Significant Portion of Range were less common in these eastern Issue 1—Some commenters believe
Issue 1—Many commenters expressed prairie habitats than in mountainous that the DPS policy is to be used only
dissenting views and interpretations of areas to the west and south (Rollins in listing decisions and that using it in
the Act’s phrase ‘‘significant portion of 1935, p. 191; Wade 1947, p. 444). a delisting decision violates
its range’’ as it is used to define a Today, these habitats are no longer Congressional intent and the legislative
threatened species, or in this case, a biologically suitable for grizzly bears as and statutory structure of the Act.
recovered species. Some stated that they lack adequate food resources (i.e., Response—We disagree with this
range does or should mean historical bison). These unsuitable areas are not interpretation of the DPS policy. The
Act, its implementing regulations, and (1:03–CV–340, D. VT. 2005, p. 20), the horribilis and U. a. middendorfi. U. a.
our DPS policy provide no support for court found that ‘‘Nowhere in the Act is horribilis is the subspecies that occurs
this interpretation. Section 4(a)(1) of the the Secretary prevented from creating a in North America outside of Kodiak
Act directs the Secretary of the Interior ‘non-DPS remnant’ designation, Island, Alaska. Therefore, the current
to determine whether ‘‘any species’’ is especially when the remnant area was recovery zones consider recovery in
endangered or threatened. Numerous already listed’’ * * *. Our current light of this taxonomy.
sections of the Act refer to adding and designation of a Yellowstone DPS, while Issue 4—Some commenters noted that
removing ‘‘species’’ from the list of retaining the remaining lower 48 State we violated the DPS policy because we
threatened or endangered plants and grizzly bear listing intact as threatened, failed to consider the effect of delisting
animals. Section 3(15) defines ‘‘species’’ is consistent with this aspect of the the Yellowstone DPS on rangewide
to include any subspecies ‘‘and any District Court’s ruling. recovery of the species, especially in the
distinct population segment of any Furthermore, just as the Yellowstone Bitterroot Ecosystem, which is currently
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife DPS is discrete from the remaining unoccupied by grizzly bears but
* * * .’’ The Act directs us to list, populations in the lower 48 States, the considered vital to the metapopulation
reclassify, and delist species, remaining populations are discrete from dynamics of grizzlies in the Lower 48
subspecies, and DPSs of vertebrate the Yellowstone DPS. The amended States.
species. It contains no provisions lower 48 State listing is discrete from Response—The DPS policy was
requiring, or even allowing, DPSs to be Canadian populations of Ursus arctos carefully followed in designating the
treated in a different manner than horribilis as delineated by the United Yellowstone DPS. The delisting of the
species or subspecies when carrying out States/Canadian international boundary Yellowstone DPS will not have
the listing, recovery, and delisting with significant differences in control of detrimental impacts on grizzly bear
functions mandated by section 4. exploitation, management of habitat, recovery actions in other recovery
Furthermore, our DPS Policy states that conservation status, and regulatory zones, as the grizzly bears in these areas
the policy is intended for ‘‘the purposes mechanisms. The amended lower 48 remain threatened under the Act. As
of listing, delisting, and reclassifying State listing is significant in that the loss such, coordinated recovery efforts will
species under the Act’’ (61 FR 4722, of the lower 48 State population would continue in these areas.
February 7, 1996), and that it ‘‘guides result in a significant gap in the range Issue 5—Several commenters
the evaluation of distinct vertebrate of the taxon (U. a. horribilis). Therefore, disagreed with the delineation of the
population segments for the purposes of the amended lower 48 State listing is boundaries for the Yellowstone DPS.
listing, delisting, and reclassifying discrete and significant. Some believe that because the
under the Act’’ (61 FR 4725, February 7, Additional analysis is required to boundaries were mainly highways, they
1996). determine if the amended lower 48 State were arbitrary and not based on sound
The comment also overlooks the listing warrants further splitting into biological principles. Others believe that
untenable situation that would arise if additional DPSs. For now, the the DPS should be expanded to the
DPSs could be listed but could never be warranted-but-precluded findings for north to allow for more dispersal
delisted after they have been uplisting (from threatened to because, currently, suitable habitat on
successfully recovered. Clearly Congress endangered) the Selkirk, the North the northern edge extends nearly to the
did not envision such an outcome when Cascades, and the Cabinet-Yaak DPS boundary. Others believe that the
amending the definition of species to populations remain precluded by higher DPS boundaries should include the
include vertebrate DPSs. priority actions (71 FR 53755, 53835, entire State of Wyoming to lessen
Issue 2—A commenter noted that the September 12, 2006). While these confusion and allow for management by
DPS analysis in the proposed rule warranted-but-precluded findings are the State of Wyoming if bears disperse
created a remnant population, contrary reviewed annually, we intend to review south of Interstate 80.
to a court decision. They stated that the the status of the entire amended lower Response—As noted in the proposed
Act allows us to ‘‘consider listing only 48 State listing that results from this rule, an artificial or manmade boundary
an entire species, subspecies, or DPS’’ final rule in an upcoming 5-year review, (such as Interstate, Federal, and State
(Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. as per section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act. highways) may be used as a boundary
Supp. 2d 1154, 1162 (D. Or. 2001)); Issue 3—One commenter of convenience in order to clearly
therefore, we cannot declare part of a recommended that the Service use identify the geographic area included
listed subspecies a DPS without also evolutionary divergence (Hall’s within a DPS designation. The
designating the remaining listed subspecies) to designate DPSs across Yellowstone DPS boundaries were
subspecies as DPS(s). This commenter their historical range and that these defined along easily identifiable
suggests that we reconsider the status of should replace or supplement the boundaries and included the entire
all other lower 48 grizzly bear current recovery zones. recovery zone, the primary conservation
populations simultaneously and should Response—The subspecies approach area, the conservation strategy
not delist the GYA population until we identified by Hall (1984, pp. 2–11) management area, all suitable habitat
uplist all other populations in the Lower suggested seven different North within the GYA based on biological
48 States. American grizzly bear subspecies and is information, and all occupied habitat.
Response—While in some situations not in accordance with accepted We believe this represents the most
it may be appropriate to designate scientific taxonomic literature and appropriate DPS for this population.
multiple DPSs simultaneously, the lack approaches. We accept the holarctic Expansion of the DPS boundaries is not
of such a requirement provides useful species concept and North American necessary to maintain a recovered
flexibility, allowing the Service to subspecies designations established by grizzly bear population and is not
subsequently list or delist additional the works of Couterier (1954, p. 5), justified biologically, given the limited
DPSs when additional information Rausch (1953, pp. 95–107; 1963, p. 43), dispersal capabilities of grizzly bears.
becomes available or as the conservation and Kurten (1968, p. 127–128). This Issue 6—Some commenters pointed
status of the taxon changes. Importantly, literature establishes one single out that it would be confusing for State
courts have upheld this flexibility. In holarctic species (Ursus arctos) and two and Federal managers to have a grizzly
National Wildlife Federation v. Norton North American subspecies, U. a. bear roam outside of the boundaries, for
instance west of Interstate 15, and then website for the Yellowstone grizzly bear Area. Areas outside of suitable habitat
be considered a threatened species. To population (http://mountain- will not affect the trajectory or health of
address this confusion, some prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ the Yellowstone population now or in
commenters believe that any grizzly grizzly/yellowstone.htm). This the future. A lack of occupancy of
bear originating from the Yellowstone document does not describe recovery historic habitat will not impact whether
DPS should be considered part of that criteria, as current levels of genetic this population is likely to become
DPS, regardless of where they are diversity are consistent with known endangered within the foreseeable
geographically. historic levels and do not threaten the future throughout all or a significant
Response—A DPS is a geographic long-term viability of the species, and portion of its range.
designation determining the listed instead proposes a post-delisting Issue 2—Several commenters believe
status for all individuals of said species monitoring strategy to ensure that that the decision to exclude sheep
in that area. Bears outside the DPS area, necessary levels of gene flow occur so allotments as suitable habitat was based
no matter their origin, are listed as that this population retains its recovered upon social considerations rather than
threatened under the Act. The State and status for the foreseeable future. This biology. Instead, they stated that ‘‘* * *
Federal agencies are aware of and 1999 information was never formally mortality rates in these areas are not a
understand the management appended to the 1993 Recovery Plan. function of the habitat itself, but of land-
implications of the DPS boundaries. We Due to the continuous and rapid use decisions’’ and that the habitat
used easily identifiable boundaries such evolution of the genetics field, this could be made suitable by regulatory
as the center line of major highways to information no longer reflects the most mechanisms. One commenter suggested
minimize management confusion. If a up-to-date and scientifically sound that the Service be upfront and clear
grizzly bear goes beyond the approach. Therefore, we have that the definition of suitable habitat
Yellowstone DPS boundaries, it would determined that it is no longer ‘‘* * * is not based solely on an
become a threatened grizzly bear. appropriate to append the 1999 genetic evaluation of the grizzly bear’s resource
Similarly, if a grizzly bear from another monitoring methods and management needs.’’ Another commenter requested
population enters the Yellowstone DPS responses to the Recovery Plan. Instead, that we prepare an analysis of what
boundaries, it would be managed a new genetic monitoring approach proportions of their lives individual
according to the Strategy and State which reflects the most recent, best grizzlies spend in ‘‘suitable’’ versus
management plans. available science will be applied to the ‘‘unsuitable’’ habitat.
Issue 7—One commenter stated that future management of the Yellowstone Response—Our determination that
the DPS designation would preclude grizzly bear DPS as described in the sheep allotments were not suitable for
augmentation because it would destroy Strategy’s updating process (U.S. Fish grizzly bears was based on mortality
the genetic uniqueness of the DPS. and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 63). The rates, which is a biological issue. In
Response—Designation of the DPS Coordinating Committee will commence areas of high conflict potential such as
would not preclude future this genetic monitoring information campgrounds, management actions are
augmentation, if we determine updating process, which will include a taken to limit grizzly bear presence or
augmentation to be necessary to public comment process, within 6 use. The sheep allotments outside
maintain genetic fitness. The DPS Policy months of this final rule becoming suitable habitat are not necessary to
does not require complete separation of effective. ensure that this population avoids
one DPS from other populations, but becoming threatened within all or a
instead requires ‘‘marked separation.’’ G. Definition of Suitable Habitat significant portion of its range in the
As stated in the 1993 Grizzly Bear Issue 1—Several commenters foreseeable future. Because of the
Recovery Plan, natural connectivity is requested that we explain why lands habitat protections inside the PCA and
important to long-term grizzly bear excluded from our definition of suitable the large percentage of suitable habitat
conservation, and we will continue habitat or the State’s definitions do not outside the PCA (60 percent) that is
efforts to work toward this goal constitute a significant portion of the currently a Designated Wilderness Area
(whether accomplished naturally or grizzly bears’ range. (6,799 sq km/4,225 sq mi), Wilderness
through augmentation) independent of Response—None of these unsuitable Study Area (708 sq km/440 sq mi), or
the delisting of the Yellowstone DPS areas, either individually or collectively, Inventoried Roadless Area (6,179 sq km/
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. are capable of contributing, in a 3,839 sq mi), the long-term persistence
53). Thus, if occasional individual meaningful way, to the overall status of of the Yellowstone grizzly bear
grizzly bears disperse among the Yellowstone DPS. Therefore, these population is assured without the sheep
populations or are moved intentionally, unsuitable areas do not represent a allotments.
the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS would significant portion of the Yellowstone Our definition of suitable habitat
still display the required level of DPS range because their exclusion will reflects the best available science and is
discreteness, per the DPS Policy. Gene not influence population trajectory or adequate to ensure that the Yellowstone
flow through either linkage or population health. Suitable habitat grizzly bear population is not likely to
augmentation is discussed further under inside the PCA, which contains 84 to 90 become endangered within the
Factor E below. percent of the population of females foreseeable future throughout all or a
Issue 8—One commenter stated that with cubs (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 64), significant portion of its range. The
he could not find the ‘‘genetic the most important age and sex group to three criteria we used to define suitable
monitoring information’’ to be population trajectory, will be protected habitat in the proposed rule are—(1)
appended to the Recovery Plan. by the habitat standards in the Strategy. being of adequate habitat quality and
Response—This document was made Grizzly bears also will be allowed to quantity to support grizzly bear
available for public review and expand into currently unoccupied reproduction and survival (i.e., within
comment in 1997 (62 FR 47677, suitable habitat as per the State plans. the Middle Rockies ecoregion—please
September 10, 1997) and noticed again Outside the PCA, 60 percent of suitable see discussion below in Suitable Habitat
in 1999 (64 FR 38465, July 16, 1999). As habitat is protected by its status as section under Factor A); (2) contiguous
noted in the proposed rule, the Designated Wilderness, Wilderness with the current distribution of
document also was posted on our Study Area, or Inventoried Roadless Yellowstone grizzly bears such that
natural re-colonization is possible; and Mountains can support a self-sustaining of the PCA to draw a conclusion about
(3) having low mortality risk as grizzly bear population. Again, this future risks and habitat changes there.
indicated through reasonable and ‘‘potentially suitable’’ habitat is not Response—The Service has applied a
manageable levels of grizzly bear biologically necessary to maintain the reserve design approach by designating
mortality. Upon the request of one peer recovered status of the Yellowstone the PCA. The PCA, which is a subset of
reviewer and in response to this issue, grizzly bear DPS. the suitable habitat, contains between
we undertook additional analyses to We have determined that an analysis 84 to 90 percent of the females with
examine how much suitable habitat examining the proportion of time grizzly cubs (the population’s most important
would exist in the GYA under different bears spend in suitable and unsuitable age and sex group) (Schwartz et al.
definitions of suitable habitat. habitats is unnecessary. Although this 2006b, p. 64). The population has been
If grizzly bears were given priority information may be useful when growing at 4 to 7 percent per year since
over all other land uses, we found that modeling source-sink dynamics, the the 1990s (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48), with
an additional 13,837 sq km (5,342 sq mi) sustainable mortality limits that have most of the growth occurring inside the
of habitat exists that meets the first two been established for the entire PCA (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 64). The
criteria for our definition of suitable population ensure that mortality will best available information demonstrates
habitat (found within the Middle not exceed recruitment. The Study that the PCA contains the habitat
Rockies ecoregion and contiguous with Team will continue to monitor habitat necessary for a healthy and viable
the current population distribution). Of use by radio-collared grizzly bears post- grizzly bear population in the long-term.
that ‘‘potentially’’ suitable habitat, delisting and attempt to quantify why Strict habitat protection within the PCA
nearly 16 percent (2,184 sq km (843 sq and where grizzly bears experience is guaranteed to assure the future of the
mi)) is privately owned. The remaining different mortality rates. population. Sixty percent of suitable
habitat is 70 percent National Forest Issue 3—Some commenters noted that habitat outside the PCA is Designated
(9,637 sq km (3,720 sq mi)), 8.5 percent we considered more than strictly Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, or
BLM (1,171 sq km (452 sq mi)), 4 biological criteria in the recovery Inventoried Roadless Area. This amount
percent State-owned (545 sq km (211 sq process when we introduced the term of protected habitat combined with the
mi)), and less than 2 percent in other ‘‘socially acceptable’’ in the Strategy. GYA National Forests’ commitment to
Federal ownerships (200 sq km/77 sq Response—The presence of grizzly manage habitat for a viable grizzly bear
mi). bears in places with high levels of population, forest-wide food storage
Although management direction human activity and human occupancy orders, and designation of the grizzly
could change on these Federal and results in biological impacts to grizzly bear as a species-of-concern on GYA
State-owned lands to favor grizzly bears bears in terms of increased mortality National Forests, gives the Service
by eliminating all other uses (e.g., risk and displacement. The level of this reasonable assurance that grizzly bears
livestock grazing allotments, oil and gas impact is directly related to the location outside of the PCA will continue to be
development), this action is not and numbers of humans, their activities, protected adequately. In addition,
biologically necessary to maintain the and their attitudes and beliefs about allowable hunting mortalities will be
recovered status of the Yellowstone grizzly bears. The consideration of determined and limited by the total
grizzly bear. These areas do not human activities is fundamental to the sustainable mortality limit.
constitute a significant portion of the management of grizzly bears and their
range. If this habitat became biologically habitat. H. Habitat Protections
necessary in the future due to decreases Issue 4—Many commenters Issue 1—Some commenters
in habitat quality or excessive mortality, questioned whether the 1998 baseline questioned the adequacy of the habitat
the adaptive management approach applied exclusively inside the PCA was protections that we developed for the
described in the Strategy would allow adequate to ensure the continued PCA and advocated more meaningful
managers to modify the management viability of the Yellowstone DPS. They habitat protections including baseline
within what is currently ‘‘potentially’’ noted that in 1998, the population was values for major foods, restrictions on
suitable habitat on public lands. already occupying a large area outside private land development, and limits on
When we examine all areas found of the recovery zone and, therefore, to both motorized and non-motorized
within the DPS boundaries that are conclude that habitat conditions inside recreation.
within the Middle Rockies ecoregion the PCA are what contributed to the Response—Our habitat protection
and do not consider whether these areas observed 4 to 7 percent population criteria are adequate and biologically
are contiguous with the current grizzly growth is to portray an incomplete sound. There is no biological way to
bear population, an additional 7,178 sq picture of what occurred. Many define ‘‘baseline’’ levels for various
km (2,771 sq mi) of habitat meets this commenters believed all currently foods because the natural foods for
sole criterion. Of this ‘‘potentially occupied habitat should be protected grizzly bears naturally fluctuate,
suitable’’ habitat that is not contiguous since it has contributed to the growth of annually and spatially, across the
with the current distribution of grizzly the population. Many commenters ecosystem. Instead of establishing
bears, 6,341 sq km (2,448 sq mi) is suggested that protections must be artificial baseline values for major
contained within the Bighorn extended to all suitable habitat to ensure grizzly bear foods, the protocol in place
Mountains and 837 sq km (323 sq mi) long-term viability of the Yellowstone for the monitoring of major foods will
within the Pryor Mountains on the DPS. One commenter recommended provide annual indices of the variation
Wyoming and Montana border. that we employ a reserve design of these foods, and will compare
Distances between these mountain approach with the PCA designated as changes in these foods to grizzly bear
ranges, the current distribution of the protected core of the GYA Reserve vital rates such as mortality causes and
grizzly bears, and land uses in the (with no hunting) and the rest of the locations, cub production and survival,
intervening habitat will preclude GYA managed as a buffer zone (with all adult female survival, and numbers and
dispersal of most males and most, if not protections currently provided in the distribution of bear/human conflicts.
all, females. Without constant emigrants PCA being extended to the entire GYA). The results will guide adaptive
from suitable habitat, it is highly One commenter also noted that we must management responses to changes in
unlikely that the Bighorns or the Pryor have data on habitat conditions outside foods such as enhanced Information and
Education (I & E) efforts, limiting grizzly emphasis to limit conflicts in the Management Rule is sustained in a
bear mortality, planting whitebark pine, southern Wind River and the Wyoming possible appeal of the September 19,
controlling exotic species, and/or Ranges by discouraging grizzly bear 2006, court decision, the majority of
prescribed burning. dispersal and occupancy of these areas. roadless areas are likely to remain
Private lands comprise 2.1 percent of The Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management undeveloped. The six GYA National
the PCA. Limits on developing private Plan (WGFD 2005, pp. 12–16) does not Forests are committed to managing for
lands to reduce conflicts with resident exclude grizzlies from the southern a viable grizzly bear population. If any
wildlife are the responsibility of the Wind Rivers; rather, it recognizes a roads are proposed to be built in
counties and the States. County higher potential for grizzly bear/human roadless areas, the USDA Forest Service
representatives are members of the conflicts if they move into areas such as must first complete a formal National
Coordinating Committee and will insure the southern Wind River or Wyoming Environmental Policy Act of 1969
that efforts to limit conflicts on private Mountain ranges. The presence of (NEPA) process and specifically
lands will continue. Their cooperation grizzly bears in places where there are consider the project’s impacts on
with the State wildlife agencies to high levels of human activity and species of concern, which the
promote outreach, education and occupancy results in biological impacts Yellowstone grizzly bear population
management of land development to grizzly bears in terms of increased will be classified as post-delisting
activities in grizzly habitat to reduce mortality risk and displacement. (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26).
bear/human conflicts will continue Consideration of these potential State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless
upon delisting. These efforts to limit biological impacts was a critical element Area Management only allow the
conflicts on private lands will continue in the determination of suitable habitat. Governors to comment on the Forest
under the Coordinating Committee’s As the grizzly population increases in Service process of considering
management. area and density, an emphasis will be management of Inventoried Roadless
Limiting motorized recreation is a placed on education, conflict Areas and do not provide the Governors
fundamental component of the Strategy, prevention, relocation, or removal of any authority to make decisions on road
hence the requirement for no net bears to limit conflicts. Because there building. Any comments from the
decrease in secure habitat inside the have been few if any bears in these areas Governors would be considered during
PCA. This measure directly limits the for many decades and the population the EIS process.
total area impacted by motorized has continued to grow during this time, Issue 4—Several commenters
recreation, so that grizzly bears have these areas are presently not necessary suggested that we provide habitat
adequate secure habitat regardless of the to include in the PCA. protections for identified linkage zones
number of people using motorized Issue 3—Commenters requested that between the GYA and other occupied
trails. Limitation of non-motorized we consider potential changes in and unoccupied grizzly bear habitat to
recreation throughout the GYA is not management of Inventoried Roadless the north and west.
currently necessary, as evidenced by the Areas resulting from the 2005 Roadless Response—A process to identify,
increasing grizzly bear population since Areas Rule (70 FR 25654) under which maintain, and improve wildlife
the 1980’s (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). The management decisions will be made movement areas between the large
adaptive management approach in the based on State Governor’s petitions and blocks of public land in the Northern
Strategy will allow managers to respond individual Forest Plans. Some thought Rocky Mountains is ongoing (Servheen
to detrimental levels of non-motorized we should undertake a more detailed et al. 2003, p. 3). This interagency effort
recreation on a case-by-case basis and analysis of ‘‘* * * roadless areas that involves 13 State and Federal agencies
also provide managers with the data are specifically threatened [and] identify working on linkage facilitation across
necessary to determine if ecosystem- which formerly-protected areas are private lands, public lands, and
wide limitations may be necessary in especially important to present and highways (Interagency Grizzly Bear
the future. future grizzly bear conservation.’’ Committee 2001, pp. 1–2). To date, this
Issue 2—Numerous comments stated Response—The State Petitions for effort has included: (1) Development of
that grizzly bears must be allowed Inventoried Roadless Area Management a written protocol and guidance
access to habitat in the Southern Wind Rule (70 FR 25654, May 13, 2005) that document on how to implement linkage
Rivers, Palisades, and Wyoming Range replaced the Roadless Area zone management on public lands
so that they can find food in light of Conservation Rule (‘‘Roadless Rule’’) (66 (Public Land Linkage Taskforce 2004,
declining food sources. These areas are FR 3244, January 12, 2001) was pp. 3–5); (2) production of several
currently deemed as socially overturned September 19, 2006 (People private land linkage management
unacceptable habitat by the Idaho and of the State of California ex rel. Bill documents, including ‘‘Making
Wyoming State management plans. Lockyer, et al. v. U.S. Department of Connections from the Perspective of
Many commenters thought that the Agriculture; Mike Johanns, Secretary of Local People’’ (Parker and Parker 2002,
States should throw out their concept of the Department of Agriculture, et al., p. 2), and the Swan Conservation
‘‘socially acceptable’’ areas and should, C05–03508 EDL). The State Petitions for Agreement (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
instead, encourage colonization of all Inventoried Roadless Area Management Service 1997), which is a collaborative
biologically suitable habitat while Rule was set aside and the 2001 linkage zone management document; (3)
improving efforts to manage conflicts in Roadless Rule was reinstated. The analyses of linkage zone management in
those areas. USDA Forest Service was enjoined from relation to highways, including
Response—The Idaho Plan does not taking any further action contrary to the identification of multiple linkage areas
limit or restrict bears in the Palisades. 2001 Roadless Rule without undertaking in southeast Idaho from Idaho Falls to
The Idaho Plan acknowledges this area environmental analysis consistent with Lost Trail Pass (Geodata Services Inc.
as one of many outside the PCA where the court opinion. Because this court 2005, p. 2) and the effects of highways
grizzly bear occupancy is anticipated in decision voided the State Petitions for on wildlife (Waller and Servheen 2005,
the next 5 to 10 years (Idaho’s Inventoried Roadless Area Management p. 998); and (4) a workshop in the spring
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Rule, the 2005 Roadless Areas Rule has of 2006 on implementing management
Advisory Team 2002, pp. 8–9). The no impacts. Even if the State Petitions actions for wildlife linkage, the
Wyoming Plan calls for management for Inventoried Roadless Area proceedings of which are available
online at: www.cfc.umt.edu/linkage. The recreationists, and grizzly bear/human livestock and predators, and a lowered
objective of this work is to maintain and conflicts. Some commenters suggested level of land development sales than
enhance movement opportunities for all that overall habitat quality in the GYA previously projected. While there may
wildlife species across the northern had already declined, and would be conservation benefits in this overall
Rockies. This linkage work is not continue to do so, primarily due to land ownership change, there are
directly associated with the Yellowstone houses and off-highway-vehicle (OHV) uncertainties as to the eventual land
grizzly population and will continue to use. Commenters believe that we must uses on these properties.
address ways to improve cooperation ensure future human population growth The Service has no authority to limit
and affect management on public lands, does not affect the grizzly bear or manage future human population
private lands, and highways in linkage population and recommended that we growth. Current levels of human use of
areas across the northern Rockies quantify current levels of use in the public lands are quantified (USDA
regardless of the listed status of the GYA for consideration in a risk Forest Service 2006a, pp. 180–185) and
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. assessment. They also recommended we managed to limit resource impacts in
Issue 5—Numerous commenters develop a comprehensive monitoring, the management plans of the National
believed that resource extraction management, and enforcement plan for Forests and the National Parks in the
industries would dominate the OHV and snowmobile use in the GYA Yellowstone ecosystem. A modeling
landscape if delisting occurred. Some before considering delisting. exercise to further predict the impacts of
stated that the overall trend for habitat Response—Human populations in the future population growth on the
quality has been declining, at least in GYA, and the rest of the United States, Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS would be
part, due to high-density oil and gas are expected to increase (USDA Forest of minimal use due to multiple
development. Some commenters believe Service 2006a, p. 229). In the six uncertainties regarding assumptions
that we did not fully evaluate or Wyoming counties where grizzly bears about human behavior and how humans
acknowledge the potential impacts from are, or are expected to be, in the next will react to grizzly bears. As human
oil and gas development or increased few decades, the human population is populations and recreational activity
logging in the GYA on the grizzly bear projected to increase by roughly 15,000 have increased in the GYA National
population. One commenter noted that, residents between 2000 and 2020 (from Forests, additional regulations have
although there are large areas of land in 105,215 in 2000 to 120,771 by 2020) been implemented to limit bear/human
the GYA that are not open to surface (Wyoming Department of conflicts such as the food storage orders
occupancy, such stipulations are Administration and Information in all suitable habitat on National Forest
routinely waived upon request and do Economic Analysis Division 2005). In lands and comprehensive State and
not adequately address concerns of ‘‘full the Montana counties of Gallatin, Federal I & E programs that explain how
field development’’ that may occur in Madison, Beaverhead, Park, Sweet to coexist with bears. These efforts will
grizzly bear habitat. Grass, Stillwater, and Carbon, total continue upon delisting so that the
Response—Service-defined suitable populations are expected to increase by potential negative impacts of increasing
habitat inside or outside the PCA (see roughly 35,000 people during this same human populations on the Yellowstone
Figure 1 above) does not contain active time (from 120,934 in 2000 to 154,800 grizzly bear DPS are adequately
oil or gas wells. Timber is the primary by 2020) (NPA Data Services 2002). We mitigated.
resource extracted in grizzly bear anticipate similar levels of population Under the Strategy, designated
habitat. Habitat quality (as a function of growth in the Idaho counties of the GYA motorized access routes will not be
road density and timber harvest) has given that the West, as a region, is increased inside the PCA, and OHV use
improved as a result of declining timber projected to increase at rates faster than is restricted to designated motorized
harvest and road construction and any other region (U.S. Census Bureau access routes. The USDA Forest Service
increasing road decommissioning since Population Division 2005). Increasing Final EIS on the Forest Plan
the mid-1990s (USDA Forest Service human populations do not necessarily Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat
2006a, pp. 156, 200). lead to declining predator populations, Conservation for The Greater
Inside the PCA, the potential for when adequate management programs Yellowstone Area National Forests
increased oil and gas development in are in place with policies that promote (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 192)
the future is guided by the Strategy and the conservation of the species (Linnell states that, ‘‘It is likely that revised
its limitations on road density and et al. 2001, p. 348) such as mortality plans will revise, and possibly limit
development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife control, research and monitoring, and motorized access to address wildlife
Service 2007, p. 41). We do not outreach and education about living security needs, better manage
anticipate a dramatic increase in oil and with wildlife. conflicting recreation uses, and protect
gas development outside of the PCA due Recent reports (Gosnell et al. 2006, areas from resource damages.’’
to moderate to low potentials for both pp. 749–750) demonstrate that the Quantification and management of OHV
occurrence and development majority of land sales over 162 ha (400 use and snowmachine use on public
throughout most of the six GYA ac) in size in the greater Yellowstone lands are presented in the management
National Forests, with the exception of ecosystem from 1990 to 2001 were to plans of the National Forests and the
the Bridger-Teton National Forest amenity buyers (39 percent) (those who National Parks in the GYA. Any
(USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 210– purchase for ambiance or recreation and detrimental impacts on grizzly bear
213). Even with the high potential for who have little interest in the economic habitat use and/or mortality will be
occurrence and development in the viability of the property), or to monitored as part of the comprehensive
Bridger-Teton, only 14 active oil and gas traditional ranchers (26 percent). Less monitoring systems in the Strategy.
wells are currently inside that National than 6 percent of 605,814 ha (1.497 Issue 7—Many commenters were
Forest and none are within Service- million ac) sold from 1990 to 2001 were concerned that declines in all four of the
defined suitable grizzly habitat. to land developers, and 12 percent were major foods that Yellowstone grizzlies
Issue 6—Many commenters were to investors whose ultimate intention rely upon will decrease the carrying
concerned about the rapid human was unknown. This report suggests that capacity of the GYA, with resulting
population growth in the GYA and the ongoing changes in land ownership may negative effects on long-term grizzly
resulting increases in houses, result in reduced conflicts between bear population viability. The
commenters stated that the proposed conflicts, where conflicts occur during consider alternative hypotheses and
rule was too optimistic regarding grizzly denning or after bear emergence in the processes that may have lead to positive
bear response to decreases in major spring. Much of the grizzly bear denning growth rates for the grizzly population
foods and noted that the alternative habitat identified in the Forest Plan from 1983–2001 (e.g., good whitebark
foods for grizzly bears in the GYA are Amendment Final EIS as being open to pine years in the early 1990s), and that
not of the same quality and quantity snowmobiling is not actually used by it is overly simplistic to assume that
found as the four major foods grizzlies snowmachines (USDA Forest Service levels of secure habitat, developed sites,
currently use. 2006a, p. 92). Bears tend to den in and livestock allotments are adequate to
Response—The amounts of major remote areas with characteristics that explain the observed population growth.
foods for grizzly bears will likely are not conducive to snowmachining Response—Numerous studies have
fluctuate due to possible changes in (i.e., steep, forested habitats). Eighty- confirmed that secure habitat,
average temperature, precipitation, eight percent of the known dens in the developed sites, and livestock
forest fires, introduced species, and Yellowstone ecosystem are located in allotments affect grizzly bear survival on
resident insects. Changes in areas where snowmachine use does not a landscape scale (Mattson et al. 1987,
environmental conditions and resulting occur (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. p. 271; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402–1403;
changes in foods for grizzly bears have 92). Servheen et al. 2004, p. 20). We used
been recognized by management Suitable denning habitat is well these variables as surrogates for habitat
agencies throughout the recovery distributed on the forests. Five of the six effectiveness because the annual
process. That such changes will occur is GYA National Forests consulted with us variability in the abundance and
neither exceptional nor unexpected. The in 2001 regarding the effect of distribution of major foods precludes
key issue is determining how snowmachines on denning grizzly bears. the Service from establishing baseline
management agencies will quantify and Our best information suggests that values for them.
respond to such changes. Presently, a current levels of snowmachine use are We believe that high whitebark pine
system has been implemented to not appreciably reducing the survival or cone production in the early 1990s does
monitor changes in the production and recovery of grizzly bears. While the not adequately explain the observed
distribution of foods in relation to potential for disturbance exists, USDA population growth during this time
grizzly bear vital rates (U.S. Fish and Forest Service and Study Team (Haroldson et al. 2006b, p. 41). The
Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 25–60). The monitoring over the last three years has Annual Study Team reports document
Study Team will report the monitoring not documented any disturbance that the early 1990s were not
results on food production, extent and (Gallatin National Forest 2006, p. D–68). particularly good whitebark pine
impact of insect and disease on food Monitoring will continue to support production years as evidenced by
production, bear mortality, reproductive adaptive management decisions to limit average counts of less than 20 cones per
success, and age-specific survival snowmachine use in areas where tree from 1990 through 1995. In fact, the
annually to the Coordinating disturbance is documented or likely to only 2 years during the 1990s with cone
Committee. The relationships between occur. counts above 20 cones per tree were
these factors will detect any impacts of 1996 and 1999 (Haroldson and
I. 1998 Baseline for Secure Habitat, Podruzny 2006, p. 45). We also note that
changes in foods on bear viability in the
Developed Sites, and Livestock the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
ecosystem and will be the basis for an
Allotments was declining in the 1960s and 1970s,
adaptive management response by the
Coordinating Committee. Issue 1—Many comments questioned regardless of whitebark pine production.
Issue 8—Some private landowners in the logic and supporting evidence for Declines continued until management
the GYA were concerned about the using 1998 as the baseline year. Some intervention occurred with the
direction given in the Strategy that commenters said that the 1998 baseline implementation of the Guidelines
encourages citizens to become involved was chosen arbitrarily and that the (USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 6–21)
in private land issues and questioned Service did not analyze the implications by the affected National Parks and
what authority we have to make such a of selecting any other particular year Forests. These Guidelines (USDA Forest
recommendation. within the time of 4 to 7 percent Service 1986, pp. 6–21) focused on
Response—We have no direct population increase (1983–2001). improving habitat quality and limiting
authority over private lands nor can we Response—The year 1998 was chosen human-caused mortality resulting from
require private citizen actions. Instead, because secure habitat and site grizzly bear/human conflicts. Because of
the Strategy put forward voluntary developments had been roughly the the subsequent success of the
recommendations. The consideration of same during the previous ten years Yellowstone grizzly bear population in
private land activities on grizzly/human (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 27) and the decades following implementation
conflicts is fundamental to the proper the population was increasing during of the Guidelines, it is reasonable to
management of grizzly bears and to these years (Eberhardt and Knight 1996, infer that the Guidelines played a
human safety because a p. 419; Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). The significant role and that the
disproportionate number of grizzly bear/ selection of any other year between continuation of such management
human conflicts occur at site 1988 and 1998 would have resulted in actions will ensure the Yellowstone
developments on private lands approximately the same baseline values grizzly bear DPS remains recovered.
(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 15). for roads and developed sites. We did Issue 3—Some commenters suggested
Issue 9—Some commenters were not select baseline habitat values from that subunits on the Gallatin National
concerned about the amount of denning years before 1988 because habitat Forest need to improve levels of secure
habitat both inside and outside of the improvements that occurred after the habitat before delisting occurs even if
PCA that will be open to snowmachine implementation of the Interagency this means closing additional USDA
use. Grizzly Bear Committee Guidelines Forest Service roads to compensate for
Response—The Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 6–21) adjacent, highly roaded, private lands.
Amendment includes guidance that would not have been reflected. Response—The Yellowstone grizzly
inside the PCA, localized area Issue 2—Several commenters said that bear DPS increased 4 to 7 percent per
restrictions are to be used to mitigate the 1998 baseline did not adequately year between 1983 and 2002 (Harris et
al. 2006, p. 48) with the current level of With their signatures on the Strategy, biological evaluation or assessment.
road density on the Gallatin National the agencies have committed to This evaluation/assessment would
Forest. There is no biological reason to implement the habitat standards by determine the mitigation necessary for
conclude that additional road density adhering to the 1998 baseline (U.S. Fish any proposed increases in number or
reductions on the Gallatin National and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 13, 63– capacity of developed sites. The final
Forest are necessary before delisting can 67), amending the forest plans on the six EIS states that any project that changes
move forward. GYA National Forests, and the number or capacity of developed
Issue 4—Several commenters believe implementing changes to the sites must follow specific application
that the 1998 baseline is unrealistic Superintendent’s Compendiums rules requiring that any new sites be
because habitat changes are already regulating habitat management within mitigated by removing an existing site
occurring due to oil and gas extraction, Yellowstone and Grand Teton National within that subunit to offset any
human population growth, pine beetles, Parks. One phase of the Togwotee Pass increases in human capacity, habitat
and other threats to food sources. One road expansion that would have loss, or human access to surrounding
commenter said that the 1998 baseline violated the secure habitat terms of the habitats (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p.
contained inaccuracies in its road data Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 36). The application rules allow for an
thus making its use as a baseline value 2007, pp. 39–44) has been reevaluated expansion of developed campgrounds if
ineffective. and abandoned because it violated the an equivalent capacity of dispersed
Response—Habitat conditions relating agreed-upon habitat standards (U.S. campsites is eliminated. Administrative
to the habitat standards described in the Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 38– site expansions are exempt from human
Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 56). The paved pathways in Grand capacity mitigation expansion only if
2007, pp. 38–56) have either remained Teton National Park’s plan are for they are necessary for enhancement of
stable or improved since 1998 for road exclusive use by bicyclists and management of public lands and other
densities, levels of secure habitat, site pedestrians and, therefore, do not viable alternatives are not available.
developments, and livestock allotments. violate the established limits on The requirement to maintain secure
The 1998 baseline was not developed to motorized access routes. The addition of habitat for 10 years is considered a
address specific projects such as oil and trailer homes at Lake and Canyon in minimum, and cannot be eliminated
gas development or timber harvest. Yellowstone National Park does not after the 10 years unless mitigated by an
Using the adaptive management violate the developed site standard equal quantity and quality of secure
approach described in the Strategy (U.S. because administrative site expansions habitat that then must be retained for at
Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 5– for improvement of management on least 10 years. There will be no net loss
11), management agencies will respond public lands, for temporary construction of secure habitat in any subunit.
with adequate restrictions and camps, or for temporary housing for Temporary changes in secure habitat
enforcement if recreation on public major maintenance projects are exempt. may reduce secure habitat for a period
lands due to increased human Issue 6—Many commenters objected no longer than 3 years and can be no
populations in the GYA becomes to the exceptions that we allow to the larger than 1 percent of the largest
detrimental to the Yellowstone grizzly 1998 baseline regarding the 1 percent subunit size within that Bear
bear population. The 1998 baseline does rule for temporary changes and the Management Unit. All secure habitat
not contain threshold values for any of application rules for permanent changes would be restored upon completion of
the major foods due to the natural in secure habitat and developed sites. a temporary project. There are no
variability in their abundance and They believe that these allowances are biological data that demonstrate that the
distribution that occurs annually. The unacceptable and not based on biology. temporary 1 percent level of secure
1998 baseline attempted to establish Some commenters asked why habitat disturbance in any subunit has
realistic habitat standards that ensure replacement habitat used to mitigate had any detrimental impact on the
adequate habitat security and minimum permanent changes in secure habitat grizzly bear population.
livestock conflicts within the PCA. We would only be maintained for 10 years
consider the establishment of habitat J. Whitebark Pine
and suggested that this would lead to a
thresholds for human population net loss of secure habitat over time. Issue 1—Numerous commenters
growth, food sources, and specific Other commenters noted that exceptions noted the importance of whitebark pine
projects to be unrealistic and that the allowed in the USDA Forest Service’s to grizzly bear survival and reproductive
1998 baseline will address these issues Draft EIS (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. success. They believe that we were
adequately through access management 141) could result in an increase in overly optimistic about the severity of
and limitations on site development. developed sites above 1998 levels. Some the decline of whitebark pine in the
Regarding the accuracy of road data, the groups believe that the 1 percent rule GYA and the potential impacts to the
1998 baseline for roads is calculated was too restrictive and questioned why Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. These
using the best available road layers the Service would implement more commenters suggested that we complete
compiled by each GYA National Forest. strict standards than those in use while a more thorough analysis of impacts of
Issue 5—Some commenters suspected the grizzly population was increasing potential decreases in whitebark pine
that the 1998 baseline would not be (i.e., the Guidelines). cone production. Several commenters
enforced and noted that we have already Response—Regarding developed sites, were concerned that the monitoring
allowed three projects that violate the the habitat standard in the Strategy systems described by the Strategy will
terms of the Strategy—(1) the Togwotee states that there will be no net increase not detect changes in the grizzly bear
Pass road expansion, (2) Grand Teton in the capacity or number of developed population related to decreases in
National Park’s plan to build miles of sites from the 1998 baseline (U.S. Fish whitebark pine cone production soon
paved pathways, and (3) Yellowstone and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 42). Any enough, and that there is no clear
National Park’s installation of large proposed expansion of an existing management response if this occurs.
trailer-home developments at Lake and developed site or any new developed Response—We have added additional
Canyon for employees and contractors. sites will be analyzed, with the potential information to the final rule concerning
Response—The 1998 baseline values detrimental and positive impacts on potential threats to whitebark pine and
are being maintained and enforced. grizzly bears documented, through a possible impacts to grizzly bears. The
extent to which whitebark pine nut attack via verbenone (a hormone that prescribed burning to encourage natural
production will be affected across the decreases mountain pine beetle whitebark pine seedling establishment,
landscape is unknown and difficult to success). and surveys for healthy trees that may
calculate with any degree of certainty. Response—We believe that the possess blister rust resistant genes.
