sign in sign up
<<
Home , Habitat conservation

30502 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR National Park and Grand Teton National —The 2016 Conservation Strategy Park appended the standards to Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Fish and Service their Park Superintendent’s Compendia, Policy Overview thereby ensuring that these national Past Practice and History of Using DPSs 50 CFR Part 17 Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment parks would manage habitat in Analysis [Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2016–0042; accordance with the habitat standards. —Analysis of Discreteness in Relation to FXES11130900000C6–178–FF09E42000] The States of Idaho, Montana, and Remainder of Taxon Wyoming have signed a Tri-State —Analysis of Significance of Population RIN 1018–BA41 Memorandum of Agreement and Segment to Taxon Æ Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting enacted regulatory mechanisms to Æ Endangered and Threatened Wildlife ensure that State management of Significant Gap in the Range of the and ; Removing the Greater Taxon mortality limits is consistent with the Æ Marked Genetic Differences Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of demographic recovery criteria. Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Summary of Distinct Population Segment DATES: This final rule becomes effective Analysis Endangered and Threatened Wildlife July 31, 2017. Summary of Factors Affecting the Species —Factor A. The Present or Threatened AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, ADDRESSES: Comments and materials Destruction, Modification, or Interior. received, as well as supporting Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range. ACTION: Final rule; availability of final documentation used in preparation of Æ Habitat Management Inside the Primary Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Supplement: this final rule, are available for Conservation Area Revised Demographic Criteria. inspection, by appointment, during D Motorized Access Management normal business hours, at the Grizzly D Developed Sites SUMMARY: The best available scientific Bear Recovery Office, University Hall, D Livestock Allotments and commercial data indicate that the D and Development Room #309, University of Montana, D Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) Recreation Missoula, Montana 59812. To make D Snowmobiling population of grizzly bears (Ursus arctos arrangements, call 406–243–4903. D Vegetation Management horribilis) is a valid distinct population Document availability: This final rule D segment (DPS) and that this DPS has and supporting documents are available D recovered and no longer meets the on http://www.regulations.gov under Æ Habitat Management Outside the definition of an endangered or Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2016–0042. In Primary Conservation Area Æ under the addition, certain documents, such as the Summary of Factor A Endangered Species Act, as amended final 2016 Conservation Strategy, the —Factors B and C Combined. Overutilization for Commercial, (Act). Therefore, we, the U.S. Fish and final Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Wildlife Service (Service), hereby revise Supplement: Revised Demographic Purposes; Disease or Predation the List of Endangered and Threatened Criteria, and a list of references cited, Æ Human-Caused Mortality Wildlife, under the authority of the Act, are available at http://www.fws.gov/ Æ Disease by establishing a DPS and removing the mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php. Æ Natural Predation GYE grizzly bear DPS. The Service has The Service will complete the decision Æ Summary of Factors B and C Combined determined that the GYE grizzly bear file shortly. —Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing population has increased in size and Regulatory Mechanisms FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade more than tripled its occupied range Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence since being listed as threatened under Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Æ Genetic Health the Act in 1975 and that threats to the Service, University Hall, Room #309, Æ Changes in population are sufficiently minimized. University of Montana, Missoula, MT Æ Climate Change The participating States of Idaho, Æ Catastrophic Events 59812; telephone 406–243–4903; Æ Montana, and Wyoming and Federal facsimile 406–329–3212. For Tribal Public Support and Human Attitudes Æ Summary of Factor E agencies have adopted the necessary inquiries, contact Roya Mogadam, post-delisting plans and regulations, —Cumulative Effects of Factors A Through Deputy Assistant Regional Director, E which adequately ensure that the GYE External Affairs, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Summary of Factors Affecting the Greater population of grizzly bears remains Service; telephone: 303–236–4572. Yellowstone Ecosystem Grizzly Bear recovered. Persons who use a telecommunications Population Concurrent to this final rule, we are device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Summary of and Responses to Peer Review appending the Grizzly Bear Recovery Federal Relay Service at 800–877–8339. and Public Comment —General Issues Plan Supplement: Revised Demographic SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Criteria to the 1993 Recovery Plan. —Delisting Process and Compliance With Moreover, prior to publication of this Table of Contents Applicable Laws, Regulations, and Policies Issues final rule, the Yellowstone Ecosystem Executive Summary —Geographic Scope of Recovery and Subcommittee finalized the 2016 Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) Delisting Issues Conservation Strategy that will guide Previous Federal Actions —Working With Tribes and Tribal Issues post-delisting monitoring and Background —Recovery Criteria and Management management of the grizzly bear in the Population —Background Objective Issues GYE. Additionally, the U.S. Recovery Planning and Implementation —Other Comments on Whether To Delist Service finalized in 2006 the Forest Plan —Background —Measurement of and Interpretation of Amendment for Grizzly Bear —Recovery Planning Population Parameters Issues —Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria Conservation for the GYE National —Habitat Management Issues (Factor A) —Suitable Habitat —Human-Caused Mortality Issues (Factors and made a decision to —Demographic Recovery Criteria B and C Combined) incorporate this Amendment into the Æ Demographic Recovery Criterion 1 —Adequate Regulatory Mechanisms and affected National Forests’ Æ Demographic Recovery Criterion 2 Post-Delisting Monitoring Issues (Factor Management Plans. Yellowstone Æ Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 D)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30503

—Genetic Health Issues (Factor E) commercial data available, including Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to —Food Issues (Factor E) our detailed evaluation of information remove the GYE grizzly bear DPS. —Climate Change Issues (Factor E) related to the population’s trend and —Other Potential Threat Factor Issues (3) Costs and Benefits (Factor E) structure, indicate that the GYE grizzly —Cumulative Impacts of Threats Issues bear DPS has recovered and threats have We have not analyzed the costs or —Distinct Population Segment and been reduced such that it no longer benefits of this rulemaking action Significant Portion of Its Range Issues meets the definition of threatened, or because the Act precludes consideration Determination endangered, under the Act. To better of such impacts on listing and delisting Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis articulate demographic criteria that determinations. Instead, listing and —Background adequately describe a recovered delisting decisions are based solely on —Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis population, we are releasing a for the GYE Grizzly Bear DPS the best scientific and commercial data Effects of the Rule supplement to the 1993 Recovery Plan’s available regarding the status of the Post-Delisting Monitoring demographic recovery criteria for this subject species. population of grizzly bears. In addition, —Monitoring Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) —Triggers for a Biology and Monitoring the 2016 Conservation Strategy was Review by the Interagency Grizzly Bear finalized and signed by all partner The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Study Team agencies in December 2016. Identifying (GYE) refers to the larger ecological —Triggers for a Service Status Review the GYE grizzly bear DPS and removing system containing and surrounding Required Determinations that DPS from the List of Endangered —Clarity of the Rule Yellowstone National Park (YNP). The —National Environmental Policy Act and Threatened Wildlife does not GYE includes portions of five National —Government-to-Government change the threatened status of the Forests; YNP, Grand Teton National Relationships With Tribes remaining grizzly bears in the lower 48 Park (GTNP), and the John D. Glossary States, which remain protected by the Rockefeller Memorial Parkway (JDR; References Cited Act. administered by GTNP); and State, Authors On September 21, 2009, the U.S. Tribal, and private . The GYE is Executive Summary District Court for the District of Montana generally defined as those lands vacated and remanded the Service’s surrounding YNP with elevations (1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action previous final rule establishing and greater than 1,500 meters (m) (4,900 feet Section 4 of the Act and its delisting this DPS. The Ninth Circuit (ft)) (see USDA FS 2004, p. 46; Schwartz implementing regulations in part 424 of Court of Appeals affirmed the district et al. 2006b, p. 9). While we consider title 50 of the Code of Federal court finding that the Service had not the terms ‘‘Greater Yellowstone Area’’ Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth adequately analyzed the effects of and ‘‘Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’’ the procedures for revising the Federal whitebark pine as a food source for this to be interchangeable, we use GYE in Lists of Endangered and Threatened DPS, but reversed the district court this final rule to be consistent with the Wildlife and Plants. Rulemaking is finding that the Service had permissibly 2016 Conservation Strategy. The required to remove a species from these and appropriately considered the 2007 Primary Conservation Area (PCA) lists. Accordingly, we are issuing this Conservation Strategy under section 4 of boundary is the same as and replaces final rule to identify the Greater the Act. Greater Yellowstone Coalition the existing Yellowstone Recovery Zone Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly v. Servheen, 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. as identified in the 1993 Grizzly Bear bear distinct population segment (DPS) 2011). This final rule completes that Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993, p. 41) to and revise the List of Endangered and remand order by addressing the effects reflect the paradigm shift from Threatened Wildlife by removing the of whitebark pine, as well as the other managing for recovery as a listed species DPS from the List. The population is applicable factors under section 4 of the under the Act to one of conservation as stable (i.e., no statistical trend in the Act. a non-listed species (figure 1). population trajectory), threats are Monitoring of the demographic criteria (2) Major Provision of the Regulatory sufficiently ameliorated, and a post- for the GYE grizzly bear population will Action delisting monitoring and management occur, by the Interagency Grizzly Bear framework has been developed and has This action is authorized by the Act. Study Team (IGBST), within the been incorporated into regulatory We are amending 50 CFR 17.11(h) by demographic monitoring area (DMA) to mechanisms or other operative revising the listing for ‘‘Bear, grizzly’’ ensure a recovered population (figure 1). documents. The best scientific and under ‘‘Mammals’’ in the List of BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30504 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Distinct Population Segment ~ Wind Indian Reservation • PCA I Yellowstone Recovery Zone ~Interstate Highway EZJ Demographic Monitoring Area ~US Highway • Suitable Grizzly Bear Habitat /'/ State Boundaries D National Park Service Lands

Figure 1. Map ofthe Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). Boundaries are shown for: (1) the GYE grizzly bear Distinct Population Segment; (2) the Primary Conservation Area; (3) the Demographic Monitoring Area; (4) biologically suitable habitat (as defined in Factor A, below); and (5) National Park Service lands. An interactive map ofthe GYE boundaries is available at http://usgs. maps. arcgis. com/home/webmap/viewer. html?webmap= 78152b8e0bde457 ca9 5918fdd48c5352.

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C threatened in the conterminous (lower plan as necessary (72 FR 11376, March Previous Federal Actions 48) (40 FR 31734). 13, 2007; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Accordingly, we developed a Grizzly 1993, 2007a, 2007b, 2017). On On July 28, 1975, we published a rule Bear Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and November 17, 2005, we proposed to to designate the grizzly bear as Wildlife Service 1982) and updated that designate the GYE population of grizzly

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 ER30JN17.251 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30505

bears as a DPS and to remove (delist) draft 2016 Conservation Strategy. The Grizzly bears are extremely this DPS from the Federal List of proposed rule was followed by a 60-day omnivorous, display great diet Endangered and Threatened Wildlife comment period, during which we held plasticity—even within a population (70 FR 69854). On March 29, 2007, we two open houses and two public (Edwards et al. 2011, pp. 883–886)—and finalized this proposed action, hearings (81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016). shift and switch food habits according designating the GYE population as a The public comment period was later to their availability (Servheen 1983, pp. DPS and removing (delisting) grizzly reopened for an additional 30 days in 1029–1030; Mace and Jonkel 1986, p. bears in the GYE from the Federal List light of the receipt of five peer reviews 108; LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 113–114; of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and the States of Idaho, Montana, and Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 63–71; (72 FR 14866). This final determination Wyoming finalizing regulatory Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 568–569; was vacated and remanded by the U.S. mechanisms to manage human-caused Gunther et al. 2014, p. 65). Gunther et District Court for the District of Montana mortality of grizzly bears (81 FR 61658, al. (2014, p. 65) conducted an extensive on September 21, 2009, in Greater September 7, 2016). Please refer to the literature review and documented over Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et proposed rule for more detailed 260 species of consumed by al., 672 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009). information on previous Federal actions grizzly bears in the GYE, representing 4 The District Court ruled against the (81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016). of the 5 kingdoms of . The ability to Service on two of the four points use whatever food resources are brought against it: That the Service was Background available is one reason grizzly bears are arbitrary and capricious in its Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) the most widely distributed bear species evaluation of whitebark pine and that are a member of the brown bear species in the world, occupying from the identified regulatory mechanisms (U. arctos) that occurs in North deserts to alpine mountains and were inadequate because they were not America, Europe, and Asia; the everything in between. This ability to legally enforceable. In compliance with subspecies U. a. horribilis is limited to live in a variety of habitats and eat a this order, the GYE grizzly bear North America (Rausch 1963, p. 43; wide array of foods makes grizzly bears population was once again made a Servheen 1999, pp. 50–53). Grizzly a generalist species. threatened population under the Act (16 bears are generally larger than other Grizzly bears use a variety of habitats U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (see 75 FR 14496, bears and average 200 to 300 kilograms in the GYE (LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 120). March 26, 2010), and the Service (kg) (400 to 600 pounds (lb)) for males In general, a grizzly bear’s individual withdrew the delisting rule. and 110 to 160 kg (250 to 350 lb) for habitat needs and daily movements are The Service appealed the District females in the lower 48 States largely driven by the search for food, Court decision, and on November 15, (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, pp. 517– mates, cover, security, or den sites. The 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 520; Schwartz et al. 2003, p. 558). available habitat for bears is also issued an opinion affirming in part and Although their coloration can vary influenced by people and their reversing in part the district court’s widely from light brown to nearly black activities. Human activities are the decision vacating and remanding the primary factor impacting habitat (LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 17–18), they final rule delisting grizzly bears in the security and the ability of bears to find can be distinguished from black bears Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Greater and access foods, mates, cover, and den by longer curved claws, humped Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et sites (Mattson et al. 1987, pp. 269–271; shoulders, and a face that appears to be al., 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011)). The McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. concave (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, Ninth Circuit held that the Service’s 458–459; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862– p. 517). Grizzly bears are long-lived consideration of the regulatory 1864; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402–1403; mammals, generally living to be around mechanisms was permissible, but that Nielsen et al. 2006, p. 225; Schwartz et 25 years old (LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 47, the Service inadequately explained why al. 2010, p. 661). Other factors 51). the loss of whitebark pine was not a influencing habitat use and function for threat to the GYE grizzly bear Adult grizzly bears are normally grizzly bears include overall habitat population. In compliance with this solitary except when females have productivity (e.g., food distribution and order, the GYE population of grizzly dependent young (Nowak and Paradiso abundance), the availability of habitat bears remained federally listed as 1983, p. 971), but they are not territorial components (e.g., denning areas, cover ‘‘threatened’’ under the Act, and the and home ranges of adult bears types), grizzly bear social dynamics, IGBST initiated more thorough research frequently overlap (Schwartz et al. 2003, learned behavior and preferences of into the potential impact of whitebark pp. 565–566). Home range size is individual grizzly bears, grizzly bear pine decline on GYE grizzly bears. In affected by resource availability, sex, population density, and random this final rule, among the other findings, age, and reproductive status (LeFranc et variation (LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 120). we respond to the District Court’s al. 1987, p. 31; Blanchard and Knight For detailed information on the remand and the Ninth Circuit’s 1991, pp. 48–51; Mace and Waller 1997, biology of this species, see the determination that the Service failed to p. 48). The annual home ranges of adult ‘‘Taxonomy and Species Description, support its conclusion that whitebark male grizzly bears in the GYE are Behavior and Life History, Nutritional pine declines did not threaten GYE approximately 800 square kilometers Ecology, and Habitat Management’’ grizzly bears. (km2) (309 square miles (mi2)), while sections of the March 11, 2016, On March 11, 2016, we proposed to female home ranges are typically proposed rule Removing the Greater designate the GYE population of grizzly smaller, approximately 210 km2 (81 Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of bears as a DPS and to remove (delist) mi2) (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, p. 3). The Grizzly Bears from the Federal List of this DPS from the Federal List of large home ranges of grizzly bears, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Endangered and Threatened Wildlife particularly males, enhance proposed rule (81 FR 13176–13186). (81 FR 13174). In addition, our maintenance of genetic diversity in the proposed rule included a notice population by enabling males to mate Population Ecology—Background announcing the availability of the draft with numerous females (Blanchard and The scientific discipline that informs Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Supplement: Knight 1991, pp. 46–51; Craighead et al. decisions about most wildlife Revised Demographic Criteria and the 1998, p. 326). population management is population

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30506 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

ecology: The study of how populations demographic vital rates driving whether pp. 14–17). Under these conditions, K is change over time and space and interact the grizzly bear population increases, a constant value that is approached in with their environment (Vandermeer decreases, or remains stable. When a predictable way and can be described and Goldberg 2003, p. 2; Snider and wildlife biologists refer to demographic by a mathematical equation. However, Brimlow 2013, p. 1). Ultimately, the vital rates, they are referring to all of the few studies of wild populations have goal of population ecology is to different aspects of reproduction and demonstrated the stability and constant understand why and how populations survival that cumulatively determine a population size suggested by this change over time. Wildlife managers population’s trend (i.e., lambda). Some equation. Instead, many factors affect and population ecologists monitor a of the demographic factors influencing carrying capacity of animal populations number of factors to gauge the status of population trend for grizzly bears are in the wild, and carrying capacity itself a population and make scientifically age-specific survival, sex-specific typically varies over time. Populations informed decisions. These measures survival, average number of cubs per include population size, population litter, the time between litters (i.e., usually fluctuate above and below trend, density, and current range. interbirth interval), age ratios, sex ratios, carrying capacity, resulting in relative While population size is a well- average age of first reproduction, population stability over time (i.e., known and easily understood metric, it lifespan, transition probabilities (see lambda value of approximately 1.0 over only provides information about a Glossary), immigration, and emigration. the long term) (Colinvaux 1986, pp. population at a single point in time. These data are all used to determine if 138–139, 142; Krebs 2009, p. 148). For Wildlife managers often want to know and why a population is increasing or populations at or near carrying capacity, how a population is changing over time decreasing (Anderson 2002, p. 53; Mills population size may fluctuate just above and why. Population trend is 2007, p. 59; Mace et al. 2012, p. 124). and below carrying capacity around a determined by births, deaths, and how No population can grow forever long-term mean, sometimes resulting in many animals move into or out of the because the resources it requires are annual estimates of lambda showing a population (i.e., disperse) and is finite. This understanding led ecologists declining population (figure 2). typically expressed as the population to develop the concept of carrying However, to obtain a biologically growth rate (represented by the symbol capacity (expressed as the symbol ‘‘K’’). meaningful estimate of average annual l, the Greek letter ‘‘lambda’’). For This is the maximum number of population growth rate for a long-lived grizzly bear populations, lambda individuals a particular environment species like the grizzly bear that estimates the average rate of annual can support over the long term without reproduces only once every 3 years and growth, with a value of 1.0 indicating a resulting in population declines caused does not start reproducing until at least stable population trend with no net by (Vandermeer and 4 years old, we must examine lambda growth or decline. A lambda value of Goldberg 2003, p. 261; Krebs 2009, p. 1.03 means the population size is 148). Classical studies of population over a longer period of time to see what increasing at 3 percent per year. growth occurred under controlled the average trend is over that specified Conversely, a lambda value of 0.98 laboratory conditions where time. This is not an easy task. For means the population size is decreasing populations of a single organism, often grizzly bears, it takes at least 6 years of at 2 percent per year. an insect species or single-celled monitoring as many as 30 females with In its simplest form, population trend organism, were allowed to grow in a radio-collars to accurately estimate is driven by births and deaths. Survival confined space with a constant supply average annual population growth and reproduction are the fundamental of food (Vandermeer and Goldberg 2003, (Harris et al. 2011, p. 29).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30507

When a population is at or near bears killing other bears), (2) decreases population, and the IGBST examined carrying capacity, mechanisms that in home range size, (3) increases in some of these confounding effects to regulate or control population size fall generation time, (4) increases in age of find that density-dependent effects are into two broad categories: Density- first reproduction, and (5) decreased the likely cause of the recent slowing in dependent effects and density- reproduction (McLellan 1994, entire; population growth factors. The slowing independent effects. Generally, factors Eberhardt 2002, pp. 2851–2852; Kamath of population growth since the early that limit population growth more et al. 2015, p. 5516; van Manen et al. 2000s was primarily a function of lower strongly as population size increases are 2016, pp. 307–308). Indicators that survival of dependent young and density-dependent effects, or intrinsic density-independent effects are moderate reproductive suppression factors, usually expressed through influencing population growth can (IGBST 2012, p. 8). Survival of cubs-of- individual behaviors, physiology, or include: (1) Larger home range sizes the-year and reproduction were lower in genetic potential (McLellan 1994, p. 15). (because bears are roaming more widely areas with higher grizzly bear densities Extrinsic factors, such as drought or fire in search of foods) (McLoughlin et al. but showed no association with that kill individuals regardless of how 2000, pp. 49–51), (2) decreased cub and estimates of decline in whitebark pine many individuals are in a population, yearling survival due to starvation, (3) tree cover, suggesting that density- are considered density-independent increases in age of first reproduction dependent factors contributed to the effects (Colinvaux 1986, p. 172). These due to limited food resources, and (4) change in population growth (van extrinsic factors may include changes in decreased reproduction due to limited Manen et al. 2016, entire). In addition, resources, predators, or human impacts food resources. female home range sizes have decreased and may cause carrying capacity to vary As a result of these sometimes similar in areas of greater bear densities, as over time. Population stability (i.e., indicators, determining whether a would be expected if density-dependent fluctuation around carrying capacity or population is affected more strongly by regulation is occurring (Bjornlie et al. a long-term equilibrium) is often density-dependent or density- 2014b, p. 4) (see Changes in Food influenced by a combination of density- independent effects can be a complex Resources under Factor E, below, for dependent and density-independent undertaking. For long-lived mammals more detailed information). effects. Among grizzly bears, indicators such as grizzly bears, extensive data Population viability analyses (PVAs) of density-dependent population collected over decades are needed to are another tool population ecologists regulation can include: (1) Decreased understand if and how these factors are often use to assess the status of a yearling and cub survival due to operating in a population. We have population by estimating its likelihood increases in intraspecific killing (i.e., these data for the GYE grizzly bear of persistence in the future. Boyce et al.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 ER30JN17.252 30508 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

(2001, pp. 1–11) reviewed the existing 1993, p. 9; Servheen 1999, p. 51). Of 37 USDOI 1983, entire). One of the published PVAs for GYE grizzly bears grizzly bear populations present within objectives of the IGBC is to change land and updated these previous analyses the lower 48 States in 1922, 31 were management practices to more using data collected since the original extirpated by 1975 (Servheen 1999, p. effectively provide security and analyses were completed. They also 51). maintain or improve habitat conditions conducted new PVAs using two By the 1950s, with little or no for the grizzly bear (USDA and USDOI software packages that had not been conservation effort or management 1983, entire). IGBC members include available to previous investigators. They directed at maintaining grizzly bears upper level managers from the Service, found that the GYE grizzly bear anywhere in their range, the GYE USFS, USGS, Bureau of Land population had a 1 percent chance of population had been reduced in Management (BLM), and the States of going extinct within the next 100 years numbers and was restricted largely to Idaho, Montana, Washington, and and a 4 percent chance of going extinct the confines of YNP and some Wyoming (USDA and USDOI 1983, in the next 500 years (Boyce et al. 2001, surrounding areas (Craighead et al. entire). The IGBST Team Leader, the pp. 1, 10–11). The authors cautioned 1995, pp. 41–42; Schwartz et al. 2003, National Carnivore Program Leader, and that their analyses were not entirely pp. 575–579). High grizzly bear the Service Grizzly Bear Recovery sufficient because they were not able to mortality in 1970 and 1971, following Coordinator are advisors to the consider possible changes in habitat and closure of the open-pit garbage dumps subcommittee providing all the how these may affect population vital in YNP (Gunther 1994, p. 550; scientific information on the GYE rates (Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 31–32). Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 34–36), and grizzly bear population and its habitat. Based on the recommendation that the concern about grizzly bear population The third interagency group guiding population models incorporate habitat status throughout its remaining range management of the GYE grizzly bear is variables, Boyce worked with other prompted the 1975 listing of the grizzly a subcommittee of the IGBC: The researchers to develop a habitat-based bear as a threatened species in the lower Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee framework for evaluating mortality risk 48 States under the Act (40 FR 31734, (YES). Formed in 1983 to coordinate of a grizzly bear population in Alberta, July 28, 1975). When the grizzly bear recovery efforts specific to the GYE, the Canada (Nielsen et al. 2006, p. 225). was listed in 1975, the population YES includes mid-level managers and They concluded that secure habitat (low estimate in the GYE ranged from 136 to representatives from the Service; the mortality risk) was the key to grizzly 312 individuals (Cowan et al. 1974, pp. five GYE National Forests (the bear survival. Schwartz et al. (2010, p. 32, 36; Craighead et al. 1974, p. 16; Shoshone, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, 661) created a similar mortality risk McCullough 1981, p. 175). Bridger-Teton, Custer Gallatin, and model for the GYE with similar results. Grizzly bear recovery has required, Caribou-Targhee); YNP; GTNP; the Both studies suggest that managing for and will continue to require, Wyoming and Fish Department secure habitat is one of the most cooperation among numerous (WGFD); the Montana Department of effective management actions to ensure government agencies and the public for Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP); the population persistence. a unified management approach. To this Idaho Department of Fish and Game end, there are three interagency groups (IDFG); the BLM; county governments Recovery Planning and Implementation that help guide grizzly bear management from each affected State; and the Background in the GYE. The IGBST, created in 1973, Shoshone Bannock, Northern Arapahoe, provides the scientific information and Eastern Shoshone Tribes (USDA Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the necessary to make informed and USDOI 1983). The IGBST Team grizzly bear occurred throughout the management decisions about grizzly Leader and the Service Grizzly Bear western half of the contiguous United bear habitat and conservation in the Recovery Coordinator are advisors to the States, central Mexico, western Canada, GYE. Since its formation in 1973, the subcommittee providing all the and most of Alaska (Roosevelt 1907, pp. published work of the IGBST has made scientific information on the GYE 27–28; Wright 1909, pp. vii, 3, 185–186; the GYE grizzly bear population the grizzly bear population and its habitat. Merriam 1922, p. 1; Storer and Tevis most studied in the world. The wealth Upon implementation of the 2016 1955, p. 18; Rausch 1963, p. 35; Herrero of biological information produced by Conservation Strategy, the Yellowstone 1972, pp. 224–227; Schwartz et al. 2003, the IGBST over the years includes 30 Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee pp. 557–558). Pre-settlement population annual reports, hundreds of articles in (YGCC) will replace the YES. levels for the western contiguous United peer-reviewed journals, dozens of States are believed to have been in the theses, and other technical reports (see: Recovery Planning range of 50,000 animals (Servheen 1999, https://www.usgs.gov/science/ In accordance with section 4(f)(1) of p. 50). With European settlement of the interagency-grizzly-bear-study-team?qt- the Act, the Service completed a Grizzly American West and government-funded science_center_objects=4#qt-science_ Bear Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) in bounty programs aimed at eradication, center_objects). Members of the IGBST 1982 (USFWS 1982, p. ii). Recovery grizzly bears were shot, poisoned, and include scientists and wildlife managers plans serve as road maps for species trapped wherever they were found, and from the Service, U.S. Geological Survey recovery—they lay out where we need the resulting declines in range and (USGS), National Park Service (NPS), to go and how to get there through population were dramatic (Roosevelt U.S. Forest Service (USFS), academia, specific actions. Recovery plans are not 1907, pp. 27–28; Wright 1909, p. vii; and each State wildlife agency involved regulatory documents and are instead Storer and Tevis 1955, pp. 26–27; in grizzly bear recovery. intended to provide guidance to the Leopold 1967, p. 30; Koford 1969, p. 95; The second interagency group guiding Service, States, and other partners on Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 516; grizzly efforts is the methods of minimizing threats to listed Servheen 1999, pp. 50–51). The range Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee species and on criteria that may be used and numbers of grizzly bears were (IGBC). Created in 1983, its members to determine when recovery is achieved. reduced to less than 2 percent of their coordinate management efforts and The Recovery Plan identified six former range and numbers by the 1930s, research actions across multiple Federal recovery ecosystems within the approximately 125 years after first lands and States to recover the grizzly conterminous United States thought to contact with European settlers (USFWS bear in the lower 48 States (USDA and support grizzly bears. Today, current

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30509

grizzly bear distribution is primarily incorporates the Recovery Plan for post- distributed across the GYE Recovery within and around the areas identified delisting monitoring. The final revised Zone as per the Recovery Plan (USFWS as Recovery Zones (USFWS 1993, pp. demographic recovery criteria are 2007c, pp. 20, 41, 44–46). Management 10–13, 17–18), including: (1) The GYE appended to the Recovery Plan improvements made as a result of these in northwestern Wyoming, eastern concurrent with this final rule. Below, Guidelines are discussed under Factor Idaho, and southwestern Montana we report the status of both the habitat A, below. 2 2 and demographic recovery criteria in (24,000 km (9,200 mi )) at more than Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria 700 bears (Haroldson et al. 2014, p. 17); the GYE. (2) the Northern Continental Divide In 1979, the IGBST developed the first On June 17, 1997, we held a public Ecosystem (NCDE) of north-central comprehensive ‘‘Guidelines for workshop in Bozeman, Montana, to Montana (25,000 km2 (9,600 mi2)) at Management Involving Grizzly Bears in develop and refine habitat-based more than 900 bears (Kendall et al. the Greater Yellowstone Area’’ recovery criteria for the grizzly bear, 2009, p. 9; Mace et al. 2012, p. 124); (3) (hereafter referred to as the Guidelines) with an emphasis on the GYE. This the North Cascades area of north-central (Mealey 1979, pp. 1–4). We determined workshop was held as part of the Washington (25,000 km2 (9,500 mi2)) at in a biological opinion that settlement agreement in Fund for fewer than 20 bears (last documented implementation of the Guidelines by Animals v. Babbitt, 967 F.Supp.6 (D. sighting in 1996) (Almack et al. 1993, p. Federal agencies D.C. 1997). A Federal Register notice 4; NPS and USFWS 2015, p. 3); (4) the would promote conservation of the notified the public of this workshop and Selkirk Mountains area of northern grizzly bear (USFWS 1979, p. 1). provided interested parties an Idaho, northeastern Washington, and Beginning in 1979, the five affected opportunity to participate and submit southeastern British Columbia (5,700 National Forests (Beaverhead-Deerlodge, comments (62 FR 19777, April 23, km2 (2,200 mi2)) at approximately 88 Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer 1997). After considering 1,167 written bears (USFWS 2011, p. 26); and (5) the Gallatin, and Shoshone), YNP and comments, we developed biologically Cabinet-Yaak area of northwestern GTNP, and the BLM in the GYE began based habitat recovery criteria, which Montana and northern Idaho (6,700 km2 managing habitats for grizzly bears were appended to the 1993 Recovery (2,600 mi2)) at approximately 48 bears under direction specified in the Plan in 2007 (USFWS 2007b, entire), (Kendall et al. 2016, p. 314). The Guidelines. with the overall goal of maintaining or Bitterroot Ecosystem in the Bitterroot In 1986, the IGBC modified the improving habitat conditions at levels that existed in 1998. Mountains of central Idaho and western Guidelines to more effectively manage There is no published method to Montana (14,500 km2 (5,600 mi2)) is not habitat by mapping and managing deductively calculate minimum habitat known to contain a population of according to three different management situations (USDA FS 1986, pp. 35–39). values required for a healthy and grizzly bears at this time (USFWS 1996, In areas governed by ‘‘Management recovered population. Grizzly bears are p. 1; 65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000; Situation One,’’ grizzly bear habitat long-lived opportunistic omnivores USFWS 2000, pp. 1–3). The San Juan maintenance and improvement and whose food and space requirements Mountains of Colorado also were grizzly bear-human conflict vary depending on a multitude of identified as an area of possible grizzly minimization received the highest environmental and behavioral factors bear occurrence (40 FR 31734, July 28, management priority. In areas governed and on variation in the experience and 1975; USFWS 1982, p. 12; USFWS 1993, by ‘‘Management Situation Two,’’ knowledge of each individual bear. p. 11), but no confirmed sightings of grizzly bear use was important, but not Grizzly bear home ranges overlap and grizzly bears have occurred there since the primary use of the area. In areas change seasonally, annually, and with a grizzly bear mortality in 1979 (USFWS governed by ‘‘Management Situation reproductive status. While these factors 1993, p. 11). Three,’’ grizzly bear habitat make the development of threshold In 1993, the Service completed maintenance and improvement were not habitat criteria difficult, these may be revisions to the Recovery Plan to management considerations. established by assessing what habitat include additional tasks and new The National Forests and National factors in the past were compatible with information that increased the focus and Parks delineated 18 different bear a stable to increasing grizzly bear effectiveness of recovery efforts (USFWS management units (BMUs) within the population, and then using these habitat 1993, pp. 41–58). In 1996 and 1997, we GYE Recovery Zone to aid in managing conditions as threshold values to be released supplemental chapters to the habitat and monitoring population maintained to ensure a healthy Recovery Plan to direct recovery in the trends. Each BMU was further population (i.e., a ‘‘no net loss’’ Bitterroot and North Cascades Recovery subdivided into subunits, resulting in a approach), as suggested by Nielsen et al. Zones, respectively (USFWS 1996; total of 40 subunits contained within (2006, p. 227). We selected 1998 levels USFWS 1997). In the GYE, we updated the 18 BMUs (see map at http:// as our baseline year because it was both the habitat and demographic www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/ known that habitat values at that time recovery criteria in 2007 (72 FR 11376, species/mammals/grizzly/Yellowstone_ were compatible with an increasing March 13, 2007). We proposed revisions Recovery_Zone_map.pdf). The BMUs grizzly bear population throughout the to the demographic recovery criteria in are analysis areas that approximate the 1990s (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48) and that 2013 (78 FR 17708, March 22, 2013) and lifetime size of a female’s home range, the levels of both secure habitat and the proposed additional revisions while subunits are analysis areas that number and capacity of developed sites concurrent with the proposed rule (81 approximate the annual home range size (those sites or facilities on federal public FR 13174, March 11, 2016) to reflect the of adult females. Subunits provide the land with features intended to best available science. Although it is not optimal scale for evaluation of seasonal accommodate public use or recreation) necessary to update recovery plans prior feeding opportunities and had changed little from 1988 to 1998 to delisting, the Recovery Plan patterns of food availability for grizzly (USDA FS 2004, pp. 140–141, 159–162). Supplement: Revised Demographic bears (Weaver et al. 1986, p. 236). The The 1998 baseline is also described in Recovery Criteria was updated to reflect BMUs and subunits were identified to detail in Factor A, below. the best available science because the provide enough quality habitat and to The habitat-based recovery criteria 2016 Conservation Strategy directly ensure that grizzly bears were well established objective, measurable values

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30510 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

for levels of motorized access, secure support grizzly bear reproduction and 2002, pp. 1128–1129). Most of the short- habitat, developed sites, and livestock survival; (2) being contiguous with the grass prairie on the east side of the allotments (i.e., ‘‘the 1998 baseline’’) for current distribution of GYE grizzly bears Rocky Mountains has been converted the GYE. The 1998 values will not such that natural recolonization is into agricultural land ( et al. change through time, unless possible; and (3) having low mortality 1999, entire), and high densities of improvements benefit bears (e.g., risk as indicated through reasonable and traditional food sources are no longer expansion of existing administrative manageable levels of grizzly bear available due to land conversion and sites to enhance public land mortality. human occupancy of urban and rural management if other viable alternatives Our definition and delineation of lands. Traditional food sources such as are not available, modifications to suitable habitat is built on the widely bison and elk have been reduced and dispersed or developed sites to reduce accepted conclusions of extensive replaced with domestic livestock such grizzly bear conflicts, such as installing research (Craighead 1980, pp. 8–11; as cattle, sheep, chickens, goats, pigs, bear-resistant storage structures). As Knight 1980, pp. 1–3; Peek et al. 1987, and bee hives, which can become each of these management objectives are pp. 160–161; Merrill et al. 1999, pp. anthropogenic sources of prey for central to potential present or 233–235; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661) grizzly bears. While food sources such threatened destruction, modification, or that grizzly bear reproduction and as grasses and berries are abundant in curtailment of habitat or range, they are survival is a function of both the some years in the riparian zones within discussed in detail under Factor A, biological needs of grizzly bears and which the bears travel, these are not below. These habitat-based recovery remoteness from human activities, reliable every year and can only support criteria have been met since their which minimizes mortality risk for a small number of bears. These incorporation into the Recovery Plan grizzly bears. Mountainous areas nutritional constraints and the potential (USFWS 2007b, entire). provide hiding cover, the topographic for human-bear conflicts limit the Additionally, we developed several variation necessary to ensure a wide potential for a self-sustaining monitoring items that may help inform variety of seasonal foods, and the steep population of grizzly bears to develop in management decisions or explain slopes used for denning (Judd et al. the prairies, although we expect some population trends: (1) Trends in the 1986, pp. 114–115; Aune and Kasworm grizzly bears to live in these areas. location and availability of food sources 1989, pp. 29–58; Linnell et al. 2000, pp. Because wild bison herds no longer such as whitebark pine (Pinus 403–405). Higher elevation, exist in these areas, and are mainly albicaulis), cutthroat trout mountainous regions in the GYE contained within YNP in the GYE, they (Oncorhynchus clarki), army cutworm (Omernik 1987, pp. 118–125; Omernik are no longer capable of contributing in moths (Euxoa auxiliaris), and ungulates 1995, pp. 49–62; Woods et al. 1999, a meaningful way to the overall status (bison (Bison bison) and elk (Cervus entire; McGrath et al. 2002, entire; of the GYE grizzly bear DPS. Thus, we canadensis)); and (2) grizzly bear Chapman et al. 2004, entire) contain did not include drier sagebrush, prairie, mortality numbers, locations, and high-energy foods such as whitebark or agricultural lands within our causes; grizzly bear-human conflicts; pine seeds (Mattson and Jonkel 1990, p. definition of suitable habitat because conflict bear management actions; bear- 223; Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1623) and these land types no longer contain hunter conflicts; and bear-livestock army cutworm moths (Mattson et al. adequate food resources (i.e., bison) to conflicts (YES 2016a, pp. 33–91). 1991b, 2434; French et al. 1994, p. 391). support grizzly bears. Figure 1 For our analysis of suitable habitat, Federal and State agencies monitor illustrates suitable habitat within the these items, and the IGBST produces an we considered the Middle Rockies GYE grizzly bear DPS. annual report with their results. This ecoregion, within which the GYE is information is used to examine contained (Omernik 1987, pp. 120–121; Although there are historical records relationships between food availability, Woods et al. 1999, entire; McGrath et al. of grizzly bears throughout the GYE human activity, and demographic 2002, entire; Chapman et al. 2004, DPS, evidence suggests that grizzly parameters of the population such as entire), to meet grizzly bear biological bears were less common in prairie survival, population growth, or needs providing food, seasonal foraging habitats (Rollins 1935, p. 191; Wade reproduction. The habitat-based opportunities, cover, and denning areas 1947, p. 444). Bears in these peripheral recovery criteria were appended to the (Mattson and Merrill 2002, p. 1125). areas will not establish self-sustaining, Recovery Plan in 2007 and are included Although grizzly bears historically year-round populations due to a lack of in the 2016 Conservation Strategy, occurred throughout the area of the suitable habitat, land ownership which is the comprehensive post- proposed GYE grizzly bear DPS (Stebler patterns, and the lack of traditional, delisting management plan for a 1972, pp. 297–298), today many of these natural grizzly bear foods (i.e., bison). recovered population as called for in the habitats are not biologically suitable for Instead, bears in these peripheral areas Recovery Plan. grizzly bears. While there are records of will likely always rely on the GYE grizzly bears in eastern Wyoming near grizzly bear population inside the DMA Suitable Habitat present-day Sheridan, Casper, and as a source population. Grizzly bears in Because we used easily recognized Wheatland, even in the early 19th these peripheral areas are not boundaries to delineate the boundaries century, indirect evidence suggests that biologically necessary to the GYE of the GYE grizzly bear DPS, it includes grizzly bears were less common in these grizzly bear population and a lack of both suitable and unsuitable habitat eastern prairie habitats than in occupancy outside the DMA boundaries (figure 1). For the purposes of this final mountainous areas to the west (Rollins in peripheral areas will not impact rule, ‘‘suitable habitat’’ is considered the 1935, p. 191; Wade 1947, p. 444). whether the GYE population is likely to area within the DPS boundaries capable Grizzly bear presence in these drier, become endangered or threatened in the of supporting grizzly bear reproduction grassland habitats was associated with foreseeable future throughout all or a and survival now and in the foreseeable and streams where grizzly bears significant portion of its range. Grizzly future. We have defined ‘‘suitable used bison carcasses as a major food bear recovery in these portions of the habitat’’ for grizzly bears as areas having source (Burroughs 1961, pp. 57–60; species’ historical range is unnecessary, three characteristics: (1) Being of Herrero 1972, pp. 224–227; Stebler because there is more than enough adequate habitat quality and quantity to 1972, pp. 297–298; Mattson and Merrill suitable habitat to support a viable and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30511

recovered grizzly bear population as set densities of more than 50 people per bears may emigrate from the GYE to the forth in the demographic recovery km2 (129 people per mi2) (U.S. Census Bighorn Mountains occasionally, this criteria. Therefore, additional recovery Bureau 2005, entire). Cities within the dispersal distance exceeds the average efforts in these areas are beyond what is Middle Rockies ecoregion, such as West dispersal distance for both males (30 to required by the Act. Yellowstone, Gardiner, Big Sky, and 42 km (19 to 26 mi)) and females (10 to Human-caused mortality risk also can Cooke City, Montana, and Jackson, 14 km (6 to 9 mi)) (McLellan and Hovey impact which habitat might be Wyoming, were not included as suitable 2001, p. 842; Proctor et al. 2004, p. considered suitable. Some human- habitat. There are large, contiguous 1108). Without constant emigrants from caused mortality is unavoidable in a blocks of sheep allotments in peripheral suitable habitat, the Bighorn Mountains dynamic system where hundreds of areas of the ecosystem in the Wyoming will not support a self-sustaining grizzly bears inhabit large areas of diverse Mountain Range, the Salt River bear population. Therefore, due to the habitat with several million human Mountain Range, and portions of the fact that this mountain range is disjunct visitors and residents. The negative Wind River Mountain Range on the from other suitable habitat and current impacts of humans on grizzly bear Bridger-Teton and the Targhee National grizzly bear distribution, our analysis survival and habitat use are well Forests (see figure 1). This spatial did not classify the Bighorn Mountains documented (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. distribution of sheep allotments on the as suitable habitat within the GYE 278; McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. periphery of suitable habitat results in grizzly bear DPS boundaries. 458–459; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. areas of high mortality risk to bears Some areas that do not meet our 83–103; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862–1864; within these allotments and a few small, definition of suitable habitat may still be McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. isolated patches or strips of suitable used by grizzly bears (4,635 km2 (1,787 377–378; Mattson 1990, pp. 41–44; habitat adjacent to or within sheep mi2)) (Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 209; Mattson and Knight 1991, pp. 9–11; allotments. These strips and patches of Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64–66). The Mace et al. 1996, p. 1403; McLellan et land possess higher mortality risks for records of grizzly bears in these al. 1999, pp. 914–916; White et al. 1999, grizzly bears because of their unsuitable habitat areas are generally p. 150; Woodroffe 2000, pp. 166–168; by and/or proximity to areas of high due to recorded grizzly bear-human Boyce et al. 2001, p. 34; Johnson et al. mortality risk. This phenomenon in conflicts or to transient animals. These 2004, p. 976; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. which the quantity and quality of areas are defined as unsuitable due to 661). These effects range from suitable habitat is diminished because the high risk of mortality resulting from temporary displacement to actual of interactions with surrounding less these grizzly bear-human conflicts. mortality. Grizzly bear persistence in suitable habitat is known as an ‘‘edge These unsuitable habitat areas may the contiguous United States between effect’’ (Lande 1988, pp. 3–4; Yahner contain grizzly bears but do not support 1920 and 2000 was negatively 1988, pp. 335–337; Mills 1995, p. 396). grizzly bear reproduction or survival associated with human and livestock Edge effects are exacerbated in small because bears that repeatedly come into densities (Mattson and Merrill 2002, pp. habitat patches with high perimeter-to- conflict with humans or livestock are 1129–1134). area ratios (i.e., those that are longer and usually either relocated or removed As human population densities narrower) and in wide-ranging species from these areas. increase, the frequency of encounters According to the habitat suitability such as grizzly bears because they are between humans and grizzly bears also criteria described above, the GYE more likely to encounter surrounding, increases, resulting in more human- contains approximately 46,035 km2 unsuitable habitat (Woodroffe and caused grizzly bear mortalities due to a (17,774 mi2) of suitable grizzly bear Ginsberg 1998, p. 2126). Due to the perceived or real threat to human life or habitat within the DPS boundaries; or negative edge effects of this distribution property (Mattson et al. 1996, pp. 1014– roughly 24 percent of the total area 1015). Similarly, as livestock densities of sheep allotments on the periphery of within the DPS boundaries (see figure increase in habitat occupied by grizzly current grizzly bear range, our analysis 1). The Service concluded that this bears, depredations follow. Although did not classify linear strips and amount of suitable habitat is sufficient grizzly bears frequently coexist with isolated patches of habitat as suitable to meet all habitat needs of a recovered cattle without depredating them, when habitat. grizzly bear population and provide grizzly bears encounter domestic sheep, Finally, dispersal capabilities of ecological resiliency to the population they usually are attracted to such flocks grizzly bears were considered in our through the availability of widely and depredate the sheep (Jonkel 1980, p. determination of which potential habitat distributed, high-quality habitat that 12; Knight and Judd 1983, pp. 188–189; areas might be considered suitable. will allow the population to respond to Orme and Williams 1986, pp. 199–202; Although the Bighorn Mountains west environmental changes. This amount of Anderson et al. 2002, pp. 252–253). If of I–90 near Sheridan, Wyoming, are secure habitat was chosen because it repeated depredations occur, managers grouped within the Middle Rockies existed at the time when the population either relocate the bear or remove it (i.e., ecoregion, they are not connected to the was increasing at a rate of 4 to 7 percent euthanize or place in an approved current distribution of grizzly bears via per year (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48). American Zoological Association suitable habitat or linkage zones, nor are Grizzly bears currently occupy about 92 facility) from the population, resulting there opportunities for such linkage. percent of that suitable habitat (42,180 in such domestic sheep areas becoming The Bighorn Mountains comprise 6,341 km2 (16,286 mi2)) (Fortin-Noreus 2015, population sinks (areas where death km2 (2,448 mi2) of habitat that is in litt.) and are expected to occupy the rates exceed birth rates) (Knight et al. classified as part of the Middle Rockies remaining 8 percent in the near future. 1988, pp. 122–123). ecoregion, but are separated from the Grizzly bears have nearly doubled their Because urban sites and sheep current grizzly bear distribution by occupied range since the early 1980s allotments possess high mortality risks approximately 100 km (60 mi) of a (USFWS 1982, p. 11) and have for grizzly bears, we did not include mosaic of private and BLM lands increased the amount of suitable habitat these areas as suitable habitat (Knight et primarily used for , livestock from the 68 percent that was occupied al. 1988, pp. 122–123). Based on 2000 grazing, and oil and gas production in the early 2000s (Schwartz et al. 2002, census data, we defined urban areas as (Chapman et al. 2004, entire). Although pp. 207–209; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. census blocks with human population there is a possibility that individual 64–66). It is important to note that the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30512 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

current grizzly bear occupancy does not demographic recovery criteria in the Recovery Plan Supplement: Revised mean that equal densities of grizzly GYE in 2007 (72 FR 11376, March 13, Demographic Criteria and the draft 2016 bears are found throughout the region. 2007). Similarly, the revisions we Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Instead, most grizzly bears proposed to implement in 2013 (78 FR Bear in the GYE were made available for (approximately 75 percent of females 17708, March 22, 2013) were based on public review and comment concurrent with cubs-of-the-year) are within the updated demographic analyses using with the proposed rule (81 FR 13174, PCA for most or part of each year the same methods as before (Schwartz et March 11, 2016). The first two proposed (Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 64–66; al. 2006b, pp. 9–16) and reported in the changes were the same as those Haroldson 2014a, in litt.). Grizzly bear IGBST’s 2012 report: ‘‘Updating and proposed in 2013: (1) Update use of suitable habitat may vary Evaluating Approaches to Estimate demographic recovery criterion 1 to seasonally and annually with different Population Size and Sustainable maintain a minimum population of 500 areas being more important than others Mortality Limits for Grizzly Bears in the animals and at least 48 females with in some seasons or years (Aune and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’’ cubs-of-the-year, and to eliminate this Kasworm 1989, pp. 48–62). As (hereafter referred to as the 2012 IGBST criterion’s dependence on a specific predicted by Pyare et al. (2004, pp. 5– report). counting method; and (2) revise the area 6), grizzly bears have naturally In 2013, we proposed to change two where the demographic recovery criteria recolonized the vast majority of suitable of the recovery criteria for the apply. The third change is to update the habitat and currently occupy about 92 Yellowstone Ecosystem in the Grizzly mortality limits for independent percent of suitable habitat (42,180 km2 Bear Recovery Plan (78 FR 17708, females, independent males, and (16,286 mi2)) (Fortin-Noreus 2015, in March 22, 2013). The proposed changes dependent young to maintain the litt.). were: (1) Update demographic recovery population within the DMA around the criterion 1 to maintain a minimum Demographic Recovery Criteria 2002–2014 population size. After review population of 500 animals and at least and incorporation of appropriate public The 1993 Recovery Plan and 48 females with cubs-of-the-year, and to comments, we are releasing a final subsequent supplements to it identified eliminate this criterion’s dependence on Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Supplement: three demographic criteria to objectively a specific counting method; (2) revise Revised Demographic Criteria (USFWS measure and monitor recovery in the the area where the demographic 2017, entire) and announcing the GYE (USFWS 1993, pp. 20–21; USFWS recovery criteria apply; and (3) update availability of the 2016 Conservation 2007a, p. 2). The first criterion the sustainable mortality rates for Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the GYE established a minimum population size. independent females to 7.6 percent concurrent with this final rule. The second criterion ensured (IGBST 2012). We chose to revise the reproductive females were distributed criteria because they no longer Below, we summarize relevant across the Recovery Zone, and the third represented the best scientific data or portions of the demographic analyses criterion created annual human-caused the best technique to assess recovery of contained in the IGBST’s 2012 report mortality limits that would allow the the GYE grizzly bear DMA population (IGBST 2012, entire) and compare them population to achieve and sustain (78 FR 17708, March 22, 2013). with the previous results of Schwartz et recovery. Since the 1993 Recovery Plan Specifically, these criteria warranted al. (2006b, entire) to draw conclusions was released, we have evaluated and revision because: (1) Updated concerning the grizzly bear population updated how we assess those recovery demographic analyses for 2002–2011 in the GYE DMA using these collective criteria as newer, better science became indicated that the rate of growth seen results. These analyses inform the available. These revisions include during the 1983–2001 period has scientific basis for our revisions. While implementing new scientific methods to slowed and sex ratios have changed; (2) Schwartz et al. (2006b, p. 11) used data determine the status of the GYE grizzly there was consensus among scientists from 1983 through 2001; the 2012 bear population in the DMA, estimate and statisticians that the area within IGBST report examined a more recent population size, and determine what which we apply total mortality limits time period, 2002 through 2011 (IGBST levels of mortality the population could should be the same area we use to 2012, p. 33). The IGBST found that withstand to maintain recovery goals estimate population size; and (3) the population growth had slowed since the (i.e., the sustainable mortality rate). The population had basically stabilized previous time period, but was still DMA is the area within which the inside the DMA since 2002, with an stable to slightly increasing, meaning population is annually surveyed and average population size between 2002– the population had not declined. estimated and within which the total 2014 of 674 using the model-averaged Because the fates of some radio-collared mortality limits apply, and is based on Chao2 population estimator (see bears are unknown, Harris et al. (2006, the suitable habitat area (see figure 2). Glossary) (95% confidence interval (CI) p. 48) and the IGBST (2012, p. 34) The Wildlife Monograph: ‘‘Temporal, = 600–747). This stabilization is calculated two separate estimates of Spatial, and Environmental Influences evidence that the population was close population growth rate: One based on on The Demographics of Grizzly Bears to its carrying capacity as supported by the assumption that every bear with an in The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’’ density-dependent regulation occurring unknown fate had died (i.e., a (Schwartz et al. 2006b, entire); the inside the DMA (van Manen et al. 2016, conservative estimate) and the other report: ‘‘Reassessing Methods to entire). simply removing bears with an Estimate Population Size and We released these proposed revisions unknown fate from the sample. The true Sustainable Mortality Limits for the related to population size and total population growth rate is assumed to be Yellowstone Grizzly Bear’’ (IGBST 2005, mortality limits for public comment in somewhere in between these two entire); and the report: ‘‘Reassessing 2013 (78 FR 17708, March 22, 2013) but estimates because we know from 40 Methods to Estimate Population Size did not finalize them so that we could years of tracking grizzly bears with and Sustainable Mortality Limits for the consider another round of public radio-collars that every lost collar does Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Workshop comments on these revisions in not indicate a dead bear. While Harris Document Supplement 19–21 June, association with the comments on the et al. (2006, p. 48) found the GYE grizzly 2006’’ (IGBST 2006, entire) provided the proposed rule (81 FR 13174, March 11, bear DMA population increased at a rate scientific basis for revising the 2016). Further proposed revisions to the between 4.2 and 7.6 percent per year

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30513

between 1983 and 2002, the IGBST conservative criteria of the ‘‘rule set’’ mortality, is unavoidable in a dynamic (2012, p. 34) found this growth had (Schwartz et al. 2008) as well as system where hundreds of bears inhabit slowed and leveled off and was between underestimation bias associated with large areas of diverse habitat with 0.3 percent and 2.2 percent per year the Chao2 estimator itself (Cherry et al. several million human visitors and during 2002–2011. The population 2007). As a conservative approach to residents. Adult female mortality trajectory that includes the most recent population estimation, the model- influences the population trajectory data is based on the Chao2 estimator averaged Chao2 population estimator more than mortality of males or and indicates no statistical trend (i.e., will continue to be the method used to dependent young (Eberhardt 1977, p. relatively flat population trajectory) assess criterion 1 (see YES 2016b, 210; Knight and Eberhardt 1985, p. 331; within the DMA for the period 2002 to Appendix C, for the application Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48). Low adult 2014 (van Manen 2016a, in litt.). protocol for deriving the annual female survival was the critical factor The model-averaged Chao2 population estimation from the model- that caused decline in the GYE population estimator is currently the averaged Chao2 estimate of females with population prior to the mid-1980s best available science to derive annual cubs) until a new population estimator (Knight and Eberhardt 1985, p. 331). In estimates of total population size in the is approved. The IGBST may continue the early 1980s, with the development GYE. The basis for the estimation is an to investigate new methods for of the first Recovery Plan (USFWS 1982, annual count of female grizzly bears population estimation as appropriate; pp. 21–24), agencies began to address with cubs-of-the-year, based on however, the model-averaged Chao2 mortality and increased adult female sightings on aerial surveys and ground method will continue to be used for the survivorship (USDA FS 1986, pp. 1–2; observations. Those sightings are foreseeable future. Knight et al. 1999, pp. 56–57). clustered into those estimated to be Schwartz et al. (2006b, entire) The most current demographic from the same family group (i.e., female estimated survivorship of cubs-of-the- criteria were appended to the 1993 with cubs-of-the-year) using a ‘‘rule set’’ year, yearlings, and independent (2 Recovery Plan in 2007, and proposed to avoid duplicate counts, primarily years old or older) bears as well as revisions to those were released for based on spatial, temporal, and litter reproductive performance to estimate public comment in 2013, though not size criteria (Knight et al. 1995). In population growth. They examined finalized, as explained above. Further clustering the observations, a balance geographic patterns of population revisions to the demographic criteria must be obtained between growth based on whether bears lived were released for public comment overestimating or underestimating the inside YNP, outside the Park but inside concurrent with the proposed rule (81 actual number of unique females with the Recovery Zone or PCA, or outside FR 13174, March 11, 2016). Below, we cubs-of-the-year. The rule set was the PCA entirely. The PCA boundaries detail each recovery criterion that is constructed to be conservative (i.e., (containing 23,853 km2 (9,210 mi2)) appended to the Recovery Plan reduce Type I errors or mistakenly correspond to those of the Yellowstone concurrent with this final rule and identifying sightings of the same family Recovery Zone (USFWS 1993, p. 41) included in the 2016 Conservation as different families). Using the and will replace the Recovery Zone Strategy. frequencies of sightings of unique boundary (see figure 1). Based on To achieve mortality management in females with cubs-of-the-year obtained decreased cub and yearling survival the area appropriate to the long-term from application of the rule set, an inside YNP compared to outside YNP, conservation of the GYE population and annual estimate of the total number of Schwartz et al. (2006b, p. 29) concluded to assure that the area of mortality females with cubs-of-the-year is that grizzly bears were approaching management was the same as the area calculated using the Chao2 estimator, a carrying capacity inside YNP. The where the population estimates are bias-corrected estimator that is robust to IGBST (2012, p. 33) documented lower made, the Service, based on differences in sighting probabilities cub and yearling survival than in the recommendations in an IGBST report among individuals (Chao 1989; Keating previous time period, results consistent (2012), has modified the area where et al. 2002; Cherry et al. 2007). In the with the conclusion by Schwartz et al. mortalities are counted against the total final step, the annual estimate of total (2006b). Importantly, annual survival of mortality limits to be the same area that number of females with cubs-of-the-year independent females (the most is monitored for unique adult female is combined with those of previous influential age-sex cohort on population grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year (see years to assess trend. Changes in trend) remained the same while Glossary) and in which the population numbers of females with cubs-of-the- independent male survival increased size is estimated. The basis for the DMA year are representative of the rate of (IGBST 2012, p. 33). The GYE grizzly was the boundary developed in 2007 by change for the entire population, but bear population exhibited signs of the Service (USFWS 2007b) for what additional process variation comes from density-dependent effects, suggesting was termed ‘‘suitable habitat.’’ This the proportion of females that have that it may be approaching carrying suitable habitat boundary (enclosing a cubs-of-the-year. capacity (K), including: Decreased cub total area of 46,035 km2 (17,774 mi2)) is Annual estimates of females with survival and reproduction in areas with sufficiently large to support a viable cubs-of-the-year based on Chao2 have higher bear densities (van Manen et al. population in the long term, so that been reported by IGBST since 2005, 2016, entire) and decreasing female mortalities outside of it and inside the accompanied by the derivation of total home ranges (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, p. 4). DPS could be excluded from population estimates. The model- Collectively, these studies indicate that consideration. This DMA area is thus averaged Chao2 estimates of females the growth rate of the GYE grizzly bear most appropriate for applying total with cubs-of-the-year and derived total DMA population has slowed as bear mortality limits. The IGBST’s 2012 population estimates have been applied densities have approached carrying report noted, however, that because the and reported by the IGBST since 2007. capacity, particularly in the core area of suitable habitat boundary was drawn As the grizzly bear population has their current range. using mountainous ecoregions, there increased, the model-averaged Chao2 Mortality reduction is a key part of were narrow, linear areas along valley population estimates have become any successful management effort for floors that did not meet the definition of increasingly conservative (i.e., prone to grizzly bears; however, some mortality, suitable habitat and where population underestimation), primarily due to including most human-caused sinks may be created. These edge effects

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30514 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

are exacerbated in small habitat patches the IGBST using the most updated inside the DMA in any year or if counts that are long and narrow and in wide- Application Protocol as posted on their of females with cubs-of-the-year fall ranging species such as grizzly bears Web site. If the estimate of total below 48 for 3 consecutive years. Status: because they are more likely to population size drops below 500 in any This recovery criterion has been met encounter surrounding, unsuitable year or below 48 with cubs-of-the-year since 2003 (see IGBST annual reports habitat (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998, in 3 consecutive years, this criterion available at https://www.usgs.gov/ p. 2126). Mortalities in these areas will not be met. The 48 females with centers/norock/science/igbst-annual- would be outside suitable habitat but cubs-of-the-year metric is a model- reports?qt-science_center_objects=1#qt- could have disproportionate effects on averaged number of documented unique sicence_center_objects). the population generally contained females with cubs-of-the-year. within the suitable habitat zone, A minimum population size of at least Demographic Recovery Criterion 2— potentially acting as mortality sinks. 500 animals within the DMA will Sixteen of 18 BMUs within the Recovery The Service accepted the ensure short-term genetic health (Miller Zone (see map at http://www.fws.gov/ and Waits 2003, p. 4338) and is not a mountain-prairie/es/species/mammals/ recommendation of the IGBST in the _ _ _ 2012 report for an alternative boundary population goal. Population size will be grizzly/Yellowstone Recovery Zone that includes these narrow areas outside quantified by methods established in map.pdf) must be occupied by females of, but largely bounded by, suitable published, peer-reviewed scientific with young, with no two adjacent bear habitat (see figure 1). The final literature and calculated by the IGBST management units unoccupied, during a designation of the DMA includes using the most updated protocol, as 6-year sum of observations. This suitable habitat plus the potential sink posted on their Web site. Five hundred criterion is important as it ensures that areas for a total area of approximately is a minimum population threshold and reproductive females occupy the 49,928 km2 (19,279 mi2) (see figure 1). will ensure the short-term fitness of the majority of the Recovery Zone and are The DMA contains 100 percent of the population is not threatened by losses in not concentrated in one portion of the PCA and 100 percent of the suitable genetic diversity in such an isolated ecosystem. If less than 16 of 18 bear habitat, as shown in figure 1. population. The goal is to maintain the management units are occupied by Demographic Recovery Criterion 1— population well above this threshold to females with young for 3 successive 6- Maintain a minimum population size of ensure that genetic issues are not a year sums of observations this criterion 500 grizzly bears 1 and at least 48 detriment to the short-term genetic will not be met. See table 1 below for females with cubs-of-the-year in the fitness of the GYE grizzly bear most current 3 consecutive 6-year sums DMA (figure 1) as indicated by methods population. The Service will initiate a of observations data. Status: This established in published, peer-reviewed formal status review if the total recovery criterion has been met since at scientific literature and calculated by population estimate is less than 500 least 2001. TABLE 1—DEMOGRAPHIC RECOVERY CRITERION 2 IS MEASURED BY THE NUMBER OF OCCUPIED BEAR MANAGEMENT UNITS (BMUS) FOR EACH 6-YEAR SUM OF OBSERVATIONS

Number of BMUs occupied by females with young by year Criteria met (16 of 18 occupied 6-year period 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 at least once)

2008–2013 ...... 18 18 18 16 15 18 ...... Yes. 2009–2014 ...... 18 18 16 15 18 18 ...... Yes. 2010–2015 ...... 18 16 15 18 18 17 Yes.

Demographic Recovery Criterion 3— consecutive years and any annual to the population size of 683 when the Maintain the population within the population estimate falls below 612 (the GYE population was previously delisted DMA around the 2002–2014 model- lower bound of the 90% confidence in 2007 (72 FR 14866, March 29, 2007). averaged Chao2 population estimate interval), the IGBST will produce a The population naturally stabilized average size (average = 674; 95% CI = Biology and Monitoring Review to because of reduced survival of 600–747; 90% CI = 612–735) by inform the appropriate management dependent young and subadults, and maintaining annual mortality limits for response. If any annual population lower reproduction in areas with higher independent females, independent estimate falls below 600 (the lower grizzly bear densities, suggesting males, and dependent young as shown bound of the 95% confidence interval), density-dependent population effects in table 2 in this final rule. These this criterion will not be met and there associated with the population adjustable mortality rates were will be no discretionary mortality (see approaching carrying capacity. The calculated as those necessary to manage Glossary), except as necessary for existence of lower subadult survival and the population to the modeled average human safety. occupancy by grizzly bears in almost all Chao2 population estimate of 674 bears, The population had stabilized during suitable habitat inside the DMA has which occurred during the time period the period of 2002–2014, and the mean been demonstrated by van Manen et al. that this population had a relatively flat model-averaged Chao2 population (2016, entire). Status: This criterion has population trajectory. If mortality limits estimate over that time period was 674 been met for all age and sex classes are exceeded for any sex/age class for 3 (95% CI = 600–747), which is very close since 2004.

1 This number is required to maintain short-term genetic fitness in the next few decades. It is not a population target, but a minimum.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30515

TABLE 2—TOTAL MORTALITY RATE USED TO ESTABLISH ANNUAL TOTAL MORTALITY LIMITS FOR INDEPENDENT FEMALES, INDEPENDENT MALES, AND DEPENDENT YOUNG 1 INSIDE THE DMA. [These mortality limits are on a sliding scale to achieve the population goal inside the DMA of the model-averaged Chao2 population size of 674 between 2002–2014 (95% CI = 600–747). For populations less than 600, there will be no discretionary mortality unless necessary for human safety.]

Total grizzly bear population estimate * ≤674 675–747 >747 % % %

Total mortality rate for independent FEMALES ...... <7.6 9 10 Total mortality rate for independent MALES...... 15 20 22 Total mortality rate for DEPENDENT YOUNG ...... <7.6 9 10

Total mortality: Documented known and probable grizzly bear mortalities from all causes including but not limited to: management removals, ille- gal kills, mistaken identity kills, self-defense kills, vehicle kills, natural mortalities, undetermined-cause mortalities, grizzly bear , and a statistical estimate of the number of unknown/unreported mortalities. * Using the model-averaged Chao2 estimate. 1 Total mortality rates are based on the mortality percentage of the respective population segment relative to the population estimates.

The 2016 Conservation Strategy Strategies describe the coordinated, agencies will use for management of the In order to document the regulatory multi-agency efforts to monitor and GYE grizzly bear population after mechanisms and coordinated manage the GYE grizzly bear population delisting. The 2016 Conservation management approach necessary to that have been ongoing for decades. Strategy also identifies and defines ensure the long-term maintenance of a These efforts contributed to the recovery adequate post-delisting monitoring to recovered population, the Recovery Plan of the GYE grizzly bear and will ensure maintain a healthy GYE grizzly bear calls for the development of ‘‘a the maintenance of a recovered population (YES 2016a, pp. 33–85). The conservation strategy to outline habitat population. The most significant change 2016 Conservation Strategy has and population monitoring that will between the 2007 and 2016 objective, measurable habitat and continue in force after recovery’’ Conservation Strategies is the update of population standards, with clear State (Recovery Plan Task Y426) (USFWS the demographic recovery criteria to and Federal management responses if 1993, p. 55). To accomplish this goal, a reflect revisions to the Recovery Plan deviations occur (YES 2016a, pp. 100– Conservation Strategy Team was formed based on the best available science. 103). It represents 20 years of a in 1993. This team included biologists The 2016 Conservation Strategy will collaborative, interagency effort among and managers from the Service, NPS, guide post-delisting management of the the members of the YES. State grizzly USFS, USGS, IDFG, WGFD, and MFWP. GYE grizzly bear population for the bear management plans were developed In March 2000, a draft Conservation foreseeable future, beyond the minimum in all three affected States (Idaho, Strategy for the GYE was released for 5-year post-delisting monitoring period Montana, and Wyoming) and are public review and comment (65 FR required by the Act. The purposes of the incorporated into the final 2016 11340, March 2, 2000). Also in 2000, a 2016 Conservation Strategy and Conservation Strategy as appendices Governors’ Roundtable was organized to associated State, Tribal, and Federal (accessible at http://www.fws.gov/ provide recommendations from the implementation plans are to: (1) mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php). perspectives of the three States that Describe, summarize, and implement All State and Federal agencies party to would be involved with grizzly bear the coordinated efforts to manage the the 2016 Conservation Strategy signed a management after delisting. In 2003, the grizzly bear population and its habitat to memorandum of understanding (MOU) draft Final Conservation Strategy for the ensure continued conservation of the agreeing to implement the 2016 Grizzly Bear in the GYE was released, GYE grizzly bear population; (2) specify Conservation Strategy prior to along with drafts of State grizzly bear and implement the population/mortality publication of this final rule. management plans (all accessible at management, habitat, and conflict bear http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/ standards to maintain a recovered The 2016 Conservation Strategy es/grizzlyBear.php). We responded to all grizzly bear population for the future; identifies and provides a framework for public comments and peer reviews (3) document specific State, Tribal, and managing habitat within the PCA and received on the Conservation Strategy Federal regulatory mechanisms and managing demographic parameters and involved partners finalized the legal authorities, policies, management, within the DMA (see figure 1). The PCA Conservation Strategy, which was and monitoring programs that exist to contains adequate seasonal habitat published in the Federal Register in maintain the recovered grizzly bear components for a portion of the 2007 (72 FR 11376, March 13, 2007). population; and (4) document the recovered GYE grizzly bear population Revisions were made to the actions that participating agencies have for the future and to allow bears to Conservation Strategy, and a draft 2016 agreed to implement (YES 2016a, pp. 1– continue to expand outside the PCA. Conservation Strategy was presented for 12). The PCA includes approximately 51 public comment concurrent with the Implementation of the 2016 percent of suitable grizzly bear habitat proposed rule to delist the GYE grizzly Conservation Strategy by all agency within the GYE, and approximately 75 bear DPS (81 FR 13174, March 11, partners will coordinate management percent of the population of female 2016). The 2016 Conservation Strategy and monitoring of the GYE grizzly bear grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year spent was finalized on December 16, 2016 population and its habitat after part or all of the year within the PCA (available at http://www.fws.gov/ delisting. The 2016 Conservation (Haroldson 2014a, in litt.) (For more mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php). Strategy summarizes the regulatory information about what constitutes Both the 2007 and 2016 Conservation framework that Federal and State ‘‘suitable habitat,’’ see the Suitable

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30516 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Habitat discussion under Factor A, Team Leader will serve as advisors to listing, delisting, or reclassification (i.e., below). the YGCC as they did to the YES. All is the DPS endangered or threatened). The 2016 Conservation Strategy will meetings will be open to the public. Our policy further recognizes it may be be implemented and funded by Federal, Besides coordinating management, appropriate to assign different Tribal, and State agencies within the research, and financial needs for classifications (i.e., endangered or GYE. The signatories to the final 2016 successful conservation of the GYE threatened) to different DPSs of the Conservation Strategy have a grizzly bear population, the YGCC will same vertebrate taxon (61 FR 4725, demonstrated track record of funding review the IGBST Annual Reports and February 7, 1996). measures to ensure recovery of this review and respond to any deviations Past Practice and History of Using DPSs grizzly bear population for more than 3 from habitat or population standards. As decades. Post delisting, mortality per the implementation section of the As of April 11, 2017, of the 439 native management will be the responsibility 2016 Conservation Strategy, the YGCC vertebrate listings, 97 are listed as less of State fish and wildlife agencies. In will coordinate management and than an entire taxonomic species or general, the USFS and NPS will be implementation of the 2016 subspecies (henceforth referred to in responsible for habitat management to Conservation Strategy and work together this discussion as populations) under reduce the risk of human-caused to rectify problems and to ensure that one of several authorities, including the mortality to grizzly bears, while the the habitat and population standards ‘‘distinct population segment’’ language NPS, and State and Tribal wildlife and total mortality limits will be met in the Act’s definition of species agencies, will be responsible for and maintained. (section 3(16)). Twenty-three of these 97 managing the population within specific The 2016 Conservation Strategy is an populations, which span 5 different total mortality limits within their adaptive, dynamic document that taxa, predate either the 1978 respective areas of responsibility. The establishes a framework to incorporate amendments to the ESA which revised USFS and NPS collectively manage new and better scientific information as the definition of ‘‘species’’ to include approximately 98 percent of lands it becomes available or as necessary in DPSs of vertebrate fish and wildlife or inside the PCA. Specifically, YNP; response to environmental changes. The the 1996 DPS Policy; as such, the final GTNP; and the Shoshone, Beaverhead- signatories to the 2016 Conservation listing determinations for these Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Caribou- Strategy have agreed that any changes populations did not include formal Targhee, and Custer Gallatin National and updates to the 2016 Conservation policy-based analyses or expressly Forests are the Federal entities Strategy will occur only if they are designate the listed entity as a DPS. In responsible for implementing the 2016 based on the best available science, and several instances, however, the Service Conservation Strategy. Affected subject to public comment before being and NMFS have established a DPS and National Forests and National Parks implemented by the YGCC (YES 2016a, revised the List of Endangered and have incorporated the habitat standards pp. 2, 18). Threatened Wildlife in a single action, and criteria into their Forest Plans and as shown in several of the following Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment National Park management plans and/or examples (see proposed rule for further Policy Overview Superintendent’s Compendia via details, 81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016) appropriate amendment processes so Section 4 of the Act and its for the brown pelican (Pelecanus that they are legally applied to these implementing regulations (50 CFR part occidentalis) (50 FR 4938, February 4, public lands within the GYE (USDA FS 424) set forth the procedures for listing 1985; 74 FR 59444, November 17, 2009), 2006b, p. 4; YNP 2014b, p. 18; GTNP species, reclassifying species, or gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) (59 and JDR 2016, p. 3). Outside of the PCA, removing species from listed status. FR 31094, June 16, 1994), Steller sea grizzly bear habitat is well protected via ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as lion (Eumetopias jubatus) (62 FR 24345, Area designation including any species or subspecies of May 5, 1997), Columbian white-tailed (Wilderness or Wilderness Study Area fish or wildlife or plants, and any deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) (WSA)) or Forest Plan direction, and distinct vertebrate population segment (68 FR 43647, July 24, 2003; 80 FR demographic standards will protect the of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when 60850, October 8, 2015), American population throughout the DMA. mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). We, along crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) (72 FR When this final rule goes into effect, with the National Marine 13027, March 20, 2007), loggerhead sea the YGCC will replace the YES as the Service (NMFS) (now the National turtle (Caretta caretta) (76 FR 58868, interagency group coordinating Oceanic and Atmospheric September 22, 2011), green sea turtle implementation of the 2016 Administration—Fisheries), developed (Chelonia mydas) (81 FR 20058, April 6, Conservation Strategy’s habitat and the Policy Regarding the Recognition of 2016), and humpback whale (Megaptera population standards, and monitoring Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments novaeangliae) (81 FR 93639, December (YES 2016a, pp. 96–98). Similar to the (DPS policy) (61 FR 4722, February 7, 21, 2016). Although some of these YES, the YGCC members include 1996), to help us in determining what examples predate the DPS policy, the representatives from YNP, GTNP, the constitutes a distinct population authority to list and delist DPSs had five affected National Forests, BLM, segment (DPS). Under this policy, the already been clearly established with USGS, IDFG, MFWP, WGFD, one Service considers two factors to the 1978 amendments to the ESA. member from local county governments determine whether the population Our authority to make these within each State, and one member from segment is a valid DPS: (1) Discreteness determinations and to revise the list the Shoshone Bannock, Northern of the population segment in relation to accordingly is a reasonable Arapahoe, and Eastern Shoshone Tribes. the remainder of the taxon to which it interpretation of the language of the Act, Through this action, the Service is belongs; and (2) the significance of the and our ability to do so is an important transferring primary management population segment to the taxon to component of the Service’s program for authority from the Service to the States, which it belongs. If a population meets the conservation of endangered and other Federal agencies, and the Tribes; both tests, it is a DPS, and the Service threatened species. Our authority to therefore, the Service is not a member then evaluates the population segment’s revise the existing listing of a species of the YGCC. The Service Grizzly Bear according to the (the grizzly bear in the lower 48 States) Recovery Coordinator and the IGBST standards in section 4 of the Act for to identify a GYE DPS and determine

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30517

that it is healthy enough that it no endangered. Although already listed as bears move between populations, the longer needs the Act’s protections is threatened, we determined that population could still display the found in the precise language of the Act. reclassifying those grizzly bears to required level of discreteness per the Moreover, even if that authority were endangered was warranted but DPS Policy. The standard adopted not clear, our interpretation of this precluded by higher priorities beginning allows for some limited interchange authority to make determinations under in 1991 for the North Cascades (56 FR among population segments considered section 4(a)(1) of the Act and to revise 33892, July 24, 1991), 1993 for the to be discrete, so that loss of an the endangered and threatened species Cabinet-Yaak (58 FR 8250, February 12, interstitial population could well have list to reflect those determinations 1993), and 1999 for the Selkirk consequences for gene flow and under section 4(c)(1) of the Act is Ecosystems (64 FR 26725, May 17, demographic suitability of a species as reasonable and fully consistent with the 1999). In 2014, the Service determined a whole. Act’s text, structure, legislative history, that the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Although the DPS Policy does not relevant judicial interpretations, and Ecosystems had recovered to the point allow State or other intra-national policy objectives. that they were no longer warranted but governmental boundaries to be used as On December 12, 2008, a formal precluded from listing as endangered; the basis for determining the opinion was issued by the Solicitor, they remain listed as threatened (79 FR discreteness of a potential DPS, an ‘‘U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 72487, December 5, 2014). Grizzly bears artificial or human-made boundary may Authority Under Section 4(c)(1) of the in the North Cascades Ecosystem are be used to clearly identify the Endangered Species Act to Revise Lists still warranted but precluded for geographic area included within a DPS of Endangered and Threatened Species reclassification from threatened to designation. Easily identified human- to ‘Reflect Recent Determinations’’’ (M– endangered (80 FR 80606, December 24, made objects, such as the center line of 37018, U.S. DOI 2008). The Service fully 2015). The Bitterroot Ecosystem now interstate highways, Federal highways, agrees with the analysis and has status under section 10(j) of the Act and State highways are useful for conclusions set out in the Solicitor’s (65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000), delimiting DPS boundaries. Thus, the Memorandum opinion. This final action which addresses the Service’s proposal GYE grizzly bear DPS consists of: that is consistent with the opinion. The to release an experimental population of portion of Idaho that is east of Interstate complete text of the Solicitor’s opinion grizzly bears in that ecosystem. Highway 15 and north of U.S. Highway can be found at https://www.doi.gov/ 30; that portion of Montana that is east sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/ Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment of Interstate Highway 15 and south of uploads/M–37018.pdf. Analysis Interstate Highway 90; and that portion We recognize that our interpretation Analysis of Discreteness in Relation to of Wyoming that is south of Interstate and use of the DPS policy to revise and Remainder of Taxon Highway 90, west of Interstate Highway delist distinct population segments has 25, west of Wyoming State Highway been challenged in Humane Society of Under our DPS Policy, a population of 220, and west of U.S. Highway 287 the United States v. Jewell, 76 a vertebrate taxon may be considered south of Three Forks (at the 220 and 287 F.Supp.3d 69 (D. DC 2014). Partly at discrete if it satisfies either one of the intersection, and north of Interstate issue in that case was our application of following conditions: (1) It is markedly Highway 80 and U.S. Highway 30) (see the DPS policy to Western Great Lakes separated from other populations of the DPS boundary in figure 1). Due to the wolves in a delisting rule (76 FR 81666, same taxon (i.e., Ursus arctos horribilis use of highways as easily described December 28, 2011). Our rule was in the GYE) as a consequence of boundaries, large areas of unsuitable vacated by the district court’s decision. physical, physiological, ecological, or habitat are included in the DPS We respectfully disagree with the behavioral factors (quantitative boundaries. district court’s interpretation of the DPS measures of genetic or morphological The core of the GYE grizzly bear DPS policy, and the United States has discontinuity may provide evidence of is the Yellowstone PCA (24,000 km2 appealed that decision. Humane Society this separation); or (2) it is delimited by (9,200 mi2)) (USFWS 1993, p. 39). The of the United States v. Jewell, case no. international governmental boundaries Yellowstone PCA includes YNP; a 15–5041 (D.C. Cir.). No decision has within which differences in control of portion of GTNP; JDR; sizable been issued on that litigation. exploitation, management of habitat, contiguous portions of the Shoshone, In the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery conservation status, or regulatory Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer Plan, the Service identifies six grizzly mechanisms exist that are significant in Gallatin, and Beaverhead-Deerlodge bear ecosystems and identifies unique light of section 4(a)(1)(D) (‘‘the National Forests; BLM lands; and demographic recovery criteria for each inadequacy of existing regulatory surrounding State and private lands one (see map at http://www.fws.gov/ mechanisms’’) of the Act. The taxon (U. (USFWS 1993, p. 39). As grizzly bear mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php). a. horribilis) is currently distributed populations have rebounded and The 1993 Recovery Plan states that throughout Alaska, northwestern and densities have increased, bears have ‘‘grizzly bear populations may be listed, western Canada, and the six ecosystems expanded their current range beyond recovered, and delisted separately’’ and in the lower 48 States (Schwartz et al. the PCA, into other suitable habitat in that it is the intent of the Service to 2003, pp. 557–558). The DPS Policy the DMA. Grizzly bears now occupy delist individual populations as they does not require complete separation of about 44,624 km2 (17,229 mi2) or 89 achieve recovery (USFWS 1993, pp. ii, one DPS from another, and occasional percent of the GYE DMA (Haroldson 16–17). The Service has proceeded in a interchange does not undermine the 2015, in litt.), with occasional manner consistent with the Recovery discreteness of potential DPSs. If occurrences well beyond this estimate Plan with respect to individual complete separation is required, the loss of current range. No grizzly bears population treatment. For example, of the population has little significance originating from the GYE have been grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak, to other populations (61 FR 4722, 4724, suspected or confirmed beyond the Selkirk, and North Cascades February 7, 1996). The DPS policy borders of the GYE grizzly bear DPS Ecosystems, all included in the original requires only that populations be described above. Similarly, no grizzly grizzly bear listing, were petitioned for ‘‘markedly separated’’ from each other. bears originating from other ecosystems reclassification from threatened to Thus, if occasional individual grizzly have been detected inside the borders of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30518 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

the GYE grizzly bear DPS (Wildlife each other. Therefore, the GYE grizzly Persistence of the discrete population Genetics International 2014, in litt.). bear population meets the criterion of segment in an ecological setting unusual The GYE grizzly bear population is discreteness under our DPS Policy. or unique for the taxon; (2) evidence the southernmost population remaining Occasional movement of bears from that loss of the discrete population in the conterminous United States and other grizzly bear populations into the segment would result in a significant has been physically separated from GYE grizzly bear population would be gap in the range of the taxon; (3) other areas where grizzly bears occur for beneficial to its long-term persistence evidence that the discrete population at least 100 years (Merriam 1922, pp. 1– (Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 25, 26). While segment represents the only surviving 2; Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4334). The future connectivity is desirable and will natural occurrence of a taxon that may nearest population of grizzly bears is be actively managed for, this would not be more abundant elsewhere as an found in the NCDE approximately 115 undermine discreteness, as all that is introduced population outside its km (70 mi) to the north. Although their required is ‘‘marked separation,’’ not historic range; or (4) evidence that the current range continues to expand north absolute separation. Even if occasional discrete population segment differs (Bjornlie et al. 2014a, p. 185), grizzly individual grizzly bears disperse among markedly from other populations of the bears from the GYE have not been populations, the GYE grizzly bear species in its genetic characteristics. To documented north of Interstate 90 population would still display the be considered significant, a population outside the DPS boundaries (Frey 2014, required level of discreteness per the segment needs to satisfy only one of in litt.). Over the last few decades, the DPS Policy. And, as stated in the 1993 these conditions, or other classes of NCDE grizzly bear population has been Recovery Plan, we recognize that information that might bear on the slowly expanding to the south, and natural connectivity is important to biological and ecological importance of there have been several confirmed long-term grizzly bear conservation, and a discrete population segment, as grizzly bears from the NCDE within 32 we will continue efforts to work toward described in the DPS policy (61 FR to 80 km (20 to 50 mi) of the GYE this goal independent of the delisting of 4722, February 7, 1996). Below we grizzly bear DPS boundaries near Butte, the GYE grizzly bear DPS (USFWS 1993, address Factors 1, 2, and 4. Factor 3 Deerlodge, and Anaconda, Montana p. 53). This issue is discussed further does not apply to the GYE grizzly bear (Jonkel 2014, in litt.). However, there is under Factor E below. population because there are several currently no known connectivity other naturally occurring populations of Analysis of Significance of Population between these two grizzly bear grizzly bears in North America. populations. Segment to Taxon Genetic data also support the If we determine that a population Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting conclusion that grizzly bears from the segment is discrete under one or more In the 2007 final rule, we concluded GYE are separated from other grizzly of the conditions described in the that the GYE was a unique ecological bears. Genetic studies estimating Service’s DPS policy, its biological and setting because GYE grizzly bears were heterozygosity (which provides a ecological significance will then be more carnivorous than in other measure of genetic diversity) show 60 considered in light of Congressional ecosystems where the taxon occurs and percent heterozygosity in the GYE guidance that the authority to list DPS’s they still used whitebark pine seeds grizzly bears compared to 67 percent in be used ‘‘sparingly’’ while encouraging extensively while other populations no the NCDE grizzly bears (Haroldson et al. the conservation of genetic diversity longer did. New research shows that 2010, p. 7). Heterozygosity is a useful (see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, meat constitutes approximately the measure of genetic diversity, with 1st Session). In carrying out this same percentage of annual grizzly bear higher values indicative of greater examination, we consider available diets in the NCDE (38 and 56 percent for genetic variation and evolutionary scientific evidence of the population’s females and males, respectively) potential. High levels of genetic importance to the taxon (i.e., Ursus (Teisberg et al. 2014b, p. 7) and the GYE variation are indicative of high levels of arctos horribilis) to which it belongs. As (44 percent of all GYE grizzly bears) connectivity among populations or high noted previously, grizzly bears once (Schwartz et al. 2014a, p. 75). We also numbers of breeding animals. By lived throughout the North American now have information suggesting that comparing heterozygosity of extant Rockies from Alaska and Canada, and whitebark pine has been reduced in the bears to samples from Yellowstone south into central Mexico. Grizzly bears GYE since 2002 and, therefore, may not grizzly bears of the early 1900s, Miller have been extirpated from most of the be as major of a food source as and Waits (2003, p. 4338) concluded southern portions of their historic range previously concluded (see 72 FR 14866, that gene flow and, therefore, and the Canadian plains (Schwartz et al. March 29, 2007). Although consumption population connectivity between the 2003, pp. 557–558). Since precise of meat and whitebark pine by GYE GYE grizzly bear population and circumstances are likely to vary grizzly bears individually may not be populations to the north was low even considerably from case to case, the DPS exceptional, we believe that the 100 years ago. The reasons for this policy does not describe all the classes combination of food sources in the GYE historic limitation of gene flow are of information that might be used in grizzly bear, including army cutworm unclear, but we do know increasing determining the biological and moths, whitebark pine, cutthroat trout, levels of human activity and settlement ecological importance of a discrete and ungulates (bison, elk, moose (Alces in this intervening area over the last population. However, the DPS policy alces), and deer (Odocoileus species)) century further limited grizzly bear describes four possible classes of (Schwartz et al. 2003, p. 568) comprises movements into and out of the GYE, information that provide evidence of a a unique ecological setting because we likely resulting in the current lack of population segment’s biological and are unaware of any other population of connectivity (Proctor et al. 2012, p. 35). ecological importance to the taxon to Ursus arctos horribilis that utilizes this Based on the best available scientific which it belongs. combination. data about grizzly bear locations and As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR In addition to the unique combination movements, we find that the GYE 4722, February 7, 1996), this of food sources available in the GYE, grizzly bear population and other consideration of the population there is a gradient of foraging strategies remaining grizzly bear populations are segment’s significance may include, but across the ecosystem with bears in markedly, physically separated from is not limited to, the following: (1) different parts of the GYE having access

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30519

to different combinations of these food Significant Gap in the Range of the However, Miller and Waits (2003, p. sources (see figure 2 in Gunther et al. Taxon 4334) could only speculate as to the 2014, p. 68). Mealey (1980, entire) Historically, grizzly bears were reasons behind this historical separation documented three ‘‘feeding ’’ distributed throughout the North or how long it had been occurring. within YNP alone. Grizzly bears in the American Rockies from Alaska and Proctor et al. (2012, p. 35) concluded core (i.e., around Yellowstone Lake) of Canada, and south into central Mexico. that observed differences in the GYE consume ungulates (primarily Grizzly bears have been extirpated from heterozygosity among grizzly bear elk and bison, winter killed or usurped most of the southern portions of their populations in southern Canada and the from wolf kills), cutthroat trout, historic range and the Canadian plains United States were an artifact of human- whitebark pine, and army cutworm (Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 557–558). caused habitat fragmentation, not the result of different evolutionary moths as a regular part of their diets Given the grizzly bear’s historic (Fortin et al. 2013a, pp. 271, 275–276; pressures selecting for specific traits. occupancy of the conterminous United see figure 2 in Gunther et al. 2014, p. We do not know whether these States and the portion of the taxon’s 68). We are not aware of other differences in heterozygosity levels are historic range the conterminous United populations that contain this biologically meaningful, and we have no States represent, recovery in the lower combination of food sources. As the data indicating they are. Because we do 48 States where the grizzly bear existed population extends out from the core, not know the biological significance (if in 1975 when it was listed has long been bears have access to some but not all of any) of the observed differences, we viewed as important to the taxon (40 FR the main foods in the core. While elk are cannot say with certainty that the GYE 31734, July 28, 1975). The GYE grizzly available to grizzly bears throughout grizzly bear population’s genetics differ bear population is significant in most of the GYE, army cutworm moths ‘‘markedly’’ from other grizzly bear are only available on the east side and achieving the Recovery Plan objectives, populations. Therefore, we do not whitebark pine is only available to two- as it is one of only five known occupied consider these genetic differences to thirds of grizzly bears (Costello et al. areas and one unoccupied area and meet the DPS policy’s standard for 2014, p. 2009; see figure 2 in Gunther constitutes approximately half of the significance. et al. 2014, p. 68). estimated number of grizzly bears In summary, while we no longer Although grizzly bears in other remaining in the conterminous 48 consider the GYE grizzly bear ecosystems consume meat in similar States. Today, the GYE grizzly bear population to be significant due to quantities as the GYE, grizzly bears in population represents the southernmost marked genetic differences, we still the GYE are unique in their reach of the taxon. The loss of this conclude that the GYE grizzly bear consumption of bison (Mattson 1997, p. population would significantly impact population is significant due to its 167; Fortin et al. 2013a, p. 275; Gunther representation of the species because it persistence in an ecological setting 2017, in litt.) and in their interactions would substantially curtail the range of unique for the taxon and because the with wolves to obtain carcasses (Ballard the grizzly bear in North America by loss of this population would result in et al. 2003, pp. 261–262; Smith et al. moving the range approximately 3 a significant gap in the range of the 2003, p. 336; Metz et al. 2012, p. 556). degrees of latitude or 200 mi (350 km) taxon. In addition, GYE grizzly bears have been to the north. The extirpation of Summary of Distinct Population documented to consume unique food peripheral populations, such as the GYE Segment Analysis items such as geothermal (Mattson grizzly bear population, is concerning et al. 1999, p. 109) and false-truffles because of the potential conservation Based on the best scientific and (Fortin et al. 2013a, p. 277; Gunther et value that peripheral populations can commercial data available, as described al. 2014, p. 64). We are not aware of provide to the subspecies (Lesica and above, we find that the GYE grizzly bear other grizzly bear populations that Allendorf 1995, p. 756; Fraser 2000, p. population is discrete from other grizzly consume these food items. GYE grizzly 50; Bunnell et al. 2004, p. 2242). bear populations and significant to the bears opportunistically feed on more Specifically, peripheral populations can remainder of the taxon (i.e., Ursus than 260 species of food to supplement possess slight genetic or phenotypic arctos horribilis). Because the GYE their diets (Gunther et al. 2014, entire), divergence from the core populations, grizzly bear population is discrete and which is more than other populations of which may be central to the survival of significant, it meets the definition of a grizzly bears of which we are aware. the subspecies in the face of DPS under the Act. Therefore, the GYE This unique combination of food environmental changes (Lesica and grizzly bear DPS is a listable entity sources utilized by grizzly bears in the Allendorf 1995, p. 756; Bunnell et al. under the Act, and we now assess this GYE is significant because of the 2004, p. 2242). Therefore, we find that DPS’s conservation status in relation to potential conservation value provided the GYE population of grizzly bears the Act’s standards for listing, delisting, by variation in food availability and use meets the significance criterion under or reclassification (i.e., whether this by grizzly bears in light of potential our DPS policy because its loss would DPS meets the definition of an environmental changes (Lesica and represent a significant gap in the range endangered or threatened species under Allendorf 1995, p. 756; Bunnell et al. of the taxon. the Act). 2004, p. 2242). In light of these new data indicating Marked Genetic Differences Summary of Factors Affecting the that grizzly bears in the GYE consume Several studies have documented Species a unique combination of food sources some level of genetic differences Section 4 of the Act and its compared to other grizzly bear between grizzly bears in the GYE and implementing regulations (50 CFR part populations, where we have other populations in North America 424) set forth the procedures for listing considerable information about the (Paetkau et al. 1998, pp. 421–424; Waits species, reclassifying species, or taxon’s diet, we consider the GYE et al. 1998, p. 310; Proctor et al. 2012, removing species from listed status. grizzly bear population to meet the DPS p. 12). The GYE population has been ‘‘Species’’ is defined by the Act as policy standard for significance based isolated from other grizzly bear including any species or subspecies of on its persistence in an ecological populations for 100 years or more fish or wildlife or plants, and any setting unusual or unique for the taxon. (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4334). distinct vertebrate population segment

