Thursday, November 17, 2005

Part III

Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designating the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears as a Distinct Population Segment; Removing the Yellowstone Distinct Population Segment of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Proposed Rule

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69854 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR sustainable mortality limits for the • January 9, 2006, from 4 to 8 p.m. at Yellowstone grizzly bear population. the Holiday Inn, 5 Baxter Lane, Fish and Wildlife Service Both the Conservation Strategy and the Bozeman, Montana. supplemental information to be • January 10, 2006, from 4 to 7 p.m. 50 CFR Part 17 appended to the Recovery Plan have at the Cody Auditorium, 1240 Beck RIN 1018–AT38 already undergone public review and Avenue, Cody Wyoming. comment (62 FR 19777, April 23, 1997; • January 11, 2006, from 4 to 8 p.m. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 62 FR 47677, September 10, 1997; 64 FR at the Snow King Resort, 400 E. Snow and Plants; Designating the Greater 38464, July 16, 1999; 64 FR 38465, July King Avenue, Jackson, Wyoming. Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of 16, 1999; 65 FR 11340, March 2, 2000). • January 12, 2006, from 4 to 8 p.m. Grizzly Bears as a Distinct Population In a subsequent notice, the revised at the Shilo Inn, 780 Lindsay Boulevard, Segment; Removing the Yellowstone methodology pertaining to population Idaho Falls, Idaho. Distinct Population Segment of Grizzly parameters will be made available for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Bears From the Federal List of public review and comment. It will be Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear Endangered and Threatened Wildlife finalized, with public comments Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and incorporated, before this proposed rule Wildlife Service, at our Missoula office AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, is finalized. Finally, the U.S. Forest (see address above) or telephone (406) Interior. Service will finalize their Forest Plan 243–4903. ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public Amendments for Grizzly Bear SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: hearing. Conservation for the Greater Background SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Yellowstone Area National Forests prior Wildlife Service (Service), propose to to the Service finalizing this action. Species Description establish a distinct population segment DATES: We will consider comments on Grizzly bears are generally larger and (DPS) of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos this proposed rule received until the more heavily built than other bears horribilis) for the greater Yellowstone close of business on February 15, 2006. (Craighead and Mitchell 1982; Schwartz Ecosystem and surrounding area. We We will hold one public hearing on this et al. 2003a). Grizzly bears can be also propose to remove the Yellowstone proposed rule scheduled hearing for distinguished from black bears, which DPS from the List of Threatened and November 15, 2005. In addition, we also occur in the lower 48 States, by Endangered Wildlife. The Yellowstone have scheduled four open houses (see longer, curved claws, humped grizzly bear population is no longer an ADDRESSES section for locations). shoulders, and a face that appears to be endangered or threatened population ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, concave (Craighead and Mitchell 1982). pursuant to the Endangered Species Act you may submit your comments and A wide range of coloration from light of 1973, as amended (ESA), based on the materials concerning this proposal by brown to nearly black is common best scientific and commercial any one of several methods: (LeFranc et al. 1987). Spring shedding, information available. Robust 1. You may submit written comments new growth, nutrition, and coat population growth, coupled with State to the Grizzly Bear Recovery condition all affect coloration. Guard and Federal cooperation to manage Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife hairs (long, course outer hair forming a mortality and habitat, widespread Service, University Hall 309, University protective layer over the soft underfur) public support for grizzly bear recovery, of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812. are often pale in color at the tips; hence and the development of adequate 2. You may hand deliver written the name ‘‘grizzly’’ (Craighead and regulatory mechanisms, has brought the comments to our Missoula office at the Mitchell 1982). In the lower 48 States, Yellowstone grizzly bear population to address given above. the average weight of grizzly bears is the point where making a change to its 3. You may send comments by generally 200 to 300 kilograms (kg) (400 status is appropriate. electronic mail (e-mail) to to 600 pounds (lb)) for males and 110 The proposed delisting of the [email protected]. See to 160 kg (250 to 350 lb) for females Yellowstone DPS would not change the the Public Comments Solicited section (Craighead and Mitchell 1982). Grizzly threatened status of the remaining below for file format and other bears are long-lived mammals, generally grizzly bears in the lower 48 States, information about electronic filing. living to be around 25 years old which will remain protected by the Comments and materials received, as (LeFranc et al. 1987). ESA. If this proposed action is finalized, well as supporting documentation used the Service intends to initiate a 5-year in preparation of this proposed action, Taxonomy review of grizzly bear populations in the will be available for inspection, by Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) conterminous States outside of the appointment, during normal business are vertebrates that belong to the Class Yellowstone DPS based on additional hours, at our Missoula office (see Mammalia, Order Carnivora, and scientific information that is currently address above). In addition, certain Family Ursidae. The grizzly bear is a being collected and analyzed. documents such as the Conservation member of the brown bear species (U. Additionally, prior to finalizing the Strategy and information to be arctos) that occurs in North America, proposed action, the Service will—(1) appended to the recovery plan are Europe, and Asia; the subspecies U. a. finalize the Conservation Strategy that available at http://mountain- horribilis is limited to North America will guide post-delisting management of prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ (Rausch 1963; Servheen 1999). Early the grizzly bear in the Greater grizzly/yellowstone.htm. taxonomic descriptions of U. arctos Yellowstone Area; (2) append habitat- The public hearing will be held at the based primarily on skull measurements based recovery criteria to the Recovery following location: described more than 90 subspecies Plan; (3) append genetic monitoring • January 10, 2006, from 7 to 9 p.m. (Merriam 1918), but this was later information to the Recovery Plan; and at the Cody Auditorium, 1240 Beck revised to 2 subspecies in North (4) finalize revised methodology for Avenue, Cody Wyoming. America, U. a. middendorfi on the calculating total population size, known The open houses will be held at the islands of the Kodiak archipelago and U. to unknown mortality ratios, and following locations: a. horribilis in the rest of North America

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69855

(Rausch 1963). Subsequent analyses population by enabling males to mate in body temperature (Nowak and (Hall 1984) suggested seven North with numerous females (Blanchard and Paradiso 1983). Due to their relatively American subspecies. DNA analyses Knight 1991; Craighead et al. 1995). constant body temperature in the den, provide an additional tool for evaluating Grizzly bear population densities of 1 hibernating grizzly bears can be easily taxonomic classification. Using bear per 20 sq km (8 sq mi) have been aroused and have been known to exit mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of brown reported in Glacier National Park dens when disturbed by seismic or bears across their worldwide range, five (Martinka 1976), but most populations mining activity (Harding and Nagy lineage groups or clades have been in the lower 48 States are much less 1980) or by human activity (Swenson et described: Clade I brown bears from dense (LeFranc et al. 1987). For al. 1997). Both males and females have Scandinavia and southern Europe; example, estimates of grizzly bear a tendency to use the same general area Clade II from Admiralty, Baronoff, and densities in the Yellowstone area range year after year but the same exact den Chichagof islands in Alaska; Clade III from one bear per 50 sq km (20 sq mi) is rarely used twice by an individual from eastern Europe, Asia, and western to one bear per 80 sq km (30 sq mi) (Schoen et al. 1987; Linnell et al. 2000). Alaska; Clade IV from southern Canada (Blanchard and Knight 1980; Craighead Females display stronger area fidelity and the lower 48 United States; and and Mitchell 1982). than males and generally stay in their Clade V from eastern Alaska and Grizzly bears have a promiscuous dens longer, depending on reproductive northern Canada (Cronin et al. 1991; mating system (Hornocker 1962; status (Judd et al. 1986; Schoen et al. Taberlet and Bouvet 1994; Kohn et al. Craighead and Mitchell 1982; Schwartz 1987; Linnell et al. 2000). 1995; Randi et al. 1994; Taberlet et al. et al. 2003a) with genetic studies In preparation for hibernation, bears 1995; Talbot and Shields 1996; Waits et confirming that cubs from the same increase their food intake dramatically al. 1998a; Waits et al. 1999). The two litter can have different fathers during a stage called hyperphagia. North American subspecies approach of (Craighead et al. 1998). Mating occurs Hyperphagia is defined simply as Rausch (1963) is generally accepted by from May through July with a peak in overeating (in excess of daily metabolic most taxonomists today. The original mid-June (Craighead and Mitchell 1982; demands) and occurs throughout the 2 listing has been inadvertently modified Nowak and Paradiso 1983). Age of first to 4 months prior to den entry. During in the List of Endangered and reproduction and litter size may be hyperphagia, excess food is deposited as Threatened Wildlife to U. arctos and the related to nutritional state (Stringham fat, and grizzly bears may gain as much range to holarctic. We propose to correct 1990; McLellan 1994; Hilderbrand et al. as 1.65 kg/day (3.64 lb/day) (Craighead this error to reflect the original listed 1999). Age of first reproduction varies and Mitchell 1982). Grizzly bears must entity of U. arctos horribilis with a from 3 to 8 years of age, and litter size consume foods rich in protein and historic range of North America. varies from one to four cubs (Schwartz carbohydrates in order to build up fat et al. 2003a). For the Yellowstone reserves to survive denning and post- Behavior grizzly bear population, the average age denning periods (Rode and Robbins Although adult bears are normally of first reproduction is approximately 6 2000). These layers of fat are crucial to solitary (Nowak and Paradiso 1983), years old, and the average litter size is the hibernating bear as they provide a home ranges of adult bears frequently 2.04 cubs (Schwartz et al. 2005). Cubs source of energy and insulate the bear overlap (Schwartz et al. 2003a). Grizzly are born in a den in late January or early from cold temperatures and are equally bears display a behavior called natal February and remain with the female for important in providing energy to the philopatry in which dispersing young 2 to 3 years before the mother will again bear upon emergence from the den establish home ranges within or mate and produce another litter when food is still sparse relative to overlapping their mother’s (Waser and (Schwartz et al. 2003a). Grizzly bears metabolic requirements. Jones 1983; Schwartz et al. 2003a). This have one of the slowest reproductive Although the digestive system of type of movement makes dispersal rates among terrestrial mammals, bears is essentially that of a carnivore, across landscapes a slow process. For resulting primarily from the late age of bears are successful omnivores, and in instance, McLellan and Hovey (2001) first reproduction, small average litter some areas may be almost entirely documented male and female dispersal size, and the long interval between herbivorous (Jacoby et al. 1999; over 20 years and found that grizzly litters (Nowak and Paradiso 1983; Schwartz et al. 2003a). Grizzly bears are bears gradually move farther from the Schwartz et al. 2003a). Given the above opportunistic feeders and will consume center of their mother’s home range over factors and natural mortality, it may almost any available food including the course of 1 to 4 years. Females take a single female 10 years to replace living or dead mammals or fish, and, established home ranges an average of herself in a population (Service 1993). sometimes, garbage (Knight et al. 1988; 9.8 kilometers (km) (6.1 miles (mi)) Grizzly bear females cease breeding Mattson et al. 1991a; Schwartz et al. away from the center of their mother’s successfully some time in their mid-to 2003a). In areas where animal matter is home range, whereas males generally late 20s (Schwartz et al. 2003b). less available, grasses, roots, bulbs, strayed further, establishing home For 3 to 6 months during winter, tubers, and fungi may be important in ranges roughly 29.9 km (18.6 mi) away grizzly bears across their range enter meeting protein requirements (LeFranc from their mother’s (McLellan and dens in an adaptive behavior which et al. 1987). High-quality foods such as Hovey 2001). Similarly, Proctor et al. increases survival during periods of low berries, nuts, insects, and fish are (2004) used genetic analyses to find food availability, deep snow, and low important in some areas (Schwartz et al. that, on average, females disperse only air temperature (Craighead and 2003a). 14.3 km (8.9 mi) and males disperse Craighead 1972). Grizzly bears in the The search for food has a prime 42.0 km (26.0 mi) from the center of lower 48 States spend up to 4 to 6 influence on grizzly bear movements. In their mother’s home range. months in dens beginning in October or the Yellowstone area, four food sources The home range of adult male grizzly November (Linnell et al. 2000). During have been identified as important to bears is typically 3 to 5 times the size this period, they do not eat, drink, grizzly bear survival and reproductive of an adult female’s home range urinate, or defecate (Folk et al. 1976; success (Mattson et al. 2002). Winter- (LeFranc et al. 1987). The large home Nelson 1980). Hibernating grizzly bears killed ungulates serve as an important ranges of grizzly bears, particularly exhibit a marked decline in heart and food source in early spring before most males, enhance genetic diversity in the respiration rate, but only a slight drop vegetation is available (Greene et al.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69856 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

1997; Mattson 1997). During early few bears develop a dependence on this human conflicts in the GYA (Mattson et summer, spawning cutthroat trout food source. Only four individuals al. 1992; Gunther et al. 1997; Gunther et (Oncorhynchus clarki) are a source of visited spawning streams consistently al. 2004). Grizzly bear/human conflicts nutrition for grizzly bears in the every year, suggesting that this resource are incidents in which bears kill or Yellowstone population (Mattson et al. is used opportunistically. Fishing injure people, damage property, kill or 1991a; Mattson and Reinhart 1995; activity can occur any time during the injure livestock, damage beehives, Felicetti et al. 2004). Grizzly bears feed spawning runs but generally coincides obtain anthropogenic foods, or damage on army cutworm moths (Euxoa with peak spawning numbers in mid- or obtain garden and orchard fruits and auxiliaris) during late summer and early June through mid-July. In contrast to vegetables (United States Department of fall as they try to acquire sufficient fat earlier studies which used different Agriculture (USDA) 1986). In contrast, levels for winter (Pritchard and Robbins assumptions and methods (Reinhart and during years when there are shortages of 1990; Mattson et al. 1991b; French et al. Mattson 1990; Mattson and Reinhart natural food sources, grizzly bear/ 1994). Lastly, whitebark pine seeds 1995), Felicetti et al. (2004) showed that human conflicts are more frequent, (Pinus albicaulis) serve as a crucial fall male grizzly bears are the primary resulting in higher numbers of human- food due to their high fat content and consumers of cutthroat trout, accounting caused grizzly bear mortalities due to abundance as a pre-hibernation food for 92 percent of all trout consumed by defense of life or property and (Mattson and Reinhart 1994). The Yellowstone grizzly bears. management removals of nuisance bears distribution and abundance of these Alpine moth aggregations are an (Mattson et al. 1992; Gunther et al. grizzly bear foods vary naturally among important food source for a considerable 2004). A nuisance bear is one that seeks seasons and years. In some years, portion of the Yellowstone grizzly bear human food in human use areas, kills whitebark pine seeds are an important population (Mattson et al. 1991b). As lawfully present livestock, or displays food and in other years, few seeds are many as 35 different grizzly bears with unnatural aggressive behavior towards available and bears switch to alternate cubs-of-the-year have been observed people (USDA 1986). Introduced foods. feeding at moth sites in a single season organisms (e.g., white pine blister rust On average, approximately 79 percent (Ternent and Haroldson 2000). Some and lake trout), habitat loss, and other of the diet of adult male and 45 percent bears may feed almost exclusively on human activities can negatively impact of the diet of adult female grizzly bears moths for a period of over 1 month the quantity and distribution of these in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) (French et al. 1994). Moths have the four primary foods (Reinhart et al. is terrestrial meat (Jacoby et al. 1999). In highest caloric content per gram of any 2001). The effects of invasive species on contrast, in Glacier National Park, over other bear food (French et al. 1994). food supply and human/bear conflict 95 percent of the diets of both adult Moths are available during late summer are discussed in more detail in the five male and female grizzly bears is and early fall when bears consume large factor analysis. vegetation (Jacoby et al. 1999). quantities of foods in order to acquire Ungulates rank as the second highest sufficient fat levels for winter (Mattson Recovery source of net digestible energy available et al. 1991b). A grizzly bear feeding Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the to grizzly bears in the GYA (Mealey extensively on moths over a 30-day grizzly bear occurred throughout the 1975; Pritchard and Robbins 1990; period may consume up to 47 percent western half of the contiguous United Craighead et al. 1995). Ungulates of its annual energy budget of 960,000 States, central Mexico, western Canada, provide a high-quality food source in calories (White et al. 1999). Moths are and most of Alaska (Roosevelt 1907; early spring before most plant foods also valuable to bears because they are Wright 1909; Merriam 1922; Storer and become available. Grizzly bears with located in remote areas, thereby Tevis 1955; Rausch 1963; Herrero 1972; home ranges in areas with few plant reducing the potential for grizzly bear/ Mattson et al. 1995; Schwartz et al. foods depend extensively on ungulate human conflicts during the late-summer 2003a). Pre-settlement population levels meat (Harting 1985). Grizzly bears in the tourist months. for the western contiguous United States Yellowstone area feed on ungulates Due to their high fat content and were believed to be in the range of primarily as winter-killed carrion from potential abundance as a pre- 50,000 animals (Servheen 1999). With March through May although they also hibernation food, whitebark pine seeds European settlement of the American depredate elk calves for a short period are an important fall food for bears in west, grizzly bears were shot, poisoned, in early June (Gunther and Renkin 1990; the GYA (Mattson and Jonkel 1990; and trapped wherever they were found, Green et al. 1997; Mattson 1997). Mattson et al. 1991a). Yellowstone and the resulting range and population Carcass availability fluctuates with grizzly bears consume whitebark pine declines were dramatic (Roosevelt 1907; winter severity because fewer ungulates seeds extensively when whitebark cones Wright 1909; Storer and Tevis 1955; die during mild winters. are available. Bears may feed Leopold 1967; Koford 1969; Craighead Due to their high digestibility and predominantly on whitebark pine seeds and Mitchell 1982; Mattson et al. 1995). protein and lipid content, spawning when production exceeds 22 cones per The range and numbers of grizzlies were cutthroat trout are one of the highest tree (Mattson et al. 1992). During years reduced to less than 2 percent of their sources of digestible energy available to of low whitebark pine seed availability, former range and numbers by the 1930s, bears during early summer in grizzly bears often seek alternate foods approximately 125 years after first Yellowstone National Park (Mealey at lower elevations in association with contact (Service 1993; Mattson et al. 1975; Pritchard and Robbins 1990). human activities (Mattson et al. 1992; 1995; Servheen 1999). Of 37 grizzly Grizzly bears are known to prey on Knight and Blanchard 1995; Gunther et populations present in 1922, 31 were cutthroat trout in at least 36 different al. 1997, 2004). extirpated by 1975 (Servheen 1999). streams tributary to Yellowstone Lake The production and availability of By the 1950s, with little or no (Reinhart and Mattson 1990). From 1997 these four major foods can have a conservation effort or management to 1999, Haroldson et al. (2000) positive effect on reproduction and directed at maintaining grizzly bears identified 85 different grizzly bears that survival rates of Yellowstone grizzly anywhere in their range, the had likely fished spawning streams bears (Mattson et al. 2002). For example, Yellowstone area population had been tributary to Yellowstone Lake. While during years when these food sources reduced in numbers and was restricted importance varies by season and year, are abundant, there are few grizzly bear/ largely to the confines of Yellowstone