Instead, managers will use an adaptive current whitebark monitoring system Verbenone is an anti-aggregation
management approach that addresses provides a representative, ecosystem- pheromone of the mountain pine beetle
poor food years with responsive wide index of cone production, (Kegley and Gibson 2004, p. 1). It has
management actions. numbers of dead trees and the sources usefulness in protecting individual trees
The Strategy commits the agencies to of death, and changes in pine nut or small areas 0.4 ha (1 ac) from pine
intensive monitoring of all grizzly bear production over time. This beetle attack (Kegley et al. 2003, pp. 4–
vital rates, and the relationship of these comprehensive monitoring system is 5, Kegley and Gibson 2004, p. 1), but its
rates to changes in major foods and made possible by the synergistic work of use is limited to individual high-value
levels and types of human activities. the Study Team, the Greater trees or very small areas. Its use is
Vital rates that are more sensitive to Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring impractical over thousands of square
habitat changes such as litter size and Working Group, and the Whitebark Pine kilometers throughout an ecosystem.
cub survival also will be monitored. Due Subcommittee. Under the Strategy, the Study Team
to the reproductive biology of grizzly Currently, the Study Team monitors will continue to work with the Greater
bears in which fertilized eggs are not 19 whitebark pine cone production Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring
implanted into the uterus if the transects within the PCA, 9 of which Working Group and the Whitebark Pine
nutritional status of the female is have been monitored on an annual basis Subcommittee to monitor whitebark
inadequate, poor whitebark pine since 1980 (Knight et al. 1997, p. 14). pine cone production, the prevalence of
production resulting from a landscape The purpose of monitoring these white pine blister rust, whitebark pine
scale decrease in overall carrying transects is to assess whitebark pine mortality, and to actively restore
capacity would be detected by a production, because Blanchard (1990, p. whitebark pine in the GYA.
decreased number of females with cubs- 362) demonstrated that grizzly bears in Issue 3—One commenter stated that
of-the-year. the GYA use whitebark pine seeds the Service failed to consider the threat
In the short-term, management almost exclusively when pine cone of dwarf mistletoe to whitebark pine.
responses to poor whitebark pine cone production averages more than 20 cones Response—While dwarf mistletoe can
production years will include per tree. As such, counting dead trees infect and kill whitebark pine trees, it
immediate limitation on all which have no cone production has only ever been detected on one
discretionary mortalities; enhanced produces an unreliable estimate of cone whitebark pine tree in the GYA of the
outreach and education to minimize production of live trees. thousands surveyed each year (Greater
bear/human conflicts and the We agree that it is important to Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring
availability of attractants in bear habitat monitor mortality of whitebark pine Working Group 2005, p. 111). There is
that might promote such conflicts; trees due to blister rust infection and no evidence to suggest that dwarf
notice to residents and users of bear mountain pine beetle infestation. One of mistletoe represents a serious threat to
habitat about the possible increased the three stated objectives of the Greater whitebark pine as a food source for
foraging of bears in peripheral habitats; Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring grizzly bears, but the Greater
detailed monitoring of food habit shifts Working Group is to ‘‘* * * estimate Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring
and possible changes in home range size survival of individual whitebark pine Working Group will continue to monitor
and locations, particularly for adult trees greater than 1.4 m high’’ (Greater for its presence on the transects it has
females; limitation of human activities Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring distributed throughout the GYA.
in new or expanded feeding areas Working Group 2005, p. 96). To assess
should there be changes in range or whitebark pine mortality, the Greater K. Cutthroat Trout
feeding area; and requests for a status Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring Issue 1—Some commenters suggest
review and/or immediate emergency Working Group has established more delisting be delayed until the
relisting. The long-term response to than 70 transects outside the PCA and Yellowstone cutthroat trout status
decreases in whitebark pine will be works closely with statisticians to review is complete and the findings can
continued efforts to replant whitebark ensure a representative sample and a be considered in our decision.
pine, habitat management that high power of inference (Greater Response—The Yellowstone cutthroat
encourages whitebark pine recruitment Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring trout was found to be not warranted for
and growth, and enhancing secure Working Group 2006, p. 76) for more listing under the Act on February 21,
habitat availability in specific areas accurate results. 2006 (71 FR 8818).
outside the PCA where healthy The Whitebark Pine Subcommittee, Issue 2—Some commenters noted that
whitebark pine may be available. formed in 1998, is an interagency group we did not assess the threat to cutthroat
Issue 2—Some commenters critiqued comprised of members from the USDA trout from direct competition for food
the current monitoring protocol for Forest Service, the National Park between non-native, invasive New
whitebark pine. Specifically, one Service, the Study Team, and the Zealand mud snails and cutthroat trout
commenter suggested that the Service Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation fry.
update the monitoring protocol for (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 148). Response—The New Zealand mud
whitebark pine to count dead trees as The Whitebark Pine Subcommittee snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) is a
cone production equal to zero, so that coordinates the implementation of recently arrived invasive species that
whitebark pine mortality due to pine restoration techniques, management was first observed in the GYA in 1994
beetle and blister rust is reflected in responses, and gathering whitebark pine (Hall et al. 2006, p. 1122). They are most
total cone production estimates. Other status information. Current work on abundant in the mid-elevation
commenters recommended that any whitebark pine includes planting in geothermal streams in Yellowstone
delisting proposal be intimately tied several areas, cone collection from National Park. New Zealand mud snails
with whitebark pine restoration and healthy trees, silvicultural treatments to can occur in such great abundance that
protection from mountain pine beetle improve growth and establishment, they out-compete and displace native
aquatic invertebrates that are the alternative foods to cutthroat trout, this N. Hunting
preferred foods of cutthroat trout. trend will be detected and addressed.
Issue 1—Many commenters were
However, the Service’s 12-month
L. Army Cutworm Moths concerned that the Yellowstone
finding on a petition to list Yellowstone
population cannot sustain additional
cutthroat trout stated that ‘‘While it is Issue 1—Most comments we received human-caused mortality and that this
likely this organism (New Zealand mud about army cutworm moths addressed will lead to a decline in the population
snail) is increasingly becoming more the proposed rule’s lack of a discussion and eventually to their extinction.
widespread and will continue to spread, about the impacts of global climate
to date there is no evidence that Response—Because the revised
change and pesticide use on the moths.
implicates the New Zealand mud snail sustainable mortality limits for
Some commenters believe that we
in the collapse of any conservation independent males and females include
should analyze the impacts of human
populations of Yellowstone cutthroat mortalities from all sources (Interagency
recreation on grizzly bear use of army
trout’’ (71 FR 8829, February 21, 2006). Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 6–
cutworm moth sites and that identified
Because cutthroat trout are not as 7), including hunting, and are applied
sites should be protected from heavy
important to reproductive female grizzly ecosystem-wide within the
recreation and development.
bears as previously thought (Felicetti et Conservation Strategy Management Area
Response—The final rule contains a (Figure 1), hunting should never
al. 2004, p. 496, Reinhart and Mattson discussion of the potential effects of
1990, p. 349; Mattson and Reinhart threaten the Yellowstone grizzly bear
global climate change and pesticides on population. Hunting is a discretionary
1995, pp. 2076–2079), we do not foresee army cutworm moths. The Study Team
New Zealand mud snails as a threat to mortality source and will occur only if
is sponsoring research on the geospatial the mortality limits from all causes have
the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in all prediction of army cutworm moth sites
or a significant portion of its range in not been exceeded (U.S. Fish and
that will help managers identify sites Wildlife Service 2007, p. 31).
the foreseeable future. that are potentially exposed to human
Issue 3—A few commenters noted Issue 2—Some commenters requested
recreational use. It is highly unlikely that we discuss the potentially negative
that the Yellowstone National Park lake that any of the high-elevation sites used
trout removal program has not impacts on grizzly bear population
by the moths, all of which are on public dynamics that can be caused by
succeeded in reversing the decline in lands, will be exposed to development.
the number of cutthroat trout spawning hunting, particularly when large males
in the tributaries to Yellowstone Lake. M. Availability of Ungulates are targeted.
Response—Over 100,000 lake trout Response—When large males are
Issue 1—Some commenters noted that removed from the population, new male
were removed from Yellowstone Lake we failed to consider the multiple
between 1994 and 2004. The average bears may move into an area and kill
factors that may affect the availability of resident females’ cubs (Swenson et al.
length of captured lake trout and the ungulate carcasses to grizzly bears in the
catch per unit effort have declined 1997b, p. 450). This process of sexually-
future. These include brucellosis control selected infanticide has been
during this time, suggesting that lake and management plan impacts on the
trout control efforts are impacting the documented in Scandinavia (Swenson
availability of elk and bison, the et al. 1997b, p. 450). However, the only
population. Fewer and smaller lake potential for chronic wasting disease to
trout will have a reduced impact on study of sexually-selected infanticide
afflict elk populations, competition with conducted in North America concluded
cutthroat trout. The lake trout removal wolves at carcasses, displacement of
program will continue. Overall, we do that a limited hunting season under a
female grizzlies with cubs, loss of sustainable mortality regime does not
not foresee a decline in Yellowstone winter habitat and migration routes due
cutthroat trout as a threat to the decrease cub survival (McLellan 2005,
to human housing trends, and fewer p. 146). This issue is still being debated
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in all or carcasses available to grizzlies in the
a significant portion of its range in the in the scientific community. For more
spring due to milder winters. discussion about this issue, please see
foreseeable future (see Factor E below).
Issue 4—One commenter stated that Response—The final rule contains a Issue 2 under subheading A in the
the decline in availability of spawning discussion of all of these issues. Summary of Peer Review Comments
cutthroat trout may be forcing more Issue 2 —One commenter noted that section below. Because hunting in the
grizzlies out of Yellowstone National we failed to consider the large declines Yellowstone ecosystem will be limited,
Park where they are at greater risk of of the northern Yellowstone elk it is unlikely to have an impact on the
human-caused mortality. population and how or if this may affect population dynamics of the Yellowstone
Response—Only a small proportion of the grizzly bear population. ecosystem population.
the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS eat Response—The northern elk herd Issue 3—Many commenters are
cutthroat trout and the nutritional declined from about 17,000 elk in 1995 opposed to sport hunting of any kind
contribution of cutthroat trout to the to about 8,000 elk in 2005. The decline and believe such practices to be
overall diet of those few bears is has been attributed to a variety of factors barbaric, unnecessary, and unethical.
minimal (Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 496). including severe winters, drought, Response—While we respect the
Movement data from radio-collared hunter harvest, and increased predation values and opinions of all commenters,
grizzly bears who consume trout do not on elk calves by grizzly bears, black we are required by law to make
indicate these bears move outside bears, and wolves (Vucetich et al. 2005, decisions based on the best available
Yellowstone National Park any more pp. 266–268; Barber et al. 2005, pp. 42– science. As such, the various values that
than bears eating foods other than trout. 43). The grizzly bear population has people hold about sport hunting are
The Strategy and the Study Team have continued to increase at 4 to 7 percent outside the scope of our decision-
established biologically sustainable per year during this time period, making authority. The Study Team has
mortality limits for the entire GYA and meaning there is no detectable cause established sustainable mortality limits
if bears experience unsustainable and effect relationship between the elk for the Yellowstone grizzly bear
mortality levels as a result of leaving population decline and the health of the population that ensure that hunting will
Yellowstone National Park in search of grizzly population. not threaten the overall status of the
population (Interagency Grizzly Bear P. Human-caused Mortality, Poaching, do not currently require hunters to carry
Study Team 2005, pp. 5–9). Grizzly Bear/Human Conflicts, and pepper spray, it is strongly encouraged
Issue 4—One commenter noted that Information and Education Programs in hunter education courses and other
hunting mortality would not be Issue 1—Several commenters were educational materials. Elk hunters in
compensatory, because it would take concerned that poaching would increase Grand Teton National Park are required
place mostly in Wilderness Areas rather without the deterrent of prosecution to carry bear spray, and this may prove
than developed areas, where most under the Act. Many more questioned to be a research opportunity to quantify
how much enforcement would occur how much, if any, this requirement
human-caused mortalities occur.
after delisting and whether the States reduces grizzly bear conflicts with elk
Response—Hunting will always be a hunters.
source of compensatory mortality for the had the infrastructure or the desire to
Montana does not allow black bear
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS because pursue poaching investigations. Some
baiting in any areas and black bear
all hunting mortalities will fall within commenters noted that the number of baiting inside the PCA is not allowed in
the sustainable mortality limits State enforcement officers is lower than Idaho or Wyoming (Servheen et al.
established by the Study Team and the Federal enforcement officers, and that 2004, p. 11). In areas outside the PCA
Strategy. Hunting permits will not be enforcement would be reduced under in Idaho and Wyoming, State wildlife
issued by the States if mortality limits State management. agencies will monitor grizzly bear
Response—The States are committed mortality associated with black bear
are exceeded.
to prosecuting illegal grizzly bear kills, hunting to respond to problems if they
Response—One commenter suggested as per the State plans (U.S. Fish and
that we research the effects of hunting occur. The Yellowstone grizzly bear
Wildlife Service 2007, p. 15), and they population has increased while black
on grizzly bear/human conflicts. have the legal authorities to do so under bear baiting has been allowed in Idaho
Response—We agree that it would be State law (U.S. Fish and Wildlife and Wyoming outside the PCA, so it
useful to compare grizzly bear/human Service 2007, pp. 72–76). There are no cannot be identified as a significant
conflicts before and after the data to suggest that the jurisdiction factor that will threaten the recovered
implementation of a hunting season to under which poaching is prosecuted status of the Yellowstone DPS.
demonstrate its effects on the frequency affects the willingness of poachers to Issue 3—One commenter noted that
of grizzly bear/human conflicts. The commit the crime. we must consider the impacts of
Study Team and State agencies collect State and Federal conservation increased poaching in habitat
data on grizzly bear/human conflicts, officers are usually cross-commissioned, surrounding areas of high-density oil
and will continue to do so after so that Federal conservation officers cite and gas production.
delisting. These data are reported and State law violators when they encounter Response—Poaching violations may
displayed spatially in the Study Team’s them, and vice versa. National Park increase in the vicinity of resource
Annual Report. If the effects of any Service rangers would have little extraction boom towns, and the
change in the frequency, location, or occasion to encounter State magnitude of increase relative to
nature of grizzly bear/human conflicts conservation law violators, but State population growth is greater at
are detectable, the data will indicate conservation officers, our special industrial sites than at agricultural or
these changes. wildlife agents, Tribal conservation recreational sites (Berger and Daneke
officers, and USDA Forest Service 1988, pp. 285–287). State agencies are
O. Disease enforcement officers will continue to aware of this potential and will manage
cooperate in the investigation of accordingly through increased
Issue 1—Most comments we received poaching incidents. Information and Education efforts and
that mentioned disease did so in the Issue 2—We received numerous enforcement near boom towns.
context of increased susceptibility to comments suggesting how and why we Issue 4—To prevent grizzly bear/
diseases as a result of genetic isolation should focus on reducing grizzly bear/ human conflicts before they occur,
and are discussed below in the genetic hunter conflicts. Many thought we many commenters recommended that
concerns section. Some commenters should expand efforts to reduce grizzly proper sanitation and garbage storage be
referenced the 2005 outbreak of bear/hunter conflicts with black bear implemented in all occupied habitat
parvovirus in the Yellowstone wolf and elk hunters either through I & E or and, preferably, in all suitable habitat.
population and suggested that, because stricter regulations. Some commenters These preventative measures should be
this outbreak was not anticipated, we recommended that all hunters be in place before delisting occurs and are
should have a plan to manage a required to carry bear spray and hang especially important in light of
potential epidemic disease in bears. their meat immediately when hunting in projected increases in human
Response—Approximately 10 percent grizzly bear territory. Several population and private land
of the Yellowstone grizzly population is commenters believed that the practice of development over the next several
currently tracked using radio collars. black bear baiting, (currently permitted decades.
The Study Team examines all bears in Idaho and Wyoming) should be Response—The USDA Forest Service
captured for research or management illegal in all suitable grizzly bear habitat currently has food storage orders in
purposes, and performs post mortem or outlawed entirely. most Service-defined suitable habitat,
examinations on the carcasses of dead Response—The Strategy prioritizes and food storage orders will be
bears. If a disease outbreak were to outreach and education to minimize implemented in all suitable habitat
occur, it would be identified promptly. grizzly bear/human conflicts (U.S. Fish found within National Forests by 2008.
Due to the lack of evidence that diseases and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 57–62). For a complete map of when and where
and parasites play any significant role in The State plans also contain direction food storage orders will take effect on
grizzly bear population dynamics in the on ways to minimize grizzly bear/hunter National Forest lands in the GYA,
GYA (see Factor C below), we do not conflicts (Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly please see http://mountain-
view developing a management plan to Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/
respond to a potential outbreak as 15; MTFWP 2002, pp. 24, 62; WGFD grizzly/yellowstone.htm. Extensive
necessary. 2005, pp. 31–35). Although the States collaborative efforts involving State
wildlife agencies, NGOs, waste considered adequate regulatory signing the Strategy (U.S. Fish and
management companies, and private mechanisms because they are not legally Wildlife Service 2007, p. 13).
landowners to improve garbage storage enforceable. Numerous commenters also Issue 3—Some commenters noted that
and to avoid future grizzly bear/human noted that the habitat standards because of the 2005 Roadless Rule (70
conflicts on private lands will continue described in the Strategy will be FR 25653, May 13, 2005), Inventoried
(Servheen et al. 2004, pp. 6–7). Over unenforceable due to the 2005 USDA Roadless Areas cannot be considered
two-thirds of the suggested budgets Forest Service Planning Regulations, secure habitat protected by adequate
created by the States and Federal which revoked the use of ‘‘standards’’ in regulatory mechanisms.
agencies responsible for managing the Forest Land Management Plans (70 FR Response—The State Petitions for
grizzly bear post-delisting are for 1023). Inventoried Roadless Area Management
managing grizzly bear/human conflicts Response—By signing the Strategy, Rule (70 FR 25654, May 13, 2005) that
and Information and Education efforts responsible agencies demonstrate that replaced the Roadless Area
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. they are committed to implementing the Conservation Rule (‘‘Roadless Rule’’) (66
154). This level of commitment by features within their discretion and FR 3244, January 12, 2001) was
responsible agencies demonstrates their authority. The Strategy provides overturned September 19, 2006.
understanding that I & E efforts and adequate assurance that the Management of roadless areas must
conflict management and prevention are participating agencies will implement comply with the provisions of the 2001
crucial elements of maintaining a the agreement, which is sufficient to Roadless Rule. Such areas are protected
healthy Yellowstone grizzly bear meet the reasonableness required for by adequate regulatory mechanisms. For
population. regulatory mechanisms. Furthermore, further discussion, see Factor D below
Issue 5—Some commenters believe the USDA Forest Service finalized the and our response to Issue 3 under
that aversive conditioning, not Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear subheading H above.
management removals, should be Issue 4—Some commenters noted that
Habitat Conservation for the GYA
emphasized when conflicts with the proposed rule failed to include
National Forests and has incorporated
livestock occur or when conflicts are the significant habitat on the Wind River
this Amendment into the affected
result of human attractants. Reservation. These commenters
National Forests’ Land Management
Response—The Federal and State recommended that the final rule
Plans (USDA Forest Service 2006a, recognize the Eastern Shoshone and
management agencies emphasize
2006b, p. 4). This amendment was Northern Arapaho Tribes as active
preventative measures and aversive
completed pursuant to the 1982 participants and discuss their plans to
conditioning whenever possible (Idaho’s
planning regulations and supported by create grizzly bear management plans
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting
full Environmental Impact Statement for the Wind River Reservation.
Advisory Team 2002, pp. 15–16;
analysis under the National Response—The Eastern Shoshone and
MTFWP 2002, pp. 46–49; U.S. Fish and
Environmental Policy Act and would the Northern Arapaho Tribes of the
Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 59–60; WGFD
not be invalidated by a revision of the Wind River Reservation manage wildlife
2005, pp. 28, 31). Management removal
Forest Plan pursuant to the 2005 within their Federally recognized
is only used as a last resort.
Issue 6—Some commenters thought planning regulations. Yellowstone and boundaries (see Figure 1 above). Both of
that grizzly bear conflicts with livestock Grand Teton National Parks appended these tribes have been invited to
grazing on public lands should always the habitat standards to their Park participate as representatives on the
be settled in favor of the grizzly bear. Superintendent’s Compendiums, Coordinating Committee under the
Response—Inside the PCA, numerous thereby assuring that these National Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
sheep allotments have been retired or Parks would manage habitat in 2007, p. 9). They are working with us
relocated to other, less-conflict-prone accordance with the habitat standards to develop a Grizzly Bear Management
areas to accommodate grizzly bears (Grand Teton National Park 2006, p. 1; Plan specific to their lands. Less than
(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 170). As Yellowstone National Park 2006, p. 44). three percent of all suitable habitat will
of 2006, there are only two remaining These issues, and the use and impact of be affected by Tribal management
active sheep allotments inside the PCA the various forest planning regulations decisions. We anticipate that their
(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 168). In (1982 and 2005), are discussed under management plan will encourage grizzly
areas inside the PCA, grizzly bears Factor D below. bear occupancy in areas of suitable
involved in any livestock conflict will Issue 2—One commenter noted that habitat on the Wind River Reservation.
be given a second chance and relocated the States of Wyoming, Montana, and We have recommended that the Tribal
at least once before removal is used Idaho do not currently have sufficient Grizzly Bear Management Plan
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. State laws to prevent excessive (currently being drafted) include grizzly
59). Management of grizzly bear mortality. Some commenters suggested bear occupancy of the Wind River
conflicts with livestock grazing on that the Interagency Grizzly Bear Mountains on the Reservation, as this
public lands outside of the PCA will be Committee petition Congress for legally will allow grizzly bears continued
guided by the respective State wildlife binding, habitat protection for the PCA access to high-elevation whitebark pine
agency’s grizzly bear management plan as a prerequisite for delisting, resulting and army cutworm moths in these
and will remain within the sustainable in a piece of legislation that provides mountains.
mortality limits established for the permanent, Federal, legal protection for Issue 5—Some commenters noted that
Conservation Strategy Management the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS case history (Federation of Fly Fishers v.
Area. As such, this source of mortality similar to that afforded to bald eagles Daley, 131 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1167–68
will not threaten the Yellowstone (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) by the Bald (N.D. Cal. 2000)) suggests that the
grizzly bear population. Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Strategy cannot be considered an
Response—State agencies have the adequate regulatory mechanism because

Q. Adequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms authority and the necessary State laws ‘‘no reliable source for its future
Issue 1—Several commenters noted to limit human-caused mortality (U.S. funding’’ exists.
that the Strategy, the State plans, and Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 72– Response—It is not possible to predict
the revised mortality methods cannot be 76) and have committed to do so by with certainty future governmental
appropriations, nor can we commit or management efforts, believing that it vulnerability to disease epidemics due
require Federal funds beyond those would be confusing and challenging to to a likely decrease in allelic diversity
appropriated (31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)), effectively implement monitoring and at the major histocompatibility complex
but by signing the Strategy, State and management efforts across multiple locus. They noted that because the
Federal management agencies have jurisdictions without the cohesive force Yellowstone DPS has been isolated for
committed to implement the protective of the Act. the last 100 years and has not been
features that are within their discretion Response—All monitoring, reporting challenged with any epidemic diseases,
and authority, and to seek adequate results, and management actions are disease-resistant genetic material may
funding for implementation. The centralized under the Coordinating have decreased, thereby ensuring that if
Strategy provides adequate assurance Committee and the Study Team, as an epidemic does occur, it will be
that the participating agencies will described in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and severe.
implement the agreement, which is Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 25–67), Response—We do not know that
sufficient to meet the reasonableness which all the State and Federal agencies allelic diversity has declined at the
required for regulatory mechanisms. We have signed and agreed to implement. major histocompatibility complex locus
are authorized to provide grants to The agencies responsible for managing in the GYA grizzly population. Because
States to assist in monitoring the status the Yellowstone grizzly bear population overall allelic diversity has declined
of recovered species under section 6(d) upon delisting helped develop the some over the 20th century (Miller and
of the Act. Strategy and have been effectively Waits 2003, p. 4337), it may have
Issue 6—Some commenters disagreed cooperating and communicating with declined at the major histocompatibility
with our assertion that the NEPA will each other about grizzly bear complex locus too. We do not know that
adequately protect habitat outside of the management decisions for the last 25 the GYA population has not been
PCA regarding road construction and years. challenged by epidemic diseases in the
resource extraction. They noted that past 100 years. We can say that
R. Genetic Concerns, Isolation, and
reliance on NEPA or ‘‘sensitive species’’ epidemic diseases are not known to
Connectivity With Other Grizzly Bear
designation to adequately protect have caused high mortality in any
Populations
suitable habitat outside of the PCA is grizzly or brown bear population,
not adequate because of the 2005 USDA Issue 1—Numerous commenters including the Kodiak Island, Alaska
Forest Service Planning regulations, expressed concern that, due to the population, in which heterozygosity,
which eliminated species’ viability isolation of the Yellowstone population, and presumably allelic diversity, is
requirements. we should maintain an effective much lower than in the GYA
Response—We believe that the population size of at least 500 population. The Study Team monitors
potential effects on grizzly bears of any individuals to ensure long-term the health of GYA grizzlies by
proposed projects on public land will be viability. Therefore, many commenters examining all bears captured each year
fully and adequately considered through believe that we should set a population (approximately 60–80 captures per year)
the requirements of NEPA. The USDA objective of 2,000 to 3,000 bears in the and all known mortalities. If disease or
Forest Service is designating the GYA or reestablish connectivity among an epidemic occurs, it will be detected
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS a ‘‘species all grizzly bear populations in the Lower promptly and responded to
of concern’’ upon delisting (USDA 48 States (so that the total population appropriately.
Forest Service 2006b, p. 26). This size is approximately 2,000) before Issue 3—Some commenters noted that
designation means that the GYA delisting occurs. relatively modest decreases in
National Forests must ‘‘* * * provide Response—Although the effective heterozygosity values (the proportion in
the appropriate ecological conditions population size (i.e., the number of an individual of loci that have more
(i.e., habitats) necessary to continue to breeding individuals in an idealized than one allele) correspond to much
provide for a recovered population’’ population that would show the same larger decreases in allelic diversity (due
(USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26). For amount of dispersion of allele to inbreeding) and that the proposed
further discussion of the USDA Forest frequencies under random genetic drift rule does not contain an adequate
Service Planning regulations, see Factor or the same amount of inbreeding as the discussion of this effect or its
D below. population under consideration) of the conservation implications. In other
Issue 7—Some commenters disputed Yellowstone grizzly bear population is words, they believe that a population
the adequacy of State management plans lower than recommended for could be experiencing declines in allelic
because none of the plans contain evolutionary success in the absence of diversity that would not be detected if
clearly defined standards or methods of management in published literature on the only measure of genetic diversity
enforcing compliance of their evolutionary theory (e.g., Franklin 1980, was heterozygosity, and that we should
population goals, and because States p.136), the genetic program for the evaluate the biological and conservation
cannot compel Federal land Yellowstone grizzly bear population implications of a reduction in allelic
management agencies to manage their will effectively address future genetic diversity, if this is occurring in the
lands in accordance with the State plans concerns (Hedrick 1995, p. 1004; Miller Yellowstone DPS.
or the Strategy. and Waits 2003, p. 4338). As Miller and Response—Although allelic diversity
Response—It is true that States cannot Waits (2003, p. 4338) recommend, we has declined in the GYA population
compel Federal agencies to manage their will continue efforts to reestablish over the 20th century, the decline was
lands in accordance with their State natural connectivity, but our partners not as precipitous as previously
plans. However, as participants in the will transplant one to two effective anticipated (Miller and Waits 2003, p.
Strategy, both State and Federal migrants per generation if no movement 4338). As measured by Miller and Waits
agencies have agreed to carry out all or genetic exchange is documented by (2003, p. 4337), allelic richness
provisions of the Strategy, including the 2020 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decreased from approximately 5.89
appended State plans. 2007, p. 37). alleles per locus at the beginning of the
Issue 8—Some commenters expressed Issue 2—Several commenters believe 20th century (1910s) to 5.50 at the end
concern about the decentralization of that the reduced heterozygosity of the of the century (1990s). Considering all
grizzly bear monitoring and Yellowstone population increases their of the information available that
examines heterozygosity and allelic Issue 5—A few commenters believed minimal confidence about future
diversity of grizzly bears in the GYA, that we failed to consider the viability. Instead, the Strategy will
Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338) relationship between isolation and ensure monitoring of multiple indices
conclude that ‘‘the viability of the elevated extinction risk. Extinction of and use an adaptive management
Yellowstone grizzly bear population is isolated populations can occur simply system that allows rapid feedback about
unlikely to be compromised by genetic as a function of their isolation and the success of management actions
factors in the near future * * *’’ and habitat size or due to increases in the designed to address the maintenance of
that ‘‘* * * one to two effective magnitude of population fluctuations a viable population.
migrants per generation from the NCDE resulting from environmental and Because it is generally accepted that
to the YE (Yellowstone ecosystem) is an demographic stochasticity. They believe isolated populations are at greater risk
appropriate level of gene flow.’’ We that we should fully consider these of extinction over the long-term, we will
considered these conclusions pertinent sources of stochasticity on the continue efforts to reestablish natural
to the genetic management of the DPS extinction risk of the Yellowstone connectivity between the GYA and
and incorporated them into the Strategy grizzly bear DPS. other grizzly bear ecosystems. Although
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, Response—This comment refers to natural connectivity is the best possible
p. 37). PVAs and questions whether the scenario, isolation does not constitute a
Issue 4—One commenter noted that persistence of the Yellowstone grizzly long-term threat to the Yellowstone
our statement in Appendix D of the bear population will be significantly grizzly bear population because of
Strategy that ‘‘current levels of genetic impacted by the effects of intensive monitoring and adaptive
diversity * * * are not resulting in environmental and demographic management strategies that will remain
deleterious effects’’ is not supported by stochasticity due to its isolation. The in effect post-delisting.
the literature and that Miller and Waits’ Service has considered population Issue 6—One commenter requested
(2003, p. 4335) study was not designed viability in considerable depth (Boyce et that we undertake an in-depth
to answer this question. Another al. 2001, p. 2). Boyce et al. (2001, p. 1) discussion of what inbreeding
commenter noted that deleterious concluded that the available data depression is and the three ways in
effects to the Yellowstone population as ‘‘provide optimistic projections of the which it is manifested: (1) The
a result of genetic isolation have already likelihood of persistence for grizzly unmasking of recessive, lethal alleles;
been documented by Dr. Michael Gilpin bears in the GYE; a 99.2% probability (2) unmasking of partially recessive,
in his guest commentary in the that the GYE grizzly bear population deleterious alleles; and (3) decreases in
Bozeman Chronicle newspaper on will persist for 100 years.’’ genetic diversity; and what conservation
January 23, 2006, and that the level of Boyce et al. (2001, pp. 30–31) discuss implications these have for the
inbreeding in the Yellowstone grizzly the implications of several types of Yellowstone DPS.
bear population is analogous to mating stochastic (random) events on the Response—This issue is discussed in
with first cousins. likelihood of persistence for the the Supplemental Information
Response—Indicators of fitness in the Yellowstone grizzly bear population. Appended to the Recovery Plan, its
Yellowstone population demonstrate Catastrophes were believed merely to supporting literature, and the literature
that the current levels of genetic represent extreme environmental events cited in this final rule. Both the Strategy
heterozygosity are adequate, as that had a low probability of occurrence and this final rule recognize that
evidenced by measures such as litter and were unpredictable. They believe declines in genetic diversity due to
size, little evidence of disease, high that there are insufficient data on grizzly inbreeding effects are expected in
survivorship, an equal sex ratio, normal bear genetics to understand or model isolated populations (Ralls et al. 1986,
body size and physical characteristics, genetic stochasticity, such as inbreeding p. 35; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and an increasing population. These depression or genetic drift. Boyce et al. 2007, p. 37). We agree that inbreeding
indicators of fitness will be monitored (2001, p. 30) believe that demographic depression has the potential to
annually, in perpetuity. The assertion stochasticity, such as chance events negatively affect the Yellowstone grizzly
by Dr. Gilpin that grizzly bears in the associated with births and deaths, only bear DPS if genetic diversity declines
GYA are experiencing inbreeding affects viability when populations are below current levels. For this reason, we
coefficients of 12.5 percent, equivalent very small (e.g., 30 to 50 bears). have reviewed relevant literature about
to mating with their first cousins, is Similarly, Harris et al. (2006, p. 50) this topic (Ralls and Ballou 1983, pp.
incorrect (Miller 2006). Dr. Gilpin did found that demographic stochasticity 147–179; Allendorf and Leary 1986, pp.
not cite a source for his reported had little effect on the growth rate 72–76; Ralls et al. 1986, pp. 35–37;
inbreeding coefficient for GYA bears, estimates unless population size fell Lande 1988, pp. 1455–1456, 1460;
and we are unaware of this figure being below 100 females. Roelke et al. 1993, pp. 344–348; Hunter
reported elsewhere. Miller (2006) Environmental stochasticity is 1996, pp. 88–90; Wang et al. 1999,
estimated an inbreeding coefficient for generally thought to be more important pp. 168–176) and, upon the
the GYA population of approximately 6 than demographic stochasticity when recommendation of Miller and Waits
percent over the last 10 generations, not calculating extinction risk (Lande 1988, (2003, p. 4338), our partners will
12.5 percent over a single generation, as p. 1457). In light of this, Boyce et al. translocate grizzly bears from other
implied by a scenario in which first (2001, pp. 31–32, 34) recommend that populations into the GYA to maintain
cousins mate with each other. The very the best possible analysis of population current levels of genetic diversity if
low rate of loss of heterozygosity over viability for the Yellowstone grizzly natural movement of grizzly bears into
the 20th century, in combination with bear population would be based on the GYA from other areas is not
the introduction of 1 or 2 effective relationships between grizzly bear vital documented by 2020.
migrants per generation (naturally or rates (survival and reproduction) and Issue 7—We received numerous
through augmentation), will ensure habitat factors (a habitat-based PVA). comments regarding the plan to
long-term genetic viability, and the However, the range of possible augment the Yellowstone DPS with
recovered status, of the Yellowstone outcomes of such a modeling exercise, grizzly bears from the NCDE population
grizzly bear DPS (Miller and Waits 2003, based on compound uncertainties, to address genetic concerns should
p. 4338). provides little management value and connectivity between these two
ecosystems not occur naturally by 2020. Response—Our recommendation to ecosystems, we anticipate that bears
Some of these comments pertained to augment the population with one will naturally reestablish themselves
the feasibility of transplanting bears migrant per generation is based on between recovery ecosystems and
from the NCDE to Yellowstone. These Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338), who achieve connectivity. We agree that the
commenters noted that, based on conclude that one to two effective establishment of a grizzly bear
augmentation experiments in the migrants per generation is appropriate population in the Bitterroot Recovery
Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem, we may have to maintain current levels of genetic Zone would contribute to recovery of
to move eight bears to get two to stay diversity. ‘‘The viability of the the grizzly bear in the Lower 48 States
and reproduce successfully (i.e., become Yellowstone grizzly population is (Boyce 2000, p. 6–243). However, the
effective migrants). Some commenters unlikely to be compromised by genetic lack of natural connectivity will not
also questioned whether survival of factors in the near future as we threaten the Yellowstone DPS because
augmented bears would be affected by hypothesized based on modern samples. of the genetic management plan
interactions with other grizzly bears Rather, the genetic consequences of described in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and
and/or a bear’s willingness to stay in a inbreeding and isolation are likely to Wildlife Service 2007, p. 37).
new environment instead of one it was transpire over longer time periods Issue 10—Several commenters
highly familiar with. Finally, some (decades or centuries)’’ (Miller and objected to relocating bears from the
commenters suggested that high Waits 2003, p. 4338). Regarding our NCDE to the GYA to address genetic
mortality in the NCDE may preclude definition of an ‘‘effective migrant’’ as concerns because it would violate the
this option, because moving bears from one which remains in the area, survives, Act’s vision of ‘‘self-sustaining
the NCDE to Yellowstone would count and successfully reproduces, we populations,’’ ‘‘recovery of populations
as a mortality in the NCDE ecosystem. recognize that a more complete in the wild,’’ and ‘‘natural recovery.’’
Response—The feasibility of definition involves measures of They cited the need for augmentation as
translocating grizzly bears for genetic relatedness between the source and evidence that the Yellowstone DPS is
augmentation is not untested. recipient population, as well as other not truly recovered.
Translocation has been successfully genetic measures (Wang 2004, p. 335). If Response—The Act does not require a
employed in the Cabinet-Yaak translocation is required in the future, ‘‘hands off’’ approach as a prerequisite
Ecosystem (Kasworm et al., in press, p. our partners will consult with for delisting. In fact, the presence of
6). Kasworm et al. (in press, pp. 6, 8) geneticists and use the best available adequate regulatory mechanisms to
were only able to document successful science to determine how many bears ensure that appropriate management
reproduction by one of the three bears must be translocated from the source and monitoring activities continue is
that remained in the area after being population to equal one effective required before delisting can occur. For
translocated; confirmation of successful migrant to the Yellowstone grizzly bear the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS to
reproduction events for the other two DPS. Regarding the effects of other remain unthreatened in all or a
bears was not possible because they selective forces on the one-migrant-per- significant portion of its range in the
lacked reference genetic material. Any generation rule, Wang (2004, p. 341) foreseeable future, active management is
bear that is translocated from the NCDE concluded that, ‘‘In general, the one- necessary to limit mortality, provide
into the GYA will be radio-collared and migrant-per-generation rule is robust to
adequate habitat, respond to grizzly
monitored to determine whether it the systematic forces of selection and
bear/human conflicts, and maintain
remains in the area and survives. As in mutation.’’
the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem, genetic Issue 9—Most commenters preferred genetic diversity either through natural
analysis will be used in subsequent the idea of natural connectivity over connectivity or through translocation. In
years to confirm whether a transplanted artificial augmentation and noted that this way, the Yellowstone grizzly bear
bear has successfully reproduced in the connectivity is a vital component of DPS is a ‘‘conservation-reliant species’’
GYA. The exact number of translocated recovery and should be restored before (Scott et al. 2005, p. 383). Augmentation
migrants into the GYA will be delisting can occur. Numerous is proposed as a precautionary measure
determined through these monitoring commenters wanted population based on the recommendations of Miller
activities. Any bear translocated from connectivity re-established with the and Waits (2003, p. 4338) to maintain
the NCDE to the GYA would be counted NCDE and Bitterroot ecosystem and the current levels of genetic diversity,
as an NCDE mortality. Please see our Bitterroot population reintroduction should grizzly bear movement into the
response to Issue 12 in this section implemented. Conversely, some GYA not occur over the next 20 years.
below for more discussion about the commenters supported the Issue 11—One commenter suggested
adequacy of the NCDE to serve as a augmentation plan because they viewed that we analyze the benefits and
source population. Augmentation in the it as effectively nullifying the need to disadvantages of genetic augmentation
GYA may not be necessary if natural establish natural population before concluding that benefits
immigration occurs before 2020. connectivity. outweigh potential negatives.