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30520 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when of the species such that the species in 1983, the IGBC was created to mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). A species warrants listing as endangered or coordinate management efforts across may be determined to be an endangered threatened as those terms are defined by multiple Federal lands and different or threatened species due to one or more the Act. However, the identification of States within the various ecosystems of the five factors described in section factors that could affect a species ultimately working to achieve recovery 4(a)(1) of the Act: (A) The present or negatively may not be sufficient to of the grizzly bear in the lower 48 threatened destruction, modification, or justify a finding that the species States. Its objective was to change land curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) warrants listing. The information must management practices on Federal lands overutilization for commercial, include evidence sufficient to suggest that supported grizzly bear populations recreational, scientific, or educational that the potential threat is likely to at the time of listing to provide security purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) materialize and that it has the capacity and maintain or improve habitat the inadequacy of existing regulatory (i.e., it should be of sufficient magnitude conditions for the grizzly bear. Since mechanisms; or (E) other natural or and extent) to affect the species’ status 1986, National Forest and National Park manmade factors affecting its continued such that it meets the definition of plans have incorporated the Interagency existence. We must consider these same endangered or threatened under the Act. Grizzly Bear Guidelines (USDA FS five factors in delisting a species. We The following analysis examines the 1986, pp. 1–2) to manage grizzly bear may delist a species according to 50 five factors affecting, or likely to affect, habitat in the Yellowstone PCA. CFR 424.11(d) if the best available the GYE grizzly bear population within Management improvements made as a scientific and commercial data indicate the foreseeable future. We previously result of the Interagency Grizzly Bear that the species is neither endangered concluded that GYE grizzly bears are Guidelines include, but are not limited nor threatened for the following reasons: recovered and warranted delisting (72 to: (1) Federal and State agency (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species FR 14866, March 29, 2007). In this final coordination to produce nuisance bear has recovered and is no longer rule, we make a determination as to guidelines that allow a quick response endangered or threatened; and/or (3) the whether the distinct population segment to resolve and minimize grizzly bear- original scientific data used at the time of GYE grizzly bears is an endangered or human confrontations; (2) reduced the species was classified were in error. threatened species, based on the best motorized access route densities A recovered species is one that no scientific and commercial information through restrictions, decommissioning, longer meets the Act’s definition of available. In so doing, we address the and closures; (3) highway design endangered or threatened. A species is issues raised by the Ninth Circuit in considerations to facilitate population endangered for purposes of the Act if it Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. connectivity; (4) seasonal closure of is in danger of throughout all Servheen, 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011), some areas to all human access in or a significant portion of its range (SPR) which were briefly discussed above. National Parks that are particularly and is threatened if it is likely to important to grizzly bears; (5) closure of become endangered in the foreseeable A. The Present or Threatened many areas in the GYE to oil and gas future throughout all or a significant Destruction, Modification, or leasing, or implementing restrictions portion of its range. The word ‘‘range’’ Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range such as no surface occupancy; (6) in ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ Factor A requires the Service to elimination of six active and four vacant refers to the range in which the species consider present or threatened sheep allotments on the Caribou- currently exists at the time of this status destruction, modification, or Targhee National Forest since 1998, review. Determining whether a species curtailment of grizzly bear habitat or its resulting in an 86 percent decrease in is recovered requires consideration of range. Here, the following total sheep animal months inside the the same five categories of threats considerations warrant discussion Yellowstone PCA; and (7) expanded specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. regarding the GYE grizzly bear information and education (I&E) For species that are already listed as population, effects due to: (1) Motorized programs in the Yellowstone PCA to endangered or threatened, this analysis access management, (2) developed sites, help reduce the number of grizzly bear of threats is an evaluation of both the (3) livestock allotments, (4) mineral and mortalities caused by big-game hunters threats currently facing the species and energy development, (5) recreation, (6) (outside National Parks). Overall, the threats that are reasonably likely to snowmobiling, (7) vegetation adherence to the Interagency Grizzly affect the species in the foreseeable management, (8) climate change, and (9) Bear Guidelines has changed land future following the removal of the Act’s habitat fragmentation. management practices on Federal lands protections. For the purposes of this and modification to provide security and to maintain or analysis, we first evaluate the status of were contributing factors leading to the improve habitat conditions for the the species throughout all of its range, listing of the grizzly bear as a threatened grizzly bear. Implementation of these then consider whether the species is in species under the Act in 1975 (40 FR guidelines has led to the successful danger of extinction or likely to become 31734, July 28, 1975). Both the dramatic rebound of the GYE grizzly bear so in any significant portion of its range. decreases in historical range and land population, allowing it to significantly In considering what factors might management practices in formerly increase in size and distribution since constitute threats, we must look beyond secure grizzly bear habitat led to the its listing in 1975. the exposure of the species to a 1975 listing (40 FR 31734, July 28, In December 2016, the YES released particular factor to evaluate whether the 1975). For consideration under the Act’s the final 2016 Conservation Strategy for species may respond to the factor in a listing provisions in this final rule, the the grizzly bear in the GYE to guide way that causes actual impacts to the word range applies to where the species management and monitoring of the species. If there is exposure to a factor currently exists. To address this source habitat and population of GYE grizzly and the species responds negatively, the of population decline, the IGBST was bears after delisting. The 2016 factor may be a threat, and during the created in 1973, to collect, manage, Conservation Strategy is the most recent five-factor threats analysis, we attempt analyze, and distribute science-based iteration of the Conservation Strategy, to determine how significant a threat it information regarding habitat and which was first published in final form is. The threat is significant if it drives demographic parameters upon which to in 2007 (see our notice of availability or contributes to the risk of extinction base management and recovery. Then, published on March 13, 2007, at 72 FR

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30521

11376). The 2016 Conservation Strategy number and capacity of developed sites National Forest Travel Management incorporates the explicit and on public lands. Plan (Gallatin NF 2006, pp. 30, 83–84). measurable habitat criteria established Motorized Access Management: When Because of the positive effect that secure in the ‘‘Recovery Plan Supplement: we listed the grizzly bear in 1975, we habitat has on grizzly bear survival and Habitat-based Recovery Criteria for the identified land management practices reproduction, one of the 2016 Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem’’ that create new ways for humans to Conservation Strategy objectives is no (USFWS 2007b). Whereas the access formerly secure grizzly bear net decrease in the 1998 baseline levels Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines habitat as the mechanism that resulted of secure habitat inside the PCA so that helped to guide successful recovery in bears being more susceptible to the the PCA can continue to function as a efforts, the 2016 Conservation Strategy threat of human-caused mortality and source area for grizzly bears in the GYE. will help guide the recovered GYE human-bear conflicts (40 FR 31734, July Therefore, motorized access population post-delisting. The 2016 28, 1975). We recognized early on that management inside the PCA does not Conservation Strategy identifies and managing this human access to grizzly currently pose a threat to the GYE provides a framework for managing two bear habitat would be the key to grizzly bear DPS, and we do not foresee areas, the PCA and adjacent areas of the effective habitat management, and an that motorized access management will DMA, where occupancy by grizzly bears extensive body of literature supports pose a threat in the foreseeable future. is anticipated to continue in the this approach. Specifically, unmanaged Developed Sites: The National Parks foreseeable future. What follows is an motorized access impacts grizzly bears and National Forests within the PCA assessment of present or threatened by: (1) Increasing human interaction and will manage developed sites at 1998 destruction, modification, or potential grizzly bear mortality risk; (2) levels within each bear management curtailment of the grizzly bear’s habitat increasing displacement from important subunit, with some exceptions for within the PCA and adjacent areas of habitat; (3) increasing habituation to administrative and maintenance needs the DMA. humans; and (4) decreasing habitat (YES 2016a, pp. 54–73). These where energetic requirements can be exceptions to the 1998 baseline for Habitat Management Inside the Primary met with limited disturbance from administrative and maintenance needs Conservation Area humans (Mattson et al. 1987, pp. 269– are narrow in scope and require As per the 2016 Conservation Strategy 271; McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. mitigation (i.e., food storage structures) and the habitat-based recovery criteria 458–459; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862– to reduce potential detrimental impacts discussed above, the PCA will be a core 1864; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402–1403; to grizzly bears (see the 2016 secure area for grizzly bears where Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661). Conservation Strategy for a detailed human impacts on habitat conditions Motorized access affects grizzly bears description of the exception guidance, will be maintained at or below levels primarily through increased human- which are referred to as application that existed in 1998 (YES 2016a, pp. 54– caused mortality risk (Schwartz et al. rules; YES 2016a, pp. 64–66). 73). Specifically, the amount of secure 2010, p. 661). Secondarily, motorized ‘‘Developed sites’’ refer to those sites or habitat will not decrease below 1998 access may affect grizzly bears through facilities on public land with features levels while the number and capacity of temporary or permanent habitat loss due intended to accommodate public use or developed sites and the number and to human disturbance. Managing recreation. Such sites are typically acreage of livestock allotments will not motorized access by providing large identified or advertised via visitor maps increase above 1998 levels. The majority proportions of secure habitat helps or information displays as identifiable of land, all suitable habitat, within the ameliorate the impacts of displacement destination sites promoted by the PCA is managed by the NPS (39.4 and increased human-caused mortality agency. Examples of developed sites percent (9,409 of 23,853 km2 (3,632 of risk in grizzly bear habitat. Secure include, but are not limited to, 9,210 mi2)) and the USFS (58.5 percent habitat refers to those areas with no campgrounds, picnic areas, trailheads, (13,942 of 23,853 km2 (5,383 of 9,210 motorized access that are at least 4 ha boat launches, rental cabins, summer mi2)). The 1998 baseline standards have (10 ac) in size and more than 500 m homes, lodges, service stations, been incorporated into the National (1,650 ft) from a motorized access route restaurants, visitor centers, Park Compendia (YNP 2014b, p. 18; or recurring helicopter flight line (USDA administrative sites, and permitted GTNP and JDR 2016, p. 3) and the USFS FS 2004, p. 18). In the 1998 baseline, resource exploration or extraction sites Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat secure habitat comprised 45.4 to 100 such as oil and gas exploratory wells, Conservation for the Greater percent of the total area within a given production wells, plans of operation for Yellowstone Area National Forests subunit with an average of 85.6 percent activities, and work camps. (USDA FS 2006b, entire). The 1998 throughout the entire PCA (YES 2016b, ‘‘Administrative sites’’ are those sites baseline for habitat standards was Appendix E). These levels of secure or facilities constructed for use chosen because the levels of secure habitat have been successfully primarily by government employees to habitat and developed sites on public maintained and will continue to be facilitate the administration and lands remained relatively constant in maintained or improved, as directed by management of public lands. the 10 years preceding 1998 (USDA FS the 2016 Conservation Strategy and the Administrative sites are counted toward 2004, pp. 140–141), and the selection of MOU signed by all State and Federal developed sites, and examples include 1998 ensured that habitat conditions partner agencies (YES 2016a, pp. 13– headquarters, ranger stations, patrol existing at a time when the population 14). Thirty-seven subunits were cabins, park entrances, Federal was increasing at a rate of 4 to 7 percent determined to have sufficient levels of employee housing, and other facilities per year (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48) secure habitat. Three subunits were supporting government operations. In would be maintained. For each of the 40 identified as in need of improvement contrast to developed or administrative bear management subunits, located in from 1998 levels. These subunits have sites, ‘‘dispersed sites’’ are those not the PCA, the 1998 baseline was shown on average a 7.5 percent increase associated with a developed site, such determined through a GIS analysis of in secure habitat, and these improved as a front-country campground. These the amount of secure habitat, open and levels will serve as the new baseline for sites are typically characterized as closed road densities, the number and these three subunits with the having no permanent agency- capacity of livestock allotments, and the implementation of the 2006 Gallatin constructed features, are temporary in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30522 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

, have minimal to no site and 2014 were due to management As of 2014, there is only one active modifications, have informal spacing, removal actions associated with sheep allotment within the PCA, on the and possibly include primitive road livestock depredations. This human- Caribou-Targhee National Forest. access. Dispersed sites are not counted caused mortality is the main impact to The mandatory restriction on creating toward developed sites. Developed sites grizzly bears in the GYE associated with new livestock allotments and the on public lands are currently livestock. Increased chances of grizzly voluntary phasing out of livestock inventoried and tracked in GIS bear conflict related to livestock have allotments with recurring conflicts databases. As of 1998, there were 593 been minimized through requirements further ensure that the PCA will developed sites on public land within to securely store and/or promptly continue to function as source habitat. the PCA (YES 2016b, Appendix E). As remove attractants associated with Although it is possible to reopen closed of 2014, the number of developed sites livestock operations (e.g., livestock allotments, such an action would be on public lands had decreased to 578 carcasses, livestock feed, etc.). The subject to NEPA and the majority of (Greater Yellowstone Area Grizzly Bear effects of displacement and direct allotments would have a low probability Habitat Modeling Team 2015, p. 90). competition with livestock for forage are of reopening because the rationale The primary concern related to considered negligible to grizzly bear behind closing them is still applicable developed sites is direct mortality from population dynamics because, even (e.g., limited forage). Livestock bear-human encounters and unsecured with direct grizzly bear mortality, allotments do not currently constitute a attractants. Secondary concerns include current levels of livestock allotments threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS. temporary or permanent habitat loss and have not precluded grizzly bear Additionally, because there will displacement due to increased length of population growth and expansion. continue to be no net increase above time of human use and increased The Recovery Plan Supplement: 1998 levels in cattle or sheep allotments human disturbance to surrounding Habitat-based Recovery Criteria for the allowed on public lands inside the PCA, areas. In areas of suitable habitat inside Yellowstone Ecosystem (USFWS 2007b, we do not expect that livestock the PCA, the NPS and the USFS enforce entire) and the USFS Record of Decision allotments inside the PCA will food storage rules aimed at decreasing implementing their forest plan constitute a threat in the foreseeable grizzly bear access to human foods (YES amendments (USDA FS 2006b, entire) future. 2016a, pp. 30–31, 84–85). These established habitat standards regarding Mineral and Energy Development: regulations will continue to be enforced livestock allotments. The number of Management of oil, gas, and mining are and are in effect for nearly all currently active livestock allotments, total acres tracked as part of the developed site occupied grizzly bear habitat within the affected, and permitted sheep animal standard (YES 2016a, pp. 64–67). There GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries (YES months within the PCA will not were no active oil and gas leases inside 2016a, pp. 30–31, 84–85). Developed increase above 1998 levels (USDA FS the PCA as of 1998 (USDA FS 2006a, p. sites inside the PCA do not currently 2006b, p. 5; YES 2016a, pp. 56, 67–68). 209). Based on Forest Plan direction, constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly Due to the higher prevalence of grizzly there are approximately 243 km2 (94 bear DPS. Additionally, because the bear conflicts associated with sheep mi2) of secure habitat that could allow National Parks and National Forests grazing, existing sheep allotments will surface occupancy for oil and gas within the PCA will continue to manage be phased out as the opportunity arises projects within the PCA (USDA FS developed sites at 1998 levels within with willing permittees (USDA FS 2006a, figures 48 and 96). This each bear management subunit, with 2006b, p. 6; YES 2016a, pp. 67–68). comprises less than 4 percent of all some exceptions as per the application A total of 106 livestock allotments suitable habitat within the PCA. rules (YES 2016a, pp. 65–67), and existed inside the PCA in 1998. Of these Additionally, 1,354 preexisting mining because food storage rules will be 1998 allotments, there were 72 active claims were located in 10 of the enforced on these public lands, we do and 13 vacant cattle allotments and 11 subunits inside the PCA (YES 2016b, not expect developed sites inside the active and 10 vacant sheep allotments, Appendix E), but only 28 of these PCA to pose a threat to the GYE grizzly with a total of 23,090 sheep animal mining claims had operating plans. bear DPS in the foreseeable future. months (YES 2016b, Appendix E). These operating plans are included in Livestock Allotments: When grizzly Sheep animal months are calculated by the 1998 developed site baseline. bears were listed in 1975, the Service multiplying the permitted number of Under the conditions of the 2016 identified ‘‘livestock use of surrounding animals by the permitted number of Conservation Strategy, any new oil, gas, national forests’’ as detrimental to months. Any use of vacant allotments or mineral project will be approved only grizzly bears ‘‘unless management will be permitted only if the number if it conforms to secure habitat and measures favoring the species are and net acreage of allotments inside the developed site standards (USFWS enacted’’ (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). PCA does not increase above the 1998 2007b, pp. 5–6; YES 2016a, pp. 61–67). Impacts to grizzly bears from livestock baseline (YES 2016a, p. 68). Since 1998, For instance, any oil, gas, or mineral operations potentially include: (1) the Caribou-Targhee National Forest has project that reduces the amount of Direct mortality from control actions closed six sheep allotments within the secure habitat permanently will have to resulting from livestock depredation; (2) PCA, while the Shoshone National provide replacement secure habitat of direct mortality due to control actions Forest has closed two sheep allotments similar habitat quality (based on our resulting from grizzly bear habituation and the Gallatin National Forest has scientific understanding of grizzly bear and/or learned use of bear attractants, closed four (Greater Yellowstone Area habitat), and any change in developed such as livestock carcasses and feed; (3) Grizzly Bear Habitat Modeling Team sites will require mitigation equivalent increased chances of a grizzly bear 2015, p. 86). This situation has resulted to the type and extent of the impact, and livestock conflict; (4) displacement due in a reduction of 21,120 sheep animal such mitigation must be in place before to livestock or related management months, a 91 percent reduction, from project initiation or be provided activity; and (5) direct competition for the total calculated for 1998 within the concurrently with project development preferred forage species. PCA, and is a testament to the as an integral part of the project plan Approximately 14 percent (45 of 311) commitment that land management (YES 2016a, p. 62). For projects that of all human-caused grizzly bear agencies have to the ongoing success of temporarily change the amount of mortalities in the GYE between 2002 the grizzly bear population in the GYE. secure habitat, only one project is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30523

allowed in any subunit at any time (YES delisting occurs. For a more complete tracked vehicles and tractors pulling 2016a, p. 63). Mitigation of any project discussion of projected increases in sledges. In 1978, there was a route for will occur within the same subunit and recreation in the GYE National Forests, tractors and tracked vehicles within 100 will be proportional to the type and see the Final Environmental Impact m (328 ft) of a den inhabited by a female extent of the project (YES 2016a, p. 62). Statement for the Forest Plan with three yearlings. This family group In conclusion, because any new mineral Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat did not abandon their den at any point or energy development will continue to Conservation for the GYE National (Reynolds et al. 1986, p. 174). Reynolds be approved only if it conforms to the Forests (USDA FS 2006a, pp. 176–189). et al. (1986, p. 174) documented one secure habitat and developed site In conclusion, because the few instance of possible den abandonment standards set forth in the 2016 motorized access routes inside the PCA due to detonations for seismic testing Conservation Strategy, we do not expect will not increase, because the number within 200 m of a den. This bear was that such development inside the PCA and capacity of developed sites on not marked, but an empty den was will constitute a threat to the GYE public lands within the PCA will not reported by seismic crews. grizzly bear DPS now, or in the increase, and because the National Parks Swenson et al. (1997, entire) foreseeable future. and National Forests within the PCA monitored 13 different grizzly bears for Recreation: At least 3 million people will continue to educate visitors on at least 5 winters each and documented visit and recreate in the National Parks their lands about how to recreate safely 18 instances of den abandonment, 12 of and National Forests of the GYE in bear country and avoid grizzly bear- which were related to human activities. annually (USDA FS 2006a, pp. 176, 184; human conflicts, the current level of Four of these instances were hunting Cain 2014, p. 46; Gunther 2014, p. 47). recreation does not currently constitute related (i.e., gunshots fired within 100 m Based on past trends, visitation and a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS, (328 ft) of the den), two occurred after recreation are expected to increase in and we do not expect recreation to ‘‘forestry activity at the den site,’’ one the future. For instance, YNP has shown constitute a threat in the foreseeable had moose and dog tracks within 10 m an approximate 15 percent increase in future. (33 ft) of a den, one had dog tracks at the number of people visiting each Snowmobiling: Snowmobiling has the the den site, one had ski tracks within decade since the 1930s (USDA FS potential to disturb bears while in their 80 to 90 m (262 to 295 ft) from a den, 2006a, p. 183); however, the number of dens and after emergence from their one had an excavation machine working people recreating in the backcountry dens in the spring. Because grizzly bears within 75 m (246 ft) of a den, and two there has remained relatively constant are easily awakened in the den were categorized as ‘‘human related’’ from the 1970s through 2010s (Gunther (Schwartz et al. 2003, p. 567) and have without further details (Swenson et al. 2014, p. 47). The concern related to been documented abandoning den sites 1997, p. 37). Swenson et al. (1997) increased recreation is that it may after seismic disturbance (Reynolds et found that most den abandonment (72 increase the probability of grizzly bear- al. 1986, p. 174), the potential impact percent) occurred early in the season human encounters, with subsequent from snowmobiling should be before pregnant females give birth. increases in human-caused mortality considered. We found no studies in the However, there still may be a (Mattson et al. 1996, p. 1014). peer-reviewed literature documenting reproductive cost of these early den Recreation in the GYE can be divided the effects of snowmobile use on any abandonments: 60 percent (sample size into six basic categories based on season denning bear species, and the of 5) of female bears that abandoned a of use (winter or all other seasons), information that is available is den site before giving birth lost at least mode of access (motorized or non- anecdotal in nature (USFWS 2002, one cub whereas only 6 percent (sample motorized), and level of development entire; Hegg et al. 2010, entire). size of 36) of pregnant females that did (developed or dispersed) (USDA FS Disturbance in the den could result in not abandon their dens lost a cub in or 2006a, p. 187). Inside the PCA, the vast increased energetic costs (increased near their den (Swenson et al. 1997, p. majority of lands available for recreation activity and heart rate inside the den) 37). In the GYE, the one documented are accessible through non-motorized and possibly den abandonment, which, observation of snowmobile use at a travel only (USDA FS 2006a, p. 179). in theory, could ultimately lead to a known den site found the bear did not Motorized recreation during the decline in physical condition of the abandon its den, even though summer, spring, and fall inside the PCA individual or even cub mortality snowmobiles were operating directly on will be limited to existing roads as per (Swenson et al. 1997, p. 37; Graves and top of it (Hegg et al. 2010, p. 26). We the standards in the 2016 Conservation Reams 2001, p. 41). Although the found no records of litter abandonment Strategy that restrict increases in roads potential for this type of disturbance by grizzly bears in the lower 48 States or motorized trails. Current and while in the den certainly exists, due to snowmobiling activity. projected levels of non-motorized Reynolds et al. (1986, p. 174) found that Additionally, monitoring of den recreation, including mountain biking, grizzly bears denning within 1.4 to 1.6 occupancy for 3 years on the Gallatin do not occur at a level that requires km (0.9 to 1.0 mi) of active seismic National Forest in Montana did not limitations. Recreation at developed exploration and detonations moved document any den abandonment sites such as lodges, downhill ski areas, around inside their dens but did not (Gallatin NF 2006, entire). and campgrounds will be limited by the leave them. Harding and Nagy (1980, p. In summary, the available data about developed sites habitat standard 278) documented two instances of den the potential for disturbance while described in the 2016 Conservation abandonment during denning and den abandonment from Strategy. Ongoing I&E efforts are an extraction operations. One bear nearby snowmobile use are extrapolated important contributing factor to abandoned its den when a seismic from studies examining the impacts of successful grizzly bear conservation and vehicle drove directly over the den other human activities and are will continue under the 2016 (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278). The identified as ‘‘anecdotal’’ in Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. other bear abandoned its den when a (Swenson et al. 1997, p. 37), with 92–95). The number and capacity of gravel mining operation literally sample sizes so small they cannot be existing developed sites on Federal destroyed the den (Harding and Nagy legitimately applied to assess lands has not increased from the 1998 1980, p. 278). Reynolds et al. (1986, population-level impacts (in their baseline and will not increase once entire) also examined the effects of entirety: Harding and Nagy 1980;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30524 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Reynolds et al. 1986; Hegg et al. 2010). mitigated using the Interagency Grizzly mortality data, bear home range Because there are no data or information Bear Guidelines in place since 1986, analyses, and locations of game trails. suggesting snowmobile use in the GYE and will continue to be managed at Potential advantages of this data is negatively affecting the grizzly bear levels acceptable to the grizzly bear collection requirement include population, or even individual bears, we population under the 2016 Conservation reduction of grizzly bear mortality due determine that snowmobiling does not Strategy. Therefore, we do not expect to vehicle collisions, access to seasonal constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly that vegetation management inside the habitats, maintenance of traditional bear DPS now, or in the foreseeable PCA will constitute a threat to the GYE dispersal routes, and decreased risk of future. Yet, because the potential for grizzly bear DPS now, or in the fragmentation of individual home disturbance and impacts to reproductive foreseeable future. ranges. For example, work crews will success exists, monitoring will continue Climate Change: The effects of climate place temporary work camps in areas to support change may result in a number of with lower risk of displacing grizzly decisions about snowmobile use in changes to grizzly bear habitat, bears, and food and garbage will be kept areas where disturbance is documented including a reduction in snowpack in bear-resistant containers. Highway or likely to occur. levels, which may shorten the denning planners will incorporate warning signs Vegetation Management: Vegetation season (Leung et al. 2004, pp. 93–94), and crossing structures such as culverts management occurs throughout the GYE shifts in denning times (Craighead and or underpasses into projects when on lands managed by the USFS and Craighead 1972, pp. 33–34; Van Daele et possible to facilitate safe highway NPS. Vegetation management projects al. 1990, p. 264; Haroldson et al. 2002, crossings by wildlife. Additionally, the typically include timber harvest, pp. 34–35), shifts in the abundance and conflict prevention, response, and thinning, prescribed fire, and salvage of distribution of some natural food outreach elements of the 2016 burned, diseased, or insect-infested sources (Rodriguez et al. 2007, pp. 41– Conservation Strategy play an important stands. If not implemented properly, 42), and changes in fire regimes role in preventing habitat fragmentation vegetation management programs can (Nitschke and Innes 2008, p. 853; by keeping valleys that are mostly negatively affect grizzly bears by: (1) McWethy et al. 2010, p. 55). Most privately owned from becoming Removing hiding cover; (2) disturbing or grizzly bear biologists in the United mortality sinks to grizzly bears attracted displacing bears from habitat during the States and Canada do not expect habitat to human sources of foods. In logging period; (3) increasing grizzly changes predicted under climate change conclusion, because these activities that combat habitat fragmentation will bear-human conflicts or mortalities as a scenarios to directly threaten grizzly result of unsecured attractants; and (4) continue to occur under the 2016 bears (Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4). increasing mortality risk or Conservation Strategy, we do not expect These effects may even make habitat displacement due to new roads into that fragmentation within the GYE more suitable and food sources more previously roadless areas and/or grizzly bear DPS boundaries will abundant. However, these ecological increased vehicular use on existing constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly changes may affect the timing and restricted roads, especially if roads bear DPS now, or in the foreseeable frequency of grizzly bear-human remain open to the public after future. interactions and conflicts (Servheen and vegetation management is complete. Conversely, vegetation management Cross 2010, p. 4) and are discussed Habitat Management Outside the may result in positive effects on grizzly below under Factor E (Other Natural or Primary Conservation Area bear habitat once the project is Manmade Factors Affecting Its In suitable habitat outside of the PCA complete, provided key habitats such as Continued Existence). within the DPS boundaries, the USFS, riparian areas and known food Habitat Fragmentation: The GYE BLM, and State wildlife agencies will production areas are maintained or grizzly bear population is currently a monitor habitat and population criteria enhanced. For instance, tree removal for contiguous population across its range, to prevent potential threats to habitat, thinning or timber harvest and and there are no data to indicate habitat ensuring that the measures of the Act prescribed burning can result in fragmentation within this population is continue to be unnecessary (Idaho’s localized increases in bear foods occurring. Although currently not Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting through increased growth of grasses, occurring, habitat fragmentation can Advisory Team 2002, pp. 2–3; MFWP forbs, and berry-producing shrubs cause loss of connectivity and increase 2013, p. 5; USDA FS 2006a, pp. 44–45; (Zager et al. 1983, p. 124; Kerns et al. human-caused mortalities, and thus is a WGFD 2016, p. v; YES 2016a, pp. 1–12). 2004, p. 675). Vegetation management potential threat to grizzly bears. To Factors impacting suitable habitat may also benefit grizzly bear habitat by prevent habitat fragmentation and outside of the PCA in the future are controlling undesirable invasive degradation, the evaluation of all similar to those inside the PCA and may species, improving riparian highway construction projects in include projects that involve road management, and limiting livestock suitable habitat on Federal lands construction, livestock allotments, grazing in important food production throughout the GYE DMA will continue developed sites, and increased human- areas. to include the impacts of the project on caused grizzly bear mortality risk. Changes in the distribution, quantity, grizzly bear habitat connectivity. This Of the 22,783 km2 (8,797 mi2 or 5.6 and quality of cover are not necessarily evaluation would go through an open million acres) of suitable habitat outside detrimental to grizzly bears as long as and public planning process (USFWS of the PCA within the DPS boundaries, they are coordinated on a BMU or 2007b, pp. 38–41; YES 2016a, pp. 82– the USFS manages 17,292 km2 (6,676 subunit scale to ensure that grizzly bear 83). By identifying areas used by grizzly mi2), or 76 percent. Of the 76 percent of needs are addressed throughout the bears, officials can mitigate potential suitable habitat outside of the PCA but various projects occurring on multiple impacts from road construction both within the DMA that the USFS manages, jurisdictions at any given time. during and after a project. Federal nearly 80 percent (13,685 km2 (5,284 Although there are known, usually agencies will continue to identify mi2)) is Designated Wilderness (6,799 temporary, impacts to individual bears important crossing areas by collecting km2 (2,625 mi2)), Wilderness Study from timber management activities, information about known bear Area (WSA) (708 km2 (273 mi2)), or these impacts have been adequately crossings, bear sightings, ungulate road Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) (6,179

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30525

km2 (2,386 mi2)). These designations before the area was designated as of which is outside the PCA. The Tribes’ provide regulatory mechanisms outside roadless. The 2001 Roadless Areas Grizzly Bear Management Plan (Eastern of the Act and the 2016 Conservation Conservation Rule (66 FR 3244, January Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes Strategy that protect grizzly bear habitat 12, 2001; hereafter referred to as the 2009) will facilitate grizzly bear from new road construction, new oil ‘‘Roadless Rule’’) prohibits new road occupancy in areas of suitable habitat and gas development, new livestock construction, road re-construction, and and allow grizzly bears access to high- allotments, and timber harvest. This commercial timber harvest in IRAs. If elevation whitebark pine and army large area of widely distributed habitat mining claims are pursued, the plans of cutworm moth aggregation sites. The allows for continued population operation are subject to reasonable WRR Plan calls for expansion and provides additional regulations to protect roadless no net increase in roads in the Wind resiliency to environmental change. characteristics with mitigation to offset River Roadless Area and the Monument Specifically, the Wilderness Act of potential impacts from development. Peak area of the Owl Creek Mountains. 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) does not Motorized roads and trails may exist In the remaining lands occupied by allow for timber harvest, new road within IRAs subject to forest travel grizzly bears, open road densities of 1.6 construction, new livestock allotments, management plans. Potential changes in km/km2 (1 mi/mi2) or less will be new developed sites, and new mining the management of these areas are not maintained (Eastern Shoshone and claims in designated Wilderness areas anticipated because the Roadless Rule Northern Arapaho Tribes 2009, p. 11). (6,799 km2 (2,625 mi2)), with the was upheld by the Tenth Circuit Court Federal, State, and Tribal agencies are exception of valid existing rights. This of Appeals in 2011. (See Wyoming v. committed to managing habitat so that secure suitable habitat is biologically USDA, 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011).) the GYE grizzly bear DPS remains significant to the GYE grizzly bear DPS Based on the amount of Wilderness, recovered and is not likely to become because it allows for population WSA, and IRA, an estimated 71 percent endangered throughout all or a expansion into these areas that are (12,396 of 17,291 km2 (4,786 of 6,676 significant portion of its range in the minimally affected by humans. If mi2)) of suitable habitat outside the PCA foreseeable future (Idaho’s Yellowstone preexisting valid mining claims are on USFS lands within the DPS is Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team pursued, the plans of operation are currently secure habitat and is likely to 2002, pp. 2–3; USDA FS 2006b, entire; subject to reasonable regulation to remain secure habitat. Upon delisting of Eastern Shoshone and Northern protect wilderness values with the GYE grizzly bear, the USFS will Arapaho Tribes 2009, p. 11; MFWP mitigation to offset potential impacts evaluate GYE grizzly bear management 2013, p. 6; YNP 2014b, p. 18; GTNP and from development. as a Regional Forest Sensitive Species, JDR 2016, p. 3; WGFD 2016, p. v; YES Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and a determination of whether this 2016a, pp. 54–85). In suitable habitat (Wilderness Study Act of 1977) have status is warranted will be made at that outside of the PCA, restrictions on been designated by Congress as areas time (USDA FS 2005). The USFS will human activities are more flexible, but having wilderness characteristics and consider the GYE grizzly bear as a the USFS, BLM, and Tribal and State warranting further study by Federal potential species of conservation wildlife agencies will still carefully land management agencies (e.g., USFS concern during any plan revision within manage these lands, monitor bear- or BLM) and consideration by Congress the range of the GYE grizzly bear as human conflicts in these areas, and as formally designated Wilderness. required by FSH 1909.12 Ch. 10, respond with management as necessary Individual National Forests manage the 12.52(d)(2)(b), which requires to reduce such conflicts to account for 708 km2 (273 mi2) of WSAs to maintain consideration for any species that was the complex needs of both grizzly bears their wilderness characteristics, removed from the Federal lists of and humans (Idaho’s Yellowstone generally until Congress acts to either endangered and threatened species Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team designate them as permanent within the past 5 years. 2002, pp. 16–17; USDA FS 2006b, pp. Wilderness or release them to multiple Additional protections occur on A1–A27; Eastern Shoshone and use management. This generally means suitable habitat on Federal (BLM and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2009, pp. 9– that individual WSAs are protected NPS) and Tribal lands outside of the 11; MFWP 2013, pp. 53–59; WGFD from timber harvest, new road PCA but inside the DMA. The BLM 2016, pp. 20–25; YES 2016a, pp. 86–91). construction, new livestock allotments, manages an additional 22 percent (5,064 By and large, habitat management on and new developed sites by the km2 (1,955 mi2)) of suitable habitat Federal public lands is directed by legislation creating them, subject to outside of the PCA. Upon delisting of Federal land management plans, not valid existing rights. If mining claims the GYE grizzly bear, the BLM in Idaho, State management plans. However, the are pursued, the plans of operation are Montana, and Wyoming will classify the three State grizzly bear management subject to reasonable regulations to grizzly bear as a Sensitive Species in the plans recognize the importance of areas protect wilderness values with GYE for at least 5 years post-delisting. that provide security for grizzly bears in mitigation to offset potential impacts Grizzly bears and their habitats on BLM suitable habitat outside of the PCA from development. Existing uses at the lands will then be managed consistent within the DPS boundaries on Federal time of creation of the WSAs are with Manual 6840 (BLM 2008, entire). lands. For example, the Montana and generally allowed to continue so long as GTNP manages 837 km2 (323 mi2) of Wyoming plans recommend limiting the wilderness characteristics of the area suitable habitat outside of the PCA. average road densities to 1.6 km/2.6 km2 are maintained. Protections for grizzly bears throughout (1 mi/mi2) or less in these areas (MFWP Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) NPS lands, including but not limited to 2013, pp. 37–39; WGFD 2016, p. 19). currently provide 4,891 km2 (1,888 mi2) seasonal area closures and food storage Both States have similar standards for of secure habitat for grizzly bears orders, are provided through the elk habitat on State lands and note that outside of the PCA within the DPS National Park compendium (GTNP and these levels of motorized access benefit boundaries. This amount of secure JDR 2016, pp. 6, 13, 21–22). The Eastern a variety of wildlife species while habitat is less than the total area Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes maintaining reasonable public access. contained within IRAs (6,179 km2 manage the 1,360 km2 (525 mi2) of Similarly, the Idaho State plan (2,386 mi2)) because some motorized suitable habitat within the boundaries of recognizes that management of use occurs due to roads that existed the Wind River Reservation (WRR), all motorized access outside the PCA

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30526 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

should focus on areas that have road to the USFS’s commitment to manage planning process and then ensure that densities of 1.6 km/2.6 km2 (1 mi/mi2) National Forest lands in the GYE to activities will provide appropriate or less. The area most likely to be maintain a recovered population (USDA habitat to maintain the population’s occupied by grizzly bears outside the FS 2006b, pp. iii, A–6; YES 2016a, pp. recovered status. PCA in Idaho is on the Caribou-Targhee 54–83), we do not expect livestock Rapidly accelerating growth of human National Forest. The 1997 Targhee allotments or developed sites in suitable populations in some areas outside of the Forest Plan includes motorized access habitat outside of the PCA to reach PCA continues to define the limits of standards and management densities that are likely to be a threat to grizzly bear range, and will likely limit prescriptions outside the PCA that the GYE grizzly bear DPS in the the expansion of the GYE grizzly bear provide for long-term security in 59 foreseeable future. population onto private lands in some percent of existing secure habitat According to current Forest Plan areas outside the PCA. Urban and rural outside of the PCA (USDA FS 2006a, pp. direction, less than 19 percent (3,213 sprawl (low-density housing and 78, 109). km2 (1,240 mi2)) of suitable habitat associated businesses) has resulted in In 2004, there were roughly 150 active outside the PCA within the DPS increasing numbers of grizzly bear- cattle allotments and 12 active sheep boundaries on USFS land allows surface human conflicts with subsequent allotments in suitable habitat outside occupancy for oil and gas development, increases in grizzly bear mortality rates. the PCA within the DPS boundaries and 17 percent (3,967 km2 (1,532 mi2)) Private lands account for a (USDA FS 2004, p. 129). The Targhee has both suitable timber and a disproportionate number of bear deaths National Forest closed two of these management prescription that allows and conflicts (USFWS 2007c, figures 15 sheep allotments in 2004, and there scheduled timber harvest. The primary and 16). Nearly 9 percent of all suitable have not been any new allotments impacts to grizzly bears associated with habitat outside of the PCA is privately created since then (USDA FS 2006a, p. timber harvest and oil and gas owned. As private lands are developed 168; Landenburger 2014, in litt.). The development are increases in road and as secure habitat on private lands USFS is committed to working with densities, with subsequent increases in declines, State agencies will work to willing permittees to retire allotments human access, grizzly bear-human balance impacts from private land with recurring conflicts that cannot be encounters, and human-caused grizzly development (Idaho’s Yellowstone resolved by modifying grazing practices bear mortalities (McLellan and Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team (USDA FS 2006b, p. 6). Although Shackleton 1988, pp. 458–459; 2002, p. 10; MFWP 2013, p. 37; WGFD conflicts with livestock have the McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. 2016, p. 15). Outside the PCA, State potential to result in mortality for 377–379; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402– agencies will assist nongovernmental grizzly bears, the 2016 Conservation 1403). Although seismic exploration organizations (NGOs) and other entities Strategy’s specific total mortality limits associated with oil and gas development to identify and prioritize potential lands will preclude population-level impacts. or mining may disturb denning grizzly suitable for permanent conservation The 2016 Conservation Strategy directs bears (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278; through easements and other means as the IGBST to monitor and spatially map Reynolds et al. 1986, pp. 174–175), much as possible (USFWS 2007c, p. 54). all grizzly bear mortalities (both inside actual den abandonment is rarely Due to the large areas of widely and outside the PCA), causes of death, observed, and there has been no distributed suitable habitat on public and the source of the problem, and alter documentation of such abandonment by lands that are protected by Federal management to maintain a recovered grizzly bears in the GYE. Additionally, legislation and managed by agencies population and prevent the need to only a small portion of this total land committed to the maintenance of a relist the population under the Act (YES area will contain active projects at any recovered grizzly bear population, we 2016a, p. 48). given time, if at all. For example, among do not consider human population There are over 500 developed sites on the roughly 3,967 km2 (1,532 mi2) growth on private lands to constitute a the five National Forests in the areas identified as having both suitable timber threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now identified as suitable habitat outside the and a management prescription that or in the foreseeable future. PCA within the DPS boundaries (USDA allows timber harvest, from 2003 to Summary of Factor A FS 2004, p. 138). While grizzly bear- 2014, an average of only 4.7 km2 (1.8 human conflicts at developed sites on mi2) was actually logged annually In summary, the following factors public lands do occur, the most frequent (Jackson 2017, in litt.). Similarly, warranted consideration as possible reason for management removals are although nearly 3,213 km2 (1,240 mi2) of threats to the GYE grizzly bear DPS conflicts on private lands (Servheen et suitable habitat on National Forest lands under Factor A: Effects due to (1) al. 2004, p. 21). Existing USFS food inside the DPS boundaries allow surface motorized access management, (2) storage regulations for these areas will occupancy for oil and gas development, developed sites, (3) livestock allotments, continue to minimize the potential for there currently are no active wells (4) mineral and energy development, (5) grizzly bear-human conflicts through inside these areas (Vaculik 2017, in recreation, (6) snowmobiling, (7) food storage requirements, outreach, litt.). vegetation management, (8) climate and education. The number and Ultimately, the five affected National change, and (9) habitat fragmentation. capacity of developed sites will be Forests (the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Restrictions on motorized access, subject to management direction Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer developed sites, and livestock established in Forest Plans. Should the Gallatin, and Shoshone) will manage the allotments ensure that they will be IGBST determine developed sites on number of roads, livestock allotments, maintained at or below 1998 levels, a public lands are related to increases in developed sites, timber harvest projects, time when the population was mortality beyond the sustainable limits and oil and gas wells outside of the PCA increasing at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per discussed above, managers may choose in the DMA to allow for a recovered year (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48). to close specific developed sites or grizzly bear population. Under the Additionally, secure habitat will be otherwise alter management in the area National Forest Management Act of maintained at or above 1998 levels. The in order to maintain a recovered 1976, the USFS will consider all primary factors related to past habitat population and prevent the need to potential impacts of projects to the GYE destruction and modification have been relist the population under the Act. Due grizzly bear population in the NEPA reduced through changes in

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30527

management practices that have already by NGOs and Tribal, State, and county B and C. Overutilization for been formally incorporated into agencies will seek to minimize bear- Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or regulatory documents. human conflicts on private lands (YES Educational Purposes; Disease or Within suitable habitat, different 2016a, pp. 86–91). These and other Predation levels of management and protection are conservation measures ensure threats to Factors B and C require the Service to applied to areas based on their level of the GYE grizzly bear population’s consider overutilization, disease, or importance. Within the PCA, habitat suitable habitat outside the PCA will predation affecting the continued protections for grizzly bear conservation continue to be ameliorated and will not existence of a species. In addition to are in place across the current range be a threat to this population’s long- disease and natural predation, we where 75 percent of the females with term persistence (USDA FS 2006b). consider here human-caused mortality cubs-of-the-year live most or all of the including legal hunting, illegal kills (see time (Schwartz et al. 2006a, p. 66; Other management practices on Glossary), defense of life and property Haroldson 2014a, in litt.). For this area, Federal lands have been changed to mortality, accidental mortality, and the Service developed objective and provide security and to maintain or management removals. measurable habitat-based recovery improve habitat conditions for grizzly Excessive human-caused mortality, criteria to limit habitat degradation and bears. All operating plans for oil and gas including ‘‘indiscriminate illegal human-caused mortality risk related to leases must conform to secure habitat killing’’ and management removals, was motorized access, developed sites, and and developed site standards, which the primary factor contributing to livestock allotments (i.e., the 1998 require mitigation for any change in grizzly bear decline during the 19th and baseline). When delisting occurs, the secure habitat. Recreation inside the 20th centuries (Leopold 1967, p. 30; GYE National Forests and National GYE is limited through existing road Parks will continue their 15-year history Koford 1969, p. 95; Servheen 1990, p. 1; and developed site standards. Servheen 1999, pp. 50–52; Mattson and of implementation by legally Additionally, I&E campaigns educate implementing the appropriate planning Merrill 2002, pp. 1129, 1132; Schwartz visitors about how to recreate safely in et al. 2003, p. 571), eventually leading documents that incorporate the 1998 bear country and avoid bear-human baseline values as habitat standards to their listing as a threatened species in conflicts. There are no data available on 1975 (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). (USDA FS 2006b, p. 26). Together, these the impacts of snowmobiling on grizzly two Federal agencies manage 98 percent Grizzly bears were seen as a threat to bears to suggest an effect on grizzly bear livestock and human safety and, of lands within the PCA and 88 percent survival or recovery of the population. of all suitable habitat within the DPS therefore, an impediment to westward Although vegetation management may boundaries. As it has done for the last expansion. Both the Federal temporarily impact individual grizzly decade, the IGBST will continue to Government and most early settlers monitor compliance with the 1998 bears, these activities are coordinated on were dedicated to eradicating large baseline values and will also continue a BMU or subunit scale according to the predators. Grizzly bears were shot, to monitor grizzly bear body condition, Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines to poisoned, trapped, and killed wherever fat levels, and diet composition. mitigate for any potentially negative humans encountered them (Servheen Accordingly, the PCA, which comprises effect. As a result of vegetation 1999, p. 50). By the time grizzly bears 51 percent of the suitable habitat within management, there may also be positive were listed under the Act in 1975, there the DPS boundaries and contains 75 effects on grizzly bears where key were only a few hundred remaining in percent of all females with cubs-of-the- habitats are maintained or enhanced. the lower 48 States in less than 2 year (Schwartz et al. 2006a, p. 64; The habitat changes that are predicted percent of their former range (USFWS Haroldson 2014a, in litt.), will remain a under climate change scenarios are not 1993, pp. 8–10). highly secure area for grizzly bears, with expected by most grizzly bear biologists Human-Caused Mortality habitat conditions maintained at or to directly threaten grizzly bears. The above levels documented in 1998. potential for changes in the frequency From 1980 to 2002, 66 percent (191) Maintenance of the 1998 baseline values and timing of grizzly bear-human of the 290 known grizzly bear inside the PCA will continue to interactions is discussed below under mortalities were human-caused adequately ameliorate the multitude of Factor E. Finally, there are no data to (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). The main stressors on grizzly bear habitat such indicate that habitat fragmentation is types of human-caused mortality were that they do not become threats to the occurring within the GYE. human site conflicts, self-defense, and GYE grizzly bear DPS in the foreseeable illegal kills, all of which can be partially In summary, the factors discussed mitigated for through management future. under Factor A continue to occur across Suitable habitat outside the PCA actions (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). In provides additional ecological resiliency the current range of the GYE grizzly bear our March 29, 2007, final rule (72 FR and habitat redundancy to allow the population but are sufficiently 14866), we report that despite these population to respond to environmental ameliorated so they affect only a small mortalities, this period corresponds to changes. Habitat protections specifically proportion of the population. Despite one during which the GYE grizzly bear for grizzly bear conservation are not these factors related to habitat, the population experienced population necessary here because other binding population has increased and stabilized growth and range expansion. Since regulatory mechanisms are in place for while its current range has expanded. then, the IGBST has updated these nearly 60 percent of the area outside the Therefore, based on the best available demographic analyses using data from PCA. In these areas, the Wilderness Act, information and on continuation of 2002–2011 (IGBST 2012, entire). Below, the Roadless Areas Conservation Rule, current regulatory commitment, we do we evaluate human-caused mortality for and National Forest Land Management not consider the present or threatened 2002–2014, as it represents the most Plans limit development and motorized destruction, modification, or recent and best available information on use. Management of individual projects curtailment of its habitat or range to the subject. For more information on the on public land outside the PCA will constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly demographic vital rates for 2002–2011, continue to consider and minimize bear DPS now, or in the foreseeable please see Population and Demographic impacts on grizzly bear habitat. Efforts future. Recovery Criteria in the Recovery

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30528 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Planning and Implementation section, 13.01.06.100.01(e); IC 36–1101(a); To address the concerns of user groups above. In this section, we discuss Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly Bear who have objections to impacts from human-caused mortality, Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 18– restrictions that accommodate grizzly including legal hunting, illegal kills, 21; MFWP 2013, p. 6; Eastern Shoshone bears, Federal and State agencies market defense of life and property, accidental and Northern Arapahoe Tribes 2009, p. the benefits to multiple species of mortality, and management removals. 9; WGFD 2016, p. 9; YES 2016a, pp. restricting motorized access. For We define poaching as intentional, 104–116). In other words, it will still be example, both Montana and Wyoming illegal killing of grizzly bears. People illegal for private citizens to kill grizzly have recommendations for elk habitat may kill grizzly bears for several bears unless it is in self-defense (as is security similar to those for grizzly bears reasons, including a general perception currently allowed under the Act’s (less than 1.6 km/2.6 km2 (1 mi/mi2)). that grizzly bears in the area may be protections), or if they have a hunting This level of motorized access meets the dangerous, frustration over livestock license issued by State or Tribal wildlife needs of a variety of wildlife species, depredations, or to protest land-use and agencies. while maintaining reasonable road-use restrictions associated with In addition, in the Montana portion of opportunities for public access. I&E grizzly bear habitat management the DPS, a grizzly bear may be killed if programs also reduce the threat of (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Regardless it is caught in the act of attacking or poaching and defense kills by teaching of the reason, poaching continues to killing livestock (87–6–106 MCA). With people about bear behavior and ecology occur. We are aware of at least 22 such respect to this exception, there must be so that they can avoid encounters and killings in the GYE between 2002 and injured or dead livestock associated conflicts or respond appropriately if 2014 (Haroldson 2014b, in litt.; with any grizzly bear killed in defense encounters do occur. In this way, we Haroldson and Frey 2015, p. 26). This of livestock in Montana. There are no can correct common misconceptions constituted 7 percent of known grizzly documented cases of livestock owners and lessen the perceived threat grizzly bear mortalities from 2002 to 2014. This or herders actually observing a grizzly bears pose. Additionally, I&E programs level of take occurred during a period bear depredating on livestock since foster relationships and build trust when poaching was subject to Federal records began to be kept in 1975. Before between the general public and the prosecution. We do not expect poaching that time, it would have been legal for government agencies implementing to significantly increase upon a livestock operator to kill a grizzly bear them by initiating communication and implementation of this final rule just for being present. A similar dialogue. because State and Tribal designation as exception that occurs in the Idaho From 2002 to 2014, 31 percent (97) of a game animal means poaching will portion of the DPS allows a grizzly bear human-caused grizzly bear mortalities remain illegal and prosecutable (W.S. to be killed if it is ‘‘molesting or in the GYE were self-defense or defense 23–1–101 (a)(xii)(A); MCA 87–2–101 (4); attacking livestock or domestic animals’’ of other persons kills (Haroldson 2014b, IC 36–2–1; IDAPA 13.01.06.100.01(e); (Senate Bill 1027: Section 7: 36– in litt.; Haroldson and Frey 2015, p. 26). Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly Bear 1107(d)). Because Idaho contains only This type of grizzly bear mortality is Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 18– 6.6 percent of the DMA and has currently allowed under regulations 21; MFWP 2013, p. 6; Eastern Shoshone experienced low numbers of conflicts issued under the provisions of section and Northern Arapahoe Tribes 2009, p. and management removals from 2002 to 4(d) of the Act (50 CFR 17.40(b)). These 9; WGFD 2016, p. 9; YES 2016a, pp. 2014 (9.9 and 0.3 per year, respectively, grizzly bear mortalities occurred 104–116). inside the DMA), we do not expect primarily with elk hunters on public State and Federal law enforcement Idaho Senate Bill 1027 to be a lands during the fall, but also at other agents have cooperated to ensure significant source of mortality to the times and locations (IGBST 2009, p. 18). consistent enforcement of laws GYE grizzly bear. These self-defense situations with elk protecting grizzly bears. Currently, State The States will continue to enforce, hunters occur during surprise and Federal prosecutors and prosecute, and sentence poachers as encounters, at hunter-killed carcasses or enforcement personnel from each State they do for any game animal such as elk, gut piles, or when packing out and Federal jurisdiction work together black bears, and cougars (W.S. 23–3– carcasses. Federal and State agencies to make recommendations to all 102(d); W.S. 23–6–202; W.S. 23–6–206; have many options to potentially reduce jurisdictions, counties, and States on W.S. 23–6–208; MCA 87–6–301; IC 36– conflicts with hunters (IGBST 2009, pp. uniform enforcement, prosecution, and 1404). Although it is widely recognized 21–31), but self-defense mortalities will sentencing relating to illegal grizzly bear that poaching still occurs, this illegal always be a reality when conserving a kills. This cooperation means illegal source of mortality is not significant species that is capable of killing grizzly bear mortalities are often enough to hinder population stability humans. By promoting the use of bear prosecuted under State statutes instead for the GYE grizzly bear population spray and continuing I&E programs of the Act. We have a long record of this (IGBST 2012, p. 34) or range expansion pertaining to food and carcass storage enforcement approach being effective, (Pyare et al. 2004, pp. 5–6; Bjornlie et and retrieval, many of these grizzly bear and no reason to doubt its effectiveness al. 2014a, p. 184). deaths can be avoided. Through its in the absence of the Act’s additional I&E campaigns (described in detail in enabling legislations, the NPS layer of Federal protections. Factor E) have a long record of authorizes an elk reduction program in When this final rule becomes implementation, have helped minimize GTNP. Elk hunters in GTNP are effective, all three affected States and the potential threat of poaching and will required to carry bear spray in an the Eastern Shoshone and Northern continue after delisting under the 2016 accessible location, thus reducing the Arapaho Tribes of the WRR will classify Conservation Strategy. More potential for an encounter that results in grizzly bears in the GYE as game specifically, these programs address grizzly bear mortality. Outside GTNP, animals, which cannot be taken without illegal killing by working to change carrying bear spray is strongly authorization by State or Tribal wildlife human perceptions and beliefs about encouraged through hunter education agencies (W.S. 23–1–101(a)(xii)(A); W.S. grizzly bears, and lack of tolerance to programs and other I&E materials. 23–3–102(a); MCA 87–2–101(4); MCA some restrictions on use of Federal Another primary source of human- 87–1–301; MCA 87–1–304; MCA 87–5– lands that are designed for grizzly bear caused mortality is agency removal of 302; IC 36–2–1; IDAPA protection (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 27). conflict bears following grizzly bear-

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30529

human conflicts. Between 2002 and the PCA where several measures to will no longer be required (50 CFR 2014, agency removals resulted in 135 reduce livestock conflicts are in place. 17.40). The 2016 Conservation Strategy mortalities, accounting for 43 percent of The USFS phases out sheep allotments emphasizes removal of the human cause human-caused mortalities. This type of within the PCA as opportunities arise of the conflict when possible, or grizzly bear mortality is allowed under and, currently, only one active sheep management and education action to the Act through a section 4(d) rule (50 allotment remains inside the PCA limit such conflicts (YES 2016a, pp. 86– CFR 17.40(b)). While lethal to the (USDA FS 2006a, p. 167; Landenburger 91). In addition, the I&E team will individual grizzly bears involved, these 2014, in litt.). The USFS also has closed continue to coordinate the development, removals promote conservation of the sheep allotments outside the PCA to implementation, and dissemination of GYE grizzly bear population by resolve conflicts with species such as programs and materials to aid in minimizing illegal killing of bears, bighorn sheep as well as grizzly bears. preventative management of bear- providing an opportunity to educate the Additionally, the alternative chosen by human conflicts. The 2016 Conservation public about how to avoid conflicts, and the USFS during its NEPA process to Strategy recognizes that successful promoting tolerance of grizzly bears by amend the five National Forest plans for management of grizzly bear-human responding promptly and effectively grizzly bear habitat conservation conflicts requires an integrated, multi- when bears pose a threat to public safety includes direction to resolve recurring agency approach to continue to keep or repeatedly depredate livestock. conflicts on livestock allotments human-caused grizzly bear mortality Conflicts at developed sites (on either through retirement of those allotments within sustainable levels. public or private lands) were with willing permittees (USDA FS Overall, we consider agency responsible for 90 of the 135 agency 2006b, pp. 16–17; YES 2016a, pp. 67– management removals a necessary removals between 2002 and 2014. These 68). Livestock grazing permits include component of grizzly bear conservation. conflicts usually involve attractants, special provisions regarding reporting of Conflict bears can become a threat to such as garbage, human foods, pet/ conflicts, proper food storage and human safety and erode public support livestock/wildlife foods, livestock attractant storage procedures, and if they are not addressed. Without the carcasses, and wildlife carcasses, but carcass removal. The USFS monitors support of the people that live, work, also are related to attitudes, compliance with these special and recreate in grizzly bear country, understanding, and tolerance toward provisions associated with livestock conservation will not be successful. grizzly bears. Mandatory food storage allotments annually (Servheen et al. Therefore, we do not consider orders on public lands decrease the 2004, p. 28). We consider these management removals a threat to the change of conflicts while State and measures effective at reducing this GYE grizzly bear population now, or in Federal I&E programs reduce grizzly threat, as evidenced by the rarity of the foreseeable future. However, we bear-human conflicts on both private livestock depredation removals inside recognize the importance of managing and public lands by educating the the PCA. Upon delisting, the USFS will these sanctioned removals within public about potential grizzly bear continue to implement these measures sustainable levels, and Federal, Tribal, attractants and how to store them that minimize grizzly bear conflicts with and State management agencies are properly. Accordingly, the majority of livestock. The 2016 Conservation committed to working with citizens, grizzly bear budgets of the agencies Strategy also recognizes that removal of landowners, and visitors to address responsible for implementing the 2016 individual conflict bears is sometimes unsecured attractants to reduce the need for grizzly bear removals. Conservation Strategy and managing the required, as most livestock depredations GYE grizzly bear population post- Humans kill grizzly bears are done by a few individuals (Jonkel delisting is for grizzly bear-human unintentionally in a number of ways. 1980, p. 12; Knight and Judd 1983, p. conflict management, outreach, and From 2002 to 2014, there were 34 188; Anderson et al. 2002, pp. 252–253). education. To address public attitudes accidental mortalities and 23 mortalities and knowledge levels, I&E programs The 2016 Conservation Strategy and associated with mistaken identification present grizzly bears as a valuable State grizzly bear management plans (totaling 18 percent of human-caused public resource while acknowledging will guide decisions about agency mortality for this time period) the potential dangers associated with removals of conflict bears post-delisting (Haroldson 2014b, in litt.; Haroldson them and ways to avoid conflicts (for a and keep this source of human-caused and Frey 2015, p. 26). Accidental detailed discussion of I&E, see Factor E, mortality within the total mortality sources of mortality during this time below). These outreach programs have limits for each age/sex class as per included road kills, electrocution, and been successful, as evidenced by a 4.2 tables 2 and 3. The 2016 Conservation mortalities associated with research to 7.6 percent per year population Strategy is consistent with current trapping by the IGBST. For the first time growth rate from 1983 to 2002 (Harris et protocols (USDA FS 1986, pp. 53–54), since 1982, there were grizzly bear al. 2006, p. 48) and a relatively flat emphasizing the individual’s mortalities possibly associated with grizzly bear population trajectory since importance to the entire population. scientific research capture and handling 2002, despite large increases in people Females will continue to receive a in 2006. That year, four different bears living and recreating in the GYE over higher level of protection than males. died within 4 days of being captured, the last 3 decades. I&E programs are Location, cause of incident, severity of most likely from clostridium infections integral components of the 2016 incident, history of the bear, health, age, but the degraded nature of the carcasses Conservation Strategy and will continue and sex of the bear, and demographic made the exact cause of death to be implemented by all partners characteristics are all considered in any impossible to determine. Then in 2008, whether the GYE grizzly bear is listed or relocation or removal action. Upon two more grizzly bear mortalities not (YES 2016a, pp. 92–95). delisting, State, Tribal, and NPS bear suspected of being related to research Agency removals due to grizzly bear managers will continue to coordinate capture and handling occurred. A conflicts with livestock accounted for and consult with each other and necropsy was able to confirm the cause nearly 33 percent (45/135) of agency relevant Federal agencies (i.e., USFS, of death for one of these bears as a removals (Haroldson 2014b, in litt.; BLM) about conflict bear relocation and clostridium infection at the anesthesia Haroldson and Frey 2015, p. 26). Only removal decisions, but coordination injection site. Once the cause of death 1 of these 45 mortalities occurred inside with the Service during each incident was confirmed, the IGBST changed its

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30530 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

handling protocol to include antibiotics YGCC about ways to reduce human- contributing factor (van Manen et al. for each capture (Haroldson and Frey caused mortality. In fall 2009, the YGCC 2016, entire). The model-averaged 2009, p. 21). There has not been a provided updates on what measures Chao2 population estimator will be used research-related capture mortality since. they had implemented since the report by the IGBST to annually estimate Because of the IGBST’s rigorous was released the previous spring. These population size inside the DMA (in their protocols and adaptive approach efforts, conducted through I&E and State entirety: Wyoming Game and Fish dictating proper bear capture, handling, fish and game agencies, included: Commission et al. 2016; YES 2016a), as and drugging techniques, this type of increased outreach on the value of bear this currently represents the best human-caused mortality is not a threat spray; development of a comprehensive available science. To achieve a to the GYE grizzly bear population. encounter, conflict, and mortality population in the DMA that remains Measures to reduce vehicle collisions database; and increased agency presence around the 2002–2014 average of 674, with grizzly bears include removing on USFS lands during hunting season. total mortality is limited to <7.6 percent roadkill carcasses from the road so that For a complete summary of agency for independent females when the grizzly bears are not attracted to the responses to the IGBST’s population is at or below 674, with roadside (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 28). recommendations, see pages 9–18 of the higher mortality limits when the Cost-effective mitigation efforts to fall YGCC 2009 meeting minutes (YGCC population is higher than 674 (as per facilitate safe crossings by wildlife will 2009). Because human-caused mortality tables 2 and 3). A total mortality rate of be voluntarily incorporated in highway has been reduced through I&E programs 7.6 percent for independent females is construction or reconstruction projects (e.g., bear identification education to the mortality level that the best on Federal lands within suitable grizzly reduce grizzly bears killed by black bear available science shows results in bear habitat (YES 2016a, pp. 82–83). hunters as a result of mistaken identity population stability (IGBST 2012, Mistaken identification of grizzly kills) and management of bear removals entire). Annual estimates of population bears by black bear hunters is a (e.g., reduction in livestock predation), size in the DMA will be derived each manageable source of mortality. The we conclude this source of mortality fall by the IGBST from the model- 2016 Conservation Strategy identifies does not constitute a threat to the GYE averaged Chao2 estimate of females with I&E programs targeted at hunters that grizzly bear DPS now, or in the cubs-of-the-year (i.e., the model- emphasize patience, awareness, and foreseeable future. averaged Chao2 population estimate). correct identification of targets to help No grizzly bears have been removed These annual estimates will normally reduce grizzly bear mortalities from from the GYE since 1975 for vary as in any wild animal population. inexperienced black bear and ungulate commercial, recreational, scientific, or The annual model-averaged Chao2 hunters (YES 2016a, pp. 92–95). educational purposes. While there have population estimate for a given year Beginning in license year 2002, the State been some mortalities related to within the DMA will be used to set the of Montana required that all black bear research trapping since 1975, these were total mortality limits from all causes for hunters pass a Bear Identification Test accidental as discussed above. The only the DMA for the following year as per before receiving a black bear license (see commercial or recreational take tables 2 and 3. Mortalities will be http://fwp.mt.gov/education/hunter/ anticipated post-delisting is a limited, managed on a sliding scale within the bearID/ for more information and controlled hunt, discussed below. DMA as set forth in table 2. details). Idaho and Wyoming provide a The population has stabilized inside voluntary bear identification test online the DMA since 2002, with the model- When this final rule is made effective, (MFWP 2013, p. 65; WGFD 2016, p. 16). averaged Chao2 population estimate for grizzly bears will be classified as a game In addition, all three States include 2002–2014 being 674 (95% CI = 600– species throughout the GYE DPS grizzly bear encounter management as a 747). This stabilization over 13 years is boundaries outside National Parks and core subject in basic hunter education strong evidence that the population is the WWR in the States of Wyoming, courses. exhibiting density-dependent Montana, and Idaho (W.S. 23–1–101 The IGBST prepares annual reports population regulation inside the DMA, (a)(xii)(A); MCA 87–2–101 (4); IC 36–2– analyzing the causes of conflicts, known and this has recently been documented 1; IDAPA 13.01.06.100.01(e); Idaho’s and probable mortalities, and proposed (van Manen et al. 2016, entire). The fact Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting management solutions (Servheen et al. that the population inside the DMA has Advisory Team 2002, pp. 18–21; MFWP 2004, pp. 1–29). The IGBST will stabilized is probably due to density- 2013, p. 6; Eastern Shoshone and continue to use these data to identify dependent effects and is further Northern Arapahoe Tribes 2009, p. 9; where problems occur and compare evidence that the population has WGFD 2016, p. 9; YES 2016a, pp. 104– trends in locations, sources, land achieved recovery within the DMA. 116). While the States may choose to ownership, and types of conflicts to Accordingly, the agencies institute a carefully regulated hunt with inform proactive management of grizzly implementing the 2016 Conservation ecosystem-wide coordinated total bear-human conflicts. As directed by the Strategy have decided that the mortality limits (Wyoming Game and 2016 Conservation Strategy, upon population in the DMA will be managed Fish Commission et al. 2016, p. 5; YES delisting, the IGBST will continue to to maintain the population around the 2016a, p. 46), we do not expect grizzly summarize conflict bear control actions long-term average population size for bear trapping to occur due to public in annual reports and the YGCC will 2002–2014 of 674 (95% CI = 600–747) safety considerations and the precedent continue the YES’s role reviewing and (using the model-averaged Chao2 that there has never been public grizzly implementing management responses population estimate), consistent with bear trapping in the modern era. The (IGBST 2009, entire; YGCC 2009, entire; the revised demographic recovery States of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming YES 2016a, pp. 86–91). The IGBST and criteria (USFWS 2017, entire) and the do not permit public trapping of any YGCC implemented this adaptive Tri-State Memorandum of Agreement bears currently, and there is no management approach when the GYE (MOA) (Wyoming Game and Fish information to indicate they will begin. grizzly bear population was delisted Commission et al. 2016). The Public trapping is not identified as a between 2007 and 2009. After high population inside the DMA has possible management tool in any of levels of mortality in 2008, the IGBST stabilized at this population size, and their State management plans. Even if provided management options to the density-dependent regulation may be a the States were to allow trapping in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30531

future, the mortality limits would apply, Code, Eastern Shoshone and Northern the MFWP, the WGFD, the IDFG, and as described in table 3. Hunting on the Arapaho Tribes 2009, p. 9). The NPS the Tribes of the WRR will manage total WRR will be at the discretion of the will not allow grizzly bear hunting mortality to ensure all recovery criteria Tribes and only be available to Tribal within National Park boundaries. continue to be met. members (Title XVI Fish and Game Within the DMA (see figure 1), the NPS,

TABLE 3—FRAMEWORK TO MANAGE MORTALITY LIMITS INSIDE THE DMA

Management framework Background and application protocol

1. Area within which mortality limits apply ...... 49,928 km2 (19,279 mi2) DMA (see figure 1). 2. 2016 Conservation Strategy Goal/Recovery Criteria ...... To ensure the continuation of a recovered grizzly bear population in accordance with the established Recovery Criteria. See Demo- graphic Recovery Criteria in the Recovery Planning and Implemen- tation section, above.

3. Population estimator ...... The model-averaged Chao2 population estimator will be used as the population measurement tool for the foreseeable future. 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 mortalities ...... As per the Tri-State MOA, the States* will meet annually in the month of January to review population monitoring data supplied by IGBST and collectively establish discretionary mortality within the total mor- tality limits per age/sex class available for regulated harvest for each jurisdiction (MT, ID, WY) in the DMA, so DMA thresholds are not ex- ceeded. 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. State regulatory mechanisms specific to discretionary sport take ...... For specific State regulatory mechanisms, please see the discussion below regarding the Tri-State MOA and State regulations for ID, MT, and WY.

7. Management review by the IGBST ...... A demographic 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 re- covery 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 recovery criteria. Age/sex-specific survival and reproductive rates will also be reevaluated using the most recent data to adjust total mortality lev- els as necessary.

8. Total mortality limit % for independent FEMALES ...... Pop. Size ** ...... ≤674 675–747 >747 Mort. % ...... <7.6% 9% 10% 9. Total mortality limit % for independent MALES ...... Pop. Size ** ...... ≤674 675–747 >747 Mort. % ...... 15% 20% 22% 10. Total mortality limit % for dependent young ...... Pop. Size ** ...... ≤674 675–747 >747 Mort. % ...... <7.6% 9% 10% * The States will confer with the NPS, the USFS, and the BLM annually and will invite representatives of both GYE National Parks, the NPS re- gional office, the GYE USFS Forest Supervisors, and a representative from the BLM to attend the annual meeting. ** Using the model-averaged Chao2 estimate.

The States have enacted the following Fish and Game Relating to the Limit of Idaho Fish and Game Commission 2016; regulatory mechanisms by law and the Take of Grizzly Bear in the Greater MFWP 2016; Montana Fish and Wildlife regulations that address human-caused Yellowstone Ecosystem; Montana Fish, Commission Resolution, July 13, 2016, mortality, including mortality from Wildlife & Parks Grizzly Bear Montana pp. 753–761; approving the Tri-State hunting. The State regulatory Hunting Regulations; and the MOA; Wyoming Game and Fish mechanisms include: Grizzly Bear Memorandum of Agreement Regarding Commission 2016; Wyoming Game and Management Hunting Regulations; the Management and Allocation of Fish Commission et al. 2016). These regulatory mechanisms include: Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Discretionary Mortality of Grizzly Bears • Chapter 67 Grizzly Bear Management in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Suspend all discretionary mortality inside the DMA, except if required for Regulation; Proclamation of the Idaho (the Tri-State MOA) (in their entirety: human safety, if the model-averaged

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30532 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Chao2 population estimate falls below agencies in July/August 2016. In it, the Review to evaluate the impacts of these 600 (Montana Fish and Wildlife three States commit to manage grizzly total mortality levels on the population Commission Resolution, July 13, 2016, bears consistent with the 2007 and present it to the YGCC and the pp. 753–761; approving the Tri-State Conservation Strategy and all revisions public if any of the following conditions MOA; Tri-State MOA: Section associated with delisting (which are met: (1) Exceeding independent IV(2)(c)(i), Section IV (2)(a)(i); Chapter includes the 2016 Conservation Strategy female mortality limits in 3 consecutive 67 of WY Game and Commission approved by all three States), to use the years, or (2) exceeding independent Regulations: Section 4(c); Idaho Fish best science to collectively manage male mortality limits in 3 consecutive and Game Commission Proclamation: grizzly bears, and to manage years, or (3) exceeding dependent young Section 2); discretionary mortality consistent with • mortality limits in 3 consecutive years Suspend grizzly bear hunting inside the model-average Chao2 population (YES 2016a, pp. 100–102). The States the DMA if total mortality limits for any estimate from 2002 to 2014. The Service will coordinate via the Tri-State MOA to sex/age class (as per tables 2 and 3) are believes the Tri-State MOA will be manage total mortalities within the met at any time during the year implemented because all parties have DMA to be within the age/sex mortality (Montana Fish and Wildlife approved it. In addition to their limits as per tables 2 and 3. Commission Resolution, July 13, 2016, signatures on the MOA, the States have pp. 753–761; approving the Tri-State either adopted the entire MOA or key The number of grizzly bears available MOA; Tri-State MOA: Section IV(2)(c), parts of it via regulatory mechanisms. for discretionary mortality in a given Section IV(4)(a), Section IV(6); Chapter The Idaho Fish and Game Commission year is based on the model-averaged 67 of WY Game and Commission adopted a proclamation agreeing to the Chao2 population estimate inside the Regulations: Section 4(d); Idaho Fish MOA mortality limits (Idaho Fish and DMA from the previous year, the total and Game Commission Proclamation: Game Commission 2016; Trever 2017, in annual allowable mortality rate (see Section 5); litt.). Montana adopted the Tri-State table 2), the total annual allowable • Prohibit hunting of female grizzly MOA by resolution (Resolution of the mortality numbers, and the non- bears accompanied by young (Montana Montana Fish and Game Commission, discretionary mortality from the Fish and Wildlife Commission July 13, 2016, pp. 753–761). Wyoming previous year. Total annual allowable Resolution, July 13, 2016, pp. 753–761; regulations require Wyoming to mortality numbers are calculated each approving the Tri-State MOA; Tri-State coordinate management of grizzly bears year by multiplying the total annual MOA: Section IV(4)(b); MT State in the DMA through the Tri-State MOA mortality rate by the size of each sex/age Hunting Regulations pp. 4, 7; Chapter (Wyo. Code R. Ch. 67, Section 4(k)). cohort, which varies with population 67 of WY Game and Commission The States’ authorities to implement size, from the previous year. Total Regulations: Section 4(e); Idaho Fish important aspects of the Tri-State MOA mortality includes documented known and Game Commission Proclamation: are set forth in Attachment B of the Tri- and probable grizzly bear mortalities Section 4); State MOA. These regulatory from all causes, including but not • In a given year, discretionary mechanisms include the authority to limited to: management removals, mortality will be allowed only if non- suspend hunting seasons, prohibit the illegal kills, mistaken identity kills, self- discretionary mortality does not meet or take of females with young, and to enact defense kills, vehicle kills, natural exceed total mortality limits for that emergency closures for other reasons, mortalities, undetermined-cause year (Montana Fish and Wildlife e.g., mortality, habitat changes. State mortalities, grizzly bear hunting, and a Commission Resolution, July 13, 2016, staffing and funding are expected to be statistical estimate of the number of pp. 753–761; approving the Tri-State consistent with the State’s long-term unknown/unreported mortalities MOA; Tri-State MOA: Section IV(2)(c), track records of effectively managing Section IV(4)(a), Section IV(6); Chapter other big game species. The Service (Cherry et al. 2002). The number of non- 67 of WY Game and Commission believes the Tri-State MOA will be discretionary mortalities for Regulations: Section 4(d), Section 4(k); effective because it implements independent females and males from Idaho Fish and Game Commission population goals, including mortality the previous year will then be Proclamation: Section 5); and limits, set forth in the 2016 subtracted from the total number of • Any mortality that exceeds Conservation Strategy. These objectives allowable mortalities for the most recent allowable total mortality limits in any are based on successful management population estimate resulting in the year will be subtracted from that age/sex criteria from the 2007 Conservation number of independent female and male class allowable total mortality limit for Strategy, and are largely responsible for bears available for discretionary the following year to ensure that long- stable to increasing populations within mortality (hunting allocation or term mortality levels remain within the GYE. The States also have a strong management removals). If the previous prescribed limits inside the DMA incentive to manage within the recovery year’s total mortality exceeded total (Montana Fish and Wildlife criteria to maintain management allowable mortality, then any Commission Resolution, July 13, 2016; flexibility to respond to conflict bears. exceedance will be subtracted from approving the Tri-State MOA; Tri-State As reflected in the Tri-State MOA, if the allowable discretionary mortality for the MOA: Section IV(2)(c); Chapter 67 of grizzly bear population estimate falls current year. The example (table 4) WY Game and Commission Regulations: below 600, discretionary mortality serves to demonstrate how the expected Section 4(g), Section 4(k), and Section (including conflict bears) is prohibited, number of bears available for hunting 4(l); Idaho Fish and Game Proclamation: unless necessary for human safety. mortality will be calculated and the Section 6). In addition to the regulatory number of independent female and male The Tri-State MOA was signed by mechanism above, the IGBST will bears available for hunting inside the Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming wildlife complete a Biology and Monitoring DMA.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30533

TABLE 4—EXAMPLE CALCULATION OF ALLOWABLE TOTAL ANNUAL MORTALITY INSIDE THE DMA AND EXPECTED NUMBER OF INDEPENDENT FEMALE AND MALE BEARS AVAILABLE FOR HUNTING INSIDE THE DMA IN 2016 BASED ON THE 2015 ESTIMATED POPULATION SIZE OF 717 AND MORTALITY THAT OCCURRED DURING 2015

Independent Independent females males

Size of sex/age cohort at this population size from 2015 ...... 250 250 Total annual mortality rate ...... 9% 20% Allowable total annual mortality number for 2016 ...... 22 50 Non-discretionary mortality from 2015 (to be subtracted) ...... 22 19 Exceedance of total mortality resulting from discretionary actions, if any, from 2015 (to be subtracted) ...... 3 0 Bears available for discretionary mortality (hunting or management removals) inside the DMA for 2016 ...... 0 31

This example serves to explain the significantly from the specifics of movements between the NCDE and process that the States will use to population or habitat management GYE. determine allowable discretionary detailed in this final rule or the 2016 To ensure total mortality rates remain mortality. State fish and Strategy that would consistent with population objectives agencies, or their Wildlife Commissions, significantly increase the threat to the after delisting, the IGBST will conduct have discretion to determine whether GYE grizzly bear population. The a demographic review of population they intend to propose a grizzly bear Service will promptly conduct such an vital rates (table 3, item #7) at least hunting season in any year and, if so, evaluation of any change in a State or every 5 to 10 years for the foreseeable how much discretionary mortality they Federal agency’s regulatory mechanisms future. The results of these reviews will will authorize to allocate to to determine if such a change represents be used to make appropriate discretionary mortality while remaining a threat to the GYE grizzly bear adjustments to ensure that the within the limits that maintain a population. As the Service has done for population remains recovered in recovered population. the Rocky Mountain DPS of gray wolf, accordance with the recovery criteria. Other regulations, such as timing and such an evaluation will be documented The 5- to 10-year time interval was location of hunting seasons, should for the record and acted upon if selected based on life-history seasons be implemented, would be necessary. characteristics of bears and devised by the States to minimize the (2) If the population falls below 500 methodologies in order to obtain possibility of exceeding total mortality in any year using the model-averaged estimates with acceptable levels of limits of independent females within Chao2 population estimator, or counts uncertainty and statistical rigor (Harris the DMA (Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly of females with cubs-of-the-year fall et al. 2011, p. 29). Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. below 48 for 3 consecutive years. In the period 2002–2014, 76 percent 20; MFWP 2013, p. 61; WGFD 2016, p. (3) If fewer than 16 of 18 bear of known or probable grizzly bear 16). management units are occupied by mortalities in the GYE DMA (311/410) To ensure that the distribution females with young for 3 consecutive 6- were human-caused (Haroldson 2014b, criterion (16 of 18 bear management year sums of observations. Monitoring in litt.; Haroldson and Frey 2015, p. 26). units within the Recovery Zone must be and status review provisions are Human-caused mortalities of occupied by females with young, with discussed in detail later in this final independent female grizzly bears have no 2 adjacent bear management units rule. increased gradually each year; however, unoccupied, during a 6-year sum of In areas of the GYE grizzly bear DPS human-caused mortality of these observations) is maintained, the IGBST outside the DMA boundaries, respective females as a proportion of the estimated will annually monitor and report the States and Tribes may establish hunting population size (i.e., mortality rate) has current distribution of reproducing seasons independent of the total remained relatively constant in the fall females. If the necessary distribution of mortality limits inside the DMA. when bears are at an increased risk of reproducing females is not met for 3 Hunting mortality outside the DMA conflicts involving hunters (van Manen consecutive years, the IGBST will boundary would not threaten the GYE 2015, in litt.). Overall, human-caused complete a Biology and Monitoring grizzly bear DPS because total mortality mortality rates have been low enough to Review to evaluate the impacts of limits are in place as per tables 2 and allow the GYE grizzly bear population reduced distribution of reproducing 3 for the source population within the to increase in numbers and range females on the population and present DMA boundary. (Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 64–66; it to the YGCC. This Biology and To increase the likelihood of Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48; Bjornlie et Monitoring Review will consider the occasional genetic interchange between al. 2014a, p. 184). Total mortality limits significance of the reduced distribution the GYE grizzly bear population and the and State regulations to manage within of reproducing females and make NCDE grizzly bear population, the State agreed-upon limits as per tables 2 and recommendations to increase their of Montana has indicated they will 3 will ensure that mortality will current distribution as necessary. manage discretionary mortality in this continue to be managed at levels that The Service will initiate a formal area in order to retain the opportunity avoid persistent population decline. status review and could emergency re- for natural movements of bears between Therefore, we conclude that human- list the GYE grizzly bear population ecosystems (MFWP 2013, p. 9). caused mortality does not constitute a until the formal status review is Maintaining the presence of non- threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, complete under any of the following conflict grizzly bears in areas between or in the foreseeable future. conditions: the NCDE management area and the (1) If there are any changes in Federal, DMA of the GYE, such as the Tobacco Disease State, or Tribal laws, rules, regulations, Root and Highland Mountains, would Although grizzly bears have been or management plans that depart likely facilitate periodic grizzly bear documented with a variety of bacteria

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30534 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

and other pathogens, parasites, and Summary of Factors B and C Combined recovered within the DMA as measured disease, fatalities are uncommon In summary, the following factors by adherence to total mortality limits (LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 61) and do not warranted consideration as possible and annual population estimates. appear to have population-level impacts threats to the GYE grizzly bear DPS Hunting will not occur if other sources on grizzly bears (Jonkel and Cowan under Factors B and C Combined: (1) of mortality exceed the total mortality 1971, pp. 31–32; Mundy and Flook Human-caused mortality, including limits (see table 3). The States have 1973, p. 13; Rogers and Rogers 1976, p. legal hunting; (2) natural disease; and incorporated the total mortality limits 423). Researchers have found grizzly (3) natural predation. Both natural for each age/sex class based on annual bears with brucellosis (type 4), disease and natural predation are rare IGBST model-averaged Chao2 clostridium, toxoplasmosis, canine occurrences and, therefore, are not population estimates set forth in table 2 distemper, canine parvovirus, canine considered a threat to the GYE grizzly in the Tri-State MOA and State hepatitis, and rabies (LeFranc et al. bear population. Human-caused regulations (Idaho Fish and Game Commission 2016; MFWP 2016; 1987, p. 61; Zarnke and Evans 1989, p. mortality includes legal hunting, illegal 586; Marsilio et al. 1997, p. 304; Zarnke Wyoming Game and Fish Commission kills, defense of life and property et al. 1997, p. 474). However, based on 2016; Wyoming Game and Fish mortality, accidental mortality, and nearly 40 years of research by the Commission et al. 2016). The States management removals. I&E programs IGBST, natural mortalities in the wild have also implemented laws and reduce human-caused mortality by: (1) due to disease have never been regulations that will guide management Changing human perceptions and documented (IGBST 2005, pp. 34–35; responses to any departures from total beliefs about grizzly bears; (2) educating Craighead et al. 1988, pp. 24–84). Based mortality limits for independent recreationists and hunters on how to on this absence in more than 50 years females, independent males, and avoid encounters and conflicts, how to of data, we conclude that mortalities dependent young to maintain the react during a bear encounter, use of due to bacteria, pathogens, or disease population inside the DMA around the are negligible components of total bear spray, and proper food storage; and average population size from 2002–2014 mortality in the GYE and are likely to (3) educating black bear hunters on bear (Idaho Fish and Game Commission remain an insignificant factor in identification. 2016; MFWP 2016; Wyoming Game and Overall, from 2002 to 2014, the GYE population dynamics into the Fish Commission 2016; Wyoming Game grizzly bear population incurred an foreseeable future. Therefore, we and Fish Commission et al. 2016). In average of 23.9 human-caused conclude that this source of mortality addition, the State of Montana will mortalities per year (Haroldson 2014b, does not constitute a threat to the GYE manage discretionary mortality in the grizzly bear DPS now or in the in litt.; Haroldson and Frey 2015, p. 26). area between the GYE and the NCDE in foreseeable future. Despite these mortalities, the GYE order to retain the opportunity for grizzly bear population has continued to natural movements of bears between Natural Predation increase in size and expand its current ecosystems (MFWP 2013, p. 14). Grizzly bears are occasionally killed distribution (Pyare et al. 2004, pp. 5–6; In addition, as discussed above, the by other wildlife. Adult grizzly bears Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 64–66; Service will initiate a status review with kill dependent young, subadults, or Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48; IGBST possible emergency re-listing pursuant other adults (Stringham 1980, p. 337; 2012, p. 34; Bjornlie et al. 2014a, p. to the Act if: (1) There are any changes Dean et al. 1986, pp. 208–211; Hessing 184). Although humans are still directly in Federal, State, or Tribal laws, rules, and Aumiller 1994, pp. 332–335; or indirectly responsible for the majority regulations, or management plans that McLellan 1994, p. 15; Schwartz et al. of grizzly bear deaths, this source of depart significantly from the specifics of 2003, pp. 571–572). This type of mortality is effectively mitigated population or habitat management intraspecific killing seems to occur through science-based management, detailed in this final rule or the 2016 rarely (Stringham 1980, p. 337) and has monitoring, and outreach efforts. The Conservation Strategy that would only been observed among grizzly bears agencies have institutionalized the significantly increase the threat to the in the GYE 28 times between 1986 and careful management and monitoring of GYE grizzly bear population. The 2012 (Haroldson 2014b, in litt.). Wolves human-caused mortality through the Service will promptly conduct such an and grizzly bears often scavenge similar 2016 Conservation Strategy, National evaluation of any change in a State or types of carrion and, sometimes, will Forest and National Park management Federal agencies change in regulatory interact with each other in an aggressive plans, State grizzly bear management mechanisms to determine if such a manner. Since wolves were plans, and State wildlife commission change represents a threat to the GYE reintroduced into the GYE in 1995, we rules and regulations (Idaho Fish and grizzly bear population. As the Service know of 339 wolf-grizzly bear Game Commission 2016; MFWP 2016; has done for the Rocky Mountain DPS interactions with 6 incidents in which Wyoming Game and Fish Commission of gray wolf, such an evaluation will be wolf packs likely killed grizzly bear 2016; Wyoming Game and Fish documented for the record and acted cubs-of-the-year and 2 incidents in Commission et al. 2016; YES 2016a). upon if necessary; or (2) the population which wolves likely killed adult female Because a section 4(d) rule (50 CFR falls below 500 in any year using the grizzly bears (Gunther and Smith 2004, 17.40(b)) currently allows grizzly bears model-averaged Chao2 population pp. 233–236; Gunther 2014, in litt.). to be killed in self-defense, defense of estimator, or counts of females with Overall, these types of aggressive others, or by agency removal of conflict cubs-of-the-year fall below 48 for 3 interactions among grizzly bears or with bears, management of human-caused consecutive years; or (3) fewer than 16 other wildlife are rare and are likely to mortality post-delisting will not differ of 18 bear management units are remain an insignificant factor in significantly once protections of the Act occupied by females with young for 3 population dynamics into the are no longer in place. consecutive 6-year sums of foreseeable future. Therefore, we If grizzly bear hunting occurs, hunting observations. conclude this source of mortality does mortality would be within the total These commitments have been not constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly mortality limits for independent females implemented into regulations and bear DPS now, or in the foreseeable and males noted in tables 2 and 3 that ameliorate impacts related to potential future. ensure the population remains commercial and recreational hunting

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30535

such that hunting will not threaten the • YNP and GTNP Compendia decades due to long generational time GYE grizzly bear DPS in the foreseeable implemented under the National Park and relatively large population size future. In addition to State laws and Service Organic Act. The Organic Act of (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). regulations, the IGBST will conduct a 1916, 16 U.S.C. Section 1, created the Indicators of fitness in the GYE grizzly demographic review of the population NPS and assigned it the responsibility to bear population demonstrate that the vital rates every 5 to 10 years on which manage the national parks. The Organic current levels of genetic diversity are allowable total mortality limits are Act requires the NPS to manage park capable of supporting healthy based to ensure adherence to the units to conserve scenery, natural and reproductive and survival rates, as population objective. We consider the historic objects within parks, and evidenced by normal litter size, no regulatory commitment by State and wildlife, and to provide for their evidence of disease, high survivorship, Federal agencies outlined above to enjoyment in a manner that leaves them an equal sex ratio, normal body size and reasonably ensure conservation of the unimpaired for the enjoyment of future physical characteristics, and a relatively GYE grizzly bear DPS. generations. constant population size within the DMA (van Manen 2016a, in litt.). These Therefore, based on the best available Under Factors B and C Combined scientific and commercial information, indicators of fitness will be monitored detailed State and Federal regulatory • State of Idaho Yellowstone Grizzly annually for the foreseeable future. and other commitments, application of Bear Management Plan, Because current levels of genetic • mortality management detailed in this Proclamation of the Idaho Fish and diversity are adequate and final rule and the 2016 Conservation Game Commission Relating to the Limit heterozygosity values have increased Strategy, and the expectation that these of the Take of Grizzly Bear in the slightly over the last few decades from bear management practices will Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 0.55 (Paetkau et al. 1998, p. 421), to 0.56 • continue into the foreseeable future, we Grizzly Bear Management Plan for (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4337), to 0.60 Southwestern Montana, using more recent data and larger conclude that natural disease, • predation, and human-caused mortality Montana Hunting Regulations for sample sizes (Haroldson et al. 2010, p. Grizzly Bear, 7), we know there is no immediate need do not constitute threats to the GYE • grizzly bear DPS now and are not Montana Fish and Wildlife for new genetic material (Miller and anticipated to constitute threats in the Commission Resolution approving the Waits 2003, p. 4338). Heterozygosity is foreseeable future. Tri-State MOA (July 13, 2016), a measure of genetic diversity, which • Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management when low can negatively impact D. The Inadequacy of Existing Plan, demographic rates and reduce the Regulatory Mechanisms • Wyoming Game and Fish species’ ability to respond to Commission Chapter 67 Grizzly Bear Under this factor, we examine the environmental change. Management Regulation, and stressors identified within the other Effective population size is a metric • Memorandum of Agreement factors as ameliorated or exacerbated by used by geneticists to distinguish Regarding the Management and any existing regulatory mechanism or between total population size and the Allocation of Discretionary Mortality of conservation effort designed to address actual number of individuals available Grizzly Bears in the GYE. to reproduce at any given time. For threats to a species or pertain to the Therefore, based on the best available example, many individuals in a overall State management of a species. information and on continuation of population may be too young to Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires current regulatory commitment, we do reproduce and, therefore, are not part of that the Service take into account ‘‘those not consider inadequate regulatory the ‘‘effective population size.’’ For efforts, if any, being made by any State mechanisms to constitute a threat to the short-term fitness (i.e., evolutionary or foreign nation, or any political GYE grizzly bear DPS now or in the response), the effective population size subdivision of a State or foreign nation, foreseeable future. of the GYE grizzly bear population to protect such species. . . .’’ We should remain above 100 animals consider relevant Federal, State, and E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). In Affecting Its Continued Existence Tribal laws, regulations, and other grizzly bears, Miller and Waits (2003, p. binding legal mechanisms that may Factor E requires the Service to 4337) reported that an effective ameliorate or exacerbate any of the consider other natural or manmade population size is approximately 25 to threats we describe in threat analyses factors affecting the continued existence 27 percent of total population size, so an under the other four factors or otherwise of a species. Here, five other effective population size of 100 enhance the species’ conservation. Our considerations warrant additional corresponds to a total population size of consideration of regulatory mechanisms discussion regarding the GYE grizzly about 400 animals. However, reported is described in detail within the bear DPS: Effects due to: (1) Genetic ratios of effective population size to discussion of each of the threats or health; (2) changes in food resources; (3) census size for grizzly bear populations stressors to the species (see discussion climate change; (4) catastrophic events; vary widely from 0.04 to 0.6 (Paetkau et under each of the other Factors). and (5) human attitudes toward grizzly al. 1998; Miller and Waits 2003; The following existing regulatory bear conservation. Schregel et al. 2012). The ratio of mechanisms are specifically considered effective population size to census size Genetic Health and discussed as they relate to the of 0.42 reported by Kamath et al. (2015) stressors, under the applicable Factors, The isolated nature of the GYE grizzly falls towards the upper middle of that affecting the GYE grizzly bear DPS. bear population was identified as a range and most likely reflects the Under Factor A: potential threat when listing occurred in underestimation bias of the Chao2 • 2006 Forest Plan Amendment for 1975. Declines in genetic diversity are population estimator. Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for expected in isolated populations To further ensure this minimum the Greater Yellowstone Area National (Allendorf et al. 1991, p. 651; Burgman number of animals in the population Forests, et al. 1993, p. 220). For the GYE grizzly necessary for genetic health is always • Wilderness Act of 1964, the 2001 bear population, decreases in genetic maintained, the revised demographic Roadless Rule, and diversity would occur gradually over recovery criteria as well as the 2016