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69857

National Park and some surrounding bears has been found in the San Juan Forest; Targhee National Forest; areas (Craighead et al. 1995; Schwartz et Mountains since a bear was killed there Yellowstone National Park; Grand Teton al. 2003a). High grizzly bear mortality in in 1979 (Service 1993). National Park; the Wyoming Game and 1970 and 1971, following closure of the In the initial Grizzly Bear Recovery Fish Department (WGFD); the Montana open-pit dumps in Yellowstone Plan, the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks National Park (Gunther 1994; Craighead Ecosystem, later called the Yellowstone (MDFWP); the Idaho Department of Fish et al. 1995), and concern about grizzly Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, was and Game (IDFG); the Bureau of Land population status throughout its defined as an area large enough and of Management (BLM); the Study Team; remaining range prompted the 1975 sufficient habitat quality to support a county government from each affected listing of the grizzly bear as a threatened recovered grizzly bear population State; and the Service. species in the lower 48 States under the within which the population and In 1994, The Fund for Animals, Inc., ESA (40 FR 31734). When the grizzly habitat would be monitored (Service and 42 other organizations and bear was listed in 1975, the population 1982, 1993). A revised Grizzly Bear individuals filed suit over the adequacy estimate in the Yellowstone Ecosystem Recovery Plan (Service 1993) included of the 1993 Recovery Plan. In 1995, the ranged from 229 (Craighead et al. 1974) additional tasks and new information U.S. District Court for the District of to 312 (Cowan et al. 1974; McCullough that increased the focus and Columbia issued an order that 1981) individuals. effectiveness of recovery efforts. remanded for further study and Grizzly bear recovery has required In 1981, the Service hired a grizzly clarification four issues that are relevant cooperation among numerous Federal bear recovery coordinator to direct to the Yellowstone Ecosystem: (1) The agencies, State agencies, non- recovery efforts and to coordinate all method used to measure the status of government organizations (NGOs), local bear populations; (2) the impacts of agency efforts on research and governments, and citizens. In management of grizzly bears in the genetic isolation; (3) how mortalities recognition that grizzly bear populations related to livestock are monitored; and lower 48 States. In 1982, the first were unsustainably low, the Interagency Grizzly bear recovery plan was (4) the monitoring of disease (Fund for Grizzly Bear Study Team (hereafter Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D. completed (Service 1982). The 1982 referred to as the Study Team) was Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan identified D.C. 1995); 967 F. Supp. 6 (D. D.C. created in 1973 to provide detailed 1997)). Following this decision, all five ecosystems within the scientific information for the parties filed appeals. In 1996, the parties conterminous United States thought to management and recovery of the grizzly reached a settlement whereby the support grizzly bears. Today, grizzly bear in the Yellowstone area. Currently, Service also agreed to append habitat- bear distribution is primarily within, members of the Study Team include based recovery criteria to the Recovery but not limited to, the areas identified scientists from the U.S. Geological Plan. These issues and the necessary as Recovery Zones (Service 1993), Survey (USGS), U.S. Forest Service supplements to the Recovery Plan as including the Yellowstone area in (USFS), the Service, academia, and each required by the court order and northwest Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and State game and fish agency involved in subsequent settlement are discussed in southwest Montana (24,000 sq km grizzly bear recovery. The Study Team detail in this section and in the threats (9,200 sq mi)) at more than 580 bears has developed protocols to monitor (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team grizzly bear populations and some analysis. (Study Team) 2005); the Northern important habitat parameters. These Habitat Management and Habitat- Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) parameters have been used in based Recovery Criteria. In 1979, the of north central Montana (25,000 sq km demographic and habitat management. Study Team developed the first (9,600 sq mi)) at more than 400 bears (70 In 1983, the Interagency Grizzly Bear comprehensive Guidelines for FR 24870; May 11, 2005); the North Committee was created to coordinate Management Involving Grizzly Bears in Cascades area of north central management efforts and research actions the Yellowstone area (hereafter referred Washington (25,000 sq km (9,500 sq across multiple Federal lands and States to as the Guidelines) (Mealey 1979). The mi)) at less than 20 bears (Almack et al. within the various Recovery Zones to Service (1979) determined in a 1993); the Selkirk Mountains area of recover the grizzly bear in the lower 48 biological opinion that implementation north Idaho, northeast Washington, and States. Its objective was to change land of the Guidelines by Federal land southeast British Columbia (5,700 sq km management practices to more management agencies would promote (2,200 sq mi)) at approximately 40 to 50 effectively provide security and conservation of the grizzly bear. bears (64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999; 70 FR maintain or improve habitat conditions Beginning in 1979, the six affected 24870, May 11, 2005); and the Cabinet- for the grizzly bear. The Interagency National Forests (Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Yaak area of northwest Montana and Grizzly Bear Committee is made up of Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, northern Idaho (6,700 sq km (2,600 sq upper level managers from all affected Gallatin, and Shoshone), Yellowstone mi)) at approximately 30 to 40 bears State and Federal agencies. Also in and Grand Teton National Parks, and (Kasworm and Manley 1988; Kasworm 1983, the Yellowstone Ecosystem BLM in the Yellowstone area began et al. 2004). There is an additional Subcommittee, a subcommittee of the managing habitats for grizzly bears Recovery Zone known as the Bitterroot Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, under direction specified in the Recovery Zone in the Bitterroot was formed to coordinate efforts specific Guidelines. Mountains of east-central Idaho and to the Yellowstone area and to In 1986, the Interagency Grizzly Bear western Montana (14,500 sq km (5,600 coordinate activities with the Committee modified the Guidelines to sq mi)), but this area does not contain Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. more effectively manage habitat by any grizzly bears at this time (Service Members of the Yellowstone Ecosystem mapping and managing according to 1996; 65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000; Subcommittee are mid-level managers three different management situations: Service 2000). The San Juan Mountains and include representatives from the • Management Situation (1) Grizzly of Colorado also were identified as an Shoshone National Forest; the Custer habitat maintenance and improvement, area of possible grizzly bear occurrence National Forest; the Beaverhead- and grizzly bear/human conflict (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975; Service Deerlodge National Forest; the Bridger- minimization receive the highest 1982, 1993), but no evidence of grizzly Teton National Forest; Gallatin National management priority;

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69858 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

• Management Situation (2) Grizzly foods, and the number and capacity of and (4) development on private lands. A bear use is important, but not the human activities. copy of the habitat-based criteria is primary use of the area; or As per a court settlement (Fund for available at http://mountain- • Management Situation (3) Grizzly Animals v. Babbitt) and as prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ habitat maintenance and improvement recommended by Recovery Plan Task grizzly/yellowstone.htm. This revised are not management considerations Y423, the Service has worked to habitat-based recovery criteria will be (USDA 1986). ‘‘establish a threshold of minimal appended to the Recovery Plan and is Accordingly, the National Forests and habitat values to be maintained within included in the Conservation Strategy. National Parks delineated 18 different each Cumulative Effects Analysis Unit These habitat-based criteria have been bear management units within the in order to ensure that sufficient habitat maintained successfully at 1998 levels, Recovery Zone to aid in managing is available to support a viable and the Conservation Strategy ensures habitat and monitoring population population’’ (Service 1993, p. 55). On they will continue to be met in the trends. Each bear management unit was June 17, 1997, the Service held a public foreseeable future (see Conservation further subdivided into subunits, workshop in Bozeman, Montana, to Strategy). resulting in a total of 40 subunits develop and refine habitat-based Population and Demographic contained within the 18 bear recovery criteria for the grizzly bear. A Management. Mortality control is a key management units. The bear Federal Register notice notified the part of any successful management management units are analysis areas public of this workshop and provided effort; however, some mortality, that approximate the lifetime size of a interested parties an opportunity to including human-caused mortality, is female’s home range, while subunits are participate and submit comments (62 FR unavoidable in a dynamic system where analysis areas that approximate the 19777, April 23, 1997). After hundreds of bears inhabit thousands of annual home range size of adult considering 1,167 written comments, square miles of diverse habitat with females. Subunits provide the optimal the Service developed biologically- several million human visitors and scale for evaluation of seasonal feeding based habitat criteria with the overall residents. In 1977, Eberhardt opportunities and landscape patterns of goal of maintaining or improving habitat documented that adult female survival food availability for grizzly bears conditions at 1998 levels. was the most important of the vital rates (Weaver et al. 1986). The bear Recognizing that grizzly bears are influencing population trajectory. Low management units and subunits were opportunistic omnivores and that a adult female survival was the critical identified to provide enough quality landscape’s ability to support grizzly factor causing decline in the habitat and to ensure that grizzly bears bears is a function of overall habitat Yellowstone area population prior to the were well distributed across the productivity, the distribution and mid-1980s (Knight and Eberhardt 1985). recovery area. abundance of major food sources, the In the early 1980s, with the Another tool employed to monitor levels and type of human activities, development of the first Grizzly Bear habitat quality and assist in habitat grizzly bear social systems, bear Recovery Plan (Service 1982), agencies management is the Yellowstone Grizzly densities, and stochasticity, there is no began to control mortality and increase Bear Cumulative Effects Model. The known way to deductively calculate adult female survivorship (Interagency model was designed to assess the minimum habitat values. The Service Grizzly Bear Committee 1983; USDA inherent productivity of grizzly bear instead inductively selected 1998 levels 1986; Knight et al. 1999). The Recovery habitat and the cumulative effects of because it was known that these habitat Plan (Service 1982, revised 1993) human activities on bear use of that values had adequately supported an established three demographic habitat (Weaver et al. 1986; Dixon 1997; increasing Yellowstone grizzly bear (population) goals to objectively Mattson et al. 2002). The model uses population throughout the 1990s measure and monitor recovery of the GIS databases and relative value (Eberhardt et al. 1994; Knight and Yellowstone grizzly bear population: coefficients of human activities, Blanchard 1995; Knight et al. 1995; Demographic Recovery Criterion 1— vegetation, and key grizzly bear foods to Boyce 2001) and that levels of secure Maintain a minimum of 15 calculate habitat value and habitat habitat and the number and capacity of unduplicated (only counted once) effectiveness (Weaver et al. 1986; developed sites had changed little from females with cubs-of-the-year over a Mattson et al. 2002). Habitat value is a 1988 to 1998 (USFS 2004). Specific running 6-year average both inside the relative measure of the average net habitat conditions or criteria include Recovery Zone and within a 16-km (10- digestible energy potentially available to limiting road densities inside the mi) area immediately surrounding the bears in a subunit during each season. Recovery Zone, maintaining or Recovery Zone. This recovery criterion Habitat value is primarily a function of increasing levels of secure habitat, has been met. vegetation and major foods (Weaver et maintaining or improving habitat Demographic Recovery Criterion 2— al. 1986; Dixon 1997). Habitat effectiveness values in secure habitat, Sixteen of 18 bear management units effectiveness is that part of the energy and limiting further site development within the Recovery Zone must be potentially derived from the area that is and livestock grazing allotments on occupied by females with young, with available to bears given their response to public lands within the Yellowstone no 2 adjacent bear management units humans (Weaver et al. 1986; Dixon grizzly bear Recovery Zone. unoccupied, during a 6-year sum of 1997; Mattson et al. 2002). More Additionally, the Service developed observations. This criterion is important specifically, habitat effectiveness is a four general habitat-based parameters to as it ensures that reproductive females function of relative value coefficients of monitor and relate to population occupy the majority of the Recovery human activities, such as location, information: (1) Productivity of the four Zone and are not concentrated in one duration, and intensity of use for major foods; (2) habitat effectiveness as portion of the ecosystem. This recovery motorized access routes, non-motorized measured by the Cumulative Effects criterion has been met. access routes, developed sites, and Model; (3) grizzly bear mortality Demographic Recovery Criterion 3— front- and back-country dispersed uses numbers, locations, and causes; grizzly The running 6-year average for total (Mattson et al. 2002). The Cumulative bear/human conflicts; nuisance bear known, human-caused mortality should Effects Model is updated annually to management actions; bear/hunter not exceed 4 percent of the minimum reflect changes in vegetation, major conflicts; and bear/livestock conflicts; population estimate in any 2

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69859

consecutive years; and human-caused population. The last component of Known and probable human-caused female grizzly bear mortality should not calculating a total population is to add mortalities; (2) reported deaths due to exceed 30 percent of the above total in the number of cubs less than 2 years old natural and undetermined causes; and any 2 consecutive years. These recovery (i.e., dependent young.). This number is (3) calculated unreported human-caused criteria have not been exceeded in 2 extrapolated from the number of females mortalities. This new method is a much consecutive years since 1997. with cubs-of-the-year (Study Team more comprehensive mortality Although the Recovery Plan suggested 2005). Finally, by adding the number of management approach. Between 1980 calculating sustainable mortality as a independent males, independent and 2002, approximately 21 percent of percentage of the minimum population females, and dependent young, the total all known grizzly bear deaths were from estimate (as outlined in Demographic population is determined. The revised undetermined causes (Servheen et al. Recovery Criterion 3), this method no method for calculating total population 2004). These deaths could not be longer represents the best scientific and size produces a larger estimate than the counted against the 4 percent human- commercial information available (see current method which only calculates caused mortality limit using the pages 9–11 of Study Team 2005). As per the minimum population size. For previous method because the cause of a court settlement (Fund for Animals v. example, using the current method, the death could not be confirmed. The Babbit) and as recommended by minimum population size in 2004 was previous method also assumed a 2-to-1 Recovery Plan Task Y11, the Service has 431 bears. Using the revised method, the known-to-unknown mortality ratio. worked to ‘‘determine population total population estimate of Yellowstone Many researchers hypothesize that the conditions at which the species is viable grizzly bears in 2004 was 588 (Study ratio of known-to-unknown mortality is and self-sustaining,’’ and to ‘‘reevaluate Team 2005). The total population much higher than 2-to-1 (Knight and and refine population criteria as new estimate is considered a more accurate Eberhardt 1985; McLellan et al. 1999). information becomes available’’ (Service representation of actual population size After careful consideration and using 1993, p. 44). Beginning in 2000, the (Study Team 2005). Total population the best available science, the Study Study Team, at the request of the size is critical in determining Team adopted a known-to-unknown Service, began a comprehensive sustainable mortality. mortalities ratio of 1-to-1.7 (Cherry et al. evaluation of the demographic data and Also outdated is the Recovery Plan’s 2002; Study Team 2005). the methodology used to estimate total human-caused mortality limit and For independent females, the revised population size and establish the female human-caused mortality limit as annual mortality limit, not to be sustainable level of mortality to grizzly outlined in Demographic Recovery exceeded in 2 consecutive years, which bears in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. Criterion 3. In 1986, Harris (1986) includes all sources of mortality, is 9 Accordingly, the Study Team conducted concluded that healthy grizzly bear percent of the total number of a critical review of the current methods populations could sustain independent females. Simulations have for calculating population size, approximately 6.5 percent human- shown that a 9 percent adult female estimating the known to unknown caused mortality without population mortality rate allows populations to mortality ratio, and establishing decline. To account for unknown/ increase at 3 percent per year with a sustainable mortality levels for the unreported deaths, the Service assumed stable to increasing population 95 Yellowstone grizzly population (Study that for every two bears known to be percent of the time (Schwartz et al. Team 2005). The product of this work killed by human causes, there was one 2005). is a 60-page report compiled by the that was unknown. This approach on The revised mortality limit for Study Team that evaluates current unknown mortalities resulted in the independent males (≥2 years old), not to methods, reviews recent scientific Service adopting a more conservative 4 be exceeded in 3 consecutive years, is literature, examines alternative percent limit on known human-caused 15 percent of the total number of methods, and recommends the most grizzly bear mortalities in the Grizzly independent males and, like the limit valid technique based on these reviews Bear Recovery Plan (Service 1993). for independent females, includes all (Study Team 2005) (accessible at http:// After critically reviewing the current sources of mortality. This level of mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ method of establishing human-caused mortality was sustainable under mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The mortality limits, alternative methods, different population growth model end result of this review is a revised and scientific literature, the Study Team scenarios simulated by Schwartz et al. method customized for the Yellowstone concluded that Harris’ (1986) method (2005). The Study Team chose this limit grizzly bear population for calculating was no longer the best available nor the because it approximates the level of total population size rather than most biologically valid (Study Team male mortality in the GYA from 1983 to minimum population size (Study Team 2005). As a result of this effort, the 2001, a period when population size 2005). This revised method will be Study Team recommended revising the was calculated to have increased at 4 to appended to the Recovery Plan and sustainable mortality limits for the 7 percent each year (Schwartz et al. included in the Conservation Strategy. Yellowstone population (Study Team 2005). Independent males can endure a As with the previous method, the 2005). The revised mortality limits are relatively high mortality rate without revised method uses counts of derived from a more accurate model for affecting the overall stability or unduplicated females with cubs-of-the- establishing sustainable mortality limits trajectory of the population because year as the baseline data upon which for grizzly bear populations (Schwartz et they contribute little to overall the total population is calculated. From al. 2005). population growth (Mace and Waller this, the total number of independent The refined method resulted in new, 1998; Wielgus 2002; Study Team 2005; females (>2 years old) in the calculated mortality limits for Schwartz et al. 2005). Yellowstone population is calculated independent females, males, and For dependent young (<2 years old), (Keating et al. 2002). This number is dependent young. Unlike the previous the mortality limit, not to be exceeded then divided by the modeled sex ratio method, which only counted human- in 3 consecutive years, is 9 percent of (Schwartz et al. 2005) of grizzly bears in caused mortalities against a 4 percent the total number of dependent young the Yellowstone population to limit, the revised method counts all (Study Team 2005). However, this only determine the total number of deaths of grizzly bears from any source includes known and probable human- independent males (>2 years old) in the against the limits. This includes: (1) caused mortalities. This limit is less

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69860 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

than the 15 percent human-caused FR 47677; September 10, 1997). A draft adjacent areas of suitable habitat where mortality documented for each sex from of this document is available for occupancy by grizzly bears is 1983 to 2001, a period of population viewing online at http://mountain- anticipated. The PCA boundaries growth and expansion (Study Team prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ (containing 23,853 sq km (9,210 sq mi)) 2005). Although it is known that grizzly/yellowstone.htm. This revised correspond to those of the Yellowstone dependent bears experience far higher genetics recovery criteria will be Recovery Zone (Service 1993) and will natural mortality rates than independent appended to the Recovery Plan and replace the Recovery Zone boundary if bears, there is no known way to sample included in the Conservation Strategy. this proposed delisting is finalized these mortalities directly in the field. Long-term management of genetic (Figure 1 (see Application of the Instead, these rates are calculated from diversity is discussed in more detail Distinct Population Segment Policy consecutive years of observing radio- under Factor E. section)). The PCA contains adequate collared females with cubs-of-the-year. The Conservation Strategy. In order to seasonal habitat components needed to Annual allowable mortality limits for ensure the long-term preservation of a support the recovered Yellowstone each bear class (independent female, viable population, the Recovery Plan grizzly bear population for the independent male, dependent young) calls for the development of ‘‘a foreseeable future and to allow bears to are calculated as a running 3-year conservation strategy to outline habitat continue to expand outside the PCA. average based on total population and population monitoring that will The PCA includes approximately 51 estimates of each bear class for the continue in force after recovery’’ percent of the suitable habitat within current year and the 2 preceding years (Recovery Plan Task Y426) (Service the DPS and approximately 90 percent (Study Team 2005). This dampens 1993, p. 55). To accomplish this goal, in of the population of female grizzly bears variability and provides managers with 1993, the Service created the with cubs (Schwartz 2005, unpublished inter-annual stability in the threshold Interagency Conservation Strategy Team data). number of mortalities allowed. The which included biologists from the The Strategy will be implemented and Study Team calculates both the total National Park Service (NPS), the USFS, funded by both Federal and State population size and the mortality limits the Service, the IDFG, the WGFD, and agencies within the Yellowstone DPS. within an area designated by the MTFWP. These Federal agencies will cooperate Conservation Strategy (see The In March 2000, a draft Conservation with the State wildlife agencies, Conservation Strategy section) that Strategy for the GYA was released for MTFWP, IGFD, and WDFG, to overlaps and extends beyond suitable public review and comment (65 FR implement the Strategy and its habitat (Figure 1, see Application of the 11340; March 2, 2000). Also in 2000, a protective habitat and population Distinct Population Segment Policy Governors’ Roundtable was organized to standards. The USFS and NPS (which section). Future changes to either of provide recommendations from the own and manage approximately 98 these methods will be based on the best perspectives of the three States that percent of the PCA) will be responsible scientific information available. This would be involved with grizzly bear for maintaining or improving habitat revised methodology for calculating management after delisting. In 2002, the standards inside the PCA and total population size and establishing draft Final Conservation Strategy for the monitoring population criteria. sustainable mortality limits will be Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Specifically, Yellowstone National Park; appended to the Recovery Plan prior to Area (hereafter referred to as the Grand Teton National Park; and the our making a final determination on this Strategy) was released, along with drafts Shoshone, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, proposed action and included in the of State grizzly bear management plans the Bridger-Teton, the Caribou-Targhee, Conservation Strategy. Applying this (all accessible at http:// mountain- the Custer, and the Gallatin National method to 1999 to 2004 data, these prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ Forests are the primary areas with mortality limits have not been exceeded grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The Service Federal agencies responsible for for consecutive years for any bear class. will sign the Strategy, and it will go into implementing the Strategy. Affected Maintaining Genetic Diversity. As per effect if we finalize this proposed National Forests and National Parks are a court settlement (Fund for Animals v. action. currently in the process of incorporating Babbitt), measurable criteria to assess The purpose of the Strategy and the habitat standards and criteria into genetic isolation will be appended to associated State and Federal their Forest Plans and National Park the existing Yellowstone chapter of the implementation plans is to—(1) management plans via appropriate 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan describe, summarize, and implement amendment processes so that they are (Service 1993) before we make a final the coordinated efforts to manage the legally applied to these public lands determination on this proposed action. grizzly bear population and its habitat to within the proposed Yellowstone DPS Changes in genetic diversity must be ensure continued conservation of the boundaries. The Service would not monitored over time in order to make Yellowstone grizzly bear population; (2) finalize this proposed action until these sound decisions regarding the need for specify and implement the population, amendments to current management augmentation of new individuals to habitat, and nuisance bear standards to plans are completed. increase diversity if it is being lost. maintain a recovered grizzly bear Outside of the PCA, grizzly bears will When the Recovery Plan was revised in population for the foreseeable future; (3) be allowed to expand into suitable 1993, many of the genetic techniques document the regulatory mechanisms habitat. Here the objective is to maintain and markers commonly used today to and legal authorities, policies, existing resource management and assess genetic diversity and isolation management, and monitoring programs recreational uses and to allow agencies were just being developed. Following that exist to maintain the recovered to respond to demonstrated problems direction from the Court, the Service grizzly bear population; and (4) with appropriate management actions. reviewed the best available and most document the actions which the The key to successful management of recent scientific information pertaining participating agencies have agreed to grizzly bears outside of the PCA lies in to genetic monitoring and established implement. their successfully utilizing lands not measurable genetic criteria based on this The Strategy identifies and provides a managed solely for bears, but in which review. This document was made framework for managing two areas, the their needs are considered along with available for public review in 1997 (62 Primary Conservation Area (PCA) and other uses. Currently, approximately 10