Issue 8—One commenter questioned Response—We prefer natural Response—The recommendation to
our use of the ‘‘one-migrant-per- reconnection as well and are actively either allow bears to move into the
generation rule’’ and believed that our involved in efforts to maintain and Yellowstone ecosystem or to use
definition of ‘‘effective migrant’’ was expand the opportunities for grizzly augmentation in lieu of natural
incorrect. Another commenter believed bears to move into and out of the movement was made by genetics experts
we failed to consider the effects of other Yellowstone ecosystem via the linkage in Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338).
evolutionary processes (mutation, zone program. However, we cannot They detail the biological and genetic
directional, or stabilizing selection) on control bear movement and as discussed rationale for this recommendation, and
the one-migrant-per-generation rule. in the final rule (see Behavior section we agree with their analysis and
Both recommended more research to above), they have limited dispersal conclusions. Should future genetic data
answer whether the one-migrant-per- mechanisms. By working to maintain challenge the conclusions of Miller and
generation rule was appropriate and current movement opportunities while Waits (2003, p. 4338), the Study Team
adequate to address genetic concerns for implementing conservation actions to and the Coordinating Committee will
the Yellowstone DPS. recover populations in other grizzly bear rely upon the best available scientific
information to guide management of the bears from the North Fork of the resolution(s) which would affect the
Yellowstone DPS. Flathead River in Canada to the Cabinet- (Wyoming Game and Fish)
Issue 12—A few commenters noted Yaak ecosystem (Kasworm et al. 1998, Commission’s Grizzly Bear Plan on
that our plan to augment the p. 148). mortality or distribution of grizzly bears
Yellowstone DPS with one to two bears in Wyoming’’ (Martin 2006).
per generation was flawed because it S. Comments About The States’ This letter clearly indicates that
violated a key assumption that the Management Approach Wyoming county governments have no
source population is infinite in Issue 1—Numerous commenters authority to affect grizzly bear
numbers. They believe that the expressed concern over the management management in county ordinances and
proposed rule also overlooked the approach that will be taken by the States have no legal standing or impact on
possibility that the Yellowstone grizzly of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. In commitments made by the Wyoming
bear DPS could go extinct as a result of general, commenters questioned the Game and Fish Commission.
the NCDE going extinct; and desire of the States to manage the Wyoming has committed to the
furthermore, we failed to consider the population in the best interest of grizzly revised (9 percent) thresholds as per
genetic issues affecting the NCDE, bears, and cited the historical and their signature on the Wyoming Game
which may itself be an isolated current anti-predator attitudes and Fish Commission approved
population from Canada, due to ongoing frequently displayed by residents and Strategy. Changes in mortality limits
and increasing development just north State wildlife agencies and cannot be completed unilaterally by
of the border. commissions, as evidence that State Wyoming, or any one management
Response—We make no assumption management of the Yellowstone DPS agency, but instead must be based on
that the NCDE or any other population could result in severe decline. the best available science, and
is infinite in numbers. The NCDE is not Response—The States are committed documented by a Study Team lead
genetically isolated from areas in to manage grizzlies in accordance with process that is opened to public
Canada, and male grizzly bear the Strategy and its appended State comment and approved through a
movement across Highway 3 has been grizzly bear management plans. By Coordinating Committee majority vote
documented (Proctor 2003, p. 24). The signing the Strategy, all management (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p.
NCDE population has higher allelic agencies have agreed to adhere to the 63).
diversity and heterozygosity values than sustainable mortality limits.
Issue 2—Some commenters noted that T. Lack of a Secure, Long-Term Funding
the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS
the head of WGFD has said that Source
(Paetkau et al. 1998, p. 421) and its
relative proximity and short time of Wyoming intends to manage the Issue 1—A number of comments
separation from the Yellowstone grizzly population down to the minimum received maintained that, before
bear DPS make it an ideal genetic source allowed by the Strategy (500 bears) and delisting can occur, a long-term secure
population. The NCDE population is other WGFD Commissioners have said funding source must be obtained. They
larger than previously thought, with they plan to push for an increase in stated that this funding issue must be
more than 500 individuals (Kendall allowable mortality from the recently addressed to ensure that the extensive
2006), and the portion of the population revised 9 percent to 12 percent. They monitoring and management plans, as
that is located in the North Fork of the note that four Wyoming counties, which well as conflict prevention through I &
Flathead Valley just north of the United encompass most grizzly bear habitat in E programs described in the Strategy,
States/Canadian border is the highest Wyoming, have outlawed grizzlies are carried out. Some commenters
density grizzly bear population within their borders and asserted that suggested that long-term funding
anywhere in North America outside of their State-authorized land use planning security could be achieved by creating
Alaska (LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 52–53; legislation trumps the bear management a trust fund as the Yellowstone
McLellan 1994, p. 21; Mowat et al. 2005, responsibilities of WGFD. Ecosystem Subcommittee has discussed
p. 41). We will continue to cooperate Response—In response to concerns at several meetings. Other commenters
with Canadian wildlife and land about the ordinances, regulations, or suggested that inadequate funding in
management agencies to promote grizzly resolutions passed by county any given year be a trigger for a Biology
bear conservation and to mitigate governments in Wyoming regarding the and Monitoring Review and potential
projects in Canada that have the presence or distribution of grizzly bears relisting.
potential to negatively impact U.S. in these counties, we requested a letter Response—It is true that there is no
grizzly bear populations. from the Wyoming Attorney General’s guarantee of long-term funding for
The placement of bears into the office clarifying the authority of grizzly bear management by any of the
Yellowstone by augmentation would be counties in Wyoming to legislate in the States or the Federal Government.
a precautionary approach to assure that area of grizzly bear management. The However, the funding issue remains
genetic issues are not a factor in the Wyoming Attorney General’s office’s whether the Yellowstone grizzly bear
survival of the Yellowstone population. response, dated August 8, 2006, states DPS is delisted or not. It is not possible
As stated by Miller and Waits (2003, p. on p. 2, ‘‘ ‘* * * as an arm of the State, to predict future governmental
4338)—‘‘The viability of the the county has only those powers appropriations, nor can we commit or
Yellowstone grizzly population is expressly granted by the constitution or require Federal funds beyond those
unlikely to be compromised by genetic statutory law or reasonably implied appropriated (31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)),
factors in the near future.’’ Although we from the powers granted.’ Laramie Co. but by signing the Strategy, responsible
view the NCDE as the most likely source Comm’rs v. Dunnegan, 884 P.2d 35, 40 agencies demonstrate that they are
population, many other appropriate (Wyo. 1994). Neither the Wyoming committed to implementing the features
grizzly bear populations in Canada Constitution nor the legislature has within their discretion and authority,
could serve as source populations, provided the counties in Wyoming with and to pursuing adequate funding. The
should the NCDE population not be any expressed or implied authority over Strategy provides adequate assurance
adequate for some unforeseen reason. management of grizzly bears. Therefore, that the participating agencies will
We have previously cooperated with counties lack the authority to enact any implement the agreement, which is
international partners to translocate ordinances(s), regulation(s), or sufficient to meet the reasonableness
required for regulatory mechanisms. major foods and grizzly bear vital rates. recapture techniques with the radio-
The creation of a trust fund has been Those foods have either fluctuated (e.g., collared sample of grizzly bears due to
explored by the Interagency Grizzly ungulates, army cutworm moths), or unreasonably large confidence intervals
Bear Committee, but would require the declined (e.g., cutthroat trout), during (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
acquisition of an estimated $40 million the period when the Yellowstone grizzly 2005, p. 12).
to endow the fund. bear population was increasing at a rate Because of the strict rule set used to
In response to these concerns, we between 4 and 7 percent annually. Due collect females with cubs-of-the-year
have made inadequate funding in any to this natural annual variation in data (Knight et al. 1995, p. 246), it is
given year a trigger for a Biology and abundance and distribution, there is no inherently conservative and tends to
Monitoring Review. The purpose of known way to calculate minimum underestimate the number of females
such a Review would be to determine threshold values for grizzly bear foods. with cubs-of-the-year. The Study Team
whether the fiscal short-coming is a Instead, managers will use an adaptive chose to use the Chao2 estimator to
threat to the implementation of the management approach that addresses correct many of the biases associated
Strategy to such an extent that it also poor food years with responsive with females with cubs-of-the-year data
threatened the long-term viability of the management actions, such as limiting concerning sighting heterogeneity
Yellowstone DPS. grizzly bear mortality, increasing (Keating et al. 2002, pp. 170–172;
Information and Education efforts, and Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
U. Triggers for Relisting and Monitoring
considering relisting, if appropriate. 2005, p. 20). The Chao2 estimator and
Plan
Issue 3—Several commenters believe the model averaging approach described
Issue 1—Many commenters were we failed to address the issue of lag time in the Supplement to the Reassessing
uncomfortable with the process that between habitat degradation and loss, Methods Document (Interagency Grizzly
could lead to relisting, fearing that the and changes in vital rates. They believe Bear Study Team 2006, pp. 2–10) reflect
process would be slow, bureaucratic, or that the proposed rule relies almost the best available scientific method for
subject to political influence. Many exclusively on monitoring population calculating an annual population index
recommended additional, clearly parameters rather than habitat and establishing biologically sustainable
defined thresholds leading to immediate parameters to detect a future threat, and annual mortality limits for the
relisting, rather than merely to the first because of this time lag, we should Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
step in a long process that may lead to include habitat thresholds that act as Issue 5—Some commenters stated that
relisting (i.e., a Biology and Monitoring triggers for a Biology and Monitoring a DNA-based survey would be a better
Review). Some recommended that we Review. monitoring method and that it would
develop an emergency response process Response—The Strategy commits the provide much more information about
specifically designed for the management agencies to intensive the population. One commenter noted
Yellowstone population that gives us monitoring of all grizzly bear vital rates, that the proposed monitoring of genetic
authority to bypass the traditional Act and their relationship to changes in diversity does not specify the point at
listing methods. major foods and the levels and types of which population augmentation would
Response—The listing procedures human activities in their habitat. This be considered necessary. Another
described in the Act allow prompt monitoring does not solely rely on vital believed that the proposed monitoring
emergency listings if necessary. For rate monitoring to indirectly infer of genetic diversity would not be
instance, the desert tortoise was changes in habitat, but will produce sufficient to detect the expected slight
petitioned in May 1989 and listed on annual results on any changes in habitat decline in heterozygosity, due to
August 7, 1989, in an emergency listing values, key food production, and inadequate sample size and inadequate
rule (54 FR 32326, August 4, 1989). An possible disease in key foods. Please see statistical power.
emergency relisting can be pursued our response to Issue 2 in this Response—We agree that DNA-based
independently by the Service or in subheading, above, for more surveys may offer more information
response to a recommendation by the information. about the population than population
Study Team or Coordinating Committee. Issue 4—Many commenters criticized size alone, but because the most
This process is adequate to respond to our use of unduplicated counts of immediate factors likely to impact the
a precipitous decline in the Yellowstone females with cubs-of-the-year to Yellowstone grizzly bear population
grizzly bear DPS or a significant threat estimate population size. They will come from habitat degradation and
to its habitat in a timely manner and suggested we should abandon this loss, and human-caused mortality, we
precludes the need for a specific trigger measure for a more reliable and accurate believe addressing these two sources of
that would begin an emergency method because of the biases such as potential decline is a more appropriate
response process. observer variability and differences in and relevant approach to ongoing
Issue 2—Several commenters believe detection in different habitat types. conservation efforts in the GYA. The
that because a decline in any of the four Response—The Study Team reviewed Strategy clearly establishes that
major foods represents a decrease in the the feasibility of several different augmentation of the Yellowstone
GYA’s carrying capacity, we should population estimation methods population with grizzly bears from other
include threshold values for these food (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team populations will be pursued if no
sources that either trigger a response 2005, pp. 12–13, 17–31). Because of the movement is detected between these
action or plans to protect additional high cost of DNA-based population two populations by 2020 (U.S. Fish and
habitat. surveys ($3.5 million to $5 million) and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 37). Based on
Response—Aside from the well- the lag between sampling and a the best available science, we have
documented association between resulting population estimate (3 years), concluded that any threats to genetic
whitebark pine cone crop size and annual use of DNA-based population diversity will be adequately addressed
subsequent management actions on surveys is not feasible or appropriate for through this approach (Miller and Waits
grizzly bears (Mattson et al. 1992, p. our objectives of establishing annual 2003, p. 4338). There is no defined
432), we have not been able to detect population estimates and sustainable threshold for acceptable heterozygosity
any statistically significant relationships mortality limits. The Study Team values because there is no consensus as
between abundance of the other three rejected the idea of using capture-mark- to what value would constitute a
biologically significant threat in any existing funding and technology, radio- understanding of human-caused
specific bear population. We do not telemetry is the best way to obtain that mortality in the GYA and the human
propose to monitor changes in genetic information. When equivalent or more dimensions of grizzly bear management.
diversity, as the statistical power would effective non-invasive techniques Response—Some social science
likely be insufficient to detect changes become economically available, they research has been conducted in the GYA
over time. To monitor genetic isolation, will be employed. on attitudes toward grizzly bears
we will establish a repository for all Issue 8—A few commenters suggested (Kellert 1994, pp. 44–45; Responsive
samples from the Yellowstone that Resource Selection Functions be Management 2001, pp. 5–14), but we are
population to document any bears used to monitor habitat rather than the not sure of its utility in predicting or
moving from the NCDE into the GYA. Cumulative Effects Model. Supporters of reducing human-caused mortalities. Our
Such movement will be detected by Resource Selection Functions said they current methods to reduce human-
using an ‘‘assignment test,’’ which are more grounded in an empirical caused grizzly bear mortality by
identifies the area from which approach and, therefore, are superior to preventing conflicts and addressing
individuals are most likely to have the Cumulative Effects Model. Some conflicts in a systematic, fair, and
originated based on their unique genetic commenters noted that if we are going prompt manner were adequate to
signature (Paetkau et al. 1995, p. 350; to rely on the Cumulative Effects Model accommodate an increasing
Waser and Strobeck 1998, pp. 43–44; so heavily, it should be validated and a Yellowstone grizzly bear population
Paetkau et al. 2004, pp. 56–57; Proctor protocol developed for training during the last two decades. These
et al. 2005, pp. 2410–2415). additional personnel on how it works. efforts to address grizzly bear conflicts
Issue 6—A few commenters wanted Response—The use of Resource will continue to comprise the vast
clearly formalized monitoring programs Selection Functions offers many majority of fiscal expenditures post
established outside the PCA, and some advantages over the use of the existing delisting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
wanted monitoring programs inside and Cumulative Effects Model. However, 2007, p. 154).
outside the PCA to determine trends in critics point out that estimated Resource
Selection Functions are not always V. Using the Best Available Science
use of roads and trails, OHV use, and
private land development. proportional to the true probability of Issue 1—Many commenters
Response—Data on private land use (Keating and Cherry 2004, p. 788). questioned the quality or interpretation
development are available from the The Cumulative Effects Model of the data used to support the proposed
counties. The Park Service and Forest represents the best available scientific rule. Some offered alternative
Service monitor traffic volumes on some information in its ability to provide explanations for the increases in the
roads, and the Park Service controls, managers with a comparative index of population estimates that would not
through its permit system, overnight use how much habitat values have changed require an actual increase in bear
of its backcountry sites. We do not know through time. This remains the case numbers while others were satisfied that
what predictive value those measures even though the validity of all the best available science and data had
would have for grizzly bear coefficients has not been confirmed. been used in the development of the
management. This method will remain in use until proposed rule.
Issue 7—One commenter noted that the research community arrives at a Response—The peer-reviewed
the planned extent of trapping and consensus or a better method to replace scientific journal articles used in the
radio-collaring of bears was unethical, the Cumulative Effects Model is final rule represent the best available
and that this intensive and invasive developed. science. The science available on the
monitoring approach should be The Cumulative Effects Model is one Yellowstone grizzly bears and their
abandoned in favor of keeping the bears of many tools used to monitor habitat in habitat is the best information available
listed as threatened. the Yellowstone ecosystem. However, it on any bear population in the world.
Response—Since 1982, there has not is not the only tool nor is it the None of the alternative explanations
been a single capture mortality dominant tool. The Forest Service is offered for the increasing population
associated with research trapping in the contracting with a computer size were compelling.
Yellowstone area spanning more than programmer to make the Cumulative Issue 2—Some commenters objected
468 grizzly bear captures (Servheen et Effects Model a more user friendly, to the use of data that they believed
al. 2004, p. 21). Because of rigorous Windows compatible format. The Study were out-of-date, particularly regarding
protocols dictating proper bear capture, Team is committed to using the best the spread of diseases and parasites of
handling, and drugging techniques used scientific methods and models available whitebark pine, and advocated the use
today, this type of scientific to them. Use of such models will change of readily available and more recently
overutilization is not a significant factor as the science changes. collected data sets.
impacting the Yellowstone DPS. The Issue 9—Some commenters Response—The science and data in
Study Team, bear biologists, and recommended that we monitor litter the proposed rule were the most recent
researchers will continue implementing size and cub survival of radio-collared information available when the rule was
these protocols after delisting. females as indicators of habitat quality written and submitted for review and
The Act requires us to delist species and carrying capacity. publication in the Federal Register. The
that no longer meet the definition of Response—The monitoring program final rule incorporates newer data on
threatened or endangered. As discussed does annually monitor litter size and blister rust and mountain pine beetle
in the final rule, the Yellowstone grizzly cub survival. These data are compared (see Factor E below) available since the
bear DPS does not meet either of these to indicators of habitat quality such as proposed rule was written.
definitions. We cannot leave the annual production and availability of Issue 3—Some commenters
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS listed in major foods. specifically critiqued sources that we
perpetuity, or neglect to gather data on Issue 10—Some commenters used in the proposed rule. One
its status. We are required to use the recommended that we monitor human described problems associated with the
best available science to recover grizzly values and attitudes toward grizzly Monograph cited in the proposed rule as
bears in the Lower 48 States and bears in the GYA. This information Schwartz et al. (2005) [note: the
monitor their status post-delisting. With could contribute substantially to our Schwartz et al. 2005 citation has been
updated in this final rule as Schwartz et flights alone, 74 observation flights were Response—The secure habitat levels
al. 2006]. Major commenter concerns flown in 2005, totaling more than 172 and road densities in the Yellowstone
included—(1) the study sample is not hours of flight time and covering all 37 ecosystem are more secure than the
representative of the population, (2) observation areas. There also were more required road density and secure habitat
habitat-based demographic analysis is than 411 hours of telemetry flights in in either the NCDE or the Cabinet/Yaak
needed, and (3) heterogeneous mortality 2005. These telemetry flights also and Selkirk ecosystems. The best
rates violate assumptions described in contribute to the total sightings of measure of the direct effect of habitat on
the Monograph. Another comment females with cubs. The details of a population is the trajectory of the
received was about our assertion that capture efforts both inside and outside population. Under the 1998 levels of
nearly 90 percent of females with cubs- the PCA, along with details on these road density and secure habitat, the
of-the-year occur inside the PCA. The flights and the efforts to sight females Yellowstone grizzly population has
commenter noted that because Schwartz with cubs both inside and outside the been increasing at between 4 and 7
et al.’s (2002, pp. 204–205; 2006b, pp. PCA, are reported in the Study Team’s percent per year. From 1986 to 2002,
63–64) survey methods focused Annual Reports (Haroldson et al. 2006a, there was a net reduction of more than
primarily on sighting bears within the pp. 4–10; Haroldson 2006b, pp. 11–16; 1,000 miles of road on the 6
PCA, these publications do not provide West 2006a, pp. 18–22; West 2006b, pp. Yellowstone Ecosystem National Forests
reliable information on what portion of 23–24). The Study Team, the (inside and outside the PCA) (USDA
grizzly bears spend any time outside the Coordinating Committee, and the Forest Service 2006a, p. 200). Inside the
PCA. responsible agencies will continue to PCA on the National Forests, roads were
Response—The Monograph fully use the best available science to update reduced an average of 42.7 miles per
discusses the assumptions that must be protocols and direct management year from 1986 to 2002 (USDA Forest
satisfied in order to draw the responses. Service 2006a, p. 200). Outside the PCA,
conclusions stated in the document. Issue 4—A few commenters suggested an average of 40.5 miles of road were
These assumptions and conclusions in that we incorporate the findings of decommissioned for the same time
the Monograph went through extensive Mattson et al. (2002) into the discussion period (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p.
independent peer review prior to being about threats to major foods because it 200). The 1998 road density levels are
accepted for publication. Schwartz et al. ‘‘provides a solid empirical basis for lower than previous road densities and
(2006d, pp. 9–12) clearly describe their understanding the extent to which are at a level that has allowed the
experimental design to obtain a grizzly bears will be able to switch to population to increase.
representative sample. For our alternative foods when whitebark pine Regarding secure habitat, the average
discussion about the need for, and the and cutthroat trout decline.’’ percentage of secure habitat in each of
caveats associated with, habitat-based the 40 subunits inside the PCA is 85.6
Response—Mattson et al. (2002, p. 32)
demographic analysis, please see our percent, and 20 of these 40 subunits
cautioned that ‘‘it is unclear to what
response to Issue 2 under subheading B contain more than 90 percent secure
extent bears can compensate by
above. Regarding the assertion that habitat (USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp.
heterogeneous mortality rates violate reverting to extant alternate foods’’ if 368–369). These levels of secure habitat
assumptions made in the Monograph, any currently important food were to are higher than the percentage of secure
we recognize that mortality rates are diminish in abundance. We agree that habitat in the home ranges of adult
heterogeneous. The fact that mortality the extent of the bears’ potential female grizzly bears reported by Mace et
rates are different inside Yellowstone compensation is unknown. However, al. (1996, p. 1400) (Note that the
National Park, outside of Yellowstone the management response to decreases commenter was incorrect in the date of
National Park but inside the PCA, and in carrying capacity established by the this citation)), where 56 percent of the
outside of the PCA was one of the key Strategy and State management plans composite adult female home range was
findings of the Monograph (Haroldson includes limiting human-caused inside secure habitat. We could not find
et al. 2006b, p. 40). This comment is mortality, enhancing Information and a publication by Kasworm in 1997 that
suggesting that, because mortality rates Education efforts in poor food years, addressed the issue of road densities
are different in the three different areas actively restoring whitebark pine and female home range size, but believe
(i.e., heterogeneous), then we must communities, eradicating lake trout, the commenter was referring to
know the movement rates of bears minimizing disturbance at known army Wakkinen and Kasworm (1997, p. 24),
among those areas. Heterogeneous cutworm moth sites, and monitoring who found that 44 to 68 percent of adult
mortality rates do not violate female reproductive parameters. female home range was in secure
assumptions made in the Monograph Issue 5—Some commenters disagreed habitat. Again, the levels of secure
because the study sample is with the levels of secure habitat and habitat in each subunit within the PCA
representative of bears living in all three road density standards in the Strategy (approximately the size of an annual
areas of differing mortality rates. We and noted that these were not based on female’s home range) are greater than
consider the Monograph to be the best the best available science. They thought what was observed in these studies.
available scientific data about the that we accepted road densities present The large secure areas of these
demographics of the Yellowstone in 1998 instead of defining acceptable subunits do include important feeding
grizzly bear DPS. road densities based on habitat selection and denning areas. The secure or core
Regarding the sampling method used by female grizzly bears. Similarly, some area size was not limited to areas greater
by Schwartz et al. (2002, pp. 204–205; commenters thought that our definition than 1,012 ha (2,500 ac) because that
2006b, pp. 63–64), the monitoring of secure habitat did not include any would eliminate protection for all
system for females with cubs includes biological requirements (such as food, secure habitat areas less than this size.
all areas where bears are known to denning, and breeding grounds) and We believe that all secure habitats are
occur, both inside and outside the PCA. ignored the minimum core sizes of important and that secure pockets are
Thirty-seven search areas are flown each approximately 1,012 ha (2,500 ac) very important for grizzly bears,
year, 12 of which are completely or preferred by female grizzly bears in particularly in peripheral habitats.
partially outside the PCA. For an other ecosystems as documented by Issue 6—Some commenters noted that
example of the effort in observation Mace et al. (1998) and Kasworm (1997). there is no social or scientific literature
to support our contention that delisting proposing the transfer of public lands in Alberta Sustainable Resource
will build public support and tolerance the PCA from the USDA Forest Service Development and Foothills Model
for grizzly bear conservation. and BLM to the National Park Service. Forest Grizzly Bear Research Program,
Response—We agree that there is no A large number of commenters Canada; (7) Dr. Jon Swenson,
scientific literature documenting that expressed some degree of mistrust about Department of Ecology and Natural
delisting would or could build public the motivations behind delisting and Resource Management, Norwegian
support and tolerance for grizzly bears. accused us of catering to the oil and gas University of Life Sciences, Norway;
This result is inferred by professional industry, timber industry, developers, and (8) Dr. Frank T. van Manen,
wildlife biologists familiar with local livestock owners, and hunting interests. Research Ecologist, U.S. Geological
community attitudes in the Yellowstone Numerous commenters also expressed Survey, Southern Appalachian Field
ecosystem. We have eliminated this value-based reasons as to why they Branch.
rationale from the final rule. opposed delisting, such as animal Each reviewer was paid $500 (U.S.)
rights, spiritual importance, the grizzly for their analysis (with the exception of
W. Miscellaneous
bear as a national treasure and symbol those who also work for the U.S.
Issue 1—A few commenters suggested of wilderness, and that humans should Government, who were not paid for
that we could improve the Coordinating behave as caretakers and stewards of the their services). The purpose of seeking
Committee structure by including an grizzly bear, not as pillagers of its independent peer review is to ensure
opportunity for public involvement on habitat. that the best biological and commercial
proposed actions and including a Response—Our decision to delist the data are being used in the decision-
conservation organization Yellowstone DPS is based solely on our making process, as well as to ensure that
representative. assessment of the best scientific and reviews by recognized experts are
Response—The Coordinating commercial data available, which incorporated into the review process of
Committee process is open to the indicate that the population is neither the rulemakings. Peer reviewers were
public, and public comment and threatened nor endangered. Otherwise, asked to consider, but not limit their
involvement at meetings is allowed and these comments are either not relevant comments, to the following questions
encouraged. Although a conservation to the management decision or are and provide any other relevant
organization representative is not outside the scope and authority of the comments, criticisms, or ideas—(1) Does
formally a member of the Coordinating final rule. the proposed rule provide adequate
Committee, all conservation review and analysis of the factors
organization representatives will Summary of Peer Review Comments
relating to the persistence of the grizzly
continue to be able to comment and be In accordance with the Service’s 1994 bear population in the GYA
involved in Coordinating Committee Peer Review policy (59 FR 34270, July (demographics, habitat, adequate
meetings. 1, 1994) and the peer review regulatory mechanisms, disease and
Issue 2—Numerous commenters requirements of the Office of predation, and genetics)?; (2) Is our
suggested that we take a more Management and Budget’s (OMB) Final establishment of this population as a
conservative or precautionary Information Quality Bulletin for Peer DPS logical and adequate? Specifically,
management approach. Some cited Review (OMB 2004), the Service are our arguments pertaining to the
Schwartz et al. (2006e, p. 62) as selected and solicited peer review of the discreteness and significance of the
supporting this idea, especially in proposed rule (70 FR 69854, November population sufficient according to the
relation to long-term, irreversible habitat 17, 2005) from nine independent DPS policy, as described in the rule?; (3)
alterations such as private land scientific experts. Eight of the nine Are our assumptions and definition of
development. reviewers accepted the opportunity to suitable habitat logical and adequate?;
Response—The Reassessing Methods review the proposed rule and answered (4) Are the conclusions we reach logical
Document and its Supplement questions pertaining to the logic of our and supported by the evidence we
(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team assumptions, arguments, and provide?; (5) Are our conclusions
2005, pp. 6, 20, 35; Interagency Grizzly conclusions. These reviewers were relating to food resources logical and
Bear Study Team 2006, p. 15–16) experienced bear biologists and adequate?; (6) Is the post-delisting
advocate a precautionary management researchers who do not work for the monitoring program for habitat and
approach by establishing biologically Service, although two of the reviewers population criteria logical and adequate
sustainable mortality limits to ensure are employed by the Department of the to ensure survival of this population of
that the population trajectory of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. They grizzly bears in the foreseeable future?;
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is stable were chosen based on their direct and (7) Did we include all the necessary
to increasing. The adaptive management research experience with bears and their and pertinent literature to support our
system in the Strategy incorporates the experience with the conservation and assumptions/arguments/conclusions?
results from intensive monitoring of management of bears. The names and Peer reviewers provided individual,
population vital rates, habitat standards, affiliations of the reviewers are—(1) Dr. written responses during the public
and major foods into management Joseph D. Clark, Research Ecologist, U.S. comment period. Copies of individual
decisions. Geological Survey, Southern peer review responses are available
Issue 3—Many comments received Appalachian Field Branch; (2) Dr. Piero upon request (see ADDRESSES section
did not pertain directly to this decision Genovesi, Italian National Wildlife above). The issues raised by the peer
or were outside of our scope and Institute, Italy; (3) Dr. Steven Herrero, reviewers are summarized and
authority. These included comments Professor Emeritus of Environmental responded to below. We have grouped
opposing all livestock grazing on public Science, University of Calgary, Canada; similar comments together under major
lands, opposing the sale of public lands (4) Dr. Djuro Huber, Biology headings that correspond to the
proposed in the Fiscal Year 2007 Department, University of Zagreb, questions we asked peer reviewers and
President’s budget, favoring the need to Croatia; (5) Dr. Bruce McLellan, Wildlife summarized concerns into categories
switch to alternative energy sources, Research Ecologist, British Columbia called ‘‘Issues,’’ which are followed by
and opposing or supporting Act reform. Ministry of Forests Research Branch, our ‘‘Responses.’’ Not all peer reviewers
Also included was a comment Canada; (6) Dr. Gordon Stenhouse, commented on all questions. The
comments we received from peer Issue 2—The reviewers who poaching fine is not possible, due to the
reviewers generally reflected their areas commented on disease and predation variety of circumstances surrounding a
of expertise, so when we discuss agreed that disease is not an issue for poaching incident, numerous State laws
specific issues below, we are only grizzly bear populations. Regarding that may apply, and various
summarizing those comments we human-caused predation (i.e., punishments available under those State
received. The views discussed do not mortality), some reviewers laws. We have been assured by State
necessarily reflect all of the peer recommended that the Service explore wildlife agencies that poaching
reviewers’ opinions, just the opinions of the potential impacts of a hunting incidents will continue to be
the reviewers who responded on that season that targeted adult males. It is investigated and prosecuted under State
particular issue. possible that decreased cub survival law.
Several reviewers also commented on through sexually selected infanticide Issue 3—A few reviewers commented
the Reassessing Methods Document. A may affect population trajectory. One on the proposed rule’s discussion of
summary of those issues brought up by reviewer also suggested that the final grizzly bear/human conflicts. One
the reviewers, as well as responses to rule be more clear that although the reviewer thought that preventing access
their concerns, were incorporated into impact of hunting to the total to human foods by bears should be
the final Reassessing Methods population is negligible, some local better addressed. Another reviewer
Document as an appendix. populations of bears may be reduced. recommended that ‘‘Emphasis should be
One reviewer also recommended placed on managing human/bear
A. Does the proposed rule provide
clarification about whether the penalty conflicts on the interface of bear habitat
adequate review and analysis of the
for poaching a grizzly bear will be the and humans to ensure that mortality
factors relating to the persistence of the
same as before delisting. there does not exceed recruitment of the
grizzly bear population in the GYA?
Response—Sexually selected population as a whole.’’
Issue 1—In general, the peer infanticide is the practice by which a Response—We agree that preventing
reviewers believed the Service did an territory vacated by an adult male is grizzly bear habituation to humans and
adequate job of discussing the relevant filled by a newly arrived subadult male, their foods is a priority. More than two-
factors related to the persistence of the which then kills any cubs in the thirds of all suggested funding to
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. One territory (Swenson et al. 1997b, p. 450). implement the Strategy is designated for
reviewer noted that the Yellowstone That behavior can reduce the managing conflicts and outreach efforts
DPS does not meet either the Committee population growth rate through cub to minimize conflicts (U.S. Fish and
on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in mortality (Swenson et al. 1997b, p. 450). Wildlife Service 2007, p. 154). All
Canada (COSEWIC) (the first stage It has been documented in two suitable habitat on GYA National
toward consideration for protection European brown bear populations Forests will have food storage orders in
under the Canadian Species at Risk Act) (Swenson et al. 2001, pp 75–77), and effect by 2008. Outreach efforts are
or the World Conservation Union instances of infanticide by North directed toward decreasing attractants
(IUCN) standards for a non-threatened American grizzly bears of both sexes on private lands. The sustainable
species. However, they further noted also have been documented (McLellan mortality limits will ensure that
that because the threats to habitat are 1994, pp.15–16). However, Miller et al. mortality in the outer zone of grizzly
well understood and manageable (at (2003, p. 144) and McLellan (2005, pp. occupancy (those bears in closest
least in the short-term) and the 153–154) could not find evidence of proximity to private land) does not
population has been expanding in size population level effects of sexually exceed the recruitment of the
and distribution, delisting may be selected infanticide in North American population as a whole.
appropriate so long as the laws, plans, grizzly populations. If sport hunting Issue 4—Although genetic isolation
and strategies that are identified in the preferentially removes adult male bears, should be a consideration, one reviewer
proposed rule do not get diluted after and if sexually selected infanticide is noted that, ‘‘Within the foreseeable
delisting. common, sport hunting might result in future, demographic or habitat threats
Response—While we view the IUCN some reduction in cub survival in are much more likely than a genetic
and COSEWIC standards as informative localized areas. However, this would threat.’’ The reviewers endorsed natural
in our decision-making process, the Act likely have little impact on overall population connectivity and stated that
employs different standards for listing population growth rate because hunting these opportunities should not decrease
consideration, which are considered mortality on males would be limited in after delisting. Connectivity would
below. On the whole, we agree that the numbers and extent. increase the chances of long-term
laws, plans, and strategies will provide The States have control over when population persistence and would be a
for robust habitat protection measures; and where a grizzly bear permit holder good buffer against the uncertainties
therefore, allowing the population to may hunt, so the targeting of bears in surrounding major foods. One reviewer
continue to expand and thrive. The specific areas, or even specific noted that, ideally, connectivity would
Strategy will guide post-delisting individual bears, is possible. Sport be established before delisting occurred.
management of the Yellowstone grizzly hunting could be used in that way as a Finally, one reviewer suggested that the
bear DPS. The plans described in the compensatory mortality source, by Service analyze the ramifications of
Strategy can change after delisting only killing bears that would otherwise have delisting on the ability to naturally
if new science becomes available and to be removed by management action. recover the Bitterroot Ecosystem and to
through agreement within the However, hunting will be allowed only link the Yellowstone population with
Coordinating Committee (U.S. Fish and as long as the overall mortality limits the NCDE.
Wildlife Service 2007, p. 63). Any future are not exceeded. Response—We agree that
changes to the management documents Each of the three States will establish demographic or habitat threats are more
for the Yellowstone grizzly bear penalties for poaching grizzly bears in likely a threat than genetic factors in the
population will be modified in an their jurisdictions, and those penalties foreseeable future, and that natural
adaptive management framework as a may not be the same as before delisting. connectivity is desirable. Efforts to
result of accumulated knowledge about Judges have discretion to impose fines promote connectivity between existing
grizzly bear management. under State law. Predicting the average populations will continue after delisting
as these programs are independent of Montana appears to possess a law that including reproductive rate, survival
the delisting of the GYA population. mentions the importance of research rate, annual population growth rate
Due to the habitat protections, and the best-available science to guide (lambda), stable age distribution, and
population standards, mortality control, grizzly bear management, and that Idaho transition probabilities—every 8 to 10
outreach efforts, and the adaptive and Wyoming should be encouraged to years; as directed by a violation of the
management approach described in the adopt a similar law. One reviewer asked population standards (for a complete list
Strategy, we do not believe isolation is if the Strategy will have the regulatory of all population standards and triggers
a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear power to ensure that signatories that are considered violations, see
population and, therefore, does not implement management decisions and Factor D below); or at the request of the
preclude delisting. Delisting of the that resources are available. Coordinating Committee. During these
Yellowstone grizzly bear population Response—We have no authority to formal evaluations, any impacts that
should have no effect on the potential compel the States to enact laws, nor do density dependence or lowered carrying
for natural recovery of grizzly bears we believe it is necessary. The Strategy, capacity may have will be identified
through the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Both signed by all three affected States, is and addressed through adjustments to
the GYA and NCDE populations are based on the best available science to methods used to estimate population
increasing in size and expanding their guide Yellowstone grizzly bear size, sustainable mortality, unknown
geographical ranges, increasing the management. The adaptive management and unreported mortality, or other
likelihood of eventual dispersal to the approach described in the Strategy management recommendations. The
Bitterroot Ecosystem. ensures that decisions are to be made application of adaptive management
Issue 5—One reviewer believed that based upon the best available science. will allow prompt application of new
one of the biggest threats to grizzly bear While the Strategy cannot legally data or techniques to management
habitat post-delisting ‘‘* * *will come compel any of the signatories to decisions. Future conditions may not be
from those who want to use or develop implement management policies or like past conditions and the monitoring
important grizzly bear habitat and who obligate funding, the various Federal and adaptive management systems in
feel that their action is such a small part agencies’ and State governments’ place are designed to respond to
of the whole that it doesn’t matter.’’ He signatures on the Strategy clearly changes that occur.
recommended that the Service more indicate their intention to manage
fully consider and discuss cumulative grizzly bears according to the Strategy. B. Is our establishment of this
impacts of multiple projects. Issue 7—One reviewer commented population as a distinct population
Response—The intent of the 1998 that the proposed rule focused solely on segment logical and adequate?
habitat baseline is to prevent or mitigate current status and how future Issue 1—Most of the reviewers agreed
those cumulative effects on bear habitat conditions will be monitored but failed with our DPS analysis and stated that,
within the PCA, where 84 to 90 percent to discuss carrying capacity of the GYA due to its discreteness and significance,
of the females with cubs occur. By and ‘‘* * * what effect population the GYA grizzly bear population
maintaining the amount of secure expansion may have on a distinct warrants DPS status. Some reviewers
habitat and restricting increases in the population unit that has clear limits to did point out that DPS designation is
total mileage of roads, the number of range or habitat expansion.’’ He biologically justified but highlights one
developed sites, and livestock recommended that the Study Team start of the major problems faced by the
allotments, the PCA will be able to to consider this type of issue. Yellowstone grizzly bear population is
support a stable to increasing bear Response—Schwartz et al. (2006c, p. its isolation. Gene flow must be
population. The USDA Forest Service 29) discuss the Yellowstone grizzly bear attained, either through natural
will continue to apply and improve the population’s growth towards carrying connectivity or augmentation. One
Cumulative Effects Model and run this capacity. Carrying capacity has probably reviewer also stated that DPS status can
model at least every 5 years to assess the already been reached inside complicate future augmentation efforts
cumulative effects of development on Yellowstone National Park (Schwartz et if the source population is not similar
bears. The Study Team will continue to al. 2006c, p. 29), and its effect has been enough to the recipient population.
pursue improved methods to assess to reduce cub survival to levels found in Response—As noted in the final rule,
cumulative impacts. grizzly bear populations at carrying we agree that the Yellowstone
Outside the PCA, nearly 60 percent of capacity in Alaska. It does not appear population is both discrete and
all suitable habitat is either Designated that carrying capacity has been reached significant, thus qualifying as a DPS
Wilderness Area, Wilderness Study outside of Yellowstone National Park under our policy. Regarding isolation of
Area, or Inventoried Roadless Area. (Schwartz et al. 2006c, p. 29). There are the Yellowstone grizzly bear population,
These designations will prevent many 14,554 sq km (5,619 sq mi) of suitable those potential threats are related to
extractive projects from occurring (see habitat in the GYA that are currently genetic concerns and changes in the
Factor D below). All projects on Federal unoccupied by grizzly bears. This population’s habitat. Based on the best
lands are required to comply with the habitat, coupled with the sustainable available science (Miller and Waits
National Environmental Policy Act of mortality limits, will allow the 2003, p. 4338), the Service concludes
1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) Yellowstone grizzly bear population to that the genetic diversity of the
process, which includes a section on the continue to increase and expand as per Yellowstone grizzly bear population
cumulative effects of the proposed the State management plans. will be adequately maintained by the
project. Any NEPA process for a project At some point in the future, immigration or relocation of one to two
on National Forest lands also will monitoring data may demonstrate that effective migrants from the NCDE every
include an analysis of the impacts of the carrying capacity has been reached 10 years. This movement of grizzly
proposed project on USDA Forest throughout the GYA and that the bears between ecosystems may occur
Service species of concern, which will sustainable mortality limits must be naturally or through management
include the grizzly bear upon delisting revised to accommodate increasing intervention. Regardless of the method,
(USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26). natural mortality or to stabilize the the Service is confident that genetic
Issue 6—One reviewer noted, population. The Study Team will impoverishment will not threaten the
regarding regulatory mechanisms, only reevaluate demographic parameters Yellowstone grizzly bear population.