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30536 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Conservation Strategy established a To increase the likelihood of Attractant storage orders on public standard to maintain the total occasional genetic interchange between lands, through a reduction in conflict population size above 500 animals to the GYE grizzly bear population and the situations, and careful regulation of ensure short-term genetic fitness (YES NCDE grizzly bear population, the State hunting in key connectivity areas 2016a, pp. 33–53; USFWS 2017, pp. 2– of Montana has indicated they will provide adequate measures to promote 3). Recent work (Kamath et al. 2015, p. manage discretionary mortality in this natural connectivity and prevent 5512) demonstrates that the effective area in order to retain the opportunity reductions in genetic diversity. The population size (Ne) of the GYE for natural movements of bears between IGBST will carefully monitor population has increased from 102 (95% ecosystems. Translocation of bears movements and the presence of alleles CI = 64–207) in 1982, to 469 (95% CI= between these ecosystems will be a last from grizzly bear populations outside 284–772) in 2010. The current effective resort and will be implemented only if the GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries population is more than four times the there are demonstrated effects of (YES 2016a, pp. 51–53). The IGBST will minimum effective population size lowered heterozygosity among GYE continue to monitor genetic diversity of suggested in the literature (Miller and grizzly bears or other genetic measures the GYE grizzly bear population so that Waits 2003, p. 4338). that indicate a decrease in genetic a possible reduction in genetic diversity While this current estimated effective diversity, as monitored by the IGBST due to the geographic isolation of the population size of approximately 469 (WGFD 2016, p. 13). GYE grizzly bear population will be animals (Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5512) is To document natural connectivity detected and responded to accordingly adequate to maintain genetic health in between the GYE and the NCDE, Federal with translocation of outside grizzly this population, 1 to 2 effective migrants and State agencies will continue to bears into the GYE. This approach from other grizzly bear populations monitor bear movements on the ensures that long-term genetic diversity every 10 years would maintain or northern periphery of the GYE grizzly is not a continued threat to the GYE enhance this level of genetic diversity bear DPS boundaries and the southern grizzly bear DPS. Therefore, based on and, therefore, ensure genetic health in edges of the NCDE using radio-telemetry the best available scientific information, the long term (Mills and Allendorf 1996, and will collect genetic samples from all we conclude that genetic diversity does pp. 1510, 1516; Newman and Tallmon captured or dead bears to document not constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly 2001, pp. 1059–1061; Miller and Waits possible gene flow between these two bear DPS now, nor is it anticipated to 2003, p. 4338) and benefit its long-term ecosystems (YES 2016a, pp. 51–53). in the foreseeable future. persistence (Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 25, These genetic samples will detect 26; Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5517). We migrants using an ‘‘assignment test’’ to Changes in Food Resources have defined an effective migrant as an identify the area from which individuals A comprehensive study of the GYE individual that immigrates into an are most likely to have originated based grizzly bear diet documented over 266 isolated population from a separate area, on their unique genetic signature distinct and animal species survives, breeds, and whose offspring (Paetkau et al. 1995, p. 348; Waser and ranging from grasses, fungi, berries, and survive. Strobeck 1998, p. 43; Paetkau et al. seeds, to fish, carrion, and other meat Based on Miller and Waits (2003, p. 2004, p. 56; Proctor et al. 2005, pp. sources (e.g., young and weakened 4338), the 2007 Conservation Strategy 2410–2412). This technique also animals). Monitoring foods comprising recommended that if no movement or identifies bears that may be the product such a diverse diet is challenging, successful genetic interchange was of reproduction between GYE and NCDE which is why efforts have focused on detected by 2020, grizzly bears from the grizzly bears (Dixon et al. 2006, p. 158). four foods with relatively high energetic NCDE would be translocated into the In addition to monitoring for gene flow value and for which abundance (or use GYE grizzly bear population to achieve and movements, the signatories to the by bears) is relatively easy to measure. the goal of two effective migrants every 2016 Conservation Strategy will The IGBST currently monitors the 10 years (i.e., one generation) to continue interagency efforts to provide productivity or grizzly bear use of four maintain current levels of genetic and maintain movement opportunities grizzly bear foods in the GYE: diversity (USFWS 2007c, p. 37). In light for grizzly bears, and reestablish natural Whitebark pine seeds, army cutworm of new information in Kamath et al. connectivity and gene flow between the moths, ungulates, and spawning (2015, entire) documenting stable levels GYE grizzly bear DPS and other grizzly cutthroat trout. While these are some of of heterozygosity and a current effective bear populations. To promote natural the highest calorie food sources population size of 469 animals (Kamath connectivity, there are attractant storage available to grizzly bears in the GYE et al. 2015, p. 5512), the deadline of rules on public lands between the GYE (Mealey 1975, pp. 84–86; Pritchard and 2020 for translocation is no longer and other grizzly bear Recovery Zones Robbins 1990, p. 1647; Craighead et al. contained in the 2016 Conservation in the NCDE and Bitterroot to minimize 1995, pp. 247–252), only whitebark pine Strategy. As stated by Kamath et al. the grizzly bear-human conflicts. We do seeds are known to have an influence on (2015, p. 5517), the current effective not consider connectivity to the east, grizzly bear mortality risk and population size is sufficiently large to west, or south a relevant issue to the reproduction. There is no known avoid substantial accumulation of GYE grizzly bear population’s long-term relationship between grizzly bear inbreeding depression, thereby reducing persistence because there are no extant mortality risk or reproduction and any concerns regarding genetic factors populations in these directions to other individual food (Schwartz et al. affecting the viability of GYE grizzly enhance the genetic diversity of the GYE 2010, p. 662). bears. However, the Service recognizes population. However, we recognize the Grizzly bears consume elk and bison that the long-term viability of the GYE GYE grizzly bear population could be a as winter-killed carrion in the early grizzly bear population will benefit from possible source population to re- spring, kill calves opportunistically, occasional gene flow from nearby colonize the Bitterroot Ecosystem to the consume hunter-killed carcasses or gut grizzly bear populations like that in the west. piles, and prey upon adults weakened NCDE. Thus, efforts will continue to In summary, genetic concerns are not during the fall breeding season. facilitate occasional movement of male currently a threat to the GYE grizzly Ungulate populations are threatened by bears between the NCDE and GYE bear population (Miller and Waits 2003, brucellosis (Brucella abortus) and (WGFD 2016, p. 13). p. 4338; Kamath et al. 2015, entire). resulting management practices

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30537

resulting in bison removal, chronic Army cutworm moths aggregate on beetles but also less obvious impacts wasting disease (CWD), competition remote, high-elevation talus slopes from climate change and fire with other top predators for ungulates, where grizzly bears forage on them from suppression. For more details on the and decreasing winter severity. mid- to late summer. Grizzly bears status of whitebark pine, please see the Brucellosis does not affect bison as a could potentially be disturbed by 2013 candidate notice of review (78 FR food source for grizzly bears, and the backcountry visitors (White et al. 1999, 70104, November 22, 2013). subsequent removal program is p. 150), but this has not been Whitebark pine is a masting species, managed to ‘‘maintain a wild, free- documented in the GYE. The situation which means it produces large seed ranging population of bison’’ (USDOI is monitored by the IGBST and the crops in some years and poor crops in NPS and USDA Animal and Plant WGFD, who will take appropriate other years. In the GYE, a good seed Health Inspection Service 2000, p. 22). management action as necessary. crop occurs approximately every 2 to 3 CWD is fatal to deer and elk but has not Climate change may affect army years. During years of low availability of been detected in the GYE, and, as cutworm moths by changing the whitebark pine seeds, grizzly bear- transmission is density-dependent distribution of plants that the moths human conflicts tend to increase as (Schauber and Woolf 2003, pp. 611– feed on or the flowering times of the bears use lower elevations, and when 612), CWD would not result in local plants (Woiwod 1997, pp. 152–153). those areas are within less secure extinction of deer or elk populations. However, the GYE plant communities habitats (Gunther et al. 2004, pp. 13–15; The availability of ungulate carcasses is have a wide elevational range that Schwartz et al. 2010, pp. 661–662). not anticipated to be impacted by either would allow for distributional changes Approximately six more independent of these diseases such that they are a (Romme and Turner 1991, p. 382), and females and six more independent threat to the GYE grizzly bear army cutworm moths display foraging males die across the ecosystem in poor population now or in the foreseeable plasticity (Burton et al. 1980, pp. 12– versus good whitebark pine years future. The reintroduction of gray 13). Therefore, potential changes to (IGBST 2013, p. 25, figure 5). These wolves (Canis lupus) to the GYE in 1995 army cutworm moth availability are not mortalities are primarily due to defense has created competition between grizzly likely to threaten the GYE grizzly bear of life encounters and wildlife bears and wolves for carrion; however, population in the foreseeable future. management agency removals of conflict there has been no documentation of More details on the specific ways in bears (Gunther et al. 2004, pp. 13–14; negative influence on the GYE grizzly which changes in ungulates, cutthroat IGBST 2009, p. 4). Additionally, litter bear population (Servheen and Knight trout, and army cutworm moths could size and the likelihood of producing a 1993, p. 36). Decreasing winter severity affect the GYE grizzly bear population litter may decrease slightly in years and length as a result of climate change are discussed in detail in the 2007 final following poor whitebark pine crops could reduce spring carrion availability rule (72 FR 14866, March 29, 2007, (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 21). Therefore, (Wilmers and Getz 2005, p. 574; 14928–14933). Our analysis focuses on an important question was whether Wilmers and Post 2006, p. 405). A the potential impacts that the loss of decline of whitebark pine would make reduction of winter-killed ungulates whitebark pine could have on the GYE most years similar to years with poor may be buffered by an increase of grizzly bear population. While we seed crops. Using data from 2002 to 2011, the availability of meat to adult grizzly discussed notable declines in whitebark IGBST documented an average annual bears during the active season as a result pine due to mountain pine beetle in the 2007 final rule, the data used to estimate population growth rate for the GYE of grizzly bears usually prevailing in population growth only went through grizzly bear population between 0.3 and usurping wolf-killed ungulate carcasses 2002. The Ninth Circuit Court of 2.2 percent (IGBST 2012, p. 34). (Ballard et al. 2003, p. 262). Therefore, Appeals questioned our conclusions Although the population was still fluctuations in the availability of about future population viability based increasing in this more recent time ungulates are not a threat to the GYE on data gathered before the sharp period, it was increasing at a slower rate grizzly bear population now or in decline in whitebark pine began than in the previous time period (1983– foreseeable future. (Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Inc. v. 2001) and coincided with the rapid A decline in the Yellowstone Servheen, et al., 665 F.3d 1015, 1030 decline of whitebark pine that began in cutthroat trout population has resulted (9th Cir. 2011)). To assess the the early 2000s. Therefore, the IGBST from a combination of factors: the population’s vital rates since 2002, the examined the potential influence of introduction of nonnative lake trout IGBST completed a comprehensive whitebark pine decline on the change in (Salvelinus naymaycush), a parasite that demographic review using data from population growth rate. Because causes whirling disease (Myxobolus 2002–2011 (IGBST 2012, p. 7) and extrinsic, density-independent factors cerebralis), and several years of drought extensive analyses to determine if the (e.g., availability of whitebark pine conditions in the Intermountain West decline in whitebark pine is driving seeds) and intrinsic, density-dependent (Koel et al. 2005, p. 10). Although there observed changes in grizzly bear factors (i.e., a population with high bear has been a corresponding decrease in population vital rates (IGBST 2013, density) can produce similar changes in grizzly bear use of cutthroat trout, only entire). population vital rates, the IGBST a small portion of the GYE grizzly bear The threats to whitebark pine conducted several analyses to clarify population uses cutthroat trout reported in our 2007 final rule and and tease apart these two similar effects. (Haroldson et al. 2005, p. 175), and reiterated in our 12-month finding for The results of these analyses were grizzly bears that fish in spawning whitebark pine are currently being summarized in a report titled ‘‘Response streams only consume, on average, analyzed in a Species Status Assessment of Yellowstone grizzly bears to changes between 8 and 55 trout per year (76 FR 42631, July 19, 2011). Whitebark in food resources: a synthesis’’ (Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499). Therefore, pine is currently warranted for (hereafter referred to as ‘‘the Food potential declines in cutthroat trout are protected status under the Act, but that Synthesis Report’’) (IGBST 2013). not currently, nor are they likely to action is precluded by higher priority Regardless of whether these changes are become, a threat in the foreseeable actions. This status is primarily the being driven by declines in whitebark future to the GYE grizzly bear result of direct mortality due to white pine or are simply an indication of the population. pine blister rust and mountain pine population reaching high densities, the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30538 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

management response would be the p. 18) found body mass and percent 2000s. Combined, these findings suggest same: To carefully manage human- body fat in the fall had not changed that changes in population vital rates caused mortality based on scientific from 2000 to 2010. When they examined since the early 2000s are more monitoring of the population. trends in females only, the data showed indicative of the population For the Food Synthesis Report, the a moderate decline in female body fat approaching carrying capacity than a IGBST developed a comprehensive set during the fall, starting around 2006 shortage of resources (van Manen et al. of research questions and hypotheses to (Schwartz et al. 2014a, p. 72). However, 2016, p. 310). evaluate grizzly bear responses to they suggested it could be the result of In response to the seventh question, changes in food resources. Specifically, small sample sizes (n = 2.6 bears/year) while land managers have little the IGBST asked eight questions: and noted the data for 2011 (not influence on how calories are spread (1) How diverse is the diet of GYE included in their published paper) across the landscape, we have much grizzly bears? showed an increase in fall body fat for more influence on human-caused (2) Has grizzly bear selection of females, ultimately cautioning that more mortality risk. Consistent with findings whitebark pine habitat decreased as tree data were needed before it could be from earlier studies, the IGBST (2013, p. mortality increased? determined if there was truly a trend 24) found that grizzly bear mortalities (3) Has grizzly bear body condition (Schwartz et al. 2014a, p. 76). In the increased in poor compared to good decreased as whitebark pine declined? Food Synthesis Report, the IGBST whitebark pine seed production years. (4) Has animal matter provided revisited the previous analysis with data Assuming the poorest observed grizzly bears with an alternative food collected since 2010, and concluded whitebark pine cone production, the resource to declining whitebark pine? that body condition was not different IGBST (2013, p. 25) predicted an (5) Have grizzly bear movements between poor and good years of increase of 10 annual mortalities increased during the period of whitebark pine production (IGBST ecosystem-wide of independent females whitebark pine decline (2000–2011)? 2013, p. 18). (6) Has home range size increased as comparing 2000 with 2012, grizzly bears sought alternative foods, or In response to the fourth research encompassing the period that coincided has home-range size decreased as question, in years with poor whitebark with whitebark pine decline (IGBST grizzly bear density increased? pine seed production, grizzly bears 2013, p. 25). The greatest increase in (7) Has the number of human-caused shifted their diets and consumed more predicted mortality occurred outside the grizzly bear mortalities increased as meat (Schwartz et al. 2014a, p. 68). PCA, which may be partially whitebark pine decreased? These results were consistent with attributable to range expansion and (8) Are changes in vital rates during previous findings (Mattson 1997, p. continued population increase (IGBST the last decade associated more with 169). Given these observations of diet 2013, p. 25). However, increased decline in whitebark pine resources shifts, Ebinger et al. (2016, p. 705) mortality numbers during poor than increases in grizzly bear density? examined whether grizzly bear use of whitebark pine cone production years The preliminary answers to these ungulate carcasses in the fall had have not led to a declining population questions are contained in the Synthesis increased during the period of trend (IGBST 2012, p. 34), and total Report and the final results have been whitebark pine decline. This was mortality will be maintained within the (or will be) published in peer-reviewed indeed the case, supporting the total allowable mortality limits set forth journals (in their entirety: Bjornlie et al. interpretation that responses to in table 3. 2014a; Costello et al. 2014; Gunther et changing food resources were primarily In response to the eighth question, the al. 2014; Schwartz et al. 2014a and behavioral. In response to the fifth and IGBST found that while whitebark pine 2014b; van Manen et al. 2016; Ebinger sixth questions, if overall food resources seed production can influence et al. 2016; Haroldson et al. in prep.). were declining, one would expect daily reproductive rates the following year, Key findings of the Synthesis Report movements, fall movements, and home the overall fecundity rates during the are summarized below. To address the range sizes to increase if bears were last decade (2002–2011) did not decline first question about how diverse diets of roaming more widely in search of foods. when compared with data from 1983– grizzly bears in the GYE are, Gunther et However, movement rates did not 2001 (IGBST 2013, p. 32). This is al. (2014, entire) conducted an extensive change during 2000 to 2011, suggesting important because fecundity rates are a literature review and documented over that grizzly bears were finding alternate function of both litter size and the 260 species of foods consumed by foods within their home range as likelihood of producing a litter, the two grizzly bears in the GYE, representing whitebark pine seeds became less ways in which whitebark pine seed four of the five kingdoms of life (for available over the past decade (Costello production may affect reproduction. more information, please see the et al. 2014, p. 2013). For females, home Although Schwartz et al. (2006a, p. 21) proposed rule, 81 FR 13174, March 11, ranges actually decreased in size from found one-cub litters were more 2016). Regarding the second research the period before (1989–1999) to the common in years following poor question, if whitebark pine seeds were period after (2007–2012) whitebark pine whitebark pine seed production, one- highly selected over other fall foods, decline. This decrease was greater in cub litters are still adequate for grizzly bears would continue to seek areas with higher grizzly bear densities population growth. Furthermore, one- this food even if availability declined. but showed no relationship with the cub litters are still relatively uncommon Costello et al. (2014, p. 2013) found that amount of live whitebark pine in the following poor whitebark pine years, as grizzly bear selection of whitebark pine home range (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, pp. 4– evidenced by a very consistent average habitat and duration of use decreased 6). Male home ranges did not change in litter size around two since the IGBST between 2000 and 2011. Additionally, size (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, pp. 4–6). began reporting this metric. Fecundity (regarding the third research question) if Finally, at the population level, bear and mean litter size did not change grizzly bears were dependent on density, but not whitebark pine decline, between the two monitoring periods whitebark pine to meet their nutritional was associated with lower cub survival (1983–2001 versus 2002–2011) requirements, body condition would be and reproductive suppression, factors examined by the IGBST even though the expected to have decreased. Schwartz et contributing to the slowing of availability of whitebark pine seeds al. (2014a, p. 75) and the IGBST (2013, population growth since the early declined (IGBST 2013, pp. 33–34).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30539

In contrast to previous studies that themselves to higher mortality risk in finding alternative food resources and concluded increased mortality in poor roaded habitats at lower elevations. that those resources are sufficient to whitebark pine cone production years However, Costello et al. (2014, p. 2014) maintain body mass and body condition led to population decline in those years showed that grizzly bears did not roam (IGBST 2013, p. 20; Costello et al. 2014, (Pease and Mattson 1999, p. 964), the over larger areas or canvass more area p. 2013; Schwartz et al. 2014a, p. 75; IGBST found the population did not within their fall ranges as whitebark Ebinger et al. 2016, p. 705). In other decline despite increased mortality in pine declined rapidly starting in the words, evidence for density dependence poor whitebark pine cone production early 2000s, and suggested bears found suggests that the population may be years. Therefore, we determined that the alternative foods within their fall approaching carrying capacity (van conclusions of Pease and Mattson (1999, ranges. Furthermore, Bjornlie et al. Manen et al. 2016, entire). The p. 964) are inaccurate. First and (2014b, p. 4) found that home range size combined evidence from these recent foremost, estimating population growth has not increased after whitebark pine studies further supports the recovered for individual, non-consecutive years, as declined, and Schwartz et al. (2010, p. status of the GYE grizzly bear Pease and Mattson (1999, p. 962) did, is 662) found that when bears use lower population. This status has remained ‘‘not legitimate’’ and results in an elevations in poor whitebark pine seed unchanged over the last 15 years despite ‘‘incorrect estimate’’ (Eberhardt and production years, it is the amount of significant changes in food resources in Cherry 2000, p. 3257). Even assuming secure habitat that determines mortality the GYE. their methods of separating out risk. Meaning, in both good and poor While there was some concern that individual, non-consecutive years of whitebark pine seed years, survival is the rapid loss of whitebark pine could data for a species whose reproduction determined primarily by levels of secure result in mortality rates similar to those and survival are inextricably linked to habitat. Therefore, our approach of experienced after the open-pit garbage multiple, consecutive years (e.g., maintaining these levels of secure dumps were closed in the early 1970s reproductive status in 1 year affects habitat on Federal lands, which (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 42), we now status in the following year), many other comprise 98 percent of lands within the know this has not been the case. This is aspects of their analysis do not reflect PCA and 60 percent of suitable habitat most likely due to the fact that the best available science. An important outside the PCA, provides strong whitebark pine has never been a difference between Pease and Mattson mitigation against any impacts the spatially or temporally predictable food (1999, p. 964) and other population decline of whitebark pine may have on source on the landscape like the open- growth rate estimates (Eberhardt et al. this grizzly bear population because the pit garbage dumps were. The dumps 1994, p. 362; Boyce 1995, entire; mechanism driving the increased were open year round and provided Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48; IGBST mortality risk is secure habitat, not the high-calorie foods the entire time. They 2012, p. 34) is related to their treatment presence or absence of whitebark pine. were in the exact same location every of conflict bears. Pease and Mattson Evidence suggests that observed year and for the entire season. Grizzly (1999, p. 967) assumed that grizzly bears changes in population vital rates were bears congregated at these known with any history of conflict would driven by density-dependent effects and locations in large numbers and in very experience lower survival rates have resulted in a relatively flat close proximity to each other and to associated with conflict bears for the population trajectory (van Manen 2016a, people. None of these circumstances are rest of their . in litt.). Van Manen et al. (2016, entire) true for grizzly bears foraging on The findings of Schwartz et al. found cub survival, yearling survival, whitebark pine seeds. (2006b, p. 42) challenge this and reproductive transition (see GYE grizzly bears have high diet assumption, finding that while survival Glossary: Transition probability) from diversity (Gunther et al. 2014, p. 65) and of conflict bears decreases during the no young to cubs all changed from 1983 use alternate foods in years of low year of the conflict and the next year, to 2012, with lower rates evident during whitebark pine seed production survival returns to approximately the last 10 years of that time period. Cub (Schwartz et al. 2014a, pp. 75–76). normal within 2 years. In other words, survival and reproductive transition Nearly one third of grizzly bears in the management-trapped bears often return were negatively associated with an GYE do not have whitebark pine in their to foraging on naturally occurring food index of grizzly bear density, indicating home range, so they do not use this food sources, away from human greater declines of those parameters (Costello et al. 2014, p. 2013). Grizzly developments. Another assumption where bear densities were higher. Their bears in the GYE that do use whitebark made by Pease and Mattson (1999, p. analysis did not support a similar pine are accustomed to successfully 967) was that 73 percent of the GYE relationship with estimates of decline in finding alternative natural foods in grizzly bear population were conflict whitebark pine tree cover. Moreover, years when whitebark pine seeds are not bears, with correspondingly lower changes in vital rates started in the late available, and body mass and body fat survival rates. However, Schwartz et al. 1990s and early 2000s (van Manen et al. are not different between good and poor (2006b, p. 39) found only about 28 2016, pp. 307–308), which preceded the whitebark pine seed years (Schwartz et percent of the GYE grizzly bear beginning and peak time period of al. 2014a, pp. 72–73, 75). population were ever involved in whitebark pine decline. The results of The IGBST will continue to monitor conflicts. Together, these two erroneous van Manen et al. (2016, entire) support annual production of common foods, assumptions by Pease and Mattson the interpretation that slowing of grizzly bear-human conflicts, survival (1999, p. 967) resulted in a gross population growth during the last rates, reproductive rates, and the causes underestimation of population trend. As decade was associated more with and locations of grizzly bear mortality, a result, we do not consider Pease and increasing grizzly bear density than the as detailed in the 2016 Conservation Mattson (1999) to be the best available decline in whitebark pine. Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 33–91). These science. We recognize that changes in food data provide the 2016 Conservation Earlier studies suggested that resources can also influence population Strategy’s signatory agencies with the increased grizzly bear mortalities in vital rates. These research questions and scientific information necessary to poor whitebark pine cone production results do not refute that possibility, but inform and implement adaptive years are a result of bears roaming more the preponderance of evidence supports management (Holling 1978, pp. 11–16) widely in search of foods and exposing the conclusion that bears so far are actions in response to ecological

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30540 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

changes that may impact the future of 2014; Gunther et al. 2014), the ranges during poor whitebark pine years the GYE grizzly bear population. These demonstrated resiliency to declines in (Costello et al. 2014, pp. 2009, 2013). management responses may involve whitebark pine seed production and Fourth, the Ninth Circuit observed increased habitat protection, increased other high-calorie foods such as that the Service contradicted itself by mortality management, or a status cutthroat trout shows that changes in stating that the entire PCA was review and emergency re-listing of the food resources are not likely to become necessary to support a recovered population if management actions are substantial impediments to the long- population, yet acknowledged that unable to address the problems. term persistence of the GYE grizzly bear whitebark pine would persist in only a Grizzly bears are resourceful population. small part of the PCA. New data show omnivores that will make behavioral In Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. that, despite the decline in whitebark adaptations regarding food acquisition Servheen, 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011), pine, the GYE population has been (Schwartz et al. 2014a, p. 75). Diets of the Ninth Circuit faulted the Service’s relatively constant, is close to carrying grizzly bears vary among individuals, conclusion that whitebark pine losses capacity, and is exhibiting density- seasons, years, and where they reside did not pose a threat to grizzly bears. dependent regulation inside the DMA within the GYE (Mealey 1980, pp. 284– First, the Ninth Circuit noted that (van Manen et al. 2016, entire; van 287; Mattson et al. 1991a, pp. 1625– grizzly bears’ adaptability and Manen 2016b, in litt.). Fifth, the court 1626; Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 767; resourcefulness increased the threat determined it was arbitrary and Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499; Koel et al. from whitebark pine loss because it capricious for the Service to rely on 2005, p. 14; Costello et al. 2014, p. 2013; raised the risk of conflicts with humans scientific uncertainty about whitebark Gunther et al. 2014, pp. 66–67), as bears looked for other food sources. pine loss in a delisting decision. Any reflecting their ability to find adequate The Service acknowledges this uncertainty about the loss of whitebark food resources across a diverse and component of the threat from whitebark pine has been resolved by GYE changing landscape. In other nearby pine loss, but despite increased population numbers that show a areas such as the NCDE (100 miles north mortality during poor whitebark pine relatively stable population size despite of the GYE), whitebark pine has been cone production years, the population loss of whitebark pine seeds (IGBST functionally extinct as a bear food for at trend has maintained a relatively flat 2012, p. 34; van Manen 2016b, in litt.) least 40 years (Kendall and Keane 2001, trajectory (IGBST 2012, p. 34; van and no long-term changes in vital rates pp. 228–232), yet the NCDE grizzly bear Manen 2016a; in litt.). Additionally, (IGBST 2012, pp. 32–34). Furthermore, whitebark pine tree mortality has population has continued to increase during years of poor whitebark pine and thrive with an estimated 765 bears significantly slowed since 2009, seed availability, grizzly bears did not in 2004, and a subsequent average 3 suggesting that the current beetle roam over larger areas (Costello et al. percent annual rate of growth (Kendall outbreak may have run its course 2014, p. 2014); rather, the increased risk et al. 2009, p. 9; Mace et al. 2012, p. (Haroldson 2015, p. 47). Finally, the of mortality was related to the use of 124). Similarly, although whitebark pine Ninth Circuit faulted the Service for lower elevations and less secure habitat seed production and availability of relying on adaptive management and within their home range (Schwartz et al. cutthroat trout in the Yellowstone Lake monitoring without describing 2010, p. 662). area varied dramatically over the last 3 management responses and specific decades due to both natural and human- Second, the court noted that the triggering criteria. The population introduced causes (Reinhart and Service’s data on long-term population objectives that will be incorporated into Mattson 1990, pp. 345–349; Podruzny et growth came from 2002, before the pine regulations provide specific triggers for al. 1999, pp. 134–137; Felicetti et al. beetle epidemic began. The population management action (see Factors B and 2004, p. 499; Haroldson et al. 2005, pp. growth rate slowed from the 4 to 7 C Combined discussion, above). The 175–178; Haroldson 2015, p. 47; percent that occurred from 1983 to 2001 Service continues to believe that Teisberg et al. 2014a, pp. 375–376), the (Eberhardt et al. 1994, p. 362; Knight adaptive management will play a role in GYE grizzly bear population has and Blanchard 1995, pp. 18–19; future management decisions because continued to increase and expand Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48), to 0.3 to new data and new information will during this time period despite these 2.2 percent from 2002 to 2011 (IGBST require appropriate management changes in foods (Schwartz et al. 2006a, 2012, p. 34). The population trajectory responses. p. 66; IGBST 2012, p. 34; Bjornlie et al. that includes the most recent data In summary, the best scientific and 2014a, p. 184). indicates no statistical trend (i.e., commercial data available regarding The GYE grizzly bear population has relatively flat population trajectory) grizzly bear responses to food losses been coping with the unpredictable within the DMA for the period 2002 to suggest this issue is not a threat to the nature of whitebark pine seed 2014 (van Manen 2016a, in litt.). Third, GYE grizzly bear population and is not production for millennia. Grizzly bears the court faulted the Service for using a an impediment to long-term population are not dependent upon whitebark pine study of NCDE bears to prove GYE persistence. Therefore, we conclude that seeds for survival, nor do they have a grizzly bears continued to increase changes in food resources do not diet that is specialized on consumption despite whitebark pine losses, even constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly of these seeds. While we know though GYE bears were reported to be bear DPS now, nor are such changes whitebark pine seed production can unique because of their reliance on anticipated to constitute a threat in the influence reproductive and survival whitebark pine seeds. Current data foreseeable future. rates, it has not caused a negative show that the GYE bear population has population trend, as evidenced by a stabilized or increased despite the loss Climate Change relatively constant population size of whitebark pine seeds (IGBST 2012, p. Our analyses under the Act include between 2002 and 2014 (IGBST 2012, p. 34; van Manen 2016b, in litt.). A recent consideration of observed or likely 34; van Manen 2016a, in litt.). As study found that nearly one third of environmental changes resulting from articulated in the Food Synthesis Report collared grizzly bears in the GYE did not ongoing and projected changes in by the IGBST (IGBST 2013, pp. 32–35) even have whitebark pine within their climate. As defined by the and supporting studies (in their entirety: home ranges and those that did made Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Bjornlie et al. 2014b; Costello et al. use of other foods within their home Change (IPCC), the term ‘‘climate’’ refers

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30541

to the mean and variability of different climate conditions. Model results yield spring precipitation in the northern types of weather conditions over time, very similar projections of average Rocky Mountains is offsetting these with 30 years being a typical period for global warming until about 2030, and impacts to total annual stream flow from such measurements, although shorter or thereafter the magnitude and rate of expected declines in snowpack thus far. longer periods also may be used (IPCC warming vary through the end of the The effects related to climate change 2013a, p. 1450). The term ‘‘climate century depending on the assumptions may result in a number of changes to change’’ thus refers to a change in the about population levels, emissions of grizzly bear habitat, including a state of the climate that can be greenhouse gases, and other factors that reduction in snowpack levels, shifts in identified by changes in the mean or the influence climate change. Thus, absent denning times, shifts in the abundance variability of relevant properties, which extremely rapid stabilization of and distribution of some natural food persists for an extended period, greenhouse gas emissions at a global sources, and changes in fire regimes. typically decades or longer, due to level, there is strong scientific support Most grizzly bear biologists in the natural conditions (e.g., solar cycles), or for projections that warming will United States and Canada do not expect human-caused changes in the continue through the 21st century, and habitat changes predicted under climate composition of the atmosphere or in that the magnitude and rate of change change scenarios to directly threaten land use (IPCC 2013a, p. 1450). will be influenced substantially by grizzly bears (Servheen and Cross 2010, Scientific measurements spanning human actions regarding greenhouse gas p. 4). These changes may even make several decades demonstrate that emissions (IPCC 2013b, p. 19; IPCC habitat more suitable and food sources changes in climate are occurring. In 2014, entire). more abundant (Servheen and Cross particular, warming of the climate Global climate projections are 2010, Appendix D). However, these system is unequivocal, and many of the informative, and, in some cases, the ecological changes may affect the timing observed changes in the last 60 years are only or the best scientific information and frequency of grizzly bear-human unprecedented over decades to available for us to use. However, interactions and conflicts (Servheen and millennia (IPCC 2013b, p. 4). The projected changes in climate and related Cross 2010, p. 4). current rate of climate change may be as impacts can vary substantially across Because timing of den entry and fast as any extended warming period and within different regions of the emergence is at least partially over the past 65 million years and is world (in their entirety: IPCC 2013b, influenced by food availability and projected to accelerate in the next 30 to 2014), and within the U.S. (Melillo et al. weather (Craighead and Craighead 1972, 80 years (National Research Council 2014, entire). Therefore, we use pp. 33–34; Van Daele et al. 1990, p. 2013, p. 5). Thus, rapid climate change ‘‘downscaled’’ projections when they 264), less snowpack would likely is adding to other sources of extinction are available and have been developed shorten the denning season as foods pressures, such as land use and human- through appropriate scientific become available later in the fall and caused mortality, which will likely procedures, because such projections earlier in the spring. In the GYE, place extinction rates in this era among provide higher resolution information Haroldson et al. (2002, pp. 34–35) just a handful of the severe that is more relevant to spatial scales reported later den entry dates for male crises observed in Earth’s geological used for analyses of a given species (see grizzly bears, corresponding with record (American Association for the Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58–61, for a increasing November temperatures from Advancement of Sciences 2014, p. 17). discussion of downscaling). 1975 to 1999. This increased time Examples of various other observed The hydrologic regime in the Rocky outside of the den could increase the and projected changes in climate and Mountains has changed and is projected potential for conflicts with humans associated effects and risks, and the to change further (Bartlein et al. 1997, (Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4). bases for them, are provided for global p. 786; Cayan et al. 2001, p. 411; Leung The effects related to climate change and regional scales in recent reports et al. 2004, p. 75; Stewart et al. 2004, could create temporal and spatial shifts issued by the IPCC (in their entirety: pp. 223–224; Pederson et al. 2011, p. in grizzly bear food sources (Rodriguez 2013b, 2014), and similar types of 1666). The western United States may et al. 2007, pp. 41–42). Changes in plant information for the United States and experience milder, wetter winters with communities have already been regions within it are available via the warmer, drier summers and an overall documented, with species’ ranges National Climate Assessment (Melillo et decrease in snowpack (Leung et al. shifting farther north and higher in al. 2014, entire). Results of scientific 2004, pp. 93–94). While some climate elevation due to environmental analyses presented by the IPCC show models do not demonstrate significant constraints (Walther et al. 2002, pp. that most of the observed increase in changes in total annual precipitation for 390–391; Walther 2003, pp. 172–175; global average temperature since the the western United States (Duffy et al. Walther et al. 2005, p. 1428) and mid-20th century cannot be explained 2006, p. 893), an increase in ‘‘ on increases in outbreaks of insects that by natural variability in climate and is snow’’ events is expected (Leung et al. reduce survival (Bentz et al. 2010, ‘‘extremely likely’’ (defined by the IPCC 2004, p. 93; McWethy et al. 2010, p. 55). entire). It is unclear whether avalanche as 95–100 percent likelihood) to be due The amount of snowpack and the timing chutes, an important habitat component to the observed increase in greenhouse of snowmelt may also change, with an to grizzly bears, will decrease, possibly gas concentrations in the atmosphere as earlier peak stream flow each spring as a result of decreased snowpack, or a result of human activities, particularly (Cayan et al. 2001, p. 410; Leung et al. increase, as a result of increases in ‘‘rain carbon dioxide emissions from fossil 2004, p. 75; Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223– on snow’’ events that may decrease the fuel use (IPCC 2013b, p. 17). 224). Although there is some stability of snowpack. Changes in Scientists use a variety of climate disagreement about changes in the vegetative food distributions also may models, which include consideration of content of snow under varying climate influence other mammal distributions, natural processes and variability, as scenarios (Duffy et al. 2006, p. 893), including potential prey species like well as various scenarios of potential reduced runoff from decreased ungulates. While the extent and rate to levels and timing of greenhouse gas snowpack could translate into decreased which individual plant species will be emissions, to evaluate the causes of soil moisture in the summer (Leung et impacted is difficult to foresee with any changes already observed and to project al. 2004, p. 75). However, Pederson et level of confidence (in their entirety: future changes in temperature and other al. (2011, p. 1682) found that increased Walther et al. 2002; Fagre et al. 2003),

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30542 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

there is general consensus that grizzly bears and their ungulate prey usually 70,000 years ago (Lowenstern et al. bears are flexible enough in their dietary were not meaningfully adversely 2005, p. 2). During such an eruption, needs that they will not be impacted affected. Surveys after the 1988 fires flows ooze slowly over the surface, directly by ecological constraints such found that 345 elk, 36 deer, 12 moose, moving a few hundred feet per day for as shifts in food distributions and 6 black bears, and 9 bison died in GYE several months or several years abundance (Servheen and Cross 2010, p. as a direct result of the conflagration (Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 2). Any 4; IGBST 2013, p. 35). (YNP 2011, p. 3). Regarding impacts to renewed volcanic activity at YNP would Fire regimes can affect the abundance grizzly bears, YNP concluded, ‘‘Grizzly most likely take this form (Lowenstern and distribution of some vegetative bear bears have evolved in association with et al. 2005, p. 3). In general, such events foods (e.g., grasses, berry-producing strongly influenced by fire, would have localized impacts and be far shrubs) (LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 150). For the primary forest disturbance agent less devastating than a large eruption instance, fires can reduce canopy cover, within the GYE, are highly vagile, and (although such an event could also which usually increases berry are adaptable to changing ecological cause fires; fire as a threat is discussed production. However, on steep south or conditions. Wildland fires will provide above). Hydrothermal explosions, west slopes, excessive canopy removal significant long-term benefits to grizzly due to fires or vegetation management bears by maintaining natural ecosystem triggered by sudden changes in pressure may decrease berry production through processes’’ (YNP 2005, Appendix H). of the hydrothermal system, also subsequent moisture stress and YNP’s fire management policy (YNP occasionally affect the region. More than exposure to sun, wind, and frost 2014a, entire) indicates natural wildfires a dozen large hydrothermal explosion (Simonin 2000, entire). Fire frequency should be allowed to burn, so long as craters formed between 14,000 and and severity may increase with late parameters regarding fire size, weather, 3,000 years ago (Lowenstern et al. 2005, summer droughts predicted under and potential danger are not exceeded. p. 4). The largest hydrothermal- climate change scenarios (Nitschke and Those fires that do exceed the standards explosion crater documented in the Innes 2008, p. 853; McWethy et al. 2010, set forth in the fire management policy, world is along the north edge of p. 55). Increased fire frequency has the as well as all human-caused fires, are to Yellowstone Lake in an embayment potential to improve grizzly bear be suppressed (YNP 2014a, entire). known as Mary Bay; this 2.6-km (1.5-mi) habitat, with low to moderate severity National Forests manage natural diameter crater formed about 13,800 fires being the best. For example, fire wildfires to allow them to play their years ago (Lowenstein et al. 2005, p. 4). treatment most beneficial to huckleberry ‘‘natural ecological role’’ while We do not consider either nonexplosive shrubs is that which results in damage ‘‘minimizing negative effects to life, lava flow eruptions or a hydrothermal- to stems, but does little damage to investments and valuable resources’’ explosion likely within the foreseeable rhizomes (Simonin 2000, entire). High- (Caribou-Targhee NF 2005, p. 11; USDA future, but even if one of these did intensity fires may reduce grizzly bear FS 2011, pp. 3–4; Shoshone NF 2012, p. occur, the impact to grizzly bears would habitat quality immediately afterwards 2; Bridger-Teton NF 2015, p. 8). Future likely be localized, temporary, and by decreasing hiding cover and delaying fires are likely in the GYE system. would not threaten the viability of the regrowth of vegetation, although Overall, we agree with the YNP grizzly bear population in the GYE. Blanchard and Knight (1996, p. 121) conclusion (YNP 2005, Appendix H) found that increased production of forbs that grizzly bears are adaptable and will Earthquakes also occur in the region. and root crops in the years following the benefit from fires in the long term. The most notable earthquake in YNP’s high-intensity, widespread Yellowstone Wildfires often lead to an increase in recent history was a magnitude 7.5 in fires of 1988 benefited grizzly bears. ungulate food supplies and an increase 1959 (Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 3). Because grizzly bears have shown in ungulate numbers. While minor, Similarly, a magnitude 6.5 earthquake resiliency to changes in vegetation localized, short-term impacts are likely, hit within YNP in 1975 (Lowenstern et resulting from fires, we do not fire will not threaten the viability of the al. 2005, p. 3). The 1959 earthquake anticipate altered fire regimes predicted grizzly bear population in the GYE. killed 28 people, most of them in a under most climate change scenarios The GYE has also experienced several massive landslide triggered by the quake will have significant negative impacts exceedingly large volcanic eruptions in (Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 3). Such on grizzly bear survival or reproduction, the past 2.1 million years. Super massive landslides and other despite the potential effects on eruptions occurred 2.1 million, 1.3 earthquake-related impacts could also vegetation. Therefore, we conclude that million, and 640,000 years ago affect wildlife. But as with other the effects of climate change do not (Lowenstern et al. 2005, pp. 1–2). Such potential catastrophic events, the impact constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly a similar event would devastate the of a large earthquake to grizzly bears bear DPS now, nor are they anticipated GYE. While one could argue ‘‘we are would be localized, temporary, and to in the foreseeable future. due’’ for such an event, scientists with would not threaten the viability of the the Yellowstone Volcano Observatory Catastrophic Events grizzly bear in the GYE. maintain that they ‘‘see no evidence that Here we analyze a number of possible another cataclysmic eruption will occur We considered catastrophic and catastrophic events including fire, at Yellowstone in the foreseeable stochastic (random probability) events volcanic activity, and earthquake. Fire is future. . . [and that] recurrence that might reasonably occur in the GYE a natural part of the GYE system; intervals of these events are neither within the foreseeable future, to the however, 20th century forest regular nor predictable’’ (Lowenstern et extent possible. Most catastrophic management, which included extensive al. 2005, p. 6). We agree and do events discussed above are wildfire suppression efforts, promoted conclude that such an event is not likely unpredictable and unlikely to occur heightened potential for a large fire within the foreseeable future. within the foreseeable future. Other event. The 1988 fires, the largest More likely to occur is a nonexplosive events that might occur within the wildfires in YNP’s recorded history, lava flow eruption or a hydrothermal foreseeable future would likely cause burned a total of 3,213 km2 (1,240 mi2) explosion. There have been 30 only localized and temporary impacts or 36 percent of the Park. However, nonexplosive lava flows in YNP over that would not threaten the GYE grizzly large mobile species such as grizzly the last 640,000 years, most recently bear population.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30543

Public Support and Human Attitudes grizzly bears and humans will be million people visit the National Parks accomplished. and National Forests of the GYE each Public support is paramount to any Traditionally, residents of the GYE year, (USDA FS 2006a, pp. 176, 183, successful large carnivore conservation involved in resource extraction 184; Cain 2014, p. 46; Gunther 2014, p. program (Servheen 1998, p. 67). industries, such as loggers, miners, 47), the average number of conflicts per Historically, human attitudes played a livestock operators, and hunting guides, year between 1992 and 2010 was only primary role in grizzly bear population were opposed to land-use restrictions 150 (Gunther et al. 2012, p. 51). The declines by promoting a culture and that were perceived to place the needs current I&E working group has been a government framework that encouraged of the grizzly bear above human needs major component contributing to the excessive, unregulated, human-caused (Kellert 1994, p. 48; Kellert et al. 1996, successful recovery of the GYE grizzly mortality. Through government- p. 984). Surveys of these user groups bear population over the last 30 years. endorsed eradication programs and have shown that they tolerate large Both Federal and State management perceived threats to human life and predators when they are not seen as agencies are committed to continuing to economic livelihood, humans settling direct threats to their economic stability work with citizens, landowners, and the Western United States were able to or personal freedoms (Kellert et al. visitors within the GYE grizzly bear DPS effectively eliminate most known 1996, p. 985). Delisting could increase boundaries to address the human grizzly bear populations after only 100 acceptance of grizzly bears by giving sources of conflicts. years of westward expansion. local government and private citizens From 1980 through 2002, at least 36 We have seen a change in public more discretion in decisions that affect percent (72 out of 196) of human-caused perceptions and attitudes toward the them. Increased flexibility regarding mortalities may have been avoided if grizzly bear in the last several decades. livestock depredating bears in areas relevant I&E materials had been The same government that once outside of the PCA may increase presented, understood, and used by financially supported active tolerance for the grizzly bear by involved parties (Servheen et al. 2004, extermination of the bear now uses its landowners and livestock operators by p. 15). Educating back- and front- resources to protect the great symbol of potentially reducing the number of country users about the importance of American wildness. This change in conflict situations. securing potential bear attractants can government policy and practice is a Ultimately, the future of the grizzly reduce grizzly bear mortality risk. product of changing public attitudes bear will depend on the people who Similarly, adhering to about the grizzly bear. Although live, work, and recreate in grizzly bear recommendations, such as making attitudes about grizzly bears vary habitat and the willingness and ability noise, hiking with other people, and geographically and demographically, of these people to learn to coexist with hiking during daylight hours, can there has been a revival of positive the grizzly bear and to accept this further reduce grizzly bear mortalities attitudes toward the grizzly bear and its animal as a cohabitant of the land. Other by decreasing the likelihood that hikers conservation (Kellert et al. 1996, pp. management strategies are unlikely to will encounter bears. Hunter-related 983–986). succeed without effective and mortalities may involve hunters innovative public I&E programs. The defending their life because of carcasses Public outreach presents a unique objective of the I&E is to proactively that are left unattended or stored opportunity to effectively integrate address grizzly bear-human conflicts by improperly. Grizzly bear mortalities also human and ecological concerns into informing the public about the root occur when hunters mistake grizzly comprehensive programs that can causes of these conflicts and providing bears for black bears. All of these modify societal beliefs about, suggestions on how to prevent them circumstances can be further reduced perceptions of, and behaviors toward (YES 2016a, pp. 92–95). By increasing through I&E programs. grizzly bears. Attitudes toward wildlife awareness of grizzly bear behavior and Outside the PCA, State wildlife are shaped by numerous factors biology, we hope to enhance public agencies recognize that the key to including basic wildlife values, involvement and appreciation of the preventing grizzly bear-human conflicts biological and ecological understanding grizzly bear. In addition to public is providing I&E to the public. State of species, perceptions about individual outreach programs, the States have grizzly bear management plans also species, and specific interactions or implemented other programs to help acknowledge that this is the most experiences with species (Kellert 1994, reduce conflicts with the people that are effective long-term solution to grizzly pp. 44–48; Kellert et al. 1996, pp. 983– directly affected by grizzly bears. These bear-human conflicts and that adequate 986). I&E programs teach visitors and efforts include livestock carcass removal public outreach programs are residents about grizzly bear biology, programs, electric fencing subsidies for paramount to ongoing grizzly bear ecology, and behavior, and enhance apiaries and orchards, and sharing costs survival and successful coexistence appreciation for this large predator of bear-resistant garbage bins where with humans in the GYE so that the while dispelling myths about its appropriate. measures of the Act continue not to be temperament and feeding habits. Although some human-caused grizzly necessary. All three States have been Effective I&E programs have been an bear mortalities are unintentional (e.g., actively involved in I&E outreach for essential factor contributing to the vehicle collisions, trap mortality), over a decade, and their respective recovery of the GYE grizzly bear intentional deaths in response to grizzly management plans contain chapters population since its listing in 1975. By bear-human conflicts are responsible for detailing efforts to continue current identifying values common to certain the majority of known and probable programs and expand them when user groups, the I&E working group can human-caused mortalities. Fortunately, possible. For example, the WGFD disseminate appropriate materials and this source of mortality can be reduced created a formal grizzly bear-human provide workshops catered to these significantly if adequate I&E are conflict management program in July values. By providing general provided to people who live, work, and 1990 and has coordinated an extensive information to visitors and targeting recreate in occupied grizzly bear habitat I&E program since then. Similarly, since specific user groups about living and and proper management infrastructure 1993, MFWP has implemented working in grizzly bear country, we is in place (Linnell et al. 2001, p. 345). countless public outreach efforts to believe continued coexistence between For example, even though more than 3 minimize bear-human conflicts, and the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30544 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

IDFG has organized and implemented grizzly bear DPS now, nor is it becoming a threat to the GYE grizzly education programs and workshops anticipated to in the foreseeable future. bear population due to effective focused on private and public lands on outreach programs and established Summary of Factor E the western periphery of the grizzly regulatory frameworks. bear’s range. Factor E requires the Service to Essentially, the management response Compensating ranchers for losses consider other natural or man-made to all of these potential threats would be caused by grizzly bears is another factors affecting a species’ continued to limit human-caused mortality approach to build support for existence. The following factors through conflict prevention and coexistence between livestock operators warranted consideration as possible management to limit discretionary and grizzly bears. In cases of grizzly threats to the GYE grizzly bear mortality (see table 3 and Factors B and bear livestock depredation that have population: Effects due to: (1) Genetic C Combined discussion, above). Because been verified by USDA Animal and health, (2) potential changes in food of the manageable nature of these Plant Health Inspection Service’s resources, (3) climate change, (4) potential threats through conflict Wildlife Services, IDFG, MFWP, or catastrophic events, and (5) human prevention and response efforts and the WGFD, affected livestock owners are attitudes toward grizzly bear recovery. large area of suitable, secure habitat compensated. Since 1997, compensation We do not consider genetic concerns to within the GYE, we do not consider in Montana and Idaho has been be a threat for the following reasons: We them to be a threat to the GYE grizzly provided primarily by private have an effective population size more bear DPS now or in the foreseeable than four times that recommended by organizations, principally Defenders of future. the best available science; we know Wildlife. Since the program’s inception levels of genetic diversity have not Cumulative Effects of Factors A in 1997, the Defenders of Wildlife declined in the last century; we know Through E Grizzly Bear Compensation Trust paid current levels of genetic diversity are Many of the threats faced by grizzly over $400,000 to livestock operators in sufficient to support healthy bears are interrelated and could be the northern Rockies for confirmed and reproduction and survival; and we synergistic. Principal threats discussed probable livestock losses to grizzly bears know that genetic contribution from above include habitat loss through road (Edge 2013, entire). In 2013, the State of individual bears outside of the GYE will building and the resulting increased Montana passed legislation establishing not be necessary for the next several human access to grizzly bear habitat, a compensation program for direct decades (Miller and Waits 2003, p. human-caused mortality of grizzly livestock losses caused by grizzly bears 4338; Kamath et al. 2015, entire). We do bears, and the legal mechanisms that (MCA 2–15–3113). In light of this not anticipate that genetic issues will direct habitat and population legislation, Defenders of Wildlife affect grizzly bears in the future because management. The principal threats stopped their compensation program in of ongoing efforts to restore natural assessed in previous sections may Montana and redirected funds to other connectivity and a commitment to cumulatively impact the GYE grizzly conflict prevention programs. translocate animals in the future, if bear population beyond the scope of In Wyoming, compensation has needed, as provided in the 2016 each individual threat. For example, the always been paid directly by the State. Conservation Strategy. loss of whitebark pine could lead to Upon delisting, both Idaho and Because the GYE grizzly bear lower survival rates at the same time of Wyoming’s grizzly bear management population has increased or remained the year when grizzly bears are plans call for State funding of relatively constant in size during vulnerable to human-caused mortality compensation programs (Idaho’s Grizzly declines in whitebark pine seed from elk hunting. Alternatively, Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. production and other high-calorie foods expected increases in human 16; WGFD 2016, pp. 53–55). In Idaho, since the early 1990s, there is no populations across the Western United compensation funds would come from evidence that changes in food resources States and climate change both have the the secondary depredation account, and will become substantial impediments to potential to increase grizzly bear the program would be administered by the long-term persistence of the GYE conflicts and human-caused mortality. the appropriate IDFG Regional grizzly bear population. Changing Historically, each of these factors Landowner Sportsman Coordinators and climate conditions have the potential to impacted grizzly bears in the GYE and Regional Supervisors (Idaho’s Grizzly affect grizzly bear habitat with cumulatively acted to reduce their range Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. subsequent implications for grizzly and abundance over time. Today, these 16). In Wyoming, the WGFD will pay for bear-human conflicts. While we do not stressors have been adequately all compensable damage to agricultural consider the effects of climate change to minimized and ameliorated and do not products as provided by State law and be a direct threat to grizzly bear habitat impact the GYE grizzly bear population regulation (WGFD 2016, p. 58). The in the GYE, it could influence the with the same intensity. WGFD will continue efforts to establish timing and frequency of some grizzly While these numerous stressors on a long-term funding mechanism to bear-human conflicts with possible grizzly bear persistence are challenging compensate property owners for increases in grizzly bear mortality. This to conservation, our experience livestock and apiary losses caused by possible increase in grizzly bear demonstrates that it is possible for large grizzly bears. In Montana, long-term mortality risk is not expected to be a carnivore conservation to be compatible funding to compensate livestock owners threat because of coordinated total with them (Linnell et al. 2001, p. 48). for direct kills has been secured through mortality limits within the DMA (see Despite these risks, the best available the general fund. A long-term funding table 3 and Factors B and C Combined data indicate the GYE grizzly bear source has not been identified for discussion, above). Catastrophic fires, population’s trend has been relatively conflict prevention projects but is being volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes are constant with no evidence to date of a actively pursued. Based on the analysis unlikely to occur in the foreseeable decline, and range extent has continued provided above, we conclude that, future or would likely cause only to expand. We consider estimates of through the positive influence of the I&E localized and temporary impacts to the population trend (i.e., ‘‘lambda’’) to be program, public support and attitude GYE grizzly bear population. Finally, the ultimate metric to assess cumulative does not constitute a threat to the GYE we do not anticipate human attitudes impacts to the population. It reflects all

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30545

of the various stressors on the bear DPS and is not expected to become mortality as described under Factors A population. This calculation reflects a threat in the foreseeable future. and B and C Combined. The total mortality, changes in habitat When grizzly bears were listed in management infrastructure is already in quality, changes in population density, 1975, we identified human-caused place and described in the 2016 change in current range, displacement mortality, mainly ‘‘indiscriminate illegal Conservation Strategy. Because the effects, and so forth. In other words, killing’’ and management removals, as signatory agencies to the 2016 there will always be stressors acting on threats to the population under Factors Conservation Strategy are the same the GYE grizzly bear population that B and C Combined. In response, we agencies that have been managing lead to human-caused mortality or implemented demographic recovery grizzly bear habitat, population, and displacement, but if these are not criteria to maintain a minimum monitoring for the last 40 years, the causing the population to decline, we population size and a well-distributed management transition would be cannot consider them substantial. population and to establish total minimal. Existing regulatory mortality limits based on scientific data mechanisms will ensure the GYE grizzly Summary of Factors Affecting the and direct monitoring of the population. bear population continues to meet the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Grizzly Since implementing these criteria, the recovery criteria. Therefore, we Bear Population GYE grizzly bear population has tripled conclude that the existing regulatory The primary factors related to past in size and range (Eberhardt et al. 1994, mechanisms are adequate to maintain a habitat destruction and modification pp. 361–362; Knight and Blanchard healthy and recovered population of have been reduced through changes in 1995, pp. 2–11; Boyce et al. 2001, pp. grizzly bears into the foreseeable future management practices that have been 1–11; Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48; Pyare and do not pose a threat now, or in the formally incorporated into regulatory et al. 2004, pp. 5–6; Schwartz et al. foreseeable future. documents. Maintenance of the 1998 2006a, pp. 64–66; IGBST 2012, p. 34; Other factors under Factor E we baseline values for secure habitat, Bjornlie et al. 2014a, p. 184). Inside the considered that could become threats to developed sites on public lands, and DMA, the population has stabilized the GYE grizzly bear population livestock allotments inside the PCA will since 2002 and is exhibiting density- included: (1) Genetic health, (2) adequately ameliorate the multitude of dependent population regulation (van potential changes in food resources, (3) stressors on grizzly bear habitat such Manen et al. 2016, entire). Although climate change, (4) catastrophic events, that they do not become threats to the humans are still directly or indirectly and (5) human attitudes toward grizzly GYE grizzly bear population in the responsible for the majority of grizzly bear recovery. Essentially, the foreseeable future. We expect many of bear deaths, this source of mortality is management response to all of these the threats discussed under Factor A to effectively mitigated through science- potential threats would be to limit continue to occur at some level, but they based management, State regulations, human-caused mortality through are sufficiently ameliorated so they careful population monitoring, and conflict prevention and management as outreach efforts. Since 1975, no grizzly well as managing discretionary affect only a small proportion of the bears have been removed from the GYE mortality. Because of the manageable population. for commercial, recreational, scientific, nature of these potential threats through Upon delisting, the GYE National or education purposes. Although the conflict prevention and response efforts Forests and National Parks will States may choose to institute carefully and the large amount of suitable, secure continue to implement and maintain the regulated grizzly bear hunting outside of habitat within the GYE, we do not 1998 baseline. Together, these two the national parks, it would be within expect other natural or manmade factors Federal agencies manage 98 percent of scientifically determined sustainable to become threats to the GYE grizzly lands within the PCA and 88 percent of levels to maintain the population in the bear population. all suitable habitat within the DPS long term and would not occur if other Many of the threats faced by grizzly boundaries. Suitable habitat outside the sources of human-caused mortality were bears are interrelated and could PCA provides additional ecological excessive. Therefore, based on the best cumulatively impact the GYE grizzly resiliency and habitat redundancy to available information and State bear population through excessive allow the population to respond to regulatory mechanisms that will limit grizzly bear mortality. While these environmental changes. Habitat total mortality levels within the levels numerous stressors on grizzly bear protections specifically for grizzly bear detailed in tables 2 and 3 and that these persistence are challenging to conservation are not necessary here regulatory mechanisms will continue conservation, our experience because other regulatory mechanisms into the foreseeable future, we conclude demonstrates it is possible for large that limit development and motorized that disease, natural predation, and carnivore conservation to be compatible use are already in place for nearly 60 human-caused mortality do not with them (Linnell et al. 2001, p. 48), percent of suitable habitat outside the constitute threats now or in the particularly given the rigorous scientific PCA. These and other conservation foreseeable future. monitoring protocols established for the measures discussed in the USFS’s The importance of regulatory GYE grizzly bear population. There will Record of Decision (2006b) ensure mechanisms and effective wildlife always be stressors to the GYE grizzly threats to the GYE grizzly bear management infrastructure to large bear population, but if these are not population’s habitat outside the PCA carnivore conservation cannot be causing the population to decline, we will not become substantial enough to understated, as described under Factors do not consider them to threaten the threaten this population’s long-term A and B and C Combined (see Linnell long-term persistence of the population. persistence. Therefore, based on the best et al. 2001, p. 348). Before publication available information and expectation of this final rule, the regulatory Summary of and Responses to Peer that current management practices will mechanisms in place include National Review and Public Comment continue into the foreseeable future, we Park Superintendent’s Compendia, the In the proposed rule published on conclude that the present or threatened USFS Amendment for Grizzly Bear March 11, 2016 (81 FR 13174), we destruction, modification, or Habitat Conservation for the GYE requested that all interested parties curtailment of its habitat or range does National Forests, and State and Tribal submit written comments on the not constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly commission regulations controlling proposal by May 10, 2016. We also

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30546 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

contacted appropriate Federal and State including data since 2014 would not elsewhere in the lower 48 States is agencies, Tribes, scientific experts and have changed our assessment. In outside the scope of this rulemaking. organizations, and other interested response to specific public comments, While we respect the values and parties and invited them to comment on we did respond using the most recent opinions of all commenters, the Act the proposal. A newspaper notice available data. When talking about data, does not allow us to factor ethical inviting general public comment was we mean raw data that has not been objections to hunting into our delisting published in the Bozeman Chronicle on published. We did, however, include all decision. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act March 27, 2016, the Cody Enterprise relevant peer-reviewed publications specifies that we shall determine and the Casper Star-Tribune on March since 2014 and up to this final rule. whether any species is threatened or endangered because of any of the 29, 2016, and the Jackson Hole News & General Issues Guide on March 30, 2016. On following factors: (A) The present or September 7, 2016 (81 FR 61658), we Issue 1—Several commenters threatened destruction, modification, or reopened the comment period on the submitted comments on topics related curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) proposed rule until October 7, 2016, to to other issues not specific to the GYE overutilization for commercial, make available comments from five peer delisting proposal. These issues include recreational, scientific, or educational reviewers and additional supplemental (a) general criticism of the Act (litigation purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) material. We held two public meetings driving regulatory decisions, failure to the inadequacy of existing regulatory followed by public hearings, one in delist species exceeding recovery mechanisms; or (E) other natural or Cody, Wyoming (April 11, 2016), and criteria could jeopardize the Act, manmade factors affecting its continued another in Bozeman, Montana (April 12, suggested updates to the Act, funding of existence. Section 4(b)(1)(A) further 2016). All substantive information the Act should be reconsidered); (b) a specifies that we shall make such provided during the comment periods desire for removing colonial occupation determinations based solely on the best has either been incorporated directly and restoring the continent to self- scientific and commercial data into this final determination or sufficiency, which would allow wildlife available. addressed in the more specific to flourish; (c) simpler methods for The best scientific and commercial responses to comments below. uploading comments on regulations.gov; data available indicate that the GYE (d) the potentially negative impact of grizzly bear population is recovered and A number of commenters, including delisting on tourism and the local no longer meets the definition of a peer reviewers, Federal agencies, and ; (e) the negative impact to threatened or endangered species. the States, provided new information or ecosystem function if grizzly bears However, we acknowledge tolerance of clarifications on information presented decline and the resulting trophic grizzly bears remains a concern in some in the GYE proposed delisting rule (81 cascade, and other species’ areas. The 2016 Conservation Strategy FR 13174, March 11, 2016) and its conservation; and (f) delisting means the contains a strong Information and supporting documents. Categories of GYE is no longer a true wilderness and Education (I&E) program component new or clarified information include true wilderness areas must be protected that will continue efforts to improve corrections of discrepancies between the in perpetuity. local tolerance towards the species. proposed rule and draft 2016 Response—All of these comments are Conservation Strategy (e.g., table 2 outside the scope of this final delisting Delisting Process and Compliance With clarifies that mortality limits apply to rule and will not be addressed here. Applicable Laws, Regulations, and total mortality), the discussion of Substantive comments related to the Policies carrying capacity, our analysis of conservation of the other grizzly bear Issue 3—Several commenters density-independent and density- populations would be addressed during expressed concern that the opportunity dependent effects on GYE grizzly bear the Recovery Plan revision process for for public involvement was inadequate. population dynamics, our use of those populations, should we decide Specifically, the commenters requested ‘‘cause’’ versus ‘‘association’’ in our revisions are necessary. longer public comment periods, more density-dependent analysis, and range Issue 2—Several commenters public hearings at additional locations versus distribution (please see the expressed general concerns related to across the country, timely access to all Population Ecology—Background grizzly bear management including: (a) necessary data and materials presented section above). This new or clarified Consideration, analyses, and at an appropriately accessible level, and information has been incorporated, as commitments to recovery of grizzly bear accommodations for the visually appropriate, into this final rule, the populations elsewhere in the lower 48 impaired and those without internet 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, States; (b) ethical concerns related to access to ensure their ability to provide entire), and the Recovery Plan hunting generally or ‘‘trophy hunting’’ comments on the rule. supplement (USFWS 2017, entire). In of grizzly bears; and (c) delisting could Response—We appreciate the time the proposed and final rules, we prematurely halt the current and thought put into comments on the presented data as of 2014, and did not development of local tolerance towards proposed rule to delist the GYE grizzly update in the five-factor threats grizzly bears and their habitat bear. Collectively, we believe the public assessment because: (1) We would not expansion. had ample opportunity for input, as have been able to update all of the data Response—This listing action is explained below. We followed Service given the amount of time available to do specific to the grizzly bear population in practice and policy in managing the so between the proposed rule and this the GYE and, therefore, affects only the public comment process. We provided final rule, and (2) intensive monitoring legal status of grizzly bears within the multiple opportunities and avenues for has been ongoing since prior to 2014 GYE. In other words, when this public involvement. Notifications of (e.g., habitat management has been in regulation takes effect, grizzly bear comment periods, meetings, and compliance with the 1998 baseline, the populations occurring outside of the hearings were provided in the proposed three demographic recovery criteria boundary of the GYE DPS will remain rule, which was published in the have been maintained, and monitoring listed as a threatened species under the Federal Register, posted on our Web has not detected a change in the ESA. Therefore, consideration and site, and publicized in newspapers. population trajectory); therefore, analyses of grizzly bear populations These postings were compliant with the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30547

requirements of Section 508 of the proposed rule, including an opportunity documentation, that broaden our Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended to comment on its content in light of the understanding of whether grizzly bears (29 U.S.C. 794(d)). We also provided revised State regulatory mechanisms, meet the definition of a threatened or access information for persons using a the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy, endangered species under the Act. We telecommunications device. and the peer review. The public and considered all scientific and commercial The public comment period on the peer reviewers also had an opportunity information included in the public proposed rule was open for a total of 90 to provide feedback on the draft 2016 comments, and incorporated this days, during which time we received Conservation Strategy during the same information into this final rule as more than 665,000 comments. We public comment periods as the appropriate. offered a variety of options for proposed rule. We made no promises to Issue 6—We received public submitting comments; the public could allow additional comment from the comments that the public opposed the submit their comments electronically, public at the YES meetings. Changes to previous delisting effort and encouraged using a specified Web site, or in hard the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy us to address all claims made in copy, via U.S. mail or hand delivery. took into account public comments. The challenges to the 2007 proposed As mentioned above, we also held final rule and the final 2016 delisting including issues related to: two public meetings and public Conservation Strategy are a logical Habitat loss, current habitat protections, hearings in Cody, WY, and Bozeman, outgrowth of the considerations in the funding for post-delisting conservation MT, where verbal or written comments peer review and in the more than efforts, lag effects, failure to account for could be submitted. These two cities 665,000 public comments we received. hunting mortality, political interference, were selected because of their proximity Changes to the 2016 Conservation peer review, and disease and predation. to the GYE. We declined to hold Strategy were made to remove Response—All relevant topics related additional public hearings because we inconsistency with the proposed rule to these comments are addressed in the satisfied section 4(b)(5)(E)’s statutory and to improve clarity, but there were specific issues below. requirement that we hold at least one not significant changes to the tenets of Issue 7—Multiple commenters public hearing and the substantial cost the strategy from the draft to final. We requested we release the National associated with conducting public do not believe that fundamental issues Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) hearings. Although we appreciate the are still in debate; we believe the best documentation associated with the public’s desire to give public testimony, available science clearly shows that the proposed rule to delist the GYE oral and written comments are given the GYE population is recovered. population of grizzly bears. same consideration in our process. We Issue 5—Commenters expressed Response—This delisting rule is again provided access information for concerns that the consideration the promulgated under section 4(a) of the persons using a telecommunications Service gives public comments is a Act and consequently is exempt from device. In our notifications of comment flawed process designed to ensure that NEPA procedures. Our decision that periods, meetings, and hearings, we only some comments are considered. NEPA does not apply under section 4(a) stated that persons with disabilities They stated that the Service considers is based on the reasoning in Pacific wanting to participate in a public only comments that are based on a Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d meeting or hearing, including the need scientific rationale and ignores those 829 (6th Cir. 1981) that we cannot for American Sign Language or English that were based on general public consider environmental impacts beyond as a second language interpreter, could opinion or contained insubstantial those addressed by the five factors be accommodated. content, and further suggested we did described in section 4(a) and must use Issue 4—Commenters suggested that a not consider these comments because only the best scientific and commercial second round of peer review and we disagreed with their content. Other data available in evaluating those additional public comment period was commenters requested a more factors. After this ruling, we published needed once a final 2016 Conservation prominent role in the recovery and a determination in the Federal Register Strategy and final regulatory delisting process and more opportunity (48 FR 49244, October 25, 1983). mechanisms were available; they noted to communicate concern for the future Therefore, this delisting decision is that reviewers were asked to answer of the species. based solely on the five-factor analysis questions about the adequacy of Response—We fully considered and described in section 4(a), and there is no regulatory mechanisms without these evaluated all public comments received NEPA documentation required. final documents, casting doubt on the during the comment periods and public Issue 8—Several commenters ‘‘utility and accuracy’’ of their review hearings, and evaluated all comments, expressed concerns over a perceived and that ‘‘significant changes’’ being whether they agree with or disagree lack of collaboration among the Service made to the draft 2016 Conservation with our proposal. and other stakeholders in the delisting Strategy released in March 2016 could The Act requires the Service to make process and requested increased alter the opinion of peer reviewers and a decision based solely on the best collaboration among the Service, NGOs, the public on the adequacy of the available scientific and commercial general public, Tribes, States, management described in these information available (section Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team documents. Some commenters referred 4(b)(1)(A)) when determining if a (IGBST), National Park Service (NPS), to previous promises at Yellowstone species meets the definition of U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and Canada. Ecosystem Subcommittee (YES) endangered or threatened. Substantive Commenters suggested that increased meetings for additional public comment comments raising scientific, legal, and collaboration would allow for the on the final 2016 Conservation Strategy. policy issues are the most relevant for synchronization of multiple Finally, one commenter could not consideration in our determination. We conservation efforts prior to delisting, understand why the Service re-released focused our attention on unique ensure the concerns of all associated a proposed rule for additional public comments that provide substantive organizations are addressed, and comment with ‘‘fundamental issues still feedback on potential errors or enhance support for the proposal. in debate and unresolved.’’ oversights in our analyses. We Commenters expressed concerns that Response—We gave the public two appreciate and consider additional data the long-term conservation efforts will opportunities to comment on the or substantive remarks, with supporting be diminished if the species is delisted

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30548 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

on the current timeline without grizzly bear population and provide this process, and that we purposefully sufficient collaboration among partners. information to the YGCC and the States selected reviewers that were not grizzly They especially expressed that we so that the States may make bear experts, since the majority of should more adequately address the scientifically informed decisions grizzly bear experts would have been NPS’ concerns, that the NPS should regarding population management. opposed to our proposed action, have a larger role in the delisting Please see the 2016 Conservation according to a survey from Ohio State decision, and that the NPS should have Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 96–103) at University. Another commenter greater involvement in species https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/ suggested that we could not legally use management outside of (and especially species/mammals/grizzly/ a contractor for the peer review process adjacent to) park boundaries. ConservationStrategy because: (1) The contractor is not Response—The Service has regularly grizzlybearGYA.pdf for further details disclosing the process to the public; (2) coordinated with a wide variety of about membership and primary we cannot outsource the preparation of stakeholders through the more than 40 activities of the YGCC. Although the the Administrative Record; and (3) it years of the grizzly bear recovery proposed and final rules are solely violates a 2004 OMB policy, ‘‘Final program. Please see the Recovery within the purview of the Service, Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Planning and Implementation section of conservation strategies serve as guiding Review’’ (70 FR 2664, January 14, 2005), this rule for a description of the role of documents for post-delisting and a 1994 Service policy, ‘‘Interagency Federal, Tribal, State, and local agencies management and monitoring by the Policy for Peer Review in ESA involved in the formal interagency multiple State and Federal agencies Activities’’ (59 FR 34270, July 1, 1994). groups that collaboratively help guide responsible for these tasks. The One commenter suggested that only a grizzly bear management in the GYE. In Conservation Strategy ensures that the National Academy of Sciences panel addition, these agencies worked with regulatory mechanisms and coordinated would be adequate for performing local landowners, NGOs, and other management that led to recovery will be review of the rule. interested parties to implement the 1993 maintained following delisting. Post Third, commenters stated that we did Recovery Plan. It is through these delisting, mortality management will be not follow up with the peer reviewers to successful partnerships that the GYE the responsibility of State fish and ask them additional questions, noting has recovered and no longer meets the wildlife agencies. that not doing so suggested that we did definition of a threatened or endangered Accordingly, it is appropriate that not give the peer review or our delisting species. These important partnerships they would be responsible for decision enough thought. Another will continue through the articulating their post-delisting commenter suggested that this situation implementation of the 2016 management plans. Likewise the implied the need for another round of Conservation Strategy. Federal land management agencies will peer review (see Issue 4). Fourth, one The Service appreciates the long- be responsible for habitat management. commenter took issue with the fact that standing efforts of all of our partners in Our role is to analyze these we did not share with the public which the GYE’s recovery; however, the commitments and ensure they will peer reviewer authored each review. decision on whether or not to list, delist, allow the species to remain recovered. Finally, one commenter thought we did or reclassify species under the Act Please see Issue 5 for further discussion not give the peer reviewers enough time remains the sole regulatory about the processing and consideration to review the proposed rule and responsibility of our agency. The NPS of public comments. only has jurisdiction to manage natural Issue 10—Many commenters raised associated documents. resources within the Park boundaries, concerns about our peer review process. Response—To ensure the quality and but often collaborates with adjacent First, commenters expressed doubt as to credibility of the scientific information landowners on wildlife-specific issues. the five peer reviewers’ professional we use to make decisions, we follow a NPS manages approximately 39 percent ability to comment on the proposed rule formal ‘‘peer review’’ process for of lands within the PCA. Please see since only one peer reviewer specialized influential scientific documents. This Issue 65 for a discussion about hunting in grizzly bears, while the other four process follows the guidelines for on and adjacent to NPS lands and Issue focused on polar bears or black bears, Federal agencies spelled out in the 82 about inclusion of the NPS in annual which differ ecologically and Office of Management and Budget meetings with the States allocating behaviorally. One commenter asked (OMB) ‘‘Final Information Quality discretionary mortality. why Dr. David Mattson was not asked Bulletin for Peer Review’’ (70 FR 2664, Issue 9—Commenters expressed to review. January 14, 2005). The Service updated confusion and concerns over the Second, commenters expressed its policy guidance for conducting such functionality and role of the YES and concern about peer reviewer selection scientific peer reviews on listing and the YGCC. Commenters were concerned and suggested we had not adequately recovery actions in August 2016; that the role and influence in the disclosed this process. Some however, the proposed rule was sent out delisting process given to these commenters suggested that our peer for peer review prior to that new policy. committees far outweighed that of the reviewers had a conflict of interest The 2005 guidelines leave selection of public and other organizations. because the Service’s contractor who an appropriate peer review mechanism Response—Upon delisting, the YGCC facilitated their selection works in the up to the agency’s discretion, but will take the place of YES. Whereas the oil and gas industry rather than wildlife require the process to be transparent, primary objective of YES was science, while other commenters that reviewers possess the necessary interagency coordination to achieve suggested that the peer reviewers had a expertise, and that the process addresses recovery, the primary objective of the conflict of interest since they all hunt or reviewers’ potential conflicts of interest YGCC will be interagency coordination trap. Some commenters claimed that and independence from the agency. The to maintain a recovered grizzly bear documents released under the Freedom names of reviewers may be disclosed population in the GYE through of Information Act indicated we ‘‘hand- publicly or may remain anonymous; implementation of the 2016 picked reviewers’’ to ensure a favorable however, anonymous reviews are Conservation Strategy. The IGBST will review, subverting the validity and standard practice within the Service in continue their monitoring of the GYE independence of the peer review order to encourage candor.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30549

We chose to contract the peer review advice on reasonableness of judgments recovery coordinator’s studies were out due to the controversial nature of made from the scientific evidence; biased and not open to peer or public our decision. Nothing in the current ensure that scientific uncertainties are review and that he was unable to be Service peer review guidance and policy clearly identified and characterized, and objective regarding the delisting; (3) prohibits the Service from doing so. As that potential implications of Service managers bullied staff biologists part of this process, we drafted a uncertainties for the technical to delist the GYE grizzly bear statement of work to the peer-review conclusions drawn are clear; and population; (4) there was political contractor, which included criteria: provide advice on the overall strengths interference with the 2015 IGBST report ‘‘The independent peer reviewers shall and limitations of the scientific data on grizzly bear mortality; (5) the Service be experienced senior-level ecologists, used in the document. is a pro-hunting organization and bear biologists, or population modelers, The peer reviewers were asked to Service staff involved in the delisting and bear managers who have previously provide comments within the open process have ties to hunting conducted similar reviews or regularly public comment period to allow for the organizations, oil and gas companies, or provided reviews of research and public to access and comment on, initiatives working to exterminate conservation articles for the scientific should they choose, the peer reviewers’ wolves; (6) the States pressured the literature. Reviewers must be well- comments. No peer reviewers requested Service to use population estimates that versed in the demographic management additional time for review. The peer produce the maximum number of bears; of mammals, preferably bears or other reviewer comments were posted in (7) the Service is only proposing to carnivores.’’ We also identified potential regulations.gov under the docket for this delist the GYE population (and not the conflicts of interest, including: rulemaking. As previously noted, the ‘‘larger northern population’’) because employment or affiliation with the first comment period was open for 60 of the influence of hunting, oil, gas, Service, the States of Montana, days, and a second comment period was mining, and property development Wyoming, or Idaho, the IGBST, or the open for an additional 30 days, which lobbies; (8) industrial interests on the Western Governors Association; those provided ample time for the public to YES/YGCC inappropriately influenced who have offered a public opinion or a review the proposed rule and the delisting proposal and will statement either for or against delisting; supplemental documents and provide inappropriately influence any future and those who are directly or indirectly comments. Once the process is changes to the 2016 Conservation employed by or associated in any way complete, we take into consideration the Strategy; and (9) a 2015 Union of with any organization that has either context of all comments, including Concerned Scientists Report suggested a litigated the Federal Government those from peer reviewers, in our dearth of ‘‘scientific integrity’’ at the concerning grizzly bears or wolves or evaluation of the substantive FWS due to ‘‘political interference.’’ taken a position on one side or the other information provided. Lastly, some commenters suggested about recovery and delisting of grizzly Using a contractor for peer review that the delisting decision was a bears or wolves. Our statement of work does not indicate we are outsourcing the ‘‘political stunt to weaken the also included topics and questions for administrative record for this decision, Endangered Species Act,’’ referencing the reviewers to consider and as the administrative record comprises recently proposed legislation that would deliverables, including a proposed many documents throughout the listing prevent litigation from overturning timeline, original scientific reviews, and determination process and compilation delisting decisions, thus ‘‘denying a Complete Official Record. of the administrative record remains the opponents [of delisting] due process.’’ The contractor then selected the Service’s obligation. The Service is On the other hand, one commenter reviewers based on our statement of maintaining the decision file and will be suggested that delisting the grizzly bears work. We do not know why any preparing an administrative record per was a stunt to save the Act from particular person was not chosen, such the Department of the Interior’s legislative destruction. as Dr. David Mattson; however, we do guidance for compiling decision files Conversely, a number of commenters know that those reviewers chosen did and administrative records (282 FW 5). expressed support for the Service’s meet the above criteria. Neither we nor Issue 11—Many commenters scientific integrity and the validity and the contractor handpicked reviewers expressed general concern that this rule breadth of the data the Service used in hoping to get a favorable review, as that to delist the GYE grizzly bear the decision-making process. would be counterproductive to the Act’s population allowed ‘‘politics and Response—There is no data or requirements that we base our decisions private interests to trump science,’’ that evidence of political interference or based on the best available data. we have been ‘‘bought,’’ that we are bias. While we respect and understand Peer reviewers are generally selected ‘‘biased,’’ that our process is ‘‘politically that some members of the public for their expertise on the particular driven,’’ and that we have rushed the disapprove of this decision, it is the species, closely related species, relevant process for the purposes of political appropriate decision because the GYE threats or conservation actions, or other expediency (e.g., by forgoing public grizzly bear no longer meets the relevant topics (e.g., landscape ecology). involvement on the 2016 Conservation definition of a threatened or endangered To the extent that a member of the Strategy and sacrificing needed updates species, based on a thorough analysis of National Academy of Science has to state management plans). the best available scientific and relevant expertise, they could be a peer Commenters suggested the need for a commercial information. We are reviewer, but that organization is not the ‘‘scientific integrity review’’ into compelled to make this delisting only source of adequate or appropriate potentially undue political influence on decision under the statutory peer review. Peer reviewers were asked the Service’s decision-making process. requirements of the Act. Furthermore, not to provide recommendations on the Claims of this inappropriate influence the IGBST, as well as senior scientists species’ listing determination; rather included that: (1) The Service’s Director in the agency, recommended to senior they were asked to comment specifically and State governors used ‘‘under the leadership within the agency that on the quality of any information and table agreements’’ to set the mortality moving forward with delisting was analyses used or relied on in the limits in the rule, recovery plan scientifically appropriate. We will document; identify oversights, supplement, and 2016 Conservation respond to each specific claim of undue omissions, and inconsistencies; provide Strategy; (2) the former grizzly bear influence below.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30550 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

First, commenters claimed that the acknowledges that its former grizzly American people. While hunting can be Service’s Director and State governors bear coordinator, Dr. Chris Servheen, an essential element of conserving used ‘‘under the table agreements’’ to set may have concluded that the Service wildlife and their habitats and can be a the mortality limits in the rule, recovery did not always agree with his benefit that wildlife provide to the plan supplement, and 2016 recommendations. However, there was American people, the Service considers Conservation Strategy. The mortality no ‘‘bullying.’’ The delisting a broad range of factors and benefits limits are set in the recovery plan recommendation came from staff when managing species and making supplement (demographic recovery biologists. There were a number of decisions supportive of this mission. criterion #3) and carried over into this issues worked out between Serve staff Furthermore, very little of the Service’s rule and the 2016 Conservation Strategy. and management. Internal agency budget and none of the Endangered Section 4 of the Act provides direction disagreement and debate are expected Species program’s budget comes from for developing and implementing with a delisting rule for a controversial hunting revenue. While many Service endangered species recovery. The species like grizzly bears. The decision staff support or contribute to a variety Section gives the Service the ability to to delist the GYE population of grizzly of causes in their personal capacity, procure the services of appropriate bears was based on the best available Service ethics rules and guidelines (for public and private agencies and scientific and commercial data example, 212 FW 1 through11), institutions, and other qualified available. Service biologists presented Departmental Regulations (for example, persons. We discussed mortality limits this information, including data on 5 CFR 3501.105), and government-wide with the States because they are the grizzly population trends and State laws and regulations (for example, 18 agencies that will be directly management regulations, to Service U.S.C. Sections 201–209; 5 CFR responsible for implementing them. leadership to inform their decision- 2635.502) ensure these affiliations do More importantly, the mortality limits making about the status of grizzly bears not impact or bias their decision-making in the recovery criteria are scientifically in the GYE. The Service’s decision- and management. defensible and will insure that the GYE making process provides opportunity Sixth, commenters claimed that the grizzly bear population within the DMA for staff biologists who are species States pressured the Service to use will be maintained around the 2002 to experts to outline all relevant population estimates that produce the 2014 population size (see Issue 66 for information, ask questions, and provide maximum number of bears. This further discussion on the mortality recommendations. unsupported accusation is false. The rates). Throughout the more than 40 Fourth, commenters claimed that population estimates the Service used in there was political interference with the years of grizzly bear recovery, the its delisting determination (the model- 2015 IGBST report on grizzly bear Service has collaborated closely with averaged Chao2 population estimator) is mortality because publication of the state agencies to ensure positive based on the best available commercial report was delayed. There is no annual conservation outcomes for grizzly bears and scientific data available and not due date for this report, and while it is and effective, coordinated management. States’ individual preferences. usually published midsummer, This collaboration is partly responsible Moreover, the model-averaged Chao2 sometimes there are delays. The delays for a recovered GYE grizzly bear population estimator is a relatively population. This collaboration in the release of the 2015 IGBST report conservative estimate of the number of continued throughout the delisting on grizzly bear mortality were not a bears on the landscape in the GYE and process to ensure effective post-delisting result of political interference but a likely underestimates the actual number management and will persist after combination of the IGBST team leader of bears (Schwartz et al. 2008, figure 5). delisting through the Yellowstone being on detail as the Acting Center Other population estimators considered Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee. Director of the USGS Northern Rocky Second, commenters suggested that Mountain Science Center for three by the Service (see Issues 28 and 31), the former grizzly bear coordinator’s months, transitions within the IGBST, but determined not to be accurate in studies were biased and not open to and scientific presentations, which detecting population trend, yielded peer or public review and that he was delayed finalization of the report. We higher population numbers. unable to be objective regarding the had all relevant data from this report Seventh, commenters claimed that the delisting. The delisting determination available to inform our decision-making Service is only proposing to delist the used the best available scientific and process about the status of grizzly bears. GYE population (and not the ‘‘larger commercial data to come to the Considering the relevant content of this northern population’’) because of the conclusion that grizzly bears should be report, we believe that grizzly bears are influence of hunting, oil, gas, mining, removed from the list of threatened and recovered and will remain so for the and property development lobbies. The endangered wildlife and plants. The foreseeable future. recovery of grizzly bears has always Service relied on literature from a broad Fifth, commenters suggested that the been focused around six different range of scientists; this literature Service is a pro-hunting organization recovery zones. Each recovery zone has included peer-reviewed studies from Dr. and Service staff involved in the different recovery needs and criteria Chris Servheen, former grizzly bear delisting process have ties to hunting based on the biology of the species in recovery coordinator for the Service, but organizations, oil and gas companies, or that area and the relevant stressors. also research from other scientists. This initiatives working to exterminate Thus, delisting of the bears in each broad range of peer-reviewed sources wolves. The Service supports hunting as recovery zone may occur on a different indicated that grizzly bears in the GYE a form of wildlife-dependent recreation timeline as the populations meet unique were recovered and would remain so and as a useful element in a suite of recovery criteria. Based purely on the after delisting. management strategies. However, the best available scientific and commercial Third, commenters claimed that Service is not an agency whose purpose data available, the population of grizzly Service managers bullied staff biologists is to promote hunting or hunting bears in the GYE was the first to achieve to delist the GYE grizzly bear interests; the Service mission is working recovery and warrant delisting. As other population. Commenters provided no with others to conserve, protect, and populations achieve this milestone, as evidence of any alleged ‘‘bullying’’ of enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their determined by the best available staff biologists. The Service habitats for the continuing benefit of the scientific and commercial data