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69861

percent of female grizzly bears with At the time of listing, special actions remain precluded by higher cubs occupy habitat outside of the PCA regulations were issued in conjunction priority actions. The Service’s decision (Schwartz 2005, unpublished data). The with the listing determination, and were to manage each population separately, area of suitable habitat outside of the incorporated into 50 CFR 17.40(b). including each population’s listing PCA is roughly 82.3 percent federally These rules provided general protection status, predated our DPS policy (61 FR owned and administered by one of the to the species, but allowed take under 4722; February 7, 1996). None of the six National Forests in the region, the certain conditions to defend human life, above decisions included formal DPS BLM, the NPS, or the Service; 9.5 to eliminate nuisance animals, and to analysis, although the warranted percent privately owned; 6.0 percent carry out research. Legal grizzly bear uplisting petition finding in 1999 (64 FR tribally owned; 0.7 percent State-owned mortality has been almost entirely due 26725; May 17, 1999) included a land; and 2 percent in other ownership to removal of chronic nuisance bears by preliminary DPS analysis. In (such as private conservation trusts or government bear managers due to preparation for future application of the other Federal ownership). State grizzly repeated human/bear conflicts or to DPS policy, beyond this action, bear management plans, Forest Plans, killing by humans in self-defense or including that required to implement and other appropriate planning defense of others (Gunther et al. 2004; documents provide specific Servheen et al. 2004). In addition, a warranted-but-precluded uplistings or management direction for areas outside limited sport hunting season was any additional reclassification of the PCA. authorized in a specified portion of proposals, we are currently collecting This differential management northwestern Montana; these rules were additional genetic and bear movement standard (one standard inside the PCA modified in 1985 (50 FR 35086; August information. The Service expects that and another standard for suitable habitat 29, 1985) and 1986 (51 FR 33753; this information will be available within outside the PCA) has been successful in September 23, 1986). A similar, limited the next few years. In anticipation of the past (see USFS 2004, p. 19). Lands hunt was proposed for the Yellowstone this information, the Service intends to within the PCA/Recovery Zone are Ecosystem in October of 1989 (54 FR initiate a 5-year review of all listed currently managed primarily to 42524; October 17, 1989), but this rule grizzly bear populations in the maintain grizzly bear habitat, whereas was never finalized. The Service conterminous States, including an lands outside of the PCA/Recovery Zone withdrew the hunt provisions of 50 CFR evaluation of the appropriate boundaries are managed with more 17.40(b) (see 57 FR 37478) in response application of the DPS policy and the consideration for human uses (Service to a court decision that declared 50 CFR threats facing each listable entity should 1993). Such flexible management 17.40(b)(1)(i)(E) invalid and enjoined this proposed rule be finalized. promotes communication and tolerance the Service from authorizing a grizzly Adequate information of this type for grizzly bear recovery. As grizzly bear bear hunt (Fund for Animals, Inc., v. already exists for the Yellowstone populations within the Recovery Zone Turner, Civil No. 91–2201 (MB), grizzly bear population. have rebounded in response to recovery September 27, 1991) (57 FR 37478; This proposed delisting action was efforts, there has been a gradual natural August 19, 1992). not prompted by a petition. However, recolonization of suitable habitat According to the Grizzly Bear there was a March 31, 2004, petition outside of the PCA/Recovery Zone. Recovery Plan (Service 1982, 1993), from the Wyoming Farm Bureau Today, most suitable habitat outside of individual populations could be Federation requesting that we declare the Recovery Zone is occupied by delisted as recovery goals were achieved grizzly bears (68 percent). (Service 1982, 1993). In the 1990s, the the grizzly bear in the GYA as a DPS The Strategy is an adaptive, dynamic Service received a number of petitions (Hamilton et al. in litt. 2004). This document that establishes a framework to change the status of several grizzly petition did not seek to change the to incorporate new and better scientific bear populations. The Service issued status of grizzly bears as a threatened information as it becomes available or as warranted-but-precluded petition species in any or all of the species’ necessary in response to environmental findings to reclassify the grizzly bear in range. On May 17, 2004, the Service changes. Ongoing review and evaluation the North Cascade Ecosystems as responded that section 4 of the ESA of the effectiveness of the Strategy is the endangered in 1991 and 1998 (56 FR limits petitionable actions to listing, responsibility of the State and Federal 33892, July 24, 1991; 63 FR 30453, June delisting, designation or modification of managers and will be updated by the 4, 1998). The Service also issued critical habitat, or reclassification of the management agencies every 5 years or warranted-but-precluded petition status of a species (meaning whether a as necessary, allowing public comment findings to reclassify the grizzly bear in species is classified as endangered or in the updating process. the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystems as threatened) and that this petition did endangered in 1993 and 1999 (58 FR Previous Federal Actions not fit any of these categories 8250, February 12, 1993; 64 FR 26725, (Blankenship in litt. 2004). Instead, On July 28, 1975, the grizzly bear was May 17, 1999). Finally, the Service petitioners were informed that the designated as threatened in the issued a not warranted petition finding requested action falls within the conterminous (lower 48) United States to uplist the Selkirk Ecosystem bears in authority of the Administrative (40 FR 31734). On November 5, 1976, 1993 (58 FR 8250; February 12, 1993), Procedures Act; that the Service was the Service proposed critical habitat for followed by a warranted-but-precluded currently considering the Yellowstone the grizzly bear (41 FR 48757). This petition finding in 1999 (64 FR 26725; population for delisting; and that an proposed rule was never finalized and May 17, 1999). The Service reviewed evaluation of the Yellowstone grizzly we withdrew this proposed designation these warranted-but-precluded findings bear recovery area as a potential DPS in 1979 because the 1978 amendments in the 1999 (64 FR 57533; October 25, was a part of this process. The to the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 1999), 2001 (66 FR 54808; October 30, Administrative Procedures Act provides imposed additional obligations on the 2001), 2002 (67 FR 40657; June 13, Service, such as economic analysis, that 2002), 2003 (69 FR 24876; May 4, 2004), no statutory time periods for processing had not been adequately addressed in and 2004 (70 FR 24870; May 11, 2005) petitions, but this action, if finalized, the proposal. Candidate Notices of Review. These will address this petition.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69862 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment (i.e., U. a. horribilis); (2) the significance Wyoming State Highway 220, and U.S. Policy Overview of the population segment to the taxon Highway 287 south of Three Forks (at to which it belongs (i.e., U. a. horribilis); the 220 and 287 intersection), and north Pursuant to the ESA, we shall and (3) the population segment’s of Interstate Highway 80 and U.S. consider for listing any species, conservation status in relation to the Highway 30 (Figure 1, below). subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS ESA’s standards for listing (i.e., is the The core of the proposed Yellowstone of these taxa if there is sufficient population segment, when treated as if DPS is the Yellowstone Recovery Zone information to indicate that such action it were a species, endangered or (24,000 sq km (9,200 sq mi)) (Service may be warranted. To interpret and threatened). implement the DPS provision of the 1982, 1993). The Yellowstone Recovery ESA and congressional guidance, the Application of the Distinct Population Zone includes Yellowstone National Service and the National Marine Segment Policy Park; Grand Teton National Park; John Fisheries Service published, on Although the Vertebrate Population D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway; December 21, 1994, a draft Policy Policy does not allow State or other sizable contiguous portions of the Regarding the Recognition of Distinct intra-national governmental boundaries Shoshone, Bridger-Teton, Targhee, Vertebrate Population Segments under to be used in determining the Gallatin, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, and the ESA and invited public comments discreteness of a potential DPS, an Custer National Forests; BLM lands; and on it (59 FR 65884). After review of artificial or manmade boundary may be surrounding State and private lands comments and further consideration, used as a boundary of convenience in (Service 1993). As grizzly bear the Services adopted the interagency order to clearly identify the geographic populations have rebounded and policy as issued in draft form, and area included within a DPS designation. densities have increased, bears have published it in the Federal Register on Easily identifiable manmade projects, expanded their range beyond the February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). This such as interstate highways, Federal Recovery Zone, into other suitable policy addresses the establishment of highways, and State highways, also can habitat. Grizzly bears in this area now DPSs for potential listing actions. serve as a boundary of convenience for occupy about 36,940 sq km (14,260 sq Under our DPS policy, three factors delineating a DPS. Thus, the proposed mi) in and around the Yellowstone are considered in a decision regarding Yellowstone DPS consists of: That Recovery Zone (Schwartz et al. 2002; the establishment of a possible DPS. portion of Idaho that is east of Interstate Schwartz 2005, unpublished data). No These are applied similarly for Highway 15 and north of U.S. Highway grizzly bears originating from the additions to the list of endangered and 30; and that portion of Montana that is Yellowstone Recovery Zone have been threatened species, reclassification, and east of Interstate Highway 15 and south suspected or confirmed beyond the removal from the list. They are—(1) of Interstate Highway 90; that portion of borders of the proposed Yellowstone discreteness of the population segment Wyoming south of Interstate Highway DPS. in relation to the remainder of the taxon 90, west of Interstate Highway 25, BILLING CODE 4310–55–U

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69863

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 EP17NO05.000 69864 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

Analysis for Discreteness NCDE population with the proposed separated from each other. This Under our Policy Regarding the Yellowstone DPS. There is currently no contention is supported by evidence of Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate connectivity, nor are there any resident physical separation between Population Segments, a population grizzly bears in the area, between these populations and evidence of genetic segment of a vertebrate species may be two separate grizzly bear populations. discontinuity. Therefore, the proposed considered discrete if it satisfies either Although future connectivity through Yellowstone DPS meets the criterion of one of the following conditions—(1) It is this area may be possible as grizzly bear discreteness under our Policy Regarding markedly separated from other populations expand, grizzly bears in the the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate populations of the same taxon (i.e., U. Yellowstone area remain an island Population Segments. population separated from other grizzly a. horribilis) as a consequence of Analysis for Significance bears further north by about 210 km physical, physiological, ecological, or If we determine a population segment behavioral factors (quantitative (130 mi). Because the Yellowstone Ecosystem is discrete, we next consider available measures of genetic or morphological represents the most southerly scientific evidence of its significance to discontinuity may provide evidence of population of grizzly bears, connectivity the taxon (i.e., U. a. horribilis) to which this separation); or (2) it is delimited by further south is not an issue. it belongs. Our DPS policy states that international governmental boundaries Additionally, connectivity east also is this consideration may include, but is within which differences in control of irrelevant to this action as grizzly bears not limited to, the following—(1) exploitation, management of habitat, in the lower 48 States no longer exist Persistence of the discrete population conservation status, or regulatory east of the Yellowstone area, and most segment in an ecological setting unusual mechanisms exist that are significant in of the habitat is unsuitable for grizzly or unique for the taxon; (2) Evidence light of section 4(a)(1)(D) (‘‘the bears. Finally, connectivity west into that loss of the discrete population inadequacy of existing regulatory the Bitterroot Mountains is irrelevant to segment would result in a significant mechanisms’’) of the ESA. this action because no bears have been gap in the range of the taxon; (3) The Yellowstone grizzly bear documented in this ecosystem in the Evidence that the discrete population population is the southernmost past 30 years (Service 1993; 65 FR segment represents the only surviving population remaining in the 69624, November 17, 2000; Service natural occurrence of a taxon that may conterminous States and has been 2000). be more abundant elsewhere as an physically separated from other areas Genetic data also support the introduced population outside its where grizzly bears occur for at least conclusion that grizzly bears from the historic range; and/or (4) Evidence that 100 years (Merriam 1922; Miller and Yellowstone area are markedly the discrete population segment differs Waits 2003). The nearest population of separated from other grizzly bears. markedly from other populations of the grizzly bears is found in the NCDE. Genetic studies involving heterozygosity species in its genetic characteristics. These populations are separated by land (provides a measure of genetic variation Below we address Factors 1, 2, and 4. ownership, vegetation, and topographic in either a population or individual) Factor 3 does not apply to the patterns which have promoted human estimates at 8 microsatellite loci show Yellowstone grizzly bear population occupation, development, and land uses 55 percent heterozygosity in the because it is not the only surviving wild in the intervening valleys between large Yellowstone area grizzly bears population of the species and, therefore, blocks of mountainous, public lands compared to 69 percent in the NCDE this factor is not included in our (Servheen et al. 2003). These human bears (Paetkau et al. 1998). analysis for significance. activities increase grizzly bear mortality Heterozygosity is a useful measure of Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting. risk by increasing the frequency of genetic diversity with higher values Grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area encounters with humans, which indicative of greater genetic variation exist in a unique ecosystem that has increases the chances for grizzly bear/ and evolutionary potential. High levels greater access to large-bodied ungulates human conflicts (Mattson et al. 1996). of genetic variation are indicative of such as bison (Bison bison), elk (Cervus The end result of this increased high levels of connectivity among elaphus), and moose (Alces alces) and mortality risk in the intervening valleys populations or high numbers of less access to fall berries than any other is a functional barrier to grizzly bear breeding animals. By comparing interior North American, European, or movement across the landscape and heterozygosity of extant bears to Asian grizzly bear population connectivity between the GYA and the samples from Yellowstone grizzlies of (Stroganov 1969; Mattson et al. 1991a; NCDE. the early 1900s, Miller and Waits (2003) Jacoby et al. 1999; Schwartz et al. 2003). As of 2005, grizzly bears from the concluded that gene flow and therefore Unlike most other areas in the world Yellowstone area have not migrated population connectivity, between the where brown or grizzly bears still exist, north across Interstate 90 (the northern Yellowstone area grizzly population and the Yellowstone area ecosystem boundary of the proposed DPS), populations to the north was very low contains extensive populations of probably for at least the last century historically, even prior to the arrival of ungulates with an estimated 100,000 (Miller and Waits 2003). Meanwhile, settlers. The reasons for this historic elk, 29,500 mule (Odocoileus hemionus) during the last decade, there have been limitation of gene flow are unclear. and white-tailed deer (O. virginianus), occasional anecdotal reports of grizzly Increasing levels of human activity and 5,800 moose, 4,000 bison and relatively bears from the NCDE as far south as settlement in this intervening area over smaller population of pronghorn Highway 12 near Helena, Montana. the last century further limited grizzly antelope (Antilocapra americana) These unverified reports are bear movements into and out of the (Service 1994; Toman et al. 1997; Smith approximately 130 km (80 mi) north of Yellowstone area, resulting in even less et al. 2003). Although grizzly bears are the most northerly Yellowstone grizzly connectivity than in the past. successful omnivores, grizzlies in the bears. This distance is too far for normal Based on our analysis of the best rest of the conterminous States (Jacoby grizzly bear dispersal distances of available scientific information, we find et al. 1999), most of Europe (Berducou roughly 10 to 40 km (6 to 25 mi) that the Yellowstone area grizzly et al. 1983; Clevenger et al. 1992; Dahle (McLellan and Hovey 2001; Proctor et population and other remaining grizzly et al. 1998), and in Siberia (Stroganov al. 2004) to effectively connect the bears populations are markedly 1969) rely on plant and insect materials

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69865

for the majority of their diet. In contrast, use this potential food source (Mattson approximately 100 years or more (Miller grizzlies in the Yellowstone area rely on and Reinhart 1994). This may be due to and Waits 2003). Yellowstone grizzly terrestrial mammals as their primary different climatic regimes which sustain bears have the lowest relative source of nutrition, as indicated by bear berry-producing shrubs or simply the heterozygosity of any continental grizzly scats (Mattson 1997), feed site analysis scarcity of whitebark pines in some population yet investigated (Paetkau et (Mattson 1997), and bear hair isotope areas of its range (Mattson and Reinhart al. 1998; Waits et al. 1998b). Only analysis (Jacoby et al. 1999). 1994). Dependence of Yellowstone Kodiak Island grizzly bears, a different Concentration of isotopic nitrogen (15N) grizzly bears on whitebark pine is subspecies (Ursus arctos middendorfi), in grizzly bear hair from Yellowstone unique because in most areas of its have lower heterozygosity scores (26.5 grizzly bears suggests that meat range, whitebark pine has been percent), reflecting as much as 12,000 constitutes 45 percent and 79 percent of significantly reduced in numbers and years of separation from mainland the annual diet for females and males, distribution due to the introduced populations (Paetkau et al. 1998; Waits respectively (Jacoby et al. 1999). These pathogen whitepine blister rust et al. 1998b). Miller and Waits (2003) high percentages of meat in the diet for (Cronartium ribicola) (Kendall and conclude that gene flow between the Yellowstone grizzly bears are in contrast Keane 2001). While there is evidence of Yellowstone area and the closest to the 0 to 33 percent of meat in the diet blister rust in whitebark pines in the remaining population was limited prior of bears in the NCDE and 0 to 17 percent Yellowstone area, the pathogen has been to the arrival of European settlers but of meat in the diet in bears from the present for more than 50 years could only speculate as to the reasons Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (Jacoby et al. (McDonald and Hoff 2001) but very few behind this historical separation. The 1999). Furthermore, the source of this trees have been infected (see Factor E). apparent long-term difference in animal meat is primarily large-bodied Due to this dependency of Yellowstone heterozygosity between Yellowstone ungulates, not fish, as in other grizzly bears on animal and plant and other Montana populations populations of brown bears in Alaska species endemic to North America and indicates a unique set of circumstances and Siberia (Stroganov 1969; currently limited to the GYA, the in which limited movement between Hilderbrand et al. 1996). Of particular population is significant to the taxon these areas has resulted in a markedly relevance is grizzly bear use of wild because of its unique ecological setting. different genetic situation for the bison, a species endemic to North Significant Gap in the Range of the Yellowstone population. America, but eradicated in most of the Taxon. Loss of the proposed We conclude that the Yellowstone 48 States except the GYA by the end of Yellowstone DPS would represent a grizzly population is significant because the 19th century (Steelquist 1998). significant gap in the range of the taxon. it exists in a unique ecological setting; Although bison numbers have increased As noted above, grizzly bears once lived the loss of this population would result since this time, the vast majority of throughout the North American Rockies in a significant gap in the range of the bison are found in managed or ranched from Alaska and Canada, and south into taxon; and this population’s genetic herds (Steelquist 1998). Their habitat, central Mexico. Grizzly bears have been characteristics differ markedly from bunchgrass prairie (tallgrass, mixed- extirpated from most of the southern other grizzly bear populations. portions of their historic range. Today, grass, and shortgrass prairie), has been Conclusion of Distinct Population the proposed Yellowstone DPS almost entirely converted to agricultural Segment Review lands (Steelquist 1998), leaving little represents the southernmost reach of the grizzly bear. The loss of this population Based on the best available scientific opportunity for existence in areas would be significant because it would information, as described above, we find outside of the isolated refuges and substantially curtail the range of the that the Yellowstone grizzly bear ranches they are commonly found grizzly bear by moving the range population is discrete from other grizzly today. Mattson (1997) found that wild approximately 4 degrees of latitude to populations and significant to the bison comprised the second largest the north. Thus, the loss of this remainder of the taxon (i.e., U. a. source of ungulate meat (24 percent) population would result in a significant horribilis). Because the Yellowstone consumed by Yellowstone grizzly bears, gap in the current range of the taxon. grizzly bear population is discrete and second only to elk (53 percent). Given the grizzly bear’s historic significant, it warrants recognition as a The Yellowstone grizzly population occupancy of the conterminous States DPS under the ESA. Therefore, the also exists in a unique ecological setting and the portion of the historic range the remainder of this proposed rule will because it is able to use whitebark pine conterminous States represent, recovery focus on the Yellowstone DPS. seeds as a major food source. Whitebark in the lower 48 States where the grizzly Summary of Factors Affecting the pine, a tree species found only in North bear existed in 1975 when it was listed Species America (Schmidt 1994), exhibits has long been viewed as important to annual variation in seed crops with high the taxon (40 FR 31734). The proposed Section 4 of the ESA and regulations seed production in some years and very Yellowstone DPS is significant in promulgated to implement the listing low seed production in other years achieving this objective as it is 1 of only provisions of the ESA (50 CFR part 424) (Weaver and Forcella 1986; Morgan and 5 known occupied areas and constitutes set forth the procedures for listing, Bunting 1992). During these years of approximately half of the remaining reclassifying, and delisting species. A high seed production, Yellowstone grizzly bears in the conterminous 48 species may be delisted, according to 50 grizzly bears derive as much as 51 States. Finally, the proposed CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and percent of their protein from pine nuts Yellowstone DPS represents the only commercial data available demonstrate (Felicetti et al. 2003). In fact, grizzly grizzly bear population not connected to that the species is no longer endangered bear consumption of ungulates bears in Canada. or threatened because of (1) Extinction; decreases during years of high Marked Genetic Differences. Several (2) recovery; or (3) error in the original whitebark pine seed production genetics studies have confirmed the data used for classification of the (Mattson 1997). In most areas of North uniqueness of grizzly bears in the species. The analysis for a delisting due America where whitebark pine Yellowstone area. The Yellowstone area to recovery must be based on the five distribution overlaps with grizzly bear population has been isolated from other factors outlined in section 4(a)(1) of the populations, bears do not consistently grizzly bear populations for ESA. This analysis must include an