The source population for favored grizzly bears), and unsuitable landscape and how they affect grizzly
augmentation, if augmentation becomes habitat, stating that this may help direct bear survival. These models consider
necessary, will be the NCDE population. management decisions in the future. foods, habitat productivity, and human
The NCDE bears are those most closely Response—In response to this impacts to the landscape. As part of the
related to the Yellowstone grizzly bear comment and several others received by adaptive management approach in the
DPS, having been separated for roughly the general public, we have conducted Strategy, the Study Team intends to link
100 years (Miller and Waits 2003, p. additional analyses to determine how these hazard models with similar
4334). Offspring of individuals from much potentially suitable habitat there models of reproduction to develop
these two populations are unlikely to is inside the DPS boundaries that could models predicting population change on
experience outbreeding depression. be made suitable through management the landscape. Combined, these models
Limited gene flow, as suggested here, actions. We found that an additional will yield a projection of population
would not compromise the required 9,637 sq km (3,720 sq mi) of National viability. These efforts will
level of discreteness for DPS status, as Forest lands (including the Salt River continuously be updated and improved
the DPS policy does not require and Palisades Mountain Range) could be as new methods and information
complete separation of one DPS from made suitable by eliminating all sheep become available.
other populations, but instead requires grazing allotments and existing oil and The Study Team also analyzes the
‘‘marked separation.’’ gas developments. These areas are not location of grizzly bear/human conflicts
Issue 2—Regarding significance, a few currently suitable and would require and mortalities in relation to land
of the reviewers responded that there elimination of existing management ownership and type of conflict in their
are other populations of grizzlies that activities to make them suitable. Such annual reports. In this way, the Study
have great access to ungulates and an action is not biologically necessary to Team identifies ‘‘hotspot’’ conflict areas
whitebark pine seeds but that diets have maintain the recovered status of the in which I & E and prevention efforts are
not been quantified in these areas. One Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. These likely to be most beneficial.
reviewer questioned just how unique areas do not constitute a significant Issue 3—A few reviewers questioned
the ecological setting of the GYA really portion of the range. Please see our the simplicity of the Service’s definition
is. response to Issue 2 under subheading G of suitable habitat. These reviewers felt
Response—While we recognize that in the Summary of Public Comments that because the Service and the Study
there are populations around the world section above for additional discussion Team have abundant data regarding
that have access to large ungulates about this concern. habitat use, the Service should have
(Canada, Alaska, northeast Asia) and Issue 2—One reviewer agreed with employed a more empirical definition
whitebark pine seeds (Canada), what is the first two criteria for suitable habitat ‘‘* * * using data-based, statistical
unusual and unique about the GYA is but questioned the third criterion techniques, such as logistic regression
that there is relatively high use of (having low mortality risk as indicated (e.g., Mladenoff et al. 1995) or
ungulate meat. Also, although several through reasonable and manageable Mahalanobis distance (e.g., Thatcher et
berry-producing shrubs occur in the levels of grizzly bear/human conflicts). al. 2006).’’
area, these are relatively limited by This reviewer suggested that the Service Response—We thought it was
climatic factors and most grizzly bears conduct ‘‘Additional work on mortality adequate to use a more generalized,
in the GYA do not rely on berries as a risk modeling in suitable habitats coarse-scale interpretation of what
significant portion of their diets. It is (Nielsen et al. 2006, pp. 220–222) habitat would meet grizzly bear needs.
this combination of reliance on large [which] would serve as a valuable Other models predicting where
mammals and whitebark pine seeds, supplement to the tracking of conflicts unoccupied suitable grizzly bear habitat
while having little opportunity to feed and would have the added benefit of occurs within the GYA produced results
on berries, which makes the ecological providing a system that could aid in similar to ours (Noss et al. 2002, p. 903;
setting of the GYA unusual, unique, and conflict reduction.’’ Merrill and Mattson 2003, pp. 182, 184).
significant, as none of these factors Response—The Service agrees that The results of our analysis agree with
alone differentiates the GYA from other such additional efforts to assess previous studies that have identified the
ecosystems. mortality risk in suitable habitats would Wind River Mountains and the
Issue 3—One reviewer thought that be useful and supports such work. The Centennial Mountains as potentially
the Service should reevaluate the status Study Team is currently developing suitable, but currently unoccupied
of all of the grizzly bear populations in habitat-based risk analysis models that habitat.
the lower 48 simultaneously with the will provide insight into mortality risk Issue 4—Several reviewers felt that
Yellowstone assessment. across the GYA landscape. One the Service should include some
Response—The Service intends to management recommendation measure of habitat quality in its
initiate a 5-year review of grizzly bear (Schwartz et al. 2006e, p. 62) was to definition because it also is important to
populations in the conterminous States obtain funds to explore more spatially understand other health parameters in
outside of the Yellowstone DPS, based explicit models beyond the three suitable habitat, such as body condition,
on additional scientific information that political zones (i.e., inside Yellowstone movement rates, habitat use, and
is currently being collected and National Park, inside the recovery zone reproductive function. A couple of
analyzed. This review will likely be but outside Yellowstone National Park, reviewers thought habitat quality was
initiated a few months after the and outside the recovery zone) that were particularly important to include in any
publication of this final rule. addressed. In fact, before Schwartz et al. definition of suitable habitat in light of
(2006e) was printed, the Study Team climate change and possible shifts in
C. Are our assumptions and definition submitted a proposal to address this habitat use to respond to declines in
of suitable habitat logical and adequate? recommendation and obtained funding food resources. If bears show major
Issue 1—One reviewer thought it for this project. It took more than 1.5 shifts in habitat use in response to
would be helpful for the Service to re- years to create the required spatial changing food availability, suitable
categorize and include an analysis of layers needed for the analyses. The habitat may need to be redefined.
suitable habitat, potentially suitable Study Team then began to construct Response—We used the Middle
habitat (if management decisions models looking at hazards on the Rockies Ecoregion as a surrogate for
habitat quality/capacity. This approach defined as a function of distance from monitor reproductive rates and define
is supported by many previous studies roads, is indisputable. Although we do threshold values for these as they might
which have found that mountainous not include any prediction of where be more sensitive to food fluctuations
regions generally possess the habitat grizzly bears may occur or what their than mortality rates would be. One
components necessary for grizzly bear mortality risk in identified secure reviewer suggested that non-invasive
persistence, including hiding cover, habitat might be, the Study Team will methods could be used to monitor
topographic variation necessary to monitor food resources and grizzly bear reproductive hormone cycles in adult
ensure a wide variety of seasonal foods, mortalities in the GYA annually. female bears that may tie directly to
steep slopes used for denning, and habitat and landscape conditions.
E. Are our conclusions relating to food Response—The Greater Yellowstone
remoteness from humans (Craighead
resources logical and adequate? Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working
1980, pp. 8–13; Knight 1980, pp. 1–3;
Judd et al. 1986, pp. 114–115; Peek et Issue 1—Many reviewers thought that Group (2005, pp. 98–107) worked
al. 1987, 160–161; Aune and Kasworm the proposed rule was too optimistic in closely with statisticians to ensure the
1989, pp. 29–58; Merrill et al. 1999, pp. its discussion of how bears may respond best possible sampling design in terms
233–235; Pease and Mattson 1999, p. to declines in major foods. They noted of statistical power and ecological
969; Linnell et al. 2000, pp. 403–405; that although bears display some inference. They have established over
Mattson and Merrill 2002, p. 1128). We foraging plasticity, the extent to which 70 transects throughout the GYA to
have not assigned numerical quality this behavior might buffer loss of one of assess the status of whitebark pine. The
scores to habitats based on grizzly bear the four major foods is not known. In Study Team also documents annual
body condition or productivity because contrast, one reviewer thought that food whitebark pine cone production through
of the uncertainties surrounding such availability was of minor importance in monitoring of 19 transects inside the
calculations. comparison to other human influences PCA. The Study Team has found that its
such as roads and human-caused surveys of whitebark pine cone
D. Are the conclusions we reach logical mortality and stated that preventing production can effectively predict the
and supported by the evidence we grizzly bear use of human garbage and magnitude of the number of
provide? food will become increasingly important management actions taken on grizzly
Issue 1—A couple of reviewers if traditional foods decrease. bears during each crop year (Haroldson
criticized our contention that hunted Response—While we agree that the and Podruzny 2006, p. 45). The Study
grizzly bear populations may experience extent to which grizzly bears might be Team’s research has resulted in a
lower incidences of vandal killing, and able to compensate for the loss of one tentative threshold value, a mean of 20
one reviewer noted that data he had of the four major foods is unknown, the cones per tree, which predicts near
collected in Alberta since 1999 do not rule reflects the best scientific and exclusive use of cones by bears from
support the conclusion that sport commercial data available. Future food August through October, and also
hunting of grizzly bears lowers mortality source availability and the possible predicts that management actions will
from poaching. grizzly bear reaction to those possible be reduced in such years. This level of
Response—The reviewer’s evidence future changes are discussed under predictive ability to detect this effect is
convinced us to conclude that sport Factor E below and in the Summary to adequate for management purposes.
hunting of grizzly bears may not lower Public Comments’ sections J, K, L, and Whitebark pine cone production
mortality from poaching. We have M above. We also agree that human- fluctuates from year to year, as an
removed any such wording and logic caused mortality is probably the major evolved strategy on the part of the trees
from this final rule. factor limiting grizzly populations, to avoid seed parasitism and predation.
Issue 2—One reviewer suggested that although mortality can be mediated by Human management cannot guarantee a
we could strengthen our assumptions food availability (Mattson et al. 1992, p. large cone crop.
about secure habitat serving adequately 432). The Study Team will continue to Abundances of the other three major
as the primary habitat component monitor major food abundance and foods (ungulate carcasses, cutthroat
monitored, if we expanded the grizzly bear conflicts and mortalities. trout, and army cutworm moths) have
definition of secure habitat to include a The combination of results and Study not been reliable predictors of grizzly
probability of grizzly bear occurrence Team analyses from these multiple bear abundance, fecundity, mortality, or
(through ongoing monitoring of food monitoring indices on foods, bear vital management activity. All have
resources in space and time) coupled rates, and bear/human conflicts will fluctuated in abundance during the
with mortality risk (Nielsen et al. 2006, allow managers to respond to changes as period in which the grizzly population
pp. 220–222) necessary. Managers will respond to has continued to increase.
Response—The negative impacts of poor food years with reductions in Although adult female survival is the
humans on grizzly bear survival and allowable mortalities and with factor most important to population
habitat use are well documented increased I & E efforts that forewarn the trajectory, the Study Team also monitors
(Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278; public about the increased potential for reproductive rates to obtain a complete
McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. grizzly bear/human conflicts. picture of the overall health of the
458–459; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. Issue 2—The reviewers thought it was grizzly bear population. Annually, the
83–103; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862–1864; important to continue monitoring the Study Team monitors litter size through
McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. abundance and distribution of the four counts of females with cubs-of-the-year.
377–378; Mattson 1990, pp. 41–44; major food sources. One reviewer In addition, every 8 to 10 years, the
Mattson and Knight 1991, pp. 9–11; suggested that the Service use statistical Study Team will recalculate litter size
Mattson et al. 1992, pp. 436–438; Mace power analyses ‘‘* * * to determine and cub survival based on the radio-
et al. 1996, p. 1403; McLellan et al. what level of change in each food source collared sample of female grizzly bears.
1999, pp. 914–916; White et al. 1999, p. can be detected with these surveys’ and The Study Team does not currently
150; Woodroffe 2000, pp. 166–168; to make adjustments to improve the monitor reproductive hormone cycles
Boyce et al. 2001, p. 34; Johnson et al. effectiveness and efficiency of the food but will consider its use in the future as
2004, p. 976). In light of this, the monitoring techniques. Another it becomes more feasible and cost-
importance of secure habitat, simply reviewer recommended that the Service effective.
Issue 3—One reviewer thought the to ensure that relisting will be carried in the development of the Wyoming
Service should make it clear that the out if necessary, based upon the best State grizzly bear management plan.
four major foods and their potential available science. Issue 4—The reviewers supported our
declines were not included in any Issue 2—One reviewer stated that post-delisting monitoring plan to
models of future population trajectory. monitoring is not sufficient if the results maintain a minimum of 25 adult female
Response—The potential abundances of investigations are not promptly bears distributed throughout the GYA
of the four major foods have not been incorporated in policy and management, with radio collars at all times, to
employed in any of the PVAs predicting and that this type of rapid response examine the trends and welfare of the
future population trajectory. The requires availability of contingency population. One reviewer recommended
reasons for this and our progress toward funds, clear roles and authorities, and to us that such research trapping and
this goal are discussed above in our the power to impose the necessary radio-collaring should strive to
response to Issue 2 under subheading B actions on all involved partners. One minimize the number of capture events
in the Summary of Public Comments reviewer believes that since the per individual to minimize stress,
section of this final rule. effectiveness of the monitoring program perhaps by using radio transmitters that
Issue 4—Two reviewers thought the depended ‘‘* * * upon adequate have a longer operational life.
Service should analyze the implications funding to provide research results with Response—The minimization of stress
of the recently introduced wolf scientifically acceptable confidence during capture events is always a
populations on the availability of limits,’’ the monitoring plan should priority for research-trapped bears. A
ungulates to Yellowstone grizzly bears. have secure funding for at least 5 to 10 strict protocol (Jonkel 1993, pp. 1–4) is
Response—Recent models and years before delisting occurs. followed by the Study Team when
investigations in the field suggest that trapping grizzly bears for research
Response—The signatories to the
reintroduced wolves have had little purposes. In addition, the latest
Strategy will practice adaptive
effect on ungulate availability to grizzly veterinary medical research is
management by incorporating the
bears in the GYA (Wilmers et al. 2003a, incorporated into the Study Team’s
findings of the monitoring programs
pp. 914–915; Barber et al. 2005, p. 43; protocol when they renew their
Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 259). This issue into management of the GYA grizzly
veterinary permit annually. These
is discussed in more detail under Factor bear population. The Federal
protocols are designed to minimize
E below. Government does not have the statutory
restraint time, minimize capture-related
or constitutional authority to compel the
F. Is the post-delisting monitoring stress, monitor the health of captured
States or individuals to participate in
program for habitat and population animals, administer appropriate levels
managing grizzly bears if they choose
criteria logical and adequate to ensure of anesthesia, and minimize the
not to, although the responsible duration of anesthesia through the use
survival of this population of grizzly agencies’ signatures on the Strategy
bears in the foreseeable future? of appropriate antagonists. As radio-
indicate their willingness to manage the telemetry technology improves, the
Issue 1—A couple of the reviewers Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. Funding Study Team will incorporate those
commented that a clear, unequivocal set for government programs is never advances into the monitoring program.
of criteria for automatic relisting should certain at any level, but the funding to If collars can be safely retained for
be established to reduce process-based support the grizzly bear and grizzly bear longer periods, the Study Team will
uncertainty. One reviewer stated that, habitat management activities of the make use of improved battery life as
given past controversy surrounding various Federal and State agencies has these advancements are made. As collar
listing decisions, relisting cannot be been consistently obligated for the past life increases, the total number of
regarded as a potential solution to future 30 years. capture events will decrease.
problems. Issue 3—One reviewer encouraged the Issue 5—One reviewer believes that
Response—The Act contains no Service to investigate human the Service should state clearly how
provision for automatic relisting of a dimensions with a protocol that would often important population parameters
species based on quantitative criteria. If, allow quantification of changes in the such as female survival, litter size, litter
at any time, data indicate that protective attitudes of the general public, farmers, interval, population growth rates
status under the Act should be hunters, and other stakeholders. (lambda), sex ratios, and age ratios will
reinstated, we can initiate listing Response—Although we agree that be calculated.
procedures, including, if appropriate, the values people hold about grizzly Response—These parameters will be
emergency listing. Any such relisting bears may provide some insight into recalculated every 8 to 10 years based
would be based on the definition of poaching incidents and successful on the radio-collared sample
threatened or endangered and the 5- management approaches, due to the (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
factor analysis. A petition for relisting complications associated with 2005, p. 45) or as required by a Biology
the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS would quantifying shifts in public attitudes, we and Monitoring Review triggered by a
have to go through the same procedure do not see such research as a priority violation of a habitat or population
as a species newly petitioned for listing. essential to grizzly bear conservation in criterion.
However, the Service can issue an the GYA. Instead, we believe successful Issue 6—Some reviewers suggested
emergency listing rule independent of conservation of the Yellowstone grizzly that a DNA-based population estimate
the petition process or in response to a bear should focus on reducing human- be conducted at least once to check the
petition, as it did for the Mojave caused mortality, protecting habitat, estimate given by using the methods
population of the desert tortoise preventing grizzly bear/human conflicts, described in the Reassessing Methods
(Gopherus agassizii) (54 FR 32326, and monitoring demographic and Document. Some believe that the
August 4, 1989). The Service would habitat parameters. That said, in 2001, Service should integrate large-scale,
then have 240 days to complete a the State of Wyoming contracted a non-invasive genetic sampling into
conventional listing rule before the private business to survey its residents future monitoring protocol since the
protections of the emergency rule about their attitudes toward grizzly bear data gathered during such sampling
expire. The Service believes the process management (Responsive Management provides much more information than
described in this final rule is sufficient 2001, p. i). This information was used just a population estimate. Genetic
sampling also can provide reliable and that, during these years, the Strategy, management agencies will
estimates of sex ratio, reproductive population was increasing (Eberhardt respond with adequate restrictions and
success, effective population size, and Knight 1996, p. 419; Harris et al. enforcement if recreation on public
dispersal, allelic diversity, 2006, p. 48). Therefore, the selection of lands due to increased human
heterozygosity, and inbreeding levels. any other year between 1988 and 1998 populations in the GYA becomes
Response—The current cost of a one- would have resulted in approximately detrimental to the Yellowstone grizzly
time, point population estimate using the same baseline values for roads and bear population.
DNA is roughly $3.5 million to $5 developed sites but the selection of the Resource extraction in grizzly bear
million (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study latter date allowed improvements made habitat is primarily timber harvest, and
Team 2005, p. 12). The Yellowstone since 1988 to be included in the it has declined. Habitat quality, as
Ecosystem Subcommittee decided in baseline. To address the possibility that measured by road density and timber
2001 that such funds would be spent we could be monitoring the ‘‘wrong harvest, has increased due to declines in
more effectively on other management surrogates,’’ the responsible agencies these activities in grizzly habitat.
actions. The Service and the Study also will be monitoring a suite of other Timber harvest volumes and road
Team recognize the need to improve factors including habitat parameters, construction have declined since the
methods to estimate population size and population criteria, mortalities, and mid-1990s. Under the 1998 level of
calculate sustainable mortality limits conflicts. Our partners will improve the secure habitat, the Yellowstone grizzly
and will continue to consider ways in technique for the monitoring of habitat bear population has been increasing at
which this might be accomplished. As as better methods become available and between 4 to 7 percent per year (Harris
the costs associated with DNA as the relationships between habitat et al. 2006, p. 48). From 1986 to 2002
amplification and analysis decrease quality and vital rates are better there has been a net reduction of more
with time, the Study Team may revisit documented. than 1,600 km (1,000 mi) of road on the
this possibility. The Study Team will Issue 8—A couple of reviewers six GYA National Forests (inside and
continue to take DNA samples suggested that in order to truly maintain outside the PCA). Inside the PCA on
opportunistically from all bears trapped 1998 conditions, the level of human use National Forests, there was an average
for research or management and all also must be maintained at 1998 levels reduction (elimination) of 59.9 km (37.2
known mortalities so that future because the intensity of human use is mi) of road per year from 1986 to 2002
analyses of other genetic or the driving factor behind security, not (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 200).
demographic parameters are possible. the sheer number of developed sites and Similarly, outside the PCA, there was an
For now, as long as mortality continues roads on the landscape; intensity of use average reduction of 40.7 km (25.3 mi)
to remain within the sustainable will only increase as the human of road per year for this time period
mortality limits as evidenced by a population in the area increases. One (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 200).
Chao2 estimate of at least 48 females reviewer suggested that the Service There are no active oil and gas wells in
with cubs of the year, there are no data create limits on the numbers of visitors Service-defined suitable grizzly habitat.
to indicate that this method is (visitors/days) allowed in Yellowstone There has never been any high-density
inadequate to manage for a stable to National Park. He believes that this oil and gas development in suitable
increasing Yellowstone grizzly bear limitation on human activities is grizzly habitat in the GYA. Inside the
population. especially important in light of PCA, the potential for increased
Issue 7—Several reviewers thought uncertainties surrounding food sources. resource extraction in the future is
the 1998 baseline gives reasonable One reviewer also noted that, in light of severely limited due to the constraints
assurance that grizzly bear habitat needs potential decreases in important foods, on road construction and site
within the PCA will continue to be met. it would be preferable to institute development established by the
One reviewer commented that the habitat guidelines that are more Strategy.
assumption that 1998 habitat conditions restrictive toward resource exploitation We do not anticipate a dramatic
allowed the population to increase by 4 than the 1998 baseline. increase in resource extraction outside
to 7 percent is ‘‘largely valid,’’ but Response—Human use of the GYA, as of the PCA either due to the quantity of
questioned the Service’s choice of the measured by the annual number of National Forest land designated as
year 1998 and the biological people visiting Yellowstone National Wilderness Area (6,799 sq km (2,625 sq
justification behind the criteria for Park, has increased since the grizzly was mi)), Wilderness Study Area (708 sq km
acceptable road densities and levels of listed as threatened in 1975 (Gunther (273 sq mi)), or Inventoried Roadless
secure habitat. A couple of reviewers 2000, p. 48). During the 1970s, the Area (6,179 sq km (2,386 sq mi)).
agreed with the Service that, currently, average annual number of people Approximately 79 percent of all suitable
there is no known way to deductively visiting the Park was 2,243,737. In the habitat on National Forest lands outside
calculate habitat quality for grizzly bears 1990s, this number was 3,023,916 the PCA falls into one of these
(e.g., security) and that the use of (Gunther 2000, p. 48). However, during categories.
surrogates (e.g., levels of secure habitat) that period, the grizzly population also Issue 9—One reviewer stated that
was appropriate, but reminded us that has increased, and the bears within there are no clear management
‘‘If we are monitoring the wrong Yellowstone National Park appear to responses described if habitat threshold
surrogates, however, there is no have reached the carrying capacity of values are not achieved. Another
guarantee that the true 1998 habitat the Park habitat (Schwartz et al. 2006c, reviewer recommended that threshold
baseline will be met. We should p. 29). The Service considers the values for habitat effectiveness be
acknowledge this and continue to strive establishment of habitat thresholds for established, as these would be helpful
for better measures of what constitutes human population growth and for managers, even if they do not trigger
true habitat quality for bears.’’ recreation to be unrealistic and feels exact management responses like the
Response—The year 1998 was chosen that the 1998 baseline will address these demographic criteria do.
because we know that levels of secure issues adequately through access Response—Because of the natural
habitat and site developments had been management and limitations on site annual variability in the distribution
roughly the same during the previous 10 development. Using the adaptive and abundance of grizzly bear foods,
years (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 27), management approach described in the there were no threshold values
established for these habitat parameters. management framework (i.e., the valuable to confirm the Cumulative
Instead, the 1998 baseline attempted to Strategy) is in place to manage grizzly Effects Model with empirical data. This
establish realistic habitat standards that bear mortality and habitat quality criticism of the Cumulative Effects
ensure adequate habitat security and (Linnell et al. 2001, p. 348). Model is one reason that the Strategy
minimum livestock conflicts within the Issue 12—One reviewer does not include threshold values for
PCA. The Study Team will continue to recommended that the Service abandon habitat effectiveness as calculated by the
communicate with managers and the the current Cumulative Effects Model in Cumulative Effects Model as a trigger for
media about whitebark pine production favor of a model that employs Resource management action or a Biology and
as they obtain data each year. The goal Selection Functions. He contends that Monitoring Review. What the
of this effort is to inform the public of Resource Selection Functions models Cumulative Effects Model does provide
ways to avoid grizzly bear conflicts in avoid many of the limitations associated is a relative measure of whether habitat
poor food years. with the Cumulative Effects Model quality has increased or decreased in
Issue 10—One reviewer noted that the including ‘‘* * * lack of empiricism, areas across the landscape. However, it
time lag in the feedback loop between pre-defined model structure, and does not provide a reliable estimate of
habitat changes and population size arbitrary threshold criteria.’’ Another exactly how those changes in habitat
(Doak 1995, p. 1378) poses a problem reviewer also endorsed the use of quality will affect the Yellowstone
for monitoring population size alone. Resource Selection Functions models grizzly bear population. The Study
This reviewer suggested that a major and noted that they are becoming Team is currently exploring alternative
research focus for the future should be sophisticated enough to incorporate habitat models to the Cumulative Effects
to strive to improve habitat monitoring mortality risk, which would be Model. As the science further evolves,
protocols such that habitat is monitored invaluable to grizzly bear management. the Study Team will continue to use the
directly, not just via grizzly bear vital Response—The Study Team is best scientific and commercial
rates. currently exploring alternative habitat information available.
Response—The Strategy commits the models to the Cumulative Effects Model.
agencies to intensive monitoring of all Resource Selection Functions models G. Did we include all the necessary and
grizzly bear vital rates and the are not always the best way to describe pertinent literature to support our
relationship of these vital rates to habitat relationships because estimated assumptions, arguments, and
changes in major foods and levels and resource selection functions are not conclusions?
types of human activities in their always proportional to the true Issue 1—Several peer reviewers
habitat. This monitoring does not solely probability of use (Keating and Cherry suggested additional literature to
rely on vital rate monitoring to 2004, p. 788). We agree that linking consider and possibly include in the
indirectly infer changes in habitat. habitat conditions to demographic data final rule.
Annual habitat monitoring will produce would be an invaluable management Response—The literature used and
results on any changes in habitat values tool. The Study Team is currently recommended by the peer reviewers has
and key food production and possible developing habitat-based risk analysis been considered and incorporated, as
disease in key foods. Thus, the system models that will provide insight into appropriate, in this final rule.
in place will not rely on indirect these relationships. These models
Summary of Factors Affecting the
measures of habitat values but will consider foods, habitat productivity,
produce direct measures of habitat and human impacts to the landscape. As Species
values annually. Since our partners will part of the adaptive management Section 4 of the Act and regulations
be monitoring a suite of vital rates approach in the Strategy, the Study promulgated to implement the listing
including survival of radio-collared Team intends to link these hazard provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424)
bears, mortality of all conflict bears, and models with similar models of set forth the procedures for listing,
fecundity, we feel confident that we will reproduction to develop models reclassifying, and delisting species. A
be able to detect the consequences of predicting population change on the species may be delisted, according to 50
significantly reduced habitat landscape. Combined, these models will CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and
productivity. yield a projection of population commercial data available demonstrate
Issue 11—One reviewer wanted to see viability. These efforts will that the species is no longer endangered
more emphasis placed on not only continuously be updated and improved or threatened because of (1) extinction;
tracking and categorizing private land as new methods and information (2) recovery; or (3) error in the original
development, but predicting it as well, become available. data used for classification of the
to allow for proactive management. Issue 13—Several reviewers species.
Response—Data on private land recommended that the Cumulative A recovered population is one that no
development are gathered by, and are Effects Model be validated with longer meets the Act’s definition of
available from, the counties. These data empirical data and suggested that threatened or endangered. The analysis
are used by nongovernmental predicted use may not correlate well for a delisting due to recovery must be
organizations and university researchers with actual grizzly bear use. They based on the five factors outlined in
to project future growth and prioritize believed such validation would be section 4(a)(1) of the Act. This analysis
private lands that are most important to helpful since the Service relies on the must include an evaluation of threats
landscape connectivity and species Cumulative Effects Model as a that existed at the time of listing and
diversity. For more information on monitoring tool for habitat effectiveness those that currently exist or that could
recent land sale statistics, please see our and habitat mitigation. One reviewer potentially affect the species in the
response to Issue 6 under subheading H suggested an approach that could link foreseeable future once the protections
of the Summary of Public Comments habitat (foods) and mortality so that the of the Act are removed.
section above. Cumulative Effects Model is adequate. The Act defines ‘‘species’’ to also
The Service contends that grizzly Response—Although we currently include any subspecies or, for
bears can coexist with projected human view the Cumulative Effects Model as vertebrates, any DPS. Because the
population growth and land use in the the best scientific and commercial data Yellowstone grizzly bear population is
foreseeable future, if an adequate available, we agree that it would be discrete and significant, as defined
above, it warrants recognition as a DPS event. To say that a species ‘‘is in and how the species came to be extinct
under the Act and our policy (61 FR danger’’ in an area that is currently in that location may be relevant in
4722, February 7, 1996). Therefore, our unoccupied, such as unoccupied understanding or predicting whether a
analysis only covers the Yellowstone historical range, would be inconsistent species is ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ in
DPS. with common usage. Thus, ‘‘range’’ its current range and therefore relevant
In terms of the ‘‘foreseeable future,’’ must mean ‘‘currently-occupied range,’’ to our 5 factor analysis. But the fact that
for the purposes of this final rule, we not ‘‘historical range.’’ This it has ceased to exist in what may have
view ‘‘foreseeable’’ as ‘‘such as interpretation of ‘‘range’’ is further been portions of its historical range does
reasonably can or should be anticipated: supported by the fact that section not necessarily mean that it is ‘‘in
Such that a person of ordinary prudence 4(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to danger of extinction’’ in a significant
would expect it to occur or exist under consider the ‘‘present’’ or ‘‘threatened’’ portion of the range where it currently
the circumstances’’ (Merriam-Webster’s (i.e., future), rather than the past, exists.
Dictionary of Law 1996; Western ‘‘destruction, modification, or ‘‘Significant’’—The Act does not
Watershed Project v. Foss (D. Idaho curtailment’’ of a species’ habitat or clearly indicate what portion(s) of a
2005)). We use this definition, as range in determining whether a species species’ range should be considered
opposed to an a priori time period (e.g., is endangered or threatened. ‘‘significant.’’ Most dictionaries list
100 years), to avoid placing an arbitrary However, the Ninth Circuit Court of several definitions of ‘‘significant.’’ For
limit on our time horizon. The Appeals appeared to conclude, without example, one standard dictionary
foreseeable future is likely to differ for any analysis or explanation that the defines ‘‘significant’’ as ‘‘important,’’
each factor potentially impacting the ‘‘range’’ referred to in the ‘‘significant ‘‘meaningful,’’ ‘‘a noticeably or
DPS. When evaluating population portion of its range’’ phrase includes the measurably large amount,’’ or
models or other modeling efforts (e.g., historical range of the species. The court ‘‘suggestive’’ (Merriam-Webster’s
climate change models), with respect to stated that a species ‘‘can be extinct Collegiate Dictionary 1088 (10th ed.
foreseeable future, we take into ‘throughout * * * a significant portion 2000)). If it means a ‘‘noticeably or
consideration model variance over time of its range’ if there are major measurably large amount,’’ then we
and model outputs along with the decay geographical areas in which it is no would have to focus on the size of the
in confidence as we forecast further into longer viable but once was,’’ and then range in question, either in relation to
the future. This approach is more robust faults the Secretary for not ‘‘at least the rest of the range or perhaps even in
than simply looking at a single time- explain[ing] her conclusion that the area absolute terms. If it means ‘‘important,’’
horizon because it uses all available in which the species can no longer live then we would have to consider factors
data and takes into consideration the is not a significant portion of its range.’’ in addition to size in determining a
predictive value of that data. However, Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 portion of a species’ range is
the Strategy which is intended to guide F.3d 1136, 1145 (emphasis added). This ‘‘significant.’’ For example, would a key
all management post-delisting, is would suggest that the range we must breeding ground of species be
anticipated to continue in perpetuity. analyze in assessing endangerment ‘‘significant,’’ even if it was only a small
To provide assurance that the DPS includes unoccupied historical range— part of the species’ entire range?
remains recovered beyond the i.e., the places where the species was One district court interpreted the term
foreseeable future, the Strategy provides once viable but no longer exists. to mean ‘‘a noticeably or measurably
that if future threats arise or known The statute does not support this large amount’’ without analysis or any
threats increase in magnitude, the Study interpretation. This interpretation is reference to other alternate meanings,
Team and the Coordinating Committee based on what appears to be an including ‘‘important’’ or ‘‘meaningful.’’
are to adapt management to address any inadvertent misquote of the relevant Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F.
new or increased threats. statutory language. In addressing this Supp. 2d 9, 19 (D.D.C. 2002). We
A species is ‘‘endangered’’ for issue, the Ninth Circuit states that the consider the court’s interpretation to be
purposes of the Act if it is in danger of Secretary must determine whether a unpersuasive because the court did not
extinction throughout all or a species is ‘‘extinct throughout * * * a explain why we could not employ
‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and is significant portion of its range.’’ Id. If another, equally plausible definition of
‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become that were true, we would have to study ‘‘significant.’’ It is impossible to
endangered within the foreseeable the historical range. But that is not what determine from the word itself, even
future throughout all or a ‘‘significant the statute says, and the Ninth Circuit when read in the context of the entire
portion of its range.’’ The following quotes the statute correctly elsewhere in statute, which meaning of ‘‘significant’’
describes how we interpret the terms its opinion. Under the Act, we are not Congress intended. Moreover, even if it
‘‘range’’ and ‘‘significant’’ as used in the to determine if a species is ‘‘extinct were clear which meaning was
phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range,’’ throughout * * * a significant portion intended, ‘‘significant’’ would still
and explains the basis for our use of of its range,’’ but are to determine if it require interpretation. For example, if it
those terms in this rule. ‘‘is in danger of extinction throughout were meant to refer to size, what size
‘‘Range’’—The word ‘‘range’’ in the * * * a significant portion of its range.’’ would be ‘‘significant’’: 30 percent, 60
phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ A species cannot presently be ‘‘in percent, 90 percent? Should the
refers to the range in which a species danger of extinction’’ in that portion of percentage be the same in every case or
currently exists, not to the historical its range where it ‘‘was once viable but for each species? Moreover, what
range of the species where it once no longer is’’—if by the latter phrase the factors, if any, would be appropriate to
existed. The context in which the court meant lost historical habitat. In consider in making a size
phrase is used is crucial. Under the that portion of its range, the species has determination? Is size all by itself
Act’s definitions, a species is by definition ceased to exist. In such ‘‘significant,’’ or does size only become
‘‘endangered’’ only if it ‘‘is in danger of situations, it is not ‘‘in danger of ‘‘significant’’ when considered in
extinction’’ in the relevant portion of its extinction’’; it is extinct. combination with other factors? On the
range. The phrase ‘‘is in danger’’ Although we must focus on the range other hand, if ‘‘significant’’ were meant
denotes a present-tense condition of in which the species currently exists, to refer to importance, what factors
being at risk of a future, undesired data about the species’ historical range would need to be considered in
deciding that a particular portion of a necessarily qualify a species for listing. A to affect it within the foreseeable future.
species’ range is ‘‘important’’ enough to species with an exceptionally large historical Therefore, this analysis was conducted
trigger the protections of the Act? range may continue to enjoy healthy over the entire current and foreseeable
Where there is ambiguity in a statute, population levels despite the loss of a range of the grizzly bear including all
substantial amount of suitable habitat.
as with the meaning of ‘‘significant,’’ the Similarly, a species with an exceptionally ‘‘suitable habitat’’ (defined and
agency charged with administering the small historical range may quickly become discussed under Factor A below) within
statute, in this case the Service, has endangered after the loss of even a very small the DPS boundaries.
broad discretion to resolve the percentage of habitat. A. The Present or Threatened
ambiguity and give meaning to the term. The Ninth Circuit concluded that Destruction, Modification, or
As the Supreme Court has stated: what is ‘‘significant’’ must ‘‘necessarily Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
In Chevron, this Court held that be determined on a case by case basis,’’
ambiguities in statutes within an agency’s
Habitat destruction and modification
and must take into account not just the were major contributing factors leading
jurisdiction to administer are delegations of size of the range but also the biological
authority to the agency to fill the statutory to the listing of the grizzly bear as a
importance of the range to the species. threatened species under the Act in
gap in reasonable fashion. Filling these gaps,
the Court explained, involves difficult policy 258 F.3d. at 1143. At the other end of 1975 (40 FR 31734–31736, July 28,
choices that agencies are better equipped to the spectrum, the Ninth Circuit rejected 1975). Both the dramatic decreases in
make than courts. If a statute is ambiguous, what it called ‘‘the faulty definition historical range and land management
and if the implementing agency’s offered by us,’’ a definition that holds practices in formerly secure grizzly bear
construction is reasonable, Chevron requires that a portion of a species’ range is habitat led to the 1975 listing (40 FR
a federal court to accept the agency’s ‘‘significant’’ only if the threats faced by 31734–31736, July 28, 1975). To address
construction of the statute, even if the the species in that area are so severe as
agency’s reading differs from what the court
this source of population decline, the
to threaten the viability of the species as Study Team was created in 1973 to
believes is the best statutory interpretation.
a whole. 258 F.3d. at 1143, 1146. It thus collect, manage, analyze, and distribute
Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. appears that within the two outer science-based information regarding
Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, boundaries set by the Ninth Circuit, we habitat and demographic parameters
980 (2005) (internal citations omitted). have wide discretion to give the upon which to base management and
We have broad discretion in defining definitive interpretation of the word recovery. Then, in 1983, the Interagency
what portion of a species’ range is ‘‘significant’’ in the phrase ‘‘significant Grizzly Bear Committee was created to
‘‘significant.’’ No ‘‘bright line’’ or portion of its range.’’ coordinate management efforts across
‘‘predetermined’’ percentage of Based on these principles, we multiple Federal lands and different
historical range loss is considered considered the following factors in States within the various Recovery
‘‘significant’’ in all cases, and we may determining whether a portion of the Zones ultimately working to achieve
consider factors other than simply the grizzly’s range is ‘‘significant’’—quality, recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower
size of the range portion in defining quantity, and distribution of habitat 48 States. Its objective was to change
what is ‘‘significant.’’ In light of the relative to the biological requirements of land management practices on Federal
general ecosystems conservation the species; the historical value of the lands that supported grizzly bear
purposes and findings in section 2 of habitat to the species; the frequency of populations at the time of listing to
the Act, our goal is to define use of the habitat; the uniqueness or provide security and maintain or
‘‘significant’’ in such a way as to insure importance of the habitat for other improve habitat conditions for the
the conservation of the species reasons, such as breeding, feeding, grizzly bear. Since 1986, National Forest
protected by the Act. In determining migration, wintering, or suitability for and National Park plans have
whether a range portion is significant, population expansion; genetic diversity; incorporated the Guidelines (USDA
we consider the ecosystems on which and other biological factors. We focused Forest Service 1986, pp. 1–2) to manage
the species that use that range depend on portions of the grizzly’s range grizzly bear habitat in the Yellowstone
as well as the values listed in the Act important to its conservation, such as Recovery Zone.
that would be impaired or lost if the identified ‘‘recovery units’’; unique Management improvements made as a
species were to become extinct in that habitat or other ecological features that result of the Guidelines include, but are
portion of the range or in the range as provide adaptive opportunities that are not limited to—(1) Federal and State
a whole. of conservation importance to the agency coordination to produce
However, our discretion in defining species; and ‘‘core’’ populations that nuisance bear guidelines that allow a
‘‘significant’’ is not unlimited. The generate additional individuals of a quick response to resolve and minimize
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, while species that can, over time, replenish grizzly bear/human confrontations; (2)
acknowledging that we have ‘‘a wide depleted populations or stocks at the reduced motorized access route
degree of discretion in delineating’’ periphery of the species’ range. We did densities through restrictions,
what portion of a range is ‘‘significant,’’ not apply the term ‘‘significant’’ to decommissioning, and closures; (3)
appeared to set outer limits of that portions of the species’ range that highway design considerations to
discretion. See Defenders of Wildlife v. constitute less-productive peripheral facilitate population connectivity; (4)
Norton, 258 F.3d 1136. On the one habitat, artificially-created habitat, or closure of some important habitat areas
hand, it rejected what it called a areas where the species has established to all human access in National Parks
quantitative approach to defining itself in urban or suburban settings. during certain seasons that are
‘‘significant,’’ where a ‘‘bright line’’ or Such portions of the species’ range are particularly important to grizzlies; (5)
‘‘predetermined’’ percentage of not ‘‘significant,’’ in our view, to the closure of many areas in the GYA to oil
historical range loss is considered conservation of the species as required and gas leasing, or implementing
‘‘significant’’ in all cases. 258 F.3d. at by the Act. restrictions such as no surface
1143. As the court explained: The following analysis utilizes these occupancy; (6) elimination of two sheep
First, it simply does not make sense to definitions and examines all important allotments on the Caribou-Targhee
assume that the loss of a predetermined factors currently affecting the National Forest in 1998, resulting in a
percentage of habitat or range would Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS or likely 46 percent decrease in total sheep
animal months inside the Yellowstone 969) that grizzly bear reproduction and 297–298; Mattson and Merrill 2002, pp.