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30551

available, the Service will proceed with factor for making public policies.’’ In within the GYE DPS boundaries. proposing to delist these populations. addition, delisting decisions are subject Seventy-two percent of the area Eighth, commenters suggested that to scientific peer review according to occupied occurs within areas we industrial interests on the YES/YGCC the Service’s peer review policy set consider suitable habitat, 28 percent of inappropriately influenced the delisting forth in the Office of Management and the area occupied is in unsuitable proposal and will inappropriately Budget ‘‘Final Information Quality habitat, and 77 percent of occupancy is influence any future changes to the 2016 Bulletin for Peer Review’’ (70 FR 2664, within the DMA boundaries. The DMA Conservation Strategy. The Service has January 14, 2005). The Service is provides more than enough suitable regularly coordinated with a wide committed to using the best available habitat for a large, robust, healthy, and variety of stakeholders through the more scientific and commercial data available viable population and will continue to than 40 years of the grizzly bear in our delisting decisions, as required do so for the foreseeable future. Put recovery program. Please see the by the Endangered Species Act. For all another way, the DMA contains Recovery Planning and Implementation of these reasons, the Service does not sufficient numbers and distribution of section of the final rule for a description believe a scientific integrity review is reproductive individuals to maintain of the role of Federal, Tribal, State, and needed. the population’s recovered status (i.e., local agencies involved in the formal The Service has been considering does not meet the definition of a interagency groups that collaboratively delisting of the GYE grizzly bear threatened or endangered species). help guide grizzly bear management in population for over a decade and Additional occupancy beyond this area the GYE. In addition, these agencies previously published a final rule to is above what is needed to maintain worked with local landowners, NGOs, delist this population in 2007 (72 FR recovery. Therefore, we believe focusing and other interested parties to 14866, March 29, 2007). As described in on this area is a reasonable and implement the 1993 Recovery Plan. The the Background section, that final biologically rational approach. Service also met with a broad variety of determination was vacated by the To the extent that this comment stakeholders throughout the delisting Montana district court in Greater requests consideration of threats outside process, including environmental Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et of the suitable habitat, we respond as NGOs. It is through these successful al., 672 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009), follows (considering Factors A, B, C, D, partnerships that the GYE has recovered and the vacatur was affirmed by the and E). Although grizzly bears once and no longer meets the definition of a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in occurred throughout the area within the threatened or endangered species. These Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. GYE DPS boundaries (Stebler 1972, pp. important partnerships will continue Servheen, et al., 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 297–299), records indicate that even in through the implementation of the 2016 2011). During those intervening years, the early 19th century, grizzly bears Conservation Strategy to ensure a wide the Service has continued to work with were less common in these eastern variety of interested parties can its partners and the public to ensure prairie habitats than in mountainous contribute to the continued success of GYE grizzly recovery. This delisting rule areas to the west and south (Rollins grizzly bear management following is the culmination of a process that 1935, p. 191; Wade 1947, p. 444). delisting. In addition, any changes to began over a decade ago, and it is by no Today, these habitats are no longer the 2016 Conservation Strategy will be means rushed. biologically suitable for grizzly bears as open to public comment. they lack adequate natural food Geographic Scope of Recovery and Ninth, commenters referenced a 2015 resources and land use changes have Delisting Issues Union of Concerned Scientists Report, altered the suitability of the habitat for which suggested a dearth of ‘‘scientific Issue 12—The Service received grizzly bear persistence (considering integrity’’ at the FWS due to ‘‘political comments indicating that the proposed Factors A, B, C, D, and E). These interference.’’ The Union of Concerned habitat protections and demographic marginal, peripheral areas are either Scientists surveyed scientists at four standards are too limited in geographic unoccupied or might in some instances federal agencies, including the Service, scope. Commenters took specific issue have limited occupancy due to dispersal on ‘‘the state of scientific integrity at with the scope of our threats, or ‘‘five from core source population within the their agencies, their ability to factor’’ analysis. They claimed that we PCA, DMA, and suitable habitat. While communicate with colleagues and the failed to fulfill the requirements in grizzly bears that do establish or move public, and overall agency section 4(a)(1) of the Act since we only into these unsuitable habitats will face effectiveness’’ (Union of Concerned analyzed the importance of threats a reduced probability of persistence Scientists 2015, p. 4). This survey inside the DMA; commenters suggested (considering Factors A, B, C, D, and E), included biologists Service wide and that the threats analysis should not be these bears will constitute a small did not include information on the ‘‘limited to suitable habitat.’’ These percentage of the population and, thus, particular work being conducted by commenters requested we provide a are of minimal importance to the survey participants. It did not directly more thorough analysis that considers of the overall population. address grizzly bears. The Service has a threats and their impact on grizzly bears Such peripheral impacts will not rigorous policy on scientific integrity in the entire GYE DPS because invisible compromise the viability of the GYE that guides the agency’s work and boundaries cannot be used to classify population. Impacts to GYE bears in decision-making (212 FW 7). The policy the health of a population. unsuitable habitat will not and do not states, ‘‘Scientific and scholarly Response—Our threats analysis singularly, or in combination with other information that we consider in our focused on those portions of grizzly bear factors, cause the GYE population to decision-making must be robust, of the range that currently contribute become in danger of extinction nor highest quality, and the result of the meaningfully to the GYE grizzly bear likely to become so within the most rigorous scientific and scholarly population or have the potential to foreseeable future in all or a significant processes as can be achieved. Most contribute in the foreseeable future (i.e., portion of its range. importantly, it must be trustworthy. We suitable habitat, as defined and Issue 13—Many commenters, must establish and maintain integrity in discussed in the Suitable Habitat including some with differing our scientific and scholarly activities section). In total, grizzly bears currently viewpoints on the status of the Northern because this information is a critical occupy 58,314 km2 (22,515 mi2) of land Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30552 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

grizzly bear population, wanted Response—The term range generally memorandum of April 29, 1994, clarification on what delisting for the encompasses the outer limits of a Government-to-Government Relations GYE would mean for other grizzly bear species’ historical or current occupancy with Native American Tribal populations. One commenter requested based on the data from reliable Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, clarification on how this rule would published scientific literature, and the DOI manual at 512 DM 2, we distinguish grizzly bears that are a part submitted manuscripts, and species’ readily acknowledge our responsibility of the GYE population from those who experts; occurrence data; and analysis. for meaningful communication with might be part of a different population In the proposed rule we used Federal Tribes. In accordance with located in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming. distribution, occupancy, occurrence, Secretarial Order 3206 (American Response—Upon delisting of the GYE and current range interchangeably, and Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal grizzly bear population, all grizzly bears for this final rule we consistently use Trust Responsibilities, and the in the lower 48 outside of the GYE DPS current range. We also discuss historical Endangered Species Act), we also boundaries will continue to be fully range in this final rule. A species may acknowledge and continuously work to protected under the Act. DNA samples be distributed in greater or lesser fulfill our responsibilities to Tribes to are opportunistically collected from all numbers within its current range, solicit and consider information from grizzly bears trapped for research or depending on season, food availability, Tribes in our decision-making management and all known mortalities. or other biological needs. Therefore, we processes, to develop programs for Genetic differences between GYE grizzly continue to use the term distribution as healthy ecosystems, to recognize that bears and other grizzly bear populations it relates to food resources and in Tribal lands are not subject to the same allow us to detect immigration and reference to recovery criterion #2 controls as Federal public lands, to emigration from the GYE. As stated in (relating to the number of bear remain sensitive to Tribal culture, and Issue 2, the management and potential management units occupied by females to make information available to Tribes. status of other grizzly bear populations with young). We did consider the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and while we is outside the scope of this final rule. Working With Tribes and Tribal Issues That said, a draft Environmental Impact understand the concerns tribes have Issue 15—A number of commenters Statement (EIS) that examines recovery voiced about the potential hunting of stated that (a) Native American interests options for grizzly bears in the North grizzly bears, we do not agree that this and concerns were not adequately Cascades was published in the Federal final rule will burden religious practice addressed in the rule; (b) more than 100 to the extent that religious freedoms are Register on January 13, 2017 (82 FR Tribal nations oppose the delisting; (c) 4336). Between 1993 and 1999, we violated because bears will still exist on we did not adequately consider the the landscape and will be managed by issued warranted but precluded findings cultural, spiritual, and ecological to reclassify grizzly bears as endangered Tribes on Tribal lands. significance of the grizzly bear to Native We regularly work with directly in the Cabinet-Yaak (58 FR 8250–8251, American Tribes, thus violating affected Tribes as active participants in February 12, 1993; 64 FR 26725–26733, Executive Orders, Secretarial Orders, recovery and management of the GYE May 17, 1999), and the Selkirk and Federal laws (including the grizzly bear. The Northern Arapahoe Ecosystems (64 FR 26725–26733, May American Indian Religious Freedom and Eastern Shoshone Tribes are 17, 1999). However, as of 2014, both the Act); (d) we did not appropriately participants in the YES of the IGBC as Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak populations analyze the significance of Tribal they manage nearly 4 percent of suitable were reclassified as threatened (79 FR territory and treaty rights in the GYE, habitat (1,360 km2 (525 mi2), although 72440, December 5, 2014) because of thus violating Tribal sovereignty; and (e) no Tribally managed land occurs within improving population trends (79 FR we did not fulfill our obligation under the PCA (Primary Conservation Area). 72488). However, the Service’s Executive Order 13175 to consult with The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes also determination about Cabinet-Yaak bears the Tribes on the proposed rule. In participate in the YES, although they do has been challenged in Alliance for the addition, several commenters not manage any suitable habitat. We Wild Rockies v. Jewell, et al., case no questioned whether all Federally also recognized our partnership with 9:16–cv–00021 (D. Mont.) The NCDE recognized Tribes west of the Tribal agencies and others in the 2016 grizzly bear population is likely Mississippi River (including Canadian Conservation Strategy. The YGCC will biologically recovered; the IGBC NCDE Tribes) had been properly contacted, be the interagency group coordinating subcommittee drafted a Conservation asserting that communications through implementation of the 2016 Strategy in 2013 that was published by form letters, emails, etc., are not Conservation Strategy and will include the Service in the Federal Register for sufficient to meet the intent of and representatives from the Shoshone- public comment and peer review. requirement for face-to-face and Bannock, Northern Arapahoe, and Issue 14—One commenter requested government-to-government Eastern Shoshone Tribes. Grizzly bear additional clarification on how we consultation. Furthermore, commenters hunting on the Wind River Reservation define range and distribution of grizzly stated that all consultations should have will be at the discretion of these bears. He asked how heavily an area been conducted prior to publishing the sovereign Tribes. needs to be used to be considered part proposed rule; commenters suggested Beginning in April 2014, the Service of a species’ range and what disqualifies that the delisting process should be sent consultation invitation letters via an area from being part of a species’ halted until these formal consultations registered mail to the four Tribes having range (e.g., when Colorado was removed are completed. One commenter treaty interests in the proposed GYE from the species’ identified range a few suggested the Service collaborate with grizzly bear delisting area: The Northern decades ago). This commenter also Tribal nations prior to delisting to Arapaho, Eastern Shoshone, asked whether the term ‘‘distribution’’ is develop cooperative management plans Northwestern Band of the Shoshone synonymous with ‘‘range,’’ how for grizzly bear conservation and Nation, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. distribution is defined, and how much reintroduction on Tribal lands. Over the next year the Service was made of the current GYE population is Response—We take our relationships aware of many more Tribes having an contained within the current with Tribes very seriously. In interest in the GYE grizzly bear and distribution. accordance with the President’s expanded our efforts in explaining the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30553

status of the grizzly bear and offering South Dakota (Northern Arapaho, continue to update it as new science government-to-government consultation Rosebud Sioux); November 2, 2016: and resources allow. Despite varied to Tribes. Eastern Shoshone Tribe; November 16, suggestions of additional recovery On February 17, 2015, the Service 2016: Shoshone Bannock Tribe; April criteria (i.e., consideration of Pyare and sent letters offering government-to- 07, 2017: Northern Cheyenne Tribal Berger (2003, pp. 70–72), criteria linked government consultation to 26 Tribes. Council. to food resources), peer reviewers On June 15, 2015, the Service sent out We considered issues of cultural, largely supported the science-based a second round of letters to 48 tribes, spiritual, and ecological importance that approach of the recovery criteria for the offering another opportunity for Tribes raised and we are sensitive to GYE grizzly bear population and believe consultation, followed by personal those concerns. However, the Act that these criteria will maintain a phone calls or emails from Service requires the Service to make decisions recovered grizzly bear population in the leadership to the 48 tribes, personally based on the biological status of the GYE. inviting them to engage in government- species as informed solely by the best Criteria #1 and #2 are important as to-government consultation. On August scientific and commercial data they set forth minimums by which to 13, 2015, the Service met with the available. That said, once this action measure genetic health and adequate Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council becomes effective, Tribes will have the distribution of females with young to in Billings, Montana and invited tribal right to manage grizzly bears on their maintain a recovered population. The representative to engage in consultation Tribal lands in accordance with their 2016 Conservation Strategy commits to concerning the GYE grizzly bear. spiritual, cultural, and historic using the model-averaged Chao2 On October 29, 2015, the Service sent traditions. population estimator, for the foreseeable letters to 53 tribes, which included all future, to measure the population size Recovery Criteria and Management Tribes, Tribal Councils, and First for criterion #3 (see Issue 28 for details Objective Issues Nations in Canada that have contacted regarding the Chao2 method and Issue the Service regarding the GYE grizzly Issue 16—Several commenters 31 for discussion on the implementation bear population. The letters invited all provided general concerns about the of a new population estimator). We Federal Tribes to engage in government- recovery criteria, which included: (1) specify that criterion #1 is no longer to-government consultation. In addition, Desires for additional discussion as to dependent on a single population the letter invited Tribes to participate in how any new population estimation estimate method. Despite these updates, an informational webinar and method would be calibrated; (2) claims we note here that, as discussed above, conference call held on November 13, that the 1993 Recovery Plan is outdated delisting determinations are based 2015. and should be updated with the best solely on an evaluation of whether the On March 3, 2016, the Service available science; (3) suggestions that species meets the definition of announced its proposal to delist grizzly the Service consider Pyare and Berger endangered or threatened due to one or bears in the GYE. The announcement (2003) in updating the demographic more of the five factors as per section was disseminated to all Tribes west of criteria; (4) concerns that any update to 4(a) of the Act, and while recovery the Mississippi River with Tribes being the Recovery Plan involved moving the criteria can inform that analysis, we do notified by both email and hard copy ‘‘goal post’’ for recovery; (5) emphasis not need to update a species’ recovery mail. In addition, the Service that the recovery criteria should be plan prior to the species’ delisting. announced two consultation meeting interpreted as minimums and not However, we have revised the opportunities in the Federal Register population goals; and (6) opinions that Demographic Recovery Criteria for the and in the Tribal leader letters at the only the mortality limits in criterion #3 GYE grizzly bear population concurrent same time the proposed rule published. are necessary to maintain a stable with this final rule. The two meetings were hosted in population size post-delisting and the Issue 17—We received several public Bozeman, Montana and in Rapid City, content of criteria #1 and #2 will just comments that expressed confusion and South Dakota. restrict adaptive management. Both concern about specific demographic On March 10, 2016, the Service commenters and a peer reviewer recovery criteria. On criterion #1, hosted a tribal conference call to wondered whether the criteria are tied commenters stated: (1) A desire for provide an overview of the proposed to the model-averaged Chao2 estimate or further biological justification for a delisting and discuss any questions or if the Service retains the discretion to population objective of 500 bears, with concerns. It was not considered change the method. Some commenters some concerns that it too low for a government-to-government suggested additional recovery criteria be population objective; (2) a request for consultation. The announcement for added, including: (1) A criterion to greater emphasis that 500 grizzly bears this call was included in the March, 3rd monitor the changes in food resources; was based on the number of individuals notifications sent to Tribes. and (2) a criterion linked to a declining needed for short-term genetic health To date, the Service has conducted population trend. (Miller and Waits 2003) and is not a ten Tribal consultations with the Response—Recovery plans are not population target; (3) confusion following Tribes: June 10, 2015: regulatory documents; rather, they are surrounding the fact that the minimum Confederated Salish and Kootenai intended to provide guidance to the of 500 bears applies within the entire Tribes; June 18, 2015: Blackfeet Nation Service and our partners on methods to DPS while the higher minimum of 600 Wildlife Committee; July 21, 2015: ameliorate threats to listed species and bears in criterion #3 applies within the Northern Arapahoe Tribal Council; July on criteria that may be used to smaller DMA, with some commenters 21, 2015: Eastern Shoshone Tribal determine when recovery is achieved. suggesting that this criterion be changed Council; July 30, 2015: Shoshone We have updated portions of the 1993 to require at least 600 bears in order to Bannock Tribal Council; April 28, 2016: Recovery Plan using the best available align with criterion #3, thus eliminating Bozeman Montana (Tribes Present at science, including a supplement to the the confusion from setting two different meeting: Shoshone Bannock Tribes, demographic recovery criteria for the population objectives, and to be Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Eastern GYE grizzly bear concurrent with this consistent with the fact that 48 females Shoshone Tribe, Northwest Band of the rule, and agencies implementing the with cubs (the second part of this Shoshone); May 5, 2016: Rapid City, 2016 Conservation Strategy will criterion) currently equates to 600, not

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30554 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

500, bears; (4) concerns that both ‘‘and’’ YGCC, who will revise or amend the females exists most of the time, while and ‘‘or’’ are used when referring to 500 2016 Conservation Strategy (2016 YES, allowing for an anomalous year where a bears and/or 48 females with cubs; (5) p. 96) based on the best biological data unit might be unoccupied temporarily. confusion as to why 3 consecutive years and the best available science. Any such Occupancy of a BMU is defined as the of non-compliance led to violation of amendments will be subject to public documented presence of females with the criterion in the supplement to the review. In the 2007 revision to the young (all age classes of offspring), Recovery Plan, while only 2 consecutive Yellowstone demographic recovery which is a conservative measure years of non-compliance leads to criteria, YES advised the Service that because the lack of confirmation of violation of the criterion in the 2016 maintaining a minimum population size females with young from sightings in a Conservation Strategy; (6) concerns that of 500 individuals would be a particular BMU does not imply absence. there are no mechanisms to prevent conservative approach to ensure that the Criterion #2 is measured based on the further decline if the population falls population stayed above the minimum Recovery Zone (which equates to the below 500; and (7) suggestions that the of 400 bears recommended by Miller PCA under a delisted scenario) because GYE population may not meet the 48 and Waits (2003, p. 4338) for genetic that area represents the core of the females with cubs-of-the-year health. population where presence of females requirement if bears respond to a Commenters suggested that Waples with young is an effective indicator to stabilizing population through and Yokota (2007, entire) and Luikart et ascertain that reproductive females decreased reproduction and that the al. (2010, entire) support the idea that occupy the majority of the Recovery criterion should be less than 48 females 500 bears may be conservative. Zone and are not concentrated in a with cubs. Both commenters and the However, those authors do not address particular area of the ecosystem. States suggested that 500 bears was an the 50/500 rule but rather potential Issue 19—Commenters suggested that arbitrary inflation of the minimum biases with estimates of effective the standards in recovery criterion #3 number suggested by Miller and Waits population size (Ne) and how to address were too low or too lenient, while others (2003) and may not be as conservative those biases. Please see Issue 96 for suggested it was too conservative and as proposed (Waples and Yokota 2007; further discussion about the that the Service did not adequately Luikart et al. 2010). Additionally, the appropriateness of the 50/500 rule to justify the minimum numbers. Some States requested we remove any ensure genetic fitness (in their entirety: public commenters and the States reference to genetic fitness from Franklin 1980; Franklin et al. 2014) and suggested that the criterion creates criterion #1. current estimates of Ne (Kamath et al. confusion on whether the population Response—In reference to criterion 2015, entire) and the necessary objective is 500, 600, 612, or 674. In #1, 500 grizzly bears is not a population minimum population size for genetic addition, the States suggested the objective but a minimum population health. Although 48 females with cubs wording of the criterion creates size to ensure short-term genetic health currently equates to 600 individuals, confusion (1) that it could be interpreted only. Further discussion about the that number is dependent on the ratio as requiring the States to keep bears biological basis for 500 individuals as a of males to females in the population, within a range of 612–735 bears; and (2) minimum population size is provided in which has varied in the past and is about the biological purpose of this 90% the final demographic recovery criteria assessed by the IGBST as part of its confidence interval. One commenter supplement to the Recovery Plan. All demographic monitoring. We maintain expressed confusion as to why the criteria are measured within the same in our discussion of criterion 1, in both revised criterion now applies only to the demographic monitoring area. Criterion this final rule and the revised DMA (as opposed to the entire DPS) and #1 specifies that both minimums of 500 demographic recovery criteria, that requested an explanation as to the bears and 48 females with cubs-of-the- criterion 1 is not a population goal and potential consequences of the change. year must be maintained, and that if the that it refers to short-term genetic health Another commenter requested population size drops below either of (i.e., genetic health over the next several clarification as to when and how the those minimums in three consecutive generations (see Demographic Recovery mortality rates in this criterion would be years, the criterion will be violated. The Criterion 1 under the Recovery Planning adjusted. Conservation Strategy, the Recovery and Implementation section of this final A number of commenters provided Plan supplement, and this final rule rule). suggestions for how to change this have been edited for consistency, with Issue 18—Commenters also supplied criterion, including: (1) Making all three documents now reading ‘three feedback on criterion #2 including: (1) exceedance of mortality limits consecutive years.’ Confusion as to how the three independent of a population minimum; If the population estimate falls below consecutive 6-year sums are calculated (2) eliminating the 3-year wait between 500 in any year, the Service will and whether this would require 18 years the population dropping below 612 and conduct a status review to determine if before this criterion is assessed; (2) determining that the criterion is not re-listing may be warranted. The 2016 concerns that a 6-year sum of met; (3) using an annual index of Conservation Strategy establishes a observations is a long time to wait to observed females with cubs-of-the-year process through which corrections to assess the criterion if female occupancy to total observed mortality instead of population and habitat management can standards are not being met; (3) requests proposed population measurement be made if any new scientific for clarification as to how occupancy is methods; (4) raising the average around information or change in status arise defined; and (4) suggestions that this which the population will be that suggests the need to revise. The criterion should apply to the whole maintained (to be more precautionary); IGBST will conduct demographic DMA, not just the PCA. (5) halting discretionary mortality at reviews of the vital rates for the GYE Response—Clarifying language was populations of 674 bears, rather than grizzly bear population every 5 to 10 added to criterion #2 in the final 600 bears; (6) allowing the States more years and be able to detect if decreased Recovery Plan supplement and this rule management flexibility for bear removal reproduction occurred as a result of a to demonstrate how three consecutive 6- at populations below 600 (i.e., not stabilized population. Upon completion year sums are measured (table 1). The limiting these removals to ‘‘human of a demographic review, the IGBST running 6-year sum is designed to safety reasons’’); (7) increasing the male will provide the information to the evaluate whether adequate dispersion of mortality limit to account for the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30555

decrease in females with cubs; and (8) mortality sinks and was established to return to the 95 percent confidence eliminating the mortality limit for monitor mortality rates in the same area interval (600–747). dependent young, since it is not in which the population size is The Service recognizes it is at least currently being measured. State estimated. The suitable habitat theoretically possible that, even with a agencies also provided suggestions for contained within the DMA is mortality limit of 7.6 percent, a changes to this last criteria, including: sufficiently large to support a long-term, population could drop below 600 bears (1) Removing the explanatory paragraph viable population such that mortalities for a certain amount of time while the on how background and discretionary outside of the DMA can be excluded population is increasing in size; mortality will be calculated and simply from consideration. however, we do not anticipate that it stating that annual mortality limits for Some have criticized the population will remain below 600 bears for an independent females, independent objectives in the Conservation Strategy extended length of time during this males, and dependent young will be as and proposed rule because the States rebuilding period because of the other shown in table 1 (table 2 of this final could in theory manage below the long- mechanisms (e.g., Management rule); (2) consistently stating whether term model-averaged Chao2 estimate Framework in table 3, additional safety mortality for independent females at from 2002 to 2014 of 674 bears. margins listed below). The Service population levels less than or equal to Importantly, this criticism misses the believes this is consistent with the 674 bears would be less than 7.6 percent intent of criterion #3 as outlined in the recovery criterion. In addition, if the or less than or equal to 7.6 percent; and 2016 Conservation Strategy and in the population falls below 612 individuals (3) removing mention of the Recovery Plan Supplement (USFWS and the mortality limits are exceeded for requirement to halt discretionary 2017, p. 5). The long-term model- three consecutive years, IGBST will mortality at populations less than 600 averaged Chao2 estimate, 674 bears, is conduct a Biology and Monitoring bears since this is the Tri-State MOA not a minimum recovery threshold. Review to inform the appropriate and does not belong in the recovery Rather, this number represents a management response. And if the criteria. population level that is at or near population drops below 600, all Response—The objective of criterion carrying capacity (van Manen et al. discretionary mortality will be halted, #3 is to maintain the GYE grizzly bear 2016, entire). Under the Act, species except as necessary for human safety. population within the DMA around the recovery is considered to be the return Additionally, if the limit is exceeded in average population estimate during the of a species to the point where it is no any year, discretionary mortality the period of 2002 to 2014 as measured by longer threatened or endangered. following year would be reduced by the the model-averaged Chao2 population Recovery under the Act does not require number of mortalities that exceeded the estimator. Because populations restoring a species to carrying capacity, limit. Non-discretionary mortality (e.g., naturally fluctuate through time (see historic levels, or even maximizing natural causes, vehicle strikes) varies figure 2), it is not reasonable to manage density, distribution, or genetic from year to year, and we expect that to an exact population target. The diversity. While the goal of the 2016 there may be years when non- minimum population size for short-term Conservation Strategy and recovery discretionary mortality alone reaches genetic fitness did not increase from the criterion #3 is to maintain the the limits based on population size, and 500 identified in criterion #1 as population around this long-term there would be no discretionary described in the 2007 delisting rule (72 average population target of 674 bears, mortality allowed. Reduced FR 14866, March 29, 2007), our 2016 a population below this number does discretionary mortality would reduce proposed delisting rule (81 FR 13174, not mean recovery has not been the ability of the States to manage the March 11, 2016), and this final rule. The achieved. By attempting to manage grizzly bear population, and, therefore, population objective in the 2007 within the 95 percent confidence we believe that the States have a strong delisting rule was to maintain a stable interval (600–747) in accordance with incentive to manage above 600 bears. or increasing population within the criterion #3, the confidence interval Further buffering our recovery criteria GYE; the revised recovery criterion calls provides a sufficient buffer to ensure is the fact that the Service and the States for maintaining the population around that recovery is achieved, while also agreed on a counting methodology, the the average estimate from 2002 to 2014, acknowledging that populations model-averaged Chao2 estimate, that is a period during which natural stability fluctuate naturally and it is not conservative, i.e., it undercounts the was achieved. reasonable to manage to an exact number of bears. Schwartz et al. (2008, We recognize the confusion created population target. figure 5) concluded that at the model- by the multiple numbers in criterion #3. The adjustable mortality limits set averaged Chao2 estimate of In this final rule, the 2016 Conservation forth in table 2 provide a mechanism for approximately 700 bears, there are Strategy, and the revised demographic maintaining the population within this likely 350 other bears that remain recovery criteria, we clarify that the confidence interval and serve as a buffer uncounted. In other words, a Chao2 criterion calls for maintaining the to ensure the population does not drop model-averaged estimate of 700 bears population within the DMA around the and remain below the lower bound of means that there are approximately 2002 to 2014 model-averaged Chao2 600 bears. For example, a population 1,050 bears. As with Northern Rocky population estimate (average = 674; estimate of fewer than 674 would trigger Mountain wolves, the Service is taking 95% confidence interval (CI) = 600–747; mortality limits of less than 7.6 percent a conservative approach to counting 90% CI = 612–735). The lower bounds for independent females. The best bears to ensure bears remain recovered. of the 90% and the 95% CIs are available science indicates that this We provided additional safety presented as the thresholds at which population will increase in size at a margins to assure that the recovery management changes would occur (i.e., mortality limit of less than 7.6 percent. criteria will be met. Four scenarios implementing a Biology and Monitoring Thus, if the population is estimated to could lead us to initiate a status review Review and halting discretionary be fewer than 600 bears, there would be and analysis of threats to determine if mortality except for ‘‘human safety no discretionary mortality, likely re-listing is warranted including: (1) If reasons,’’ respectively). The producing a total mortality rate less than there are any changes in Federal, State, demographic monitoring area is based 7.6 percent, which means the or Tribal laws, rules, regulations, or on suitable habitat plus potential population would increase in size and management plans that depart

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30556 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

significantly from the specifics of per tables 2 and 3 and Factors B and C criterion was selected because: It population or habitat management Combined in this rule. The Tri-State represents a population level that is detailed in this final rule or the 2016 MOA is not a replacement for our sufficiently robust to provide for the Conservation Strategy that would threats evaluation in this final rule. viability of the species; and it represents significantly increase the threat to the Issue 20—We received comments a period where the ecosystem was likely GYE grizzly bear population; or (2) a from peer reviewers and the public that at or near long-term carrying capacity. total population estimate is less than expressed confusion about the As measured by the model-averaged 500 inside the DMA in any year using population management objectives and Chao2 population estimator, this the model-averaged Chao2 population their scientific basis. Some commenters equated to 674 grizzly bears with a 95% estimator, or counts of females with and peer reviewers suggested that it is confidence interval of 600 to 747. cubs-of-the-year fall below 48 for 3 unrealistic to manage the population to However, we agree that it is not consecutive years; or (3) if fewer than 16 a single number when the confidence practical or even possible to manage for of 18 bear management units are intervals are large and do not account an exact population target as occupied by females with young for 3 for all sources of variation; moreover, populations naturally and inevitably consecutive 6-year sums of commenters suggested that managing to fluctuate through time. The States’ observations; and/or (4) if the Service a single number could jeopardize agreement to manage within the determines a petition to re-list from an connectivity to other populations. The confidence intervals around 674 bears individual or organization is substantial. States requested removal of any provides reasonable management The Service has reviewed and revised language that indicates a population flexibility in recognition of the the GYE grizzly bear demographic objective of exactly 674 bears and complexities of the system and of recovery criteria to ensure they are instead suggested language that implies managing grizzly bears. adequate under the requirements of the managing for a population around the The Service and the States understand Act and that they have been fully average of 674 bears or between the that the actual population will vary achieved, and determined that a bounds of the 95 percent confidence around 674, and that mortality will be population at or above 600 individuals, intervals. Some commenters believed managed to ensure that the population by managing for a safety margin of 674 that the population objective should does not drop and remain below 600. In bears, together with criterions #1 and 2, instead be a ‘‘stable’’ or ‘‘increasing’’ our best professional judgement, is biologically recovered. States have population, which would allow the management within this range will committed to maintain the GYE population to continue to expand into maintain recovery, as required by the population to within these goals. currently unoccupied lands within the Act, and a large, robust, healthy and Collectively, these commitments DMA; they requested that all documents viable population. We further conclude indicate that the entire GYE population contain an explicit reference to that the ecosystem can and will is likely to remain recovered. ‘‘stability’’ as the population objective. continue to support such populations. Although there were many However, a few commenters expressed Put another way, habitat quality and suggestions of slight modifications to concerns with an explicit goal of management (discussed further under this criterion, peer reviewers were managing for stability including: (1) that Factors A and D) provide us with supportive that this recovery criterion managing for stability is contrary to the sufficient assurance that habitat is was scientifically sound and would Act’s provisions; (2) that managing for unlikely to be the limiting factor in maintain a recovered grizzly bear stability could become challenging if the determining whether these targets are population. The mortality limit for GYE’s carrying capacity were to ever met now or within the foreseeable dependent young is based only on decrease (i.e., additional habitat would future. human-caused mortality, which is what need to be provided to allow for a stable is currently measured and reported in population in this circumstance); and With this as the backdrop, we set the IGBST Annual Reports. The 2016 (3) that the objective of stability could human-caused mortality limits that the Conservation Strategy, this final rule, allow mortality that is high enough to best scientific and commercial and the supplement to the Recovery preclude opportunities to grow and information available indicated would Plan now consistently reflect each other expand the population of grizzly bears help maintain the population around and the Tri-State MOA: At population into other ecosystems. The States the 2002–2014 average. With more levels less than or equal to 674, suggested that the Service remove all liberal mortality rates above 674, and independent female mortality would be references to ‘‘stability’’ and instead more restrictive mortality rates below less than 7.6 percent. ‘‘refer to growth rate, reaching apparent that, the population should fluctuate We disagree with comments that carrying capacity, and population around that average. We anticipate that request we remove mention of the fluctuation.’’ managers will further limit mortality the agreement to halt discretionary One peer reviewer recommended that closer they get to 600 grizzly bears, as mortality at populations less than 600 the population goals be periodically measured by the model-averaged Chao2 bears because listing actions (including reevaluated to allow for consideration of population estimator, at which point all this final rule) are required to describe natural and anthropogenic changes in discretionary mortality would be halted threats and the measures that address the ecosystem. Another commenter except as necessary for human safety. those threats. Discretionary mortality is suggested starting with a very protective For further discussion, see Issue 19. a potential threat to grizzly bears, and management objective that can be made While some expressed concern that we must explain how that threat has more liberal if State management proves managing for stability may preclude been addressed in this final rule. The to be effective. population expansion and connectivity main threat of human-caused mortality Response—The Service and our with other ecosystems, the State of has been addressed through carefully partners have all agreed to maintain the Montana has indicated that they will monitored and controlled total mortality total population size around the average manage discretionary mortality in the limits established in the Grizzly Bear population estimate achieved during area between the GYE and the NCDE to Recovery Plan and incorporated into the 2002 to 2014, otherwise known as the maintain the opportunity for natural 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, ‘‘period of stability’’ (YES 2016a, p. 35; movement between the ecosystems pp. 33–53) and into State regulations as YES 2016b, Appendix O). This recovery (MFWP 2013, p. 9). Please see Issues 50

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30557

and 53 for further discussions on demographic recovery criterion 3 definition of ‘‘recovered’’ and our connectivity. (USFWS 2017, p. 5), the States have determination of how the GYE We recognize that some parties made a number of clearly articulated population has met demographic support continued population growth in commitments through the 2016 recovery criteria; (2) suggestions that perpetuity. We conclude that this is Conservation Strategy and Tri-State higher grizzly bear numbers (ranging impractical, that the system has MOA to maintain a recovered bear from 700–5,000 bears) are more biological limits, that the average population as measured by the indicative of a stable, recovered GYE population estimate for the period of established demographic recovery population and that a metapopulation in stability likely approximates or criteria. For example, in the Tri-State the lower 48 States of 2,500–5,000 bears approaches those limits, that expansion MOA (Wyoming Game and Fish is necessary before recovery is achieved; into unsuitable habitat is largely Commission et al. 2016, pp. 4, 2.a.i.), (3) determination of recovery should unsustainable, and that continued the States have agreed to manage the consider age and sex structure, in population growth goes beyond the GYE grizzly bear population within the addition to the number of bears; (4) requirements of the Act for delisting. DMA, to at least within the 95% concern that grizzly bears currently That is, the population no longer meets confidence intervals associated with the inhabit less than two percent of their the definition of threatened or 2002 to 2014 long-term average grizzly historical range and that populations are endangered even without population bear population estimate calculated less than three percent of their historical growth in perpetuity. using the model-averaged Chao2 abundance; thus, we must further Issue 21—Many commenters estimator (i.e., 600 to 747). This expand their range, connect to other expressed concern about the States’ commitment does not preclude the healthy grizzly bear populations, and ‘‘management objective for the DMA of States from managing above this conduct additional reintroductions/ at least a range between 600 and 747 recovery criterion using the best reestablishment of populations before (based on the 95% confidence interval available science and current we can declare recovery; (5) the GYE of the estimated average population size population information. Agreed-upon population still meets the criteria to be between 2002 and 2014) and upon mortality thresholds, as described in the listed as ‘‘vulnerable’’ by the IUCN Red mortality rates to keep the population 2016 Conservation Strategy and List, and thus cannot be considered within this range,’’ compared to the criterion 3 in the Recovery Plan recovered; and (6) assertions, based on Service’s reference to a management Supplement, ensure this commitment mortality rates exceeding mortality objective of a stable population around will be realized because those threshold limits and the need to transplant bears, 674 bears within the DMA. Many limits are self-regulating. At higher that threats have not been adequately commenters interpreted State population levels (e.g., greater than addressed. In addition, some management objectives as retracting 747), higher allowed mortality could commenters suggested that recovery ‘‘any commitment to manage for a stable cause the population to decline. will not be achieved until carrying population of 674 bears’’ and as However, once the population dropped capacity is met, while one State intentions to reduce the population to below 747, a lower (more conservative) suggested that carrying capacity is not a only 500 or 600 bears, regardless of the mortality rate would apply. If the proper metric for assessing recovery. method used to estimate the population population continued to drop and fell size; conversely, the State agencies below 674, then a mortality rate would Response—The Service has requested the Service emphasize in its be reduced again, to a level that should determined that the GYE grizzly bear final rule that the Tri-State management result in an increasing population, as population has increased in size and objective of managing for ‘‘at least a portrayed in table 2 in the rule. more than tripled its occupied range range between 600 and 747’’ in the At any population level below 674, since being listed as threatened under DMA is ‘‘at levels well above the mortality limits would be low, and thus, the Act in 1975 and that threats to the population recovery criterion’’ of 500 hunting or other discretionary mortality population are sufficiently minimized. bears in the entire DPS. The States also would be managed within these limits. The participating States of Idaho, requested that the final rule ‘‘identify In addition, all discretionary mortality Montana, and Wyoming and Federal the States’ agreed upon management would be halted if the population agencies have adopted the necessary objectives in relation to the recovery within the DMA dropped to 600, except post-delisting management objectives, criteria.’’ A peer reviewer noted that as necessary for human safety. This which adequately ensure that the GYE instead of ‘‘establish[ing] population increases the likelihood of maintaining population of grizzly bears remains targets and associated specific harvest a stable population around 674 bears. recovered in the foreseeable future. The criteria,’’ the States only identified a See Issues 19 and 66 for more Service concludes, based on the best minimum population size for the total information. available scientific and commercial GYE grizzly bear population; the peer Issue 22—We received comments data, that the GYE population of grizzly reviewer was concerned this oversight both supporting and objecting to our bears is recovered and no longer meets could lead to ‘‘overharvest’’ and that ‘‘a conclusion that the grizzly bear is the definition of a threatened or lag in management response could drive biologically recovered. Some public and endangered species under the Act. the population below the desired State commenters agreed that the GYE While grizzly bears currently occupy minimum.’’ grizzly bear population is recovered only a fraction of historical habitat in Response—The Act requires the because density-dependent factors are the lower 48 States, the Service Service to ensure that all threats to the most influential in current population concludes that restoration of grizzly species have been removed or demographics, the population has bears to all historical habitats sufficiently ameliorated such that the consistently met the recovery criteria in (particularly those no longer capable of species no longer meets the definition of recent years, and threats have been supporting grizzly bear populations) threatened or endangered; meeting or sufficiently ameliorated. within the DPS boundaries or within the exceeding established recovery criteria Conversely, other commenters lower 48 States is not necessary or assists the Service in determining that presented reasons for disagreeing with possible. The information presented in the species may no longer need the our conclusions regarding recovery, this rule supports the conclusion that Act’s protection. Specific to the including: (1) Confusion regarding our the GYE grizzly bear population has

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30558 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

recovered and no longer meets the We measure the demographic criteria. While there are multiple lines definition of endangered or threatened recovery criteria as set out in the current of evidence suggesting the population is under the Act. revisions to the Recovery Plan, at or near carrying capacity (e.g., Although grizzly bears historically Demographic Recovery Criteria for the decreased cub and yearling survival, occurred throughout the area of the GYE (USFWS 2017, entire). The IGBST increased generation interval, decreased proposed GYE grizzly bear DPS (Stebler will conduct demographic reviews of home range size), we have not used this 1972, pp. 297–298), many of these the vital rates (including sex ratio and information to assess recovery. Instead, habitats are not, today, biologically survival) for the GYE grizzly bear this information has helped us suitable for grizzly bears because of land population every 5 to 10 years. Upon understand some of the more recent conversion and a lack of natural food completion of a demographic review, demographic changes the IGBST has sources (i.e., bison). For further the IGBST would provide the documented, such as a lower population information, please refer to our information to the YGCC who could growth rate between 2002 and 2011 than discussion of Suitable Habitat. Grizzly then advise States and Federal land that documented between 1982 and bear recovery in these areas of the management partners if modifications to 2001. See Issue 37 for further discussion species’ historical range (unsuitable the 2016 Conservation Strategy are on carrying capacity. habitat) is unnecessary, because there is necessary. We disagree with the claim Other Comments on Whether To Delist more than enough suitable habitat (e.g., that we have focused only on mainly public lands containing demographic recovery. While Issue 23—Multiple commenters abundant natural food sources) to demographic factors such as mortality believed our description of the support a recovered grizzly bear control and population monitoring are taxonomy of grizzly bears in the GYE is population without grizzly bear critical to recovery, we have also no longer the best available science. occupancy of all historical habitat established habitat-based recovery They presented that the GYE grizzly within the DPS boundaries. Therefore, criteria to address habitat security (i.e., bears are ‘‘part of a clade (Clade 4) with additional recovery efforts in these areas motorized access), developed sites on an ancient and unique history, a are beyond what the Act requires. public lands, and livestock allotments, restricted distribution, and warranting We disagree with the suggestion that while implementing extensive habitat consideration as evolutionarily unique there must be 2,500 to 5,000 grizzly monitoring programs for grizzly bear and threatened genetic linkage.’’ They bears throughout the lower 48 States for foods, human recreational use, and elk asserted that because this unique recovery to be achieved in the GYE, and hunter numbers. Additionally, the taxonomic classification includes, and the United States District Court, District IGBST annually monitors genetic is limited to, the entire lower 48 grizzly of Montana agreed with us, stating ‘‘it diversity and trends in grizzly bear bear metapopulation, recovery must would be nonsensical to require the conflicts throughout the ecosystem. This address grizzly bears in the entire lower Service to consider the grizzly bears’ comprehensive approach to recovery 48 States as a whole unit, instead of historic range throughout the United has led to reduced mortality, increased splitting out the GYE. States as significant in relation to the population numbers, and significant Response—The Act allows Yellowstone grizzly bear’’ if the GYE increases in range, and has allowed consideration for listing, DPS does not remain threatened by grizzly bears to reoccupy habitat they reclassification, and delisting of species, these historical losses within its own have been absent from for decades while subspecies, and DPSs. As part of the boundaries (Greater Yellowstone ensuring demographic and habitat process to designate one or more units Coalition v. Servheen, et al., 672 security into the foreseeable future, such as a DPS, we evaluate their discreteness F.Supp.2d 1105, 1125 (D. Mont. 2009), that the species no longer meets the and significance to the taxon (61 FR aff’d on other grounds, Greater definition of a threatened or endangered 4722, February 7, 1996). While this Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et species. analysis is often informed by genetics, al., 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011) (the As previously stated, under section 4 we are not limited to large genetic units Montana District Court decision vacated of the Act, a species shall be delisted if such as clades. After a comprehensive the Service’s 2007 delisting rule on it does not meet the definition of a analysis in both our 2007 delisting other grounds). The fact that grizzly threatened or endangered species, determination (72 FR 14866, March 29, bears do not currently occupy all considering solely the best available 2007) and an updated analysis in the suitable habitat within the DPS scientific and commercial data. We may proposed delisting rule (81 FR 13174, boundaries does not threaten the not adopt the conservation classification March 11, 2016), and after review of population. To the contrary, it allows criteria of other agencies or peer and public comments addressed in for ecological resiliency and population organizations, such as the IUCN. this final rule, we have determined that expansion in response to changing However, we do evaluate and consider the GYE population of grizzly bears is environmental conditions while the underlying data other agencies or discrete and significant, meeting the maintaining consistency with the organizations have relied upon in definition of a DPS under the Act (61 FR court’s interpretation of the phrase, making their own conservation 4722, February 7, 1996). Therefore, the ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ classifications. While it is true the GYE GYE grizzly bear is a listable entity (Servheen, 672 F.Supp.2d at 1125). grizzly bear population meets one of the under the Act, and may be considered Other issues such as habitat linkage are IUCN criteria for vulnerable (population and classified separately from other relevant to this rulemaking only to the size estimated at less than 1,000 mature listable entities. Our recognition that the extent that they affect the GYE DPS. For individuals), our recovery and post- GYE grizzly bear population qualifies as example, connectivity or a lack thereof, delisting management goals were a DPS and its separate listing or has the potential to affect this designed to provide for the long-term delisting is also consistent with the population’s genetic fitness. As such, conservation of the GYE grizzly bear 1993 Recovery Plan’s (which predates this issue is discussed and addressed in population by ensuring sufficient the Service’s 1996 DPS policy) stated our five-factor analysis (see Factor E, control of human-caused mortality and intention to delist each of the remaining above), in the 2016 Conservation maintenance of suitable habitat. populations as they achieve their Strategy, and in more detail in the Finally, regarding carrying capacity, recovery targets and an associated five- response to Issue 96. this has never been one of our recovery factor analysis under section 4 of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30559

Act indicates that they no longer meet contradicts opinions of grizzly bear been recovered and will remain so after the definition of a threatened or biologists cited in an Ohio State delisting. endangered species (USFWS 1993, p. ii). University study; and (4) could lead to Furthermore, this final rule, the 2016 There is disagreement among population declines or extinction of the Conservation Strategy, and the geneticists as to the conclusion that the GYE grizzly bear. Other commenters protective measures in Montana, genetic evidence suggests four different suggested that Federal protections be Wyoming, and Idaho implement a evolutionarily significant units (ESU) in increased, rather than removed, while conservative management approach by North America (Waits et al. 1998, p. another suggested that excess bears establishing science-based population 414), with Clade IV representing brown should be culled rather than be delisted. criteria tied to the demographic bears in Southern Canada and the Some commenters asserted that the goal recovery criteria, while also maintaining coterminous lower 48. Clades based on of the Act is to recover a species, not distributional recovery criteria. In mitochondrial DNA may be evidence of delist it: We should ensure that re- addition, the adaptive management a historical event but do not accurately listing will not be necessary in the system in the 2016 Conservation reflect genetic divisions in current foreseeable future, rather than delisting Strategy incorporates the results from populations as gene flow is as soon as a population meets minimum intensive monitoring of population vital disproportionately affected by males as goals. rates, habitat standards, and major foods a result of their larger movements Many commenters recommended into management decisions and ensures (Paetkau et al. 1997, p. 1950). delaying delisting until we can the GYE grizzly bear DPS will remain In the event that a taxonomic change demonstrate successful reproduction recovered under the management is eventually accepted as the best outside of National Parks and effective frameworks now in place in Wyoming, available science based on genetic dispersal and connection between Idaho, and Montana. In short, the differentiation between brown bears in grizzly populations. regulatory frameworks now in place North America (Waits et al. 1998, p. Some commenters opposed delisting give us great confidence that this 414), the GYE population’s discreteness because they suggested that success story for American conservation would be unchanged and the management would revert to the States and the Act will be maintained and that significance of this population relative and hunting would likely follow, with future generations will be able to see to a smaller taxonomic unit would bears classified as predators and then and enjoy grizzly bears in the GYE. continue to meet the standards of the Strict regulations and regulatory shot, poisoned, or killed on sight. One DPS policy (loss of GYE relative to this mechanisms within State statute or commenter thought that proposed State smaller unit would continue to codified regulation are in place to replacements for section 7 represent a significant gap in the range protect grizzly bears within the DPS consultations, section 9 take of the taxon) (61 FR 4722, February 7, boundaries. The States of Wyoming, 1996). Furthermore, such a hypothetical prohibitions, and an ability to bring Montana, and Idaho have classified finding would not alter the recovered legal challenge against management grizzly bears throughout the entire GYE status of this population. actions were inadequate. Another DPS boundaries as a game animal and Issue 24—We received comments commenter asserted that, after the 2007 have never suggested they will be both agreeing and disagreeing with our delisting, GYE grizzly bears were placed classified as predators (W.S. 23–1– determination that the GYE grizzly bear back on the List of Endangered and 101(a)(xii)(A); W.S. 23–3–102(a); MCA should be delisted. Those who Threatened Wildlife because we failed 87–2–101(4); MCA 87–1–301; MCA 87– supported delisting, including State to protect the species. One commenter 1–304; MCA 87–5–302; IC 36–2–1; commenters, suggested that: (1) States suggested delisting could not be IDAPA 13.01.06.100.01(e); IC 36– would allocate more money towards justified given the intrinsic values of the 1101(a)). Game animal status is much grizzly bear conservation and species. more protective than predator status. management, post-delisting; (2) funds Response—The principal goal of the Any grizzly bear found outside of the could be allocated to other at-risk Act is to return listed species to a point DPS boundaries would be protected species in greater need; (3) delisting was at which protection under the Act is no under the Act as a threatened species. appropriate, even if future impacts to longer required (50 CFR 424.11(d)(2)). A If any of the three States decided to the population cannot be predicted with species may be delisted on the basis of classify grizzly bears as predators (an certainty because recovery criteria had recovery only if the best scientific and outcome that has not been proposed or been meet and the population was not commercial data available indicate that even discussed to our knowledge), we at risk of declining; and (4) there are too it is no longer endangered or threatened would consider this a significant many bears in the GYE, resulting in within all or a significant portion of its departure from current State laws and increased conflict with livestock and range (50 CFR 424.11(d)). As described regulations and we would immediately hunters, posing a safety issue, and later in this rule, we determine that, initiate a status review. potentially causing eventual collapse of based on the best available data, the Lastly, while we respect the moral the entire ecosystem. GYE DPS meets neither of these and ethical reasons some members of Conversely, other commenters definitions for listing, thereby justifying the public may have for disapproving of asserted that delisting: (1) Was delisting due to recovery. this decision, delisting is the premature because we based it primarily To be clear, the Act does not contain appropriate decision based on the on population size or ‘‘social carrying a mandate or requirement that we current status of the DPS and the capacity,’’ or on insufficient time to institute a ‘‘precautionary approach to statutory requirements of the Act. measure success, public input, and .’’ Instead, the Act Issue 25—One commenter claimed we inadequate or unreliable data; (2) mandates that we make decisions about inappropriately conclude that threats contradicts the precautionary approach conservation status based on the best become irrelevant when they ‘‘can be to wildlife management mandated available scientific and commercial managed.’’ This commenter suggested under the Act, especially considering data, which informs the Act’s that threats we and others successfully potential threats from climate change, definitions of threatened and manage (such as genetic health) should implementation of hunting, and the low endangered species. We remain still be regarded as a threat during our reproductive rates of bears; (3) confident that this population has long evaluation.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30560 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Response—In our five-factor analysis Response—The Act requires us to U.S.C. 5937) exempts release of specific of threats to the GYE population of make our listing determinations based locations of threatened species within grizzly bears, we do not claim that upon the best scientific and commercial National Parks units). managed stressors are irrelevant but data available. In this case, we relied As discussed under Issue 10, we have rather that these threats have been upon numerous peer-reviewed and followed our peer review policies. Peer eliminated or sufficiently ameliorated published documents that were readily review is a widely accepted approach such that the DPS no longer meets the available either through regulations.gov within the scientific community to definition of a threatened or endangered in this rulemaking’s docket, at http:// maintain the highest standards of species. We considered all of the factors www.fws/gov/mountain-prairie/es/ quality and provide credibility. It is under section 4(a)(1) of Act and grizzlybear.php, or by appointment with designed to detect biases and flawed assessed the cumulative effect that any the Service’s Grizzly Bear Recovery assumptions by allowing objective and threats identified within the factors—as Coordinator. This information was anonymous reviewers, when ameliorated by any existing regulatory publicly available when we published appropriate and applicable, to examine mechanisms or conservation efforts— our proposed rule and during our public the methods, results, interpretation, and will have on the GYE grizzly bear comment period. For example, mortality conclusions of colleagues to identify population now and in the foreseeable information, including date of death, weaknesses and suggest improvements future. Based on our analysis, we have sex, age, certainty of death, if the bear before publication. Peer review provides determined that the GYE grizzly bear was marked or not, and drainage a critical evaluation of the subject work population no longer requires the Act’s location, are published annually in the by similarly qualified experts and protection. Please see the Determination IGBST’s annual reports, available at constitutes a form of self-regulation by section at the end of the threats analysis https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/ qualified members of a profession for more information. science/igbst-annual-reports?qt-science_ within the relevant field. In short, peer Issue 26—Some commenters center_objects=1#qt-science_center_ review is an integral part of the expressed skepticism towards our data, objects. It is important to note that we scientific process, and publication in a analysis, and cited research. did not rely upon any of these raw data peer-reviewed journal is often a key Commenters claimed that our rule was to make our decisions, but rather on the consideration in our assessment of what not based on the best available science peer-reviewed published interpretations constitutes best available science. The because: It is contrary to Dr. David of that raw data. We did not have any GYE grizzly bear population is the most Mattson’s ideas; NPS leaders have additional data than what was available studied in the world, and the peer- questioned our analysis and to the public. reviewed scientific journal articles used conclusions; much of the published The IGBST approach to scientific in the proposed and final rules research we cited in our proposed rule studies involves extensive represent the best available science. was not adequately reviewed, thus this collaborations and contracts with Models are never perfect, but are research is not reliable because it is still independent academic and agency crucial to the scientific process. Models undergoing ‘‘post-publication’’ scrutiny; researchers who do not serve on the can be reliable and informative as we our process has seemed ‘‘convoluted’’; IGBST. Data used to calculate consider the best scientific and and an email from the Service’s former population size are available in the commercial data available. Modeling Director released under the Freedom of tables provided by Keating et al. (2002, typically requires a set of assumptions Information Act (FOIA) contained the p. 171), included in the Supplement to and can be prone to error, including phrase ‘‘this recommendation seem[s] at the Reassessing Methods Document Type II errors. Incorrect inputs or failure odds with the best available science (IGBST 2006, p. 7), as well as the annual to account for certain variables or standard of the ESA.’’ Commenters reports produced by the IGBST. assumptions can result in inaccurate opined that the raw data used in our Estimates of sustainable mortality limits outputs and conclusions. By design, analysis was not made available for recommended in the Reassessing scientific peer review identifies and independent review, even though it Methods Document are based on corrects potential concerns with belongs to the public since taxpayers survival and associated population modeling. Models used by IGBST and paid for the research. They expressed growth rates presented by Harris et al. other scientists are based on commonly concern that the ‘‘monopoly’’ the IGBST (2006, p. 50). All results of Harris et al. used and broadly accepted approaches has on grizzly bear population data (2006, p. 48) where estimates of in wildlife science. To suggest that prompts groupthink and a general lack population growth were made can be models should not be used or relied of transparency. One commenter duplicated from data available in the upon is too generalized a conclusion requested we ‘‘establish a review panel other chapters of the Monograph. Data and, in our view, unfounded. Not using of independent, academically qualified used to calculate transition probabilities scientific inference from modeling scientists who are not involved in are included in the Supplement to the would reject the role of science. current grizzly bear research in the Reassessing Methods Document (IGBST Ignoring available modeling could be GYE.’’ Another commenter claimed that 2006, pp. 19–21). The IGBST also directly counter to the Act’s the peer review process does not released the raw data files and digital requirement that we base our decisions sufficiently detect error or bias and that records from 1975–1998 in response to on the best available science. it is no more likely to detect error or a FOIA request. The IGBST replied to a We are aware of and considered ideas bias than by random chance. The same later request for such data but has not that are contrary to our conclusions, commenter took issue with the yet received a formal FOIA request. We including those of Dr. David Mattson, proposed rule’s reliance on models have released data that was in our who contends that the population is because there is never one correct possession and not otherwise prohibited declining due to declining food sources, model, claiming that model building is from release by law (i.e., exact locations drought, invasive species, and habitat ‘‘the most bias-prone form of analysis.’’ of grizzly bears obtained via VHF or loss. However, the peer-reviewed Another commenter cautioned against GPS telemetry (i.e., ‘‘raw data’’) were research does not support this idea. committing Type II errors in analysis (a not in our possession, and the Omnibus Please see Factor E: Changes in Food ‘‘false negative’’). Parks and Public Lands Act of 1998 (16 Resources for further discussion.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30561

Issue 27—Commenters expressed increased population density, rather Thuermer (2016), the number of bears, concerns with the methodology used in than changes in food resources). The based on the Chao2 method, could range population viability modeling, model GYE proposed rule recognized that the anywhere from 552 bears to 1,110 selection, and modeling timeframe. outcome of the population viability bears); (3) suggestions that 40 percent Commenters suggested that the Service analyses could change with different variance (the apparent variance is basing decisions on a modeling effort vital rates, but also emphasized that associated with the Chao2 estimate) is that failed to investigate the relationship further research (Nielsen et al. 2006, p. unacceptable; and (4) suspicions about between population and habitat data 227; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 665) the fact that, in 2007, the population that used a 100-year modeling indicated the key importance of secure estimate jumped from the long-time timeframe that was too short for a long- habitat as an effective management tool estimate of 260–600 bears to 700 bears lived species, and that used an improper to ensure population persistence. because delisting was under modeling endpoint. Commenters Measurement of and Interpretation of consideration. One commenter thought we used modeling to determine Population Parameters Issues wondered how the raw counts and the timeframe required for the Chao2 estimates of females with cubs population to drop to zero rather than Issue 28—We received comments differ in Keating et al. (2002, table 5) the timeframe that would result in an from peer reviewers and the public that and records from the mortality inadequate number of individuals to expressed concern about the use of the workshop for the years 1999 to 2001. maintain the population. Commenters Chao2 estimate method to estimate the Another commenter suggested that the also requested clarity on specific model grizzly bear population size, asked for Chao2 estimate is only conservative if parameters we used in decision-making. additional details, declared the Chao2 the population is indeed increasing; this These include the specific threshold method ‘‘outdated,’’ and questioned commenter noted that, if the vital rates used to determine extinction probability whether the Chao2 method is the best and mortality rates are incorrectly (e.g., 5 percent risk of extinction), available science, while the States estimated, then the population could whether the model results were based supported our use of Chao2 and decline undetected. On the other hand, on density-dependent or independent suggested it represents ‘‘the best one commenter worried that the Chao2 data, and whether we included habitat available science for monitoring and estimator was too conservative ‘‘when change data. evaluation of population trends.’’ Peer the population is continuing to increase Response—The proposed rule (81 FR reviewers expressed confusion about and expand beyond its biologically 13174, March 11, 2016) referenced key what the Chao2 estimation methodology suitable and socially acceptable entails, including: (1) Questions as to findings of a population viability habitats.’’ analysis conducted by Boyce et al. whether the Chao2 estimator is an (2001, entire), which represents the estimate of the total number of females Several comments were concerned primary peer-reviewed source for this with cubs or an estimate of overall with the measurement and type of analysis for the GYE grizzly bear grizzly bear abundance; and (2) requests interpretation of unique females with population. The details of the model for additional details on how model cubs, and how potential biases in these parameters were provided in Boyce et averaging is used with the Chao2 counts could lead to overestimation of al. (2001, p. 8), which should be estimator, given the potential issues the Chao2 population estimate (which is consulted as the original literature with model-averaging (Cade 1995). In based on counts of females with cubs). source. addition, commenters suggested that we The first source of bias commenters Opinions vary regarding what criteria provide more details regarding the cited stems from increased sightability; should be evaluated (i.e., population of demographic inputs and how they are over time, as bears have increased their zero versus some other threshold level), determined; the model assumptions; use of moth sites, which are easier to but the proposed rule used a commonly how the initial population size was monitor, it has become easier to find applied metric of population viability, estimated; how the sex-age class and count individual bears. These the probability of extinction (or its distributions were estimated; why the commenters claimed that the increasing reverse, probability of population current ratio of 1 independent male to trend of the number of females with persistence) over certain timeframes. A each independent female is used as cubs in IGBST monitoring data could 100-year timeframe is commonly used opposed to the previous ratio of 0.635; stem from the fact that it has become for viability analyses of many species, how cumulative uncertainty in the easier to count bears and not from the including long-lived vertebrates. The population model inputs are carried fact that there are actually more bears in final rule for delisting of the Louisiana over into final uncertainty of the the GYE. The second source of bias black bear (81 FR 13174, March 11, estimated population size; how natural commenters cited relates to increased 2016), for example, also referenced mortalities were estimated and unreliability of unique sightings of population viability analyses with the included; and whether the population females with cubs. Based on the probability of persistence measured over size is based on unique number of guidelines for how the IGBST counts a 100-year timeframe (Laufenberg and females with cubs or litter size. Peer females with cubs, females sighted with Clark 2014, p. 2). Moreover, the GYE reviewers asked if the Chao2 estimator differing numbers of cubs are proposed rule also refers to a 500-year was published in a single paper in its considered unique (e.g., a female timeframe for the GYE grizzly bear entirety or had been subject to peer spotted with two cubs near where a population. review. female with three cubs was also spotted The GYE proposed rule clearly Commenters also cast doubt on the is counted as an additional unique cautioned the reader that the analyses of accuracy and reliability of the Chao2 female). However, increased cub Boyce et al. (2001, p. 34) did not population estimation method, mortality increases the difficulty in consider possible changes in vital rates especially considering the research of distinguishing between unique females due to habitat changes. Vital rates have Doak and Cutler (2014a, 2014b). These with cubs; between multiple survey indeed changed since the time of the concerns included: (1) Concerns that flights, a female could lose a cub and analysis (although the preponderance of Chao2 becomes less accurate with time; thus be counted twice (once as a unique evidence indicates these changes in (2) confusion about the wide range of female when she has three cubs and vital rates were associated with estimated population sizes (according to again as a unique female when she is

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30562 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

spotted with only two cubs). This Whereas many other and newer relevant references for the Chao2 situation can again cause overestimation estimation techniques exist, they do not estimate technique. of the number of females with cubs. The necessarily provide the best available The derivation of total population size third source of bias comes from science for the desired monitoring introduces additional uncertainty into increased search effort; variable efforts objectives, as described below. the total population estimate, but we in surveys could lead to artificially Furthermore, the Chao2 technique is have no data that suggest that bias higher counts of females with cubs. One one of several that the IGBST uses to would increase. Indeed, the vital rates commenter suggested that courts have monitor population size and trend. (i.e., survival and fecundity) derived ruled our use of a population estimator Although there are other methods that from the IGBST’s large sample of radio- based on ‘‘females with cubs’’ illegal would likely result in greater precision marked bears monitored annually, (Funds for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. and lower bias (e.g., DNA sampling), not which form the basis for the multipliers, Supp. 96, 114 (D.D.C. 1995)). only are they currently not available have been published in multiple peer- Commenters asked that we discuss with the data we have, the annual reviewed papers using well-established potential methods for managing these implementation of these methods would techniques (e.g., in their entirety: biases associated with counts of females be prohibitive both in costs and Schwartz et al. 2006b; van Manen et al. with cubs (and thus with Chao2), such logistics. The IGBST estimated that the 2016). The most recent analyses by van as specifying that population costs for a single DNA-based population Manen et al. (2016, p. 305) showed that monitoring will continue indefinitely at estimate for the entire GYE would be male survival rates increased from the same intensity, the same approximately $11 million. The IGBST 1983–2001 to 2002–2012. distribution, and under the same design will continue to investigate cost- The survival estimates are not inflated to account for potential biases from effective techniques that may result in and, in fact, may be underestimates variable search effort and conditions. relatively unbiased estimates with because IGBST assigns the month of Commenters raised concerns about greater precision. We have provided death as the last month an individual other sources of bias in the Chao2 clarifications in this final rule (see bear was known to be active when a estimator. First, some commented that Population and Demographic Recovery bear was lost from monitoring and the the population estimate is influenced Criteria) and the 2016 Conservation date of death was unknown. If some of and potentially biased by the Strategy (see Chapter 2) to address these individuals were lost the multipliers used for dependent young, comments concerning the application following month, the overall estimate of pre-reproductive independent females, and transparency of the definition of the survival would be higher (Haroldson et and independent males, and by Chao2 estimator. The model-averaged al. 2006, p. 40). Regarding insensitivity changing survival rates (i.e., the increase Chao2 provides an estimate of the to rapidly changing conditions, IGBST is currently investigating the power of in the population estimate as a result of number of females with cubs-of-the- the current population estimation the increased survival rate used for year, rather than an estimate of the protocol to detect a declining trend (see adult males after 2012). Second, overall grizzly bear abundance, which is Issue 29). One commenter referred to commenters claimed that the Knight then used to derive a total population the findings of the demographic review Rule (the rule we use for distinguishing estimate. In response to a comment conducted by IGBST in 2011, which unique females with cubs) could reduce about potential issues with model- was triggered by the monitoring system the ability of Chao2 to detect changes in averaging, our interpretation of Cade indicating a change in population trend population size. Under these rules, we (2015, entire) and others (e.g., Fieberg consider two females spotted within 30 had occurred. That demographic review and Johnson 2015, entire) is that model- km (19 mi) of each other as the same was based on 2002–2011 data and averaging of the regression coefficients bear. As grizzly bear populations indicated that population growth had is not recommended, but that model- become denser, there will eventually be slowed starting in the early 2000s and, averaging of predictions (i.e., in this a maximum number of bears that importantly, also indicated that several instance, annual estimates of the surveyors can possibly count given vital rates had changed (e.g., lower number of females with cubs-of-the-year these rules (i.e., one bear in every 30 km survival of cubs and yearlings, greater based on a linear and quadratic model) (19 mi) radius); they referred to this survival of independent males). Because is appropriate. Thus, the term ‘‘model- maximum number of bears countable IGBST uses vital rates to extrapolate averaged Chao2 estimate’’ is appropriate under the Knight Rule as the ‘‘density population estimates of females with threshold.’’ One commenter worried and should be continued. cubs-of-the-year to a total population that once the population exceeds this We have provided clarifications in the estimate, the relative proportions of threshold, managers will not be able to final rule (see Population and different population segments changed. detect declines in the population Demographic Recovery Criteria) and the Due to the increase in survival of between the actual number of bears and 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, independent males, the sex ratio of this threshold, since the counts of bears pp. 33–53) to address comments independent males and females is now will be artificially stagnant. Another concerning the transparency of the 1:1, rather than the previous ratio of commenter worried that managers could definition of the Chao2 estimator. 0.635, which means the independent misinterpret reaching the density Although the details of the Chao2 male segment in the population is now threshold as reaching the carrying estimator are not published in their proportionally greater than what was capacity of the population. Commenters entirety in a single article, we have documented in 1983–2001. suggested that we should use the expanded the description of the Chao2 Thus, while population growth methods in Ordiz et al. (2007) instead of estimator to include all relevant peer- indeed slowed down, a given estimate the Knight Rule. Third, one commenter reviewed literature. All of the details are of the number of females with cubs-of- suggested that the method is insensitive provided in the literature regarding the the-year based on 2002–2011 vital rates to rapidly changing conditions. application of the Chao2 estimator and translates into a larger total population Response—The Chao2 estimate the inputs and would be too technical compared to 1983–2001 data because of method is the best science that is and cumbersome to include in the final the greater proportion of independent currently available and that can apply rule and 2016 Conservation Strategy, males in the population. These under the current monitoring schemes. which were revised to provide all observations are not an indicator of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30563

‘‘high uncertainty in the monitoring of in the Yellowstone Recovery Zone plus possibility of population decline is this population.’’ In fact, the IGBST the 10-mile perimeter, whereas the treated as the fact of population decline concluded that the monitoring system IGBST (2006, p. 5) assessment included (even where overwhelming evidence was effective: (1) The IGBST developed females throughout the GYE. It is suggests otherwise), there is no need to a population monitoring system and possible that the population is growing spend money on research or monitoring established triggers that indicate when a and expanding beyond the DMA while because the management approach change has occurred; (2) the IGBST the Chao2 method is showing a stable would be identical regardless of what noted when a change in population population because the population is data were produced. Because it is growth was detected; (3) the IGBST only estimated for within the DMA and impossible to absolutely reject the studied the demographic factors (i.e., the Chao2 technique results in a hypothesis of decline, one would vital rates) associated with that change conservative estimate and the always manage as though a decline had (e.g., lower cub and yearling survival, underestimation bias increases with occurred. To us this would seem poor greater independent male survival; population size. policy.’’ slight reduction in fecundity); (4) the Schwartz et al. (2008, entire) The critique of increased search effort IGBST tested hypotheses regarding demonstrated that the bias associated and sightability were addressed in these changes in vital rates (effects of with the measurement and substantial detail in the response by van change in food resources versus density interpretation of unique females with Manen et al. (2014, pp. 324–325) to the dependence); and (5) the findings were cubs-of-the-year results in an critique article by Doak and Cutler (2014a, entire). Specifically, in figure 1 published in peer-reviewed journals and underestimation of the population of the Supplemental file from van other outlets so that managers can adjust estimate, with increasing negative bias Manen et al. (2014), they demonstrated management accordingly. The biases as the number of females with cubs in that the number of flight hours associated with the Chao2 method and the population increases. Doak and increased as flight observation areas how they are carried through were Cutler (2014a, entire) critiqued the were added to accommodate range identified in IGBST (2012, p. 20). The approach taken by the IGBST of using expansion from 1986–2010. The population size is based on the unique the model-averaged Chao2 estimator of correlation coefficient suggested this number of females with cubs-of-the- females with cubs-of-the-year to derive was a near 1-to-1 relationship. One key year; litter size is only a factor in the total population estimate. They separating unique females with cubs. aspect of the Chao2 estimator is that it claim that increases in grizzly bear reduces bias due to variation in In response to doubts on the accuracy population estimates from 1983 to 2001 sightability among different females and reliability of the Chao2 population can be attributed to factors other than with cubs-of-the-year. Additionally, estimation method: (1) We acknowledge actual increases in population size, model averaging smooths annual an underestimation bias in Chao2 that primarily observation effort and variations in counts that are due to both increases as the population grows (i.e., sightability of female grizzly bears with sampling and process variation, with underestimation is greater as the cubs-of-the-year. However, in a rebuttal, the process variation coming from the number of females with cubs in the van Manen et al. (2014, entire) proportion of females that have cubs at population increases); however, this demonstrated that the simulations of the side in any particular year. If bias translates into a conservative Doak and Cutler (2014a, entire) were not anything, changes in litter size would approach to management of the GYE reflective of the true observation process increase underestimation bias and thus population. (2) We also acknowledge nor did their results provide statistical be conservative. Moreover, while cub that other methods yield higher support for their own conclusions. In mortality has increased, the geographic population estimates (e.g., Thuermer addition, van Manen et al. (2014, pp. distribution of observed litter size has 2016, entire); however, the higher 326–328) found that there was no not. population estimates mentioned by justification to account for ‘‘bias The suggestion that we continue the Thuermer (2016, entire) were based on associated with the method or current method of population the Mark-Resight technique, which also disagreements in the scientific monitoring indefinitely, including yields low precision when utilized for community about the population intensity, distribution, and design, is trend detection. (3) Keating et al. (2002, estimate of ∼700’’; particularly given the addressed in this final rule (see pp. 172–172) discusses the coefficient of demonstrated underestimation bias of Population and Demographic Recovery variation associated with the Chao2 the rule set (Schwartz et al. 2008, entire) Criteria) and in the 2016 Conservation method. (4) In 2007, the IGBST and the Chao2 estimator (Cherry et al. Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 33–53). In implemented the model-averaging 2007, entire). Both sources of known response to the suggestion that we technique, which resulted in a slight negative bias contribute to conservative review Ordiz et al. (2007, entire) as an increase in population estimates. The population estimates. The related alternative to the Knight rule, there are IGBST decided not to apply this comment disregards the notion of the multiple techniques and different rule technique retroactively to population central tendency of data and sets that can be developed to estimate estimates in years prior to 2007. In mischaracterizes the scientific concept unique females with cubs-of-the-year. addition, population estimates of uncertainty. We answer this using a The Ordiz et al. (2007, entire) paper increased with increasing male survival, relevant quote from Schwartz et al. does not describe a rule set but which resulted in more males in the (2006b, p. 62), who addressed the issue examines relationships among distances estimated population (IGBST 2012, p. of uncertainty in demographic estimates and number of days of individual 33). These decisions were made as they relate to management: ‘‘Thus, we females with cubs-of-the-year; data on independently by the IGBST and had no see no escape from uncertainty. To litter size were not incorporated. connection with the delisting under claim that no decision about what has Schwartz et al. (2008, entire) consideration. The raw counts and occurred should be adopted until investigated similar distance and time Chao2 estimates of females with cubs uncertainty is removed or to claim that relationships for GYE female grizzly differed in Keating et al. (2002, p. 166) the only acceptable decision adopts bears with cubs-of-the-year, but no because they used only females with some lower confidence limit as truth is adjustments to Knight et al. (1995) were cubs seen without the aid of telemetry to reject the role of science. If the made to reduce the probability of Type

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30564 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

I errors (i.e., mistakenly identifying to a 0.8 percent annual increase if averaged Chao2 estimate of the total sightings of the same family as different modelers only use data from 2007 to the number of females with cubs-of-the- families). The IGBST may consider present; (6) that the IGBST methods year, using the model-averaged alternatives to the existing rule set in overestimate the growth rate because endpoint in the time series as the the future; if those alternatives are they do not adequately account for estimate for the current year. Change in deemed to improve the best available senescence in birth and death rates of trend since 1983 is assessed by science, new procedures will be females (Doak and Cutler 2014a, 2014b); examining support for the linear versus adopted per the process outlined in this and (7) questions as to how cumulative the quadratic model using AICc weights. final rule and the 2016 Conservation uncertainty in the population models Finally, a total population estimate is Strategy. Although it is true that are carried over into final uncertainty of derived based on the estimated changes in the estimates of females with estimated population growth. Some proportion of the total population that is cubs-of-the-year may be more difficult commenters were concerned with a represented by the estimated number of to detect once above a density potential lag effect (i.e., that the model- females with cubs-of-the-year. For this threshold, this is again a conservative averaged approach is insensitive to final step, data on vital rates (i.e., approach. The analogy is a thermometer rapidly changing conditions and that a survival of different sex and age classes, that does not register temperatures negative population trend would not be fecundity), as estimated from known- above 102 degrees; as long as the value detected until it is too late); Doak (1995) fate monitoring of radio-marked bears, of interest is below 102, it registers only and McLellan (2015) have reported lag are required. Please see Issue 28 for a when it drops to that point. effects between habitat decline and detailed discussion on the estimate of The rule set used in the Chao2 population decline. unique females with cubs-of-the-year. estimate for identifying unique females Several commenters suggested The IGBST is currently investigating with cubs-of-the-year is conservative additional or alternative methods to the power of the current population and becomes increasingly conservative apply in detecting the population trend estimation protocol to detect a declining with greater numbers of unique females including: (1) Comparing the annual trend. Primary findings will be with cubs-of-the-year (i.e., population uncertainty in the population estimates submitted to a peer-reviewed journal level determines the level of bias, not to long-term averages; and (2) using later in 2017. An overview of how population growth). Although the Chao2 capture-recapture data to estimate cumulative uncertainty in the estimate does become increasingly population trend rather than the population models are carried over into negatively biased with increasing trapping effort data used by van Manen final uncertainty of estimated density, the IGBST uses additional data et al. (2016) and Bjornlie et al. (2014b). population growth is provided in table for demographic inference (i.e., to A peer-reviewer also suggested using an 2.1 of the IGBST’s Demographic determine the population trend and if independent measure, such as Workshop Report (2012, p. 20). In a the population is reaching carrying independent sampling, to verify model rebuttal to the critique by Doak and capacity). Please see Issue 29 for further trends. Cutler (2014a, 2014b), van Manen et al. discussion on population trend. One commenter expressed concern (2014, p. 328) showed that Doak and Combined with recent analyses (van with our population trend projections Cutler’s choice of extreme mortality risk Manen et al. 2016, entire), these data from Harris et al. (2005) because they: beyond age 20 and their incompatible suggest that density-dependent factors Used only around 20 years of data to estimate of baseline fecundity led to may be operating and are an indicator develop growth projections for the next erroneous conclusions. We assume that of the population at or near carrying decade; did not account for transfer the commenter is actually referring to capacity. Lastly, efforts are currently between ‘‘management classes’’ of bears Harris et al. (2006, entire). If so, these under way by the IGBST to: (1) Address (i.e., habituated versus non-habituated issues were addressed in that the underestimation bias of Chao2, and or problem versus nonproblem); and did publication and other sections, of (2) examine the ability of the Chao2 not account for migration between Schwartz et al. (2006b, entire). Twenty technique to detect a change in geographic zones with vastly different years of concerted efforts provides a population trend over time. However, mortality risk (i.e., Schwartz et al. substantial dataset for population given the detailed discussion above, the (2006b) analysis of vital rates in three projections, particularly for large Chao2 method remains the best different zones). vertebrates (few other projects on large available data upon which to answer the Response—In response to a previous vertebrates have such extensive question at hand. request for a justification of our use of datasets). We now have over 30 years of Issue 29—Commenters expressed linear and quadratic models in such data. The issue of management concern about how population trend is population trend estimation, a detailed versus research bears was addressed in measured, including: (1) A desire for explanation and justification was another chapter (see p. 9, Study Area justification for the use of linear and provided in the peer-reviewed and Methods for Collecting and quadratic models; (2) that we should not publication (Harris et al. 2007, entire). Analyzing Demographic Data on Grizzly use observations of females with cubs to Linear and quadratic regression models Bears in GYE) of the Monograph. estimate population trend because this are fitted as an initial estimate of trend Migration between the three different measure is unreliable at high population (Harris et al. 2007, pp. 171–172). geographic zones used in the analyses of densities; (3) confusion as to whether Regression smooths variation to provide Schwartz et al. (2006b) is unknown and we use number of unique females with an estimate of trend representative of difficult to estimate, but radio-telemetry cubs or litter size to estimate population the population if the age distribution is data do not suggest movements among growth; (4) that we should only use data relatively stable (Harris et al. 2007, pp. the zones are common, other than the since 2000 when estimating population 171–172). Support for linear versus fact that some home ranges of male trend since the smoothing approach quadratic models is assessed using bears that may straddle two zones. employed in the Chao2 method is Akaike’s Information Criterion (AICc; Thus, IGBST estimates of survival and highly sensitive to the time period being Hurvich and Tsai 1989, entire; Burnham lambda for the three zones are reflective modelled (and major changes occurred and Anderson 2002, entire). Respective of the sampled resident bears. in the GYE in 2000); (5) that the AICc weights of the linear and quadratic For large vertebrate populations, lag population trend declines significantly models are then used to obtain a model- effects can occur, if there is indeed

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30565

habitat decline and animals are affected entire) used radio-monitored bears in Response—We agree that by that decline. With 2016 being their analysis of known-fate data to implementation of the 1986 Guidelines approximately 10 years after the peak estimate vital rates, and Bjornlie et al. was only one factor that increased the years of whitebark pine decline and (2014b, entire) was based on home- population trend in the GYE. However, about 20 years since the decline of range data of grizzly bears. Thus, the implementation of the 1986 Guidelines cutthroat trout, there is currently little four methods currently used to estimate by the National Forest and the National evidence of a lag effect either at the GYE population trend, and upon which we Parks improved habitat quality (i.e., grizzly bear population level base our determination, remain the best reduced motorized access and livestock (population remains stable) or at the available data. Of these four methods, allotments) and reduced human-bear individual level (lack of evidence of the model-averaged Chao2 method is conflicts. There is no biological way to changes in survival, litter size, currently the only method used to define ‘‘baseline’’ levels for various fecundity, etc. during the last 10 to 15 estimate population size and to assess foods because the natural foods for years). It should be noted that observed recovery criterion #3. grizzly bears naturally fluctuate, changes in vital rates (i.e., lower cub The IGBST’s primary estimates of annually and spatially, across the and yearling survival, slight suppression population trajectory (i.e., growth or ecosystem. Commenters make a valid of reproduction) occurred during the decline) have been based on population point that the number of older bears in late 1990s and early 2000s. Even projections using known-fate estimates the GYE population is increasing while without a lag effect, these changes in of vital rates derived from radio- the number of cubs and younger bears vital rates occurred prior to, or close to, monitoring a representative sample of is decreasing, and supports the notion the onset of whitebark pine decline; grizzly bears in the GYE (e.g., see that GYE grizzly bears may be nearing thus, there is little support for a lag Schwartz et al. 2006b; IGBST 2012). carrying capacity in portions of the effect due to changes in food resources. Those vital rates include annual ecosystem. As van Manen et al. (2016, The IGBST investigated the influence survival rates for independent male and pp. 308–309) note, observations of more, of ‘‘anchoring’’ the time series in 1983 female grizzly bears, age of first older bears and suppression of versus 2002. The difference in model- reproduction, litter size, and survival of recruitment support the notion of averaged Chao2 estimates was dependent young (i.e., cubs of the year density-dependence in the GYE grizzly negligible. For example, the 2014 and yearlings) that accompany their bear population. One consequence of estimate of females with cubs-of-the- radio-marked mothers. The number of density dependence indeed is that year using the time series of 1983–2014 unique females with cubs-of-the-year trends stabilize or possibly even was 60, whereas the 2002–2014 time estimated to be present in the ecosystem decline. In response to comments that series resulted in an estimate of 57 for annually from IGBST observation flights there was a 6 percent population 2014. Similarly, the 2015 estimate of and other opportunistic verified decline between 2014 and 2015, for a females with cubs-of-the-year based on sightings do not enter into those known- long-lived vertebrate, such as grizzly the 1983–2015 time series was 56, fate projections. However, we can also bears, inference of trend based on whereas the 2002–2015 time series estimate trend using the Chao2- model-averaged Chao2 estimates from produced an estimate of 54 (van Manen corrected annual counts of unique one year to the next is inappropriate. 2016b, in litt.). It should be noted that females with cubs. The end point for the Trends should be investigated over there is no statistical trend based on the model-averaged result of the linear and longer time periods; based on 2002–2015 data, supporting the quadratic regressions of the Chao2- unpublished IGBST analyses of 2000 to interpretation of the population being corrected counts with year, along with 2015 data, analyses do not indicate a stable during this time period. information from our known-fate population decline (van Manen 2016b, In response to the comment that analyses, is used to derive annual in litt.). Trend analyses and population suggests we use additional methods to population estimates. Although not a projections based on known-fate data detect population trend and size, primary IGBST method for assessing indicate the population has indeed although the proposed rule (81 FR trend, a key assumption for doing this remained stable to slightly increasing 13174, March 11, 2016) describes use of based on the number of unique females since the early 2000s. The best available only the Chao2 method to detect with cubs-of-the-year is that the trend data do not indicate evidence of a population size, the IGBST uses three for this observable segment of the population decline. additional and independent methods: population (i.e., females with cubs-of- (1) Mark-Resight estimator (i.e., capture- the-year) is representative of trend for Issue 31—Several commenters and a recapture data (IGBST annual reports)); the whole population. peer-reviewer raised concerns over (2) population projections from known- Issue 30—Several commenters offered utilizing a new population estimation fate analysis (in their entirety: Schwartz alternative explanations of the method in the future in lieu of the et al. 2006b; IGBST 2012); and (3) population trend, including that: (1) current methodology (Chao2). population reconstruction (IGBST, Any population growth after listing Suggestions for alternative, potentially unpublished data). Together, these four occurred because of concurrent less-biased, methods included: (1) The methods support the interpretation that increases in food sources and road Mark-Resight method; (2) a model the GYE grizzly bear population closures, rather than implementation of ‘‘based on a running average of annual experienced robust population growth 1986 guidelines; (2) the population has growth rate over’’ the six preceding from the mid to late 1980s through the not grown since 2000 and may even be years; (3) a census that includes the age, late 1990s, followed by a slowing of declining below population objectives; sex, and location of each bear; or (4) a population growth since the early (3) lower cub survival rates and DNA assessment (including options that 2000s. None of these methods indicate mortalities from conflicts with hunters involve hair snares as done in the NCDE a decline. The assertion that the bear and livestock caused a 6 percent (Kendall et al. 2009), rubbing trees population may be actually declining is population decline between 2014 and (Stetz et al. 2010), or using combined thus not supported by data. Neither van 2015; and (4) further population data types to increase precision Manen et al. (2016, entire) nor Bjornlie declines are impending due to the age (Boulanger et al. 2008; Abadie et al. et al. (2014b, entire) estimated structure in the GYE (more older bears 2010)). Proponents of DNA methods population size. van Manen et al. (2016, and fewer younger bears). argued that projected costs are

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30566 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

comparable to those of current methods estimates over the previous 10- or 15- discretionary mortality, total mortality, and could be significantly lower than year period (i.e., temporal moving unknown/unreported mortality). These the expensive estimates in Kendall et al. window). (3) It is impossible to truly commenters found the multiple terms (2009). census bear populations, especially in confusing and asked for thorough Some public commenters requested remote and inaccessible areas such as definitions of each type of mortality. that any new population estimation the GYE. The IGBST does use One commenter suggested using methodology be open to public population reconstruction (minimum ‘‘management mortality’’ (mortality comment prior to implementation. number of known live) based on an from hunting and management Some commenters and peer-reviewers extensive dataset of capture and removals) and ‘‘other mortality’’ instead were concerned that implementation of mortality records. (4) The IGBST of our terms. The States suggested using a new method could make considered the use of DNA sampling only the term ‘‘discretionary mortality.’’ interpretation of estimates and trends about 10 years ago but determined that Some commenters suggested that the difficult and raised questions about how logistics and costs (at the time, definitions and example calculations new estimates would be reconciled with estimated at $11 million) were (e.g., table 3 from the proposed rule and previous estimates that used the Chao2 prohibitive. Recent advances in the example calculations for the number methodology, including a need to population estimation techniques and of individual grizzly bears that could be calibrate the mortality limits, study design may allow for more available for hunting harvest) included population estimates, status review efficient sampling, and the IGBST is in the proposed rule should also be triggers, and population objectives. currently investigating the feasibility of included in the 2016 Conservation Commenters worried that, without this DNA sampling for density estimation. Strategy for clarity. However, the States recalibration, adoption of a more The final 2016 Conservation Strategy requested the removal of table 3 from accurate population estimation method commits to using the model-averaged the proposed rule. would allow the States to kill hundreds Chao2 population estimator for the Commenters also expressed concern of bears, while other commenters noted foreseeable future to maintain the about ‘‘background mortality’’ including that new population estimation population around the average that background mortality must take methodology should not be used to re- population size from 2002 to 2014. The into account unknown and unreported define what the recovered bear numbers implementation of a new method to mortalities, that we need to account for are for future management decisions. estimate population size within the GYE the uncertainty in the calculation of We received several comments about DMA would be evaluated by the IGBST background mortality, and that we need the recalibration language in Appendix and constitute a change to the to define the period over which the C of the draft 2016 Conservation Conservation Strategy, which requires moving average of background mortality Strategy, some suggested that the same approval by the YGCC and a public will be calculated. language needed to not only remain in comment period. Response—The proposed rule defines Appendix C of the 2016 Conservation The recalibration language in ‘‘discretionary mortality’’ as ‘‘mortalities Strategy but also be included in the Appendix C was removed because it that are the result of hunting or MOA and State plans, while others were was determined to be too prescriptive as management removals;’’ thus, hunting is concerned that it restricted the it would require data from 2002 to 2014, a form of discretionary mortality. We adaptability of future management by the period for which the model- made changes to the discussion of dictating how a new population averaged Chao2 population estimate is human-caused mortality in Factors B estimator would be applied. Some used as the population objective. It is and C Combined of the final rule to commenters expressed that the lack of likely that any new method would clarify this issue. As table 3 and the recalibration language in the State require data that are not currently explanation of background mortality in regulations and plans meant that collected, and, therefore, retroactive the proposed rule was only an example, adequate regulatory mechanisms were estimation using the new method would the YES concluded it was unnecessary not in place. not be possible. The States have made to include in the 2016 Conservation Response—The IGBST frequently a number of clearly articulated Strategy. In response to comments about reviews their protocols and techniques commitments through the 2016 table 3 in the proposed rule and the for population estimation and Conservation Strategy and Tri-State definitions (i.e., total mortality, population trend analysis. They MOA to maintain a recovered bear background mortality, and discretionary currently use four different techniques population as measured by the mortality), we revised the example for inference. As new techniques or established demographic recovery (table 4 in this final rule) and approaches are reviewed for potential criteria. For example, in the Tri-State explanatory language to clarify. To adoption, the technique’s cost, field MOA (Wyoming Game and Fish reduce confusion, the 2016 sampling logistics, utility to managers, Commission et al. 2016, pp. 4, 2.a.i.), Conservation Strategy and the final rule and the ability to retroactively apply the States have agreed to manage the no longer refer to background mortality population estimates to previous years GYE grizzly bear population within the but rather total, discretionary (including of data are considered. In response to DMA, to at least within the 95% hunting and management removals), specific methods raised in public confidence intervals associated with the and non-discretionary mortality. As comment: (1) The IGBST developed the 2002 to 2014 long-term average grizzly stated in the Tri-State MOA, the States Mark-Resight method for this purpose, bear population estimate calculated will annually calculate allowable and recently determined that, although using the model-averaged Chao2 discretionary mortality using the the estimates are relatively unbiased, estimator (i.e., 600 to 747). See Issue 21 previous year’s population estimate and the power to detect changes in for further discussion. the previous year’s total mortality. population trend was not sufficient. (2) Issue 32—Several State and public Issue 33—Commenters asserted that It is unclear to what model this commenters raised questions about the the methods we use to estimate commenter is referring, thus we are definitions of the types of mortality unknown/unreported mortality, unable to provide a more detailed discussed in the proposed rule (i.e., presented in Cherry et al. (2002), response. However, the IGBST is background mortality, hunting underestimate mortality, are outdated, planning to annually update vital rate mortality, discretionary mortality, non- are susceptible to bias, have wide

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30567

confidence intervals (which were not bias associated with estimation of undetermined but are likely from included in reports), and would not unknown/unreported mortalities is natural causes. These mortalities from adequately account for deaths of bears relatively inconsequential. undetermined causes are also used for orphaned by hunting. These While there is uncertainty around the estimation of unknown/unreported commenters claimed that bias originates estimates of unknown/unreported mortalities, which is then included in from: (1) The fact that the cause of a mortality, there is no inherent bias. The the annual estimate of total mortality. grizzly bear death changes the cause of death is indeed important. For Annual estimates of total mortality for probability of the death being reported; example, the IGBST makes the independent female and male bears are and (2) variable effort in bear capture reasonable assumption that deaths of subsequently used to assess annual and radio-collaring. Commenters radio-collared bears and those due to mortality rates for each of those two suggested that we need to account for management removals are known with segments of the population. Since 2010, the uncertainty in the number of certainty and thus can be excluded from annual estimated mortality rates (as unknown/unreported mortalities. In the Bayesian procedure that is used to derived from the Chao2 estimator) addition, a peer-reviewer suggested that estimate unknown/unreported averaged 7.5 percent and 9.8 percent for we should use a sex assignment of 50 mortalities from those documented independent female and male bears, percent male and 50 percent female mortalities that are discovered and respectively, in the DMA. These when determining the sex of probable or reported (again excluding management estimates are slightly higher than the unrecorded mortalities (or assign any removals and loss of radio-marked average mortality rates of 5 to 6 percent probable mortality as female) in order to bears). The IGBST capture and radio- derived from known-fate monitoring of more conservatively estimate female collaring efforts have been very radio-marked bears (IGBST 2012). The mortality. consistent over time; while sampling difference is likely attributable to the Some commenters expressed concern this large ecosystem with its many fact that mortality rates derived from about our ability to accurately track remote and inaccessible areas is Chao2 estimates are biased low. Using natural death and predation, claiming challenging, the combined effort of an unbiased population estimator, such that most cub and yearling deaths are IGBST partner agencies is based on a as the Mark-Resight method, would due to predation and are well-distributed spatial sample with result in lower mortality rates that are undocumented. One commenter very little variation in annual effort over more in line with those derived from disagreed with the estimates of natural several decades of sampling. The sex known-fate monitoring, suggesting that death and predation provided in the ratio in the overall population is estimates of total mortality are proposed rule; but did not provide 50M:50F, and since 2002, the sex ratio reasonable and, therefore, estimates of alternative supporting documentation. for mortalities of independent-aged natural mortalities are also reasonable. Response—The IGBST uses the bears within the Recovery Zone is Issue 34—We received several public methods in Cherry et al. (2002, entire) 51M:49F, which statistically is not comments and concerns from peer- to estimate unknown/unreported different from 50M:50F (IGBST, reviewers regarding the measurement mortality, as it is the best available unpublished data). However, the sex and calculation of grizzly bear mortality. science. The IGBST does not report ratio of mortalities outside the Recovery Commenters asserted that using known credible intervals for the estimate of Zone is biased towards males (70M:30F) fate monitoring to measure grizzly bear unknown/unreported mortalities and reflects the fact that range mortality (with large data sets covering because this would substantially expansion is driven by males. The long time periods) reduces the ability to complicate implementation (i.e., a range overall average M:F mortality ratio for detect short-term trends and produces of mortality thresholds is not practical the ecosystem is approximately death rates that do not match reality. for managers); instead, they rely on the 59M:41F and is appropriate when Another commenter asked if our central tendency of the data. For assigning sex to documented mortalities calculation of unknown/unreported decision-making, relying on the central for which sex of the animal could not mortalities includes ‘‘possible tendency of the data is justified. be determined. mortalities.’’ Uncertainty is often interpreted to Natural deaths of cubs and yearlings Commenters also expressed concerns reflect a possibility of worst-case (i.e., dependent young) are difficult to about our measurement of total scenarios (e.g., the low end of the document, which is why the proposed mortality including: (1) That the IGBST credible interval that underestimates rule only tracks the human-caused reports do not include confidence unknown/unreported mortality in this mortality for dependent young. intervals on mortality rates; (2) that the instance), but the tendency is towards Although current calculations for IGBST does not include natural deaths the median and about 50 percent of unknown/unreported mortality do not in their mortality estimations; (3) that estimates will be conservative (i.e., account for young potentially orphaned the method the IGBST uses to calculate above the median and, thus, by hunting, it is extremely likely that total deaths underestimates the number overestimating unknown/unreported evidence of lactation would be present of total deaths with an unknown and mortality). In the estimate of unknown/ on any female grizzly bear hide inconsistent degree of bias; (4) that unreported mortality for independent- presented to State fish and game offices actual total mortality is twice as high as aged bears (i.e., bears 2 years or older), for sealing. reported levels because analysts are not all reported mortalities, including those Regarding natural deaths of accurately capturing mortality from from natural cause, are used. The independent-aged bears, the IGBST unreported poaching and road kills; and method of estimating unknown/ accounts for four sources in the estimate (5) that emigration out of the DMA does unreported mortalities indeed has a of total mortality: (1) Documented not, but should, count towards total slight underestimation bias. However, natural mortality from radio telemetry; allowable mortality in the DMA or all other estimations associated with (2) reported natural mortality; (3) a towards background mortality when calculation of mortality rates are portion of the estimated unknown/ calculating allowable discretionary conservative, and in several cases very unreported mortality previously mortality limits. One commenter conservative, such as the Knight et al. described; and (4) a portion of reported suggested we use the upper bound of (1995, entire) rule set (see Schwartz et grizzly bear mortalities for which a the 95 percent confidence interval to al. 2008, entire). Thus, the slight low specific cause of death was determine the value of unreported