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69866 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

evaluation of threats that existed at the the grizzly bear occupies all of its range occupancy; (6) elimination of two sheep time of listing and those that currently within this DPS, we conducted the allotments on the Caribou-Targhee exist or that could potentially affect the following threats assessment over the National Forest in 1998, resulting in a species in the foreseeable future once entire current range of the grizzly bear 46 percent decrease in total sheep the protections of the ESA are removed. and throughout all suitable habitat animal months inside the Yellowstone A recovered population is one that no within the DPS. Recovery Area; and (7) expanded longer meets the ESA’s definition of Information and Education (IE) A. The Present or Threatened threatened or endangered. The ESA programs in the Yellowstone Recovery Destruction, Modification, or defines an endangered species as one Area to help reduce the number of Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range that is in danger of extinction grizzly mortalities caused by big-game throughout all or a significant portion of Habitat destruction and modification hunters. Overall, adherence to the its range. A threatened species is one were major contributing factors leading Guidelines has changed land that is likely to become an endangered to the ‘listing of the grizzly bear as a management practices on Federal lands species in the foreseeable future threatened species under the ESA in to provide security and to maintain or throughout all or a significant portion of 1975 (40 FR 1734). Both the dramatic improve habitat conditions for the its range. decreases in historical range and land grizzly bear. Implementation of these The ESA defines ‘‘species’’ to also management practices in formerly Guidelines has led to the successful include any subspecies or, for secure grizzly bear habitat lead to the rebound of the Yellowstone grizzly bear vertebrates, any DPS. Because the 1975 listing (40 FR 1734). To address population, allowing it to significantly Yellowstone grizzly bear population is this source of population decline, the increase in size and distribution since discrete and significant, as defined Study Team was created in 1973 to its listing in 1975. above, it warrants recognition as a DPS collect, manage, analyze, and distribute In 2002, an interagency group under the ESA and our policy (61 FR science-based information regarding representing pertinent State and Federal 4722). Therefore, our analysis only habitat and demographic parameters parties released the draft Final covers the DPS. upon which to base management and Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly For the purposes of this proposed recovery. Then, in 1983, the Interagency Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area to rule, ‘‘foreseeable future’’ shall refer to Grizzly Bear Committee was created to guide management and monitoring of approximately 100 years. This coordinate management efforts across the habitat and population of definition is based on 10 grizzly bear multiple Federal lands and different Yellowstone grizzly bears after delisting. generations where a single female may States within the various Recovery The Strategy identifies and provides a take 10 years to replace herself in a Zones ultimately working to achieve framework for managing two areas, the population. This time period is also recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower PCA and adjacent areas of suitable commonly used in population viability 48 States. Its objective was to change habitat where occupancy by grizzly analyses of grizzly bear populations land management practices on Federal bears is anticipated. What follows is an (Boyce 1995; Saether et al. 1998; Boyce lands that supported grizzly bear assessment of present or threatened et al. 2001). populations at the time of listing to destruction, modification, or For the purposes of this proposed provide security and maintain or curtailment of current suitable habitat, rule, the ‘‘range’’ of this grizzly bear improve habitat conditions for the or range, in both of these areas. DPS is the area within the DPS grizzly bear. Since 1986, National Forest Habitat Management within the boundaries where viable populations of and National Park plans have Primary Conservation Area: As per the the species now exist. As previously incorporated the Guidelines for Strategy and the habitat-based recovery noted, we have defined the overall DPS Management Involving Grizzly Bears in criteria discussed above, the PCA will boundary by existing roads for ease in the Yellowstone area (USDA 1986) to be a core security area for grizzlies determining its location. Bears occupy manage grizzly bear habitat in the where human impacts on habitat or can occupy all suitable habitat within Yellowstone Recovery Zone. The conditions will be maintained at or the DPS boundary and a few individual Service considers implementation of below levels that existed in 1998 bears occasionally occupy or pass these Guidelines to be a primary factor (Service 2003). The 1998 baseline for through the areas we define as contributing to the Yellowstone grizzly habitat standards was chosen because unsuitable habitat. Suitable habitat bear population’s recovery in the last 2 several studies (Boyce et al. 2001; provides food, seasonal foraging decades. Schwartz et al. 2005) showed that the opportunities, cover, denning areas, and Management improvements made as a Yellowstone grizzly bear population security. We have defined suitable result of the Guidelines include, but are was increasing at a rate of 4 to 7 percent habitat for grizzly bears as areas having not limited to—(1) Federal and State per year between 1983 and 2001, and three characteristics—(1) being of agency coordination to produce 1998 was within the time that this rate adequate habitat quality and quantity to nuisance bear guidelines that allow a of increase was occurring. Because support grizzly bear reproduction and quick response to resolve and minimize levels of secure habitat and developed survival; (2) contiguous with the current grizzly bear/human confrontations; (2) sites remained relatively constant in the distribution of Yellowstone grizzly bears reduced motorized access route 10 years preceding 1998 (USFS 2004), such that natural re-colonization is densities through restrictions, the selection of 1998 assured that the possible; and (3) having low mortality decommissioning, and closures; (3) habitat conditions that allowed this rate risk as indicated through reasonable and highway design considerations to of population increase would be manageable levels of grizzly bear/ facilitate population connectivity; (4) maintained. For each of the 40 bear human conflicts. Unsuitable habitat closure of some important habitat areas management subunits, the 1998 baseline consists of those areas within the DPS to all human access in National Parks was determined through a GIS analysis boundary that cannot support viable during certain seasons that are of the amount of secure habitat, open populations of grizzly bears. particularly important to grizzlies; (5) and closed road densities, the number The Statutory standard is whether the closure of many areas in the GYA to oil and capacity of livestock allotments, the species is threatened in ‘‘all or a and gas leasing or implementing number of developed sites on public significant portion’’ of its range. Because restrictions such as no surface lands, and habitat effectiveness.

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69867

Secure habitat refers to those areas (Appendix G in the Strategy). The private lands (see Appendix F of the with no motorized access that are at Gallatin National Forest is working on Strategy). least 4 hectares (10 acres) in size and several land exchange efforts with Habitat standards described in the more than 500 meters (550 yards) from private parties in these subunits. These Strategy regarding livestock require that a motorized access route or reoccurring land exchanges allow management of the number of commercial livestock helicopter flight line (USFS 2004). the roads on these private parcels and allotments and permitted sheep animal Grizzly bear habitat security is primarily increase the secure habitat in these months within the PCA not increase achieved by managing motorized access subunits. above 1998 levels (Service 2003). which—(1) minimizes human All the above-mentioned subunits on Livestock allotments, particularly sheep interaction and reduces potential grizzly the Gallatin National Forest have the allotments, decrease habitat security bear mortality risk, (2) minimizes potential for improvement in the long (i.e., habitat effectiveness) as grizzly displacement from important habitat, (3) term. The timing and amount of bears occupying lands with sheep are minimizes habituation to humans, and improvement will be determined more likely to come into conflict with (4) provides habitat where energetic through the Gallatin National Forest these sheep. This increase in encounters requirements can be met with limited travel management planning process. between bears and livestock or their disturbance from humans (Mattson et al. The Travel Plan will amend the Gallatin human owners decreases survival rates 1987; McLellan and Shackleton 1988; Forest Plan and set a 1998 baseline for of grizzly bears in areas of active sheep McLellan 1989; Mace et al. 1996; access values in these subunits. This allotments as repeat depredators are Mattson et al. 1996). Secure habitat is travel Plan for the Gallatin National removed from the population. especially important to the survival and Forest is in revision as of 2005. Additionally, sheep and cattle can reproductive success of grizzly bears, The Gallatin Range Consolidation and compete directly to some degree with especially adult female grizzly bears Protection Act of 1993 (Pub. L. 103–91) grizzly bears during late spring and (Mattson et al. 1987; Interagency Grizzly and the Gallatin Range Consolidation early summer for desired foods such as Bear Committee 1994). In the 1998 Act of 1998 (Pub. L. 105–267) will result grasses, sedges, and forbs (Jonkel 1980). baseline, secure habitat comprised 45.4 in trading timber for land in the Gallatin Due to the higher prevalence of grizzly to 100 percent of the total area within No. 3 and Hilgard No. 1 subunits. The bear conflicts associated with sheep a given subunit with an average of 86.2 private land involved will become grazing, existing sheep allotments will percent throughout the entire PCA public land under the jurisdiction of the be phased out as the opportunity arises (Table 2 in Appendix F of the Strategy). Gallatin National Forest. In order to with willing permittees. These levels of secure habitat have been complete the exchange, access values in A total of 88 livestock allotments successfully maintained and will these two subunits will temporarily existed inside the PCA in 1998. Of these continue to be maintained and decline below 1998 values. However, 1998 allotments within the PCA, there improved, where possible, as directed upon completion of this sale and land were 71 active and 2 vacant cattle by the Conservation Strategy (Service exchange, secure habitat and motorized allotments and 11 active and 4 vacant 2003). Open road densities of more than 1.6 access route density in these subunits sheep allotments with a total of 17,279 km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi) were will improve from the 1998 baseline animal months for sheep (Service 2003). calculated for two seasons to account for (see Appendix F in the Strategy). Sheep animal months are calculated by seasonal road closures. The percentage The Strategy identified several multiplying the permitted number of of land within each subunit containing subunits within the boundaries of the animals by the permitted number of road density values higher than 1.6 km/ Targhee National Forest within the PCA months. Any use of vacant allotments 2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi) in 1998 ranged in need of improvement in terms of will only be permitted after an analysis from 0 to 46.1 percent, although the motorized access (Plateau No. 1, Plateau is completed to evaluate impacts on average for all subunits was only 10.7 No. 2, and Henry’s Lake No. 1). The grizzly bears. Since 1998, the Caribou- percent. Lands containing total road Strategy states that upon full Targhee National Forest has closed five density values of more than 3.2 km/2.6 implementation of the access sheep allotments within the PCA while sq km (2 mi/sq mi) in 1998 comprised management changes in the revised the Shoshone National Forest has closed 0 to 28.1 percent of the total area within 1997 Targhee Forest Plan, those two sheep allotments (USDA Forest each subunit, with the average for all subunits will have acceptable levels of Service 2005). This has resulted in a subunits of 5.3 percent (Table 2 in road densities and secure habitat due to reduction of 7,889 sheep animal months Appendix F of the Strategy). These the decommissioning of roughly 433 under the total calculated for 1998 levels of motorized access have been miles of roads within the PCA (Service within the PCA and is a testament to the effectively maintained or improved from 2003). As of June 2005, the Targhee commitment land management agencies 1998 levels, as per the habitat-based National Forest has completed have to the ongoing success of the recovery criteria. The Conservation approximately 80 percent of this grizzly bear population in the Strategy assures that they will continue decommissioning work with the Yellowstone area. As of 2005, there are to be managed at 1998 levels if this remaining 20 percent likely to be a total of four active sheep allotments proposed delisting action is finalized completed in 2005, after site-specific within the PCA: Two on Targhee (Service 2003). National Environmental Policy Act National Forest and two on the Gallatin Several subunits within the analyses are completed (USDA Forest National Forest. The permittee of the boundaries of the Gallatin National Service 2005). The 1998 baseline (see two allotments on the Gallatin National Forest (Henry’s Lake No. 2, Gallatin No. Appendix F in the Strategy) for these Forest has agreed to waive the grazing 3, and Madison No. 2) within the PCA subunits was modified to reflect permit back to the Gallatin National have been identified as needing increased road closures with the full Forest without preference. The Gallatin improvement in access parameters. implementation of the 1997 Targhee National Forest plans to close these two However, the high road density values Forest Plan. Henry’s Lake subunit No. 1 allotments along with three other vacant and subsequently low levels of secure still has high levels of motorized access allotments when they revise their habitat in these subunits is primarily density and a low secure habitat level current Forest Plan. This Forest Plan due to motorized access on private land due to motorized access routes on revision process is scheduled to be

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69868 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

completed by 2010 (USDA Forest For example, a cell phone tower would not as clear cut. Therefore, it is Service 2005). fit this criteria because there is no important to monitor foods and The National Parks and National human occupancy, nor human continue to relate major food abundance Forests within the PCA will manage attractants such as garbage or other to demographics and human/bear developed sites at 1998 levels within potential food sources. However, conflicts. Monitoring habitat each bear management subunit, with campgrounds, trailheads, lodges, effectiveness using the Cumulative some exceptions for administrative and summer homes, restaurants, visitor Effects Model is valuable in maintenance needs. Developed sites centers, oil and gas exploratory wells, understanding and maintaining refer to sites on public land developed production wells, and work camps important habitats for grizzly bears. or improved for human use or resource would not be considered acceptable. No Should we finalize delisting, the Study development. Examples include changes in the 1998 baseline have Team would continue coordinating with campgrounds, trailheads, lodges, occurred in terms of site developments. the National Forests and National Parks summer homes, restaurants, visitor Management of oil, gas, mining, and within the PCA to update and evaluate centers, oil and gas exploratory wells, timber development also are tracked as habitat effectiveness against the 1998 production wells, and work camps. The part of the developed site monitoring baseline. primary concerns related to developed effort. There were no oil and gas leases To establish the 1998 baseline for sites are direct mortality from bear/ inside the PCA as of 1998. There are habitat effectiveness values, the Forest human encounters, food conditioning, approximately 552 sq km (213 sq mi) of Service calculated habitat effectiveness and habituation of bears to humans secure habitat potentially available for within each subunit for four important (Mattson et al. 1987). Habituation oil, gas, or timber projects within the bear seasons: Spring (March 1–May 15); occurs when grizzly bears encounter PCA. This comprises only 2 percent of estrus (May 16–July 15); early humans or developed sites frequently, all suitable habitat within the PCA. hyperphagia (July 16–August 31); and and without negative consequences, so Additionally, 1,354 mining claims late hyperphagia (September 1– that the bears no longer avoid humans existed in 10 of the subunits inside the November 30) (Table 6 in Appendix F and areas of human activity. PCA (Table 1 in Appendix F of the of the Strategy). High habitat Habituation does not necessarily Strategy), but only 27 of these mining effectiveness values during estrus are involve human-related food sources. claims had operating plans. These associated with cutthroat trout Food conditioning occurs when grizzly operating plans are included in the 1998 spawning streams. Similarly, high bears receive human-related sources of developed site baseline. Under the food and thereafter seek out humans conditions of the Strategy, any new habitat effectiveness values during early and human use areas as feeding sites. In project will be approved only if it hyperphagia and late hyperphagia are areas of suitable habitat inside the PCA, conforms to secure habitat and associated with moth aggregation sites the NPS and the USFS enforce food developed site standards (Service 2003). and whitebark pine, respectively. storage rules aimed at decreasing grizzly For instance, any project that reduces Habitat effectiveness values also are bear access to human foods. These the amount of secure habitat directly influenced by the amount of regulations will continue to be enforced permanently will have to provide secure habitat in a subunit. This and will be applied to all suitable replacement secure habitat of equivalent combination of the distribution and habitat within the Yellowstone DPS habitat quality (as measured by the abundance of natural foods and the boundaries. Cumulative Effects Model or equivalent distribution and abundance of human Gunther (1994) noted that grizzly bear technology) and any change in activities produces relative values management in Yellowstone National developed sites will require mitigation indicative of how effective a certain Park has shifted from problems equivalent to the type and extent of the subunit is at supporting grizzly bear involving food-conditioned bears to impact. For projects that temporarily growth, reproduction, and survival. As problems involving habituated (but not change the amount of secure habitat, such, values varied widely among food-conditioned) bears seeking natural only one project is allowed in any seasons and across seasons within foods within developed areas or along subunit at any time. Mitigation of any subunits (Table 6 in Appendix F of the roadsides. New or expanded developed project will occur within the same Strategy). Because the National Park sites can impact bears through subunit and will be proportional to the Service and the Forest Service have not temporary or permanent habitat loss and type and extent of the project. changed levels of road densities, secure displacement, increased length of time Finally, the Service established a habitat, developed sites, or livestock of human use, increased human habitat effectiveness baseline by allotments except to improve upon the disturbance to surrounding areas, and, documenting habitat effectiveness 1998 baseline, the 1998 habitat potentially unsecured bear attractants. values using the Cumulative Effects effectiveness values remain applicable. Developed sites on public lands are Model and 1998 habitat data (Service At this point, habitat effectiveness currently inventoried in existing GIS 2003). Habitat effectiveness values values have remained at sufficient levels databases and are input in the reflect the relative amount of energy to support grizzly bears since other Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Cumulative (derived from natural foods) that is more frequently measured and Effects Model. As of 1998, there were available to grizzly bears given their monitored habitat baseline (such as road 598 developed sites on public land response to human activities. Important densities, secure habitat, site within the PCA (USDA Forest Service foods are key habitat-based criteria. The development, and livestock allotments) 2005). All changes in developed sites inverse relationship between whitebark have not changed. If this rule is since 1998 have been evaluated against pine cone production and grizzly finalized and the Strategy is the baseline and have been determined conflicts in the Yellowstone Ecosystem implemented, the USFS could measure acceptable under the standard for has been documented (Mattson et al. changes in seasonal habitat effectiveness developed sites identified in the 1992; Knight and Blanchard 1995; values in each Bear Management Unit Strategy (Service 2003). For a new Gunther et al. 1997, 2004). However, the and subunit by regular application of developed site to be determined relationship between other important the Cumulative Effects Model or best acceptable, it must be demonstrated that foods such as spring ungulate carcasses, available system and compare outputs it will have no effect on grizzly bears. cutworm moths, and cutthroat trout is with the 1998 baseline values (Service