Recovery Zone; and (7) expanded I & E survival is a function of both the 1128–1129). Because wild bison herds
programs in the Yellowstone Recovery biological needs of grizzly bears and no longer exist in these areas, these
Zone to help reduce the number of remoteness from human activities, areas are no longer capable of
grizzly mortalities caused by big-game which minimizes mortality risk for contributing, in a meaningful way, to
hunters. Overall, adherence to the grizzly bears. Mountainous areas the overall status of the Yellowstone
Guidelines has changed land provide hiding cover, the topographic DPS. Thus, we did not include drier
management practices on Federal lands variation necessary to ensure a wide sagebrush, prairie, or agricultural lands
to provide security and to maintain or variety of seasonal foods, and the steep within our definition of suitable habitat
improve habitat conditions for the slopes used for denning (Judd et al. because these land types no longer
grizzly bear. Implementation of these 1986, pp. 114–115; Aune and Kasworm contain adequate food resources (i.e.,
Guidelines has led to the successful 1989, pp. 29–58; Linnell et al. 2000, pp. bison) to support grizzly bears. Figure 1
rebound of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 403–405). Higher elevation, above illustrates suitable habitat within
population, allowing it to significantly mountainous regions in the GYA the Yellowstone DPS.
increase in size and distribution since (Omernik 1987, pp. 118–125; Omernik
its listing in 1975. 1995, pp. 49–62; Woods et al. 1999; Unavoidable and uncontrollable
In 2002, an interagency group McGrath et al. 2002; Chapman et al. mortality also can impact which habitat
representing pertinent State and Federal 2004) contain high-energy foods such as might be considered suitable. Some
parties released the draft Final whitebark pine seeds (Mattson and mortality, including human-caused
Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Jonkel 1990, p. 223; Mattson et al. mortality, is unavoidable in a dynamic
Bear in the GYA to guide management 1991a, p. 1623) and army cutworm system where hundreds of bears inhabit
and monitoring of the habitat and moths (Mattson et al. 1991b, 2434; large areas of diverse habitat with
population of Yellowstone grizzly bears French et al. 1994, p. 391). several million human visitors and
after delisting. The Strategy identifies For our analysis of suitable habitat, residents. The negative impacts of
and provides a framework for managing we considered the Middle Rockies humans on grizzly bear survival and
two areas, the PCA and adjacent areas ecoregion, within which the Greater habitat use are well documented
of suitable habitat where occupancy by Yellowstone Area is contained, (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278;
grizzly bears is anticipated in the (Omernik 1987, pp. 120–121; Woods et McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp.
foreseeable future. What follows is an al. 1999; McGrath et al. 2002; Chapman 458–459; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp.
assessment of present or threatened et al. 2004) to meet grizzly bear 83–103; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862–1864;
destruction, modification, or biological needs providing food, McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp.
curtailment of the grizzly bear’s habitat seasonal foraging opportunities, cover, 377–378; Mattson 1990, pp. 41–44;
and range. More specifically, this and denning areas (Mattson and Merrill Mattson and Knight 1991, pp. 9–11;
analysis evaluates all areas capable of 2002, p. 1125). The Middle Rockies Mattson et al. 1992, pp. 436–438; Mace
supporting grizzly bears including the ecoregion has Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, et al. 1996, p. 1403; McLellan et al.
PCA and all suitable habitat within the and Engelmann spruce forests and 1999, pp. 914–916; White et al. 1999, p.
DPS. These terms and areas are defined alpine areas. Forests can be open. 150; Woodroffe 2000, pp. 166–168;
below. Foothills are partly wooded or shrub- Boyce et al. 2001, p. 34; Johnson et al.
Suitable Habitat—Because we used and grass-covered. Intermontane valleys 2004, p. 976). These effects range from
easily recognized boundaries to are grass- and/or shrub-covered and temporary displacement to actual
delineate the Yellowstone DPS, the DPS contain a mosaic of terrestrial and mortality. Mattson and Merrill (2002,
includes both suitable and unsuitable aquatic fauna that is distinct from the pp. 1129–1134) found that grizzly bear
habitat (see Figure 1 above). For the nearby mountains. Many mountain-fed, persistence in the contiguous United
purposes of this final rule, suitable perennial streams occur and
States between 1920 and 2000 was
habitat is considered the area within the differentiate the intermontane valleys
DPS boundaries capable of supporting a negatively associated with human and
from the Northwestern Great Plains.
viable grizzly bear population now or in livestock densities. As human
Recreation, logging, mining, and
the foreseeable future. We have defined population densities increase, the
summer livestock grazing are common
suitable habitat for grizzly bears as areas frequency of encounters between
land uses in this ecoregion.
having three characteristics—(1) being Although grizzly bears historically humans and grizzly bears also increases,
of adequate habitat quality and quantity occurred throughout the area of the resulting in more human-caused grizzly
to support grizzly bear reproduction and Yellowstone DPS (Stebler 1972, pp. bear mortalities due to a perceived or
survival; (2) contiguous with the current 297–298), many of these habitats are real threat to human life or property
distribution of Yellowstone grizzly bears not, today, biologically suitable for (Mattson et al. 1996, pp. 1014–1015).
such that natural re-colonization is grizzly bears. While there are records of Similarly, as livestock densities increase
possible; and (3) having low mortality grizzly bears in eastern Wyoming near in habitat occupied by grizzly bears,
risk as indicated through reasonable and present-day Sheridan, Casper, and depredations follow. Although grizzly
manageable levels of grizzly bear Wheatland, even in the early 19th bears frequently coexist with cattle
mortality. For more information see our century, indirect evidence suggests that without depredating them, when grizzly
response to Issue 2 under subheading G grizzly bears were less common in these bears encounter domestic sheep, they
in the Summary of Public Comments eastern prairie habitats than in usually are attracted to such flocks and
section above. mountainous areas to the west (Rollins depredate the sheep (Jonkel 1980, p. 12;
Our definition and delineation of 1935, p. 191; Wade 1947, p. 444). Knight and Judd 1983, pp. 188–189;
suitable habitat is built on the widely Grizzly bear presence in these drier, Orme and Williams 1986, pp. 199–202;
accepted conclusions of extensive grassland habitats was associated with Anderson et al. 2002, pp. 252–253). If
research (Craighead 1980, pp. 8–11; rivers and streams where grizzlies used repeated depredations occur, managers
Knight 1980, pp. 1–3; Peek et al. 1987, bison carcasses as a major food source either relocate the bear or remove it
pp. 160–161; Merrill et al. 1999, pp. (Burroughs 1961, pp. 57–60; Herrero from the population, resulting in such
233–235; Pease and Mattson 1999, p. 1972, pp. 224–227; Stebler 1972, pp. domestic sheep areas becoming
population sinks (Knight et al. 1988, pp. distribution by approximately 100 km females with cubs-of-the-year) are found
122–123). (60 mi) of a mosaic of private and BLM within the PCA (Schwartz et al. 2006b,
Because urban sites and sheep lands primarily used for agriculture, pp. 64–66). Grizzly bear use of suitable
allotments possess high mortality risks livestock grazing, and oil and gas habitat may vary seasonally and
for grizzly bears, we did not include production (Chapman et al. 2004). annually with different areas being more
these areas as suitable habitat (Knight et Although there is a possibility that important than others in some seasons
al. 1988, pp. 122–123). Based on 2000 individual bears may emigrate from the or years (Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp.
Census data, we defined urban areas as GYA to the Bighorns occasionally, this 48–62). An additional 14,554 sq km
census blocks with human population dispersal distance exceeds the average (5,619 sq mi) of suitable habitat is
densities of more than 50 people per sq dispersal distance for both males (30 to currently unoccupied by grizzly bears
km (129 people per sq mi). Cities within 42 km (19 to 26 mi)) and females (10 to (see Figure 1 above) (Schwartz et al.
the Middle Rockies ecoregion such as 14 km (6 to 9 mi)) (McLellan and Hovey 2002, pp. 207–209; Schwartz et al.
West Yellowstone, Gardiner, Big Sky, 2001, p. 842, Proctor et al. 2004, p. 2006b, pp. 64–66). We expect natural
and Cooke City, Montana, and Jackson, 1108). Without constant emigrants from recolonization of much, if not all, of this
Wyoming, were not included as suitable suitable habitat, the Bighorns will not area in the next few decades (Pyare et
habitat. There are large, contiguous support a self-sustaining grizzly bear al. 2004, pp. 5–6).
blocks of sheep allotments in peripheral population. Therefore, due to the fact Significant Portion of Range—We
areas of the ecosystem in the Wyoming that this mountain range is disjunct determined whether a portion of the
Mountain Range, the Salt River from other suitable habitat and current species range is significant based on the
Mountain Range, and portions of the grizzly bear distribution, our analysis biological needs of the species and the
Wind River Mountain Range on the did not classify the Bighorns as suitable nature of the threats to the species. As
Bridger-Teton and the Targhee National habitat within the Yellowstone DPS stated above, the factors we used to
Forests (see Figure 1 above). This spatial boundaries. determine significance include, but may
distribution of sheep allotments on the Some areas that are not considered not be limited to the following: Quality,
periphery of suitable habitat results in suitable habitat by our definition are quantity, and distribution of habitat
areas of high mortality risk to bears occasionally used by grizzly bears relative to the biological requirements of
within these allotments and a few small, (4,635 sq km (1,787 sq mi)) (see Figure the species; the historic value of the
isolated patches or strips of suitable 1 above) (Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 209; habitat to the species; the frequency of
habitat adjacent to or within sheep Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64–66). The use of the habitat; the uniqueness or
allotments. These strips and patches of records of grizzly bears in these importance of the habitat for other
land possess higher mortality risks for unsuitable habitat areas are generally reasons, such as breeding, feeding,
grizzly bears because of their enclosure due to recorded grizzly bear/human migration, wintering, or suitability for
by and proximity to areas of high conflicts or to transient animals. These population expansion; genetic diversity
mortality risk. This phenomenon in areas are defined as unsuitable due to (the loss of genetically based diversity
which the quantity and quality of the high risk of mortality resulting from may substantially reduce the ability of
suitable habitat is diminished because these grizzly bear/human conflicts. the species to respond and adapt to
of interactions with surrounding less These unsuitable habitat areas do not future environmental changes or
suitable habitat is known as an ‘‘edge permit grizzly bear reproduction or perturbations); and other biological
effect’’ (Lande 1988, pp. 3–4; Yahner survival because bears that repeatedly factors (e.g. resilience to recover from
1988, pp. 335–337; Mills 1995, p. 396). come into conflict with humans or periodic disturbances or environmental
Edge effects are exacerbated in small livestock are usually either relocated or variability).
habitat patches with high perimeter-to- removed from these areas. After careful examination of the
area ratios (i.e., those that are longer and According to the habitat suitability Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in the
narrower) and in wide-ranging species criteria described above, the context of our definition of ‘‘significant
such as grizzly bears because they are Yellowstone DPS contains portion of its range,’’ we have
more likely to encounter surrounding, approximately 46,035 sq km (17,774 sq determined all suitable habitat in the
unsuitable habitat (Woodroffe and mi) of suitable grizzly bear habitat DPS (as per our definition above)
Ginsberg 1998, p. 2126). Due to the within the DPS boundaries; or roughly (approximately 46,035 sq km (17,774 sq
negative edge effects of this distribution 24 percent of the total area within the mi)) (see Figure 1 above), to varying
of sheep allotments on the periphery of DPS boundaries (see Figure 1 above). levels, is a significant portion of its
grizzly range, our analysis did not This amount of suitable habitat is range. Within suitable habitat, the PCA
classify linear strips and isolated sufficient to meet all habitat needs of a represents the most significant portion
patches of habitat as suitable habitat. recovered grizzly bear population and of the range. As such, this area is
Finally, dispersal capabilities of provide ecological resiliency to the designated the ‘‘primary’’ conservation
grizzly bears were factored into our population through the availability of area and provides the highest levels of
determination of which potential habitat widely distributed, high-quality habitat protective management. This area was
areas might be considered suitable. that will allow the population to originally selected as the focus of our
Although the Bighorn Mountains west respond to environmental changes. recovery efforts because it was seen ‘‘as
of I–90 near Sheridan, Wyoming, are Grizzly bears currently occupy about 68 an area large enough and of sufficient
grouped within the Middle Rockies percent of that suitable habitat (31,481 habitat quality to support a recovered
ecoregion, they are not connected to the sq km (12,155 sq mi)) (Schwartz et al. grizzly bear population’’ (U.S. Fish and
current distribution of grizzly bears via 2002, pp. 207–209; Schwartz et al. Wildlife Service 1982, pp. 55–58; U.S.
suitable habitat or linkage zones, nor are 2006b, pp. 64–66). It is important to Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41).
there opportunities for such linkage. note that the current grizzly bear This area includes approximately 51
The Bighorn Mountains are comprised distribution shown in Figure 1 does not percent of the suitable habitat within
of 6,341 sq km (2,448 sq mi) of habitat mean that equal densities of grizzly the DPS and approximately 84 to 90
that is classified as part of the Middle bears are found throughout the region. percent of the population of female
Rockies ecoregion, but are separated Instead, most grizzly bears grizzly bears with cubs (Schwartz et al.
from the current grizzly bear (approximately 84 to 90 percent of 2006b, pp. 64–66). Because an estimated
86.5 percent of the GYA grizzly bears the Strategy and the habitat-based to maintain these levels of secure
live within the PCA and these bears recovery criteria discussed above, the habitat inside the PCA so that it will
have experienced positive annual PCA will be a core secure area for continue to function as a source area for
population increases of 4 percent inside grizzlies where human impacts on grizzly bears.
Yellowstone National Park, and 12 habitat conditions will be maintained at Open road densities of more than 1.6
percent in the area inside the PCA but or below levels that existed in 1998 km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi) were
outside of Yellowstone National Park (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. calculated for two seasons to account for
(Schwartz et al. 2006e, p. 58), the PCA 38). The 1998 baseline for habitat seasonal road closures. The percentage
is particularly biologically significant to standards was chosen because the levels of land within each subunit containing
the Yellowstone DPS. It serves as a of secure habitat and developed sites road density values higher than 1.6 km/
source area from which grizzly bears remained relatively constant in the 10 2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi) in 1998 ranged
can expand into peripheral areas and years preceding 1998 (USDA Forest from 0 to 46.1 percent, although the
currently unoccupied suitable habitat. Service 2004, pp. 140–141), and the average for all subunits was only 10.7
Additionally, the PCA’s geographic selection of 1998 assured that the percent. Lands containing total road
location in the northwest corner of the habitat conditions that allowed the density values of more than 3.2 km/2.6
DPS area adds to its biological population to increase at a rate of 4 to sq km (2 mi/sq mi) in 1998 comprised
significance because it is the area 7 percent per year (Harris et al. 2006, p. 0 to 28.1 percent of the total area within
nearest to other grizzly bear recovery 48) would be maintained. For each of each subunit, with an average for all
ecosystems. If and when connectivity is the 40 bear management subunits, the subunits of 5.3 percent (U.S. Fish and
established among grizzly bear 1998 baseline was determined through a Wildlife Service 2007, p. 135). These
populations in the lower 48 States, the GIS analysis of the amount of secure levels of motorized access have been
PCA will play a role in providing habitat, open and closed road densities, effectively maintained or improved from
dispersers to other ecosystems and the number and capacity of livestock 1998 levels. The Strategy assures that
providing secure, quality habitat for allotments, the number of developed current levels of secure habitat will be
dispersers from other grizzly bear sites on public lands, and habitat maintained at 1998 levels (U.S. Fish and
ecosystems. This portion of the range is effectiveness. Wildlife Service 2007, p. 38).
necessary for maintaining a recovered Several subunits within the
Secure habitat refers to those areas boundaries of the Gallatin National
population.
with no motorized access that are at Forest (Henry’s Lake No. 2, Gallatin No.
While the PCA provides for the
primary biological needs of the least 4 ha (10 ac) in size and more than 3, and Madison No. 2) within the PCA
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS, suitable 500 m (1650 ft) from a motorized access have been identified as needing
habitat outside the PCA also plays a role route or reoccurring helicopter flight improvement in access parameters.
in ensuring the future viability of the line (USDA Forest Service 2004, pp. However, the high road density values
species, in that it allows for continued 160–161). Grizzly bear habitat security and subsequently low levels of secure
population expansion into adjacent is primarily achieved by managing habitat in these subunits is primarily
areas of public land in the GYA, and motorized access which—(1) minimizes due to motorized access on private land
therefore, provides additional ecological human interaction and reduces (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p.
resiliency to respond to environmental potential grizzly bear mortality risk; (2) 145–152, Appendix G). The Gallatin
change. Given this differential level of minimizes displacement from important National Forest is working on several
importance, differential levels of habitat; (3) minimizes habituation to land exchange efforts with private
management and protection (one humans; and (4) provides habitat where parties in these subunits. These land
standard inside the PCA and another energetic requirements can be met with exchanges would allow management of
standard for suitable habitat outside the limited disturbance from humans the roads on these private parcels and
PCA) are justified. (Mattson et al. 1987, pp. 269–271; increase the secure habitat in these
As noted above, we do not believe McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. subunits. All the above-mentioned
that areas of unsuitable habitat: 458–459; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862– subunits on the Gallatin National Forest
Contribute, in a meaningful way, to the 1864; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402–1403; have the potential for improvement in
biological requirements of the species; Mattson et al. 1996, pp. 1014–1015). the long term. The timing and amount
are of especially important historical Secure habitat is important to the of improvement will be determined
value; represent unique habitats or other survival and reproductive success of through the Gallatin National Forest
ecological features that provide adaptive grizzly bears, especially adult female travel management planning process
opportunities that are of conservation grizzly bears (Mattson et al. 1987, p. (Gallatin National Forest 2006, pp. 82–
importance to the species; or, are 270; Interagency Grizzly Bear 85). Improved levels of secure habitat as
necessary to maintain genetic diversity. Committee 1994, p. 2). In the 1998 per the Gallatin National Forest travel
Unsuitable habitat, by and large, baseline, secure habitat comprised 45.4 management plan will assure that the
constitutes less-productive peripheral to 100 percent of the total area within habitat security will be maintained.
habitat. Therefore, we believe a given subunit with an average of 85.6 The Gallatin Range Consolidation and
unsuitable habitat, as defined in this percent throughout the entire PCA (U.S. Protection Act of 1993 (Pub. L 103–91)
section above, is not ‘‘significant’’ to the Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. and the Gallatin Range Consolidation
conservation of the species and does not 133–144, Appendix F). These levels of Act of 1998 (Pub. L 105–267) will result
constitute a significant portion of range. secure habitat have been successfully in trading timber for land in the Gallatin
A lack of occupancy in unsuitable maintained and will continue to be No. 3 and Hilgard No. 1 subunits. The
habitat will not impact whether this maintained and improved, where private land involved will become
population is likely to become possible, as directed by the Strategy public land under the jurisdiction of the
endangered within the foreseeable (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. Gallatin National Forest. In order to
future throughout all or a significant 135, Table 2 in Appendix F). Because of complete the exchange, access values in
portion of its range. the positive effect that secure habitat these two subunits will temporarily
Suitable Habitat Management within has on grizzly bear survival and decline below 1998 values. However,
the Primary Conservation Area—As per reproduction, it is especially important upon completion of this sale and land
exchange, secure habitat will increase allowed in either National Park and elk directly to some degree with grizzly
and motorized access route density will hunting is only allowed in Grand Teton bears during late spring and early
decrease in these subunits from the National Park. Elk hunters in Grand summer for desired foods such as
1998 baseline (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Teton National Park are required to grasses, sedges, and forbs (Jonkel 1980,
Service 2007, pp. 133–144, Appendix carry bear pepper spray in an accessible p. 12), this is considered negligible to
F). location. The number of elk hunter grizzly bear population dynamics. Due
The Strategy also identified several visits in the PCA on National Forests to the higher prevalence of grizzly bear
subunits within the boundaries of the has declined 26 percent from 1991 to conflicts associated with sheep grazing,
Targhee National Forest within the PCA 2001 (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. existing sheep allotments will be phased
in need of improvement in terms of 186). Most conflicts between grizzly out as the opportunity arises with
motorized access (Plateau No. 1, Plateau bears and people recreating in grizzly willing permittees (U.S. Fish and
No. 2, and Henry’s Lake No. 1). The bear habitat can be avoided if proper I Wildlife Service 2007, p. 43).
Strategy states that full implementation & E materials are received and used, A total of 100 livestock allotments
of the access management changes in especially pertaining to food and carcass existed inside the PCA in 1998. Of these
the revised 1997 Targhee Forest Plan storage, and therefore ensure the allotments, there were—69 active and
would result in those subunits having Yellowstone DPS is not likely to become 13 vacant cattle allotments; and 11
acceptable levels of road densities and endangered in all or a significant active and 7 vacant sheep allotments
secure habitat, due to the portion of its range within the with a total of 23,090 animal months
decommissioning of roughly 697 km foreseeable future. (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 382).
(433 mi) of roads within the PCA (U.S. Recreation in the GYA can be divided Sheep animal months are calculated by
Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 43– into 6 basic categories based on season multiplying the permitted number of
44). As of 2005, the Targhee National of use (winter or all other seasons), animals by the permitted number of
Forest completed this decommissioning mode of access (motorized or non- months. Any use of vacant allotments
work (USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. motorized), and level of development will only be permitted after an analysis
200–201). The 1998 baseline (U.S. Fish (developed or dispersed) (USDA Forest is completed to evaluate impacts on
and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 133–144, Service 2006a, p. 187). Inside the PCA, grizzly bears. Since 1998, the Caribou-
Appendix F) for these subunits was the vast majority of lands available for Targhee National Forest has closed five
modified to reflect these road closures. recreation are accessible through non- sheep allotments within the PCA while
Henry’s Lake subunit No. 1 and No. 2 motorized travel only (USDA Forest the Shoshone National Forest has closed
still have high levels of motorized Service 2006a, p. 179). Motorized two sheep allotments (USDA Forest
access density and a low secure habitat recreation during the summer, spring, Service 2005, p. 50). This has resulted
level due to motorized access routes on and fall inside the PCA will be limited in a reduction of 7,889 sheep animal
private lands as well as county roads, to existing roads as per the standards in months under the total calculated for
State and Federal highways, and roads the Strategy that restrict increases in 1998 within the PCA, and is a testament
to special use sites (such as the Federal roads or motorized trails. Similarly, to the commitment land management
Aviation Administration radar site on recreating at developed sites such as agencies have to the ongoing success of
Sawtell Peak) that cannot be closed lodges, downhill ski areas, and the grizzly bear population in the GYA.
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, campgrounds will be limited by the As of 2006, there are a total of two
pp. 133–144, Appendix F). These levels developed sites’ habitat standard active sheep allotments within the PCA,
of secure habitat do not constitute a described in the Strategy. The number both on the Targhee National Forest.
threat to the grizzly bear population in and capacity of existing developed sites The permittee of the two allotments on
all or a significant portion of its range. will not increase once delisting occurs. the Gallatin National Forest that were
At least 3 million people visit and For a more complete discussion of active in 2005 when the Proposed rule
recreate in the National Parks and projected increases in recreation in the was published, agreed to waive the
National Forests of the GYA annually GYA National Forests, see the Final grazing permit back to the Gallatin
(USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 176, Environmental Impact Statement for the National Forest without preference and
184). This volume of people in grizzly Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear these two sheep allotments were closed
bear habitat presents a potential for Habitat Conservation for the GYA in 2006. The Gallatin National Forest
grizzly bear/human conflicts, yet the National Forests (USDA Forest Service plans to close three other vacant
average number of conflicts per year 2006a, pp. 176–189). allotments when they revise their
between 1992 and 2004 was only 135 Habitat standards described in the current Forest Plan. This Forest Plan
(Gunther et al. 2006, p. 58). Based on Strategy regarding livestock require that revision process is scheduled to be
past trends, visitation and recreation are the number of commercial livestock completed by 2010 (USDA Forest
expected to increase in the future. For allotments and permitted sheep animal Service 2005, p. 11). The mandatory
instance, Yellowstone National Park has months within the PCA not increase restriction on creating new livestock
shown an approximate 15 percent above 1998 levels (U.S. Fish and allotments and the voluntary phasing
annual increase in the number of people Wildlife Service 2007, p. 43). Livestock out of livestock allotments with
visiting each decade since the 1930s allotments, particularly sheep recurring conflicts further ensure that
(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 183); allotments, decrease habitat security the PCA will continue to function as
however, the number of people (i.e., habitat effectiveness) as grizzly source habitat.
recreating in the backcountry there has bears occupying lands with sheep are The National Parks and National
remained relatively constant from the more likely to come into conflict with Forests within the PCA will manage
1970s through 1999 (Gunther 2000, p. these sheep. This increase in encounters developed sites at 1998 levels within
48). Many grizzly bear/human conflicts between bears and livestock or their each bear management subunit, with
with people recreating occur on human owners decreases survival rates some exceptions for administrative and
National Forest lands and are related to of grizzly bears in areas of active sheep maintenance needs (U.S. Fish and
hunting (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21) allotments, as repeat depredators are Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 38–56).
(also see our discussion under Factor C removed from the population. Although Developed sites refer to sites on public
below). Black bear hunting is not sheep and cattle also can compete land developed or improved for human
use or resource development. Examples would fit this criterion because there is proportional to the type and extent of
include campgrounds, trailheads, no human occupancy, nor human the project (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
lodges, summer homes, restaurants, attractants such as garbage or other Service 2007, p. 40–41).
visitor centers, oil and gas exploratory potential food sources. However, Finally, we established a habitat
wells, production wells, and work campgrounds, trailheads, lodges, effectiveness baseline by documenting
camps. The primary concerns related to summer homes, restaurants, visitor habitat effectiveness values using the
developed sites are direct mortality from centers, oil and gas exploratory wells, Cumulative Effects Model and 1998
bear/human encounters, food production wells, and work camps habitat data (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
conditioning, and habituation of bears would not be considered acceptable. Service 2007, pp. 52–53). Habitat
to humans (Mattson et al. 1987, p. 271). Inside the PCA, no changes in the 1998 effectiveness values reflect the relative
Habituation occurs when grizzly bears baseline have occurred in terms of site amount of energy (derived from natural
encounter humans or developed sites developments. The maintenance of the foods) that is available to grizzly bears
frequently, and without negative number and capacity of developed sites given their response to human activities.
consequences, so that the bears no at 1998 levels further protects this Important foods are key habitat-based
longer avoid humans and areas of significant portion of the DPS’ range and criteria. The inverse relationship
human activity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife ensures the Yellowstone DPS is not between whitebark pine cone
Service 1993, p. 6). Habituation does not likely to become endangered in all or a production and grizzly conflicts in the
necessarily involve human-related food significant portion of its range within Yellowstone Ecosystem has been
sources. Food conditioning occurs when the foreseeable future. documented (Mattson et al. 1992, p.
grizzly bears receive human-related 436; Gunther et al. 1997, p. 38; Gunther
Management of oil, gas, and mining
sources of food and thereafter seek out et al. 2004, pp. 13–14). However, the
are tracked as part of the developed site
humans and human use areas as feeding relationship between other important
monitoring effort (U.S. Fish and
sites (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service foods such as spring ungulate carcasses,
Wildlife Service 2007, p. 44). There
1993, p. 6). In areas of suitable habitat cutworm moths, and cutthroat trout is
were no active oil and gas leases inside
inside the PCA, the National Park not as clear cut. Therefore, it is
the PCA as of 1998 (USDA Forest
Service and the USDA Forest Service important to monitor foods and
Service 2006a, p. 209). There are
enforce food storage rules aimed at continue to relate major food abundance
approximately 631 sq km (244 sq mi) of
decreasing grizzly bear access to human to demographics and human/bear
secure habitat potentially available for conflicts. Monitoring habitat
foods (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
timber projects and 243 sq km (94 sq mi) effectiveness using the Cumulative
2007, pp. 23–24). These regulations will
of secure habitat that allows surface Effects Model is valuable in
continue to be enforced and are in
occupancy for oil and gas, projects understanding and maintaining
effect, or proposed, for all currently
within the PCA (USDA Forest Service important habitats for grizzly bears. The
occupied grizzly bear habitat within the
2006a, Figures 48, 96). This comprises Study Team will continue coordinating
Yellowstone DPS boundaries (U.S. Fish
less than 4 percent of all suitable habitat with the National Forests and National
and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 23–24).
Gunther (1994, pp. 558–559) noted within the PCA. Additionally, 1,354 Parks within the PCA to update and
that grizzly bear management in mining claims existed in 10 of the evaluate habitat effectiveness against the
Yellowstone National Park has shifted subunits inside the PCA (U.S. Fish and 1998 baseline.
from problems involving food- Wildlife Service 2007, p.134, Appendix To establish the 1998 baseline for
conditioned bears to problems involving F), but only 27 of these mining claims habitat effectiveness values, the USDA
habituated (but not food-conditioned) had operating plans. These operating Forest Service calculated habitat
bears seeking natural foods within plans are included in the 1998 effectiveness within each subunit for
developed areas or along roadsides. developed site baseline. Under the four important bear seasons—spring
New or expanded developed sites can conditions of the Strategy, any new (March 1 to May 15); estrus (May 16 to
impact bears through temporary or project will be approved only if it July 15); early hyperphagia (July 16 to
permanent habitat loss and conforms to secure habitat and August 31); and late hyperphagia
displacement, increased length of time developed site standards (U.S. Fish and (September 1 to November 30) (U.S.
of human use, increased human Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 44–45). For Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp.
disturbance to surrounding areas, and, instance, any project that reduces the 133–144, Table 6 in Appendix F). High
potentially unsecured bear attractants. amount of secure habitat permanently habitat effectiveness values during
Developed sites on public lands are will have to provide replacement secure estrus are associated with cutthroat
currently inventoried in existing GIS habitat of equivalent habitat quality (as trout spawning streams (U.S. Fish and
databases and are input in the measured by the Cumulative Effects Wildlife Service 2007, p. 140).
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Cumulative Model or equivalent technology) and Similarly, high habitat effectiveness
Effects Model. As of 1998, there were any change in developed sites will values during early hyperphagia and
598 developed sites on public land require mitigation equivalent to the type late hyperphagia are associated with
within the PCA (USDA Forest Service and extent of the impact, and such moth aggregation sites and whitebark
2005, pp. 56–57). All changes in mitigation must be in place before pine, respectively (U.S. Fish and
developed sites since 1998 have been project initiation or be provided Wildlife Service 2007, p. 140). Habitat
evaluated against the baseline and have concurrently with project development effectiveness values also are directly
been determined to be acceptable under as an integral part of the project plan influenced by the amount of secure
the standard for developed sites (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. habitat in a subunit. This combination
identified in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and 40–41). For projects that temporarily of the distribution and abundance of
Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 44–45). For a change the amount of secure habitat, natural foods and the distribution and
new developed site to be determined only one project is allowed in any abundance of human activities produces
acceptable, it must be demonstrated that subunit at any time (U.S. Fish and relative values indicative of how
it will have no effect on grizzly bears Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 40–41). effective a certain subunit is at
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, Mitigation of any project will occur supporting grizzly bear growth,
pp. 42). For example, a cell phone tower within the same subunit and will be reproduction, and survival (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 140). As subunit by regular application of the 2002, pp. 2–3; MTFWP 2002, p. 2;
such, values varied widely among Cumulative Effects Model or the best WGFD 2005, p. 1; USDA Forest Service
seasons and across seasons within available system, and compare outputs 2006a, pp. 44–45; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
subunits (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to the 1998 baseline. These databases Service 2007, p. 5). Factors impacting
2007, p 141, Table 6 in Appendix F). incorporate information regarding suitable habitat outside of the PCA in
Because the National Park Service and vegetation, the abundance and the future may include increased road
the USDA Forest Service have not distribution of the four major bear foods, densities, livestock allotments,
changed levels of road densities, secure location, duration, and intensity of use developed sites, human presence, and
habitat, developed sites, or livestock for motorized access routes, non- habitat fragmentation. Both Federal and
allotments except to improve upon the motorized access routes, developed State agencies are committed to
1998 baseline, the 1998 habitat sites, and front-country and back- managing habitat so that the measures of
effectiveness values remain applicable. country dispersed uses. The Study the Act are not required to assure the
Regardless of habitat effectiveness Team will review Cumulative Effects Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is not
values, the Yellowstone grizzly bear Model databases annually to refine and likely to become endangered in all or a
population has continued to grow and verify Cumulative Effects Model significant portion of its range in the
expand in distribution (Harris et al. assumptions and update them as needed foreseeable future (U.S. Fish and
2006, p. 48; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. to reflect changes in intensity or
Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 12–85;
64–66). Upon delisting, the USDA duration of human use. The
Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
Forest Service will measure changes in Coordinating Committee may review
Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 2–3;
seasonal habitat effectiveness values in and revise habitat standards based on
each Bear Management Unit and the best available science, after MTFWP 2002, p. 2; WGFD 2005, p. 1)
subunit by regular application of the appropriate public processes have been (see Factor D below). In suitable habitat
Cumulative Effects Model or best conducted by the affected land outside of the PCA, restrictions on
available system and compare outputs management agencies. human activities are more flexible but
with the 1998 baseline values (U.S. Fish To prevent habitat fragmentation and still the USDA Forest Service, BLM, and
and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 52–53). degradation, the Strategy requires that State wildlife agencies will carefully
The Cumulative Effects Model provides all road construction projects in suitable manage these lands, monitor bear/
a relative index of habitat change over habitat on Federal lands throughout the human conflicts in these areas, and
time and how it has increased or entire GYA (both inside and outside of respond with management as necessary
decreased since 1998. The Cumulative the PCA) evaluate the impacts of the to reduce such conflicts to account for
Effects Model databases will be project on grizzly habitat connectivity the complex needs of both grizzly bears
reviewed annually and updated as during the NEPA process (U.S. Fish and and humans (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
needed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 38–39). By Service 2007, p. 58; Idaho’s Yellowstone
2007, pp. 52–53). identifying areas used by grizzly bears, Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team
The Strategy calls for maintaining or officials can mitigate potential impacts 2002, pp. 16–17; MTFWP 2002, pp. 55–
improving the existing habitat from road construction both during and 56; WGFD 2005, pp. 25–26; USDA
effectiveness values in secure habitat in after a project. Federal agencies will Forest Service 2006b, pp. A1–A27).
each subunit but recognizes that they identify important crossing areas by Currently, there are 22,783 sq km
change annually and seasonally due to collecting information about known (8,797 sq mi) of suitable habitat outside
natural processes such a wildfire and bear crossings, bear sightings, ungulate of the PCA within the DPS boundaries
natural variations (U.S. Fish and road mortality data, bear home range (see Figure 1 above). Of this, 17,292 sq
Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 52–53). The analyses, and locations of game trails. km (6,676 sq mi) are on National Forest
best way to maintain existing habitat Potential advantages of this requirement lands. About 10 to 16 percent of the
effectiveness values is to manage include reduction of grizzly bear
population of female grizzly bears with
motorized access and developed sites, mortality due to vehicle collisions,
cubs occurs outside the PCA (Schwartz
as described in the Strategy. Private access to seasonal habitats, maintenance
et al. 2006b, pp. 64–66). Management
land development also will be of traditional dispersal routes, and
decisions on USDA Forest Service lands
monitored and linked to numbers of decreased fragmentation of individual
will continue to consider potential
human-bear conflicts, causes of human- home ranges. For example, work crews
bear conflicts, and distribution of will place temporary work camps in impacts on grizzly bear habitat and will
human-bear conflicts so as to direct areas with lower risk of displacing be managed so as to maintain the habitat
management efforts to improve food grizzly bears, and food and garbage will conditions necessary to support a
supply and minimize bear/human be kept in bear-proof containers. recovered grizzly bear population
conflicts in such areas. Highway planners will incorporate (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26).
Within the PCA, each National Forest warning signs and crossing structures Approximately 79 percent of suitable
and National Park will monitor such as culverts or underpasses into habitat outside the PCA on National
adherence to the secure habitat, projects when possible to facilitate safe Forest lands within the DPS is currently
developed site, and livestock standards highway crossings by wildlife. designated a Wilderness Area (6,799 sq
inside the PCA, as established by the ‘‘Suitable Habitat’’ Management km (2,625 sq mi)), a Wilderness Study
Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Outside the Primary Conservation Area (708 sq km (273 sq mi)), or an
2007, p. 64). The Study Team will Area—In suitable habitat outside of the Inventoried Roadless Area (6,179 sq km
monitor habitat effectiveness and track PCA within the DPS, the USDA Forest (2,386 sq mi). The amount of designated
any changes to the habitat from fire, Service, BLM, and State wildlife Wilderness Area, Wilderness Study
insects, and disease, and other human agencies will monitor habitat and Area, and Inventoried Roadless Area
activities not measured by the habitat population criteria to prevent potential within each National Forest ranges from
standard monitoring efforts. The threats to habitat, ensuring that the 56 to 90 percent, depending upon the
agencies will measure changes in measures of the Act continue to be forest. This large area of widely
seasonal habitat value and effectiveness unnecessary (Idaho’s Yellowstone distributed habitat allows for continued
in each bear management unit and Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team population expansion and provides
additional resiliency to environmental The 2001 Roadless Areas Conservation In suitable habitat outside the PCA
change. Rule prohibits road construction, road within the DPS boundaries, there are
Wilderness areas outside of the PCA re-construction, and timber harvest in roughly 150 active cattle allotments and
are considered secure because they are Inventoried Roadless Areas (66 FR 12 active sheep allotments (USDA
protected from new road construction 3244–3273, January 12, 2001). This Forest Service 2004, p. 129). The
by Federal legislation. In addition to restriction on road building makes Targhee Forest closed two of these
restrictions on road construction, the mining activities and oil and gas sheep allotments in 2004 (USDA Forest
Wilderness Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88–577) production much less likely because Service 2006a, p. 168). The USDA
also protects designated wilderness access to these resources becomes cost- Forest Service will allow these
from permanent human habitation and prohibitive or impossible without new allotments within suitable habitat to
increases in developed sites. The roads. Potential changes in the persist along with other existing
Wilderness Act allows livestock management of these areas are not livestock allotments outside of suitable
allotments existing before the passage of anticipated, but are discussed further habitat. Although conflicts with
the Wilderness Act and mining claims under Factor D. livestock have the potential to result in
staked before January 1, 1984, to persist An estimated 7,195 sq km (2,778 sq mortality for grizzly bears, the Strategy
within wilderness areas, but no new mi) of suitable habitat outside the PCA will prevent mortality from exceeding
grazing permits or mining claims can be on USDA Forest Service lands within established sustainable mortality limits
established after these dates. If pre- the DPS could experience permanent or and preclude population level impacts.
existing mining claims are pursued, the temporary changes in road densities. The Strategy directs the Study Team to
plans of operation are subject to Because grizzly bears will remain on the monitor and spatially map all grizzly
Wilderness Act restrictions on road USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species bear mortalities (both inside and outside
construction, permanent human list after delisting and will be classified the PCA), causes of death, the source of
habitation, and developed sites. as a ‘‘species of concern’’ (USDA Forest the problem, and alter management to
Wilderness study areas are designated maintain a recovered population and
Service 2006b, p. 26) under the 2005
by Federal land management agencies prevent the need to relist the population
USDA Forest Service Planning
(e.g., USDA Forest Service) as those under the Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Regulations, any increases in roads on
having wilderness characteristics and Service 2007, pp. 31–34).