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30568 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

mortality we include in our calculation We did not find it necessary to levels will improve upon delisting. One of total mortality. include detailed geographic locations of commenter contended that mortality Other commenters requested that the factors associated with mortality risk in could approach 200 bears annually after rule include information on geographic the proposed or final rule because the delisting, if bears are also killed in locations of factors associated with IGBST maintains the GYE grizzly bear trophy hunts. Commenters worried if mortality risk (e.g., attractants, cover, mortality database, which is available at bears could withstand this additional roads, etc.), seasonal and annual https://www.usgs.gov/science/ mortality from hunting considering distribution of these factors, and interagency-grizzly-bear-study-team?qt- current high mortality levels without a analysis on if these factors are likely to science_center_objects=3#qt-science_ hunt; many thought any additional change in the foreseeable future, with or center_objects (last accessed on mortality could lead to population without delisting, or that detailed February 22, 2017), with the basic decline. Commenters asserted that if the mortality information be publicly information of location, date, sex, age, grizzly bear population has stabilized reported. certainty, and cause of death. since 2002 while mortality rates have Response—Annual mortality rates are Additional information can be already simultaneously increased, then the bear determined from Chao2-derived attributed, as necessary, to the grizzly population is actually declining. population estimates and not from bear mortality records. In addition, the Many commenters also expressed known-fate modeling. Therefore, the availability and quality of geographic concerns that the IGBST is no longer comment regarding the limited ability to information that can be attributed to reporting violations of mortality detect short-term trends is incorrect. mortalities and the analytical thresholds, which the Service is Please see Issue 29 for further techniques are advancing rapidly. The required to publicly announce. discussion on methods used to estimate IGBST routinely investigates Response—First, it is important to population trend. For every reported geographic, temporal, and other understand that the proportion of mortality, our estimate is close to two relationships of demographic mortalities outside the DMA is steadily unreported mortalities. In addition, parameters, particularly when increasing over time and that any grizzly bear mortalities are classified monitoring data indicate potential population inference should be based based on the definitions provided by changes are occurring. Therefore, if on mortalities inside the DMA (e.g., 50 Craighead et al. (1988), and mortality changes in mortality patterns are bear mortalities within the DMA in 2015 estimations include probable observed, research can be initiated to vs. 61 mortalities within the entire GYE, mortalities; however, they do not examine patterns over time for certain including 50 inside the DMA and 11 include possible mortalities. geographic areas, as well as potential outside the DMA). Second, although the The IGBST does not report credible causes, such as the study by Schwartz total number of human-caused intervals for estimates of unknown/ et al. (2010, entire), who developed a mortalities has increased since the early unreported mortalities, which includes spatially explicit model of hazards 1990s, so has the grizzly bear’s natural deaths, because it would affecting survival of grizzly bears. population size, which is why IGBST substantially complicate Issue 35—Commenters expressed estimates mortality rates to determine if implementation (see Issue 33 for further concern regarding recent increases in these rates are sustainable. Third, while discussion). The IGBST includes all human-caused mortality, citing such mortality rates within the DMA have sources of mortality, including natural statistics as: (1) Hunter-caused been above mortality thresholds in deaths, in their calculations of total mortalities increased over the past 11 several years (e.g., 2015), the average mortality for independent females and years from 3.7 bears to 10.2 bears per has remained under the threshold over males. Although the method used for year; (2) total human-caused mortality the recent period of 2010 to 2015 with estimating unknown/unreported has increased since 1994; (3) mortality 7.5 percent for independent females and mortalities slightly underestimates limits for males and/or females were 9.8 percent for independent males. And mortality, it is inconsequential because exceeded in 5 out of the last 7 years; and finally, causes of mortality have indeed other estimations associated with (4) the number of mortalities grew 9 to changed over time as conservation calculation of mortality rates are 11 percent annually between 2002 and measures were implemented and the conservative (in their entirety: Knight et 2011, leading to an average of 50 bears population increased and expanded. For al. 1995; Schwartz et al. 2008). While dying each year in the past 10 years, example, grizzly bear mortalities related there is uncertainty around estimates of despite implementation of I&E programs to livestock depredations were almost mortality, there is no inherent bias (see in 2008. Many commenters specifically eliminated within the Grizzly Bear Issue 33). There is no evidence that an expressed concern with the ‘‘record Recovery Zone as livestock allotments increase in poaching (which has high’’ levels of mortality in 2015, were closed or retired during the 1980s. remained low for several decades) has claiming that 10 percent of the GYE However, with the population occurred. Please see Cherry et al. (2002, population died; that human-caused expanding well beyond the boundaries entire) for further discussion on how mortalities increased in 2015, with 61 of the Recovery Zone, where livestock poaching and other causes are known mortalities and at least 30 grazing remains common, these type of accounted for in calculations of additional unknown mortalities mortalities have again increased. The unreported/unknown mortality. The (numbers that may underestimate total increase in hunter-related incidents may assertion that emigration out of the mortality by 50 percent); and that the similarly be associated with range DMA should count towards total limit for female mortality was exceeded. expansion. Human access in core areas allowable or background mortality is Many commenters provided input on of the ecosystem is generally lower incorrect. Emigration out of the DMA, if the causes of these recent high mortality compared with the periphery. it occurred, would result in a lower levels: road/railroad mortality, Consequently, with range expansion the population estimate, which would poaching, and lethal control from probability of grizzly bear encounters subsequently result in a higher mortality conflicts with livestock and hunters. with hunters during fall ungulate hunts rate if the number of mortalities stayed Commenters also suggested that 2016 has increased. the same. As discussed above in Issue mortality levels are ‘‘unsustainable’’ and Regarding concerns over the level of 33, it is reasonable to rely on the central could exceed the 2015 records, which mortality in 2015, the estimated number tendency of data. reduces public confidence that mortality of annual mortalities was 25

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30569

independent females and 32 regards to the measurement of vital biology and monitoring review; this independent males, including rates. Commenters also noted that review led to the finding that cub and unknown/unreported mortalities negative trends in vital rates, and thus yearling survival and a reproductive (Haroldson and Frey 2016, pp. 29–30). population declines, may not be parameter had declined, which led to The mortality rate for independent detected until it is too late, citing that further investigations about the females was 10.1 percent, which there has been a decrease in cub and potential causes for these changes. exceeded the allowable mortality rate of yearling survival since the early 2000’s, Those potential causes were 9 percent. Importantly, the demographic and that there is uncertainty associated investigated in detail as part of the recovery criterion states that this rate is with the ecological factors that may be IGBST’s Food Synthesis project and not to be exceeded for 3 consecutive contributing to this decline in vital indicated associations with bear density years (USFWS 2017, p. 5). We rates. Finally, one commenter asked if (cub survival and reproductive documented only one year of the various reproductive parameters co- transition decreased as bear density exceedance; therefore, the criterion was vary and, if they do, is it in a linear or increased), but not with decline of not violated. The independent male non-linear manner. whitebark pine. Regardless, the issues of mortality rate (13 percent) was under Response—Sampling the GYE grizzly trend detection are important. The the allowable limit of 20 percent. bear population for known-fate IGBST is currently investigating the Total mortality from any cause, monitoring is challenging. Long-term ability to detect (based on the Chao2 including hunting, shall not exceed capture efforts are not perfect but are estimator) when population estimates thresholds as defined in the final rule designed to obtain a representative have reached specific population and 2016 Conservation Strategy; sample of the population and represent thresholds and the degree to which therefore, if hunting was allowed, it the best available scientific method for population thresholds may be exceeded, would be an inclusive instead of the question at hand. While some both in time and population size, before additive source of mortality. Although individuals may be more susceptible to they are detected. Reproductive independent male mortality was higher capture, there is no indication that this parameters in wildlife populations, in 2016 than in 2015 (37 individuals v. factor has caused a bias in estimation of including bear populations, typically 32, respectively), the mortality rate (15.5 vital rates. There are no studies or data co-vary and often in a non-linear percent (Haroldson and Frey, in press)) suggesting that bears which are more manner. Depending on the complexity did not exceed the annual mortality susceptible to capture have lower or of these relationships, the covariance of threshold of 20 percent (not to be higher survival compared with bears parameters may be difficult to exceeded for 3 consecutive years), as that are less susceptible. On the accurately estimate. outlined in the demographic recovery contrary, population projections derived Issue 37—Both the public and peer- criteria (USFWS 2017, pp. 5–6). The from vital rates for the period from 1983 reviewers presented comments about independent female mortality rate for to 2001 indicated robust population our discussion and analysis of the GYE’s 2016 (5 percent) was also below the growth of 4 to 7 percent (Harris et al. carrying capacity for grizzly bears, threshold of 9 percent. Mortality rates 2006, p. 48), which was similar to the including raising concerns that figure 1 are currently well below the agreed 4 to 5 percent trend obtained for counts of the proposed rule is an upon limits set out in the revised of unique females with cubs-of-the-year oversimplification of a population at demographic recovery criteria (USFWS for the same period (Harris et al. 2007, carrying capacity and requesting that an 2017, pp. 5–6) and committed to by p. 175). Similarly, when a change in explanation of the additional variables States in the Tri-State MOA. Therefore, trajectory and a slowing of growth for influencing carrying capacity (e.g., food we expect that, even if a grizzly bear counts of females with cubs-of-the-year availability and emigration in search of hunt should occur, mortality rates will was detected in the early 2000s, a food, mates, or territory) be included. be maintained below the total mortality reanalysis of vital rates for the period One commenter noted that a graph limits (table 2). from 2002 to 2011 corroborated the illustrating how the Chao2 estimate of The assertion that the bear population slowing of population growth, the GYE grizzly bear population is may be actually declining is not producing population projections based leveling off might provide a clearer supported by data. See Issue 29 for on known-fate data indicating a 0 to 2 demonstration of carrying capacity. additional detail. percent growth. The concordance Some commenters questioned The IGBST did not include in their between these two unrelated and whether carrying capacity has been Annual Report for 2015 whether distinct methods (i.e., estimates of reached since (1) grizzly bears occupy mortality thresholds were exceeded females with cubs-of-the-year and only 25 percent of the GYE; (2) there is because the demographic recovery population projections based on known- inherent difficulty in calculating criteria were under revision. They will fate data) used to estimate trend, and as carrying capacity; and (3) a population report if mortality rates are under or applied during the two different that is increasing at a rate of 3 to 4 over sustainable rates, as measured by periods, lends confidence that vital rates percent per year and for which harvest the revised demographic recovery derived from known-fate monitoring are needs to be adjusted to maintain criteria, in future annual reports, which reasonable and unbiased. Additionally, mortality levels at 10 to 22 percent are will be available at https:// we have found no evidence that the not parameters characteristic of a www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/ number of captures per individual bear population at carrying capacity. In igbst-annual-reports?qt-science_center_ affected survival estimates of addition, a few commenters questioned objects=1#qt-science_center_objects. independent-aged bears (IGBST, if our conclusion that the GYE grizzly Issue 36—Both commenters and peer- unpublished data). bear population has reached carrying reviewers raised concerns over our There is a lag time between when a capacity applied within the PCA, the ability to detect trends in vital rates and change in trend occurs and when it may DMA, or the entire GYE. Conversely, our interpretation of these trends. A be detected. However, the current other commenters expressed support peer-reviewer noted that monitored monitoring system effectively identified that carrying capacity has been reached individuals may be more susceptible to that a change in the population based on: (1) The preponderance of the capture and may not serve as an trajectory had occurred, which triggered best available science; (2) the stability of accurate representative sample in the IGBST to conduct a comprehensive reproduction inside YNP; and (3)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30570 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

increased grizzly bear attacks on that the GYE grizzly bear population has population vital rates, habitat standards, humans in recent years. Commenters reached carrying capacity applies and major foods into management worried that these attacks would within the DMA, as that is the area in decisions to ensure that the GYE grizzly increase and that male grizzly bears which the population is monitored for bear DPS remains recovered. would start to kill dependent grizzly population size, population trend, and Issue 38—Some commenters bears if the population keeps growing. mortality. questioned our interpretation of bear One commenter and several peer- Studies by the IGBST provide strong density in the GYE. Many commenters reviewers suggested alternative support for a density-dependent effect claimed that bear density is actually hypotheses to our claim that the GYE for the leveling off of the population. decreasing in the GYE because the population is approaching carrying Discussion of the Food Synthesis Report population has stabilized or decreased capacity: (1) That a decrease in food (see Factor E, above) addresses since the early 2000s while grizzly bear availability (as mentioned in van Manen comments that suggested that a decrease range has simultaneously increased by et al. (2016, p. 309)) may be the driver in food availability may be the driver as much as 40 percent (i.e., the same behind a slowing growth rate in the GYE behind the slowing growth rate of the number of bears are spread across an grizzly bear population, the increase in GYE grizzly bear population. Although ever-increasing area) and that such grizzly distribution, and the increase in van Manen et al. (2016, p. 309) declines in density are suggestive of human-caused mortalities; and (2) that recognized that a decreased carrying habitat decline and decreased carrying grizzly bears in the GYE may have capacity was an alternative explanation capacity. One commenter took issue reached a human social carrying for demographic changes in the GYE with the methods we used to assess capacity. These commenters also population, they also indicate the density, stating that researchers have suggested increasing habitat to allow for scientific evidence is not strong: not reviewed our density index to population expansion and recovery. confirm its reliability. Response—We have made If bears were responding to a decline in Commenters also raised concerns carrying capacity, however, we would have clarifications in the carrying capacity expected home-range size and movements to about the factors we used to evaluate the discussion of the final rule (see have increased (McLoughlin et al. 2000), relative influence of density- Population Ecology—Background; bears to have relied on lower energy food independent and density-dependent Population and Demographic Recovery resources (McLellan 2011), and body effects on grizzly bear population Criteria; and Changes in Food condition to have declined as a consequence dynamics in the GYE, suggesting: (1) Resources) and the 2016 Conservation (Rode et al. 2001, Robbins et al. 2004, That of the four factors we analyzed, Strategy (see Population Trend). Zedrosser et al. 2006). To date, there is little only one factor (home range size) Although figure 1 of the proposed rule support for these conditions in the differed between the analyses of was a simplification of a population at Yellowstone Ecosystem: female home ranges density-dependence and density- carrying capacity (expressed as K), it is have decreased in size and are less variable independence, and, therefore, the other in areas with greater bear densities (Bjornlie necessary to explain the general et al. 2014b), daily movement rates and daily three factors (decreased cub and principles behind the concept of K. In activity radii have not changed for either sex yearling survival, increased age of first addition, the narrative of carrying during fall (Costello et al. 2014), bears reproduction, and decreased capacity addresses the complexity of continue to use high-quality foods (Fortin et reproduction) cannot be used to this issue, including an explanation of al. 2013), and body mass has not declined distinguish between the influence of the variables that some commenters (Schwartz et al. 2014). As we discussed density-dependent and density- proposed we include (i.e., density- previously, percent body fat among adult independent effects; (2) that we only dependent and density-independent females has not declined since the early explained one of these four factors (cub effects) and the difficulty in measuring 2000s (IGBST 2013, Schwartz et al. 2014) survival); and (3) that we did not carrying capacity. We disagree that a and, regardless, this effect would be account for temporal changes in the consistent with either interference or graph illustrating how the Chao2 exploitation competition and would not abundance of key foods and habitat. estimate of the GYE population is explain the changes in vital rates that Commenters thus questioned the causal leveling off may be a clearer occurred much earlier than the declines in link we suggested between density- demonstration of carrying capacity, foods. Current evidence indicates bears dependence and declining vital rates, because the population has only showed a functional response to declines in and one peer-reviewer suggested we recently approached carrying capacity whitebark pine (Costello et al. 2014) and review our use of any words suggesting compared to a population that has been cutthroat trout (Fortin et al. 2013) and causality, as opposed to association, in fluctuating around carrying capacity as compensated for the loss of these particular our density-dependence analysis. conveyed in figure 1 of the proposed foods through diet shifts Schwartz et al. Response—The hypothesis that 2014). rule. population density in the core area has While one commenter noted that The IGBST data does not support the decreased and that the same number of grizzly bears occupy only 25 percent of alternative hypothesis that human social bears is spread across an increasing area the GYE, we note that suitable habitat is carrying capacity has been reached and is not supported by the best available roughly 24 percent of the total area is contributing to the slowing of data, including that: within the GYE DPS boundaries, of population growth. On average, total (1) The number of females with cubs- which grizzly bears occupy 90 percent mortality rates over the last 10 to 15 of-the-year in YNP showed a gradual but (see Issue 22). We acknowledge in the years have not exceeded established steady increase from 1973 through 2015, proposed rule the inherent difficulty in mortality thresholds and there is no while the number of females with cubs- calculating carrying capacity. As the evidence of an increase in poaching, of-the-year observed outside of YNP population has approached carrying which has remained low for several increased at a much higher rate starting capacity, the population growth rate has decades. The DMA is based on an IGBT in the late 1980s (IGBST, unpublished naturally slowed with the most recent assessment of an area ‘‘sufficiently large data) (see figure 4 in the 2016 trajectory using the Chao2 estimator to support a viable population in the Conservation Strategy). showing no statistical trend within the long term’’ (IGBST 2012, p. 42). The (2) Home-range and movement data DMA for the period 2002 to 2014 (van 2016 Conservation Strategy incorporates do not support the interpretation that Manen 2016a, in litt.). The conclusion adaptive management and monitoring of bears are leaving the core of the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30571

ecosystem; additionally, from a life- then delineate enough suitable habitat that may be used to determine when history aspect, range fidelity for adult to meet those needs. recovery is achieved. female grizzly bears is high and female Response—The DMA boundaries are Issue 40—Both public commenters offspring also tend to establish their based on the best available science from and peer-reviewers thought our ranges adjacent to or near their maternal the IGBST (2012, pp. 41–44). While the definition of suitable habitat was ranges. Recovery Plan identified the Recovery qualitative, too weak, and lacked (3) Recent range expansion has Zone as the ‘‘area within which the rationale. Public commenters provided occurred beyond the DMA, and thus population and habitat criteria . . . will additional comments regarding our beyond the area where the IGBST be measured’’ (USFWS 1993, p. 17), the definition of suitable habitat, including conducts population monitoring. IGBST recommended that maintenance that it: (1) Did not, but should, include However, we believe the population is of a grizzly bear population that extends lands with sheep allotments and other close to carrying capacity inside the outside of those boundaries into livestock operations that can increase DMA and expect continued range adjacent suitable habitat would help human-bear conflicts; (2) does not expansion through bear dispersal. ‘‘ensure the long-term viability of this identify what proportion of suitable (4) The IGBST uses four independent population’’ (IGBST 2012, p. 41). The habitat is ‘‘core habitat’’ versus ‘‘edge methods to estimate population size IGBST then examined the Service’s habitat;’’ (3) does not specify which and/or trend (see Issue 29). suitable habitat boundary, population areas (core or edge habitat, suitable or In regard to the density index, it was monitoring data, and mortality data to unsuitable habitat) are needed to sustain peer-reviewed (contrary to the comment identify boundaries that would be the GYE population’s viability; (4) does submitted that it was not), published, ‘‘. . . sufficiently large to support a not explain the meaning of ‘‘support and presented in detail in both Bjornlie viable population in the long term, such survival;’’ (5) excluded important et al.’s (2014b) Supplemental Materials that mortalities beyond it could be potential habitat on public lands adjacent to the DMA; (6) excluded and in van Manen et al. (2016, pp. 303– excluded from consideration’’ (IGBST ‘‘some habitat outside the DMA that is 304). The basis for the density index is 2012, p. 42). Because the Service’s already occupied;’’ and (7) incorrectly a spatially explicit population suitable habitat line is based largely on excluded currently unoccupied areas reconstruction—thus, it incorporates mountainous ecoregions, the IGBST based on the potential ‘‘social capture and home range information recommended including valley floors intolerance’’ for bears in these areas. from much more than bears trapped in surrounded by suitable habitat in the Moreover, commenters noted that social any one year. DMA so that the disproportionate acceptance is ephemeral and wondered mortality that may occur in those areas In response to comments about our how plans, regulations, and the 2016 (i.e., the ‘edge effect’) is not excluded conclusions from our analysis of Conservation Strategy would allow for from the overall picture of population density-independent and density- the changing definition of ‘‘socially health and monitoring. dependent effects on grizzly bear acceptable.’’ One commenter suggested population dynamics in the GYE we The IGBST used the average annual using ‘‘spatially dynamic boundaries’’ added clarifying language in this rule activity radii of independent female in our definition to allow for (see Population Ecology—Background grizzly bears to buffer and smooth the geographical shifts in habitat types and and Changes in Food Resources) and boundaries of suitable habitat so that the changing food locations. Finally, one 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, DMA would encompass areas outside of peer-reviewer requested that we treat all pp. 49–50). suitable habitat that were likely to be of the three characteristics of suitable In response to the comment used by grizzly bears on a regular basis. habitat equally, and provide more detail suggesting we review our use of words This is the process by which areas such on characteristics 1 and 2, in our suggesting ‘‘causality’’ as opposed to as the Upper Green River were included discussion of suitable habitat. ‘‘association’’ in our density-dependent within the DMA boundaries. In addition, other commenters were analysis, we clarified that density- Conversely, because this quantitative uncertain as to how we defined dependent effects are the likely cause of technique smoothed the boundaries of unsuitable habitat and wondered if the recent slowing in population growth suitable habitat and did not attempt to unsuitable habitat was ‘‘non-habitat,’’ factors rather than ‘‘associated with’’. define suitable habitat itself, it is also ‘‘edge habitat,’’ habitat with a certain the reason some areas in the southern Habitat Management Issues (Factor A) number of human-bear conflicts, areas Wind River Range were not included in where ‘‘reasonable levels of bear/human Issue 39—Regarding the delineation the DMA even though they are found conflict precautions do not suffice to of boundaries, particularly for the DMA within Wilderness Areas. These were prevent the death of a substantial and PCA, some commenters: (1) areas that did not meet the definition of fraction of bears entering this area,’’ or Questioned why some currently suitable habitat because they possessed areas that are population sinks. One occupied habitat was excluded from the high mortality risk due to large, commenter suggested that the Service DMA; (2) recommended that DMA and contiguous blocks of sheep allotments. makes unsupported claims that bears in PCA boundaries be expanded to The Service adopted the IGBST’s unsuitable habitat are more ‘‘transient’’ accommodate more potential habitat, recommended DMA boundaries in the and did not define ‘‘transient.’’ including all designated wilderness Revised Demographic Criteria (USFWS Commenters requested demographic lands adjacent to the proposed DMA; (3) 2017, entire). The Big Sandy and Popo data on each area of unsuitable habitat, suggested that the DMA boundaries Agie areas are included in the DMA presuming these areas are sinks, as well should not be changed post-delisting; or because we consider most of the Wind as information on the methods managers (4) noted that the PCA is based on early, River Range to be suitable habitat for used to determine the number of bears rough estimates of the grizzly bear grizzly bears in the GYE due to the large in unsuitable habitat and how much recovery zone, which provided habitat percentage of Wilderness. Lastly, time each bear spent in unsuitable for 229 bears and was never updated. recovery plans are not regulatory habitat. Other commenters worried that Lastly, some commenters suggested that documents and are instead intended to declaring habitat unsuitable because of the Service should first determine how provide guidance to Federal agencies, the high risk of mortality would become many bears are needed for recovery, States, and other partners on criteria a ‘‘self-fulfilling prophecy’’ and that

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30572 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

bears entering unsuitable habitat may no outside of suitable habitat but the Idaho provide an understanding of the broad longer be a member of a viable grizzly bear management plan trends in habitat distribution, not to population. specifically identifies this area as address the nuances of changing food One commenter requested two ‘‘likely to be inhabited by grizzly bears’’ sources or dynamic mortality risk as additional visuals: (1) A map that (Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly Bear ‘‘spatially dynamic boundaries’’ would. overlays locations of bear deaths with Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 8–9). While we appreciate this commenter’s habitat suitability, the ‘‘range’’ of viable States have no plans or intentions of suggestion, we conclude that the populations, and the home ranges of the excluding non-conflict grizzly bears spatially explicit survival modeling dead bears; and (2) a map that shows from Wilderness, WSAs, or IRAs on done by the IGBST is adequate to which unsuitable habitat does not meet public lands and have made it clear that address these concerns (see Schwartz et grizzly bear needs because of concerns their management efforts outside of al. 2010). We have not assigned about mortality risk and which suitable habitat and the DMA will focus numerical quality scores to habitats unsuitable habitat does not meet grizzly on conflict response in areas with based on grizzly bear body condition or bear needs for other reasons. Another higher human densities (e.g., productivity because of the commenter asked for further details on subdivisions) (Idaho’s Yellowstone uncertainties surrounding such what levels and kinds of management to Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team calculations, instead concluding that it reduce conflicts would be considered 2002, pp. 8–9; MFWP 2013, p. 44; was appropriate to use a more ‘‘reasonable and manageable,’’ WGFD 2016, pp. 12, 20). generalized, coarse-scale interpretation specifically: I&E; efforts to reduce the The presence of grizzly bears in of what habitat would meet grizzly bear availability of attractants; live-trapping places with high levels of human needs. Other models that predict where and removal of conflict bears; and activity and human occupancy results suitable grizzly bear habitat occurs aversive conditioning of conflict bears. in biological effects to grizzly bears in within the GYE produced results similar Response—Our definition of suitable terms of increased mortality risk and to ours (Noss et al. 2002, p. 903; Merrill habitat is based on biological criteria displacement. The level of this effect is and Mattson 2003, pp. 182, 184). and the results of previously published directly related to the location and The Act does not require us to research about grizzly bear mortality numbers of humans, their activities, and quantify the proportion of suitable risk and biological needs. We used the their attitudes and beliefs about grizzly habitat that is ‘‘core’’ versus ‘‘edge’’ Middle Rockies Ecoregion as a surrogate bears. The consideration of human habitat; however, we did consider edge for habitat quality/capacity, an approach activities is fundamental to the effects in our analysis and chose not to that is supported by many previous management of grizzly bears and their include isolated patches and strips of studies which have found that habitat. While it is true that the current land as suitable habitat because of the mountainous regions generally possess distribution of grizzly bears extends potential for higher mortality. The the habitat components necessary for outside of the DMA into unsuitable IGBST tracks mortality and associated grizzly bear viability, including hiding habitat, the records of grizzly bears in causes (see Issue 34). Historically, cover, topographic variation necessary these areas are generally due to recorded increased human-caused mortality risk to ensure a wide variety of seasonal grizzly bear-human conflicts or to was associated with motorized access foods, steep slopes used for denning, transient animals, not reproductive routes, which led to implementation of and remoteness from humans females with offspring. For instance, motorized access route standards (YES (Craighead 1980, pp. 8–13; Knight 1980, between 1985 and 2014, only 2.1 2016a, pp. 54–71; Factor A analysis). pp. 1–3; Judd et al. 1986, pp. 114–115; percent of all sightings of unduplicated Currently the leading causes of human- Peek et al. 1987, pp. 160–161; Aune and females with cubs-of-the-year were related mortalities are hunting-related Kasworm 1989, pp. 29–58; Merrill et al. outside of the DMA (Haroldson 2016, in (including mistaken identity kills by 1999, pp. 233–235; Pease and Mattson litt.). These areas are defined as black bear hunters and self-defense), 1999, p. 969; Linnell et al. 2000, pp. unsuitable due to the high risk of and management removals due to either 403–405; Mattson and Merrill 2002, p. mortality resulting from these grizzly livestock depredations or site-specific 1128). bear-human conflicts. These unsuitable human-bear conflicts, which are not Our determination that large, habitat areas do not permit grizzly bear geographically associated with an contiguous blocks of sheep allotments reproduction or survival because bears ‘‘edge’’ effect. Suitable habitat, as were not suitable for grizzly bears was that repeatedly come into conflict with identified in the proposed and final biologically based on mortality rates. humans or livestock are usually either rule, is sufficient to maintain a Scattered, small, and isolated sheep relocated or removed from these areas. recovered grizzly bear population. allotments were included in suitable Our definition of suitable habitat is Please see the Recovery Planning and habitat and considered in our threats biologically based on the best available Implementation Suitable Habitat analysis under Factor A, above. The science and not on ‘‘social intolerance.’’ section of this final rule for the GYE grizzly bear population’s long-term The 2016 Conservation Strategy definition and a discussion of suitable viability is ensured without their specifies strategies to manage grizzly habitat, including all three of the occupancy of areas that currently bear-human conflicts, and for ongoing characteristics of suitable habitat and contain large, contiguous blocks of I&E programs, both of which foster how it was mapped. Because population sheep allotments because of the habitat social tolerance (YES 2016a, pp. 86–95). sinks may occur in narrow, linear valley protections inside the PCA and the large The adaptive management approach floors that are not suitable habitat but percentage of suitable habitat outside described in the 2016 Conservation are largely surrounded by suitable the PCA (60 percent) that is classified as Strategy will allow management habitat (i.e., ‘‘edge effect’’), these were Wilderness (6,799 km2 (2,625 mi2)), agencies to make changes, if necessary, included in the demographic WSA (708 km2 (273 mi2)), or IRA (6,179 to I&E efforts and conflict management monitoring area, the area in which the km2 (2,386 mi2)). Even with the in response to potential impacts of population is monitored, and mortality exclusion of these large, contiguous changes in social tolerance. limits will be applied. See Factor A, blocks of sheep allotments, most of the Our analysis of suitable habitat was a above, for further discussion. Wind River Range met the definition of quantitative, broad-scale habitat The IGBST’s annual reports include suitable habitat. The Palisades may be assessment. As such, its purpose was to maps of mortality locations that show

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30573

the distribution of grizzly bear for the habitat features associated with revised demographic recovery criteria, mortalities in the GYE and the grizzly bear survival throughout the and the Tri-State MOA, will be applied boundaries for the PCA and the DMA. GYE. This risk model examined how within the DMA. Please see Issue 40 and As only 22.3 percent of known and motorized use of roads, productivity Factor A for further discussion of the probably independent-aged grizzly bears and seasonality of high-calorie foods, habitat necessary to maintain a viable that died from 2002 to 2014 were site developments, livestock allotments, grizzly bear population. collared at the time of their death number of homes on private lands, elk Appendix E of the 2016 Conservation (Haroldson 2017a, in litt.), it is not hunting units, and season influenced Strategy explains why the CEM is no possible to show the home ranges of all grizzly bear survival on the landscape longer the best available science and dead bears. Please see the 2016 (Schwartz et al. 2010, pp. 656–658). The that the Motorized Access Model, Conservation Strategy for discussion on resulting models identified source and established concurrently with the CEM, conflict management (YES 2016a, pp. sink habitats throughout the GYE and will be the tool used to project impact 86–91) and I&E efforts (YES 2016a, pp. further supported our management analysis (YES 2016b). The Motorized 92–95) to reduce conflicts. approach of limiting motorized use and Access Model calculates and monitors Issue 41—Commenters expressed developed sites to improve grizzly bear secure habitat and motorized route concerns about our analysis of the survival (Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 659). density. The 2016 Conservation Strategy relationship between habitat availability Schwartz et al. (2010, entire) did not incorporates the IGBST’s long-term and grizzly bear population viability. A use resource selection functions to monitoring data of population vital peer-reviewer expressed concerns that develop their model because resource rates, habitat standards, and major foods our discussion of habitat management in selection functions are not always and will be used to inform management the proposed rule focused primarily on proportional to the true probability of decisions on maintaining a recovered preventing human-caused mortality, use and, therefore, are not always the GYE population. Although lag effects rather than on systematically identifying best way to describe habitat can occur in large vertebrate the biological features characteristic of relationships (Keating and Cherry 2004, populations affected by habitat declines, important grizzly bear habitat. This p. 788). However, in principle, the there is little evidence of a lag effect at peer-reviewer requested that we provide spatially explicit risk model of Schwartz the grizzly bear population or information on the biological features of et al. (2010, pp. 656–658) can be thought individual level in response to changes habitats that different ages and sexes of of as a special case of a resource in food resources. The IGBST’s current grizzly bears use during each season selection function, but with the variable monitoring system effectively identified using the quantitative methods from of interest being survival rather than a change in the species’ population Proctor et al. (2015). The peer-reviewer habitat selection. In fact, we conclude trajectory, which subsequently triggered also suggested that these resource that the risk model is more relevant for the IGBST to conduct a comprehensive selection models could be used to decision-making because it actually biology and monitoring review. See bolster the definition of suitable habitat. measures a demographic parameter (i.e., Issue 36 for further discussion on lag One commenter believed that the survival) as opposed to habitat effects, vital rates, and habitat features. Service did not properly evaluate the selection, which may or may not Issue 42—Peer-reviewers and amount of habitat necessary to maintain influence demographics. We have commenters expressed concern with our a viable grizzly bear population despite reviewed Proctor et al. (2015, entire), definition of secure habitat. Peer available science on this subject (e.g., and, while we acknowledge it is a useful reviewers provided requests for Noss et al. 1999). The commenter also tool for predicting areas of grizzly bear additional rationale for our use of 10 believed that the Service failed to use, we find the results of Schwartz et acres as the minimum size in the perform spatially explicit analysis of al. (2010, pp. 658–661) more definition of secure habitat; and vegetation and habitat productivity, as appropriate for making management suggestions to change our requirements in the Cumulative Effects Model (CEM), decisions because Schwartz et al. (2010, for lake size in defining secure habitat which the commenter claimed we pp. 658–661) linked habitat features to since grizzly bears do not use most open inappropriately stopped using without actual grizzly bear survival on the water (and thus any lake, regardless of scientific explanation or adequate landscape. size, should be classified as insecure). A replacement. One commenter did not Although Boyce et al.’s (2001, entire) commenter worried that we used a believe we adequately assessed population viability analysis did not definition of secure habitat from the relationships between habitat features consider possible changes in habitat, USFS’s 2006 EIS, which does not and vital rates and that we did not based on female with cubs-of-the-year contain a justification for the definition. explain the time lags in this analysis. trends from 1983 to 1997, they found Commenters and peer-reviewers Response—Our habitat management that the GYE grizzly bear population provided the following alternative standards rely heavily on reducing had a 1 percent chance of going extinct means of defining secure habitat: (1) anthropogenic influences and in the next 100 years. The GYE grizzly Defining ‘‘microscale’’ security areas as minimizing grizzly bear-human bear population has continued to approximately 28.3 km2 (10.9 mi2) in conflicts because excessive human- expand in both population size and size that have a 2- to 4-km (0.8- to 1.5- caused mortality and subsequent distribution since this analysis. Secure mi) buffer from roads or human population decline was the primary habitat, as discussed by Noss et al. facilities, as recommended in Mattson factor that led to the species’ original (1999, pp. 101–102), is the key to (1993); (2) increasing minimum core threatened listing in 1975. For a detailed reducing human-caused mortality. security areas to approximately 10 km2 explanation of this rationale please refer Secure habitat will be provided through (6.2 mi2) to allow for dietary flexibility to the Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria application of the 1998 baseline inside and to fully encompass the average section of this final rule and Chapter 3 the PCA and through Wilderness, daily movements of an adult female of the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES WSAs, and IRAs that cover 60 percent grizzly bear (Gibeau et al. 2001); (3) 2016a). Schwartz et al. (2010, p. 658) of suitable habitat outside the PCA. ensuring secure habitat is at least 500 used 21 years of data and nearly 12,000 Mortality limits necessary to maintain a meters (m) (1,640 feet (ft)) from areas of known grizzly bear locations to create a recovered population, as set forth in this high human use, defined as areas with habitat-based risk model that accounted rule, the 2016 Conservation Strategy, the more than 100 human visits per month;

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30574 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

and (4) including a buffer along lake effect of humans on grizzly bear survival The NPS and the USFS manage the shorelines that ‘‘represents the actual and habitat use are well documented majority of lands within the GYE and area used by grizzly bears.’’ (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278; are responsible for managing road Peer-reviewers and commenters McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. construction on their lands, including provided suggestions on the 458–459; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. monitoring road density, making management of secure habitat, including 83–103; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862–1864; decisions about additional roads and that: (1) Any future changes to secure McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. pursuing mitigation. Land and resource habitat, and subsequent mitigation 377–378; Mattson 1990, pp. 41–44; management plans for National Forests efforts, need to ensure that secure Mattson and Knight 1991, pp. 9–11; and National Parks in the GYE have habitat is distributed across the Mattson et al. 1992, pp. 436–438; Mace incorporated additional habitat landscape in a way that does not cause et al. 1996, p. 1403; McLellan et al. standards and other relevant provisions habitat fragmentation and that facilitates 1999, pp. 914–916; White et al. 1999, p. of the 2016 Conservation Strategy movements of bears both within and 150; Woodroffe 2000, pp. 166–168; (USDA FS 2006b, entire; YNP 2014, p. between bear management units (from a Boyce et al. 2001, p. 34; Johnson et al. 18; GTNP and JDR 2016, p. 3) and will peer-reviewer); (2) the 2016 2004, p. 976; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. guide decisions about road Conservation Strategy’s guidelines for 661). In light of this, the importance of management. The allowance for road construction on secure habitat, secure habitat, simply defined as a temporary reductions in secure habitat signage, and crossing structures are function of distance from roads, is applies only to areas inside the PCA, of vague, especially about who monitors indisputable. Therefore, if a small lake which 97.9 percent of the land is road density, makes decisions about is farther than 500 m (1,640 ft) from a Federally owned. With only 2.1 percent additional roads, and pursues motorized access route, it is deemed of the land in private and other mitigation; (3) the proposed rule and the secure habitat; otherwise, portions of ownerships, we conclude that any 2016 Conservation Strategy were not lakes within 500 m (1,640 ft) of future State or county road projects consistent in how they discussed USFS motorized access routes are considered would not substantially affect secure maintenance of secure habitat; and (4) non-secure habitat. habitat. Additional specificity and the 2016 Conservation Strategy’s We do not think it is necessary to timelines will be provided in State provisions that allow only temporary modify our definition of secure habitat grizzly bear management plans, forest reductions in the amount of secure to exclude areas within 500 m (1,640 ft) plans, and other appropriate planning habitat seem to apply only to Federal of high human use. Federal agencies documents for areas outside the PCA. projects and leave open what could Issue 43—Many public and State lack sufficient resources and data happen to secure habitat affected by commenters and peer-reviewers needed to measure the intensity of State or county road projects (especially commented on the adequacy of the human-use for every road and trail if they are emergency projects or broad- current amount of grizzly bear habitat throughout the ecosystem. Instead, for scale projects that could affect more and habitat protection. While the States grizzly bear purposes, motorized access than one BMU). emphasized that current habitat is a surrogate measure of human Response—Our definition of secure protections are adequate, some presence on the landscape and one that habitat includes areas as small as 10 commenters thought otherwise, can be reliably tracked via GIS. Research acres in size because the IGBST and claiming, in regard to both the amount YES concluded that all secure habitats indicates that non-motorized trails do of habitat and level of protection, that are important for grizzly bears in the not significantly affect grizzly bear (1) the amount of grizzly bear habitat is GYE, regardless of size, particularly in survival, and that survival was better ‘‘shrinking’’ and insufficient to support peripheral areas. We remain confident explained by the presence of motorized long-term population growth; (2) more in our definition of secure habitat routes (Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 659). secure habitat should be protected now because Schwartz et al. (2010, p. 661) Those areas farther than 500 m (1,640 ft) to compensate for potential future were able to demonstrate a direct link from the nearest motorized access are losses; (3) managers must maintain between this definition and grizzly bear considered secure habitat. habitat conditions to keep grizzly bear survival in the GYE. If we heeded the We agree with the comment that any populations stable; (4) one-third of recommendations of commenters and changes to secure habitat should ensure occupied habitat lacks any habitat enlarged the minimum size of secure it is distributed across the landscape in protections; (5) grizzly bears would lose habitat to 10 or 28.3 km2 (3.9 or 10.9 a way that does not cause habitat 2.1 million acres (or 23 percent) of mi2), the end result would be that fragmentation. The 2016 Conservation occupied habitat under State thousands of acres of secure habitat Strategy directs that, on the rare regulations; and (6) the States should be would no longer be considered secure occasions when there are projects inside required to manage for increasing and would, therefore, not be subject to the PCA that require the construction of habitat. A peer-reviewer recommended the ‘‘no net loss’’ standard. By using a new roads (i.e., permanent changes to that managers develop plans to control smaller minimum acreage requirement, secure habitat), any replacement of important habitat components (e.g., we are not excluding any of the larger secure habitat must be of equivalent distribution and abundance of blocks of secure habitat. quality and quantity (YES 2016a, pp. ungulates). Lastly, one commenter Lakes are not automatically 61–63). Grizzly bear habitat connectivity requested additional information on the considered secure habitat. Instead, is one of the many factors that would be current amount of various types of secure habitat is based on the presence assessed in determining if that habitat and how this will change in the or absence of motorized access. Lakes replacement habitat was of equivalent future (such as the amount of unsuitable larger than 2.6 km2 (1 mi2) are removed quality. Additionally, any project on edge habitat, non-habitat, and denning from the analysis and are not considered public lands within suitable habitat habitat). either secure or non-secure habitat. outside the PCA that requires highway Response—We disagree that the Security of lakes smaller than 2.6 km2 construction would evaluate the amount of grizzly bear habitat is (1 mi2) is evaluated by the presence/ impacts of this motorized use on grizzly shrinking and insufficient to support absence of motorized roads and trails bear habitat connectivity (YES 2016a, long-term population growth. We within the general vicinity. The negative pp. 82–83). acknowledge that it is difficult to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30575

specify the precise size of the area Conservation Strategy; therefore, the Issue 45—We received several necessary to support a population of IGBST would be able to detect if comments from both the public and grizzly bears because these animals are changes in vital rates occurred and peer-reviewers regarding use and long-lived, opportunistic omnivores evaluate whether they were a result of development in secure habitat within whose needs for foods and space vary changes in habitat quality or quantity. the PCA including: (1) That increased depending on a multitude of Upon completion of a demographic development on lands surrounding the environmental and behavioral factors, review, the IGBST will provide the National Parks should be considered; and on variation in the experience and information to the YGCC, who will and (2) the exceptions that allow knowledge of each individual bear. decide if modifications to the 2016 changes to the 1998 baseline for secure Therefore, to guide us in establishing Conservation Strategy are necessary. habitat and developed sites for habitat criteria that will maintain a Issue 44—Some commenters administrative and maintenance needs healthy population into the future, we requested clarity on the ‘‘habitat should either be limited or further evaluated the past habitat factors that standards’’ in the 2016 Conservation clarified. In addition, public had produced an increasing GYE Strategy, including: (1) When, how, and commenters suggested that: (1) Projects population in both numbers and range. by whom the standards would be that temporarily change the amount of Habitat protection standards and revised, and (2) additional information secure habitat should not be allowed; monitoring protocols in the on the ‘‘administrative and maintenance and (2) recurring low-level helicopter Conservation Strategy call for no net needs’’ that allow exceptions to the flights and temporary road construction loss of secure habitat with respect to standards. Commenters also worried should not be allowed during denning 1998 conditions, which are believed to that the plans for habitat management season. have supported and contributed to (as a means to reduce human-caused Response—We agree that developed robust GYE population growth observed mortality) in the 2016 Conservation sites on lands surrounding National during 1983 to 2001. Habitat standards, Strategy lacked specificity and Parks should be considered, and have as they apply to the 1998 baseline, timelines. done so. Within the PCA, the number and capacity of developed sites on impose measurable side boards on Response—The habitat standards in public lands both inside and outside of allowed levels of human activity inside the 2016 Conservation Strategy will be the National Parks will be maintained at the PCA and establish a clear in effect for the foreseeable future. 1998 levels, a level that was compatible benchmark against which future Results of habitat monitoring, as set improvements and impacts to habitat with an increasing grizzly bear forth in the 2016 Conservation Strategy population (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). In can be measured. Although (YES 2016a, pp. 54–85), will be reported approximately 23 percent of the current suitable habitat outside the PCA, food in the IGBST annual reports. Revisions storage orders, large percentages of range occurs outside of the DMA, our to the Conservation Strategy would be assessment of suitable habitat is that it Wilderness Areas, WSAs, or IRAs, and based on the best available science, outreach programs will prevent and contains adequate habitat quality and approved by the YGCC, and subject to quantity to support a recovered grizzly address the mortality risk associated public comment. If the IGBST detects with developed sites on public lands. bear population (see the Suitable changes to the population as a result of Habitat section of this final rule and On private lands, we have no authority habitat loss or modification through to limit developed sites and do not Issue 41 for further discussion on their demographic monitoring of the think this is necessary. Approximately suitable habitat). We conclude that population, the YGCC may determine 1.5 percent of lands inside the PCA and increases in habitat are not necessary to that revisions to the Conservation 9 percent of suitable habitat outside the support a recovered population and that Strategy are necessary to maintain a PCA are privately owned. These small our habitat protection criteria are recovered grizzly bear population in the proportions, coupled with the extensive adequate and biologically sound. GYE. The Service will initiate a formal outreach and conflict prevention and Regarding the comment suggesting status review if there are any changes in response protocols in the State managers should develop plans to Federal, State, or Tribal laws, rules, management plans, ensure private land control important habitat components, regulations, or management plans that development is not a threat to the GYE the GYE National Forests and National depart significantly from the specifics of grizzly bear population now, or in the Parks have incorporated the habitat population or habitat management future. For more information, please see components outlined in the detailed in this rule and the Factor A, above. Conservation Strategy into their Conservation Strategy and significantly However, we disagree that temporary compendia, and the National Forests’ increase the threat to the population. projects should not be allowed on 2006 Forest Plan Amendment will go The 2016 Conservation Strategy details public lands inside the PCA. In general, into effect upon delisting, as stated in the application rules that outline it is reasonable and biologically sound the amendment (see Issue 95 for more conditions under which Federal projects to provide management flexibility and details on the Forest Plan Amendment). are authorized to cause permanent discretion to land management agencies Their 15-year implementation history changes to secure habitat and developed so they can fulfill their mandates of gives us confidence that they will do so. sites, including administrative and balancing and accommodating multiple Additionally, the Conservation Strategy maintenance activities (YES 2016a, pp. uses (USFS) and providing for public was signed by State agencies and 61–67). The habitat management recreation while conserving resources Federal land management agencies in standards detailed in the 2016 (NPS). These allowances for temporary December 2016 and is currently in Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. changes to secure habitat were based on place. See Issue 48 for more information 54–85) to reduce human-caused known levels of project activities about which habitat components, mortality have already been occurring during the 1990s, a time including the abundance of ungulates, implemented through National Park during which the GYE grizzly bear will be monitored. The IGBST will Compendia (YNP 2014b, p. 18; GTNP population was known to be increasing continue demographic monitoring of the and JDR 2016, p. 3) and the 2006 Forest (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). There are no GYE grizzly bear population and the Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2006b, biological data to demonstrate that the habitat criteria set forth in the 2016 entire). temporary 1 percent level of secure

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30576 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

habitat disturbance in any subunit has result in den abandonment or any A notable number of improvements in had any detrimental effect on the grizzly detectable consequences to grizzly route density since 1998 have taken bear population. Temporary changes in bears. Furthermore, of the 652 grizzly place on subunits that are partially or secure habitat may not exceed 3 years, bear mortalities that occurred between completely contained within the can affect no more than 1 percent of the 1975 and 2014, only 1 occurred between Gallatin National Forest. The largest subunit size within that BMU, Dec. 1 and Feb. 28. This single mortality documented decreases in motorized may occur in only one subunit at a time, was a radio-collared, 20-year-old male route density can be directly attributed and project roads will not be open to that died in January from natural causes to implementation of the 2006 Gallatin public use (YES 2016a, pp. 63–64). in YNP, most likely from maladies National Forest (NF) Travel Plan and These temporal and spatial restrictions, associated with old age. We have no reflects an overall goal to manage as well as the requirement that all information suggesting that low-level motorized access in a manner that secure habitat be restored upon helicopter flights during the denning allows for recovery of threatened completion of a temporary project, mean season may be a threat to the GYE species such as the grizzly bear. In areas there will be no permanent loss of grizzly bear population now or in the of suitable habitat outside the PCA, we secure habitat in any subunit. future. do not anticipate any significant There is no exception to the 1998 Issue 46—Numerous public increases in road densities because of baseline regarding administrative use of commenters expressed concern about other existing plans and designations roads that are closed to the public. All the negative effects of existing, and (e.g., the Gallatin NF Travel Plan, the roads, even if only open for potential future development of, roads Caribou-Targhee NF Travel Plan, administrative purposes, are considered and trails, and the species’ ability to Wilderness, WSA, and IRA open roads and are included in the 1998 respond to these threats, including: designations, State Management Plans baseline (YES 2016a, p. 61). There is a Habitat loss and fragmentation, recommending road densities of less very specific statement in the 2016 increased access by humans into than 1 mi/mi2, etc.). In fact, because of Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, p. species’ habitat, reductions in forage, these other existing plans or 64) that allows administrative use on reductions in connectivity, and collision designations, there have been 0.1 to 6.1 existing routes for the purposes of mortality. Commenters suggested that percent increases in secure, suitable power line/utility maintenance. These strict guidelines on development of habitat outside the PCA since 2008 roads are not open to the public, have roads and trails are necessary to protect (GYA Grizzly Bear Habitat Modeling no obvious footprint, and are used very the species and, without these Team 2015, pp. 102–103). In addition, rarely. As such, we continue to guidelines, the species will not persist 60 percent of suitable habitat outside of conclude that allowing access for power without the protections of the Act. the PCA is protected from increases in line and utility maintenance is not a Specifically, public commenters motorized use and development through threat to the GYE grizzly bear. suggested: (1) Road densities should its designation as Wilderness, WSAs, or For developed sites on public lands, continue to be limited after delisting to IRAs. expansion of existing administrative avoid potential increases in bear Temporary roads are extremely sites is allowed if these are ‘‘deemed mortality and in logging activity; and (2) limited by the application rules necessary for enhancement of public the distinction between permanent and described in the 2016 Conservation land management and other viable temporary roads should be clarified Strategy and associated National Park alternatives are not available’’ (YES since only the density of permanent and National Forest management plans. 2016a, p. 66). This does not allow new roads is limited in the proposed rule, See Issues 44 and 45 for additional developed sites for administrative even though temporary logging roads information. purposes, only expansion in capacity or may have higher traffic. Issue 47—We received several public acreage of existing administrative sites. Response—There are no mandatory comments regarding discussion and In general, administrative sites are standards pertaining to motorized route treatment of stressors inside and outside occupied by trained personnel of the densities; instead, levels of motorized of the PCA, including: (1) Questioning National Forests or National Parks, access are limited indirectly by the our scientific basis for allowing different contain strictly enforced requirements standard for secure habitat. management techniques within and for securing attractants from grizzly Consequently, open motorized access outside the PCA and whether there is bears, and prohibit most personnel from road density (OMARD) and total evidence of two distinct grizzly bear carrying firearms. As such, motorized access route density populations (one inside the PCA and administrative sites do not pose the (TMARD) levels have been maintained one outside the PCA) warranting same level of risk to grizzly bear at or below 1998 levels for all 40 distinct management approaches; (2) survival as sites occupied by the general subunits within the GBRZ (GYA Grizzly claiming that it was ‘‘disingenuous’’ for public, so it is reasonable to allow some Bear Habitat Modeling Team 2015, pp. us to state that ‘‘suitable habitat outside expansion of capacity at these existing 118–119). Looking forward, inside the the PCA provides additional ecological sites. PCA, there will be no net increase, from resiliency and habitat redundancy to The allowance for temporary projects the 1998 baseline, in OMARD, TMARD, allow the population to respond to that include low-level helicopter flights or the number and capacity of environmental changes’’ when the same and temporary road construction during developed sites from the 1998 baseline. habitat protections and monitoring do the grizzly bear denning season Although OMARD measures only the not exist outside of the PCA; (3) noting (December 1–February 28) is also density of motorized routes (roads and that habitat outside of the PCA has biologically sound and reasonable. trails) that are open to the public for 1 ‘‘become a sink for human-caused While no studies have been conducted or more days during the non-denning mortalities;’’ (4) questioning the documenting impacts of low-level season (March 1–November 30), presence of 500 development sites on helicopter flights on grizzly bears during TMARD measures the density of the 5 National Forests in suitable habitat the denning season, as discussed in the motorized routes open to the public outside the PCA; (5) suggesting that we Factor A—Snowmobiling section above, and/or administrative personnel for 1 or cannot rely on State plans to protect even direct disturbance at den sites due more days during the non-denning habitat outside of the PCA; (6) to snowmobiles does not necessarily season (YES 2016b, Appendix E). specifying that the Service must address

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30577

in the threats analysis that 40 percent of inside and outside of the PCA are a produce results on any changes in habitat outside of the PCA is not testament to the effectiveness of the habitat values and key food production. protected; (7) claiming that the Service differential management approach Details on who is responsible for food is ‘‘writing off’’ 25 percent of (varying levels of protection based on and habitat monitoring are outlined in independent females, since these relative importance to grizzly bears) the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES females live outside the PCA in areas under the IGBC Guidelines that led to 2016b, Appendices D, E, and F) and are that will have inadequate habitat grizzly bear recovery in the GYE (USDA reported in the IGBST Annual Reports. protections, which could result in FS 2004, p. 19). Under the Guidelines, Thus, the system in place will not rely mortality levels that exceed prescribed there were five different ‘‘Management on indirect measures of habitat values limits; and (8) suggesting that potential Situations’’ identified throughout the but will annually produce direct increased road development outside of PCA, each with its own management measures of habitat values. the PCA will be associated with direction (USDA FS 1986, pp. 3–5). The multiple indices used to monitor increased grizzly bear displacement, These Guidelines contained no both bear foods and bear vital rates higher mortality, and lower fecundity. direction for management outside the provide a dynamic and intensive data Additionally, commenters noted that if PCA so lands within the PCA were source that allows the agencies to improved management has reduced always managed differently than areas respond in a timely manner to results mortality inside the PCA, management outside the PCA. Such flexible that might indicate problems. The GYE and protections should be similarly management promotes communication monitoring system under the 2016 improved for habitats outside of the and tolerance for grizzly bear recovery, Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. PCA and the same mortality limits and and the best available science 33–85) is one of the most detailed and habitat protections apply in the entire demonstrates that the PCA contains the comprehensive monitoring systems DMA. habitat necessary to serve as a source developed for any wildlife species. Response—The Service has applied a area for a healthy and long-term viable Specific habitat variables that will be reserve design approach by designating, grizzly bear population, and will monitored include: Amount and and providing differential levels of continue to do so post-delisting. location of secure habitat, open management and protection in, the PCA. We maintain that suitable habitat motorized route densities, total The PCA, which is a subset of suitable outside the PCA provides additional motorized route densities, developed habitat, contains approximately 75 ecological resiliency to the population. sites, relative abundance of ungulates, percent of the females with cubs (the Unlike inside the PCA, there are areas cutthroat trout abundance and use, population’s most important age and sex of suitable habitat outside the PCA that grizzly bear use of army cutworm moth group) (Haroldson 2014a, in litt.) and are not currently occupied and that sites, whitebark pine abundance, and will continue to serve as a source area contain large stands of healthy grizzly bear distribution and mortality. for the rest of the GYE. Differential whitebark pine (e.g., the southern Wind Since we will be monitoring a suite of levels of management and protection are River Range) and vast tracts of secure demographic vital rates including based on their relative level of habitat due to Wilderness, WSA, or IRA survival of radio-collared bears, home importance. Within the PCA, designations. For example, 2,948 km2 range size, mortality of all bears from all comprehensive protections are in place (1,138 mi2) of the Wind River Range, causes in all areas, causes and locations via the objective and measurable habitat including almost all of the high- of grizzly bear-human conflicts, body criteria concerning secure habitat, elevation whitebark pine stands, are in human site developments, and livestock designated Wilderness Areas. condition, and reproductive statistics allotments, which will be habitat Issue 48—We received several like litter size, litter interval, generation requirements on public lands once this comments from the public concerned time, and age of first reproduction, we final rule becomes effective (YES 2016a, with the habitat monitoring. These are confident that we will be able to pp. 54–72). Outside of the PCA in comments included that: (1) We do not detect the consequences of significantly suitable habitat, there are not specific explain what indices will be used to reduced habitat productivity soon protections in place for grizzly bears monitor changes in habitat and why enough to respond with changes to (other than food storage orders); these indices are adequate indicators of management approaches. however, the amount of permanently habitat degradation; (2) we do not For the habitat components that are secure habitat provides them with the provide adequate assurances that we part of the 1998 baseline (i.e., secure most important habitat protection will employ sufficient monitoring, habitat, developed sites on public lands, possible for grizzly bear survival: beyond tracking population size, to and livestock allotments), we have de Limited motorized access. Mortality detect possible ‘‘lag effects;’’ (3) we do facto triggers and management limits apply throughout the entire DMA. not specify who would measure and responses. If there are any changes in While there are not two distinct report on the four habitat criteria in these values that depart from the 1998 grizzly bear populations inside and Chapter 3 of the 2016 Conservation baseline, there are enforceable outside of the PCA, the single GYE Strategy, when the information would requirements to address these grizzly bear population experiences be collected and reported, and to whom deviations. Further, if grizzly bear different growth rates in these areas. it would be reported; and (4) one mortalities exceed the mortality limits When the population was growing at 4 commenter suggested that we review in a given year due to changes in habitat to 7 percent per year in the 1990s land management activities on public or resources (e.g., vehicle collision due (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48), most of this lands every 3 years. to new road or management removal growth occurred inside the PCA Response—The 2016 Conservation due to new livestock allotment), (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 64). Similarly, Strategy commits the implementing discretionary mortality would not be when the growth rate for the entire GYE agencies to intensive monitoring of all allowed, except for human safety. slowed between 2002 and 2011, the grizzly bear vital rates and the Therefore, the monitoring and adaptive PCA still experienced higher growth relationship of these vital rates to management system described in the rates than adjacent areas outside the changes in major foods and levels and 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, PCA (IGBST 2012, p. 34). These types of human activities in their entire) ensures the maintenance of a differences in population growth rate habitat. Annual habitat monitoring will recovered GYE grizzly bear population.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30578 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Finally, we are not able to commit to Gallatin NF to decommission motorized abundance of foods across the reviewing land management activities routes and develop sites to comply with landscape, in the GYE. However, there on public lands every 3 years. However, the 1998 baselines as all other forests is no evidence that fires detrimentally we do commit to monitoring secure have done.’’ affect grizzly bears (see Issue 61). We habitat and motorized access route A number of commenters presented agree that mortality risk is not static density, developed sites, livestock alternatives to the 1998 baseline within secure habitat. Schwartz et al. grazing, and grizzly bear foods including: (1) Using current conditions (2010, p. 658) mapped grizzly bear according to the protocol outlined in the for the baseline, since bears are mortality risk down to the 30-m (98-ft) Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. recovered under current conditions; and pixel scale to identify areas where 68–73). (2) using the ‘‘moving window analysis’’ grizzly bear survival was greatest. While Issue 49—Several commenters raised from Mace and Waller (1996), which Schwartz et al. (2010, p. 661) found concerns with our use of the 1998 recommends open motorized route spatial variation in mortality risk, this baseline for habitat management. Some densities, total motorized route fine-scale variation does not matter at commenters suggested that the 1998 densities, and core amounts of habitat the population level because it is baseline would be insufficient to protect for each BMU. A peer-reviewer accounted for in the sustainable grizzly bears (especially in the absence suggested using a defining period of mortality rates set by the IGBST. of the Act’s protections and its 1988 to 2005, unless there were unique Regarding the comment that social and associated section 9 ‘‘take’’ prohibitions, habitat features that were stable between dietary changes since 1998 have section 7 consultation, and citizen suit 1988 and 1998. And lastly, many resulted in increased exposure to provisions, and the 1986 Interagency commenters worried that negotiations human hazards despite no net increase Grizzly Bear Guidelines under which around the 2016 Conservation Strategy in livestock allotments and human conflict bears are managed). Other have already changed the 1998 baseline, infrastructure, we note that increased commenters questioned the validity, and we have not adjusted our exposure to human hazards in and of and subsequent sufficiency, of the 1998 explanation of secure habitat or threats itself is not necessarily a problem. It baseline because: (1) 1998 does not analysis accordingly. becomes a problem when there are an actually represent a period of Response—The year 1998 was chosen unsustainable number of bears dying as population growth since the population because secure habitat and site a result of this increased risk and we growth rate from 1988 to 1998 was developments had been roughly the feel confident the ecosystem-wide overestimated (Pease and Mattson same during the previous 10 years mortality limits and subsequent 1999); (2) it was calculated using a (USDA FS 2004, p. 27) and the management responses to grizzly bear- nonparametric Chao2 estimator instead population was increasing during these human conflicts will adequately address of the current model-averaged Chao2 years (Eberhardt and Knight 1996, p. any increased exposure to human 419; Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). The estimator; (3) it does not appropriately hazards such that a recovered grizzly selection of any other year between distinguish between the frequency of bear population is maintained within 1988 and 1998 would have resulted in contact with humans and the lethality of the GYE. these encounters with humans (i.e., high approximately the same baseline values For a discussion on overestimation of use does not necessarily imply high risk for roads and developed sites. We did population growth estimation and Pease to grizzly bears, and low use does not not select baseline habitat values from and Mattson (1999), please refer to necessarily imply low risk to grizzly years before 1988 because habitat bears); and (4) if any lands burned improvements that occurred after the Factor E, above. during the 1988 fires, the habitat on implementation of the IGBC (USDA FS Habitat conditions relating to the those lands was thus not stable during 1986, pp. 6–21) would not have been habitat standards described in the 2016 the 1988 to 1998 period, as the Service reflected. Although we recognize that Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. claimed. the frequency of human-grizzly bear 54–85) have either remained stable or There were several comments encounters does not equate to the improved from the 1998 baseline levels regarding whether or not the 1998 lethality of human-grizzly bear of secure habitat, site developments, habitat baseline has been maintained in encounters, motorized access and livestock allotments. The Grizzly the past or could be maintained into the management is the most effective Bear Annual Habitat Monitoring Report future. Peer-reviewers and several management tool for reducing grizzly includes changes and corrections to the commenters asked: (1) For additional bear mortality risk (Nielsen et al. 2006, 1998 baseline and is included in the detail on changes in habitat, roads, and p. 225; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661); see IGBST Annual Reports. The 1998 developments from the past 40 years Issues 30, 40, 41, and 42. Additional baseline: (1) Was not developed to (especially since 1998), even if the measures to reduce the lethality of address specific projects such as oil and amount of secure habitat has not human-grizzly bear encounters include gas development or timber harvest; (2) changed, as these specifics could shed removing or securing attractants and does not contain threshold values for light on the feasibility and providing education to modify human any of the major foods due to the natural appropriateness of the 1998 baseline; behavior/practices that contribute to annual variability in their abundance and (2) whether agencies have been, and conflict (YES 2016a, pp. 86–95). The and distribution; and (3) attempted to can remain, in compliance with the 1998 baseline provides the same level of establish realistic habitat standards that 1998 baseline; and, in particular, the habitat protection whether the GYE ensure adequate habitat security and three BMU subunits in the Targhee and grizzly bear is listed or not under the minimum livestock conflicts within the Gallatin NF, which needed Act. The 1998 baseline refers to stability PCA. Therefore, we consider the improvements in secure habitat in 2007. in the amount of secure habitat and establishment of habitat thresholds for Some commenters expressed concern number and capacity of developed sites human population growth, food sources, with the 2006 Gallatin Travel to reduce human-bear conflicts and and specific projects to be unrealistic Management Plan implementation and human-caused mortalities. and that the 1998 baseline will questioned if it was approved; We recognize that the 1988 fires and adequately address these issues through commenters expressed confusion as to other natural events may alter habitat, access management and limitations on ‘‘why the Service is not enforcing the including the distribution and site development.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30579

As the commenters point out, the deemed secure habitat. With the commenters and peer-reviewers thought moving window analysis approach provision for no net loss in secure connectivity was essential for long-term represents the best available science and habitat, the 10-acre size restriction for viability of the population and species is the method used for measuring route secure habitat ensures that small and that current levels of connectivity densities on public lands in the GYE. isolated pockets of roadless areas are are inadequate. Calling the GYE grizzly Motorized route densities and preserved. The deficient levels of secure bear population an ‘‘island population,’’ percentages of secure (‘‘core’’) habitat habitat for the 3 subunits below 68 commenters and peer-reviewers warned within the GYE are calculated using a percent are mostly due to motorized of the deleterious genetic effects, suite of GIS geospatial tools that are routes on private lands, as well as the demographic concerns, environmental packaged as the Motorized Access legal requirements that National Forest threats, and catastrophic events that Model. Calculations for motorized route lands provide access to State and could greatly diminish or eliminate the densities are based on a ‘‘moving private lands, mining claims, and GYE population without sufficient window analysis’’ similar to that of summer homes, as well as county, State, natural or facilitated improvements in Mace and Waller (1996, p. 1398), and and Federal rights of way. Because of its demographic connectivity to other include algorithms that have been the disproportionate number of populations. Commenters suggested that improved since 1997 to more accurately restrictions on these three subunits, we contradicted ourselves by saying that calculate the total length of motorized little opportunity exists to further connectivity is both ‘‘vital and routes per unit area. Mace and Waller improve secure levels via Federal unnecessary.’’ (1996, p. 1395) determined that bears management practices beyond the Commenters suggested several underutilized areas within 500 m (1,640 improvements that have been remaining threats to connectivity ft) from open roads with use levels implemented under the 2006 Gallatin warrant further discussion in the rule, greater than 10 vehicles per day. Based NF Travel Management Plan. including: (1) The 150 miles of farmland on this finding, secure (‘‘core’’) habitat The Gallatin NF Management Plan and roads that separate GYE grizzly is defined in the GYE as any contiguous was approved in 2006 and has bears from their northern neighbors; (2) area greater than 10 acres in size and implemented the 1998 baseline. The proposed hunting (especially along NP more than 500 m (1,640 ft) from an open three subunits identified by the 2007 boundaries), combined with high motorized access route during the non- Conservation Strategy that were in need mortality rates (as much as 47 percent) denning period. Secure levels are of improvement were on the Targhee outside the DMA could preclude future expressed as the percentage of the and Gallatin NFs, although the portions connectivity; and (3) large-scale and subunit that meets this definition. Any of these subunits that were identified as long-term effects of road construction, road that is open to motorized traffic for in need of improvement were within the like fragmentation, can jeopardize at least 1 day or more during the non- Gallatin NF. The high road density connectivity. Peer-reviewers asked us to denning season (regardless of vehicle values and subsequently low levels of explain the relevance of food storage use levels) detracts from secure habitat secure habitat in these subunits is orders to the issue of connectivity and calculations. Furthermore, routes that primarily due to motorized access on to more fully address remaining barriers are gated and closed to the public year private land (USFWS 2007a, pp. 145– to movement, such as topography or round, but which may occasionally be 153). Managers have made manmade structures, including a accessed by management personnel for improvements in these areas and suggestion to provide scientific attained full implementation of the 2006 evidence of grizzly bear use of crossing administrative purposes, also detract Gallatin NF Travel Management Plan. structures to strengthen our promotion from secure habitat. In other words, These three subunits have shown on of these structures as a management open and gated motorized routes are average a 7.5 percent increase in secure tool. buffered by 500 m (1,640 ft), and these habitat, and these improved levels will Response—We continue to be buffered areas do not count toward serve as the new baseline for these three encouraged by the expansion of grizzly secure habitat. subunits (YES 2016b, Appendix E). bears into the area between the NCDE Although no specific standards are These levels of secure habitat will and the GYE; however, we have not yet directly imposed on motorized route continue to support a stable to documented connectivity between the densities, road construction is increasing population of grizzly bears. ecosystems and do not know the significantly curtailed by imposing a no- Revisions to the draft 2016 Conservation origination of the bear in the Big Hole net-decrease in secure habitat per bear Strategy did not change the 1998 Valley. Connectivity is relevant to this management subunit inside the PCA. baseline. rulemaking only to the extent that it The commenter refers to the NCDE Issue 50—Some commenters impacts the GYE DPS. To that extent, provision for core area amounts (68 expressed that there is sufficient connectivity or lack thereof has the percent/2,500 acres). It is true that most connectivity between grizzly bear potential to impact this population’s BMUs in the NCDE are managed to populations and that grizzly bears are genetic fitness. As such, this issue is maintain a minimum of 68 percent making ample use of connectivity discussed and addressed in our five- secure habitat. This is also the case in corridors, as evidenced by recent factor analysis (see Factor E, above) and the GYE. Secure habitat is maintained at sightings of grizzly bears in new in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES or above 1998 baseline levels. All 40 territory surrounding the GYE, in the 2016a, pp. 82–85). The Service has subunits inside the GYE PCA, except for Big Hole Valley, on ‘‘the prairie lands of considered population viability in 3 subunits (Henrys Lake #1, Henrys eastern Montana,’’ and between the GYE considerable depth (Boyce et al. 2001, p. Lake #2, and Madison #2), have secure and the Northern Rockies population. 2). Boyce et al. (2001, p. 1) concluded levels exceeding 68 percent. More than Conversely, many comments from the that the available data ‘‘provide half of the subunits (n = 21) have secure public and peer-reviewers suggested optimistic projections of the likelihood levels at or exceeding 90 percent, and 4 that our discussion of connectivity of of persistence for grizzly bears in the subunits are completely roadless with grizzly bear habitat and populations in GYE; a 99.2 percent probability that the secure habitat levels at 100 percent. the proposed rule and the 2016 GYE grizzly bear population will persist Throughout the PCA, approximately 87 Conservation Strategy was inadequate for 100 years.’’ Please see Issue 27 for percent (excluding major lakes) is and required additional detail; further discussion about population

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30580 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

viability analysis for the GYE especially outside the DMA, could help connectivity (YES 2016a, pp. 82–83). population by Boyce et al. (2001). detect movements between grizzly bear Although the structure of the GYE Due to the habitat protections, populations; and (2) the ‘‘step-selection boundaries are different than those population standards, mortality control, function’’ method in Thurfjell et al. proposed in the draft NCDE outreach efforts, and the adaptive (2014) should be used to ‘‘model habitat Conservation Strategy, the DMA management approach described in the attributes that facilitate movement and boundary extends all the way to the DPS 2016 Conservation Strategy, we connectivity.’’ boundary in sections to the west and conclude that isolation is not a threat to Response—Federal and State agencies north to facilitate connectivity between the GYE grizzly bear population and, will continue to monitor grizzly bear the GYE and both the NCDE and the therefore, does not preclude delisting. activity in potential connectivity areas Bitterroot ecosystem. Connectivity will Based on estimated grizzly bear between the GYE and the NCDE and be managed for in highway planning distribution in the NCDE (Costello et al. between the GYE and the Bitterroot to (YES 2016a, p. 83). Food storage orders 2016, p. 18) and in the GYE (using the document natural connectivity. are already in place on the majority of techniques described by Bjornlie et al. Monitoring will occur using both radio USFS lands to facilitate connectivity by 2014a, p. 183–184, available at https:// telemetry and with the collection of minimizing human-grizzly bear www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/folder/ genetic samples from all captured or conflicts (YES 2016a, pp. 84–85). Lastly, 52fe7f75e4b0354fef6de4f0) as of 2014, dead bears to document possible gene the Service currently partners with the two populations are now only 71 flow between the two ecosystems. nongovernmental organizations who miles apart. In addition, there have been Please see the Genetic Health section of work to conserve important habitat multiple confirmed sightings outside of this final rule for further discussion on linkage areas, including Vital Grounds these distributions between the two genetic monitoring to detect and Yellowstone to Yukon. ecosystems, such as in the Upper Big connectivity. Environmental DNA Issue 53—Some peer-reviewers and Hole last year. MFWP has indicated (eDNA) is used to detect the presence of commenters stated that we either did through their hunting season regulation difficult to detect species by collecting not have or did not share effective, framework and their Grizzly Bear genetic samples present in their detailed Service or State plans for Management Plan for Southwestern environment and has typically been facilitating connectivity between the 6 Montana that connectivity will be used for aquatic or semi-aquatic species grizzly bear recovery zones in the lower considered when relocating grizzly (Schultz and Lance 2015, p. 2). Methods 48 States. Specifically, they expressed bears and in their setting of hunting to use eDNA for terrestrial species are concerns that State management plans quotas in potential connectivity still being developed and are not and regulations will discourage corridors (MFWP 2013, p. 9; MFWP currently applicable to grizzly bears. movement of grizzly bears and prevent 2016, pp. 4–5). Please see Issue 96 for Although detection may be possible at necessary connectivity, including that: discussion of our assessment of sources, current (1) Recolonization of the Bitterroot potential genetic effects as a result of the techniques are limited to small, slow- Ecosystem will be prohibited by a GYE being an isolated population. moving bodies of water (Rodgers and combination of inadequate plans for We have added a discussion of Mock 2015, p. 695). Current methods limiting mortality in linkage zones catastrophic events to this rule under detect only species’ presence and would between the GYE and the Bitterroot Factor E. Although we acknowledge that not provide necessary information to Ecosystem (i.e., the Upper Snake River connectivity is desirable for the long- determine the most likely population Region) and Idaho’s management plan’s term genetic health of the GYE grizzly from which it originated. The IGBST is prohibition on movement of grizzly bear population, at this time genetic currently working on modeling to bears into new areas; (2) the proposed health is not a concern for this identify potential connectivity corridors rule, the Tri-State MOA, and the 2016 population (see Genetic Health section between the NCDE and the GYE. Please Conservation Strategy do not include of this rule). Connectivity will be visit our Web page for maps of the strong enough commitments and clear facilitated through highway planning recovery zones and current known partnerships that will ensure grizzly and food storage orders on public lands distributions, as available (https:// bear habitat connectivity (especially as (YES 2016a, pp. 82–85; see Issue 51 for www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/ considerations in any new road further discussion). Grizzly bears have grizzlyBear.php). construction or highway improvement been documented to use crossing Issue 52—Several commenters also projects); (3) Idaho’s and Wyoming’s structures in Alberta, with a preference suggested methods to facilitate State plans do not discuss connectivity for structures that were ‘‘high, wide and connectivity to other ecosystems or at all or will actively prevent the short in length’’ (Clevenger and Waltho potential habitat areas prior to, or successful recolonization of unoccupied 2005, p. 453; Sawaya et al. 2014, p. 7). concurrent with, delisting, including: historical range because of potential for Distance to cover was also positively (1) Creating demographic connectivity conflict (e.g., Wyoming and southern correlated with grizzly bear use, areas, similar to the draft NCDE Wind River range); and (4) all of the whereas human activity (i.e., traffic Conservation Strategy; (2) implementing State plans will ‘‘actively discourage,’’ noise) was negatively correlated with the same habitat standards in ‘‘limit,’’ ‘‘persecute,’’ or remove bears use (Clevenger and Waltho 2005, p. connectivity areas as those that apply outside the DMA because the States 459). inside the PCA, designating have publicly shared that the Service Issue 51—Commenters stated that the connectivity corridors as wilderness cannot and should not ‘‘impose 2016 Conservation Strategy did not cite areas, and building ‘‘wildlife bridges’’ to additional requirements as to any methods for modeling connectivity allow bears to cross highways; (3) connectivity for delisting the GYE DPS, and that plans for monitoring reducing the DPS boundaries to match where connectivity and genetic connectivity are vague or weak. Several those of the DMA; (4) protecting forests exchange do not threaten the peer-reviewers suggested that: (1) with large roadless tracts; and (5) populations.’’ Monitoring and collecting genetic working with the conservation group For Montana, public commenters samples (e.g., through mandatory Yellowstone to Yukon. were concerned that the State’s: (1) Plan registration of bears hunted in the GYE Response—All Federal and State and regulations are noncommittal or or environmental DNA techniques), agencies are committed to facilitating unclear on the subject of connectivity,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30581

and regulations fail to protect bears final rule, we are designating and Creek, near Avon, and in the Big Hole, moving between the GYE and the NCDE delisting the GYE population as a DPS. demonstrating that bears are moving because they (a) only promise to manage As stated in the proposed rule, based on into the area between the GYE and the discretionary mortality and establish the best available scientific data about NCDE and that natural connectivity is ‘‘attractant storage rules;’’ (b) requested grizzly bear locations and movements, likely forthcoming; however, only the removal of any language committing to the GYE grizzly bear population and grizzly bears from near Butte and Mill effective management of mortality to other remaining grizzly bear Creek were confirmed as originating facilitate connectivity, and the plan populations are markedly, physically from the NCDE, and the ecosystem of does not declare certain areas unsuitable separated from each other. The GYE origination for the other bears is for hunting due to importance for grizzly bear population meets the unknown (pers. comm., M Haroldson). connectivity; (2) actions have not met criterion of discreteness and Montana’s approved hunting regulations the Service’s apparent requirement in significance criteria under our DPS incorporate areas outside the DMA into the proposed rule to effectively manage Policy (see Issues 112, 113, 114, and hunting districts, and apply a quota to discretionary mortality in linkage zones; 115, and the Distinct Vertebrate the whole hunting district based on the and (3) the plan does not contain Population Segment Policy Overview, portion of the district within the DMA. language akin to that in the NCDE Past Practice and History of Using DPSs, This approach will better allow bears to Conservation Strategy that discusses and Distinct Vertebrate Population occupy suitable habitat outside the conflict management in the linkage zone Segment Analysis sections of this final DMA. between the GYE and the NCDE. rule). Recovery of a DPS does not need Although the Idaho Management Plan Other commenters suggested that to rely on genetic augmentation, does not allow translocation of bears State plans must manage for whether natural or human assisted. from the PCA to unoccupied areas connectivity rather than managing As stated in the proposed rule, within Idaho, it does allow for natural toward a minimum population level and connectivity/linkage, while desirable, is expansion into areas that are should have comprehensive not required to maintain the GYE DPS. biologically suitable and socially management plans, not just for the GYE, Published information indicates the acceptable. While the Wyoming that integrate all of the grizzly bear genetic variability and viability of the Management Plan discourages populations in their State and discuss GYE DPS is strong, and lack of occupation of areas outside of the DMA how to facilitate connectivity between connectivity is not a threat to the that are prone to conflict, it does not them. Overall, commenters expressed existence of the GYE DPS (in their discourage occupancy of any sort as is that States must provide more explicit entirety: Kamath et al. 2015; Luikart et implied by reviewer comment. The and robust commitments to ensuring al. 2010). Based on our analysis of the DMA was developed as an area within connectivity for delisting to be justified best available science (81 FR 13174, the GYE DPS to maintain consistent and that the final rule must ‘‘commit to 13184, 13201, March 11, 2016; YES monitoring while providing large-scale connectivity and coordinated 2016a, pp. 51–52), we conclude that suitable habitat sufficient in size to management.’’ Without these genetic concerns are not a threat to the maintain a recovered grizzly bear commitments, commenters asserted that GYE DPS and that bear occupancy, or population in perpetuity. However, this the delisting would violate Service lack thereof, in peripheral areas is not does not imply that bears cannot occur regulations, the National Forest biologically necessary to the GYE DPS. outside the DMA (as they currently do Management Act, NEPA, the APA, and In addition, as discussed in the now) or into the future. § 219.9 of the 2012 Forest Planning Demographic Recovery Criteria section Issue 54—Public commenters and Rule. of this final rule and the 2016 peer-reviewers expressed concerns with Conversely, the States commented Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. the adequacy of our discussion of that: (1) Their discussions of 34–37), we have applied conservative livestock allotments in the proposed connectivity in plans and regulations recovery and demographic monitoring rule. Commenters suggested that were sufficient to ensure the continued criteria for the GYE population in livestock allotments remain a threat recovery of the GYE grizzly bear recognition of its relative isolation. because: (1) They reduce connectivity population to which one public For Recovery Zones outside the GYE since they contribute to habitat commenter agreed with Montana; (2) the DPS, the Act’s protections will fragmentation, create a barrier to grizzly proposed rule may be too prescriptive continue. The 2016 Conservation bear movements, and cause mortality on the subject of connectivity and Strategy describes actions for habitat sinks (including the U.S. Sheep movement between ecosystems; and (3) connectivity. Although connectivity Experiment Station); and (2) livestock the Service should remove references to with other Recovery Zones is not allotments still cause a large proportion bear occupancy outside the DMA in the required for recovery or delisting of the of grizzly bear mortality. A peer- recovery supplement because the best GYE DPS, the 2016 Conservation reviewer suggested that changing available science indicates genetic Strategy and Montana’s State environmental conditions could alter connectivity is not a threat to the GYE management plan include a long-term the conflict dynamics between grizzly population and the recovery criteria goal of allowing grizzly bear bears and livestock allotments. ‘‘are conservative in recognition of the populations in southwestern and Commenters explained that the GYE DPS’ relative isolation.’’ western Montana to reconnect through Service and its partners lack sufficient Response—While connectivity among the maintenance of non-conflict grizzly plans that will effectively ameliorate the populations may be desirable, the Act bears in areas between the ecosystems. threats from livestock allotments does not require it for recovery or The State of Montana has indicated that, because: (1) Phasing out of livestock delisting. The 1993 Recovery Plan did while discretionary mortality may allotments is not, and has not been, an not require connectivity for recovery of occur, the State will manage effective measure to reduce conflicts individual grizzly bear populations, and discretionary mortality to retain the with wildlife; (2) there are currently no the Recovery Plan indicated the opportunity for natural movements of requirements to securely store or Service’s intention to delist distinct bears between ecosystems. Grizzly bears remove attractants, including livestock populations as they met recovery goals have recently been documented in the carcasses and feed, on private lands in (USFWS 1993, pp. ii, 33–34). In this Elkhorn Mountains, near Butte, Mill the PCA; (3) current methods for

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30582 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

managing bears to limit livestock growers as a result of closing livestock Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team predation have failed since there were allotments is disproportionate to the 2002, pp. 15–16; MFWP 2016, pp. 51– more conflicts with livestock in 2015 threat that these allotments pose, 53; WGFD 2005, pp. 21–26). Inside the than at any point in the past 100 years, arguing that livestock allotments PCA, numerous sheep allotments have and there have been more than 500 (especially sheep) are a comparatively been retired or relocated to other, less- confirmed livestock deaths since 1995; small source of grizzly bear mortality conflict-prone areas to accommodate and (4) allowing private interests to (e.g., approximately 5 and 34 percent grizzly bears (USDA FS 2006a, p. 170). control the phase-out of allotments may from sheep and cattle conflicts, As of 2006, there is only one remaining violate section 7 of the Act and other respectively). One commenter requested active sheep allotment inside the PCA laws. Peer-reviewers also provided that the Service disclose the economic (USDA FS 2006a, p. 168). Management comments as to the inadequacy of plans loss from the elimination of livestock removal will be used only as a last to ameliorate threats from livestock allotments and collect more data on resort inside the PCA. The respective allotments including that: (1) We do not depredation of livestock. Commenters State wildlife agency’s grizzly bear have a plan to manage for the potential emphasized the problem that there are management plan will guide to have an increase in impacts from currently too many bears in the GYE, management of grizzly bear conflicts livestock allotments on grizzly bears; creating unsustainable predation with livestock grazing on public lands and (2) our proposed rule does not pressure on the ranching industry. They outside of the PCA. Thus, removals as specify the total number of cattle we suggested that delisting will increase the a result of these conflicts will remain will allow on limited acreage of cattle management flexibility of livestock within the sustainable mortality limits allotments. owners and will provide needed tools established in the 2016 Conservation Commenters suggested methods to for producers to protect livestock. Strategy. As such, this source of more effectively ameliorate the threats Response—We have thoroughly mortality will not threaten the GYE from livestock allotments and reduce analyzed the issue of Factor A, The grizzly bear population. conflict with livestock, including: (1) Present or Threatened Destruction, The Service must make its decisions Conducting NEPA examination of all Modification, or Curtailment of Its based on the best available scientific grazing allotments on public land and Habitat or Range, and conclude that data. Therefore, we focus on whether or section 7 consultations before issuing livestock allotments are not a threat to not grizzly bear mortalities resulting any livestock allotment permits; (2) the GYE population now or in the from conflicts with livestock affect the removing the livestock instead of the foreseeable future. See Issue 40 for bear in cases of repeated conflicts; (3) additional information. overall population trajectory. Grizzly encouraging landowners who have Livestock permits are regulated bear mortalities associated with livestock allotment permits on Federal through National Forest Land livestock depredations have mostly been land to accept grizzly bear depredation Management Plans, Livestock Grazing eliminated within the PCA as most of livestock, rather than expect Permits, and/or Annual Operating livestock allotments have been closed or retaliatory action towards grizzly bears; Instructions. The USFS controls the retired. However, as the grizzly bear (4) instead of delisting, increasing number of permits and allotments, herd population expands beyond the PCA support for programs that compensate size, and season of use. In addition, and beyond the DMA where livestock landowners for livestock losses in place permits contain carcass disposal allotments remain, mortalities have of retaliatory killing of grizzly bears; (5) requirements and enforce USFS food again increased as a result of this range requiring that livestock permits contain storage orders, which include livestock expansion. Mortality rates will remain nonlethal conflict prevention measures feed (for more details on food storage within the biologically sustainable before grizzly bear removal can occur; orders see YES 2016a, pp. 84–85). mortality rates in the demographic (6) including stronger, perhaps Existing permits within grizzly bear recovery criteria and the 2016 mandatory, language on livestock habitat, either under a programmatic Conservation Strategy (see Issues 19 and allotment phase-out, especially, review or for each allotment, have 66). The Service has established conflict according to one peer-reviewer, where undergone section 7 analysis and any bear guidelines that are strategic in conflicts are common, and including significant changes to these plans (i.e., nature and provide managers with a commitments to work with third parties changes in herd numbers) post-delisting framework to assess conflicts on a case- to buy out allotments; (7) withdrawing will be subject to a NEPA analysis. by-case basis. Grizzly bears depredating most or all grazing rights on NF Land; Coordination will occur with State on lawfully present livestock on public and (8) removing leases from public wildlife management agencies to apply lands may or may not be removed from lands that are ‘‘edge areas’’ important the conflict bear standards, including the population, depending on several for connectivity or from all grizzly bear measures to prevent conflicts (YES factors such as location of the conflict, habitat. In addition, while some 2016a, pp. 86–91). The IGBST identifies severity of the incident, age and sex of commenters suggested that the U.S. areas of concentrated conflicts to enable the bear, and conflict history of the bear Sheep Experiment Station needs to be managers to focus subsequent efforts to (YES 2016a, Chapter 4). While not closed, others suggest that it has prevent grizzly bear-human conflicts. required by the Act, State, Tribal, and effectively used such nonlethal All three State management plans Federal managers will continue to use a techniques to protect sheep from grizzly contain direction on reducing grizzly combination of management options in bears. bear-livestock conflicts and cooperating order to reduce grizzly bear-human Conversely, some commenters with private landowners to reach this conflicts, including nonlethal forms worried about heightened negative goal (Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly Bear (Bangs et al. 2006, entire). However, impacts to ranchers if management of Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 15– these methods are effective in only some livestock allotments is made more 16; MFWP 2013, pp. 51–53; WGFD circumstances, and no single tool is a stringent because compensation for 2016, pp. 22–23). cure for every problem. Lethal control relinquishing allotments is insufficient Federal and State management will still be required in many to cover the lost revenue to those agencies emphasize preventative circumstances. Lethal control used in ranchers. These commenters also measures and nonlethal techniques combination with nonlethal methods suggested that the impact to livestock whenever possible (Idaho’s Yellowstone can improve the overall effectiveness of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30583

both management options (Bangs et al. participants (Gunther et al. 2004, p. 20). Issue 55—Several commenters stated 2006, p. 8; Breitenmoser et al. 2005, p. As explained in the proposed rule, as of that we inaccurately characterized the 70). 2014, there was only one active sheep extent of present and future oil, gas, and Some commenters thought we needed allotment within the PCA, on the mineral leasing in grizzly bear habitat stronger language making the phase-out Caribou-Targhee NF. Because research because: (1) We incorrectly state that of livestock allotments necessary. The has shown that grizzly bears and cattle there are no oil and gas leases inside the Service has established a management are more likely to coexist without PCA as of 1998 when the USFS data system in the 2016 Conservation conflict than grizzly bears and sheep, shows 9 parcels under lease; (2) there Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 67–68, 72–73) the phasing out of cattle allotments are 1,643 active leases in suitable grizzly that balances livestock grazing on public inside the PCA will occur only when bear habitat and the USFS has never lands with the needs of grizzly bears. there are recurring, irresolvable conflicts denied a development request once a The vast majority of public lands in on these allotments or if willing lease is granted; (3) 28 mines will be grizzly bear habitat in the GYE are permittees volunteer to waive their able to be developed if grizzly bears are managed with no livestock grazing. permits back to the government (Knight delisted; (4) we do not acknowledge the There is no livestock grazing on any of and Judd 1983, p. 189; Anderson et al. Crevice and Emigrant Mines, two the National Parks in the GYE; the last 2002, pp. 254–255). Because there will operations in the process of livestock allotment in GTNP was closed continue to be no net increase in cattle development, in the proposed rule; (5) in 2006. While livestock grazing or sheep allotments allowed on public Lucky , a Canadian mining allotments are a legitimate use of some lands inside the PCA, we do not expect company, is planning a mining public lands, we recognize that such that livestock allotments inside the PCA operation less than 20 mi (32 km) from grazing, especially sheep grazing, can will constitute a threat to the GYE YNP that will lead to acid mine lead to some grizzly bear mortality. In grizzly bear DPS now or in the future. drainage; and (6) the Montanore Mine in light of this understanding, and past Programs that compensate owners for the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, and management experience, the Service livestock losses will continue in Idaho, other hard rock mines, are affecting endorses an approach that includes Montana, and Wyoming regardless of important grizzly bear habitat. A peer- minimizing livestock allotments with the listing status of the grizzly bear. reviewer also mentioned that 4 percent recurring conflicts. The Final EIS for the Forest Plan of suitable habitat inside, and 19 The USFS’s multiple-use mandate Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat percent of suitable habitat outside, the guides management to maintain a Conservation for the Greater PCA (but inside the DMA) allows for healthy forest while providing Yellowstone Area National Forests surface occupancy and that impacts of opportunities for wildlife and goods and includes an analysis of the potential such occupancy can extend beyond the services, such as livestock forage. economic impacts of implementing the footprint itself. Therefore, the USFS focuses on whether Commenters suggested that these oil, 2007 Conservation Strategy, including or not grizzly bear mortalities resulting gas, and mineral activities, especially the strategy surrounding livestock from conflicts with livestock affect those adjacent to USFS lands, will affect allotments (USDA FS 2006a, pp. 242– recovery of the population. The USFS grizzly bear habitat and lead to 254). This Final EIS concludes that the has stated that, ‘‘Inside the PCA, no new population declines post delisting, negative economic impacts of active commercial livestock grazing since: (1) Mitigation is voluntary; (2) implementing the 2007 Conservation allotments would be created and there NEPA will be inadequate to ‘‘curb would be no increases in permitted Strategy would be minimal to livestock harmful activities;’’ (3) the 1872 General sheep AMs from the identified 1998 operators and do not outweigh the could restrain abilities to baseline. Existing sheep allotments positive effects to grizzly bears (USDA limit any new mining developments; (4) would be monitored, evaluated, and FS 2006a, pp. 251–252). areas associated with oil and gas boom phased out as opportunities arise with Lastly, we disagree that the U.S. towns have an increased incidence of willing permittees. Inside the PCA, Sheep Experiment Station needs to be poaching (Berger and Daneke 1988); (5) cattle allotments or portions of cattle closed in order to conserve grizzly the effects of honoring existing oil, gas, allotments with recurring conflicts that bears. The Station is located 6 miles and other mineral leases are unclear; (6) cannot be resolved through modification north of Dubois, Idaho, and is 113 km2 denning bears, particularly females, of grazing practices may be retired as (70 mi2) in size, and undertakes have decreased fitness when disturbed opportunities arise with willing extensive efforts to prevent grizzly bear- by forest cutting, mining, oil and gas permittees. Outside the PCA in areas livestock conflicts, including: Modifying exploration, and human recreation; and identified in State management plans as the grazing schedule and/or movements; (7) delisting will ‘‘lift’’ restrictions on biologically suitable and socially implementing good husbandry practices oil, gas, and mineral leases in the GYE. acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, to keep the animals healthy; using full- A peer-reviewer also noted that it is livestock allotments or portions of time sheepherders, working dogs, and unclear what actions land managers will allotments with recurring conflicts that guard dogs on ; limiting take to mitigate for potential impacts cannot be resolved through modification evening bedding areas; removal of lame from existing leases given the current of grazing practices may be retired as livestock; minimization of unnatural language that land managers are opportunities arise with willing attractants (i.e., using bear-resistant ‘‘striving’’ to meet the application rules permittees’’ (USDA FA 2006a, pp. 36– containers); annual education of Sheep for changes to secure habitat. 37). Station employees and herders on Commenters requested additional We conclude that this approach to grizzly bear identification and conflict plans and assurances to adequately livestock grazing is a logical and reduction; and reporting guidelines for explain amelioration of this threat such responsive way to manage grizzly bear- all grizzly bear sightings and as: (1) More explicit plans for livestock conflicts. In some cases, the encounters. As a result, the Sheep monitoring and mitigation; (2) complete offer of financial incentives through Experiment Station has experienced no removal, or at a minimum, nongovernmental organizations has conflicts, management removals, or commitments for no new oil, gas, or been successful in retiring sheep livestock losses from 2002 to 2014 mining projects within the PCA after allotments on public lands with willing (Mickelsen 2016, in litt.). delisting; and (3) clarity on whether