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69869

2003). The Cumulative Effects Model identify important crossing areas by Mattson et al. 1991a) and army cutworm databases would be reviewed annually collecting information about known moths (Mattson et al. 1991b; French et and updated as needed (Service 2003). bear crossings, bear sightings, ungulate al. 1994). The Strategy calls for maintaining or road mortality data, bear home range For our analysis of suitable habitat, improving the existing habitat analyses, and locations of game trails. we considered the Middle Rockies effectiveness values in secure habitat in Potential advantages of this requirement ecoregion (Omernik 1987; Woods et al. each subunit (Service 2003). Private include reduction of grizzly bear 1999; McGrath et al. 2002; Chapman et land development would also be mortality due to vehicle collisions, al. 2004) to meet grizzly bear biological monitored and linked to numbers of access to seasonal habitats, maintenance needs providing food, seasonal foraging human/bear conflicts, causes of human/ of traditional dispersal routes, and opportunities, cover, and denning areas bear conflicts, and distribution of decreased fragmentation of individual (Mattson and Merrill 2002). The Middle human/bear conflicts so as to direct home ranges. For example, work crews Rockies ecoregion has Douglas-fir, management efforts to improve food would place temporary work camps in subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce supply and minimize bear/human areas with lower risk of displacing forests and alpine areas. Forests can be conflicts in such areas. grizzly bears and food and garbage will open. Foothills are partly wooded or Within the PCA, each National Forest be kept in bear-proof containers. shrub- and grass-covered. Intermontane and National Park would monitor Highway planners would incorporate valleys are grass- and/or shrub-covered adherence to the secure habitat, warning signs and crossing structures and contain a mosaic of terrestrial and developed site, and livestock standards such as culverts or underpasses into aquatic fauna that is distinct from the inside the PCA, as established by the projects when possible to facilitate safe nearby mountains. Many mountain-fed, Strategy (Service 2003). If we finalize highway crossings by wildlife. perennial streams occur and delisting, the Study Team would Suitable Habitat: Because we used differentiate the intermontane valleys monitor habitat effectiveness and track easily recognized boundaries to from the Northwestern Great Plains. any changes to the habitat from fire, delineate the Yellowstone DPS, the DPS Recreation, logging, mining, and insects, and disease, and other human includes both suitable and unsuitable summer livestock grazing are common activities not measured by the habitat habitat (Figure 1, above). For the land uses in this ecoregion. standard monitoring efforts. The purposes of this proposed rule, suitable Although grizzly bears historically agencies will measure changes in habitat is considered the area within the occurred throughout the area of the seasonal habitat value and effectiveness DPS boundaries where viable Yellowstone DPS (Stebler 1972), many in each bear management unit and populations of the species now exist or of these habitats are not, today, subunit by regular application of the are capable of being supported in the biologically suitable for grizzly bears. Cumulative Effects Model or the best foreseeable future. Suitable habitat There are records of grizzly bears in available system, and compare outputs provides food, seasonal foraging eastern Wyoming near present-day to the 1998 baseline. These databases opportunities, cover, denning areas, and Sheridan, Casper, and Wheatland, but incorporate information regarding security. We have defined suitable even in the early 19th century, indirect vegetation, the abundance and habitat for grizzly bears as areas having evidence suggests that grizzly bears distribution of the four major bear foods, three characteristics—(1) being of were less common in these eastern location, duration, and intensity of use adequate habitat quality and quantity to prairie habitats than in mountainous for motorized access routes, non- support grizzly bear reproduction and areas to the west and south (see Rollins motorized access routes, developed survival; (2) contiguous with the current 1935; Wade 1947). Grizzly bear presence sites, and front-country and back- distribution of Yellowstone grizzly bears in these drier, grassland habitats was country dispersed uses. The Study such that natural re-colonization is associated with rivers and streams Team would review Cumulative Effects possible; and (3) having low mortality where grizzlies used buffalo carcasses as Model databases annually to refine and risk as indicated through reasonable and a major food source (Burroughs 1961; verify Cumulative Effects Model manageable levels of grizzly bear Herrero 1972; Stebler 1972; Mattson and assumptions and update them as needed mortality. Merrill 2002). Wild buffalo herds no to reflect changes in intensity or Our definition and delineation of longer exist in these areas. Thus, we did duration of human use. The multi- suitable habitat is built on the widely not include drier sagebrush, prairie, or agency Yellowstone Grizzly recognized conclusions of extensive agricultural lands because these land Coordinating Committee (hereafter research (Craighead 1980; Knight 1980; types no longer contain adequate food referred to as the Coordinating Peek et al. 1987; Merrill et al. 1999; resources (i.e., bison) to support grizzly Committee) may review and revise Pease and Mattson 1999) that grizzly bears. habitat standards based on the best bear reproduction and survival is a The negative impacts of humans on available science after appropriate function of both the biological needs of grizzly bear survival and habitat use are public processes have been conducted grizzly bears and remoteness from well documented (Harding and Nagy by the affected land management human activities which minimizes 1980; McLellan and Shackleton 1988; agencies. mortality risk for grizzly bears. Aune and Kasworm 1989; McLellan To prevent habitat fragmentation and Mountainous areas provide hiding cover 1989; McLellan and Shackleton 1989a; degradation, the Strategy requires that and the topographic variation necessary Mattson 1990; Mattson and Knight 1991; all road construction projects in suitable to ensure a wide variety of seasonal Mattson et al. 1992; Mace et al. 1996; habitat throughout the entire GYA (both foods and the steep slopes required for McLellan et al. 1999; White et al. 1999; inside and outside of the PCA) evaluate denning (Judd et al. 1986; Aune and Woodroffe 2000; Boyce et al. 2001; the impacts of the project on grizzly Kasworm 1989; Linnell et al. 2000). Johnson et al. 2004). These effects range habitat connectivity during the NEPA Higher elevation, mountainous regions from temporary displacement to actual analysis process (Service 2003). By in the GYA (Omernik 1987, 1995; mortality. Mattson and Merrill (2002) identifying areas used by grizzly bears, Woods et al. 1999; McGrath et al. 2002; found that grizzly bear persistence in officials can mitigate potential impacts Chapman et al. 2004) contain high- the contiguous United States between from road construction both during and energy foods such as whitebark pine 1920 and 2000 was negatively after a project. Federal agencies would seeds (Mattson and Jonkel 1990; associated with human and livestock

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69870 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

densities. As human population those that are longer and narrower) and current grizzly bear distribution shown densities increase, the frequency of in wide-ranging species such as grizzly in Figure 1 does not mean that equal encounters between humans and grizzly bears because they are more likely to densities of grizzly bears are found bears also increases, resulting in more encounter surrounding, unsuitable throughout the region. Instead, most human-caused grizzly bear mortalities habitat (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998). grizzly bears (approximately 90 percent due to a perceived or real threat to Due to the negative edge effects of this of females with cubs-of-the-year) are human life or property (Mattson et al. distribution of sheep allotments on the found within the PCA (Schwartz 2005, 1996). Similarly, as livestock densities periphery of grizzly range, our analysis unpublished data). Grizzly bear use of increase in habitat occupied by grizzly did not classify linear strips and suitable habitat may vary seasonally and bears, depredations follow. Although isolated patches of habitat as suitable annually with different areas being more grizzly bears frequently coexist with habitat. important than others in some seasons cattle without depredating them, when Although the Bighorn Mountains west or years (Aune and Kasworm 1989). An grizzly bears encounter domestic sheep, of I–90 near Sheridan, Wyoming, are additional 14,554 sq km (5,619 sq mi) of they usually are attracted to such flocks grouped within the Middle Rockies suitable habitat is currently unoccupied and depredate the sheep (Jonkel 1980; ecoregion, they are not connected to the by grizzly bears (Figure 1, above) Knight and Judd 1983; Orme and current distribution of grizzly bears via (Schwartz et al. 2002; Schwartz 2005, Williams 1986; Anderson et al. 2002). If suitable habitat or linkage zones, nor are unpublished data). These areas would repeated depredations occur, managers there opportunities for such linkage. allow for the continued growth and either relocate the bear or remove it The Bighorn Mountains are separated expansion of the population within the from the population, resulting in such from the current grizzly bear proposed Yellowstone DPS as grizzly domestic sheep areas becoming distribution by approximately 100 km bears naturally recolonize them in the population sinks (Knight et al. 1988). (60 mi) of a mosaic of private and BLM next few decades (Pyare et al. 2004). lands primarily used for agriculture, Habitat Management Outside the Because urban sites and sheep livestock grazing, and oil and gas Primary Conservation Area: In suitable allotments possess high mortality risks production (Chapman et al. 2004). habitat outside of the PCA within the for grizzly bears, we did not include Although there is a possibility that DPS, the USFS, BLM, and State wildlife cities or large contiguous blocks of individual bears may emigrate from the agencies will monitor habitat and active sheep allotments as suitable Yellowstone area to the Bighorns population criteria to prevent potential habitat (Knight et al. 1988). Our occasionally, without constant threats to habitat from inhibiting the elimination of domestic sheep grazing emigrants from suitable habitat, the population’s viability. Factors impacting areas on public lands from suitable Bighorns will not support a self- suitable habitat outside of the PCA in habitat is based on current conditions. sustaining grizzly bear population. the future may include increased road Should the grazing management of these Therefore, due to the fact that this densities, livestock allotments, areas change in the future it is possible mountain range is disjunct from other developed sites, human presence, and that such areas could become suitable suitable habitat and current grizzly bear habitat fragmentation. Both Federal and grizzly bear habitat. Based on 2000 distribution, our analysis did not State agencies are committed to Census data, we defined urban areas as classify the Bighorns as suitable habitat managing habitat so that a viable census blocks with human population within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries. Yellowstone grizzly bear population is densities of more than 50 people/sq km Some areas that are not considered maintained (see also Factor D— (129 people/sq mi). Cities within the suitable habitat by our definition are Inadequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms). Middle Rockies ecoregion such as West occasionally used by grizzly bears In suitable habitat outside of the PCA, Yellowstone, Gardiner, Big Sky, and (4,635 sq km (1,787 sq mi)) (see Figure restrictions on human activities are Cooke City, Montana, and Jackson, 1, above) (Schwartz et al. 2002; more flexible but still the USFS, BLM, Wyoming, were not included as suitable Schwartz 2005, unpublished data). The and State wildlife agencies will habitat. There are large, contiguous records of grizzly bears in these carefully manage these lands, monitor blocks of sheep allotments in peripheral unsuitable habitat areas are generally bear/human conflicts in these areas, and areas of the ecosystem in the Wyoming due to recorded grizzly bear/human respond with management as necessary Salt River and Wind River Mountain conflicts or to transient animals. These to reduce such conflicts to account for Ranges on the Bridger-Teton and the areas are defined as unsuitable due to the complex needs of both grizzly bears Targhee National Forests (Figure 1, the high risk of mortality resulting from and humans. above). This spatial distribution of these grizzly bear/human conflicts. Currently, there are 22,783 sq km sheep allotments on the periphery of These unsuitable habitat areas do not (8,797 sq mi) of suitable habitat outside suitable habitat results in areas of high permit grizzly bear reproduction or of the PCA within the DPS. About 10 mortality risk to bears within these survival because bears that repeatedly percent of the population of female allotments and a few small, isolated come into conflict with humans or grizzly bears with cubs occurs outside patches or strips of suitable habitat livestock are usually either relocated or the PCA (Schwartz 2005, unpublished adjacent to or within sheep allotments. removed from these areas. data). Of this, 17,292 sq km (6,676 sq These strips and patches of land possess Based on these factors and subsequent mi) are on National Forest lands. higher mortality risks for grizzly bears Geographic Information System (GIS) Management decisions on USFS lands because of their enclosure by and analysis, we found there are 46,035 sq will continue to consider potential proximity to areas of high mortality risk. km (17,774 sq mi) of suitable grizzly impacts on grizzly bear habitat and will This phenomenon in which the quantity bear habitat within the DPS boundaries; be managed so as to allow grizzly bear and quality of suitable habitat is or roughly 24 percent of the total area expansion in terms of numbers and diminished because of interactions with within the DPS boundaries (Figure 1, distribution. Approximately 79 percent surrounding less suitable habitat is above). Grizzly bears currently occupy of USFS suitable habitat outside the known as an ‘‘edge effect’’ (Lande 1988; about 68 percent of that suitable habitat PCA within the DPS is currently Yahner 1988; Mills 1995). Edge effects (31,481 sq km (12,155 sq mi)) (Schwartz designated a wilderness area (6,799 sq are exacerbated in small habitat patches et al. 2002; Schwartz 2005, unpublished km (2,625 sq mi)), a wilderness study with high perimeter to area ratios (i.e., data). It is important to note that the area (708 sq km (273 sq mi)), or an

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69871

inventoried roadless area (6,179 sq km Interim Directive until they revise their the others are likely to remain active (2,386 sq mi)) (USFS 2004). The amount Forest Plans to include direction on (Jerry Reese, USFS, pers. comm. 2005). of designated wilderness area, managing roadless areas. Technically, The USFS will allow these allotments wilderness study area, and inventoried the only management direction given in within suitable habitat to persist along roadless area within each National roadless areas is that no new roads may with other existing livestock allotments Forest ranges from 56 to 90 percent, be constructed. However, this restriction outside of suitable habitat. Although depending upon the forest. makes mining activities, oil and gas conflicts with livestock have the Wilderness areas outside of the PCA production, and timber harvest much potential to result in significant are considered secure because they are less likely because access to these mortality for grizzly bears, with protected from new road construction resources becomes cost-prohibitive or population-level impacts if established by federal legislation. In addition to impossible without new roads. Potential sustainable mortality limits are restrictions on road construction, the changes in the management of these exceeded in several consecutive years, Wilderness Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88–577) areas are not anticipated, but are the Strategy should prevent this. The also protects designated wilderness discussed further under Factor D. Strategy directs the Study Team to from permanent human habitation and An estimated 7,195 sq km (2,778 sq monitor and spatially map all grizzly increases in developed sites. The mi) of suitable habitat outside the PCA bear mortalities (both inside and outside Wilderness Act allows livestock on Forest Service lands within the DPS the PCA) and their causes of death, allotments existing before the passage of could experience permanent or identify the source of the problem, and the Wilderness Act and mining claims temporary changes in road densities. alter management to maintain a staked before January 1, 1984, to persist Because grizzly bears would remain a recovered population and prevent the within wilderness areas, but no new sensitive species on the USFS Sensitive need to relist the population under the grazing permits or mining claims can be Species list if we finalize this proposed ESA (Service 2003). established after these dates. If pre- delisting, any increases in roads on There are over 500 developed sites on existing mining claims are pursued, the National Forests would have to comply the 6 National Forests in the areas plans of operation are subject to with National Forest Management Act identified as suitable habitat outside the Wilderness Act restrictions on road and be subject to environmental PCA within the DPS (USFS 2004). construction, permanent human assessment considering potential Grizzly bear/human conflicts at habitation, and developed sites. impacts to grizzly bears. developed sites are the most frequent Wilderness study areas are designated Importantly, all three State grizzly reason for management removals by federal land management agencies as bear management plans recognize the (Servheen et al. 2004). Existing USFS those having wilderness characteristics importance of areas that provide food storage regulations for these areas and being worthy of congressional security for grizzly bears in suitable will continue to minimize the potential designation as a wilderness area. habitat outside of the PCA within the for grizzly bear/human conflicts through Individual National Forests that DPS on Federal lands. Although State food storage requirements, outreach, designate wilderness study areas management plans apply to all suitable and education. The number and manage these areas to maintain their habitat outside of the PCA, habitat capacity of developed sites will be wilderness characteristics until management on public lands is directed subject to management direction Congress decides whether to designate by Federal land management plans, not established in Forest Plans. Should the them as a permanent wilderness area. State management plans. The Montana Study Team determine developed sites This means that individual wilderness and Wyoming plans recommend are related to increases in mortality study areas are protected from new road maintaining average road densities of beyond the sustainable limits discussed construction by Forest Plans. As such, <1.6 km/2.6 sq km (<1 mi/sq mi) in above, they may recommend closing they are safeguarded from decreases in these areas (MTFWP 2002; WGFD 2002). specific developed sites or otherwise grizzly bear security. Furthermore, Both States have similar standards for altering management in the area in order activities such as timber harvest, elk habitat on State lands and note that to maintain a recovered population and mining, and oil and gas development these levels of motorized access benefit prevent the need to relist the population are much less likely to occur because a variety of wildlife species while under the ESA. Due to the USFS’s the road networks required for these maintaining reasonable public access. commitment to managing National activities are unavailable. However, Similarly, the Idaho State plan Forest lands in the GYA such that a because these lands are not recognizes that management of viable grizzly bear population is congressionally protected, they could motorized access outside the PCA maintained (Service 2003), the Service experience changes in management should focus on areas that have road does not expect livestock allotments or prescription with Forest Plan revisions. densities of <1.6 km/2.6 sq km (<1 mi/ developed sites in suitable habitat Inventoried roadless areas are sq mi). The area most likely to be outside of the PCA to reach densities currently secure habitat for grizzly bears occupied by grizzly bears outside the that are detrimental to the long-term outside of the PCA within the DPS. A PCA in Idaho is on the Caribou-Targhee persistence of the Yellowstone grizzly USFS Interim Directive (69 FR 42648; National Forest. The 1997 Targhee bear population. July 16, 2004) which instructs National Forest Plan includes motorized access Less than 19 percent (3,213 sq km Forests to preserve the ‘‘roadless standards and prescriptions outside the (1,240 sq mi)) of suitable habitat outside characteristics’’ of roadless areas will PCA with management prescriptions the PCA within the DPS on USFS land remain in effect until at least November that provide for long-term security in 61 allows surface occupancy for oil and gas 2006. State governors have the option to percent of existing secure habitat development and 11 percent (1,926 sq submit petitions with management outside of the PCA (USFS 2004). km (744 sq mi)) has both suitable timber recommendations to individual In suitable habitat outside the PCA and a management prescription that National Forests in their State by within the DPS, there are roughly 150 allows scheduled timber harvest. The November 2006 (70 FR 25653; May 13, active cattle allotments and 12 active primary impacts to grizzly bears 2005). If no petitions are received by sheep allotments (USFS 2004). The associated with timber harvest and oil this time, individual National Forests Targhee Forest Plan calls for the closing and gas development are increases in will continue operating under the of two of these sheep allotments while road densities, with subsequent

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69872 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

increases in human access, grizzly bear/ bear mortality rates. Private lands A total of 88 percent of all suitable human encounters, and human-caused account for a disproportionate number habitat within the DPS boundaries grizzly bear mortalities (McLellan and of bear deaths and conflicts (see Figures (40,293 sq km (15,557 sq mi)) is Shackleton 1988, 1989; Mace et al. 15 and 16 in the Strategy). Nearly 9 managed by the USFS or NPS. These 1996). Although seismic exploration percent of all suitable habitat outside of public lands are already managed and associated with oil and gas development the PCA is privately owned. As private will continue to be managed such that or mining may disturb denning grizzly lands are developed and as secure adequate habitat for the Yellowstone bears (Harding and Nagy 1980, Reynolds habitat on private lands declines, State grizzly bear population is maintained. et al. 1987), actual den abandonment is and Federal agencies will work together Habitat and population standards rarely observed, and there has been no to balance impacts from private land described in the Strategy must be documentation of such abandonment by development (Service 2003). Outside incorporated into National Parks and grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area. the PCA, State agencies will assist NGOs National Forests management plans Additionally, only a small portion of and other entities to identify and before the Service makes a final this total land area will contain active prioritize potential lands suitable for determination on this proposed action projects at any given time, if at all. For permanent conservation through (see Factor D—The Inadequacy of example, among the roughly 1,926 sq easements and other means as possible Existing Regulatory Mechanisms). We km (744 sq mi) identified as having both (Service 2003). conclude that the combination of these suitable timber and a management In summary, the primary factors actions regarding habitat will allow for prescription that allows timber harvest, related to past habitat destruction and adequate habitat to continue supporting from 2000 to 2002, an average of only modification have been directly a viable grizzly bear population with 5 sq km (2 sq mi) was actually logged addressed through changes in continued expansion into adjacent areas annually (USFS 2004). Similarly, management practices. Within the PCA, of public land in the GYA. although nearly 3,213 sq km (1,240 sq the Service and the Study Team have B. Overutilization for Commercial, mi) of suitable habitat on National developed objective and measurable Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Forest lands allow surface occupancy habitat criteria concerning secure Purposes for oil and gas development, there habitat, road densities, human site No grizzly bears have been legally currently are no active wells inside developments, and livestock allotments these areas (USFS 2004). removed from the GYA in the last 30 which will be standards on public lands years for commercial, recreational, or Ultimately, the six affected National should we finalize delisting. In Forests (the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, educational purposes. The only addition, the Study Team, State wildlife Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, commercial or recreational take agencies, NPS biologists, and USFS Gallatin, and Shoshone) will manage the potentially anticipated post-delisting, if biologists and technicians will monitor number of roads, livestock allotments, this action is finalized, is a limited, the availability and abundance of the developed sites, timber harvest projects, controlled hunt. The States will manage four major foods, and of habitat value and oil and gas wells outside of the PCA grizzly bears as a game animal, and habitat effectiveness using the in suitable habitat to allow for a viable potentially with a carefully regulated Cumulative Effects Model. The grizzly bear population. Because the hunt (for a more detailed discussion, see Coordinating Committee will respond to grizzly bear will be classified as a the State Management Plans section these monitoring data with adaptive sensitive species, under Forest Service under Factor D—The Inadequacy of Manual direction, land management management as per the Strategy (Service Existing Regulatory Mechanisms). activities will be managed so as not to 2003). Accordingly, the PCA, which Should such a season be implemented, contribute to a trend for listing or loss comprises 51 percent of the suitable all hunting mortalities will be counted of viability for the grizzly bear. There habitat within the DPS boundaries and toward the mortality limits for the must be no impacts to sensitive species is occupied by approximately 90 population and will be strictly without an analysis of the significance percent of all females with cubs controlled to assure that mortality limits of adverse effects on the populations, its (Schwartz 2005, unpublished data), will are not exceeded by this discretionary habitat, and the viability of the species be a highly secure area for grizzlies mortality source. Significant take for (USFS 2004). Any road construction, should we finalize delisting with habitat educational purposes is not anticipated. timber harvest, or oil and gas projects conditions maintained at or above levels Mortality due to illegal poaching, would require compliance with the documented in 1998. Maintenance of defense of life and property, mistaken National Environmental Policy Act this area as described above is sufficient identity or other accidental take, and (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4331) and the to support a recovered grizzly bear management removals are discussed National Forest Management Act of population. under Factor C—Human Predation 1976 (15 U.S.C. 1600), considering all In suitable habitat outside the PCA on section. potential impacts to the Yellowstone Forest Service lands, 74 percent (12,860 Since 1980, three accidental trap grizzly bear population and its habitat. sq km or 4965 sq mi) is currently secure mortalities were associated with Rapidly accelerating growth of human habitat, 68 percent of which (8,737 sq scientific research (Servheen et al. populations in some areas in grizzly km or 3,373 sq mi) is likely to remain 2004). All three mortalities occurred bear habitat within the DPS boundaries secure. Areas outside the PCA contain between 1980 and 1982. Since 1982, but outside of the PCA continues to about 10 percent of GYA’s females with there has not been a single capture define the limits of grizzly habitat and cubs (Schwartz 2005, unpublished mortality associated with research will likely limit the expansion of the data). Management of public land trapping in the Yellowstone area Yellowstone grizzly bear population outside the PCA administered by State spanning more than 468 grizzly bear onto private lands in some areas outside and Federal agencies also will continue captures (Servheen et al. 2004). Because the PCA. Urban and rural sprawl (low- to consider potential impacts of of rigorous protocols dictating proper density housing and associated management decisions on grizzly bear bear capture, handling, and drugging businesses) has resulted in increasing habitat. Efforts by NGOs and State and techniques used today, this type of numbers of grizzly bear/human conflicts county agencies will seek to minimize scientific overutilization is not a threat with subsequent increases in grizzly bear/human conflicts on private lands. to the Yellowstone grizzly bear