National Forests would have to comply
being worthy of congressional There are over 500 developed sites on
with National Forest Management Act
designation as a wilderness area. the 6 National Forests in the areas
and be subject to the NEPA process
Individual National Forests that identified as suitable habitat outside the
considering potential impacts to grizzly
designate wilderness study areas PCA within the DPS boundaries (USDA
bears.
manage these areas to maintain their Forest Service 2004, p. 138). Grizzly
wilderness characteristics until Importantly, all three State grizzly bear/human conflicts at developed sites
Congress decides whether to designate bear management plans recognize the are the most frequent reason for
them as permanent wilderness areas. importance of areas that provide management removals (Servheen et al.
This means that individual wilderness security for grizzly bears in suitable 2004, p. 21). Existing USDA Forest
study areas are protected from new road habitat outside of the PCA within the Service food storage regulations for
construction by Forest Plans. As such, DPS boundaries on Federal lands. these areas will continue to minimize
they are safeguarded from decreases in Although State management plans apply the potential for grizzly bear/human
grizzly bear security. Furthermore, to all suitable habitat outside of the conflicts through food storage
activities such as timber harvest, PCA, habitat management on public requirements, outreach, and education.
mining, and oil and gas development lands is directed by Federal land The number and capacity of developed
are much less likely to occur because management plans, not State sites will be subject to management
the road networks required for these management plans. The Montana and direction established in Forest Plans.
activities are unavailable. However, Wyoming plans recommend limiting Should the Study Team determine
because these lands are not average road densities to 1.6 km/2.6 sq developed sites are related to increases
congressionally protected, they could km (1 mi/sq mi) or less in these areas in mortality beyond the sustainable
experience changes in management (MTFWP 2002, pp. 32–34; WGFD 2005, limits discussed above, they may
prescription with Forest Plan revisions. pp. 22–25). Both States have similar recommend closing specific developed
Inventoried Roadless Areas currently standards for elk habitat on State lands sites or otherwise altering management
provide 4,891 sq km (1,888 sq mi) of and note that these levels of motorized in the area in order to maintain a
secure habitat for grizzly bears outside access benefit a variety of wildlife recovered population and prevent the
of the PCA within the DPS boundaries. species while maintaining reasonable need to relist the population under the
A USDA Forest Service Interim public access. Similarly, the Idaho State Act. Due to the USDA Forest Service’s
Directive (69 FR 42648, July 16, 2004) plan recognizes that management of commitment to manage National Forest
which instructs National Forests to motorized access outside the PCA lands in the GYA such that a viable
preserve the ‘‘roadless characteristics’’ should focus on areas that have road grizzly bear population is maintained
of roadless areas remained in effect until densities of 1.6 km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007,
November 2006. In September 2006, a mi) or less. The area most likely to be pp. 42–43; USDA Forest Service 2006b,
Federal court remanded the 2005 State occupied by grizzly bears outside the pp. iii, A–6), we do not expect livestock
Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area PCA in Idaho is on the Caribou-Targhee allotments or developed sites in suitable
Management Rule (70 FR 25653–25662, National Forest. The 1997 Targhee habitat outside of the PCA to reach
May 13, 2005) and reinstated the 2001 Forest Plan includes motorized access densities that are likely to threaten the
Roadless Areas Conservation Rule (66 standards and prescriptions outside the Yellowstone DPS in all or a significant
FR 3244–3273, January 12, 2001) (see PCA with management prescriptions portion of its range in the foreseeable
Factor D below for a more complete that provide for long-term security in 59 future.
discussion of this court decision and the percent of existing secure habitat Less than 19 percent (3,213 sq km
two different Federal Rules issued outside of the PCA (USDA Forest (1,240 sq mi)) of suitable habitat outside
regarding Roadless Area Management). Service 2006a, pp. 78, 109). the PCA within the DPS boundaries on
USDA Forest Service land allows 1600), considering all potential impacts National Park Service, and USDA Forest
surface occupancy for oil and gas to the Yellowstone grizzly bear Service biologists and technicians will
development and 11 percent (1,926 sq population and its habitat. monitor the availability and abundance
km (744 sq mi)) has both suitable timber Rapidly accelerating growth of human of the four major foods, and of habitat
and a management prescription that populations in some areas in grizzly value and habitat effectiveness using the
allows scheduled timber harvest. The bear habitat within the DPS boundaries Cumulative Effects Model or other
primary impacts to grizzly bears but outside of the PCA continues to appropriate methods (U.S. Fish and
associated with timber harvest and oil define the limits of grizzly habitat, and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 45–52). The
and gas development are increases in will likely limit the expansion of the Coordinating Committee will respond to
road densities, with subsequent Yellowstone grizzly bear population these monitoring data with adaptive
increases in human access, grizzly bear/ onto private lands in some areas outside management (Holling 1978, pp. 11–16)
human encounters, and human-caused the PCA. Urban and rural sprawl (low- as per the Strategy (U.S. Fish and
grizzly bear mortalities (McLellan and density housing and associated Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 63–64).
Shackleton 1988, pp. 458–459; businesses) has resulted in increasing Accordingly, the PCA, which comprises
McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. numbers of grizzly bear/human conflicts 51 percent of the suitable habitat within
377–379; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402– with subsequent increases in grizzly the DPS boundaries and is occupied by
1403). Although seismic exploration bear mortality rates. Private lands 84 to 90 percent of all females with cubs
associated with oil and gas development account for a disproportionate number (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 64), will be a
or mining may disturb denning grizzly of bear deaths and conflicts (see Figures highly secure area for grizzlies upon
bears (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278; 15 and 16 in the Strategy). Nearly 9 delisting, with habitat conditions
Reynolds et al. 1986, pp. 174–175), percent of all suitable habitat outside of maintained at or above levels
actual den abandonment is rarely the PCA is privately owned. As private documented in 1998. Maintenance of
observed, and there has been no lands are developed and as secure this portion of the range, as described
documentation of such abandonment by habitat on private lands declines, State above, will satisfy the habitat
grizzly bears in the GYA. Additionally, and Federal agencies will work together requirements of the species relative the
only a small portion of this total land to balance impacts from private land Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS’s
area will contain active projects at any development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife biological demands and is sufficient to
given time, if at all. For example, among Service 2007, p. 54). Outside the PCA, support a recovered grizzly bear
the roughly 1,926 sq km (744 sq mi) State agencies will assist non- population.
identified as having both suitable timber government organizations and other Suitable habitat outside the PCA is
and a management prescription that entities to identify and prioritize also significant, albeit to a lesser extent,
allows timber harvest, from 2000 to potential lands suitable for permanent in that it allows for continued
2002, an average of only 5 sq km (2 sq conservation through easements and population expansion into adjacent
mi) was actually logged annually (USDA other means as possible (U.S. Fish and areas of public land in the GYA, and
Forest Service 2004, p. 118). Similarly, Wildlife Service 2007, p. 54). Due to the therefore, provides additional ecological
although nearly 3,213 sq km (1,240 sq large areas of widely distributed suitable resiliency to respond to environmental
mi) of suitable habitat on National habitat on public lands managed by change. These areas will be carefully
Forest lands allow surface occupancy agencies committed to the maintenance monitored and managed to ensure that
of a recovered grizzly bear population, the measures of the Act are not again
for oil and gas development, there
human population growth on private required. Management in this area will
currently are no active wells inside
lands is not likely to endanger the provide for the complex needs of both
these areas (USDA Forest Service 2004,
Yellowstone DPS in all or a significant grizzly bears and humans. In suitable
pp. 170–171).
portion of its range in the foreseeable habitat outside the PCA on USDA Forest
Ultimately, the six affected National future. Service lands, 74 percent (12,860 sq km
Forests (the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Summary of Factor A—In summary, or 4,965 sq mi) is currently secure
Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, the primary factors related to past habitat, 68 percent of which (8,737 sq
Gallatin, and Shoshone) will manage the habitat destruction and modification km or 3,373 sq mi) is likely to remain
number of roads, livestock allotments, have been directly addressed through secure. Areas outside the PCA contain
developed sites, timber harvest projects, changes in management practices. 10 to 16 percent of GYA’s females with
and oil and gas wells outside of the PCA Within suitable habitat, differential cubs (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 64).
in suitable habitat to allow for a viable levels of management and protection Management of public land outside the
grizzly bear population and ensure that (one standard inside the PCA and PCA administered by State and Federal
the Yellowstone DPS is not likely to another standard for suitable habitat agencies also will continue to consider
become endangered in all or a outside the PCA) are applied to areas potential impacts of management
significant portion of its range within based on their level of importance. decisions on grizzly bear habitat. Efforts
the foreseeable future. Because the Within the PCA, the most significant by non-government organizations and
grizzly bear will be classified as a portion of the range where 84 to 90 State and county agencies will seek to
sensitive species (or a species of percent of the females with cubs live minimize bear/human conflicts on
concern when Forest Management Plans (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 66), private lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
are again revised using the 2005 USDA comprehensive protections are in place. Service 2007, pp. 54, 57–59). These and
Forest Service planning regulations and For this area, the Service developed other conservation measures discussed
the USDA Forest Service Manual), land objective and measurable habitat criteria in this final rule will allow for
management activities will be managed concerning secure habitat, human site continued population expansion so that
so as to a provide for the needs of a developments, and livestock allotments grizzly bears will likely occupy the
recovered population. Any road which will be habitat requirements on remainder of the suitable habitat within
construction, timber harvest, or oil and public lands once this final rule the DPS within the foreseeable future.
gas projects would require compliance becomes effective (U.S. Fish and A total of 88 percent of all suitable
with the NEPA and the National Forest Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 39–45). In habitat within the DPS boundaries
Management Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. addition, the Study Team, State, (40,293 sq km (15,557 sq mi)) is
managed by the USDA Forest Service or in all or a significant portion of its range and Aumiller 1994, pp. 332–335;
National Park Service. These public by this discretionary mortality source. McLellan 1994, p. 15; Schwartz et al.
lands are already managed, and will Significant take for educational 2003b, pp. 571–572). This type of
continue to be managed, such that purposes is not anticipated. Mortality intraspecific killing seems to occur
adequate habitat for the Yellowstone due to illegal poaching, defense of life rarely (Stringham 1980, p. 337) and has
grizzly bear population is maintained and property, mistaken identity or other only been observed among Yellowstone
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, accidental take, and management grizzly bears in the GYA 14 times
pp. 38–56; USDA Forest Service 2006b, removals are discussed under Factor C between 1986 and 2004 (Haroldson
pp. 4–7, 26). Significant areas of the below. 2005). Wolves and grizzly bears often
suitable habitat outside the PCA are Between 1980 and 1982, three scavenge similar types of carrion and,
designated as wilderness where human accidental trap mortalities were sometimes, will interact with each other
development actions are prohibited. For associated with scientific research in an aggressive manner. From 1995
example, 2,948 sq km (1,138 sq mi) of (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Since 1982, through 2003, Gunther and Smith (2004,
the Wind River Range including almost there has not been a single capture pp. 233–236) documented 96 wolf-
all of the high elevation whitebark pine mortality associated with research grizzly bear interactions and 2 incidents
stands are in designated Wilderness trapping in the GYA spanning more in which wolf packs likely killed grizzly
Areas. Habitat and population standards than 468 grizzly bear captures (Servheen bear cubs. Overall, these types of
described in the Strategy have been et al. 2004, p. 21). Because of rigorous aggressive interactions among grizzly
incorporated into National Park protocols dictating proper bear capture, bears or with other wildlife are rare and
Compendiums and National Forest Land handling, and drugging techniques used are likely to remain an insignificant
Management Plans (Yellowstone today, this type of scientific factor in population dynamics into the
National Park 2006, p. 12; Grand Teton overutilization is not a threat to the foreseeable future.
National Park, p. 1; USDA Forest Yellowstone grizzly bear population. Human Predation—Humans have
Service 2006b, pp. 4–7, 26) (see Factor The Study Team, bear biologists, and historically been the most effective
D below). Collectively, these differential researchers will continue implementing predators of grizzly bears. Excessive
levels of management and protection these protocols after delisting. human-caused mortality is one of the
(one standard inside the PCA and Therefore, mortalities associated with major contributing factors to grizzly bear
another standard for suitable habitat scientific research are likely to remain decline during the nineteenth and
outside the PCA) guarantee appropriate an insignificant factor in population twentieth centuries (Leopold 1967, p.
protective measures for each part of the dynamics into the foreseeable future. 30; Koford 1969, p. 95; Servheen 1990,
significant portion of range. p. 1; Servheen 1999, pp. 50–52; Mattson
C. Disease or Predation
Therefore, the lack of present or and Merrill 2002, pp. 1129, 1132;
threatened destruction, modification, or Disease—Although grizzly bears have Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 571),
curtailment of the Yellowstone DPS’s been documented with a variety of eventually leading to their listing as a
habitat and range ensures this species is bacteria and other pathogens, parasites, threatened species in 1975. Grizzlies
not likely to become endangered within and disease, fatalities are uncommon were seen as a threat to livestock and to
the foreseeable future in all or a (LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 61) and do not humans and, therefore, an impediment
significant portion of its range. No appear to have population-level impacts to westward expansion. The Federal
current or foreseeable threats to habitat on grizzly bears (Jonkel and Cowan government, as well as many of the
or range imperil the recovered status of 1971, pp. 31–32; Mundy and Flook early settlers in grizzly bear country,
the Yellowstone DPS. And all areas 1973, p. 13; Rogers and Rogers 1976, p. was dedicated to eradicating large
necessary for maintaining a recovered 423). Researchers have demonstrated predators. Grizzly bears were shot,
population are adequately safeguarded that some grizzly bears have been poisoned, and killed wherever humans
so that this population no longer documented with brucellosis (type 4), encountered them (Servheen 1999, p.
requires the measures of the Act to clostridium, toxoplasmosis, canine 50). By the time grizzlies were listed
protect habitat or range. distemper, canine parvovirus, canine under the Act in 1975, there were only
hepatitis, and rabies (LeFranc et al. a few hundred grizzly bears remaining
B. Overutilization for Commercial, 1987, p. 61; Zarnke and Evans 1989, p. in the lower 48 States in less than 2
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 586; Marsilio et al. 1997, p. 304; Zarnke percent of their former range (U.S. Fish
Purposes et al. 1997, p. 474). However, based on and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 8–12).
No grizzly bears have been legally 30 years of research by the Study Team, From 1973 to 2002, a total of 372
removed from the GYA in the last 30 natural mortalities in the wild are rare known grizzly bear deaths occurred in
years for commercial, recreational, or (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team the GYA (Haroldson and Frey 2003, p.
educational purposes. The only 2005, pp. 34–35) and it is likely that 27). Of these, 272 (73 percent of total)
commercial or recreational take mortalities due to any of these bacteria were human-caused (Haroldson and
anticipated post-delisting is a limited, or pathogens are negligible components Frey 2003, p. 27). Since 1975, levels of
controlled hunt. The States will manage of total mortality in the GYA. Disease is human-caused mortality have remained
grizzly bears as a game animal, not common in grizzly bears, and has relatively constant (Servheen et al.
potentially with a carefully regulated only very rarely been documented in 2004, p. 15). Although humans have
hunt (for a more detailed discussion, see Yellowstone grizzly bears (Craighead et been and remain the single greatest
the State Management Plans section al. 1988, p. 11). Disease is likely to cause of mortality for grizzly bears
under Factor D below). Should such a remain an insignificant factor in (McLellan et al. 1999, pp. 914–916;
season be implemented, all hunting population dynamics into the Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21), rates of
mortalities will be counted toward the foreseeable future. human-caused mortality have been low
ecosystem-wide mortality limits for the Natural Predation—Grizzly bears are enough to allow Yellowstone bear
population and will be strictly occasionally killed by other wildlife. population growth and range expansion
controlled to assure that mortality limits Adult grizzly bears kill cubs, sub-adults, (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48; Schwartz et al.
are not exceeded and the Yellowstone or other adults (Stringham 1980, p. 337; 2006b, pp. 64–66). Implementation of
DPS is not likely to become endangered Dean et al. 1986, pp. 208–211; Hessing the revised mortality limits ensure that
mortality will continue to be managed at (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 27). To address 2007, pp. 61–62). Beginning in license
sustainable levels. Below we consider the concerns of user groups who have year 2002, the State of Montana required
human predation impacts including objections to land use restrictions that that all black bear hunters pass a Bear
illegal poaching, defense of life and accommodate grizzly bears, Federal and Identification Test before receiving a
property, accidental mortality, and State agencies market the benefits of black bear hunting license (see http://
management removals. restricting motorized access to multiple fwp.state.mt.us/bearid/ for more
We define vandal killing as poaching, species. For example, both Montana and information and details). In addition,
which is malicious, illegal killing of a Wyoming have recommendations for elk Montana and Wyoming include grizzly
grizzly bears. People may kill grizzly habitat security similar to those for bear encounter management as a core
bears for several reasons, including a grizzly bears (less than 1.6 km/2.6 sq km subject in basic hunter education
general perception that grizzly bears in (1 mi/sq mi)) and this level of motorized courses (WGFD 2005, p. 34; MTFWP
the area may be dangerous, frustration access meets the needs of a variety of 2002, p. 63).
over depredations of livestock, or to wildlife species, while maintaining Big-game hunters in the GYA are
protest land use and road use reasonable opportunities for public another source of mortality for grizzly
restrictions associated with grizzly bear access. To address the concerns of bears. Between 1980 and 2002, 71
habitat management (Servheen et al. citizens who feel that grizzly bears are percent (35 of 49) of grizzly bears killed
2004, p. 21). Regardless of the reason, a threat to their safety or their lifestyle, in self defense were hunting-related
poaching continues to occur. We are I & E programs aim to change (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). These
aware of at least 27 vandal killings in perspectives on the danger and behavior deaths occur during surprise encounters
the GYA between 1980 and 2002 of grizzly bears (for a detailed in heavy cover, at hunter-killed
(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Although discussion of I & E programs, see Factor carcasses or gut piles, or when packing
this level of take occurred during a E below). out carcasses. Elk hunters in Grand
period where poaching was enforceable From 1980 to 2002, humans killed 49 Teton National Park are required to
by Federal prosecution, we do not grizzly bears in self-defense or defense carry pepper spray in an accessible
expect vandal killing to significantly of others. This constituted nearly 17 location (WGFD 2006).
increase after delisting. percent of known grizzly bear The last source of human predation
State and Federal law enforcement mortalities during this time period on grizzly bears is associated with
agents have cooperated to ensure (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). These management removal of nuisance bears
consistent enforcement of laws grizzly bear/human conflicts occurred following grizzly bear/human conflicts.
protecting grizzly bears. Currently, State primarily over livestock or hunter-killed Effective nuisance bear management
and Federal prosecutors and carcasses, but also at camp and home benefits the conservation of the
enforcement personnel from each State sites. Federal and State agencies have Yellowstone grizzly bear population by
and Federal jurisdiction work together many options to potentially reduce promoting tolerance of grizzly bears and
to make recommendations to all these conflicts (Servheen et al. 2004, p. minimizing illegal killing of bears by
jurisdictions, counties, and States, on 27). By promoting the use of pepper citizens. The Strategy and the State
uniform enforcement, prosecution, and spray and continuing current I & E grizzly bear management plans will
sentencing relating to illegal grizzly bear programs, many of these grizzly bear guide nuisance bear management post-
kills. Upon delisting, all three affected deaths may be avoided. delisting. The Strategy is consistent
States will classify grizzly bears of the Humans kill grizzly bears with current protocol as described in
Yellowstone population as game unintentionally with vehicles or by the Guidelines (USDA Forest Service
animals, which cannot be taken without mistaking them for other species when 1986, pp. 53–54), emphasizing the
authorization by State wildlife agencies hunting. From 1980 to 2002, the individual’s importance to the entire
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, Yellowstone grizzly bear population population, with females continuing to
pp. 72–75; Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly incurred 9 mortalities from roadkills receive a higher level of protection than
Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. and 13 mortalities associated with males. Location, cause of incident,
18–21; MTFWP 2002, p. 2; WGFD 2005, mistaken identification (totaling 9 severity of incident, history of the bear,
p. 20). In other words, it will still be percent of known mortality for this time health, age, and sex of the bear, and
illegal for private citizens to kill grizzly period) (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). demographic characteristics are all
bears unless it is in self defense, they Measures to reduce vehicle collisions considered in any relocation or removal
have a hunting license issued by State with grizzly bears include removing action. Upon delisting, State and
wildlife agencies, or in the Montana roadkill carcasses from the road so that National Park Service bear managers
portion of the DPS, if a grizzly bear is grizzly bears are not attracted to the would continue to consult with each
caught in the act of attacking or killing roadside (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 28). other and other relevant Federal
livestock (87–3–130 MCA). States will Cost-effective mitigation efforts to agencies (i.e., USDA Forest Service,
continue to enforce, prosecute, and facilitate safe crossings by wildlife will BLM) before any nuisance bear
sentence poachers just as they do for be voluntarily incorporated in road management decision is made, but
any game animal such as elk, black construction or reconstruction projects consultation with us will no longer be
bears, and cougars. Although it is on Federal lands within suitable grizzly required. The Strategy emphasizes
widely recognized that poaching still bear habitat. removal of the human cause of the
occurs, this illegal source of mortality is Mistaken identification of grizzly conflict when possible, or management
not significant enough to hinder the bears by black bear hunters is a and education actions to limit such
continuing growth and range expansion manageable source of mortality. The conflicts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
of the Yellowstone grizzly bear Strategy identifies I & E programs 2007. pp. 57–60). In addition, an I & E
population (Pyare et al. 2004, pp. 5–6; targeted at hunters that emphasize team will continue to coordinate the
Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 203). patience, awareness, and correct development, implementation, and
One way to address vandal killing is identification of targets to help reduce dissemination of programs and
to change human values, perceptions, grizzly bear mortalities from materials to aid in preventative
and beliefs about grizzly bears and inexperienced black bear and ungulate management of human/bear conflicts.
Federal regulation of public lands hunters (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Strategy recognizes that successful
management of grizzly bear/human during their Environmental Impact Disease and natural predation are not
conflicts requires an integrated, Statement process to amend the six currently a threat, nor are they likely to
multiple-agency approach to continue to national forest plans for grizzly bear become a threat to the Yellowstone DPS
keep human-caused grizzly bear habitat conservation includes direction in the foreseeable future in all or a
mortality within sustainable levels. to resolve recurring conflicts on significant portion of its range.
The largest increase in grizzly bear livestock allotments through retirement Although humans are still directly or
mortalities since 1994 is related to of those allotments with willing indirectly responsible for the majority of
grizzly bear/human conflicts at or near permittees (USDA Forest Service 2006b, grizzly bear deaths in suitable habitat
developed sites (Servheen et al. 2004, p. pp. 16–17). Livestock grazing permits within the DPS boundaries, we have
21). In fact, 20 percent (59 of 290) of include special provisions regarding learned that this source of mortality can
known mortalities between 1980 and reporting of conflicts, proper food and be effectively controlled through
2002 were related to site conflicts attractant storage procedures, and management and I & E.
(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). These carcass removal. The USDA Forest We have institutionalized careful
conflicts involved food-conditioned Service monitors compliance to these management and monitoring of human-
bears actively seeking out human special provisions associated with caused mortality in the Strategy, Forest
sources of food or bears that are livestock allotments annually (Servheen Plans, National Park management plans,
habituated to human presence seeking et al. 2004, p. 28). Upon delisting, the and State grizzly bear management
natural sources of food in areas that are USDA Forest Service will continue to plans (see Factor D below). In addition,
near human structures or roads. The implement these measures that we revised our methodology for
increase in site conflicts during the last minimize grizzly bear conflicts with calculating the total allowable mortality
decade is likely due to a combination of livestock. The Strategy also recognizes limits (see the Recovery; Population and
encroaching human presence coinciding that active management of individual Demographic Management section
with an increasing and expanding nuisance bears is required. Removal of above) to include natural mortalities
grizzly bear population. These conflicts repeat depredators of livestock has been and estimates of unreported/undetected
usually involve attractants such as an effective tool for managing grizzly deaths, so that mortality in the
garbage, human foods, pet/livestock/ bear/livestock conflicts as most Yellowstone grizzly bear population can
wildlife foods, livestock carcasses, and depredations are done by a few be managed at sustainable levels.
wildlife carcasses, but also are related to individuals (Jonkel 1980, p. 12; Knight Because of these actions, human sources
attitudes and personal levels of and Judd 1983, p.188; Anderson et al. of mortality are not currently a threat,
knowledge and tolerance toward grizzly 2002, pp. 252–253). nor are they likely to become a threat in
bears. Both State and Federal I & E The Study Team coordinates an the foreseeable future in all or a
programs are aimed primarily at annual analysis of the causes of significant portion of the Yellowstone
reducing grizzly bear/human conflicts conflicts, known and probable DPS’s range. All significant areas are
proactively by educating the public mortalities, and proposed management adequately protected.
about potential grizzly bear attractants. solutions (Servheen et al. 2004, pp. 1–
D. The Inadequacy of Existing
Accordingly, roughly 68 percent of the 29). The Yellowstone Ecosystem
Regulatory Mechanisms
total budgets of the agencies responsible Subcommittee reviews these reports and
for implementing the Strategy and initiates appropriate action if The lack of regulatory mechanisms to
managing the Yellowstone grizzly bear improvements in Federal or State control take and protect habitat was a
DPS post-delisting is for grizzly bear/ management actions can minimize contributing factor to grizzly bear
human conflict management, outreach, conflicts. As directed by the Strategy, population declines (40 FR 31734–
and education (U.S. Fish and Wildlife upon delisting, the Study Team will 31736, July 28, 1975). Upon listing
Service 2007, Appendix H, p. 154). To continue to summarize nuisance bear under the Act, the grizzly bear
address public attitudes and knowledge control actions in their Annual Reports immediately benefited from a Federal
levels, I & E programs will present and the Coordinating Committee will regulatory framework that included
grizzly bears as a valuable public continue with their review (U.S. Fish prohibition of take (defined under the
resource while acknowledging the and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 60). The Act to include harass, harm, pursue,
potential dangers associated with them Study Team also would continue hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
(for a detailed discussion of I & E preparing annual spatial distribution or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
programs, see Factor E below). maps of conflicts so that managers can such conduct); prohibition of habitat
Management removals due to grizzly identify where problems occur and destruction or degradation if such
bear conflicts with livestock accounted compare trends in locations, sources, activities harm individuals of the
for nearly 4 percent of known land ownership, and types of conflicts. species; the requirement that Federal
mortalities between 1980 and 2002 This will facilitate proactive agencies ensure their actions will not
(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Several management of grizzly/human conflicts. likely jeopardize the continued
steps to reduce livestock conflicts are Summary of Factor C—Overall, from existence of the species; and the
currently underway. The USDA Forest 1980 to 2002, the Yellowstone grizzly requirement to develop and implement
Service and National Park Service are bear population incurred an average of a recovery plan for the species. These
phasing out sheep allotments within the 12.6 human-caused grizzly bear protective measures have improved the
PCA as opportunities arise and, mortalities per year (Servheen et al. status of the Yellowstone grizzly bear
currently, only 2 active sheep 2004, p. 21). Despite these mortalities, population to the point where delisting
allotments inside the PCA remain the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is now appropriate.
(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 167). has continued to increase in size and The management of grizzly bears and
The USDA Forest Service also has expand its distribution in the last 2 their habitat draws from the laws and
closed sheep allotments outside the decades (Eberhardt et al. 1994, pp. 361– regulations of the Federal and State
PCA to resolve conflicts with species 362; Knight and Blanchard 1995, pp. 2– agencies in the Yellowstone DPS
such as bighorn sheep as well as grizzly 11; Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 1–11; Harris boundaries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
bears. Additionally, the alternative et al. 2006, p.48; Pyare et al. 2004, pp. Service 2007, pp. 68–78). Forty Federal
chosen by the USDA Forest Service 5–6; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64–66). laws, rules, guidelines, strategies, and
reports and 33 State laws, statutes, and Delisting Advisory Team 2002; MTFWP ‘‘species of concern’’ (USDA Forest
regulations are in place that apply to 2002; WGFD 2005). These State plans Service 2006b, p. 26). This designation
management of the Yellowstone grizzly were then incorporated into the Strategy provides protections similar to those
bear population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife to ensure that the plans and the Strategy received when classified as a sensitive
Service 2007, pp. 157–160, Appendix J). are consistent and complementary species and requires that Forest Plans
These laws and regulations provide the (accessible at http://mountain- include additional provisions to
legal authority for controlling mortality, prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ accommodate these species and provide
providing secure habitats, managing grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The Strategy adequate ecological conditions (i.e.,
grizzly bear/human conflicts, then went through a separate public habitats) to continue to provide for the
controlling hunters, limiting access comment process (65 FR 11340, March needs of a recovered population.
where necessary, controlling livestock 2, 2000) before being revised and The USDA Forest Service conducted
grazing, maintaining I & E programs to finalized. All the State and Federal a NEPA analysis and produced a Draft
control conflicts, monitoring agencies which are party to the Environmental Impact Statement
populations and habitats, and agreement have signed a memorandum regarding the potential options
requesting management and petitions of understanding in which they have available, and the effects of
for relisting if necessary. agreed to implement the Strategy. implementing the Strategy (USDA
Recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly The Strategy and the State plans Forest Service 2004, p. iii). This analysis
bear population is the result of ongoing describe and summarize the coordinated was undertaken by all six affected
partnerships between Federal and State efforts required to manage the National Forests (Beaverhead, Bridger-
agencies, the governors of these States, Yellowstone grizzly bear population and
Teton, Custer, Gallatin, Shoshone, and
county and city governments, its habitat such that its continued
Targhee) in suitable habitat and was
educational institutions, numerous non- conservation is ensured. The Strategy
completed in July 2004 (accessible at
government organizations, private will direct management of grizzly bears
http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/
landowners, and the public who live, inside the PCA, the most significant
mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The
work, and recreate in the GYA. Just as portion of range, whereas the State
overall purpose of the Draft
recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear plans will cover all suitable habitat
Environmental Impact Statement was to
population could not have occurred outside of the PCA. These documents
analyze the impacts of incorporating the
without these excellent working specify the population, habitat, and
habitat standards outlined in the
relationships, maintenance of a nuisance bear standards to maintain a
recovered grizzly population will be the recovered grizzly bear population. The Strategy and other relevant provisions
result of the continuation of these plans also document the regulatory into the Forest Plans of the six affected
partnerships. mechanisms and legal authorities, forests, to ensure conservation of habitat
The Strategy is the plan which will policies, management, and post- to sustain the recovered Yellowstone
guide the management and monitoring delisting monitoring plans that exist to grizzly bear population. The USDA
of the Yellowstone grizzly bear maintain the recovered grizzly bear Forest Service Final Environmental
population and its habitat after population. Overall, the measures Impact Statement and Record of
delisting. It establishes a regulatory committed to in the Strategy and the Decision were released in April 2006
framework and authority for Federal State grizzly bear management plans (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 1;
and State agencies to take over provide assurances to us that adequate USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 36). The
management of the Yellowstone grizzly regulatory mechanisms exist to maintain chosen alternative from the Final
bear population from the Service. The a recovered grizzly bear population in Environmental Impact Statement was
Strategy also identifies, defines, and the Yellowstone DPS after delisting (i.e., Alternative 2-Modified to amend the
requires adequate post-delisting they ensure that the species is not likely Forest Plans to include all the habitat
monitoring to maintain a healthy to become endangered within the standards described in the Strategy
Yellowstone grizzly bear population foreseeable future throughout all or a (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. iii).
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, significant portion of its range). This alternative amends current Forest
pp. 25–56). The Strategy is an adaptive In areas of suitable habitat outside of Plans in the GYA with the habitat
and dynamic document that allows for the PCA (areas considered ‘‘significant’’ standards required in the Strategy. In
continuous updating based on new to the extent that they allow for addition, Alternative 2-Modified
scientific information (U.S. Fish and continued population expansion into includes guidance and direction for
Wildlife Service 2007, p. 14). The adjacent areas of public land in the managing suitable habitat, as described
Strategy also has a clear response GYA, and therefore, provide additional in the State plans, outside of the PCA.
protocol that requires the agencies to ecological resiliency to respond to This guidance and direction includes: a
respond with active management environmental change), individual goal for accommodating grizzly bears
changes to deviations from the habitat National Forest Plans and State grizzly outside the PCA; direction on managing
and population standards in a timely bear management plans apply. Upon livestock allotments with recurring
and publicly accessible manner (U.S. delisting, the USDA Forest Service will conflicts through retirement of such
Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 63– place grizzly bears on its Sensitive allotments with willing permittees;
67). It represents a decade-long Wildlife Species list (USDA Forest direction emphasizing the use of food
collaborative effort between us and the Service 2006b, p. 26). This requires the storage orders to minimize grizzly bear/
USDA Forest Service, National Park USDA Forest Service to conduct a human conflicts; a guideline to
Service, BLM, U.S. Geological Survey, biological evaluation for any project maintain, to the extent feasible,
the Study Team, IDFG, MTFWP, and which may ‘‘result in loss of species important grizzly bear food resources;
WGFD. State grizzly bear management viability or create significant trends and several monitoring items that will
plans were developed, reviewed, toward Federal listing’’ (USDA Forest enhance habitat management outside of
opened for public comment, revised, Service Manual 2006). Under the the PCA (USDA Forest Service 2006a,
and completed in all three affected revised Forest Planning Regulations (70 pp. 34–37). These amendments to the
States (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) FR 1023, January 5, 2005), Yellowstone GYA National Forest Land Management
(Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly Bear grizzly bears will be classified as a Plans, completed within the framework
established by the 1982 planning population expansion into these areas their Superintendent’s Compendium for
regulations, become effective upon that are minimally affected by humans. each affected National Park. This was
delisting. The State Petitions for Inventoried completed prior to the publication of
Under the revised Forest Planning Roadless Area Management Rule (70 FR this final rule (Grand Teton National
Regulation (70 FR 1023, January 5, 25653–25662, May 13, 2005) which Park 2006, p. 1; Yellowstone National
2005), future revisions to Forest Plans replaced the Roadless Area Park 2006, p. 12). Because the BLM
will be based upon a ‘‘need for change’’ Conservation Rule (‘‘Roadless Rule’’) (66 manages less than 2 percent of all
approach. Under this approach, ‘‘it is FR 3244–3273, Jan. 12, 2001) was suitable habitats, they are not modifying
highly unlikely that any changes overturned on September 19, 2006 existing management plans. Instead, the
relating to the Yellowstone grizzly bear (People Of The State Of California Ex BLM expressed their commitment to the
amendments * * * will be identified Rel. Bill Lockyer, et al. v. United States long-term conservation of the
during the revision process’’ (Aus 2005). Department of Agriculture; The Yellowstone grizzly bear population by
‘‘This means that the management Wilderness Society, California signing the memorandum of
direction developed in the Wilderness Coalition, et al. v. United understanding in the Strategy.
amendment(s) will be transferred to the States Forest Service, Dale Bosworth, et The three State grizzly bear
new planning format and will not al., C05–03508 EDL). The State Petitions management plans direct State land
change. The bottom line is that any for Inventoried Roadless Area management agencies to maintain or
potential changes to management Management Rule was set aside and the improve habitats that are important to
direction in either the current plans or Roadless Area Conservation Rule, grizzly bears and to monitor population
during the revision effort will be guided including the Tongass Amendment, was criteria outside the PCA. Idaho,
by the agreements reached in the reinstated. The USDA Forest Service Montana, and Wyoming have developed
Strategy and its adaptive provisions’’ was enjoined from taking any further management plans for areas outside the
(Aus 2005). In addition, we received action contrary to the Roadless Area PCA to—(1) assure that the measures of
written assurance from the Chief of the Conservation Rule without undertaking the Act continue to be unnecessary for
USDA Forest Service (Bosworth 2006) environmental analysis consistent with the grizzly bears in the Yellowstone
stating, ‘‘It is Forest Service policy the court opinion. DPS; (2) support expansion of grizzly
Even if this rule had remained in bears beyond the PCA, into areas of
under the new 2005 planning
effect, the affected National Forest biologically and socially acceptable
regulations * * * to provide for both
would have used the NEPA process and suitable habitat; and (3) manage grizzly
ecosystem diversity and species
public involvement to consider the bears as a game animal, including
diversity, including providing
impacts any changes in Roadless Area allowing regulated hunting when and
appropriate ecological conditions if management may have had on other where appropriate. The plans for all
needed to help avoid the need to list resources and management goals. The three States were completed in 2002,
under the Act. In our judgment, this USDA Forest Service would have and grizzly bears within the
management framework provides monitored any impacts these changes Yellowstone DPS will be incorporated
adequate regulatory mechanisms to may have had on habitat effectiveness, into existing game species management
redeem our federal agency while the Study Team would have plans after delisting.
responsibilities under the Act. This is monitored any increases in grizzly bear Together, the Eastern Shoshone Tribe
fundamental to our mission and mortality these changes may have and the Northern Arapaho Tribe manage
specifically to our commitment to caused. Before the 2006 court decision, wildlife within the boundaries of the
grizzly bear conservation.’’ Finally, ‘‘the the USDA Forest Service Interim Wind River Reservation (see Figure 1
National Forest Management Act, Directive 1920–2004–1 regulated above). The Eastern Shoshone and
requires that all projects carried out on activities in Inventoried Roadless Areas Northern Arapaho Tribes have
a forest be consistent with the plans (69 FR 42648–42649, July 16, 2004). participated in Yellowstone Ecosystem
adopted under the regulations, Under this directive, little road building Subcommittee meetings. At the 2002
regardless of whether they are 1982 or or timber harvest could be done in Annual Tribal Consultation, organized
2005 planning regulations’’ (Bosworth Inventoried Roadless Areas until Forest by Yellowstone National Park, we
2006). Plans were revised or amended to formally briefed the Tribe about the
Roughly 30 percent of all suitable specifically address activities in Strategy, but the Tribe did not provide
habitat outside of the PCA is within a roadless areas. The Targhee National input or feedback about the Strategy,
designated Wilderness Area (6,799 of Forest was exempt from this interim nor did they sign the memorandum of
22,783 sq km (2,625 of 8,797 sq mi) directive because it operates under a understanding in the Strategy. The
while another 27 percent is within an Revised Forest Plan, which addresses Eastern Shoshone Tribe is currently
Inventoried Roadless Area (6,179 of the management of roadless areas. working with the Service’s Lander,
22,783 sq km (2,386 of 8,797 sq mi)). Motorized access and other management Wyoming office to develop its own
Another three percent of all suitable activities are addressed by specific Grizzly Bear Management Plan. We
habitat outside the PCA is considered Management Prescription direction in anticipate that the Tribal management
Wilderness Study Area. The Wilderness the Revised Forest Plan. In general, this plan will allow for grizzly bear
Act of 1964 does not allow road Management Prescription directs that occupancy of suitable habitat on Tribal
construction, new livestock allotments, roadless areas in the Targhee National land and cooperation on managing and
or new oil, gas, and mining Forest remain roadless. Similarly, a monitoring population parameters. Less
developments in designated Wilderness 1994 amendment to the Shoshone than 3 percent of all suitable habitats
Areas; therefore, about 6,799 sq km National Forest Plan implemented a (1,360 sq km (525 sq mi)) are potentially
(2,625 sq mi) of secure habitat outside standard for no net increase in roads affected by Tribal decisions, so their
of the PCA will remain secure habitat (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 73). management would never constitute a
protected by adequate regulatory The National Park Service has threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear
mechanisms. This secure suitable incorporated the habitat, population, population. Their management plan will
habitat is biologically significant to the monitoring, and nuisance bear facilitate grizzly bear occupancy in areas
Yellowstone DPS because it will allow standards described in the Strategy into of suitable habitat on the Wind River
Reservation and would allow grizzly sites, and number of livestock received, we determine if the petition
bears greater access to high-elevation allotments in any given year; or (5) presents substantial information. If so,
whitebark pine and army cutworm failure to receive adequate funding to we conduct a full status review to
moths, thus allowing for additional fully implement the monitoring and determine if relisting is warranted,
resiliency of the Yellowstone DPS in management requirements of the warranted-but-precluded by higher
response to changing environmental Strategy in any given year. priority actions, or not warranted. We
conditions. A Biology and Monitoring Review is also could consider emergency listing,
Once this final rule becomes effective, led by the Study Team and will examine in accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the
the Strategy will be implemented, and habitat management, population Act, if the threat were severe and
the Coordinating Committee will management, or monitoring efforts of immediate (16 U.S.C. 1533(g)). Such an
replace the Yellowstone Ecosystem participating agencies with an objective emergency relisting would be effective
Subcommittee as the lead entity of identifying the source or cause of the day the regulation is published in
coordinating implementation of the failing to meet a habitat or demographic the Federal Register and would be
habitat and population standards, and goal. This review also will provide effective for 240 days. During this time,
monitoring (U.S. Fish and Wildlife management recommendations to a conventional rule regarding the listing
Service 2007, p. 63). Similar to the correct any such deviations. If the of the species based on the five factors
Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee, Biology and Monitoring Review is of section 4(a)(1) of the Act could be
the Coordinating Committee members triggered by inadequate funding, the drafted and take effect after the 240-day
include representatives from Review would focus on whether this limit on the emergency relisting has
Yellowstone and Grand Teton National fiscal short-coming was a threat to the expired. Both emergency listing and the
Parks, the six affected National Forests, implementation of the Strategy to such normal listing process also could be
BLM, U.S. Geological Survey, IDFG, an extent that it required that the undertaken by the Service independent
MTFWP, WGFD, one member from local measures of the Act would be necessary of the petition process.
county governments within each State, to assure the recovered status of the The management of nuisance bears
and one member from each Native Yellowstone DPS. If the Review is within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries
American Tribe within suitable habitat. triggered by failure to meet a population will be based upon existing laws and
All meetings will be open to the public. goal, the Review would involve a authorities of State wildlife agencies
Besides coordinating management, comprehensive review of vital rates and Federal land management agencies,
research, and financial needs for including survival rates, litter size, litter and guided by protocols established in
successful conservation of the interval, grizzly bear/human conflicts, the Strategy and State management
Yellowstone grizzly bear population, the and mortalities. The Study Team will plans. Inside the National Parks,
Coordinating Committee will review the attempt to identify the reason behind Yellowstone or Grand Teton National
Study Team’s Annual Reports and any variation in vital rates such as Park grizzly bear biologists will
review and respond to any deviations habitat conditions, vandal killings, continue to respond to grizzly bear/
from habitat or population standards. excessive roadkill, etc., and determine if human conflicts. In all areas outside of
The Coordinating Committee will the reasons that the measures of the Act the National Parks, State wildlife
decide on management are necessary to assure the recovered agencies will coordinate and carry out
recommendations to be implemented by status of the population. Similarly, if the any management actions in response to
appropriate member agencies to rectify Review was triggered by failure to meet grizzly bear/human conflicts. In areas
problems and to assure that the habitat a habitat standard, the Review would within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries
and population standards will be met examine what caused the failure, that are outside of the PCA, State grizzly
and maintained. whether this requires that the measures bear management plans will apply and
The Strategy’s habitat standards are of the Act are necessary to assure the State wildlife agencies will respond to
the 1998 levels of secure habitat, recovered status of the population, and and manage all grizzly bear/human
developed sites, livestock allotments, what actions may be taken to correct the conflicts. The focus and intent of
and habitat effectiveness (U.S. Fish and problem. This Review will be completed nuisance grizzly bear management
Wildlife Service 2007, p. 38). The and made available to the public within inside and outside the PCA will be
Strategy signatories have agreed that if 6 months of initiation. predicated on strategies and actions to
there are deviations from any The Coordinating Committee is to prevent grizzly bear/human conflicts.
population or habitat standard, the respond to a Biology and Monitoring Active management aimed at individual
Coordinating Committee will implement Review with actions to address nuisance bears will be required in both
a Biology and Monitoring Review to be deviations from habitat standards or, if areas.
carried out by the Study Team. A the desired population and habitat The Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming
Biology and Monitoring Review will be standards specified in the Strategy plans recognize that measures to reduce
triggered by any of the following cannot be met in the opinion of the grizzly bear/human conflicts are
causes—(1) a total population estimate Coordinating Committee, then the paramount to successfully and
of less than 500, as indicated by a Chao2 Coordinating Committee will petition us completely addressing this issue. The
estimate (Keating et al. 2002, pp. 167– for relisting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife State of Idaho Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
170) of less than 48 females with cubs- Service 2007, p. 66). Although anyone Management Plan states that such
of-the-year, for 2 consecutive years; (2) can petition us for relisting, the measures must be given priority, as they
exceedance of the 9 percent total Coordinating Committee’s petition is are more effective than simply
mortality limit for independent females important because it is requested by the responding to problems as they occur
for 2 consecutive years; (3) exceedance actual management agencies in charge (Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
of the total mortality limits for of the Yellowstone grizzly bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. 15).
independent males or dependent young population. Additionally, the Similarly, the Grizzly Bear Management
for 3 consecutive years; (4) failure to Coordinating Committee possesses the Plan for Southwestern Montana
meet any of the habitat standards resources, data, and experience to maintains that the key to dealing with
described in the Strategy pertaining to provide us with a strong argument for all nuisance situations is prevention
levels of secure habitat, new developed the petition. Once a potential petition is rather than responding after damage has
occurred (MTFWP 2002, p. 48). The Summary of Factor D—In addition to Yellowstone DPS. However, low levels
Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management the Strategy, National Park of gene flow, as seen historically, may
Plan also mandates the WGFD to Superintendent’s Plans, USDA Forest be necessary in the future to maintain
emphasize long-term, non-lethal Service Amendment for Grizzly Bear genetic diversity within the Yellowstone
solutions, but relocation and lethal Habitat Conservation for the GYA DPS. In order to assure the long-term
removal may occur to resolve some National Forests, and State grizzly bear genetic health of the Yellowstone
conflicts (WGFD 2005, pp. 25–25). All management plans, more than 70 State grizzly bear DPS, we have considered
three State management plans are and Federal laws, regulations, rules, and genetic issues for the period beyond the
accessible at http:// mountain- guidelines are currently in place. We are next several decades.
prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ confident that these mechanisms Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338)
grizzly/yellowstone.htm. The ways in provide an adequate regulatory recommend that in order to avoid
which the Strategy and the State plans framework within which the negative, short-term genetic effects
intend to address preventative measures Yellowstone grizzly bear population associated with small population size,
are described in detail in the Factor E- will continue to experience population the effective population size (i.e., the
Human Attitudes Toward Grizzly Bear stability and be appropriately number of breeding individuals in an
Recovery and Information & Education distributed throughout significant idealized population that would show
Efforts to Improve these Attitudes portions of the range for the foreseeable the same amount of change in allele
section below. All three State plans future. These mechanisms also provide frequencies due to random genetic drift
allow for preemptive relocation of detailed protocols for future or the same amount of inbreeding as the
grizzly bears out of areas that have a management, I & E programs, and population under consideration) of the
high probability of conflicting with monitoring for the foreseeable future. In Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS should
humans or their property, including summary, these mechanisms provide remain above 100 animals, and this will
livestock. The States are committed to reasonable assurance to us and likely be achieved by maintaining a total
responding to grizzly bear/human regulatory certainty that potential future population size above 400 animals. In
conflicts in an efficient, timely manner. threats to the Yellowstone grizzly bear response to this recommendation, the
The killing of grizzly bears in self- population will not jeopardize this Strategy states that it is the goal of the
defense by humans will continue to be recovered population and ensure that implementing agencies to maintain the
allowed under both Federal and State the Yellowstone DPS is not likely to total population size at or above 500
management plans. State management become endangered in the foreseeable animals to assure that the effective
plans do not allow for legal take of future throughout all or a significant population size does not decline to less
grizzly bears by humans unless it is portion of its range. than 100 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
within the designated seasons and 2007, p. 26).
limits for grizzly mortality or, in the E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338) state
Montana portion of the DPS, if a grizzly Affecting Its Continued Existence that the genetic diversity necessary for
bear is caught ‘‘in the act’’ of attacking Three other considerations warrant the long-term genetic health of the
or killing livestock (87–3–130 MCA). discussion as to whether or not they are population can only be maintained
This would have to be verified by a law likely to appreciably impact the through gene flow from other grizzly
enforcement investigation. Any Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS bear populations, either through
mortality due to hunting will be within including—(1) genetic concerns; (2) translocation or natural connectivity.
the sustainable mortality limits, as invasive species, disease, and other Our DPS policy does not require
described in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and impacts to food supply; and (3) human complete geographic or reproductive
Wildlife Service 2007, p. 126). The goal attitudes toward grizzly bear recovery isolation among populations, and allows
of such a hunting season is to reduce and I & E efforts to improve these for some limited interchange among
grizzly density in areas of high grizzly attitudes. population segments considered to be
bear/human conflicts, in order to Genetic Management—Levels of discrete (61 FR 4722). Although
achieve management objectives so that genetic diversity in Yellowstone grizzly movement of just a few individuals
future management actions would be bears have been a concern in the past between populations may be sufficient
reduced. A hunt would only occur if because of small population size and to prevent loss of genetic diversity,
annual mortality limits specified for the lack of genetic exchange with other movement of a few individuals would
Yellowstone grizzly bear population are grizzly bear populations. However, not be sufficient to create or maintain
not exceeded. levels of genetic diversity in the significant demographic connectivity
State management plans provide the Yellowstone grizzly bear population are between grizzly bear populations. We
necessary regulatory framework and not as low as previously feared, and the believe that there is currently no
guidelines to State wildlife agencies for need for novel genetic material is not connectivity between the Yellowstone
managing and maintaining a recovered urgent (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). DPS and other grizzly bear populations.
Yellowstone grizzly bear population in Because the Yellowstone grizzly bear Future efforts to maintain genetic
significant portions of the range outside population is an isolated population, diversity, either through translocation or
of the PCA. By identifying the agencies declines in genetic diversity over time natural connectivity, may provide for
responsible for nuisance bear are expected (Allendorf et al. 1991, p. genetic exchange among grizzly bear
management and responding to grizzly 651; Burgman et al. 1993, p. 220), but populations but is unlikely to result in
bear/human conflicts using a clearly will occur gradually over decades the Yellowstone DPS becoming no
orchestrated protocol, these State plans (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). Miller longer markedly separate from other
create a framework within which grizzly and Waits (2003, p. 4338) state, ‘‘In our grizzly bear populations. Natural
bears and people can both flourish. opinion, it is unlikely that genetic connectivity will continue to be
Effective nuisance bear management factors will have substantial effect on monitored after delisting. To document
benefits the conservation of the the viability of the Yellowstone grizzly natural connectivity, Federal and State
Yellowstone grizzly bear population and over the next several decades.’’ agencies will continue to monitor bear
State management plans adequately Therefore, we do not view genetic movements on the northern periphery of
address this issue. diversity as a current threat to the the Yellowstone DPS boundaries and
the southern edges of the NCDE using become a threat to the Yellowstone atmospheric temperatures, and ocean
radio-telemetry and will collect genetic grizzly bear DPS. temperatures will rise, the
samples from all captured or dead bears Adequate measures to address genetic Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
to document gene flow between these concerns will continue and, thus, Change (IPCC), a group of leading
two ecosystems. Such movement will be genetic concerns will not adversely climate scientists commissioned by the
detected by using an ‘‘assignment test’’ impact the long-term conservation of the United Nations, concluded there is a
which identifies the area from which Yellowstone grizzly bear population or general consensus among the world’s
individuals are most likely to have its expansion into suitable habitat. The best scientists that climate change is
originated based on their unique genetic Study Team will carefully monitor occurring (Intergovernmental Panel on
signature (Paetkau et al. 1995, p. 348; movements and the presence of alleles Climate Change 2001, pp. 2–3;
Waser and Strobeck 1998, p. 43; Paetkau from grizzly populations outside the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
et al. 2004, p. 56; Proctor et al. 2005, pp. Yellowstone DPS boundaries (U.S. Fish Change 2007, p. 4). The twentieth
2410–2412). This technique also has the and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 37) so that century was the warmest in the last
reduction of genetic diversity due to the 1,000 years (Inkley et al. 2004, pp. 2–3)
ability to identify bears that may be the
geographic isolation of the Yellowstone with global mean surface temperature
product of reproduction between
grizzly bear population will not become increasing by 0.4 to 0.8 degrees Celsius
Yellowstone and NCDE bears (Dixon et
a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear (0.7 to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit). These
al. 2006, p. 158). In addition to DPS in all or a significant portion of its increases in temperature were more
monitoring for gene flow and range in the foreseeable future. pronounced over land masses as
movements, we will continue Invasive Species, Disease, and Other evidenced by the 1.5 to 1.7 degrees
interagency efforts to complete the Impacts to Food Supply—Four food Celsius (2.7 to 3.0 degrees Fahrenheit)
linkage zone task in the Recovery Plan items have been identified as major increase in North America since the
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, components of the Yellowstone grizzly 1940s (Vincent et al. 1999, p.96; Cayan
pp. 24–26) to provide and maintain bear population’s diet (Mattson et al. et al. 2001, p. 411). According to the
movement opportunities for grizzly 1991a, p. 1623). These are seeds of the IPCC, warmer temperatures increase 1.1
bears, and reestablish natural whitebark pine, army cutworm moths, to 6.4 degrees Celsius (2.0 to 11.5
connectivity and gene flow between the ungulates, and spawning cutthroat trout. degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS and other These food sources may exert a positive (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
grizzly bear populations. influence on grizzly bear fecundity and Change 2007, pp. 10–11). The
Experimental and theoretical data survival (Mattson et al. 2002, p. 2) and magnitude of warming in the northern
suggest that one to two effective are some of the highest sources of Rocky Mountains has been particularly
migrants per generation is an digestible energy available to grizzly great, as indicated by an 8-day advance
appropriate level of gene flow to bears in the GYA (Mealey 1975, pp. 84– in the appearance of spring
maintain or increase the level of genetic 86; Pritchard and Robbins 1990, p. 1647; phenological indicators in Edmonton,
diversity in isolated populations (Mills Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Craighead et Alberta, since the 1930s (Cayan et al.
and Allendorf 1996, pp. 1510, 1516; al. 1995, pp. 247–252). Each of these 2001, p. 400). The hydrologic regime in
Newman and Tallmon 2001, pp. 1059– food sources is limited in distribution the northern Rockies also has changed
1061; Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). and subject to natural annual with global climate change, and is
We have defined an effective migrant as fluctuations in abundance and projected to change further (Bartlein et
availability. Because of this natural al. 1997, p. 786; Cayan et al. 2001, p.
an individual that emigrates into an
variability, threshold values of 411; Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223–224).
isolated population from an outside
abundance for each food have not been Under global climate change scenarios,
area, survives, breeds, and whose
established. However, whitebark pine, the GYA may eventually experience
offspring survive (we further discuss
ungulates, cutthroat trout, and army milder, wetter winters and warmer,
this issue in Issue 8 under subheading
cutworm moths are all monitored either drier summers (Bartlein et al. 1997, p.
R in the Summary of Public Comments directly or indirectly on an annual basis
section above). Based on Miller and 786). Additionally, the pattern of
(see Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan snowmelt runoff also may change, with
Waits (2003, p. 4338), the Strategy section below). Monitoring these a reduction in spring snowmelt (Cayan
recommends that if no movement or important foods provides managers with et al. 2001, p. 411) and an earlier peak
successful genetic interchange is some ability to predict annual seasonal (Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223–224), so
detected by 2020, two effective migrants bear habitat use, and estimate, prepare that a lower proportion of the annual
from the NCDE be translocated into the for, and avoid grizzly bear/human discharge will occur during spring and
Yellowstone grizzly bear population conflicts due to a shortage of one or summer.
every 10 years (i.e., one generation) to more foods. For instance, the Changing climate conditions have the
maintain current levels of genetic Coordinating Committee issues press potential to impact several of the
diversity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service releases annually about the abundance Yellowstone grizzly bear’s food sources,
2007, p. 37). Based on previous attempts of fall foods, particularly whitebark including whitebark pine seeds, winter-
in other grizzly bear recovery pine. In poor whitebark pine years, killed ungulates, and army cutworm
ecosystems to augment the grizzly bear these press releases warn people that moths. However, the extent and rate to
population (Kasworm et al. in press, pp. bears might be found in lower elevation which each of these food sources will be
6–7), the Service recognizes that it may areas and that encounters with bears impacted is difficult to foresee with any
take several re-located bears to equal will likely be more common. In level of confidence. The specific ways
one or two effective migrants. Each bear Yellowstone National Park, similar in which climate change may affect each
that would be relocated from the NCDE warnings are issued to people during major grizzly bear food in the GYA is
into the GYA would be radio-collared poor food years when they obtain their discussed within each of their
and monitored to determine if backcountry permits and, in some years, respective sections that follow.
additional translocations were warning signs are posted at trailheads. In response to normal changes in food
necessary. In this way, we can be certain While there is much debate about the supplies due to plant phenology and
that genetic impoverishment will not rates at which carbon dioxide levels, responses to weather (e. g., frost,
rainfall), grizzly bear annual home Study Team regarding the abundance of proportion of the Yellowstone grizzly
ranges may change in size and extent both cutthroat and lake trout. bear population was using cutthroat
(Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 48–62). According to Stewart et al. (2004, p. trout. The number of bears using trout
By expanding the distribution and range 223), cutthroat trout in the Yellowstone varied from 15 to 33 per year from 1997
of bears into currently unoccupied Lake drainage (a small portion of the to 2000 (Haroldson et al. 2005, p. 175).
suitable habitat within the DPS overall range of Yellowstone cutthroat This low reliance on cutthroat trout by
boundaries, as per the State plans, trout) may be affected by climate change the grizzly bear population in general,
additional areas with additional food and its effects on the hydrologic regime and female bears specifically, has
resources will be available. These potentially causing spring runoff to implications for population dynamics,
additional habitats will provide habitat occur as much as 30 to 40 days earlier and means that potential declines in
flexibility for bears to respond to and perhaps reduced scouring of this food resource are not currently, nor
changes in annual food supplies and streambeds. Should this scenario be are they likely to become, a threat in the
distribution. realized, that would require cutthroat foreseeable future in all or a significant
Regarding impacts to cutthroat trout, trout to migrate to the tributaries to portion of the Yellowstone DPS’s range,
several factors have the potential to play spawn earlier in the spring to match even if changing climate conditions
significant roles on the abundance of their preferred streamflows, and it also cause a reduction in Yellowstone
this food source. In 1994, nonnative lake would require them to return to cutthroat trout abundance.
trout (Salvelinus naymaycush) were Yellowstone Lake earlier in the summer Regarding Whitebark Pine, two
discovered in Yellowstone Lake to avoid low flows in the tributaries. noteworthy factors in North America
(Reinhart et al. 2001, pp. 281–282). Lake Such a hypothetical change in the warrant consideration here, including
trout are efficient predators of juvenile spawning schedule of cutthroat trout mountain pine beetle infestation and the
cutthroat trout and, on average, also would require a change in the time introduction of exotic species (Tomback
consume 41 cutthroat trout per year during which grizzly bears frequent the et al. 2001, p. 13). Fire suppression and
(Ruzycki et al. 2003, p. 23). In 1998, spawning streams. Young (2001) exclusion throughout most of the
Myxobolus cerebralis, the parasite that speculated that warmer water western United States during the
causes whirling disease, was found in temperatures may be harmful to twentieth century has allowed shade
juvenile and adult cutthroat trout cutthroat trout, as evidenced by the tolerant tree species to dominate some
collected from Yellowstone Lake. The failure of some warmer river reaches, whitebark pine communities, thereby
Intermountain West has experienced such as the lower Tongue River, to inhibiting natural regeneration by
drought conditions for the past 6 years, support cutthroat populations. While whitebark pine (Arno 1986, p. 93;
which has resulted in increased water some species may shift north in Tomback et al. 2001, p. 5). These later
temperatures, lowered lake levels, and a response to climate change, there is no successional whitebark pine
reduction in peak stream flows; all of evidence the introduced lake trout will communities are more susceptible to
which negatively affect cutthroat trout be hampered by such climatic range infestations of the native mountain pine
spawning success (Koel et al. 2005, p. restrictions. Despite these potential beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae)
10). This combination of lake trout, factors impacting Yellowstone cutthroat (Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 14–15). Their
whirling disease, and drought trout, a 2006 status review concluded larvae feed on the inner bark, which can
conditions has resulted in declines in that listing this salmonid was not eventually girdle and kill trees on a
the Yellowstone cutthroat trout warranted (71 FR 8818–8831, February landscape scale (Amman and Cole 1983,
population, with subsequent decreases 21, 2006). This status review noted that p. 12).
in grizzly bear fishing activity (Koel et although some Yellowstone cutthroat During the last 2 to 4 years, there has
al. 2005, pp. 10–11). In fact, both black trout populations face severe threats, been an epidemic of mountain pine
and grizzly bear activity at spawning overall, populations are abundant and beetles in whitebark pine in the GYA
streams decreased 87 percent between well distributed, and that land and (Gibson 2006, p. 1). Using aerial
1989 and 2004 (Koel et al. 2005, p. 14). water management practices have detection survey data, Gibson (2006, pp.
Efforts to reduce introduced lake trout significantly reduced habitat 1, 3) estimated that 16 percent of the
populations have been somewhat degradation. total area of whitebark pine found in the
successful. The Yellowstone National Although the decrease in bear use of GYA (693 sq km / 4,308 sq km (268 sq
Park managers have removed more than cutthroat trout corresponds temporally mi / 1663 sq mi)) has experienced some
100,000 lake trout since 1994, and the with cutthroat trout declines, this may level of mortality due to mountain pine
average size of lake trout caught has not have a significant effect on the beetles. Similarly, the Greater
decreased, indicating that gillnetting grizzly bear population because adult Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring
efforts may be effective. The grizzlies that fish in spawning streams Working Group (2006, p. 77) reported
Yellowstone National Park managers only consume, on average, between 8 that 22 percent of their transects showed
will continue to monitor the and 55 trout per year (Felicetti et al. presence of mountain pine beetles.
Yellowstone Lake cutthroat trout 2004, p. 499). The results of Felicetti et Between 2004 and 2005 they surveyed
population using fish weirs, spawning al. (2004, p. 499) indicate a lower a total of 3,889 trees and found 1.4
stream surveys, and hydroacoustic dependence on this food source than percent of the trees (56 trees) sampled
techniques and continue attempts to previously believed (Reinhart and showed signs of mountain pine beetle
suppress nonnative lake trout in Mattson 1990, pp. 345–349; Mattson attack (Greater Yellowstone Whitebark
Yellowstone Lake through gillnetting, and Reinhart 1995, pp. 2078–2079). Of Pine Monitoring Working Group 2006,
capturing on spawning grounds, and particular importance is the finding that p. 77).
fishing regulations which target lake male grizzly bear consumption of The introduction of white pine blister
trout (Yellowstone National Park 2003, spawning cutthroat trout was five times rust from Europe in the early 1900s also
p. 33). The Yellowstone National Park more than average female consumption contributes to whitebark pine declines
biologists will continue to assess the of this food (Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499) (Kendall and Arno 1990, pp. 269–270;
impacts of nonnative lake trout on and there was minimal use of cutthroat Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 15–16). While
cutthroat trout populations and will trout by female grizzly bears. Haroldson there is evidence of blister rust in
provide an annual summary to the et al. (2005, p. 175) found that a small whitebark pines in the GYA, the blister
rust has been present for more than 50 fires may be advantageous to whitebark ago, stated that ‘‘practically every stand
years (McDonald and Hoff 2001, p. 210), pine through elimination of smaller, of whitebark pine is heavily infested’’
and infection rates are still relatively shade-tolerant competitive tree species and that ‘‘it seems inevitable that much
low when compared to whitebark pine such as subalpine fir and the creation of of the park will be denuded.’’ This
communities further north. The Greater open sites that will be used by Clark’s 1930s prediction was incorrect,
Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) for demonstrating the uncertainty of
Working Group (2006, p. 76) estimated seed caches, the primary dispersal agent predicting the impacts of such pine
that after more than 50 years of presence for whitebark pine (Tomback et al. 2001, beetle infestations.
of the pathogen in the ecosystem, p. 17). However, the intensity of the fire It is not anticipated that whitebark
roughly 25 percent of all whitebark pine is a key factor. Low intensity fires may pine will disappear entirely from the
trees in the GYA are currently infected eliminate smaller, shade-tolerant GYA in the foreseeable future. Modeling
to some level with the blister rust. competitive tree species such as efforts have predicted that whitebark
Evidence of infection does not subalpine fir, while high intensity fires pine will remain at lower risk for
necessarily mean immediate mortality. may result in direct mortality of many mountain pine beetle attack in many
Eighty percent of the rust cankers on mature whitebark pine trees (Mattson et high elevation habitats in the eastern
2,425 infected live trees were on al. 2001, pp. 131–132; Koteen 2002, pp. portion of the GYA (Logan 2006, p. 3).
branches as opposed to the bole of the 390–396). Many of these high elevation mountain
tree. Trees with branch cankers only are The most substantial way in which areas where whitebark is expected to
less impacted than trees with bole changing climate conditions may affect persist (Logan 2006, p. 3) are designated
cankers (Greater Yellowstone Whitebark whitebark pine is through outbreaks of Wilderness Areas where human
Pine Monitoring Working Group 2006, native mountain pine beetles that might developments are prohibited. For
p. 76) and usually produce normal cone not continue to be regulated by example, the Wind River mountain
crops. This proportion of infected trees extremely cold winters, and an range (see Figure 1), where mountain
in the Yellowstone ecosystem is much increased prevalence of white pine pine beetle impacts are expected to be
lower than in whitebark pine blister rust. As recently as 2001, Kendall minimal (Logan 2006, p. 3), is within
communities found in the nearby Bob and Keane (2001, p. 136), addressing the Bridger, Popo Agie, and Fitzpatrick
Marshall Wilderness (83 percent) or in primarily the effects of white pine Wilderness Areas. This area includes of
communities of other 5-needled pines in blister rust, concluded that ‘‘the impact 2,948 sq km (1,138 sq mi) of protected
Colorado, in which 50 percent of pines of climate change on whitebark pine is habitat. Similarly, the eastern half of the
exposed to the fungus are infected inconclusive,’’ even though they felt it PCA consists of the North Absaroka,
(McDonald and Hoff 2001, p. 211). unlikely that any whitebark pine stand Teton, and Washakie Wilderness Areas,
Climate change is predicted to affect would be safe from damage by blister where whitebark pine is anticipated to
several aspects of the ecology of rust under projected climate conditions. be at lower risk of mountain pine beetle
whitebark pine, including an increase in Subsequent research (Logan and Powell attack in the foreseeable future (Logan
the length of the growing season (Cayan in review, p. 13) suggests that recent 2006, p. 3). These areas should provide
et al. 2001, p. 410–411), an increase in ‘‘unprecedented outbreaks’’ of bark a large reserve area that will be
fire frequency and severity (McKenzie et beetles in high elevation pines have minimally impacted by mountain pine
al. 2004, p. 893; Westerling et al. 2006, been made possible by global climate beetle infestation and have only
pp. 942–943), spatial shifts in the change, and other investigators have negligible human impacts for the
distribution of suitable growing sites predicted that mortality caused by foreseeable future.
(Bartlein et al. 1997, p. 788), and an blister rust also will increase with While we remain concerned that there
increase in both mountain pine beetle warmer, wetter conditions as predicted will be future changes in whitebark pine
(Logan and Powell 2001, pp. 165–170; by global climate models (Koteen 2002, abundance, we believe that the specific
Williams and Liebhold 2002, p. 95 ) and pp. 379–384). The current outbreak amount of decline in whitebark pine
white pine blister rust (Koteen 2002, pp. (Gibson 2006, pp. 1–3) and past distribution and the rate of this decline
352–364) outbreaks. However, the outbreaks (Logan and Powell in review, are difficult to predict with certainty.
ultimate impacts of climate change on p. 4) have been associated with The specific response of grizzly bears to
whitebark pine communities, and unusually warm temperatures which declines in whitebark cone production
therefore impact to the GYA bears’ use allow mountain pine beetles to is even more uncertain due to the fact
of whitebark pine seeds as a primary complete their life cycles in one season that bears are used to feeding on
food source, are uncertain (Kendall and (Logan and Powell 2001, p. 161), alternative foods during the regularly
Keane 2001, p. 236). suggesting that predicted milder winters occurring years when whitebark cone
While an increased growing season will result in increased loss of production is minimal (Mattson et al.
may result in increased cone crops for whitebark pine to beetle-caused 1991a, p. 1626; Felicetti et al. 2003, p.
several decades, accelerated growth of mortality. 767). We believe any changes in
competitive species such as Abies Both Gibson (2006, p. 5) and Logan et whitebark pine production (positive or
lasiocarpa (subalpine fir) could al. (2003, p. 136) temper their comments negative), either individually or in
eventually lead to them out competing about the speed of spread of mountain combination with other factors, are not
and replacing whitebark pine (Mattson pine beetle infestations. Logan et al. likely to impact the Yellowstone DPS to
et al. 2001, pp. 132–133). Additionally, (2003, p. 136) caution that reporting bias the point where the DPS is likely to
a changing climate may shift the overall (the tendency to report massive become endangered within the
distribution of whitebark pine north and outbreaks and to disregard minor or foreseeable future throughout all or a
higher in elevation, resulting in local receding infestations) may affect significant portion of its range. While
extinction and reduced overall perceptions of the problem. Gibson studies suggest a decrease in whitebark
distribution in the GYA (Romme and (2006, p. 5) cites Furniss and Renkin pine can change both grizzly bear
Turner 1991, p. 382). Fire frequency and (2003, p. 207), quoting from a National spatial distribution and the number of
severity may increase with late summer Park Service report on the mountain bear/human conflicts (Mattson et al.
droughts predicted under climate pine beetle outbreak in Yellowstone in 1992, p. 436; Knight and Blanchard
change scenarios for the GYA. These the 1930s. The report, issued 70 years 1995, p. 23; Gunther et al. 1997, pp. 9–
11; Gunther et al. 2004, p. 18), grizzly managers from the USDA Forest bison, domestic cattle (Berger and Cain
bears are opportunistic omnivores that Service, National Park Service, and the 1999, pp. 358–359), and humans
will make behavioral adaptations Service, formed the Whitebark Pine (Wyoming Brucellosis Coordination
regarding food acquisition (Weaver et al. Subcommittee in 1998 (USDA Forest Team 2005, p. 8). The disease is usually
1996, p. 970). The wide current and Service 2006a, p. 148). The Whitebark fatal to the fetus, but usually causes no
projected (Logan 2006, p. 3) distribution Pine Subcommittee coordinates the lasting harm to adults, who are
of whitebark pine, primarily in high- implementation of restoration thereafter immune to its effects and
elevation Wilderness Areas in the techniques, management responses, and capable of reproducing successfully.
eastern part of the GYA where human the gathering of information on the Animals are infected by eating material
development actions are prohibited, status of this tree. Current work on contaminated with the bacteria in
provides biologically significant habitat whitebark pine includes planting in aborted fetuses or vaginal discharges
to grizzly bears throughout suitable several areas, cone collection from (Smith 2005, p. 7). Brucellosis is not
habitat and increases the resiliency of healthy trees, silvicultural treatments to known to negatively affect grizzly bears
the Yellowstone DPS to future changes improve growth and establishment, or any other carnivore (Reinhart et al.
in whitebark pine availability. prescribed burning to encourage natural 2001, pp. 280–281). Existing vaccines
In contrast to annually available whitebark pine seedling establishment, were developed specifically for
coastal salmon runs used by other and surveys for healthy trees that may domestic cattle, and are not effective in
grizzly bear populations, whitebark pine possess blister rust resistant genes. preventing infection or abortion in bison
nut production is not an annually In 2003 and 2004, the Whitebark Pine or elk. Brucellosis was most likely
predictable food source. Yellowstone Subcommittee formed the Greater introduced to North America in
DPS bears commonly have high diet Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring domestic cattle imported from Europe
diversity (Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1626) Working Group. This is an interagency (Meagher and Meyer 1994, p. 650).
and use alternate foods in years of low team of resource managers, statisticians, The effect of the disease itself on
whitebark pine nut production. During and researchers established to assess the bison and elk populations is minimal,
years of poor pine nut availability, 72 status of whitebark pine, its threats, and but the possibility of transmission from
percent of GYA grizzly bears make restoration options in the GYA. The infected wildlife to domestic cattle
minimal use of pine nuts while Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working causes economic concern for livestock
consuming more ungulate meat Group monitors transects throughout producers. Removal of bison, but not
(Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 767) and other the GYA annually for white pine blister elk, to control the spread of the disease
natural foods. Grizzly bears in the GYA rust infection, mountain pine beetle to domestic cattle is currently practiced
are accustomed to successfully finding infestation, and whitebark pine survival. north of Yellowstone near Gardiner,
alternative natural foods in years when Currently, there are 19 whitebark pine Montana, and west of Yellowstone near
whitebark pine nuts are not available. cone production transects within the West Yellowstone, Montana. While
However, because pine nuts are an PCA, 9 of which the Study Team has these removals have the potential to
important food and because they vary monitored on an annual basis since deprive grizzly bears of a carrion source
naturally from year to year as well as in 1980 (Haroldson and Podruzny 2006, in the spring, since many of the bison
response to insect and disease, the pp. 44–45). Additionally, the Whitebark removed would have died over winter
Study Team has been monitoring cone Pine Monitoring Working Group has (Meagher 1973, p. 73), brucellosis is not
abundance throughout the GYA since established more than 70 transects a population-level issue for wild
1980. This cone monitoring in outside the PCA and works closely with ungulates. The presence of brucellosis
combination with monitoring tree statisticians to ensure a representative in wild populations of ungulates does
mortality and beetle and disease sample and strong inference (Greater not threaten this food source of grizzly
infestation rates will continue under the Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring bears. The potential threat to grizzly
Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Working Group 2006, p. 76). Under the bears is created by the removal of wild
2007, p 43–56, 60). We believe that this Strategy, the Study Team will continue bison that wander outside of
intensive, annual monitoring of foods, monitoring whitebark pine cone Yellowstone National Park. The purpose
grizzly bear/human conflicts, survival production, the prevalence of white of the Interagency Bison Management
rates for young, reproductive rates, and pine blister rust, and whitebark pine Plan, under which bison that wander
the causes and locations of grizzly bear mortality using current methods. outside the boundaries of Yellowstone
mortality, as detailed in the Strategy Regarding impacts to ungulates, National Park into Montana are
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, potential impacts to elk and bison (the managed, is to ‘‘maintain a wild, free-
pp. 43–56, 60), will provide the most important ungulates to grizzlies) ranging population of bison and address
Strategy’s signatory agencies with a warrant consideration here. Grizzlies the risk of brucellosis transmission to
strong, and biologically defensible, primarily consume ungulates as winter- protect the economic interest and
foundation from which to implement killed carrion in the early spring, but viability of the livestock industry in the
the adaptive management (Holling 1978, also kill elk and bison calves State of Montana’’ (U.S. Department of
pp. 11–16) actions necessary to respond opportunistically and sometimes prey the Interior’s National Park Service and
to ecological changes that may impact upon adults weakened during the fall USDA Animal and Plant Health
the future of the GYA grizzly bear DPS. breeding season. Potential threats to the Inspection Service 2000, p. 22). In light
These management changes may availability of these ungulates include of this goal, we do not foresee
involve increased habitat management brucellosis (Brucella abortus) and management of Yellowstone bison as a
and/or protection, increased mortality resulting management practices, chronic threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear
management, and/or a status review and wasting disease (CWD), competition DPS in all or a significant portion of its
emergency relisting of the population if with other top predators for ungulates, range in the foreseeable future.
management is unable to successfully and decreasing winter severity. CWD is a member of a group of
address the problems. Brucellosis is a bacterial disease that diseases called transmissible
In response to concerns about threats causes abortion during the first spongiform encephalopathies, caused by
to whitebark pine in the GYA, the pregnancy after infection in many non-living proteins called prions
Coordinating Committee, a group of species of mammals, including elk, (Peterson 2005, p. 1). The disease is
known to occur in only 4 species within requires that all signatories cooperate to reduce the availability of carrion by
the deer family including white-tailed monitor historic ungulate carcass decreasing winter severity and length.
and mule deer, elk, and moose. CWD is transects each spring. In this way, the However, in ecosystems such as
invariably fatal in deer and elk once Study Team can compare current counts Yellowstone, where wolves are present,
they develop clinical signs, but the of ungulate carcasses to previous years. these top predators may buffer climatic
period between contracting the disease Through monitoring of habitat features change impacts to scavengers. This may
and death of the animal is usually 2 to and grizzly bear population statistics, occur because the remains of wolf-killed
4 years (Peterson 2005, p. 3). There is our adaptive management (Holling ungulates would provide a food
no immune response and no 1978, pp. 11–16) approach will respond resource to scavengers. Furthermore,
immunization for CWD. The disease- to significant shortages in spring increased over-winter survival would
causing prions are shed in feces and the ungulate carrion, should they occur in likely result in overall increases in
decomposing carcasses of infected deer the future. ungulate populations, thereby providing
and elk. Prions persist in the ground for Gray wolves (Canis lupus) were an alternative food source to grizzly
at least 2 years and infect deer and elk reintroduced to the GYA in 1995 and, bears during poor whitebark pine years
that eat them while foraging on low- since then, have flourished. (Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 767).
growing vegetation or human-provided Competition between grizzlies and The northern Yellowstone elk herd
hay or hay pellets. As is the case for wolves for carrion, particularly elk occupies the northern reaches of
brucellosis, CWD transmission is carcasses, in late winter and spring Yellowstone National Park and some
facilitated by locally high densities of occurs occasionally. Servheen and adjacent USDA Forest Service and
animals, such as those occurring at Knight (1993, p. 136) reviewed the private lands in the Yellowstone River
winter feed grounds (Smith 2005, p. 16). literature on wolf/grizzly competition and Lamar River valleys. The size of the
CWD has not been detected in the GYA, and interviewed biologists and northern elk herd has declined from
but recent cases have been confirmed in managers familiar with wolf/grizzly about 17,000 elk in 1995 to about 8,000
mule deer from Worland and interactions in North America and in 2004 (Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 261).
Thermopolis, Wyoming, on the eastern Eurasia. They concluded that there was The onset of the decline was coincident
edge of the GYA. no documentation of negative influence with the reintroduction of wolves, but a
The prospective threat that CWD of grizzlies on wolves or of wolves on modeling exercise conducted by
poses to grizzly bears is the potential grizzlies at the population level. Vucetich et al. (2005, p. 260) attributed
reduction or elimination of deer and elk However, they also concluded that the the decline to weather and hunting
in the GYA. Unlike brucellosis, CWD is most severe competition would be likely harvests, rather than wolf predation.
an emerging disease, so little empirical to occur in the spring, when bears began However, Tom Lemke, a wildlife
data exist concerning the magnitude of to compete with wolves for carrion. biologist for MTFWP (as cited by
its effects on wild populations. In the Several investigators (Hornbeck and McMillion 2005, p. 1), felt that the
absence of such data, modeling of the Horejsi 1986, p. 259; Kuzyk et al. 2001, existing age distribution within the
effects of the disease can generate pp. 75–76; Gunther and Smith 2004, pp. herd, in which very few young animals
predictions about future population 233–236) have reported grizzly bears and many old ones are present,
sizes of deer and elk. The two modeling displacing wolves from carcasses and indicated that predation on elk calves
exercises that have been conducted so wolves displacing grizzlies from was responsible for the decline. He
far have arrived at very different carcasses. In all but a few cases, those pointed to the decline in hunting
predictions. Gross and Miller (2001, p. interactions did not result in any injury permits for the Gardiner winter hunt,
213) created their model assuming that to either bears or wolves. from 2,880 permits in 2000 to 100
transmission of CWD was frequency Wilmers and his colleagues, in a permits in 2006, as providing a test of
dependent (i.e., that the transmission series of papers (Wilmers et al. 2003a the hypothesis that hunting harvests
rate is constant and independent of pp. 914–915; Wilmers et al. 2003b, pp. were responsible for the decline of the
density) and predicted that the disease 999–1002; Wilmers and Getz 2004, pp. northern herd. Radio-telemetry studies
would drive infected populations to 205–205; Wilmers and Getz 2005, p. of calf mortality suggest that grizzly
local extinction. Schauber and Woolf 574; Wilmers and Post 2006, pp. 405– bears and black bears are the major
(2003, pp. 611–612) noted that all 409) presented the results of modeling predators of elk calves, rather than
frequency dependent models, as a exercises examining the effects of wolf wolves (Barber et al. 2005, pp. 41–43).
consequence of their assumptions, reintroduction on winter carrion Whatever the cause of the decline,
inevitably drive their populations to availability to several scavenger species, reduced elk numbers may have led to
extinction. They felt that modeling including grizzly bears. The models minor reductions in the availability of
transmission as density dependent predicted that the effect of wolves on carrion to grizzly bears.
instead (i.e., transmission rates are low carrion availability would be to spread In contrast to the northern
when population density is low and carrion availability over the winter. The Yellowstone elk herd, some other elk
high when density is high) was a more expected distribution of carrion in the herds in the GYA where wolves exist
realistic assumption. We concur with absence of wolves would be are stable to increasing. For instance,
this assumption. Under the assumption concentrated in the months of March the Jackson elk herd has remained
of density dependent transmission, and April, when it was of most value to around 15,000 animals since the early
CWD would not result in local grizzlies. 1990s (Lubow and Smith 2004, pp. 826–
extinction of deer or elk populations. One potential consequence of climate 828) and several herds to the west of the
Overall, we do not anticipate that change could be a reduction in the northern Yellowstone elk herd in the
either of these diseases will significantly number of elk and bison dying over- Gallatin and Madison River drainages
impact the availability of ungulate winter, thus decreasing the amount of are stable to increasing (Garrott et al.
carcasses to grizzly bears or impact the carrion available to bears when they 2005). With managers and scientists
Yellowstone DPS such that it is likely to emerge from hibernation. Wilmers and collaborating to determine the source of
become endangered within the Getz (2005, p. 574) and Wilmers and the potential population fluctuations
foreseeable future in all or a significant Post (2006, p. 405) predicted that and appropriate management responses,
portion of its range. The Strategy impending global climate change could we feel confident that, although
different herds may experience differing plants due to an increased growing notoriously resourceful omnivores that
population dynamics, the GYA will season (Woiwod 1997, pp. 152–153). will make behavioral adaptations
continue to support large populations of Food plant distribution could be regarding food acquisition (Weaver et al.
ungulates and that the Yellowstone DPS affected by shifting the range and 1996, p. 970). Diets of grizzly bears vary
is not likely to become endangered in all distribution of alpine plant among individuals, seasons, and years
or a significant portion of its range communities, upon which army (Mattson et al. 1991a, pp. 1625–1626;
within the foreseeable future due to a cutworm moths feed. There is a Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 767; Felicetti et
decrease in ungulate numbers. possibility that high elevation alpine al. 2004, p. 499; Koel et al. 2005, p. 14),
The fourth important food source plant communities might disappear reflecting their flexibility in finding
considered here is army cutworm entirely in the GYA, as they have been adequate food resources as necessary.
moths. Army cutworm moths range predicted to do in Britain (Thomas and Mattson et al. (1991a, p. 1625)
from Alberta to New Mexico and from Morris 1994, pp. 50–51). However, plant hypothesized that grizzly bears are
California to Kansas. Moths begin communities in the GYA have a much always sampling new foods in small
mating at high elevations, like the GYA, greater elevational range in which to quantities so that they have alternative
and then deposit their eggs at low move than do alpine plants in Britain. options in years when preferred foods
elevations, such as the agricultural areas Romme and Turner (1991, p. 382) are scarce. In other areas such as the
where they are exposed to pesticides. predicted that alpine vegetation NCDE, where grizzly bears historically
The magnitude of future pesticide use to communities in the GYA would be relied heavily on whitebark pine seeds,
control moths and the potential effects reduced in overall area but not distributions and sighting records on the
of pesticides on moth populations disappear entirely. Changes in the periphery of this ecosystem indicate
cannot be predicted, but the potential distribution of alpine plants may not that the population, at least in those
effects of pesticides on grizzly bears are affect army cutworm moths adversely areas, has continued to increase and
better documented. Robison et al. (2006, since they display foraging plasticity thrive since the 1980s despite severe
pp. 1708–1710) screened samples of (Burton et al. 1980, pp. 12–13). During declines in whitebark pine communities
army cutworm moths for 32 pesticides years of high snow pack when talus in the last 50 years (Kendall and Keane
and found either trace concentrations or slopes (where moths are normally 2001, p. 30). Similarly, although
undetectable concentrations that would found) are covered with snow all whitebark pine seed production and
not be harmful to grizzly bears summer, the moths must be feeding on grizzly bear use of cutthroat trout varied
consuming them. The populations flowers in alternative lower elevation, dramatically in the GYA over the last
Robison (2006, p. 86) examined were snow-free areas. Because moths have a three decades due to both natural and
panmictic (randomly mating), which one year life cycle, they must be feeding human-introduced causes (Reinhart and
indicates that army cutworm moth and reproducing in habitats other than Mattson 1990, pp. 345–349; Felicetti et
populations are more likely to persist alpine areas in high snow pack years al. 2004, p. 499; Haroldson and
through time than similarly-sized because they are observed in alpine Podruzny 2006, p. 45), the Yellowstone
populations that are locally genetically areas in subsequent years when snow grizzly bear population has continued to
more distinct (Robison 2006, p. 86). pack is not a limiting factor. Even under increase and expand during this time
Robison et al. (2006, p. 86) predicted climate change scenarios in which period (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 66).
that this type of genetic structure will alpine plants disappear entirely, it is Because of the life history strategy of
act to maintain army cutworm moth likely that the lower elevation plants whitebark pine, which naturally
migration patterns into the future by that support moths in high snow pack exhibits extreme annual variability in
increasing population resiliency to local years would still be present. cone production, grizzly bears have
weather patterns, pesticide use, and Some have suggested potentially always had to cope with a high degree
habitat alteration. warmer temperatures and increased of uncertainty regarding this food
Grizzly bears foraging at army winter precipitation that may result resource. The potential threat from
cutworm moth aggregation sites are from climate change could positively decreases in whitebark pine cone
potentially vulnerable to disturbance by affect lepidopteran (i.e., the moth and production to grizzly bears is not one of
backcountry visitors. Moth aggregations butterfly order) populations (Roy et al. starvation, but one of larger home range
are located on remote, high-elevation 2001, p. 214). Migratory generalist size and movements in years of low or
talus slopes, where the predominant species, such as army cutworm moths, no whitebark cone production. These
human visitors are rock climbers and are more likely to respond positively to movement patterns may result in
hikers. In a study of Glacier National climate warming than sedentary habitat increased conflicts with humans and
Park grizzly bears, White et al. (1999, p. specialists (Warren et al. 2001, p. 66). increased mortality, as well as lower
150) reported that foraging bears that However, a study of lepidopteran reproductive success the following year
were disturbed by climbers spent 53 species in Britain, which may be similar as females produce smaller litters. Bear/
percent less time foraging on moths to the highly mobile army cutworm human conflicts can be reduced through
during observation periods. They moths in the GYA, found that human management responses and intensified I
recommended that these northern caused habitat loss (unrelated to climate & E efforts. Possible lowered
Montana climbing routes be moved to change) outweighed the positive reproductive success will be detected
avoid displacing foraging bears. The responses to longer and more through monitoring and mitigated in the
Study Team and the WGFD will productive growing seasons (Warren et short term by reduced mortality limits
cooperate to monitor currently known al. 2001, p. 67). and efforts to reduce nuisance bear
moth sites, identify new moth feeding In summary, the best scientific and removals, and in the long-term by
sites so that their location is known to commercial data available regarding continued whitebark pine restoration
land managers, and take appropriate grizzly bear responses to food losses and habitat management enhancing
management actions as necessary. suggest this issue is not a threat to the secure habitat availability in specific
Climate change may affect army Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in all or areas outside the PCA where healthy
cutworm moths by changing the a significant portion of its range, nor is whitebark pine may be available.
distribution of plants that the moths it likely to become one in the Although numerous alternative foods
feed on or the flowering times of those foreseeable future. Grizzly bears are are available to GYA grizzly bears such
as corms, insects, fungi, and forbs; in and distribution of the four major foods, human and ecological concerns into
terms of calories or nutrition, these are the Study Team will have adequate comprehensive programs that can
inferior to the four major foods information to determine if declining modify societal beliefs about,
discussed above and previously in the food sources are affecting population perceptions of, and behaviors toward
‘‘Behavior’’ section. In light of the trajectory. grizzly bears. Attitudes toward wildlife
potential threats to several of these If declines in any of the four major are shaped by numerous factors
important, high-energy grizzly bear foods occur and, using the best available including basic wildlife values,
foods, especially whitebark pine which scientific data and techniques, the biological and ecological understanding
has been linked to grizzly bear survival Study Team concludes these are related of species, perceptions of individual
and reproduction (Mattson et al. 1992, to significant increases in known and species, and specific interactions or
p. 436; Gunther et al. 1997, p. 38; probable bear mortalities, and that such experiences with species (Kellert 1994,
Gunther et al. 2004, p. 15; Mattson 2000, increases could threaten the grizzly pp. 44–48; Kellert et al. 1996, pp. 983–
p. 120), we believe the best approach is population, the Study Team would 986). I & E programs teach visitors and
one of adaptive management (Holling recommend appropriate management residents about grizzly bear biology,
1978, pp. 11–16). The Study Team, responses to the Coordinating ecology, and behavior enhance
working with the USDA Forest Service Committee, or submission of a relisting appreciation for this large predator
and National Park Service will continue petition to us (U.S. Fish and Wildlife while dispelling myths about its
to monitor the abundance and Service 2007, pp. 63–67). Although we temperament and feeding habits.
distribution of major grizzly bear foods believe such an outcome is unlikely, we Effective I & E programs have been an
such that any decline in the grizzly bear can also relist the Yellowstone DPS essential factor contributing to the
population as a result of these declines independent of the petition process. recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear
is detected in a sufficient time and This final rule and the Conservation population since its listing in 1975.
addressed through adaptive Strategy describe a comprehensive Being aware of specific values common
management (Holling 1978, pp. 11–16) monitoring and management system to certain user groups will allow the I
actions by the Coordinating Committee. that will be in place for the Yellowstone & E working group to disseminate
Because of this flexible and responsive grizzly bear DPS upon delisting. The appropriate materials and provide
management framework, we do not dynamic nature of the Conservation workshops that address particular
anticipate that the Yellowstone DPS is Strategy and its regulatory framework values and concerns most adequately.
likely to become endangered in all or a provide us with reasonable assurance By providing general information to
significant portion of its range in the that the Yellowstone DPS is not likely visitors and targeting specific user
foreseeable future due to changes in its to become endangered in all or a groups about living and working in
food sources. significant portion of its range in the grizzly country, we believe continued
foreseeable future. coexistence between grizzly bears and
The Study Team monitors grizzly bear Human Attitudes Toward Grizzly Bear humans will be accomplished.
mortality in relation to the abundance Recovery and I & E Efforts to Improve Traditionally, residents of the GYA
and distribution of all four of the major these Attitudes—Public support is involved in resource extraction
foods using measurable criteria. For paramount to any successful large industries such as loggers, miners,
instance, increases in mortality rates of carnivore conservation program livestock operators, and hunting guides,
radio-collared independent females are (Servheen 1998, p. 67). Historically, are the largest opponents to land-use
measurable criteria that could reflect human attitudes played a primary role restrictions which place the needs of the
decreases in food availability. Because in grizzly bear population declines grizzly bear above human needs (Kellert
there were no known natural mortalities through excessive human-caused 1994, p. 48; Kellert et al. 1996, p. 984).
of independent adult females from 1983 mortality. Through government- Surveys of these user groups have
to 2001 (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study endorsed eradication programs and shown that they tolerate large predators
Team 2005, p. 35), any change in this perceived threats to human life and when they are not seen as direct threats
value will be noteworthy and will be economic livelihood, humans settling to their economic stability or personal
investigated thoroughly by the Study the West were able to effectively freedoms (Kellert et al. 1996, p. 985).
Team to determine whether it is eliminate most known grizzly Delisting could increase acceptance of
reflective of a landscape-scale trend or populations after only 100 years of grizzly bears by giving local government
simply an isolated event. Significant westward expansion. and private citizens more discretion in
declines in important foods also could We have seen a change in public decisions which affect them. Increased
result in reductions in cub production perceptions and attitudes toward the flexibility regarding depredating bears
and increases in cub mortality over grizzly bear in the last several decades. in areas outside of the PCA may
current rates of 0.362. The Study Team The same government that once increase tolerance for the grizzly bear by
not only monitors survival but also financially supported active landowners and livestock operators.
reproductive population parameters extermination of the bear now uses its Ultimately, the future of the grizzly
such as litter size and cub survival that resources to protect the great symbol of bear will be based on the people who
are more sensitive to decreases in food American wildness. This change in live, work, and recreate in grizzly
quality and quantity. Because human- government policy and practice is a habitat and the willingness and ability
caused mortality, natural mortality of product of changing public attitudes of these people to learn to coexist with
radio-collared bears, and numbers of about the grizzly bear. Although the grizzly and to accept this animal as
cubs, and cub survival rates are all attitudes about grizzlies vary a cohabitant of the land. Other
measurable criteria monitored annually geographically and demographically, management strategies are unlikely to
by the Study Team, any biologically there has been a revival of positive succeed without useful and innovative
significant decline in important foods attitudes toward the grizzly bear and its public I & E programs. The primary
also would be reflected in changes in conservation (Kellert et al. 1996, pp. objective of the expanded public
these measurable population 983–986). outreach program will be to proactively
parameters. When combined with data Public outreach presents a unique address grizzly/human conflicts by
collected annually about the quantity opportunity to effectively integrate educating the public as to the root
causes of these conflicts and providing necessary. All three States have been compensate livestock operators for
suggestions on how to prevent them. By actively involved in I & E outreach for losses due to grizzly bears while
increasing awareness of grizzly bear over a decade and their respective MTFWP focuses on preventing such
behavior and biology, we hope to management plans contain chapters conflicts. However, when Defenders of
enhance public involvement and detailing efforts to continue current Wildlife expanded their compensation
appreciation of the grizzly bear. programs and expand them when program to include the GYA, they
Although many human-caused grizzly possible. For example, WGFD created a agreed to do so while the grizzly bear
bear mortalities are unintentional (e.g., formal human/grizzly bear conflict was listed under the Act. Internal
vehicle collisions, trap mortality), management program in July 1990 and discussions within Defenders of
intentional deaths in response to grizzly has coordinated an extensive I & E Wildlife have begun to determine
bear/human conflicts are responsible for program since then. Similarly, since whether their compensation program
the majority of known and probable 1993, the MTFWP has implemented will continue in the Montana portion of
human-caused mortalities. Fortunately, countless public outreach efforts to the GYA after delisting occurs (Clark
this source of mortality can be reduced minimize bear/human conflicts, and the 2006).
significantly if adequate I & E is IDFG has organized and implemented Summary of Factor E—Overall, these
provided to people who live, work, and education programs and workshops natural and manmade factors (genetic
recreate in occupied grizzly bear habitat. focused on private and public lands on concerns; invasive species, disease, and
The current I & E working group has the western edge of grizzly bear habitat. other potential impacts to food supply;
been a major component contributing to Compensating ranchers for losses
and human attitudes toward grizzly bear
the successful recovery of the recovery and I & E efforts to improve
caused by grizzly bears is another
Yellowstone grizzly bear population these attitudes), have the potential to be
approach to build support for
over the last 30 years. Both Federal and a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear
coexistence between livestock operators
State management agencies are DPS in all or a significant portion of its
and grizzly bears. In cases of grizzly
committed to continuing to work with range in the foreseeable future. Through
bear livestock depredation that have
citizens, landowners, and visitors careful monitoring and adaptive
been verified by USDA Animal and
within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries management (Holling 1978, pp. 11–16)
Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife
to address the human sources of practices, the Study Team and the States
Services, IDFG, MTFWP, or WGFD,
conflicts. will be able to identify and address
From 1980 through 2002, at least 36 affected livestock owners are these concerns before they become
percent (72 out of 196) of human-caused compensated. Since 1997, compensation problems for the Yellowstone grizzly
mortalities could have been avoided if in Montana and Idaho has been bear at a population level. All of these
adequate I & E materials had been provided primarily by private issues have been scientifically
presented, understood, and used by organizations, principally Defenders of researched and considered so that an
involved parties (Servheen et al. 2004, Wildlife. The Defenders of Wildlife’s adequate management framework is in
p. 15). Educating back-country and Grizzly Bear Compensation Trust has place to respond to future concerns as
front-country users about the paid over $140,721 to livestock they arise. Due to the large amount and
importance of securing potential operators within the Yellowstone DPS wide distribution of quality suitable
attractants can prevent bears from boundaries and in the northern Rockies habitat (46,035 sq km (17,774 sq mi)),
becoming food conditioned and for confirmed and probable livestock the protected status of large areas of
displaying subsequent unnaturally losses to grizzly bears (Johnson 2006). In high elevation whitebark pine stands
aggressive behavior. Similarly, adhering Wyoming, compensation has always not projected to be substantially
to hiking recommendations, such as been paid directly by the State. Upon impacted by future mountain pine
making noise, hiking with other people, delisting both Idaho and Wyoming’s beetle infestations, the maintenance of
and hiking during daylight hours, can grizzly bear management plans provide grizzly bears within the PCA as a source
further reduce back-country grizzly bear for State funding of compensation population for peripheral areas and
mortalities by decreasing the likelihood programs (Idaho’s Grizzly Bear Delisting potential dispersers to other grizzly bear
that hikers will encounter bears. Advisory Team 2002, p. 16; WGFD populations, the secure nature of the
Hunter-related mortalities may 2005, p. 30). In Idaho, compensation PCA for potential immigrants to the
involve hunters defending their life or funds will come from the secondary GYA from other grizzly bear
property because of carcasses that are depredation account, and the program populations, and the commitment by
left unattended or stored improperly. will be administered by the appropriate the responsible agencies to the
Grizzly bear mortalities also occur when IDFG Regional Landowner Sportsman maintenance of a recovered Yellowstone
hunters mistake grizzly bears for black Coordinators and Regional Supervisors grizzly bear DPS, we do not anticipate
bears. All of these circumstances can be (Idaho’s Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory that genetic isolation, decreases in major
further reduced with enhanced I & E Team 2002, p. 16). In Wyoming, the foods, or human attitudes toward grizzly
programs. WGFD will pay for all compensable bears will substantially adversely
Outside the PCA, State wildlife damage to agricultural products as impact the Yellowstone DPS. Therefore,
agencies recognize that the key to provided by State law and regulation these issues will not impact the
preventing grizzly bear/human conflicts (WGFD 2005, p. 30). The WGFD will Yellowstone DPS such that it is likely to
is providing I & E to the public. State continue efforts to establish a long-term become endangered within the
grizzly bear management plans also funding mechanism to compensate foreseeable future throughout all or a
acknowledge that this is the most property owners for livestock and apiary significant portion of its range.
effective long-term solution to grizzly losses caused by grizzly bears. The
bear/human conflicts and that adequate Montana State management plan does Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis
public outreach programs are not include a funding mechanism to As demonstrated in our 5-factor
paramount to ongoing grizzly bear compensate confirmed grizzly bear analysis, threats to this population have
survival and successful coexistence livestock losses, so MTFWP will been sufficiently minimized over the
with humans in the GYA so that the continue to rely on Defenders of entire current and foreseeable range of
measures of the Act continue to not be Wildlife and other private groups to the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS
including all ‘‘suitable habitat’’ within Park Superintendent’s Compendiums, p. 16) to 234 (Cowan et al. 1974, pp. 32,
the DPS boundaries, and there is no thereby assuring that these National 36) to 312 (McCullough 1981, p. 175)
significant portion of the range where Parks would manage habitat in individuals when listed in 1975 to more
the DPS remains threatened or accordance with the habitat standards than 500 animals as of 2005
endangered. (Grand Teton National Park 2006, p. 1; (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
Regarding Factor A, the habitat-based Yellowstone National Park 2006, p. 44). 2006, p. 15).
recovery criteria have been maintained The State and Federal agencies’ At the end of 2006, the number of
inside the PCA since 1998 and they will agreement to implement the Strategy’s unduplicated females with cubs-of-the-
continue to be maintained in perpetuity extensive guidelines inside the PCA, the year over a 6-year average both inside
through implementation of the Strategy. USDA Forest Service’s decision to the Recovery Zone and within a 16-km
The PCA will continue to serve as a classify the grizzly bear in the GYA as (10-mi) area immediately surrounding
source area for grizzly bears to expand a species of concern, and the State the Recovery Zone was 41, more than
into peripheral areas and unoccupied management plans ensure that adequate 2.7 times the Recovery Plan target of 15.
suitable habitat. The PCA will also be regulatory mechanisms remain in place The Recovery Plan target for the number
important in achieving connectivity in all significant portions of the of unduplicated females with cubs-of-
with other grizzly bear populations as it Yellowstone DPS’ range and that it is the-year (15) has been exceeded since
provides potential dispersers to other not likely to become endangered within 1988. In 2006, the 1-year total of
ecosystems outside the DPS boundaries the foreseeable future throughout all or unduplicated females with cubs-of-the-
and functions as secure habitat for a significant portion of its range. year within the entire GYA was 47
immigrants from other grizzly bear Regarding Factor E, the Service (Haroldson 2006a).
populations. Threats to suitable habitat concludes other natural and manmade Within the Recovery Zone, the
outside the PCA also have been factors are not a current threat nor will distribution of females with young,
sufficiently minimized by the they be in the foreseeable future due to based on the most recent six years of
commitment of the USDA Forest Service widely distributed, high-quality suitable observations in the ecosystem, was 18
to manage National Forest lands in the habitat that is protected by regulatory out of 18 bear management units at the
GYA such that a recovered Yellowstone mechanisms. Intensive annual end of 2004. The range of this
grizzly bear population will be monitoring of multiple indices population also has increased
maintained (USDA Forest Service combined with the adaptive dramatically, as evidenced by the 48
2006b; pp. 4, 26). Outside of the PCA, management approach will assure that percent increase in occupied habitat
grizzly bears will be allowed to expand isolation (i.e., genetic diversity or a lack since the 1970s (Schwartz et al. 2002, p.
into suitable habitat, as per direction in of gene flow), threats to foods, and 203; Pyare et al. 2004, p. 5–6; Schwartz
the State management plans. High- human attitudes will not impact the et al. 2006b, pp. 64–66). Furthermore,
quality, suitable habitat is widely Yellowstone DPS such that it is likely to the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
distributed throughout the GYA, become endangered within the continues to expand its range and
providing ecological resilience for the foreseeable future throughout all or a distribution today. Currently, roughly
Yellowstone DPS to respond to significant portion of its range. 84 to 90 percent of the sightings of
environmental changes. Therefore, Our current knowledge of the health females with cubs are within the PCA
sufficient habitat exists to ensure that and condition of the Yellowstone and about 10 to 16 percent of females
the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is not grizzly bear DPS illustrates that it is with cubs have expanded out beyond
likely to become endangered within the now a recovered population. Counts of the PCA within the DPS (Schwartz et al.
foreseeable future throughout all or a unduplicated females with cubs-of-the- 2006b, pp. 64–66). Grizzly bears now
significant portion of its range. year have increased (Knight et al. 1995, occupy 68 percent of suitable habitat
Regarding Factor B and C, all p. 247; Haroldson and Schwartz 2002, p. within the DPS and will likely occupy
demographic criteria relating to 16; Haroldson 2006a), and counts of the remainder of the suitable habitat
sustainable mortality have been, and cubs have increased (Knight and within the DPS within the foreseeable
will continue to be, met (Schwartz, in Blanchard 1995, p. 9; Knight and future. The Yellowstone DPS now has
press). The threat of overutilization due Blanchard 1996, p. 8; Knight et al. 1997, sufficient numbers and distribution of
to commercial, recreational, scientific, p. 2; Haroldson et al. 1998, p. 8; reproductive individuals to ensure that
or education purposes has been Haroldson 1999, p. 10; Haroldson 2000, it is not likely to become endangered
removed through cooperation among p. 11; Haroldson 2001, p. 14; Haroldson within the foreseeable future throughout
management agencies that ensures a and Schwartz 2002, p. 16; Haroldson all or a significant portion of its range.
consistent approach to mortality 2003, p. 16; Haroldson 2004, p. 11; Applying the current mortality limits
management. Sustainable mortality Haroldson 2006b, p. 12). Grizzly range (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
limits, coordinated conflict management and distribution has expanded (Basile 2005, pp. 6–9) to the 1999 to 2006
protocols, and conflict prevention 1982, pp. 3–10; Blanchard et al. 1992, p. period, the sustainable mortality limits
programs ensure that the Yellowstone 92; Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 203; Pyare have not been exceeded for 3
DPS is not likely to become endangered et al. 2004, pp. 5–6; Schwartz et al. consecutive years for males, for 3
within the foreseeable future throughout 2006b, pp. 64–66). Calculations of consecutive years for dependent young,
all or a significant portion of its range. population trajectory derived from or for 2 consecutive years for
Regarding Factor D, the USDA Forest radio-monitored female bears independent females (Schwartz, in
Service finalized the Forest Plan demonstrate an increasing population press). The main threat of human
Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat trend at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year predation has been addressed through
Conservation for the GYA National between 1983 and 2002 (Eberhardt et al. carefully monitored and controlled
Forests and has incorporated this 1994, p. 362; Knight and Blanchard mortality limits established in the
Amendment into the affected National 1995, pp. 18–19; Harris et al. 2006, p. Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Forests’ Land Management Plans (USDA 48), due in large part to control of 2007, p. 126) and annually monitored
Forest Service 2006b, p. 4). Yellowstone female mortality. In total, this and reported by the Study Team
and Grand Teton National Parks population has increased from estimates (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
appended the habitat standards to their ranging from 229 (Craighead et al. 1974, 2005, pp. 6–9). In addition, I & E is a
main component of the program to section 7 of the Act to ensure that any DPS boundaries, locations of grizzly
reduce grizzly bear/human conflicts. action authorized, funded, or carried out bear mortalities on private lands will be
The Yellowstone DPS now has by them is not likely to jeopardize the provided to the Study Team for
sufficient control of mortality to ensure species’ continued existence. However, incorporation into their Annual Report.
that it is not likely to become actions within the PCA will still be Full implementation of the Strategy by
endangered within the foreseeable regulated by over 70 State and Federal State and Federal agencies will allow for
future throughout all or a significant laws, regulations, and policies ensuring a sustainable population by managing
portion of its range. enforcement of the Strategy. Delisting all suitable habitat.
The Act defines a threatened species the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is Within the Primary Conservation
as one that is likely to become expected to have positive effects in Area—As discussed in previous
endangered in the foreseeable future terms of management flexibility to the sections, habitat criteria established for
throughout all or a significant portion of States and local governments. the Yellowstone grizzly bear population
its range. The Act defines an However, the full protections of the will be monitored carefully and any
endangered species as one that is likely Act will still continue to apply to deviations from these will be reported
to become extinct in the foreseeable grizzly bear in other portions of the annually. The number and levels of
future throughout all or a significant lower 48-States outside the Yellowstone secure habitat, developed sites, and
portion of its range. Based on the best DPS. Those grizzly bears will remain livestock allotments will not be allowed
scientific and commercial information fully protected by the Act. There is no to deviate from 1998 baseline measures
available, we have determined that the designated critical habitat for this in accordance with the implementation
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is species. protocols in the Strategy.
recovered and no longer meets the Act’s The Study Team will prepare Annual
Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Reports summarizing the habitat criteria
definition of threatened or endangered.
Therefore, we are hereby delisting the Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, and population statistics. The Study
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. in cooperation with the States, to Team will be responsible for counting
implement a monitoring program for not the number of unduplicated females
Petition Finding less than 5 years for all species that have with cubs-of-the-year and monitoring
Additionally, we announce a 90-day been recovered and delisted. The mortality, distribution, and the presence
finding on a petition (submitted during purpose of this requirement is to of alleles from grizzly populations
the public comment period for the develop a program that detects the outside the Yellowstone DPS
proposed rule) to list the Yellowstone failure of any delisted species to sustain boundaries to document gene flow into
grizzly bear population as endangered itself without the protective measures the population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
on the Federal List of Endangered and provided by the Act. If, at any time Service 2007, pp. 155–156, Appendix I).
Threatened Wildlife under the Act and during the monitoring period, data To examine reproductive rates, survival
to designate critical habitat. We indicate that protective status under the rates, causes of death, and overall
reviewed the petition to list the Act should be reinstated, we can initiate population trends, the Study Team will
Yellowstone DPS of grizzly bears and listing procedures, including, if strive to radio collar and monitor a
the literature cited in the petition, and appropriate, emergency listing. minimum of 25 adult female grizzly
evaluated that information in relation to To further ensure the long-term bears at all times. These bears will be
other pertinent literature and conservation of adequate grizzly bear spatially distributed throughout the
information available to us. All habitat and continued recovery of the ecosystem as determined by the Study
assertions of this petition are addressed Yellowstone grizzly bear population, Team.
either in the Summary of Public several monitoring programs and The Study Team, with participation
Comments and in the 5-factor analysis protocols have been developed and from Yellowstone National Park, the
sections of this final rule, or in the integrated into land management agency USDA Forest Service, and State wildlife
Reassessing Methods Document’s issues planning documents. The Strategy and agencies, also will monitor grizzly bear
and responses summary. After this appended State grizzly bear habitats, foods, and impacts of humans.
review and evaluation, we find that the management plans effectively satisfy the Documenting the abundance and
petition and additional information in requirements for having a Post-Delisting distribution of the major foods will be
our files did not present substantial Monitoring Plan for the Yellowstone an integral component of monitoring
information indicating that listing the DPS. Monitoring programs, which we within the PCA as it allows managers
Yellowstone grizzly bear population as anticipate will be continued in some degree of predictive power to
endangered may be warranted. perpetuity, will focus on assessing anticipate and avoid grizzly bear/human
Therefore, we are not initiating a status whether demographic standards and conflicts related to a shortage of one or
review in response to this petition. habitat criteria described in the Strategy more foods. Major foods, habitat value,
are being achieved. A suite of indices and habitat effectiveness will be
Effects of the Rule will be monitored simultaneously to monitored according to Appendices E
Promulgation of this final rule will provide a highly sensitive system to and I in the Strategy, and as described
affect the protections afforded to the monitor the health of the population in Factor A of this final rule.
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS under the and its habitat and to provide a sound Outside of the Primary Conservation
Act. Taking, interstate commerce, scientific basis to respond to any Area—Although State management
import, and export of grizzly bears from changes or needs with adaptive plans are the guiding documents for
the Yellowstone DPS are no longer management actions (Holling 1978, pp. management of the Yellowstone grizzly
prohibited under the Act. Other State 11–16). More specifically, monitoring bear DPS outside of the PCA upon
and Federal laws will still regulate take. efforts will document population trends, delisting, habitat management will
In addition, with the removal of the distribution, survival and birth rates, primarily be the responsibility of the
Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS from the and the presence of alleles from grizzly GYA National Forests. State wildlife
List of Endangered and Threatened populations outside the Yellowstone agencies will be responsible for
Wildlife, Federal agencies are no longer DPS boundaries to document gene flow monitoring population parameters in
required to consult with us under into the population. Throughout the areas outside of the PCA. The GYA
National Forests will be responsible for key wildlife habitats in southwestern would allow wildlife and land managers
monitoring agreed-upon habitat Montana, working closely with private to identify and address potential threats
parameters in suitable habitat outside landowners to conserve private lands preemptively thereby, allowing those
the PCA, as defined by State via lease, conservation easements, or fee managers and us to be certain that the
management plans, and will calculate title acquisition. Yellowstone grizzly bear population
secure habitat values outside of the PCA In Wyoming, the WGFD will establish remains a recovered population.
every two years and submit these data grizzly bear management units to collect
for inclusion in the Study Team’s and analyze demographic and Paperwork Reduction Act
annual report (USDA Forest Service distributional data. Habitat standards This rule does not contain any new
2006b, p. 6). The GYA National Forests will be monitored in a manner collections of information other than
also will monitor and evaluate livestock consistent with those already in place those already approved under the
allotments for recurring conflicts with for other wildlife and will not focus Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
grizzly bears in suitable habitat outside specifically on the habitat needs of 3501 et seq.) and assigned Office of
the PCA as defined in the State plans grizzly bears. The WGFD will evaluate Management and Budget (OMB) control
(USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 6). The the effects of existing and proposed number 1018–0094, which expires on
GYA National Forests will be human activities in important wildlife September 30, 2007. An agency may not
responsible for monitoring whitebark habitat and work with land management conduct or sponsor, and a person is not
pine occurrence, productivity, and and transportation agencies to ensure required to respond to, a collection of
health in suitable habitat outside the that projects do not adversely affect the information unless it displays a
PCA (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 7). grizzly bear population. Specifically, the currently valid OMB control number.
All three States will document sightings WGFD will—(1) identify and evaluate For additional information concerning
of females with cubs and provide this the site-specific and cumulative effects permit and associated requirements for
information to the Study Team. Finally, of proposed projects; (2) monitor and endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.21
State wildlife agencies will provide recommend changes, if justified, in and 17.22.
known mortality information to the human activities on seasonally
Study Team, which will annually important wildlife habitats; (3) National Environmental Policy Act
summarize this data with respect to minimize road and site construction We have determined that
location, type, date of incident, and the impacts on wildlife habitat; (4) Environmental Assessments and
sex and age of the bear for the DPS area. encourage the use of native vegetation Environmental Impact Statements, as
In Idaho, the IDFG will be responsible in rehabilitation projects; (5) encourage defined under the authority of the
for monitoring population trends and land management agencies to manage NEPA, need not be prepared in
habitat parameters. Outside of the PCA, for open road densities of no more than connection with actions adopted
the IDFG will establish data analysis 1.6 km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi) which pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A
units to facilitate monitoring of grizzly benefit a suite of wildlife species; (6) notice outlining our reasons for this
bear distribution, abundance, and recommend seasonal road closures determination was published in the
mortality. Habitat criteria will be when warranted; (7) encourage the Federal Register on October 25, 1983
monitored within each unit but will not USDA Forest Service and BLM to (48 FR 49244).
be established strictly for grizzly bears. enforce off road/trail motorized use
Instead, habitat standards will be restrictions; and (8) focus on improving Executive Order 13211
incorporated into current management habitat quality in areas of habitually On May 18, 2001, the President issued
plans for other game species. However, high human-caused grizzly bear Executive Order 13211 on regulations
the IDFG will monitor food sources for mortality (WGFD 2005, pp. 22–25). In that significantly affect energy supply,
grizzly bears including elk, deer, moose, addition, the WGFD will work with the distribution, and use. Executive Order
Kokanee salmon, and cutthroat trout. USDA Forest Service to monitor bear 13211 requires agencies to prepare
The IDFG also will encourage and work use of army cutworm moths and the Statements of Energy Effects when
with other land management agencies overall status and health of whitebark undertaking certain actions. As this
on public lands to monitor wetland and pine (WGFD 2005, p. 22). final rule is not expected to significantly
riparian habitats, whitebark pine Monitoring systems in the Strategy affect energy supplies, distribution, or
production, important berry-producing allow for adaptive management (Holling use, this action is not a significant
plants, and changes in motorized access 1978, pp. 11–16) as environmental energy action and no Statement of
route density. On private lands, the issues change. The agencies have Energy Effects is required.
IDFG will work with citizens, counties, committed in the Strategy to be
and other agencies to monitor responsive to the needs of the grizzly References Cited
development activities and identify bear through adaptive management A complete list of all references cited
important spring habitat for grizzly (Holling 1978, pp. 11–16) actions based herein is available upon request from
bears, then work with landowners to on the results of detailed annual the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator
minimize impacts to bears. population and habitat monitoring. (see ADDRESSES above).
In Montana, the MTFWP will monitor These monitoring efforts would reflect
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
populations using data from research, the best scientific and commercial data
distribution changes, DNA samples, and any new information that has Endangered and threatened species,
confirmed sightings, and known become available since this delisting Exports, Imports, Reporting and
mortalities. The MTFWP will collect determination. The entire process recordkeeping requirements,
and analyze habitat data and monitor would be dynamic so that when new Transportation.
habitat changes pertaining to key grizzly science becomes available it will be Regulation Promulgation
bear foods, road densities, road incorporated into the management

construction and improvements, and planning and monitoring systems ■ Accordingly, we amend part 17,
coal bed methane activities. In addition, outlined in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the
the MTFWP will continue to use Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 5–6). The Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
statewide habitat programs to conserve results of this extensive monitoring below:
PART 17—[AMENDED] ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the § 17.11 Endangered and threatened
listing for ‘‘Bear, grizzly’’ under wildlife.
■ 1. The authority citation for part 17
‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the List of Endangered * * * * *
continues to read as follows:
and Threatened Wildlife to read as (h) * * *
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. follows:
1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–
625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
Species Vertebrate popu- Critical Special

Historic range lation where endan- Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name gered or threatened
MAMMALS
* * * * * * *
Bear, grizzly ............. Ursus arctos North America ......... U.S.A., T 1, 2D, 9, NA 17.40(b)
horribilis. conterminous 759
(lower 48) States,
except—(1) where
listed as an exper-
imental popu-
lation; 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 Wyo-
ming south of
Interstate Highway
90, west of Inter-
state Highway 25,
Wyoming State
Highway 220, and
U.S. Highway 287
south of Three
Forks (at the 220
and 287 intersec-
tion), and north of
Interstate Highway
80 and U.S. High-
way 30.
Do ...................... ......do ...................... ......do ...................... U.S.A. (portions of XN 706 NA 17.84(l)
ID and MT, see
17.84(l)).
* * * * * * *
Dated: March 20, 2007.

H. Dale Hall,
Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 07–1474 Filed 3–23–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

FR Final YGB Rule 03292007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FR Final YGB Rule 03292007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thursday,

March 29, 2007

Behavior reproduction is approximately 6 years as 1.65 kg/day (3.64 lb/day) (Craighead

governmental boundaries within which a population is markedly separated from

that are significant in light of section FR 4722).

Response—State agencies have the adequate regulatory mechanism because

bear foods, road densities, road incorporated into the management

Species Vertebrate popu- Critical Special

Dated: March 20, 2007.

You might also like