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30584 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

new oil, gas, or mineral projects that recreation uses can extend beyond the lands. Operators proposing projects to occur within the PCA would be required footprint of the activity, but those effects develop federally owned minerals have to mitigate for impacts on secure habitat have been considered as part of our to get both Federal approvals and the by replacing the loss with intact secure analysis. Additionally, any such appropriate State permits, licenses, or habitat of similar habitat quality. A proposed projects on Federal land approvals. While it varies by State, peer-reviewer also requested would be subject to environmental additional State agencies may be ‘‘additional clarification on the number review under the NEPA process, which responsible for a variety of resources of leases, the location and area of leases, requires Federal agencies to consider such as water discharge permits or air and possible range of effects of these environmental effects that include, quality permits whether the proposed leases.’’ among others, impacts to wildlife, operations are on Federal or non- Response—We have thoroughly including possible mitigation measures. Federal lands. analyzed the issue of Factor A, The The proposed rule (81 FR 13196, The level of exploration and Present or Threatened Destruction, March 11, 2017) accurately stated that, development on Federal lands has Modification, or Curtailment of Its ‘‘Additionally, 1,354 preexisting mining remained relatively constant over Habitat or Range, and conclude that claims were located in 10 of the approximately 20 years. Mineralized extractive industries (e.g., oil, gas, subunits inside the PCA (YES 2016b, areas with a history of exploration and mining) are not a threat to the GYE Appendix E), but only 28 of these development particularly occur on the grizzly bear population now or in the mining claims had operating plans. Custer-Gallatin NF. Activity has foreseeable future. The proposed rule These operating plans are included in remained within the level described in accurately stated that there are no active the 1998 developed site baseline.’’ the 1998 developed site list. To the oil and gas leases inside the PCA (81 FR Activity on these 28 claims in both the fullest extent of its regulatory authority, 13196, March 11, 2016); however, in PCA and suitable habitat range from the USFS will minimize effects on 2016 there were eight suspended oil and small intermittent operations to 2 large grizzly bear habitat from those activities gas leases in or partially in the PCA. In mines producing platinum and based in statutory rights (e.g., the 1872 addition, there are 50 leases in, or palladium on the Custer-Gallatin General Mining Law). Mitigation partially in, suitable habitat (2 are National Forests. While claimants under requirements will follow those outlined phosphate leases on the Caribou- the 1872 General Mining Law have a in the 2016 Conservation Strategy, and Targhee and the rest are oil and gas right to explore for and develop described below (YES 2016a, pp. 62– leases). That is similar to or fewer than valuable mineral deposits on their 63). The 2016 Conservation Strategy and the number analyzed as part of the 2007 claims, the USFS develops appropriate this final rule do not preclude future Conservation Strategy. mitigations for these claims through mineral development, but have set in The potential for future increases in analysis and the NEPA process (42 place mitigations that will allow grizzly oil and gas leasing inside the PCA on U.S.C. 4321–4347.1970, as amended). bear populations to be maintained. National Forest lands is guided by the Please see the 2016 Conservation 2016 Conservation Strategy and its Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 62–67) for Under the 2016 Conservation limitations on road density and additional details on required Strategy, any new oil, gas, or mineral development (YES 2016a, pp. 60–72). mitigation. The proposed Montanore project will be approved only if it We do not anticipate a dramatic Mine in the Cabinet Mountains is conforms to secure habitat and increase in resource extraction outside outside the scope of this rulemaking developed site standards (YES 2016a, of the PCA either due to the quantity of because it is not located in the GYE. pp. 54–85). For instance, any oil, gas, or National Forest land designated as Mitigation of mineral activity on BLM- mineral project that permanently Wilderness (6,799 km2 (2,625 mi2)), managed lands requires NEPA, and the reduces the amount of secure habitat WSA (708 km2 (273 mi2)), or IRA (6,179 effects analysis helps determine the will have to provide replacement secure km2 (2,386 mi2)). Approximately 80 appropriate mitigation. habitat of similar habitat quality (based percent of all suitable habitat on State agencies are authorized to on our scientific understanding of National Forest lands outside the PCA permit and determine appropriate grizzly bear habitat). Any change in falls into one of these categories. There mitigation for operations on private and developed sites will require mitigation are also moderate to low potentials for State lands. The Wyoming Department equivalent to the type and extent of the both oil and gas occurrence and of Environmental Quality’s Land impact, and such mitigation must be in development throughout most of the six Quality Division (LQD) permits and place prior to project initiation or be GYE National Forests, with the licenses to ‘‘ensure that land provided concurrently with project exception of the Bridger-Teton National disturbances resulting from mining are development as an integral part of the Forest (USDA FS 2006a, pp. 210–213). minimal, and that affected areas are project plan (YES 2016a, pp. 54–85). For Even with the high potential for properly restored once mining is projects that temporarily change the occurrence and development in the complete’’ (Wyoming Department of amount of secure habitat, only one Bridger-Teton, only 13 active oil and gas Environment Quality–Land Quality project is allowed in any subunit at any wells are currently inside that National Division 2017). The Idaho Department time (YES 2016a, pp. 54–85). Mitigation Forest and none are within the DMA. In of Lands permits surface and placer of any project will occur within the fact, there are no active oil and gas wells mining operations from beginning same subunit and will be proportional in suitable habitat. There has never been through reclamation. The Montana to the type and extent of the project any high-density oil and gas Department of Environmental Quality (YES 2016a, pp. 54–85). In conclusion, development in suitable grizzly bear permits and licenses mining in because any new mineral or energy habitat in the GYE. The 1998 baseline Montana. The Idaho and Wyoming Oil development will continue to be for habitat standards was chosen as a and Gas Conservation Commissions and approved only if it conforms to the level of development that existed during the Montana Board of Oil and Gas secure habitat and developed site a period of robust grizzly bear Conservation are the agencies standards set forth in the 2016 population growth. We acknowledge authorized to permit and regulate oil Conservation Strategy, we conclude that that effects of not only mineral and gas wells. The State agencies also such development inside the PCA will development but administrative and have a role in permitting on the Federal not constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30585

bear DPS now or in the foreseeable National Forest in an area heavily used and that regulation is needed despite future. by snowmobiles (Hegg et al. 2010, pp. the fact that these risks are unknown. Issue 56—We received comments 23–28). The grizzly bear remained in the Response—Limiting motorized from both the public and peer-reviewers den throughout the winter and emerged recreation, including ORV use, is a expressing concerns regarding our April 20, 2010, with one cub-of-the- fundamental component of the 2016 discussion of snowmobiling. year. Thus, our best available Conservation Strategy, hence the Specifically, these commenters asserted information suggests that current levels requirement for no net decrease in that a lack of evidence of impacts does of snowmobile use are not appreciably secure habitat inside the PCA (see Issues not equate to a conclusion of no impact reducing the survival or recovery of 43 and 49). This measure directly limits from snowmobiles. Additionally, they grizzly bears. the total area affected by motorized recommended that monitoring alone is As we stated in the proposed rule (81 recreation, so that grizzly bears have insufficient management and that active FR 13174, March 11, 2016), the adequate secure habitat regardless of the management programs should be available data about the potential for number of people using motorized initiated to mitigate the potential disturbance while denning and den trails. Limitation of non-motorized impacts of snowmobiling (e.g., abandonment from nearby snowmobile recreation, including mountain bikes, is minimizing overlap between use are extrapolated from studies not a component of the 2016 snowmobiles and denning habitat and/ examining the impacts of other human Conservation Strategy because we’ve or limiting snowmobiles after den activities and are identified as concluded that the current and emergence dates). Lastly, public ‘‘anecdotal’’ in nature (Swenson et al. projected levels of use will not comments suggested that we did not 1997, p. 37) with sample sizes so small substantially impact the GYE grizzly adequately consider impacts from they cannot be legitimately applied to bear population. Because mountain activities associated with snowmobiling, assess population-level impacts (in their bikers often travel quietly and at high such as the use of artillery to control entirety: Harding and Nagy 1980; speeds, when combined with avalanches. Reynolds et al. 1986; Hegg et al. 2010). environmental factors (e.g., dense Response—We have thoroughly Because there are no data or information vegetation, hilly terrain, and running analyzed Factor A, The Present or suggesting that snowmobile use in the water), they may be more likely to be Threatened Destruction, Modification, GYE is negatively affecting the grizzly within 50 m (164 ft) before being or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range, bear population, or even individual detected by a bear (Schmor 1999, pp. and conclude that snowmobile use is bears, we determine that snowmobiling 118–119). MacHutchon (2014, p. 37) not a threat to the GYE population now does not constitute a threat to the GYE concluded that an alert mountain biker or in the foreseeable future (see grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future. making sufficient noise and traveling at discussion above under Factor A). The Yet, because the potential for slow speeds would not be more likely Forest Plan Amendment includes disturbance and impacts to reproductive to have a sudden encounter with a bear guidance that, inside the PCA, localized success exists, monitoring will continue than would a hiker. The 2016 area restrictions are to be used to to support adaptive management Conservation Strategy’s adaptive mitigate any conflicts during denning or decisions about snowmobile use in management approach will allow after bear emergence in the spring. Bears areas where disturbance is documented managers to respond to detrimental tend to den in remote areas with or likely to occur. levels of non-motorized recreation, characteristics that are not conducive to Inside YNP, the use of an avalanche should they occur, on a case-by-case snowmobiling (i.e., steep, forested management system is limited to Sylvan basis and also provide managers with habitats). Suitable denning habitat is Pass to prevent avalanches from the data necessary to determine if well distributed on the forests, and covering the road, and the ecosystem-wide limitations may be much of the general grizzly bear Superintendent has the ability to necessary in the future. denning habitat identified in the Forest consider the location of wintering Issue 58—Several commenters raised Plan Amendment Final EIS as being wildlife and close Sylvan Pass. concerns about human encroachment open to snowmobiling is not actually Furthermore, there have been no into wildlife habitat claiming that used by snowmobiles (USDA FS 2006a, documented mortalities or disturbances grizzly bears are not resilient to human p. 92). For example, 85.2 percent of the of denning grizzly bears as a result of persecution or habitat degradation known dens in the GYE are located in avalanche control. Avalanche control (Ripple et al. 2016). Specifically, they areas where snowmobile use does not for snowmobiling does not occur on any cited potential effects of increased occur and, of the 13.9 percent of dens of the National Forests within the DMA. human recreation and visitation in bear that do occur in areas open to Therefore, we conclude that avalanche habitat including: (1) Increasing snowmobiling, only 0.8 percent are control activities are not a threat now, numbers of encounters, as well as long- classified as high potential for or in the foreseeable future, to GYE term exposure of bears to humans, snowmobile use (Haroldson 2017d, in population. results in higher mortality risks; and (2) litt.). Issue 57—Commenters expressed potential exclusion of bears from habitat Since 2002, we have consulted with concerns with threats associated with since grizzly bears are twice as likely to all of the GYE National Forests at least off-road vehicles (ORV) and mountain use an area when human activity is once regarding the effect of bike use on National Forest lands. restricted or when people are inactive snowmobiles on denning grizzly bears Commenters stated that an increased (i.e., nighttime) (Coleman et al. 2013). (Caribou-Targhee NF 2004, p. 15; Dixon use of ORVs on highly accessible public One commenter stated that the Service 2016, in litt.). While the potential for lands will greatly increase the risk of needs to better analyze current habitat disturbance exists, USFS and IGBST grizzly bear mortality. Commenters security and isolation from people and monitoring over the last 3 years has not suggested that in order to adequately predict how it will change in the documented any disturbance or conflict address this threat, managers need to foreseeable future, in all types of grizzly (Haroldson 2016, in litt.). Additionally, develop more stringent ORV regulations bear habitat. during the winter of 2009–2010, a prior to delisting. Commenters also Commenters also proposed potential grizzly bear was observed digging a den stated that the Service failed to address management responses that could in the Squaw Basin, Bridger-Teton threats associated with mountain bikes alleviate these impacts including: (1)

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30586 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Enhancing infrastructure to support concludes that the 1998 baseline will and that bears are flexible and can adapt increasing park visitation, although adequately address these issues through to multiple use landscapes. conversely, a peer-reviewer suggested access management, limitations on site Response—Inside the PCA, secure limiting visitation to YNP and GTNP; (2) development, and I&E efforts. See Issues habitat must be maintained at or above assessing human visitation as ‘‘take’’ 45, 54, and 108 for additional the 1998 baseline, and application rules under section 9 of the Act because it information. Under the 2016 for changes to secure habitat will apply. harasses wildlife and causes Conservation Strategy, a multi-agency These rules limit changes to secure displacement from food sources; (3) effort will be conducted to determine habitat to one project at a time within restricting human access to particular the best long-term solutions for a bear management subunit and the habitats during times of food shortages; alleviating the pressures of increased impact of that project cannot exceed 1 (4) imposing food storage orders on all visitation and the potential need for percent of the area of the largest subunit habitat within the DPS boundaries, increased infrastructure. within that BMU (YES 2016a, pp. 62– especially within the DMA, to the Issue 59—Comments from the public 63). For permanent changes, maximum extent possible within the and peer-reviewers expressed concern replacement habitat must be in place for law; and (5) increasing I&E for tourists about the potential future impacts of at least 10 years before it can be used and hikers. logging on grizzly bears in the GYE, for mitigation for future projects, Response—We have thoroughly including that: (1) 11 Percent of suitable including logging. These rules ensure analyzed Factor A, The Present or habitat outside the PCA, but inside the that ‘‘short-rotation management Threatened Destruction, Modification, DMA, allows timber harvesting; and (2) regimes’’ will not occur within the PCA. or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range, timber harvest would increase after In addition, although roughly 17 percent and conclude that human recreation is delisting since there would no longer be or 3,967 km2 (1,532 mi2) of suitable not a threat to the population now or in limits on road densities in grizzly bear habitat outside the PCA is identified as the foreseeable future. Our habitat habitat, opening more than 3 million having both suitable timber and a management standards rely heavily on acres to timber harvest and road management prescription that allows reducing anthropogenic influences and building. timber harvest, from 2003 to 2014, an minimizing grizzly bear-human Public comments provided varied average of only 4.7 km2 (1.8 mi2) was conflicts because excessive human- perspectives on the impacts of logging actually logged annually (Jackson 2017, caused mortality and subsequent on grizzly bears including: (1) Grizzly in litt.). The IGBST would be able to population decline was the primary bears avoid recently logged forests detect any changes to the population as factor that led to the original listing as (McClellan and Hovey 2001; Apps et al. a result of changes in habitat through threatened in 1975. For a detailed 2004), potentially because these areas their demographic monitoring of the explanation of this rationale, please are warmer; (2) logging disturbs denning GYE grizzly bear population, which refer to Issue 41, the Habitat-Based bears, particularly females; (3) timber they will report to the YGCC who could Recovery Criteria section of this final harvest can degrade habitat quality then decide if modifications to the 2016 rule, and the 2016 Conservation Strategy under ‘‘short-rotation management Conservation Strategy are necessary to (YES 2016a, pp. 54–85). regimes’’ (Mattson and Knight 1991); (4) maintain a recovered grizzly bear A survey of grizzly bear experts food availability does not increase in population in the GYE. showed that research on the potential early successional forests in the GYE; (5) Timber is the primary resource impacts of habituation as a result of logging could degrade red squirrel extracted in grizzly bear habitat. Habitat human recreational activities should be habitat (and red squirrels help make quality (as a function of road density a high priority (Fortin et al. 2016, p. 17). whitebark pine nuts available for grizzly and timber harvest) has improved as a Although Herrero (1985, pp. entire) bear consumption); and (6) there is not result of declining timber harvest, found that habituated bears were at an currently enough science to determine decreasing road construction, and increased risk of being involved with the impacts of logging on bears, besides increasing road decommissioning since conflicts, other research has found that the research on grizzly bear mortalities the mid-1990s (USDA FS 2006a, pp. habituated bears were less likely to be from roads. One commenter noted that, 156, 200). Timber harvest volumes and involved with conflicts (Jope 1985, p. unless no logging occurred between road construction have declined since 36; Nadeau 1987, pp. 20, 46–48; 2002 and 2016, we need to analyze the mid-1990s. Under the 1998 level of Aumiller and Matt 1994, pp. 53–58; impacts of logging after 2002. secure habitat, the GYE grizzly bear Gunther and Biel 1999, p. 3). Although Commenters also suggested that population has tripled in size and has some research has found that grizzly future management may worsen these stabilized from 2002–2014 as it has bears avoid human activity (Coleman et impacts, including that: (1) The USFS reached carrying capacity (Haroldson et al. 2013, pp. 1317–1317) or newly could ignore habitat protections for al. 2014, p. 13; van Manen 2016a, in logged forests (Pigeon et al. 2016, pp. grizzly bears that limit logging as litt.). From 1986 to 2002 there has been 1107), these avoidances were temporal previously occurred in Targhee NF; and a net reduction of more than 1,600 km with grizzly bears returning to the area (2) timber harvest lands adjacent to YNP (1,000 mi) of road on the six GYE at different times of the day. Fortin et al. (and in wildlife migration routes) will National Forests (inside and outside the (2013b, entire) found that grizzly bears be designated Farm Bill priority lands, PCA). Inside the PCA on National are extremely flexible in their ability to resulting in a less rigorous review. Forests, there was an average reduction switch activity profiles (i.e., nocturnal Suggestions on how to minimize these (elimination) of 59.9 km (37.2 mi) of versus diurnal) without being negatively impacts included: (1) Mitigation for road per year from 1986 to 2002 (USDA impacted by these switches. projects that impact secure habitat FS 2006a, p. 200). Similarly, outside the Section 7 of the Act will no longer should not include land that has already PCA, there was an average reduction of apply to the GYE population upon been disturbed (e.g., previously logged 40.7 km (25.3 mi) of road per year for finalization of this rule. However, the land); and (2) grizzly bears should this time period (USDA FS 2006a, p. Service considers the establishment of remain listed to avoid logging in their 200). Timber lands immediately habitat thresholds for human population habitat. Conversely, a commenter adjacent to the YNP are contained growth and limits on levels of human suggested that timber harvest is part of within the PCA and protected under the recreation to be unrealistic and responsibly managing natural resources 1998 baseline standards for secure

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30587

habitat and developed sites. The addition to killing and harassing suitable habitat, including the 1998 standards and guidelines adopted in endangered animals; (2) suggestions to baseline levels of secure habitat and each Forest Plan, and the Planning Rule apply a ‘‘no net loss’’ policy for grizzly developed sites, are sufficient to under which they fall, must still be bear habitat on private lands; (3) maintain a viable grizzly bear abided by when considering a project suggestions that the Federal population in the GYE. However, the under the 2014 Farm Bill. Government should use public lands to habitat standards set forth in this rule Please see the Vegetation mitigate for impacts to grizzly bears that and the 2016 Conservation Strategy Management section of this final rule occur on private lands; and (4) apply only to Federal lands and, for discussion of how timber harvest suggestions that we need to consider therefore, will have no direct effect on may impact grizzly bears, Issue 61 for how implementation of the 2016 private landowners. Upon delisting, further discussion of bear use of newly Conservation Strategy will impact current programs that compensate disturbed forests, and the Snowmobiling private landowners in the DMA, owners for livestock losses will section of this final rule and Issue 45 for potentially adversely, since the process continue in Idaho, Montana, and discussion of potential den site for meeting damage claims on real and Wyoming regardless of the listing status disturbance. Apps et al. (2004, p. 148) personal property could be mired in of the grizzly bear (see Issue 54). cautioned that their findings that grizzly delays. A peer-reviewer emphasized Limits on developing private lands to bears avoided newly logged areas may that education and mitigation will be reduce conflicts with resident wildlife be a result of an ‘‘accelerated rate of key strategies in reducing the likelihood are the responsibility of the counties conifer regeneration of cutblocks,’’ of ‘‘attractant sinks’’ (i.e., increased and the States, both of which have ‘‘lower shrub cover than would human-caused grizzly bear mortalities representatives on the YGCC; the otherwise be expected,’’ and they were as a result of unsecured attractants) Service has no direct authority over ‘‘associated with higher human access developing on the 9 percent of suitable private lands. As previously stated, and influence.’’ Although Pigeon et al. habitat outside the PCA that is private section 9 take prohibitions of the Act (2016, p. 1107) found that grizzly bears land. will no longer apply after this final rule avoid newly logged forests, this was a Response—Private lands comprise 2.1 goes into effect. Because a temporal avoidance of the warmest parts percent of the PCA and 9 percent of disproportionate number of grizzly bear- of the day and grizzly bears returned to suitable habitat outside the PCA. The human conflicts occur at site the area at cooler times of the day. consideration of private land activities developments on private lands (see Fortin et al. (2013b, entire) found that on grizzly bear-human conflicts is Servheen et al. 2004, p. 15), we grizzly bears are extremely flexible in fundamental to the proper management recommend that private landowners their ability to switch activity profiles of grizzly bears and to human safety become involved in efforts to reduce (i.e., nocturnal versus diurnal) without because these conflicts often lead to these conflicts. We, in conjunction with being negatively impacted by these grizzly bear mortality. However, the vast the counties and State wildlife agencies, switches. majority of suitable grizzly bear habitat will continue to promote outreach, Issue 60—Commenters expressed is secure on public land (i.e., National education, and management of land concerns with our discussion of the Parks or National Forests). Thus, despite development activities in grizzly bear impacts to grizzly bears from human the conflicts that arise on private lands, habitat to reduce bear-human conflicts population growth and development we conclude that activities on private upon delisting. State bear management activities on private lands in the GYE, lands do not constitute a threat to the specialists will continue to respond to including that: (1) Increasing GYE grizzly bear now or in the future. human-bear conflicts and efforts to development of formerly rural areas has In regard to potential privatization of reduce conflicts on both public and negative impacts on grizzly bear Federal public land posing a threat to private lands (YES 2016a, pp. 86–95). population trends (Doak and Cutler grizzly bears in the GYE, while changes These efforts to limit conflicts on 2014); (2) the 1998 baseline does not to the protected status of grizzly bear private lands will continue under the consider the impacts of edge effects habitat on these public lands is YGCC’s management, which will be with residential and recreational theoretically possible, such an outcome informed by future IGBST demographic developments on private lands; (3) we is highly improbable, especially at the reviews. need more discussion of how to scale that would be necessary to affect Issue 61—One commenter asked minimize grizzly bear deaths and the viability of the GYE grizzly bear about the role of fire in grizzly bear conflicts on private lands; (4) the population. Although Doak and Cutler habitat and how fire, both natural and potential privatization of Federal land (2014a, p. 313) graph the increase in human-induced, might be managed could pose a threat to habitat rural population trends from 1975 to post-delisting. maintenance (especially when it is 2005, they do not include rural Response—Blanchard and Knight easier to transfer Federal land to private population trends in their modeling of (1990, p. 592) found that the 1988 fire control if it does not contain listed population trends in the GYE (see Issues resulted in the probable deaths of only species); (5) the States (especially 28 and 29 for discussion on a rebuttal a few grizzly bears and no increase in Montana and Idaho) have no substantive to Doak and Cutler 2014a). bear home range sizes or daily management restrictions in grizzly bear Suitable habitat excludes areas of movement rates during or after the fire. habitat on private lands; and (6) the increased mortality risk (e.g., high Immediately after the fires had passed, Service does not have a system to population densities and sheep grizzly bears moved into the burned monitor the impacts of population allotments; ‘‘edge’’ habitat). However, areas to feed on the increased growth and increased development. these population sinks are included in availability of burnt ungulate carcasses, Concerns from commenters on the DMA, the area in which the roots, ants, and newly emerged grasses management strategies for bear mortality limits apply, as set forth in and forbs. Although some grizzly bears conservation on private lands included: this final rule, the 2016 Conservation avoided burned sites in the year after (1) Questions as to how ‘‘take’’ Strategy, and the revised Demographic the fire (1989), use of burned areas in prohibitions will apply to degradation Recovery Criteria. These mortality limits subsequent years (1990 to 1992) of bear habitat on private lands since apply to all lands within the DMA, suggested that fires increased ‘‘take’’ includes habitat destruction, in private and public. The amount of production of forbs and roots and were,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30588 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

therefore, beneficial to grizzly bears 1978 amendments to the increase grizzly bears’ fear of humans; (Blanchard and Knight 1996, pp. 120– Act, including the requirement to (7) States will have incentive to allow 121). The period of most robust grizzly perform an economic analysis. This regular exceedance of grizzly bear bear growth (4 to 7 percent) occurred proposal was never finalized. mortality limits in order to maximize shortly after the 1988 fires, through the Recognizing the importance of habitat to numbers of moose and elk for ungulate entire decade of the 1990s. The USFS the species, instead, the IGBC issued hunters; and (8) hunting could erode uses multiple fire management habitat management guidelines within support for wildlife recovery. strategies to minimize potential negative all occupied grizzly bear habitat (USDA Response—We agree that hunting can threats (i.e., to life and structures) while FS 1986, entire). These habitat be an appropriate management tool to allowing fire to maintain its natural role management guidelines are considered address conflict bears and minimize in an ecosystem. Management strategies to be one of the primary factors in future conflict with humans by include the use of prescribed fires to successful GYE grizzly recovery efforts. replacing management removals, if ‘‘maintain or improve habitat removals are properly targeted, and Human-Caused Mortality Issues conditions’’ for wildlife (Caribou- raising funding for conservation through (Factors B and C Combined) Targhee NF 2005, p. 11; USDA FS 2011, hunting tag sales. However, while pp. 3–4; Shoshone NF 2012, p. 2; Issue 64—Public commenters hunting may indirectly reduce Bridger-Teton NF 2015, pp. 8, 10). expressed opinions both for and against competition for food among intra- Please see the Factor E: Catastrophic the hunting of grizzly bears in the GYE. specifics by reducing the number of Events, above, for further discussion on Substantive comments in favor of individuals in the GYE, wildlife the potential impacts of fires and hunting indicated that it is an populations regulate themselves management practices. appropriate management tool to: (1) naturally (Caughley and Sinclair 1994, Issue 62—Several public commenters Help maintain a balance between an pp. 100–119), and we, therefore, do not and a peer-reviewer raised concerns adequate grizzly bear population and believe hunting is necessary to ‘‘balance over habitat fragmentation. Specifically, adequate food resources; (2) address an adequate grizzly bear population and commenters noted that: (1) There is conflict bears and minimize future adequate food resources.’’ Additionally, already a high degree of fragmentation conflict with humans; (3) create although hunting may increase the of suitable habitat within the PCA and, opportunities for bears from other number of mortalities in the GYE, we to a greater degree, within the DMA populations to immigrate into the GYE, believe many of these mortalities would (Merrill et al. 1999; Carroll et al. 2001; thereby improving genetic diversity for replace management removals. Further, Merrill and Mattson 2003; Johnson et al. the GYE grizzly bear; and (4) be a source the number of mortalities is ultimately 2004; USDA FS 2006a; Schwartz et al. of funding for grizzly bear monitoring limited by demographic recovery 2010); (2) we did not acknowledge the and conservation. criterion #3 (as outlined in the 2016 negative effects of this fragmentation in Conversely, substantive comments in Conservation Strategy). Therefore, we our proposed rule, such as genetic opposition to hunting covered a range of do not believe that hunting would create ‘‘isolation’’ of grizzly bears, ‘‘reduction issues, including that: (1) There is a lack many more opportunities for of , inbreeding, and loss of scientific data to support hunting and immigration than currently exist. States of sustainability of the habitat’’ (Fahrig discount it as a substantial threat have demonstrated their expertise in 2003) or on the quality and conservation because it will be adding to the current managing wildlife, particularly game of available habitat; (3) private land levels of human-caused mortality that species as indicated by the relative uses, energy development, timber will not decline after delisting; (2) we health of most game species in the U.S. harvest, ORV use, and livestock did not adequately consider how We are confident that if the States allotments are potential sources of hunting could impact the grizzly bear institute a hunt, that it will be carefully further habitat fragmentation, especially population given the species’ slow regulated with yearly ecosystem-wide outside the PCA; and (4) there was no reproductive cycles; (3) we should coordination to insure that total provision in the rule designed to limit institute a 5- to 10-year moratorium on mortality remains within the sustainable habitat fragmentation within the DPS hunting after delisting to allow the limits for each age/sex class as set forth boundary outside of the DMA. Lastly, grizzly bear population to reach at least in this final rule, the 2016 Conservation one commenter suggested that the States 850 to 1,000 bears and there is a self- Strategy, and the Revised Demographic be required to manage for decreasing sustaining population outside the DMA, Recovery Criteria. fragmentation. to see how State management impacts We appreciate that many commenters Response—All the best available populations, and to allow for additional have concerns regarding hunting of biological information demonstrates that research on the potential impacts of a grizzly bears. Hunting is a discretionary suitable habitat, including fragmented hunt; (4) hunting could cause an mortality source that will occur only if and unfragmented areas, contains the increase in immigration of new males mortality limits from all other causes habitat necessary for a healthy and that result in female avoidance via the have not been exceeded (YES 2016a, pp. viable grizzly bear population in the use of less suitable habitat and thus 33–50). Because the sustainable long term. Please see Issues 40 and 96 smaller litter sizes, as well as those mortality limits for independent males for discussion on suitable habitat and males committing infanticide, further and females include mortalities from all the impacts of genetic isolation on the depressing population numbers; (5) sources (YES 2016a, p. 36), including GYE grizzly bear population, hunting could negatively impact grizzly hunting, and are applied within the respectively. bear behavior including orphaning of DMA, hunting should never threaten the Issue 63—A few public comments young and the disruption of activity GYE grizzly bear population. Hunting assumed that most or all of the GYE is patterns during denning; (6) hunting is permits will not be issued by the States designated as critical habitat for the an ineffective management tool, noting if mortality limits are exceeded. grizzly bear. that it could lead to inbreeding and Hunting is regulated by the States Response—In 1976, we proposed to eventual extinction, hunters are likely to who will again have management designate critical habitat for the grizzly target the largest, fittest animals, rather authority and jurisdiction to regulate bear (41 FR 48757, November 5, 1976). than conflict bears, and that there is no any future hunting when this final rule This designation was made stale by the evidence that hunting bears will goes into effect as discussed in Factors

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30589

B and C Combined, above. Through Hunting seasons will be managed by the PCA, the DMA, secure habitat, JDR, their regulations and the Tri-State MOA, States so as not to exceed those GTNP (including on State or private the States have made assurances that mortality limits. Hunting seasons will inholdings), in Montana’s Taylor Fork grizzly bear management, including be closed within 24 hours of meeting drainage, at food aggregate sites, or in hunting, will be managed cooperatively total mortality limits, and any mortality other densely populated grizzly bear between the three States to ensure that exceeding those limits will be areas, while others suggested that all a recovered grizzly bear population is subtracted from that age/sex class total Federal lands should be open to hunting maintained. As discussed above, the mortality limit for the following year per or that hunting be focused in areas GYE population at its current level no State rules and regulations (see prone to human-grizzly bear conflict. longer meets the definition of a discussion above under Factors B and C Peer-reviewers and public commenters threatened or endangered species; Combined). A management review also suggested that hunting be prohibited in therefore, it is not necessary to further will be conducted by the IGBST every connectivity areas and key wildlife increase the population inside or 5 to 10 years to assess if recovery corridors. Many commenters suggested outside of the DMA. criteria are being maintained. that Wyoming must recognize NPS’ The limited hunting that may occur in Consequently, any potential changes to jurisdiction over the JDR or Wyoming the GYE if States choose to institute a grizzly bear behavior caused by hunting would be violating the National Park hunt will be carefully controlled and that impact population numbers or Service’s Organic Act. Noting that the would be unlikely to affect population distribution criteria would be accounted boundaries of the PCA and ‘‘secure dynamics. Some evidence of infanticide for in subsequent hunting seasons. habitat’’ are hard to identify, comments has been found in North American and In regard to hunting being an suggested that hunting be limited to European brown bear populations ineffective management tool, research zones that are easier to define (McLellan 1994, pp. 15–16; Swenson et by Swenson (1999, pp. 159–160) geographically. Some commenters al. 1997, p. 450), which can reduce the showed that brown bears were more suggested that State managers create a population growth rate through cub wary of humans in areas where brown buffer around YNP and GTNP in which mortality; however, Miller et al. (2003, bear hunting occurred. To our no hunting would be allowed since p. 144) and McLellan (2005, pp. 153– knowledge, there is no data or bears in those areas are more used to 154) could not find evidence of information that hunting would humans and thus more vulnerable to population-level effects of sexually decrease the overall fitness of hunters. Additionally, comments selected infanticide in North American individuals in the GYE grizzly bear requested that we assess the impacts of grizzly bear populations. If hunting population. Hunting can be used as a grizzly bear hunting on park inholdings. preferentially removed adult male bears, compensatory mortality source, Response—As we explained in Issue and if infanticide was common, hunting targeting bears that would otherwise be 64, after de-listing, any future hunting might result in some reduction in cub removed by management action. would be regulated by the States. In survival in localized areas. However, However, as explained above, States most cases the public has opportunities this would likely have little impact on will authorize hunting only as long as for input when the State is adjusting overall population growth rate because the overall mortality limits are not hunting and management regulation. All hunting mortality on males would be exceeded. The IGBST and State agencies hunting of grizzly bears will remain limited in numbers and extent. We do collect data on grizzly bear-human prohibited within National Park lands, not anticipate that the male-to-female conflicts and will continue to do so after which comprise 39.4 percent of the ratio would change markedly under the delisting. These data are reported and PCA. Hunting will be allowed on adopted mortality limits or that sexually displayed spatially in the IGBST’s private lands and other public lands selected infanticide would become an Annual Report. Any changes in the within the PCA. Within the JDR, the issue affecting population trajectory of frequency, location, or nature of grizzly Secretary of the Interior is required to the GYE grizzly bear population. bear-human conflicts would be permit hunting in accordance with Continued monitoring of the population detected. State regulations (see Factors applicable Federal and State law, with through radio telemetry and B and C Combined) will prevent regular exceptions for public safety, observations of unmarked reproductive exceedance of grizzly bear mortality administration, or public use and females will alert the IGBST to any limits. Exceedance of the total mortality enjoyment (Pub. L. 92–404, Sec. 3.(b)). substantial changes in cub survival or limits for 3 consecutive years would However, the State of Wyoming has production and trigger appropriate trigger an IGBST Biology and indicated they do not intend to allow management responses. Monitoring Review, and the Service can hunting in the JDR (Mead 2016, in litt.). Although disturbances caused by also initiate a status review independent See Issue 40 for the definition of hunting during denning may have of the IGBST or the YGCC should the secure habitat; the risk of human-grizzly negative effects on individual survival total mortality limits be exceeded by a bear conflicts is reduced in secure and reproduction (Swenson et al. 1997, significant margin or routinely violated habitat as a result of habitat p. 37, Linnell et al. 2000, pp. 401, 408), or if substantial management changes management. However, hunting may there is no evidence of resulting occur significant enough to raise occur in secure habitat where population-level impacts (in their concerns about population-level authorized by applicable Federal and entirety: Harding and Nagy 1980; impacts. State laws and will be limited by the Reynolds et al. 1986; Hegg et al. 2010). Issue 65—We received many applicable annual mortality thresholds In addition, there is no data or comments from both the public and (see table 1). Hunt areas and hunt area information suggesting that human peer-reviewers regarding hunting boundaries outside NPS and Tribal recreational activity is negatively boundaries. Peer-reviewers and other lands will be addressed in State hunting affecting the GYE grizzly bear commenters sought clarification regulations, which are under the population. The IGBST will produce an regarding whether or not hunting would purview of the State Fish and Game annual population estimate for the DMA be allowed within the PCA, since it is Commissions. See Factors B and C that will be used by the States to defined as a ‘‘secure area.’’ Several Combined and Issue 77 for more details establish total mortality limits for each comments recommended that no about how the States set harvest age/sex class for the following year. hunting should be allowed within the regulations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30590 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

The total annual mortality limits uncertainty around estimated mortality too infrequently because it is a inside the DMA by definition include limits; (2) ‘‘what point within the 95 discretionary option for States only if any grizzly bear legally harvested on percent confidence interval the mortality thresholds are violated for 3 NPS inholdings. Any grizzly bears population size estimate refers’’ when years in a row. occupying private land inholdings discussing mortality rates; (3) what the We received several comments from within NPS boundaries are inside the mortality rate would be at population the public suggesting adjustments to our DMA and are a part of both the annual levels less than 674 bears (i.e., how proposed mortality limits including: (1) population estimate and annual much less than 7.6 percent); (4) whether Mortality limits should be more mortality limits, and as such, were mortality limits undergo annual peer- conservative to account for bias explicitly considered during the review, would be recalculated annually, associated with the population size and analysis conducted in the preparation of and how variability would impact trend and potential threats from an this final rule. management; and (5) how the proposed expanding urban-wildland interface; (2) The management of conflict bears 7.6 percent mortality rate for mortality limits should be set at the within the GYE grizzly bear DPS independent females will maintain lower end of the confidence interval boundaries will be based upon existing stability when a 9.0 percent mortality because the use of average estimates for laws and authorities of State wildlife rate was required for stability in the vital rates, mortality rates, and agencies and Federal land management 2007 Recovery Plan supplement. Peer- population size means there is a 50 agencies, and directed by protocols reviewers also requested example percent chance that mortality limits are established in the 2016 Conservation calculations of the number of allowable too high and unsustainable; (3) Strategy and State management plans. discretionary mortalities from hunting cumulative annual mortality should be Wyoming has indicated that they intend and management removal for each sex indexed monthly or seasonally to alert to ‘‘emphasize harvest in high conflict and age class for various population managers if mortality limits may be areas which typically occur a significant sizes (e.g., show how many bears would exceeded, with a trigger to stop distance from National Park have been available for hunting from discretionary mortality for the year; (4) boundaries’’ (Mead 2016, in litt.). Inside 2002 to 2014 and how many years discretionary mortality should cease YNP and GTNP, grizzly bear biologists would have allowed no hunting). when the population estimate is less will continue to respond to grizzly bear- than 674 rather than less than 600 bears; Commenters worried that the human conflicts. In all areas outside of (5) if discretionary mortality is allowed proposed mortality limits could be the NPs, State and Tribal wildlife at less than 674 bears, then total human- agencies will continue responding to easily exceeded (especially with caused mortality should be at the grizzly bear-human conflicts. All three hunting) and could lead to population threshold proposed in the 2007 State fish and wildlife agencies have declines because: (1) Undetected Recovery Plan: Supplement to the significant expertise in using hunting as population declines could result from Demographic Recovery Criteria; (6) a management tool to reduce conflicts male bears being killed nearly twice as hunting should halt when the lower with a number of species. often as female bears; (2) models run by bound of the 95 percent confidence Issue 66—We received comments commenters show high probabilities of interval of the population estimate is from peer-reviewers and the public population decline below 500 bears less than 600 bears; and (7) only a expressing concerns with proposed with our proposed mortality limit fraction of the estimated population mortality limits (total, independent framework, declines that could go available for discretionary mortality females, and independent males). A undetected because of our insensitive should be harvested to avoid number of commenters questioned the population estimates based on females overharvest due to uncertainty in biological justification for: (1) Allowing with cubs-of-the-year; (3) it will be population size, a strategy known as any discretionary mortality at difficult to close the hunting season proportional threshold harvesting. Peer- populations less than 674 bears; (2) when total mortality limits are reached reviewers also proposed how to adjust lowered mortality rates for independent because as many as half of grizzly bear mortality limits in the future, including: females and dependent young, but mortalities occur in non-telemetered (1) Discretionary mortality should unchanged and relatively high mortality bears and are unknown (McLellan et al. change in response to potential changes rates for independent males; and (3) 1999); (4) population thresholds at in sex-age classes; and (2) hunting limits independent female mortality limits which mortality rates change (e.g., 600 should consider annual changes in greater than 7.6 percent (at any and 674) are only estimates (resulting environmental conditions (i.e., drought, population size). Additionally, from an estimation method with which fire, or berry crop failures). In addition, commenters asked what the mortality the commenters took issue, see Issue a commenter suggested that hunting rate would be at population levels less 28); and (5) population estimates will be targets should be spatially explicit, than 600 to ensure population growth; based on populations within the entire concentrating mortality in the southern these commenters suggested that merely ecosystem (including National Parks), and eastern portions of the GYE while halting all discretionary mortality but will establish discretionary encouraging expansion to the west and would not be a sufficient response. A mortality in areas outside of the north. few commenters noted that other larger, National Parks. Several commenters Response—The biological basis for more connected populations have much requested that we provide a full analysis the 7.6 percent mortality threshold for more conservative total mortality limits of how proposed mortality thresholds independent females was based on than the ones in our proposed rule. In will impact population numbers, models presented in IGBST (2012, order to increase confidence in the dispersal, and connectivity, with one entire) and would maintain an average biological basis of mortality limits, individual recommending an population size around 674 (which is commenters suggested independent Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) the estimate for the time period 2002 to peer-review of the models used to to evaluate alternative mortality limits 2014, the timeframe during which the derive mortality thresholds. and habitat protections. Lastly, population began to demonstrate A number of commenters requested commenters worried that revisions to density-dependent population additional clarification in our mortality the population sex-age structure, and regulation). This mortality threshold limits, such as: (1) An explanation on associated mortality limits, will happen was reduced from 9 percent in 2007 to

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30591

the 7.6 percent current threshold a lag time and, thus, the potential for the at which mortality rates change are because of changes in vital rates (IGBST population to drop below the long-term indeed only estimates. Management of 2012). The premise behind the 9 percent average of 674. The States have wildlife populations is almost always and 10 percent sustainable mortality indicated that they will manage the based on estimates of population size; rates when the population is greater population around the long-term rarely are they based on a true census than 674 is that a higher mortality rate average, and we recognize that the of population size. With a highly would likely allow the population to population abundance will vary above conservative population estimation return back to the long-term average of and below that point estimate. IGBST is technique due to documented 674, consistent with the recovery currently investigating the power to underestimation bias of the model- criteria and the States’ management detect when a population objective has averaged Chao2 method (see Issue 28), commitments. been reached and by the time it is management decisions will also be Whereas the IGBST is currently detected, the degree to which the conservative. investigating the power of the Chao2 population objective may be exceeded In response to concerns that the technique to assess how soon we can in terms of time and population size. population estimate will not detect a detect a change in population trend may The determination of when mortality decline because males will be killed at be reached under the 9 percent and 10 thresholds are reached is based on total nearly twice the rate as female bears and percent scenarios, and how far the mortality, which includes a statistical that population estimates will be based population may already be below the estimate of the number of unknown/ on the entire ecosystem while hunting objective of 674 when this is detected, unreported mortalities. The IGBST uses occurs only outside of National Parks, the premise for this adaptive a similar method as McLellan et al. the IGBST uses multiple techniques for management approach is well (1999, pp. 913–914) to estimate monitoring, including Chao2. Although established in the literature. There is unknown/unreported mortalities, but the model-averaged Chao2 technique uncertainty around the mortality our estimates of unknown/unreported would not detect changes in the male estimates due to unknown/unreported mortalities are actually higher (as subpopulation, the rates and ratios we mortalities, but YES managers expressed discussed in the preceding paragraph); use to derive a total population estimate a desire to rely on the central tendency for every reported mortality, our are based on our known-fate analyses. of the data rather than reporting credible estimates are closer to two unreported The sample of radio-monitored bears intervals as it would substantially mortalities. The estimate of unknown/ (females and males) will allow the complicate implementation of mortality unreported mortalities allows a full IGBST to update these rates and ratios monitoring (see Issue 33). Given that the accounting of total mortality and thus if they change, which would be Chao2 estimator underestimates ensures that hunting mortality does not reflected in the total population population size, particularly at higher contribute to exceeding allowable estimate. If male survival declines, this densities (Schwartz et al. 2008, figure mortality thresholds. would lead to lower estimates of a total 5), the concern that mortality limits population size through changes in the should be more conservative to account In response to the suggestion of a sex ratio, which would eventually for bias associated with the population monthly or seasonal mortality index, the change mortality thresholds as specified size and trend is unfounded. Currently, IGBST already summarize mortalities on in this final rule and the 2016 there is no evidence that the age of first a continuous basis (i.e., as records come Conservation Strategy. Whereas hunting reproduction is increasing. in) and would allow for managers to be mortality would occur only outside the On the issue of the 50 percent chance alerted in a timely manner if mortalities parks, mortality management is based that mortality limits are unsustainable, were exceeded. This information is on the notion that grizzly bears in the this is correct if mortality limits are posted on the IGBST Web site (under GYE population form a single reached every year. Decisions whether mortality tables; see Issue 26) and is population, within which densities vary to set the mortality limits at the lower available to both the public and naturally due to differences in habitat end of the confidence interval on the managers. In addition, the IGBST is able quality, habitat security, etc. Thus, some population estimate or based on the to calculate unknown/unreported areas currently already experience point estimate itself are mostly policy mortality every time a mortality is different levels of mortality. If hunting issues; from a scientific standpoint, added to the mortality database so that is added as a mortality source, it may however, there is justification for basing the hunting season can be closed by the change these spatial patterns, management decisions on the central States if allowable total mortality is potentially changing source-sink tendency of the data, i.e., the point exceeded. Idaho and Wyoming dynamics, but total mortality would be estimate of population size (see Issues regulations state that all hunting shall managed so that it remains sustainable 28 and 33). It is important to point out be suspended in the DMA if total for the population as a whole. This that the 7.6 percent used in the GYE is mortality limits for any sex/age class system provides management flexibility, a threshold for total mortality, and is identified in the management plan are as it provides agencies with a thus not directly comparable to met at any time (Idaho Fish and Game mechanism to address, for example, mortality rates for other populations Commission 2016, p. 2; Wyoming Game conflict issues in certain areas while that use thresholds for human-caused and Fish Commission 2016, p. 67–2). allowing potential connectivity in other mortality. Taking this into account, the Montana regulations state that if a State areas. sustainable mortality thresholds used meets any of its allocated regulation Several of the more detailed for other populations are not distinctly harvest limits at any time of the year, assessments proposed by commenters, different from those applied in other the respective State will cease hunting including the idea of an EIS, are populations. Furthermore, if any in the DMA (Montana Fish and Wildlife difficult to achieve given current data. population estimate falls below 600, Commission Resolution, July 13, 2016 Assessing the impacts of different there will be no discretionary mortality, approving the Tri-State MOA). mortality thresholds on dispersal, for except as necessary for human safety. Calculation of these allocated regulated example, would be a substantial In response to comments about the harvest limits take into consideration challenge and require new, concerted potential to overshoot the population total, which includes unknown/ research efforts. Whereas such analyses objective, see Issue 19. There is indeed unreported. The population thresholds would provide interesting ecological

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30592 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

insights, they are not essential for workshops over the past decade and GYE DPS, including those outside the informing management decisions, associated scientific documents (i.e., DMA. However, mortalities outside the particularly given the extensive and workshop reports and journal articles). DMA will not be counted towards long-term research and population The monitoring system that was mortality thresholds because the DMA assessments conducted by the IGBST. developed from these efforts represents is the area within which IGBST partner Estimates of sustainable mortality the best available science. Regarding the agencies conduct population thresholds will be updated frequently ‘‘proportional harvesting’’ suggestion, monitoring. Expanding the population by the IGBST, and plans are under way the number of bears available for monitoring beyond the DMA boundaries to set up a system where they update discretionary mortality, including for is not biologically justified where vital rates and associated population harvest, will be conservative because habitat is not suitable for the bear’s projections annually. the Chao2 estimates are very long-term viability. Bears that die From 2002 to 2014, hunting would conservative. outside the DMA may have dispersed have been allowed for independent In response to suggestions to change from within or simply have home ranges males in 10 out of 13 years and for the mortality limits and management on the periphery; regardless, the independent females in 7 out of 13 framework, we recognize that it is population monitoring protocols that years. The average annual allowable unrealistic to expect to manage down to are in place would detect if the level of allocation for discretionary mortality a single individual. The States agreed to mortality outside the DMA reaches a would have been 19 independent males manage the GYE grizzly bear population point where population size inside the and 4 independent females. Edits were within the DMA, to at least within the DMA declines. Grizzly bears throughout made to all three documents for 95% confidence intervals associated the GYE DPS will be classified and consistency in the mortality limits and with the 2002 to 2014 long-term average regulated as a game animal in to clarify that they apply annually. All grizzly bear population estimate accordance with State game regulations three documents were updated to reflect calculated using the model-averaged (see Issue 73). that at an estimated population size of Chao2 estimator (i.e., 600 to 747). The Issue 68—We received many less than or equal to 674 bears the Service and the States understand that comments from both the public and mortality limit for independent females the actual population will vary around peer-reviewers regarding the and dependent young is less than 7.6 that level, and that mortality will be management of human-bear conflict. percent and not less than or equal to 7.6 managed to ensure that the population One commenter did not understand percent. does not drop and remain below 600. how our calculations of mortality rates Annually, mortality limits will be Issue 67—Several peer-reviewers and and bear-human conflict rates are lower applied as set forth in table 2 of this commenters raised concerns about the currently than historically (e.g., during final rule based on the previous year’s implications of limiting monitoring to 1989 to 1998 or 1989 to 2005). This population estimate. Mortality limits the DMA. Commenters were concerned commenter suggested we should will be adjusted in the future based on that bears outside the DMA will have no conduct such a comparative analysis at reviews of vital rates by the IGBST every protections and a failure to count bears multiple population and geographic 5 to 10 years, or at any point a Biology outside the DMA will put dispersal and scales. Many commenters claimed that and Monitoring Review is required. The connectivity in jeopardy, permanently instances of human-bear conflict have current State regulations to maintain the isolating the GYE population. The States increased in recent years because of mortality limits within those in table 2 requested we remove the clause ‘‘grizzly overpopulation of grizzly bears, will compensate for annual fluctuations bears will not be persecuted because habituation, bear colonization of lower in natural or other causes of mortality. they are present there,’’ in reference to elevations and peripheral ranges due to These regulations include: Suspending the DMA, from our revised recovery changing food availability and grizzly bear hunting within the DMA if criteria. One peer-reviewer commented distribution, increasingly close total mortality limits for any sex/age that mortality rates may be proximity to humans and developed class are met at any time during the underestimated when bears whose facilities (Steyaert et al. 2016), and year; in a given year, discretionary home ranges overlap the DMA boundary higher numbers of elk hunters. One mortality will be allowed only if non- are killed outside the DMA. commenter suggested that this trend discretionary mortality does not meet or Commenters asserted that bears that die could continue since Minin et al. (2016) exceed allowable total mortality limits outside the DMA likely emigrated from found that, as land use changes, areas for that year; and any mortality that the DMA and consequently should that will be key to carnivore exceeds allowable total mortality limits count as losses for the DMA; otherwise, conservation are also areas with high in any year will be subtracted from that threats to the population will not be potential for conflict. One peer-reviewer age/sex class allowable total mortality accurately assessed. Peer-reviewers commented that the current stable limits for the following year. point out that catastrophic events population trend of grizzly bears in the While we respect concerns from within the DMA (e.g., like fire in 1988), GYE may not confirm that the efforts to commenters about the spatial ‘‘could displace grizzly bears forcing reduce human-caused mortalities are distribution of discretionary mortality, it some to shift home-ranges to outside the effective. One commenter suggested that is outside of the scope of our decision- DMA boundaries,’’ which would require managers in the GYE have not making authority. Hunt areas will be sampling outside of the DMA. One peer- adequately carried out developed by the States in order to reviewer noted that less monitoring recommendations from the 2009 direct harvest where appropriate, if outside the DMA may produce ‘‘less Yellowstone Mortality and Conflict hunting occurs (YES 2016a, p. 20; data about individual bears that may Reduction Report (IGBST 2009), and WGFD 2016, p. 16); see Issues 64 and behave differently than those within the that this report recommended creating a 65 for further discussion. There are a DMA.’’ Commenters thus requested we publicly available database of all bear number of ways in which population monitor grizzly bear populations encounters and mortalities, which still mortality thresholds can be set and outside the DMA or in the entire GYE does not exist. measured. The IGBST has spent DPS. A few commenters weighed in on considerable effort to develop the Response—The IGBST will continue whether they thought the act of delisting current system, with a number of to collect data on all mortalities in the would increase or decrease conflict.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30593

Many commenters posited that delisting kills; (3) incentives for hunters to retreat cities, or landfills; and (3) changes to the the GYE population of grizzly bears from downed game; (4) additional law nuisance bear standards. would reduce human-bear conflict enforcement and field staff; (5) Peer-reviewers also presented a because it will allow for more effective encouragement and funding of number of additional analyses that population management; these alternatives to lethal control of bears could bolster our discussion of human- commenters suggested that, if bears (including additional discussion of such bear conflict, including: (1) A review of remain on the list, and populations thus methods in State management plans) ‘‘the social aspects of managing large continue to grow, more bears will be since lethal control does not increase predators;’’ (2) using NDVI data removed as a result of conflicts with public tolerance or promote avoidance (satellite imagery) to understand bear humans than the number of bears that of future conflict; (6) preparation of a distribution and how these distributions would be killed in the context of a Grizzly Bear Management Relocation relate to human-bear conflict; (3) regulated hunt. On the other hand, some Plan with pre-arranged relocation sites; tracking of relocated animals to assess commenters suggested that the GYE (7) discussion on how managers should the efficacy of relocating problem bears; grizzly bear population will self-regulate resolve conflicts on Tribal lands; and (8) and (4) additional analysis on how to without delisting because disease and managing for higher wild ungulate change mortality management starvation will effectively reduce and populations to decrease livestock techniques as the number of people limit the number of bears. Another depredation. A peer-reviewer suggested living in and recreating in the GYE commenter was worried that lethal funding for programs that reduce bear increases. Peer-reviewers also requested responses to conflict would increase attractants on public and private lands. an explanation of how conflict bears following delisting. Commenters also provided will be treated inside versus outside the Many commenters believed we suggestions on how to revise State PCA. presented an inadequate discussion of management plans or the 2016 Response—Although the total number methods to manage and reduce conflict; Conservation Strategy to better address of conflicts has increased, the rate of they suggested the following conflict management, such as: (1) conflicts (number of conflicts as a improvements or additions prior to Explaining the 33 recommendations to proportion of the population size) has delisting: (1) Improved education abate grizzly bear conflicts in a 2006 decreased since the implementation of programs that aim to change attitudes IGBST report and incorporating these the IGBC Guidelines (USDA FS 1986, and behaviors of people living in grizzly into Wyoming’s grizzly bear entire). As grizzly bear abundance and bear country in order to increase risk management plan; (2) including in the distribution have increased, conflicts tolerance and improve willingness to 2016 Conservation Strategy the have increased, especially in areas share habitat (see Issue 108); (2) limits admonition that managers and citizens outside the DMA (see figure 3) where on, or elimination of, ungulate hunting should not ‘‘reward’’ or ‘‘encourage’’ habitat is not suitable for the bear’s to reduce defense of life and property bears around roads, campgrounds, long-term viability.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30594 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

It is not unexpected that the number mortalities, including cause (see Issue with clear State and Federal of conflicts would increase as bears 34). In addition, potential changes in management responses if deviations increasingly encounter humans and verified conflicts will continue to be occur. Agreed-upon total mortality livestock outside the PCA, where documented and evaluated, as well as limits will ensure that mortality will human access is generally greater than annual evaluations of the population continue to be managed in accordance within the PCA. However, there is no and mortality, and the YGCC can make with recovery criteria. Notably, more evidence that bears are leaving the core modifications to the 2016 Conservation than two-thirds of all suggested funding of the ecosystem as a result of changes Strategy if they deem it is necessary to to implement the 2016 Conservation in food resources (see Issue 38 for maintain a recovered grizzly bear Strategy is designated to managing further discussion). Areas with a high population within the GYE. conflicts and conducting outreach to risk of grizzly bear mortality due to We agree that nonlethal control of minimize conflicts, especially by repeated conflict with humans or grizzly bears is the preferred option for decreasing attractants on private lands. livestock were not considered suitable managing human-bear conflict. Nonlethal means of addressing conflict habitat and are not included in our However, no single management tool such as relocation of conflict bears are quantification of habitat available to can resolve all issues associated with included in the 2016 Conservation meet the needs of a recovered grizzly human-bear conflict. Therefore, State, Strategy. bear population (see Issue 40). The Tribal, and Federal managers will The 2016 Conservation Strategy IGBST 2009 report (p. 3) identifies three continue to use a combination of prioritizes I&E programs to minimize main causes for increased known and management options, including human-bear conflicts. These programs probable mortalities, predation, hunting nonlethal forms of management. The work to change human perceptions, and (defense of life and mistaken identity), current methods we use to reduce beliefs about grizzly bears and Federal and management removal as a result of human-caused grizzly bear mortality by regulation of public lands. For example, cattle depredation. The States have preventing and addressing conflicts in a hunter education courses and other invested considerable resources in systematic, fair, and prompt manner educational materials strongly hunter education to reduce mortalities have accommodated an increasing GYE encourage hunters to carry bear spray, as a result of mistaken identity and grizzly bear population and range since and information and education defense of life (see Issue 108 for further 2002. programs educate the public about details). In addition, increased I&E As previously noted, the 2016 potential grizzly bear attractants and efforts have been made to reduce Conservation Strategy identifies, how to properly store them. A stable to attractants (YES 2016a, pp. 86–95). The defines, and requires adequate post- increasing GYE grizzly bear population, IGBST maintains a database of known delisting monitoring to maintain a despite large increases in people living and probable GYE grizzly bear healthy GYE grizzly bear population, and recreating in the GYE over the last

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 ER30JN17.253 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30595

three decades, is evidence of the success In 2008, five grizzly bears were reported commenter cited a recent court decision of programs implemented that will as killed due to mistaken identification, that allowed ‘‘an increase in the number continue under the 2016 Conservation prompting an evaluation of management of grizzly bears that could be Strategy. and education strategies. The evaluation ‘incidentally’ killed in association with In addition to public I&E, the States indicated that the increase in mistaken the annual elk hunt in Grand Teton have implemented programs to help identity mortality was the result of bears National Park.’’ Another commenter reduce conflicts with people including: expanding into new areas; therefore, opined that we did not mention USDA Livestock carcass removal, electric outreach and education was increased. Wildlife Services’ incidental take of four fencing subsidies for apiaries and Following 2008, fewer than two grizzly grizzly bears since 1991. orchards, and cost-sharing for bear- bear mistaken identity mortalities per Response—All known mortalities, resistant garbage bins. Removal of year were documented in the GYE. In including those associated with conflict bears is still sometimes Wyoming, black bear regulations incidental take permits, such as the elk necessary. Removal is lethal to the (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission reduction program in GTNP, are individual bear, but it minimizes illegal 2017, pp. 3–5—3–6) require that when included in the IGBST mortality killing of bears that might otherwise a grizzly bear is detected at a black bear database and, therefore, our mortality occur if people are encouraged to ‘‘take bait site, the hunter must shut down the assessment. The mortality database matters into their own hands,’’ and it bait site immediately and bear hunting identifies mortalities by cause and does thus serves a long-term conservation at that site is disallowed for the note if mortality is associated with an purpose. Bear removal also provides an remainder of the season. Baiting for incidental take permit. Grizzly bear opportunity to educate the public about black bears in Wyoming and Idaho is mortality due to the elk hunt in GTNP how to avoid conflicts and thus limits not allowed in the PCA and in the is unlikely as only one grizzly bear removals in the future. It encourages majority of the DMA and is not allowed mortality has occurred in the history of tolerance of grizzly bears by responding statewide in Montana. The GYE grizzly the elk reduction program in GTNP, and promptly and effectively when bears bear population has increased while that was attributed to self-defense. pose a threat to public safety. black bear baiting has been allowed in GTNP now requires elk hunters to carry Human-grizzly bear conflicts are Idaho and Wyoming outside the PCA; bear spray. Like any other mortality reported by jurisdiction in the IGBST therefore, we conclude that bear hunting source, if there were a grizzly bear annual reports. The IGBST continues to is not a significant factor that will mortality associated with the annual elk conduct research on many aspects of the threaten the recovered status of the GYE hunt in GTNP, it would count against GYE grizzly bear and their ecosystem. DPS. the maximum allowable mortality. The Problem bears are radio-tracked when Issue 70—Commenters worried about IGBST’s calculation of unknown/ they are relocated, and the IGBST plans the use of traps intended for game other unreported mortalities accounts for any to assess the efficacy of relocating than grizzly bears and the potential unknown mortalities associated with problem bears in the near future. The negative effects of these traps on grizzly incidental take permits. Mortality will lower survival rates of relocated bears bears, especially as grizzly bears’ continue to be managed within the suggests that relocation should be used hibernation period shortens. Several mortality limits set forth in this final conservatively; however, relocated commenters stated that trapping, as a rule, the 2016 Conservation Strategy, female bears have contributed to the means of harvest, should be prohibited and the Tri-State MOA. population and should be used as a for any animal within the PCA and/or The specific statement by the viable management alternative to the DMA to prevent the incidental take commenter about bears that could be removal from the population (Brannon of grizzly bears. Several comments incidentally killed is in regard to an 1987, p. 572; Blanchard and Knight pointed out that the State plans do not ‘‘Incidental Take Statement’’ that is a 1995, p. 564). The 2016 Conservation have a reporting requirement or protocol projected potential mortality to grizzly Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 86–91) and the if/when a grizzly bear is caught in a trap bears that could occur within a project State management plans detail the set for other game/nuisance species. area, and rather is not something that is conflict bear standards to be applied to Response—Based on the best suggested or purported to occur. the GYE grizzly bear DPS once delisted. available information, we do not find Regardless, Incidental Take Statements Inside the PCA, grizzly bears will be any persuasive information to indicate would no longer apply after the bear is given a higher priority whereas ‘‘outside that trapping for fur-bearing species will delisted. the PCA and National Park lands more affect the viability of the GYE grizzly Issue 72—We received public consideration will be given to existing bear population. From 2002 to 2014, comments asking that we discuss the human uses.’’ Conflict bear removals only one mortality occurred as a result trade of grizzly bear parts, including the will be counted against the mortality of trapping for other game/nuisance extent of trafficking in the United States limits set forth in this rule and the 2016 species (Haroldson 2017b, in litt.). and the state of current legislation. The Conservation Strategy. When we make our status determination commenter suggested that States pass Issue 69—Public commenters asserted of the GYE grizzly bear, we consider appropriate laws making such that the States’ should prohibit black whether it is recovered and if State trafficking illegal. One commenter bear hunting within the DMA, or at the management will retain that recovered suggested that all grizzly bears remain very least within the PCA, in order to status if the Act’s protections are listed until illegal harvest data is reduce human-caused mortality from removed. Harvest, irrespective of the thoroughly evaluated. mistaken identification. method, is allowed at the States’ Response—The Lacey Act of 1900 (16 Response—The potential mortality discretion, contingent upon the harvest U.S.C. 3371–3378) is a conservation law that occurs to grizzly bears from not exceeding the aforementioned in the United States that prohibits trade mistaken identification is not mortality limits. in wildlife, fish, and plants that have considered a threat to the grizzly bear Issue 71—One commenter expressed been illegally taken, possessed, population. From 2007 to 2016, a total concern that we did not adequately transported, or sold. Under the Lacey of 18 grizzly bear mortalities occurred in acknowledge the grizzly bear mortalities Act, it is unlawful to import, export, the GYE that were considered ‘‘mistaken associated with the annual elk hunt in sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife, identity,’’ of which only 2 were females. GTNP as a continuing threat. This or plants that are taken, possessed,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00095 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30596 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

transported, or sold: (1) In violation of determine if there is a need to conservation officers, and Service U.S. or Indian law; or (2) in interstate or reevaluate our State- or Tribe-based special wildlife agents will continue to foreign commerce involving any fish, finding or if the species needs closer cooperate with State game wardens in wildlife, or plants taken, possessed, or monitoring. In addition, the States work the investigation of poaching incidents. sold in violation of State or foreign law. directly with us on issues related to Mistaken identification is prosecuted as The law covers all fish and wildlife and illegal trafficking of bear parts and the illegal take, and any grizzly bear their parts or products, plants protected States have assisted, and will continue mortality is fully investigated to by the Convention on International to assist, us with all such Lacey Act determine cause. Investigations of self- Trade in Endangered Species of Wild investigations. Although harvest of defense mortalities occur, and there Fauna and Flora (CITES) and those grizzly bears for the purpose of illegal have been instances of prosecution by protected by State law. Commercial trade in parts for medicinal purposes the Service where the mortality was not guiding and outfitting are considered to still occurs to some extent, the best deemed a self-defense situation. As be a sale under the provisions of the available information indicates that this previously stated, illegal take and self- Lacey Act and must comply with U.S. activity is not occurring at a level defense related mortality count towards Federal and State law. affecting the GYE or any lower 48-State the total mortality limits within the The Convention is an international grizzly bear population, nor do we DMA. treaty designed to regulate international conclude it is likely to do so within the The McKittrick Policy requires proof trade in certain animal and plant foreseeable future. of intent, that the individual knowingly species that are now, or potentially may Issue 73—There were a number of killed a listed species under the Act, for become, threatened with extinction. comments from the public and peer- Federal prosecution. However, intent is Under this treaty, countries work reviewers related to poaching, mistaken not necessary for prosecution under together to regulate the international identity kills, and self-defense kills. State law. During an investigation, the trade of species and ensure that this Commenters expressed concern related investigative officers usually meet with trade is not detrimental to the survival to poaching, illegal take, mistaken both local and Federal attorneys to of wild populations. Species are listed identity kills, and self-defense kills. decide if prosecution will be more in one of three Appendices to CITES, Commenters were either concerned that successful under State or Federal each conferring a different level of there would not be enough resources to jurisdiction. In most situations where regulation and requiring CITES permits investigate and prosecute poachers or the U.S. Attorney has declined or certificates. Any trade in protected that State penalties for illegal take (such prosecution conflicts, the States have plant and animal species should be as poaching), mistaken identity kills, taken over those prosecutions through sustainable, based on sound biological and self-defense kills need to be more State courts. There have been successful understanding and principles. An clearly articulated and more stringent. prosecutions under both Federal and Appendix I species is one ‘‘threatened Commenters asserted that regulatory State laws. For example, in 2015 a man with extinction and provides the mechanisms require little to no action knowingly shot at a grizzly bear in the greatest level of protection, including against hunters for mistaken identity Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem, was restrictions on commercial trade.’’ An kills (a product of the McKittrick prosecuted in Federal court, and was Appendix II species is one ‘‘although Policy), and mistaken identity and self- sentenced to 6 months in Federal currently not threatened with defense kills should be prosecuted as prison. Under Idaho State jurisdiction, a extinction, may become so without illegal take to better deter illegal take of man was successfully prosecuted in a trade controls.’’ An Appendix III species grizzly bears. 2014 grizzly bear killing after making a is one for which a range country has Response—After delisting, GYE false claim of self-defense and was asked other countries to help in grizzly bears will continue to be assessed a penalty of a $1,400 fine and controlling international trade. See protected by State, Tribal, and Federal civil penalties ($500 of which was https://www.fws.gov/international/cites/ laws and regulations (see Factors B and suspended), 30 days suspended jail index.html for more information. C Combined), and enforcing agencies time, 1 year revocation of his hunting All international trade in brown bears will continue to cooperate in the license, and 2 years unsupervised is restricted by either CITES Appendix investigation of poaching incidents. probation. H.R. 4751, The Local I (in parts of central Asia) or CITES There is no data that suggests that the Enforcement for Local Lands Act of Appendix II. All U.S. and Canadian jurisdiction under which poaching is 2016, was not enacted. And lastly, law populations are included in Appendix prosecuted affects the willingness of enforcement officers cannot comment II. Even populations not at risk (e.g., the poachers to commit the crime. We are on ongoing cases; therefore, it is not population in Canada) is still regulated aware of at least 22 intentional, illegal appropriate to publicly share the details by CITES as it is a look-alike to those killings of grizzly bears in the GYE of grizzly bear mortalities that are under populations in Appendix I (including between 2002 and 2014, which investigation. other species of ursids). Grizzly bear constituted 7 percent of known grizzly harvest under Appendix II for the bear mortalities during the same period. Adequate Regulatory Mechanisms and purpose of international trade is also There is no evidence that illegal Post-Delisting Monitoring Issues (Factor monitored via the issuance of CITES mortality levels increased following the D) Export permits. Approved States and 2007 delisting (GYE grizzlies were Issue 74—Both peer-reviewers and Tribes have procedures for placement of delisted from 2007 to 2009, before the public commenters expressed concern CITES export tags on skins (including delisting rule was vacated in Greater that the language in the Factor D section furs and pelts) that were legally taken. Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et of the proposed rule was too non- The presence of a CITES export tag on al., 672 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Mont. committal. They requested we remove a skin provides us with reasonable 2009)). We do not expect poaching to words such as ‘‘may,’’ ‘‘anticipate,’’ or assurance that the skin was obtained significantly increase post-delisting ‘‘expect’’ if we hope to suggest a firm legally and that hunters can legally because State and Tribal designation of commitment to ensuring effective export the item from the United States. the grizzly bear as a game animal means management post-delisting. We review the information we receive that poaching will remain illegal and Response—Because modifications to annually from each State or Tribe to subject to prosecution. The USFS, Tribal State game regulations had not been

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30597

approved at the time the proposed rule determined that the elements of the In terms of regulatory mechanisms to was published, we were able to describe Conservation Strategy were manage mortality, we are confident that them only in conditional terms. Thus, incorporated into binding regulatory the GYE grizzly bear population will be we conclude that the terms ‘‘anticipate’’ documents, specifically National Forest managed according to the demographic and ‘‘expect’’ were used appropriately Plans and National Park Service recovery criteria set forth in the 2016 in this section of the proposed rule. Superintendents’ Compendia. The Conservation Strategy and agreed to by However, prior to this final rule, State Ninth Circuit noted this was of the States in their Tri-State MOA. This regulations have been finalized and are particular importance because the two framework ensures that mortality from in place and will ensure the recovery agencies collectively manage 98 percent all sources will be monitored and criteria are met (i.e., 2016 Conservation of the lands within the Primary controlled by the States to ensure Strategy, Tri-State MOA, and State Conservation Area. Further, additional consistency with recovery criteria. regulations). wilderness protections applied to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have Issue 75—A number of public suitable grizzly bear habitat outside the capably managed other big game species comments questioned what we can PCA. (e.g., black bears, cougars), and we legitimately consider an adequate On-the-ground habitat protections for believe their respective State agencies regulatory mechanism and what plans, GYE grizzly bears have not changed have the resources, expertise, and rules, regulations, and laws we can thus since the 2011 decision, and the GYE incentives to continue their consider in our Factor D analysis bear population has stabilized. The NPS management responsibilities toward (inadequacy of existing regulatory and the USFS continue to manage 98 GYE grizzly bears if hunting is mechanisms). A number of commenters percent of the land within the Primary permitted in the future. claimed that our analysis was flawed Conservation Area. These regulatory As to the comment that existing because it relied on management mechanisms have been proven to be regulatory mechanisms must be both regimes that are outdated or not yet final effective. The habitat management final and ‘‘proven to be effective,’’ (e.g., the Idaho hunting regulations and standards detailed in the 2016 please see our response above regarding the 2016 Conservation Strategy are still Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. the effectiveness of NPS and USFS. The drafts; the Montana and Idaho grizzly 54–85) to reduce human-caused Service’s Policy for the Evaluation of bear management plans and the 2006 mortality have already been Conservation Efforts when Making USFS Plan are outdated). One implemented through National Park Listing Decisions is not applicable to commenter asserted that it is not Compendia (YNP 2014b, p. 18; GTNP delisting determinations (68 FR 15100, acceptable to simply state, ‘‘standards and JDR 2016, p. 3) and the 2006 Forest March 28, 2003). and provisions not yet incorporated into Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2006b, Issue 76—Multiple commenters management plans will be integrated entire). Changes to both the Compendia weighed in on the States’ ability to into future land management plan and the Forest Plan amendments per the appropriately manage grizzly bears. amendments or revisions.’’ These revised 2016 Conservation Strategy are Commenters expressed distrust and commenters emphasized that the considered minor and of little biological claimed State management would be analysis surrounding Factor D must be significance and, therefore, largely the harmful or ineffective based on State based on existing regulatory same as previous regulatory ‘‘mismanagement’’ of other wildlife mechanisms; thus, we must have mechanisms. For example, the method such as elk, bison, and large carnivores finalized State plans, State regulations, to measure motorized route densities (e.g., wolves). Commenters worried that the 2016 Conservation Strategy, and was updated, based on the best available the States may ignore management MOA to consider in our final rule. One science, so that the moving window requirements and decision-making commenter asserted that ‘‘adequate approach calculates the total route would be susceptible to political regulatory mechanisms’’ not only must length instead of the previous method of influence of special interests, and be final before delisting but must also be absence or presence of motorized routes, suggested that States may falsify ‘‘proven to be effective.’’ which often over- or under-estimated mortality information to maximize the Another commenter noted that YNP total routes (for further details see YES number of bears available for hunting. currently includes the outdated 2007 2016b, Appendix E). Both agencies are Commenters supportive of State Conservation Strategy in its signatories to the 2016 Conservation management expressed confidence in Superintendent’s Compendium; this Strategy, which means that current the States’ commitment and abilities to commenter requested additional clarity habitat management standards will be maintain a recovered population of on whether the 2016 Superintendent’s taken into account in decision-making grizzly bears, and State management Compendium would incorporate the and that human-caused mortality will will be more nimble, efficient, adaptive, provisions in the revised 2016 be monitored and controlled. and responsive to local stakeholder Conservation Strategy. Other Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires needs than Federal management. The commenters questioned whether land us to make listing determinations based State agencies themselves, in addition to use plans, State management plans, on the best available scientific and public commenters, expressed MOAs, and conservation strategies commercial data after taking into confidence in their abilities to maintain qualify as regulatory mechanisms since account the efforts of States and foreign a recovered population of grizzly bears, they are not binding and enforceable. nations, whether through predatory citing financial and staffing Response—In Greater Yellowstone control, protection of habitat and food commitments to do so. Coalition v. Servheen et al., 665 F.3d supply, or other conservation practices. Response—The States of Wyoming, 1015 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit The Ninth Circuit did not determine Idaho, and Montana have invested tens upheld the Service’s determination that whether the 2007 Conservation Strategy of millions of dollars and dedicated existing regulatory mechanisms were was a ‘‘regulatory mechanism’’ under considerable staff time to conserve and adequate. The Ninth Circuit reversed Factor D, but the Service is still recover grizzly bears in the GYE. During the Montana district court (Greater obligated to consider other conservation this time the GYE population has Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen et al., efforts in its listing determinations increased to a point where it has 672 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009)) on under the Act. The 2016 Conservation stabilized within the DMA and is this point. The Ninth Circuit Strategy is such an effort. approaching carrying capacity.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00097 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30598 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Although commenters expressed (Wyoming Game and Fish) garbage containers to increase concerns regarding the appropriateness Commission’s Grizzly Bear Plan on affordability and use; and (9) State of State management of grizzly bears, mortality or distribution of grizzly bears quotas should not change with intra- Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana have in Wyoming’’ (Martin 2016, in litt.). annual fluctuations in local population been managing and conserving wildlife This letter indicates that Wyoming levels. On the other hand, another since the early 1900s with significant county governments have no authority commenter suggested that the Service increases in both ungulate and large to enact laws that affect grizzly bear would fail to honor State wildlife laws carnivore populations. The States are management commitments made by the if additional provisions are required in committed to managing grizzly bears in Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. relation to grizzly bears. accordance with the 2016 Conservation Issue 77—A number of public The State agencies took issue with the Strategy and its appended State grizzly commenters believed that the five fact that the proposed rule prematurely bear management plans and regulations. requirements for State hunting assumed the three States would By signing the Strategy, all management regulations that we laid out in the establish hunting seasons and suggested agencies have agreed to adhere to the proposed rule were inadequate, allow that the Act does not ‘‘require states to demographic recovery criteria and hunting regulations that are too liberal, establish hunting seasons before habitat standards, including managing and/or could have severe impacts on delisting can occur.’’ They thought that, for connectivity for the foreseeable population viability because: (1) They by requiring specific provisions in State future, well beyond the delisting and gave the States too much latitude in bag hunting regulations, the Service the minimum 5-year monitoring period limits, seasons, and sex ratios and age ‘‘created a public expectation that required by the Act to address the long- limits for grizzly bear hunting; (2) the hunting will occur as soon as delisting term need for continued coordination definition of ‘‘human safety purposes’’ is finalized.’’ among signatory agencies (YES 2016a, when deciding whether to allow Conversely, some commenters p. 13). The State and Federal regulatory additional grizzly bear mortality, and its believed these five requirements were mechanisms meant to achieve those distinction from human conflict, is reasonable and adequate. These demographic and habitat standards are unclear; (3) they do not adequately take commenters referred especially to our currently in place, and we have nothing mortality from ‘‘unforeseen events, such fourth requirement as a key safeguard in in the record to suggest that those as illness and natural disasters,’’ into ensuring the continued recovery of regulations will change within any consideration; (4) they would allow for grizzly bears and preventing exceedance calculable planning horizon. too many licenses to be issued; and (5) of mortality limits; this requirement Ongoing review and evaluation of the gaps in our regulatory requirements ensures that the number of grizzly bears effectiveness of the Strategy is the would not provide for adequate available for hunting fluctuates responsibility of the State, Tribal, and ecosystem-wide coordination and depending on the number of bears that Federal managers in the GYE and will consistency in regulations. These have already died. occur at least every 5 years, allowing commenters also suggested that the five Response—We conclude, based on the public comment in the updating requirements are insufficient to protect best scientific and commercial data process. Any significant departure from females and cubs because: (1) It would available, that the regulatory agreed-upon Federal and/or State be difficult for the average hunter to requirements we outlined in our management plans will trigger a status distinguish between a male and female proposed rule, and that the States review, and, if data indicate that grizzly grizzly bear in the field or to tell the age incorporated into regulation, will bears in the GYE are in need of of a grizzly bear; (2) they allowed for maintain a recovered population of protection under the Act, we can initiate take of female grizzly bears and cubs; grizzly bears in the GYE. State fish and listing procedures, including, if and (3) if a mother hides her cubs while wildlife agencies have significant appropriate, emergency listing. she goes to find food, she will look like expertise in managing hunting in a In response to concerns about the an independent female and will be sustainable way for multiple species, ordinances, regulations, or resolutions vulnerable to take, leading to potential and, therefore, the Service did not feel passed by county governments in orphaning. the need to micromanage how States Wyoming regarding the presence or Commenters also suggested the would implement hunting regulations distribution of grizzly bears in these Service require additional content in beyond those issues discussed. We do counties, we requested a letter from the State regulations prior to proceeding not consider the hunting regulations in Wyoming Attorney General’s office with a delisting rule, such as that: (1) Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho to be too clarifying the authority of counties in An ‘‘independent panel of ecological liberal, but rather the States have agreed Wyoming to legislate in the area of researchers’’ determine the total number to strict mortality limits, with the grizzly bear management. The Wyoming of limited hunting permits; (2) managers additional safeguard of subtracting any Attorney General’s office’s response, use a lottery system to distribute these excess mortality in subsequent years, dated August 8, 2006, states on p. 2, few licenses; (3) all three States require which will ensure the GYE grizzly bear ‘‘ ‘* * * as an arm of the State, the 12-hour reporting requirements as population remains at healthy levels. county has only those powers expressly opposed to 24-hour reporting While State regulations include no granted by the constitution or statutory requirements; (4) establishment of prohibition on the taking of females or law or reasonably implied from the prohibitions on the killing of any bear the taking of cubs, regulations do powers granted.’ Laramie Co. Comm’rs accompanied by other bears; (5) impose mortality limits on the numbers v. Dunnegan, 884 P.2d 35, 40 (Wyo. inclusion of provisions shutting down of females, males, and total bears taken, 1994). Neither the Wyoming all hunting for the season once quotas and prohibit the taking of female grizzly Constitution nor the legislature has for female grizzly bears are met; (6) bears with dependent young. Mortality provided the counties in Wyoming with States coordinate season dates through limits take into account all forms of any expressed or implied authority over the YGCC and time seasons to minimize mortality, including management management of grizzly bears. Therefore, risks to females; (7) inclusion of removals, illegal kills, self-defense, counties lack the authority to enact any provisions requiring proper food storage calculated unknown/unreported ordinances(s), regulation(s), or and handling of hunter-killed carcasses; mortalities, natural mortalities, and resolution(s) which would affect the (8) provision of subsidies for bear-proof other causes such as vehicle collisions.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30599

We believe this method adequately it could lead to errors in allocation, Since then the population has accounts for unforeseen mortalities. insufficient or inconsistent enforcement, increased in abundance and Under State management, any open delays in shutting down hunting distribution, and additional regulatory hunting season will be closed within 24 seasons, exceedance of mortality limits, mechanisms have been adopted by State hours of the total mortality limit being violations of recovery criteria, agencies to manage the GYE DPS at the met by Idaho and Wyoming (Idaho Fish inadequate reduction of discretionary ecosystem level, to ensure and Game Commission 2016, p. 2; mortality (when needed), population communication is facilitated annually to Wyoming Game and Fish Commission sinks, and lack of genetic connectivity. improve management, and to regulate 2016, p. 67–2) and of the harvest limits To mitigate this possibility, commenters any future hunting in a way that would being met by Montana (MFWP 2016, p. requested: (1) Information on how the ensure the species remains recovered. 4). If a hunter kills a female by mistake States would be sharing and comparing The Tri-State MOA (Wyoming Game and causes an exceedance of the total data about mortality and population and Fish Commission et al. 2016, pp. 5– allowable mortality limits for female levels; (2) a formal process for 6; YES 2016b, Appendix O) signed by bears, managers will subtract this collaboration between the States and the the Commission and Directors of mortality from the total allowable NPS to coordinate the management of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana defines number of kills in the subsequent year, bears that live primarily on NPS lands; the process by which the States will ensuring the number of female grizzly (3) a ‘‘unified plan’’ that takes into coordinate the management and bear mortalities stays in check. Any account how many bears the other allocation of discretionary mortality of reported cubs orphaned due to the States will take; and (4) additional detail grizzly bears in the GYE as follows: human-caused mortality of the mother in the 2016 Conservation Strategy • are counted as probable mortalities in The Parties (referring to the three States) describing the processes States will use will support the IGBST in the annual the mortality database maintained by to coordinate with each other. monitoring of the GYE grizzly bear IGBST and will count towards the Conversely, one commenter suggested population. dependent mortality threshold. We that entrusting the States with grizzly • The Parties will meet annually in the conclude that the provisions outlined in bear management will help State month of January to review population the 2016 Conservation Strategy and the wildlife managers effectively and monitoring data supplied by IGBST and Tri-State MOA are adequate to ensure consistently manage all the wildlife collectively establish discretionary mortality that the three States coordinate regularly limits for regulated harvest for each species in their State as a complete and jurisdiction (MT, ID, WY) in the DMA, so to reconcile mortality statistics, plan connected ecosystem. appropriate conservation actions, adapt DMA thresholds are not exceeded, based Response—All monitoring, reporting management, and generally ensure the upon the following allocation protocol (YES results, and management actions are 2016a, p. 46). continued recovery of grizzly bears in centralized under the YGCC and the • The Parties will confer with the NPS and the GYE. Please see Issues 68 and 89, as IGBST, as described in the 2016 USFS annually. The Parties will invite well as Factors B and C Combined for Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, representatives of both GYE National Parks, a full discussion of mortality limits and entire), which all the State and Federal the NPS regional office, and GYE USFS States’ harvest regulations. Forest Supervisors to attend the annual We agree with States’ comments that agencies have signed and agreed to meeting. the Act does not require States to implement. The agencies responsible for • The Parties will monitor mortality establish hunting seasons before managing the GYE grizzly bear throughout the year, and will communicate delisting can occur, and we regret any population upon delisting came together and coordinate with each other and with false expectations our proposed rule to develop the 2016 Conservation Federal land management agencies as may have established. However, our Strategy and have been effectively appropriate to minimize the likelihood of exceeding mortality limits. intent in requesting the hunting cooperating and communicating with regulations prior to delisting was to each other about grizzly bear It is true that States cannot compel clearly demonstrate adequate regulatory management decisions for the last 35 Federal agencies to manage their lands mechanisms that would ameliorate such years. in accordance with their State plans. a potential threat if the States chose to In Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. However, as participants in the 2016 establish hunting seasons, and to ensure Servheen et al., 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. Conservation Strategy, both State and that the GYE grizzly bear population 2011), the Ninth Circuit upheld the Federal agencies have agreed to carry will remain recovered if States decided Service’s determination that existing out all its provisions, including the to implement hunting seasons. The regulatory mechanisms were adequate. appended State plans. The Tri-state willingness on the part of the three The Ninth Circuit reversed the Montana MOA directly incorporates the 2007 States to implement regulations prior to district court (Greater Yellowstone Conservation Strategy instead of the a final decision on their part to Coalition v. Servheen, et al., 672 2016 Conservation Strategy. The reason implement hunting seasons is further F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009)) on this for this is that the MOA was signed testament to their commitment to point. The Ninth Circuit determined before the 2016 Conservation Strategy manage the species in a way to ensure that the elements of the Conservation was complete, but the MOA it remains recovered post delisting. Strategy were incorporated into binding incorporates aspects of the 2016 Issue 78—Some of the commenters regulatory documents, specifically Conservation Strategy. In addition, the critical of State plans and management National Forest Plans and National Park MOA states that ‘‘The Parties intend this practices focused on the difficulties Service Superintendents’ Compendia. MOA to be consistent . . . with surrounding coordination of The Ninth Circuit noted this was of revisions to these documents made in management between all the political particular importance because the two conjunction with the delisting process.’’ entities in the GYE. Commenters agencies collectively manage 98 percent Issue 79—Many commenters believed worried that inconsistent management of the lands within the Primary that the MOA, 2016 Conservation and lack of communication between the Conservation Area. Further, additional Strategy, and State regulatory three State entities, Tribes, and Federal wilderness protections applied to mechanisms and management plans are land managers would pose the biggest suitable grizzly bear habitat outside the ‘‘inadequate’’ to protect grizzly bears threat to grizzly bears after delisting, as PCA. into the future and will not ‘‘ensure a

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00099 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30600 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

stable, thriving, and connected grizzly below 675 bears and stop hunting if Issue 81—Commenters opined that bear population.’’ One commenter populations drop to less than 600 bears. our requirements for State regulations expressed that, because of the history of The three States emphasized that they (and the regulations themselves) do not wolf delisting and management, the have agreed to collectively manage the adequately regulate the manner or public does not trust the Service’s GYE population at the ecosystem scale method of take (e.g., baiting, use of judgment in determining adequacy of to maintain recovery through the Tri- hounds, trapping, stalking). State plans and regulations. State MOA. One State emphasized that Commenters suggested that a ban on all Commenters worried that no entity is the 2011 Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals bear baiting be put in place in any area required to act if States exceed mortality ruling declared the regulatory where grizzly bears could be present limits and that States are not compelled mechanisms (which are still in place) to (not just inside the PCA) prior to to monitor the grizzly bear population. be adequate and thus any regulatory delisting. Commenters expressed that To enhance enforcement of mortality requirements beyond that framework are bait stations pose threats to human limits, commenters suggested making unnecessary. safety, increase the risk of mistaken the 2016 Conservation Strategy Response—Comments specific to the identity bear kills, and ‘‘lure [bears] mandatory and not ‘‘voluntary’’ and adequacy of each State’s individual outside Park boundaries.’’ These instituting penalties for States if they regulations and plans, the MOA, commenters noted that Montana, Idaho, ‘‘exceed reasonable mortality mortality limits, and the 2016 and Wyoming treat bear baiting thresholds.’’ Conservation Strategy appear in Issue differently. Conversely, one commenter Many commenters provided detailed 82. However, as noted earlier, State fish suggested that the Service should defer concerns about the content of regulatory and wildlife agencies have significant to the States on the practice of baiting. mechanisms (though these concerns expertise in how to sustainably manage Commenters also noted the need for were not specific to any State regulation game species. This expertise, combined bans on bear trapping and bear hunting in particular). These included that: (1) with commitments made by States to with hounds in all three States (both Spring hunts are irresponsible since ‘‘it manage the species for long-term within and outside the PCA) prior to is impossible to know how many bears stability, is evidence that the States will delisting. Commenters worried that will be killed later in the year through adequately manage grizzly bears to hunting with dogs leads to conflicts management removals, poaching, ensure the species remains recovered. between dogs and grizzly bears and can accidents or natural causes;’’ (2) hunters attract grizzly bears to people. Issue 80—Many commenters stated would be able to kill hibernating grizzly Commenters also expressed that that all State regulations (not just bears due to provisions in the trapping endangers humans and can management plans) should require Sportsmen’s Heritage and Recreational cause severe damage to bears; this hunters to carry bear spray and should Enhancement (SHARE) Act of 2015; (3) commenter asked if there is an Animal impose heavy fines or the threat of States have not considered ‘‘what to do Care and Use Committee that has license revocation for those that fail to with the wounded bears that will recently reviewed trapping in the GYE. escape;’’ (4) plans do not explain how do so. Commenters noted that hunters One State suggested that a restriction on the various entities will monitor are required to carry bear spray only in bear trapping should not be a mortality, revise limits, and prevent GTNP and JDR (though one State foundation for grizzly bear delisting and decreases in the levels of ‘‘scientific requested that we clarify that, since the that we remove the language in the rule oversight’’ of the population; and (5) JDR is not a NP, the bear spray that discusses bear trapping. regulations lacked safeguards to prevent requirement applies only in GTNP). In Response—We recognize and respect hunters, outfitters, or poachers from explaining the efficacy of bear spray, that many people find some or all forms using radio collar frequencies to find one commenter cited research from of human-caused grizzly bear mortality collared bears. Smith et al. (2006), which found that 92 as morally or ethically objectionable. One commenter suggested that the percent of bear attacks end when However, the Act requires that we make grizzly bear hunting regulations are too hunters use bear spray and 98 percent our determination based on the status of stringent and that normal licensing and of those that carry bear spray left the subject species (is it recovered and hunting procedures should apply to any encounters with bears unscathed; will State management retain that grizzly bear hunt (i.e., hunts should be conversely, when hunters use firearms recovered status if the Act’s protections open to the public and non-resident for protection, they are injured 56 are removed) and does not allow us to hunters); this commenter thought that percent of the time and 61 percent of consider the manner in which the hunts should not be special limited these encounters result in lethal individuals may be killed after delisting or controlled hunts. One commenter removal of the offending bear (Smith et unless it would affect this overarching suggested that timing the hunt to al. 2012). viability determination. The manner of minimize female mortality was not a Response—Although the States do not take is subject to State control once legally binding requirement; this currently require hunters to carry bear grizzly bears are delisted. Based on the commenter also noted that creating such spray, States demonstrate and promote best available information, we do not restrictions would be logistically the proper use of bear spray in hunter find any persuasive evidence to indicate challenging since denning times are education courses and other educational that the manner of killing will affect the highly variable with weather and food venues and materials. While the proper viability of the GYE grizzly bear conditions and because males usually use of bear spray is promoted by the population. Protection of the GYE emerge from dens only 2 or 3 weeks States, it is not 100 percent successful grizzly bear population and earlier than females. Others shared at stopping attacks from bears. maintenance of the ecosystems on general beliefs that the regulatory Therefore, implications that greater use which bears depend has been, and will mechanisms were adequate, including: of bear spray would result in ceasing continue to be, managed consistent with (1) That the proposed rule included mortalities of bears or people is the Conservation Strategy. Regarding ‘‘every possible safety net, including inaccurate. For more information on baiting, Montana does not allow black triggers for relisting;’’ and (2) that the hunter education and public bear baiting in any areas; black bear States have committed to adjust information efforts, see Issues 67 and baiting inside the PCA is not allowed in mortality levels should populations fall 108. Idaho or Wyoming (Servheen et al.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00100 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30601