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69873

population. The Study Team, bear centuries (Leopold 1967; Koford 1969; counties, and States, on uniform biologists, and researchers will continue Servheen 1990; Servheen 1999; Mattson enforcement, prosecution, and implementing these protocols should and Merrill 2002; Schwartz et al. 2003), sentencing relating to illegal grizzly bear we delist. Therefore, mortalities eventually leading to their listing as a kills. If this proposed action is finalized, associated with scientific research will threatened species in 1975. Grizzlies all three affected States will classify not be a threat to the Yellowstone were seen as a threat to livestock and to grizzly bears of the Yellowstone grizzly bear population in the humans and, therefore, an impediment population as game animals which foreseeable future. to westward expansion. Many of the cannot be taken without authorization early settlers in grizzly bear country by State wildlife agencies (see Chapter C. Disease or Predation were dedicated to eradicating large 7 of the Strategy). In other words, it will Disease: Although grizzly bears have predators, and grizzly bears were shot, still be illegal for private citizens to kill been documented with a variety of poisoned, and killed wherever humans grizzly bears unless it is in self defense bacteria and other pathogens, parasites, encountered them (Servheen 1999). By or they have a hunting license issued by and disease, fatalities are uncommon the time grizzlies were listed under the State wildlife agencies. States will (LeFranc et al. 1987) and do not appear ESA in 1975, there were only a few continue to enforce, prosecute, and to have population-level impacts on hundred grizzly bears remaining in the sentence poachers just as they do for grizzly bears (Jonkel and Cowan 1971; lower 48 States in less than 2 percent of any game animal such as elk, black Kistchinskii 1972; Mundy and Flook their former range. bears, and cougars. Although it is 1973; Rogers and Rogers 1976). From 1973 to 2002, a total of 372 widely recognized that poaching still Researchers have demonstrated that known grizzly bear deaths occurred in occurs, this illegal source of mortality is some grizzly bears have been the GYA (Haroldson and Frey 2003). Of not significant enough to hinder the documented with brucellosis (type 4), these, 272 (73 percent of total) were continuing growth and range expansion clostridium, toxoplasmosis, canine human-caused (Haroldson and Frey of the Yellowstone grizzly bear distemper, canine parvovirus, canine 2003). Since 1975, levels of human- population (Pyare et al. 2004; Schwartz hepatitis, and rabies (LeFranc et al. caused mortality have remained et al. 2002). 1987; Zarnke and Evans 1989; Marsilio relatively constant (see Figure 4 in One way to address vandal killing is et al. 1997; Zarnke et al. 1997). Servheen et al. 2004). Although humans to change human values, perceptions, However, based on 30 years of research have been and remain the single greatest and beliefs about grizzly bears and by the Study Team, mortalities in the cause of mortality for grizzly bears Federal regulation of public lands wild due to any of these bacteria or (McLellan et al. 1999; Servheen et al. (Servheen et al. 2004). To address the pathogens are negligible components of 2004), rates of human-caused mortality concerns of user groups who have total mortality in the GYA (Study Team are low enough to allow Yellowstone objections to land use restrictions that 2005). Disease is not common in grizzly bear population growth and range accommodate grizzly bears, Federal and bears, has only very rarely been expansion (Schwartz et al. 2005). State agencies market the benefits of documented in Yellowstone grizzly Implementation of the revised mortality restricting motorized access to multiple bears (Craighead et al. 1988), and is not limits ensure that mortality will be species. For example, both Montana and considered a threat to long-term managed at sustainable levels. Below we Wyoming have recommendations for elk viability of the Yellowstone grizzly bear consider human predation impacts habitat security similar to those for population. including illegal poaching, defense of grizzly bears (less than 1.6 km/2.6 sq km Natural Predation: Grizzly bears are life and property; accidental mortality, (1 mi/sq mi)) and this level of motorized killed by other wildlife on occasion. and management removals. access meets the needs of a variety of Adult grizzly bears kill cubs, sub-adults, Vandal killing, or poaching, is defined wildlife species while maintaining or other adults (Stringham 1980; Dean et as malicious, illegal killing of a grizzly reasonable opportunities for public al. 1986; Hessing and Aumiller 1994; bear. People may kill grizzly bears for access. To address the concerns of McLellan 1994; Schwartz et al. 2003). several reasons, including a general citizens who feel that grizzly bears are This type of intraspecific killing seems perception that grizzly bears in the area a threat to their safety or their lifestyle, to occur rarely (Stringham 1980) and may be dangerous, frustration over IE programs aim to change perspectives has only been observed among depredations of livestock, or to protest on the danger and behavior of grizzly Yellowstone grizzly bears in the GYA 14 land use and road use restrictions bears (for a detailed discussion of IE times between 1986 and 2004 (Mark associated with grizzly bear habitat programs, see Factor E—Other Natural Haroldson, USGS 2005, unpublished management (Servheen et al. 2004). or Manmade Factors Affecting Its data). Wolves and grizzly bears often Regardless of the reason, poaching Continued Existence). Another option is scavenge similar types of carrion and, continues to occur. We are aware of at a limited hunt to foster a sense of sometimes, will interact with each other least 27 vandal killings between 1980 ownership and obligation toward the in an aggressive manner. From 1995 and 2002 (Servheen et al. 2004). grizzly bear. Areas with grizzly bear through 2003, Gunther and Smith (2004) Although this level of take occurred hunting seasons experience lower levels documented 96 wolf-grizzly bear during a period where poaching was of poaching (McLellan et al. 1999). interactions and 2 incidents in which enforceable by Federal prosecution, we Hunting is further discussed under wolf packs likely killed grizzly bear do not expect vandal killing to Factors B and D. cubs. Overall, these types of aggressive significantly increase should we finalize From 1980 to 2002, humans killed 49 interactions among grizzly bears or with this delisting. grizzly bears in self-defense or defense other wildlife are rare and negligible to State and Federal law enforcement of others. This constituted nearly 17 population dynamics. agents have cooperated to ensure percent of known grizzly bear Human Predation: Humans have consistent enforcement of laws mortalities during this time period historically been the most effective protecting grizzly bears. State and (Servheen et al. 2004). These grizzly predators of grizzly bears. Excessive Federal prosecutors and enforcement bear/human conflicts occurred human-caused mortality is one of the personnel from each State and Federal primarily over livestock or hunter-killed major contributing factors to grizzly bear jurisdiction work together to make carcasses, but also at camp and home decline during the 19th and 20th recommendations to all jurisdictions, sites. Federal and State agencies have

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69874 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

many options to potentially reduce delisted. The Strategy is consistent with the potential dangers associated with these conflicts by modifying human current protocol as described in the them (for a detailed discussion of IE behavior (Servheen et al. 2004). By Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee programs, see Factor E—Other Natural promoting the use of pepper spray and Guidelines (USDA 1986), emphasizing or Manmade Factors Affecting Its continuing current IE programs, many of the individual’s importance to the entire Continued Existence). these grizzly bear deaths may be population, with females continuing to Management removals due to grizzly avoided (for a detailed discussion of IE receive a higher level of protection than bear conflicts with livestock accounted programs, see Factor E—Other Natural males. Location, cause of incident, for nearly 4 percent of known or Manmade Factors Affecting Its severity of incident, history of bear, mortalities between 1980 and 2002 Continued Existence). health/age/sex of bear, and demographic (Servheen et al. 2004). Several steps to Humans kill grizzly bears characteristics are all considered in any reduce livestock conflicts are currently unintentionally with vehicles or by relocation or removal action. If we underway. The USFS and NPS are mistaking them for other species when delisted, State and Park Service bear phasing out sheep allotments within the hunting. From 1980 to 2002, the managers would continue to consult PCA as opportunities arise. The USFS Yellowstone grizzly bear population with each other and other relevant also has closed sheep allotments outside incurred 9 mortalities from roadkills federal agencies (i.e., USFS, BLM) the PCA to resolve conflicts with and 13 mortalities associated with before any nuisance bear management species such as bighorn sheep as well as mistaken identification. Accidental decision is made but consultation with grizzly bears. Livestock grazing permits human-caused mortality accounts for a the Service would no longer be include special provisions regarding total of 9 percent of known mortality for required. The Strategy emphasizes reporting of conflicts, proper food and this time period (Servheen et al. 2004). removal of the human cause of the attractant storage procedures, and Measures to reduce vehicle collisions conflict when possible, or management carcass removal. The USFS monitors with grizzly bears include removing and education actions to limit such compliance to these special provisions roadkill carcasses from the road so that conflicts (Service 2003). In addition, an associated with livestock allotments grizzly bears are not attracted to the IE team would continue to coordinate annually (Servheen et al. 2004). If we roadside (see Servheen et al. 2004). the development, implementation, and delist, the USFS would continue to Cost-effective mitigation efforts to dissemination of programs and implement these measures that facilitate safe crossings by wildlife will materials to aid in preventative minimize grizzly bear conflicts with be voluntarily incorporated in road management of human/bear conflicts. livestock. The Strategy also recognizes construction or reconstruction projects The Strategy recognizes that successful that active management of individual on Federal lands within suitable grizzly management of grizzly bear/human nuisance bears is required. Removal of bear habitat. conflicts will require an integrated, repeat depredators of livestock has been Mistaken identification of grizzly multiple-agency approach to continue to an effective tool for managing grizzly bears by black bear hunters is a reduce human-caused grizzly bear bear/livestock conflicts as most manageable source of mortality. The mortality. depredations are done by a few Strategy identifies IE programs targeted individuals (Jonkel 1980; Judd and at hunters that emphasize patience, The largest increase in grizzly bear Knight 1983; Anderson et al. 2002). awareness, and correct identification of mortalities since 1994 is related to The Study Team coordinates an targets help reduce grizzly bear grizzly bear/human conflicts at or near annual analysis of the causes of mortalities from inexperienced black developed sites (Servheen et al. 2004). conflicts, known and probable bear and ungulate hunters (Service In fact, 20 percent (59 of 290) of known mortalities, and proposed management 2003). Beginning in license year 2002, mortalities between 1980 and 2002 were solutions (see Servheen et al. 2004 for the State of Montana required that all related to site conflicts. These conflicts an example of the form such reports will black bear hunters pass a Bear involved food-conditioned bears take). The Yellowstone Ecosystem Identification Test before receiving a actively seeking out human sources of Subcommittee reviews these reports and black bear hunting license (see http:// food or bears that are habituated to initiates appropriate action if fwp.state.mt.us/bearid/ for more human presence seeking natural sources improvements in Federal or State information and details). Since of food in areas that are near human management actions can minimize implementation, no grizzly bears have structures or roads. The increase in site conflicts. As directed by the Strategy, if been mistakenly killed by black bear conflicts during the last decade is likely we delist, the Study Team would hunters in Montana’s portion of the due to a combination of encroaching continue to summarize nuisance bear GYA (Study Team 2005, unpublished human presence coinciding with an control actions in their Annual Reports data). In addition, Montana and increasing and expanding grizzly bear and the Coordinating Committee will Wyoming include grizzly bear population. These conflicts usually continue with their review (Service encounter management as a core subject involve attractants such as garbage, 2003). The Study Team also would in basic hunter education courses. human foods, pet/livestock/wildlife continue preparing annual spatial The last source of human predation foods, livestock carcasses, and wildlife distribution maps of conflicts so that on grizzly bears is associated with carcasses, but also are related to managers can identify where problems management removal of nuisance bears attitudes and personal levels of occur and compare trends in locations, following grizzly bear/human conflicts. knowledge and tolerance toward grizzly sources, land ownership, and types of Effective nuisance bear management bears. Both State and Federal IE conflicts. This will facilitate proactive benefits the conservation of the programs are aimed primarily at management of grizzly/human conflicts. Yellowstone grizzly bear population by reducing grizzly bear/human conflicts Overall, from 1980 to 2002, the promoting tolerance of grizzly bears and proactively by educating the public Yellowstone grizzly bear population minimizing illegal killing of bears by about potential grizzly bear attractants. incurred an average of 12.6 grizzly bear citizens. The Strategy and the State To address public attitudes and mortalities per year. Despite these grizzly bear management plans are the knowledge levels, IE programs will natural and human-caused mortalities, regulatory documents that would guide present grizzly bears as a valuable the Yellowstone grizzly bear population nuisance bear management if we public resource while acknowledging has continued to increase in size and

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69875

expand its distribution in the last 2 regulations provide the legal authority State and Federal agencies which are decades. Disease and natural predation for controlling mortality, providing party to the agreement have signed a are not a threat to the long-term secure habitats, managing grizzly bear/ memo of understanding (MOU) in persistence of the Yellowstone grizzly human conflicts, controlling hunters, which they have agreed to implement bear population. Although humans are limiting access where necessary, the Strategy. If this proposed action is still directly or indirectly responsible controlling livestock grazing, adopted, the Service will sign the MOU for the majority of grizzly bear deaths in maintaining education and outreach prior to finalization. suitable habitat within the DPS programs to control conflicts, The Strategy and the State plans boundaries, we have learned that this monitoring populations and habitats, describe and summarize the coordinated source of mortality can be effectively and requesting management and efforts required to manage the controlled through management and IE. petitions for re-listing if necessary. Yellowstone grizzly bear population and We have institutionalized careful Recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly its habitat such that its continued management and monitoring of human- bear population is the result of conservation is ensured. The Strategy caused mortality in the Strategy, Forest partnerships between Federal and State will direct management of grizzly bears Plans, National Park management plans, agencies, the governors of these States, inside the PCA, whereas the State plans and State grizzly bear management county and city governments, will cover all suitable habitat outside of plans (see Factor D—The Inadequacy of educational institutions, numerous the PCA. These documents specify the Existing Regulatory Mechanisms). In NGOs, private landowners, and the population, habitat, and nuisance bear addition, we revised our methodology public who live, work, and recreate in standards to maintain a recovered for calculating the total allowable the Yellowstone area. Just as recovery of grizzly bear population for the mortality limits (see the Recovery; the Yellowstone grizzly bear population foreseeable future. The plans also Population and Demographic could not have occurred without these document the regulatory mechanisms Management section above) to include excellent working relationships, and legal authorities, policies, natural mortalities and estimates of maintenance of a recovered grizzly management, and post-delisting unreported/undetected deaths, so that population depends on continuation of monitoring plans that exist to maintain mortality in the Yellowstone grizzly these partnerships. the recovered grizzly bear population. bear population can be managed at The Strategy is the management plan Overall, the Conservation Strategy and sustainable levels. Because of these which will guide the management and the State grizzly bear management plans actions, human sources of mortality are monitoring of the Yellowstone grizzly provide assurances to the Service that no longer considered a threat to the bear population and its habitat after adequate regulatory mechanisms exist to future viability of the Yellowstone delisting. It establishes a regulatory maintain the Yellowstone grizzly bear grizzly bear population. framework and authority for Federal population after delisting. and State agencies to take over In areas of suitable habitat outside of D. The Inadequacy of Existing management of the Yellowstone grizzly the PCA, individual National Forest Regulatory Mechanisms bear population from the Service. The Plans and State grizzly bear The lack of regulatory mechanisms to Strategy also identifies, defines, and management plans apply. Should we control take and protect habitat was a requires adequate post-delisting delist, the USFS would place grizzly contributing factor to grizzly bear monitoring to maintain a healthy bears on its Sensitive Wildlife Species population declines (40 FR 31734; July Yellowstone grizzly bear population list. This requires the USFS to conduct 28, 1975). Upon listing under the ESA, (see the Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan) a biological evaluation for any project the grizzly bear immediately benefited (Service 2003). The Strategy is an which may ‘‘result in loss of species from a Federal regulatory framework adaptive and dynamic document that viability or create significant trends that included prohibition of take, which allows for continuous updating based toward Federal listing’’ (USFS Manual is defined broadly under the ESA to on new scientific information. The 2600). Under the revised Forest include killing, injuring, or attempting Strategy also has a clear response Planning Regulations (70 FR 1023; to kill or injure; prohibition of habitat protocol that requires the agencies to January 5, 2005), Yellowstone grizzly destruction or degradation if such respond with active management bears will be classified as a ‘‘species-of- activities harm individuals of the changes to deviations from the habitat concern’’ or a ‘‘species-of-interest’’. This species; the requirement that Federal and population standards in a timely designation provides protections similar agencies ensure their actions will not and publicly accessible manner. It to those received when classified as a likely jeopardize the continued represents a decade-long collaborative sensitive species and requires that existence of the species; and the effort among the USFS, NPS, BLM, Forest Plans include additional requirement to develop and implement USGS, the Service, the Study Team, provisions to accommodate these a recovery program for the species. IDFG, MTFWP, and WGFD. State grizzly species. These protective measures have bear management plans were developed, The USFS conducted a NEPA analysis improved the status of the Yellowstone reviewed, opened for public comment, and produced a Draft Environmental grizzly bear population to the point revised, and completed in all three Impact Statement (Draft EIS) regarding where delisting can now be proposed. affected States (Idaho, Montana, and the potential options available and the The management of grizzly bears and Wyoming). These State plans were then effects of implementing the Strategy their habitat draws from the laws and incorporated into the Strategy to ensure (USFS 2004). This analysis was regulations of the Federal and State that the plans and the Strategy are undertaken by all six affected National agencies in the Yellowstone DPS consistent and complementary Forests in suitable habitat (Beaverhead, boundaries (Chapter 7 of the Strategy). (accessible at http://mountain- Bridger-Teton, Custer, Gallatin, Forty Federal laws, rules, guidelines, prairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ Shoshone, and Targhee) and was strategies, and reports and 33 State laws, grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The Strategy completed in July 2004 (accessible at statutes, and regulations in place apply then went through a separate public http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ to management of the Yellowstone comment process before being revised mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The grizzly bear population (Appendix J in (65 FR 11340; March 2, 2000). With the overall purpose of the Draft EIS is to the Strategy). These laws and exception of the Service, all the other analyze the impacts of incorporating the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69876 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

habitat standards outlined in the in the management of Inventoried re-listing, (2) support expansion of Conservation Strategy and other Roadless Areas. Any petitions received grizzly bears beyond the PCA, into areas relevant provisions into the Forest Plans will be reviewed by the Roadless Area of suitable habitat, and (3) manage of the six affected forests to ensure Conservation National Advisory grizzly bears as a game animal, conservation of habitat to sustain the Committee (70 FR 25653, May 13, 2005; including allowing regulated hunting recovered Yellowstone grizzly bear 70 FR 25663, May 13, 2005). If the when and where appropriate. The plans population. Advisory Committee approves the for all three States were completed in The USFS Final EIS is scheduled to petition, the affected National Forest 2002, and grizzly bears within the be released in 2005. The preferred must use the NEPA process and public Yellowstone DPS would be incorporated alternative in the Draft EIS is to amend involvement to consider the impacts into existing game species management the Forest Plans to include all the any changes in Roadless Area plans after delisting. habitat standards described in the management may have on other The Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the Strategy. If the preferred alternative is resources and management goals. The Wind River Reservation has participated selected, the minimum standards in USFS will monitor any impacts these at the Yellowstone Ecosystem these Forest Plan amendments will be changes may have on habitat Subcommittee meetings. At the 2002 the habitat standards required in the effectiveness while the Study Team will Annual Tribal Consultation organized Strategy. These habitat standards must monitor any increases in grizzly bear by Yellowstone National Park, the be appended to current Forest Plans mortality these changes may cause. In Service formally briefed the Tribe about before the Service would finalize this the meantime, the USDA-USFS Interim the Conservation Strategy, but the Tribe rule. Directive 1920–2004–1 that became did not provide input or feedback about Under the revised Forest Planning effective July 16, 2004, will continue to the Strategy, nor did they sign the MOU Regulation (70 FR 1023; January 5, regulate activities in Inventoried in the Strategy. In addition, the Eastern 2005), revisions to Forest Plans will be Roadless Areas (69 FR 42648; July 16, Shoshone Tribe has not designed its based upon a ‘‘need for change’’ 2004). Under this directive, little road own Grizzly Bear Management Plan as approach. Therefore, it is highly building or timber harvest can be done of 2005. However, less than 3 percent of unlikely that any changes relating to the in Inventoried Roadless Areas until all suitable habitats (1,360 sq km (525 sq Yellowstone grizzly bear amendments Forest Plans are revised or amended to mi)) are potentially affected by Tribal will be identified during the revision specifically address activities in decisions. This does not constitute a process (Aus and Steering Team, in litt. roadless areas. The Targhee National threat to the long-term viability of the 2005). ‘‘This means that the Forest is exempt from this interim Yellowstone grizzly bear population. management direction developed in the directive because it operates under a Should the Yellowstone DPS be amendment(s) will be transferred to the Revised Forest Plan, which addresses delisted, the Conservation Strategy new planning format and will not the management of roadless areas. would be implemented, and the change. The bottom line is that any Motorized access and other management Coordinating Committee would replace potential changes to management activities are addressed by specific the Yellowstone Ecosystem direction in either the current plans or Management Prescription direction in Subcommittee as the leading entity during the revision effort will be guided the Revised Forest Plan. In general, this coordinating implementation of the by the agreements reached in the Management Prescription directs that habitat and population standards and Conservation Strategy and its adaptive roadless areas in the Targhee National monitoring (Service 2003). Similar to provisions (Aus, in litt. 2005). Forest remain roadless. Similarly, a the Yellowstone Ecosystem Roughly 29 percent of all suitable 1994 amendment to the Shoshone Subcommittee, the Coordinating habitat outside of the PCA is within a National Forest Plan implemented a Committee members include designated Wilderness Area (6,799 of standard for no net increase in roads representatives from Yellowstone and 23,091 sq km (2,625 of 8,915 sq mi) (USFS 2004). Grand Teton National Parks, the six while another 27 percent is within an The NPS also is incorporating the affected National Forests, BLM, USGS, Inventoried Roadless Area (6,179 of habitat, population, monitoring, and IDFG, MTFWP, the WGFD, one member 23,091 sq km (2,386 of 8,915 sq mi)). nuisance bear standards described in from local county governments within Another three percent of all suitable the Strategy into their Superintendent’s each State, and one member from each habitat outside the PCA is considered Compendium for each affected National Native American Tribe within suitable wilderness study area. The Wilderness Park. This would be completed prior to habitat. All meetings will be open to the Act of 1964 does not allow road the final rule should the Yellowstone public. Besides coordinating construction, new livestock allotments, DPS be delisted. Because the BLM management, research, and financial or new oil, gas, and mining manages less than 2 percent of all needs for successful conservation of the developments in designated Wilderness suitable habitats, they are not modifying Yellowstone grizzly bear population, the Areas; therefore, about 6,799 sq km existing management plans. Instead, the Coordinating Committee will review the (2,625 sq mi) of secure habitat outside BLM expressed their commitment to the Study Team’s Annual Reports and of the PCA will remain secure habitat long-term conservation of the review and respond to any deviations protected by adequate regulatory Yellowstone grizzly bear population by from habitat or population standards, by mechanisms. signing the MOU in the Strategy. implementing management actions to The USDA recently published a rule The three State grizzly bear rectify problems and to assure that these in the Federal Register regarding management plans direct State land standards will be met and maintained. management direction of Inventoried management agencies to maintain or The Conservation Strategy’s habitat Roadless Areas (70 FR 25653; May 13, improve habitats that are important to standards are the 1998 levels of secure 2005). This new rule replaces the former grizzly bears and to monitor population habitat, developed sites, livestock Roadless Rule (66 FR 3244; January 12, criteria outside the PCA. Idaho, allotments, and habitat effectiveness 2001) and establishes a formal Montana, and Wyoming have developed (Service 2003). The Strategy signatories petitioning process that allows management plans for areas outside the have agreed that if there are deviations governors of affected States until PCA to: (1) Ensure the long-term from any population goal or habitat November 2006 to petition for changes viability of grizzly bears and preclude standard, the Coordinating Committee

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69877

will implement a Biology and based on the five factors of section will be given greater consideration Monitoring Review to be carried out by 4(a)(1) of the ESA could be drafted and outside of the PCA so long as human the Study Team. A Biology and take effect after the 240-day limit on the sources of conflicts are not intentional. Monitoring Review will be triggered by emergency relisting has expired. The States are committed to responding any of the following causes: (1) A total The management of nuisance bears to grizzly bear/human conflicts in an population estimate of less than 500, as within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries efficient, timely manner. indicated by a Chao2 estimate (Keating will be based upon existing laws and The killing of grizzly bears in self- et al. 2002) of less than 48 females with authorities of State wildlife agencies defense by humans will continue to be cubs-of-the-year, for 2 consecutive and Federal land management agencies allowed under both Federal and State years; (2) exceedance of the 9 percent and guided by protocols established in management plans. State management total mortality limit for independent the Strategy and State management plans do not allow for legal take of females for 2 consecutive years; (3) plans. Inside the National Parks, grizzly bears by humans unless it is exceedance of the total mortality limits Yellowstone or Grand Teton National within the designated seasons and for independent males or dependent Park grizzly bear biologists will limits for grizzly mortality. Hunting young for 3 consecutive years; or (4) continue to respond to grizzly bear/ seasons will not be instituted in any of failure to meet any of the habitat human conflicts. In all areas outside of the States until adequate scientific standards described in the Conservation the National Parks, State wildlife information exists to ensure that any Strategy pertaining to road densities, agencies will coordinate and carry out such hunting take is within the levels of secure habitat, new developed any management actions in response to sustainable mortality limits and the sites, and number of livestock grizzly bear/human conflicts. In areas impact to the Yellowstone grizzly bear allotments. within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries population is negligible. The goal of that are outside of the PCA, State grizzly such a hunting season is to reduce A Biology and Monitoring Review bear management plans will apply and grizzly density in areas of high grizzly will examine habitat management, State wildlife agencies will respond to bear/human conflicts so that future population management, or monitoring and manage all grizzly bear/human management actions would be reduced. efforts of participating agencies with an conflicts. The focus and intent of Outside of the National Parks, objective of identifying the source or nuisance grizzly bear management individual nuisance bears deemed cause of failing to meet a habitat or inside and outside the PCA will be appropriate for removal may be taken by demographic goal. The Study Team will predicated on strategies and actions to a licensed hunter in compliance with give management recommendations to prevent grizzly bear/human conflicts. rules and regulations promulgated by address the deviation. This Review will Active management aimed at individual the appropriate State wildlife agency be completed and made available to the nuisance bears will be required in both commission. A hunt would only occur public within 6 months of initiation. areas. if annual mortality limits specified for The Coordinating Committee will The Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming the Yellowstone grizzly bear population respond with actions to address plans recognize that measures to reduce are not exceeded. deviations from habitat standards or, if grizzly bear/human conflicts are In summary, these State management the desired population and habitat paramount to successfully and plans provide the necessary regulatory standards specified in the Strategy completely address the issue. The State framework and guidelines to State cannot be met in the opinion of the of Idaho Yellowstone Grizzly Bear wildlife agencies for the continued Coordinating Committee, then the Management Plan states that such expansion of the Yellowstone grizzly Coordinating Committee will petition measures must be given priority, as they bear population into suitable habitat the Service for relisting (Service 2003). are more effective than simply outside of the PCA. By identifying the Although anyone can petition the responding to problems as they occur. agencies responsible for nuisance bear Service for relisting, the Coordinating Similarly, the Grizzly Bear Management management and responding to grizzly Committee’s petition is important Plan for Southwestern Montana bear/human conflicts using a clearly because it is requested by the actual maintains that the key to dealing with orchestrated protocol, these State plans management agencies in charge of the all nuisance situations is prevention create a framework within which grizzly Yellowstone grizzly bear population. rather than responding after damage has bears and people can coexist. Effective Additionally, the Coordinating occurred. The Wyoming Grizzly Bear nuisance bear management benefits the Committee possesses the resources, Management Plan also mandates the conservation of the Yellowstone grizzly data, and experience to provide the WGFD to emphasize long-term, non- bear population and State management Service with a strong argument for the lethal solutions, but relocation and plans adequately address this issue. petition. Once a potential petition is lethal removal may occur to resolve In addition to the Conservation received, the Service will determine if some conflicts (all three State Strategy, National Park the petition presents substantial management plans are accessible at Superintendent’s Plans, USFS Plans, information. If so, we conduct a full http:// mountain-prairie.fws.gov/ and State grizzly bear management status review to determine if relisting is species/mammals/grizzly/ plans, more than 70 State and Federal warranted, warranted-but-precluded by yellowstone.htm). The ways in which laws, regulations, rules, and guidelines higher priority actions, or not the Strategy and the State plans intend are currently in place. We are confident warranted. The Service could also to address preventative measures are that these documents provide an consider emergency listing, in described in detail in the ‘‘Information adequate regulatory framework within accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the and Education’’ section in Factor E— which the Yellowstone grizzly bear ESA, if the threat were severe and Other Natural or Manmade Factors population will continue to experience immediate. Such an emergency relisting Affecting Its Continued Existence. All population stability, as well as protocols would be effective the day the proposed three State plans allow for preemptive for future management, IE programs, regulation is published in the Federal relocation of grizzly bears out of areas and monitoring. In summary, these Register and would be effective for 240 with a high probability of conflicting documents provide reasonable days. During this time, a conventional with humans or their property, assurance to the Service and regulatory rule regarding the listing of a species including livestock. In general, humans certainty that potential future threats to

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69878 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population Yellowstone area does not decline cutthroat trout per year (Ruzycki et al. will not jeopardize its long-term below existing levels (Service 2003). 2003). In 1998, Myxobolus cerebralis, viability. As long as adequate measures to the parasite that causes whirling address genetic concerns are continued, disease, was found in juvenile and adult E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors these issues will not adversely impact cutthroat trout collected from Affecting Its Continued Existence the long-term conservation of the Yellowstone Lake. The Intermountain Three other considerations have the Yellowstone grizzly bear population or West has experienced drought potential to affect long-term grizzly bear its expansion into suitable habitat. conditions for the past 6 years, which persistence in the Yellowstone Through careful monitoring of has resulted in increased water including: (1) Genetic concerns; (2) movements and levels of genetic temperatures, lowered lake levels, and a invasive species, disease, and other diversity, the geographic isolation of the reduction in peak stream flows; all of impacts to food supply; and (3) human Yellowstone grizzly bear population which negatively affect cutthroat trout attitudes toward grizzly bear recovery will not be a threat to population spawning success (Koel et al. 2005). and IE efforts to improve these attitudes. persistence. This combination of lake trout, whirling Genetic Management: Levels of Invasive Species, Disease, and Other disease, and drought conditions has genetic diversity in the Yellowstone Impacts to Food Supply: Four food resulted in declines in the Yellowstone grizzly bear population are not as low as items have been identified as major cutthroat trout population with previously feared, and the need for components of the Yellowstone grizzly subsequent decreases in grizzly bear novel genetic material is not urgent bear population’s diet (Mattson et al. fishing activity (Koel et al. 2005). In fact, (Miller and Waits 2003). Because the 1991). These are seeds of the whitebark bear activity (includes black bear and Yellowstone grizzly bear population is pine, army cutworm moths, ungulates, grizzly bear use) at spawning streams and spawning cutthroat trout. These an isolated population, declines in decreased 87 percent between 1989 and food sources may exert a positive genetic diversity over time due to 2004 (Koel et al. 2005). This decrease influence on grizzly bear fecundity and inbreeding are expected (Allendorf et al. corresponds temporally with cutthroat survival (Mattson et al. 2002) and are 1991; Burgman et al. 1993), but will trout declines but may not have a some of the highest sources of digestible occur gradually over decades (Miller significant effect on the grizzly bear energy available to grizzly bears in the and Waits 2003). Experimental and population because adult grizzlies that Yellowstone area (Mealey 1975; theoretical data suggest that one to two fish in spawning streams only consume, Pritchard and Robbins 1990; Mattson et effective migrants per generation is an on average, between 8 and 55 trout per al. 1992; Craighead et al. 1995). Each of appropriate level of gene flow to year (Felicetti et al. 2004). these food sources is limited in In 2001, several environmental and maintain or increase the level of genetic distribution and subject to natural legal organizations petitioned the diversity in isolated populations (Mills annual fluctuations in abundance and Service to list the Yellowstone cutthroat and Allendorf 1996; Newman and availability. Because of this natural trout as a threatened subspecies of Tallmon 2001; Miller and Waits 2003). variability, threshold values of cutthroat trout (66 FR 11244; February An effective migrant is defined as an abundance for each food have not been 23, 2001). A 12-month status review is individual that emigrates into an established. However, whitebark pine, currently underway and the Service will isolated population from an outside ungulates, cutthroat trout, and army publish its findings when completed. area, survives, and breeds. Based on cutworm moths are all monitored either We will consider the results of the Miller and Waits (2003), the Strategy directly or indirectly on an annual basis status review fully when making a final recommends that two bears from the (see Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan decision on this proposed delisting. NCDE be introduced into the section below). Monitoring these Efforts to reduce introduced lake trout Yellowstone grizzly bear population important foods provides managers with populations have been somewhat every 10 years (i.e., one generation) to some ability to predict annual seasonal successful. The Yellowstone National maintain current levels of genetic bear habitat use, and estimate, prepare Park managers have removed more than diversity (Service 2003). for, and avoid grizzly bear/human 100,000 lake trout since 1994, and the Federal and State agencies will conflicts due to a shortage of one or average size of lake trout caught has continue to monitor bears on the more foods. In response to normal decreased, indicating that gillnetting northern periphery of the Yellowstone changes in food supplies due to plant efforts may be effective. The DPS boundaries and the southern edges phenology and responses to weather Yellowstone National Park managers of the NCDE and collect genetic samples (e.g., frost, rainfall), grizzly bear annual will continue to monitor the from captured or dead bears in these home ranges change in size and extent. Yellowstone Lake cutthroat trout areas to document gene flow between By expanding the distribution and range population using fish weirs, spawning these two ecosystems. To monitor of bears into currently unoccupied stream surveys, and hydroacoustic genetic isolation, the Service will suitable habitat within the DPS techniques and continue attempts to establish a repository for all samples boundaries, additional areas with suppress nonnative lake trout in from the Yellowstone population to additional food resources will be Yellowstone Lake through gillnetting, document any bears moving from the available. These additional habitats will capturing on spawning grounds, and NCDE into the Yellowstone area. Such provide habitat flexibility for bears to fishing regulations which target lake movement will be detected by using an respond to these normal changes in trout (Yellowstone National Park 2003). ‘‘assignment test’’ which identifies the annual food supplies and distribution. The Yellowstone National Park area from which individuals are most Several factors have the potential to biologists will continue to assess the likely to have originated based on their impact Yellowstone Lake cutthroat trout impacts of nonnative lake trout on unique genetic signature (Waser and populations. In 1994, nonnative lake cutthroat trout populations and will Strobeck 1998). The Strategy dictates trout (Salvelinus naymaycush) were provide an annual summary to the that if no movements are detected by discovered in Yellowstone Lake Study Team regarding the abundance of 2020, one to two grizzlies will be (Reinhart et al. 2001). Lake trout are both cutthroat and lake trout. transplanted from the NCDE by 2022 to efficient predators of juvenile cutthroat Currently, there are two noteworthy ensure that genetic diversity in the trout and, on average, consume 41 threats to whitebark pine communities

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69879

in North America. These are mountain cone production transects within the reflective of a landscape-scale trend or pine beetle infestation and the PCA, 9 of which have been monitored simply an isolated event. Significant introduction of exotic species (Tomback on an annual basis since 1980 (Knight declines in important foods also could et al. 2001). Fire suppression and et al. 1997). Under the Strategy, the result in reductions in cub production exclusion throughout most of the Study Team will continue monitoring and increases in cub mortality over western United States during the 20th whitebark pine cone production and the current rates of 0.362. Because human- century has allowed shade tolerant tree prevalence of white pine blister rust caused mortality, natural mortality of species to dominate some whitebark using current methods (Service 2003). radio-collared bears, and numbers of pine communities thereby inhibiting In general, grizzly bears are cubs, and cub survival rates are all natural regeneration by whitebark pine notoriously resourceful omnivores that measurable criteria monitored annually (Arno 1986; Tomback et al. 2001). These will make behavioral adaptations by the Study Team, any significant later successional whitebark pine regarding food acquisition (Weaver et al. decline in important foods also would communities are more susceptible to 1996). Diets of grizzly bears vary among be reflected in changes in these infestations of the native mountain pine individuals and years (Mattson et al. measurable population parameters. In beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) 1991; Felicetti et al. 2004; Koel et al. summary, if declines in any of the four (Tomback et al. 2001). Their larvae feed 2005) reflecting their flexibility in major foods occur and, using the best on the inner bark, which can eventually finding adequate food resources as available scientific data and techniques, girdle and kill trees on a landscape scale necessary. Mattson et al. (1991) the Study Team concludes these are (Amman and Cole 1983). hypothesized that grizzly bears are related to significant increases in known The introduction of white pine blister always sampling new foods in small and probable bear mortalities and that rust from Europe in the early 1900s also quantities so that they have alternative such increases could threaten the contributes to whitebark pine declines options in years when preferred foods grizzly population, the Study Team (Kendall and Arno 1990; Tomback et al. are scarce. In other areas such as the would recommend to the Coordinating 2001). While there is evidence of blister NCDE, where grizzly bears historically Committee that they submit a petition rust in whitebark pines in the relied heavily on whitebark pine seeds, for relisting to the Service (see Chapter Yellowstone area, the blister rust has distributions and sighting records on the 6 of the Strategy—Implementation and been present for more than 50 years periphery of this ecosystem indicate Evaluation, for details on this process). (McDonald and Hoff 2001), and only 2 that the population, at least in those Human Attitudes and Societal to 13 percent of whitebark pine trees areas, has continued to increase and Acceptance: Public support is display signs of infection (Kendall and thrive since the 1980s (Servheen, pers. paramount to any successful large Keane 2001). This proportion of infected comm. 2005) despite severe declines in carnivore conservation program trees is much lower than in whitebark whitebark pine communities in the last (Servheen 1996). Historically, human pine communities found in the nearby 50 years (Kendall and Keane 2001). attitudes played a primary role in Bob Marshall Wilderness (83 percent) or Also, grizzly bear use of cutthroat trout grizzly bear population declines through in communities of other 5-needled pines has varied dramatically in the last three excessive human-caused mortality. in Colorado in which 50 percent of decades (Reinhart and Mattson 1990; Through government-endorsed pines exposed to the fungus are infected Felicetti et al. 2004), most likely eradication programs and perceived (McDonald and Hoff 2001). corresponding to fluctuations in the threats to human life and economic Both mountain pine beetle (Logan and trout population, but the Yellowstone livelihood, humans settling the West Powell 2001; Williams and Liebhold grizzly bear population has continued to were able to effectively eliminate most 2002) and white pine blister rust increase and expand. known grizzly populations after only (Koteen 2002) outbreaks are predicted to Although there is no way to guarantee 100 years of westward expansion. increase with increasing temperatures how the Yellowstone grizzly bear We have seen a change in public associated with global climate change. population will respond to decreases in perceptions and attitudes toward the However, the ultimate impacts of whitebark pine crops or cutthroat trout, grizzly bear in the last several decades. climate change on whitebark pine should they occur, we anticipate that The same government that once communities are unclear (Kendall and they will compensate by shifting their financially supported active Keane 2001). foraging strategies to other foods such as extermination of the bear now uses its Although tree mortality due to white forbs, fungi, ungulates, and small resources to protect the great symbol of pine blister rust and mountain pine mammals. If there are reductions in any American wildness. This change in beetles has been low to date in the PCA, of these foods, they will likely be government policy and practice is a some whitebark pine stands are infected gradual reductions over decades, product of changing public attitudes with blister rust. The extent of the spanning generations of grizzly bears, about the grizzly bear. Although blister rust infection and the future thereby making adjustments to other attitudes about grizzlies vary effects it will have on whitebark pine on foods gradual. geographically and demographically, the Yellowstone grizzly bear population The Study Team monitors grizzly bear there has been a revival of positive are unknown. The USFS formed a mortality in relation to the abundance attitudes toward the grizzly bear and its Whitebark Pine Task Group to gather and distribution of all four of the major conservation (Kellert et al. 1996). information on the status of this tree. foods using measurable criteria. For Public outreach presents a unique Current work on whitebark pine instance, increases in mortality rates of opportunity to effectively integrate includes planting in several areas, cone radio-collared independent females are human and ecological concerns into collection from healthy trees, measurable criteria that could reflect comprehensive programs that can silvicultural treatments to improve decreases in food availability. Because modify societal beliefs about, growth and establishment, prescribed there were no known natural mortalities perceptions of, and behaviors toward burning to encourage natural whitebark of independent adult females from 1983 grizzly bears. Attitudes toward wildlife pine seedling establishment, and to 2001 (Study Team 2005), any change are shaped by numerous factors surveys for healthy trees that may in this value will be noteworthy and including basic wildlife values, possess blister rust resistant genes. will be investigated thoroughly by the biological and ecological understanding Currently, there are 19 whitebark pine Study Team to determine whether it is of species, perceptions of individual

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69880 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

species, and specific interactions or the root causes of these conflicts. By programs and expand them when experiences with species (Kellert 1994; increasing awareness of grizzly bear possible. State wildlife agencies have Kellert et al. 1996). The IE programs to behavior and biology, we hope to years of experience organizing and teach visitors and residents about enhance public involvement and implementing effective public outreach grizzly bear biology, ecology, and appreciation of the grizzly bear. programs. For example, WGFD created a behavior enhance appreciation for this Although many human-caused grizzly formal human/grizzly bear conflict large predator while dispelling myths bear mortalities are unintentional (e.g., management program in July 1990 and about its temperament and feeding vehicle collisions, trap mortality), has coordinated an extensive IE program habits. Effective IE programs have been intentional deaths in response to grizzly since then. Similarly, since 1993, the an essential factor contributing to the bear/human conflicts are responsible for MTFWP has implemented countless recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear the majority of known and probable public outreach efforts to minimize population since its listing in 1975. human-caused mortalities. Fortunately, bear/human conflicts, and the IDFG has Being aware of specific values common this source of mortality can be reduced organized and implemented education to certain user groups will allow the IE significantly if adequate IE is provided programs and workshops focused on working group to disseminate to people who live, work, and recreate private and public lands on the western appropriate materials and provide in occupied grizzly bear habitat. The edge of grizzly bear habitat. workshops that address particular current IE working group has been a Compensating ranchers for losses values and concerns most adequately. major component contributing to the caused by grizzly bears is another By providing general information to successful recovery of the Yellowstone approach to build support for visitors and targeting specific user grizzly bear population over the last 30 coexistence between livestock operators groups about living and working in years. Both Federal and State and grizzly bears. In cases of grizzly grizzly country, we believe continued management agencies are committed to bear livestock depredation that have coexistence between grizzly bears and working with citizens, landowners, and been verified by USDA–APHIS–Wildlife humans will be accomplished. visitors within the Yellowstone DPS Services, IDFG, MTFWP, or WYDGF, Traditionally, residents of the GYA boundaries to address the human compensation to the affected livestock involved in resource extraction sources of conflicts. owners will continue to occur. Since industries such as loggers, miners, From 1975 through 2002, as many as 1997, this compensation has been livestock operators, and hunting guides, 59 percent (135 out of 230) of human- provided primarily by private are the largest opponents to land-use caused mortalities could have been organizations, principally Defenders of restrictions which place the needs of the avoided if adequate IE materials had Wildlife. The Defenders of Wildlife’s grizzly bear above human needs (Kellert been presented, understood, and used Grizzly Bear Compensation Trust has 1994; Kellert et al. 1996). Surveys of by involved parties. Educating back- paid over $112,000 to livestock these user groups have shown that they country and front-country users about operators within the Yellowstone DPS tolerate large predators when they are the importance of securing potential boundaries and in the northern Rockies not seen as direct threats to their attractants can prevent bears from for confirmed and probable livestock economic stability or personal freedoms becoming food conditioned and losses to grizzly bears. If this proposed (Kellert et al. 1996). Delisting would displaying subsequent unnaturally rule to delist the Yellowstone grizzly increase acceptance of grizzly bears by aggressive behavior. Similarly, adhering bear population is adopted, both Idaho giving lower levels of government and to hiking recommendations, such as and Wyoming’s grizzly bear private citizens more discretion in making noise, hiking with other people, management plans provide for State decisions which affect them. Increased and hiking during daylight hours, can funding of compensation programs. In flexibility regarding depredating bears further reduce back-country grizzly bear Idaho, compensation funds will come in areas outside of the PCA would mortalities by decreasing the likelihood from the secondary depredation increase tolerance for the grizzly bear by that hikers will encounter bears. account, and the program will be landowners and livestock operators. A Hunter-related mortalities usually administered by the appropriate IDFG future hunting season also may increase involve hunters defending their life or Regional Landowner Sportsman tolerance and local acceptance of grizzly property because of carcasses that are Coordinators and Regional Supervisors. bears and reduce poaching in the GYA left unattended or stored improperly. In Wyoming, the WYDGF will pay for (McLellan et al. 1999). Grizzly bear mortalities also occur when all compensable damage to agricultural Overall, through expanded IE hunters mistake grizzly bears for black products as provided by State law and programs and continued monitoring of bears. All of these circumstances will be regulation. The WYDGF will continue public opinion, human attitudes will further reduced with enhanced IE efforts to establish a long-term funding not hinder the continued viability and programs. mechanism to compensate property success of the Yellowstone grizzly bear Outside the PCA, State wildlife owners for livestock and apiary losses population. agencies recognize that the key to caused by grizzly bears. In Montana, Information and Education: The preventing grizzly bear/human conflicts MTFWP will continue to rely on future of the grizzly bear will be based is providing IE to the public. State Defenders of Wildlife and other private on the people who live, work, and grizzly bear management plans also groups to compensate livestock recreate in grizzly habitat and the acknowledge that this is the most operators for losses due to grizzly bears willingness and ability of these people effective long-term solution to grizzly while MTFWP focuses on preventing to learn to coexist with the grizzly and bear/human conflicts and that adequate such conflicts. to accept this animal as a cohabitant of public outreach programs are Overall, these natural and manmade the land. Other management strategies paramount to ongoing grizzly bear factors—genetic concerns, declines in are unlikely to succeed without useful viability and successful coexistence natural food sources, public acceptance, and innovative public IE programs. The with humans in the GYA. All three and lack of adequate IE programs, if primary objective of the expanded States have been actively involved in IE unaddressed, have the potential to affect public outreach program will be to outreach for over a decade and long-term grizzly bear persistence. proactively address grizzly/human management plans contain chapters Through careful monitoring and conflicts by educating the public as to detailing efforts to continue current adaptive management practices, the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69881

Study Team and the States will be able based on the most recent six years of management plans will ensure that to identify and address these concerns observations in the ecosystem, was adequate regulatory mechanisms remain before they become problems for the eighteen out of eighteen bear in place and that the Yellowstone Yellowstone grizzly bear at a population management units at the end of 2004. grizzly bear population will not become level. All of these issues have been The range of this population also has an endangered species within the scientifically researched and adequately increased dramatically, as evidenced by foreseeable future throughout all or a addressed so that removing the the 48 percent increase in occupied significant portion of its range. proposed Yellowstone grizzly bear habitat since the 1970s (Schwartz et al. The threat of overutilization due to population from the Federal List of 2002; Pyare et al. 2004). Furthermore, commercial, recreational, scientific, or Endangered and Threatened Wildlife the Yellowstone grizzly bear population education purposes has been removed would not adversely impact its long- continues to expand its range and due to the management of grizzly bears term survival. distribution today. Currently, roughly through State management plan 90 percent of females with cubs occupy mortality limits. This proposal mentions Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis the PCA and about 10 percent of females the possibility, in the future, of a As demonstrated in our 5-factor with cubs have expanded out beyond carefully regulated hunt; however, analysis, threats to this population have the PCA within the DPS (Schwartz should this hunt be formally proposed, been sufficiently minimized throughout 2005, unpublished data). Grizzly bears all hunting mortalities would be all of the range and all suitable habitat now occupy 68 percent of suitable counted toward the mortality limits for within the DPS, and there is no habitat within the proposed DPS and the population. significant portion of the range where may soon occupy the remainder of the Based on the best scientific and the DPS remains threatened. suitable habitat within the proposed commercial information available, we Our current knowledge of the health DPS. The Yellowstone DPS now have determined that the proposed and condition of the Yellowstone represents a viable population that has Yellowstone DPS is a recovered grizzly bear DPS illustrates that the sufficient numbers and distribution of population no longer meeting the ESA’s Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is now a reproductive individuals to provide a definition of threatened or endangered. recovered population. Counts of high likelihood that the species will Therefore, we are proposing to delist the unduplicated females with cubs-of-the- continue to exist and be well-distributed Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. year have increased (Knight et al. 1995; throughout its range and additional Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan Haroldson and Schwartz 2002; Schwartz suitable habitat for the foreseeable et al. 2005a), indicating cub production future. Both the threats of habitat To further ensure the long-term has increased (Knight and Blanchard destruction and modification, and low conservation of adequate grizzly bear 1995, 1996; Knight et al. 1997; population levels, have been directly habitat and continued recovery of the Haroldson et al. 1998; Haroldson 1999, addressed through changes in Yellowstone grizzly bear population, 2000, 2001; Haroldson and Schwartz management practices. several monitoring programs and 2002; Haroldson 2003, 2004; Schwartz As per the criteria laid out in the 1993 protocols have been developed and et al. 2005). Grizzly range and Recovery Plan, the 4 percent mortality integrated into land management agency distribution has expanded (Basile 1982; limit has not been exceeded for 2 planning documents. The Strategy and Blanchard et al. 1992; Schwartz et al. consecutive years since 1987. The appended State grizzly bear 2002; Pyare et al. 2004). Calculations of human-caused female grizzly bear management plans effectively satisfy the population trajectory derived from mortality limit has not been exceeded requirements for having a Post-Delisting radio-monitored female bears for 2 consecutive years since the 1995– Monitoring Plan for the Yellowstone demonstrate an increasing population 1997 period (Haroldson and Frey 2004). DPS. Monitoring programs will focus on trend at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year Due to the conservative nature of this assessing whether demographic since the early 1990s (Eberhardt et al. standard designed to facilitate standards and habitat criteria described 1994; Knight and Blanchard 1995; population recovery, even when human- in the Strategy are being achieved. A Boyce et al. 2001; Schwartz et al. 2005), caused adult female mortality was suite of indices will be monitored due in large part to control of female exceeded for consecutive years during simultaneously to provide a highly mortality. In total, this population has the mid-1990s (1995, 1996, 1997), the sensitive system to monitor the health of increased from estimates ranging from population was increasing (Boyce et al. the population and its habitat and to 229 (Craighead et al. 1974) to 312 2001; Schwartz et al. 2005) and provide a sound scientific basis to (Cowan et al. 1974; McCullough 1981) expanding its distribution (Schwartz et respond to any changes or needs with individuals when listed in 1975 to more al. 2002; Pyare et al. 2004). Applying adaptive management actions (Lee and than 580 animals as of 2004 (Study the revised mortality limits to the 1999– Lawrence 1986). More specifically, Team 2005). 2004 period, these criteria have not been monitoring efforts will document At the end of 2004, the number of exceeded for 3 consecutive years for population trends, distribution, survival unduplicated females with cubs-of-the- males, for 3 consecutive years for and birth rates, and genetic variability. year over a 6-year average both inside dependent young, nor for 2 consecutive Throughout the DPS boundaries, the Recovery Zone and within a 16-km years for independent females. The locations of grizzly bear mortalities on (10-mi) area immediately surrounding main threat of human predation has private lands will be provided to the the Recovery Zone was 40, more than been addressed through carefully Study Team for incorporation into their double the Recovery Plan target of 15. monitored and controlled mortality Annual Report. Full implementation of The Recovery Plan target for the number limits through the State management the Strategy by State and Federal of unduplicated females with cubs-of- plans. In addition, information and agencies will allow for a sustainable the-year (15) has been exceeded since education is a main component of the population by managing all suitable 1988. In 2004, the 1-year total of program to reduce grizzly bear/human habitat. unduplicated females with cubs-of-the- conflicts. Within the Primary Conservation year within this area was 46. The State and Federal agencies’ Area—As discussed in previous Within the Recovery Zone, the agreement to implement the extensive sections, habitat criteria established for distribution of females with young, Conservation Strategy and State the Yellowstone grizzly bear population

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69882 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

will be monitored carefully and any monitored within each unit but will not outlined in the Strategy (Service 2003). deviations from these will be reported be established strictly for grizzly bears. The results of this extensive monitoring annually. The number and levels of Instead, habitat standards will be would allow wildlife and land managers secure habitat, road densities, incorporated into current management to identify and address potential threats developed sites, and livestock plans for other game species. However, preemptively thereby allowing those allotments will not be allowed to the IDFG will monitor important food managers and the Service to be certain deviate from 1998 baseline measures in sources for grizzly bears including elk, that the Yellowstone grizzly bear accordance with the implementation deer, moose, Kokanee salmon, and population is not threatened with protocols in the Strategy. cutthroat trout. The IDFG also will extinction in the foreseeable future. The Study Team will prepare Annual encourage and work with other land Clarity of the Rule (E.O. 12866) Reports summarizing the habitat criteria management agencies on public lands to and population statistics. The Study monitor wetland and riparian habitats, Executive Order 12866 requires Team will be responsible for counting whitebark pine production, important agencies to write regulations that are the number of unduplicated females berry-producing plants, and changes in easy to understand. We invite your with cubs-of-the-year and monitoring motorized access route density. On comments on how to make this rule mortality, distribution, and genetic private lands, the IDFG will work with easier to understand including answers diversity (see Appendix I of the citizens, counties, and other agencies to to the following: (1) Is the discussion in Strategy). To examine reproductive monitor development activities and the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section rates, survival rates, causes of death, identify important spring habitat for of the preamble helpful in and overall population trends, the Study grizzly bears, then work with understanding the proposal?; (2) Does Team will strive to radio collar and landowners to minimize impacts to the proposal contain technical language monitor a minimum of 25 adult female bears. or jargon that interferes with its clarity?; grizzly bears at all times. These bears In Montana, the MTFWP will monitor (3) Does the format of the proposal will be spatially distributed throughout populations using data from research, (grouping and order of sections, use of the ecosystem as determined by the distribution changes, DNA samples, headings, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity; Study Team. confirmed sightings, and known and (4) What else could we do to make The Study Team, with participation mortalities. The MTFWP will collect the rule easier to understand? from Yellowstone National Park, the and analyze habitat data and monitor Send a copy of any comments that USFS, and State wildlife agencies, also habitat changes pertaining to key grizzly concern how we could make this will monitor grizzly bear habitats, foods, bear foods, road densities, road proposed rule easier to understand to and impacts of humans. Documenting construction and improvements, and the Office of Regulatory Affairs, the abundance and distribution of the coal bed methane activities. In addition, Department of the Interior, Room 7229, major foods will be an integral the MTFWP will continue to use 1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240. component of monitoring within the Statewide habitat programs to conserve Public Comments Solicited PCA as it allows managers some degree key wildlife habitats in southwestern of predictive power to anticipate and Montana, working closely with private We intend that any final action avoid grizzly bear/human conflicts landowners to conserve private lands resulting from this proposed rule will be related to a shortage of one or more via lease, conservation easements, or fee as accurate and as effective as possible. foods. Major foods, habitat value, and title acquisition. Therefore, we solicit comments or habitat effectiveness will be monitored In Wyoming, the WGFD will establish suggestions from the public, other according to Appendices E and I in the grizzly bear management units to collect concerned governmental agencies, the Strategy and as described in Factor A, and analyze demographic and scientific community, industry, or any ‘‘The Present or Threatened Destruction, distributional data. The WGFD will other interested party concerning this Modification, or Curtailment of Its monitor habitat changes, human proposed rule. Generally, we seek Habitat or Range’’ in this proposed rule. activities, road densities, and information, data, and comments Outside of the Primary Conservation construction. Habitat standards will be concerning the status of grizzly bears in Area—State wildlife agencies will be monitored in a manner consistent with the Yellowstone ecosystem. responsible for monitoring habitat and those already in place for other wildlife Specifically, we seek documented, population parameters in areas outside and will not focus specifically on the biological data on the status of the of the PCA. The three State grizzly bear habitat needs of grizzly bears. Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bears management plans detail what habitat Monitoring systems in the Strategy and their habitat, and the management and demographic criteria each State will allow for adaptive management as of these bears and their habitat. monitor. All three States will document environmental issues change (Lee and Submit comments as indicated under sightings of females with cubs and Lawrence 1986). The agencies have ADDRESSES. If you wish to submit provide this information to the Study committed in the Strategy to be comments by e-mail, please avoid the Team. Additionally, State wildlife responsive to the needs of the grizzly use of special characters and any form agencies will provide known mortality bear through adaptive management of encryption. Please also include your information to the Study Team, which actions based on the results of detailed name and return address in your e-mail will annually summarize this data with annual population and habitat message. respect to location, type, date of monitoring. These monitoring efforts Our practice is to make comments, incident, and the sex and age of the bear would reflect the best scientific and including names and home addresses of for the DPS area. commercial data and any new respondents, available for public review In Idaho, the IDFG will be responsible information that has become available during regular business hours. for monitoring population trends and since the delisting determination or Individual respondents may request that habitat parameters. Outside of the PCA, most recent status review. The entire we withhold their home address from the IDFG will establish data analysis process would be dynamic so that when the rulemaking record, which we will units to facilitate monitoring of grizzly new science becomes available it will be honor to the extent allowable by law. bear distribution, abundance, and incorporated into the management There also may be circumstances in mortality. Habitat criteria will be planning and monitoring systems which we would withhold from the

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69883

rulemaking record a respondent’s concerned governmental agencies, Environmental Impact Statements, as identity, as allowable by law. If you Tribes, the scientific community, defined under the authority of the NEPA wish us to withhold your name or industry, or any other interested parties of 1969, need not be prepared in address, you must state this concerning the proposal. connection with actions adopted prominently at the beginning of your Peer Review pursuant to section 4(a) of the ESA. A comment. However, we will not notice outlining the Service’s reasons consider anonymous comments. We In accordance with our policy for this determination was published in will make all submissions from published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR the Federal Register on October 25, organizations or businesses, and from 34270), we will solicit the expert 1983 (48 FR 49244). individuals identifying themselves as opinions of at least three appropriate representatives or officials of and independent specialists for peer References Cited organizations or businesses, available review of this proposed rule. The A complete list of all references cited for public inspection in their entirety. purpose of such review is to ensure that herein is available upon request from Comments and other information decisions are based on scientifically received, as well as supporting sound data, assumptions, and analyses. the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator information used to write this rule, will We will send peer reviewers copies of (see ADDRESSES above). this proposed rule immediately be available for public inspection, by List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 appointment, during normal business following publication in the Federal hours at our Missoula Office (see Register. We will invite peer reviewers Endangered and threatened species, ADDRESSES). In making a final decision to comment, during the public comment Exports, Imports, Reporting and on this proposed rule, we will take into period, on the specific assumptions and recordkeeping requirements, consideration the comments and any conclusions regarding the proposed DPS Transportation. additional information we receive. Such and its delisting. We will summarize the communications may lead to a final rule opinions of these reviewers in the final Proposed Regulation Promulgation that differs from this proposal. decision document, and we will consider their input as part of our Accordingly, we propose to amend Public Hearing process of making a final decision on part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title the proposal. 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as The ESA provides for public hearings set forth below: on this proposed rule. We have Paperwork Reduction Act scheduled one public hearing on this This rule does not contain any new PART 17—[AMENDED] proposed rule as specified above in collections of information other than DATES and ADDRESSES. those already approved under the 1. The authority citation for part 17 Public hearings are designed to gather Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. continues to read as follows: relevant information that the public may 3501 et seq.) and assigned Office of Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. have that we should consider in our Management and Budget (OMB) control 1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99– rulemaking. During the hearing, we will number 1018–0094, which expires on 625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. present information about the proposed September 30, 2007. An agency may not action. We invite the public to submit conduct or sponsor, and a person is not § 17.11 [Amended] information and comments at the required to respond to, a collection of 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the hearing or in writing during the open information unless it displays a listing for ‘‘Bear, grizzly’’ under public comment period. We encourage currently valid OMB control number. ‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the List of Endangered persons wishing to comment at the For additional information concerning hearing to provide a written copy of permit and associated requirements for and Threatened Wildlife to read as their statement at the start of the endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.21 follows: hearing. This notice and public hearing and 17.22. § 17.11 Endangered and threatened will allow all interested parties to wildlife. submit comments on the proposed rule National Environmental Policy Act for the grizzly bear. We are seeking The Service has determined that * * * * * comments from the public, other Environmental Assessments and (h) * * *

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2 69884 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules

Species Historic range Vertebrate population where Status When Critical Special Common name Scientific name endangered or threatened listed habitat rules

MAMMALS

******* Bear, grizzly ...... Ursus arctos North America.... U.S.A., conterminous (lower 48) T 1, 2D, 9 NA 17.40(b) horribilis. States, except: (1) Where listed as an experimental population; and (2) that portion of Idaho that is east of Interstate Highway 15 and north of U.S. Highway 30; that portion of Montana that is east of Interstate Highway 15 and south of Interstate Highway 90; that portion of Wyoming South of Interstate Highway 90, west of Interstate Highway 25, Wyoming State Highway 220, and U.S. Highway 287 south of Three Forks (at the 220 and 287 intersection), and north of Inter- state Highway 80 and U.S. High- way 30. Do ...... do ...... do ...... U.S.A. (portions of ID and MT, see XN 706 NA 17.84(l) 17.84(l)).

*******

Dated: November 9, 2005. H. Dale Hall, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. [FR Doc. 05–22784 Filed 11–15–05; 1:00 pm] BILLING CODE 4310–55–U

VerDate Aug<31>2005 17:48 Nov 16, 2005 Jkt 208001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17NOP2.SGM 17NOP2