[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 48 (Friday, March 11, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13173-13227]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05167]
[[Page 13173]]
Vol. 81
Friday,
No. 48
March 11, 2016
Part IV
Department of the Interior
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish and Wildlife Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 48 / Friday, March 11, 2016 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 13174]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042; FXES11130900000C6-156-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BA41
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; availability of draft Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan
Supplement: Revised Demographic Criteria and draft 2016 Conservation
Strategy, and announcement of public informational meetings and
hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The best available scientific and commercial data indicate
that the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of grizzly
bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) has recovered and no longer meets the
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered
Species Act, as amended (Act). The United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) is also proposing to identify the GYE grizzly bear
population as a distinct population segment (DPS). Therefore, we, the
Service propose to revise the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife, under the authority of the Act, by removing the GYE
population. The Service has determined that the GYE grizzly bear
population has increased in size and more than tripled its occupied
range since being listed as threatened under the Act in 1975 and that
threats to the population are sufficiently minimized. The participating
States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming must adopt the necessary post-
delisting management objectives, which adequately ensure that the GYE
population of grizzly bears remains recovered, into enforceable
regulations before the Service will proceed with a final delisting
rule.
DATES:
Written comments: We will accept comments received or postmarked on
or before May 10, 2016. Comments submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date.
Public informational meetings and public hearings: We will hold two
public informational meetings and public hearings on the following
dates:
[cir] On April 11, 2016, in Cody, Wyoming. The public informational
meeting will run from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., and the public hearing will run
from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
[cir] On April 12, 2016, in Bozeman, Montana. The public
informational meeting will run from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., and the public
hearing will run from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: You may submit written comments by any one
of the following methods:
Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
http://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter Docket No. FWS-R6-
ES-2016-0042, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then,
click on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the Search panel
on the left side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, click
on the Proposed Rules link to locate this document. You may submit a
comment by clicking on the blue ``Comment Now!'' box. If your comments
will fit in the provided comment box, please use this feature of http://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our comment review
procedures. If you attach your comments as a separate document, our
preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach multiple
comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a spreadsheet
in Microsoft Excel.
By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand-delivery to:
Public Comments Processing, Attn: Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: BPHC, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church,
VA 22041-3803.
At a public informational meeting or public hearing. We
will accept written comments at either of the public informational
meetings or public hearings. See details on the dates of the public
informational meetings and public hearings in DATES; the addresses are
listed below.
We request that you submit written comments only by the methods
described above. We will post all comments on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see Information Requested, below,
for more details).
Public informational meetings and public hearings: We will hold two
public informational meetings and public hearings at the following
locations:
[cir] Holiday Inn, 5 East Baxter Lane, Bozeman, MT 59715.
[cir] Holiday Inn, 1701 Sheridan Ave., Cody, WY 82414.
More information on the public informational meetings and public
hearings is provided under Public Informational Meetings and Public
Hearings, below.
Document availability: This proposed rule and all supporting
documents are available on http://www.regulations.gov. In addition,
certain documents such as the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy, the
draft Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Supplement: Revised Demographic
Criteria, and all references cited are available at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University Hall,
Room #309, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812; telephone 406-
243-4903; facsimile 406-243-3212. For Tribal inquiries, contact Ivy
Allen, Native American Liaison, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
telephone: 303-236-4575. Persons who use a telecommunications device
for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE)
Previous Federal Actions
Information Requested
Peer Review
Public Informational Meetings and Public Hearings
Taxonomy and Species Description
Behavior and Life History
Nutritional Ecology
Habitat Management
Population Ecology--Background
Recovery Planning and Implementation
--Background
--Recovery Planning
--Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria
--Suitable Habitat
--Population and Demographic Recovery Criteria
[cir] Demographic Recovery Criterion 1
[cir] Demographic Recovery Criterion 2
[cir] Demographic Recovery Criterion 3
--The Conservation Strategy
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview
Past Practice and History of Using DPSs
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Analysis
--Analysis of Discreteness in Relation to Remainder of Taxon
--Analysis of Significance of Population Segment to Taxon
[cir] Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting
[cir] Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon
[cir] Marked Genetic Differences
Summary of Distinct Population Segment Analysis
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
[[Page 13175]]
--Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification,
or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range
[cir] Habitat Management Inside the Primary Conservation Area
[ssquf] Motorized Access Management
[ssquf] Developed Sites
[ssquf] Livestock Allotments
[ssquf] Mineral and Energy Development
[ssquf] Recreation
[ssquf] Snowmobiling
[ssquf] Vegetation Management
[ssquf] Climate Change
[ssquf] Habitat Fragmentation
[cir] Habitat Management Outside the Primary Conservation Area
[cir] Summary of Factor A
--Factor B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational,
Scientific, or Educational Purposes
[cir] Summary of Factor B
--Factor C. Disease or Predation
[cir] Disease
[cir] Natural Predation
[cir] Human-Caused Mortality
[cir] Summary of Factor C
--Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
[cir] Forest Service
[cir] National Park Service
[cir] Tribal Lands
[cir] State Regulatory Mechanisms
[cir] Summary of Factor D
--Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its
Continued Existence
[cir] Genetic Health
[cir] Changes in Food Resources
[cir] Climate Change
[cir] Public Support and Human Attitudes
[cir] Summary of Factor E
--Cumulative Effects of Factors A Through E
Summary of Factors Affecting the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
Grizzly Bear Population
Proposed Determination
Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis
--Background
--SPR Analysis for the GYE Grizzly Bear DPS
Effects of the Rule
Post-Delisting Monitoring
--Monitoring
--Triggers for a Biology and Monitoring Review by the IGSBT
--Triggers for a Service Status Review
Required Determinations
--Clarity of the Rule
--National Environmental Policy Act
--Government-to-Government Relationships With Tribes
Glossary
References Cited
Authors
Executive Summary
(1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for revising the Federal Lists of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Rulemaking is required
to remove a species from the Federal Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants. Accordingly, we are issuing this proposed rule to
identify the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear DPS and
revise the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. The population
is stable, threats are sufficiently minimized, and a post-delisting
monitoring and management framework has been developed and will be
incorporated into regulatory documents. The best scientific and
commercial data available, including our detailed evaluation of
information related to the population's trend and structure, indicate
that the distinct population segment of grizzly bears in the GYE has
recovered and threats have been reduced such that this DPS no longer
meets the definition of threatened, or endangered, under the Act. To
ensure consistency in management approaches regardless of listed
status, concurrent with publication of this proposed rule, we are
releasing a draft supplement to the 1993 Recovery Plan's demographic
recovery criteria for this population of grizzly bears and a draft of
the 2016 Conservation Strategy for public comment. If we finalize this
proposal to identify the GYE DPS and remove that DPS from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, there would be no change to the
threatened status of the remaining grizzly bears in the lower 48
States, which would remain protected by the Act.
(2) Major Provision of the Regulatory Action
This proposed action is authorized by the Act. We are proposing to
amend Sec. 17.11(h), subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code
of Federal Regulations by revising the listing for ``Bear, grizzly''
under ``Mammals'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to
remove the GYE grizzly bear DPS.
(3) Costs and Benefits
We have not analyzed the costs or benefits of this rulemaking
action because the Act precludes consideration of such impacts on
listing and delisting determinations. Instead, listing and delisting
decisions are based solely on the best scientific and commercial
information available regarding the status of the subject species.
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE)
The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) refers to the larger
ecological system containing and surrounding Yellowstone National Park.
The GYE includes portions of five National Forests; Yellowstone
National Park, Grand Teton National Park, and the John D. Rockefeller
Memorial Parkway (administered by Grand Teton National Park); and
State, Tribal, and private lands. While there is no distinct boundary
to the GYE, it is generally defined as those lands surrounding
Yellowstone National Park with elevations greater than 1,500 meters (m)
(4,900 feet (ft)) (see USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 46; Schwartz et al.
2006b, p. 9). While we consider the terms ``Greater Yellowstone Area''
and ``Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem'' to be interchangeable, we use GYE
in this proposed rule to be consistent with the draft 2016 Conservation
Strategy.
Previous Federal Actions
On July 28, 1975, we published a rule to designate the grizzly bear
as threatened in the conterminous (lower 48) United States (40 FR
31734). Accordingly, we developed a Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1982) and updated that plan as necessary (72
FR 11376, March 13, 2007; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, 2007a,
2007b). The designation of the grizzly bear as a threatened species in
the conterminous United States and subsequent development of the 1982
and 1993 Recovery Plans occurred before the publication of our DPS
policy on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). The 1993 Recovery Plan
identifies distinct Recovery Zones and unique demographic parameters
for six different grizzly bear populations with the intent that these
individual populations would be delisted as they each achieve recovery
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. ii, 33-34). On November 17,
2005, we proposed to designate the GYE population of grizzly bears as a
DPS and to remove this DPS from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (70 FR 69854). This proposal had a 120-day comment
period (70 FR 69854, November 17, 2005; 71 FR 8251, February 16, 2006),
during which we held two public hearings and four open houses (70 FR
69854, November 17, 2005; 71 FR 4097, January 25, 2006). On March 29,
2007, we finalized this proposed action, designating the GYE population
as a DPS and removing grizzly bears in the GYE from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 14866). This final
determination was vacated by the District Court of Montana on September
21, 2009, in Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et al., 672
F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009). The District Court ruled against the
Service on two of the four points brought against them, that the
Service was arbitrary and capricious in its evaluation of whitebark
pine and that
[[Page 13176]]
the identified regulatory mechanisms were inadequate because they were
not legally enforceable. In compliance with this order, the GYE grizzly
bear population was once again made a threatened population under the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (see 75 FR 14496; March 26, 2010), and the
Service withdrew the delisting rule. By vacating the Service's rule,
the District Court mooted two other lawsuits challenging the rule.
Neither of these lawsuits were decided on the merits. The United States
appealed the District Court decision, on November 15, 2011, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming in part and
reversing in part the district court's decision vacating the final rule
delisting grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Greater
Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et al., 665 F.3d 105 (9th Cir.
2011)). The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Service's final rule did have
adequate regulatory mechanisms but did not adequately explain why the
loss of whitebark pine was not a threat to the GYE grizzly bear
population. In compliance with this order, the GYE population of
grizzly bears remained federally listed as ``threatened'' under the
Act, and the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) initiated more
thorough research into the potential impact of whitebark pine decline
on GYE grizzly bears.
Information Requested
We intend that any final action resulting from this proposal will
be based on the best available scientific and commercial data and will
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we invite
Tribal and governmental agencies, the scientific community, industry,
and other interested parties to submit comments or recommendations
concerning any aspect of this proposed rule, the draft 2016
Conservation Strategy, and the draft Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan
Supplement: Revised Demographic Criteria for the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem. Comments should be as specific as possible.
To issue a final rule to implement this proposed action, we will
take into consideration all comments and any additional information we
receive. Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from
this proposal.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. Comments must be
submitted to http://www.regulations.gov before 11:59 p.m. (Eastern
Time) on the date specified in DATES. We will consider any and all
comments received, or mailed comments that are postmarked, by the date
specified in DATES.
We will post your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--on http://www.regulations.gov. If you provide
personal identifying information in your comment, you may request at
the top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on http://www.regulations.gov, or by
appointment, during normal business hours at our Missoula office (see
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Peer Review
In accordance with our policy, ``Notice of Interagency Cooperative
Policy for Peer Review in Endangered Species Act Activities,'' which
was published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), we will seek the expert
opinion of at least three appropriate specialists who are independent
of the Service, the States, and the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
(IGBST) regarding scientific data and interpretations contained in this
proposed rule. Those experts will each submit separate opinions for the
Service to consider. We will send copies of this proposed rule, the
draft 2016 Conservation Strategy, and the draft Grizzly Bear Recovery
Plan Supplement: Revised Demographic Criteria to the peer reviewers
immediately following publication of this proposed rule in the Federal
Register. The purpose of such review is to ensure that our decisions
are based on scientifically sound data, assumptions, and analysis.
Accordingly, the final rule and decision may differ from this proposal.
Public Informational Meetings and Public Hearings
We are holding two public informational meetings and public
hearings on the dates listed above in DATES at the locations listed
above in ADDRESSES. We are holding the public hearings to provide
interested parties an opportunity to present verbal testimony (formal,
oral comments) or written comments regarding the proposed rule and its
supporting documents. A formal public hearing is not, however, an
opportunity for dialogue with the Service; it is only a forum for
accepting formal verbal testimony. In contrast to the public hearings,
the public informational meetings allow the public the opportunity to
interact with Service staff, who will be available to provide
information and address questions on the proposed rule and its
supporting documents.
We cannot accept verbal testimony at any of the public
informational meetings; verbal testimony can only be accepted at the
public hearings. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement at a public
hearing for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their
statement to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large
attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited.
Speakers can sign up at a hearing if they desire to make an oral
statement. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration.
There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us.
Persons with disabilities needing reasonable accommodations to
participate in a public informational meeting or public hearing should
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Reasonable accommodation requests should be received at least 3
business days prior to the public informational meeting or public
hearing to help ensure availability; American Sign Language or English
as a second language interpreter needs should be received at least 2
weeks prior to the public informational meeting or public hearing.
Taxonomy and Species Description
Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) are a member of the brown
bear species (U. arctos) that occurs in North America, Europe, and
Asia; the subspecies U. a. horribilis is limited to North America
(Rausch 1963, p. 43; Servheen 1999, pp. 50-53).
Grizzly bears are generally larger than other bears and average 200
to 300 kilograms (kg) (400 to 600 pounds (lb)) for males and 110 to 160
kg (250 to 350 lb) for females in the lower 48 States (Craighead and
Mitchell 1982, pp. 517-520; Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 558). Although
their coloration can vary widely from light brown to nearly black
(LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 17-18), they can be distinguished from black
bears by longer, curved claws, humped shoulders, and a face that
appears to be concave (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 517). Grizzly
bears are long-lived mammals, generally living to be around 25 years
old (LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 47, 51).
Behavior and Life History
Adult grizzly bears are normally solitary except when females have
dependent young (Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. 971), but they are not
territorial and home ranges of adult bears
[[Page 13177]]
frequently overlap (Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 565-566). Home range
size is affected by resource availability, sex, age, and reproductive
status (LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 31; Blanchard and Knight 1991, pp. 48-
51; Mace and Waller 1997, p. 48). Generally, females with cubs-of-the-
year or yearlings have the smallest home range sizes (Aune and Kasworm
1989; Blanchard and Knight 1991, pp. 48-49; Mace and Roberts 2011, pp.
27-28). The annual home ranges of adult male grizzly bears in the GYE
are approximately 800 square kilometers (sq km) (309 square miles (sq
mi)), while female ranges are typically smaller, approximately 210 sq
km (81 sq mi) (Bjornlie et al. 2014, p. 3). The large home ranges of
grizzly bears, particularly males, enhance maintenance of genetic
diversity in the population by enabling males to mate with numerous
females (Blanchard and Knight 1991, pp. 46-51; Craighead et al. 1998,
p. 326).
Young, female grizzly bears establish home ranges within or
overlapping their mother's (Waser and Jones 1983, p. 361; Schwartz et
al. 2003b, p. 566). This pattern of home range establishment can make
dispersal of females across landscapes a slow process. Radio-telemetry
and genetic data suggest females establish home ranges an average of
9.8 to 14.3 km (6.1 to 8.9 mi) away from the center of their mother's
home range, whereas males generally disperse farther, establishing home
ranges roughly 29.9 to 42.0 km (18.6 to 26.0 mi) away from the center
of their mother's (McLellan and Hovey 2001, p. 842; Proctor et al.
2004, p. 1108).
Grizzly bears have a promiscuous mating system (Hornocker 1962, p.
70; Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 522; Schwartz et al. 2003b, p.
563). Mating occurs from May through July with a peak in mid-June
(Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 522; Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. 971).
Although females mate in spring and early summer, their fertilized
embryos do not implant into the uterus for further development until
late fall. Fat stores obtained by female grizzly bears at the end of
fall are positively correlated with earlier birth dates and quicker
growth rates of their cubs (Robbins et al. 2012, p. 543). Additionally,
a body fat threshold may exist below which females may not produce
cubs, even when bred (Robbins et al. 2012, p. 543). Female grizzly
bears nurse cubs for 3 to 4 months inside the den. Age of first
reproduction and litter size may be related to nutritional state
(Stringham 1990, p. 433; McLellan 1994, p. 20; Hilderbrand et al. 1999,
pp. 135-136). Average age of first reproduction in the GYE is
approximately 6 years old but can vary from 3 to 8 years of age
(Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 563; Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 19). Litter
size in the GYE ranges from 1 to 4 cubs (Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 563)
with a mean litter size of 2.04 cubs during 1983-2001 and 2.12 cubs
during 2002-2011 (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 19; IGBST 2012, p. 34).
Cubs are born in the den in late January or early February and remain
with the female for 1.5 to 2.5 years, making the average time between
litters in the GYE (i.e., the interbirth interval) 2.78 years (Schwartz
et al. 2003b, p. 564; Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 20). Grizzly bears have
one of the slowest reproductive rates among terrestrial mammals,
resulting primarily from the reproductive factors described above: Late
age of first reproduction, small average litter size, and the long
interval between litters (Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. 971; Schwartz et
al. 2003b, p. 564). Given the above factors, it may take a female
grizzly bear 10 or more years to replace herself in a population (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 4). Grizzly bear females cease
reproducing some time in their mid-to-late 20s (Schwartz et al. 2003a,
pp. 109-110).
Grizzly bears usually dig dens on steep slopes where wind and
topography cause an accumulation of deep snow and where the snow is
unlikely to melt during warm periods. Grizzly bears in the lower 48
States occupy dens for 4 to 6 months each year, beginning in October or
November (Linnell et al. 2000, p. 401; Haroldson et al. 2002, p. 29).
Most dens are located above 2,500 m (>8,000 ft) in elevation (Haroldson
et al. 2002, p. 33) and on slopes ranging from 30 to 60 degrees (Judd
et al. 1986, p. 115). Approximately 66 percent (1,684,220 acres (ac);
6,815 sq km) of the GYE is potential denning habitat, and it is well
distributed, so its availability is not considered a limiting factor
for grizzly bears in the GYE (Podruzny et al. 2002, p. 22). Denning
increases survival during periods of low food availability, deep snow,
and low air temperature (Craighead and Craighead 1972, pp. 33-34).
During this period, bears do not eat, drink, urinate, or defecate (Folk
et al. 1976, pp. 376-377; Nelson 1980, p. 2955). Hibernating grizzly
bears exhibit a marked decline in heart and respiration rate, but only
a slight drop in body temperature (Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. 971).
Due to their relatively constant body temperature in the den,
hibernating grizzly bears may be easily aroused and have been known to
exit or relocate dens when disturbed by seismic or mining activity
(Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278) or other human activities (Swenson et
al. 1997, p. 37). Dens are rarely used twice by an individual, although
the same general area may be used multiple times (Schoen et al. 1987,
p. 300; Miller 1990, p. 285; Linnell et al. 2000, p. 403). Females
display stronger area fidelity than males and generally stay in their
dens longer, depending on reproductive status (Judd et al. 1986, pp.
113-114; Schoen et al. 1987, p. 300; Miller 1990, p. 283; Linnell et
al. 2000, p. 403). In the GYE, females with new cubs typically emerge
from their dens from early April to early May (Haroldson et al. 2002,
p. 29).
In preparation for hibernation, bears increase their food intake
dramatically during a stage called hyperphagia (Craighead and Mitchell
1982, p. 544). Hyperphagia occurs throughout the 2 to 4 months prior to
den entry (i.e., August through November). During hyperphagia, excess
food is converted into fat, and grizzly bears may gain as much as 1.65
kg/day (3.64 lb/day) (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 544). Grizzly
bears must consume foods rich in protein and carbohydrates in order to
build up fat reserves to survive denning and post denning periods (Rode
and Robbins 2000, pp. 1643-1644). Fat stores are crucial to the
hibernating bear as they provide a source of energy and insulate the
bear from cold temperatures, and are equally important in providing
energy to the bear upon emergence from the den when food is still
sparse relative to metabolic requirements (Craighead and Mitchell 1982,
p. 544).
Nutritional Ecology
The GYE is a highly diverse landscape containing a wide array of
habitat types and bear foods. Plant communities vary from grasslands at
lower elevations (<1,900 m (6,230 ft)) to conifer forests at mid-
elevations and subalpine and alpine meadows at higher elevations
(>2,400 m (7,870 ft)). Grizzly bears are extremely omnivorous, display
great diet plasticity--even within a population (Edwards et al. 2011,
pp. 883-886)--and shift and switch food habits according to their
availability (Servheen 1983, pp. 1029-1030; Mace and Jonkel 1986, p.
108; LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 113-114; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 63-
71; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 568-569; Gunther et al. 2014, p. 65).
Gunther et al. (2014, p. 65) conducted an extensive literature review
and documented over 260 species of foods consumed by grizzly bears in
the GYE, representing 4 of the 5 kingdoms of life. The ability to use
whatever food resources are available is one reason
[[Page 13178]]
grizzly bears are the most widely distributed bear species in the
world, occupying habitats from deserts to alpine mountains and
everything in between. This ability to live in a variety of habitats
and eat a wide array of foods makes grizzly bears a generalist species.
In contrast, specialist species eat only a few specific foods or live
in only one or two specific habitat types (Krebs 2009, p. 100).
Grizzly bear diets are highly variable among individuals, seasons,
and years (Servheen 1983, pp. 1029-1030; Mattson et al. 1991a, pp.
1625-1626; LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 113-114; Felicetti et al. 2003, p.
767; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 568-569; Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499;
Fortin et al. 2013, p. 278; Costello et al. 2014, p. 2013; Gunther et
al. 2014, p. 65). They opportunistically seek and consume whatever
plant and animal foods are available to them. Grizzly bears are always
sampling new foods so that they have alternative options in years when
preferred foods are scarce (Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1625). In the GYE,
Blanchard and Knight (1991, p. 61) noted that, ``After 10 years of food
habits data collection, new feeding strategies continued to appear
annually in this population.'' Grizzly bears in the GYE commonly
consume ungulates (bison (Bison bison), elk (Cervus canadensis), moose
(Alces alces), and deer (Odocoileus species)), cutthroat trout
(Oncorhynchus clarki), roots and tubers, army cutworm moths (Euxoa
auxiliaris), grasses, and whitebark pine seeds (Pinus albicaulis)
(Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 568). Bears make seasonal movements within
their home ranges to locations where these foods are abundant (e.g.,
ungulate winter ranges, calving areas, spawning streams, talus slopes)
(Costello et al. 2014, p. 2013). These foods are subject to seasonal
and annual variation in availability and therefore are not abundant or
available during all seasons or every year (Craighead et al. 1995, p.
265; Gunther et al. 2014, pp. 64-65). When high-calorie foods are not
readily available, grizzly bears supplement their diet with items of
lower caloric value that tend to be widely distributed across the
landscape and readily available most years (Gunther et al. 2014, p.
66). These widely distributed and abundant foods include a wide variety
of plants (grasses, sedges, horsetail, and forbs), colonial insects
(ants and wasps), fungi (false-truffles), berries (huckleberry,
whortleberry, and gooseberry), and small mammals (voles, ground
squirrels, and pocket gophers). Spatial and temporal abundance and
annual predictability of these foods compensates for their lower
caloric value, and, consequently, these foods can comprise a large
proportion of grizzly bear annual diets (Craighead et al. 1995, p. 253;
Gunther et al. 2014, p. 66). Grizzly bears also supplement their diet
with many foods consumed opportunistically. Some opportunistic foods
are consumed for only a short period each year (e.g., earthworms in
meadows during spring snowmelt), others are available only in small
localized areas (e.g., pondweed rhizomes from small ephemeral ponds
within the Yellowstone caldera), and others are available only during
sporadic periods of abundance (e.g., midges). Many opportunistic foods
are eaten during periods with shortages of more preferred foods or when
randomly encountered while foraging for other species (Gunther et al.
2014, p. 66).
Due to their high fat content, whitebark pine seeds can be an
important fall food for bears in the GYE when they are available
(Mattson and Jonkel 1990, p. 223; Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1623). Bears
that have whitebark pine in their home range may feed predominantly on
whitebark pine seeds when production exceeds 20 cones per tree
(Blanchard 1990, p. 362). Whitebark pine seed availability can
influence the reproductive and survival rates of these grizzly bears on
an annual basis because of an increased potential for human-caused
mortality during years of low whitebark pine availability (Haroldson et
al. 2006, p. 36; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 22, 36; IGBST 2013, p. 24).
However, there has been no correlation between long-term survival of
independent bears with a decline in whitebark pine availability (van
Manen et al. 2015, p. 11). Nearly one third of grizzly bear home ranges
in the GYE do not contain any whitebark pine (Costello et al. 2014, p.
2013). Bears in these areas consume other foods even during years of
good whitebark pine production.
Habitat Management
Grizzly bears use a variety of habitats in the GYE (LeFranc et al.
1987, p. 120). In general, a grizzly bear's individual habitat needs
and daily movements are largely driven by the search for food, mates,
cover, security, or den sites. The available habitat for bears is also
influenced by people and their activities. Human activities are the
primary factor impacting habitat security and the ability of bears to
find and access foods, mates, cover, and den sites. Other factors
influencing habitat use and function for grizzly bears include overall
habitat productivity (e.g., food distribution and abundance), the
availability of habitat components (e.g., denning areas, cover types),
grizzly bear social dynamics, learned behavior and preferences of
individual grizzly bears, grizzly bear population density, and random
variation.
The GYE is part of the Middle Rockies ecoregion (Omernik 1987, pp.
120-121; Woods et al. 1999, entire; McGrath et al. 2002, entire;
Chapman et al. 2004, entire) and provides the habitat heterogeneity
necessary for adequate food, denning, and cover resources. Because
there are limited opportunities to increase or control these habitat
components, the objective for grizzly bear habitat management is to
reduce or mitigate the risk of human-caused mortality. The most
effective habitat management tool for reducing grizzly bear mortality
risk is managing motorized access to ensure bears have secure areas
away from humans (Nielsen et al. 2006, p. 225; Schwartz et al. 2010, p.
661). We define secure habitat as areas more than 500 m (1,650 ft) from
a motorized access route and greater than or equal to 4 hectares (ha)
(10 acres (ac)) in size (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter
3)). Unmanaged motorized access: (1) Increases human interaction and
potential grizzly bear mortality risk; (2) increases displacement from
important habitat; (3) increases habituation to humans; and (4)
decreases habitat where energetic requirements can be met with limited
disturbance from humans (Mattson et al. 1987, pp. 269-271; McLellan and
Shackleton 1988, pp. 458-459; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862-1864; Mace et al.
1996, pp. 1402-1403; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661). Managing motorized
access helps ameliorate these impacts. Other habitat management tools
that minimize displacement and reduce grizzly bear mortality risk
include regulating livestock allotments and developed sites on public
lands. Implementing food storage orders on public lands also reduces
mortality risk for both humans and grizzly bears. Requiring users and
recreationists in grizzly bear habitat to store their food, garbage,
and other bear attractants so that they are inaccessible to bears
reduces encounters and grizzly bear-human conflicts.
The primary factor affecting grizzly bears at both the individual
and population level is excessive human-caused mortality. Regulating
human-caused mortality through habitat management is an effective
approach, as evidenced by increasing grizzly bear populations in the
lower 48 States where motorized access standards exist (e.g., GYE and
Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem). This requires
[[Page 13179]]
ongoing monitoring of the grizzly bear population to understand if it
is sufficiently resilient to allow for a conservative level of human-
caused mortality without causing population decline.
Population Ecology--Background
The scientific discipline that informs decisions about most
wildlife population management is population ecology: the study of how
populations change over time and space and interact with their
environment (Vandermeer and Goldberg 2003, p. 2; Snider and Brimlow
2013, p. 1). Ultimately, the goal of population ecology is to
understand why and how populations change over time. Wildlife managers
and population ecologists monitor a number of factors to gauge the
status of a population and make scientifically informed decisions.
These measures include population size, population trend, density, and
occupied range.
While population size is a well-known and easily understood metric,
it only provides information about a population at a single point in
time. Wildlife managers often want to know how a population is changing
over time and why. Population trend is determined by births, deaths,
and how many animals move into or out of the population (i.e.,
disperse) and is typically expressed as the population growth rate
(represented by the symbol [lambda], the Greek letter ``lambda''). For
grizzly bear populations, lambda estimates the average rate of annual
growth, with a value of 1.0 indicating a stable population trend with
no net growth or decline. A lambda value of 1.03 means the population
size is increasing at 3 percent per year. Conversely, a lambda value of
0.98 means the population size is decreasing at 2 percent per year.
In its simplest form, population trend is driven by births and
deaths. Survival and reproduction are the fundamental demographic vital
rates driving whether the grizzly bear population increases, decreases,
or remains stable. When wildlife biologists refer to demographic vital
rates, they are referring to all of the different aspects of
reproduction and survival that cumulatively determine a population's
trend (i.e., lambda). Some of the demographic factors influencing
population trend for grizzly bears are age-specific survival, sex-
specific survival, average number of cubs per litter, the time between
litters (i.e., interbirth interval), age ratios, sex ratios, average
age of first reproduction, lifespan, transition probabilities (see
glossary), immigration, and emigration. These data are all used to
determine if and why a population is increasing or decreasing (Anderson
2002, p. 53; Mills 2007, p. 59; Mace et al. 2012, p. 124).
No population can grow forever because the resources it requires
are finite. This understanding led ecologists to develop the concept of
carrying capacity (expressed as the symbol ``K''). This is the maximum
number of individuals a particular environment can support over the
long term without resulting in population declines caused by resource
depletion (Vandermeer and Goldberg 2003, p. 261; Krebs 2009, p. 148).
Classical studies of population growth occurred under controlled
laboratory conditions where populations of a single organism, often an
insect species or single-celled organism, were allowed to grow in a
confined space with a constant supply of food (Vandermeer and Goldberg
2003, pp. 14-17). Under these conditions, K is a constant value that is
approached in a predictable way that can be described by a mathematical
equation. However, few studies of wild populations have demonstrated
the stability and constant population size suggested by this equation.
Instead, many factors affect carrying capacity of animal populations in
the wild, and populations usually fluctuate above and below carrying
capacity, resulting in relative population stability over time (i.e.,
lambda value of approximately 1.0 over the long term) (Colinvaux 1986,
pp. 138-139, 142; Krebs 2009, p. 148). For populations at or near
carrying capacity, population size fluctuates just above and below
carrying capacity, sometimes resulting in annual estimates of lambda
showing a declining population (figure 1). However, to obtain a
biologically meaningful estimate of average annual population growth
rate for a long-lived species like the grizzly bear that reproduces
only once every 3 years and does not start reproducing until at least 4
years old, we must examine lambda over a longer period of time to see
what the average trend is over that specified time. This is not an easy
task; for grizzly bears, it takes at least 6 years of monitoring as
many as 30 females with radio-collars to accurately estimate average
annual population growth (Harris et al. 2011, p. 29).
[[Page 13180]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR16.000
When a population is at or near carrying capacity, mechanisms that
regulate or control population size fall into two broad categories:
density-dependent effects and density-independent effects. Generally,
factors that limit population growth more strongly as population size
increases are density-dependent effects, or intrinsic factors, usually
expressed through individual behaviors, physiology, or genetic
potential (McLellan 1994, p. 15). Extrinsic factors, such as drought or
fire that kill individuals regardless of how many individuals are in a
population, are considered density-independent effects (Colinvaux 1986,
p. 172). These extrinsic factors may include changes in resources,
predators, or human impacts. Population stability (i.e., fluctuation
around carrying capacity or a long-term equilibrium) is often
influenced by a combination of density-dependent and density-
independent effects. Among grizzly bears, indicators of density-
dependent population regulation can include: (1) Decreased yearling and
cub survival due to increases in intraspecific killing (i.e., bears
killing other bears), (2) decreases in home-range size, (3) increases
in generation time, (4) increases in age of first reproduction, and (5)
decreased reproduction (McLellan 1994, entire; Eberhardt 2002, pp.
2851-2852; Kamath et al. 2015, p. 10; van Manen et al. 2015, pp.8-9).
Indicators that density-independent effects are influencing population
growth can include: (1) Larger home-range sizes (because bears are
roaming more widely in search of foods) (McLoughlin et al. 2000, pp.
49-51), (2) decreased cub and yearling survival due to starvation, (3)
increases in age of first reproduction due to limited food resources,
and (4) decreased reproduction due to limited food resources. As a
result of these sometimes similar indicators, determining whether a
population is affected more strongly by density-dependent or density-
independent effects can be a complex undertaking. For long-lived
mammals such as grizzly bears, extensive data collected over decades
are needed to understand if and how these factors are operating in a
population. We have these data for the GYE grizzly bear population, and
the IGBST has been able to tease apart some of these confounding
effects to find that density-dependent effects are the likely cause of
the recent slow in population growth (see Changes in Food Resources
under Factor E, below, for more detailed information).
Population viability analyses (PVAs) are another tool population
ecologists often use to assess the status of a population by estimating
its likelihood of persistence in the future. Boyce et al. (2001, pp. 1-
11) reviewed the existing published PVAs for GYE grizzly bears and
updated these previous analyses using data collected since the original
analyses were completed. They also conducted new PVAs using two
software packages that had not been available to previous
investigators. They found that the GYE grizzly bear population had a 1
percent chance of
[[Page 13181]]
going extinct within the next 100 years and a 4 percent chance of going
extinct in the next 500 years (Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 1, 10-11). The
authors cautioned that their analyses were not entirely sufficient
because they were not able to consider possible changes in habitat and
how these may affect population vital rates (Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 31-
32). Based on this recommendation, Boyce worked with other researchers
to develop a habitat-based framework for evaluating mortality risk of a
grizzly bear population in Alberta, Canada (Nielsen et al. 2006, p.
225). They concluded that secure habitat (low mortality risk) was the
key to grizzly bear survival. Schwartz et al. (2010, p. 661) created a
similar mortality risk model for the GYE with similar results. Both
studies suggest that managing for secure habitat is one of the most
effective management actions to ensure population persistence.
Recovery Planning and Implementation
Background
Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the grizzly bear occurred
throughout the western half of the contiguous United States, central
Mexico, western Canada, and most of Alaska (Roosevelt 1907, pp. 27-28;
Wright 1909, pp. vii, 3, 185-186; Merriam 1922, p. 1; Storer and Tevis
1955, p. 18; Rausch 1963, p. 35; Herrero 1972, pp. 224-227; Schwartz et
al. 2003b, pp. 557-558). Pre-settlement population levels for the
western contiguous United States are believed to have been in the range
of 50,000 animals (Servheen 1999, p. 50). With European settlement of
the American West and government-funded bounty programs aimed at
eradication, grizzly bears were shot, poisoned, and trapped wherever
they were found, and the resulting range and population declines were
dramatic (Roosevelt 1907, pp. 27-28; Wright 1909, p. vii; Storer and
Tevis 1955, pp. 26-27; Leopold 1967, p. 30; Koford 1969, p. 95;
Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 516; Servheen 1999, pp. 50-51). The
range and numbers of grizzly bears were reduced to less than 2 percent
of their former range and numbers by the 1930s, approximately 125 years
after first contact (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 9;
Servheen 1999, p. 51). Of 37 grizzly bear populations present within
the lower 48 States in 1922, 31 were extirpated by 1975 (Servheen 1999,
p. 51).
By the 1950s, with little or no conservation effort or management
directed at maintaining grizzly bears anywhere in their range, the GYE
population had been reduced in numbers and was restricted largely to
the confines of Yellowstone National Park and some surrounding areas
(Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 41-42; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 575-579).
High grizzly bear mortality in 1970 and 1971, following closure of the
open-pit garbage dumps in Yellowstone National Park (Gunther 1994, p.
550; Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 34-36), and concern about grizzly bear
population status throughout its remaining range prompted the 1975
listing of the grizzly bear as a threatened species in the lower 48
States under the Act (40 FR 31734; July 28, 1975). When the grizzly
bear was listed in 1975, the population estimate in the GYE ranged from
136 to 312 individuals (Cowan et al. 1974, pp. 32, 36; Craighead et al.
1974, p. 16; McCullough 1981, p. 175).
Grizzly bear recovery has required, and will continue to require,
cooperation among numerous government agencies and the public for a
unified management approach. To this end, there are three interagency
groups that help guide grizzly bear management in the GYE. The
Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST), created in 1973, provides
the scientific information necessary to make informed management
decisions about grizzly bear habitat and conservation in the GYE. Since
its formation in 1973, the published work of the IGBST has made the GYE
grizzly bear population the most studied in the world. The wealth of
biological information produced by the IGBST over the years includes 30
annual reports, hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed journals, dozens
of theses, and other technical reports (see: http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/science/igbst/detailedpubs). Members of the IGBST include scientists
and wildlife managers from the Service, U.S. Geological Survey,
National Park Service, Forest Service, academia, and each State
wildlife agency involved in grizzly bear recovery.
The second interagency group guiding grizzly bear conservation
efforts is the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (hereafter referred
to as the IGBC). Created in 1983, its members coordinate management
efforts and research actions across multiple Federal lands and States
to recover the grizzly bear in the lower 48 States (USDA and USDOI
1983, entire). The objective of the IGBC is to change land management
practices to more effectively provide security and maintain or improve
habitat conditions for the grizzly bear (USDA and USDOI 1983, entire).
IGBC members include upper level managers from all affected State and
Federal agencies (USDA and USDOI 1983, entire).
The third interagency group guiding management of the GYE grizzly
bear population is a subcommittee of the IGBC: The Yellowstone
Ecosystem Subcommittee. Formed in 1983 to coordinate recovery efforts
specific to the GYE, the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee includes
mid-level managers and representatives from the Service; the five GYE
National Forests (the Shoshone, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton,
Custer-Gallatin, and Caribou-Targhee); Yellowstone National Park; Grand
Teton National Park; the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD); the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MTFWP); the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (IDFG); the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM); county governments from each affected State; the Northern
Arapahoe Tribe; and the Eastern Shoshone Tribe (USDA and USDOI 1983).
The IGBST is an advisor to the subcommittee providing all the
scientific information on the GYE grizzly bear population and its
habitat.
Recovery Planning
In accordance with section 4(f)(1) of the Act, the Service
completed a Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) in 1982 (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1982, p. ii). Recovery plans serve as road
maps for species recovery--they lay out where we need to go and how to
get there through specific actions. Recovery plans are not regulatory
documents and are instead intended to provide guidance to the Service,
States, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to listed
species and on criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is
achieved.
The Recovery Plan identified six recovery ecosystems within the
conterminous United States thought to support grizzly bears. Today,
grizzly bear distribution is primarily within and around the areas
identified as Recovery Zones (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp.
10-13, 17-18), including: (1) The GYE in northwest Wyoming, eastern
Idaho, and southwest Montana (24,000 sq km (9,200 sq mi)) at more than
700 bears (Haroldson et al. 2014, p. 17); (2) the Northern Continental
Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) of north-central Montana (25,000 sq km (9,600
sq mi)) at more than 900 bears (Kendall et al. 2009, p. 9; Mace et al.
2012, p. 124); (3) the North Cascades area of north-central Washington
(25,000 sq km (9,500 sq mi)) at fewer than 20 bears (last documented
sighting in 1996) (Almack et al. 1993, p. 4; National Park Service and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015, p. 3); (4) the Selkirk Mountains
area of north Idaho, northeast
[[Page 13182]]
Washington, and southeast British Columbia (5,700 sq km (2,200 sq mi))
at approximately 88 bears (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011, p. 26);
and (5) the Cabinet-Yaak area of northwest Montana and northern Idaho
(6,700 sq km (2,600 sq mi)) at approximately 48 bears (Kendall et al.
2015, p. 1). The Bitterroot Recovery Zone in the Bitterroot Mountains
of central Idaho and western Montana (14,500 sq km (5,600 sq mi)) is
not known to contain a population of grizzly bears at this time (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1996, p. 1; 65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000, p. 1-3). The San Juan Mountains of
Colorado also were identified as an area of possible grizzly bear
occurrence (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1982, p. 12; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 11), but no
confirmed sightings of grizzly bears have occurred there since a
grizzly bear mortality in 1979 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p.
11).
In 1993, the Service completed revisions to the Recovery Plan to
include additional tasks and new information that increased the focus
and effectiveness of recovery efforts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1993, pp. 41-58). In 1996 and 1997, we released supplemental chapters
to the Recovery Plan to direct recovery in the Bitterroot and North
Cascades Recovery Zones, respectively (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1996; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). In the GYE, we updated both
the habitat and demographic recovery criteria in 2007 (72 FR 11376,
March 13, 2007). We proposed revisions to the demographic recovery
criteria in 2013 (78 FR 17708, March 22, 2013) and are proposing
additional revisions concurrent with this proposed rule to reflect the
best available science. Below, we report the status of both the habitat
and demographic recovery criteria in the GYE.
In 1979, the IGBST developed the first comprehensive ``Guidelines
for Management Involving Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone
Area'' (hereafter referred to as the Guidelines) (Mealey 1979, pp. 1-
4). We determined in a biological opinion that implementation of the
Guidelines by Federal land management agencies would promote
conservation of the grizzly bear (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1979,
p. 1). Beginning in 1979, the five affected National Forests
(Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer-Gallatin,
and Shoshone), Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, and the BLM
in the GYE began managing habitats for grizzly bears under direction
specified in the Guidelines.
In 1986, the IGBC modified the Guidelines to more effectively
manage habitat by mapping and managing according to three different
management situations (USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 35-39). In areas
governed by ``Management Situation One,'' grizzly bear habitat
maintenance and improvement and grizzly bear-human conflict
minimization received the highest management priority. In areas
governed by ``Management Situation Two,'' grizzly bear use was
important, but not the primary use of the area. In areas governed by
``Management Situation Three,'' grizzly bear habitat maintenance and
improvement were not management considerations.
The National Forests and National Parks delineated 18 different
bear management units (BMUs) within the GYE Recovery Zone to aid in
managing habitat and monitoring population trends. Each BMU was further
subdivided into subunits, resulting in a total of 40 subunits contained
within the 18 BMUs (see map at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/species/mammals/grizzly/Yellowstone_Recovery_Zone_map.pdf). The BMUs
are analysis areas that approximate the lifetime size of a female's
home range, while subunits are analysis areas that approximate the
annual home range size of adult females. Subunits provide the optimal
scale for evaluation of seasonal feeding opportunities and landscape
patterns of food availability for grizzly bears (Weaver et al. 1986, p.
236). The BMUs and subunits were identified to provide enough quality
habitat and to ensure that grizzly bears were well distributed across
the GYE Recovery Zone as per the Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007c, pp. 20, 41, 44-46). Management improvements made as a
result of these Guidelines are discussed under Factor A, below.
Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria
On June 17, 1997, we held a public workshop in Bozeman, Montana, to
develop and refine habitat-based recovery criteria for the grizzly
bear, with an emphasis on the GYE. This workshop was held as part of
the settlement agreement in Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 967 F.Supp.6
(D. DC 1997). A Federal Register notice notified the public of this
workshop and provided interested parties an opportunity to participate
and submit comments (62 FR 19777; April 23, 1997). After considering
1,167 written comments, we developed biologically-based habitat
recovery criteria with the overall goal of maintaining or improving
habitat conditions at levels that existed in 1998.
There is no published method to deductively calculate minimum
habitat values required for a healthy and recovered population. Grizzly
bears are long-lived opportunistic omnivores whose food and space
requirements vary depending on a multitude of environmental and
behavioral factors and on variation in the experience and knowledge of
each individual bear. Grizzly bear home ranges overlap and change
seasonally, annually, and with reproductive status. While these factors
make the development of threshold habitat criteria difficult, habitat
criteria may be established by assessing what habitat factors in the
past were compatible with a stable to increasing grizzly bear
population, and then using these habitat conditions as threshold values
to be maintained to ensure a healthy population (i.e., a ``no net
loss'' approach), as suggested by Nielsen et al. (2006, p. 227). We
selected 1998 levels as our baseline year because it was known that
habitat values at this time were compatible with an increasing grizzly
bear population throughout the 1990s (Eberhardt et al. 1994, p. 362;
Knight and Blanchard 1995, pp. 5, 9; Knight et al. 1995, p. 247; Boyce
et al. 2001, pp. 10-11; Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48) and that the
levels of both secure habitat and the number and capacity of developed
sites had changed little from 1988 to 1998 (USDA Forest Service 2004,
pp. 140-141, 159-162). The 1998 baseline is also described in detail in
Factor A, below.
The habitat-based recovery criteria established objective,
measurable values for levels of motorized access, secure habitat,
developed sites, and livestock allotments (i.e., ``the 1998 baseline'')
for the GYE. The 1998 values will not change through time, unless
improvements benefit bears. As each of these management objectives are
central to potential present or threatened destruction, modification,
or curtailment of habitat or range, each of these criteria are
discussed in detail under Factor A, below. These habitat-based recovery
criteria have been met since their incorporation into the Recovery Plan
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b, entire).
Additionally, we developed several monitoring items that may help
inform management decisions or explain population trends: (1) Trends in
the location and availability of whitebark pine, cutthroat trout, army
cutworm moths, and winter-killed ungulate carcasses; and (2) grizzly
bear mortality numbers, locations, and causes; grizzly bear-human
conflicts; nuisance bear
[[Page 13183]]
management actions; bear-hunter conflicts; and bear-livestock conflicts
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007c, pp. 25-60). Federal and State
agencies monitor these items, and the IGBST produces an annual report
with their results. This information is used to examine relationships
between food availability, human activity, and demographic parameters
of the population such as survival, population growth, or reproduction.
The current habitat-based recovery criteria have been appended to the
Recovery Plan and are included in the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy,
which is the comprehensive post-delisting management plan for a
recovered population as called for in the Recovery Plan.
Suitable Habitat
Because we used easily recognized boundaries to delineate the
boundaries of the proposed GYE grizzly bear DPS, it includes both
suitable and unsuitable habitat (figure 2). For the purposes of this
proposed rule, ``suitable habitat'' is considered the area within the
DPS boundaries capable of supporting grizzly bear reproduction and
survival now and in the foreseeable future. We have defined ``suitable
habitat'' for grizzly bears as areas having three characteristics: (1)
Being of adequate habitat quality and quantity to support grizzly bear
reproduction and survival; (2) being contiguous with the current
distribution of GYE grizzly bears such that natural recolonization is
possible; and (3) having low mortality risk as indicated through
reasonable and manageable levels of grizzly bear mortality.
[[Page 13184]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR16.001
Our definition and delineation of suitable habitat is built on the
widely accepted conclusions of extensive research (Craighead 1980, pp.
8-11; Knight 1980, pp. 1-3; Peek et al. 1987, pp. 160-161; Merrill et
al. 1999, pp. 233-235; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661) that grizzly bear
reproduction and survival is a function of both the biological needs of
grizzly bears and remoteness from human activities, which minimizes
mortality risk for grizzly bears. Mountainous areas provide hiding
cover, the topographic variation necessary to ensure a wide
[[Page 13185]]
variety of seasonal foods, and the steep slopes used for denning (Judd
et al. 1986, pp. 114-115; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 29-58; Linnell et
al. 2000, pp. 403-405). Higher elevation, mountainous regions in the
GYE (Omernik 1987, pp. 118-125; Omernik 1995, pp. 49-62; Woods et al.
1999, entire; McGrath et al. 2002, entire; Chapman et al. 2004, entire)
contain high-energy foods such as whitebark pine seeds (Mattson and
Jonkel 1990, p. 223; Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1623) and army cutworm
moths (Mattson et al. 1991b, 2434; French et al. 1994, p. 391).
For our analysis of suitable habitat, we considered the Middle
Rockies ecoregion, within which the GYE is contained (Omernik 1987, pp.
120-121; Woods et al. 1999, entire; McGrath et al. 2002, entire;
Chapman et al. 2004, entire) to meet grizzly bear biological needs
providing food, seasonal foraging opportunities, cover, and denning
areas (Mattson and Merrill 2002, p. 1125). Although grizzly bears
historically occurred throughout the area of the proposed GYE grizzly
bear DPS (Stebler 1972, pp. 297-298), many of these habitats are not,
today, biologically suitable for grizzly bears. While there are records
of grizzly bears in eastern Wyoming near present-day Sheridan, Casper,
and Wheatland, even in the early 19th century, indirect evidence
suggests that grizzly bears were less common in these eastern prairie
habitats than in mountainous areas to the west (Rollins 1935, p. 191;
Wade 1947, p. 444). Grizzly bear presence in these drier, grassland
habitats was associated with rivers and streams where grizzly bears
used bison carcasses as a major food source (Burroughs 1961, pp. 57-60;
Herrero 1972, pp. 224-227; Stebler 1972, pp. 297-298; Mattson and
Merrill 2002, pp. 1128-1129). Most of the short-grass prairie on the
east side of the Rocky Mountains has been converted into agricultural
land (Woods et al. 1999, entire), and high densities of traditional
food sources are no longer available due to land conversion and human
occupancy of urban and rural lands. Traditional food sources such as
bison and elk have been dramatically reduced and replaced with domestic
livestock attractants such as cattle, sheep, chickens, goats, pigs, and
bee hives, which can become anthropogenic sources of prey for grizzly
bears. While food sources such as grasses and berries are abundant in
some years in the riparian zones within which the bears travel, these
are not reliable every year and can only support a small number of
bears. These nutritional constraints and the potential for human-bear
conflicts limit the potential for a self-sustaining population of
grizzly bears to develop in the prairies, although we expect some
grizzly bears to live in these areas. Because wild bison herds no
longer exist in these areas, they are no longer capable of contributing
in a meaningful way to the overall status of the GYE grizzly bear DPS.
Thus, we did not include drier sagebrush, prairie, or agricultural
lands within our definition of suitable habitat because these land
types no longer contain adequate food resources (i.e., bison) to
support grizzly bears. Figure 2, above, illustrates suitable habitat
within the GYE grizzly bear DPS.
Human-caused mortality risk also can impact which habitat might be
considered suitable. Some human-caused mortality is unavoidable in a
dynamic system where hundreds of bears inhabit large areas of diverse
habitat with several million human visitors and residents. The negative
impacts of humans on grizzly bear survival and habitat use are well
documented (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278; McLellan and Shackleton
1988, pp. 458-459; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 83-103; McLellan 1989,
pp. 1862-1864; McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. 377-378; Mattson 1990,
pp. 41-44; Mattson and Knight 1991, pp. 9-11; Mace et al. 1996, p.
1403; McLellan et al. 1999, pp. 914-916; White et al. 1999, p. 150;
Woodroffe 2000, pp. 166-168; Boyce et al. 2001, p. 34; Johnson et al.
2004, p. 976; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661). These effects range from
temporary displacement to actual mortality. Grizzly bear persistence in
the contiguous United States between 1920 and 2000 was negatively
associated with human and livestock densities (Mattson and Merrill
2002, pp. 1129-1134). As human population densities increase, the
frequency of encounters between humans and grizzly bears also
increases, resulting in more human-caused grizzly bear mortalities due
to a perceived or real threat to human life or property (Mattson et al.
1996, pp. 1014-1015). Similarly, as livestock densities increase in
habitat occupied by grizzly bears, depredations follow. Although
grizzly bears frequently coexist with cattle without depredating them,
when grizzly bears encounter domestic sheep, they usually are attracted
to such flocks and depredate the sheep (Jonkel 1980, p. 12; Knight and
Judd 1983, pp. 188-189; Orme and Williams 1986, pp. 199-202; Anderson
et al. 2002, pp. 252-253). If repeated depredations occur, managers
either relocate the bear or remove it from the population, resulting in
such domestic sheep areas becoming population sinks (Knight et al.
1988, pp. 122-123).
Because urban sites and sheep allotments possess high mortality
risks for grizzly bears, we did not include these areas as suitable
habitat (Knight et al. 1988, pp. 122-123). Based on 2000 census data,
we defined urban areas as census blocks with human population densities
of more than 50 people per sq km (129 people per sq mi) (U.S. Census
Bureau 2005, entire). Cities within the Middle Rockies ecoregion, such
as West Yellowstone, Gardiner, Big Sky, and Cooke City, Montana, and
Jackson, Wyoming, were not included as suitable habitat. There are
large, contiguous blocks of sheep allotments in peripheral areas of the
ecosystem in the Wyoming Mountain Range, the Salt River Mountain Range,
and portions of the Wind River Mountain Range on the Bridger-Teton and
the Targhee National Forests (see figure 2, above). This spatial
distribution of sheep allotments on the periphery of suitable habitat
results in areas of high mortality risk to bears within these
allotments and a few small, isolated patches or strips of suitable
habitat adjacent to or within sheep allotments. These strips and
patches of land possess higher mortality risks for grizzly bears
because of their enclosure by and proximity to areas of high mortality
risk. This phenomenon in which the quantity and quality of suitable
habitat is diminished because of interactions with surrounding less
suitable habitat is known as an ``edge effect'' (Lande 1988, pp. 3-4;
Yahner 1988, pp. 335-337; Mills 1995, p. 396). Edge effects are
exacerbated in small habitat patches with high perimeter-to-area ratios
(i.e., those that are longer and narrower) and in wide-ranging species
such as grizzly bears because they are more likely to encounter
surrounding, unsuitable habitat (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998, p. 2126).
Due to the negative edge effects of this distribution of sheep
allotments on the periphery of grizzly bear range, our analysis did not
classify linear strips and isolated patches of habitat as suitable
habitat.
Finally, dispersal capabilities of grizzly bears were considered in
our determination of which potential habitat areas might be considered
suitable. Although the Bighorn Mountains west of I-90 near Sheridan,
Wyoming, are grouped within the Middle Rockies ecoregion, they are not
connected to the current distribution of grizzly bears via suitable
habitat or linkage zones, nor are there opportunities for such linkage.
The Bighorn Mountains are comprised of 6,341 sq km (2,448 sq mi) of
habitat that is classified as part of the Middle
[[Page 13186]]
Rockies ecoregion, but are separated from the current grizzly bear
distribution by approximately 100 km (60 mi) of a mosaic of private and
BLM lands primarily used for agriculture, livestock grazing, and oil
and gas production (Chapman et al. 2004, entire). Although there is a
possibility that individual bears may emigrate from the GYE to the
Bighorn Mountains occasionally, this dispersal distance exceeds the
average dispersal distance for both males (30 to 42 km (19 to 26 mi))
and females (10 to 14 km (6 to 9 mi)) (McLellan and Hovey 2001, p. 842;
Proctor et al. 2004, p. 1108). Without constant emigrants from suitable
habitat, the Bighorn Mountains will not support a self-sustaining
grizzly bear population. Therefore, due to the fact that this mountain
range is disjunct from other suitable habitat and current grizzly bear
distribution, our analysis did not classify the Bighorn Mountains as
suitable habitat within the GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries.
Some areas that do not meet our definition of suitable habitat may
still be used by grizzly bears (4,635 sq km (1,787 sq mi)) (Schwartz et
al. 2002, p. 209; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66). The records of
grizzly bears in these unsuitable habitat areas are generally due to
recorded grizzly bear-human conflicts or to transient animals. These
areas are defined as unsuitable due to the high risk of mortality
resulting from these grizzly bear-human conflicts. These unsuitable
habitat areas do not support grizzly bear reproduction or survival
because bears that repeatedly come into conflict with humans or
livestock are usually either relocated or removed (i.e., euthanized or
placed in an approved American Zoological Association facility) from
these areas.
According to the habitat suitability criteria described above, the
GYE contains approximately 46,035 sq km (17,774 sq mi) of suitable
grizzly bear habitat within the DPS boundaries; or roughly 24 percent
of the total area within the DPS boundaries (see figure 2, above). This
amount of suitable habitat is sufficient to meet all habitat needs of a
recovered grizzly bear population and provide ecological resiliency to
the population through the availability of widely distributed, high-
quality habitat that will allow the population to respond to
environmental changes. Grizzly bears currently occupy about 90 percent
of that suitable habitat (42,180 sq km (16,286 sq mi)) (Haroldson 2015,
in litt.). It is important to note that the current grizzly bear
occupancy does not mean that equal densities of grizzly bears are found
throughout the region. Instead, most grizzly bears (approximately 75
percent of females with cubs-of-the-year) are within the PCA for most
or part of each year (Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 64-66; Haroldson 2014,
in litt.). Grizzly bear use of suitable habitat may vary seasonally and
annually with different areas being more important than others in some
seasons or years (Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 48-62). We expect grizzly
bears to naturally recolonize much, if not all, suitable habitat (Pyare
et al. 2004, pp. 5-6).
Population and Demographic Recovery Criteria
The 1993 Recovery Plan identified three demographic parameters that
should be measured to assess recovery in the GYE. The first criterion
established a minimum population size. The second criterion ensured
reproductive females were distributed across the Recovery Zone, and the
third criterion created total mortality limits that would allow the
population to achieve recovery. Since the 1993 Recovery Plan was
released, we have evaluated and updated how we assess those recovery
criteria as newer, better science became available. These revisions
include implementing new scientific methods to determine the status of
the GYE grizzly bear demographic monitoring area (DMA) population,
estimate population size, and determine what levels of mortality the
population could withstand without causing population decline (i.e.,
the sustainable mortality rate). The DMA is the area within which the
population is annually surveyed and estimated and within which the
total mortality limits apply, and is based on the suitable habitat area
(see figure 2, above). The Wildlife Monograph: ``Temporal, Spatial, and
Environmental Influences on The Demographics of Grizzly Bears in The
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem'' (Schwartz et al. 2006b, entire); the
report: ``Reassessing Methods to Estimate Population Size and
Sustainable Mortality Limits for the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear'' (IGBST
2005, entire); and the report: ``Reassessing Methods to Estimate
Population Size and Sustainable Mortality Limits for the Yellowstone
Grizzly Bear Workshop Document Supplement 19-21 June, 2006'' (IGBST
2006, entire) provided the scientific basis for revising the
demographic recovery criteria in the GYE in 2007 (72 FR 11376; March
13, 2007). Similarly, the revisions we proposed to implement in 2013
(78 FR 17708; March 22, 2013) are based on updated demographic analyses
using the same methods as before (Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 9-16) and
reported in the IGBST's 2012 report: ``Updating and Evaluating
Approaches to Estimate Population Size and Sustainable Mortality Limits
for Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem'' (hereafter
referred to as the 2012 IGBST report). This 2012 IGBST report informed
the scientific basis for the changes we proposed to the GYE demographic
recovery criteria in 2013.
In 2013, we proposed to change two of the recovery criteria for the
Yellowstone Ecosystem in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (78 FR 17708;
March 22, 2013). Changes were proposed for the demographic goal of
maintaining a minimum population of 500 animals and at least 48 females
with cubs, and to eliminate this criterion's dependence on a specific
counting method; and to revise the area where the population would be
counted and where total mortality limits would apply. We chose to
revise the criteria because they no longer represented the best
scientific data or the best technique to assess recovery of the GYE
grizzly bear DMA population (78 FR 17708; March 22, 2013).
Specifically, these criteria warrant revision because: (1) Updated
demographic analyses for 2002-2011 indicate that the rate of growth
seen during the 1983-2001 period has slowed and sex ratios have
changed; (2) there is consensus among scientists and statisticians that
the area within which we apply total mortality limits should be the
same area we use to estimate population size; and (3) the population
has basically stabilized inside the DMA since 2002, with an average
population size between 2002-2014 of 674 using the model-averaged Chao2
population estimation method (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 600-747).
This stabilization is evidence that the population is close to its
carrying capacity as evidenced by density dependent regulation
occurring inside the DMA (van Manen et al. 2015, entire). Also, there
is a need to allow the IGBST to update the method used to measure
population size demographic criteria so that they can incorporate
results from new scientific methods based on peer-reviewed, scientific
literature as they become available.
We released these proposed revisions related to population size and
total mortality limits for public comment in 2013 (78 FR 17708; March
22, 2013) but did not finalize them so that we could consider another
round of public comments on these revisions in association with the
comments on this proposed rule. Further proposed revisions to the
Recovery Plan Supplement: Revised Demographic Criteria and the draft
2016 Conservation
[[Page 13187]]
Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the GYE are being made available for
public review and comment concurrent with this proposed rule. After
review and incorporation of appropriate public comments, we plan to
release a final Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Supplement: Revised
Demographic Criteria (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 44) and
the 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem concurrent with release of a final determination
on this proposed rule.
Below, we summarize relevant portions of the demographic analyses
contained in the IGBST's 2012 report (IGBST 2012, entire) and compare
them with the previous results of Schwartz et al. (2006b, entire) to
draw conclusions concerning the grizzly bear population in the GYE DMA
using these collective results. These analyses inform the scientific
basis for our proposed revisions. While Schwartz et al. (2006b, p. 11)
used data from 1983 through 2001; the 2012 IGBST report examined a more
recent time period, 2002 through 2011 (IGBST 2012, p. 33). The IGBST
found that population growth had slowed since the previous time period,
but was still stable to slightly increasing, meaning the population had
not declined. Because the fates of some radio-collared bears are
unknown, Schwartz et al. (2006b, p. 48) and the IGBST (2012, p. 34)
calculated two separate estimates of population growth rate: one based
on the assumption that every bear with an unknown fate had died (i.e.,
a conservative estimate); and the other simply removing bears with an
unknown fate from the sample. The true population growth rate is
assumed to be somewhere in between these two estimates because we know
from 30 years of tracking grizzly bears with radio-collars that every
lost collar does not indicate a dead bear. While Schwartz et al.
(2006b, p. 48) found the GYE grizzly bear DMA population increased at a
rate between 4.2 and 7.6 percent per year between 1983 and 2002, the
IGBST (2012, p. 34) found this growth had slowed and leveled off and
was between 0.3 percent and 2.2 percent per year during 2002-2011.
Schwartz et al. (2006b, p. 29) analyzed survivorship of cubs,
yearlings, and independent bears based on whether they lived inside
Yellowstone National Park, outside the Park but inside the Recovery
Zone or PCA, or outside the PCA entirely. The PCA boundaries
(containing 23,853 sq km (9,210 sq mi) correspond to those of the
Yellowstone Recovery Zone (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 41)
and will replace the Recovery Zone boundary (see figure 2, above). They
concluded that grizzly bears were approaching carrying capacity inside
Yellowstone National Park. The IGBST (2012, p. 33) documented lower cub
and yearling survival than in the previous time period, results
consistent with the conclusion by Schwartz et al. (2006b). Importantly,
annual survival of independent females (the most influential age-sex
cohort on population trend) remained the same while independent male
survival increased (IGBST 2012, p. 33). Collectively, these two studies
indicate that the growth rate of the GYE grizzly bear DMA population
has slowed as bear densities have approached carrying capacity,
particularly in the core area of occupied range.
Mortality reduction is a key part of any successful management
effort for grizzly bears; however, some mortality, including most
human-caused mortality, is unavoidable in a dynamic system where
hundreds of bears inhabit large areas of diverse habitat with several
million human visitors and residents. Adult female mortality influences
the population trajectory more than mortality of males or dependent
young (Eberhardt 1977, p. 210; Knight and Eberhardt 1985, p. 331;
Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48). Low adult female survival was the
critical factor that caused decline in the GYE population prior to the
mid-1980s (Knight and Eberhardt 1985, p. 331). In the early 1980s, with
the development of the first Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1982, pp. 21-24), agencies began to address mortality and
increase adult female survivorship (USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 1-2;
Knight et al. 1999, pp. 56-57).
The Recovery Plan and subsequent supplements to it (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1982, pp. 33-34; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993,
pp. 20-21; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007b, p. 2) established
three demographic criteria to objectively measure and monitor recovery
of the GYE grizzly bear DMA population. The three parameters that are
measured have remained the same since the 1993 plan: (1) Minimum
population size for maintaining genetic integrity; (2) population
distribution; and (3) total mortality limits that allow continued
population health and occupancy of the recovery area. The most current
demographic criteria were appended to the 1993 Recovery Plan in 2007,
and proposed revisions to those were released for public comment in
2013, though not finalized, as explained above. Further revisions to
the demographic criteria are being released for public comment
concurrent with this proposed rule. Below, we detail each recovery
criterion currently proposed.
Demographic Recovery Criterion 1--Maintain a population size of at
least 500 bears and at least 48 females with cubs in the demographic
monitoiring area (DMA) as indicated by methods established in
published, peer-reviewed scientific literature and calculated by the
IGBST using the most updated protocol as posted on their Web site. The
current method (2016) used to estimate population size is the model-
averaged Chao2 method. If the estimate of total population size drops
below 500 or counts of females with cubs go below 48 unduplicated
females with cubs in 3 consecutive years, this criterion will not be
met. The population estimate and counts of unduplicated females with
cubs will be calculated by the IGBST using data obtained within the
DMA.
A minimum population size of at least 500 animals within the DMA
will assure genetic health. Population size will be quantified by
methods established in published, peer-reviewed scientific literature
and calculated by the IGBST using the most updated protocol, as posted
on their Web site. This number will ensure the short-term fitness of
the population is not threatened by losses in genetic diversity in such
an isolated population. Five hundred is a minimum population threshold.
The goal is to maintain the population well above this threshold to
ensure that genetic issues are not a detriment to the short-term
genetic fitness of the GYE grizzly bear population. If the population
declined to 500, more than one third of the suitable habitat in the DMA
would be unoccupied (van Manen 2015, in litt.), and, therefore, the
grizzly bear population could not be considered demographically
recovered.
The model-averaged Chao2 method is currently the best available
science to estimate the total population size in the GYE. The IGBST has
been calculating population size on an annual basis using the model-
averaged Chao2 (see glossary) estimate since 2002, and this method has
been published in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The model-
averaged Chao2 method is the population estimate method that has the
lowest amount of annual variation, and it is the most sensitive method
to detect increasing or decreasing population trends over time. As the
grizzly bear population has increased, model-averaged Chao2 estimates
have become increasingly conservative (i.e., prone to underestimation).
As a conservative approach to population estimation, the model-averaged
Chao2 method will
[[Page 13188]]
continue to be the method used to assess Criterion 1 (see U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2016, Appendix C, for the application protocol for
annual population estimation using the Chao2 method) until a new
population estimator is approved. If new methods become available,
these will be considered for application in the GYE as long as they
represent the best available science. However, until possible new
methods are developed, the model-averaged Chao2 method will continue to
be used. Status: This recovery criterion has been met since 2003 (see
IGBST annual reports available at http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/products/IGBST).
Demographic Recovery Criterion 2--Sixteen of 18 bear management
units within the PCA (see map at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php) must be occupied by females with young, with no two
adjacent bear management units unoccupied, during a 6-year sum of
observations. This criterion is important as it ensures that
reproductive females occupy the majority of the PCA and are not
concentrated in one portion of the ecosystem. Status: This recovery
criterion has been met since at least 2001.
Demographic Recovery Criterion 3--Maintain the population around
the 2002-2014 Chao2 modeled average (average = 674; 95% CI = 600-757;
90% CI = 612-735) by maintaining annual mortality limits for
independent females, independent males, and dependent young as shown in
table 1 in this proposed rule. (These adjustable mortality rates were
calculated as those necessary to manage the population to the modeled
average of 674 bears which occurred during the time period that this
population's growth stabilized.) If mortality limits are exceeded for
any sex/age class for 3 consecutive years and any annual population
estimate falls below 612 (the lower bound of the 90% confidence
interval), the IGBST will produce a Biology and Monitoring Review to
inform the appropriate management response. If any annual population
estimate falls below 600 (the lower bound of the 95% confidence
interval), this criterion will not be met and there will be no
discretionary mortality, except as necessary for human safety.
The population had stabilized 2002-2014 at a mean model-averaged
Chao2 population size of 674 (95% CI = 600-757), which is very similar
to the population size of 683 when the Yellowstone population was
previously delisted in 2007 (72 FR 14866; March 29, 2007). The
population has now naturally stabilized because of density-dependent
population effects that resulted in reduced survival of subadults. The
existence of lower subadult survival and occupancy by grizzly bears in
almost all suitable habitat inside the DMA has been demonstrated by van
Manen et al. (2015, entire). Status: This criterion has been met for
all age and sex classes since 2004.
Table 1--Total Mortality Rate Limits Inside the DMA. These Mortality Rates Were Calculated as Those Limits
Necessary To Manage Toward the Long-Term Average Population Size That Occurred From 2002 to 2014 Using the Model-
Averaged Chao2 Population Estimate Method (674, 95% CI = 600 -747). If Population Size Is Estimated as Fewer
Than or Equal to 600 in Any Year, No Discretionary Mortality Will Occur Unless Necessary for Human Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total grizzly bear population estimate
-----------------------------------------------
<=674 675-747 >747
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mortality limit % for independent FEMALES (using model-averaged <=7.6% 9% 10%
Chao2 method)..................................................
Mortality limit % for independent MALES (using model-averaged 15% 20% 22%
Chao2 method)..................................................
Mortality limit for % of DEPENDENT YOUNG (using model-averaged <=7.6% 9% 10%
Chao2 method)..................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with USFWS Director Dan Ashe's letter of September 25, 2015, to the state directors, if the model-
averaged Chao2 population estimate is less than 674, the total mortality rate for independent females and
dependent young will be less than 7.6%.........................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total mortality: Documented known and probable grizzly bear mortalities from all causes including but are not
limited to: management removals, illegal kills, mistaken identity kills, self-defense kills, vehicle kills,
natural mortalities, undetermined-cause mortalities, grizzly bear hunting, and a statistical estimate of the
number of unknown/unreported mortalities.......................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Conservation Strategy
The Conservation Strategy is the management plan that
institutionalizes the successful program that resulted in the recovery
of the GYE population. The Conservation Strategy will guide post-
delisting management, just as it has guided management in the GYE since
2007. Recovery of the GYE grizzly bear population is the result of
ongoing partnerships between Federal, Tribal, and State agencies; the
governors of these States; county and city governments; educational
institutions; numerous nongovernmental organizations; private
landowners; and the public who live, work, and recreate in the GYE.
Just as recovery of the GYE grizzly bear population could not have
occurred without these excellent working relationships, maintenance of
a recovered grizzly bear population requires continued application of
the management actions and partnerships that resulted in the recovery
of the grizzly bears and their habitat, and this is what the
Conservation Strategy does. Grizzly bears are a ``conservation-
reliant'' species because of their low resiliency to excessive human-
caused mortality and the manageable nature of this threat (Scott et al.
2005, p. 384). This means that for grizzly bears in the GYE to remain
recovered there will always need to be careful and cautious management
of mortalities and habitat. Consequently, the 2016 Conservation
Strategy will remain in effect indefinitely--beyond the 5-year post-
delisting monitoring period required by the Act--to facilitate and
assure continued successful management of the population and its
habitat across multiple land ownerships and jurisdictions.
In order to document the regulatory mechanisms and coordinated
management approach necessary to ensure the long-term maintenance of a
recovered population, the Recovery Plan calls for the development of
``a conservation strategy to outline habitat and population monitoring
that will continue in force after recovery'' (Recovery Plan Task Y426)
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 55). To accomplish this goal,
a Conservation Strategy Team was formed in 1993. This team included
biologists and managers from the Service, National Park Service,
[[Page 13189]]
Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), IDFG, WGFD, and MTFWP.
In March 2000, a draft Conservation Strategy for the GYE was
released for public review and comment (65 FR 11340; March 2, 2000).
Also in 2000, a Governors' Roundtable was organized to provide
recommendations from the perspectives of the three States that would be
involved with grizzly bear management after delisting. In 2003, the
draft Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the GYE was
released, along with drafts of State grizzly bear management plans (all
accessible at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php).
We responded to all public comments and peer reviews received on the
Conservation Strategy and finalized the Conservation Strategy in 2007
(72 FR 11376; March 13, 2007). Revisions have been made to the
Conservation Strategy and a draft 2016 Conservation Strategy is
presented for public comment concurrent with this proposed rule
(accessible at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php).
The purposes of the Conservation Strategy and associated State and
Federal implementation plans are to: (1) Describe, summarize, and
implement the coordinated efforts to manage the grizzly bear population
and its habitat to ensure continued conservation of the GYE grizzly
bear population; (2) specify and implement the population/mortality
management, habitat, and nuisance bear standards to maintain a
recovered grizzly bear population for the future; (3) document specific
State and Federal regulatory mechanisms and legal authorities,
policies, management, and monitoring programs that exist to maintain
the recovered grizzly bear population; and (4) document the actions
that participating agencies have agreed to implement (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2016, Executive Summary).
Implementation of the Conservation Strategy by all agency partners
will coordinate management and monitoring of the GYE grizzly bear
population and its habitat after delisting. The draft 2016 Conservation
Strategy establishes and details a regulatory framework and authority
for Federal and State agencies to take over management of the GYE
grizzly bear population from the Service. The draft 2016 Conservation
Strategy also identifies, defines, and requires adequate post-delisting
monitoring to maintain a healthy GYE grizzly bear population (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapters 2 and 3). The draft 2016
Conservation Strategy has objective, measurable habitat and population
standards, with clear State and Federal management responses if
deviations occur (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 6). It
represents 20 years of a collaborative, interagency effort among the
members of the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee. State grizzly bear
management plans were developed in all three affected States (Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming). Revised state plans will be incorporated into
the final 2016 Conservation Strategy as appendices to ensure that the
plans and the Conservation Strategy are consistent and complementary
(accessible at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php).
If the State plans change from those available for comment appended to
this draft Strategy, these revised State plans will be available for
public comment and finalized prior to a final determination on this
proposed rule. All the State and Federal agencies party to the draft
2016 Conservation Strategy will need to sign a memorandum of
understanding agreeing to implement the revised 2016 Conservation
Strategy prior to a final rule.
The draft 2016 Conservation Strategy identifies and provides a
framework for managing habitat within the PCA and managing demographic
parameters within the DMA (see figure 2, above). The PCA contains
adequate seasonal habitat components for a portion of the recovered GYE
grizzly bear population for the future and to allow bears to continue
to expand outside the PCA. The PCA includes approximately 51 percent of
suitable grizzly bear habitat within the GYE and approximately 75
percent of the population of female grizzly bears with cubs (Haroldson
2014, in litt.) (For more information about what constitutes ``suitable
habitat,'' see the suitable habitat discussion under Factor A, below).
The 2016 Conservation Strategy will be implemented and funded by
Federal, Tribal, and State agencies within the GYE. The signatories to
the final 2016 Conservation Strategy have a demonstrated track record
of funding measures to ensure recovery of this grizzly bear population
for more than 3 decades. The Service intends to continue contributing
funding to the implementation of the 2016 Conservation Strategy. In
general, the Forest Service and National Park Service will be
responsible for habitat management to reduce the risk of human-caused
mortality to grizzly bears while the National Park Service, and State
and Tribal wildlife agencies, will be responsible for managing the
population within specific total mortality limits. The Forest Service
and National Park Service collectively manage approximately 98 percent
of lands inside the PCA. Specifically, Yellowstone National Park; Grand
Teton National Park; and the Shoshone, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-
Teton, Caribou-Targhee, and Custer-Gallatin National Forests are the
Federal entities responsible for implementing the 2016 Conservation
Strategy. Affected National Forests and National Parks have
incorporated, or will incorporate before a final rule is issued, the
habitat standards and criteria into their Forest Plans and National
Park management plans and/or Superintendent's Compendia via appropriate
amendment processes so that they are legally applied to these public
lands within the GYE (see Grand Teton National Park 2006, p. 1; USDA
Forest Service 2006b, p. 4; Yellowstone National Park 2006, p. 12).
Outside of the PCA, grizzly bear habitat is well protected via
Wilderness Area designation (Wilderness or Wilderness Study Area) or
Forest Plan direction, and demographic standards will protect the
population throughout the DMA.
If this proposed rule is made final, the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
Coordinating Committee (hereafter referred to as the YGCC) will replace
the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee as the interagency group
coordinating implementation of the 2016 Conservation Strategy's habitat
and population standards, and monitoring (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2016, Chapter 6). Similar to the Yellowstone Ecosystem
Subcommittee, the YGCC members include representatives from Yellowstone
and Grand Teton National Parks, the five affected National Forests,
BLM, USGS, IDFG, MTFWP, WGFD, one member from local county governments
within each State, and one member from the Shoshone Bannock, Northern
Arapahoe, and Eastern Shoshone Tribes. All meetings will be open to the
public. Besides coordinating management, research, and financial needs
for successful conservation of the GYE grizzly bear population, the
YGCC will review the IGBST Annual Reports and review and respond to any
deviations from habitat or population standards. As per the
implementation section of the 2016 Conservation Strategy, the YGCC will
coordinate management and implementation of the 2016 Conservation
Strategy and work together to rectify problems and to assure that the
habitat and population standards and total mortality limits will be met
and maintained.
The draft 2016 Conservation Strategy is an adaptive, dynamic
document that establishes a framework to incorporate new and better
scientific information as
[[Page 13190]]
it becomes available or as necessary in response to environmental
changes. Any changes and updates to the 2016 Conservation Strategy must
meet the following two criteria: (1) Be based on the best available
science; and (2) be subject to public comment before being implemented
by the YGCC (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 1).
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying
species, or removing species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined
by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife
or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or
wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). We, along
with the National Marine Fisheries Service (now the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration--Fisheries), developed the Policy
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
(DPS policy) (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), to help us in determining
what constitutes a distinct population segment (DPS). Under this
policy, the Service considers two factors to determine whether the
population segment is a valid DPS: (1) Discreteness of the population
segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs;
and (2) the significance of the population segment to the taxon to
which it belongs. If a population meets both tests, it is a DPS, and
the Service then evaluates the population segment's conservation status
according to the standards in section 4 of the Act for listing,
delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the DPS endangered or
threatened). Our policy further recognizes it may be appropriate to
assign different classifications (i.e., endangered or threatened) to
different DPSs of the same vertebrate taxon (61 FR 4725; February 7,
1996).
Past Practice and History of Using DPSs
As of February 9, 2016, of the 436 native vertebrate listings, 89
are listed as less than an entire taxonomic species or subspecies
(henceforth referred to in this discussion as populations) under one of
several authorities, including the ``distinct population segment''
language in the Act's definition of species (section 3(16)). Twenty-
three of these 89 populations, which span 5 different taxa, predate the
1996 DPS Policy; as such, the final listing determinations for these
populations did not include formal policy-based analyses or expressly
designate the listed entity as a DPS. In several instances, however,
the Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have
established a DPS and revised the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife in a single action, as shown in the following examples.
In February 1985, the Service delisted the brown pelican (Pelecanus
occidentalis) in the southeastern United States and continued to
identify it as endangered throughout the remainder of its range (50 FR
4938; February 4, 1985). The Service later went on to delist the brown
pelican in the remainder of its range (74 FR 59444; November 17, 2009).
In June 1994, NMFS revised the entry for the gray whale (Eschrichtius
robustus) to remove the eastern North Pacific population from the List
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife while retaining the western North
Pacific population as endangered (59 FR 31094; June 16, 1994). In May
1997, NMFS identified the western and eastern DPSs of the Steller sea
lion (Eumetopias jubatus), which had been listed as threatened, and
listed the western DPS as endangered (62 FR 24345; May 5, 1997). In
July 2003, the Service established two DPSs of the Columbian white-
tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus)--the Douglas County DPS
and the Columbia River DPS--and delisted only the Douglas County DPS,
while retaining listed status for the Columbia River DPS (68 FR 43647;
July 24, 2003). The Columbia River DPS was recently proposed for
reclassification to threatened (October 8, 2015; 80 FR 60850). In March
2007, the Service identified the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus)
in Florida as a DPS within the existing endangered listing of the
American crocodile and reclassified the Florida DPS from endangered to
threatened (72 FR 13027; March 20, 2007). In September 2011, the
Service and NMFS jointly determined the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta
caretta) is composed of nine DPSs and replaced the species-wide listing
with four DPSs as threatened and five DPSs as endangered (76 FR 58868;
September 22, 2011). The Service and NMFS have jointly proposed to make
similar revisions to the species-wide listing for the green sea turtle
(Chelonia mydas), and NMFS has also recently proposed to revise the
global listing for humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) (80 FR
15272; March 23, 2015, and 80 FR 22304; April 21, 2015, respectively).
Revising the lower 48 State listing for grizzly bear by removing the
GYE DPS is consistent with the Service's past and practice.
Our authority to make these determinations and to revise the list
accordingly is a reasonable interpretation of the language of the Act,
and our ability to do so is an important component of the Service's
program for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Our
authority to revise the existing listing of a species (the grizzly bear
in the lower 48 States) to identify a GYE DPS and determine that it is
healthy enough that it no longer needs the Act's protections is found
in the precise language of the Act. Moreover, even if that authority
were not clear, our interpretation of this authority to make
determinations under section 4(a)(1) of the Act and to revise the
endangered and threatened species list to reflect those determinations
under section 4(c)(1) of the Act is reasonable and fully consistent
with the Act's text, structure, legislative history, relevant judicial
interpretations, and policy objectives.
On December 12, 2008, a formal opinion was issued by the Solicitor,
``U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Authority Under Section 4(c)(1) of the
Endangered Species Act to Revise Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Species to `Reflect Recent Determinations' '' (U.S. DOI 2008). The
Service fully agrees with the analysis and conclusions set out in the
Solicitor's opinion. This proposed action is consistent with the
opinion. The complete text of the Solicitor's opinion can be found at
https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37018.pdf.
We recognize that our interpretation and use of the DPS policy to
revise and delist distinct population segments has been challenged in
Humane Society of the United States v. Jewell, 76 F.Supp.3d 69 (D. D.C.
2014). Partly at issue in that case was our application of the DPS
policy to Western Great Lakes wolves in a delisting rule (76 FR 81666;
December 28, 2011). Our rule was vacated by the district court's
decision. We respectfully disagree with the district court's
interpretation of the DPS policy, and the United States has appealed
that decision.
In the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, the Service identifies six
grizzly bear Recovery Zones and identifies unique demographic recovery
criteria for each one. The 1993 Recovery Plan states that it is the
intent of the Service to delist individual populations as they achieve
recovery (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. ii). The Service has
proceeded in a manner consistent with the Recovery Plan with respect to
[[Page 13191]]
individual population treatment. For example, grizzly bears in the
Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirk, and North Cascades Recovery Zones, all included
in the original threatened grizzly bear listing, were petitioned for
reclassification from threatened to endangered. Although already listed
as threatened, we determined that reclassifying those grizzly bears to
endangered was warranted but precluded by higher priorities. After
2014, the Service determined that the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk
populations had recovered to the point that they were no longer
warranted but precluded from listing as endangered; they remain listed
as threatened. Grizzly bears in the North Cascades Recovery Zone are
still warranted but precluded for reclassification from threatened to
endangered. The Bitterroot Recovery Zone now has status under section
10(j) of the Act, which authorizes the Service to release an
experimental population of grizzly bears in that Recovery Zone.
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Analysis
Analysis of Discreteness in Relation to Remainder of Taxon
Under our DPS Policy, a population of a vertebrate taxon may be
considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the
same taxon (i.e., Ursus arctos horribilis) as a consequence of
physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors
(quantitative measures of genetic or morphological discontinuity may
provide evidence of this separation); or (2) it is delimited by
international governmental boundaries within which differences in
control of exploitation, management of habitat, conservation status, or
regulatory mechanisms exist that are significant in light of section
4(a)(1)(D) (``the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms'') of
the Act. The DPS Policy does not require complete separation of one DPS
from another, and occasional interchange does not undermine the
discreteness of potential DPSs. If complete separation is required, the
loss of the population has little significance to other populations (61
FR 4722, 4724). The DPS policy only requires that populations be
``markedly separated'' from each other. Thus, if occasional individual
grizzly bears move between populations, the population could still
display the required level of discreteness per the DPS Policy. The
standard adopted allows for some limited interchange among population
segments considered to be discrete, so that loss of an interstitial
population could well have consequences for gene flow and demographic
suitability of a species as a whole.
Although the DPS Policy does not allow State or other intra-
national governmental boundaries to be used as the basis for
determining the discreteness of a potential DPS, an artificial or
human-made boundary may be used to clearly identify the geographic area
included within a DPS designation. Easily identified human-made
objects, such as the center line of interstate highways, Federal
highways, and State highways are useful for delimiting DPS boundaries.
Thus, the proposed GYE grizzly bear DPS consists of: That portion of
Idaho that is east of Interstate Highway 15 and north of U.S. Highway
30; that portion of Montana that is east of Interstate Highway 15 and
south of Interstate Highway 90; and that portion of Wyoming that is
south of Interstate Highway 90, west of Interstate Highway 25, west of
Wyoming State Highway 220, and west of U.S. Highway 287 south of Three
Forks (at the 220 and 287 intersection, and north of Interstate Highway
80 and U.S. Highway 30) (see DPS boundary in figure 2, above). Due to
the use of highways as easily described boundaries, large areas of
unsuitable habitat are included in the proposed DPS boundaries.
The core of the proposed GYE grizzly bear DPS is the Yellowstone
PCA (24,000 sq km (9,200 sq mi)) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993,
p. 39). The Yellowstone PCA includes Yellowstone National Park; a
portion of Grand Teton National Park; John D. Rockefeller Memorial
Parkway; sizable contiguous portions of the Shoshone, Bridger-Teton,
Caribou-Targhee, Custer-Gallatin, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge National
Forests; BLM lands; and surrounding State and private lands (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 39). As grizzly bear populations have
rebounded and densities have increased, bears have expanded their range
beyond the PCA, into other suitable habitat in the DMA. Grizzly bears
now occupy about 44,624 sq km (17,229 sq mi) or 89 percent of the GYE
DMA (Haroldson 2015, in litt.), with occasional occurrences well beyond
this estimate of occupied range. No grizzly bears originating from the
Yellowstone PCA have been suspected or confirmed beyond the borders of
the GYE grizzly bear DPS described above. Similarly, no grizzly bears
originating from other Recovery Zones have been detected inside the
borders of the GYE grizzly bear DPS (Wildlife Genetics International
2015, in litt.).
The GYE grizzly bear population is the southernmost population
remaining in the conterminous United States and has been physically
separated from other areas where grizzly bears occur for at least 100
years (Merriam 1922, pp. 1-2; Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4334). The
nearest population of grizzly bears is found in the NCDE approximately
160 km (100 mi) to the north. Although their range continues to expand
north (Bjornlie et al. 2013, p. 185), grizzly bears from the GYE have
not been documented north of Interstate 90 outside the proposed DPS
boundaries (Frey 2014, in litt.). Over the last few decades, the NCDE
grizzly bear population has been slowly expanding to the south, and
there have been several confirmed grizzly bears from the NCDE within 32
to 80 km (20 to 50 mi) of the GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries near
Butte, Deerlodge, and Anaconda, Montana (Jonkel 2014, in litt.).
However, there is currently no known connectivity between these two
grizzly bear populations.
Genetic data also support the conclusion that grizzly bears from
the GYE are separated from other grizzly bears. Genetic studies
estimating heterozygosity (which provides a measure of genetic
diversity) show 60 percent heterozygosity in the GYE grizzly bears
compared to 67 percent in the NCDE grizzly bears (Haroldson et al.
2010, p. 7). Heterozygosity is a useful measure of genetic diversity,
with higher values indicative of greater genetic variation and
evolutionary potential. High levels of genetic variation are indicative
of high levels of connectivity among populations or high numbers of
breeding animals. By comparing heterozygosity of extant bears to
samples from Yellowstone grizzly bears of the early 1900s, Miller and
Waits (2003, p. 4338) concluded that gene flow and, therefore,
population connectivity between the GYE grizzly population and
populations to the north was low even 100 years ago. The reasons for
this historic limitation of gene flow are unclear, but we do know
increasing levels of human activity and settlement in this intervening
area over the last century further limited grizzly bear movements into
and out of the GYE, likely resulting in the current lack of
connectivity (Proctor et al. 2012, p. 35).
Based on the best available scientific data about grizzly bear
locations and movements, we find that the GYE grizzly bear population
and other remaining grizzly bear populations are markedly, physically
separated from each other. Therefore, the GYE grizzly bear population
meets the criterion of discreteness under our DPS Policy. Occasional
movement of bears from
[[Page 13192]]
other grizzly bear populations into the GYE grizzly bear population
would be beneficial to its long-term persistence (Boyce et al. 2001,
pp. 25, 26). While future connectivity is desirable and will be
actively managed for, this would not undermine discreteness, as all
that is required is ``marked separation,'' not absolute separation.
Even if occasional individual grizzly bears disperse among populations,
the GYE grizzly bear population would still display the required level
of discreteness per the DPS Policy. And, as stated in the 1993 Recovery
Plan, we recognize that natural connectivity is important to long-term
grizzly bear conservation, and we will continue efforts to work toward
this goal independent of the delisting of the GYE grizzly bear DPS
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 53). This issue is discussed
further under Factor E below.
Analysis of Significance of Population Segment to Taxon
If we determine a population segment is discrete under one or more
of the conditions described in the Service's DPS policy, its biological
and ecological significance will then be considered in light of
Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPS's be used
``sparingly'' while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity
(see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). In carrying out
this examination, we consider available scientific evidence of the
population's importance to the taxon (i.e., Ursus arctos horribilis) to
which it belongs. Since precise circumstances are likely to vary
considerably from case to case, the DPS policy does not describe all
the classes of information that might be used in determining the
biological and ecological importance of a discrete population. However,
the DPS policy describes four possible classes of information that
provide evidence of a population segment's biological and ecological
importance to the taxon to which it belongs. As specified in the DPS
policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996), this consideration of the
population segment's significance may include, but is not limited to,
the following: (1) Persistence of the discrete population segment in an
ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2) Evidence that
loss of the discrete population segment would result in a significant
gap in the range of the taxon; (3) Evidence that the discrete
population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of
a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population
outside its historic range; or (4) Evidence that the discrete
population segment differs markedly from other populations of the
species in its genetic characteristics. To be considered significant, a
population segment needs to satisfy only one of these conditions, or
other classes of information that might bear on the biological and
ecological importance of a discrete population segment, as described in
the DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996). Below we address Factors
1, 2, and 4. Factor 3 does not apply to the GYE grizzly bear population
because there are several other extant populations of grizzly bears in
North America.
Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting
New information since the publication of the March 29, 2007, final
rule (72 FR 14866) and the 2011 status review (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2011) calls into question whether the GYE is truly a unique
ecological setting. Previously, we concluded that the GYE was a unique
ecological setting because grizzly bears were more carnivorous there
than in other ecosystems in the lower 48 States and that they still
used whitebark pine seeds extensively while other populations no longer
did.
Based on previous research, we found that meat constitutes 45
percent and 79 percent of the annual diet for females and males in the
GYE, respectively (Jacoby et al. 1999, p. 925). These high percentages
of meat in GYE grizzly bears' diet appeared to be in contrast with the
0 to 33 percent of meat in the diet of bears in the NCDE and 0 to 17
percent of meat in the diet of bears from the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem
(Jacoby et al. 1999, p. 925). However, these analyses were recently
revisited and supplemented with larger sample sizes with very different
results. First, Schwartz et al. (2014, p. 75) found that meat
constitutes 44 percent of the annual diet among grizzly bears in the
GYE, with no statistical difference among sex and age groups. For the
Yellowstone Lake area, Fortin et al. (2013, p. 275) found that meat
constitutes 38 percent and 45 percent of the annual diet for females
and males in the GYE, respectively. These levels are very similar to
those in the NCDE, where meat constitutes 38 percent and 56 percent of
the annual diet for females and males, respectively (Teisberg et al.
2014, p. 7). Previous information also indicated that bison, a species
endemic to North America, accounted for up to 24 percent of ungulate
meat in GYE grizzly bear diets (Mattson 1997, p. 167). However, Fortin
et al. (2013, p. 275) found bison comprise only about 9 percent of
grizzly bear diets around the Yellowstone Lake area, possibly
indicating grizzly bears do not use this endemic food source as much as
previously thought in the GYE.
We also previously concluded the GYE grizzly bear population exists
in a unique ecological setting because it is able to use whitebark pine
seeds as a major food source (see 72 FR 14866; March 29, 2007). We
considered the use of whitebark pine seeds by GYE grizzly bears unique
because in most areas of its range, whitebark pine has been
significantly reduced in numbers and distribution due to the introduced
pathogen white pine blister rust (Cronartium ribicola) (Kendall and
Keane 2001, pp. 228-232). New information indicates that whitebark pine
has also been reduced in the GYE since 2002 due to a mountain pine
beetle epidemic. Since this time, bears have been documented using
whitebark pine less frequently. A recent study using GPS data indicated
nearly one third of sampled grizzly bears in the GYE did not even have
whitebark pine within their home ranges (Costello et al. 2014, p.
2009). Grizzly bears in the GYE do not seek out whitebark pine in years
of poor seed production but make use of other foods within their home
ranges instead (Costello et al. 2014, p. 2013). Additionally, methods
used by Felicetti et al. (2003, entire) to assess whitebark pine use in
the GYE may not be as reliable as previously thought because other
foods in the GYE could be mistakenly identified as whitebark pine,
indicating more use than is actually occurring (Schwartz et al. 2014,
p. 6).
In light of these new data indicating grizzly bears in the GYE do
not consume more meat than other populations in the lower 48 States and
their use of whitebark pine has waned, we no longer consider the GYE
grizzly bear population to meet the DPS policy standard for
significance based on its persistence in an ecological setting unusual
or unique for the taxon.
Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon
Given the grizzly bear's historic occupancy of the conterminous
United States and the portion of the historic range the conterminous
United States represent, recovery in the lower 48 States where the
grizzly bear existed in 1975 when it was listed has long been viewed as
important to the taxon (40 FR 31734; July 28, 1975). The GYE grizzly
bear population is significant in achieving this objective, as it is
one of only five known occupied areas and one unoccupied area and
constitutes approximately half of the estimated number of grizzly bears
remaining in the conterminous 48 States. As noted above,
[[Page 13193]]
grizzly bears once lived throughout the North American Rockies from
Alaska and Canada, and south into central Mexico. Grizzly bears have
been extirpated from most of the southern portions of their historic
range. Today, the GYE grizzly bear population represents the
southernmost reach of the taxon. The loss of this population would
significantly impact representation of the species because it would
substantially curtail the range of the grizzly bear in North America by
moving the range approximately 3 degrees of latitude or 200 mi (350 km)
to the north. Therefore, we find that the GYE population of grizzly
bears meets the significance criterion under our DPS policy because its
loss would represent a significant gap in the range of the taxon.
Marked Genetic Differences
Several studies have documented some level of genetic differences
between grizzly bears in the GYE and other populations in North America
(Paetkau et al. 1998, pp. 421-424; Waits et al. 1998, p. 310; Proctor
et al. 2012, p. 12). The GYE population has been isolated from other
grizzly bear populations for 100 years or more (Miller and Waits 2003,
p. 4334). However, Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4334) could only
speculate as to the reasons behind this historical separation or how
long it had been occurring. Proctor et al. (2012, p. 35) concluded that
observed differences in heterozygosity among grizzly bear populations
in southern Canada and the United States were an artifact of human-
caused habitat fragmentation, not the result of different evolutionary
pressures selecting for specific traits. We do not know whether these
differences in heterozygosity levels are biologically meaningful, and
we have no data indicating they are. Because we do not know the
biological significance (if any) of the observed differences, we cannot
say with certainty that the GYE grizzly bear population's genetics
differ ``markedly'' from other grizzly bear populations. Therefore, we
do not consider these genetic differences to meet the DPS policy's
standard for significance.
In summary, while we no longer consider the GYE grizzly bear
population to be significant due to unique ecological conditions or
marked genetic differences, we still conclude that the GYE grizzly bear
population is significant because the loss of this population would
result in a significant gap in the range of the taxon.
Summary of Distinct Population Segment Analysis
Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, as
described above, we find that the GYE grizzly bear population is
discrete from other grizzly bear populations and significant to the
remainder of the taxon (i.e., Ursus arctos horribilis). Because the GYE
grizzly bear population is discrete and significant, it meets the
definition of a DPS under the Act. Therefore, the GYE grizzly bear DPS
is a listable entity under the Act, and we now assess this DPS's
conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing,
delisting, or reclassification (i.e., whether this DPS meets the
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act).
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying
species, or removing species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined
by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife
or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or
wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species
may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species due to one
or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of the Act:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment
of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) disease or
predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E)
other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued existence. We
must consider these same five factors in delisting a species. We may
delist a species according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best available
scientific and commercial data indicate that the species is neither
endangered nor threatened for the following reasons: (1) The species is
extinct; (2) the species has recovered and is no longer endangered or
threatened; and/or (3) the original scientific data used at the time
the species was classified were in error.
A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's
definition of endangered or threatened. A species is endangered for
purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of its range (SPR) and is threatened if it is
likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The word ``range'' in these
definitions refers to the range in which the species currently exists.
Determining whether a species is recovered requires consideration of
the same five categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the
Act. For species that are already listed as endangered or threatened,
this analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently
facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect
the species in the foreseeable future following the removal of the
Act's protections.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor to evaluate
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and during the
five-factor threats analysis, we attempt to determine how significant a
threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives or contributes to
the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants
listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the
Act. However, the identification of factors that could affect a species
negatively may not be sufficient to justify a finding that the species
warrants listing. The information must include evidence sufficient to
suggest that the potential threat is likely to materialize and that it
has the capacity (i.e., it should be of sufficient magnitude and
extent) to affect the species' status such that it meets the definition
of endangered or threatened under the Act. The following analysis
examines the five factors affecting, or likely to affect, the GYE
grizzly bear population within the foreseeable future. We previously
concluded GYE grizzly bears are recovered and warranted delisting (72
FR 14866; March 29, 2007). In this proposed rule, we make a
determination as to whether the distinct population segment of GYE
grizzly bears is an endangered or threatened species, based on the best
scientific and commercial information available. In so doing, we
address the issues raised by the Ninth Circuit in Greater Yellowstone
Coalition v. Servheen, 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011), which were
briefly discussed above.
A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment
of Its Habitat or Range
Factor A requires the Service to consider present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of grizzly bear habitat or
its range. Here, the following
[[Page 13194]]
considerations warrant discussion regarding the GYE grizzly bear
population: (1) Motorized access management, (2) developed sites, (3)
livestock allotments, (4) mineral and energy development, (5)
recreation, (6) snowmobiling, (7) vegetation management, (8) climate
change, and (9) habitat fragmentation.
Habitat destruction and modification were contributing factors
leading to the listing of the grizzly bear as a threatened species
under the Act in 1975 (40 FR 31734; July 28, 1975). Both the dramatic
decreases in historical range and land management practices in formerly
secure grizzly bear habitat led to the 1975 listing (40 FR 31734; July
28, 1975). For consideration under the Act, the word range applies to
where the species currently exists. To address this source of
population decline, the IGBST was created in 1973, to collect, manage,
analyze, and distribute science-based information regarding habitat and
demographic parameters upon which to base management and recovery.
Then, in 1983, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) was
created to coordinate management efforts across multiple Federal lands
and different States within the various Recovery Zones ultimately
working to achieve recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 States.
Its objective was to change land management practices on Federal lands
that supported grizzly bear populations at the time of listing to
provide security and maintain or improve habitat conditions for the
grizzly bear. Since 1986, National Forest and National Park plans have
incorporated the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines (USDA Forest
Service 1986, pp. 1-2) to manage grizzly bear habitat in the
Yellowstone PCA.
Management improvements made as a result of the Interagency Grizzly
Bear Guidelines include, but are not limited to: (1) Federal and State
agency coordination to produce nuisance bear guidelines that allow a
quick response to resolve and minimize grizzly bear-human
confrontations; (2) reduced motorized access route densities through
restrictions, decommissioning, and closures; (3) highway design
considerations to facilitate population connectivity; (4) seasonal
closure of some areas to all human access in National Parks that are
particularly important to grizzly bears; (5) closure of many areas in
the GYE to oil and gas leasing, or implementing restrictions such as no
surface occupancy; (6) elimination of six active and four vacant sheep
allotments on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest since 1998, resulting
in an 86 percent decrease in total sheep animal months inside the
Yellowstone PCA; and (7) expanded information and education programs in
the Yellowstone PCA to help reduce the number of grizzly bear
mortalities caused by big-game hunters (outside National Parks).
Overall, adherence to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines has
changed land management practices on Federal lands to provide security
and to maintain or improve habitat conditions for the grizzly bear.
Implementation of these guidelines has led to the successful rebound of
the GYE grizzly bear population, allowing it to significantly increase
in size and distribution since its listing in 1975.
Concurrent with this proposed rule, an interagency group
representing pertinent State and Federal parties is releasing a draft
2016 Conservation Strategy for the grizzly bear in the GYE to guide
management and monitoring of the habitat and population of GYE grizzly
bears after delisting. The draft 2016 Conservation Strategy will be the
most recent iteration of the Conservation Strategy, which was first
published in final form in 2007 (see our notice of availability
published on March 13, 2007, at 72 FR 11376). The draft 2016
Conservation Strategy incorporates the explicit and measurable habitat
criteria established in the ``Recovery Plan Supplement: Habitat-based
Recovery Criteria for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem'' (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2007b). Whereas the Interagency Grizzly Bear
Guidelines helped to guide successful recovery efforts, the 2016
Conservation Strategy will help guide the recovered GYE population
post-delisting. The draft 2016 Conservation Strategy identifies and
provides a framework for managing two areas, the PCA and adjacent areas
of the DMA, where occupancy by grizzly bears is anticipated in the
foreseeable future. What follows is an assessment of present or
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the grizzly
bear's habitat within the PCA and adjacent areas of the DMA.
Habitat Management Inside the Primary Conservation Area
As per the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy and the habitat-based
recovery criteria discussed above, the PCA will be a core secure area
for grizzly bears where human impacts on habitat conditions will be
maintained at or below levels that existed in 1998 (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2016, chapter 3). Specifically, the amount of secure
habitat will not decrease below 1998 levels while the number of
developed sites and livestock allotments will not increase above 1998
levels. The 1998 baseline for habitat standards was chosen because the
levels of secure habitat and developed sites on public lands remained
relatively constant in the 10 years preceding 1998 (USDA Forest Service
2004, pp. 140-141), and the selection of 1998 assured that habitat
conditions existing at a time when the population was increasing at a
rate of 4 to 7 percent per year (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48) would be
maintained. For each of the 40 bear management subunits, the 1998
baseline was determined through a GIS analysis of the amount of secure
habitat, open and closed road densities, the number and capacity of
livestock allotments, and the number of developed sites on public
lands.
Motorized Access Management: When we listed the grizzly bear in
1975, we identified land management practices that create new ways for
humans to access formerly secure grizzly bear habitat as the mechanism
that resulted in bears being more susceptible to the threat of human-
caused mortality and human-bear conflicts (40 FR 31734; July 28, 1975).
We recognized early on that managing this human access to grizzly bears
would be the key to effective habitat management and an extensive body
of literature supports this approach. Specifically, unmanaged motorized
access impacts grizzly bears by: (1) Increasing human interaction and
potential grizzly bear mortality risk; (2) increasing displacement from
important habitat; (3) increasing habituation to humans; and (4)
decreasing habitat where energetic requirements can be met with limited
disturbance from humans (Mattson et al. 1987, pp. 269-271; McLellan and
Shackleton 1988, pp. 458-459; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862-1864; Mace et al.
1996, pp. 1402-1403; Schwartz et al. 2010, p.661).
Motorized access affects grizzly bears primarily through increased
human-caused mortality risk (Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661).
Secondarily, motorized access may affect grizzly bears through
temporary or permanent habitat loss due to human disturbance. Managing
motorized access by providing large proportions of secure habitat helps
ameliorate the impacts of displacement and increased human-caused
mortality risk in grizzly bear habitat. Secure habitat refers to those
areas with no motorized access that are at least 4 ha (10 ac) in size
and more than 500 m (1,650 ft) from a motorized access route or
recurring helicopter flight line (USDA Forest Service 2004, pp. 160-
161). In the 1998 baseline, secure habitat comprised 45.4 to 100
percent of the total area within a given subunit with an
[[Page 13195]]
average of 85.6 percent throughout the entire PCA (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2016, Appendix E). These levels of secure habitat have
been successfully maintained and will continue to be maintained or
improved, as directed by the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy and the
memorandum of understanding (MOU) signed by all State and Federal
partner agencies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, MOU). Three
subunits were identified as in need of improvement from 1998 levels.
These subunits have shown on average a 7.5 percent increase in secure
habitat and these improved levels will serve as the new baseline for
these three subunits with the implementation of the 2006 Gallatin
National Forest Travel Management Plan (in prep.). Because of the
positive effect that secure habitat has on grizzly bear survival and
reproduction, one of the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy objectives is
no net decrease in these levels of secure habitat inside the PCA so
that the PCA can continue to function as a source area for grizzly
bears in the GYE. Therefore, we do not foresee that decreases in secure
habitat inside the PCA will pose a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS
now, or in the future.
Developed Sites: The National Parks and National Forests within the
PCA will manage developed sites at 1998 levels within each bear
management subunit, with some exceptions for administrative and
maintenance needs (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 3).
``Developed sites'' refer to those sites or facilities on public land
with features intended to accommodate public use or recreation. Such
sites are typically identified or advertised via visitor maps or
information displays as identifiable destination sites promoted by the
agency. Examples of developed sites include, but are not limited to,
campgrounds, picnic areas, trailheads, boat launches, rental cabins,
summer homes, lodges, service stations, restaurants, visitor centers,
administrative sites, and permitted resource exploration or extraction
sites such as oil and gas exploratory wells, production wells, plans of
operation for mining activities, and work camps. ``Administrative
sites'' are those sites or facilities constructed for use primarily by
government employees to facilitate the administration and management of
public lands. Administrative sites are counted toward developed sites,
and examples include headquarters, ranger stations, patrol cabins, park
entrances, federal employee housing, and other facilities supporting
government operations. In contrast to developed or administrative
sites, ``dispersed sites'' are those not associated with a developed
site, such as a front-country campground. These sites are typically
characterized as having no permanent agency-constructed features, are
temporary in nature, have minimal to no site modifications, have
informal spacing, and possibly include primitive road access. Dispersed
sites are not counted toward developed sites. Developed sites on public
lands are currently inventoried and tracked in GIS databases. As of
1998, there were 593 developed sites on public land within the PCA
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Appendix E). As of 2014, the
number of developed sites on public lands had decreased to 578 (Greater
Yellowstone Area Grizzly Bear Habitat Modeling Team 2015, p. 90).
The primary concern related to developed sites is direct mortality
from bear-human encounters and unsecured attractants. Secondary
concerns include temporary or permanent habitat loss and displacement
due to increased length of time of human use and increased human
disturbance to surrounding areas. In areas of suitable habitat inside
the PCA, the National Park Service and the Forest Service enforce food
storage rules aimed at decreasing grizzly bear access to human foods
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 1). These regulations
will continue to be enforced and are in effect for nearly all currently
occupied grizzly bear habitat within the GYE grizzly bear DPS
boundaries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 1). In
conclusion, because the National Parks and National Forests within the
PCA will continue to manage developed sites at 1998 levels within each
bear management subunit and because food storage rules will be enforced
on these public lands, we do not foresee that the existing number of,
nor an increase in the number of, developed sites inside the PCA will
pose a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future.
Livestock Allotments: When grizzly bears were listed in 1975, the
Service identified ``. . . livestock use of surrounding national
forests'' as detrimental to grizzly bears ``. . . unless management
measures favoring the species are enacted'' (40 FR 31734; July 28,
1975). Impacts to grizzly bears from livestock operations potentially
include: (1) Direct mortality from control actions resulting from
livestock depredation; (2) direct mortality due to control actions
resulting from grizzly bear habituation and/or learned use of bear
attractants such as livestock carcasses and feed; (3) increased chances
of a grizzly bear livestock conflict; (4) displacement due to livestock
or related management activity; and (5) direct competition for
preferred forage species.
Approximately 14 percent (45/311) of all human-caused grizzly bear
mortalities in the GYE between 2002 and 2014 were due to management
removal actions associated with livestock depredations. This human-
caused mortality is the main impact to grizzly bears in the GYE
associated with livestock. Increased chances of grizzly bear conflict
related to livestock have been minimized through requirements to
securely store and/or promptly remove attractants associated with
livestock operations (e.g., livestock carcasses, livestock feed, etc.).
The effects of displacement and direct competition with livestock for
forage are considered negligible to grizzly bear population dynamics
because even with direct grizzly bear mortality, current levels of
livestock allotments have not precluded grizzly bear population growth
and expansion.
The 2007 Conservation Strategy and Forest Service Record of
Decision implementing their forest plan amendments (USDA Forest Service
2006b, entire) established habitat standards regarding livestock
allotments. The number of active livestock allotments, total acres
affected, and permitted sheep animal months within the PCA will not
increase above 1998 levels (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 5; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 3). Due to the higher prevalence of
grizzly bear conflicts associated with sheep grazing, existing sheep
allotments will be phased out as the opportunity arises with willing
permittees (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 6; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2016, Chapter 3).
A total of 106 livestock allotments existed inside the PCA in 1998.
Of these allotments, there were 72 active and 13 vacant cattle
allotments and 11 active and 10 vacant sheep allotments, with a total
of 23,090 animal months (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Appendix
E). Sheep animal months are calculated by multiplying the permitted
number of animals by the permitted number of months. Any use of vacant
allotments will only be permitted if the number and net acreage of
allotments inside the PCA does not increase above the 1998 baseline.
Since 1998, the Caribou-Targhee National Forest has closed six sheep
allotments within the PCA, while the Shoshone National Forest has
closed two sheep allotments and the Gallatin National Forest has closed
four (Greater Yellowstone Area Grizzly Bear Habitat Modeling Team, p.
86). This has resulted in a reduction of 21,120 sheep animal months, a
91 percent reduction,
[[Page 13196]]
from the total calculated for 1998 within the PCA, and is a testament
to the commitment land management agencies have to the ongoing success
of the grizzly bear population in the GYE. As of 2014, there is only
one active sheep allotment within the PCA, on the Caribou-Targhee
National Forest. The mandatory restriction on creating new livestock
allotments and the voluntary phasing out of livestock allotments with
recurring conflicts further ensure that the PCA will continue to
function as source habitat. Because there will continue to be no net
increase in cattle or sheep allotments allowed on public lands inside
the PCA, we do not expect that livestock allotments inside the PCA will
constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future.
Mineral and Energy Development: Management of oil, gas, and mining
are tracked as part of the developed site standard (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 3). There were no active oil and gas
leases inside the PCA as of 1998 (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 209).
Based on Forest Plan direction, there are approximately 243 sq km (94
sq mi) of secure habitat that could allow surface occupancy for oil and
gas projects within the PCA (USDA Forest Service 2006a, figures 48 and
96). This comprises less than 4 percent of all suitable habitat within
the PCA. Additionally, 1,354 preexisting mining claims were located in
10 of the subunits inside the PCA (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016,
Appendix E), but only 28 of these mining claims had operating plans.
These operating plans are included in the 1998 developed site baseline.
Under the conditions of the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy, any new
oil, gas or mineral project will be approved only if it conforms to
secure habitat and developed site standards (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1993, p. 5-6; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 3).
For instance, any oil, gas or mineral project that reduces the amount
of secure habitat permanently will have to provide replacement secure
habitat of similar habitat quality (based on our scientific
understanding of grizzly bear habitat), and any change in developed
sites will require mitigation equivalent to the type and extent of the
impact, and such mitigation must be in place before project initiation
or be provided concurrently with project development as an integral
part of the project plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, chapter
3). For projects that temporarily change the amount of secure habitat,
only one project is allowed in any subunit at any time (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2016, chapter 3). Mitigation of any project will occur
within the same subunit and will be proportional to the type and extent
of the project (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, chapter 3). In
conclusion, because any new mineral or energy development will continue
to be approved only if it conforms to the secure habitat and developed
site standards set forth in the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy, we do
not expect that such development inside the PCA will constitute a
threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future.
Recreation: At least 3 million people visit and recreate in the
National Parks and National Forests of the GYE annually (USDA Forest
Service 2006a, pp. 176, 184; Cain 2014, p. 46; Gunther 2014, p. 47).
Based on past trends, visitation and recreation are expected to
increase in the future. For instance, Yellowstone National Park has
shown an approximate 15 percent increase in the number of people
visiting each decade since the 1930s (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p.
183); however, the number of people recreating in the backcountry there
has remained relatively constant from the 1970s through 2010s (Gunther
2014, p. 47). The concern related to increased recreation is that it
may increase the probability of grizzly bear-human encounters, with
subsequent increases in human-caused mortality (Mattson et al. 1996, p.
1014).
Recreation in the GYE can be divided into six basic categories
based on season of use (winter or all other seasons), mode of access
(motorized or non-motorized), and level of development (developed or
dispersed) (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 187). Inside the PCA, the
vast majority of lands available for recreation are accessible through
non-motorized travel only (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 179).
Motorized recreation during the summer, spring, and fall inside the PCA
will be limited to existing roads as per the standards in the draft
2016 Conservation Strategy that restrict increases in roads or
motorized trails. Similarly, recreation at developed sites such as
lodges, downhill ski areas, and campgrounds will be limited by the
developed sites habitat standard described in the draft 2016
Conservation Strategy. The number and capacity of existing developed
sites on public lands will not increase once delisting occurs. For a
more complete discussion of projected increases in recreation in the
GYE National Forests, see the Final Environmental Impact Statement for
the Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the
GYE National Forests (USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 176-189).
This potential stressor on the GYE grizzly bear population would
exist regardless of listed status and will be addressed in the same way
whether this population is listed or delisted, through ongoing
information and education campaigns. These outreach efforts are an
important contributing factor to successful grizzly bear conservation
and would continue under the 2016 Conservation Strategy. In conclusion,
because the few motorized access routes inside the PCA will not
increase, because the number and capacity of developed sites on public
lands within the PCA will not increase, and because the National Parks
and National Forests within the PCA will continue to educate visitors
on its lands about how to recreate safely in bear country and avoid
grizzly bear-human conflicts, we do not expect that the current level
of recreation, nor increases in recreation, will constitute a threat to
the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future.
Snowmobiling: Snowmobiling has the potential to disturb bears while
in their dens and after emergence from their dens in the spring.
Because grizzly bears are easily awakened in the den (Schwartz et al.
2003b, p. 567) and have been documented abandoning den sites after
seismic disturbance (Reynolds et al. 1986, p. 174), the potential
impact from snowmobiling should be considered. We found no studies in
the peer-reviewed literature documenting the effects of snowmobile use
on any denning bear species, and the information that is available is
anecdotal in nature (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002, entire; Hegg
et al. 2010, entire).
Disturbance in the den could result in increased energetic costs
(increased activity and heart rate inside the den) and possibly den
abandonment, which, in theory, could ultimately lead to a decline in
physical condition of the individual or even cub mortality (Swenson et
al. 1997, p. 37; Graves and Reams 2001, p. 41). Although the potential
for this type of disturbance while in the den certainly exists,
Reynolds et al. (1986, p. 174) found that grizzly bears denning within
1.4 to 1.6 km (0.9 to 1.0 mi) of active seismic exploration and
detonations moved around inside their dens but did not leave them.
Harding and Nagy (1980, p. 278) documented two instances of den
abandonment during fossil fuel extraction operations. One bear
abandoned its den when a seismic vehicle drove directly over the den
(Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278). The other bear abandoned its den when
a
[[Page 13197]]
gravel mining operation literally destroyed the den (Harding and Nagy
1980, p. 278). Reynolds et al. (1986, entire) also examined the effects
of tracked vehicles and tractors pulling sledges. In 1978, there was a
route for tractors and tracked vehicles within 100 m (328 ft) of a den
inhabited by a female with three yearlings. This family group did not
abandon their den at any point (Reynolds et al. 1986, p. 174). Reynolds
et al. (1986, p. 174) documented one instance of possible den
abandonment due to detonations for seismic testing within 200 m of a
den (Reynolds et al. 1986, p. 174). This bear was not marked, but an
empty den was reported by seismic crews.
Swenson et al. (1997, entire) monitored 13 different grizzly bears
for at least 5 winters each and documented 18 instances of den
abandonment, 12 of which were related to human activities. Four of
these instances were hunting related (i.e., gunshots fired within 100 m
(328 ft) of the den), two occurred after ``forestry activity at the den
site,'' one had moose and dog tracks within 10 m (33 ft) of a den, one
had dog tracks at the den site, one had ski tracks within 80 to 90 m
(262 to 295 ft) from a den, one had an excavation machine working
within 75 m (246 ft) of a den, and two were categorized as ``human
related'' without further details (Swenson et al. 1997, p. 37). Swenson
et al. (1997) found that most den abandonment (72 percent) occurred
early in the season before pregnant females give birth. However, there
still may be a reproductive cost of these early den abandonments: 60
percent (sample size of 5) of female bears that abandoned a den site
before giving birth lost at least one cub whereas only 6 percent
(sample size of 36) of pregnant females that did not abandon their dens
lost a cub in or near their den (Swenson et al. 1997, p. 37). In the
GYE, the one documented observation of snowmobile use at a known den
site found the bear did not abandon its den, even though snowmobiles
were operating directly on top of it (Hegg et al. 2010, p. 26). This,
however, is only an anecdotal observation because it is based on a
sample size of one. We found no records of litter abandonment by
grizzly bears in the lower 48 States due to snowmobiling activity.
Additionally, monitoring of den occupancy for 3 years on the Gallatin
National Forest in Montana did not document any den abandonment
(Gallatin National Forest 2006, entire).
In summary, the available data about the potential for disturbance
while denning and den abandonment from nearby snowmobile use are
extrapolated from studies examining the impacts of other human
activities and are identified as ``anecdotal'' in nature (Swenson et
al. 1997, p. 37) with sample sizes so small they cannot be legitimately
applied to assess population-level impacts (in their entirety: Harding
and Nagy 1980; Reynolds et al. 1986; Hegg et al. 2010). Because there
are no data or information suggesting snowmobile use in the GYE is
negatively affecting grizzly bear population, or even individual bears,
we determine that snowmobiling does not constitute a threat to the GYE
grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future. Yet, because the potential for
disturbance and impacts to reproductive success exists, monitoring will
continue to support adaptive management decisions about snowmobile use
in areas where disturbance is documented or likely to occur.
Vegetation Management: Vegetation management occurs throughout the
GYE on lands managed by the Forest Service and National Park Service.
Vegetation management projects typically include timber harvest,
thinning, prescribed fire, and salvage of burned, diseased, or insect-
infested stands. If not implemented properly, vegetation management
programs can negatively affect grizzly bears by: (1) Removing hiding
cover; (2) disturbing or displacing bears from habitat during the
logging period; (3) increasing grizzly bear-human conflicts or
mortalities as a result of unsecured attractants; and (4) increasing
mortality risk or displacement due to new roads into previously
roadless areas and/or increased vehicular use on existing restricted
roads, especially if roads remain open to the public after vegetation
management is complete.
Conversely, vegetation management may result in positive effects on
grizzly bear habitat once the project is complete, provided key
habitats such as riparian areas and known food production areas are
maintained or enhanced. For instance, tree removal for thinning or
timber harvest and prescribed burning can result in localized increases
in bear foods through increased growth of grasses, forbs, and berry-
producing shrubs (Zager et al. 1983, p. 124; Kerns et al. 2004, p.
675). Vegetation management may also benefit grizzly bear habitat by
controlling undesirable invasive species, improving riparian
management, and limiting livestock grazing in important food production
areas.
Changes in the distribution, quantity, and quality of cover are not
necessarily detrimental to grizzly bears as long as they are
coordinated on a BMU or subunit scale to ensure that grizzly bear needs
are addressed throughout the various projects occurring on multiple
jurisdictions at any given time. Although there are known, usually
temporary, impacts to individual bears from timber management
activities, these impacts have been adequately mitigated using the
Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines in place since 1986, and will
continue to be managed at levels acceptable to the grizzly bear
population under the 2016 Conservation Strategy. Therefore, we do not
expect that vegetation management inside the PCA will constitute a
threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future.
Climate Change: The effects of climate change may result in a
number of changes to grizzly bear habitat, including a reduction in
snowpack levels, shifts in denning times, shifts in the abundance and
distribution of some natural food sources, and changes in fire regimes.
Most grizzly bear biologists in the United States and Canada do not
expect habitat changes predicted under climate change scenarios to
directly threaten grizzly bears (Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4). These
effects may even make habitat more suitable and food sources more
abundant. However, these ecological changes may also affect the timing
and frequency of grizzly bear-human interactions and conflicts
(Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4) and are discussed below under Factor E
(Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence).
Habitat Fragmentation: The GYE grizzly bear population is currently
a contiguous population across its range, and there are no data to
indicate habitat fragmentation within this population is occurring.
Although currently not occurring, habitat fragmentation can cause loss
of connectivity and increase human-caused mortalities, and thus is a
potential threat to grizzly bears. To prevent habitat fragmentation and
degradation, the evaluation of all road construction projects in
suitable habitat on Federal lands throughout the GYE DMA will continue
to include the impacts of the project on grizzly bear habitat
connectivity. This evaluation would go through an open and public
planning process (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007a, pp. 38-41; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 3). By identifying areas used
by grizzly bears, officials can mitigate potential impacts from road
construction both during and after a project. Federal agencies will
continue to identify important crossing areas by collecting information
about known bear crossings, bear sightings, ungulate road
[[Page 13198]]
mortality data, bear home range analyses, and locations of game trails.
Potential advantages of this data collection requirement include
reduction of grizzly bear mortality due to vehicle collisions, access
to seasonal habitats, maintenance of traditional dispersal routes, and
decreased risk of fragmentation of individual home ranges. For example,
work crews will place temporary work camps in areas with lower risk of
displacing grizzly bears, and food and garbage will be kept in bear-
resistant containers. Highway planners will incorporate warning signs
and crossing structures such as culverts or underpasses into projects
when possible to facilitate safe highway crossings by wildlife.
Additionally, the conflict prevention, response, and outreach elements
of the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy play an important role in
preventing habitat fragmentation by keeping valleys that are mostly
privately owned from becoming mortality sinks to grizzly bears
attracted to human sources of foods. In conclusion, because these
activities that combat habitat fragmentation will continue to occur
under the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy, we do not expect that
fragmentation within the GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries will
constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future.
Habitat Management Outside the Primary Conservation Area
In suitable habitat outside of the PCA within the DPS boundaries,
the Forest Service, BLM, and State wildlife agencies will monitor
habitat and population criteria to prevent potential threats to
habitat, ensuring that the measures of the Act continue to be
unnecessary (Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team
2002, pp. 2-3; MTFWP 2002, p. 2; WGFD 2005, p. 1; USDA Forest Service
2006a, pp. 44-45; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Executive
Summary). Factors impacting suitable habitat outside of the PCA in the
future are similar to those inside the PCA and may include projects
that involve road construction, livestock allotments, developed sites,
and increased human-caused grizzly bear mortality risk.
Of the 22,783 sq km (8,797 sq mi or 5.6 million acres) of suitable
habitat outside of the PCA within the DPS boundaries, the Forest
Service manages 17,292 sq km (6,676 sq mi), or 76 percent. Of the 76
percent of suitable habitat outside of the PCA that the Forest Service
manages, nearly 80 percent (13,685 sq km (5,284 sq mi)) is Designated
Wilderness Area (6,799 sq km (2,625 sq mi)), Wilderness Study Area (708
sq km (273 sq mi)), or Inventoried Roadless Area (6,179 sq km (2,386 sq
mi)). These designations provide regulatory mechanisms outside of the
Act and the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy that protect grizzly bear
habitat from increases in motorized use, oil and gas development,
livestock allotments, and timber harvest. These designations are
further described in Factor D. This large area of widely distributed
habitat allows for continued population expansion and provides
additional resiliency to environmental change.
Wilderness areas outside of the PCA are protected from new road
construction, livestock allotments, developed sites, and mining claims
by the Wilderness Act of 1964, 16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq. If pre-existing
mining claims are pursued, the plans of operation are subject to
Wilderness Act restrictions on road construction, permanent human
habitation, and developed sites. The protections provided by the
Wilderness Act are further described in Factor D.
Wilderness study areas are designated by Federal land management
agencies (e.g., Forest Service) as those having wilderness
characteristics and being worthy of congressional designation as a
wilderness area. Individual National Forests that designate wilderness
study areas manage these areas to maintain their wilderness
characteristics until Congress decides whether to designate them as
permanent wilderness areas. This means that individual wilderness study
areas are protected from new road construction by Forest Plans, and
activities such as timber harvest, mining, and oil and gas development
and are much less likely to occur because the road networks required
for these activities do not presently exist and are not likely to be
approved in the future. Wilderness Study Areas are further described in
Factor D.
Inventoried Roadless Areas currently provide 4,891 sq km (1,888 sq
mi) of secure habitat for grizzly bears outside of the PCA within the
DPS boundaries. This amount of secure habitat is less than the total
area contained within Inventoried Roadless Areas (6,179 sq km (2,386 sq
mi)) because some motorized use is allowed due to roads that existed
before the area was designated as roadless. Thus, a certain amount of
road use is grandfathered in to the designation of Inventoried Roadless
Areas. The 2001 Roadless Areas Conservation Rule (66 FR 3244, January
12, 2001; hereafter referred to as the ``Roadless Rule'') prohibits new
road construction, road re-construction, and timber harvest in
Inventoried Roadless Areas. Additional information about the Roadless
Rule is provided in Factor D. This restriction on road building makes
mining activities and oil and gas production much less likely because
access to these resources becomes cost-prohibitive or impossible
without new roads. Potential changes in the management of these areas
are not anticipated because the Roadless Rule was upheld by the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011. (See Wyoming v. USDA, 661 F.3d 1209
(10th Cir. 2011).)
Based on the amount of Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, and
Inventoried Roadless Area, an estimated 71 percent (12,396 of 17,291 sq
km (4,786 of 6,676 sq mi)) of suitable habitat outside the PCA on
Forest Service lands within the DPS is currently secure habitat and is
likely to remain secure habitat. Because grizzly bears would remain on
the Forest Service Sensitive Species list after delisting (USDA Forest
Service 2006b, p. 26), any increases in roads on National Forests would
have to comply with the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16
U.S.C. 1600 et seq.) and would be subject to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) process and analysis of
potential impacts to grizzly bears. This management designation--
``sensitive species'' under the 1982 Forest Service Planning
Regulations (47 FR 43037; September 30, 1982) or ``species of
conservation concern'' under the 2012 Forest Service Planning
Regulations (77 FR 21162; April 9, 2012)--ensures that components of
land management plans will provide appropriate ecological conditions
(i.e., habitats) necessary to continue to provide for a recovered
population (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26).
Both Federal and State agencies are committed to managing habitat
so that the GYE grizzly bear DPS remains recovered and is not likely to
become endangered in all or a significant portion of its range in the
foreseeable future (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, entire;
Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 2-3;
MTFWP 2002, p. 2; WGFD 2005, p. 1) (see Factor D discussion, below). In
suitable habitat outside of the PCA, restrictions on human activities
are more flexible, but the Forest Service, BLM, and State wildlife
agencies will still carefully manage these lands, monitor bear-human
conflicts in these areas, and respond with management as necessary to
reduce such conflicts to account for the complex needs of both grizzly
bears and humans (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 4;
Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting
[[Page 13199]]
Advisory Team 2002, pp. 16-17; MTFWP 2002, pp. 55-56; WGFD 2005, pp.
25-26; USDA Forest Service 2006b, pp. A1-A27).
By and large, habitat management on Federal public lands is
directed by Federal land management plans, not State management plans.
However, the three State grizzly bear management plans recognize the
importance of areas that provide security for grizzly bears in suitable
habitat outside of the PCA within the DPS boundaries on Federal lands.
For example, the Montana and Wyoming plans recommend limiting average
road densities to 1.6 km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi) or less in these areas
(MTFWP 2002, pp. 32-34; WGFD 2005, pp. 22-25). Both States have similar
standards for elk habitat on State lands and note that these levels of
motorized access benefit a variety of wildlife species while
maintaining reasonable public access. Similarly, the Idaho State plan
recognizes that management of motorized access outside the PCA should
focus on areas that have road densities of 1.6 km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq
mi) or less. The area most likely to be occupied by grizzly bears
outside the PCA in Idaho is on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest. The
1997 Targhee Forest Plan includes motorized access standards and
management prescriptions outside the PCA that provide for long-term
security in 59 percent of existing secure habitat outside of the PCA
(USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 78, 109).
In 2004, there were roughly 150 active cattle allotments and 12
active sheep allotments in suitable habitat outside the PCA within the
DPS boundaries (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 129). The Targhee Forest
closed two of these sheep allotments in 2004, and there have not been
any new allotments created since then (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p.
168; Landenburger 2014, in litt.). The Forest Service is committed to
working with willing permittees to retire allotments with recurring
conflicts that cannot be resolved by modifying grazing practices (USDA
Forest Service 2006b, p. 6). Although conflicts with livestock have the
potential to result in mortality for grizzly bears, the draft 2016
Conservation Strategy's specific total mortality limits will preclude
population-level impacts. The draft 2016 Conservation Strategy directs
the IGBST to monitor and spatially map all grizzly bear mortalities
(both inside and outside the PCA), causes of death, the source of the
problem, and alter management to maintain a recovered population and
prevent the need to relist the population under the Act (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2016, chapter 2).
There are over 500 developed sites on the five National Forests in
the areas identified as suitable habitat outside the PCA within the DPS
boundaries (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 138). While grizzly bear-human
conflicts at developed sites on public lands do occur, the most
frequent reason for management removals are conflicts on private lands
(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Existing Forest Service food storage
regulations for these areas will continue to minimize the potential for
grizzly bear-human conflicts through food storage requirements,
outreach, and education. The number and capacity of developed sites
will be subject to management direction established in Forest Plans.
Should the IGBST determine developed sites on public lands are related
to increases in mortality beyond the sustainable limits discussed
above, managers may choose to close specific developed sites or
otherwise alter management in the area in order to maintain a recovered
population and prevent the need to relist the population under the Act.
Due to the Forest Service's commitment to manage National Forest lands
in the GYE to maintain a recovered population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2016, chapter 3; USDA Forest Service 2006b, pp. iii, A-6), we
do not expect livestock allotments or developed sites in suitable
habitat outside of the PCA to reach densities that are likely to be a
threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS in the future.
According to current Forest Plan direction, less than 19 percent
(3,213 sq km (1,240 sq mi)) of suitable habitat outside the PCA within
the DPS boundaries on Forest Service land allows surface occupancy for
oil and gas development, and 11 percent (1,926 sq km (744 sq mi)) has
both suitable timber and a management prescription that allows
scheduled timber harvest. The primary impacts to grizzly bears
associated with timber harvest and oil and gas development are
increases in road densities, with subsequent increases in human access,
grizzly bear-human encounters, and human-caused grizzly bear
mortalities (McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. 458-459; McLellan and
Shackleton 1989, pp. 377-379; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402-1403).
Although seismic exploration associated with oil and gas development or
mining may disturb denning grizzly bears (Harding and Nagy 1980, p.
278; Reynolds et al. 1986, pp. 174-175), actual den abandonment is
rarely observed, and there has been no documentation of such
abandonment by grizzly bears in the GYE. Additionally, only a small
portion of this total land area will contain active projects at any
given time, if at all. For example, among the roughly 1,926 sq km (744
sq mi) identified as having both suitable timber and a management
prescription that allows timber harvest, from 2000 to 2002, an average
of only 5 sq km (2 sq mi) was actually logged annually (USDA Forest
Service 2004, p. 118). Similarly, although nearly 3,213 sq km (1,240 sq
mi) of suitable habitat on National Forest lands inside the DPS
boundaries allow surface occupancy for oil and gas development, there
currently are no active wells inside these areas (USDA Forest Service
2004, pp. 170-171).
Ultimately, the five affected National Forests (the Beaverhead-
Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer-Gallatin, and
Shoshone) will manage the number of roads, livestock allotments,
developed sites, timber harvest projects, and oil and gas wells outside
of the PCA in the DMA to allow for a recovered grizzly bear population.
The National Forest plans that provide for this management are further
described below in the discussion of Factor D, below. Because the
grizzly bear will be classified as a ``species of conservation
concern''--or the equivalent management designation--on Forest Service
lands if this proposal is made final, components of land management
plans and individual projects must provide appropriate ecological
conditions and habitats necessary to continue to provide for a
recovered population (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26). Under the
National Forest Management Act of 1976, the Forest Service will
consider all potential impacts of projects to the GYE grizzly bear
population in the NEPA planning process and then ensure that activities
will provide appropriate habitat to maintain the population's recovered
status.
Rapidly accelerating growth of human populations in some areas
outside of the PCA continues to define the limits of grizzly bear
range, and will likely limit the expansion of the GYE grizzly bear
population onto private lands in some areas outside the PCA. Urban and
rural sprawl (low-density housing and associated businesses) has
resulted in increasing numbers of grizzly bear-human conflicts with
subsequent increases in grizzly bear mortality rates. Private lands
account for a disproportionate number of bear deaths and conflicts
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007c, figures 15 and 16). Nearly 9
percent of all suitable habitat outside of the PCA is privately owned.
As private lands are developed and as secure habitat on private lands
declines,
[[Page 13200]]
State and Federal agencies will work together to balance impacts from
private land development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007c, p. 54).
Outside the PCA, State agencies will assist nongovernmental
organizations and other entities to identify and prioritize potential
lands suitable for permanent conservation through easements and other
means as much as possible (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007c, p.
54). Due to the large areas of widely distributed suitable habitat on
public lands that are protected by Federal legislation and managed by
agencies committed to the maintenance of a recovered grizzly bear
population, we do not consider human population growth on private lands
to constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now or, in the
future.
Summary of Factor A
In summary, the following factors warranted consideration as
possible threats to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear DPS
under Factor A: (1) Motorized access management, (2) developed sites,
(3) livestock allotments, (4) mineral and energy development, (5)
recreation, (6) snowmobiling, (7) vegetation management, (8) climate
change, and (9) habitat fragmentation. Restrictions on motorized
access, developed sites, and livestock allotments ensure that they will
be maintained at or below 1998 levels, a time when the population was
increasing at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year (Schwartz et al. 2006b,
p. 48). Additionally, secure habitat will be maintained at or above
1998 levels. The primary factors related to past habitat destruction
and modification have been reduced through changes in management
practices that have already or will be formally incorporated into
regulatory documents.
Within suitable habitat, different levels of management and
protection are applied to areas based on their level of importance.
Within the PCA, the portion of the range where 75 percent of the
females with cubs live (Schwartz et al. 2006a, p. 66), habitat
protections are in place specifically for grizzly bear conservation.
For this area, the Service developed objective and measurable habitat-
based recovery criteria to limit habitat degradation and human-caused
mortality risk related to motorized access, developed sites, and
livestock allotments (i.e., the 1998 baseline). If and when delisting
occurs, the GYE National Forests and National Parks will continue their
15-year history of implementation by legally implementing the
appropriate planning documents that incorporate the 1998 baseline
values as habitat standards (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26).
Together, these two Federal agencies manage 98 percent of lands within
the PCA and 88 percent of all suitable habitat within the DPS
boundaries. As it has done for the last decade, the IGSBT will continue
to monitor compliance with the 1998 baseline values and will also
continue to monitor grizzly bear body condition, fat levels, and diet
composition. Accordingly, the PCA, which comprises 51 percent of the
suitable habitat within the DPS boundaries and contains 75 percent of
all females with cubs (Schwartz et al. 2006a, p. 64; Haroldson 2014, in
litt.), will remain a highly secure area for grizzly bears, with
habitat conditions maintained at or above levels documented in 1998.
Maintenance of the 1998 baseline values inside the PCA will continue to
adequately ameliorate the multitude of stressors on grizzly bear
habitat such that they do not become threats to the GYE grizzly bear
DPS in the future.
Suitable habitat outside the PCA provides additional ecological
resiliency and habitat redundancy to allow the population to respond to
environmental changes. Habitat protections specifically for grizzly
bear conservation are not necessary here because other binding
regulatory mechanisms are in place for nearly 60 percent of the area
outside the PCA. In these areas, the Wilderness Act, the Roadless Areas
Conservation Rule, and National Forest Land Management Plans limit
development and motorized use, as is further described in Factor D.
Management of individual projects on public land outside the PCA will
continue to consider and minimize impacts on grizzly bear habitat.
Efforts by nongovernmental organizations and State and county agencies
will seek to minimize bear-human conflicts on private lands (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 4). These and other conservation
measures discussed in the ``Forest Service's Forest plan amendment for
grizzly bear habitat conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area
National Forests final environmental impact statement, Record of
Decision'' (USDA Forest Service 2006b) ensure threats to the GYE
grizzly bear population's suitable habitat outside the PCA will
continue to be ameliorated and will not be a threat to this
population's long-term persistence.
Other management practices on Federal lands have been changed to
provide security and to maintain or improve habitat conditions for
grizzly bears. All operating plans for oil and gas leases must conform
to secure habitat and developed site standards, which require
mitigation for any change in secure habitat. Recreation inside the GYE
is limited through existing road and developed site standards.
Additionally, information and education campaigns educate visitors
about how to recreate safely in bear country and avoid bear-human
conflicts. There are no data available on the impacts of snowmobiling
on grizzly bears to suggest an effect on grizzly bear survival or
recovery of the population. Although vegetation management may
temporarily impact individual grizzly bears, these activities are
coordinated on a BMU or subunit scale according to the Interagency
Grizzly Bear Guidelines to mitigate for any potentially negative
effect. As a result of vegetation management, there may also be
positive effects on grizzly bears where key habitats are maintained or
enhanced. The habitat changes that are predicted under climate change
scenarios are not expected by most grizzly bear biologists to directly
threaten grizzly bears. The potential for changes in the frequency and
timing of grizzly bear-human interactions is discussed below under
Factor E. Finally, there are no data to indicate that habitat
fragmentation is occurring within the GYE.
In summary, the factors discussed under Factor A continue to occur
across the range of the GYE grizzly bear population but are
sufficiently ameliorated so they only affect a small proportion of the
population. Despite these factors related to habitat, the population
has increased and stabilized while its range has expanded. Therefore,
based on the best available information and on continuation of current
regulatory commitment, we do not consider the present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range to
constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future.
B. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or
Educational Purposes
When grizzly bears were listed in 1975, we identified
``indiscriminate illegal killing'' and management removals as primary
threats to the population. We now consider mortalities including
management removals and illegal killings under Factor C, under the
``Human-Caused Mortality'' section. This section evaluates legal
grizzly bear hunting for commercial and recreational purposes in the
GYE if this population were no longer protected from this type of take
by the Act. No grizzly bears have been removed from the GYE since 1975
for
[[Page 13201]]
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. While
there have been some mortalities related to research trapping since
1975, these were accidental and they are also discussed under Factor C,
below. The only commercial or recreational take anticipated post-
delisting is a limited, controlled hunt. Mortality due to illegal
poaching, defense of life and property, mistaken identity or other
accidental take, and management removals are discussed in the ``Human-
Caused Mortality'' section under Factor C. In this section, we describe
expected conditions that would be compatible with a recovered GYE
grizzly bear population.
To achieve mortality management in the area appropriate to the
long-term conservation of the GYE population and to assure that the
area of mortality management was the same as the area where the
population estimates are made, the Service, based on recommendations in
an IGBST report (2012), has proposed to modify the area where
mortalities are counted against the total mortality limits to be the
same area that is monitored to annually estimate population size. The
basis for this area, called the demographic monitoring area (DMA), was
the boundary developed in 2007 by the Service (2007b) for what was
termed ``suitable habitat.'' This suitable habitat boundary (enclosing
a total area of 46,035 sq km (17,774 sq mi)) is sufficiently large to
support a viable population in the long term, so that mortalities
outside of it and inside the DPS could be excluded from consideration.
Importantly, the area closely resembles the area in which unique adult
female grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year (less than 1 year old) (see
glossary) are surveyed and counted and for which population size is
estimated. This DMA area is thus most appropriate for applying total
mortality limits. The IGBST's 2012 report noted, however, that because
the suitable habitat boundary was drawn using mountainous ecoregions,
there were narrow, linear areas along valley floors that did not meet
the definition of suitable habitat and where population sinks may be
created. This phenomenon, in which the quantity and quality of suitable
habitat is diminished because of interactions with surrounding, less
suitable habitat, is known as an ``edge effect'' (in their entirety:
Lande 1998; Yahner 1988; Mills 1995). Edge effects are exacerbated in
small habitat patches with high perimeter-to-area ratios (i.e., those
that are long and narrow) and in wide-ranging species such as grizzly
bears because they are more likely to encounter surrounding, unsuitable
habitat (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998, p. 2126). Mortalities in these
areas would be outside suitable habitat but could have disproportionate
effects on the population generally contained within the suitable
habitat zone, potentially acting as mortality sinks. The Service
accepted the recommendation of the IGBST in the 2012 report for an
alternative boundary that includes these narrow areas outside suitable
habitat, but is largely bounded by it (see figure 2). The final
designation of the DMA includes suitable habitat plus the potential
sink areas for a total area of approximately 49,928 sq km (19,279 sq
mi) (see figure 2). The DMA contains 100 percent of the PCA and 100
percent of the suitable habitat, as shown in figure 2.
The population has basically stabilized inside the DMA since 2002,
with the model-averaged Chao2 population estimate for 2002-2014 being
674 (95% CI = 600-747). This stabilization over 13 years is strong
evidence that the population is exhibiting density-dependent population
regulation inside the DMA, and this has recently been documented (van
Manen et al. 2015, entire). The fact that the population inside the DMA
has stabilized due to density-dependent effects is strong support that,
at this population size, the population has achieved recovery within
the DMA.
Accordingly, the agencies implementing the draft 2016 Conservation
Strategy have decided that the population in the DMA will be managed
around the long-term average population size for 2002-2014 of 674 (95%
CI = 600-747)(using the model-averaged Chao2 estimate). The population
inside the DMA has stabilized itself at this population size through
density-dependent regulation. The model-averaged Chao2 method will be
used by the IGBST to annually estimate population size inside the DMA
(in their entirety: Keating et al. 2002; Cherry et al. 2007), as this
currently represents the best available science. To achieve a
population in the DMA around the long-term average of 674, the total
mortality limits for independent females will be set at 7.6 percent
when the population is at 674, less than 7.6 percent when the
population is lower, and more than 7.6 percent when the population is
higher (as per table 1, above, and tables 2 and 3, below). A total
mortality limit of 7.6 percent for independent females is the mortality
level that the best available science shows results in population
stability (IGBST 2012, entire). Annual estimates of population size in
the DMA will be made each fall by the IGBST using the model-averaged
Chao2 method. These annual estimates will normally vary as in any wild
animal population. The annual model-averaged Chao2 population estimate
for a given year within the DMA will be used to set the total mortality
limits from all causes for the DMA for the following year as per table
1, above, and tables 2 and 3, below. Mortalities will be managed on a
sliding scale within the DMA as follows (see table 1, above, for more
information):
Below 600: No discretionary mortality would be allowed
unless necessary to address human safety issues.
Between 600 and 673: Total mortality limits would be less
than 7.6 percent for independent females (>2 years old), 15 percent for
independent males (>2 years old), and less than 7.6 percent for
dependent young.
At 674: Total mortality limits would be 7.6 percent for
independent females, 15 percent for independent males, and 7.6 percent
for dependent young.
Between 675 and 747: Total mortality limits would not
exceed 9 percent for independent females, 20 percent for independent
males, and 9 percent for dependent young.
Greater than 747: Total mortality limits would not exceed
10 percent for independent females, 22 percent for independent males,
and 10 percent for dependent young.
If this proposed rule is made final, grizzly bears will be
classified as a game species throughout the GYE DPS boundaries outside
National Parks and the Wind River Indian Reservation in the States of
Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. While we anticipate the States will desire
to institute a carefully regulated hunt with ecosystem-wide coordinated
total mortality limits, we do not expect grizzly bear trapping to occur
due to public safety considerations and the precedent that there has
never been public grizzly bear trapping in the modern era. The States
of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming do not permit public trapping of any
bears currently, and there is no information to indicate they will
begin. Public trapping is not identified as a possible management tool
in any of their State management plans. Hunting on the Wind River
Reservation will be at the discretion of the Tribes and only be
available to Tribal members (Title XVI Fish and Game Code, Eastern
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2009, p. 9). The National Park
Service will not allow grizzly bear hunting within
[[Page 13202]]
National Park boundaries. Within the DMA (see figure 2, above), the
National Park Service, the MFWP, the WGFD, the IDFG, and the Tribes of
the Wind River Reservation (WRR) will manage total mortality to ensure
all recovery criteria continue to be met.
Table 2--Framework To Manage Inside the DMA for the Population Goal of the Average Population for 2002-2014
Using the Model-Averaged Chao2 Method. These Total Mortality Rates Will Result in Population Stability Around
the Long-Term Average Population Size of 674 (95% CI = 600-747) That Existed During 2002-2014 as Calculated
Using the Model-Averaged Chao2 Population Estimate Method. If the Population Is Fewer Than 674, the Total
Mortality Rate for Independent Females and Dependent Young Must Be Less Than 7.6 Percent. If Population Size Is
Fewer Than or Equal to 600 in Any Year, No Discretionary Mortality Will Occur Unless Necessary for Human Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management framework Background and application protocol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Area within which mortality 49,928 sq km (19,279 sq mi) demographic monitoring area (DMA)
limits apply. (see figure 2, above).
2. Goal of the draft 2016 To maintain the population around the average population estimate for 2002-
Conservation Strategy. 2014 of 674 (95% CI = 600-757) during a period of population stability
using the model-averaged Chao2 methodology (Keating et al. 2002; Cherry et
al. 2007; Harris et al. 2007). This will ensure the continuation of a
recovered grizzly bear population in accordance with the three demographic
recovery criteria as described in the Recovery Plan and the draft 2016
Conservation Strategy.
3. Population estimator............ The model-averaged Chao2 population estimator will be used as the
population measurement tool unless another scientifically sound method
becomes available. The model-averaged Chao2 population estimate for 2002-
2014 was 674 (95% CI = 600-747).
4. Mortality limit setting protocol Each fall, the IGBST will annually produce a model-averaged Chao2
population estimate for the DMA. That population estimate will be used to
establish the total mortality limit percentages for each age/sex class for
the following year as per #8, #9, and #10 (below).
5. Allocation process for managed The States will meet annually in the month of January to review population
mortalities. monitoring data supplied by IGBST and collectively establish discretionary
mortality within the total mortality limits per age/sex class available
for regulated harvest for each jurisdiction (MT, ID, WY) in the DMA so
that DMA thresholds are not exceeded. If requested, the WRR will receive a
portion of the available mortality limit based on the percentage of the
WRR geographic area within the DMA. Mortalities outside the DMA are the
responsibility of each State and do not count against total mortality
limits.
6. Management of hunting Per State regulations and MOA, hunting seasons will be closed within 24
mortalities. hours of meeting total mortality limits for any age/sex class as per this
table. Any mortality exceeding total mortality limits in any year will be
subtracted from that age/sex class total mortality limit for the following
year.
7. Management review by the IGBST.. A management review will be conducted by the IGBST every 5 to 10 years at
the direction of the YGCC. This management review will assess if the
management system is achieving the desired goal of ensuring a recovered
grizzly bear population in accordance with recovery criteria. The
management review is a science-based process that will be led by the IGBST
(which includes all State and Federal agencies and the WRR Tribes) using
all recent available scientific data to assess population numbers and
trend against the management objective and recovery criteria. Age/sex-
specific survival and reproductive rates will also be reevaluated using
the most recent data to adjust total mortality levels as necessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Mortality limit % for all causes Pop. size.................. <=674 675-747 >747
for independent FEMALES based on Mort. %.................... <=7.6% 9% 10%
the results of the model-averaged
Chao2 method.
9. Mortality limit % for all causes Pop. size.................. <=674 675-747 >747
for independent MALES based on the Mort. %.................... 15% 20% 22%
results of the model-averaged
Chao2 method.
10. Mortality limit for % for all Pop. Size.................. <=674 675-747 >747
causes for dependent young based Mort. %.................... <=7.6% 9% 10%
on the results of the model-
averaged Chao2 method.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with USFWS Director Dan Ashe's letter of September 25, 2015, to the state directors, if the model-
averaged Chao2 population estimate is less than 674, the total mortality rate for independent females and
dependent young will be less than 7.6%.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If State agencies decide to establish hunting seasons, the
following regulatory mechanisms must be in place by law and regulation
for delisting to occur. The States will enact specific regulations that
will serve as adequate
[[Page 13203]]
regulatory mechanisms over human-caused mortality, including mortality
from sport hunting. These regulations must include:
Suspending all discretionary mortality inside the DMA,
except if required for human safety, if the model-averaged Chao2
population estimate falls below 600;
Suspending grizzly bear hunting inside the DMA if total
mortality limits for any sex/age class (as per tables 1 and 2, above,
and table 3, below) are met at any time during the year;
Female grizzly bear with young will not be available for
recreational harvest; and
In a given year, discretionary mortality will only be
allowed if non-discretionary mortality (see Factor C discussion, below)
does not meet or exceed total mortality limits for that year.
Any mortality that exceeds total mortality limits in any
year will be subtracted from that age/sex class total mortality limit
for the following year to assure that long-term mortality levels remain
within prescribed limits inside the DMA.
In addition to the regulatory mechanism above, if total mortality
limits for independent females, or independent males, or dependent
young are exceeded for 3 consecutive years, and the model-averaged
population estimate falls below 612 (the lower limit of the 90% CI),
the IGBST will complete a biology and monitoring review to evaluate the
impacts of these total mortality levels on the population and present
it to the YGCC and the public. The States will coordinate via a signed
MOU to manage total mortalities within the DMA to be within the age/sex
mortality limits as per tables 1 and 2, above, and table 3, below.
Table 3--Allowable Number of Total Mortalities From All Causes Inside the DMA Under the Total Mortality Limits
for Independent Females and Independent Males at Different Population Sizes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Population size
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
600 to 673 674 675 to 747 >747
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Total annual mortality limit At <7.6% mortality At 7.6% mortality At 9% mortality = At 10% mortality =
from all causes for independent = 16 to 17. = 18.. 21 to 23. >26.
FEMALES (>=2 years).
2. Total annual mortality limit At 15% mortality = At 15% mortality = At 20% mortality = At 22% mortality =
from all causes for independent 31 to 34. 35.. 47 to 52. >57.
MALES (>=2 years).
Total mortality: Documented
known and probable grizzly bear
mortalities from all causes
including but are not limited
to: Management removals,
illegal kills, mistaken
identity kills, self-defense
kills, vehicle kills, natural
mortalities, undetermined-cause
mortalities, grizzly bear
hunting, and a statistical
estimate of the number of
unknown/unreported mortalities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mortalities in table 3 are the total number of allowable
mortalities inside the DMA from all causes for different population
sizes. Total mortality limits in table 3 for each sex/age class are
based on the size of each sex/age cohort, which changes with population
size.
There are mortalities that occur every year due to multiple sources
including management removals, illegal kills, self-defense, calculated
unknown/unreported mortalities, natural mortalities, and other causes
such as vehicle collisions. These are considered background levels of
mortality and must be taken into account in any calculation and
allocation of additional mortality available for hunting in order to
remain within the total mortality limits. The expected numbers of
background mortalities inside the DMA are calculated by taking the
average number of mortalities from the most recent 4-year period from
all sources, other than grizzly bear hunting, including calculated
unknown/unreported numbers. Because background mortality levels vary
from year to year, averaging these over several years is a reasonable
predictor of these numbers. This average number of expected background
mortalities for independent females and males is then subtracted from
the total number of allowable mortalities for the most recent
population estimate as per table 3. The resulting number is the
expected number of independent female and male bears available for
hunting allocation.
As an example, the average background mortality from 2012 to 2015
was 37 (15 females and 22 males) independent bear deaths/year due to
management removals, illegal kills, calculated unknown/unreported,
natural causes, and other deaths. These are from inside the DMA only.
In this example, with an average background mortality of 37 (15 females
and 22 males), if the DMA population in a given year was at 674 bears
as calculated by the modeled-averaged Chao 2 method, using table 3
there would be 3 female bears and 13 male bears available for
discretionary hunting mortality (18-15 = 3 independent females and 35-
22 = 13 independent males). Once either one of these mortality limits
was met in any year, the state regulatory mechanisms closing hunting
seasons would apply. For the 2015 DMA population estimate of 717, the
total allowable mortality for independent females is 22 and for
independent males is 50. Applying the average background mortality of
15 and 22 for independent females and independent males, respectively,
that would allow for a discretionary mortality inside the DMA of 22-15
= 7 independent females and 50-;22 = 28 independent males. If the
average background mortality was higher than the 2012-2015 average of
37, there may not be any discretionary mortality in a given year.
Concurrently, if the average background mortality declined, there may
be additional discretionary mortality available.
These examples serve to explain the process that will be used to
determine discretionary mortality. Within these mortality limits, state
fish and wildlife agencies have discretion to determine whether they
intend to propose a grizzly bear hunting season and/or how much
discretionary mortality (within allowable limits) to allocate to
hunting.
This proposed rule is based on these anticipated changes to
Wyoming,
[[Page 13204]]
Montana, and Idaho State laws and regulations necessary to implement
mortality management inside the GYE DMA described in this section and
in tables 1, 2, and 3. It is our expectation that these adequate
regulatory mechanisms as described above will be finalized prior to the
publication of any final rule resulting from this proposal.
Other regulations, such as timing and location of hunting seasons,
should seasons be implemented, would be devised by the States to
minimize the possibility that total mortality limits of independent
females are exceeded within the DMA (Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. 20; WGFD 2004, p. 20; MFWP 2013, p.
61).
To assure that the distribution criterion (16 of 18 bear management
units within the Recovery Zone must be occupied by females with young,
with no 2 adjacent bear management units unoccupied, during a 6-year
sum of observations) is maintained, the IGBST will annually monitor and
report the distribution of reproducing females. If the necessary
distribution of reproducing females is not met for three consecutive
years, the IGBST will complete a biology and monitoring review to
evaluate the impacts of reduced distribution of reproducing females on
the population and present it to the YGCC. This biology and monitoring
review will consider the significance of the reduced distribution of
reproducing females and make recommendations to increase their
distribution as necessary.
If this proposed rule is made final, the Service may initiate a
formal status review and could emergency relist the GYE grizzly
population until the formal status review is complete under the
following conditions: (1) If there are any changes in Federal, State,
or Tribal laws, rules, regulations, or management plans that depart
significantly from the specifics of population or habitat management
detailed in this proposed rule and significantly increase the threat to
the population; or (2) if the population falls below 500 in any year
using the model-averaged Chao2 method, or counts of females with cubs
fall below 48 for 3 consecutive years; or (3) if independent female
total mortality limits as per tables 1, 2, and 3, above, are exceeded
for 3 consecutive years and the population is fewer than 600; or (4) if
fewer than 16 of 18 bear management units are occupied by females with
young for 3 consecutive 6-year sums of observations. Such a status
review would be necessary for relisting the grizzly population should
that be warranted.
In areas of the GYE grizzly bear DPS outside the DMA boundaries,
respective States and Tribes may establish hunting seasons independent
of the total mortality limits inside the DMA. Hunting mortality outside
the DMA boundary would not threaten the GYE grizzly bear DPS because
total mortality limits are in place as per tables 1, 2, and 3, above,
for the source population within the DMA boundary.
To increase the likelihood of occasional genetic interchange
between the GYE grizzly bear population and the NCDE grizzly bear
population, the State of Montana has indicated they will manage
discretionary mortality in this area in order to retain the opportunity
for natural movements of bears between ecosystems. Maintaining the
presence of non-conflict grizzly bears in areas between the NCDE
management area and the DMA of the GYE, such as the Tobacco Root and
Highland Mountains, would likely facilitate periodic grizzly bear
movements between the NCDE and GYE.
To ensure total mortality rates remain consistent with population
objectives after delisting, the IGBST will conduct a demographic review
of population vital rates (table 2, item #7) at least every 5 to 10
years in perpetuity. The results of these reviews will be used to make
appropriate adjustments to assure adherence to the population objective
to maintain the average population from 2002-2014 inside the DMA and to
maintain a recovered population in accordance with the recovery
criteria. The 5- to 10-year time interval was selected based on life-
history characteristics of bears and methodologies in order to obtain
estimates with acceptable levels of uncertainty and statistical rigor
(Harris et al. 2011, p. 29).
Summary of Factor B
In summary, commercial and recreational hunting warranted
consideration as possible threats to the GYE grizzly bear DPS under
Factor B. These three regulatory commitments will need to be in place
exist prior to issuance of a final rule:
(1) The States will ensure the application of the details in tables
1, 2, and 3, above, regarding annual total mortality levels for each
age/sex class are based on annual IGBST model-averaged Chao2 population
estimates; and
(2) The States will implement and maintain by law and regulation,
as detailed above and in tables 1, 2, and 3, management responses to
any departures from total mortality limits for independent females,
independent males, and dependent young to maintain the population
inside the DMA around the average population size from 2002-2014; and
(3) The State of Montana will manage discretionary mortality in the
area between the GYE and the NCDE in order to retain the opportunity
for natural movements of bears between ecosystems.
In addition, the Service may initiate a status review with possible
emergency relisting act if: (1) There are any changes in Federal,
State, or Tribal laws, rules, regulations, or management plans that
depart significantly from the specifics of population or habitat
management detailed in this proposed rule and significantly increase
the threat to the population; or (2) the population falls below 500 in
any year using the model-averaged Chao2 method or counts of females
with cubs fall below 48 for 3 consecutive years; or (3) independent
female total mortality limits as per tables 1, 2, and 3, above, are
exceeded for 3 consecutive years and the population is fewer than 600;
or (4) fewer than 16 of 18 bear management units are occupied by
females with young for 3 consecutive 6-year sums of observations.
If these commitments are implemented into regulations, they would
ameliorate impacts related to commercial and recreational hunting such
that hunting would not threatehn the the GYE grizzly bear DPS in the
future. Should Wyoming, Montana, and/or Idaho fail to make the changes
necessary detailed above to support a recovered grizzly bear
population, or deviate significantly from the changes in law and
regulation described above and in tables 1, 2, and 3, above, delisting
could not occur. In addition to State laws and regulations, the IGBST
will conduct a demographic review of the population vital rates every 5
to 10 years on which allowable total mortality limits are based to
assure adherence to the population objective. We consider the
regulatory commitment outlined in this section by State and Federal
agencies to reasonably ensure conservation of the GYE grizzly bear DPS.
Because of these detailed State and Federal regulatory commitments, we
conclude that commercial and recreational hunting will not constitute a
substantial threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future.
C. Disease or Predation
Factor C requires the Service to consider disease or predation
affecting the continued existence of a species. In addition to natural
disease and predation, we consider here human-
[[Page 13205]]
caused mortality other than legal hunting to include illegal poaching,
defense of life and property mortality, accidental mortality, and
management removals.
Disease
Although grizzly bears have been documented with a variety of
bacteria and other pathogens, parasites, and disease, fatalities are
uncommon (LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 61) and do not appear to have
population-level impacts on grizzly bears (Jonkel and Cowan 1971, pp.
31-32; Mundy and Flook 1973, p. 13; Rogers and Rogers 1976, p. 423).
Researchers have demonstrated grizzly bears with brucellosis (type 4),
clostridium, toxoplasmosis, canine distemper, canine parvovirus, canine
hepatitis, and rabies (LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 61; Zarnke and Evans
1989, p. 586; Marsilio et al. 1997, p. 304; Zarnke et al. 1997, p.
474). However, based on nearly 40 years of research by the IGBST,
natural mortalities in the wild due to disease have never been
documented (IGBST 2005, pp. 34-35; Craighead et al. 1988, pp. 24-84).
Based on this absence in more than 50 years of data, we conclude
mortalities due to bacteria, pathogens, or disease are negligible
components of total mortality in the GYE and are likely to remain an
insignificant factor in population dynamics into the future. Therefore,
we conclude this source of mortality does not constitute a threat to
the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future.
Natural Predation
Grizzly bears are occasionally killed by other wildlife. Adult
grizzly bears kill cubs, sub-adults, or other adults (Stringham 1980,
p. 337; Dean et al. 1986, pp. 208-211; Hessing and Aumiller 1994, pp.
332-335; McLellan 1994, p. 15; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 571-572).
This type of intraspecific killing seems to occur rarely (Stringham
1980, p. 337) and has only been observed among grizzly bears in the GYE
28 times between 1986 and 2012 (Haroldson 2014, in litt.). Wolves and
grizzly bears often scavenge similar types of carrion and, sometimes,
will interact with each other in an aggressive manner. Since wolves
were reintroduced into the GYE in 1995, we know of 339 wolf-grizzly
bear interactions with 6 incidents in which wolf packs likely killed
grizzly bear cubs and 2 incidents in which wolves likely killed adult
female grizzly bears (Gunther and Smith 2004, pp. 233-236; Gunther
2014, in litt.). Overall, these types of aggressive interactions among
grizzly bears or with other wildlife are rare and are likely to remain
an insignificant factor in population dynamics into the future.
Therefore, we conclude this source of mortality does not constitute a
threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future.
Human-Caused Mortality
This section discusses all sources of human-caused mortality except
legal hunting, which is discussed above under Factor B. Excessive
human-caused mortality was the primary factor contributing to grizzly
bear decline during the 19th and 20th centuries (Leopold 1967, p. 30;
Koford 1969, p. 95; Servheen 1990, p. 1; Servheen 1999, pp. 50-52;
Mattson and Merrill 2002, pp. 1129, 1132; Schwartz et al. 2003b, p.
571), eventually leading to their listing as a threatened species in
1975 (40 FR 31734; July 28, 1975). Grizzly bears were seen as a threat
to livestock and to human safety and, therefore, an impediment to
westward expansion. Both the Federal government and most early settlers
were dedicated to eradicating large predators. Grizzly bears were shot,
poisoned, trapped, and killed wherever humans encountered them
(Servheen 1999, p. 50). By the time grizzly bears were listed under the
Act in 1975, there were only a few hundred grizzly bears remaining in
the lower 48 States in less than 2 percent of their former range (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 8-12).
From 1980 to 2002, 66 percent (191) of the 290 known grizzly bear
mortalities were human-caused (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). The main
causes of human-caused mortality were human site conflicts, self-
defense, vandal killings, and hunting-related, all of which can be
partially mitigated for through management actions (Servheen et al.
2004, p. 21). In our March 29, 2007, final rule (72 FR 14866), we
report that despite these mortalities, this time period corresponds to
one during which the Yellowstone grizzly bear population saw population
growth and range expansion. Since then, the IGBST has updated these
demographic analyses using data from 2002-2011 (IGBST 2012, entire).
Below, we evaluate human-caused grizzly bear mortality for 2002-2014,
as it represents the most recent and best available information on this
subject. For more information on the demographic vital rates for 2002-
2011, please see Population and Demographic Recovery Criteria in the
Recovery Planning and Implementation section, above. From 2002-2014, 76
percent of known or probable grizzly bear mortalities in the GYE DMA
(311/410) were human-caused (Haroldson 2014, in litt.; Haroldson et al.
2015, p. 26). While the number of independent female grizzly bears
killed by humans each year has increased gradually, human-caused
mortality occurring in the fall, when bears are at an increased risk of
conflicts involving hunters, as a proportion of the estimated
population size has remained relatively constant, particularly for
females (Haroldson 2015, in litt.). Overall, human-caused mortality
rates have been low enough to allow the GYE grizzly bear population to
increase in numbers and range (Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 64-66;
Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48; Bjornlie et al. 2014, p. 184). Total
mortality limits and anticipated State regulations to manage within
agreed-upon morality limits as per tables 1, 2, and 3, above, will
ensure that mortality will continue to be managed at levels that do not
result in long-term population decline. In this section, we discuss
impacts from human-caused mortality, including illegal poaching,
defense of life and property, accidental mortality, and management
removals.
We define poaching as intentional, illegal killing of grizzly
bears. People may kill grizzly bears for several reasons, including a
general perception that grizzly bears in the area may be dangerous,
frustration over depredations of livestock, or to protest land-use and
road-use restrictions associated with grizzly bear habitat management
(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Regardless of the reason, poaching
continues to occur. We are aware of at least 22 such killings in the
GYE between 2002 and 2014 (Haroldson 2014, in litt.; Haroldson et al.
2015, p. 26). This constituted 7 percent of known grizzly bear
mortalities from 2002 to 2014. This level of take occurred during a
period when poaching was enforceable by Federal prosecution. We do not
expect poaching to significantly increase if this proposed action is
finalized because State and Tribal designation as a game animal means
poaching will remain illegal and prosecutable. Please see Factor D for
discussion about State and Tribal designation of grizzly bears as a
game animal. If anything, authorized hunting through designating the
grizzly bear as a game animal may reduce the amount of illegal
poaching.
State and Federal law enforcement agents have cooperated to ensure
consistent enforcement of laws protecting grizzly bears. Currently,
State and Federal prosecutors and enforcement personnel from each State
and Federal jurisdiction work together to make recommendations to all
jurisdictions, counties, and States, on uniform enforcement,
prosecution, and sentencing relating to illegal grizzly bear kills.
This cooperation means illegal
[[Page 13206]]
grizzly bear mortalities are often prosecuted under State statutes
instead of the Act. We have a long record of this enforcement approach
being effective, and no reason to doubt its effectiveness in the
absence of the Act's additional layer of Federal protections.
If we delist the GYE DPS, all three affected States and the Eastern
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes of the Wind River Reservation will
classify grizzly bears in the GYE as game animals, which cannot be
taken without authorization by State or Tribal wildlife agencies (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 7; Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly
Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 18-21; MTFWP 2002, p. 2; WGFD
2005, p. 20; Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2009, p. 9).
In other words, it will still be illegal for private citizens to kill
grizzly bears unless it is in self-defense (as is currently allowed
under the Act's protections), or if they have a hunting license issued
by State or Tribal wildlife agencies, or in the Montana portion of the
DPS, if a grizzly bear is caught in the act of attacking or killing
livestock (87-6-106 MCA). With respect to the last exception, there
must be injured or dead livestock associated with any grizzly bear
killed in defense of livestock in Montana. There are no documented
cases of livestock owners or herders actually observing a grizzly bear
depredating on livestock since records began being kept in 1975. Before
that time, it would have been legal for a livestock operator to kill a
grizzly bear just for being present. Details surrounding these
mortalities are scant. States will continue to enforce, prosecute, and
sentence poachers just as they do for any game animal such as elk,
black bears, and cougars. Although it is widely recognized that
poaching still occurs, this illegal source of mortality is not
significant enough to hinder population stability for the GYE grizzly
bear population (IGBST 2012, p. 34) or range expansion (Pyare et al.
2004, pp. 5-6; Bjornlie et al. 2013, p. 184).
Information and education programs, (which are described in detail
in Factor E), with a long record of implementation and will continue
under the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy continue after delisting,
have helped minimize the potential threat of poaching. More
specifically, these programs address illegal killing by working to
change human values, perceptions, and beliefs about grizzly bears and
Federal regulation of public lands (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 27). To
address the concerns of user groups who have objections to land use
restrictions that accommodate grizzly bears, Federal and State agencies
market the benefits of restricting motorized access to multiple
species. For example, both Montana and Wyoming have recommendations for
elk habitat security similar to those for grizzly bears (less than 1.6
km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi)). This level of motorized access meets the
needs of a variety of wildlife species, while maintaining reasonable
opportunities for public access. Information and education programs
also reduce the threat of poaching by teaching people about bear
behavior and ecology so that they can avoid encounters and conflicts or
respond appropriately if encounters do occur. In this way, we can
correct common misconceptions and lessen the perceived threat grizzly
bears pose. Additionally, information and education programs foster
relationships and build trust between the general public and the
government agencies implementing them by initiating communication and
dialogue.
From 2002 to 2014, humans killed 97 grizzly bears in self-defense
or defense of others in the GYE. This constituted nearly 31 percent of
known grizzly bear mortalities during this time period (Haroldson 2014,
in litt.; Haroldson et al. 2015, p. 26). This type of grizzly bear
mortality is currently allowed under the provisions of the Act through
a 4(d) rule (50 CFR 17.40(b)). These grizzly bear mortalities occurred
primarily with elk hunters on public lands during the fall, but also at
other times and locations (IGBST 2009, p. 18). These self-defense
situations with elk hunters occur during surprise encounters, at
hunter-killed carcasses or gut piles, or when packing out carcasses.
Federal and State agencies have many options to potentially reduce
conflicts with hunters (IGBST 2009, pp. 21-31), but self-defense
mortalities will always be a reality when conserving a species that is
capable of killing humans. By promoting the use of bear spray and
continuing information and education programs pertaining to food and
carcass storage and retrieval, many of these grizzly bear deaths can be
avoided. Through its enabling legislation, the National Park Service
authorizes an elk reduction program in both Grand Teton National Park
and the John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway. Elk hunters in Grand
Teton National Park and John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway are
required to carry bear spray in an accessible location, thus reducing
the potential for an encounter that results in grizzly bear mortality.
Outside of these National Parks, carrying bear spray is strongly
encouraged through hunter education programs and other information and
education materials.
Another primary source of human-caused mortality is agency removal
of nuisance bears following grizzly bear-human conflicts. Between 2002
and 2014, agency removals resulted in 135 mortalities, accounting for
43 percent of human-caused mortalities. This type of grizzly bear
mortality is allowed under the Act through a 4(d) rule (50 CFR
17.40(b)). While lethal to the individual grizzly bears involved, these
removals promote conservation of the GYE grizzly bear population by
minimizing illegal killing of bears, providing an opportunity to
educate the public about how to avoid conflicts, and promoting
tolerance of grizzly bears by responding promptly and effectively when
bears pose a threat to public safety.
Conflicts at developed sites (on either public or private lands)
were responsible for 90 of the 135 agency removals between 2002 and
2014. These conflicts usually involve attractants such as garbage,
human foods, pet/livestock/wildlife foods, livestock carcasses, and
wildlife carcasses, but also are related to attitudes, understanding,
and tolerance toward grizzly bears. Mandatory food storage orders on
public lands decrease the chances of conflicts while State and Federal
information and education programs reduce grizzly bear-human conflicts
on both private and public lands by educating the public about
potential grizzly bear attractants and how to store them properly.
Accordingly, roughly 68 percent of the total budgets of the agencies
responsible for implementing the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy and
managing the GYE grizzly bear population post-delisting is for grizzly
bear-human conflict management, outreach, and education (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2016, Appendix F). To address public attitudes and
knowledge levels, information and education programs present grizzly
bears as a valuable public resource while acknowledging the potential
dangers associated with them and ways to avoid conflicts (for a
detailed discussion of information and education programs, see Factor E
discussion, below). These outreach programs have been successful, as
evidenced by a stable to increasing grizzly bear population despite
large increases in people living and recreating in the GYE over the
last 3 decades. Information and education programs are an integral
component of the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy and will continue to
be implemented by all partners whether the GYE grizzly bear is listed
or not.
[[Page 13207]]
Agency removals due to grizzly bear conflicts with livestock
accounted for nearly 15 percent (45 out of 311) of known mortalities
between 2002 and 2014, and 33 percent of management removals (45 out of
135) (Haroldson 2014, in litt.; Haroldson et al. 2015, p. 26). Several
measures to reduce livestock conflicts are in place inside the PCA, and
only one of these 45 mortalities occurred inside the PCA. The Forest
Service phases out sheep allotments within the PCA as opportunities
arise and, currently, only one active sheep allotment remains inside
the PCA (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 167; Landenburger 2014, in
litt.). The Forest Service also has closed sheep allotments outside the
PCA to resolve conflicts with species such as bighorn sheep as well as
grizzly bears. Additionally, the alternative chosen by the Forest
Service during its NEPA process to amend the five national forest plans
for grizzly bear habitat conservation includes direction to resolve
recurring conflicts on livestock allotments through retirement of those
allotments with willing permittees (USDA Forest Service 2006b, pp. 16-
17; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 3). Livestock grazing
permits include special provisions regarding reporting of conflicts,
proper food and attractant storage procedures, and carcass removal. The
Forest Service monitors compliance with these special provisions
associated with livestock allotments annually (Servheen et al. 2004, p.
28). We consider these measures effective at reducing this threat, as
evidenced by the rarity of livestock depredation removals inside the
PCA. Upon delisting, the Forest Service will continue to implement
these measures that minimize grizzly bear conflicts with livestock. The
draft 2016 Conservation Strategy also recognizes that removal of
individual nuisance bears is sometimes required, as most depredations
are done by a few individuals (Jonkel 1980, p. 12; Knight and Judd
1983, p.188; Anderson et al. 2002, pp. 252-253).
The draft 2016 Conservation Strategy and State grizzly bear
management plans will guide decisions about agency removals of nuisance
bears post-delisting and keep this source of human-caused mortality
within the total mortality limits for each age/sex class as per table
2, above. The draft 2016 Conservation Strategy is consistent with
current protocols (USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 53-54), emphasizing
the individual's importance to the entire population. Females will
continue to receive a higher level of protection than males. Location,
cause of incident, severity of incident, history of the bear, health,
age, and sex of the bear, and demographic characteristics are all
considered in any relocation or removal action. Upon delisting, State,
Tribal, and National Park Service bear managers would continue to
coordinate and consult with each other and other relevant Federal
agencies (i.e., Forest Service, BLM) about nuisance bear relocation and
removal decisions, but coordination with the Service during each
incident would no longer be required (50 CFR 17.40). The draft 2016
Conservation Strategy emphasizes removal of the human cause of the
conflict when possible, or management and education actions to limit
such conflicts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, chapter 4). In
addition, an information and education team will continue to coordinate
the development, implementation, and dissemination of programs and
materials to aid in preventative management of bear-human conflicts.
The draft 2016 Conservation Strategy recognizes that successful
management of grizzly bear-human conflicts requires an integrated,
multiple-agency approach to continue to keep human-caused grizzly bear
mortality within sustainable levels.
Overall, we consider agency management removals a necessary
component of grizzly bear conservation. Nuisance bears can become a
threat to human safety and erode public support if they are not
addressed. Without the support of the people that live, work, and
recreate in grizzly bear country, conservation will not be successful.
Therefore, we do not consider management removals a threat to the GYE
grizzly bear population now, or in the future. However, we recognize
the importance of managing these sanctioned removals within sustainable
levels, and Federal, Tribal, State management agencies are committed to
working with citizens, landowners, and visitors to address unsecured
attractants to reduce the need for grizzly bear removals.
Humans kill grizzly bears unintentionally in a number of ways. From
2002 to 2014, there were 34 accidental mortalities and 23 mortalities
associated with mistaken identification (totaling 18 percent of known
mortality for this time period) (Haroldson 2014, in litt.; Haroldson et
al. 2015, p. 26). Accidental sources of mortality during this time
included roadkills, electrocution, and mortalities associated with
research trapping by the IGBST. For the first time since 1982, there
were grizzly bear mortalities possibly associated with scientific
research capture and handling in 2006. That year, four different bears
died within 4 days of being captured, most likely from clostridium
infections but the degraded nature of the carcasses made the exact
cause of death impossible to determine. Then in 2008, two more grizzly
bear mortalities suspected of being related to research capture and
handling occurred. A necropsy was able to confirm the cause of death
for one of these bears as a clostridial infection at the anesthesia
injection site. Once the cause of death was confirmed, the IGBST
changed its handling protocol to include antibiotics for each capture
(Haroldson and Frey 2009, p. 21). There has not been a research-related
capture mortality since. Because of the IGBST's rigorous protocols and
adaptive approach dictating proper bear capture, handling, and drugging
techniques, this type of human-caused mortality is not a threat to the
GYE grizzly bear population. Measures to reduce vehicle collisions with
grizzly bears include removing roadkill carcasses from the road so that
grizzly bears are not attracted to the roadside (Servheen et al. 2004,
p. 28). Cost-effective mitigation efforts to facilitate safe crossings
by wildlife will be voluntarily incorporated in road construction or
reconstruction projects on Federal lands within suitable grizzly bear
habitat.
Mistaken identification of grizzly bears by black bear hunters is a
manageable source of mortality. The draft 2016 Conservation Strategy
identifies information and education programs targeted at hunters that
emphasize patience, awareness, and correct identification of targets to
help reduce grizzly bear mortalities from inexperienced black bear and
ungulate hunters (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 5).
Beginning in license year 2002, the State of Montana required that all
black bear hunters pass a Bear Identification Test before receiving a
black bear hunting license (see http://fwp.mt.gov/education/hunter/bearID/ for more information and details). Idaho and Wyoming provide a
voluntary bear identification test online (WGFD 2005, p. 34; MTFWP
2002, p. 63). In addition, all three States include grizzly bear
encounter management as a core subject in basic hunter education
courses.
The IGBST prepares annual reports analyzing the causes of
conflicts, known and probable mortalities, and proposed management
solutions (Servheen et al. 2004, pp. 1-29). The IGBST would continue to
use these data to identify where problems occur and compare trends in
locations, sources, land ownership, and types of conflicts to inform
proactive management of grizzly
[[Page 13208]]
bear-human conflicts. As directed by the draft 2016 Conservation
Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, chapter 4), upon
delisting, the IGBST would continue to summarize nuisance bear control
actions in annual reports and the YGCC would continue the Yellowstone
Ecosystem Subcommittee's role reviewing and implementing management
responses (in their entirety: IGBST 2009; YGCC 2009). The IGBST and
YGCC implemented this adaptive management approach when the GYE grizzly
bear population was delisted between 2007 and 2009. After high levels
of mortality in 2008, the IGBST provided management options to the YGCC
about ways to reduce human-caused mortality. In fall 2009, the YGCC
provided updates on what measures they had implemented since the report
was released the previous spring. These efforts included: Increased
outreach on the value of bear spray; development of a comprehensive
encounter, conflict, and mortality database; and increased agency
presence on Forest Service lands during hunting season. For a complete
summary of agency responses to the IGBST's recommendations, see pages
9-18 of the fall 2009 meeting minutes (YGCC 2009). Because human-caused
mortality has been reduced through information and education programs
(e.g., bear identification to reduce mistaken identity kills by black
bear hunters) and management of bear removals (e.g., reduction in
livestock predation), we conclude this source of mortality does not
constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future.
Summary of Factor C
In summary, the following factors warranted consideration as
possible threats to the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bear DPS
under Factor C: (1) Natural disease, (2) natural predation, and (3)
human-caused mortality, other than legal hunting. Both natural disease
and natural predation are rare occurrences and therefore not considered
a threat to the GYE grizzly bear population. Human-caused mortality,
other than legal hunting, includes illegal poaching, defense of life
and property mortality, accidental mortality, and management removals.
Information and education programs reduce human-caused mortality by:
(1) Changing human perceptions and beliefs about grizzly bears; (2)
educating recreationists and hunters on how to avoid encounters and
conflicts, how to react during a bear encounter, use of bear spray, and
proper food storage; and (3) education of black bear hunters on bear
identification.
When grizzly bears were listed in 1975, we identified
``indiscriminate illegal killing,'' and management removals as threats
to the population. By defining a recovered population as one that ``can
sustain the existing level of known and estimated unknown, unreported
human-caused mortality that exists within the ecosystem,'' the 1993
Recovery Plan recognized that eliminating all human-caused mortality
was not possible or necessary (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p.
41). Documentation of a stable to increasing population trend (Schwartz
et al. 2006b, p. 48; IGBST 2012, p. 34) indicates mortality levels have
allowed the GYE grizzly bear population to meet this definition of
recovered.
Overall, from 2002 to 2014, the GYE grizzly bear population
incurred an average of 23.9 human-caused grizzly bear mortalities per
year (Haroldson 2014, in litt.; Haroldson et al. 2015, p. 26). Despite
these mortalities, the GYE grizzly bear population has continued to
increase in size and expand its distribution (Pyare et al. 2004, pp. 5-
6; Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 64-66; Schwartz et al. 2006b, p.48; IGBST
2012, p. 34; Bjornlie et al. 2013, p. 184). Although humans are still
directly or indirectly responsible for the majority of grizzly bear
deaths, this source of mortality is effectively mitigated through
science-based management, monitoring, and outreach efforts. It is the
intent of the agencies to institutionalize the careful management and
monitoring of human-caused mortality through the draft 2016
Conservation Strategy, National Forest and National Park management
plans, State grizzly bear management plans, and State wildlife
commission rules and regulations (see Factor D, below). Because a 4(d)
rule currently allows grizzly bears to be killed in self-defense,
defense of others, or by agency removal of nuisance bears, management
of human-caused mortality post-delisting would not differ significantly
if the protections of the Act were no longer in place. Although grizzly
bear hunting is anticipated to occur, it would be within the total
mortality limits for independent females and males noted in tables 1,
2, and 3, above, that will ensure the population remains recovered
within the DMA as measured by adherence to total mortality limits and
annual population estimates (see tables 2 and 3 and Factor B, above).
Hunting would not occur if other sources of mortality exceeded the
total mortality limits (see tables 2 and 3 and Factor B, above).
Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial
information, application of mortality management detailed in this
proposed rule and the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy, and the
expectation that these bear management practices will continue into the
future, we conclude that disease and predation do not constitute
threats to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now and are not anticipated to
constitute threats in the future.
D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
Grizzly bear populations declined in part because there were
inadequate regulatory mechanisms in place to protect habitat (40 FR
31734; July 28, 1975). Once grizzly bears were listed under the Act,
they immediately benefited from its regulatory framework that included
prohibition of take--broadly defined under the Act to include harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or
to attempt to engage in any such conduct--and that requires Federal
agencies to consult with the Service to ensure any project funded,
authorized, or carried out by them does not jeopardize the continuing
existence of a listed species. Grizzly bears benefitted from the
requirement that Federal agencies ensure their actions will not likely
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. They also benefitted
from the development and implementation of recovery plans. The
regulatory framework and tools provided by the Act have improved the
status of the GYE grizzly bear population to the point where the
population has recovered and delisting is now appropriate. Below, we
consider the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms that would
remain in place if this grizzly bear population is delisted and the Act
no longer applies.
Laws and regulations of the Federal, Tribal, and State governments
provide the legal authority for grizzly bear population and habitat
management, monitoring, information and education programs, and
conflict response. Grizzly bear habitat management is accomplished
primarily by the Forest Service and NPS. Ninety-eight percent of lands
within the PCA and 88 percent of lands within all suitable habitat are
managed by one of these agencies. While the Forest Service and NPS are
responsible for habitat management, the NPS, States, and Tribes share
responsibility for population management (i.e., monitoring, mortality
management, conflict response, and hunting regulations). The States are
generally responsible for managing resident wildlife but not habitat on
[[Page 13209]]
Federal public lands such as Forest Service or Bureau of Land
Management. National Park lands are an exception, as they are managed
by the National Park Service.
The management of grizzly bears and their habitat draws from the
laws and regulations of the Federal, State, and Tribal agencies in the
proposed GYE DPS boundaries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016,
chapter 7). These laws and regulations provide the legal authority for
controlling mortality, providing secure habitats, managing grizzly
bear-human conflicts, controlling hunters, limiting access where
necessary, controlling livestock grazing, maintaining information and
education programs to control conflicts, monitoring populations and
habitats, and requesting management and petitions for relisting if
necessary. Recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is the
result of ongoing partnerships between Federal and State agencies, the
governors of these States, county and city governments, educational
institutions, numerous nongovernmental organizations, private
landowners, and the public who live, work, and recreate in the GYE.
Just as recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population could not
have occurred without these excellent working relationships,
maintenance of a recovered grizzly population will be the result of the
continuation of these partnerships. The State plans and the State
regulations describe and summarize the coordinated efforts required to
manage the GYE grizzly bear population and its habitat such that its
recovery is ensured. These State-based documents specify the general
population, habitat, and nuisance bear management protocols necessary
to manage human-caused mortality risk and maintain a recovered grizzly
bear population. The State plans do not currently include detailed laws
or regulations in reference to hunting management as described above
under Factor B. The Federal and State plans and regulations document
the existing Federal and State regulatory mechanisms and legal
authorities, policies, management, and post-delisting monitoring plans
that exist to maintain the recovered grizzly bear population. The
primary components of habitat and population management committed to in
the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy have been (or will be)
incorporated into legally binding frameworks such as National Forest
Land Resource Management Plans, National Park Superintendent
Compendiums, Tribal ordinances, and State Fish and Game Commission
management regulations. The 2016 Conservation Strategy will remain in
effect in perpetuity, beyond delisting and the 5-year monitoring period
required by the Act as grizzly bears, like many other species, will
always be ``conservation-reliant'' (Scott et al. 2005, p. 384) because
of their low resiliency to excessive human-caused mortality. The need
to carefully manage human-caused bear mortality and to coordinate
management of the population across multiple land ownerships and
jurisdictions will always remain.
U.S. Forest Service
The Forest Service manages nearly 68 percent (31,234 of 46,035 sq
km (12,060 of 17,774 sq mi)) of suitable grizzly bear habitat within
the GYE. Because the Forest Service does not manage direct take of
grizzly bears, they amended their Land Management Plans in 2006 to
include legally binding habitat standards. These amendments required
levels of secure habitat, developed sites, and livestock allotments
inside the PCA to be maintained at or improved upon 1998 levels to
minimize human-caused mortality risk (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p.
iii). In addition to the habitat standards inside the PCA, these
amendments provide guidance and direction for habitat management
outside the PCA, including but not limited to: a goal for accommodating
grizzly bears outside the PCA; direction on managing livestock
allotments with recurring conflicts through retirement of such
allotments with willing permittees; direction emphasizing the use of
food storage orders to minimize grizzly bear-human conflicts; a
guideline to maintain, to the extent feasible, important grizzly bear
food resources; and several monitoring items that will enhance habitat
management outside of the PCA (USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 34-37).
These amendments to the GYE National Forest Land Management Plans would
become effective if, and when, delisting is finalized. They were in
effect for 2.5 years when GYE grizzly bears were delisted between March
2007 and September 2009, but they were technically not applicable after
the March 29, 2007, final rule (72 FR 14866) was vacated by the
District Court of Montana. Importantly, even after the Montana District
Court's decision, the Forest Service continued to manage according to
the agreements reached in the 2007 Conservation Strategy and its Forest
Plan amendments even though the delisting rule was vacated and the
Forest Service was not legally required to manage under those
standards. Because of this commitment and the fact that the plans have
been successfully implemented by the Forest Service, there is a 7-year
demonstrated track record of implementation by the signatories of the
2007 Conservation Strategy.
While the habitat standards in the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy
that were incorporated into Forest Plans assure secure habitat and
minimal human-caused mortality risk inside the PCA, other regulatory
mechanisms ensure sufficient habitat protections outside the PCA. Of
the 22,783 sq km (8,797 sq mi) of suitable habitat outside the PCA, the
Forest Service manages 17,292 sq km (6,676 sq mi), or 76 percent. Of
this 76 percent of suitable habitat outside of the PCA but within the
DMA that the Forest Service manages, 39 percent is Designated
Wilderness Area, 4 percent is Wilderness Study Area, and 36 percent is
Inventoried Roadless Area. These designations provide regulatory
mechanisms that protect grizzly bear habitat from increases in
motorized use, oil and gas development, livestock allotments, and
timber harvest.
Specifically, the Wilderness Act of 1964 does not allow road
construction, new livestock allotments, or new oil, gas, and mining
developments in designated Wilderness Areas. This means the 6,799 sq km
(2,625 sq mi) of secure habitat outside of the PCA in Wilderness Areas
is protected by an existing regulatory mechanism. This secure suitable
habitat is biologically significant to the GYE grizzly bear DPS because
it will allow population expansion into these areas that are minimally
affected by humans. Wilderness study areas are designated by Federal
land management agencies (e.g., Forest Service) as those having
wilderness characteristics and being worthy of congressional
designation as a wilderness area. Individual National Forests that
designate wilderness study areas manage these areas to maintain their
wilderness characteristics until Congress decides whether to designate
them as permanent wilderness areas. This means that individual
wilderness study areas are protected from new road construction by
Forest Plans and activities such as timber harvest, mining, and oil and
gas development. These development activities are much less likely to
occur because the road networks required for these activities either do
not exist or are unlikely to be approved in the future.
Inventoried Roadless Areas currently provide 4,891 sq km (1,888 sq
mi) of secure habitat for grizzly bears outside of the PCA within the
DPS boundaries. The 2001 Roadless Rule prohibits road
[[Page 13210]]
construction, road reconstruction, and timber harvest in Inventoried
Roadless Areas (66 FR 3244; January 12, 2001). This restriction on road
building makes mining activities and oil and gas production much less
likely because access to these resources becomes cost-prohibitive or
impossible without new roads.
If delisting occurs, the Forest Service will classify grizzly bears
in the GYE as a ``species of conservation concern''--or the equivalent
management designation--and will manage activities to provide for the
needs of a recovered population (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26).
This classification means the Forest Service will consider all
potential impacts to the GYE grizzly bear population from proposed
activities as part of its NEPA compliance obligations. Then, under the
National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.), the
Forest Service will ensure that land management activities provide for
the needs of a recovered population and maintain viable populations of
species of conservation concern.
National Park Service
The National Park Service manages 20 percent (9,407 of 46,035 sq km
(3,632 of 17,774 sq mi)) of suitable habitat within the DPS boundaries,
all of which is in the PCA. Yellowstone National Park incorporated the
habitat, population, monitoring, and nuisance bear standards described
in the 2007 Conservation Strategy into their Superintendent's
Compendium in 2014 (Yellowstone National Park 2014, p. 18) and Grand
Teton National Park will do the same in their 2016 Compendium, before
this proposed action is finalized. Grizzly bear hunting is not allowed
in Yellowstone National Park or Grand Teton National Park. Within the
John D. Rockefeller Jr. Memorial Parkway, the Secretary of the Interior
is required to permit hunting in accordance with applicable Federal and
State law, with exceptions for public safety, administration, or public
use and enjoyment.
Tribal Lands
Together, the Eastern Shoshone Tribe and the Northern Arapaho Tribe
manage wildlife and its habitat within the boundaries of the Wind River
Reservation (see figure 2, above). Less than 3 percent of suitable
habitat (1,360 sq km (525 sq mi)) is potentially affected by Tribal
decisions, so their habitat management would never constitute a threat
to the GYE grizzly bear population. No Tribal managed land occurs
within the PCA. The Tribes' Grizzly Bear Management Plan (2009) will
facilitate grizzly bear occupancy in areas of suitable habitat on the
Wind River Reservation and allows grizzly bears access to high-
elevation whitebark pine and army cutworm moth aggregation sites, thus
allowing for additional resiliency of the GYE grizzly bear DPS in
response to changing environmental conditions. The Wind River
Reservation Forest Management Plan calls for no net increase in roads
in the Wind River Roadless Area and the Monument Peak area of the Owl
Creek Mountains. In the remaining portion of Tribal lands occupied by
grizzly bears, open road densities of 1.6 km/sq km (1 mi/sq mi) or less
will be maintained (Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2009,
p. 11). These Tribes do not allow hunting by non-Tribal members. If a
limited hunt is approved by applicable Tribal mechanisms, it must be
consistent with the demographic standards described under Factor B of
this proposed rule and in the Tribal Grizzly Bear Management Plan
(Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2009, pp. 2, 9).
State Regulatory Mechanisms
The three State grizzly bear management plans direct State land
management agencies to maintain or improve habitats that are important
to grizzly bears and to monitor population criteria outside the PCA.
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have developed management plans for areas
outside the PCA to: (1) Assure that the measures of the Act continue to
be unnecessary for the grizzly bears in the GYE DPS; (2) support
expansion of grizzly bears beyond the PCA, into areas of biologically
and socially acceptable suitable habitat; and (3) manage grizzly bears
as a game animal, including allowing regulated hunting when and where
appropriate (in their entirety: Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
Delisting Advisory Team 2002; MTFWP 2002, 2013; WGFD 2005). The plans
for all three States were completed in 2002, with Wyoming's plan
amedned in 2005 and Montana's plan updated in 2013, and grizzly bears
within the GYE DPS will be incorporated into existing game species
management plans should we delist them.
If delisting is made final, the States of Wyoming, Montana, and
Idaho will classify grizzly bears as game animals throughout the DPS
boundaries. This status provides legal protection to grizzly bears by
prohibiting unlimited or unwarranted killing of grizzly bears by the
public. The regulatory mechanism proposed by States discussed under
Factor B and in tables 1, 2, and 3, above, that would govern potential
hunting seasons must be in place by law and regulation in each State
for delisting to occur. We expect that these State statutory and
regulatory changes will be made within the next several months.
Other regulations, such as timing and location of seasons, seasonal
closure procedures, and licenses and fees would be devised by the
States to minimize the possibility that total mortality limits of
independent females are exceeded within the DMA (Idaho's Yellowstone
Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. 20; WGFD 2004, p. 20;
MFWP 2013, p. 61).
Any grizzly bear hunting within the DMA would only occur if total
annual mortality limits specified for the GYE grizzly bear DMA
population are not exceeded as per tables 1, 2, and 3, above. Hunting
limits would be regulated by State regulations as described above. The
killing of grizzly bears in self-defense or defense of others by humans
will continue to be allowed under both Federal (e.g., laws that would
apply on Forest Service and National Park Service lands) and State law.
State management plans do not allow for legal take of grizzly bears by
humans unless it is within the designated seasons and limits for
grizzly bear mortality (Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting
Advisory Team 2002; MTFWP 2002; WGFD 2005) or, in the Montana portion
of the DPS, if a grizzly bear is caught ``in the act'' of attacking or
killing livestock (87-3-130 MCA). A State law enforcement investigation
would have to verify an injured or dead livestock animal.
The management of nuisance bears within the GYE grizzly bear DPS
boundaries would be based upon existing laws and authorities of State
wildlife agencies and Federal land management agencies, and directed by
protocols established in the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy and State
management plans. Inside the National Parks, Yellowstone or Grand Teton
National Park grizzly bear biologists will continue to respond to
grizzly bear-human conflicts. In all areas outside of the National
Parks, State and Tribal wildlife agencies will continue responding to
grizzly bear-human conflicts. The focus and intent of nuisance grizzly
bear management inside and outside the PCA will be predicated on
strategies and actions to prevent grizzly bear-human conflicts. State
and Tribal management plans and State regulations provide the necessary
regulatory framework and guidelines to State wildlife agencies for
managing and maintaining a recovered GYE grizzly bear DPS inside of the
DMA. Any
[[Page 13211]]
mortalities due to nuisance bear management or removal will count
against the total mortality limit inside the DMA. By identifying the
agencies responsible for nuisance bear management and responding to
grizzly bear-human conflicts using a clearly orchestrated protocol,
these State and Tribal plans and regulations create a framework within
which the needs of grizzly bears and humans can be balanced.
It is anticipated that take of grizzly bears would therefore would
likely be strictly limited by hunting seasons and quotas and legally
enforceable through laws and regulations concerning grizzly bears and
other game animals in each State. We expect that State wildlife
commissions would also promulgate regulations with commitments to
coordinate hunting limits within the DMA among jurisdictions and within
the total mortality limits calculated annually by the IGBST (see tables
1, 2, and 3, above, for details on these mortality limits) as described
under Factor B. These regulations would constitute legally enforceable
regulatory mechanisms and these regulations must be adopted and in
place before the Service goes forward with a final delisting rule.
Summary of Factor D
In summary, when the listing of the grizzly bear population was
finalized in 1975, the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms was
identified under Factor D as one of the threats to the population.
Legally enforceable regulatory mechanisms that would be in place if
this proposed rule is finalized and the GYE grizzly bear DPS is
delisted include National Park Superintendent's Compendiums, the Forest
Service Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the GYE
National Forests, the Wind River Reservation regulations, and State
Fish and Game Commission laws and regulations as per tables 1, 2, and 3
and as described under Factor B, above.
In addition to these regulatory mechanisms, after delisting, the
Service will initiate a status review with possible emergency listing
if changes in Federal, State, or Tribal laws, rules, regulations, or
management plans depart significantly from the management details
described in this section, thereby compromising implementation of the
draft 2016 Conservation Strategy. In total, these mechanisms would
provide an adequate regulatory framework within which the GYE grizzly
bear population would continue to experience long-term population
health within the DMA.
Based on this information, it is reasonable to conclude existing
regulatory mechanisms, and those that would be enacted before this
proposed rule is made final, are adequate to protect the GYE grizzly
bear population if the protections of the Act were no longer in place.
Therefore, based on the best available information, we conclude that
the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms will not constitute a
threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now or in the future if the
appropriate regulatory mechanisms are adopted and maintained by the
States in enforceable regulations before this proposed rule becomes
final.
E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence
Factor E requires the Service to consider other natural or manmade
factors affecting the continued existence of a species. Here, four
other considerations warrant additional discussion regarding the GYE
grizzly bear DPS: (1) Genetic health; (2) changes in food resources;
(3) climate change; and (4) human attitudes toward grizzly bear
conservation.
Genetic Health
The isolated nature of the GYE grizzly bear population was
identified as a potential threat when listed in 1975. Declines in
genetic diversity are expected in isolated populations (Allendorf et
al. 1991, p. 651; Burgman et al. 1993, p. 220). For the GYE grizzly
bear population, decreases in genetic diversity would occur gradually
over decades due to long generational time and relatively large
population size (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). Indicators of fitness
in the GYE grizzly bear population demonstrate that the current levels
of genetic diversity are capable of supporting healthy reproductive and
survival rates, as evidenced by normal litter size, no evidence of
disease, high survivorship, an equal sex ratio, normal body size and
physical characteristics, and a stable to increasing population
(Schwartz et al. 2006b, entire; IGBST 2012, entire). These indicators
of fitness will be monitored annually, in perpetuity. Because current
levels of genetic diversity are adequate and heterozygosity values have
increased slightly over the last few decades from 0.55 (Paetkau et al.
1998, p. 421), to 0.56 (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4337), to 0.60 using
more recent data and larger sample sizes (Haroldson et al. 2010, p. 7),
we know there is no immediate need for new genetic material (Miller and
Waits 2003, p. 4338).
Effective population size is a metric used by geneticists to
distinguish between total population size and the actual number of
individuals available to reproduce at any given time. For example, many
individuals in a population may be too young to reproduce and,
therefore, are not part of the ``effective population size.'' Short-
term fitness (i.e., survival and reproduction rates) can be attained by
maintaining an effective population size of at least 50 individuals
(Frankel and Soul[eacute] 1981, p. 74). For long-term fitness (i.e.,
evolutionary response), the effective population size of the GYE
grizzly bear population should remain above 100 animals (Miller and
Waits 2003, p. 4338). In grizzly bears, effective population size is
approximately 25 to 27 percent of total population size (Allendorf et
al. 1991, p. 650; Miller and Waits 2003; Groom et al. 2006, p. 405), so
an effective population size of 100 corresponds to a total population
size of about 400 animals. To further ensure this minimum number of
animals in the population necessary for genetic health is always
maintained, the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy established a standard
to maintain the total population size above 500 animals (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 2). Recent work (Kamath et al. 2015, p.
6) demonstrates that the effective population size (Ne) of
the GYE population has increased from 102 (95% CI = 64-207) in 1982, to
469 (95% CI = 284-772) in 2010. The current effective population is
more than four times the minimum effective population size suggested in
the literature (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338).
While this current effective population size of approximately 469
animals is adequate to maintain genetic health in this population, 1 to
2 effective migrants from other grizzly bear populations every 10 years
would maintain or enhance this level of genetic diversity and therefore
assure genetic health in the long term (Mills and Allendorf 1996, pp.
1510, 1516; Newman and Tallmon 2001, pp. 1059-1061; Miller and Waits
2003, p. 4338) and benefit its long-term persistence (Boyce et al.
2001, pp. 25, 26; Kamath et al. 2015, p. 11). We have defined an
effective migrant as an individual that immigrates into an isolated
population from a separate area, survives, breeds, and whose offspring
survive. Based on Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338), the 2007
Conservation Strategy recommended that if no movement or successful
genetic interchange was detected by 2020, two effective migrants from
the NCDE would be translocated
[[Page 13212]]
into the GYE grizzly bear population every 10 years (i.e., one
generation) to maintain current levels of genetic diversity (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 2007c, p. 37). In light of new information in
Kamath et al. (2015) documenting stable levels of heterozygosity and a
current effective population size of 469 animals (Kamath et al. 2015,
p. 6), we have removed the deadline of 2020 for translocation from the
draft 2016 Conservation Strategy. As stated by Kamath et al. (2015, p.
11), the current effective population size is sufficiently large to
avoid substantial accumulation of inbreeding depression, thereby
reducing concerns regarding genetic factors affecting the viability of
GYE grizzly bears. However, the Service recognizes that the long-term
viability of the GYE grizzly bear population will benefit from
occasional gene flow from nearby grizzly bear populations like that in
the NCDE. Thus, efforts will continue to facilitate occasional movement
of male bears between the NCDE and Yellowstone in the intervening areas
between the GYE and the NCDE. To increase the likelihood of occasional
genetic interchange between the GYE grizzly bear population and the
NCDE grizzly bear population, the State of Montana has indicated they
will manage discretionary mortality in this area in order to retain the
opportunity for natural movements of bears between ecosystems.
Translocation of bears between these ecosystems will be a last resort
and will only be implemented if there are demonstrated effects of
lowered heterozygosity among GYE grizzly bears or other genetic
measures that indicate a decrease in genetic diversity.
To document natural connectivity between the GYE and the NCDE,
Federal and State agencies will continue to monitor bear movements on
the northern periphery of the GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries and the
southern edges of the NCDE using radio-telemetry and will collect
genetic samples from all captured or dead bears to document possible
gene flow between these two ecosystems (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2016, Chapter 2). These genetic samples will detect migrants using an
``assignment test'' to identify the area from which individuals are
most likely to have originated based on their unique genetic signature
(Paetkau et al. 1995, p. 348; Waser and Strobeck 1998, p. 43; Paetkau
et al. 2004, p. 56; Proctor et al. 2005, pp. 2410-2412). This technique
also identifies bears that may be the product of reproduction between
GYE and NCDE grizzly bears (Dixon et al. 2006, p. 158). In addition to
monitoring for gene flow and movements, we will continue interagency
efforts to provide and maintain movement opportunities for grizzly
bears, and reestablish natural connectivity and gene flow between the
GYE grizzly bear DPS and other grizzly bear populations. To promote
natural connectivity, there are attractant storage rules on public
lands between the GYE and other grizzly bear recovery zones in the NCDE
and Bitterroot. We do not consider connectivity to the east, west, or
south a relevant issue to the GYE grizzly bear population's long-term
persistence because there are no extant populations in these directions
to enhance the genetic diversity of the GYE population. However, we
recognize the GYE grizzly bear population could be a possible source
population to re-colonize the Bitterroot Ecosystem to the west.
Genetic concerns are not currently a threat to the GYE grizzly bear
population (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338; Kamath et al. 2015,
entire). Attractant storage orders on public lands, through a reduction
in conflict situations, and careful regulation of hunting in certain
areas provide adequate measures to promote natural connectivity and
prevent reductions in genetic diversity. The IGBST will carefully
monitor movements and the presence of alleles from grizzly bear
populations outside the GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 2). The IGBST will continue to monitor
genetic diversity of the GYE grizzly bear population so that a possible
reduction in genetic diversity due to the geographic isolation of the
GYE grizzly bear population will be detected and responded to
accordingly with translocation of outside grizzly bears into the GYE.
This approach ensures that long-term genetic diversity does warrant a
continued threatened listing for the GYE DPS. Therefore, based on the
best available scientific information, we conclude that genetic
diversity does not constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now,
nor is it anticipated to in the future.
Changes in Food Resources
The IGBST currently monitors the productivity of four common
grizzly bear foods in the GYE: whitebark pine seeds, army cutworm
moths, winter-killed ungulates, and spawning cutthroat trout. While
these are some of the highest calorie food sources available to grizzly
bears in the GYE (Mealey 1975, pp. 84-86; Pritchard and Robbins 1990,
p. 1647; Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 247-252), only whitebark pine seeds
are known to have an influence on grizzly bear mortality risk and
reproduction. There is no known relationship between grizzly bear
mortality risk or reproduction and any other individual food (Schwartz
et al. 2010, p. 662).
Grizzly bears primarily consume elk and bison as winter-killed
carrion in the early spring, but also kill calves opportunistically and
prey upon adults weakened during the fall breeding season. The
availability of these ungulates is threatened by brucellosis (Brucella
abortus) and resulting management practices resulting in bison removal,
chronic wasting disease (CWD), competition with other top predators for
ungulates, and decreasing winter severity. Brucellosis does not affect
bison as a food source for grizzly bears, and the subsequent removal
program is managed to ``maintain a wild, free-ranging population of
bison'' (USDOI National Park Service and USDA Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service 2000, p. 22). CWD is fatal to deer and elk but has
not been detected in the GYE and as transmission is density-dependent
(Schauber and Woolf 2003, pp. 611-612); CWD would not result in local
extinction of deer or elk populations. The availability of ungulate
carcasses is not anticipated to be impacted by either of these diseases
such that they are a threat to the GYE grizzly bear population now, or
in the future. The reintroduction of gray wolves (Canis lupus) to the
GYE in 1995 has created competition between grizzly bears and wolves
for carrion; however, there has been no documentation of negative
influence on the GYE grizzly bear population (Servheen and Knight 1993,
p. 36). Decreasing winter severity and length as a result of climate
change could reduce spring carrion availability (Wilmers and Getz 2005,
p. 574; Wilmers and Post 2006, p. 405). A reduction of winter-killed
ungulates may be buffered by an increase of availability of meat to
adult grizzly bears during the active season as a result of grizzly
bears usually prevailing in usurping wolf-killed ungulate carcasses
(Ballard et al. 2003, p. 262). Therefore, fluctuations in the
availability of ungulates are not a threat to the GYE grizzly bear
population now, or in future.
A decline in the Yellowstone cutthroat trout population has
resulted from a combination of factors: the introduction of nonnative
lake trout (Salvelinus naymaycush), a parasite that causes whirling
disease (Myxobolus cerebralis), and several years of drought conditions
in the Intermountain West (Koel et al. 2005, p. 10). Although there has
been a corresponding decrease in
[[Page 13213]]
grizzly bear use of cutthroat trout, only a small portion of the GYE
grizzly bear population uses cutthroat trout (Haroldson et al. 2005, p.
175), and grizzly bears that fish in spawning streams only consume, on
average, between 8 and 55 trout per year (Felicetti et al. 2004, p.
499). Therefore, potential declines in cutthroat trout are not
currently, nor are they likely, to become a threat in future to the GYE
grizzly bear population.
Army cutworm moths aggregate on remote, high-elevation talus slopes
where grizzly bears forage on them from mid-summer to late summer.
Grizzly bears could potentially be disturbed by backcountry visitors
(White et al. 1999, p. 150), but this has not been documented in the
GYE. The situation is monitored by the IGBST and the WGFD, who will
take appropriate management action as necessary. Climate change may
affect army cutworm moths by changing the distribution of plants that
the moths feed on or the flowering times of the plants (Woiwod 1997,
pp. 152-153). However, they GYE plant communities have a wide
elevational range that would allow for distributional changes (Romme
and Turner 1991, p. 382), and army cutworm moths display foraging
plasticity (Burton et al. 1980, pp. 12-13). Therefore, potential
changes to army cutworm moth availability are not likely to threaten
the GYE grizzly bear population in the future.
More details on the specific ways in which changes in ungulates,
cutthroat trout, and army cutworm moths could affect the GYE grizzly
bear population are discussed in detail in the 2007 final rule (72 FR
14866, March 29, 2007, pp. 14,928-14,933). Our analysis focuses on the
potential impacts that the loss of whitebark pine could have on the GYE
grizzly bear population. While we discussed notable declines in
whitebark pine due to mountain pine beetle in the 2007 final rule, the
data used to estimate population growth only went through 2002. The
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals questioned our conclusions about future
population viability based on data gathered before the sharp decline in
whitebark pine began (Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Inc. v. Servheen,
et al., 665 F.3d 1015, (9th Cir. 2011)). To assess the population's
vital rates since 2002, the IGBST completed a comprehensive demographic
review using data from 2002-2011 (IGBST 2012, p. 7) and extensive
analyses to determine if the decline in whitebark pine is driving
observed changes in population vital rates (IGBST 2013, entire).
Whitebark pine still faces the same threats reported in our 2007
final rule and reiterated in our 12-month finding for whitebark pine
(76 FR 42631; July 19, 2011). Whitebark pine is currently warranted for
protected status under the Act but that action is precluded by higher
priority actions. This status is primarily the result of direct
mortality due to white pine blister rust and mountain pine beetles but
also less obvious impacts from climate change and fire suppression. For
more details on the status of whitebark pine, please see the 2013
candidate notice of review (78 FR 70104; November 22, 2013).
During years of low whitebark pine seed availability, we know
grizzly bear-human conflicts may increase as bears use lower elevation,
less secure habitat within their home ranges (Gunther et al. 2004, pp.
13-15; Schwartz et al. 2010, pp. 661-662). Approximately six more
independent females and six more independent males die across the
ecosystem in poor whitebark pine years (IGBST 2013, p. 25, figure 5).
These mortalities are primarily due to defense of life encounters and
wildlife management agency removals of conflict bears (Gunther et al.
2004, pp. 13-14; IGBST 2009, p. 4). Additionally, both litter size and
the likelihood of producing a litter may decrease in years following
poor whitebark pine years (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 21). Despite these
effects on survival and reproduction, using data from 2002 to 2011, the
IGBST documented an average annual population growth rate for the GYE
grizzly bear population between 0.3 and 2.2 percent (IGBST 2012, p.
34). Although the population was still increasing in this more recent
time period, it was increasing at a slower rate than in the previous
time period (1983-2001). Therefore, the IGBST examined the potential
influence whitebark pine was having on this population growth rate.
Because extrinsic, density-independent factors (e.g., whitebark pine
availability) and intrinsic, density-dependent factors (i.e., a
population at or near carrying capacity) can produce similar changes in
population vital rates, the IGBST conducted several analyses to clarify
and tease apart these two similar effects. The results of these
analyses were summarized in a single report titled ``Response of
Yellowstone grizzly bears to changes in food resources: a synthesis''
(hereafter referred to as ``the Food Synthesis Report'') (IGBST 2013).
Regardless of whether these changes are being driven by declines in
whitebark pine or are simply an indication of the population reaching
carrying capacity, our management response would be the same: to
carefully manage human-caused mortality based on scientific monitoring
of the population.
For the Food Synthesis Report, the IGBST developed a comprehensive
set of research questions and hypotheses to evaluate grizzly bear
responses to changes in food resources. Specifically, the IGBST asked
eight questions: (1) How diverse is the diet of GYE grizzly bears? (2)
Has grizzly bear selection of whitebark pine habitat decreased as tree
mortality increased? (3) Has grizzly bear body condition decreased as
whitebark pine declined? (4) Has animal matter provided grizzly bears
with an alternative food resource to declining whitebark pine? (5) Have
grizzly bear movements increased during the period of whitebark pine
decline (2000-2011)? (6) Has home range size increased as grizzly bears
sought alterative foods, or has home range size decreased as grizzly
bear density increased? (7) Has the number of human-caused grizzly bear
mortalities increased as whitebark pine decreased? (8) Are changes in
vital rates during the last decade associated more with decline in
whitebark pine resources than increases in grizzly bear density? The
preliminary answers to these questions are contained in the Synthesis
Report and the final results have been (or will be) published in peer-
reviewed journals (in their entirety: Schwartz et al. 2013; Bjornlie et
al. 2013; Costello et al. 2014; Gunther et al. 2014; Schwartz et al.
2014; van Manen et al. 2015; Ebinger et al. in review; Haroldson et al.
in prep.)
Key findings of the Synthesis Report are summarized below. To
address the first question about how diverse GYE grizzly bear diets
are, Gunther et al. (2014, entire) conducted an extensive literature
review and documented over 260 species of foods consumed by grizzly
bears in the GYE, representing four of the five kingdoms of life (for
more information, please see Nutritional Ecology, above). Regarding the
second research question, if whitebark pine was a preferred food or if
individual grizzly bears were dependent on this food source, we would
expect movement rates and grizzly bear selection of whitebark pine to
increase as its availability decreased and bears had to search further
and longer to find this food source. However, Costello et al. (2014, p.
2013) found that grizzly bear selection of whitebark pine habitat had
actually decreased between 2000 and 2011. They also found that movement
rates had not changed over the study period, further supporting the
notion that grizzly bears were simply finding alternative foods within
their home
[[Page 13214]]
ranges as whitebark pine seeds became less available over the past
decade (Costello et al. 2014, p. 2013). Regarding the third research
question, if grizzly bears were dependent on whitebark pine to meet
their nutritional requirements, we would expect body condition to have
decreased since 2002. Instead, Schwartz et al. (2013, p. 75) and the
IGBST (2013, p. 18) found body mass and percent body fat in the fall
had not changed significantly from 2000 to 2010. When they examined
trends in females only, the data seemed to show a slightly declining
trend in female body fat during the fall, starting around 2006
(Schwartz et al. 2014, p. 72). However, they suggested it could be the
result of very small sample sizes (n = 2.6 bears/year) and noted the
data for 2011 (not included in their published paper) showed an
increase in fall body fat for females, ultimately cautioning that more
data were needed before it could be determined if there was truly a
trend (Schwartz et al. 2014, p. 76). In the Food Synthesis Report, the
IGBST revisited the previous analysis with information since 2010, and
found ``body condition is not different between poor and good years of
whitebark pine production'' (IGBST 2013, p. 18). In response to the
fourth research question, the IGBST found that ungulate carcass use had
increased since 2002, and that bears used more meat in years with poor
whitebark pine seed production (Schwartz et al. 2013, p. 68). These
results were expected and are consistent with previous findings
(Mattson 1997, p. 169). To answer the fifth and sixth research
questions identified in the previous paragraph, the IGBST examined
movement rates and home range sizes. They found daily and fall bear
movements had not increased from 2000 to 2011 (Costello et al. 2014,
pp. 2011, 2013). Additionally, they documented that home ranges
actually decreased significantly for females and that this decrease was
greater in areas with higher grizzly bear densities (Bjornlie et al.
2014, p. 4-6). The IGBST compared pre- (1989-1999) and post-whitebark
pine impact (2007-2012) periods and did not find a relationship between
home range size and amount of live whitebark pine in the home range
(Bjornlie et al. 2014, p. 4-6). Because we would expect daily and fall
movements and home range size to increase if food resources were
declining and bears were roaming more widely in search of foods, these
findings offer strong support that changes in population vital rates
since the early 2000s are more indicative of the population approaching
carrying capacity than a shortage of resources (van Manen et al. 2015,
p. 21).
In response to the seventh question, while land managers have
little influence on how calories are spread across the landscape, we
have much more influence on human-caused mortality risk. Consistent
with findings from earlier studies, Haroldson et al. (in prep.) found
that grizzly bear mortalities increase in poor compared to good
whitebark pine years. Assuming the poorest observed whitebark pine cone
production, Haroldson et al. (in prep.) predicted an increase of 10
annual mortalities ecosystem-wide of independent females comparing 2000
with 2012, encompassing the period that coincided with whitebark pine
decline (IGBST 2013, p. 25). The greatest increase in predicted
mortality occurred outside the PCA, which may be partially attributable
to range expansion and continued population increase (Haroldson et al.
in prep.). However, increased mortality numbers have not led to a
declining population trend (IGBST 2012, p. 34).
In response to the eight question, the IGBST found that while
whitebark pine seed production can influence reproductive rates the
following year, the overall fecundity rates during the last decade
(2002-2011) did not decline when compared with data from 1983-2001
(IGBST 2013, p. 32). This is important because fecundity rates are a
function of both litter size and the likelihood of producing a litter,
the two ways in which whitebark pine seed production may affect
reproduction. Although Schwartz et al. (2006, p. 21) found one-cub
litters were more common in years following poor whitebark pine seed
production, one-cub litters are still adequate for population growth.
Furthermore, one-cub litters are still relatively uncommon following
poor whitebark pine years, as evidenced by a very consistent average
litter size around two since the IGBST began reporting this metric.
Fecundity and mean litter size did not change between the two
monitoring periods (1983-2001 vs. 2002-2011) examined by the IGBST even
though the availability of whitebark pine seeds declined (IGBST 2013,
pp. 33-34).
In contrast to previous studies that concluded increased mortality
in poor whitebark pine years led to population decline in those years
(Pease and Mattson 1999, p. 964), the IGBST found the population did
not decline despite increased mortality in poor whitebark pine years.
The conclusions of Pease and Mattson (1999, p. 964) are flawed. First
and foremost, estimating population growth for individual, non-
consecutive years, as Pease and Mattson (1999, p. 962) did, is ``not
legitimate'' and results in an ``incorrect estimate'' (Eberhardt and
Cherry 2000, p. 3257). Even assuming their methods of separating out
individual, non-consecutive years of data for a species whose
reproduction and survival are inextricably linked to multiple,
consecutive years (e.g., reproductive status in 1 year affects status
in the following year), many other aspects of their analysis do not
reflect the best available science. An important difference between
Pease and Mattson (1999, p. 964) and other population growth rate
estimates (Eberhardt et al. 1994, p. 362; Boyce 1995, entire; Schwartz
et al. 2006b, p. 48; IGBST 2012, p. 34) is related to their treatment
of conflict bears. Pease and Mattson (1999, p. 967) assumed that
grizzly bears with any history of conflict would experience lower
survival rates associated with conflict bears for the rest of their
lives. The findings of Schwartz et al. (2006, p.42) challenge this
assumption, finding that while survival of conflict bears decreases
during the year of the conflict and the next year, survival returns to
approximately normal within 2 years. In other words, management-trapped
bears often return to foraging on naturally occurring food sources,
away from human developments. Another assumption made by Pease and
Mattson (1999, p. 967) was that 73 percent of the GYE grizzly bear
population were conflict bears, with correspondingly lower survival
rates. However, Schwartz et al. (2006, p. 39) found only about 28
percent of the GYE grizzly bear population were ever involved in
conflicts. Together, these two erroneous assumptions by Pease and
Mattson (1996, p. 967) resulted in a gross underestimation of
population trend. As a result, we do not consider Pease and Mattson
(1996) to be the best available science.
Earlier studies suggested that increased grizzly bear mortalities
in poor whitebark pine years are a result of bears roaming more widely
in search of foods and exposing themselves to higher mortality risk in
roaded habitats at lower elevations. However, Costello et al. (2014, p.
2014) showed that grizzly bears did not roam over larger areas or
canvass more area within their fall ranges as whitebark pine declined
rapidly starting in the early 2000s, and suggested bears found
alternative foods within their fall ranges. Furthermore, Bjornlie et
al. (2014, p. 4) found that home range size has not increased after
whitebark pine declined, and Schwartz
[[Page 13215]]
et al. (2010, p. 662) found that when bears use lower elevations in
poor whitebark pine seed production years, it is the amount of secure
habitat that determines mortality risk. Meaning, in both good and poor
whitebark pine seed years, survival is determined primarily by levels
of secure habitat. Therefore, our approach of maintaining these levels
of secure habitat on 98 percent of lands within the PCA and 60 percent
of suitable habitat outside the PCA provides strong mitigation against
any impacts the decline of whitebark pine may have on this grizzly bear
population because the mechanism driving the increased mortality risk
is secure habitat, not the presence or absence of whitebark pine.
We recognize that changes in food resources can have some influence
on population vital rates. These research questions and results do not
refute that possibility, but the preponderance of evidence supports the
conclusion that bears are finding sufficient alternative food resources
to maintain body condition (Schwartz et al. 2013, p. 75; IGBST 2013, p.
20). Evidence suggests that observed changes in population vital rates
since the rapid decline of whitebark pine that began in the early 2000s
are being driven by density-dependent effects and have resulted in a
stable to slightly increasing population trend. Van Manen et al. (2015,
entire) found cub survival, yearling survival, and reproductive
transition from no offspring to cubs all changed from 1983 to 2012,
with lower rates evident during the last 10-15 years. Cub survival and
reproductive transition were negatively associated with an index of
grizzly bear density, indicating greater declines where bear densities
were higher. Their analysis did not support a similar relationship for
the index of whitebark pine mortality. The results of van Manen et al.
(2015) support the interpretation that slowing population growth during
the last decade was associated more with increasing grizzly bear
density than the decline in whitebark pine. In other words, the
population is approaching carrying capacity (van Manen et al. 2015,
entire). This evidence further supports the recovered status of the GYE
grizzly bear population. Despite significant changes in food resources
in the GYE in the last 15 years, grizzly bear population growth
increased or stabilized.
While there was some concern that the rapid loss of whitebark pine
could result in mortality rates similar to those experienced after the
open-pit garbage dumps were closed in the early 1970s (Schwartz et al.
2006b, p. 42), we now know this has not been the case. This is most
likely due to the fact that whitebark pine has never been a spatially
or temporally predictable food source on the landscape like the open-
pit garbage dumps were. The dumps were open year round and provided
high-calorie foods the entire time. They were in the exact same
location every year and for the entire season. Grizzly bears
congregated at these known locations in large numbers and in very close
proximity to each other and to people. None of these circumstances are
true for grizzly bears foraging on whitebark pine seeds.
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bears have high diet
diversity (Gunther et al. 2014, p. 65) and use alternate foods in years
of low whitebark pine seed production (Schwartz et al. 2013, pp. 75-
76). Nearly one third of grizzly bears in the GYE do not have whitebark
pine in their home range, so they do not use this food (Costello et al.
2014, p. 2013). Grizzly bears in the GYE that do use whitebark pine are
accustomed to successfully finding alternative natural foods in years
when whitebark pine seeds are not available, and body mass and body fat
are not different between good and poor whitebark pine seed years
(Schwartz et al. 2014, pp. 72-73, 75).
The IGBST will continue to monitor annual production of common
foods, grizzly bear-human conflicts, survival rates, reproductive
rates, and the causes and locations of grizzly bear mortality, as
detailed in the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2016, Chapters 3 and 4). These data provide the 2016
Conservation Strategy's signatory agencies with the scientific
information necessary to inform and implement adaptive management
(Holling 1978, pp. 11-16) actions in response to ecological changes
that may impact the future of the GYE grizzly bear population. These
management responses may involve increased habitat protection,
increased mortality management, or a status review and emergency
relisting of the population if management actions are unable to address
the problems.
Grizzly bears are resourceful omnivores that will make behavioral
adaptations regarding food acquisition (Schwartz et al. 201, p. 75).
Diets of grizzly bears vary among individuals, seasons, years, and
where they reside within the GYE (Mealey 1980, pp. 284-287; Mattson et
al. 1991a, pp. 1625-1626; Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 767; Felicetti et
al. 2004, p. 499; Koel et al. 2005, p. 14; Costello et al. 2014, p.
2013; Gunther et al. 2014, pp. 66-67), reflecting their ability to find
adequate food resources across a diverse and changing landscape. In
other nearby areas such as the NCDE (100 miles north of the GYE)
whitebark pine has been functionally extinct as a bear food for at
least 40 years (Kendall and Keane 2001, pp. 228-232), yet the NCDE
grizzly bear population has continued to increase and thrive with an
estimated 765 bears in 2004, and a subsequent average 3 percent annual
rate of growth (Kendall et al. 2009, p. 9; Mace et al. 2012, p. 124).
Similarly, although whitebark pine seed production and availability of
cutthroat trout in the Yellowstone Lake area varied dramatically over
the last 3 decades due to both natural and human-introduced causes
(Reinhart and Mattson 1990, pp. 345-349; Podruzny et al. 1999, pp. 134-
137; Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499; Haroldson et al. 2005, pp. 175-178;
Haroldson 2014, p. 45; Teisberg et al. 2014, pp. 375-376), the GYE
grizzly bear population has continued to increase and expand during
this time period despite these changes in foods (Schwartz et al. 2006a,
p. 66; IGBST 2012, p. 34; Bjornlie et al. 2014, p. 184). The GYE
grizzly bear population has been coping with the unpredictable nature
of whitebark pine seed production for millennia. Grizzly bears are not
dependent upon whitebark pine seeds for survival, nor do they have a
diet that is specialized on consumption of these seeds. While we know
whitebark pine seed production can influence reproductive and survival
rates, it has not caused a negative population trend, as evidenced by
stable to slightly increasing trend between 2002 and 2011 (IGBST 2012,
p. 34). As articulated in the Food Synthesis Report by the IGBST (IGBST
2013, pp. 32-35) and supporting studies (in their entirety: Bjornlie et
al. 2014; Costello et al. 2014; Gunther et al. 2014), the demonstrated
resiliency to declines in whitebark pine seed production and other
high-calorie foods such as cutthroat trout shows that changes in food
resources are not likely to become substantial impediments to the long-
term persistence of the GYE grizzly bear population.
In Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, 665 F.3d 1015 (9th
Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit faulted the Service's conclusion that
whitebark pine losses did not pose a threat. First, the Ninth Circuit
noted that grizzly bears' adaptability and resourcefulness increased
the threat from whitebark pine loss because it raised the risk of
conflicts with humans as bears looked for other food sources. The
Service acknowledges this component of the threat from whitebark pine
loss, but despite increased mortality during poor whitebark years, the
population trend
[[Page 13216]]
has remained stable to increasing (IGBST 2012, p. 34). Additionally,
during years of poor whitebark pine seed availability, grizzly bears
did not roam over larger areas (Costello et al. 2014, p. 2014); rather,
the increased risk of mortality was related to the use of lower
elevations and less secure habitat within their home range (Schwartz et
al. 2010, p. 662). Second, the court noted that the Service's data on
long-term population growth came from 2002, before the pine beetle
epidemic began. New data show that although population growth has
slowed from the 4 to 7 percent that occurred from 1983 to 2001
(Eberhardt et al. 1994, p. 362; Knight and Blanchard 1995, pp. 18-19;
Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48), it continued to grow at a rate of 0.3 to
2.2 percent from 2002 to 2011 (IGBST 2012, p. 34). Third, the court
faulted the Service for using a study of NCDE bears to prove GYE
grizzly bears continued to increase despite whitebark pine losses, even
though GYE bears were reported to be unique because of their reliance
on whitebark pine seeds. Current data show that the GYE bear population
has stabilized or increased despite the loss of whitebark pine seeds
(IGBST 2012, p. 34). As explained in the DPS analysis, the Service no
longer considers the GYE bear population to be significant due to
unique ecological conditions, including reliance on whitebark pine
seeds. A recent study found that nearly one third of collared grizzly
bears in the GYE did not even have whitebark pine within their home
ranges and those that did made use of other foods within their home
ranges during poor whitebark pine years (Costello et al. 2014, pp.
2009, 2013). Fourth, the Ninth Circuit observed that the Service
contradicted itself by stating that the entire PCA was necessary to
support a recovered population, yet acknowledged that whitebark pine
would persist in only a small part of the PCA. New data show that
despite the decline in whitebark pine, the GYE population is stable at
close to carrying capacity and is exhibiting density-dependent
regulation inside the DMA (van Manen et al. 2015, entire). Fifth, the
court determined it was arbitrary and capricious for the Service to
rely on scientific uncertainty about whitebark pine loss in a delisting
decision. Any uncertainty about the loss of whitebark pine has been
conclusively resolved by GYE population numbers that show stable or
increasing populations despite loss of whitebark pine seeds (IGBST
2012, p. 34) and no long-term changes in vital rates (IGBST 2012, pp.
32-34). Furthermore, whitebark pine tree mortality has significantly
slowed since 2009, suggesting that the current beetle outbreak may have
run its course (Haroldson 2015, p. 47). Finally, the Ninth Circuit
faulted the Service for relying on adaptive management and monitoring
without describing management responses and specific triggering
criteria. The population objectives that will be incorporated into
regulations provide specific triggers for management action (see Factor
B discussion, above). The Service continues to believe that adaptive
management will play a role in future management decisions because new
data and new information will require appropriate management responses.
In summary, the best scientific and commercial data available
regarding grizzly bear responses to food losses suggest this issue is
not a threat to the GYE grizzly bear population and is not an
impediment to long-term population persistence. Therefore, we conclude
that changes in food resources do not constitute a threat to the GYE
grizzly bear DPS now, nor is it anticipated to in the future.
Climate Change
Our analyses under the Act include consideration of observed or
likely environmental changes resulting from ongoing and projected
changes in climate. As defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC), the term ``climate'' refers to the mean and
variability of different types of weather conditions over time, with 30
years being a typical period for such measurements, although shorter or
longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2013a, p. 1450). The term
``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the state of the climate
that can be identified by changes in the mean or the variability of
relevant properties, which persists for an extended period, typically
decades or longer, due to natural conditions (e.g., solar cycles), or
human-caused changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land
use (IPCC 2013a, p. 1450).
Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that
changes in climate are occurring. In particular, warming of the climate
system is unequivocal, and many of the observed changes in the last 60
years are unprecedented over decades to millennia (IPCC 2013b, p. 4).
The current rate of climate change may be as fast as any extended
warming period over the past 65 million years and is projected to
accelerate in the next 30 to 80 years (National Research Council 2013,
p. 5). Thus, rapid climate change is adding to other sources of
extinction pressures, such as land use and human-caused mortality,
which will likely place extinction rates in this era among just a
handful of the severe biodiversity crises observed in Earth's
geological record (American Association for the Advancement of Sciences
2014, p. 17).
Examples of various other observed and projected changes in climate
and associated effects and risks, and the bases for them, are provided
for global and regional scales in recent reports issued by the IPCC (in
their entirety: 2013c, 2014), and similar types of information for the
United States and regions within it are available via the National
Climate Assessment (Melillo et al. 2014, entire). Results of scientific
analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of the observed increase
in global average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be
explained by natural variability in climate and is ``extremely likely''
(defined by the IPCC as 95-100 percent likelihood) due to the observed
increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere as a result
of human activities, particularly carbon dioxide emissions from fossil
fuel use (IPCC 2013b, p. 17).
Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various
scenarios of potential levels and timing of greenhouse gas emissions,
to evaluate the causes of changes already observed and to project
future changes in temperature and other climate conditions. Model
results yield very similar projections of average global warming until
about 2030, and thereafter the magnitude and rate of warming vary
through the end of the century depending on the assumptions about
population levels, emissions of greenhouse gases, and other factors
that influence climate change. Thus, absent extremely rapid
stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions at a global level, there is
strong scientific support for projections that warming will continue
through the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate of change
will be influenced substantially by human actions regarding greenhouse
gas emissions (IPCC 2013b, p. 19; IPCC 2014, entire).
Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the
only or the best scientific information available for us to use.
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary
substantially across and within different regions of the world (in
their entirety: IPCC 2013c, 2014), and within the US (Melillo et al.
2014, entire). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections when they
are available and have been developed
[[Page 13217]]
through appropriate scientific procedures, because such projections
provide higher resolution information that is more relevant to spatial
scales used for analyses of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp.
58-61, for a discussion of downscaling).
The hydrologic regime in the Rocky Mountains has changed and is
projected to change further (Bartlein et al. 1997, p. 786; Cayan et al.
2001, p. 411; Leung et al. 2004, p. 75; Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223-
224; Pederson et al. 2011, p. 1666). The western United States may
experience milder, wetter winters with warmer, drier summers and an
overall decrease in snowpack (Leung et al. 2004, pp. 93-94). While some
climate models do not demonstrate significant changes in total annual
precipitation for the western United States (Duffy et al. 2006, p.
893), an increase in ``rain on snow'' events is expected (Leung et al.
2004, p. 93; McWethy et al. 2010, p. 55). The amount of snowpack and
the timing of snowmelt may also change, with an earlier peak stream
flow each spring (Cayan et al. 2001, p. 410; Leung et al. 2004, p. 75;
Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223-224). Although there is some disagreement
about changes in the water content of snow under varying climate
scenarios (Duffy et al. 2006, p. 893), reduced runoff from decreased
snowpack could translate into decreased soil moisture in the summer
(Leung et al. 2004, p. 75). However, Pederson et al. (2011, p. 1682)
found that increased spring precipitation in the northern Rocky
Mountains is offsetting these impacts to total annual stream flow from
expected declines in snowpack thus far.
The effects related to climate change may result in a number of
changes to grizzly bear habitat, including a reduction in snowpack
levels, shifts in denning times, shifts in the abundance and
distribution of some natural food sources, and changes in fire regimes.
Most grizzly bear biologists in the United States and Canada do not
expect habitat changes predicted under climate change scenarios to
directly threaten grizzly bears (Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4). These
changes may even make habitat more suitable and food sources more
abundant. However, these ecological changes may also affect the timing
and frequency of grizzly bear-human interactions and conflicts
(Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4).
Because timing of den entry and emergence is at least partially
influenced by food availability and weather (Craighead and Craighead
1972, pp. 33-34; Van Daele et al. 1990, p. 264), less snowpack would
likely shorten the denning season as foods become available later in
the fall and earlier in the spring. In the GYE, Haroldson et al. (2002,
pp. 34-35) reported later den entry dates for male grizzly bears,
corresponding with increasing November temperatures from 1975 to 1999.
This increased time outside of the den could increase the potential for
conflicts with humans (Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4).
The effects related to climate change could create temporal and
spatial shifts in grizzly bear food sources (Rodriguez et al. 2007, pp.
41-42). Changes in plant communities have already been documented, with
species' ranges shifting farther north and higher in elevation due to
environmental constraints (Walther et al. 2002, pp. 390-391; Walther
2003, pp. 172-175; Walther et al. 2005, p. 1428) and increases in
outbreaks of insects that reduce survival (Bentz et al. 2010, entire).
Decreased snowpack could lead to fewer avalanches thereby reducing
avalanche chutes, an important habitat component to grizzly bears,
across the landscape. However, increases in ``rain on snow'' events may
decrease the stability of snowpack resulting in increases in
avalanches. Changes in vegetative food distributions also may influence
other mammal distributions, including potential prey species like
ungulates. While the extent and rate to which individual plant species
will be impacted is difficult to foresee with any level of confidence
(in their entirety: Walther et al. 2002; Fagre et al. 2003), there is
general consensus that grizzly bears are flexible enough in their
dietary needs that they will not be impacted directly by ecological
constraints such as shifts in food distributions and abundance
(Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4; IGBST 2013, p. 35).
Fire regimes can affect the abundance and distribution of some
vegetative bear foods (e.g., grasses, berry-producing shrubs) (LeFranc
et al. 1987, p. 150). For instance, fires can reduce canopy cover,
which usually increases berry production. However, on steep south or
west slopes, excessive canopy removal due to fires or vegetation
management may decrease berry production through subsequent moisture
stress and exposure to sun, wind, and frost (Simonin 2000, entire).
Fire frequency and severity may increase with late summer droughts
predicted under climate change scenarios (Nitschke and Innes 2008, p.
853; McWethy et al. 2010, p. 55). Increased fire frequency has the
potential to improve grizzly bear habitat, with low to moderate
severity fires being the best. For example, fire treatment most
beneficial to huckleberry shrubs is that which results in damage to
stems, but does little damage to rhizomes (Simonin 2000, entire). High-
intensity fires may reduce grizzly bear habitat quality immediately
afterwards by decreasing hiding cover and delaying regrowth of
vegetation, although Blanchard and Knight (1996, p. 121) found that
increased production of forbs and root crops in the years following the
high-intensity, widespread Yellowstone fires of 1988 benefited grizzly
bears. Because grizzly bears have shown resiliency to changes in
vegetation resulting from fires, we do not anticipate altered fire
regimes predicted under most climate change scenarios will have
significant negative impacts on grizzly bear survival or reproduction,
despite its potential effects on vegetation. Therefore, we conclude
that the effects of climate change do not constitute a threat to the
GYE grizzly bear DPS now, nor are they anticipated to in the future.
Public Support and Human Attitudes
Public support is paramount to any successful large carnivore
conservation program (Servheen 1998, p. 67). Historically, human
attitudes played a primary role in grizzly bear population declines by
promoting a culture and government framework that encouraged excessive,
unregulated, human-caused mortality. Through government-endorsed
eradication programs and perceived threats to human life and economic
livelihood, humans settling the West were able to effectively eliminate
most known grizzly bear populations after only 100 years of westward
expansion.
We have seen a change in public perceptions and attitudes toward
the grizzly bear in the last several decades. The same government that
once financially supported active extermination of the bear now uses
its resources to protect the great symbol of American wildness. This
change in government policy and practice is a product of changing
public attitudes about the grizzly bear. Although attitudes about
grizzly bears vary geographically and demographically, there has been a
revival of positive attitudes toward the grizzly bear and its
conservation (Kellert et al. 1996, pp. 983-986).
Public outreach presents a unique opportunity to effectively
integrate human and ecological concerns into comprehensive programs
that can modify societal beliefs about, perceptions of, and behaviors
toward grizzly bears. Attitudes toward wildlife are shaped by numerous
factors including basic wildlife values, biological and ecological
understanding of species, perceptions about individual
[[Page 13218]]
species, and specific interactions or experiences with species (Kellert
1994, pp. 44-48; Kellert et al. 1996, pp. 983-986). Information and
education programs teach visitors and residents about grizzly bear
biology, ecology, and behavior, and enhance appreciation for this large
predator while dispelling myths about its temperament and feeding
habits. Effective information and education programs have been an
essential factor contributing to the recovery of the GYE grizzly bear
population since its listing in 1975. By identifying values common to
certain user groups, the information and education working group can
disseminate appropriate materials and provide workshops catered to
these values. By providing general information to visitors and
targeting specific user groups about living and working in grizzly bear
country, we believe continued coexistence between grizzly bears and
humans will be accomplished.
Traditionally, residents of the GYE involved in resource extraction
industries, such as loggers, miners, livestock operators, and hunting
guides, are opposed to land-use restrictions that place the needs of
the grizzly bear above human needs (Kellert 1994, p. 48; Kellert et al.
1996, p. 984). Surveys of these user groups have shown that they
tolerate large predators when they are not seen as direct threats to
their economic stability or personal freedoms (Kellert et al. 1996, p.
985). Delisting could increase acceptance of grizzly bears by giving
local government and private citizens more discretion in decisions that
affect them. Increased flexibility regarding depredating bears in areas
outside of the PCA may increase tolerance for the grizzly bear by
landowners and livestock operators by potentially reducing the number
of conflict situations.
Ultimately, the future of the grizzly bear will be based on the
people who live, work, and recreate in grizzly bear habitat and the
willingness and ability of these people to learn to coexist with the
grizzly bear and to accept this animal as a cohabitant of the land.
Other management strategies are unlikely to succeed without effective
and innovative public information and education programs. The objective
of the public outreach program is to proactively address grizzly bear-
human conflicts by informing the public about the root causes of these
conflicts and providing suggestions on how to prevent them. By
increasing awareness of grizzly bear behavior and biology, we hope to
enhance public involvement and appreciation of the grizzly bear. In
addition to public outreach programs, the States have implemented other
programs to help reduce conflicts with the people that are directly
affected by grizzly bears. These efforts include livestock carcass
removal programs, electric fencing subsidies for apiaries and orchards,
and sharing costs of bear-resistant garbage bins where appropriate.
Although some human-caused grizzly bear mortalities are
unintentional (e.g., vehicle collisions, trap mortality), intentional
deaths in response to grizzly bear-human conflicts are responsible for
the majority of known and probable human-caused mortalities.
Fortunately, this source of mortality can be reduced significantly if
adequate information and education are provided to people who live,
work, and recreate in occupied grizzly bear habitat and proper
management infrastructure is in place (Linnell et al. 2001, p. 345).
For example, even though more than 3 million people visit the National
Parks and National Forests of the GYE each year, (USDA Forest Service
2006a, pp. 176, 183, 184; Cain 2014, p. 46; Gunther 2014, p. 47), the
average number of conflicts per year between 1992 and 2010 was only 150
(Gunther et al. 2012, p. 51). The current information and education
working group has been a major component contributing to the successful
recovery of the GYE grizzly bear population over the last 30 years.
Both Federal and State management agencies are committed to continuing
to work with citizens, landowners, and visitors within the GYE grizzly
bear DPS boundaries to address the human sources of conflicts.
From 1980 through 2002, at least 36 percent (72 out of 196) of
human-caused mortalities may have been avoided if relevant information
and education materials had been presented, understood, and used by
involved parties (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 15). Educating back- and
front-country users about the importance of securing potential bear
attractants can reduce grizzly bear mortality risk. Similarly, adhering
to hiking recommendations, such as making noise, hiking with other
people, and hiking during daylight hours, can further reduce grizzly
bear mortalities by decreasing the likelihood that hikers will
encounter bears. Hunter-related mortalities may involve hunters
defending their life because of carcasses that are left unattended or
stored improperly. Grizzly bear mortalities also occur when hunters
mistake grizzly bears for black bears. All of these circumstances can
be further reduced through information and education programs.
Outside the PCA, State wildlife agencies recognize that the key to
preventing grizzly bear-human conflicts is providing information and
education to the public. State grizzly bear management plans also
acknowledge that this is the most effective long-term solution to
grizzly bear-human conflicts and that adequate public outreach programs
are paramount to ongoing grizzly bear survival and successful
coexistence with humans in the GYE so that the measures of the Act
continue to not be necessary. All three States have been actively
involved in information and education outreach for over a decade and
their respective management plans contain chapters detailing efforts to
continue current programs and expand them when possible. For example,
the WGFD created a formal grizzly bear-human conflict management
program in July 1990, and has coordinated an extensive information and
education program since then. Similarly, since 1993, MTFWP has
implemented countless public outreach efforts to minimize bear-human
conflicts, and the IDFG has organized and implemented education
programs and workshops focused on private and public lands on the
western periphery of the grizzly bear's range.
Compensating ranchers for losses caused by grizzly bears is another
approach to build support for coexistence between livestock operators
and grizzly bears. In cases of grizzly bear livestock depredation that
have been verified by USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's
Wildlife Services, IDFG, MTFWP, or WGFD, affected livestock owners are
compensated. Since 1997, compensation in Montana and Idaho has been
provided primarily by private organizations, principally Defenders of
Wildlife. Since the program's inception in 1997, the Defenders of
Wildlife Grizzly Bear Compensation Trust paid over $400,000 to
livestock operators in the northern Rockies for confirmed and probable
livestock losses to grizzly bears (Edge 2013, entire). In 2013, the
State of Montana passed legislation establishing a compensation program
for direct livestock losses caused by grizzly bears (MCA 2-15-3113). In
light of this legislation, Defenders of Wildlife stopped their
compensation program in Montana and redirected funds to other conflict
prevention programs. Defenders of Wildlife continues to compensate
livestock producers in Idaho. In Wyoming, compensation has always been
paid directly by the State. Upon delisting, both Idaho and Wyoming's
grizzly bear management plans call for
[[Page 13219]]
State funding of compensation programs (Idaho's Grizzly Bear Delisting
Advisory Team 2002, p. 16; WGFD 2005, p. 30). In Idaho, compensation
funds would come from the secondary depredation account, and the
program would be administered by the appropriate IDFG Regional
Landowner Sportsman Coordinators and Regional Supervisors (Idaho's
Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. 16). In Wyoming, the WGFD
will pay for all compensable damage to agricultural products as
provided by State law and regulation (WGFD 2005, p. 30). The WGFD will
continue efforts to establish a long-term funding mechanism to
compensate property owners for livestock and apiary losses caused by
grizzly bears. In Montana, long-term funding to compensate livestock
owners for direct kills has been secured through the general fund. A
long-term funding source has not been identified for conflict
prevention projects but is being actively pursued. Therefore, we
conclude that through the positive influence of the information and
education program, public support and attitude does not constitute a
threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, nor is it anticipated to in the
future.
Summary of Factor E
Factor E requires the Service to consider other natural or man-made
factors affecting a species' continued existence. The following factors
warranted consideration as possible threats to the GYE grizzly bear
population: (1) Genetic health, (2) potential changes in food
resources, (3) climate change, and (4) human attitudes toward grizzly
bear recovery. We do not consider genetic concerns to be a threat for
the following reasons: we have an effective population size more than
four times that recommended by the best available science; we know
levels of genetic diversity have not declined in the last century; we
know current levels of genetic diversity are sufficient to support
healthy reproduction and survival; and we know that genetic
contribution from individual bears outside of the GYE will not be
necessary for the next several decades (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338;
Kamath et al., entire). We do not anticipate that genetic issues will
affect grizzly bears in the future because of ongoing efforts to
restore natural connectivity and a commitment to translocate animals in
the future, if needed, as provided in the draft 2016 Conservation
Strategy. Changing climate conditions have the potential to affect
grizzly bear habitat with subsequent implications for grizzly bear-
human conflicts. While we do not consider the effects of climate change
a direct threat to grizzly bear habitat in the GYE, it could influence
the timing and frequency of some grizzly bear-human conflicts with
possible increases in grizzly bear mortality. This possible increase in
grizzly bear mortality risk should not be a threat because of
coordinated total mortality limits within the DMA (see table 2 and
Factor B discussion, above). Because the GYE grizzly bear population
has increased or remained stable during declines in whitebark pine seed
production and other high-calorie foods since the early 1990s, there is
no evidence that changes in food resources will become substantial
impediments to the long-term persistence of the GYE grizzly bear
population. Finally, we do not anticipate human attitudes becoming a
threat to the GYE grizzly bear population because of effective outreach
programs and established regulatory frameworks. Essentially, the
management response to all of these potential threats would be to limit
human-caused mortality through conflict prevention and management to
limit discretionary mortality (see table 2 and Factor B discussion,
above). Because of the manageable nature of these potential threats
through conflict prevention and response efforts and the large area of
suitable, secure habitat within the GYE, we do not consider them to be
a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future.
Cumulative Effects of Factors A Through E
Many of the threats faced by grizzly bears are interrelated and
could be synergistic. Principal threats discussed above include habitat
loss through road building and the resulting increased human access to
grizzly bear habitat, human-caused mortality of grizzly bears, and the
legal mechanisms that direct habitat and population management. The
principal threats assessed in previous sections may cumulatively impact
the GYE grizzly bear population beyond the scope of each individual
threat. For example, the loss of whitebark pine could lead to lower
survival rates at the same time of the year when grizzly bears are
vulnerable to human-caused mortality from elk hunting. Alternatively,
expected increases in human populations across the West and climate
change both have the potential to increase grizzly bear conflicts and
human-caused mortality. Historically, each of these factors impacted
grizzly bears in the GYE and cumulatively acted to reduce their range
and abundance over time. Today, these stressors have been adequately
mitigated and do not impact the GYE grizzly bear population with the
same intensity.
While these numerous stressors on grizzly bear persistence are
challenging to conservation, our experience demonstrates that it is
possible for large carnivore conservation to be compatible with them
(Linnell et al. 2001, p. 48). Despite these risks, the best available
information indicates the GYE grizzly bear population's trend and range
has been increasing. We consider estimates of population trend (i.e.,
``lambda'') to be the ultimate metric to assess cumulative impacts to
the population. It reflects all of the various stressors on the
population and provides a scientific basis to correct a negative trend.
This calculation reflects total mortality, changes in habitat quality,
changes in population density, change in range, displacement effects,
and so forth. In other words, there will always be threats to the GYE
grizzly bear population that lead to human-caused mortality or
displacement, but if these are not causing the population to decline,
we cannot consider them substantial.
Summary of Factors Affecting the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Grizzly
Bear Population
The primary factors related to past habitat destruction and
modification have been reduced through changes in management practices
that have been or will be formally incorporated into regulatory
documents. Maintenance of the 1998 baseline values for secure habitat,
developed sites on public lands, and livestock allotments inside the
PCA will adequately ameliorate the multitude of stressors on grizzly
bear habitat such that they do not become threats to the GYE grizzly
bear population in the future. We expect many of the threats discussed
under Factor A to continue to occur at some level, but they are
sufficiently ameliorated so they only affect a small proportion of the
population. If and when delisting occurs, the GYE National Forests and
National Parks will continue to implement and maintain the 1998
baseline. Together, these two Federal agencies manage 98 percent of
lands within the PCA and 88 percent of all suitable habitat within the
DPS boundaries. Suitable habitat outside the PCA provides additional
ecological resiliency and habitat redundancy to allow the population to
respond to environmental changes. Habitat protections specifically for
grizzly bear conservation are not necessary here because other binding
regulatory mechanisms that limit development and
[[Page 13220]]
motorized use are already in place for nearly 60 percent of the area
outside the PCA. These and other conservation measures discussed in the
Forest Service's Record of Decision (2006b) ensure threats to the GYE
grizzly bear population's habitat outside the PCA will not become
substantial enough to threaten this population's long-term persistence.
Therefore, based on the best available information and expectation that
current management practices will continue into the future, we conclude
that the present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range does not constitute a threat to the
GYE grizzly bear DPS and is not expected to in the future.
The resumption of legal grizzly bear hunting for commercial and
recreational purposes in the GYE was the primary post-delisting threat
to the population under Factor B. Since 1975, no grizzly bears have
been removed from the GYE for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
education purposes. Inside the DMA, the population has stabilized since
2002 and is exhibiting density dependent population regulation (van
Manen et al. 2015, entire). Therefore, mortalities from all causes
including hunting inside the DMA will be managed by all Federal, State,
and Tribal agencies to ensure recovery consistent with the Service's
recovery criteria. Annual population estimates will be made by the
IGBST each fall and used to set the total mortality limits for the DMA
the following year (Tables 1, 2, and 3, above).
When grizzly bears were listed in 1975, we identified
``indiscriminate illegal killing,'' and management removals as threats
to the population under Factor C. In response, we implemented
demographic recovery criteria to maintain a minimum population size, a
well-distributed population, and establish total mortality limits based
on scientific data and direct monitoring of the population. Since
implementing these criteria, the GYE grizzly bear population has
tripled in size and range (Eberhardt et al. 1994, pp. 361-362; Knight
and Blanchard 1995, pp. 2-11; Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 1-11; Schwartz et
al. 2006b, p. 48; Pyare et al. 2004, pp. 5-6; Schwartz et al. 2006a,
pp. 64-66; IGBST 2012, p. 34; Bjornlie et al. 2013, p. 184). Although
humans are still directly or indirectly responsible for the majority of
grizzly bear deaths, this source of mortality is effectively mitigated
through science-based management, State regulations, careful population
monitoring, and outreach efforts. Although grizzly bear hunting is
anticipated to occur outside of the national parks, it would be within
scientifically determined sustainable levels to maintain the population
in the long term and would not occur if other sources of human-caused
mortality were excessive. Therefore, based on the best available
information and expectation that State regulatory mechanisms (as
described under Factor B, above) will limit total mortality levels
within the levels detailed in tables 1, 2, and 3, above, and that these
regulatory mechanisms will continue into the future, we conclude that
disease, human-caused mortality, and hunting do not constitute threats
now or in the future.
The importance of regulatory mechanisms and effective wildlife
management infrastructure to large carnivore conservation cannot be
understated, as stated under Factor D (see Linnell et al. 2001, p.
348). Before delisting could occur, the regulatory mechanisms that
would be in place include National Park Superintendent's Compendiums,
the Forest Service Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for
the GYE National Forests, and State and Tribal commission regulations
controlling mortality as described under Factor D. The management
infrastructure is already in place and described in the draft 2016
Conservation Strategy. Because the signatory agencies to the 2016
Conservation Strategy are the same agencies that have been managing
grizzly bear habitat, population, and monitoring for the last 30 years,
the management transition would be minimal. Existing regulatory
mechanisms, and additional State regulations that would be in place
before this proposed rule is made final, would ensure the GYE grizzly
bear population continues to recovery goals. Therefore, we conclude
that the existing and anticipated regulatory mechanism are adequate to
maintain a healthy and recovered population of grizzly bears into the
future and do not pose a threat now, or in the future.
Other factors, under Factor E, we considered that could become
threats to the GYE grizzly bear population included: (1) Genetic
health, (2) potential changes in food resources, (3) climate change,
and (4) human attitudes toward grizzly bear recovery. Essentially, the
management response to all of these potential threats would be to limit
human-caused mortality through conflict prevention and management as
well as managing discretionary mortality. Because of the manageable
nature of these potential threats through conflict prevention and
response efforts and the large amount of suitable, secure habitat
within the GYE we do not expect other natural or manmade factors to
become threats to the GYE grizzly bear population.
Many of the threats faced by grizzly bears are interrelated and
could cumulatively impact the GYE grizzly bear population through
excessive grizzly bear mortality. While these numerous stressors on
grizzly bear persistence are challenging to conservation, our
experience demonstrates it is possible for large carnivore conservation
to be compatible with them (Linnell et al. 2001, p. 48), particularly
given the rigorous scientific monitoring protocols established for the
GYE grizzly bear population. There will always be threats to the GYE
grizzly bear population but if these are not causing the population to
decline, we do not consider them to threaten the long-term persistence
of the population.
Proposed Determination
An assessment of the need for a species' protection under the Act
is based on whether a species is in danger of extinction or likely to
become so because of any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B)
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence. As required by section 4(a)(1) of
the Act, we conducted a review of the status of this species and
assessed the five factors to evaluate whether the GYE grizzly bear DPS
is endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. We examined
the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the
past, present, and future threats faced by the species.
In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine
whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the species. If there is
exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor
may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant the
threat is. If the threat is significant, it may drive, or contribute
to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species
warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined
by the Act. Alternatively, some threats may be significant enough to
contribute to the risk of extinction but are adequately ameliorated
through active conservation and management efforts so that the risk is
low enough that it does
[[Page 13221]]
not mean the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
in the future.
As demonstrated in our five-factor analysis, threats to this
population and its habitat have been sufficiently minimized and the GYE
grizzly bear DPS is a biologically recovered population. Multiple,
independent lines of evidence support this interpretation. Counts of
females with cubs-of-the-year have increased. Since at least 2001, the
demographic recovery criterion that requires 16 of the 18 BMUs to be
occupied with females with young has been met. The Recovery Plan target
for a minimum population size of 500 animals inside the DMA to assure
genetic health has been met since at least 2007, using the conservative
model-averaged Chao2 estimate. Calculations of population trajectory
derived from radio-monitored female bears show an increasing population
trend at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year from 1983 through 2001
(Eberhardt et al. 1994, p. 362; Knight and Blanchard 1995, pp. 18-19;
Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48), and 0.3 to 2.2 percent from 2002 to 2011
(IGBST 2012, p. 34). Occupied grizzly bear range has more than doubled
since 1975 (Basile 1982, pp. 3-10; Blanchard et al. 1992, p. 92;
Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 203; Pyare et al. 2004, pp. 5-6; Schwartz et
al. 2006a, pp. 64-66; Bjornlie et al. 2013, p. 184). Independent female
survival rates, the single most important cohort to population
trajectory, are high and have remained unchanged for 3 decades (IGBST
2012, p. 33). In total, this population has increased from estimates
ranging between 136 and 312 bears when listed in 1975 (Cowan et al.
1974, pp. 32, 36; Craighead et al. 1974, p. 16; McCullough 1981, p.
175), to an average population size between 2002-2014 of 674 using the
model-averaged Chao2 population estimation method.
Grizzly bears occupied 84 percent of suitable habitat within the
DPS boundaries as of 2014 (Haroldson 2014, in litt.) and will likely
occupy the remainder of the suitable habitat in the future. The GYE
grizzly bear population has sufficient numbers and distribution of
reproductive individuals to maintain its recovered status. The main
threat of human-caused mortality has been addressed through carefully
monitored and controlled total mortality limits established in the
Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and carried over into the draft 2016
Conservation Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 2)
and into State regulations as per table 2 and Factor B, above. These
total mortality limits are calculated to ensure long-term population
stability around the average population size for 2002-2014.
During our analysis, we did not identify any factors alone or in
combination that are likely to reach a magnitude that would threaten
the continued existence of the species. Significant threats identified
at the time of listing that could have resulted in the extirpation of
the population have been eliminated or reduced since listing. We
conclude that known impacts to the GYE grizzly bear population from the
loss of secure habitat and development on public lands (Factor A);
unregulated, excessive human-caused mortality (Factors B and C); a lack
of regulatory mechanisms to manage habitat and population (Factor D);
and genetic isolation, changes to food resources, climate change, or
negative public attitudes (Factor E), do not rise to a level of
significance, such that the population is in danger of extinction now
or in the future. Thus, based on our assessment of the best scientific
and commercial information available and on our expectation that
current management practices will continue into the future, and that
State regulations will be in place prior to delisting to regulate total
mortality as per table 2 and Factor B, above, we therefore determine
that the GYE grizzly bear DPS has recovered to the point at which
protection under the Act is no longer required. The best scientific and
commercial data available indicate that the GYE grizzly bear DPS is no
longer endangered or threatened should appropriate regulatory
mechanisms be developed by the States, as described in this proposed
rule.
Significant Portion of Range Analysis
Background
Having determined that the GYE grizzly bear DPS is not in danger of
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout
all of its range, we next consider whether there are any significant
portions of its range in which the GYE grizzly bear DPS is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so. Under the Act and our implementing
regulations, a species may warrant listing if it is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. The Act defines ``endangered species'' as any
species, which is ``in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range,'' and ``threatened species'' as any
species which is ``likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.'' The term ``species'' includes ``any subspecies of fish or
wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment [DPS] of any
species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature.''
We published a final policy interpreting the phrase ``significant
portion of its range'' (SPR) (79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014). The final
policy states that (1) if a species is found to be endangered or
threatened throughout a significant portion of its range, the entire
species is listed as endangered or threatened, respectively, and the
Act's protections apply to all individuals of the species wherever
found; (2) a portion of the range of a species is ``significant'' if
the species is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of
its range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the
species is so important that, without the members in that portion, the
species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future, throughout all of its range; (3) the range of a
species is considered to be the general geographical area within which
that species can be found at the time the Service or the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) makes any particular status
determination; and (4) if a vertebrate species is endangered or
threatened throughout an SPR, and the population in that significant
portion is a valid DPS, we will list the DPS rather than the entire
taxonomic species or subspecies.
The SPR policy is applied to all status determinations, including
analyses for the purposes of making listing, delisting, and
reclassification determinations. The procedure for analyzing whether
any portion is an SPR is similar, regardless of the type of status
determination we are making. The first step in our analysis of the
status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of its
range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, or
likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its
range, we list the species as an endangered species (or threatened
species) and no SPR analysis will be required. If the species is
neither in danger of extinction nor likely to become so throughout all
of its range, we next determine whether the species is in danger of
extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of
its range. If it is, we list the species as an endangered species or
threatened species, respectively; if it is not, we conclude that
listing the species is not warranted.
When we conduct an SPR analysis, we first identify any portions of
the species' range that warrant further consideration. The range of a
species can theoretically be divided into
[[Page 13222]]
portions in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to
analyzing portions of the range that are not reasonably likely to be
both significant and contain populations that are endangered or
threatened. To identify only those portions that warrant further
consideration, we determine whether there is substantial information
indicating that (1) the portions may be significant and (2) the species
may be in danger of extinction in those portions or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future. We emphasize that answering these
questions in the affirmative is not a determination that the species is
endangered or threatened throughout a significant portion of its
range--rather, it is a step in determining whether a more detailed
analysis of the issue is required. In practice, a key part of this
analysis is whether the threats are geographically concentrated in some
way. If the threats to the species are affecting it uniformly
throughout its range, no portion is likely to have a greater risk of
extinction, and thus would not warrant further consideration. Moreover,
if any concentration of threats apply only to portions of the range
that clearly do not meet the biologically based definition of
``significant'' (i.e., the loss of that portion clearly would not be
expected to increase the vulnerability to extinction of the entire
species), those portions will not warrant further consideration.
If we identify any portions or a range that may both (1) be
significant and (2) contain populations that are in danger of
extinction or likely to become so, we engage in a more detailed
analysis to determine whether these standards are indeed met. As
discussed above, to determine whether a portion of the range of a
species is significant, we consider whether, under a hypothetical
scenario, the portion's contribution to the viability of the species is
so important that, without the members in that portion, the species
would be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This analysis will
consider the contribution of that portion to the viability of the
species based on principles of conservation biology. Contribution would
be evaluated using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and
representation. (These concepts can similarly be expressed in terms of
abundance, spatial distribution, productivity, and diversity.) The
identification of an SPR does not create a presumption, prejudgment, or
other determination as to whether the species in that identified SPR is
endangered or threatened. We must go through a separate analysis to
determine whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to
become so in the SPR. To determine whether a species is endangered or
threatened throughout an SPR, we will use the same standards and
methodology that we use to determine if a species is endangered or
threatened throughout its range.
Depending on the biology of the species, its range, and the threats
it faces, it may be more efficient to address the ``significant''
question first, or the status question first. Thus, if we determine
that a portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is
``significant.''
SPR Analysis for the GYE Grizzly Bear DPS
Applying the process described above, we evaluated the range of the
GYE grizzly bear population to determine if any area could be
considered a significant portion of its 50,280 sq km (19,413 sq mi)
range (Bjornlie et al. 2013, p. 184). As mentioned above, one way to
identify portions for further analyses is to identify portions that
might be of biological or conservation importance, such as any natural,
biological divisions within the range that may, for example, provide
population redundancy or have unique ecological, genetic, or other
characteristics. Based on examination of the best available science
(Schwartz et al. 2006b, entire; IGBST 2012, entire), we determined the
GYE grizzly bear population is a single, contiguous population within
the DPS boundaries and that there are no separate areas of the range
that are significantly different from others or that are likely to be
of greater biological or conservation importance than any other areas
due to natural biological reasons alone. Therefore, there is not
substantial information that logical, biological divisions exist within
the GYE grizzly bear population's range.
After determining there are no natural divisions delineating
separate portions of the GYE grizzly bear population, we next examined
whether any threats are geographically concentrated in some way that
would indicate the species could be in danger of extinction, or likely
to become so, in that area. Through our review of potential threats, we
identified greater mortality risk in the areas on the periphery of the
population's range. More grizzly bear mortality occurs toward the
periphery of its range, as evidenced by lower population growth rates
in these areas (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 58; IGBST 2012, p. 34) and
higher concentrations of conflicts (Gunther et al. 2012, p. 50). These
areas where greater mortality is likely to occur are outside the DMA
boundaries. We do not anticipate declines in relative population size
or geographically concentrated threats inside the DMA boundaries due to
conservative population objectives, enforceable mortality limits, vast
amounts of wilderness and roadless areas, and additional habitat
protections specifically in place for grizzly bears on public lands in
nearly half of occupied range (i.e., the PCA). With these measures
evaluated by a meticulous monitoring program, we are reasonably assured
grizzly bears inside the DMA boundaries will continue to flourish.
Because it is also reasonable to expect that GYE grizzly bears may not
be managed as conservatively outside the DMA boundaries where they
could be exposed to more intensive hunting and management pressure, we
considered these peripheral areas where known grizzly bear range
extends outside the DMA boundaries to warrant further consideration to
determine if they are a significant portion of this population's range.
Because we identified areas on the periphery of the range as
warranting further consideration due to the geographic concentration of
mortality risk there, we then evaluated whether these areas are
significant to the GYE grizzly bear population such that, without the
members in that portion, the entire population would be in danger of
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future,
throughout all of its range.
These peripheral areas do not support grizzly bear reproduction or
survival because bears that repeatedly come into conflict with humans
or livestock are usually either relocated or removed from these areas.
Bears in these peripheral areas will not establish self-sustaining,
year-round populations due to a lack of suitable habitat, land
ownership patterns, and the lack of traditional, natural grizzly bear
foods (i.e., bison). Instead, bears in these peripheral areas will
likely always rely on the GYE grizzly bear population inside the DMA as
a source population. Grizzly bears in these peripheral areas are not
biologically necessary to the GYE grizzly bear population and a lack of
occupancy outside the DMA boundaries in peripheral areas will not
impact whether the GYE population is likely to become endangered or
threatened in the foreseeable future
[[Page 13223]]
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
The core population inside the DMA is resilient, and its
distribution provides the necessary redundancy to offset loss of
individual bears in peripheral areas. The areas that may experience
higher mortality rates represent a very small proportion of the range,
and an even smaller proportion of the total number of animals in the
GYE grizzly bear population. Moreover, if bears in these peripheral
areas were in fact lost, that would not appreciably reduce the long-
term viability of the GYE grizzly bear population, much less cause the
population in the remainder of its range to be in danger of extinction
or likely to become so. Therefore, there is not substantial information
that the peripheral portions of the GYE grizzly bear population's range
are significant to the rest of the population.
After careful examination of the GYE grizzly bear population in the
context of our definition of ``significant portion of its range,'' we
determined areas on the periphery of the range warranted further
consideration because human-caused mortality risk threats are
geographically concentrated there. After identifying these areas, we
evaluated whether they were significant and determined they were not
significant because, even without the grizzly bears in these areas, the
GYE grizzly bear DPS would not be in danger of extinction, or likely to
become so in the foreseeable future. These areas will likely never
contribute meaningfully to the GYE grizzly bear population because of
lack of suitable habitat and loss of traditional grizzly bear foods
(i.e., bison). Therefore, we did not need to determine if grizzly bears
were in danger of extinction or likely to become so in these peripheral
areas. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial
data available and determined that the GYE grizzly bear population is
no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, nor is it likely to become so in the future. As a
result of this determination, we are proposing to remove this
population from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
Effects of the Rule
This proposal, if made final, would revise 50 CFR 17.11(h) to
remove the GYE grizzly bear DPS from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions and conservation measures
provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no
longer apply to this DPS. Federal agencies would no longer be required
to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event
that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the GYE
grizzly bear population. However, actions within the DPS would still be
managed by State, Tribal, and Federal laws, regulations, policies, and
management plans ensuring enforcement of the draft 2016 Conservation
Strategy. Delisting the GYE grizzly bear DPS is expected to have
positive effects in terms of management flexibility to the States and
local governments. The full protections of the Act, including section
4(d)(50 CFR 17.40) would still continue to apply to grizzly bears in
other portions of the lower 48-States outside the GYE grizzly bear DPS'
boundaries. Those grizzly bears outside the GYE DPS will remain fully
protected by the Act.
Post-Delisting Monitoring
Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to implement a system, in
cooperation with the States, to monitor for at least 5 years all
delisted and recovered species. The primary purpose of this requirement
is to ensure that the recovered species does not deteriorate, and if an
unanticipated decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline
to avoid relisting. If data indicate that protective status under the
Act should be reinstated, we will initiate listing procedures,
including, if appropriate, emergency listing. For the GYE grizzly bear
population, the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy serves as the post-
delisting monitoring plan. The 2016 Conservation Strategy will remain
in effect beyond the 5-year monitoring period required by the Act
because grizzly bears are a ``conservation-reliant'' species (Scott et
al. 2005, p. 384) because of their low resiliency to excessive human-
caused mortality and the manageable nature of this threat.
Conservation-reliant species can maintain recovered, self-sustaining
wild populations with ongoing management actions (Scott et al. 2005, p.
383). These management actions are detailed in the draft 2016
Conservation Strategy and will be informed and updated as necessary by
all the habitat and population parameters that will be annually
monitored by the IGBST.
Monitoring
To ensure the long-term conservation of grizzly bear habitat and
continued recovery of the GYE grizzly bear population, several
monitoring programs and protocols have been developed and integrated
into land management agency planning documents. The draft 2016
Conservation Strategy and appended State grizzly bear management plans
satisfy the requirements for having a post-delisting monitoring plan
for the GYE grizzly bear population. Monitoring programs and a
coordinated approach to management would continue in perpetuity.
Monitoring programs will focus on assessing whether demographic and
habitat standards described in the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy are
being achieved and maintained.
Within the PCA, the IGBST will continue to monitor habitat
standards and adherence to the 1998 baseline. The IGBST will report on
levels of secure habitat, developed sites, and livestock allotments
annually and these will not be allowed to deviate from 1998 baseline
values unless changes were to be beneficial to grizzly bears (USDA
Forest Service 2006b, entire; Yellowstone National Park 2014, p. 18).
The IGBST, with participation from Yellowstone National Park, the
Forest Service, and State and Tribal wildlife agencies, also will
continue to monitor the abundance and distribution of common grizzly
bear foods. This allows managers some degree of predictive power to
anticipate and avoid grizzly bear-human conflicts related to a shortage
of one or more foods in a given season.
Within the DMA, the IGBST will continue to document population
trends, distribution, survival and birth rates, and the presence of
alleles from grizzly bear populations outside the GYE grizzly bear DPS
boundaries to document gene flow into the population. Throughout the
DPS boundaries, locations of grizzly bear mortalities on private lands
will be provided to the IGBST for incorporation into their annual
report. To examine reproductive rates, survival rates, causes of death,
and overall population trends, the IGBST will radio collar and monitor
a minimum of 25 adult female grizzly bears every year. These bears will
be spatially distributed throughout the ecosystem so they provide a
representative sample of the entire population inside the DMA.
Mortalities will be monitored and reported annually and maintained in
accordance with the total mortality limits and population objectives in
table 2, above.
Outside of the PCA, the GYE National Forests will monitor agreed-
upon habitat parameters in suitable habitat and will calculate secure
habitat values outside of the PCA every 2 years and submit these data
for inclusion in the IGBST's annual report (USDA Forest Service 2006b,
p. 6). The GYE National Forests also will monitor and evaluate
livestock allotments for recurring conflicts with grizzly bears in
suitable habitat outside the PCA (USDA Forest
[[Page 13224]]
Service 2006b, p. 6). The Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring
Group will continue to monitor whitebark pine occurrence, productivity,
and health both inside and outside the PCA (USDA Forest Service 2006b,
p. 7). Members of the IGBST will monitor grizzly bear vital rates and
population parameters within the entire DMA. Finally, State wildlife
agencies will provide known mortality information to the IGBST, which
will annually summarize these data with respect to location, type, date
of incident, and the sex and age of the bear for the entire DPS area.
In the 2007 final rule (72 FR 14866; March 29, 2007), we reported
habitat quality and effectiveness values for 1998 using the Cumulative
Effects Model and associated 1998 habitat data (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2007, appendix F). Since 1998, the value of the Cumulative
Effects Model has been questioned (Boyce et al. 2001, p. 32).
Specifically, the validity of all the coefficients cannot be verified
or ground-truthed, calling into question all of the model outputs.
Without scientific and statistical defensibility the Cumulative Effects
Model will not produce credible results and it cannot be used (Boyce et
al. 2001, p. 32; Brocowski 2006, pp. 85-87). While the Cumulative
Effects Model provided an index of relative change in habitat quality
over time, it was never able to predict grizzly bear habitat use or
preference or relate habitat to changes in population parameters.
Because we no longer consider the Cumulative Effects Model to represent
the best available science, we are no longer relying on or reporting
measures of habitat quality or effectiveness using it. Instead, the
IGBST will assess and report human-caused changes to grizzly bear
habitat through maintenance of the 1998 baseline values for developed
sites, grazing allotments, and secure habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 2016, appendix E).
While the inverse relationship between whitebark pine cone
production and grizzly bear conflicts in the Yellowstone Ecosystem has
been documented (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Gunther et al. 1997, p.
38; Gunther et al. 2004, pp. 13-14), there are no data relating other
foods such as spring ungulate carcasses, army cutworm moths, and
cutthroat trout to the number of grizzly bear-human conflicts.
Additionally, Schwartz et al. (2010, p. 662) found no relationship
between the spatial distribution of whitebark pine, cutthroat trout,
army cutworm moths, or ungulates and grizzly bear survival. Therefore,
while it is important to continue to monitor food abundance, there is
no scientific evidence that habitat quality is a limiting factor for
grizzly bear survival in the GYE. The IGBST will continue coordinating
with the National Forests and National Parks within the PCA to monitor
food abundance but will focus management recommendations on regulating
the risk of human-caused mortality through the 1998 baseline (i.e.,
factors the agencies have the authority and ability to regulate).
Private land development and the numbers, causes, and spatial
distribution of human-bear conflicts will continue to be monitored and
reported annually, because this is where habitat quality intersects
with grizzly bear mortality risk.
To address the possible ``lag effect'' associated with slow habitat
degradation taking a decade or more to translate into detectable
changes in population size (see Doak 1995), the IGBST will monitor a
suite of indices simultaneously to provide a highly sensitive system to
monitor the health of the population and its habitat and to provide a
sound scientific basis to respond to any changes or needs with adaptive
management actions (Holling 1978, pp. 11-16). This ``lag effect'' is
only a concern if the sole method to detect changes in habitat is
monitoring changes in total population size (see Doak 1995, p. 1376).
The monitoring systems in the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, Chapter 2) are far more detailed and
sophisticated and would detect changes in vital rates in response to
habitat changes sooner than the system described by Doak (1995, pp.
1371-1372). The IGBST will be monitoring a suite of vital rates
including survival of radio-collared bears, mortality of all bears,
reproductive success, litter size, litter interval, number of females
with cubs, distribution of females with cubs, and overall population
trajectory, in addition to the physical condition of bears by
monitoring body mass and body fat levels of each bear handled. Because
of the scope of monitoring, we feel confident that we will be able to
detect the consequences of significant changes in habitat.
Monitoring systems in the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy allow
for adaptive management (Holling 1978, pp. 11-16) as environmental
issues change. The agencies have committed in the draft 2016
Conservation Strategy to be responsive to the needs of the grizzly bear
through adaptive management (Holling 1978, pp. 11-16) actions based on
the results of detailed annual population and habitat monitoring. These
monitoring efforts would reflect the best scientific and commercial
data and any new information that has become available since the
delisting determination. The entire process would be dynamic so that
when new science becomes available it will be incorporated into the
management planning and monitoring systems outlined in the draft 2016
Conservation Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, chapters 2,
3, and 4). The results of this extensive monitoring would allow
wildlife and land managers to identify and address potential threats
preemptively, allowing those managers and the Service to ensure that
the GYE grizzly bear population remains a recovered population.
Triggers for a Biology and Monitoring Review by the IGBST
The YGCC will use the IGBST's monitoring results and annual reports
to determine if the population and habitat standards are being adhered
to. The States, Tribes, and National Parks will use the IGBST's
annually produced model-averaged Chao2 population estimates to set and
establish total mortality limits within the DMA as per tables 1, 2, and
3, above. The 2016 Conservation Strategy signatories have agreed that
if there are deviations from certain population or habitat standards,
the IGBST will conduct a Biology and Monitoring Review as described
under Factor B, above. A Biology and Monitoring Review would be
initiated if any of the following scenarios occur (as further described
under Factor B, above): (1) Exceeding the total mortality limit for
independent females for 3 consecutive years; (2) exceeding the total
mortality limits for independent males for 3 consecutive years; (3)
exceeding the total mortality limit for dependent young for 3
consecutive years; (4) failure to meet the distribution criterion
requiring sightings of females with offspring in at least 16 of 18 BMUs
in 2 consecutive years. In addition to the scenarios described under
Factor B, a Biology and Monitoring Review by the IGBST would be
initiated if there were a failure to meet any of the habitat standards
described in the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy pertaining to levels
of secure habitat, developed sites, and livestock allotments. These
IGBST reviews were established to detect deviations that may occur due
to normal variability or chance events and do not necessarily mean the
GYE grizzly bear's status is deteriorating. As such, they are more
easily activated than those that trigger a Service status review under
the Act. These triggers could indicate the need to adjust management
approaches and are intended to provide the YGCC with ample time to
respond with
[[Page 13225]]
management actions before involving the Service.
An IGBST Biology and Monitoring Review examines habitat management,
population management, or monitoring efforts of participating agencies
with an objective of identifying the source or cause of failing to meet
a habitat or demographic goal. This review also will provide management
recommendations to correct any such deviations. A Biology and
Monitoring Review could occur if funding becomes inadequate to the
implementation of the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy to such an
extent that it compromised the recovered status of the GYE grizzly bear
population. If the review is triggered by failure to meet a population
goal, the review would involve a comprehensive review of vital rates
including survival rates, litter size, litter interval, grizzly bear-
human conflicts, and mortalities. The IGBST will attempt to identify
the reason behind any variation in vital rates such as habitat
conditions, poaching, excessive roadkill, etc., and determine if these
compromise the recovered status of the population. Similarly, if the
review was triggered by failure to meet a habitat standard, the review
would examine what caused the failure, whether this requires that the
measures of the Act are necessary to assure the recovered status of the
population, and what actions may be taken to correct the problem. The
IGBST would complete this review and release it to the public within 6
months of initiation and make it available to the YGCC and the public.
The YGCC responds to a Biology and Monitoring Review with actions
to address deviations from habitat standards or, if the desired
population and habitat standards specified in the draft 2016
Conservation Strategy cannot be met in the opinion of the YGCC, the
YGCC could petition us for relisting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2016, Chapter 6). Because the YGCC possesses substantial information
about the population's status, the Service would respond by conducting
a status review to determine if relisting is warranted.
The Service can also initiate a status review independent of the
IGBST or the YGCC should the total mortality limits be exceeded by a
significant margin or routinely violated or if substantial management
changes occur significant enough to raise concerns about population
level impacts. Emergency relisting of the population is an option we
can and will use, if necessary, in accordance with section 4(g)(2) of
the Act, if the threat(s) were severe and immediate (16 U.S.C.
1533(g)). Such an emergency relisting would be effective the day the
rule is published in the Federal Register and would be effective for
240 days. During this time, we would conduct our normal notice-and-
comment rulemaking regarding the listing of the species based on the
five factors of section 4(a)(1) of the Act to take effect when the 240-
day limit on the emergency relisting expires.
Triggers for a Service Status Review
Should we finalize this proposal and delist the GYE grizzly bear
population, we will use the information in IGBST annual reports and
adherence to total mortality limits as per tables 1, 2, and 3, above,
to determine if a formal status review is necessary. Because we
anticipate the YGCC and IGBST are fully committed to maintaining GYE
grizzly bear population management and habitat management through
implantation of the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy and State and
Federal management plans, and to correct any problems through the
process established in the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy and
described in the preceding section, we created a higher threshold for
criteria that would trigger a formal Service status review.
Specifically, the following scenarios would result in a formal status
review by the Service: (1) Any changes in Federal, State, or Tribal
laws, rules, regulations, or management plans that depart significantly
from the specifics of population or habitat management detailed in this
proposed rule and significantly increase the threat to the population;
or (2) if the population falls below 500 in any year using the model-
averaged Chao2 method, or counts of females with cubs fall below 48 for
3 consecutive years; or (3) if independent female total mortality
limits as per tables 1, 2, and 3, above, are exceeded for 3 consecutive
years and the population is fewer than 600; or (4) if fewer than 16 of
18 bear management units are occupied by females with young for 3
consecutive 6-year sums of observations. For example, if independent
female total mortality limits were exceeded in 3 of 4 years, but they
were not 3 consecutive years, the Service would conduct a status
review.
Status reviews and relisting decisions would be based on the best
available scientific and commercial data available. If a status review
is triggered, the Service would evaluate the status of the GYE grizzly
bear population to determine if relisting is warranted. We would make
prompt use of the Act's emergency listing provisions if necessary to
prevent a significant risk to the well-being of the GYE grizzly bear
population. We have the authority to emergency relist at any time, and
a completed status review is not necessary to exercise this emergency
relisting authority.
Required Determinations
Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the
Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain
language. This means that each rule we publish must:
Be logically organized;
Use the active voice to address readers directly;
Use clear language rather than jargon;
Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the names of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act
We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be
prepared in connection with regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the
Act. We published a notice outlining our reasons for this determination
in the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).
Government-to-Government Relationships With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act),
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with
Tribes in developing programs for
[[Page 13226]]
healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to
the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to
Indian culture, and to make information available to Tribes.
Beginning in April 2014, the Grizzly Bear Recovery Program sent via
registered mail consultation invitation letters to the four Tribes
having treaty interests in the proposed GYE grizzly bear delisting
area: Northern Arapaho, Eastern Shoshone, Northwestern Band of the
Shoshone Nation, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Over the next year, the
Service was made aware of many more Tribes having an interest in the
GYE grizzly bear and expanded our efforts in explaining the status of
the bear and offering government-to-government consultation to Tribes.
On February 17, 2015, the Service sent letters offering government-to-
government consultation to 26 Tribes. On June 15, 2015, the Service
sent out a second round of letters to 48 Tribes, offering another
opportunity for consultation, followed by personal phone calls or
emails from Service leadership to the 48 Tribes, personally inviting
them to engage in government-to-government consultation. On August 13,
2015, the Service met with the Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council in
Billings, Montana, and invited Tribal representative to engage in
consultation concerning the bear. On October 29, 2015, the Service sent
letters to 53 Tribes, which included all Tribes, Tribal Councils, and
First Nations in Canada that have contacted the Service regarding the
GYE grizzly bear population. The letters invited Federal Tribes to
engage in government-to-government consultation, and invited all Tribes
to participate in a Tribal webinar and conference call. To date, the
Service has conducted five Tribal consultations. The Service will
conduct two additional Tribal consultation meetings with federally
recognized Tribes. The locations for these meetings are not yet
available; we will post them on our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/ea/tribal-grizzly.php as soon as possible. Government-
to-Government consultation is not open to the public or media. This is
consultation with Tribes speaking on behalf of their Tribe and as a
representative of their Tribe (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
above, for more information).
References Cited
A complete list of all references cited in this proposed rule is
available at http://www.regulations.gov
at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-
0042, or is available upon request from the Grizzly Bear Recovery
Coordinator (see ADDRESSES).
Glossary
1998 baseline: The 1998 baseline represents the best available
habitat measures representing ground conditions inside the Primary
Conservation Area (PCA) as of 1998. Habitat standards identified in the
draft 2016 Conservation Strategy pertain to secure habitat, developed
sites, and livestock grazing allotments. The standards demand that all
three of these habitat parameters are to be maintained at or improved
upon conditions that existed in 1998. The 1998 baseline represents the
best estimate of what was known to be on the ground at that time and
establishes a benchmark against which future improvements and/or
impacts can be assessed. It also provides a clear standard for agency
managers to follow when considering project effect analysis.
Chao2: The Chao2 estimator is a bias-corrected estimator of the
total number of female grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year, derived
from the frequency of single sightings or double sightings of unique
females with cubs-of-the-year as identified based on a rule set by
Knight et al. (1995).
Demographic monitoring area (DMA): The area of suitable habitat
plus the potential sink areas within which the Yellowstone grizzly bear
population is annually surveyed and estimated and within which the
total mortality limits apply. The DMA is 49,928 sq km (19,279 sq mi).
See figure 2, above, for a map showing the DMA.
Dependent young: Young grizzly bears less than 2 years old.
Dependent young are with their mothers and are dependent upon them for
survival.
Discretionary mortality: Mortalities that are the result of hunting
or management removals.
Distinct population segment (DPS): The Service defined a DPS in the
DPS policy (61 FR 4722; February 7, 1996) that considers two factors to
determine whether the population segment is a valid DPS: (1)
Discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of
the taxon to which it belongs; and (2) the significance of the
population segment to the taxon to which it belongs. If a population
meets both tests, it is a DPS, and the Service then evaluates the
population segment's conservation status according to the standards in
section 4 of the Act for listing, delisting, or reclassification.
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE): Yellowstone National Park and
Grand Teton National Park form the core of the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem, which includes portions of three States: Wyoming, Montana,
and Idaho. At more than 90,000 sq km (34,750 sq mi), it is one of the
largest nearly intact temperate-zone ecosystems on Earth.
Independent females: Grizzly bear females more than 2 years old.
Independent males: Grizzly bear males more than 2 years old.
Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST): The Interagency
Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) is an interdisciplinary group of
scientists and biologists responsible for long-term monitoring and
research efforts on grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
(GYE). The main objectives of the team are to: (1) Monitor the status
and trend of the grizzly bear population in the GYE; and (2) determine
patterns of habitat use by bears and the relationship of land
management activities to the welfare of the bear population. The IGBST
is led by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). IGBST members are
representatives from the USGS, National Park Service, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, the Eastern Shoshone and
Northern Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game Department, and the States of
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Primary Conservation Area (PCA): The name of the recovery zone area
post-delisting. The habitat-based recovery criteria apply within the
PCA.
Recovery Zone: The area defined in the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery
Plan within which the recovery efforts would be focused in the
Yellowstone Ecosystem. The Recovery Zone is not designed to contain all
grizzly bears.
Significant portion of the range (SPR): The Service's SPR policy
(79 FR 37578; July 1, 2014) defines a portion of the range of a species
as ``significant'' if the species is not currently endangered or
threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution
to the viability of the species is so important that, without the
members in that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction,
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its
range.
Suitable habitat: We define suitable habitat for grizzly bears as
areas having three characteristics: (1) Being of adequate habitat
quality and quantity to support grizzly bear reproduction and survival;
(2) being contiguous with the current distribution of GYE grizzly bears
such that natural recolonization is possible; and (3) having low
mortality risk as indicated through reasonable and manageable levels of
grizzly bear mortality. Suitable habitat is made up of the Middle
Rockies ecoregion, within which the Greater Yellowstone
[[Page 13227]]
Ecosystem is contained. This area meets grizzly bear biological needs
providing food, seasonal foraging opportunities, cover, and denning
areas. See the Suitable Habitat section of this proposed rule for a
more complete explanation.
Total mortality: Documented known and probable grizzly bear
mortalities from all causes including but are not limited to:
Management removals, illegal kills, mistaken identity kills, self-
defense kills, vehicle kills, natural mortalities, undetermined-cause
mortalities, grizzly bear hunting, and a statistical estimate of the
number of unknown/unreported mortalities.
Transition probability: The probability of a transition for an
adult female (greater than 3-years old) among reproductive states. The
possible reproductive states are: No young, with cubs, with yearlings,
or with 2-year-olds. Ten potential reproductive transitions are
biologically feasible.
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee (YGCC): The
committee of State, Federal, Tribal, and county agencies charged with
implementing the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy post-delisting. They
will coordinate management and promote the exchange of information
about the GYE grizzly bear population. Members include: Yellowstone and
Grand Teton National Parks; Five National forests: Beaverhead-
Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer-Gallatin, and
Shoshone; One Bureau of Land Management representative; the Biological
Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey; one representative
each from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; and one representative from each
native American Tribe with sovereign powers over reservation lands
within the ecosystem.
Authors
The primary authors of this proposed rule are staff members of the
Service's Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
record keeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, we hereby propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of
chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth
below:
PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS
0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 17.11(h) by revising the first entry for ``Bear,
grizzly'' under ``Mammals'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species
Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------
population where Critical
Special
Historic
range endangered or Status When listed habitat
rules
Common name Scientific name
threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
* *
* * * * *
Bear, grizzly.................... Ursus arctos North
America...... U.S.A., T 1, 2D, 9,
NA 17.40(b)
horribilis.
conterminous 759
(lower 48) States,
except: (1) where
listed as an
experimental
population; and
(2) that portion
of Idaho that is
east of Interstate
Highway 15 and
north of U.S.
Highway 30; that
portion of Montana
that is east of
Interstate Highway
15 and south of
Interstate Highway
90; that portion
of Wyoming south
of Interstate
Highway 90, west
of Interstate
Highway 25,
Wyoming State
Highway 220, and
U.S. Highway 287
south of Three
Forks (at the 220
and 287
intersection), and
north of
Interstate Highway
80 and U.S.
Highway 30.
* *
* * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
* * * *
Dated: March 2, 2016.
James W. Kurth,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-05167 Filed 3-10-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P