2004, p. 11). In areas outside the PCA attending females, vulnerability during management plans, the 2016 in Idaho and Wyoming, State wildlife other big game hunts, or bear movement Conservation Strategy, MOAs, and agencies will monitor grizzly bear between hunt areas. others reviewed in this rule all guide mortality associated with black bear Commenters claimed that Montana, and clarify the States’ approaches to hunting and respond to problems if they Idaho, or Wyoming management plans grizzly bear management after desilting. occur. The GYE grizzly bear population were flawed because they contained All these measures are evaluated under has increased while black bear baiting outdated factual information, did not Factor D and 1533(b)(1)(a). This has been allowed in Idaho and include recent science, did not include includes the Tri-State MOA, which we Wyoming outside the PCA, so we the most current population and consider under our broader statutory conclude that baiting is not a significant mortality information, had obligations under the Act, including 16 factor that will threaten the recovered inconsistencies with other documents, U.S.C. 1533(a)(1) and 16 U.S.C. status of the GYE DPS. did not reflect all revisions in the 2016 1533(b)(1)(A). We further note that the Issue 82—Commenters questioned Conservation Strategy, or did not fully Tri-State MOA reflects the population what State mechanisms qualified as commit to the 2016 Conservation goals set forth in the 2016 Conservation ‘‘regulatory’’ for purposes of the Strategy. Commenters criticized Strategy. This same conclusion applies Service’s Factor D analysis. Commenters Montana’s plan for not supporting the to other mechanisms that commenters challenged the adequacy of various State’s claim of the importance of object to, including State management individual State regulatory mechanisms, hunting for increasing human safety. plans, policies, directives, and executive including the Tri-State MOA, individual Commenters criticized Idaho’s plan for orders. Our review of the collective State management plans, laws, and not mentioning the DMA. Commenters measures at issue is authorized under regulations, rules, proclamations, or criticized Wyoming’s management plan the Act, including the Act’s legislative other administrative mechanisms. because its hunting fees were too low, history, which indicates that section 4 Commenters questioned whether each because it had not defined the term listing or delisting inquiry was drawn State had regulatory mechanisms that ‘‘human habituated’’ to ensure that only broadly to allow the Secretary to met the elements that we identified in those bears posing a safety risk (and not determine whether a species is our proposed rule as necessary for merely bears near developed areas) will threatened or endangered (or recovered) delisting if the States decide to establish be subject to removal, and because it for any legitimate reason. H.R. Rep. No. hunting seasons. State agencies had not explicitly described how it 93–412 (July 27, 1973). Our approach is commented that the Service exceeded would deal with orphaned cubs. One also reasonable because ignoring any of our authority by identifying these commenter suggested Wyoming adopt a these documents or aspects of State requirements before the States decided ‘‘once-in-a-lifetime’’ limitation for management would violate our whether to establish hunting seasons. grizzly bear hunting. responsibility under the Act to consider Commenters claimed various State Response—The Act requires the all factors relevant to determining the regulatory mechanisms were inadequate Service to base its listing decisions on biological status of a species. based on public notice or involvement, the five factors set forth in 16 U.S.C. We reached the conclusion that State or because they were the subject of 1533(a)(1) and 1533(b)(1)(A). This regulatory mechanisms are adequate to litigation. Commenters took issue with includes Factor D, the inadequacy of protect the recovered population of GYE the contents of State regulatory existing regulatory mechanisms. grizzly bears and that they do contain mechanisms, claiming they did not Regulatory mechanisms are not defined the general elements we required in our explicitly limit discretionary mortality, in the Act, but they include those proposed delisting rule. Our analysis is they allowed preemptive or unlicensed measures that, either individually or set forth in the final rule, and we refer killing of bears, or they allowed killing part of an overall framework, are commenters to that discussion under bears causing conflict with livestock. designed to reduce threats to listed Factors B and C Combined. We also Commenters questioned the State species or pertain to the overall State note that we provided the public with Commission’s qualifications to set management and regulation of a listed another opportunity to review the State management objectives and their species. The Act also directs the Service mechanisms through our public notice commitment to honoring limits, to consider other measures in its listing and comment period described in 81 FR claiming prior Commission actions had decisions, including ‘‘those efforts, if 13174, March 11, 2016. harmed grizzly bears or other wildlife, any, being made by any State . . . to To the extent that commenters such as wolves and bison. protect such species, whether by objected to public notice and comment Commenters claimed that the Tri- predator control, protection of habitat procedures utilized by the States in State MOA was inadequate, stating that and food supply, or other conservation adopting their respective regulatory it was voluntary, did not reflect all practices.’’ (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). frameworks, we refer the commenters to revisions in the 2016 Conservation The Service has a statutory obligation to the administrative procedural Strategy, or otherwise did not take into account State conservation requirements that each State must adequately monitor bears or limit efforts, including the full range of State follow under State law. Responding to mortality. measures. This is part of the Service’s the specific comment about Idaho’s Commenters claimed that Idaho’s Factor D analysis, and is consistent with proclamations, we note that Idaho Fish proclamation was not a regulatory other interpretations of the Act and Game proclamations, orders, and mechanism and that various aspects of (Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Zinke et director orders carry the force and effect Idaho’s, Montana’s, or Wyoming’s al. 849 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Circ. 2017). The of law under Idaho Code 36–105(3) and hunting frameworks were not final. Service cannot dismiss a State 36–106(6)(D). Commenters questioned the States’ conservation measure just because it is As to the comment that hunting abilities to enforce hunting closures and not legally binding. Rather, the varying regulations are not final, we would not violations. Commenters questioned the levels of commitments and expect all State hunting regulations to timing and location of potential hunts, enforceability are taken into account as be final because no decisions have been including their relationship to National part of this analysis to ensure that the made to authorize hunting seasons in Park boundaries, cutworm moth sites, overall conclusion is reasonable. Here, Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming. connectivity, vulnerability of cubs and the State statutes, regulations, and Furthermore, the process set forth in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00101 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30602 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Tri-State MOA to establish discretionary population goals. The Service duly Conservation Strategy requires States to mortality has not been undertaken yet considers them in its analysis of a collect and report data on the number of because GYE grizzly bears have been State’s regulatory framework, as it is hunters if we suggest that there is no protected by the Act. The allocation of required to do under the Act. But correlation between the number of discretionary mortality set forth in the management plans are not the only hunters and grizzly bear mortality. One Tri-State MOA must be followed before source of State management and control commenter worried about the any State can identify a bear quota of wildlife populations. State implications of changes discussed at the subject to hunting because it identifies management plans are just one of the October 3, 2016, YES meeting, namely: how many bears, if any, exceed many mechanisms the Service (1) Deletion of figures and description population objectives. Only after that considered here. We understand that that explain when discretionary take process is completed can States set some commenters are disappointed that would be permitted; and (2) removal of hunting seasons, establish hunt unit some State management plans for language explaining that 500 bears are quotas for each unit, assess and define grizzly bears lack current data, but we necessary for genetic viability. hunter eligibility requirements, set look to other measures that are current Commenters also suggested potential licensing requirements and fees, and and that will guide population additions to the 2016 Conservation other limitations specific to management into the future. These Strategy, including: (1) Reiteration of administering annual hunting seasons. include the State regulatory the five elements our proposed rule The States are governed by the Tri- requirements, the Tri-State MOA, and stated must be in State regulation; (2) State MOA and have agreed in writing the 2016 Conservation Strategy. inclusion of frequently cited documents to follow the 2016 Conservation Issue 83—Many commenters weighed (e.g., Food Synthesis Report) in the Strategy. The Service’s review of State in on the process the Service and its Conservation Strategy Appendices; and actions is dependent on compliance partners used to author the 2016 (3) addition of a clear timetable for with the regulatory measures required of Conservation Strategy, including: (1) completion of the Strategy. each State (set forth in the proposed That the negotiations about changes to Response—The Administrative rule), and adherence to the population the Conservation Strategy have been Procedure Act (APA) requires that final objectives in the Tri-State MOA and difficult to follow and the public does rules be a logical outgrowth of proposed 2016 Conservation Strategy. Outside not know which changes have actually rules, after taking into consideration these requirements, States will have been incorporated into the final new information and public comment. considerable latitude to design hunting document (even though these changes The final 2016 Conservation Strategy seasons based on their own knowledge could significantly alter grizzly bear and this final delisting rule are logical and expertise. The States have an management); (2) that the States could outgrowths of the draft Conservation incentive to manage bears based upon make changes to the Conservation Strategy and proposed rule, both recovery criteria and the associated Strategy at the eleventh hour when there documents that were made available for mortality limits in both the recovery is no risk of public scrutiny; (3) that the multiple public comment periods and criteria and the Conservation Strategy Service should be driving the process to peer-review. Additionally, all YES and are, therefore, expected to take into revise the Conservation Strategy, not the meetings are open to the public, and account the biological requirements States (as seems to be the case); and (4) meeting dates and locations are posted necessary for successful management, since the Conservation Strategy is a on the IGBC Web site (http:// including the locations of food sources, change in management, it needs to be igbconline.org/). travel corridors, connectivity, NPS analyzed under NEPA, the National Issue 84—Both public commenters boundaries, etc. Recovery of the GYE Forest Management Act, and the Act and peer-reviewers raised concerns DPS would not have occurred without (including the drafting of an EIS). about the adequacy of funding moving the active participation, support, and Another commenter pointed out that the forward to finance grizzly bear leadership of Idaho, Montana, and draft 2016 Conservation Strategy we conservation, monitoring, and Wyoming. released with the proposed rule did not enforcement. A peer-reviewer stated The Service has analyzed and contain the Tri-State MOA, an that the draft rule is based on the reviewed State management of other agreement that has essential details assumption that sufficient Federal and species, like elk, deer, and black bears. necessary to evaluate the adequacy of State funds will be available into the Over decades, the States have the rule and 2016 Conservation Strategy. foreseeable future ‘‘to monitor and demonstrated responsible and Other commenters provided input on detect population changes with enough professional wildlife management of the content of the 2016 Conservation resolution to trigger management these species and have a proven track Strategy, in addition to the suggestions fallback mechanisms.’’ Commenters record of managing these and other and concerns raised in other issues (i.e., worried that the MOA does not obligate species to population goals and unit Issues 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 31, 32, 40, 42, any funds. Other commenters noted that targets. In the many discussions with 43, 48, 49, 50, 53, 66, 68, 75, 78, 79, 84, implementation of the 2016 our State partners, the Service has not 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 96, and 98), Conservation Strategy is dependent on encountered any situation or data that including: (1) Confusion as to who was funding, and one commenter suggested evidences an intent to deviate from responsible for preparing the that the 2016 Conservation Strategy these established wildlife management Conservation Strategy and completing should require adequate funding to be practices. This historical evaluation of the tasks therein; (2) concerns that the ‘‘fully procured’’ for it to go into effect. other species informs the Service’s Conservation Strategy does not Commenters and peer-reviewers also conclusion that the suite of management adequately explain the process for expressed confusion about the 2016 principles and commitments can be revisions and adaptive changes (see Conservation Strategy’s discussion of reasonably considered in our overall Issue 91); (3) worries that it would be funding (in Appendix F in the Draft delisting determination. too expensive to keep radio collars on 2016 Conservation Strategy), claiming it State management plans are useful a minimum of 25 adult female grizzly did not match the proposed rule nor because they help guide the State bears in the GYE at all times in adequately provide a formal outline for wildlife agencies in achieving perpetuity (YES 2016a, Chapter 2); and budgetary needs (though one peer- management objectives, including (4) confusion as to why the reviewer commended its inclusion).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30603

Some commenters warned that Federal The 2016 Conservation Strategy Conservation Strategy, and other and State funding is not guaranteed and reflects the States’ commitment to future management plans. We also received could decline at any time, potentially management and monitoring of grizzly suggestions that ‘‘a firm threshold for a jeopardizing continued recovery. bears. The States have been funding and review would be preferable to a ‘may Commenters expressed particular performing the majority of grizzly bear initiate’ position.’’ concern about the States’ financial and recovery, management, monitoring, and We received a few comments on the administrative capacity to manage and enforcement efforts within their first Service Status Review trigger in the monitor grizzly bears after delisting. jurisdictions for decades; for example, proposed rule, including: (1) It is Concerns about adequacy of State the WGFD has expended more than unclear what ‘‘significantly’’ means in funding included: (1) A reminder that $40,000,000 for grizzly bear recovery this trigger; (2) this trigger could reduce any Federal financial support would run from 1980 to 2015. There is not a the ‘‘flexibility that any management of dry after 5 years post-delisting; (2) reasonable basis to believe the States any ecosystem requires’’ by constraining confusion as to where States would find will not adequately fund grizzly bear the ability of States to update and adapt funds to make up this difference; (3) management of a delisted population. management plans and strategies; and claims that delisting would cost an Claims that it would cost an additional (3) it is important to keep this trigger, additional $1.2 million per year on top $1.2 million/year are not supported by despite State desires to remove it, ‘‘so of current expenditures on recovery and empirical data. that future changes cannot lead to a would preclude States from pursuing On April 12, 2017, the Secretary of decline in the grizzly bear population.’’ certain funding opportunities (like the Interior issued a Memorandum, Many commenters suggested Section 6 grants); (4) claims that funds ‘‘Managing Grants, Cooperative increasing the population size in the generated from the sale of grizzly bear Agreements, and Other Significant second Service Status Review trigger so hunting licenses will not provide Decisions’’ establishing a new review we would initiate a Service Status adequate funding to the States to process for Wildlife and Sport Fish Review if the Chao2 population estimate manage grizzly bears; (5) worries that Restoration Program grants in the fell below 600 bears in any given year. the Hicks Bill would relieve Wyoming amount of $100,000 or more. This new Other commenters suggested that the of any obligation to pay to protect bears process may affect States, however, we Service should determine whether the from illegal mortality; and (6) do not think this memorandum will lower bound of the 95 percent suggestions that States currently lack affect the capacity to conduct grizzly confidence interval for the annual sufficient funds to combat poaching and bear post-delisting monitoring because population estimate violates these this will only worsen in a delisted these procedures are temporary and do requirements when assessing this trigger environment. Some commenters not reduce the amount of funding (as opposed to using the average). expressed concern that the States do not available for assistance. Commenters also weighed in on the have sufficient staff to respond to The best available information does third Service Status Review trigger, hunting violations in a timely manner, not support commenters’ claims that the expressing concern that this trigger close hunting seasons immediately States lack the ability to monitor, could allow States to exceed mortality upon meeting mortality thresholds, manage, and respond to violations as limits for several years before any enforce adequate penalties on poachers, States’ have long demonstrated their review, ‘‘allowing for irreversible and conduct research and monitoring on expertise in managing wildlife within damage;’’ for example, it would allow grizzly bears to ensure effective adaptive their borders. For example, Idaho States to exceed mortality limits in 7 out management. successfully prosecuted a violation for of every 10 years (as long as the years Commenters provided suggestions for unlawful take of grizzly bears in the in which mortality limits are exceeded ways to enhance confidence in State GYE under State law even while the never occur three times in a row), financial capacity for grizzly bear grizzly bear was listed; see State v. pushing the population below 600 conservation, including: (1) State plans Sommer, CR–2014–1601 (7th Dist. bears. Many commenters worried about should clearly identify how they will Idaho, 2014). the potential consequences of fund grizzly bear monitoring, By signing the 2016 Conservation consistently exceeding mortality limits, conservation, conflict management, and Strategy, participating agencies have and both commenters and peer- connectivity facilitation; (2) the Federal committed to implementing the reviewers expressed concern that there Government should provide sufficient protective features that are within their will be a lag in a decision-making financial support for State field discretion and authority, and to secure response to population declines that biologists, State management of grizzly adequate funding for implementation. drop below 600, especially in high bears, and programs to minimize bear Lack of adequate funding to carry out mortality years. As such, these conflict; (3) decision-makers should the 2016 Conservation Strategy grizzly commenters suggested changing the develop a means to share tourism bear management commitments could third trigger so that the Service would dollars with State wildlife managers; trigger a status review for possible re- initiate a status review if the mortality and (4) managers should revive the idea listing under the Act. limits for independent females are of an endowment fund for the 2016 Issue 85—We received several exceeded for two consecutive years and Conservation Strategy and post-delisting comments on the adequacy of the the population is below 600 bears. management, which had been part of Service’s status review triggers and Additional suggested triggers for a recovery and delisting discussions for suggestions for revising them. The Service Status Review included those more than 20 years. States requested that triggers be tied to related to: A lack of funding; habitat Response—We conclude that evidence of a declining population, standards/habitat degradation and combined State and Federal rather than those tied to a specific monitoring protocols, including food commitments will provide for adequate number of bears, exceedance of monitoring (Johnson et al. 2004; management of the GYE grizzly bear mortality limits, or particular Schwartz et al. 2010; Schwartz et al. after delisting. Federal funding is regulations or management. 2012); population trends; lack of dependent on year-to-year Commenters also noted that the connectivity between the GYE and appropriations whether or not the Service’s triggers need to be NCDE at least once during every 6-year species is listed. standardized in the rule, the 2016 period; and if the States classify grizzly

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00103 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30604 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

bears as a predator or vermin in the it deems there is a threat to the recovery foreseeable viability, as managed and future (or any classification that allows of the GYE grizzly bear population or in monitored by the 2016 Conservation for unlimited take). response to any petition to re-list from Strategy and Tri-State MOA. Some commenters expressed concern an individual or organization that is Issue 86—Commenters expressed about the meaningfulness of our determined to be substantial. Therefore, concerns about the triggers for an IGBST triggers, whether the Service would be if mortality limits are exceeded Biology and Monitoring Review, willing to re-list the grizzly bear, should repeatedly, the Service may choose to including: (1) Confusion as to the it become necessary, and whether the conduct a status review regardless of the justification for changing the Biology Service could re-list in a timely manner population estimate. and Monitoring Review trigger from its before populations decline further In response to the comments current status (mortality limits exceeded (given the usually lengthy process requesting for additional triggers based for any sex/age class for 2 consecutive required for a listing determination). on habitat or food monitoring, we years) to 3 consecutive years and a Some commenters expressed concern consider the establishment of habitat population floor; (2) assertions that that the triggers do not require the thresholds for food sources to be failure to meet recovery criteria should Service or any other parties to act if they unrealistic. As discussed in Issue 99, trigger a status review and emergency are violated. One commenter suggested due to the natural annual variation in re-listing rather than a review by the that re-listing should be automatic to abundance and distribution in the four IGBST; (3) concerns about the lack of a avoid these delays or failures to act. One major food sources, there is no known defined timeframe for completion of a commenter asked what recourse the way to calculate minimum threshold review report and remedying the Service had if other agencies did not values for grizzly bear foods. The 1998 identified issues; (4) suggestions for abide by the agreements. One baseline will address these issues clearer Service responses should the commenter asked how the Service adequately through access management YGCC fail to take appropriate action in would determine whether a status and limitations on site development. response to a review; (5) suggestions review is ‘‘warranted’’ if an individual, Managers will use an adaptive that the Biology and Monitoring Review organization, or YGCC were to petition management approach that addresses triggers need to be standardized in the for such a status review. Another poor food years with responsive rule, the 2016 Conservation Strategy, commenter warned that the Service management actions such as limiting and other management plans; (6) claims cannot use ‘‘the possibility of relisting grizzly bear mortality, increasing (I&E) that the triggers are too low or are as a justification for delisting,’’ based on efforts, and long-term habitat restoration unclear; (7) concerns that there is no past court decisions. (i.e., revegetation, prescribed burning, trigger for a lack of funding; (8) worries Response—The triggers for status etc.) as appropriate. The multiple that a review would be politically reviews have been standardized indices used to monitor both bear foods influenced; and (9) recommendations between the 2016 Conservation Strategy, and bear vital rates provide a dynamic that the delisting rule provide ‘‘clear the Service’s recovery criteria, and this and intensive data source to allow the thresholds and corrective mechanisms’’ rule. In addition, this rule uses ‘‘would’’ agencies to respond to potential with a process that ‘‘a. ensures timely and ‘‘will’’ to confirm the firm threshold problems. We conclude that the action and limits time lags that arise for review. adaptive management system described from administrative review; b. includes In response to comments on the first in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES an opportunity for public involvement status review trigger, we would consider 2016a, pp. 33–85) is one of the most in proposed actions, and; c. establishes any changes in Federal, State, or Tribal detailed monitoring systems developed a policy of rejecting proposed actions, if laws, rules, regulations, or management for any wildlife species and ensures the not supported by the best available plans to be a significant threat to the maintenance of a recovered grizzly bear science.’’ population if they would not maintain population in the GYE. Response—Edits were made to all a recovered population. As stated in this The multiple indices used to monitor three documents to clarify the triggers final rule and the 2016 Conservation both bear foods and bear vital rates for an IGBST Biology and Monitoring Strategy, this scenario does not inhibit provide a dynamic and intensive data Review and to make them consistent adaptive management and application source to allow the agencies to respond between the documents. The triggers for of the best-available science. to potential problems. The monitoring an IGBST Biology and Monitoring In response to comments on the and adaptive management system Review are based on the demographic second status review trigger, we believe described in the 2016 Conservation recovery criteria and are believed by that conducting a status review if the Strategy (YES 2016a, entire) ensures the managers to be effective for decision- population estimate is less than 500 in maintenance of a recovered grizzly bear making given available data. Proposed any given year is appropriate. If any population in the GYE. triggers for an IGBST Biology and annual population estimate is less than We agree that the mere possibility of Monitoring Review are designed to be 600, then discretionary mortality would re-listing is not an adequate regulatory sufficient to detect meaningful cease, except for cases of human safety, mechanism. Re-listing cannot be an demographic changes in a timely thus reducing mortality rates. This automatic function if the GYE grizzly manner. More importantly, triggers for approach allows appropriate corrective bear population declines to the point an IGBST Biology and Monitoring management responses by the where the protections of the Act become Review can be adjusted if the IGBST management agencies to allow the necessary because we are obligated to deems they are not sufficiently sensitive population to increase prior to a status conduct rulemaking procedures, which or, in contrast, too sensitive (i.e., review. See Issue 19 for further include, among other things, an causing many ‘‘false triggers’’). The discussion. evaluation of threats as outlined in the IGBST Biology and Monitoring Review In response to the comments on the Act and the APA. However, listing may triggers are more easily activated than third status review trigger, this trigger be expedited if necessary through the Service review triggers to supply the was removed from the 2016 Act’s emergency listing procedures. Be YGCC with ample time to respond with Conservation Strategy and this rule. that as it may, we remain confident that management actions if necessary. It However, the Service may choose to these provisions will not be necessary would be more appropriate to tie any conduct a status review at any point that due to the species’ current and lack of funding for the IGBST’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30605

monitoring responsibilities to a decision recommend a Biology and Monitoring Issue 89—Public commenters by YES/YGCC to address the issue. Review to the YGCC if they deem presented differing perspectives on Details were added to this rule and the necessary based on annual monitoring whether the content of the proposed 2016 Conservation Strategy that a results. Additionally, the Strategy rule represented an overreach of Service Biology and Monitoring review would outlines specific triggers for an IGBST authority or too little Federal be completed within 6 months of the Biology and Monitoring Review as well Government involvement. The State request by the YGCC and the resulting as a Service-initiated status review. agencies called some of the content of written report would be presented to the Issue 88—One commenter raised the proposed rule (particularly demands YGCC and made available to the public. concerns that managers would not be about the content of State hunting Any proposed changes to the 2016 able to effectively implement adaptive regulations and the discussion of Conservation Strategy by the YGCC, in management because there is no connectivity and movement of bears response to a Biology and Monitoring commitment to funding and between ecosystems) ‘‘unduly Review, to address deviations from the implementing the necessary monitoring. prescriptive’’ and suggested that some of population or habitat standards will be Grizzly bear managers have failed to the requirements in the proposed rule available for public comment and be implement adaptive management in the ‘‘transcend the Act’s authority.’’ Some based on the best available science. past; for example, they did not redefine commenters and the States questioned Issue 87—Commenters and a peer- the Recovery Zone even though 40 whether we had the authority to require reviewer suggested that the IGBST percent of occupied habitat is now particular hunting regulations prior to should give a binding commitment to outside of it. delisting, while others suggested that we conduct a demographic monitoring Many commenters and a peer- require States to classify grizzly bears as review every 5 years or less (instead of reviewer requested additional a non-game species, thus, prohibiting every 5 to 10 years) because: (1) It information on the adaptive process for hunting altogether. One commenter would be more consistent with revising the 2016 Conservation Strategy suggested that States should be the ones precautionary management; (2) the during its duration should the best setting mortality limits and monitoring generation length for grizzly bears is available science indicate changes are mortalities. close to 10 years; and (3) the IGBST Commenters also varied in their warranted. One commenter hoped could miss dramatic shorter term perspective on the proper Service role authors could include specific changes in grizzly bear populations in after delisting. Some commenters provisions in the 2016 Conservation an interval of 5 to 10 years between suggested the Service should have little Strategy requiring review and updating reviews. to no role after delisting; one stated that every 5 years or including language in Response—The best available data after delisting ‘‘the Service must the preamble explaining that the 2016 indicate that 5 to 10 years is an monitor, but not dictate, the state’s or Conservation Strategy will evolve as appropriate interval to conduct a Tribes’ management methodologies.’’ new science becomes available. monitoring review. For example, One commenter requested that we generation times are now actually closer Response—We have no reason to clarify that the 2016 Conservation to 14 years (Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5516), conclude that State, Tribal, and Federal Strategy is a cooperative agreement and further supporting the frequency of 5 to land managers are not committed to that the Service’s role is not to oversee 10 years. Grizzly bears are a long-lived fund and implement monitoring (see management but to evaluate the five species, and estimated survival rates for Issue 84). Given that the grizzly bear factors under the Act should it be both independent males and females in generation time is more than 5 years and necessary. Others suggested the the GYE are over 95 percent annually long-term data is needed to determine proposed rule did not allow enough until age 25, when survival begins to meaningful trends, it is appropriate that Federal involvement after delisting and decline. Any demographic review done the IGBST has adopted an adaptive urged more Service engagement in with shorter intervals will likely have management process; the purpose of independent monitoring. Some many of the same individual bears in adaptive management is to change based commenters went so far as to suggest the sample. The longer the interval on improving science. Recovery plans ‘‘management should continue to be the between assessments the more likely it are not regulatory documents, rather responsibility of the USFWS’’ and that is we will have different individuals in they are intended to provide guidance to the Service should use the preemption the sample. This greater independence the Service and our partners on methods clause of the Constitution to invalidate among bears in the sample is desirable to minimize threats to listed species and any State or local laws that jeopardize if we are trying to assess impacts of on criteria that may be used to grizzly bears. Another commenter landscape change on the demographic determine when recovery is achieved. In simply requested that we explain and vigor of the population. response to the comment that we have clarify the Service’s role in grizzly bear While official reviews will be failed to implement adaptive management within the GYE after conducted only every 5 to 10 years, the management by not updating the delisting. IGBST will closely monitor the Recovery Zone in the Recovery Plan, Response—A basic tenet of wildlife population annually, including delisting determinations are based management in the United States is that estimating population size using the solely on an evaluation of the five States have primary jurisdiction over model-averaged Chao2 method, factors under section 4 of the Act, and, most wildlife in most cases. The Federal monitoring and reporting the while recovery criteria can inform that Government has a ‘‘trust resource’’ distribution of reproducing females, and analysis, we do not need to update a responsibility for a few specific monitoring and reporting mortalities. species’ recovery plan prior to the categories identified under Federal law, Habitat variables will also be monitored species’ delisting. In accordance with including species deemed threatened or annually, including livestock grazing, the 1993 Recovery Plan, Recovery Zones endangered under the Act. When a food availability, and ungulate are areas large enough and of sufficient species no longer qualifies as threatened populations, Yellowstone cutthroat habitat quality to support a recovered or endangered, the management reverts trout, moth aggregation sites, and grizzly bear population and are not back to the States. whitebark pine cone production and designed to contain all grizzly bears in Under the Act, we are required to health. The IGBST could at any time the ecosystem. show that threats to listed species have

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00105 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30606 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

been sufficiently abated (and will game animals remains with State engaged with partners as the 2016 remain so for the foreseeable future) wildlife commissions. Conservation Strategy is implemented. such that we can reasonably reach the We conclude that the Service’s As discussed in the proposed rule, we conclusion that the species is no longer involvement in grizzly bear conclude that limited and well- threatened or endangered. Section management, as described in this final regulated harvest of grizzly bears can be 4(b)(1)(A) further clarifies that we are to rule, is appropriate in scope and is compatible with meeting mortality take into account those efforts being consistent with statutory requirements. targets under the 2016 Conservation made by any State to protect such After the delisting of grizzly bears in the Strategy, and thus maintaining a healthy species. Under Section 4(a)(1)(d) of the GYE, the regulatory protections of the population that does not require the Act, we must determine whether it is Act will be withdrawn but the Service Act’s protections. The suggestion to endangered or threatened because of will continue to evaluate the species’ designate grizzly bears as non-game and any of the following factors: (A) The status through post-delisting monitoring prohibit regulated harvest altogether is present or threatened destruction, as described in the interagency 2016 not necessary, nor is it within Federal modification, or curtailment of its Conservation Strategy. Post-delisting control for most unlisted species. For habitat or range; (B) overutilization for monitoring will continue to include example, brown bear hunting is a commercial, recreational, scientific, or data collected by various State, Tribal, common and sustainable practice educational purposes; (C) disease or and Federal agencies under the 2016 globally. When managed correctly, as predation; (D) the inadequacy of Conservation Strategy; we are confident discussed in the final rule, carefully existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) that such monitoring can continue to regulated harvest can be a part of the other natural or manmade factors provide valid data on grizzly bear status, greater conservation strategy. affecting its continued existence. The and conclude that monitoring programs Issue 90—A number of public 2016 Conservation Strategy and the do not need to be funded and commenters expressed concern about corresponding step-down State and implemented separately by the Service. our use of the term ‘‘conservation Federal regulations implementing this Because grizzly bears are vulnerable to reliant’’ species in reference to grizzly agreement are necessary to illustrate excessive human-caused mortality, the bears. 2016 Conservation Strategy recognizes how various risk factors are going to be Response—We no longer use the term the need for active management under managed and allow us to determine that ‘‘conservation-reliant species’’ in this the jurisdiction and authority of the threats have been sufficiently abated rule. various Federal, State, and Tribal such that the species is no longer Issue 91—Public commenters threatened or endangered. agencies to implement conservation measures intended to address the source presented differing points of view on For grizzly bears, our analysis under of such mortality. the implementation period of the 2016 Factors B and C Combined and D With continuing interagency Conservation Strategy. Some parties identifies human-caused mortality and cooperation in implementing the 2016 (including the States) took issue with the regulations governing it as crucial Conservation Strategy, we fully expect our characterization of the 2016 determinants of whether grizzly bear partners will maintain healthy grizzly Conservation Strategy in the proposed populations in the GYE will meet the bear populations in the GYE without the rule as being indefinite or being in place definition of an endangered or protections of the Act. As is the case for in perpetuity. These commenters threatened species. This is similar to our any non-listed species, the Service can suggested that an overly long post- previous assessment of habitat (Factor conduct a status review at any time and delisting monitoring period impinged A) and its long-term management is required to consider petitions for re- upon States’ rights. They expressed the (Factor D), which was previously listing if ever received. Such a review concept that the Act is an emergency litigated and upheld on appeal. will be triggered if population and room statute and that once a species is Therefore, regulatory mechanisms that mortality targets in the 2016 recovered its management should be adequately address management of Conservation Strategy are consistently returned to the States without Federal discretionary mortality are a necessary not met. Furthermore, although we oversight. Some commenters (including component of the path to delisting. It conclude this will likely not be the States) suggested that the Service remains the Service’s statutory necessary, Section 4(g)(2) of the Act has conflated ‘‘conservation-reliance’’ responsibility to analyze threats to the directs the Service to make prompt use with post-delisting management that species under the five listing factors and of its emergency listing authority if exceeds the Act’s requirements and that evaluate whether such regulations are necessary to prevent a significant risk to the Conservation Strategy should not be consistent with a delisting the well-being of the recovered an indefinite agreement to allow for determination under the Act. The State, population. more flexibility in adjusting Federal, and Tribal partner agencies We anticipate that the Federal management strategies in response to implementing the 2016 Conservation Government will continue to be future change. One commenter argued Strategy continue to work together to involved in grizzly bear management that the Act does not require a 2016 implement a regulatory framework that after delisting. As discussed in the Conservation Strategy for delisting. A allows grizzly bears in the GYE to be proposed rule, the NPS, USFS, and BLM number of commenters suggested the recovered and delisted under the Act, are responsible for land management 2016 Conservation Strategy should stay with continuing habitat and population over much of the GYE, and will in place only for the minimum 5-year management under the authorities of the continue to be actively involved in monitoring period the Act requires. The individual agencies. Thus, this final rule interagency groups implementing the States asked the Service to remove any describes standards for evaluating 2016 Conservation Strategy. Similarly, mentions of the 2016 Conservation whether State game regulations are Federal scientists, such as those Strategy being in place ‘‘in perpetuity,’’ consistent with grizzly bear mortality employed by the USGS, will continue to ‘‘perpetually,’’ or ‘‘indefinitely’’ and targets, under the management monitor the GYE grizzly bear instead state that ‘‘[t]he 2016 framework of the interagency 2016 population. The Service plans to remain Conservation Strategy will remain in Conservation Strategy. The authority for informed about grizzly bear status and effect beyond the 5-year monitoring promulgating hunting regulations for population trends, and to remain period of the Act.’’

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30607

Others suggested the 2016 history of section 4(g) indicates that eliminated the negative trends that led Conservation Strategy should stay in Congress intended to give the Services to the listing of the bear in the first place for much longer than 5 years. One and States latitude to determine the place. In addition, we anticipate no commenter recommended a post- extent and intensity of post-delisting particular future events that will lead to delisting monitoring period of 18 years monitoring that is needed and the DPS becoming in danger of based on grizzly bears’ slow appropriate (USFWS and NMFS 2008, extinction in the future. Future reproduction and vulnerability to p. 1–1). According to our 2008 Post- implementation of the 2016 habitat change, noting previous Delisting Monitoring (PDM) Plan Conservation Strategy and its precedents for monitoring periods up to Guidance, decisions regarding management objectives have also been 20 years. One commenter stated that ‘‘it frequency and duration of effective expressly tied to the statutory concept of is critically important that the IGBST monitoring should appropriately reflect the foreseeable future. Under these continue to be involved’’ with GYE the species’ biology and residual threats circumstances, with a stable and grizzly bear recovery GYE for 10 or more (USFWS and NMFS 2008, p. 4–4). protected population extending into the years after delisting. Several Delisting criteria and the formal indefinite future, there is no need to commenters expressed that the rulemaking process for removal from the more precisely define a particular Conservation Strategy should be in list are designed to provide reasonable period as being the ‘‘foreseeable future’’ place ‘‘in perpetuity.’’ confidence that the species will remain for the bear. In other words, we cannot Other commenters referenced secure for the foreseeable future, and reliably predict on any human timescale revisions to the 2016 Conservation post-delisting monitoring provides an that the status of the bear will Strategy that clarify how it would additional ‘‘check’’ on projections that deteriorate at all, much less that it will remain in effect for the ‘‘foreseeable the species will remain secure after become in danger of extinction in the future.’’ In light of the above, removal of the Act’s protections future. commenters requested that we clarify (USFWS and NMFS 2008, p. 4–3). There However, there is not an expectation how long the 2016 Conservation are no absolute guarantees against future that the 2016 Conservation Strategy will Strategy would remain in effect, how declines, but if the species appears to remain static during its lifespan. In fact, long monitoring would continue, and remain secure, conclusion of post- the YGCC (the body that will coordinate what would happen after that point. delisting monitoring is appropriate management and promote the exchange One commenter requested a definition (USFWS and NMFS 2008, p. 4–3). of information about the GYE grizzly of ‘‘foreseeable future.’’ Another We agree that it is unrealistic and is bear population after delisting) can commenter stated that common usage beyond what is required by the Act to revise or amend the 2016 Conservation for ‘‘foreseeable future’’ was 100 years, expect any single version of the Strategy based on the best biological similar to the timeframe of a forest Conservation Strategy and intensive data and best available science (YES rotation, and recommended monitoring Federal oversight to remain in effect in 2016a, chapter 6). Any such over two rotations to allow their effects perpetuity. Therefore, the 2016 amendments will be subject to public to manifest. Another commenter agreed Conservation Strategy was revised to review and comment and approved by that management was required over the remain in effect for the foreseeable YGCC (YES 2016a, p. 96). More foreseeable future because the grizzly future as this is the time horizon that we meaningful changes will need to be bear is a conservation-reliant species. must consider as we evaluate the evaluated by the Service to determine Response—The 2016 Conservation species’ status relative to the Act’s whether they would depart significantly Strategy serves as our post-delisting definition of a threatened species. from previous commitments or monitoring plan and represents the In making our determination, we represent a significant threat to the agreement from all management considered what the ‘‘foreseeable population and thus trigger a status partners on post-delisting management. future’’ means in the context of GYE review. Post-delisting monitoring refers to grizzly bear biology and the factors Periodic status reviews are consistent activities undertaken to verify that a potentially affecting bear viability. To with Service practice for other species. species delisted due to recovery remains determine whether a species is likely to For example, the Service has a history secure from risk of extinction after the become endangered in the foreseeable of conducting such reviews during the protections of the Act no longer apply future, the Service must consider the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (USFWS and NMFS 2008, p. 1–1). The period over which it can make reliable post-delisting monitoring period. primary goal of post-delisting predictions. It cannot speculate. Specifically, during this 5-year post- monitoring is to monitor the species to Solicitor’s Opinion M–37021, The delisting monitoring period, we ensure the status does not deteriorate, Meaning of ‘‘Foreseeable Future’’ in conducted six annual evaluations of and if a substantial decline in the Section 3(20) of the Endangered Species status (in their entirety: Bangs 2010, in species (numbers of individuals or Act (2009). Consideration of the litt.; Jimenez 2012, in litt.; Jimenez populations) or an increase in threats is foreseeable future often involves 2013a, in litt.; Jimenez 2014, in litt.; detected, to take measures to halt the determining when current or future Jimenez 2015, in litt.; Jimenez 2016, in decline so that re-proposing it as a trends cannot be further extrapolated litt.) and seven ‘‘on-the-spot’’ threatened or endangered species is not without veering into speculation. It can evaluations considering whether some needed (USFWS and NMFS 2008, also involve making reliable predictions of the more meaningful changes to State p. 1–1). about future events. Using the best management laws or regulations met Section 4(g), added to the Act in the scientific and commercial information that standard (Cooley 2011, in litt.; 1988 reauthorization, requires the available, the Service must analyze Cooley 2012, in litt.; Jimenez and Cooley Service to implement a system in events, trends and threats over different 2012, in litt.; Sartorius 2012, in litt.; cooperation with the States to monitor periods of time, and must synthesize Jimenez 2013b, in litt.; Cooley 2013, in for not less than 5 years the status of all that information to reach a final litt.; Cooley 2014, in litt.). In those cases, species that have recovered and been conclusion about GYE grizzly bears. wolf biology, high population levels and removed from the list of threatened and The partners managing the GYE a demonstrated track record of endangered plants and animals (USFWS grizzly population have, as discussed withstanding high levels of human- and NMFS 2008, p. 1–1). The legislative above, successfully reduced or caused mortality provided us with

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30608 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

sufficient confidence that the changes meet the intent of the USDA that development can occur in did not represent a significant threat Departmental Regulations 9500–4, conjunction with oil and gas leases that and did not trigger a Service status which directs the USFS to ‘‘Avoid pre-date the roadless rule, these claims review. actions which may cause a species to must be valid to be pursued and the Issue 92—One commenter expressed become threatened or endangered’’ and plans of operation are subject to concern that we do not discuss the Sensitive Species Objectives (USDA FS reasonable regulations to protect BLM’s sensitive species program in the 2005, Manual 2670.22), which include: roadless characteristics, with mitigation proposed rule. This commenter wanted ‘‘Develop and implement management to offset potential impacts from us to describe ‘‘how grizzly bears will be practices to ensure that species do not development. Although motorized roads classified for planning and management become threatened or endangered and trails may occur in roadless areas, purposes on BLM lands post-delisting.’’ because of USFS actions and ‘‘Develop they are subject to forest travel Several commenters stated that the BLM and implement management objectives management plans. The roadless rule is must have regulatory mechanisms in for populations and/or habitat of no longer under judicial review and was place to protect grizzly bear habitat after sensitive species.’’ Following are the upheld by the Tenth Circuit Court of delisting, provide connectivity between regulatory definitions: Appeals in Wyoming v. United States habitats, and ensure adequate habitat Department of Agriculture, 661 F.3d. Sensitive Species: Those plant and animal protections are in place; commenters species identified by a regional forester for 1209 (10th Cir. 2011). If valid mining were concerned that these mechanisms which population viability is a concern, as claims are pursued, the plans of were missing or remained in drafts evidenced by: (1) Significant current or operation are subject to reasonable unavailable to the public. predicted downward trends in population regulations to protect wilderness values Response—Upon delisting, the GYE numbers or density; and (2) Significant with mitigation to offset potential effects grizzly bear will be classified as a current or predicted downward trends in from development. Although sensitive species by the BLM for at least habitat capability that would reduce a preexisting livestock permits are 5 years. A sensitive species is one species’ existing distribution. (USDA FS allowed under these designations, new ‘‘requiring special management 2005, Manual 2670.05). Species of Conservation Concern: For livestock allotments are not permitted in consideration to promote their purposes of this subpart, a species of these areas. conservation and reduce the likelihood conservation concern is a species, other than Issue 95—Some public commenters and need for future listing under the Federally recognized threatened, endangered, expressed concern about the USFS ESA’’ (BLM 2008). All land use and proposed, or candidate species, that is known plans and how they will be implementation plans must address the to occur in the plan area and for which the implemented. One commenter conservation of sensitive species regional forester has determined that the best expressed that the USFS’s 2005 through appropriate habitat available scientific information indicates guidelines for habitat outside the PCA management. Twenty-two percent of substantial concern about the species’ are not legally enforceable. One suitable habitat outside of the PCA is capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area. (36 CFR 219.9(c)). commenter suggested that, once managed by the BLM. This information delisting is finalized, the 2006 and the habitat protections provided by Issue 94—Some commenters were Amendment cannot simply be this designation have been added to concerned with the Service’s portrayal reinstated and implemented; the USFS both this final rule (see Factors A and of the USFS designations of Wilderness, needs to do a new planning and public D) and the 2016 Conservation Strategy WSA, and IRA and the protections each review process to amend their plans (YES 2016a, pp. 115–116). of these areas provide. Some felt that because the new 2016 Conservation Issue 93—We received some these designations are not restrictive Strategy changes the habitat protections comments from peer-reviewers and the enough to assume that there will be no that must be provided by existing forest public in reference to the USFS impact on grizzly bears living in those plans and removes the current tools and designation of the grizzly bear as a areas. In roadless areas, energy incentives. Commenters requested ‘‘sensitive species’’ or ‘‘species of development or road construction can additional detail on when these conservation concern’’ upon delisting. occur in conjunction with oil and gas amendments would be made and how Commenters and one peer-reviewer leases that pre-date the effective date of the public would be involved in the considered this USFS designation an the roadless rule. In addition, roadless review. A commenter noted that, after important component of ongoing areas allow for off-road vehicle use, delisting, NF lands must have management of grizzly bears. Some motorized ATV trails, and human mechanisms for protecting grizzly bears, commenters asked for specific statutory recreation, which may impact habitat. providing connectivity between and regulatory definitions for ‘‘sensitive Moreover, it cannot be assumed that habitats, and ensuring adequate habitat species’’ and ‘‘species of conservation there will be no changes to the roadless protections; commenters were concern’’ and the amount of protection rule as it is currently under judicial concerned that these mechanisms were afforded under each designation. review. In designated Wilderness and missing or remained in drafts Commenters expressed concern about WSAs, mining claims that pre-date the unavailable to the public. Lastly, while the different authority these USFS Wilderness Act may be pursued. some comments expressed that the designations provide and worried that Livestock grazing is also permitted on USFS plans are not regulatory because the new designation of ‘‘species of these lands. of the 2012 Planning Rule, others conservation concern’’ under the 2012 Response—In response to concerns expressed that the 2012 Planning Rule Planning Rule would not provide the about our portrayal of the USFS requires the USFS to consider same project-level prohibitions as the designations of Wilderness areas, WSAs, connectivity, including roads ‘‘sensitive species’’ designation. and IRAs in the proposed rule, revisions (permanent or temporary, open or Response—The inherent protections were made to the final rule (see Factors closed) and site development in light of afforded by the Sensitive Species A and D) that provide clarification to how they may increase human-bear designation and the Species of our description of the USFS conflicts and grizzly bear mortality. Conservation Concern and the designations of Wilderness, WSAs, and Response—In its 2011 decision, the Individual Species Direction are IRAs, and the protections each of these Ninth Circuit Court supported the comparable. All three are designed to designations provide. Although it is true Service’s conclusion that incorporation

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00108 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30609

of the 2007 Conservation Strategy’s to 20 percent of their genetic variability number of effective breeders (Nb) differ, habitat standards into legally in the last 100 years (Craighead et al. nor did we offer the benefits and enforceable national forest land undated). Other commenters warned of downsides of these different metrics management plans and the NPS’ the perils to small, isolated, low-genetic- from Kamath et al. (2015). This Superintendent’s compendia were variability populations from inbreeding, commenter also claimed that we did not adequate regulatory mechanisms. The genetic abnormalities, birth defects, low use the best available science in 2006 Forest Plan Amendment was reproductive rates, low survival rates, calculating Ne and Nb (the SF/SA or consistent with the habitat guidance in susceptibility to extinction from disease Sibling Frequency/Assignment method) the 2007 Conservation Strategy (USDA and parasites, and eventual population and instead used a method scientists FS 2006b, entire). Since 2007, the declines that can result in extinction or have yet to fully review (EPA or Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Shoshone, and speciation. Commenters pointed out Estimator of Parentage Assignments) Gallatin NFs have incorporated the that genomic changes are slow and take (Wang 2016; Waples 2016), which habitat direction in their forest plans decades to detect and that declines in overestimates trends in these amendments or revisions (Beaverhead- the GYE grizzly bear population will parameters. Deerlodge NF 2009, p. 47 and Appendix further deplete extant levels of genetic Conversely, one commenter stated G; Gallatin NF 2015, p. II–4 and diversity. that the scope of the discussion of Appendix G; Shoshone NF 2015, p. 39). A few commenters suggested genetics in the proposed rule was too The 2006 Forest Plan Amendment still potential additional analysis and broad and that the Service should stands for the Custer, Bridger-Teton, and modeling to consider in our analysis of instead clearly state that ‘‘current Caribou-Targhee NFs and will be genetic viability such as: (1) Models of genetic diversity sufficiently supports implemented when delisting is final. the rate of allele loss due to genetic drift the delisting decision and that future The six GYE NFs compared the 2007 at various population sizes (though the management of genetic diversity after and 2016 Conservation Strategies to long-term fitness implications of delisting is a separate matter to be assess if changes were necessary to the changes in allelic diversity are not well managed as described in the management direction in current forest understood); and (2) projections of the Conservation Strategy.’’ plans. They ‘‘concluded that current evolutionary health of the GYE grizzly Several public commenters raised forest plan direction meets the intent of, bear population. concerns over connectivity and how or is more protective than, the updated Several comments raised concerns genetic connections between grizzly 2016 Strategy.’’ over the scientific basis for our lower bear populations could become more Whereas minor differences in the limit of 500 bears for genetic viability, challenging to facilitate in a post- application rules and monitoring saying this threshold ensures only short- delisting environment (see Issue 50 for requirements indicate that the plans term genetic fitness and is based on a more detailed discussion of public and will need administrative change, outdated science (Franklin 1980) when peer-reviewer concerns about amendment, or revision, these more recent critical assessments of this connectivity). Commenters claimed that differences do not impact the adequate standard are available (Frankham et al. lack of connectivity to other grizzly bear regulatory mechanisms in current forest 2014; Ewens 1990); States suggested that populations, habitat fragmentation, and plans (Schmid 2017, in litt.). Although we incorrectly suggested that 500 bears habitat loss present a ‘‘long-term genetic some of the current forest plans fall is required for short-term genetic fitness risk for Yellowstone grizzlies’’ under the 1982 Planning Rule, any when Miller and Waits (2003) require (Haroldson et al. 2010). One commenter revisions and amendments would be in only 400. Commenters thought felt that reintroductions into other compliance with the 2012 Planning anywhere from 500 bears to 19,800 ecosystems were the best option to Rule. Under the 2012 Planning Rule, bears were necessary for long-term expand the gene pool, restore gene flow, forest plan revisions and amendments genetic viability (Frankham et al., 2013); and increase fitness. Another must use the best available science and they suggested that the current actual or commenter even suggested periodic are subject to the same public process effective population size in the GYE is transplants from Canada to enhance and litigation as they were previously. not sufficiently large to ensure long- genetic diversity. One comment stated In contrast to the 1982 Planning Rule, term genetic viability. that we dismissed the need for compliance with both standards and Other commenters took issue with our immigration in our proposed rule and guidelines are required under the 2012 calculation and analysis of effective that the 2016 Conservation Strategy and Planning Rule. Projects occurring on population size. A few commenters the Tri-State MOA do not commit to Federal lands, such as road thought the actual effective population providing transplants to ensure genetic development, timber projects, and oil, size was lower than the 469 bears we quality; commenters suggested that, gas, and mining projects, must undergo reported and thus not yet at the long- without binding commitments to NEPA analysis to evaluate impacts on term viable population criterion of more connecting the GYE to northern grizzly bears and their habitat whether than 500 bears because: (1) ‘‘effective populations, ensuring limited mortality the grizzly bear is listed or delisted. population size is approximately 25–27 in connective corridors, and percent of total population size,’’ transplanting bears, the genetic health Genetic Health Issues (Factor E) suggesting a true effective population and evolutionary capacity of the GYE Issue 96—Public commenters raised size of only 179 bears given recent population would be at risk. concerns about the scientific rigor of our population estimates (Allendorf et al. Many commenters weighed in on analysis of genetic viability. Many 1991, p. 650; Miller and Waits 2003; potential transplant programs. One commenters suggested that the isolated Groom et al. 2006, p. 405); and (2) we commenter asked us to provide more GYE grizzly bear population has a selectively reported the upper end of the justification behind our assertion that shrinking gene pool and lacks genetic effective population estimate of 469 one to two immigrants or transplants diversity since: (1) The population bears when we should have chosen the per generation is an adequate level of resulted from a genetic bottleneck, (2) more conservative estimates discussed gene flow into the GYE (Miller and the population has lacked connection to by Kamath et al. (2015). One commenter Waits 2003). Some commenters any other grizzly bears for over a opined that we did not explain how suggested that managers would need to century, and (3) the bears have lost 15 effective population size (Ne) and transplant anywhere from 7 to 15 bears

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00109 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30610 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

per decade into the GYE considering the bears may be needed, depending on that EPA-based estimates are not likelihood of survival and reproduction. survival and reproductive success of the reliable or somehow inferior to other One commenter worried that a migrants. See YES (2016a, pp. 51–53) techniques. Kamath et al. (2015, entire) translocation program would be labor and discussion under Factor E in this based their inference on multiple intensive and could jeopardize the final rule for more information. This techniques for estimating effective health of the source population, movement of grizzly bears between population size, and explicitly especially if managers aim to move ecosystems may occur naturally or discussed their benefits and caveats. mostly females into the GYE. A few through management intervention. If Regardless, although the EPA technique commenters stated that management management intervention is used, such to estimate Ne is relatively new, it has should place more effort on facilitating translocations are not expected to have been reliably applied to numerous natural dispersal instead of relying on any discernible impact on the source species, including other brown bear translocations. The States requested population because of the relatively populations. removal of any language suggesting small number of bears needed and the Although the current Ne of 469 migrants will be necessary for genetic timeframe of 10 years—and particularly (Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5512) is health of the GYE population and that because the most likely source approaching, but has not reached, the the final rule more explicitly state that population (NCDE) is healthy and large long-term viable population criterion of ‘‘genetic connectivity is not required for in size. Regardless of the method, the an Ne 500 bears (Franklin 1980), we are delisting, and that the genetic health of Service is confident that genetic confident that the, as yet, lack of Ne the GYE DPS is very strong.’’ impoverishment will not threaten the does not currently pose a risk to the Response—Our analysis of genetic GYE grizzly bear population. GYE grizzly bear population’s viability. viability is based on peer-reviewed Connectivity between the GYE and The Ne has increased nearly 4-fold since literature that specifically addresses the NCDE is a long-term goal for the 1982, combined with a lack of evidence genetics of the GYE grizzly bears, as State of Montana, as set out in their of loss of genetic diversity (only 0.2 well as other relevant genetic literature. Grizzly Bear Management Plan for percent rate of inbreeding) during 1985 Kamath et al. (2015, entire), combined Southwestern Montana (MFWP 2013, to 2010, and more than a 3-fold increase with Miller and Waits (2003, entire), pp. 41–44). This connectivity would in Ne (variance effective or Nev) since suggests that although the GYE grizzly provide the desired gene flow for long- the early 1900s, based on both Kamath bear population is isolated there is no term genetic fitness of the GYE et al. (2015, entire) and genetic factors. evidence of a ‘‘shrinking gene pool.’’ population. Frankham et al. (2014, The high ratio of effective population Although the current effective entire) reviewed the 50/500 rule of size to census population size (Ne/Nc) of population size for the GYE grizzly bear Franklin (1980, entire) and proposed an 0.66 reported by Kamath et al. (2015, p. is lower than what is recommended by upward revision to at least 100/1000, to 5513) most likely reflects the published literature on evolutionary which Franklin et al. (2014, entire) underestimation bias of the Chao2 theory (e.g., Franklin 1980, p. 136) for published a rebuttal stating that, estimator (see Issues 16 and 28). These evolutionary success in the absence of although a larger effective population ratios were lower when using the Mark- management, it is important to note that size is preferable, Frankham et al. (2014, Resight estimate (Ne/Nc = 0.42), the recommendation is based on non- entire) ignored the fact that natural suggesting that the Mark-Resight managed populations. We remain selection operates on phenotypes and estimate is much closer to the true confident that genetic management for the 50/500 is still appropriate guidance. population size than the Chao2 estimate the GYE grizzly bear population will Ewens’ (1990, entire) concerns with (Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5517). However, effectively address future genetic Franklin’s (1980, entire) 50/500 rule Mark-Resight is not the best available concerns (Hedrick 1995, p. 1004; Miller arise from their misinterpretation that science because investigations into and Waits, p. 4338). 500 is a minimum population size Mark-Resight discovered that it was Because it is generally accepted that derived from an Ne of 50 when the 50/ unable to accurately detect population isolated populations are at greater risk 500 rule is the Ne for short-term and trend. In addition, reported ratios of of extinction over the long term, the long-term genetic fitness, respectively. Ne/Nc have varied widely across grizzly 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, Our analysis of Ne using 469 bears bear populations (0.04–0.6; Paetkau et pp. 82–84) identifies and commits to a reflects one method (EPA or Estimator al. 1998, p. 424; Miller and Waits 2003, protocol to encourage natural habitat of Parentage Assignment) reported by p. 4337; Schregel et al. 2012, p. 3482), connectivity between the GYE and other Kamath et al. (2015, p. 5512), which with the ratios of 0.42–0.66 falling grizzly bear ecosystems. Although shows a 4-fold increase when compared towards the upper middle of that range. natural connectivity is the best possible to the same method applied to historical Recovery criterion #1 identifies 500 scenario, isolation does not constitute a data of 102 in 1982. Other methods used individuals as a minimum population to threat to the GYE grizzly bear in the both by Kamath et al. (2015, pp. 5512– ensure short-term genetic fitness and is foreseeable future because of intensive 5514) and historically by Miller and not a population goal. Five hundred monitoring and adaptive management Waits (2003, p. 4337) did result in lower bears provides a buffer above the total strategies that will remain in effect post- estimates of Ne, but with a consistent population of 400 (Ne of 100) delisting. Based on the best available trend of all methods showing a recommended by Miller and Waits science (Miller and Waits 2003, p. significant increase in the Ne from (2003, p. 4338) for short-term genetic 4338), the Service concludes that the historical data to 2007. Wildlife genetics health. genetic diversity of the GYE grizzly bear is a rapidly evolving and technical field, Indicators of fitness in the GYE population will be adequately where the use of newly developed population demonstrate that the current maintained by the immigration or techniques and approaches is levels of genetic heterozygosity are relocation of one to two effective commonplace. Wang (2016, entire), for adequate, as evidenced by measures migrants from the NCDE every 10 years. example, compared the accuracies of such as litter size, little evidence of Effective migrant is defined as a bear different single-sample estimators of Ne, disease, high survivorship, an equal sex from another ecosystem that breeds with but those analyses did not directly ratio, normal body size and physical GYE bears and successfully reproduces. compare estimates with those in Kamath characteristics, and a stable to Thus, immigration of more than 1 or 2 et al. (2015), nor did the author suggest increasing population. None of these

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30611

indicators provide any evidence that from observational studies, which observed, and the IGBST documented inbreeding has affected fitness, and makes it difficult to isolate the effects of those declines were greater in areas with research on other species (e.g., Florida individual variables or rule out other higher grizzly bear densities and were panther) indicates such effects typically confounding drivers of birth and death not associated with decline of whitebark manifest themselves only at extremely rates, such as spatial and temporal pine tree cover (van Manen et al. 2016, small population sizes. These indicators correlations. Finally, one commenter p. 308). of fitness will be monitored annually, in claimed that the three IGBST papers The vital rates that showed the perpetuity. The very low rate of loss of (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, Costello et al. greatest change, and caused the slowing heterozygosity over the 20th century, in 2014, and van Manen et al. 2015) did of population growth since the early combination with the introduction of 1 not account for long-term weather 2000s, are lower cub and yearling or 2 effective migrants per generation trends or changes in the abundance of survival (i.e., lower recruitment into the (naturally or through augmentation), key foods (i.e., army cutworm moths, population). The IGBST investigated if will ensure long-term genetic viability, cutthroat trout, and ungulates) other the decline in cub and yearling survival and the recovered status, of the GYE than whitebark pine in their analysis of could be a function of decline in food vital rates. grizzly bear DPS (Miller and Waits 2003, resources (whitebark pine) or whether Response—In their papers and p. 4338). Although Miller and Waits associated with grizzly bear density. reports, the IGBST recognized a (2003, p. 4338) measured a decline in Survival of cubs-of-the-year was lower allelic richness from the 1910s to the potential decline in the trend of percent body fat among females after 2006, as in areas with higher grizzly bear 1990s it had not declined as densities but showed no association precipitously as previously anticipated, presented in Schwartz et al. (2014a, p. 73). However, the IGBST also clarified with estimates of decline in whitebark and Kamath et al. (2015, p. 5512) pine tree cover, suggesting that grizzly showed no statistical support for a that those findings provided weak inference because they were based on bear density contributed to the slowing decline in mean allelic richness from of population growth (van Manen et al. 1985 to 2010. Based on all of the very small annual sample sizes and that additional investigations were needed. 2016, p. 308). Other studies support the information available that examines interpretation of density effects playing heterozygosity and allelic diversity in For example, extending the female body fat figure from Schwartz et al. (2014a, p. an increasingly important role in the the GYE grizzly bear population, ecology of GYE’s grizzly bears (Schwartz researchers concluded that genetic 73) by several more years (see figure 4; IGBST, unpublished data), provides a et al. 2006b, p. 1; Bjornlie et al. 2014b, factors are unlikely to compromise the p. 5). viability of the population in the near stable instead of decreasing trend, future (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338; which is why interpretation of sparse There were no compelling reasons to Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5517). The IGBST data should be done cautiously. This is investigate the direct relationship of will continue to monitor genetic also why the IGBST in the Food long-term weather patterns on habitat diversity in the GYE grizzly bear Synthesis report (IGBST 2013, pp. 18– selection, home-range sizes, or population as set forth in the 2016 20) presented an alternative analysis of demographics of grizzly bears; no Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. body fat data, with appropriate caveats, literature exists that suggests such 51–53). Although genetic connectivity is that did not support the hypothesis that relationships exist. Of course, changes not necessary for the current genetic the rate of body fat gain over the active in climate may affect the distribution health of the GYE grizzly bear season was different for the period and availability of key foods, such as population, it is desired. before versus after the period of peak army cutworm moths, cutthroat trout, whitebark pine decline. and ungulates, but those relationships Food Resources Issues (Factor E) We contend that a key point regarding have not been sufficiently studied to Issue 97—Public commenters female body condition, changes in food incorporate those into the analyses. challenged the validity of our analysis resources, and reproduction has been Furthermore, with the exception of of the effects of food availability on overlooked: Female grizzly bears cutthroat trout, which can be measured grizzly bear health, citing potential without adequate nutrition to support but is a local food resource, no reliable flaws in our conclusion that female reproduction, especially in YNP where metrics exist to measure the distribution grizzly bears have sufficient body fat bear densities are high and from where and availability of army cutworm moths including: (1) A study by Schwartz et al. the fall sample of female percent body or ungulates, let alone the ability to (2013), which shows a recent decline in fat is taken, would not support the trend measure their temporal and spatial body fat among female grizzly bears; (2) in counts of females with cubs-of-the- variation. The focus of the analyses in suggestions that the study we referenced year within YNP, or the entire these 3 papers (in their entirety: Bjornlie ‘‘included bears that were not captured ecosystem (see YES 2016a, figures 3 and et al. 2014b, Costello et al. 2014, and specifically for monitoring change in 4). For example, the highest counts of van Manen et al. 2016) was on body fat levels’’ and only ‘‘included females with cubs-of-the-year were in whitebark pine because of (1) the female grizzly bear fat level data from 2013 and 2014, approximately 6 to 7 documented relationships between spring and summer;’’ and (3) notes that years after the peak of whitebark decline some grizzly bear vital rates and even if females have adequate levels of and more than a decade after the start whitebark pine cone production; (2) the body fat in the spring and summer, they of decline. Additionally, compared with existence of long-term, annual could still be fat deficient in the fall. the body fat data, the inference based on monitoring data of whitebark pine cone Other commenters worried about the vital rates (i.e., survival of different sex production, and the ability to estimate defensibility of the IGBST’s models and age classes, fecundity) is much decline in canopy cover of mapped analyzing the effects of food availability stronger and does not support the whitebark pine; and (3) the emphasis on on grizzly bear populations; these hypothesis that food resources have whitebark pine in the litigation commenters noted that much of the affected reproductive rates. Only a associated with the 2007 delisting rule IGBST’s data for these models comes moderate decline in fecundity has been (72 FR 14866, March 29, 2007).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00111 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30612 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Issue 98—Both public commenters suggested continued monitoring of the Rather than use such a compounded and peer-reviewers suggested additional relationship between the availability of uncertainty approach, the management monitoring and analysis of the the four main food sources, grizzly bear system outlined in the 2016 availability of food sources and the use of the four main food sources, vital Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. potential impacts to grizzly bear health. rates for the GYE population, and body 33–85) depends on monitoring of Commenters suggested: (1) An analysis condition of grizzly bears. multiple indices including production of the movements and home-ranges of Response—The amount and and availability of the four high-caloric females with cubs because, if the home availability of the four high-caloric foods; and monitoring of grizzly bear ranges are decreasing, it could bolster foods for grizzly bears will likely vital rates including survival, age at first claims that the population is fluctuate due to possible changes in reproduction, reproductive rate, cub approaching biological carrying average temperature, precipitation, survival, mortality cause and location, capacity; (2) discussion of the different forest fires, introduced species, and dispersal, and human-bear conflicts. hazard levels associated with acquiring resident insects. Changes in The IGBST will annually report to the different types of high-quality food and environmental conditions and resulting YGCC on the monitoring results of food whether these hazards are primarily changes in foods for grizzly bears have production, bear mortality, and females relevant to dependent young, been recognized by management with cubs-of-the-year. In addition, the independent bears, or both; and (3) agencies throughout the recovery IGBST will conduct a demographic measurement of habitat in terms of food process (see Factor E: Catastrophic monitoring review of the population value, with annual and seasonal Events in the rule for further variations noted. A few commenters discussion). That such changes will vital rates every 5 to 10 years. The worried that the 2016 Conservation occur is neither exceptional nor relationships between these factors will Strategy stated that the IGBST would unexpected. The key issue is detect any impacts of changes in foods monitor the four main food sources only determining if and how bears are on bear viability in the ecosystem and ‘‘as budgets allow;’’ this commenter adapting to such changes and how will be the basis for an adaptive wondered why the IGBST, and not any management agencies can facilitate management response by the YGCC to other entity, had this ‘‘escape clause’’ adaptation. The compounded address poor food years with responsive and how the Service could justify uncertainties associated with actions such as limiting grizzly bear allowing this caveat on food source projections of possible future habitat mortality, increasing I&E efforts, and monitoring since lack of sufficient changes, predicted responses of grizzly long-term habitat restoration (e.g., monitoring of food sources should bears to multiple possible future revegetation, prescribed burning), as trigger a status review. Peer-reviewers conditions, and assumed changes to appropriate. The continued monitoring suggested a regular review of the whole vital rates in response to any such of these multiple indices will allow grizzly bear diet in the GYE. And both possible future habitat changes create a rapid feedback on the success of peer-reviewers and public commenters wide realm of possible responses. management actions to address the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00112 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 ER30JN17.254 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30613

objective of maintaining a recovered foods opportunistically; (4) the list of The use of the four high-caloric foods population. more than 200 grizzly bear foods cited should not be interpreted that these Future studies will be directed to in Gunther et al. (2014) is inflated foods are essential for a sustainable address further questions regarding because to a bear ‘‘a grass is a grass;’’ (5) grizzly bear population in the GYE. In grizzly bear responses to changing food the use of false truffles during poor the 2013 Food Synthesis Report, the resources and changing environmental whitebark pine years was only IGBST suggested a paradigm shift may conditions. Female home ranges documented in the core of the be needed in reference to the decreased in size from the period of ecosystem and there was also no importance of whitebark pine to grizzly 1989 to 1999 and 2007 to 2012 with the indication of the nutritional value of bears (see IGBST 2013). When decrease being greater in areas with this food source; and (6) bear densities comparing one food item to another, it higher grizzly bear densities, supporting vary widely depending on habitat is unrealistic to expect that any evidence that the population is reaching productivity (Mowat et al. 2013), which alternative food is fully comparable in carrying capacity (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, commenters suggested ran counter to the factors mentioned above (e.g., risk, pp. 4–6). our claims that grizzly bears are nutritional value). Even when the full It is impossible to calculate with any extremely flexible in their diet and thus suite of alternative foods is considered, degree of certainty the extent to which resilient to changes in food abundance. this would be an unrealistic natural foods will change across the Commenters noted that the nutritional expectation. Ultimately, what matters is landscape and any resulting effects on value (i.e., fat, protein, and gross that use of alternative food resources bears. With the exception of whitebark energy), seasonal abundance, and risk does not substantially affect bears at pine, there are no documented and energetic cost of obtaining any either the individual level (e.g., body relationships among grizzly bear alternative food source must be condition, home-range size) or the demographic rates and the consumption comparable to the four main food population level (e.g., does not affect of other grizzly bear foods, such as sources. One commenter expressed vital rates or mortality patterns). These cutthroat trout, army cutworm moths, or concern that the Food Synthesis Report issues were thoroughly addressed in the ungulates. It is important to note that does the minimum to satisfy the Food Synthesis Report and associated the annual abundance and distribution requirement of the Ninth Circuit ruling; peer-reviewed publications (in their of whitebark pine seeds, as well as other the commenter argued that researchers entirety: IGBST 2013; Bjornlie et al. food sources, vary naturally, annually should have done a robust assessment of 2014b; Costello et al. 2014; Gunther et and spatially, and are not predictable. the four key food sources, at the very al. 2014; Schwartz et al. 2014a, 2014b; Thus, it is not biologically possible to least, to detect diet changes. van Manen et al. 2016; Ebinger et al. define ‘‘baseline’’ levels for various Response—Aside from the well- 2016; Haroldson et al., in prep.). The foods, and the monitoring system documented association between IGBST conducted extensive analyses as discussed above is a more robust whitebark pine cone crop size and part of the Food Synthesis Report and approach. During years with little or no subsequent management actions on addressed multiple research hypotheses whitebark pine seed production, grizzly grizzly bears (Mattson et al. 1992, p. to increase confidence in their ability to bears switch to alternative foods. 432), we have not been able to detect draw inferences from the data; this Indeed, the effect of whitebark pine any cause-effect relationships between analysis resulted in seven peer-reviewed crops on survival of independent-aged abundances of the three other major journal articles, several associated grizzly bears is relatively minor: For foods and grizzly bear vital rates. Those reports, and a number of popular example, based on Haroldson et al. foods have either fluctuated (e.g., science articles. Therefore the (2006, p. 39), annual survival among ungulates, army cutworm moths) or suggestion that this comprehensive female bears that were not involved declined (e.g., cutthroat trout) during with conflicts varied very little and was the period in which the GYE grizzly research effort ‘‘does the minimum to 94.7 percent, 95.7 percent, and 96.5 bear population was stable to satisfy the requirement of the Ninth percent after years with median increasing. Circuit ruling’’ is not factual. whitebark pine counts of 0 (i.e., no While we agree that the extent to Although we agree that, in general, to crop), 7.5 (average crop), and 15 (high which grizzly bears might be able to a bear ‘‘a grass is a grass,’’ grizzly bears crop), respectively. compensate for the loss of one of the feed on multiple species in each The caveat of food source monitoring four major foods is unknown, the final phylogenetic kingdom including: 162 ‘‘as budgets allow’’ has been removed rule discusses and relies upon the best plant species (4 aquatics, 4 ferns and from the 2016 Conservation Strategy. scientific and commercial data fern allies, 85 forbs, 31 graminoids, 31 Please see Issue 85 for further available. Future food source shrubs, and 7 trees); 7 fungi species; 70 discussion on funding being a trigger for availability and the possible grizzly bear animal species (1 , 3 birds, 4 a status review. reaction to those possible future changes fish, 26 mammals, 33 insects, 1 mollusk, Issue 99—Several public commenters are discussed under Factor E, above, 1 segmented worm, and 1 spider); and asserted that we inaccurately and in Issue 98. We also agree that 1 protista (algae). Within the plant downplayed the importance of the four human-caused mortality is probably the kingdom, energy content may be as high main food sources. Commenters major factor limiting grizzly bear as 2.52 kilocalories/gram (kcal/g) for suggested that the four main food populations, although mortality can be grasses and sedges to 4.83 kcal/g for sources are still uniquely important mediated by food availability (Mattson clover (whitebark pine seeds are 3.24 because: (1) The IGBST continues to et al. 1992, p. 432). The IGBST will kcal/g); protein content may be as high monitor only these four food sources; (2) continue to monitor major food as 21.1 percent for bear grass to 39 fat is especially important and is abundance and grizzly bear conflicts percent for the pre-flowering foliage of uniquely abundant in army cutworm and mortalities. The combination of spring beauty; fat content may be as moths, whitebark pine seeds, and late- results and IGBST analyses from these high as 15.6 percent for bear grass to season ungulates (Mattson et al. 2004; multiple monitoring indices on foods, 30.5 percent for whitebark pine seeds; Erlenbach et al. 2014); (3) historically, bear vital rates, and bear-human and carbohydrate content averaged 55 grizzly bears have relied on the four conflicts will allow managers to respond percent for berry species and was as main food sources and only fed on other to changes as necessary (see Issue 98). high as 88.8 percent for onion grass

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00113 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30614 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

bulbs (Gunther et al. 2014, pp. 63–64). corresponding declines in a habitat’s studies suggest that carrying capacity for Macronutrients vary widely between carrying capacity for grizzly bears. grizzly bears in the GYE is not so much plant species and within plant species Peer-reviewers and commenters also a function of available food resources as they mature, with new growth having provided input on potential but more a function of high bear density the highest protein content, and management of declining food sources. in portions of the ecosystem. Body fat between plant parts (Robbins 1993, A peer-reviewer disagreed with our data for females in the GYE collected entire). Grizzly bears are a generalist statement that ‘‘land managers have beyond those presented by Schwartz et omnivore, which allows them to little influence on how calories are al. (2014a, pp. 72–73) (i.e., since 2011) optimize their fitness by adjusting their spread across the landscape’’ and were well above the 20 percent energy and macronutrient intake (i.e., suggested a few examples of threshold for reproduction published by protein, fat, and carbohydrates) management actions that affect food Robbins et al. (2012, p. 543). (Erlenbach et al. 2014, pp. 163–164). distribution, including: ‘‘increasing Several of the suggestions for Research by Fortin et al. (2013a, p. 277) ungulate densities through improving management of declining food sources that found females using false truffles in habitat and controlling hunting harvest; are already being implemented (e.g., the absence of whitebark pine were improving fish stocks and habitat; cutthroat trout restoration in focused around the Yellowstone Lake controlling invasive species to protect Yellowstone Lake, invasive species area; however, Gunther et al.’s (2014, native food resources desired by grizzly control) by land managers. Additionally, entire) study shows the magnitude of bears;’’ and increasing bison some food resources that grizzly bears diet fluctuation of grizzly bears populations by limiting lethal control of consume are not native (at least 13 throughout the GYE, and the Food bison as a means of managing species; Gunther et al. 2014, p. 63) and Synthesis Report (IGBST 2013, entire) brucellosis. One commenter suggested may even be considered invasive. does not show any substantial effects to that the grizzly bear should not be Finally, several of these suggestions may grizzly bears at the individual or delisted because its food sources are not be feasible for managers to population level as a result of switching declining and it has restricted access to implement as they would require from declining whitebark pine resources additional food sources outside a managers to disregard other priorities. to using alternative food sources. protected range. For example, bison populations actually Additionally, false truffles averaged 4.8 Response—The comments we have to be culled occasionally to kcal/g and 11.3 percent crude protein received about the potential effects of prevent ecological damage due to (Fortin data, unpublished), which is declines in food sources are addressed overpopulation; therefore, increasing close to the highest energy found for by summarizing several key findings of the bison population size is not a viable plants as discussed in Gunther et al. the Food Synthesis Report (IGBST 2013, option. The IGBST will continue entire) and associated peer-reviewed (2014, p. 63). demographic monitoring of the GYE publications (see Issue 37 and Factor E grizzly bear population and will present We do not dispute that bear densities for more details). The overall findings of their findings to the YGCC, who could vary widely between ecosystems the Synthesis Report provided evidence then decide if modifications to the 2016 depending on habitat productivity, as it that grizzly bear responses to changing Conservation Strategy were necessary. is one factor that may change carrying food resources were primarily Issue 101—Commenters asserted that capacity in an ecosystem; however, the behavioral, with bears demonstrating grizzly bears have grown to depend on ability of grizzly bears to survive in such substantial capacity to adjust their diets army cutworm moths and benefit from a variety of habitat types with large to include alternative foods. If overall their consumption; specifically, (1) differences in available food sources food resources were declining, we grizzly bears had almost no (i.e., coastal salmon-eating bears to would expect daily movements, fall consumption of the moths in the 1980s interior bears that are largely movements, and home-range sizes to but had high sustained use in the 1990s; herbivorous) is a testament to their increase if bears were roaming more and (2) moths are a high-fat-content dietary flexibility. In addition, there is widely in search of foods, as suggested food source (leading to greater no evidence that carrying capacity has by commenters. However, movement fecundity) and that the remoteness of declined in the GYE (van Manen et al. rates did not change during 2002 to most moth sites has led to a reduction 2016, p. 309). Ongoing demographic 2011, suggesting that grizzly bears were in human-caused mortality. As such, monitoring by the IGBST would be able finding alternative foods within their one commenter suggested that use of to detect such a decline and be reported home ranges (Costello et al. 2014, p. army cutworm moths must be to the YGCC for appropriate adaptive 2013). For females, home ranges encouraged. However, another management, should it be deemed actually decreased in size from the commenter noted that there is a high necessary, to maintain a recovered period before (1989 to 1999) to after correlation between moth habitat and grizzly bear population in the GYE. (2007 to 2012) whitebark pine decline, grazing allotment location, thus Issue 100—We received several whereas male home ranges did not potentially increasing the risk of comments from the public regarding change in size (Bjornlie et al. 2014b). human-caused mortality. current and future effects of reported This decrease in female home range size Commenters maintained that we did declines in food resources, including: was greater in areas with higher grizzly not account for the effect of increasing (1) Increased home range size and bear densities but showed no moth use on birth and death rates and, dispersal distance as an effort to find relationship with amount of live without this analysis, we cannot food, which could lead to increased bear whitebark pine in the home range determine ‘‘future effects of losses of mortalities; (2) changes in birth and (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, pp. 4–6). Finally, this food on the population.’’ death rates; (3) past declines in the at the population level, bear density, but Commenters suggested reasons to worry population growth rate from the 4 to 7 not whitebark pine decline, was about recent declines in and the future percent annual increases to 0.3 to 2.2 associated with lower cub survival and abundance of moths, and the associated percent annual increases; and (4) leaner slightly lower fecundity, factors directly health of grizzly bears, including: (1) female bears that will not produce as contributing to the slowing of Concerns about the unknown responses many cubs. A peer-reviewer suggested population growth since the early of moths if up to 90 percent of the that declines in food sources could have 2000s. The combined findings of these subalpine and alpine habitat upon

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30615

which they depend is lost by 2099, as including survival, and, therefore, the low levels (8 fish per bear; Felicetti et is predicted in some climate change direct monitoring of army cutworm al. 2004, p. 499). However, the GYE models; (2) concerns about the potential moth abundance and status is not grizzly bear population continued to impacts of pesticide use and new necessary at this time. grow through the 1990s and did not farming technologies; and (3) Issue 102—Commenters had concerns slow until the early 2000s, with a shift suggestions that the USFS needs to about the status of cutthroat trout. Citing to stable population rate attributed to address the issue of human activity at Haroldson et al. (2005), one commenter the increasing density of grizzly bears moth aggregation sites and the potential challenged our assertion that only a within the GYE core (IGBST 2013, p. disturbance to grizzly bears feeding at small portion of GYE bears use cutthroat 31). The fact that cutthroat trout those sites. One commenter stated that trout and claimed that 15 percent or consumption has not directly all of the 31 known army cutworm moth more of GYE grizzly bears eat this food influenced population-wide growth sites are located on USFS lands source: Another commenter suggested rates may be due to (1) limited, regional (Gunther 2014); 6 of those sites are increasing usage should be encouraged. use of cutthroat trout by only a segment located outside of the PCA. Though One commenter questioned the of the population, and (2) the commenters worried about potential disparity between males and females in demonstrated ability of female bears to future declines in moths, a peer- their use of cutthroat trout that Mattson perhaps augment losses from cutthroat reviewer noted that ‘‘bear use of army and Reinhardt (1995) discuss in contrast trout with other available high-quality cutworm moth sites may not be a good to Haroldson et al. (2005) and Felicetti food items (Fortin et al. 2013a, p. 277; measure of cutworm moth relative et al. (2004). IGBST 2013, pp. 21–22; Ebinger et al. abundance because grizzly bears may Several comments stated that there 2016, p. 704). return to areas where they’ve found has been a substantial decrease (almost As stated previously, trout abundant food sources in the past even 90 percent) in the cutthroat population consumption by female grizzly bears though those resources are not present.’’ due to predation by nonnative lake was quite low in the late nineties and Response—The final rule contains a trout, declines in winter snowfall, total continued at similarly low levels into discussion of the potential effects of lack of spawning in all tributaries of the late 2000s (Felicetti et al. 2004, p. both global climate change and Yellowstone Lake, increased drought, 496; Fortin et al. 2013a, p. 276). Earlier pesticides on army cutworm moths. and subsequent reductions of in-stream studies contend that female use of There is no evidence to suggest that flows; commenters suggested that these cutthroat trout was higher than that of spraying of army cutworm moths has negative population trends are likely to males in the late 1980s (Reinhart and any population-level effects on grizzly continue, especially as warmer Mattson 1990, p. 347; Mattson and bears (Robison et al. 2006b, pp. 1706– temperatures could increase incidence Reinhart 1995, p. 2075). Discrepancies 1710). The Shoshone NF is cooperating of whirling disease. One commenter in results regarding male versus female with other agencies to gain knowledge recommended that more information be grizzly bear use of trout may be due to about the ecology of army cutworm provided regarding future populations either true shifts in bear behavior, or moths, grizzly bear use of moth sites, of trout including impacts to cutthroat methods used within studies. Earlier and grizzly bear-human interactions at trout from lake trout, future studies relied on telemetry, track sizes, moth sites (Shoshone NF 2015, p. 45). management of lake trout, future and proximity to streams to estimate New permitted activities at moth sites vulnerability of cutthroat trout to consumption of fish by males and are restricted until a comprehensive pathogens, and future impacts from females and also assumed equality of site-management plan is developed climate change. trout intake based upon time spent near (Shoshone NF 2015, p. 41). It is highly Commenters suggested that cutthroat streams (Reinhart and Mattson 1990, pp. unlikely that any of the high-elevation trout declines have affected, and will 344–345; Mattson and Reinhart 1995, sites used by the moths, all of which are continue to affect, GYE grizzly bears pp. 2073–2074). Later studies used DNA on public lands, will be exposed to because: (1) The loss of cutthroat trout and mercury analysis techniques to development. has left a seasonal gap in the diet of more precisely establish sex of There is no accurate method available grizzly bears, which bears have filled by individual bears and estimate fish to monitor moth numbers across consuming elk calves and lower quality consumption (Haroldson et al. 2005, pp. thousands of square kilometers of alpine vegetation (Fortin et al. 2013a, 170–172; Felicetti et al. 2004, pp. 494– habitat. The current, best available Middleton et al. 2013, Ebinger et al. 496; Fortin et al. 2013a, pp. 274–275; method quantifies bear use of moth sites 2016), which has likely led to decreases Teisberg et al. 2014a, pp. 370–372). as an index of moth presence and in cub and yearling survival; and (2) a Because of these differences, no directly distribution. Although it is known that decline in cutthroat trout has decreased comparable estimates exist of female use moth abundance fluctuates in the spring carrying capacity in the core of YNP. of trout before 1997. on agricultural lands on the plains Response—Prior to the 1990s, The Service encourages ongoing (Burton et al. 1980, pp. 4–5) and that spawning cutthroat trout provided a efforts to control the lake trout moth flights vary in magnitude along seasonal food resource for a segment of population in Yellowstone Lake. Recent their migration routes (Hendricks 1998, GYE grizzly bears residing adjacent to streamside counts indicate that numbers p. 165), we are not able to predict where the Yellowstone Lake basin. Since highs of spawning cutthroat trout are army cutworm moths will occur on the in the 1970s and 1980s, the cutthroat increasing on some tributary streams landscape each year except by observing trout population has decreased to less (Gunther et al. 2016, p. 44). Yet, where bears use this food source. The than 10 percent of historical numbers numbers are still at levels far lower than IGBST is currently sponsoring the due to predation by non-native lake those expected to provide any development of spatial models to trout (Salvelinus namaycush), whirling meaningful resource to grizzly bears in predict locations of potential army disease (Myxoblus cerebralis), and the vicinity of Yellowstone Lake. See cutworm moth habitat (Robison et al. drought (Koel et al. 2005p. 16). By as Issue 99 for details regarding correlation 2006a, p. 88). The IGBST has not early as 1997, estimates of annual of grizzly bear populations and food documented an association between consumption of fish by bears had resources. grizzly bear use of moth aggregation decreased by 89 percent, with female Issue 103—Many public commenters sites and variation in vital rates, consumption estimated at exceedingly weighed in on whether whitebark pines,

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00115 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30616 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

a grizzly bear food source, are declining. of beetles and blister rust). Conversely, and how the use of pooled data and Some commenters believed whitebark other commenters suggested that the small sample size can contribute to pines are not currently declining or are decline in whitebark pine is a more Type II errors. not at risk of future decline because serious stressor on the GYE grizzly bear A number of commenters suggested whitebark pines will eventually population than we acknowledged in we consider additional analyses, such regenerate, ameliorating the losses that our proposed rule because: (1) as: (1) The creation of a cone availability have occurred, and because cone Whitebark pine is the most important index to more accurately assess production on remaining whitebark food source for GYE grizzly bear; (2) we availability; (2) analysis of the fungi that pine trees has doubled, although overlooked how whitebark pine die-offs grow symbiotically with whitebark pine, perhaps only temporarily in recent and grizzly bear vital rates declined since the health and survival of the pine years, potentially as a result of warmer simultaneously; (3) despite current and the fungi are closely related; (3) temperatures. Other commenters positive grizzly bear population growth monitoring of additional transects in provided evidence that whitebark pines rates, the threat of declining whitebark wilderness areas southeast, east, north, are in decline (from blister rust and pine pine could still be substantial and the and west of YNP; (4) statistical analysis beetle infestations) and that this grizzly bear population may be to determine whether GYE grizzly bear negative population trend will continue unhealthy; (4) contrary to our analysis mortality correlates more closely with into the future, including: (1) Notes that in the proposed rule, the GYE annual variation in whitebark pine no whitebark pine cones were produced population of grizzly bears may not abundance or with management in the past year on the northern, adapt to losses of whitebark pine simply practices; and (5) evaluation of the northwestern, and western perimeters of because the NCDE population of grizzly abundance and behavior of red squirrels YNP; (2) suggestions that if we found bears has continued to grow in the regarding pine nut storage and the whitebark pine warranted but precluded absence of whitebark pine; (5) low subsequent consumption of those nuts for listing under the Act, we should not whitebark pine production results in by grizzly bears. A peer-reviewer conclude that whitebark pine decline is grizzly bears seeking food sources suggested analyses comparing the vital not a concern for grizzly bears; (3) associated with humans, leading to rates of grizzly bears that feed on research that all whitebark pine in the increased conflict between bears and whitebark pine to the vital rates of those GYE will be vulnerable to mountain humans; (6) ‘‘Nearly 20% of females that do not. pine beetle by 2070 (Buotte et al., in handled during 2008–2013 had season- Response—We agree with the press); (4) references to climate change specific body fat levels low enough to comments that whitebark pine will models that predict the terminal loss of put them at risk for reproductive failure, eventually regenerate and ameliorate the losses that have occurred; if the whitebark pine from the Yellowstone whereas prior to 2004, no females whitebark pine decline was negatively ecoregion; (5) concerns over potential assessed were so clearly deficient in affecting grizzly bears, then the future decline in whitebark pine due to body fat;’’ and (7) the most severe losses population would not have continued to disease, insects, fire, reproductive in whitebark pine have occurred too increase over the same time period as failure, climate change, and competition recently to detect long-term population their decline; and increased cone from lower elevation species; (6) impacts, especially considering grizzly production on the surviving whitebark suggestions that whitebark pine cannot bear’s slow reproductive rate. trees may be temporary. As for the adapt rapidly enough to changing A few commenters expressed sources of decline in whitebark pine, we environmental conditions given its long concerns over the methods of our note that blister rust, to which the generation length; (7) claims that any analysis, including: (1) Concern that our newly planted trees are resistant, is a newly planted resistant whitebark pine analysis of whitebark pine availability low source of mortality that primarily will take 80 years to produce seeds for did not account for the loss of whitebark affects younger age classes while grizzly bears to eat (which will be too pine that occurred in a 1988 fire and the mountain pine beetle is the greatest late to help grizzly bears); and (8) subsequent lack of regeneration; (2) a source of mortality, primarily among suggestions that 75 percent of whitebark request that we provide additional older age classes. See IGBST 2013 for an pine forests have already disappeared. detail on the protocol we use to monitor overview of factors associated with Commenters also disagreed on the location and availability of whitebark pine decline. We provide this whether potential whitebark pine whitebark pine, suggesting that our background to indicate that blister rust declines would negatively affect grizzly protocol may be inadequate or outdated; resistant trees are not the panacea for bear populations. Most peer-reviewers (3) concern that the three IGBST papers ensuring the availability of this food and some commenters did not believe analyzing whitebark pine (Bjornlie et al. item in the long term. However, more these declines represented a threat to 2014b; Costello et al. 2014; and van relevantly, substantial evidence to date the GYE population because: (1) The Manen et al. 2015) failed to account for indicates that whitebark pine is not a IGBST provided a report in 2013 (which long-term trends in weather and for critical food resource for bears; rather, YES accepted) showing that declines in major changes in abundance of other whitebark pine is a high-calorie food the availability of whitebark pine seeds key food sources (army cutworm moths, source that is used by grizzly bears would not lead to declines in grizzly cutthroat trout, elk, and bison); (4) when and where available, as part of a bear populations; (2) the population has concern that the method that the IGBST dynamic diet that varies substantially increased since 2001, concurrent with uses to measure whitebark pine from individual to individual, from whitebark pine population decline; and abundance (remote sensing) season to season, and depending on (3) whitebark pine is not present within underestimates the extent of whitebark location within the ecosystem (IGBST the home ranges of approximately one- pine loss and the historical use of 2013, pp. 16–17); see Issue 99. third of all GYE grizzly bears and thus whitebark pine by grizzly bears; and (5) Approximately 75 percent of mature, should be considered an opportunistic warnings against Type II error (i.e., even cone-producing whitebark pine trees food source rather than a fall staple. though there was not a statistical have experienced mortality since 2002, However, another commenter correlation between the decline in according to an opportunistic sample questioned whether this absence of whitebark pine and body fat does not based on cone production transects whitebark pine was natural, or a result mean the relationship does not exist) conducted by the IGBST since 1980 (see

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30617

IGBST Annual Reports). However, years since the mountain pine beetle much attention but is misleading. mortality is much lower in younger age epidemic starting waning (see IGBST Costello et al. (2014, p. 2014) classes and recruitment is healthy, annual whitebark pine monitoring specifically addressed this issue: according to monitoring conducted reports: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/ .... bears were not necessarily compelled through the NPS Inventory and norock/science/igbst-whitebark-pine- to use less secure habitats as a direct Monitoring Program (Greater cone-production-annual-summaries?qt- response to WBP decline. On average, 48% Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring science_center_objects=1#qt-science_ of fall ranges were comprised of secure Working Group 2016, pp. 6–7). Despite center_objects). See Issue 97 for more habitat outside of WBP forests, indicating widespread mortality, whitebark pine information. The IGBST has most bears had ample opportunities to use cone production was good in 2016, and consistently cautioned that the findings secure habitats, even in the absence of WBP foraging. Consequently, most bears selected in several other years since the decline from their Food Synthesis Report for secure habitat, irrespective of the peaked around 2009. Moreover, grizzly support the interpretation that grizzly intensity of WBP use. Among our sample of bears still widely used this resource in bears were able to respond to changing bears with WBP habitat within their fall good production years. It is impossible food resources so far. Future conditions range, 13% used ranges entirely within to predict at this time whether may change these relationships, and the national parks, 27% used ranges that whitebark pine will still exist as a adaptive management approach encompassed ≥95% secure habitat, and 47% functional resource for grizzly bears in presented in the 2016 Conservation selected for secure habitat when nonsecure the future. Regardless, even if whitebark Strategy is designed to allow managers habitat was present in their range. In other pine were to disappear from the to respond to such changes in a timely words, only the remaining 13% selected for nonsecure habitat. These results strengthen ecosystem altogether, or becomes manner. However, the previous the supposition put forth by Schwartz et al. functionally non-existent for bears, the predictions from the IGBST’s 2013 Food (2010) in their analysis of hazards to best available data residing in the Food Synthesis Report, and underlying Yellowstone grizzly bear survival. Although Synthesis Report’s (IGBST 2013, entire) research, have been validated over time. these authors found that bears shifted to research projects indicate that grizzly The interpretation that Costello et al. lower elevations during years of poor WBP bears have shown substantial resilience (2014) only detected a decline in use of production, they concluded that this to changing food sources and, so far, are whitebark pine at the end of her study elevation shift did not itself predispose bears able to find alternative food resources. is incorrect; Costello et al. (2014, p. to increased mortality. Instead, they found The IGBST conducted a 2010) detected a steady decline in that bears shifting to lower elevations that comprehensive study, using available selection of whitebark pine habitat over had been altered by humans were exposed to more risk, whereas those bears shifting to data, to address eight relevant research the entire period of 2000 to 2010, and lower elevations in secure habitat were not questions regarding the potential effects by the end of that period the selection subject to increased risk. of whitebark pine decline on grizzly index indicated that bears used bears. Several of those questions also whitebark pine stands in proportion to Several of the suggestions for addressed issues related to other foods, their availability. Based on these additional analyses are useful. However, as well as the ultimate measure of how findings, the authors concluded that the symbiotic connections between individuals are responding to changes there was a population-level effect of a fungi and whitebark pine, although of in food resources, body mass and body decrease in habitat selection of interest, would best be studied by forest condition. See Issue 99. While there will whitebark pine stands over the 2000 to ecologists, rather than IGBST. The always be new research questions to 2010 time period; careful reading of that IGBST previously examined (Schwartz address and the IGBST is currently paper further shows that these findings et al. 2006b, pp. 1–2) relationships of pursuing several new hypotheses supported the hypothesis that whitebark several vital rates with annual variation associated with this theme, many of the pine seeds are not a highly selected in whitebark pine cone production. commenters’ suggestions cannot be food, but consumed opportunistically as Whereas those analyses indicated some addressed with current data, are not a part of a diverse diet. We agree that, statistical associations of vital rates relevant, or do not seem to use the just because NCDE grizzly bears have (litter size, survival of independent-aged scientific principle of ‘‘preponderance adapted to whitebark pine loss, this bears) with annual variation in of evidence.’’ For example, the does not mean that GYE grizzly bears whitebark pine cone production, they suggestion regarding the 1988 fires will automatically adapt. However, did not include metrics of availability of ignores the observation that the period given the preponderance of data from whitebark pine in home ranges of of most robust grizzly bear population the IGBST, this observation from individual bears included in the growth (4 to 7 percent) occurred shortly another ecosystem is supportive of the analyses. Although statistical after the fires, through the entire decade conclusions and interpretations relationships were observed, biological of the 1990s (see Issue 61). presented by the IGBST. There is effect sizes were small and somewhat The changes in vital rates actually currently no data on the long-term confounded by other factors, such as started prior to or at the start of future of whitebark pine in the GYE. whether bears were in the core versus whitebark pine decline, as documented Environmental conditions may, or may the periphery of the ecosystem. in van Manen et al. (2016, pp. 307–308). not, change dramatically in the long Analyses by van Manen et al. (2016, Decline of whitebark pine (as measured term, and scientists are limited in their entire) partially addressed what is in change of tree canopy cover) was ability to reliably examine the potential suggested in this comment; they directly considered in the analyses of effects of such changes. This is why the examined vital rates using an individual van Manen et al. (2016, p. 308) but, 2016 Conservation Strategy presents an covariate based on spatiotemporal index unlike bear density, did not show a adaptive management approach that is of decline in canopy cover of whitebark relationship with vital rates. The informed through scientific monitoring pine habitat since 2000 (thus, providing population size in the DMA has been and research, with appropriate measures an index of mortality). The index was relatively constant for the past 15 years, to timely adapt management as needed. weighted by the proportion of mapped with no evidence of a decline over that The comment about potential future whitebark pine within the activity time period. The year 2016 represents impacts of higher human-caused ranges of bears. They examined survival almost a decade beyond the peak of mortality to grizzly bears in years of low of independent bears, cubs, and whitebark pine decline and about 7 whitebark pine production has received yearlings, as well as reproductive

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00117 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30618 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

transition using this covariate; results Commenters also suggested we suitable habitat and are not included in showed no associations of whitebark include additional monitoring and our quantification of habitat available to pine decline with these vital rates; analysis, such as: (1) Data on the meet the needs of a recovered grizzly rather, lower survival of cubs and, to a numbers of elk and bison in various bear population. See Issue 40. lesser degree lower reproductive ecosystem herds; and (2) information on As previously stated, the 2016 transition from having no cubs to having the historical, current, and future effects Conservation Strategy will continue cubs, were associated with an index of of predation by grizzly bears and monitoring multiple indices, including bear density. Thus, although analysis of wolves, winter severity, disease, and production and availability of all major vital rates for bears without whitebark habitat availability on ungulate foods and grizzly bear vital rates— pine in their home ranges has not been abundance. Peer-reviewers suggested conducted exactly as proposed, that we should (1) conduct an analysis survival, age at first reproduction, extensive analyses previously of cub survival from 2002 to 2014 to reproductive rate, mortality cause and conducted by the IGBST have addressed assess predator-prey relationships, location, dispersal, and human-bear various aspects of the basic relationship which may have a time-lag in conflicts. These data will allow in this comment. detectability; and (2) estimate the managers to use an adaptive Issue 104—Commenters opined that amount of biomass left by ungulate management approach that addresses ungulates have become a more hunters and available to grizzly bears poor food years with responsive prominent part of grizzly bear diets in instead of counting the number of management actions such as limiting recent years, as other food sources have hunters. grizzly bear mortality, increasing I&E declined (especially whitebark pine and Response—The availability of efforts, and long-term habitat restoration cutthroat trout), noting that male and ungulate prey such as elk and bison is as appropriate. The continued female bears now eat more comparable not a threat to the persistence of GYE monitoring of these multiple indices amounts of meat. Commenters also grizzly bears, and future changes in prey will maintain the recovered population. asserted that we incorrectly assumed abundance are not expected to change Issue 105—One commenter suggested grizzly bears do not depend on bison this conclusion. There have been that huckleberries (Vaccinium ssp.) are from the Northern Range herd (which is documented declines in some ungulate currently less abundant as a result of experiencing a population increase) populations, while others have warming temperatures and a persistent because of Fortin et al. (2013a) findings increased, and we expect fluctuations in drought pattern in the GYE. Another that grizzly bears do not frequently feed ungulate populations to continue in the commenter referenced McLellan (2015) on bison in the Central herd (which is future. As generalist food consumers, to warn that the effects of huckleberry experiencing a population decline). GYE grizzly bears have demonstrated We received many comments from flexibility in meeting their dietary needs decline on grizzly bear populations both the public and peer-reviewers and are accustomed to successfully could be delayed; the grizzly bear regarding recent declines in the finding alternative natural foods. The population in Canada and northern availability of ungulates as a food population decline in the northern elk Montana did not start to decline until 11 source, and potential effects on grizzly herd has been attributed to a variety of years after the huckleberry abundance bear populations, which we factors including severe winters, started to drop. inadequately considered in our drought, hunter harvest, and increased Response—Vaccinium berries proposed rule. These comments predation on elk calves by grizzly bears, historically have not been a significant included that: (1) All elk herds in the black bears, and wolves. However, it is dietary component of the GYE grizzly GYE (except the Upper Madison herd) noteworthy that during this same time bear diet, occurring in only 4.9 percent have declined due to increased calf period the grizzly bear population has of the 11,478 scats analyzed from 1943 depredation, drought, chronic wasting continued to increase. This situation to 2009 (Gunther et al. 2014, p. 64). disease, and human hunters; (2) effects suggests that there is no detectable Craighead et al. (1995, p. 235) found on elk from hunters are synergistic cause and effect relationship between that berry availability was inconsistent because hunters preferentially target top elk population declines and grizzly bear across the GYE and between years. In breeding individuals (Vucetich et al. population trends. See Issues 97, 98, addition, some climate models for the 2005, Wright et al. 2006, Mallonee and 99 for more information about food GYE predicted an increase in spruce-fir 2011); (3) we neglected to include a sources and grizzly bear demographics. dominated forests at mid- to high- discussion of bison population trends The GYE grizzly bear consumes bison elevations (Schrag et al. 2007, pp. 9–10), and, thus, did not account for the primarily as winter-killed carrion, but which are associated with vaccinium impacts to grizzly bears of planned herd also opportunistically kills calves and berry species (in their entirety: Pfister et reductions in various bison management weakened adults. The Yellowstone al. 1977; Steele et al. 1983). Low- plans; and (4) winter severity and length bison population size has remained elevation Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine have gone down with climate change, within the IBMP’s recommended range forests, which are commonly associated which has decreased the availability of of 2,500 to 4,500 bison since the year with dwarf huckleberry, may also winter-killed carrion in the spring. 2000, with the exception of 2005 and expand under some climate models Commenters also expressed concerns 2007 years when numbers exceeded (Rice et al. 2012, p. 31). Please see Issue regarding the potential side-effects of 4,500. Therefore, we do not anticipate 36 for discussion of lag effects. grizzly bear reliance on ungulates as a that bison as a potential food source will food source, such as: (1) Declines in cub be a limiting factor for GYE grizzly bears The extent to which natural foods will and yearling survival rates due to more in the future. Please see Issue 100 and change across the landscape and the deadly confrontations with other the Unusual or Unique Ecological resulting effects on bears is impossible predators, including adult male grizzly Setting section in the DPS section of the to calculate with any degree of certainty. bears; (2) increased conflicts with final rule for further discussion on the See Issue 98. Future food source ranchers and hunters; and (3) use of bison by grizzly bears. availability and the possible grizzly bear consumption of food sources that are Areas with a high risk of grizzly bear reaction to those possible future changes unsuitable for meeting female grizzly mortality due to repeated conflict with are discussed under Factor E, above, bear reproductive needs. humans or livestock are not considered and in the Issues 99 to 104 above.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00118 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30619

Climate Change Issues (Factor E) climate change by creating corridors for carrion, which disproportionately Issue 106—We received many public migration to new habitats or by keeping affects female grizzly bears, and have and peer-review comments regarding the bears protected under the Act. One decreased elk populations. One effects to grizzly bears as a result of commenter suggested that any decisions commenter noted that wolves have been climate change. Overall, public about delisting need to be postponed known to kill grizzly bear cubs, though commenters asserted that our discussion until an ‘‘independent scientific this phenomena is very difficult to of climate change was flawed or review’’ can look at the impacts of detect and quantify. One comment inadequate because: (1) We reviewed climate change on grizzly bears. maintained that female grizzly bears the current literature regarding climate Commenters and peer-reviewers rarely usurp wolf kills (Gunther and change but did not link effects to grizzly suggested that several issues related to Smith 2004). climate change require monitoring, such Response—Prior to the extirpation of bears or their habitat; (2) we should as: (1) Monitoring and modeling wolves from Yellowstone in the mid- consider and better describe the future potential impacts of climate change on 1920s, grizzly bears and wolves impacts from climate change, despite habitat suitability and the abundance coexisted for several thousand years. the fact that the exact extent of impacts and distribution of grizzly bear food in Post wolf reintroduction, there have is unknown; (3) the ‘‘downscaled’’ relation to temperature and moisture been documented declines in some projection we used to analyze climate dependence; (2) monitoring possible ungulate herds; however, overall, prey change may have underestimated effects of climate change on grizzly bear numbers remain healthy and some impacts; (4) we should have assessed vital rates; and (3) monitoring for ungulate herds have increased (Barber- impacts from the changing hydrological emerging diseases since the frequency of Meyer et al. 2008, p. 23). However, regime; and (5) we need to consider diseases and parasites will likely change these interactions usually do not result climate change impacts on Alaskan in the context of climate change. in any injury to either bears or wolves grizzly bears, since they are our ‘‘fall- Response—Based on workshops and do not threaten the grizzly bear back grizzly bear supply.’’ Commenters involving grizzly bear experts, Servheen population. Models and field suggested that the impacts of climate and Cross (2010, p. 4) concluded that investigations suggest that, since they change in YNP are already clear since ‘‘grizzly bears are opportunistic, were reintroduced to the GYA in 1995, conditions have become warmer and omnivorous, and highly adaptable and wolves have had little effect on ungulate drier with ‘‘30 fewer days per year with that climate change will not threaten availability to GYE grizzly bears snow on the ground’’ and ‘‘80 more days their populations due to ecological (Wilmers et al. 2003, pp. 914–915; each year above freezing.’’ threats or constraints.’’ More recent Barber et al. 2005, p. 43; Vucetich et al. Commenters mentioned the many research by IGBST, including the Report 2005, p. 259). This issue is discussed in potential ways climate change could and peer-reviewed publications more detail under Factors B and C continue to affect grizzly bears and associated with the Food Synthesis Combined and E in this final rule. increase human-bear conflicts (Servheen project, support this conclusion. Issue 108—We received comments and Cross 2010), including: (1) Because of the substantial degree of from both the public and peer-reviewers Reduction of snowpack and shortening uncertainty regarding the specific requesting increased effort, time, and of the winter season, which could affect consequences of climate change on money towards public I&E campaigns the timing and success of denning, ecological communities (some of which regarding coexistence with grizzly bears, potentially reducing reproductive may perhaps be positive), the questions potentially using phone applications. success and increasing conflict; (2) less and suggestions from the commenters One commenter was concerned that the snowpack could result in fewer are mostly speculative and are difficult Service would reduce I&E efforts post avalanche chutes, preferred spring and to address based on current data, let delisting; conversely, other commenters summer habitat for grizzly bears; (3) the alone with regard to long-term impacts. believed that we over rely on our efforts effect of drought on death rates; (4) The Service must make its listing/ to inform and educate the public about increased frequency and extent of fire delisting decisions based solely on the potential grizzly bear encounters, and could alter plant and animal best available scientific data. Our that I&E, specifically bear identification composition (Westerling et al. 2011) and current understanding of that data training, has failed to reduce human- affect the frequency of human-grizzly indicates that the GYE grizzly bears are caused mortality from hunters. Several bear interactions and conflicts; (5) the not and will not be threatened by the commenters believed that control and potential of hyperthermia to limit effects of climate change now or in the reduction of the grizzly bear population, foraging capabilities for grizzly bears in foreseeable future. However, continued in addition to outreach, would be areas of decreased forest cover (Pigeon monitoring and research, in essential to long-term conservation of et al. 2016); and (6) further reductions combination with an adaptive grizzly bears in the GYE. Commenters in food sources. One commenter asked management approach, will ensure that suggested that the three States’ grizzly for clarification on why surveyed direct or indirect effects of climate bear management regulations require all biologists believe that climate change is change on grizzly bear ecology are hunters to take and pass a bear not a threat to grizzly bears, while detected and addressed in a timely identification training, which would another commented that climate change manner. instruct on distinctions between black ‘‘may even make habitat more suitable bears and grizzly bears, identification of and food sources more abundant.’’ Other Potential Threats (Factor E) grizzly bear age, distinguishing between Citing the 2016 court ruling requiring Issue 107—Some commenters raised male and female bears, finding cubs, the Service to more adequately consider questions about wolves and their effects proper food storage, and the use of bear and address the threats of climate on grizzly bears in the GYE. One spray. One commenter suggested that no change on wolverines, commenters commenter asserted that wolves have hunting should be allowed in the DMA suggested that declaring that climate been reintroduced too recently to until hunters in all three States can change is not affecting grizzly bears was determine the relationship between show 99 percent proficiency with bear similarly nonsensical and ‘‘arbitrary and wolves and bears in the ecosystem. One identification. capricious.’’ Commenters suggested that commenter stated that wolves have Response—All the Federal and State managers could mitigate impacts from decreased the availability of spring agencies charged with management of

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00119 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30620 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

grizzly bears or their habitat in the GYE to quantify how much, if any, this communities, like the ranching industry recognize the importance of outreach requirement reduces grizzly bear (Kellert et al. 1996, pp. 983–986). and I&E efforts to the long-term conflicts with elk hunters. Grizzly bear-human conflicts often lead conservation of the GYE grizzly bear Between 2002 and 2014, 37 percent to grizzly bear mortalities, either legally population. The details related to (115 of 311) of human-caused grizzly in self-defense or a management implementing effective outreach efforts bear mortalities were related to hunting removal, or illegally through vandal and preventing and responding to (defense of self or others and mistaken killing. Effective I&E programs increase grizzly bear-human conflicts are in the identity kills) (Haroldson 2014a, 2017c, public understanding of grizzly bear final 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES in litt.; Haroldson and Frey 2015, p. 26), biology, behavior, and recovery efforts, 2016a, pp. 86–95) and the State so an increase in backcountry user which in turn reduces grizzly bear- management plans (Idaho’s Yellowstone awareness would be beneficial. The human conflicts and grizzly bear Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team affected States of Wyoming, Montana, mortalities while increasing human 2002, pp. 13–18; MFWP 2013, pp. 53– and Idaho have cooperated with the safety. Many people who live and work 59, 65–69; WGFD 2016, pp. 20–27). Service to address conflicts between in occupied grizzly habitat have Over two-thirds ($3,293,817 of grizzly bears and hunters through significantly contributed to increasing $4,991,123) of the anticipated costs of extensive I&E programs. Please see Issue social tolerance through voluntary use managing the GYE grizzly bear 109 for further details on the States’ I&E of tools and techniques aimed at population are for managing grizzly programs. Idaho and Wyoming provide reducing conflict. This social tolerance bear-human conflicts and I&E efforts. a voluntary bear identification test has been built in large part by proactive This level of commitment by online, and all three States include outreach and immediate professional responsible agencies demonstrates their grizzly bear encounter management as a response to conflict incidents arising understanding that I&E efforts and core subject in their basic hunter from the presence of bears. conflict management and prevention are education courses. Public outreach presents a unique Issue 109—Several commenters crucial elements of maintaining a opportunity to effectively integrate recommended that the Service do more healthy GYE grizzly bear population human dimensions of wildlife research on attitudes, social tolerance, and help ensure that mortality limits are management into comprehensive perspectives, and human behavioral not exceeded. Although the programs that can modify societal intentions before delisting. A effectiveness of I&E, specifically bear beliefs about, perceptions of, and commenter opined that social support is education training, in reducing human- behaviors toward grizzly bears. important to resolving grizzly bear caused mortality from hunters has not Attitudes toward wildlife are shaped by conflicts, rather than compensation been formally evaluated, they are numerous factors including basic programs for losses. Another commenter credited with increasing tolerance for felt that if the Service concludes that wildlife values, biological and grizzly bears and reducing conflicts, hunting increases social tolerance, the ecological understanding of species, especially as bears have expanded into hunting quotas and locations should be perceptions of individual species, and new areas where people are not as arranged so bears are allowed to specific interactions or experiences with educated about living in bear country; disperse through specified corridor species (in their entirety: Kellert 1994; these efforts are ongoing, and total zones without being hunted. While Kellert et al. 1996). mortality within the DMA will be several commenters suggested delisting The I&E programs teach visitors and maintained within the mortality limits could significantly improve tolerance of residents about grizzly bear biology, set forth in the final rule and the 2016 the grizzly bear in the GYE, others ecology, and behavior, which enhances Conservation Strategy. The I&E team stated that social acceptance of grizzly appreciation for this large predator by currently uses modern media, such as bears will not improve if we allow more dispelling myths about its temperament YouTube and Facebook, to help educate discretion in bear management; instead, and feeding habits. Effective I&E the public. In addition, the I&E team the commenter suggested that increased programs have been an essential factor continuously evaluates and adapts their acceptance will come from rigid contributing to grizzly bear conservation programs to effectively educate people enforcement of laws and expanded since its listing in 1975. Being aware of that live and recreate in grizzly bear tourism. specific values common to certain user habitat. The States also all have bear Response—Public support and human groups allows I&E materials and management specialists who dedicate a attitudes are discussed at length under workshops to be tailored to their majority of their time on outreach and Factor E of the final rule. Human specific concerns and perceptions. By education to educate people about attitudes toward grizzly bears, providing general information to visitors living, working, and recreating in bear specifically, the resulting human-caused and targeting specific user groups living country. mortality, was identified as a primary and working in grizzly bear country, The 2016 Conservation Strategy cause of population decline in the coexistence between grizzly bears and prioritizes outreach and education, and species’ 1975 listing under the Act (40 humans can be accomplished. the State plans also contain direction on FR 31734, July 28, 1975). Public support Traditionally, people involved in ways, to minimize grizzly bear-human is paramount to any successful large resource extraction industries (i.e., conflicts (Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly carnivore conservation program timber harvest, mining, ranching, and Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. (Servheen 1998, entire; Alberta Grizzly hunting) are the largest opponents to 15; MFWP 2013, pp. 65–69; YES 2016a, Bear Recovery Team 2008, p. 2), and land-use restrictions that place the pp. 86–95; WGFD 2016, pp. 26–27). human attitudes still play a pivotal role needs of the grizzly bear above human Although the States do not currently in grizzly bear conservation. Although needs (Kellert 1994, p. 48; Kellert et al. require hunters to carry pepper spray, it attitudes about grizzly bears vary 1996, p. 985). Surveys of these user is strongly encouraged in hunter geographically and demographically, we groups have shown that they tolerate education courses and other educational have seen an improvement in public large predators when they are not seen materials. Elk hunters in GTNP are perceptions and attitudes toward grizzly as direct threats to their economic required to carry bear spray, and this bears in the last several decades, even stability or personal freedoms (Kellert et may prove to be a research opportunity among traditionally conflict-related al. 1996, p. 985).

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30621

State wildlife agencies recognize that nor likely to become so in the grizzly bears within the GYE DMA have the key to preventing grizzly bear- foreseeable future. reached carrying capacity. human conflicts is providing I&E to the Issue 110—A commenter requested Overall, the GYE grizzly bear public and connecting the public with that the Service address the high population’s current and expected the right resources to prevent conflicts prevalence of developmental abundance and geographic distribution (Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly Bear malformations in newborn grizzly bears (occurring both inside and outside the Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 13– but did not provide any information DMA and occurring across multiple 14; MFWP 2013, pp. 49–51, 65–68; about the source of these potential management jurisdictions) provides the WGFD 2016, pp. 26–27; YES 2016a, pp. malformations. GYE grizzly bear population with 92–95). This outreach is the most Response—To our knowledge, there substantial representation, resiliency, effective long-term solution to grizzly have been no documented instances of and redundancy (see Significant Portion bear-human conflicts and is paramount high rates of developmental of its Range discussion for further to ongoing grizzly bear survival and malformation in newborn grizzly bear details). These factors provide us with successful coexistence with humans so cubs in the GYE or elsewhere. confidence the population can continue that the measures of the Act are no to be viable in the face of the types of longer necessary. All three affected Cumulative Impacts of Threats Issues individual, as well as cumulative, States wildlife agencies (IDFG, MFWP, Issue 111—Both commenters and effects mentioned in the above and WGFD) and associated partners peer-reviewers expressed concern that comments. For example, there is no (e.g., Grizzly Bear Outreach Project) the synergistic effects of climate change, evidence of negative population-level have been actively involved in I&E changing food availability, invasive effects on grizzly bears, including outreach for over a decade. In addition, species, increased human-caused accounting for a lag effect, as a result of the grizzly bear management plans mortality, energy development, declines in whitebark pine, cutthroat developed by MFWP, WGFD, and IDFG problematic livestock husbandry trout, or both. While it is potentially contain chapters detailing efforts to practices, increased regional human feasible that the GYE grizzly bear continue current programs and expand populations, and disease are unknown population may be at risk of such catastrophic events such as a them when possible. and may not be detected for decades. cataclysmic eruption underneath YNP States are committed to continuing The commenters and peer-reviewers devastating the GYE ecosystem, such an these public outreach and conflict recommended a more complete analysis event is extremely unlikely within the response efforts to help maintain and of this suite of impacts and foreseeable future (see the Catastrophic expand that tolerance. Compensation consideration of their potential Events section of the final rule). programs are another tool that helps interactions. with this effort, since livestock Response—Our assessment of threats Distinct Population Segment and producers who suffer losses from bears considered potential risk factors Significant Portion of the Range Issues are likely to be more tolerant of them if individually and cumulatively (see the Issue 112—Several commenters found they are compensated for losses caused Cumulative Effects section of the our approach to the DPS designation by grizzly bears. Based on recent proposed and final rule). Our threats logical and consistent with our experiences with wolves in Idaho and assessment is organized sequentially, authority under the Act and stated that Montana, social tolerance for wolves consistent with how section 4(a) of the failing to utilize this authority would improved as both States implemented Act is organized. We then discuss the devote resources to a recovered an adaptive management approach to overall finding, which considers the population and unnecessarily punish managing conflict during the post- cumulative impacts of all potential the States and communities that delisting monitoring period. By building threat factors. We considered and participate in recovery. Conversely, a and maintaining social tolerance, the weighed the cumulative effects of all number of other commenters asserted recovered bear population will continue known and reasonably foreseeable that designating the GYE population as to be maintained. threat factors facing the population a DPS violated the law because we are Ultimately, the future of the grizzly when reaching the conclusion that the purportedly not allowed to designate a bear will be based on the people who grizzly bear population in the GYE no DPS for the purposes of delisting it. live, work, and recreate in grizzly bear longer meets, and is unlikely to meet in Commenters alleged that no provision habitat and the willingness and ability the foreseeable future, the definition of in the Act allows this process, and our of these people to learn to coexist with a threatened species. When considering approach (designating a DPS for the the grizzly bear and to accept this the population’s recovered status, it is purposes of delisting) has repeatedly animal as a cohabitant of the land. Other important to remember that the recovery been rejected by Federal Courts. management strategies are unlikely to criteria require a minimum population Another commenter thought delisting succeed without effective and size of 500 to maintain short-term should not occur until DPSs were innovative public I&E programs. The genetic health, occupancy of females designated across the entire range of the primary goals of public outreach with young to ensure adequate subspecies. Commenters took issue with programs are to proactively address distribution, and sustainable mortality our position that the designation of the grizzly bear-human conflicts by limits to maintain the population DPS in the proposed delisting rule is educating the public about the root around the period of stability from 2002 consistent with the Service’s past causes of these conflicts and providing to 2014. After delisting, Idaho, Montana, practices. options to prevent them. By continuing and Wyoming have committed, through Response—Section 4(a)(1) of the Act to increase awareness about grizzly bear a Tri-State MOA, State management authorizes the Service at any time to behavior and biology, we are confident plans, and regulations, to manage determine whether a species, which by that the current and planned I&E efforts mortality limits to maintain a recovered definition includes a DPS, is will reduce the negative outcomes of GYE grizzly bear population. The GYE endangered or threatened. Section 3(16) human-grizzly bear encounters such grizzly bear population has been of the Act defines a ‘‘species’’ as that the GYE grizzly bear population is biologically recovered for at least a including any subspecies of vertebrate no longer threatened by these activities, decade, and there is evidence that fish or wildlife which interbreeds when

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30622 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

mature. In addition, section 4(c)(1) of These commenters suggested that if we Response—Our process for the Act authorizes the Service to revise had followed the ‘‘requirement’’ that the determining that the GYE grizzly bear the List to reflect recent determinations status analysis be done in the context of population is a valid DPS is entirely made under section 4(a) by directing the the DPS designation, we could not have consistent with the Services’ joint 1996 Service to ‘‘from time to time revise designated the DPS because we would DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, each list . . . to reflect recent have concluded that the population 1996). The 1996 DPS Policy identifies determinations, designations, and does not qualify as threatened or two elements that must be considered revisions.’’ Nothing in the Act suggests endangered. when identifying a DPS: (1) The that the Service is precluded from Second, a few commenters seemed to discreteness of the population segment making such determinations and have misunderstood our analysis. One in relation to the remainder of the revisions with respect to a subspecies or stated that our conclusion that the GYE species (or subspecies) to which it DPS that is part of a larger listed DPS does not qualify as an endangered belongs; and (2) the significance of the species. Therefore, the Service is acting or threatened species meant that the population segment to the remainder of within its authority in determining that GYE DPS does not qualify as a ‘‘species’’ the species (or subspecies) to which it the GYE grizzly bear DPS is neither under the Act. Another suggested that belongs. Our policy clearly states that if endangered nor threatened and revising because the grizzly bear is currently a population segment is both discrete the List by removing the GYE grizzly listed as a DPS (lower 48 States) we and significant then it is a DPS (61 FR bear DPS. Furthermore, while in some cannot designate the GYE population as 4725, February 7, 1996). The GYE situations it may be appropriate to a DPS because this would be creating a grizzly bear population meets both of designate multiple DPSs DPS of a DPS. these elements (see DPS Analysis) and, simultaneously, the lack of such Third, commenters weighed in on the therefore, is a DPS. requirement provides useful flexibility, geographic scope of our DPS Because the GYE grizzly bear allowing the Service to subsequently list designation. Some commenters thought population is a DPS based on the or delist DPSs when additional we drew the DPS boundary ‘‘discreteness’’ and ‘‘significance’’ information becomes available or as the appropriately. Others thought we qualifications, we must then evaluate conservation status of the taxon should have defined it more broadly to the DPS’s conservation status in relation changes. We disagree with commenters’ include: (1) Additional unsuitable to the Act’s standards for determining contentions that the action taken in this habitat where bears from the GYE whether the DPS is endangered or final rule is inconsistent with the population might roam; and (2) threatened. The authority and standards Service’s past practice. Although a few additional suitable habitat deemed for conducting this status determination of our examples predate the DPS policy, necessary for connectivity to other comes directly from section 4(a)(1) of populations of grizzly bears. Still others the authority to list and delist DPSs had the Act and the Service’s implementing thought we should have conducted been clearly established since the 1978 regulations, not the DPS policy. In other additional analyses to evaluate the amendments to the Act. In addition, two words, the outcome of the discreteness importance of unsuitable habitat to GYE of the examples have been finalized and significance analyses determines if grizzly bears including information on: since publication of our proposed rule. a population is a DPS. Then the (1) How much time grizzly bears spend Please see the Distinct Vertebrate outcome of the section 4 analysis on in unsuitable habitat; (2) why grizzly Population Segment Policy Overview, that DPS determines if the DPS warrants bears spend time in unsuitable habitat; protections under the Act. This final Past Practice and History of Using DPSs, (3) how much time researchers spend rule adheres to all of the required and Distinct Vertebrate Population looking for bears in unsuitable habitat; analyses for identifying the GYE grizzly Segment Analysis sections of this rule and (4) the extent to which bears need bear population as a DPS. And, for further explanation of our DPS this habitat as corridors between areas therefore, per section 4 of the Act, we policy, history, and analysis. of suitable habitat. Another commenter have the authority to consider if the Issue 113—The States supported our suggested that the DPS should include GYE grizzly bear DPS is endangered or analyses and concurred that the GYE all grizzly bears in Montana since all threatened; and if it is neither, as we population qualifies as a DPS under our grizzly bears in the State of Montana have determined here, to revise the DPS policy. However, others claimed should be removed from the lists of lower-48 grizzly bear listing to remove that even if we were allowed to threatened and endangered species. the DPS from Federal protection. designate the GYE as a DPS at the time Fourth, several commenters wanted Our recognition of the GYE grizzly of delisting, our analysis did not greater certainty about our intentions for bear DPS does not create a DPS of a adequately justify such a designation. grizzly bear recovery in the remainder of DPS. A population’s discreteness and First, in the opinion of some the listed entity (lower 48 States outside significance determinations are based commenters, the Service’s DPS policy of the GYE DPS). Some stated that, prior on its discreteness and significance to requires that we consider three factors to taking action on any individual the taxon (species or subspecies) to when determining whether a DPS population, the Service must designate which it belongs; in this case the taxon designation is valid—discreteness, multiple DPSs encompassing the entire is the subspecies Ursus arctos horribilis significance, and status. The range of the subspecies, set recovery (see DPS Analysis). Therefore, commenters argued that our DPS policy goals for each DPS, and evaluate the consistent with our 1996 DPS Policy, allows designation of a DPS only if the status of each DPS for listing. Others the GYE grizzly bear is a DPS of Ursus DPS alone qualifies for listing as either recommended that we explain our arctos horribilis and not of the lower-48 endangered or threatened; this is the intentions for the remainder of the States listing. ‘‘status’’ portion of the DPS designation grizzly bear listed entities in a notice of As stated in the proposed and final analysis. These commenters contended proposed rulemaking, which should set rules, when delineating the boundary of that we considered only discreteness forth a timeline for initiating and the GYE grizzly bear DPS, we focused and significance and left out the status completing such reevaluation and allow on including sufficient habitat that was portion of the analysis. We instead, they solicitation of public comment on capable of supporting grizzly bear argued, ‘‘rolled’’ the status analysis into possible ways the remainder of the reproduction and survival now and in the proposed rule’s five-factor analysis. listed entity could be reclassified. the foreseeable future. We have defined

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30623

‘‘suitable habitat’’ for grizzly bears as populations across the western adequately supported our determination areas having three characteristics: (1) landscape in order to foster the species’ of significance. Others found our Being of adequate habitat quality and true recovery. Commenters found it conclusion that the population’s ‘‘loss quantity to support grizzly bear illogical to use the GYE population’s would represent a significant gap in the reproduction and survival; (2) being current lack of connectivity to other range of the taxon’’ to be hypocritical contiguous with the current distribution grizzly bear populations to justify because it results in the delisting of the of GYE grizzly bears such that natural delisting. They found our position with population and, in their opinion, makes recolonization is possible; and (3) respect to genetics inconsistent because loss of the bears more likely. having low mortality risk as indicated they contend we make the opposite Commenters argued that our DPS through reasonable and manageable argument when asserting, in our DPS significance determination undermines levels of grizzly bear mortality. The GYE analysis of significance, that we cannot our duty to recover the ‘‘species as a grizzly bear population is the most state with certainty that the GYE grizzly whole’’ because it doesn’t make sense studied grizzly bear population in the population’s genetics differ ‘markedly’ that we could argue the GYE world, and we are confident that the from other grizzly bear populations. population’s essentiality to the species suitable habitat encompassed within the Response—We have determined that overall in order to support delisting the area delineated as the GYE DPS is more the GYE population is markedly, bears. Commenters contended that the than sufficient to maintain the physically separate from other grizzly Service’s duty under the Act is to get recovered population now and in the bear populations; however, this listed species to a point where the law’s foreseeable future. For more information determination is not our justification for protections are no longer required, not on these analyses, please refer to the delisting the population. The GYE undermine recovery efforts for the Suitable Habitat and Distinct Vertebrate grizzly bear population is being delisted remainder of the listed entity by using Population Segment Analysis sections because we have determined after a conflicting interpretations of scientific of this rule. With respect to the assertion thorough analysis of the five threat data. that the entire State of Montana be factors that it is not in danger of Response—The DPS analysis for included in the GYE DPS, there is no extinction now or in the foreseeable significance is intended to determine biological basis for considering all future throughout all or a significant the biological and ecological grizzly bears in the State of Montana as portion of its range. Grizzly bears will significance of the population to the part of the GYE DPS. When this rule remain listed in the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs. As specified becomes effective, all areas in the lower lower 48 States outside of the GYE DPS, in the DPS policy (61 FR 4722, February 48 States outside of the GYE DPS and we are committed to pursuing 7, 1996), this consideration of the boundary will remain protected as grizzly bear recovery in the five population segment’s significance may threatened under the Act. remaining Recovery Zones identified in include, but is not limited to, the For more than 30 years, the Service the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. following: (1) Persistence of the discrete has strived to maintain transparency in We refer to genetic studies estimating population segment in an ecological our grizzly bear recovery program. The heterozygosity in our consideration of setting unusual or unique for the taxon; Service’s grizzly bear Recovery Plan, discreteness to further support the (2) evidence that loss of the discrete first approved in 1982 and revised in conclusion that grizzly bears from the population segment would result in a 1993, and its supplemental documents GYE are markedly, physically separated significant gap in the range of the taxon; (USFWS 1982, 1993, 2007a, 2007b, from other grizzly bears. As we state in (3) evidence that the discrete population 2016, 2017) identify distinct Recovery the rule, heterozygosity is a useful segment represents the only surviving Zones and unique demographic measure of genetic diversity, with natural occurrence of a taxon that may parameters for six different grizzly bear higher values indicative of greater be more abundant elsewhere as an populations with the expressed intent genetic variation and evolutionary introduced population outside its that these individual populations would potential. High levels of genetic historic range; or (4) evidence that the be delisted as they each achieve variation are indicative of high levels of discrete population segment differs recovery (USFWS 1993, pp. ii, 33–34). connectivity among populations or high markedly from other populations of the Given this history, it is not an efficient numbers of breeding animals. By species in its genetic characteristics. use of our limited resources to initiate comparing heterozygosity of extant Based on public comments, we a rulemaking process to revise the bears to samples from Yellowstone reevaluated our assessment of the lower-48 States listing. Such a grizzly bears of the early 1900s, Miller ‘‘unique or unusual ecological setting’’ rulemaking would provide no more and Waits (2003, p. 4338) concluded for the GYE grizzly bear and revised our information about our intentions for that gene flow and, therefore, discussion in this final rule. In this case, grizzly bear recovery than the population connectivity between the we determined that the GYE grizzly bear parameters and documents already GYE grizzly bear population and population is significant due to its guiding our existing grizzly bear populations to the north was low even persistence in an ecological setting recovery program. 100 years ago. However, we do not unique for the taxon and that loss of the Issue 114—While some commenters know whether differences in population would result in a significant found our analysis of the best available heterozygosity levels between grizzly gap in the range of the taxon (i.e., Ursus science to support a determination that bears from the GYE and other arctos horribilis). This determination the population is discrete, others populations are biologically meaningful, means that the GYE grizzly bear questioned the strength of our and we have no data indicating they are. population qualifies as a valid DPS. The discreteness analysis. Some took issue Therefore, this same information is not GYE grizzly bear population is being with our determination that the GYE sufficient to support a claim that that delisted because we have determined population is ‘‘markedly separated’’ the discrete population segment differs after a thorough analysis of the five from other populations of grizzly bear. markedly from other populations of the threat factors that this DPS is not in Commenters contended that it is well species in its genetic characteristics. danger of extinction now or in the accepted in the scientific community Issue 115—With respect to our DPS foreseeable future throughout all or a that the GYE grizzly population will analysis of significance, some significant portion of its range. Grizzly need to be well connected with other commenters found our analysis bears will remain listed in the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00123 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30624 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

remainder of the lower 48 States outside extirpated—is inconsistent with other words, when this rulemaking of the GYE DPS, and we are committed common usage. takes effect, grizzly bears in the lower 48 to pursuing grizzly bear recovery in the Finally, in our SPR analysis we set States occurring outside of the boundary five remaining Recovery Zones forth the standard by which a portion of of the GYE DPS will remain listed as a identified in the 1993 Grizzly Bear a species’ range may be considered threatened species under the Act. Recovery Plan. significant. It is the Service’s position Therefore, consideration and analyses of Issue 116—Commenters expressed that a portion of the range of a species grizzly bear populations elsewhere in discontent with the Service’s current is significant if the species is not the lower 48 States is outside the scope interpretation of the phrase ‘‘significant currently endangered or threatened of this rulemaking. portion of its range’’ (SPR) in the Act’s throughout all of its range, but the As stated in our response to Issue 116 definitions of ‘‘endangered species’’ and portion’s contribution to the viability of above, it is the Service’s standard ‘‘threatened species.’’ Some commenters the species is so important that, without practice to consider the effects of lost did not believe the Service’s the members in that portion, the species historical range on the species when we interpretation is reflective of would be in danger of extinction, or evaluate the status of the species in its Congressional intent. Commenters likely to become so in the foreseeable current range. In the case of the GYE believed that the Service erroneously future, throughout all of its range. We DPS, we address historical range in our interpreted ‘‘range’’ to mean only the have applied this standard in our final analysis of suitable habitat. In our range in which the species currently rule. discussion we acknowledge that bears exists. Commenters thus took issue with Issue 117—Several commenters historically occurred, although were the exclusion of historic range from any expressed concern about our probably not evenly distributed, SPR analysis. Commenters also believed ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ throughout the area of the GYE DPS. that the Service’s threshold for analysis. A commenter expressed Many of these habitats are no longer significance was too stringent. concern that the proposed rule relegates biologically suitable for bears (see Issue Response—The Service’s current grizzly bears to small portions of the 40). interpretation of the phrase ‘‘significant lower 48 States and ignores the species’ Limited gene flow, as suggested here, portion of its range’’ (SPR) is consistent lost historical range in the remainder of would not compromise the required with the plain language and mandates of the lower 48 States. Commenters level of discreteness for DPS status, as the Act and provides clarity as to both specified that our analysis of lost the DPS policy does not require the meaning and consequences of the historical range should consider the complete separation of one DPS from SPR phrase. With respect to the entire population of grizzly bears across other populations, but instead requires criticism that the Service should have the lower 48 States. Further, assuming ‘‘marked separation.’’ considered lost historical range in our that our proposed DPS delisting process As stated previously, it is the SPR analyses, it is the Service’s position is legal, commenters instructed us to Service’s standard practice to consider that the term ‘‘range’’ in the phrase also consider lost historical range of the the effects of lost historical range on the ‘‘significant portion of its range’’ is in GYE DPS, including an analysis of what species when we evaluate the status of reference to a species’ current range. constitutes the GYE DPS’ historical the species in its current range. See Thus, to consider lost historical range in range, how that compares with the GYE discussion under Factor A, above. our SPR analysis would be inconsistent DPS’ current range, and whether or not Additionally, our status analysis with this interpretation. We do not the loss of historical range is significant. thoroughly evaluated all potential separately consider whether lost They further directed the Service to threats to the population in its current historical range is an SPR because we consider threats in areas where the range. It would be inconsistent with already evaluate the effects of lost population is either extirpated or home Agency current practice to consider historical range on the species when we to only a few individuals; they claimed threats in areas where the grizzly bear evaluate the status of the species in its that it is insufficient to focus analysis does not currently exist. current range. Specifically, in our entirely on an area where a population Our SPR analysis is consistent with evaluation of current status, we are persists to support a finding that threats current agency practice. After careful considering whether, without that elsewhere are not significant. examination of the GYE grizzly bear portion (i.e., lost historical range), the Commenters noted that many activities population in the context of our species is in danger of extinction or that have potentially adverse effects on definition of ‘‘significant portion of its likely to become so in the foreseeable bears are found only outside of YNP, range,’’ we determined areas on the future (See discussion under Factor A, outside of the PCA, or outside the DMA. periphery of the range warranted further above). If lost historical range had They expressed concern that the Service consideration because human-caused indeed been an SPR prior to its loss, acknowledges some of these threats but mortality risk threats are geographically then, with the loss having occurred, the discounts their importance. concentrated there. After identifying species should currently be in danger of Commenters stated that the standard we these areas, we evaluated whether they extinction or likely to become so in the seemed to apply (localized threats must were significant and determined they foreseeable future in its remaining threaten extinction of the GYE DPS as were not significant because, even current range. Such a determination a whole) was inappropriate and illegal. without the grizzly bears in these areas, would then result in the listing of a They further stated that the Service’s the GYE grizzly bear DPS would not be species throughout its range. SPR analysis ignores the fact that loss of in danger of extinction, or likely to Again, the Service’s analysis to bears in the peripheral areas would become so in the foreseeable future. determine if a species ‘‘is in danger of result in significant range contraction These areas will likely never contribute extinction’’ throughout all or a and that, according to our own policy, meaningfully to the GYE grizzly bear significant portion of its range denotes such lost range may never be reclaimed population because of lack of suitable a present-tense condition of being at risk or considered in future listing decisions. habitat and loss of traditional grizzly of a current or future undesired event. Response—This action is specific to bear foods (i.e., bison). Therefore, we To say a species ‘‘is in danger’’ in an the grizzly bear population in the GYE did not need to determine if grizzly area where it no longer exists—i.e., in its and, therefore, affects the legal status bears were in danger of extinction or historical range where it has been only of grizzly bears within the GYE. In likely to become so in these peripheral

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30625

areas (see SPR Analysis for the GYE model-averaged Chao2 population GYE grizzly bear population from the Grizzly Bear DPS). estimator. Calculations of population loss of secure habitat and development trajectory derived from radio-monitored on public lands (Factor A); unregulated, Determination female bears showed an increasing excessive human-caused mortality An assessment of the need for a population trend at a rate of 4 to 7 (Factors B and C Combined); a lack of species’ protection under the Act is percent per year from 1983 through regulatory mechanisms to manage based on whether a species is in danger 2001 (Eberhardt et al. 1994, p. 362; habitat and population (Factor D); and of extinction or likely to become so Knight and Blanchard 1995, pp. 18–19; genetic isolation, changes to food because of any of five factors: (A) The Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48), which had resources, climate change, catastrophic present or threatened destruction, slowed to 0.3 to 2.2 percent from 2002 events, or negative public attitudes modification, or curtailment of its to 2011 (IGBST 2012, p. 34). The (Factor E), do not rise to a level of habitat or range; (B) overutilization for population trajectory that includes the significance, such that the population is commercial, recreational, scientific, or most recent data is based on the Chao2 in danger of extinction now or in the educational purposes; (C) disease or estimator and indicates no statistical foreseeable future. Thus, based on our predation; (D) the inadequacy of trend (i.e., relatively flat population assessment of the best scientific and existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) trend) within the DMA for the period commercial information available, on other natural or manmade factors 2002 to 2014 (van Manen 2016a, in litt.). our expectation that current affecting its continued existence. As Occupied grizzly bear range has more management practices will continue required by section 4(a)(1) of the Act, than doubled since 1975 (Basile 1982, into the foreseeable future—Federal we conducted a review of the status of pp. 3–10; Blanchard et al. 1992, p. 92; regulations to maintain habitat this species and assessed the five factors Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 203; Pyare et al. protections as per Factor A, above, and to evaluate whether the GYE grizzly 2004, pp. 5–6; Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. State regulations that will regulate total bear DPS is endangered or threatened 64–66; Bjornlie et al. 2014a, p. 184). mortality as per tables 2 and 3 and throughout all of its range. We Independent female survival rates, the Factors B and C Combined, above—we, examined the best scientific and single most important cohort to therefore, determine that the GYE commercial information available population trajectory, are high and have grizzly bear DPS has recovered to the regarding the past, present, and remained unchanged for 3 decades point at which protection under the Act foreseeable future threats faced by the (IGBST 2012, p. 33). In total, this is no longer required. The best scientific species. population has increased from estimates and commercial data available indicate In considering what factors might ranging between 136 and 312 bears that the GYE grizzly bear DPS is not constitute threats, we must look beyond when listed in 1975 (Cowan et al. 1974, endangered or threatened throughout all the mere exposure of the species to the pp. 32, 36; Craighead et al. 1974, p. 16; of its range. factor to determine whether the McCullough 1981, p. 175), to an average exposure causes actual impacts to the population size between 2002–2014 of Significant Portion of its Range species. If there is exposure to a factor 674 using the model-averaged Chao2 Analysis and the species responds negatively, the population estimator. Background factor may be a threat and we then Grizzly bears occupied 92 percent of attempt to determine how significant suitable habitat within the DPS Having determined that the GYE the threat is. If the threat is significant, boundaries as of 2014 (Fortin-Noreus grizzly bear DPS is not in danger of it may drive, or contribute to, the risk 2015, in litt.) and will likely occupy the extinction or likely to become so in the of extinction of the species such that the remainder of the suitable habitat in the foreseeable future throughout all of its species warrants listing as endangered future. The GYE grizzly bear population range, we next consider whether there or threatened as those terms are defined currently has sufficient numbers and are any significant portions of its range by the Act. Alternatively, some threats distribution of reproductive individuals in which the GYE grizzly bear DPS is in may be significant enough to contribute to maintain its recovered status. The danger of extinction or likely to become to the risk of extinction but are main threat of human-caused mortality so. The phrase ‘‘significant portion of its adequately ameliorated through active has been addressed through carefully range’’ (SPR) is not defined by the Act, conservation and management efforts so monitored and controlled total mortality and we have never addressed it in our that the risk is low enough that it does limits established in the Grizzly Bear regulations: (1) The outcome of a not mean the species is in danger of Recovery Plan Supplement (USFWS determination that a species is either in extinction or likely to become so in the 2017, entire) and carried over into the danger of extinction or likely to become foreseeable future. 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, so in the foreseeable future throughout As demonstrated in our five-factor pp. 33–53) and into State regulations as a significant portion of its range, but not analysis, threats to this population and per tables 2 and 3 and discussed in throughout all of its range; or (2) what its habitat have been sufficiently Factors B and C Combined, above. qualifies a portion of a range as minimized and the GYE grizzly bear These total mortality limits are ‘‘significant.’’ DPS is a biologically recovered calculated to ensure long-term Two district court decisions have population. Multiple, independent lines population stability around the average addressed whether the SPR language of evidence support this interpretation. population size for 2002–2014. allows the Service to list or protect less Counts of females with cubs-of-the-year During our analysis, we did not than all members of a defined ‘‘species’’: have increased. Since at least 2001, the identify any factors alone or in Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. demographic recovery criterion that combination that reach a magnitude that Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010), requires 16 of the 18 BMUs to be threatens the continued existence of the concerning the Service’s delisting of the occupied with females with young has species now or in the foreseeable future. Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (74 been met. The Recovery Plan target for Significant threats identified at the time FR 15123, April 2, 2009); and WildEarth a minimum population size of 500 of listing that could have resulted in the Guardians v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. animals inside the DMA to ensure extirpation of the population have been LEXIS 105253 (D. Ariz. Sept. 30, 2010), genetic health has been met since at eliminated or reduced since listing. We concerning the Service’s 2008 finding least 2007, using the conservative conclude that known impacts to the on a petition to list the Gunnison’s

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30626 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

prairie dog (73 FR 6660, February 5, examined this issue. Having concluded ‘‘significant’’ due to its contributions 2008). The Service had asserted in both that the phrase ‘‘significant portion of under any one of these concepts. of these determinations that it had its range’’ provides an independent For the purposes of this rule, we authority, in effect, to protect only some basis for listing and protecting the entire determine if a portion’s biological members of a ‘‘species,’’ as defined by species, we next turn to the meaning of contribution is so important that the the Act (i.e., species, subspecies, or ‘‘significant’’ to determine the threshold portion qualifies as ‘‘significant’’ by DPS), under the Act. Both courts ruled for when such an independent basis for asking whether, without that portion, that the determinations were arbitrary listing exists. the representation, redundancy, or and capricious on the grounds that this Although there are potentially many resiliency of the species would be so approach violated the plain and ways to determine whether a portion of impaired that the species would have an unambiguous language of the Act. The a species’ range is ‘‘significant,’’ we increased vulnerability to stressors to courts concluded that reading the SPR conclude, for the purposes of this rule, the point that the overall species would language to allow protecting only a that the significance of the portion of be in danger of extinction or likely to portion of a species’ range is the range should be determined based become so in the foreseeable future (i.e., inconsistent with the Act’s definition of on its biological contribution to the would be ‘‘endangered’’ or ‘‘species.’’ The courts concluded that, conservation of the species. For this ‘‘threatened’’). Conversely, we would once a determination is made that a reason, we describe the threshold for not consider the portion of the range at species (i.e., species, subspecies, or ‘‘significant’’ in terms of an increase in issue to be ‘‘significant’’ if there is DPS) meets the definition of the risk of extinction for the species. We sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and ‘‘endangered species’’ or ‘‘threatened conclude that a biologically based representation elsewhere in the species’ species,’’ it must be placed on the list definition of ‘‘significant’’ best conforms range that the species would not be in in its entirety and the Act’s protections to the purposes of the Act, is consistent danger of extinction or likely to become applied consistently to all members of with judicial interpretations, and best so throughout its range if the population that species (subject to modification of ensures species’ conservation. Thus, for in that portion of the range in question protections through special rules under the purposes of this rule, a portion of became extirpated (extinct locally). We recognize that this definition of sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act). the range of a species is ‘‘significant’’ if ‘‘significant’’ establishes a threshold Consistent with that interpretation, the species is not currently endangered that is relatively high. On the one hand, and for the purposes of this rule, we or threatened throughout all of its range, given that the outcome of finding a interpret the phrase ‘‘significant portion but the portion’s contribution to the of its range’’ in the Act’s definitions of species to be in danger of extinction or viability of the species is so important ‘‘endangered species’’ and ‘‘threatened likely to become so in an SPR would be that, without the members in that species’’ to provide an independent listing all individuals of the species portion, the species would be in danger basis for listing a species in its entirety; wherever found, it is important to use of extinction, or likely to become so in thus there are two situations (or factual a threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is the foreseeable future, throughout all of bases) under which a species would robust. It would not be meaningful or its range. qualify for listing: A species may be in appropriate to establish a very low danger of extinction or likely to become We evaluate biological significance threshold whereby a portion of the so in the foreseeable future throughout based on the principles of conservation range can be considered ‘‘significant’’ all of its range; or a species may be in biology using the concepts of even if only a negligible increase in danger of extinction or likely to become redundancy, resiliency, and extinction risk would result from its so throughout a significant portion of its representation. Resiliency describes the loss. Because nearly any portion of a range. If a species is in danger of characteristics of a species that allow it species’ range can be said to contribute extinction throughout an SPR, it, the to recover from periodic disturbance. some increment to a species’ viability, species, is an ‘‘endangered species.’’ Redundancy (having multiple use of such a low threshold would The same analysis applies to populations distributed across the require us to impose restrictions and ‘‘threatened species.’’ Therefore, the landscape) may be needed to provide a expend conservation resources consequence of finding that a species is margin of safety for the species to disproportionately to conservation in danger of extinction or likely to withstand catastrophic events. benefit: Listing would be rangewide, become so throughout a significant Representation (the range of variation even if only a portion of the range of portion of its range is that the entire found in a species) ensures that the minor conservation importance to the species will be listed as an endangered species’ adaptive capabilities are species is imperiled. On the other hand, species or threatened species, conserved. Redundancy, resiliency, and it would be inappropriate to establish a respectively, and the Act’s protections representation are not independent of threshold for ‘‘significant’’ that is too will be applied to all individuals of the each other, and some characteristic of a high. This would be the case if the species wherever found. species or area may contribute to all standard were, for example, that a We conclude, for the purposes of this three. For example, distribution across a portion of the range can be considered rule, that interpreting the SPR phrase as wide variety of habitats is an indicator ‘‘significant’’ only if threats in that providing an independent basis for of representation, but it may also portion result in the entire species’ listing is the best interpretation of the indicate a broad geographic distribution being currently endangered or Act because it is consistent with the contributing to redundancy (decreasing threatened. Such a high bar would not purposes and the plain meaning of the the chance that any one event affects the give the SPR phrase independent key definitions of the Act; it does not entire species), and the likelihood that meaning, as the Ninth Circuit held in conflict with established past agency some habitat types are less susceptible Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 practice (i.e., prior to the 2007 to certain stressors, contributing to F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2001). Department of the Interior Solicitor’s resiliency (the ability of the species to The definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in Opinion), as no consistent, long-term recover from disturbance). None of these this rule carefully balances these agency practice has been established; concepts is intended to be mutually concerns. By setting a relatively high and it is consistent with the judicial exclusive, and a portion of a species’ threshold, we minimize the degree to opinions that have most closely range may be determined to be which restrictions would be imposed or

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00126 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30627

resources expended that do not portions of the range that have no that are likely to be of greater biological contribute substantially to species reasonable potential to be significant or conservation importance than any conservation. But we have not set the and threatened or endangered. To other areas due to natural biological threshold so high that the phrase identify only those portions that warrant reasons alone. Therefore, there is not ‘‘throughout a significant portion of its further consideration, we determine substantial information that logical, range’’ loses independent meaning. whether there is substantial information biological divisions exist within the Specifically, we have not set the indicating that: (1) The portions may be GYE grizzly bear population’s current threshold as high as it was under the ‘‘significant,’’ and (2) the species may be range. interpretation presented by the Service in danger of extinction there or likely to The Service has identified the PCA as in the Defenders litigation. Under that become so within the foreseeable future. a secure area for grizzly bears, with interpretation, the portion of the range Depending on the biology of the species, population and habitat condition would have to be so important that its range, and the stressors it faces, it maintained to ensure a recovered current imperilment there would mean might be more efficient for us to address population is maintained and to allow that the species would be currently the significance question first or the bears into suitable habitat. This is likely imperiled everywhere. Under the status question first. Thus, if we to be significant (i.e., if this area were definition of ‘‘significant’’ used in this determine that a portion of the range is hypothetically lost, the rest of the range rule, the portion of the range need not not ‘‘significant,’’ we do not need to would at that point be threatened or rise to such an exceptionally high level determine whether the species is endangered) because it contains of biological significance. (We recognize endangered or threatened there; if we approximately 75 percent of females that if the species is imperiled in a determine that the species is not with cubs-of-the-year for most or part of portion that rises to that level of endangered or threatened in a portion of the year (Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 64– biological significance, then we should its range, we do not need to determine 66; Haroldson 2014a, in litt.). However, conclude that the species is in fact if that portion is ‘‘significant.’’ In as noted above in our summary of imperiled throughout all of its range, practice, a key part of identifying factors affecting the species, threats to and that we would not need to rely on portions for further analysis is to the species within this area have been the SPR language for such a listing.) examine whether there are threats that ameliorated through restoration and Rather, under this interpretation we ask are geographically concentrated in some active management as discussed in the whether the species would be in danger way. If the potential threats to the factors above. Surveys indicate that the of extinction or likely to become so species are essentially uniform species has been maintained and is everywhere without that portion, i.e., if throughout its range, no portion is likely well-established, and remaining factors that portion were completely extirpated. to be endangered or threatened and thus that may affect the species occur at low In other words, the portion of the range would not warrant further levels throughout this area. There is no need not be so important that even consideration. Moreover, if any substantial information indicating the being in danger of extinction in that concentration of threats applies only to species is likely to be threatened or portion would be sufficient to cause the portions of the species’ range that endangered throughout this area, the remainder of the range to be clearly would not meet the biologically PCA. Therefore, the PCA does not endangered; rather, the complete based definition of ‘‘significant,’’ such warrant further consideration to extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of portions will not warrant further determine whether the species may be the species in that portion would cause consideration. endangered or threatened in a the remainder of the range to be in significant portion of its range. SPR Analysis for the GYE Grizzly Bear danger of extinction or likely to become After determining there are no natural DPS so in the foreseeable future. divisions delineating separate portions In implementing this interpretation, Applying the process described of the GYE grizzly bear population, or the first step in our analysis of the status above, we first evaluated the current other important areas that warrant of a species is to determine its status range of the GYE grizzly bear DPS to further consideration, we next examined throughout all of its range. If we determine if any area could be whether any stressors are geographically determine that the species is in danger considered a significant portion of its concentrated in some way that would of extinction, or likely to become so in 50,280 km2 (19,413 mi2) range (Bjornlie indicate the species could be in danger the foreseeable future, throughout all of et al. 2014a, p. 184). The current range of extinction, or likely to become so, in its range, we determine the species is an of the GYE grizzly bear DPS includes that area. Through our review of endangered species (or threatened 44,624 km2 (17,229 mi2) inside the DMA potential threats, we identified greater species) and no SPR analysis will be and 5,656 km2 (2,184 mi2) outside the mortality risk in the areas on the required. If the species is neither in DMA. As mentioned above, one way to periphery of the population’s current danger of extinction nor likely to identify portions for further analyses is range. More grizzly bear mortality become so throughout all of its range, to identify portions that might be of occurs toward the periphery of its range, we next determine whether the species biological or conservation importance, as evidenced by lower population is in danger of extinction or likely to such as any natural, biological divisions growth rates in these areas (Schwartz et become so throughout a significant within the current range that may, for al. 2006b, p. 58; IGBST 2012, p. 34) and portion of its range. If it is, we example, provide population higher likelihood of conflicts (Gunther determine the species is an endangered redundancy or have unique ecological, et al. 2012, p. 50). These areas where species or threatened species, genetic, or other characteristics. Based greater mortality is likely to occur are respectively; if it is not, we conclude on examination of the best available outside the DMA boundaries (figure 1). that the species is neither an science (Schwartz et al. 2006b, entire; We do not anticipate declines in relative endangered species nor a threatened IGBST 2012, entire), we determined the population size or geographically species. GYE grizzly bear population is a single, concentrated stressors inside the DMA The range of a species can contiguous population within the DPS boundaries due to conservative theoretically be divided into portions in boundaries and that there are no population objectives, enforceable an infinite number of ways. However, separate areas of the range that are mortality limits, vast amounts of there is no purpose to analyzing significantly different from others or wilderness and roadless areas, and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30628 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

additional habitat protections These areas will likely never contribute bear population. However, actions specifically in place for grizzly bears on meaningfully to the GYE grizzly bear within the DPS would still be managed public lands in nearly half of their population because of lack of suitable by State, Tribal, and Federal laws, current range (i.e., the PCA). With these habitat and loss of traditional grizzly regulations, policies, and management measures evaluated by a meticulous bear foods (i.e., bison). Therefore, we plans ensuring enforcement of the 2016 monitoring program, we are reasonably did not need to determine if grizzly Conservation Strategy. Delisting the assured that grizzly bears inside the bears were in danger of extinction or GYE grizzly bear DPS is expected to DMA boundaries will continue to likely to become so in these peripheral have positive effects in terms of flourish. Because it is also reasonable to areas. We have carefully assessed the management flexibility to the States and expect that GYE grizzly bears may not best scientific and commercial data local governments. The full protections be managed as conservatively outside available and determined that the GYE of the Act, including section 4(d) (50 the DMA boundaries where they could grizzly bear population is no longer in CFR 17.40), would still continue to be exposed to more intensive hunting danger of extinction throughout all or a apply to grizzly bear populations in and management pressure, we significant portion of its range, nor is it other portions of the lower-48 States considered these peripheral areas where likely to become so in the foreseeable outside the GYE grizzly bear DPS’ known grizzly bear range extends future. As a result of this determination, boundaries. Those grizzly bears outside outside the DMA boundaries to warrant we hereby remove this population from the GYE DPS will remain fully protected further consideration to determine if the List of Endangered and Threatened by the Act. they are a significant portion of this Wildlife. Post-Delisting Monitoring population’s range. We are aware of the March 28, 2017, Because we identified areas on the Arizona District Court ruling in Center Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us periphery of the current range as for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Sally to implement a system, in cooperation warranting further consideration due to Jewel, et al., which vacated and with the States, to monitor for at least the geographic concentration of remanded the Service’s 2014 Final SPR 5 years all delisted and recovered mortality risk there, we then evaluated Policy (79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014). The species. The primary purpose of this whether these areas are significant to district court found that our 2014 SPR requirement is to ensure that the the GYE grizzly bear population such Policy did not give sufficient recovered species does not deteriorate, that, without the members in that independent meaning to the SPR phrase and if an unanticipated decline is portion, the entire population would be and thereby avoided the need to provide detected, to take measures to halt the in danger of extinction, or likely to rangewide protections to a species based decline to avoid re-listing. If data become so in the foreseeable future, on threats in a portion of the species’ indicate that protective status under the throughout all of its range. range. The Service is currently Act should be reinstated, we will The core population inside the DMA considering appropriate next steps in initiate listing procedures, including, if is resilient, and its current range light of the district court’s decision. appropriate, emergency listing. provides the necessary redundancy to However, we have decided to finalize For the GYE grizzly bear population, offset loss of individual bears in this action because our final the 2016 Conservation Strategy serves as peripheral areas. The areas that may determination on the recovered status of the post-delisting monitoring plan. The experience higher mortality rates the GYE grizzly bear population does 2016 Conservation Strategy will remain represent a very small proportion of the not hinge on the SPR analysis. As stated in effect for the foreseeable future, range, and an even smaller proportion of above, if grizzly bears in the periphery beyond the 5-year monitoring period the total number of animals in the GYE of the current range were in fact lost due required by the Act due to their low grizzly bear population. Moreover, if to the geographic concentration of resiliency to excessive human-caused bears in these peripheral areas were in mortality risk, that loss would not mortality and the manageable nature of fact lost, that loss would not appreciably reduce the long-term this threat. These management actions significantly affect the long-term viability of the GYE grizzly bear are detailed in the 2016 Conservation viability of the GYE grizzly bear population, much less cause the Strategy and will be evaluated by the population, much less cause the population in the remainder of its range management agencies every 5 years, population in the remainder of its range to be in danger of extinction or likely to allowing for public comment should to be in danger of extinction or likely to become so. In other words, under any updates to the Conservation Strategy be become so. Therefore, there is not definition of SPR it is clear that the GYE made in the future. substantial information indicating that grizzly bear population is not in danger Monitoring the peripheral portions of the GYE of extinction throughout all or a grizzly bear population’s range are significant portion of its range, nor is it To ensure the long-term conservation significant to the rest of the population. likely to become so in the future. of grizzly bear habitat and continued After careful examination of the GYE recovery of the GYE grizzly bear grizzly bear population in the context of Effects of the Rule population, several monitoring our definition of ‘‘significant portion of This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) programs and protocols have been its range,’’ we determined areas on the by establishing a DPS and removing the developed and integrated into land periphery of the range warranted further GYE grizzly bear DPS from the Federal management agency planning consideration because human-caused List of Endangered and Threatened documents. The 2016 Conservation mortality risk is geographically Wildlife. The prohibitions and Strategy and appended State grizzly concentrated there. After identifying conservation measures provided by the bear management plans satisfy the these areas, we evaluated whether they Act, particularly through sections 7 and requirements for having a post-delisting were significant and determined they 9, would no longer apply to this DPS. monitoring plan for the GYE grizzly bear were not significant because, even Federal agencies would no longer be population. Monitoring programs and a without the grizzly bears in these areas, required to consult with the Service coordinated approach to management the GYE grizzly bear DPS would not be under section 7 of the Act in the event would continue for the foreseeable in danger of extinction, or likely to that activities they authorize, fund, or future. Monitoring programs will focus become so in the foreseeable future. carry out may affect the GYE grizzly on assessing whether demographic and

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00128 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30629

habitat standards described in the 2016 Members of the IGBST will monitor regulating the risk of human-caused Conservation Strategy are being grizzly bear vital rates and population mortality through the 1998 baseline (i.e., achieved and maintained. parameters within the entire DMA. factors the agencies have the authority Within the PCA, the IGBST will Finally, State wildlife agencies will and ability to regulate). Private land continue to monitor habitat standards provide known mortality information to development and the numbers, causes, and adherence to the 1998 baseline. The the IGBST, which will annually and spatial distribution of human-bear IGBST will report on levels of secure summarize these data with respect to conflicts will continue to be monitored habitat, developed sites, and livestock location, type, date of incident, and the and reported annually, because this allotments annually, and these will not sex and age of the bear for the entire scenario is where habitat quality be allowed to deviate from 1998 DPS area. intersects with grizzly bear mortality baseline values unless changes were to In the 2007 final rule (72 FR 14866, risk. be beneficial to grizzly bears (USDA FS March 29, 2007), we reported habitat To address the possible ‘‘lag effect’’ 2006b, entire; YNP 2014b, p. 18). The quality and effectiveness values for 1998 associated with slow habitat IGBST, with participation from YNP, using the Cumulative Effects Model and degradation taking a decade or more to the USFS, and State and Tribal wildlife associated 1998 habitat data (USFWS translate into detectable changes in agencies, also will continue to monitor 2007c, appendix F). Since 1998, the population size (see Doak 1995), the the abundance and distribution of value of the Cumulative Effects Model IGBST will monitor a suite of indices common grizzly bear foods. This system has been questioned (Boyce et al. 2001, simultaneously to provide a highly allows managers some degree of p. 32). Specifically, the validity of all sensitive system to monitor the health of predictive power to anticipate and avoid the coefficients cannot be verified or the population and its habitat and to grizzly bear-human conflicts related to a ground-truthed, calling into question all provide a sound scientific basis to shortage of one or more foods in a given of the model outputs. Without scientific respond to any changes or needs with season. and statistical defensibility, the adaptive management actions (Holling Within the DMA, the IGBST will Cumulative Effects Model will not 1978, pp. 11–16). This ‘‘lag effect’’ is a continue to document population produce credible results and it cannot concern only if the sole method to trends, current distribution, survival be used (Boyce et al. 2001, p. 32; detect changes in habitat is monitoring and birth rates, and the presence of Borkowski 2006, pp. 85–87). While the changes in total population size (see alleles from grizzly bear populations Cumulative Effects Model provided an Doak 1995, p. 1376). The monitoring outside the GYE grizzly bear DPS index of relative change in habitat systems in the 2016 Conservation boundaries to document gene flow into quality over time, it was never able to Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 33–85) are far the population. Throughout the DPS predict grizzly bear habitat use or more detailed and sophisticated and boundaries, locations of grizzly bear preference or relate habitat to changes in would detect changes in vital rates in mortalities on private lands will be population parameters. Because we no response to habitat changes sooner than provided to the IGBST for incorporation longer consider the Cumulative Effects the system described by Doak (1995, pp. into their annual report. To examine Model to represent the best available 1371–1372). The IGBST will be reproductive rates, survival rates, causes science, we are no longer relying on or monitoring a suite of vital rates of death, and overall population trends, reporting measures of habitat quality or including survival of radio-collared the IGBST will radio-collar and monitor effectiveness using it. Instead, the bears, mortality of all bears, a minimum of 25 adult female grizzly IGBST will assess and report human- reproductive success, litter size, litter bears every year and a similar caused changes to grizzly bear habitat interval, number of females with cubs- representative sample of adult males. through maintenance of the 1998 of-the-year, distribution of females with The objective will be to maintain a baseline values for developed sites, young, and overall population radio-marked sample of bears that are grazing allotments, and secure habitat trajectory, in addition to the physical spatially distributed throughout the (YES 2016b, appendix E). condition of bears by monitoring body ecosystem so they provide a While the inverse relationship mass and body fat levels of each bear representative sample of the entire between whitebark pine seed handled. Because of the scope of population inside the DMA. Mortalities production and grizzly bear conflicts in monitoring, we feel confident that we throughout the GYE DPS will be the GYE has been documented (Mattson will be able to detect the consequences monitored and reported annually and et al. 1992, p. 436; Gunther et al. 1997, of significant changes in habitat within evaluated in accordance with the DMA p. 38; Gunther et al. 2004, pp. 13–14), a reasonable timeframe that would total mortality limits and population there are no data relating other foods allow for appropriate management objectives in table 3. such as spring ungulate carcasses, army response. Outside of the PCA, the GYE National cutworm moths, and cutthroat trout to Monitoring systems in the 2016 Forests will monitor agreed-upon the number of grizzly bear-human Conservation Strategy allow for adaptive habitat parameters in suitable habitat conflicts. Additionally, Schwartz et al. management (Holling 1978, pp. 11–16) and will calculate secure habitat values (2010, p. 662) found no relationship as environmental issues change. The outside of the PCA every 2 years and between the spatial distribution of agencies have committed in the 2016 submit these data for inclusion in the whitebark pine, cutthroat trout, army Conservation Strategy to be responsive IGBST’s annual report (USDA FS 2006b, cutworm moths, or ungulates and to the needs of the grizzly bear through p. 6). The GYE National Forests also grizzly bear survival. Therefore, while it adaptive management (Holling 1978, pp. will monitor and evaluate livestock is important to continue to monitor food 11–16) actions based on the results of allotments for recurring conflicts with abundance, there is no scientific detailed annual population and habitat grizzly bears in suitable habitat outside evidence that habitat quality is a monitoring. These monitoring efforts the PCA (USDA FS 2006b, p. 6). The limiting factor for grizzly bear survival would reflect the best scientific and Greater Yellowstone Whitebark Pine in the GYE. The IGBST will continue commercial data and any new Monitoring Group will continue to coordinating with the National Forests information that has become available monitor whitebark pine occurrence, and National Parks within the PCA to since the delisting determination. The productivity, and health both inside and monitor food abundance but will focus entire process would be dynamic so that outside the PCA (USDA FS 2006b, p. 7). management recommendations on when new science becomes available it

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30630 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

will be incorporated into the the Service. A Biology and Monitoring can and will use, if necessary, in management planning and monitoring Review would be completed within 6 accordance with section 4(g)(2) of the systems outlined in the 2016 months of the request by the YGCC, and Act, to prevent a significant risk to the Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. the resulting written report would be well-being of the grizzly bears (16 U.S.C. 33–91). The results of this extensive presented to the YGCC and made 1533(g)). Such an emergency re-listing monitoring would allow wildlife and available to the public. would be effective the day the rule is land managers to identify and address An IGBST Biology and Monitoring published in the Federal Register and potential threats preemptively, allowing Review examines habitat management, would be effective for 240 days. During those managers to ensure that the GYE population management, or monitoring this time, we would conduct our normal grizzly bear population remains a efforts of participating agencies with an notice-and-comment rulemaking recovered population. objective of identifying the source or regarding the listing of the species based cause of failing to meet a habitat or on the five factors of section 4(a)(1) of Triggers for a Biology and Monitoring demographic goal. This review also will the Act to take effect when the 240-day Review by the IGBST provide management recommendations limit on the emergency re-listing The YGCC will use the IGBST’s to correct any such deviations. A expires. monitoring results and annual reports to Biology and Monitoring Review could determine if the population and habitat occur if funding becomes inadequate to Triggers for a Service Status Review standards are being adhered to. The the implementation of the 2016 Upon delisting of the GYE grizzly bear States, Tribes, and National Parks will Conservation Strategy to such an extent population, we will use the information use the IGBST’s annually produced that it compromised the recovered in IGBST annual reports and adherence model-averaged Chao2 population status of the GYE grizzly bear to total mortality limits as per tables 2 estimates to set and establish total population. If the review is triggered by and 3 to determine if a formal status mortality limits within the DMA as per failure to meet a population goal, the review is necessary. Because we tables 2 and 3. The 2016 Conservation review would involve a comprehensive anticipate that the YGCC and IGBST are Strategy signatories have agreed that if review of vital rates including survival fully committed to maintaining GYE there are deviations from certain rates, litter size, litter interval, grizzly grizzly bear population management population or habitat standards, the bear-human conflicts, and mortalities. and habitat management through IGBST will conduct a Biology and The IGBST will attempt to identify the implementation of the 2016 Monitoring Review as described under reason behind any variation in vital Conservation Strategy and State and Factors B and C Combined, above. A rates such as habitat conditions, Federal management plans, and to Biology and Monitoring Review would poaching, excessive , etc., and correct any problems through the be initiated if any of the following determine if these compromise the process established in the 2016 scenarios occur (as further described recovered status of the population. Conservation Strategy and described in under Factors B and C Combined, Similarly, if the review was triggered by the preceding section, we created a above): (1) Exceeding the total mortality failure to meet a habitat standard, the threshold for criteria that would trigger limit for independent females for 3 review would examine what caused the a formal Service status review that is consecutive years; (2) exceeding the failure, whether this situation requires higher than that for a Biology and total mortality limits for independent that the measures of the Act are Monitoring Review. Specifically, any of males for 3 consecutive years; (3) necessary to ensure the recovered status the following scenarios would result in exceeding the total mortality limit for of the population, and what actions may a formal status review by the Service: dependent young for 3 consecutive be taken to correct the problem. The (1) If there are any changes in Federal, years; (4) failure to meet the distribution IGBST would complete this review and State, or Tribal laws, rules, regulations, criterion requiring sightings of females release it to the public within 6 months or management plans that depart with young in at least 16 of 18 BMUs of initiation and make it available to the significantly from the specifics of in 3 consecutive years; (5) failure to YGCC and the public. population or habitat management meet the model-averaged Chao2 The YGCC responds to a Biology and detailed in this final rule or the 2016 estimate of 48 females with cubs-of-the- Monitoring Review with actions to Conservation Strategy that would year for any 3 consecutive years. address deviations from habitat significantly increase the threat to the In addition to the scenarios described standards or, if the desired population GYE grizzly bear population. The under Factors B and C Combined, a and habitat standards specified in the Service will promptly conduct such an Biology and Monitoring Review by the 2016 Conservation Strategy cannot be evaluation of any change in a State or IGBST would be initiated if there were met in the opinion of the YGCC, the Federal agency’s regulatory mechanisms a failure to meet any of the habitat YGCC could recommend that the to determine if such a change represents standards described in the 2016 Service consider re-listing of the GYE a threat to the GYE grizzly bear Conservation Strategy pertaining to grizzly bear DPS (YES 2016a, pp. 96– population. As the Service has done for levels of secure habitat, developed sites, 103). Because the YGCC possesses the Rocky Mountain DPS of gray wolf, and livestock allotments. These IGBST substantial information about the such an evaluation will be documented reviews were established to detect population’s status, the Service would for the record and acted upon if deviations that may occur due to normal respond by conducting a status review necessary. variability or chance events and do not to determine if re-listing is warranted. (2) A total population estimate is less necessarily mean the GYE grizzly bear’s The Service can also initiate a status than 500 inside the DMA in any year status is deteriorating. As such, they are review independent of the IGBST or the using the model-averaged Chao2 more easily activated than those that YGCC should the total mortality limits population estimator, or counts of trigger a Service status review under the be exceeded by a significant margin or females with cubs-of-the-year fall below Act. These triggers could indicate the routinely violated or if substantial 48 for 3 consecutive years. need to adjust management approaches management changes occur significant (3) If fewer than 16 of 18 bear and are intended to provide the YGCC enough to raise concerns about management units are occupied by with ample time to respond with population-level impacts. Emergency re- females with young for 3 consecutive 6- management actions before involving listing of the population is an option we year sums of observations.

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30631

(4) If the Service determines a petition actions. As this rule is not expected to to-government consultation. In addition, to re-list from an individual or significantly affect energy supplies, the letter invited Tribes to participate in organization is substantial. distribution, or use, this action is not a an informational webinar and In addition to these four criteria for a significant energy action and no conference call held on November 13, status review, the Service may conduct Statement of Energy Effects is required. 2015. On March 3, 2016, the Service a status review at any time that the best Government-to-Government announced its proposal to delist grizzly scientific information indicates a review Relationships With Tribes may be necessary or if population and bears in the GYE. The announcement mortality targets in the 2016 In accordance with the President’s was disseminated to all Tribes west of Conservation Strategy are consistently memorandum of April 29, 1994, the Mississippi River with Tribes being not met. Upon completion of a formal Government-to-Government Relations notified by both email and hard copy status review, a notice of availability with Native American Tribal mail. In addition, the Service would be published in the Federal Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, announced two consultation meeting Register, and the review would be and the Department of the Interior’s opportunities in the Federal Register available at http://www.fws.gov/ manual at 512 DM 2, we readily and in the Tribal leader letters at the mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php. If acknowledge our responsibility to same time the proposed rule published. a status review recommends re-listing communicate meaningfully with The two meetings were hosted in the GYE grizzly bear DPS, a proposed recognized Federal Tribes on a Bozeman, Montana and in Rapid City, listing rule would be published in the government-to-government basis. In South Dakota. Federal Register, which is open to accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 On March 10, 2016, the Service public comment and subject to peer of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal hosted a tribal conference call to review. Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust provide an overview of the proposed Status reviews and re-listing decisions Responsibilities, and the Endangered delisting and discuss any questions or would be based on the best available Species Act), we readily acknowledge concerns. It was not considered scientific and commercial data our responsibilities to work directly government-to-government available. If a status review is triggered, with Tribes in developing programs for consultation. The announcement for the Service would evaluate the status of healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that this call was included in the March, 3rd the GYE grizzly bear population to Tribal lands are not subject to the same notifications sent to Tribes. controls as Federal public lands, to determine if re-listing is warranted. We To date, the Service has conducted remain sensitive to Indian culture, and would make prompt use of the Act’s ten Tribal consultations with the to make information available to Tribes. following Tribes: June 10, 2015: emergency listing provisions if Beginning in April 2014, the Service necessary to prevent a significant risk to Confederated Salish and Kootenai sent consultation invitation letters via Tribes; June 18, 2015: Blackfeet Nation the well-being of the GYE grizzly bear registered mail to the four Tribes having population. We have the authority to Wildlife Committee; July 21, 2015: treaty interests in the proposed GYE Northern Arapahoe Tribal Council; July emergency re-list at any time, and a grizzly bear delisting area: the Northern completed status review is not 21, 2015: Eastern Shoshone Tribal Arapaho, Eastern Shoshone, Council; July 30, 2015: Shoshone necessary to exercise this emergency re- Northwestern Band of the Shoshone listing authority. Bannock Tribal Council; April 28, 2016: Nation, and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Bozeman Montana (Tribes Present at Required Determinations Over the next year the Service was made meeting: Shoshone Bannock Tribes, aware of many more Tribes having an National Environmental Policy Act Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Eastern interest in the GYE grizzly bear and Shoshone Tribe, Northwest Band of the We have determined that expanded our efforts in explaining the Shoshone); May 5, 2016: Rapid City, environmental assessments and status of the bear and offering South Dakota (Northern Arapaho, environmental impact statements, as government-to-government consultation Rosebud Sioux); November 2, 2016: defined under the authority of the NEPA to Tribes. Eastern Shoshone Tribe; November 16, On February 17, 2015, the Service of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need 2016: Shoshone Bannock Tribe; sent letters offering government-to- not be prepared in connection with April 07, 2017: Northern Cheyenne government consultation to 26 Tribes. regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of Tribal Council. Government-to- On June 15, 2015, the Service sent out the Act. We published a notice outlining Government consultation is not open to a second round of letters to 48 tribes, our reasons for this determination in the the public or media. This process offering another opportunity for Federal Register on October 25, 1983 involves consultation with Tribal consultation, followed by personal (48 FR 49244). members speaking on behalf of their phone calls or emails from Service Tribe and as a representative of their Paperwork Reduction Act leadership to the 48 tribes, personally Tribe (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION This rule does not contain any new inviting them to engage in government- CONTACT above, for more information). collections of information other than to-government consultation. On August those already approved under the 13, 2015, the Service met with the References Cited Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council A complete list of all references cited 3501 et seq.). The agency may not in Billings, Montana and invited tribal in this final rule is available at http:// conduct or sponsor, and a person is not representative to engage in consultation www.regulations.gov at Docket No. required to respond to, a collection of concerning the GYE grizzly bear. FWS–R6–ES–2016–0042, or is available information unless it displays a On October 29, 2015, the Service sent upon request from the Grizzly Bear currently valid OMB control number. letters to 53 tribes, which included all Recovery Coordinator (see ADDRESSES). Tribes, Tribal Councils, and First Executive Order 13211 Nations in Canada that have contacted Glossary Executive Order 13211 requires the Service regarding the GYE grizzly 1998 baseline: The 1998 baseline agencies to prepare Statements of bear population. The letters invited all represents the best available habitat measures Energy Effects when undertaking certain Federal Tribes to engage in government- representing ground conditions inside the

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 30632 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

Primary Conservation Area (PCA) as of 1998. Team (IGBST) is an interdisciplinary group natural mortalities, undetermined-cause Habitat standards identified in the 2016 of scientists and biologists responsible for mortalities, grizzly bear hunting, and a Conservation Strategy pertain to secure long-term monitoring and research efforts on statistical estimate of the number of habitat, developed sites, and livestock grizzly bears in the GYE. The main objectives unknown/unreported mortalities. grazing allotments. The standards demand of the team are to: (1) Monitor the status and Transition probability: The probability of a that all three of these habitat parameters are trend of the grizzly bear population in the transition for an adult female (greater than 3 to be maintained at or improved upon GYE; and (2) determine patterns of habitat years old) among reproductive states. The conditions that existed in 1998. The 1998 use by bears and the relationship of land possible reproductive states are: no young, baseline represents the best estimate of what management activities to the welfare of the with cubs-of-the-year, with yearlings, or with was known to be on the ground at that time bear population. The IGBST is led by the 2-year-olds. Ten potential reproductive and establishes a benchmark against which USGS. IGBST members are representatives transitions are biologically feasible. future improvements and/or impacts can be from the USGS, NPS, Service, USFS, the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating assessed. It also provides a clear standard for Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Committee (YGCC): The committee of State, agency managers to follow when considering Tribal Fish and Game Department, and the Federal, Tribal, and county agencies charged project-effect analysis. States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. with implementing the 2016 Conservation Chao2 estimator: A bias-corrected Model-averaged Chao2 estimator: The Strategy post delisting. They will coordinate estimator of the total number of female method to estimate the total number of management and promote the exchange of grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year, derived female grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year information about the GYE grizzly bear from the frequency of single sightings or based on a statistical weighting of linear and population. Members include: YNP and double sightings of unique females with quadratic regression models fitted to data GTNP; five National Forests: Beaverhead- cubs-of-the-year (Keating et al. 2002; Cherry since 1983 to smooth annual variations in the Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, et al. 2007) as identified based on a rule set time series, and using endpoint in the time Custer Gallatin, and Shoshone; one BLM by Knight et al. (1995). series as the estimate for the current year. representative; the Biological Resources Cubs: Any use of the word cubs is Model-averaged Chao2 population Division of the USGS; one representative synonymous to cubs-of-the-year. estimator: The method to estimate the total each from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; Demographic monitoring area (DMA): The population size derived from the model- area of suitable habitat plus the potential sink and one representative from each Native averaged Chao2 estimate of females with American Tribe with sovereign powers over areas within which the GYE grizzly bear cubs-of-the-year. population is annually surveyed and reservation lands within the ecosystem. Primary Conservation Area (PCA): The estimated and within which the total name of the Recovery Zone area post- Authors mortality limits apply. The DMA is 49,928 delisting. The habitat-based recovery criteria km2 (19,279 mi2). See figure 1 for a map apply within the PCA. The primary authors of this final rule showing the DMA. Recovery Zone: The area defined in the are staff members of the Service’s Dependent young: Young grizzly bears less Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR than 2 years old. Dependent young are with 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan within FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT their mothers and are dependent upon them which the recovery efforts would be focused ) in the GYE. The Recovery Zone is not for survival. List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 Discretionary mortality: Mortalities that are designed to contain all grizzly bears. the result of hunting or management Significant portion of its range (SPR): The Endangered and threatened species, removals. Service defines a portion of the range of a Exports, Imports, Reporting and Distinct population segment (DPS): The species as ‘‘significant’’ if the species is not currently endangered or threatened recordkeeping requirements, Service defined a DPS in the DPS policy (61 Transportation. FR 4722, February 7, 1996) that considers throughout all of its range, but the portion’s two factors to determine whether the contribution to the viability of the species is Regulation Promulgation population segment is a valid DPS: (1) so important that, without the members in Discreteness of the population segment in that portion, the species would be in danger Accordingly, we hereby amend part relation to the remainder of the taxon to of extinction, or likely to become so in the 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of which it belongs; and (2) the significance of foreseeable future, throughout all of its range. the Code of Federal Regulations as set the population segment to the taxon to which Suitable habitat: We define suitable habitat forth below: it belongs. If a population meets both tests, for grizzly bears as areas having three it is a DPS, and the Service then evaluates characteristics: (1) Being of adequate habitat PART 17—ENDANGERED AND quality and quantity to support grizzly bear the population segment’s conservation status THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS according to the standards in section 4 of the reproduction and survival; (2) being Act for listing, delisting, or reclassification. contiguous with the current distribution of ■ Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE): YNP GYE grizzly bears such that natural 1. The authority citation for part 17 and GTNP form the core of the GYE, which recolonization is possible; and (3) having low continues to read as follows: includes portions of three States: Wyoming, mortality risk as indicated through Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 1531– Montana, and Idaho. At more than 90,000 reasonable and manageable levels of grizzly 1544; and 4201–4245, unless otherwise km2 (34,750 mi2), it is one of the largest bear mortality. Suitable habitat is made up of noted. nearly intact temperate-zone ecosystems on the Middle Rockies ecoregion, within which Earth. the GYE is contained. This area meets grizzly ■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the Illegal kills: Illegal human-caused bear biological needs providing food, first entry for ‘‘Bear, grizzly’’ under mortality, including but not limited to, seasonal foraging opportunities, cover, and ‘‘Mammals’’ in the List of Endangered vandal killings, poaching, and mistaken denning areas. See the Suitable Habitat and Threatened Wildlife to read as section of this final rule for a more complete identity kills. follows: Independent females: Grizzly bear females explanation. 2 years old or older. Total mortality: Documented known and § 17.11 Endangered and threatened Independent males: Grizzly bear males 2 probable grizzly bear mortalities from all wildlife. years old or older. causes including but not limited to: Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team Management removals, illegal kills, mistaken * * * * * (IGBST): The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study identity kills, self-defense kills, vehicle kills, (h) * * *

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 30633

Scientific Listing citations and Common name name Where listed Status applicable rules

Mammals

******* Bear, grizzly ...... Ursus arctos U.S.A., conterminous (lower 48) States, except: (1) T 32 FR 4001, 3/11/1967; horribilis. Where listed as an experimental population; and (2) 35 FR 16047, 10/13/1970; that portion of Idaho that is east of Interstate Highway 40 FR 31734, 7/28/1975; 15 and north of U.S. Highway 30; that portion of Mon- 72 FR 14866, 3/29/2007; tana that is east of Interstate Highway 15 and south of 82 FR [Insert Federal Reg- Interstate Highway 90; that portion of Wyoming south ister page where the doc- of Interstate Highway 90, west of Interstate Highway ument begins], 6/30/2017; 25, Wyoming State Highway 220, and U.S. Highway 50 CFR 17.40(b).4d 287 south of Three Forks (at the 220 and 287 intersec- tion), and north of Interstate Highway 80 and U.S. Highway 30.

*******

Dated: June 1, 2017. James W. Kurth, Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 2017–13160 Filed 6–29–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4333–15–P

VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:41 Jun 29, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00133 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\30JNR2.SGM 30JNR2 mstockstill on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES2