14866 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT38 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Final Rule Designating the 

Greater Yellowstone Area 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; 90-Day Finding on 

a Petition To List as Endangered the 

Yellowstone Distinct Population 

Segment of Grizzly Bears 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; notice of petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service, we or us), hereby 

establish a distinct population segment 

(DPS) of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 

horribilis) for the Greater Yellowstone 

Area (GYA) and surrounding area 

(hereafter referred to as the Yellowstone 

DPS, Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS, or 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population) 

and remove this DPS from the List of 

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife. 

The Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population is no longer an endangered 

or threatened population pursuant to 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Endangered Species Act or 

the Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), based 

on the best scientific and commercial 

data available. Robust population 

growth, coupled with State and Federal 

cooperation to manage mortality and 

habitat, widespread public support for 

grizzly bear recovery, and the 

development of adequate regulatory 

mechanisms has brought the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population to 

the point where making a change to its 

status is appropriate. 

The delisting of the Yellowstone DPS 

does not change the threatened status of 

the remaining grizzly bears in the lower 

48 States, which remain protected by 

the Act. In an upcoming but separate 

notice, we will initiate a 5-year status 

review of the grizzly bear as listed under 

the Act based on additional scientific 

information that is currently being 

collected and analyzed. Finally, we 

announce a 90-day finding on a petition 

(submitted during the public comment 

period for the proposed rule) to list the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population as 

endangered on the Federal List of 

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

under the Act and to designate critical 

habitat. We find that the petition and 

additional information in our files did 

not present substantial scientific 

information indicating that listing the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population as 

endangered may be warranted. 

Therefore, we are not initiating a status 

review in response to this petition. 

DATES: This rule becomes effective April 

30, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials 

received, as well as supporting 

documentation used in preparation of 

this final rule, are available for 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours, at our Missoula 

office, Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Coordinator, University Hall, Room 

#309, University of Montana, Missoula, 

Montana 59812. Call (406) 243–4903 to 

make arrangements. In addition, certain 

documents such as the Strategy and 

information appended to the recovery 

plan are available at http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ 

grizzly/yellowstone.htm. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, at our Missoula office 

(see ADDRESSES above) or telephone 

(406) 243–4903. Individuals who are 

hearing-impaired or speech-impaired 

may call the Federal Relay Service at 1– 

800–877–8337 for TTY assistance. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Prior to publication of this final rule, 

we—(1) Finalized the Conservation 

Strategy (Strategy) that will guide postdelisting monitoring and management of 

the grizzly bear in the GYA; (2) 

appended the habitat-based recovery 

criteria to the 1993 Recovery Plan and 

the Strategy; and (3) appended an 

updated and improved methodology for 

calculating total population size, known 

to unknown mortality ratios, and 

sustainable mortality limits for the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population to 

the 1993 Recovery Plan and the 

Strategy. Additionally, the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

Forest Service finalized the Forest Plan 

Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat 

Conservation for the GYA National 

Forests and made a decision to 

incorporate this Amendment into the 

affected National Forests’ Land 

Management Plans. Yellowstone and 

Grand Teton National Parks also 

appended the habitat standards 

described in the Strategy to their Park 

Superintendent’s Compendiums, 

thereby assuring that these National 

Parks will manage habitat in accordance 

with those habitat standards. 

Species Description 

Grizzly bears are generally larger and 

more heavily built than other bears 

(Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 517; 

Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 558). Grizzly 

bears can be distinguished from black 

bears, which also occur in the lower 48 

States, by longer, curved claws, humped 

shoulders, and a face that appears to be 

concave (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, 

p. 517). A wide range of coloration from 

light brown to nearly black is common 

(LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 17–18). Spring 

shedding, new growth, nutrition, and 

coat condition all affect coloration. 

Guard hairs (long, course outer hair 

forming a protective layer over the soft 

underfur) are often pale in color at the 

tips; hence the name ‘‘grizzly’’ 

(Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 517). 

In the lower 48 States, the average 

weight of grizzly bears is generally 200 

to 300 kilograms (kg) (400 to 600 

pounds (lb)) for males and 110 to 160 

kg (250 to 350 lb) for females (Craighead 

and Mitchell 1982, pp. 518–520). 

Grizzly bears are long-lived mammals, 

generally living to be around 25 years 

old (LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 47, 51). 

Taxonomy 

Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) 

are vertebrates that belong to the Class 

Mammalia, Order Carnivora, and Family 

Ursidae. The grizzly bear is a member of 

the brown bear species (U. arctos) that 

occurs in North America, Europe, and 

Asia; the subspecies U. a. horribilis is 

limited to North America (Rausch 1963, 

p. 43; Servheen 1999, pp. 50–53). Early 

taxonomic descriptions of U. arctos 

based primarily on skull measurements 

described more than 90 subspecies 

(Merriam 1918, pp. 9–16), but this was 

later revised to 2 subspecies in North 

America (U. a. middendorfi on the 

islands of the Kodiak archipelago in 

Alaska and U. a. horribilis in the rest of 

North America) (Rausch 1963, p. 43). 

The two North American subspecies 

approach of Rausch (1963, p. 43) is 

generally accepted by most taxonomists 

today, and is the approach we use. 

Additional discussion of this issue can 

be found in the proposed rule (70 FR 

69854–69855, November 17, 2005). The 

original 1975 listing (40 FR 31734– 

31736, July 28, 1975) had been 

inadvertently modified in the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to 

U. arctos with a historic holarctic range. 

With this final rule, we have corrected 

this error to reflect the original listed 

entity of U. arctos horribilis with a 

historic range of North America. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14867 

Behavior 

Although adult bears are normally 

solitary (Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. 

971), home ranges of adult bears 

frequently overlap (Schwartz et al. 

2003b, pp. 565–566). Grizzly bears 

display a behavior called natal 

philopatry in which dispersing young 

establish home ranges within or 

overlapping their mother’s (Waser and 

Jones 1983, p. 361; Schwartz et al. 

2003b, p. 566). This type of movement 

makes dispersal across landscapes a 

slow process. Radio-telemetry and 

genetics data suggests females establish 

home ranges an average of 9.8 to 14.3 

kilometers (km) (6.1 to 8.9 miles (mi)) 

away from the center of their mother’s 

home range, whereas males generally 

stray further, establishing home ranges 

roughly 29.9 to 42.0 km (18.6 to 26.0 mi) 

away from their mother’s (McLellan and 

Hovey 2001, p. 842; Proctor et al. 2004, 

p. 1108). 

The home range of adult male grizzly 

bears is typically three to five times the 

size of an adult female’s home range 

(LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 27–30). The 

large home ranges of grizzly bears, 

particularly males, enhance genetic 

diversity in the population by enabling 

males to mate with numerous females 

(Blanchard and Knight 1991, pp. 46–51; 

Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 303–305). 

Grizzly bear population densities of one 

bear per 20 square kilometers (sq km) (8 

square miles (sq mi)) have been reported 

in Glacier National Park (Martinka 1976, 

p. 150), but most populations in the 

Lower 48 States are much less dense 

(LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 47, 52–53). For 

example, estimates of grizzly bear 

densities in the GYA range from one 

bear per 50 sq km (20 sq mi) to one bear 

per 80 sq km (30 sq mi) (Blanchard and 

Knight 1980, pp. 263–264; Craighead 

and Mitchell 1982, pp. 537–538). 

Grizzly bears have a promiscuous 

mating system (Hornocker 1962, p. 70; 

Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 522; 

Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 563) with 

genetic studies confirming that cubs 

from the same litter can have different 

fathers (Craighead et al. 1998, p. 325). 

Mating occurs from May through July 

with a peak in mid-June (Craighead and 

Mitchell 1982, p. 522; Nowak and 

Paradiso 1983, p. 971). Age of first 

reproduction and litter size may be 

related to nutritional state (Stringham 

1990, p. 433; McLellan 1994, p. 20; 

Hilderbrand et al. 1999, pp. 135–136; 

Mattson 2000, p. 110). Age of first 

reproduction varies from 3 to 8 years of 

age, and litter size varies from one to 

four cubs (Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 

563). For the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population, the average age of first 

reproduction is approximately 6 years 

old, and the average litter size is 2.04 

cubs (Schwartz et al. 2006a, p. 19). Cubs 

are born in a den in late January or early 

February and remain with the female for 

2 to 3 years before the mother will again 

mate and produce another litter 

(Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 564). Grizzly 

bears have one of the slowest 

reproductive rates among terrestrial 

mammals, resulting primarily from the 

late age of first reproduction, small 

average litter size, and the long interval 

between litters (Nowak and Paradiso 

1983, p. 971; Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 

564). Given the above factors and 

natural mortality, it may take a single 

female 10 years to replace herself in a 

population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1993, p. 4). Grizzly bear females 

cease breeding successfully some time 

in their mid-to-late 20s (Schwartz et al. 

2003a, pp. 109–110). 

For 3 to 6 months during winter, 

grizzly bears across their range enter 

dens in an adaptive behavior which 

increases survival during periods of low 

food availability, deep snow, and low 

air temperature (Craighead and 

Craighead 1972, pp. 33–34). Grizzly 

bears in the lower 48 States spend 

between 4 and 6 months in dens 

beginning in October or November 

(Linnell et al. 2000, p. 401). During this 

period, they do not eat, drink, urinate, 

or defecate (Folk et al. 1976, pp. 376–

377; Nelson 1980, p. 2955). Hibernating 

grizzly bears exhibit a marked decline in 

heart and respiration rate, but only a 

slight drop in body temperature (Nowak 

and Paradiso 1983, p. 971). Due to their 

relatively constant body temperature in 

the den, hibernating grizzly bears can be 

easily aroused and have been known to 

exit dens when disturbed by seismic or 

mining activity (Harding and Nagy 

1980, p. 278) or by human activity 

(Swenson et al. 1997a, p. 37). Both 

males and females have a tendency to 

use the same general area year after 

year, but the same exact den is rarely 

used twice by an individual (Schoen et 

al. 1987, p. 300; Linnell et al. 2000, p. 

403). Females display stronger area 

fidelity than males and generally stay in 

their dens longer, depending on 

reproductive status (Judd et al. 1986, 

pp. 113–114; Schoen et al. 1987, p. 300; 

Linnell et al. 2000, p. 403). 

In preparation for hibernation, bears 

increase their food intake dramatically 

during a stage called hyperphagia 

(Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 544). 

Hyperphagia is defined simply as 

overeating (in excess of daily metabolic 

demands) and occurs throughout the 2 

to 4 months prior to den entry. During 

hyperphagia, excess food is deposited as 

fat, and grizzly bears may gain as much 

as 1.65 kg/day (3.64 lb/day) (Craighead 

and Mitchell 1982, p. 544). Grizzly bears 

must consume foods rich in protein and 

carbohydrates in order to build up fat 

reserves to survive denning and postdenning periods (Rode and Robbins 

2000, pp. 1643–1644). These layers of 

fat are crucial to the hibernating bear as 

they provide a source of energy and 

insulate the bear from cold 

temperatures, and are equally important 

in providing energy to the bear upon 

emergence from the den when food is 

still sparse relative to metabolic 

requirements (Craighead and Mitchell 

1982, p. 544). 

Although the digestive system of 

bears is essentially that of a carnivore, 

bears are successful omnivores, and in 

some areas may be almost entirely 

herbivorous (Jacoby et al. 1999, pp. 

924–926; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 

568–569). Grizzly bears are 

opportunistic feeders and will consume 

almost any available food including 

living or dead mammals or fish, and, 

sometimes, garbage (Knight et al. 1988, 

p. 121; Mattson et al. 1991a, pp. 1620–

1624; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 568–

569). In areas where animal matter is 

less available, grasses, roots, bulbs, 

tubers, and fungi may be important in 

meeting protein requirements (LeFranc 

et al. 1987, pp. 111–114). High-quality 

foods such as berries, nuts, insects, and 

fish are important in some areas 

(Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 568–569). 

The search for food has a prime 

influence on grizzly bear movements 

(Mattson et al. 1991a, pp. 1625–1626). 

In the GYA, four food sources have been 

identified as important to grizzly bear 

survival and reproductive success 

(Mattson et al. 2002, p. 2). Winter-killed 

ungulates serve as an important food 

source in early spring before most 

vegetation is available (Green et al. 

1997, p. 140; Mattson 1997, p. 165). 

During early summer, spawning 

cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki) 

are a source of nutrition for grizzly bears 

in the Yellowstone population (Mattson 

et al. 1991a, p. 1623; Mattson and 

Reinhart 1995, p. 2072; Felicetti et al. 

2004, pp. 496, 499). Grizzly bears feed 

on army cutworm moths (Euxoa 

auxiliaris) during late summer and early 

fall as they try to acquire sufficient fat 

levels for winter (Mattson et al. 1991b, 

p. 2432; French et al. 1994, p. 394). 

Lastly, in some years, whitebark pine 

(Pinus albicaulis) seeds serve as an 

important fall food due to their high fat 

content and abundance as a prehibernation food (Mattson and Reinhart 

1994, p. 212). The distribution and 

abundance of these grizzly bear foods 

vary naturally among seasons and years. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14868 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

On average, approximately 79 percent 

of the diet of adult male and 45 percent 

of the diet of adult female grizzly bears 

in the GYA is terrestrial meat (Jacoby et 

al. 1999, p. 925). In contrast, in Glacier 

National Park, over 95 percent of the 

diets of both adult male and female 

grizzly bears are vegetation (Jacoby et al. 

1999, p. 925). Ungulates rank as the 

second highest source of net digestible 

energy available to grizzly bears in the 

GYA (Mealey 1975, pp. 84–86; Pritchard 

and Robbins 1990, p. 1647; Craighead et 

al. 1995, pp. 250–251). Grizzly bears 

with home ranges in areas with few 

plant foods depend extensively on 

ungulate meat (Harting 1985, pp. 69–70, 

85–87). Grizzly bears in the GYA feed 

on ungulates primarily as winter-killed 

carrion from March through May 

although they also depredate elk calves 

for a short period in early June (Gunther 

and Renkin 1990, pp. 330–332; Green et 

al. 1997, p. 1040; Mattson 1997, pp. 

165–166). Carcass availability fluctuates 

with winter severity because fewer 

ungulates die during mild winters 

(Mattson et al. 1991a, pp. 1622–1623). 

Due to their high digestibility and 

protein and lipid content, spawning 

cutthroat trout are one of the highest 

sources of digestible energy available to 

bears during early summer in 

Yellowstone National Park (Mealey 

1975, pp. 84–86; Pritchard and Robbins 

1990, p. 1647). Grizzly bears are known 

to prey on cutthroat trout in at least 36 

different streams tributary to 

Yellowstone Lake (Reinhart and 

Mattson 1990, pp. 345–346). From 1997 

to 1999, Haroldson et al. (2000, pp. 32–

35) identified 85 different grizzly bears 

that had likely fished spawning stream 

tributaries to Yellowstone Lake. While 

importance varies by season and year, 

few bears develop a dependence on this 

food source (Haroldson et al. 2005, pp. 

173–174). Only 23 individuals visited 

spawning streams more than 1 year out 

of the 4 years sampled, suggesting that 

this resource is used opportunistically 

(Haroldson et al. 2005, pp. 174–175). In 

contrast to earlier studies which used 

different assumptions and methods 

(Reinhart and Mattson 1990, pp. 345–

349; Mattson and Reinhart 1995, pp. 

2078–2079), Felicetti et al. (2004, pp. 

496–499) found that male grizzly bears 

are the primary consumers of cutthroat 

trout, accounting for 92 percent of all 

trout consumed by Yellowstone grizzly 

bears. 

Alpine moth aggregations are an 

important food source for a considerable 

portion of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population (Mattson et al. 1991b, p. 

2434). As many as 35 different grizzly 

bears with cubs-of-the-year have been 

observed feeding at moth sites in a 

single season (Ternent and Haroldson 

2000, p. 39). Some bears may feed 

almost exclusively on moths for a 

period of over a month (French et al. 

1994, p. 393). Moths have the highest 

caloric content per gram of any other 

bear food (French et al. 1994, p. 391). 

Moths are available during late summer 

and early fall when bears consume large 

quantities of foods in order to acquire 

sufficient fat levels for winter (Mattson 

et al. 1991b, p. 2433). A grizzly bear 

feeding extensively on moths over a 30- 

day period may consume up to 47 

percent of its annual energy budget of 

960,000 calories (White et al. 1999, pp. 

149–150). Moths also are valuable to 

bears because they are located in remote 

areas, thereby reducing the potential for 

grizzly bear/human conflicts during the 

late-summer tourist months (Gunther et 

al. 2004, p. 15). 

Due to their high fat content and 

potential abundance as a prehibernation food, whitebark pine seeds 

are an important fall food for bears in 

the GYA (Mattson and Jonkel 1990, p. 

223; Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1623). 

Yellowstone grizzly bears consume 

whitebark pine seeds extensively when 

whitebark cones are available. Bears 

may feed predominantly on whitebark 

pine seeds when production exceeds 20 

cones per tree (Blanchard 1990, p. 362; 

Mattson et al. 1992, pp. 433, 436). 

During years of low whitebark pine seed 

availability, grizzly bears often seek 

alternate foods at lower elevations in 

association with human activities 

(Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Knight and 

Blanchard 1995, p. 23; Gunther et al. 

1997, pp. 9–11; Gunther et al. 2004, p. 

18). 

The production and availability of 

these four major foods can have a 

positive effect on reproduction and 

survival rates of Yellowstone grizzly 

bears (Mattson et al. 2002, p. 5). For 

example, during years when whitebark 

pine seeds are abundant, there are fewer 

grizzly bear/human conflicts in the GYA 

(Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Gunther et 

al. 2004, pp. 13–15). Grizzly bear/ 

human conflicts are incidents in which 

bears kill or injure people, damage 

property, kill or injure livestock, 

damage beehives, obtain anthropogenic 

(man-made) foods, or damage or obtain 

garden and orchard fruits and vegetables 

(USDA Forest Service1986, pp. 53–54). 

During poor whitebark pine years, 

grizzly bear/human conflicts are more 

frequent, resulting in higher numbers of 

human-caused grizzly bear mortalities 

due to defense of life or property and 

management removals of nuisance bears 

(Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Gunther et 

al. 2004, pp. 13–14). A nuisance bear is 

one that seeks human food in humanuse areas, kills lawfully present 

livestock, or displays unnatural 

aggressive behavior toward people 

(USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 53–54). 

Introduced organisms (e.g., white pine 

blister rust and lake trout), habitat loss, 

and other human activities can 

negatively impact the quantity and 

distribution of these four primary foods 

(Reinhart et al. 2001, pp. 285–286). 

Potential effects to food supply and 

human/bear conflict are discussed in 

more detail in the 5-factor analysis. 

Recovery 

Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the 

grizzly bear occurred throughout the 

western half of the contiguous United 

States, central Mexico, western Canada, 

and most of Alaska (Roosevelt 1907, pp. 

27–28; Wright 1909, pp. vii, 3, 185–186; 

Merriam 1922, p. 1; Storer and Tevis 

1955, p. 18; Rausch 1963, p. 35; Herrero 

1972, pp. 224–227; Mattson et al. 1995, 

p. 103; Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 557–

558). Pre-settlement population levels 

for the western contiguous United States 

are believed to be in the range of 50,000 

animals (Servheen 1999, p. 50). With 

European settlement of the American 

West, grizzly bears were shot, poisoned, 

and trapped wherever they were found, 

and the resulting range and population 

declines were dramatic (Roosevelt 1907, 

pp. 27–28; Wright 1909, p. vii; Storer 

and Tevis 1955, pp. 26–27; Leopold 

1967, p. 30; Koford 1969, p. 95; 

Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 516; 

Mattson et al. 1995, p. 103). The range 

and numbers of grizzlies were reduced 

to less than 2 percent of their former 

range and numbers by the 1930s, 

approximately 125 years after first 

contact (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1993, p. 9; Mattson et al. 1995, p. 103; 

Servheen 1999, p. 51). Of 37 grizzly 

populations present in 1922, 31 were 

extirpated by 1975 (Servheen 1999, p. 

51). 

By the 1950s, with little or no 

conservation effort or management 

directed at maintaining grizzly bears 

anywhere in their range, the GYA 

population had been reduced in 

numbers and was restricted largely to 

the confines of Yellowstone National 

Park and some surrounding areas 

(Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 41–42; 

Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 575–579). 

High grizzly bear mortality in 1970 and 

1971, following closure of the open-pit 

dumps in Yellowstone National Park 

(Gunther 1994, p. 550; Craighead et al. 

1995, pp. 34–36), and concern about 

grizzly population status throughout its 

remaining range prompted the 1975 

listing of the grizzly bear as a threatened 

species in the lower 48 States under the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (40 FR 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14869 

31734–31736, July 28, 1975). When the 

grizzly bear was listed in 1975, the 

population estimate in the GYA ranged 

from 136 to 312 individuals (Cowan et 

al. 1974, pp. 32, 36; Craighead et al. 

1974, p. 16; McCullough 1981, p. 175). 

In 1981, we hired a grizzly bear 

recovery coordinator to direct recovery 

efforts and to coordinate all agency 

efforts on research and management of 

grizzly bears in the lower 48 States. In 

1982, the first Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Plan (Recovery Plan) was completed 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982, p. 

ii). The Recovery Plan identified five 

ecosystems within the conterminous 

United States thought to support grizzly 

bears. Today, grizzly bear distribution is 

primarily within, but not limited to, the 

areas identified as Recovery Zones (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 10–

13, 17–18), including—the GYA in 

northwest Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and 

southwest Montana (24,000 sq km 

(9,200 sq mi)) at more than 500 bears 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2006, p. 15); the Northern Continental 

Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) of north 

central Montana (25,000 sq km (9,600 sq 

mi)) at more than 500 bears (Kendall 

2006); the North Cascades area of north 

central Washington (25,000 sq km 

(9,500 sq mi)) at less than 20 bears 

(Almack et al. 1993, p. 4); the Selkirk 

Mountains area of north Idaho, 

northeast Washington, and southeast 

British Columbia (5,700 sq km (2,200 sq 

mi)) at approximately 40 to 50 bears (64 

FR 26730, May 17, 1999; 70 FR 24870, 

May 11, 2005); and the Cabinet-Yaak 

area of northwest Montana and northern 

Idaho (6,700 sq km (2,600 sq mi)) at 

approximately 30 to 40 bears (Kasworm 

and Manley 1988, p. 21; Kasworm et al. 

2004, p. 2). There is an additional 

Recovery Zone known as the Bitterroot 

Recovery Zone in the Bitterroot 

Mountains of east-central Idaho and 

western Montana (14,500 sq km (5,600 

sq mi)), but this area does not contain 

any grizzly bears at this time (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1996, p. 1; 65 FR 

69624, November 17, 2000; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2000, p. ix). The 

San Juan Mountains of Colorado also 

were identified as an area of possible 

grizzly bear occurrence (40 FR 31734–

31736, July 28, 1975; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1982, p. 12; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 11), but no 

confirmed sightings of grizzly bears 

have been found in the San Juan 

Mountains since a bear was killed there 

in 1979 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1993, p. 11). 

In the initial Recovery Plan, the 

Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Ecosystem, 

later called the Yellowstone Grizzly 

Bear Recovery Zone, was defined as an 

area large enough and of sufficient 

habitat quality to support a recovered 

grizzly bear population within which 

the population and habitat would be 

monitored (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1982, pp. 55–58; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41). In 1993, 

we revised the Recovery Plan to include 

additional tasks and new information 

that increased the focus and 

effectiveness of recovery efforts (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41–

58). 

However, recovery plans are not 

regulatory documents and are instead 

intended to provide guidance to us, 

States, and other partners on methods of 

minimizing threats to listed species and 

on criteria that may be used to 

determine when recovery is achieved. 

There are many paths to accomplishing 

recovery of a species, and recovery may 

be achieved without all criteria being 

fully met. For example, one or more 

criteria may have been exceeded while 

other criteria may not have been 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

judge that the threats have been 

minimized sufficiently, and the species 

is robust enough, to reclassify the 

species from endangered to threatened 

or delist the species. In other cases, 

recovery opportunities may have been 

recognized that were not known at the 

time the Recovery Plan was finalized. 

These opportunities may be used 

instead of methods identified in the 

Recovery Plan. Likewise, information on 

the species may be learned that was not 

known at the time the Recovery Plan 

was finalized. The new information may 

change the extent that criteria need to be 

met for recognizing recovery of the 

species. Recovery of a species is a 

dynamic process requiring adaptive 

management (defined as a 6-step 

feedback loop including assessment, 

design of management actions and 

associated monitoring and research, 

implementation of management 

according to the design, monitoring, 

evaluation of outcomes, and adjustment 

of management based on evaluation of 

initial management actions) that may, or 

may not, fully follow the guidance 

provided in a recovery plan. In the end, 

any determination of whether a species 

is no longer in need of the protections 

of the Act must be based on an 

assessment of the threats to the species. 

Grizzly bear recovery has required 

cooperation among numerous Federal 

agencies, State agencies, nongovernment organizations, local 

governments, and citizens. In 

recognition that grizzly bear populations 

were unsustainably low, the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team (hereafter 

referred to as the Study Team) was 

created in 1973 to provide detailed 

scientific information for the 

management and recovery of the grizzly 

bear in the GYA. Current members of 

the Study Team include scientists from 

the Service, U.S. Geological Survey, 

USDA Forest Service, academia, and 

each State game and fish agency 

involved in grizzly bear recovery. The 

Study Team has developed protocols to 

monitor and manage grizzly bear 

populations and important habitat 

parameters. 

In 1983, the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee was created to coordinate 

management efforts and research actions 

across multiple Federal lands and States 

within the various Recovery Zones to 

recover the grizzly bear in the lower 48 

States (USDA and U.S. Department of 

the Interior 1983). Its objective was to 

change land management practices to 

more effectively provide security and 

maintain or improve habitat conditions 

for the grizzly bear (USDA and U.S. 

Department of the Interior 1983). The 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee is 

made up of upper level managers from 

all affected State and Federal agencies 

(USDA and U.S. Department of the 

Interior 1983). Also in 1983, the 

Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee, 

a subcommittee of the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Committee, was formed to 

coordinate recovery efforts specific to 

the GYA (USDA and U.S. Department of 

the Interior 1983, p. 3). Members of the 

Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee 

are mid-level managers and include—

the Service; representatives from the six 

GYA National Forests (the Shoshone, 

Custer, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, BridgerTeton, Gallatin, and Targhee); 

Yellowstone National Park; Grand Teton 

National Park; the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD); the Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

(MTFWP); the Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game (IDFG); the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM); the Study Team; 

county governments from each affected 

State; the Northern Arapahoe Tribe; and 

the Eastern Shoshone Tribe (USDA and 

U.S. Department of the Interior 1983). 

In 1994, The Fund for Animals, Inc., 

and 42 other organizations and 

individuals filed suit over the adequacy 

of the 1993 Recovery Plan (Fund for 

Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D. 

D.C. 1995); 967 F. Supp. 6 (D. D.C. 

1997). In 1995, the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Columbia issued an 

order that remanded for further study 

and clarification four issues that are 

relevant to the GYA—(1) The method 

used to measure the status of bear 

populations; (2) the impacts of genetic 

isolation; (3) monitoring of the 

mortalities related to livestock; and (4) 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14870 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

the monitoring of disease (Fund for 

Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96 (D. 

D.C. 1995); 967 F. Supp. 6 (D. D.C. 

1997)). Following this court decision, all 

parties filed appeals. In 1997, the parties 

reached a settlement whereby we agreed 

to append habitat-based recovery 

criteria to the Recovery Plan (Settlement 

dated March 31, 1997, and approved by 

the court on May 5, 1997, Fund for 

Animals v. Babbitt, 967 F. Supp. 6 (D. 

D.C. 1997)) (hereafter Fund for Animals 

v. Babbitt). These four issues and the 

necessary supplement to the Recovery 

Plan as required by the court order and 

subsequent settlement are discussed in 

detail in this section and in the threats 

analysis. 

Habitat Management and 

Development of Habitat-based Recovery 

Criteria—In 1979, the Study Team 

developed the first comprehensive 

Guidelines for Management Involving 

Grizzly Bears in the GYA (hereafter 

referred to as the Guidelines) (Mealey 

1979, pp. 1–4). We determined in a 

biological opinion that implementation 

of the Guidelines by Federal land 

management agencies would promote 

conservation of the grizzly bear (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1979, p. 1). 

Beginning in 1979, the six affected 

National Forests (Beaverhead-Deerlodge, 

Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, 

Gallatin, and Shoshone), Yellowstone 

and Grand Teton National Parks, and 

the BLM in the GYA began managing 

habitats for grizzly bears under direction 

specified in the Guidelines. 

In 1986, the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee modified the Guidelines to 

more effectively manage habitat by 

mapping and managing according to 

three different management situations 

(USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 35–39). 

In areas governed by ‘‘Management 

Situation One,’’ grizzly habitat 

maintenance and improvement and 

grizzly bear/human conflict 

minimization received the highest 

management priority. In areas governed 

by ‘‘Management Situation Two,’’

grizzly bear use was important, but not 

the primary use of the area. In areas 

governed by ‘‘Management Situation 

Three,’’ grizzly habitat maintenance and 

improvement were not management 

considerations. 

Accordingly, the National Forests and 

National Parks delineated 18 different 

bear management units within the 

Recovery Zone to aid in managing 

habitat and monitoring population 

trends. Each bear management unit was 

further subdivided into subunits, 

resulting in a total of 40 subunits 

contained within the 18 bear 

management units (see map at http:// 

mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ 

mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The 

bear management units are analysis 

areas that approximate the lifetime size 

of a female’s home range, while 

subunits are analysis areas that 

approximate the annual home range size 

of adult females. Subunits provide the 

optimal scale for evaluation of seasonal 

feeding opportunities and landscape 

patterns of food availability for grizzly 

bears (Weaver et al. 1986, p. 236). The 

bear management units and subunits 

were identified to provide enough 

quality habitat and to ensure that grizzly 

bears were well distributed across the 

recovery zone as per the Recovery Plan 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, 

pp. 20, 41, 44–46). Management 

improvements made as a result of these 

Guidelines are discussed under Factor A 

below. 

Another tool employed to monitor 

habitat quality and assist in habitat 

management is the Yellowstone Grizzly 

Bear Cumulative Effects Model. The 

model was designed to assess the 

inherent productivity of grizzly bear 

habitat and the cumulative effects of 

human activities on bear use of that 

habitat (Weaver et al. 1986, p. 234; 

Dixon 1997, pp. 4–5; Mattson et al. 

2002, p. 5). The model uses Geographic 

Information System (GIS) databases and 

relative value coefficients associated 

with human activities, vegetation, and 

key grizzly bear foods to calculate 

habitat value and habitat effectiveness 

(Weaver et al. 1986, p. 237; Mattson et 

al. 2002, p. 5). Habitat value is a relative 

measure of the average net digestible 

energy potentially available to bears in 

a subunit during each season. Habitat 

value is primarily a function of 

vegetation and major foods (Weaver et 

al. 1986, p. 236; Dixon 1997, pp. 62–64). 

Habitat effectiveness is that part of the 

energy potentially derived from the area 

that is available to bears given their 

response to humans (Weaver et al. 1986, 

pp. 238–239; Dixon 1997, pp. 4–5; 

Mattson et al. 2002, p. 5). More 

specifically, habitat effectiveness is a 

function of relative value coefficients of 

human activities, such as location, 

duration, and intensity of use for 

motorized access routes, non-motorized 

access routes, developed sites, and 

front- and back-country dispersed uses 

(Mattson et al. 2002, p. 5). The 

Cumulative Effects Model, which 

represents the best available scientific 

information in providing managers with 

a comparative index of how much 

habitat values have changed through 

time, is updated annually to reflect 

changes in vegetation, major foods, and 

the number and capacity of human 

activities. 

As per the court settlement (Fund for 

Animals v. Babbitt) and as 

recommended by the 1993 Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Plan’s Task Y423, we have 

worked to ‘‘establish a threshold of 

minimal habitat values to be maintained 

within each Cumulative Effects Analysis 

Unit in order to ensure that sufficient 

habitat is available to support a viable 

population’’ (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1993, p. 55). On June 17, 1997, 

we held a public workshop in Bozeman, 

Montana, to develop and refine habitatbased recovery criteria for the grizzly 

bear. A Federal Register notice notified 

the public of this workshop and 

provided interested parties an 

opportunity to participate and submit 

comments (62 FR 19777, April 23, 

1997). After considering 1,167 written 

comments, we developed biologicallybased habitat recovery criteria with the 

overall goal of maintaining or improving 

habitat conditions at levels that existed 

in 1998. 

There is no published method to 

deductively calculate minimum habitat 

values required for a healthy and 

recovered population. Recognizing that 

grizzly bears are opportunistic 

omnivores and that a landscape’s ability 

to support grizzly bears is a function of 

overall habitat productivity, the 

distribution and abundance of major 

food sources, the levels and type of 

human activities, grizzly bear social 

systems, bear densities, and 

stochasticity, we selected 1998 levels as 

our baseline level. We chose this year 

because it was known that these habitat 

values had adequately supported an 

increasing Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population throughout the 1990s 

(Eberhardt et al. 1994, p. 362; Knight 

and Blanchard 1995, pp. 5, 9; Knight et 

al. 1995, p. 247; Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 

10–11) and that levels of secure habitat 

(defined as areas more than 500 meters 

(m) (1650 feet (ft)) from a motorized 

access route and greater than or equal to 

4 hectares (ha) (10 acres (ac)) in size 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, 

pp. 41)) and the number and capacity of 

developed sites had changed little from 

1988 to 1998 (USDA Forest Service 

2004, pp. 140–141, 159–162). 

The habitat-based recovery criteria lay 

out detailed management objectives and 

approaches to manage motorized access, 

maintain or increase secure habitat, 

limit increases in site development, and 

assure no increase in livestock 

allotments. As each of these 

management objectives are central to 

potential present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of habitat or range, each of 

these criteria are discussed in detail 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14871 

under Factor A below. These habitatbased recovery criteria have been met. 

Additionally, we developed four 

general habitat-based parameters that 

will be monitored and related to 

demographic and population 

monitoring results—(1) Productivity of 

the four major foods; (2) habitat 

effectiveness as measured by the 

Cumulative Effects Model; (3) grizzly 

bear mortality numbers, locations, and 

causes; grizzly bear/human conflicts; 

nuisance bear management actions; 

bear/hunter conflicts; and bear/livestock 

conflicts; and (4) development on 

private lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, pp. 25–60). The agencies 

will monitor, and the Study Team will 

annually analyze and report on the 

relationships between grizzly bear 

population and demographic data, and 

the availability and distribution of the 

four most important bear foods, habitat 

effectiveness, nuisance bear control 

actions, numbers and distribution of 

bear/human and bear/livestock 

conflicts, hunter numbers, and 

development on private lands. This 

information will be used to calculate an 

index of habitat sufficiency and to 

monitor relationships between 

decreases in foods or increases in 

human activity, and increasing bear 

mortality or changes in bear distribution 

that might impact the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population. These analyses 

will use the demographic values of a 

stable to increasing population as a 

benchmark to be maintained. The 

current habitat-based recovery criteria 

have been appended to the Recovery 

Plan and are included in the Strategy. 

Population and Demographic 

Management—In 2000, we began a 

process to reevaluate the methods used 

to measure the status of the bear 

population, the methods used to 

estimate population size, and the 

sustainable level of mortality in the 

GYA. This process was initiated both in 

response to the 1995 court order (Fund 

for Animals v. Babbitt) and Task Y11 of 

the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 

44), which suggested that we 

‘‘Reevaluate and refine population 

criteria as new information becomes 

available.’’ The Wildlife Monograph: 

Temporal, Spatial, and Environmental 

Influences on the Demographics of 

Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem, and the report entitled 

Reassessing Methods To Estimate 

Population Size and Sustainable 

Mortality Limits for the Yellowstone 

Grizzly Bear (hereafter referred to as the 

Reassessing Methods Document) 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2005; Interagency Grizzly Bear Study 

Team 2006) were produced to respond 

to the need to reevaluate and refine the 

population criteria. The Wildlife 

Monograph is divided into separate 

chapters (Haroldson et al. 2006b, pp. 

33–42; Harris et al. 2006, pp. 44–55; 

Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 18–23; 

Schwartz et al. 2006c, pp. 25–31; 

Schwartz et al. 2006d, pp. 9–16; 

Schwartz et al. 2006e, pp. 57–63), and 

we reference these chapters individually 

as applicable. Relevant portions of the 

authors’ analyses are summarized 

below, as well as relevant findings on 

the likelihood of population persistence 

(as defined in a population viability 

analysis (PVA)) into the foreseeable 

future for the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population. 

Harris et al. (2006, pp. 44–45) used 

the survival rates calculated by 

Haroldson et al. (2006b, p. 35) and 

Schwartz et al. (2006c, p. 27), and the 

reproductive rates calculated by 

Schwartz et al. (2006a, p. 19) to model 

population trajectory for the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

between 1983 and 2002. Because the 

fates of some radio-collared bears were 

unknown, Harris et al. (2006, p. 48) 

calculated two separate estimates of 

population growth rate (see our 

response to Issue 5 under subheading B 

in the Responses to Public Comments 

section for additional detail on this 

methodology). They found that the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

increased at a rate between 4.2 and 7.6 

percent per year between 1983 and 2002 

(Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). 

Schwartz et al. (2006c, p. 29) 

concluded that grizzly bears are 

probably approaching carrying capacity 

inside Yellowstone National Park. Their 

conclusion resulted from the analysis of 

survivorship of cubs and yearlings, and 

of independent bears, inside 

Yellowstone National Park, outside the 

Park but inside the Primary 

Conservation Area (PCA), and outside 

the PCA, as well as the analysis of bear 

distribution in those three zones of 

residency. 

Population viability analyses are often 

used to describe a population’s 

likelihood of persistence in the future. 

We consider the findings of Boyce et al. 

(2001, pp. 1–11) in the following 

paragraphs because they reviewed the 

existing published PVAs for 

Yellowstone grizzly bears, and updated 

these previous analyses using data 

collected since the original analyses 

were completed. They also conducted 

new PVAs using two software packages 

that had not been available to previous 

investigators. They found that the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population had 

a 1 percent chance of going extinct 

within the next 100 years and a 4 

percent chance of going extinct in the 

next 500 years (Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 1, 

10–11). However, these analyses did not 

consider changes in habitat that may 

occur, so Boyce et al. (2001, pp. 33–34) 

did not consider any of the PVAs to be 

sufficient. Instead, they recommended 

that a habitat-based PVA be developed 

that would link a grizzly bear 

population model with a resource 

selection function rigorously derived 

from the existing GIS databases 

compiled for the Cumulative Effects 

Model. However, given the uncertainty 

in parameterizing the habitat databases 

and the relationships between food 

availability and grizzly bear vital rates, 

we do not believe such an exercise, if 

it is ever possible to complete, is 

necessary to make informed 

management decisions and maintain a 

recovered grizzly bear population in the 

GYA in the foreseeable future. Such 

uncertainty could result in a model that 

is even less indicative or representative 

of potential responses of bears to habitat 

variation than what is available now. 

This rule relies upon the best scientific 

and commercial information available, 

which we view as more than adequate 

to support this action. 

Mortality control is a key part of any 

successful management effort; however, 

some mortality, including humancaused mortality, is unavoidable in a 

dynamic system where hundreds of 

bears inhabit large areas of diverse 

habitat with several million human 

visitors and residents. In 1977, 

Eberhardt documented that adult female 

survival was the most important vital 

rate influencing population trajectory 

(Eberhardt 1977, p. 210). Low adult 

female survival was the critical factor 

causing decline in the GYA population 

prior to the mid-1980s (Knight and 

Eberhardt 1985, p. 331). In the early 

1980s, with the development of the first 

Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1982, pp. 21–24), agencies 

began to control mortality and increase 

adult female survivorship (USDA Forest 

Service 1986, pp. 1–2; Knight et al. 

1999, pp. 56–57). The 1982 and 1993 

Revised Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1982, pp. 33–34, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 20–

21) established three demographic 

(population) goals to objectively 

measure and monitor recovery of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population: 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 1—

Maintain a minimum of 15 

unduplicated (only counted once) 

females with cubs-of-the-year over a 

running 6-year average both inside the 

Recovery Zone and within a 16-km (10- 

mi) area immediately surrounding the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14872 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Recovery Zone. Status: This recovery 

criterion has been met (Haroldson 

2006b, p. 12). 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 2—

Sixteen of 18 bear management units 

within the Recovery Zone (see map at 

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ 

mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm) 

must be occupied by females with 

young, with no 2 adjacent bear 

management units unoccupied, during a 

6-year sum of observations. Status: This 

criterion is important as it ensures that 

reproductive females occupy the 

majority of the Recovery Zone and are 

not concentrated in one portion of the 

ecosystem. This recovery criterion has 

been met (Podruzny 2006, p. 17). 

1993 Demographic Recovery Criterion 

3—The running 6-year average for total 

known, human-caused mortality should 

not exceed 4 percent of the minimum 

population estimate in any 2 

consecutive years; and human-caused 

female grizzly bear mortality should not 

exceed 1.2 percent of the minimum 

population estimate in any 2 

consecutive years. Status: The 4 percent 

limit on total human-caused mortality 

has not been exceeded since 1995. 

Because female mortality averaged 7.5 

female bears per year for the time period 

from 2001 to 2004 (Haroldson and Frey 

2006, p. 30), even though there were 

only 2 female mortalities in 2005 and 3 

female mortalities in 2006, the high 

mortality in the preceding years made 

the 6-year average exceed the 1.2 

percent limit in 2004, 2005, and 2006. 

This means that this component of 1993 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 was 

not met in the last consecutive 2-year 

period of 2005 to 2006. 

2007 Demographic Recovery Criterion 

3—For independent females (at least 2 

years old), the current annual mortality 

limit, not to be exceeded in 2 

consecutive years and including all 

sources of mortality, is 9 percent of the 

total number of independent females. 

For independent males (at least 2 years 

old), the current annual mortality limit 

not to be exceeded in 3 consecutive 

years and including all sources of 

mortality, is 15 percent of the total 

number of independent males. For 

dependent young (less than 2 years old), 

the current annual mortality limit, not 

to be exceeded in 3 consecutive years 

and including known and probable 

human-caused mortalities only, is 9 

percent of the total number of 

dependent young (Interagency Grizzly 

Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 36–38). 

Status: Applying the current 

methodology to the 1999 to 2006 data, 

mortality limits have not been exceeded 

for consecutive years for any bear class 

and, therefore, this criterion has been 

met (Schwartz, in press). 

We no longer consider 1993 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 to 

represent the best scientific and 

commercial data available, nor the best 

technique to assess recovery of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

because—(1) There is now a method to 

calculate the total number of 

independent females from sightings and 

resightings of females with cubs 

(Keating et al. 2002, p. 173), and this 

method allows calculation of total 

population size (Interagency Grizzly 

Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 12–26) 

instead of minimum population size as 

used in the old method (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41–44); (2) 

There is now a method to calculate the 

unknown and unreported mortalities 

(Cherry et al. 2002, pp. 176–181), and 

this method allows more conservative 

mortality management based on 

annually updated information rather 

than the estimate of unknown and 

unreported mortality used in the 

Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1993, p. 20, 43); and (3) There 

are now improved and updated data on 

reproductive performance of 

Yellowstone grizzly bears (Schwartz et 

al. 2006a, pp. 19–23), updated data on 

survival of cub and yearling 

Yellowstone grizzly bears (Schwartz et 

al. 2006c, pp. 25–28), updated data on 

survival of independent Yellowstone 

grizzly bears (Haroldson et al. 2006b, 

pp. 33–35), updated data on the 

trajectory of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population under alternate survival 

rates (Harris et al. 2006, pp. 44–54), and 

new data on the impacts of spatial and 

environmental heterogeneity on 

Yellowstone grizzly bear demographics 

(Schwartz et al. 2006e, pp. 58–61). 

These improved data and analyses, 

since the development of the 1993 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41–

44), allow improved mortality 

management based on more accurate 

calculations of total population size, 

and the establishment of sustainable 

mortality for independent females, 

independent males, and dependent 

young. 

As stated above, the update to 1993 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 

began in 2000, as per Task Y11 of the 

1993 Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1993, p. 44) and the 

court remand to the Service for further 

study and clarification (Fund for 

Animals v. Babbitt). When this review 

began in 2000, the 1993 Demographic 

Recovery Criterion 3 had been achieved 

since 1998 (Haroldson and Frey 2006, p. 

35). It was only since 2004, 4 years after 

the reassessment work began, that the 

1993 criterion was not met (Haroldson 

and Frey 2006, p. 35). 

Although the 1993 Recovery Plan 

suggested calculating sustainable 

mortality as a percentage of the 

minimum population estimate (as 

outlined in Demographic Recovery 

Criterion 3), this method no longer 

represents the best scientific and 

commercial data available (Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 8–

9). The Study Team conducted a critical 

review of both current and alternative 

methods for calculating population size, 

estimating the known to unknown 

mortality ratio, and establishing 

sustainable mortality levels for the 

Yellowstone grizzly population 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2005, pp. 13–41). The product of this 

work is the aforementioned Reassessing 

Methods Document, which evaluates 

current methods, reviews recent 

scientific literature, examines 

alternative methods, and recommends 

the most scientifically valid techniques 

based on these reviews (Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 41–

45). This Reassessing Methods 

Document was sent out to three peer 

reviewers, and the comments of the 

reviewers were incorporated into the 

final document that was released to the 

public in November of 2005 (70 FR 

70632, November 22, 2005). These peer 

reviews are available in the 

administrative record for this final rule. 

We requested public comment on the 

Reassessing Methods Document (70 FR 

70632–70633, Nov. 22, 2005). In 

response to the comments received, the 

Study Team prepared a Supplement to 

the Reassessing Methods Document, 

which addresses many of the concerns 

raised during the public comment 

period (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study 

Team 2006). This Supplement also 

underwent peer review. Both the 

Reassessing Methods Document and its 

Supplement are accessible at http:// 

mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ 

mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm. 

The end result of this critical review 

and analysis are revised methods for 

calculating population size, estimating 

the known to unknown mortality ratio, 

and establishing sustainable mortality 

levels for the Yellowstone grizzly 

population based on the best available 

science. These methods and the 2007 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 were 

appended to the Recovery Plan as a 

supplement and included in the 

Strategy (72 FR 11376; 72 FR 11376–

11377). 

The current method is a much more 

comprehensive mortality management 

approach. Between 1980 and 2002, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14873 

approximately 21 percent of all known 

grizzly bear deaths were from 

undetermined causes (Servheen et al. 

2004, p. 15). These deaths could not be 

counted against the 4 percent humancaused mortality limit using the 

previous method because the cause of 

death could not be confirmed. The 

previous method also assumed a 2-to-1 

‘‘known-to-unknown’’ mortality ratio. 

Many researchers hypothesize that 

unknown mortality is much higher than 

that suggested by a ratio of ‘‘known-tounknown’’ of 2-to-1 (Knight and 

Eberhardt 1985, pp. 332–333; McLellan 

et al. 1999, p. 916). After careful 

consideration and using the best 

available science, the Study Team 

adopted a new more conservative 

‘‘known-to-unknown’’ mortality ratio of 

approximately 1-to-2 that is recalculated 

each year based on the number of 

known, reported deaths (Cherry et al. 

2002, p. 179; Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Study Team 2005, pp. 39–41). 

Annual allowable mortality limits for 

each bear class (independent female, 

independent male, and dependent 

young) are calculated annually based on 

total population estimates of each bear 

class for the current year (Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 5–

9). The Study Team calculates both the 

total population size and the mortality 

limits within an area designated by the 

Strategy (see The Conservation Strategy 

section of the rule below) that overlaps 

and extends beyond suitable habitat (see 

Figure 1 below). For independent 

females, a 9 percent limit was 

considered sustainable because 

simulations have shown that this level 

of adult female mortality rate allows a 

stable to increasing population 95 

percent of the time (Harris et al. 2006, 

p. 50). For independent males, a 15 

percent limit was considered 

sustainable because it approximates the 

level of male mortality in the GYA from 

1983 to 2001 (Haroldson et al. 2006b, p. 

38), a period when the mean growth rate 

of the population was estimated at 4 to 

7 percent per year (Harris et al. 2006, p. 

48). Independent males can endure a 

higher rate of mortality compared to 

females without affecting the overall 

stability or trajectory of the population 

because they contribute little to overall 

population growth (Mace and Waller 

1998, pp. 1009–1013; Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, p. 39). 

Similarly, the 9 percent limit on humancaused mortality for dependent young 

was chosen because this level of 

mortality is less than the 15 percent 

human-caused mortality documented 

for each sex of this age group from 1983 

to 2001, a period of population growth 

and expansion (Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Study Team 2005, pp. 9, 36–38). 

Although it is known that dependent 

bears experience far higher natural 

mortality rates than independent bears 

(Schwartz et al. 2006c, p. 30), there is 

no known way to sample these 

mortalities directly in the field. Instead, 

these rates are calculated from 

consecutive years of observing radiocollared females with cubs-of-the-year. 

These mortality limits can be reduced 

by individual management agencies of 

the multi-agency Yellowstone Grizzly 

Coordinating Committee (hereafter 

referred to as the Coordinating 

Committee and further described in 

Factor D below) within their 

jurisdictions, as part of the Coordinating 

Committee management process to meet 

the Strategy and the State plans’

management objectives. These mortality 

limits, as described above in the 

Conservation Strategy Management Area 

(Figure 1), cannot be increased above 

the limits of 9 percent for independent 

females, 15 percent for independent 

males, and 9 percent for dependent 

young, unless such an increase is 

justified or supported by new scientific 

findings using the best available 

science, and the basis for this increase 

is documented by the Study Team in a 

report to the Coordinating Committee. 

Any such recommendation to increase 

mortality limits would be considered an 

amendment to the Strategy open for 

public comment, and requiring a 

majority vote by the Coordinating 

Committee before finalization (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 63). 

The Study Team will reevaluate 

mortality limits every 8 to 10 years, or 

as new scientific information becomes 

available (Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Study Team 2005, p. 45), or at the 

request of the Coordinating Committee. 

Allocation of mortality limits within the 

Conservation Strategy Management Area 

(see Figure 1 below) among management 

jurisdictions is the responsibility of the 

Coordinating Committee, but total 

mortality for independent females, 

independent males, and dependent 

young within the Conservation Strategy 

Management Area (see Figure 1 below) 

must remain at or below the sustainable 

mortality limits established by the 

Study Team. This allocation process 

may be used to adjust mortality 

numbers among jurisdictions to achieve 

management objectives while staying 

within the overall mortality limits. 

The Conservation Strategy—In order 

to provide adequate regulatory 

mechanisms after delisting and ensure 

the long-term maintenance of a 

recovered population, the Recovery Plan 

calls for the development of ‘‘a 

conservation strategy to outline habitat 

and population monitoring that will 

continue in force after recovery’’

(Recovery Plan Task Y426) (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 55). To 

accomplish this goal, in 1993, we 

created the Interagency Conservation 

Strategy Team. This team included 

biologists from the Service, the National 

Park Service, the USDA Forest Service, 

the IDFG, the WGFD, and the MTFWP. 

In March 2000, a draft Conservation 

Strategy for the GYA was released for 

public review and comment (65 FR 

11340, March 2, 2000). Also in 2000, a 

Governors’ Roundtable was organized to 

provide recommendations from the 

perspectives of the three States that 

would be involved with grizzly bear 

management after delisting. In 2003, the 

draft Final Conservation Strategy for the 

Grizzly Bear in the GYA was released, 

along with drafts of State grizzly bear 

management plans (all accessible at 

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ 

mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm). We 

have responded to all public comments 

received on the Strategy and finalized 

the Strategy (72 FR 11376). The Strategy 

will become effective once this final 

rule takes effect. 

The purpose of the Strategy and 

associated State and Federal 

implementation plans is to—(1) 

Describe, summarize, and implement 

the coordinated efforts to manage the 

grizzly bear population and its habitat to 

ensure continued conservation of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population; (2) 

specify and implement the population, 

habitat, and nuisance bear standards to 

maintain a recovered grizzly bear 

population for the foreseeable future; (3) 

document the regulatory mechanisms 

and legal authorities, policies, 

management, and monitoring programs 

that exist to maintain the recovered 

grizzly bear population; and (4) 

document the actions which the 

participating agencies have agreed to 

implement (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, pp. 5–6). 

The Strategy identifies and provides a 

framework for managing two areas, the 

PCA and adjacent areas of suitable 

habitat where occupancy by grizzly 

bears is anticipated as per the State 

plans. The PCA boundaries (containing 

23,853 sq km (9,210 sq mi)) correspond 

to those of the Yellowstone Recovery 

Zone (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1993, p. 41) and will replace the 

Recovery Zone boundary (see Figure 1 

below). The PCA contains adequate 

seasonal habitat components needed to 

support the recovered Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population for the 

foreseeable future and to allow bears to 

continue to expand outside the PCA. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14874 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

The PCA includes approximately 51 

percent of the suitable habitat within 

the DPS and approximately 84 to 90 

percent of the population of female 

grizzly bears with cubs (Schwartz et al. 

2006b, pp. 64–66). 

The Strategy will be implemented and 

funded by both Federal and State 

agencies within the Yellowstone DPS. 

The USDA Forest Service, National Park 

Service, and BLM will cooperate with 

the State wildlife agencies (MTFWP, 

IDFG, and WGFD) to implement the 

Strategy and its protective habitat and 

population standards. The USDA Forest 

Service and National Park Service 

(which collectively own and manage 

approximately 98 percent of the PCA) 

are responsible for maintaining or 

improving habitat standards inside the 

PCA and monitoring population criteria. 

Specifically, Yellowstone National Park, 

Grand Teton National Park, and the 

Shoshone, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, 

Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, 

and Gallatin National Forests are the 

primary areas with Federal 

responsibility for implementing the 

Strategy. Affected National Forests and 

National Parks have incorporated the 

habitat standards and criteria into their 

Forest Plans and National Park 

management plans via appropriate 

amendment processes so that they are 

legally applied to these public lands 

within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries 

(Grand Teton National Park 2006, p. 1; 

USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 4; 

Yellowstone National Park 2006, p. 12). 

Outside of the PCA, grizzly bears will 

be allowed to expand into suitable 

habitat as per direction in the State 

management plans. Here, the objective 

is to maintain existing resource 

management and recreational uses, and 

to allow agencies to respond to 

demonstrated problems with 

appropriate management actions. The 

key to successful management of grizzly 

bears outside of the PCA lies in their 

successfully utilizing lands not 

managed solely for bears, but in which 

their needs are considered along with 

other uses. Currently, approximately 10 

to 16 percent of female grizzly bears 

with cubs occupy habitat outside of the 

PCA (Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64–66). 

The area of suitable habitat outside of 

the PCA is roughly 83 percent Federally 

owned; 6.0 percent Tribally owned; 1.6 

percent State-owned; and 9.5 percent 

privately owned. State grizzly bear 

management plans (Idaho’s Yellowstone 

Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 

2002; MTFWP 2002; WGFD 2005), the 

Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest 

Service 2006a), and other appropriate 

planning documents provide specific 

management direction for areas outside 

of the PCA. 

This differential management 

standard (one standard inside the PCA 

and another standard for suitable habitat 

outside the PCA) has been successful in 

the past (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 

19). Lands within the PCA/Recovery 

Zone are currently managed primarily to 

maintain grizzly bear habitat, whereas 

lands outside of the PCA/Recovery Zone 

boundaries are managed with more 

consideration for human uses (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 17–18). 

Such flexible management promotes 

communication and tolerance for grizzly 

bear recovery. 

As the grizzly bear population within 

the Recovery Zone has rebounded in 

response to recovery efforts, there has 

been a gradual natural recolonization of 

suitable habitat outside of the PCA/ 

Recovery Zone (Pyare et al. 2004, p. 6). 

Today, most suitable habitat within the 

DPS boundaries is occupied by grizzly 

bears (68 percent) but approximately 

14,500 sq km (5,600 sq mi) are still 

available for recolonization (see suitable 

habitat analysis in Factor A of this final 

rule below). 

The Strategy is an adaptive, dynamic 

document that establishes a framework 

to incorporate new and better scientific 

information as it becomes available or as 

necessary in response to environmental 

changes. Ongoing review and evaluation 

of the effectiveness of the Strategy is the 

responsibility of the State and Federal 

managers and will be updated by the 

management agencies every 5 years, or 

more frequently as necessary. Public 

comments will be sought on all updates 

to the Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, p. 14). 

Previous Federal Actions 

On July 28, 1975, the grizzly bear was 

designated as threatened in the 

conterminous (lower 48) United States 

(40 FR 31734–31736). On November 17, 

2005, we proposed to designate the GYA 

population of grizzly bears as a DPS and 

to remove this DPS from the Federal List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife. 

This notice was followed by a 120-day 

comment period (70 FR 69854, 

November 17, 2005; 71 FR 8251, 

February 16, 2006), during which we 

held two public hearings and four open 

houses (70 FR 69854, November 17, 

2005; 71 FR 4097–4098, January 25, 

2006). Included in the public comments 

was a petition to uplist the Yellowstone 

DPS to endangered status. All assertions 

of this petition are addressed either in 

the Summary of Public Comments 

section below, in the 5-factor analysis 

that follows, or in the Reassessing 

Methods Document’s issues and 

responses summary. A 90-day finding 

on whether the petition presented 

substantial information indicating 

whether the petitioned action may be 

warranted is included below. Similarly, 

this final rule addresses the 2004 

Administrative Procedure Act petition 

from the Wyoming Farm Bureau 

Federation to designate the grizzly bear 

in the GYA as a DPS (Hamilton et al. 

2004). Finally, between 1991 and 1999, 

we issued warranted-but-precluded 

findings to reclassify grizzly bears in the 

North Cascades (56 FR 33892–33894, 

July 24, 1991; 63 FR 30453–30454, June 

4, 1998), the Cabinet-Yaak (58 FR 8250–

8251, February 12, 1993; 64 FR 26725–

26733, May 17, 1999), and the Selkirk 

Ecosystems (64 FR 26725–26733, May 

17, 1999) from threatened to 

endangered. These uplisting actions 

remain precluded by higher priority 

actions. We hope to further evaluate 

each of these ecosystems during our 

upcoming 5-year review. Please refer to 

the proposed rule for more detailed 

information on previous Federal actions 

(70 FR 69861, November 17, 2005). 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment 

Policy Overview 

Pursuant to the Act, we shall consider 

for listing or delisting any species, 

subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS 

of these taxa if there is sufficient 

information to indicate that such action 

may be warranted. To interpret and 

implement the DPS provision of the Act 

and congressional guidance, the Service 

and the National Marine Fisheries 

Service published, on December 21, 

1994, a draft Policy Regarding the 

Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments under the Act 

(DPS Policy) and invited public 

comments on it (59 FR 65884–65885). 

After review of comments and further 

consideration, the Services adopted the 

interagency policy as issued in draft 

form, and published it in the Federal 

Register on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 

4722–4725). This policy addresses the 

establishment of DPSs for potential 

listing and delisting actions. 

Under our DPS policy, three factors 

are considered when determining 

whether or not a population can be 

considered a DPS. These are applied 

similarly for additions to the list of 

endangered and threatened species, 

reclassification, and removal from the 

list. They are—(1) discreteness of the 

population segment in relation to the 

remainder of the taxon (i.e., Ursus 

arctos horribilis); (2) the significance of 

the population segment to the taxon to 

which it belongs (i.e., Ursus arctos 

horribilis); and (3) the population 

segment’s conservation status in relation 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14875 

to the Act’s standards for listing (i.e., is 

the population segment endangered or 

threatened). 

Application of the Distinct Population 

Segment Policy 

Although the DPS Policy does not 

allow State or other intra-national 

governmental boundaries to be used as 

the basis for determining the 

discreteness of a potential DPS, an 

artificial or manmade boundary may be 

used to clearly identify the geographic 

area included within a DPS designation. 

Easily identifiable manmade projects, 

such as the center line of interstate 

highways, Federal highways, and State 

highways are useful for delimiting DPS 

boundaries. Thus, the Yellowstone DPS 

consists of—that portion of Idaho that is 

east of Interstate Highway 15 and north 

of U.S. Highway 30; that portion of 

Montana that is east of Interstate 

Highway 15 and south of Interstate 

Highway 90; and that portion of 

Wyoming south of Interstate Highway 

90, west of Interstate Highway 25, 

Wyoming State Highway 220, and U.S. 

Highway 287 south of Three Forks (at 

the 220 and 287 intersection), and north 

of Interstate Highway 80 and U.S. 

Highway 30 (see Figure 1 below). Due 

to the use of highways as easily 

described boundaries, large areas of 

unsuitable habitat were included in the 

DPS. 

The core of the Yellowstone DPS is 

the Yellowstone Recovery Zone (24,000 

sq km (9,200 sq mi)) (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1993, p. 39). The 

Yellowstone Recovery Zone includes 

Yellowstone National Park; a portion of 

Grand Teton National Park; John D. 

Rockefeller Memorial Parkway; sizable 

contiguous portions of the Shoshone, 

Bridger-Teton, Targhee, Gallatin, 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge, and Custer 

National Forests; BLM lands; and 

surrounding State and private lands 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 

39). As grizzly bear populations have 

rebounded and densities have 

increased, bears have expanded their 

range beyond the Recovery Zone, into 

other suitable habitat. Grizzly bears in 

this area now occupy about 36,940 sq 

km (14,260 sq mi) in and around the 

Yellowstone Recovery Zone (Schwartz 

et al. 2002, p. 207; Schwartz et al. 

2006b, pp. 64–66). No grizzly bears 

originating from the Yellowstone 

Recovery Zone have been suspected or 

confirmed beyond the borders of the 

Yellowstone DPS. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14876 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Analysis for Discreteness 

Under our DPS Policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate species may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions—(1) It is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon (i.e., 

Ursus arctos horribilis) as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors 

(quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation); or 

(2) it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) (‘‘the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms’’) of the Act. Our 

DPS policy does not require complete 

reproductive isolation among 

populations in order to determine that 

a population is markedly separated from 

other populations, and allows for some 

limited interchange among population 

segments considered to be discrete (61 

FR 4722). 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULESER29MR07.030</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14877 

The Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population is the southernmost 

population remaining in the 

conterminous States and has been 

physically separated from other areas 

where grizzly bears occur for at least 

100 years (Merriam 1922, pp. 1–2; 

Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4334). The 

nearest population of grizzly bears is 

found in the NCDE. These populations 

are separated by land ownership, 

vegetation, and topographic patterns 

unsuitable for grizzly bears. The end 

result is a functional barrier to grizzly 

bear movement across the landscape 

and connectivity between the GYA and 

the NCDE. Grizzly bears from the GYA 

have not migrated north of the current 

location of Interstate 90 (the northern 

boundary of the DPS), probably for at 

least the last century (Miller and Waits 

2003, p. 4334). Meanwhile, during the 

last decade, there have been periodic 

reports of grizzly bears from the NCDE 

as far south as Highway 12 near Helena, 

Montana. In the last 25 years, two male 

grizzly bears have been killed near 

Anaconda, Montana, and the Flint Creek 

mountains southwest of the NCDE. Both 

of these reports are approximately 120 

km (75 mi) northwest of the most 

northerly Yellowstone grizzly bears. 

This distance is too far for normal 

grizzly bear dispersal distances of 

roughly 10 to 40 km (6 to 25 mi) 

(McLellan and Hovey 2001, pp. 841–

842; Proctor et al. 2004, p. 1108) to 

effectively connect the NCDE 

population or other neighboring 

populations with the Yellowstone DPS. 

There is currently no connectivity, nor 

are there any known resident grizzly 

bears in this area between these two 

grizzly bear populations. 

Because the Yellowstone Ecosystem 

represents the most southerly 

population of grizzly bears, connectivity 

further south is not an issue. 

Connectivity to the east also is 

irrelevant to this action as grizzly bears 

in the lower 48 States no longer exist 

east of the GYA, and most of the habitat 

is unsuitable for grizzly bears. Finally, 

connectivity west into the Bitterroot 

Mountains is irrelevant to this action 

because no bears have been documented 

in this ecosystem in the past 25 years 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 

12; 65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000; 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000, p. 

viii). 

Genetic data also support the 

conclusion that grizzly bears from the 

GYA are demographically markedly 

separated from other grizzly bears. 

Genetic studies involving heterozygosity 

(which provides a measure of genetic 

variation in either a population or 

individual) estimates at 8 microsatellite 

loci show 55 percent heterozygosity in 

the GYA grizzly bears compared to 69 

percent in the NCDE bears (Paetkau et 

al. 1998, pp. 421–424). Heterozygosity is 

a useful measure of genetic diversity, 

with higher values indicative of greater 

genetic variation and evolutionary 

potential. High levels of genetic 

variation are indicative of high levels of 

connectivity among populations or high 

numbers of breeding animals. By 

comparing heterozygosity of extant 

bears to samples from Yellowstone 

grizzlies of the early 1900s, Miller and 

Waits (2003, p. 4338) concluded that 

gene flow and, therefore, population 

connectivity between the GYA grizzly 

population and populations to the north 

was very low historically, even prior to 

the arrival of settlers. The reasons for 

this historic limitation of gene flow are 

unclear. Increasing levels of human 

activity and settlement in this 

intervening area over the last century 

further limited grizzly bear movements 

into and out of the GYA, resulting in the 

current lack of connectivity. 

Based on our analysis of the best 

available scientific data, we find that the 

GYA grizzly population and other 

remaining grizzly bear populations are 

markedly separated from each other. 

This contention is supported by 

evidence of physical separation between 

populations (both current and 

historical) and evidence of genetic 

discontinuity. Therefore, the 

Yellowstone DPS meets the criterion of 

discreteness under our DPS Policy. 

Analysis for Significance 

If we determine a population segment 

is discrete, its biological and ecological 

significance will then be considered in 

light of congressional guidance that the 

authority to list DPS’s be used sparingly 

while encouraging the conservation of 

genetic diversity. In carrying out this 

examination, we consider available 

scientific evidence of the population’s 

importance to the taxon (i.e., Ursus 

arctos horribilis) to which it belongs. 

Our DPS policy states that this 

consideration may include, but is not 

limited to, the following—(1) 

Persistence of the discrete population 

segment in an ecological setting unusual 

or unique for the taxon; (2) Evidence 

that loss of the discrete population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon; (3) 

Evidence that the discrete population 

segment represents the only surviving 

natural occurrence of a taxon that may 

be more abundant elsewhere as an 

introduced population outside its 

historic range; and/or (4) Evidence that 

the discrete population segment differs 

markedly from other populations of the 

species in its genetic characteristics. 

Below we address Factors 1, 2, and 4. 

Factor 3 does not apply to the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population. 

Unusual or Unique Ecological 

Setting—Grizzly bears in the GYA exist 

in an unusual and unique ecosystem 

that has greater access to large-bodied 

ungulates such as bison (Bison bison), 

elk (Cervus elaphus), and moose (Alces 

alces), and less access to fall berries 

than any other interior North American, 

European, or Asian grizzly bear 

populations (Stroganov 1969, p. 128; 

Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1623; Jacoby et 

al. 1999, p. 925; Schwartz et al. 2003b, 

pp. 568–569). The GYA ecosystem 

contains extensive populations of 

ungulates with an estimated 100,000 

elk, 29,500 mule deer (Odocoileus 

hemionus) and white-tailed deer (O. 

virginianus), 5,800 moose, 4,000 bison 

and, relative to other ungulate 

populations in the area, a small 

population of pronghorn antelope 

(Antilocapra americana) (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1994, p. ix; Toman et 

al. 1997, p. 56; Smith et al. 2003, pp. 

337–338). Although grizzly bears are 

successful omnivores, grizzlies in the 

rest of the conterminous States (Jacoby 

et al. 1999, p. 925), most of Europe 

(Berducou et al. 1983, pp. 154–155; 

Clevenger et al. 1992, pp. 416–417; 

Dahle et al. 1998, pp. 152–153), and 

Siberia (Stroganov 1969, p. 128) rely on 

plant and insect materials for the 

majority of their diet. In contrast, 

grizzlies in the GYA rely on terrestrial 

mammals as their primary source of 

nutrition, as indicated by bear scat 

(Mattson 1997, p. 162), feed site analysis 

(Mattson 1997, p. 167), and bear hair 

isotope analysis (Jacoby et al. 1999, p. 

925). Concentration of isotopic nitrogen 

(15N) in grizzly bear hair from 

Yellowstone grizzly bears suggests that 

meat constitutes 45 percent and 79 

percent of the annual diet for females 

and males, respectively (Jacoby et al. 

1999, p. 925). These high percentages of 

meat in Yellowstone grizzly bears’ diet 

are in contrast to the 0 to 33 percent of 

meat in the diet of bears in the NCDE 

and 0 to 17 percent of meat in the diet 

of bears from the Cabinet-Yaak 

Ecosystem (Jacoby et al. 1999, p. 925). 

Furthermore, the source of this animal 

meat is primarily large-bodied 

ungulates, not fish, as in other 

populations of brown bears in Alaska 

and Siberia (Stroganov 1969, p. 128; 

Hilderbrand et al. 1996, pp. 2086–2087). 

Of particular relevance is the 

Yellowstone grizzly bears’ use of wild 

bison, a species endemic to North 

America, but eradicated in most of the 

lower 48 States except the GYA by the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14878 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

end of the 19th century (Steelquist 1998, 

pp. 16, 30). Although bison numbers 

have increased since this time, the vast 

majority of today’s bison are found in 

managed or ranched herds (Steelquist 

1998, pp. 33–37). Their habitat, 

bunchgrass prairie (tallgrass, mixedgrass, and shortgrass prairie), has been 

almost entirely converted to agricultural 

lands (Steelquist 1998, p. 11), leaving 

little opportunity for existence in areas 

outside of the isolated refuges and 

ranches where they are commonly 

found today. Mattson (1997, p. 167) 

found that wild bison comprised the 

second largest source of ungulate meat 

(24 percent) consumed by Yellowstone 

grizzly bears, second only to elk (53 

percent). 

The Yellowstone grizzly population 

also exists in a unique ecological setting 

because it is able to use whitebark pine 

seeds as a major food source. Whitebark 

pine, a tree species found only in North 

America (Schmidt 1994, p. 1), exhibits 

annual variation in seed crops, with 

high seed production in some years and 

very low seed production in other years 

(Weaver and Forcella 1986, p. 70; 

Morgan and Bunting 1992, p. 71). 

During these years of high seed 

production, Yellowstone grizzly bears 

derive as much as 51 percent of their 

protein from pine nuts (Felicetti et al. 

2003, p. 767). In fact, grizzly bear 

consumption of ungulates decreases 

during years of high whitebark pine 

seed production (Mattson 1997, p. 169). 

In most areas of North America where 

whitebark pine distribution overlaps 

with grizzly bear populations, bears do 

not consistently use this potential food 

source (Mattson and Reinhart 1994, pp. 

212–214). This may be due to different 

climatic regimes that sustain berryproducing shrubs or simply the scarcity 

of whitebark pines in some areas of the 

bear’s range (Mattson and Reinhart 

1994, p. 214). Dependence of 

Yellowstone grizzly bears on whitebark 

pine is unique because in most areas of 

its range, whitebark pine has been 

significantly reduced in numbers and 

distribution due to the introduced 

pathogen white pine blister rust 

(Cronartium ribicola) (Kendall and 

Keane 2001, pp. 228–232). While there 

is evidence of blister rust in whitebark 

pines in the GYA, the pathogen has 

been present for more than 50 years 

(McDonald and Hoff 2001, p. 210) and 

relatively few trees have been severely 

impacted (see Factor E below). Also, 

although several berry-producing shrubs 

occur in the area, these are relatively 

limited by climatic factors and most 

grizzly bears in the GYA do not rely on 

berries as a significant portion of their 

diets. 

Significant Gap in the Range of the 

Taxon—Loss of the Yellowstone DPS 

would represent a significant gap in the 

range of the taxon. As noted above, 

grizzly bears once lived throughout the 

North American Rockies from Alaska 

and Canada, and south into central 

Mexico. Grizzly bears have been 

extirpated from most of the southern 

portions of their historic range. Today, 

the Yellowstone DPS represents the 

southernmost reach of the grizzly bear. 

The loss of this population would be 

significant because it would 

substantially curtail the range of the 

grizzly bear by moving the range 

approximately 4 degrees of latitude to 

the north. Thus, the loss of this 

population would result in a significant 

gap in the current range of the taxon. 

Given the grizzly bear’s historic 

occupancy of the conterminous States 

and the portion of the historic range the 

conterminous States represent, recovery 

in the lower 48 States where the grizzly 

bear existed in 1975 when it was listed 

has long been viewed as important to 

the taxon (40 FR 31734–31736, July 28, 

1975). The Yellowstone DPS is 

significant in achieving this objective, as 

it is 1 of only 5 known occupied areas 

and constitutes approximately half of 

the remaining grizzly bears in the 

conterminous 48 States. Finally, the 

Yellowstone DPS represents the only 

grizzly bear population not connected to 

bears in Canada. 

Marked Genetic Differences—Several 

genetics studies have confirmed the 

uniqueness of grizzly bears in the GYA. 

The GYA population has been isolated 

from other grizzly bear populations for 

approximately 100 years or more (Miller 

and Waits 2003, p. 4334). Yellowstone 

grizzly bears have the lowest relative 

heterozygosity of any continental grizzly 

population yet investigated (Paetkau et 

al. 1998, pp. 421–424; Waits et al. 

1998a, p. 310). Only Kodiak Island 

grizzly bears, a different subspecies 

(Ursus arctos middendorfi), have lower 

heterozygosity scores (26.5 percent), 

reflecting as much as 12,000 years of 

separation from mainland populations 

(Paetkau et al. 1998, p. 421; Waits et al. 

1998b, pp. 412–413). Miller and Waits 

(2003, p. 4338) conclude that gene flow 

between the GYA and the closest 

remaining population was limited prior 

to the arrival of European settlers but 

could only speculate as to the reasons 

behind this historical separation. The 

apparent long-term difference in 

heterozygosity between Yellowstone 

and other Montana populations 

indicates a unique set of circumstances 

in which limited movement between 

these areas has resulted in a markedly 

different genetic situation for the 

Yellowstone population. 

We conclude that the Yellowstone 

grizzly population is significant because 

it exists in an unusual and unique 

ecological setting; the loss of this 

population would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon; and this 

population’s genetic characteristics 

differ markedly from other grizzly bear 

populations. 

Conclusion of Distinct Population 

Segment Review 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, as described 

above, we find that the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population is discrete from 

other grizzly populations and significant 

to the remainder of the taxon (i.e., Ursus 

arctos horribilis). Because the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population is 

discrete and significant, it warrants 

recognition as a DPS under the Act. 

It is important to note that the DPS 

Policy does not require complete 

separation of one DPS from other 

populations, but instead requires 

‘‘marked separation.’’ Thus, if 

occasional individual grizzly bears 

disperse among populations, the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS would 

still display the required level of 

discreteness per the DPS Policy. And, as 

stated in the 1993 Recovery Plan, we 

recognize that natural connectivity is 

important to long-term grizzly bear 

conservation and we will continue 

efforts to work toward this goal 

independent of the delisting of the 

Yellowstone DPS (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1993, p. 53). This issue 

is discussed further under Factor E 

below. In addition, the conclusion 

regarding the conservation status (step 3 

of the DPS analysis) of the Yellowstone 

DPS follows the 5-factor analysis 

discussion below. 

Summary of Public Comments 

In our proposed rule, we requested 

that all interested parties submit 

information, data, and comments 

concerning the status of grizzly bears in 

the GYA, their habitat, and their 

management (70 FR 69882, November 

17, 2005). The comment period was 

open from November 17, 2005, through 

March 20, 2006 (70 FR 69854, 

November 17, 2005; 71 FR 8251, 

February 16, 2006). During this time, we 

held two formal public hearings and 

four informational meetings (70 FR 

69854, November 17, 2005; 71 FR 4097–

4098, January 25, 2006). In addition, 

there were numerous press releases, a 

press conference with the Secretary of 

the Interior, and a conference call with 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14879 

numerous environmental groups and 

non-government organizations 

discussing the proposed rule. Comments 

could be hand delivered to us or 

submitted to us via e-mail, mail, or 

public hearing testimony. 

During the 120-day comment period, 

we received comments from 164,486 

individuals, organizations, and 

government agencies. Those comments 

arrived in 193,578 letters, form letters, 

public hearing testimonies, and email 

messages. Numerous respondents 

submitted multiple comments, so the 

total number of comments received 

(193,578) is greater than the total 

number of people/groups responding 

(164,486). Twelve of these letters were 

signed as ‘‘petitions’’ with 974 

signatures. Finally, one of the above 

comment letters also formally petitioned 

the Service to list the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS as endangered under 

the Act and designate critical habitat. 

All assertions of this petition are 

addressed either in this section, in the 

5-factor analysis that follows, or the 

Reassessing Methods Document’s issues 

and responses summary. 

We have read and considered all 

comments received. A content analysis 

of these comments is available upon 

request (see ADDRESSES section above) 

or online at: http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ 

grizzly/yellowstone.htm. We updated 

the proposed rule where it was 

appropriate, and we respond to all 

substantive issues received, below. We 

have grouped similar comments 

together in ‘‘Issues,’’ each of which is 

followed by our ‘‘Response.’’

A. General Comments 

Issue 1—Numerous comments 

suggesting corrections to facts and data 

in the proposed rule such as correcting 

typographical errors, including omitted 

cooperators, and modifying the 

presentation of statistical results. One 

commenter noted our reference to the 

DPS as both a ‘‘population’’ and an 

‘‘area.’’ This commenter also noted 

inconsistencies in our use of the words 

‘‘population’’ and ‘‘populations’’ in the 

proposed rule and asked if there is one 

population or multiple populations 

within the DPS boundaries. 

Response—There is one population 

within the DPS boundaries and the 

appropriate changes have been made in 

the text of the final rule to clarify this, 

as well as the other matters raised in 

Issue 1. 

Issue 2—A few commenters disputed 

the Service’s claim that the nearest 

grizzly bear population to the 

Yellowstone DPS is 130 km (80 mi) 

away. According to these commenters, 

grizzly bears originating from the NCDE 

have been documented near Anaconda, 

Montana, and one grizzly bear 

originating from the Yellowstone DPS 

was sighted north of Bozeman, 

Montana, in the Bridger Mountains. 

Furthermore, one commenter noted that 

the Tobacco Root Vegetation 

Management Plan Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 

2001, p. 44) describes the Tobacco Roots 

as habitat occupied by grizzlies on both 

a resident and transient basis. This puts 

the two populations only 72 km (45 mi) 

apart. 

Response—We know of two records of 

grizzly bears near Anaconda, Montana. 

In one case, the carcass of a subadult 

male grizzly bear was discovered by a 

hunter in 1980. The other report notes 

a 2005 incident in which a hunter 

mistakenly shot a grizzly bear 11 km (7 

mi) west of Anaconda that was 

determined to be from the NCDE with 

DNA analysis. There are no other 

verified reports of grizzly bears within 

76 km (45 mi) of Anaconda. The Study 

Team has no record of any grizzly bears 

in the Bridger Mountains or in the 

Tobacco Root Mountains. Despite what 

the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Tobacco Root 

Vegetation Management Plan may 

identify as occupied habitat, a study 

conducted in the Tobacco Roots in 1999 

and 2000 failed to document grizzly 

bear presence (Lukins et al. 2004, p. 

171). In the final rule, we corrected the 

distance between the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population and the nearest 

bears to account for these two records 

near Anaconda, Montana. This resulted 

in the closest possible distance between 

the Yellowstone population and the 

nearest record of a grizzly bear as 120 

km (75 mi) instead of 130 km (80 mi) 

as reported in the proposed rule. 

Issue 3—One commenter disputed our 

claim that 30 percent of suitable habitat 

outside the PCA within the DPS is 

protected by official Wilderness Area 

designation, instead suggesting only 15 

percent of occupied habitat outside the 

PCA within the DPS is protected as 

Wilderness. 

Response—This numeric disparity 

centers around a difference in our frame 

of reference. Our calculation is the 

percentage of ‘‘suitable habitat’’ outside 

the PCA within the DPS (6,799 sq km 

(2,625 sq mi)) that is protected by 

Wilderness Area designation (22,783 sq 

km (8,797 sq mi)). In contrast, this 

comment is referring to ‘‘occupied 

habitat’’ outside the PCA within the 

DPS protected by Wilderness Area 

designation. We considered suitable 

habitat because we expect grizzly bears 

to naturally recolonize much of the 

remaining unoccupied suitable habitat 

in the next few decades. 

Issue 4—Several commenters noted 

that our definition of suitable habitat 

does not consider Wyoming’s habitat 

criteria of ‘‘socially acceptable.’’ They 

request that this inconsistency in 

definitions be remedied. 

Response—Our definition of suitable 

habitat is based on biological criteria. 

Some considerations of social 

acceptance entered into the 

considerations of suitable habitat in the 

Wyoming plan. The Wyoming plan does 

not restrict grizzly bears from areas 

outside their definition of suitable 

habitat. Instead, it establishes 

management objectives in these areas to 

minimize conflicts between bears and 

human activities. Because most grizzly 

bears do not come into conflict with 

humans, the impact of this difference in 

designation of suitable habitat between 

the Service and Wyoming will have 

little functional impact on grizzly bear 

occupancy or mortality. 

B. Population Concerns 

Issue 1—Several commenters noted 

their concern about the occurrence of 

high levels of female mortality since 

2000 and requested that the impact of 

this trend be analyzed. It was noted that 

the allowable adult female mortality 

was exceeded in 2004 and 2005; 

therefore, the recovery goal that adult 

female mortality cannot be exceeded in 

2 consecutive years has not been met. 

These commenters asked that we 

explain why delisting is being proposed 

when one of the recovery goals has not 

been met. 

Response—Recovery plans are 

intended to provide guidance and are 

subject to revision as new data are 

reported. They are not regulatory 

documents. Recovery of species requires 

adaptive management that may, or may 

not, fully follow the guidance provided 

in a recovery plan. That said, we no 

longer consider 1993 Demographic 

Recovery Criterion 3 to represent the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available nor the best technique to 

assess recovery of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population. Therefore, the 

1993 mortality management system for 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

has been reevaluated and revised using 

a recent and more accurate model 

(Harris et al. 2006, pp. 51–55). This 

approach was consistent with a 1995 

court order to reevaluate this issue 

(Fund for Animals v. Babbitt) and 

Recovery Plan Task Y11, which 

suggested we work to ‘‘determine 

population conditions at which the 

species is viable and self sustaining,’’

and to ‘‘reevaluate and refine 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14880 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

population criteria as new information 

becomes available’’ (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1993, p. 44). Under the 

revised methods for calculating 

sustainable mortality, female mortality 

was not exceeded in either 2004 or 

2005. These changes have been 

appended to the Recovery Plan and the 

Strategy. 

Issue 2—Some commenters felt that 

delisting was premature without a PVA 

based on future habitat conditions and 

that PVAs based simply on past 

population trends are inadequate. A 

habitat-based PVA could determine how 

future habitat conditions such as the 

availability of major food sources, 

climate change, increasing human 

populations, and resource extraction 

may affect the long-term persistence of 

the Yellowstone DPS. One commenter 

referred to a similar PVA conducted by 

‘‘Boyce et al. (2005)’’ on grizzly bears in 

Alberta, Canada, and suggested that 

Boyce be contracted to do this analysis 

for the Yellowstone DPS. 

Response—When we contacted the 

commenter who suggested we consider 

employing a technique similar to 

‘‘Boyce et al. (2005)’’, we were told that 

the correct citation for that article was 

Nielsen et al. 2006. Nielsen et al. (2006, 

pp. 219–221) predicted adult female 

grizzly bear occupancy and mortality 

across the landscape. Their exercise did 

not make any attempt to predict the 

long-term viability of the grizzly bear 

population in Alberta and, in this sense, 

was not a habitat-based PVA. Instead, 

Nielson et al. (2006, pp. 226–227) 

attempted to provide a useful tool to 

managers that linked not only 

occupancy, but also survival, to habitat 

conditions. 

In our view, a PVA based on possible 

future habitat conditions relies upon too 

many speculative variables to be relied 

upon to determine long-term 

persistence. Given the compound 

uncertainties associated with 

projections of possible future habitat 

changes, and the grizzly bear’s 

corresponding responses to those 

changes, it is unlikely that a habitatbased PVA would provide an accurate 

representation of future population 

viability for Yellowstone grizzly bears. 

The management system outlined in the 

Strategy depends on monitoring of 

multiple indices including production 

and availability of all major foods; and 

monitoring of grizzly bear vital rates 

including survival, age at first 

reproduction, reproductive rate, 

mortality cause and location, dispersal, 

and human/bear conflicts. These data 

will be used in an adaptive management 

system to monitor the real-time status of 

the population and its relationship with 

major foods and environmental 

variables, allowing managers to 

implement actions that respond to 

changes in ecological conditions and/or 

vital rates. The continued monitoring of 

these multiple indices will allow rapid 

feedback on the success of management 

actions in maintaining a viable 

population. In addition, please see our 

response to Issue 12 under subheading 

F in the Summary of Peer Review 

Comments section below for more 

information on the models the Study 

Team is pursuing. 

Issue 3—One commenter stated that 

the Yellowstone DPS range has not 

expanded as much as we claim 

according to the 1980 Study Team 

report of verified sightings near 

Ketchum, Idaho, and Cody, Wyoming. 

Response—Because the cited 1980 

Study Team report provides no 

information regarding the verification of 

the reported sighting near Ketchum, 

Idaho, it is impossible to make any 

conclusions on the sighting’s credibility. 

There is no reason to connect this 

supposed sighting to the Yellowstone 

ecosystem or to indicate that a bear 

sighted there might have come from 

Yellowstone. We did not rely solely on 

sightings of grizzly bears to make the 

statement that the population’s range 

had expanded. Instead, we used peerreviewed literature that documented 

this range expansion through multiple 

data sources, including initial 

observations of unduplicated females 

with young, locations of radio-collared 

bears, and locations of grizzly bear/ 

human conflicts (Schwartz et al. 2002, 

p. 204; Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 63). We 

are confident that the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population’s range has 

expanded significantly since 1980 and 

the sightings from this time do not 

contradict the conclusions established 

by Schwartz et al. (2002, p. 207) and 

Schwartz et al. (2006b, p. 66). 

Issue 4—One commenter noted that 

because ‘‘persistence time depends 

strongly on the magnitude of the 

variance in population growth rate’’ and 

the Yellowstone population size 

estimates are extremely variable, we 

should consider this and other sources 

of stochasticity in our decision. 

Response—These variations have 

been considered in detail. The 

considerations of the variation of results 

is thoroughly evaluated and discussed 

in Harris et al. (2006, p. 46), Schwartz 

et al. (2006d, p. 14), Schwartz et al. 

(2006e, pp. 62–63), the Reassessing 

Methods Document (Interagency Grizzly 

Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 25, 35–36), 

and its Supplement (Interagency Grizzly 

Bear Study Team 2006, pp. 2–10). 

Throughout the rulemaking process we 

also carefully considered the matter of 

uncertainty and its implications to 

management decisions. For additional 

discussion about sources of stochasticity 

and their effects on population 

persistence, see our response to Issue 5 

under subheading R below. 

Issue 5—One commenter noted that 

the Service presents the estimated 

annual population growth rate as 

between 4 and 7 percent per year. This 

presentation deceptively makes it seem 

that these are the upper and lower 

bounds of a confidence interval, not 

merely two point estimates based on 

different assumptions; and, the Service 

claims that the total population size in 

2004 was 588 individuals but does not 

disclose the confidence intervals around 

this estimate. 

Response—The 4 to 7 percent annual 

population growth rate is based on 

analyses conducted by Harris et al. 

(2006, p. 48) using survival estimates of 

grizzly bears determined by Haroldson 

et al. (2006b, p. 36). Haroldson et al. 

(2006b, p. 34–35) used a data set of 323 

independent (greater than 2 years old) 

radio-collared bears, but analyzed the 

data two different ways to address the 

bears with unknown fates. Specifically, 

they estimated the survival rate for each 

of those data sets, assuming bears whose 

fates were unknown either all lived or 

all died, to establish the most 

conservative and most optimistic 

survival rates. The true estimate must be 

bracketed by those two bounds. The 

resulting annual survival rates of 

independent female bears were either 

92.2 percent or 95.0 percent depending 

on which interpretation of unknown 

fate is used. 

Harris et al. (2006, p. 48) then used 

the two survival estimates produced by 

Haroldson et al. (2006b, p. 35) to 

estimate the growth rate of the GYA 

grizzly population from 1983 to 2002. 

For the estimate of population growth 

rate based on the assumption that all 

females with unknown fates died at last 

contact, the mean value of lambda is 

1.042, with an approximate 95 percent 

confidence interval of 0.969–1.093. For 

the estimate of population growth rate 

when adult survival was estimated 

assuming females with unknown fates 

survived, the mean value is 1.076, with 

an approximate 95 percent confidence 

interval of 1.003–1.113. 

These population growth rates mean 

that the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population was increasing at a rate of 

4.2 percent or 7.6 percent per year 

between 1983 and 2002 (Harris et al. 

2006, p. 48). Those estimates are often 

reported as ‘‘a growth rate between 4 

percent and 7 percent.’’ That does not 

refer to a 95 percent confidence interval. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14881 

Instead, it refers to an estimate based on 

the assumption that all bears whose 

fates were unknown died at the time 

their radio transmissions stopped (4.2 

percent), and an estimate based on the 

assumption that all bears whose fates 

were unknown were alive at the time 

their radio transmissions stopped (7.6 

percent). Those assumptions result in 

conservative bounds, because some 

bears assumed to have died in the 4 

percent growth rate data set were 

probably still alive, and because some 

bears assumed to be alive in the 7 

percent growth rate data set were 

probably dead. The true population 

growth rate from 1983 to 2002 was 

probably between 4 and 7 percent. 

Regarding the confidence interval 

around the total population estimate, 

the index of total population size is 

produced using the total number, an 

estimate of the total number of females 

with cubs-of-the-year (Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 24–

26), and the proportions of females in 

the population applied to the 

proportions of sex and age classes in the 

population. The Chao2 estimator, a 

statistical tool used to correct sighting 

variability, was chosen by the Study 

Team to estimate the number of females 

with cubs-of-the-year (Keating et al. 

2002, p. 170; Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Study Team 2005, pp. 25–26) because it 

consistently returns results that are 

correct or biased low (Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, p. 20). 

Confidence intervals for the total 

population index from years 1983 to 

2005 are reported in the Supplement to 

the Reassessing Methods Document 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2006, p. 15). For 2005, the total 

population index is 546 bears with a 95 

percent confidence interval between 491 

and 602 (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study 

Team 2006, p. 15). 

Issue 6—Several commenters 

questioned why we were not using 

deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) based 

methods, like the survey conducted in 

the NCDE during the summer of 2004, 

to get an accurate estimate of total 

population size. They considered DNA 

to be the best available method and 

wondered why this method was not 

employed before proposing to delist this 

population. 

Response—The methods developed 

for producing a population index in the 

Yellowstone ecosystem are based on the 

best available science and built on 

intensive sampling of this population 

for almost 26 years. These methods 

produce annually updated population 

size indices and continuously updated 

population trend estimates. Although 

the use of DNA to estimate population 

size has become more common in recent 

years (Mowat and Strobeck 2000, p. 183; 

Bellemain et al. 2005, p. 150; Solberg et 

al. 2006, p. 158), the method used to 

make a one-time total population 

estimate for the NCDE would be less 

useful in the GYA than current 

methods. DNA was chosen as the 

population estimate system in the NCDE 

because this ecosystem did not have the 

long-term consistent sampling data that 

exists in Yellowstone. The final point 

estimate for population size in the 

NCDE will be available in early 2007 

and will be a one-time estimate for 

2004—the year the sampling was done. 

Once completed, this DNA-based 

system will have taken 4 years and cost 

$4.5 million, to produce a 2004 

population estimate. Given that the 

long-term intensive data were available 

in Yellowstone, population size 

estimates based upon peer-reviewed, 

published methods existed, and because 

the methods used in Yellowstone allow 

continuously updated population 

indices rather than a one-time estimate, 

the application of a DNA-based system 

was unnecessary for the Yellowstone 

ecosystem. 

Issue 7—One commenter noted that 

we violated the Administrative 

Procedure Act and the Endangered 

Species Act by not disclosing the 

apparent ‘‘population crash’’ that 

occurred in 2005 using the revised 

methods described in the Reassessing 

Methods Document (2004 = 588, 2005 = 

350) and discussing its implications for 

the population. 

Response—No population crash 

occurred in 2005. In 2004, a large 

number of females had cubs. Because 

female grizzly bears usually produce 

litters once every 3 years, high cub 

production years are typically followed 

by years with fewer cubs because less of 

the adult female population is available 

for breeding. The index of total 

population size described in the 

Reassessing Methods Document 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2005, pp. 5–9) is not equivalent to an 

exact number of animals in the 

population due to this natural biological 

variation associated with cub 

production in grizzly bear populations 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2006, pp. 1–2). Fluctuations in the 

estimate of population size are expected 

and addressed through the use of a 

modeling average technique to estimate 

the total number of females with cubsof-the-year (Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Study Team 2006, pp. 2–7). 

Issue 8—One commenter stated that 

we claim that the Act only mandates 

that a species be ‘‘viable,’’ rather than 

‘‘recovered.’’ They believed that this 

perceived interpretation has led us to 

focus on reducing mortality within 

occupied habitat rather than restoring 

formerly wide-ranging species to 

historically occupied habitat. This 

commenter noted that the courts have 

repeatedly rejected this interpretation 

and that true recovery requires 

connectivity or linkage, protection and 

enhancement of existing populations, 

meaningful habitat protections, 

adequate regulatory mechanisms, and 

recolonization of historic suitable 

habitat such that ecological 

effectiveness (Trombulak 2006) is 

restored. 

Response—We disagree with the 

assertion that we have focused on 

viability instead of recovery. The 

principal goal of the Act is to return 

listed species to a point at which 

protection under the Act is no longer 

required (50 CFR 424.11(d)(2)). A 

species may be delisted on the basis of 

recovery only if the best scientific and 

commercial data available indicate that 

it is no longer endangered or threatened 

within all or a significant portion of its 

range (50 CFR 424.11(d)). As described 

later in this rule, we believe the 

Yellowstone DPS meets neither of these 

definitions for listing, thereby justifying 

delisting due to recovery. 

We also disagree with the claim that 

we have over-emphasized mortality 

control at the expense of other recovery 

goals. To date, recovery efforts have 

focused on sufficient mortality control, 

habitat monitoring, population levels, 

distribution, management of habitat 

effectiveness and habitat security, 

monitoring of all grizzly bear/human 

conflicts, genetic analyses, and linkage 

zone maintenance. This comprehensive 

approach to recovery has led to reduced 

mortality, increasing population 

numbers, and significant increases in 

range, allowing grizzly bears to 

reoccupy habitat they have been absent 

from for decades, as well as 

demographic and habitat security into 

the foreseeable future. Grizzly bears 

now occupy 68 percent of suitable 

habitat within the DPS and will likely 

occupy the remainder within the 

foreseeable future. However, the Service 

does not believe that restoration of 

grizzly bears to all historic habitats 

(particularly those no longer capable of 

supporting grizzly bear populations) 

within the DPS boundaries is necessary 

or possible. 

While some have suggested 

recolonization of historically suitable 

habitat to achieve ‘‘ecological 

effectiveness’’ (Trombulak 2006), the 

Act neither requires us to consider 

ecological effectiveness, nor do we have 

any objective way of measuring this 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14882 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

type of success currently. We do not 

believe the restoration of the grizzly 

bear as a top predator and scavenger 

throughout all historically occupied 

habitat is feasible or required. Instead, 

we have restored grizzly bears to most 

of their suitable habitat within the DPS 

and anticipate the State management 

plans will lead to re-occupancy of the 

remaining suitable habitat in the near 

future. Other issues such as linkage are 

only relevant to this rulemaking to the 

extent that they impact the Yellowstone 

DPS. For example, connectivity or a lack 

thereof, has the potential to impact this 

population’s genetic fitness. As such, 

this issue is discussed and addressed in 

our five factor analysis (see Factor E 

below) and in the Strategy. 

C. Public Involvement 

Issue 1—Several commenters believe 

that the Service did not provide 

meaningful ways for the public in areas 

other than Bozeman, Montana, Cody 

and Jackson, Wyoming, and Idaho Falls, 

Idaho, to participate in a dialogue about 

this national issue, except via Web sites 

and mail. Numerous commenters at 

public hearings, in letters, and in emails 

encouraged the Service to give greater 

consideration to opinions of people that 

live in grizzly bear country than 

opinions of those that do not have to 

deal with grizzlies in their daily lives. 

Conversely, many argued that the 

grizzly bear is a national and 

international treasure and that all 

Americans should have an equal voice 

in how they are to be managed. 

Response—The public comment 

process considers all comments equally 

and gives no preference based on where 

commenters live or what format 

commenters use to comment. We 

believe that providing multiple formats 

for commenting on the proposed rule, 

including hand delivery, e-mail, and 

U.S. mail lessened the need for formal 

hearings throughout the country. 

Because all comments are considered 

equally, it does not matter whether 

comments were submitted via hand 

delivery, e-mail, mail, or public hearing. 

In fact, commenting via e-mail, hand 

delivery, or letter allowed unlimited 

space to express comments, as opposed 

to the public hearing format, which 

limited comments to three minutes in 

order to provide an opportunity for all 

attending to speak. 

Issue 2—Several commenters stated 

that asking the public to comment on 

the proposed rule when none of the 

supporting documents (Reassessing 

Methods Document, Habitat-Based 

Recovery Criteria, the Strategy, and the 

Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear 

Habitat Conservation for the GYA 

National Forests) have been finalized 

does not allow the public to know what 

they are commenting on; furthermore, 

the Act requires an analysis of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, not those that 

will be added in the future. 

Response—The Strategy and the 

Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria 

supplement to the Recovery Plan have 

been finalized (72 FR 11376; 72 FR 

11376–11377). There have been no 

significant changes from the drafts of 

Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria, the 

Strategy, and the Forest Plan 

Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat 

Conservation for the GYA National 

Forests. All the supporting documents 

have been available for full public 

review, in accordance with the 

Administrative Procedure Act (62 FR 

47677, September 10, 1997; 64 FR 

38464, July 16, 1999; 64 FR 38465, July 

16, 1999; 70 FR 70632, November 22, 

2005). The proposed rule also noted that 

these draft documents were available 

online at—http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ 

grizzly/yellowstone.htm. As envisioned 

by the Administrative Procedure Act, 

changes to the Reassessing Methods 

Document were made in response to 

public comments. These changes did 

not affect our final determination from 

that described in the draft rule. We 

responded to comments in the final 

documents. The Strategy and the Forest 

Plan Amendment are existing regulatory 

mechanisms that are currently in 

existence and take effect upon 

implementation of this final rule. 

Therefore, we considered these 

mechanisms when determining if the 

regulatory mechanisms were sufficient 

to protect the Yellowstone DPS’

recovered status. 

Issue 3—Some commenters stated that 

the Service violated the Endangered 

Species Act and Administrative 

Procedure Act by not providing the raw 

data upon which it relied, thereby 

hindering the public’s ability to 

comment on the proposed rule; ‘‘[T]he 

Administrative Procedure Act requires 

the agency to make available to the 

public, in a form that allows for 

meaningful comment, the data the 

agency used to develop the proposed 

rule.’’

Response—We have a responsibility 

to rely upon the best scientific and 

commercial data available. In this case, 

we relied upon numerous peer reviewed 

and published documents that we made 

available upon request. Much of this 

information was publicly available 

when we published our proposed rule 

and during our public comment period. 

For example, mortality information, 

including date of death, sex, age, 

certainty of death, if the bear was 

marked or not, and location are 

published annually in the Study Team’s 

annual reports, available at: http:// 

www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbsthome.htm. However, requests received 

for exact locations of grizzly bears 

obtained via radio-telemetry and GPS 

radio-collars (i.e., ‘‘raw data’’) could not 

be honored because this information 

was not in our possession. Additionally, 

without the permission of the Secretary 

of the Interior, the Omnibus Parks and 

Public Lands Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 

5937) prohibits the release of specific 

locations of threatened species that 

spend any part of their lives within 

National Parks. 

D. Compliance With Court Settlements 

Issue 1—Some commenters claimed 

that the Service violated the Fund for 

Animals court settlement (Fund for 

Animals v. Babbitt), by publishing the 

proposed rule to delist before finalizing 

the Habitat Based Recovery Criteria. 

They noted that the Fund for Animals 

settlement stated that ‘‘Prior to 

publishing any proposed rule to delist 

any grizzly bear population, the Service 

will establish habitat-based recovery 

criteria for that population’s ecosystem 

* * * . In any such rulemaking to 

delist a grizzly bear population, the 

Service will utilize the Habitat Based 

Recovery Criteria, as well as all other 

pertinent recovery criteria that have 

been established, when addressing the 5 

factors set forth in section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act.’’

Response—In 1994, The Fund for 

Animals, Inc., and 42 other 

organizations and individuals filed suit 

over the adequacy of the 1993 Recovery 

Plan (Fund for Animals v. Babbitt). The 

court remanded the Recovery Plan to us 

for further study, and in 1996 the parties 

reached a settlement agreement. As part 

of the settlement we agreed to hold a 

workshop on the habitat-based recovery 

criteria and to append habitat-based 

recovery criteria to the Recovery Plan. 

On June 17, 1997, we held a public 

workshop in Bozeman, Montana, to 

develop and refine habitat-based 

recovery criteria for the grizzly bear. A 

Federal Register notice notified the 

public of this workshop and provided 

interested parties an opportunity to 

participate and submit comments (62 FR 

19777, April 23, 1997). 

After considering 1,167 written 

comments, we developed biologicallybased habitat criteria with the goal of 

maintaining or improving habitat 

conditions at 1998 levels. These draft 

criteria were published in the Federal 

Register on July 16, 1999 (64 FR 38464–

38465), and a copy of the habitat-based 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14883 

criteria also is available at—http:// 

mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ 

mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm. 

These revised habitat-based recovery 

criteria were relied upon in the 

proposed rule and have since been 

appended to the Recovery Plan and 

incorporated into the Strategy (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 39–43). 

Importantly, these habitat-based 

recovery criteria have not changed 

significantly since being drafted and 

being made available for public 

comment in 1999. The Strategy ensures 

they will continue to be met in the 

foreseeable future. Our proposed rule 

and this final rule utilized the habitatbased recovery criteria, as well as all 

other pertinent recovery criteria, when 

addressing the 5 factors set forth in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Issue 2—Some commenters noted that 

we cannot claim that the demographic 

recovery goals have been met because 

the goals cited have been found 

inadequate by the courts. 

Response—The demographic recovery 

goals have not been found inadequate 

by the courts. The court opinion (Fund 

for Animals v. Babbitt, p. 30) stated, 

‘‘Based on the record the court does not 

find that the defendant’s designation of 

population targets is arbitrary and 

capricious.’’ The court directed us to 

‘‘reconsider the available evidence and 

its decision to adopt the population 

monitoring methodology that it has 

incorporated into the Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Plan.’’ We did so in a formal 

response to public comments regarding 

the supplemental information 

(accessible at http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ 

grizzly/yellowstone.htm) and found 

these methods were the best available 

methods when the Recovery Plan was 

written in 1993. In order to apply the 

best available methods at the time of 

proposing delisting, we worked with the 

U.S. Geological Survey and the Study 

Team to begin the process detailed in 

the Reassessing Methods Document 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2005, pp. 12–41) to consider and apply 

newer science to the issues of 

population monitoring and the 

establishment of sustainable mortality. 

This effort has resulted in the improved 

methods appended to the Recovery Plan 

and incorporated into the Strategy. 

E. Significant Portion of Range 

Issue 1—Many commenters expressed 

dissenting views and interpretations of 

the Act’s phrase ‘‘significant portion of 

its range’’ as it is used to define a 

threatened species, or in this case, a 

recovered species. Some stated that 

range does or should mean historical 

range, thereby obligating us to recover 

species across a significant portion of 

their historical range to be considered 

recovered. Some commenters disagreed 

with our definition of range and said 

that it was the same as the courtinvalidated wolf rule (68 FR 15804, 

April 1, 2003), which stated that range, 

when defined as ‘‘the area within the 

DPS boundaries where viable 

populations of the species now exist,’’

was circular because if we define range 

as where grizzlies currently are and then 

conclude that they are therefore 

recovered within a significant portion of 

that range, this would have meant they 

were recovered in 1975. Several 

commenters noted that we must explain 

why the Yellowstone grizzly bear is no 

longer threatened by the loss of its 

historical range. 

Response—A species may be delisted 

according to 50 CFR 424.11(d) if the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

demonstrate that the threats to that 

species, as described in section 4(a)(1), 

have been removed such that it is 

neither endangered nor threatened. The 

Act defines an ‘‘endangered species’’ as 

one that ‘‘is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range.’’ A ‘‘threatened species’’ is one 

that ‘‘is likely to become endangered in 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range.’’ One 

consideration in deciding whether a 

species meets either of these definitions 

is the interpretation of ‘‘significant 

portion of its range.’’

For a detailed discussion of ‘‘range’’

under the Act, see the Summary of 

Factors Affecting the Species portion of 

this rule below. That said, historical 

range is only relevant to the discussion 

of ‘‘significant portion of the range’’ to 

the extent that it may offer evidence 

whether a species in its current range is 

likely to become endangered in the 

foreseeable future. In such situations, 

historical range is considered in the 

listing factor section 4(a)(1) analysis. 

Our 5-factor analysis was conducted 

over the entire current and foreseeable 

range of the grizzly bear including all 

‘‘suitable habitat’’ within the DPS 

(defined and discussed under Factor A 

below). While grizzly bears once 

occurred throughout the area of the 

Yellowstone DPS (Stebler 1972, pp. 

297–299), records indicate that even in 

the early 19th century, grizzly bears 

were less common in these eastern 

prairie habitats than in mountainous 

areas to the west and south (Rollins 

1935, p. 191; Wade 1947, p. 444). 

Today, these habitats are no longer 

biologically suitable for grizzly bears as 

they lack adequate food resources (i.e., 

bison). These unsuitable areas are not 

relevant to the current or foreseeable 

status of the Yellowstone DPS. The 

current range of the DPS supports a 

population of adequate quantity and 

distribution to ensure a recovered 

population into the foreseeable future. 

And, additional unoccupied suitable 

habitat will provide opportunities for 

continued population growth. Finally, 

as discussed below, a lack of occupancy 

of all historic habitat within the DPS 

will not impact whether this population 

is likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. 

Issue 2—One commenter noted that 

because grizzly bears experience 

negative growth rates outside the PCA, 

they are in danger in this portion of 

their range. The commenter believes 

that the area outside the PCA constitutes 

a significant portion of their range 

because we include all grizzly bears and 

the lands they currently occupy to make 

the statement that they are recovered 

within a significant portion of their 

range. 

Response—We agree that the suitable 

habitat outside the PCA represents a 

significant portion of the range, albeit 

less significant than suitable habitat 

within the PCA. See the Significant 

Portion of Range discussion under 

Factor A below for a more detailed 

discussion of this issue. That said, 

grizzly bears are not in ‘‘danger’’ in 

areas outside the PCA. The Yellowstone 

grizzly population is a single population 

with mortalities counted in all areas 

inside the Conservation Strategy 

Management Area (Figure 1) and 

sustainable mortality limits established 

for the entire population. The overall 

population growth rate will be managed 

for a stable to increasing population as 

per the methods and direction in the 

Reassessing Methods Document 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2005, pp. 5–11). Although the 

population may experience negative 

growth rates in some areas, this is not 

biologically significant. It would be 

inappropriate to suggest one ‘‘segment’’

is declining, while another ‘‘segment’’ is 

increasing because the population is 

contiguous and is considered as a whole 

entity per our DPS analysis above. The 

overall trajectory of the population will 

remain stable to increasing. 

F. DPS Policy 

Issue 1—Some commenters believe 

that the DPS policy is to be used only 

in listing decisions and that using it in 

a delisting decision violates 

Congressional intent and the legislative 

and statutory structure of the Act. 

Response—We disagree with this 

interpretation of the DPS policy. The 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14884 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Act, its implementing regulations, and 

our DPS policy provide no support for 

this interpretation. Section 4(a)(1) of the 

Act directs the Secretary of the Interior 

to determine whether ‘‘any species’’ is 

endangered or threatened. Numerous 

sections of the Act refer to adding and 

removing ‘‘species’’ from the list of 

threatened or endangered plants and 

animals. Section 3(15) defines ‘‘species’’

to include any subspecies ‘‘and any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

***.’’ The Act directs us to list, 

reclassify, and delist species, 

subspecies, and DPSs of vertebrate 

species. It contains no provisions 

requiring, or even allowing, DPSs to be 

treated in a different manner than 

species or subspecies when carrying out 

the listing, recovery, and delisting 

functions mandated by section 4. 

Furthermore, our DPS Policy states that 

the policy is intended for ‘‘the purposes 

of listing, delisting, and reclassifying 

species under the Act’’ (61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996), and that it ‘‘guides 

the evaluation of distinct vertebrate 

population segments for the purposes of 

listing, delisting, and reclassifying 

under the Act’’ (61 FR 4725, February 7, 

1996). 

The comment also overlooks the 

untenable situation that would arise if 

DPSs could be listed but could never be 

delisted after they have been 

successfully recovered. Clearly Congress 

did not envision such an outcome when 

amending the definition of species to 

include vertebrate DPSs. 

Issue 2—A commenter noted that the 

DPS analysis in the proposed rule 

created a remnant population, contrary 

to a court decision. They stated that the 

Act allows us to ‘‘consider listing only 

an entire species, subspecies, or DPS’’

(Alsea Valley Alliance v. Evans, 161 F. 

Supp. 2d 1154, 1162 (D. Or. 2001)); 

therefore, we cannot declare part of a 

listed subspecies a DPS without also 

designating the remaining listed 

subspecies as DPS(s). This commenter 

suggests that we reconsider the status of 

all other lower 48 grizzly bear 

populations simultaneously and should 

not delist the GYA population until we 

uplist all other populations in the Lower 

48 States. 

Response—While in some situations 

it may be appropriate to designate 

multiple DPSs simultaneously, the lack 

of such a requirement provides useful 

flexibility, allowing the Service to 

subsequently list or delist additional 

DPSs when additional information 

becomes available or as the conservation 

status of the taxon changes. Importantly, 

courts have upheld this flexibility. In 

National Wildlife Federation v. Norton 

(1:03–CV–340, D. VT. 2005, p. 20), the 

court found that ‘‘Nowhere in the Act is 

the Secretary prevented from creating a 

‘non-DPS remnant’ designation, 

especially when the remnant area was 

already listed’’ * * *. Our current 

designation of a Yellowstone DPS, while 

retaining the remaining lower 48 State 

grizzly bear listing intact as threatened, 

is consistent with this aspect of the 

District Court’s ruling. 

Furthermore, just as the Yellowstone 

DPS is discrete from the remaining 

populations in the lower 48 States, the 

remaining populations are discrete from 

the Yellowstone DPS. The amended 

lower 48 State listing is discrete from 

Canadian populations of Ursus arctos 

horribilis as delineated by the United 

States/Canadian international boundary 

with significant differences in control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

conservation status, and regulatory 

mechanisms. The amended lower 48 

State listing is significant in that the loss 

of the lower 48 State population would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of the taxon (U. a. horribilis). Therefore, 

the amended lower 48 State listing is 

discrete and significant. 

Additional analysis is required to 

determine if the amended lower 48 State 

listing warrants further splitting into 

additional DPSs. For now, the 

warranted-but-precluded findings for 

uplisting (from threatened to 

endangered) the Selkirk, the North 

Cascades, and the Cabinet-Yaak 

populations remain precluded by higher 

priority actions (71 FR 53755, 53835, 

September 12, 2006). While these 

warranted-but-precluded findings are 

reviewed annually, we intend to review 

the status of the entire amended lower 

48 State listing that results from this 

final rule in an upcoming 5-year review, 

as per section 4(c)(2)(A) of the Act. 

Issue 3—One commenter 

recommended that the Service use 

evolutionary divergence (Hall’s 

subspecies) to designate DPSs across 

their historical range and that these 

should replace or supplement the 

current recovery zones. 

Response—The subspecies approach 

identified by Hall (1984, pp. 2–11) 

suggested seven different North 

American grizzly bear subspecies and is 

not in accordance with accepted 

scientific taxonomic literature and 

approaches. We accept the holarctic 

species concept and North American 

subspecies designations established by 

the works of Couterier (1954, p. 5), 

Rausch (1953, pp. 95–107; 1963, p. 43), 

and Kurten (1968, p. 127–128). This 

literature establishes one single 

holarctic species (Ursus arctos) and two 

North American subspecies, U. a. 

horribilis and U. a. middendorfi. U. a. 

horribilis is the subspecies that occurs 

in North America outside of Kodiak 

Island, Alaska. Therefore, the current 

recovery zones consider recovery in 

light of this taxonomy. 

Issue 4—Some commenters noted that 

we violated the DPS policy because we 

failed to consider the effect of delisting 

the Yellowstone DPS on rangewide 

recovery of the species, especially in the 

Bitterroot Ecosystem, which is currently 

unoccupied by grizzly bears but 

considered vital to the metapopulation 

dynamics of grizzlies in the Lower 48 

States. 

Response—The DPS policy was 

carefully followed in designating the 

Yellowstone DPS. The delisting of the 

Yellowstone DPS will not have 

detrimental impacts on grizzly bear 

recovery actions in other recovery 

zones, as the grizzly bears in these areas 

remain threatened under the Act. As 

such, coordinated recovery efforts will 

continue in these areas. 

Issue 5—Several commenters 

disagreed with the delineation of the 

boundaries for the Yellowstone DPS. 

Some believe that because the 

boundaries were mainly highways, they 

were arbitrary and not based on sound 

biological principles. Others believe that 

the DPS should be expanded to the 

north to allow for more dispersal 

because, currently, suitable habitat on 

the northern edge extends nearly to the 

DPS boundary. Others believe that the 

DPS boundaries should include the 

entire State of Wyoming to lessen 

confusion and allow for management by 

the State of Wyoming if bears disperse 

south of Interstate 80. 

Response—As noted in the proposed 

rule, an artificial or manmade boundary 

(such as Interstate, Federal, and State 

highways) may be used as a boundary 

of convenience in order to clearly 

identify the geographic area included 

within a DPS designation. The 

Yellowstone DPS boundaries were 

defined along easily identifiable 

boundaries and included the entire 

recovery zone, the primary conservation 

area, the conservation strategy 

management area, all suitable habitat 

within the GYA based on biological 

information, and all occupied habitat. 

We believe this represents the most 

appropriate DPS for this population. 

Expansion of the DPS boundaries is not 

necessary to maintain a recovered 

grizzly bear population and is not 

justified biologically, given the limited 

dispersal capabilities of grizzly bears. 

Issue 6—Some commenters pointed 

out that it would be confusing for State 

and Federal managers to have a grizzly 

bear roam outside of the boundaries, for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14885 

instance west of Interstate 15, and then 

be considered a threatened species. To 

address this confusion, some 

commenters believe that any grizzly 

bear originating from the Yellowstone 

DPS should be considered part of that 

DPS, regardless of where they are 

geographically. 

Response—A DPS is a geographic 

designation determining the listed 

status for all individuals of said species 

in that area. Bears outside the DPS area, 

no matter their origin, are listed as 

threatened under the Act. The State and 

Federal agencies are aware of and 

understand the management 

implications of the DPS boundaries. We 

used easily identifiable boundaries such 

as the center line of major highways to 

minimize management confusion. If a 

grizzly bear goes beyond the 

Yellowstone DPS boundaries, it would 

become a threatened grizzly bear. 

Similarly, if a grizzly bear from another 

population enters the Yellowstone DPS 

boundaries, it would be managed 

according to the Strategy and State 

management plans. 

Issue 7—One commenter stated that 

the DPS designation would preclude 

augmentation because it would destroy 

the genetic uniqueness of the DPS. 

Response—Designation of the DPS 

would not preclude future 

augmentation, if we determine 

augmentation to be necessary to 

maintain genetic fitness. The DPS Policy 

does not require complete separation of 

one DPS from other populations, but 

instead requires ‘‘marked separation.’’

As stated in the 1993 Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Plan, natural connectivity is 

important to long-term grizzly bear 

conservation, and we will continue 

efforts to work toward this goal 

(whether accomplished naturally or 

through augmentation) independent of 

the delisting of the Yellowstone DPS 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, p. 

53). Thus, if occasional individual 

grizzly bears disperse among 

populations or are moved intentionally, 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS would 

still display the required level of 

discreteness, per the DPS Policy. Gene 

flow through either linkage or 

augmentation is discussed further under 

Factor E below. 

Issue 8—One commenter stated that 

he could not find the ‘‘genetic 

monitoring information’’ to be 

appended to the Recovery Plan. 

Response—This document was made 

available for public review and 

comment in 1997 (62 FR 47677, 

September 10, 1997) and noticed again 

in 1999 (64 FR 38465, July 16, 1999). As 

noted in the proposed rule, the 

document also was posted on our 

website for the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population (http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ 

grizzly/yellowstone.htm). This 

document does not describe recovery 

criteria, as current levels of genetic 

diversity are consistent with known 

historic levels and do not threaten the 

long-term viability of the species, and 

instead proposes a post-delisting 

monitoring strategy to ensure that 

necessary levels of gene flow occur so 

that this population retains its recovered 

status for the foreseeable future. This 

1999 information was never formally 

appended to the 1993 Recovery Plan. 

Due to the continuous and rapid 

evolution of the genetics field, this 

information no longer reflects the most 

up-to-date and scientifically sound 

approach. Therefore, we have 

determined that it is no longer 

appropriate to append the 1999 genetic 

monitoring methods and management 

responses to the Recovery Plan. Instead, 

a new genetic monitoring approach 

which reflects the most recent, best 

available science will be applied to the 

future management of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS as described in the 

Strategy’s updating process (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 63). The 

Coordinating Committee will commence 

this genetic monitoring information 

updating process, which will include a 

public comment process, within 6 

months of this final rule becoming 

effective. 

G. Definition of Suitable Habitat 

Issue 1—Several commenters 

requested that we explain why lands 

excluded from our definition of suitable 

habitat or the State’s definitions do not 

constitute a significant portion of the 

grizzly bears’ range. 

Response—None of these unsuitable 

areas, either individually or collectively, 

are capable of contributing, in a 

meaningful way, to the overall status of 

the Yellowstone DPS. Therefore, these 

unsuitable areas do not represent a 

significant portion of the Yellowstone 

DPS range because their exclusion will 

not influence population trajectory or 

population health. Suitable habitat 

inside the PCA, which contains 84 to 90 

percent of the population of females 

with cubs (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 64), 

the most important age and sex group to 

population trajectory, will be protected 

by the habitat standards in the Strategy. 

Grizzly bears also will be allowed to 

expand into currently unoccupied 

suitable habitat as per the State plans. 

Outside the PCA, 60 percent of suitable 

habitat is protected by its status as 

Designated Wilderness, Wilderness 

Study Area, or Inventoried Roadless 

Area. Areas outside of suitable habitat 

will not affect the trajectory or health of 

the Yellowstone population now or in 

the future. A lack of occupancy of 

historic habitat will not impact whether 

this population is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Issue 2—Several commenters believe 

that the decision to exclude sheep 

allotments as suitable habitat was based 

upon social considerations rather than 

biology. Instead, they stated that ‘‘* * * 

mortality rates in these areas are not a 

function of the habitat itself, but of landuse decisions’’ and that the habitat 

could be made suitable by regulatory 

mechanisms. One commenter suggested 

that the Service be upfront and clear 

that the definition of suitable habitat 

‘‘* * * is not based solely on an 

evaluation of the grizzly bear’s resource 

needs.’’ Another commenter requested 

that we prepare an analysis of what 

proportions of their lives individual 

grizzlies spend in ‘‘suitable’’ versus 

‘‘unsuitable’’ habitat. 

Response—Our determination that 

sheep allotments were not suitable for 

grizzly bears was based on mortality 

rates, which is a biological issue. In 

areas of high conflict potential such as 

campgrounds, management actions are 

taken to limit grizzly bear presence or 

use. The sheep allotments outside 

suitable habitat are not necessary to 

ensure that this population avoids 

becoming threatened within all or a 

significant portion of its range in the 

foreseeable future. Because of the 

habitat protections inside the PCA and 

the large percentage of suitable habitat 

outside the PCA (60 percent) that is 

currently a Designated Wilderness Area 

(6,799 sq km/4,225 sq mi), Wilderness 

Study Area (708 sq km/440 sq mi), or 

Inventoried Roadless Area (6,179 sq km/ 

3,839 sq mi), the long-term persistence 

of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population is assured without the sheep 

allotments. 

Our definition of suitable habitat 

reflects the best available science and is 

adequate to ensure that the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population is not likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The 

three criteria we used to define suitable 

habitat in the proposed rule are—(1) 

being of adequate habitat quality and 

quantity to support grizzly bear 

reproduction and survival (i.e., within 

the Middle Rockies ecoregion—please 

see discussion below in Suitable Habitat 

section under Factor A); (2) contiguous 

with the current distribution of 

Yellowstone grizzly bears such that 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14886 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

natural re-colonization is possible; and 

(3) having low mortality risk as 

indicated through reasonable and 

manageable levels of grizzly bear 

mortality. Upon the request of one peer 

reviewer and in response to this issue, 

we undertook additional analyses to 

examine how much suitable habitat 

would exist in the GYA under different 

definitions of suitable habitat. 

If grizzly bears were given priority 

over all other land uses, we found that 

an additional 13,837 sq km (5,342 sq mi) 

of habitat exists that meets the first two 

criteria for our definition of suitable 

habitat (found within the Middle 

Rockies ecoregion and contiguous with 

the current population distribution). Of 

that ‘‘potentially’’ suitable habitat, 

nearly 16 percent (2,184 sq km (843 sq 

mi)) is privately owned. The remaining 

habitat is 70 percent National Forest 

(9,637 sq km (3,720 sq mi)), 8.5 percent 

BLM (1,171 sq km (452 sq mi)), 4 

percent State-owned (545 sq km (211 sq 

mi)), and less than 2 percent in other 

Federal ownerships (200 sq km/77 sq 

mi). 

Although management direction 

could change on these Federal and 

State-owned lands to favor grizzly bears 

by eliminating all other uses (e.g., 

livestock grazing allotments, oil and gas 

development), this action is not 

biologically necessary to maintain the 

recovered status of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear. These areas do not 

constitute a significant portion of the 

range. If this habitat became biologically 

necessary in the future due to decreases 

in habitat quality or excessive mortality, 

the adaptive management approach 

described in the Strategy would allow 

managers to modify the management 

within what is currently ‘‘potentially’’

suitable habitat on public lands. 

When we examine all areas found 

within the DPS boundaries that are 

within the Middle Rockies ecoregion 

and do not consider whether these areas 

are contiguous with the current grizzly 

bear population, an additional 7,178 sq 

km (2,771 sq mi) of habitat meets this 

sole criterion. Of this ‘‘potentially 

suitable’’ habitat that is not contiguous 

with the current distribution of grizzly 

bears, 6,341 sq km (2,448 sq mi) is 

contained within the Bighorn 

Mountains and 837 sq km (323 sq mi) 

within the Pryor Mountains on the 

Wyoming and Montana border. 

Distances between these mountain 

ranges, the current distribution of 

grizzly bears, and land uses in the 

intervening habitat will preclude 

dispersal of most males and most, if not 

all, females. Without constant emigrants 

from suitable habitat, it is highly 

unlikely that the Bighorns or the Pryor 

Mountains can support a self-sustaining 

grizzly bear population. Again, this 

‘‘potentially suitable’’ habitat is not 

biologically necessary to maintain the 

recovered status of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS. 

We have determined that an analysis 

examining the proportion of time grizzly 

bears spend in suitable and unsuitable 

habitats is unnecessary. Although this 

information may be useful when 

modeling source-sink dynamics, the 

sustainable mortality limits that have 

been established for the entire 

population ensure that mortality will 

not exceed recruitment. The Study 

Team will continue to monitor habitat 

use by radio-collared grizzly bears postdelisting and attempt to quantify why 

and where grizzly bears experience 

different mortality rates. 

Issue 3—Some commenters noted that 

we considered more than strictly 

biological criteria in the recovery 

process when we introduced the term 

‘‘socially acceptable’’ in the Strategy. 

Response—The presence of grizzly 

bears in places with high levels of 

human activity and human occupancy 

results in biological impacts to grizzly 

bears in terms of increased mortality 

risk and displacement. The level of this 

impact is directly related to the location 

and numbers of humans, their activities, 

and their attitudes and beliefs about 

grizzly bears. The consideration of 

human activities is fundamental to the 

management of grizzly bears and their 

habitat. 

Issue 4—Many commenters 

questioned whether the 1998 baseline 

applied exclusively inside the PCA was 

adequate to ensure the continued 

viability of the Yellowstone DPS. They 

noted that in 1998, the population was 

already occupying a large area outside 

of the recovery zone and, therefore, to 

conclude that habitat conditions inside 

the PCA are what contributed to the 

observed 4 to 7 percent population 

growth is to portray an incomplete 

picture of what occurred. Many 

commenters believed all currently 

occupied habitat should be protected 

since it has contributed to the growth of 

the population. Many commenters 

suggested that protections must be 

extended to all suitable habitat to ensure 

long-term viability of the Yellowstone 

DPS. One commenter recommended 

that we employ a reserve design 

approach with the PCA designated as 

the protected core of the GYA Reserve 

(with no hunting) and the rest of the 

GYA managed as a buffer zone (with all 

protections currently provided in the 

PCA being extended to the entire GYA). 

One commenter also noted that we must 

have data on habitat conditions outside 

of the PCA to draw a conclusion about 

future risks and habitat changes there. 

Response—The Service has applied a 

reserve design approach by designating 

the PCA. The PCA, which is a subset of 

the suitable habitat, contains between 

84 to 90 percent of the females with 

cubs (the population’s most important 

age and sex group) (Schwartz et al. 

2006b, p. 64). The population has been 

growing at 4 to 7 percent per year since 

the 1990s (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48), with 

most of the growth occurring inside the 

PCA (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 64). The 

best available information demonstrates 

that the PCA contains the habitat 

necessary for a healthy and viable 

grizzly bear population in the long-term. 

Strict habitat protection within the PCA 

is guaranteed to assure the future of the 

population. Sixty percent of suitable 

habitat outside the PCA is Designated 

Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, or 

Inventoried Roadless Area. This amount 

of protected habitat combined with the 

GYA National Forests’ commitment to 

manage habitat for a viable grizzly bear 

population, forest-wide food storage 

orders, and designation of the grizzly 

bear as a species-of-concern on GYA 

National Forests, gives the Service 

reasonable assurance that grizzly bears 

outside of the PCA will continue to be 

protected adequately. In addition, 

allowable hunting mortalities will be 

determined and limited by the total 

sustainable mortality limit. 

H. Habitat Protections 

Issue 1—Some commenters 

questioned the adequacy of the habitat 

protections that we developed for the 

PCA and advocated more meaningful 

habitat protections including baseline 

values for major foods, restrictions on 

private land development, and limits on 

both motorized and non-motorized 

recreation. 

Response—Our habitat protection 

criteria are adequate and biologically 

sound. There is no biological way to 

define ‘‘baseline’’ levels for various 

foods because the natural foods for 

grizzly bears naturally fluctuate, 

annually and spatially, across the 

ecosystem. Instead of establishing 

artificial baseline values for major 

grizzly bear foods, the protocol in place 

for the monitoring of major foods will 

provide annual indices of the variation 

of these foods, and will compare 

changes in these foods to grizzly bear 

vital rates such as mortality causes and 

locations, cub production and survival, 

adult female survival, and numbers and 

distribution of bear/human conflicts. 

The results will guide adaptive 

management responses to changes in 

foods such as enhanced Information and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14887 

Education (I & E) efforts, limiting grizzly 

bear mortality, planting whitebark pine, 

controlling exotic species, and/or 

prescribed burning. 

Private lands comprise 2.1 percent of 

the PCA. Limits on developing private 

lands to reduce conflicts with resident 

wildlife are the responsibility of the 

counties and the States. County 

representatives are members of the 

Coordinating Committee and will insure 

that efforts to limit conflicts on private 

lands will continue. Their cooperation 

with the State wildlife agencies to 

promote outreach, education and 

management of land development 

activities in grizzly habitat to reduce 

bear/human conflicts will continue 

upon delisting. These efforts to limit 

conflicts on private lands will continue 

under the Coordinating Committee’s 

management. 

Limiting motorized recreation is a 

fundamental component of the Strategy, 

hence the requirement for no net 

decrease in secure habitat inside the 

PCA. This measure directly limits the 

total area impacted by motorized 

recreation, so that grizzly bears have 

adequate secure habitat regardless of the 

number of people using motorized 

trails. Limitation of non-motorized 

recreation throughout the GYA is not 

currently necessary, as evidenced by the 

increasing grizzly bear population since 

the 1980’s (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). The 

adaptive management approach in the 

Strategy will allow managers to respond 

to detrimental levels of non-motorized 

recreation on a case-by-case basis and 

also provide managers with the data 

necessary to determine if ecosystemwide limitations may be necessary in 

the future. 

Issue 2—Numerous comments stated 

that grizzly bears must be allowed 

access to habitat in the Southern Wind 

Rivers, Palisades, and Wyoming Range 

so that they can find food in light of 

declining food sources. These areas are 

currently deemed as socially 

unacceptable habitat by the Idaho and 

Wyoming State management plans. 

Many commenters thought that the 

States should throw out their concept of 

‘‘socially acceptable’’ areas and should, 

instead, encourage colonization of all 

biologically suitable habitat while 

improving efforts to manage conflicts in 

those areas. 

Response—The Idaho Plan does not 

limit or restrict bears in the Palisades. 

The Idaho Plan acknowledges this area 

as one of many outside the PCA where 

grizzly bear occupancy is anticipated in 

the next 5 to 10 years (Idaho’s 

Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting 

Advisory Team 2002, pp. 8–9). The 

Wyoming Plan calls for management 

emphasis to limit conflicts in the 

southern Wind River and the Wyoming 

Ranges by discouraging grizzly bear 

dispersal and occupancy of these areas. 

The Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management 

Plan (WGFD 2005, pp. 12–16) does not 

exclude grizzlies from the southern 

Wind Rivers; rather, it recognizes a 

higher potential for grizzly bear/human 

conflicts if they move into areas such as 

the southern Wind River or Wyoming 

Mountain ranges. The presence of 

grizzly bears in places where there are 

high levels of human activity and 

occupancy results in biological impacts 

to grizzly bears in terms of increased 

mortality risk and displacement. 

Consideration of these potential 

biological impacts was a critical element 

in the determination of suitable habitat. 

As the grizzly population increases in 

area and density, an emphasis will be 

placed on education, conflict 

prevention, relocation, or removal of 

bears to limit conflicts. Because there 

have been few if any bears in these areas 

for many decades and the population 

has continued to grow during this time, 

these areas are presently not necessary 

to include in the PCA. 

Issue 3—Commenters requested that 

we consider potential changes in 

management of Inventoried Roadless 

Areas resulting from the 2005 Roadless 

Areas Rule (70 FR 25654) under which 

management decisions will be made 

based on State Governor’s petitions and 

individual Forest Plans. Some thought 

we should undertake a more detailed 

analysis of ‘‘* * * roadless areas that 

are specifically threatened [and] identify 

which formerly-protected areas are 

especially important to present and 

future grizzly bear conservation.’’

Response—The State Petitions for 

Inventoried Roadless Area Management 

Rule (70 FR 25654, May 13, 2005) that 

replaced the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (‘‘Roadless Rule’’) (66 

FR 3244, January 12, 2001) was 

overturned September 19, 2006 (People 

of the State of California ex rel. Bill 

Lockyer, et al. v. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture; Mike Johanns, Secretary of 

the Department of Agriculture, et al., 

C05–03508 EDL). The State Petitions for 

Inventoried Roadless Area Management 

Rule was set aside and the 2001 

Roadless Rule was reinstated. The 

USDA Forest Service was enjoined from 

taking any further action contrary to the 

2001 Roadless Rule without undertaking 

environmental analysis consistent with 

the court opinion. Because this court 

decision voided the State Petitions for 

Inventoried Roadless Area Management 

Rule, the 2005 Roadless Areas Rule has 

no impacts. Even if the State Petitions 

for Inventoried Roadless Area 

Management Rule is sustained in a 

possible appeal of the September 19, 

2006, court decision, the majority of 

roadless areas are likely to remain 

undeveloped. The six GYA National 

Forests are committed to managing for 

a viable grizzly bear population. If any 

roads are proposed to be built in 

roadless areas, the USDA Forest Service 

must first complete a formal National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) process and specifically 

consider the project’s impacts on 

species of concern, which the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

will be classified as post-delisting 

(USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26). 

State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless 

Area Management only allow the 

Governors to comment on the Forest 

Service process of considering 

management of Inventoried Roadless 

Areas and do not provide the Governors 

any authority to make decisions on road 

building. Any comments from the 

Governors would be considered during 

the EIS process. 

Issue 4—Several commenters 

suggested that we provide habitat 

protections for identified linkage zones 

between the GYA and other occupied 

and unoccupied grizzly bear habitat to 

the north and west. 

Response—A process to identify, 

maintain, and improve wildlife 

movement areas between the large 

blocks of public land in the Northern 

Rocky Mountains is ongoing (Servheen 

et al. 2003, p. 3). This interagency effort 

involves 13 State and Federal agencies 

working on linkage facilitation across 

private lands, public lands, and 

highways (Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee 2001, pp. 1–2). To date, this 

effort has included: (1) Development of 

a written protocol and guidance 

document on how to implement linkage 

zone management on public lands 

(Public Land Linkage Taskforce 2004, 

pp. 3–5); (2) production of several 

private land linkage management 

documents, including ‘‘Making 

Connections from the Perspective of 

Local People’’ (Parker and Parker 2002, 

p. 2), and the Swan Conservation 

Agreement (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1997), which is a collaborative 

linkage zone management document; (3) 

analyses of linkage zone management in 

relation to highways, including 

identification of multiple linkage areas 

in southeast Idaho from Idaho Falls to 

Lost Trail Pass (Geodata Services Inc. 

2005, p. 2) and the effects of highways 

on wildlife (Waller and Servheen 2005, 

p. 998); and (4) a workshop in the spring 

of 2006 on implementing management 

actions for wildlife linkage, the 

proceedings of which are available 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14888 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

online at: www.cfc.umt.edu/linkage. The 

objective of this work is to maintain and 

enhance movement opportunities for all 

wildlife species across the northern 

Rockies. This linkage work is not 

directly associated with the Yellowstone 

grizzly population and will continue to 

address ways to improve cooperation 

and affect management on public lands, 

private lands, and highways in linkage 

areas across the northern Rockies 

regardless of the listed status of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. 

Issue 5—Numerous commenters 

believed that resource extraction 

industries would dominate the 

landscape if delisting occurred. Some 

stated that the overall trend for habitat 

quality has been declining, at least in 

part, due to high-density oil and gas 

development. Some commenters believe 

that we did not fully evaluate or 

acknowledge the potential impacts from 

oil and gas development or increased 

logging in the GYA on the grizzly bear 

population. One commenter noted that, 

although there are large areas of land in 

the GYA that are not open to surface 

occupancy, such stipulations are 

routinely waived upon request and do 

not adequately address concerns of ‘‘full 

field development’’ that may occur in 

grizzly bear habitat. 

Response—Service-defined suitable 

habitat inside or outside the PCA (see 

Figure 1 above) does not contain active 

oil or gas wells. Timber is the primary 

resource extracted in grizzly bear 

habitat. Habitat quality (as a function of 

road density and timber harvest) has 

improved as a result of declining timber 

harvest and road construction and 

increasing road decommissioning since 

the mid-1990s (USDA Forest Service 

2006a, pp. 156, 200). 

Inside the PCA, the potential for 

increased oil and gas development in 

the future is guided by the Strategy and 

its limitations on road density and 

development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, p. 41). We do not 

anticipate a dramatic increase in oil and 

gas development outside of the PCA due 

to moderate to low potentials for both 

occurrence and development 

throughout most of the six GYA 

National Forests, with the exception of 

the Bridger-Teton National Forest 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 210–

213). Even with the high potential for 

occurrence and development in the 

Bridger-Teton, only 14 active oil and gas 

wells are currently inside that National 

Forest and none are within Servicedefined suitable grizzly habitat. 

Issue 6—Many commenters were 

concerned about the rapid human 

population growth in the GYA and the 

resulting increases in houses, 

recreationists, and grizzly bear/human 

conflicts. Some commenters suggested 

that overall habitat quality in the GYA 

had already declined, and would 

continue to do so, primarily due to 

houses and off-highway-vehicle (OHV) 

use. Commenters believe that we must 

ensure future human population growth 

does not affect the grizzly bear 

population and recommended that we 

quantify current levels of use in the 

GYA for consideration in a risk 

assessment. They also recommended we 

develop a comprehensive monitoring, 

management, and enforcement plan for 

OHV and snowmobile use in the GYA 

before considering delisting. 

Response—Human populations in the 

GYA, and the rest of the United States, 

are expected to increase (USDA Forest 

Service 2006a, p. 229). In the six 

Wyoming counties where grizzly bears 

are, or are expected to be, in the next 

few decades, the human population is 

projected to increase by roughly 15,000 

residents between 2000 and 2020 (from 

105,215 in 2000 to 120,771 by 2020) 

(Wyoming Department of 

Administration and Information 

Economic Analysis Division 2005). In 

the Montana counties of Gallatin, 

Madison, Beaverhead, Park, Sweet 

Grass, Stillwater, and Carbon, total 

populations are expected to increase by 

roughly 35,000 people during this same 

time (from 120,934 in 2000 to 154,800 

by 2020) (NPA Data Services 2002). We 

anticipate similar levels of population 

growth in the Idaho counties of the GYA 

given that the West, as a region, is 

projected to increase at rates faster than 

any other region (U.S. Census Bureau 

Population Division 2005). Increasing 

human populations do not necessarily 

lead to declining predator populations, 

when adequate management programs 

are in place with policies that promote 

the conservation of the species (Linnell 

et al. 2001, p. 348) such as mortality 

control, research and monitoring, and 

outreach and education about living 

with wildlife. 

Recent reports (Gosnell et al. 2006, 

pp. 749–750) demonstrate that the 

majority of land sales over 162 ha (400 

ac) in size in the greater Yellowstone 

ecosystem from 1990 to 2001 were to 

amenity buyers (39 percent) (those who 

purchase for ambiance or recreation and 

who have little interest in the economic 

viability of the property), or to 

traditional ranchers (26 percent). Less 

than 6 percent of 605,814 ha (1.497 

million ac) sold from 1990 to 2001 were 

to land developers, and 12 percent were 

to investors whose ultimate intention 

was unknown. This report suggests that 

ongoing changes in land ownership may 

result in reduced conflicts between 

livestock and predators, and a lowered 

level of land development sales than 

previously projected. While there may 

be conservation benefits in this overall 

land ownership change, there are 

uncertainties as to the eventual land 

uses on these properties. 

The Service has no authority to limit 

or manage future human population 

growth. Current levels of human use of 

public lands are quantified (USDA 

Forest Service 2006a, pp. 180–185) and 

managed to limit resource impacts in 

the management plans of the National 

Forests and the National Parks in the 

Yellowstone ecosystem. A modeling 

exercise to further predict the impacts of 

future population growth on the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS would be 

of minimal use due to multiple 

uncertainties regarding assumptions 

about human behavior and how humans 

will react to grizzly bears. As human 

populations and recreational activity 

have increased in the GYA National 

Forests, additional regulations have 

been implemented to limit bear/human 

conflicts such as the food storage orders 

in all suitable habitat on National Forest 

lands and comprehensive State and 

Federal I & E programs that explain how 

to coexist with bears. These efforts will 

continue upon delisting so that the 

potential negative impacts of increasing 

human populations on the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS are adequately 

mitigated. 

Under the Strategy, designated 

motorized access routes will not be 

increased inside the PCA, and OHV use 

is restricted to designated motorized 

access routes. The USDA Forest Service 

Final EIS on the Forest Plan 

Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat 

Conservation for The Greater 

Yellowstone Area National Forests 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 192) 

states that, ‘‘It is likely that revised 

plans will revise, and possibly limit 

motorized access to address wildlife 

security needs, better manage 

conflicting recreation uses, and protect 

areas from resource damages.’’

Quantification and management of OHV 

use and snowmachine use on public 

lands are presented in the management 

plans of the National Forests and the 

National Parks in the GYA. Any 

detrimental impacts on grizzly bear 

habitat use and/or mortality will be 

monitored as part of the comprehensive 

monitoring systems in the Strategy. 

Issue 7—Many commenters were 

concerned that declines in all four of the 

major foods that Yellowstone grizzlies 

rely upon will decrease the carrying 

capacity of the GYA, with resulting 

negative effects on long-term grizzly 

bear population viability. The 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14889 

commenters stated that the proposed 

rule was too optimistic regarding grizzly 

bear response to decreases in major 

foods and noted that the alternative 

foods for grizzly bears in the GYA are 

not of the same quality and quantity 

found as the four major foods grizzlies 

currently use. 

Response—The amounts of major 

foods for grizzly bears will likely 

fluctuate due to possible changes in 

average temperature, precipitation, 

forest fires, introduced species, and 

resident insects. Changes in 

environmental conditions and resulting 

changes in foods for grizzly bears have 

been recognized by management 

agencies throughout the recovery 

process. That such changes will occur is 

neither exceptional nor unexpected. The 

key issue is determining how 

management agencies will quantify and 

respond to such changes. Presently, a 

system has been implemented to 

monitor changes in the production and 

distribution of foods in relation to 

grizzly bear vital rates (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 25–60). The 

Study Team will report the monitoring 

results on food production, extent and 

impact of insect and disease on food 

production, bear mortality, reproductive 

success, and age-specific survival 

annually to the Coordinating 

Committee. The relationships between 

these factors will detect any impacts of 

changes in foods on bear viability in the 

ecosystem and will be the basis for an 

adaptive management response by the 

Coordinating Committee. 

Issue 8—Some private landowners in 

the GYA were concerned about the 

direction given in the Strategy that 

encourages citizens to become involved 

in private land issues and questioned 

what authority we have to make such a 

recommendation. 

Response—We have no direct 

authority over private lands nor can we 

require private citizen actions. Instead, 

the Strategy put forward voluntary 

recommendations. The consideration of 

private land activities on grizzly/human 

conflicts is fundamental to the proper 

management of grizzly bears and to 

human safety because a 

disproportionate number of grizzly bear/ 

human conflicts occur at site 

developments on private lands 

(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 15). 

Issue 9—Some commenters were 

concerned about the amount of denning 

habitat both inside and outside of the 

PCA that will be open to snowmachine 

use. 

Response—The Forest Plan 

Amendment includes guidance that 

inside the PCA, localized area 

restrictions are to be used to mitigate 

conflicts, where conflicts occur during 

denning or after bear emergence in the 

spring. Much of the grizzly bear denning 

habitat identified in the Forest Plan 

Amendment Final EIS as being open to 

snowmobiling is not actually used by 

snowmachines (USDA Forest Service 

2006a, p. 92). Bears tend to den in 

remote areas with characteristics that 

are not conducive to snowmachining 

(i.e., steep, forested habitats). Eightyeight percent of the known dens in the 

Yellowstone ecosystem are located in 

areas where snowmachine use does not 

occur (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 

92). 

Suitable denning habitat is well 

distributed on the forests. Five of the six 

GYA National Forests consulted with us 

in 2001 regarding the effect of 

snowmachines on denning grizzly bears. 

Our best information suggests that 

current levels of snowmachine use are 

not appreciably reducing the survival or 

recovery of grizzly bears. While the 

potential for disturbance exists, USDA 

Forest Service and Study Team 

monitoring over the last three years has 

not documented any disturbance 

(Gallatin National Forest 2006, p. D–68). 

Monitoring will continue to support 

adaptive management decisions to limit 

snowmachine use in areas where 

disturbance is documented or likely to 

occur. 

I. 1998 Baseline for Secure Habitat, 

Developed Sites, and Livestock 

Allotments 

Issue 1—Many comments questioned 

the logic and supporting evidence for 

using 1998 as the baseline year. Some 

commenters said that the 1998 baseline 

was chosen arbitrarily and that the 

Service did not analyze the implications 

of selecting any other particular year 

within the time of 4 to 7 percent 

population increase (1983–2001). 

Response—The year 1998 was chosen 

because secure habitat and site 

developments had been roughly the 

same during the previous ten years 

(USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 27) and 

the population was increasing during 

these years (Eberhardt and Knight 1996, 

p. 419; Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). The 

selection of any other year between 

1988 and 1998 would have resulted in 

approximately the same baseline values 

for roads and developed sites. We did 

not select baseline habitat values from 

years before 1988 because habitat 

improvements that occurred after the 

implementation of the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Committee Guidelines 

(USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 6–21) 

would not have been reflected. 

Issue 2—Several commenters said that 

the 1998 baseline did not adequately 

consider alternative hypotheses and 

processes that may have lead to positive 

growth rates for the grizzly population 

from 1983–2001 (e.g., good whitebark 

pine years in the early 1990s), and that 

it is overly simplistic to assume that 

levels of secure habitat, developed sites, 

and livestock allotments are adequate to 

explain the observed population growth. 

Response—Numerous studies have 

confirmed that secure habitat, 

developed sites, and livestock 

allotments affect grizzly bear survival on 

a landscape scale (Mattson et al. 1987, 

p. 271; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402–1403; 

Servheen et al. 2004, p. 20). We used 

these variables as surrogates for habitat 

effectiveness because the annual 

variability in the abundance and 

distribution of major foods precludes 

the Service from establishing baseline 

values for them. 

We believe that high whitebark pine 

cone production in the early 1990s does 

not adequately explain the observed 

population growth during this time 

(Haroldson et al. 2006b, p. 41). The 

Annual Study Team reports document 

that the early 1990s were not 

particularly good whitebark pine 

production years as evidenced by 

average counts of less than 20 cones per 

tree from 1990 through 1995. In fact, the 

only 2 years during the 1990s with cone 

counts above 20 cones per tree were 

1996 and 1999 (Haroldson and 

Podruzny 2006, p. 45). We also note that 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

was declining in the 1960s and 1970s, 

regardless of whitebark pine production. 

Declines continued until management 

intervention occurred with the 

implementation of the Guidelines 

(USDA Forest Service 1986, pp. 6–21) 

by the affected National Parks and 

Forests. These Guidelines (USDA Forest 

Service 1986, pp. 6–21) focused on 

improving habitat quality and limiting 

human-caused mortality resulting from 

grizzly bear/human conflicts. Because of 

the subsequent success of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population in 

the decades following implementation 

of the Guidelines, it is reasonable to 

infer that the Guidelines played a 

significant role and that the 

continuation of such management 

actions will ensure the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS remains recovered. 

Issue 3—Some commenters suggested 

that subunits on the Gallatin National 

Forest need to improve levels of secure 

habitat before delisting occurs even if 

this means closing additional USDA 

Forest Service roads to compensate for 

adjacent, highly roaded, private lands. 

Response—The Yellowstone grizzly 

bear DPS increased 4 to 7 percent per 

year between 1983 and 2002 (Harris et 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14890 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

al. 2006, p. 48) with the current level of 

road density on the Gallatin National 

Forest. There is no biological reason to 

conclude that additional road density 

reductions on the Gallatin National 

Forest are necessary before delisting can 

move forward. 

Issue 4—Several commenters believe 

that the 1998 baseline is unrealistic 

because habitat changes are already 

occurring due to oil and gas extraction, 

human population growth, pine beetles, 

and other threats to food sources. One 

commenter said that the 1998 baseline 

contained inaccuracies in its road data 

thus making its use as a baseline value 

ineffective. 

Response—Habitat conditions relating 

to the habitat standards described in the 

Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, pp. 38–56) have either remained 

stable or improved since 1998 for road 

densities, levels of secure habitat, site 

developments, and livestock allotments. 

The 1998 baseline was not developed to 

address specific projects such as oil and 

gas development or timber harvest. 

Using the adaptive management 

approach described in the Strategy (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 5–

11), management agencies will respond 

with adequate restrictions and 

enforcement if recreation on public 

lands due to increased human 

populations in the GYA becomes 

detrimental to the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population. The 1998 baseline does 

not contain threshold values for any of 

the major foods due to the natural 

variability in their abundance and 

distribution that occurs annually. The 

1998 baseline attempted to establish 

realistic habitat standards that ensure 

adequate habitat security and minimum 

livestock conflicts within the PCA. We 

consider the establishment of habitat 

thresholds for human population 

growth, food sources, and specific 

projects to be unrealistic and that the 

1998 baseline will address these issues 

adequately through access management 

and limitations on site development. 

Regarding the accuracy of road data, the 

1998 baseline for roads is calculated 

using the best available road layers 

compiled by each GYA National Forest. 

Issue 5—Some commenters suspected 

that the 1998 baseline would not be 

enforced and noted that we have already 

allowed three projects that violate the 

terms of the Strategy—(1) the Togwotee 

Pass road expansion, (2) Grand Teton 

National Park’s plan to build miles of 

paved pathways, and (3) Yellowstone 

National Park’s installation of large 

trailer-home developments at Lake and 

Canyon for employees and contractors. 

Response—The 1998 baseline values 

are being maintained and enforced. 

With their signatures on the Strategy, 

the agencies have committed to 

implement the habitat standards by 

adhering to the 1998 baseline (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 13, 63–

67), amending the forest plans on the six 

GYA National Forests, and 

implementing changes to the 

Superintendent’s Compendiums 

regulating habitat management within 

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National 

Parks. One phase of the Togwotee Pass 

road expansion that would have 

violated the secure habitat terms of the 

Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, pp. 39–44) has been reevaluated 

and abandoned because it violated the 

agreed-upon habitat standards (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 38–

56). The paved pathways in Grand 

Teton National Park’s plan are for 

exclusive use by bicyclists and 

pedestrians and, therefore, do not 

violate the established limits on 

motorized access routes. The addition of 

trailer homes at Lake and Canyon in 

Yellowstone National Park does not 

violate the developed site standard 

because administrative site expansions 

for improvement of management on 

public lands, for temporary construction 

camps, or for temporary housing for 

major maintenance projects are exempt. 

Issue 6—Many commenters objected 

to the exceptions that we allow to the 

1998 baseline regarding the 1 percent 

rule for temporary changes and the 

application rules for permanent changes 

in secure habitat and developed sites. 

They believe that these allowances are 

unacceptable and not based on biology. 

Some commenters asked why 

replacement habitat used to mitigate 

permanent changes in secure habitat 

would only be maintained for 10 years 

and suggested that this would lead to a 

net loss of secure habitat over time. 

Other commenters noted that exceptions 

allowed in the USDA Forest Service’s 

Draft EIS (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 

141) could result in an increase in 

developed sites above 1998 levels. Some 

groups believe that the 1 percent rule 

was too restrictive and questioned why 

the Service would implement more 

strict standards than those in use while 

the grizzly population was increasing 

(i.e., the Guidelines). 

Response—Regarding developed sites, 

the habitat standard in the Strategy 

states that there will be no net increase 

in the capacity or number of developed 

sites from the 1998 baseline (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 42). Any 

proposed expansion of an existing 

developed site or any new developed 

sites will be analyzed, with the potential 

detrimental and positive impacts on 

grizzly bears documented, through a 

biological evaluation or assessment. 

This evaluation/assessment would 

determine the mitigation necessary for 

any proposed increases in number or 

capacity of developed sites. The final 

EIS states that any project that changes 

the number or capacity of developed 

sites must follow specific application 

rules requiring that any new sites be 

mitigated by removing an existing site 

within that subunit to offset any 

increases in human capacity, habitat 

loss, or human access to surrounding 

habitats (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 

36). The application rules allow for an 

expansion of developed campgrounds if 

an equivalent capacity of dispersed 

campsites is eliminated. Administrative 

site expansions are exempt from human 

capacity mitigation expansion only if 

they are necessary for enhancement of 

management of public lands and other 

viable alternatives are not available. 

The requirement to maintain secure 

habitat for 10 years is considered a 

minimum, and cannot be eliminated 

after the 10 years unless mitigated by an 

equal quantity and quality of secure 

habitat that then must be retained for at 

least 10 years. There will be no net loss 

of secure habitat in any subunit. 

Temporary changes in secure habitat 

may reduce secure habitat for a period 

no longer than 3 years and can be no 

larger than 1 percent of the largest 

subunit size within that Bear 

Management Unit. All secure habitat 

would be restored upon completion of 

a temporary project. There are no 

biological data that demonstrate that the 

temporary 1 percent level of secure 

habitat disturbance in any subunit has 

had any detrimental impact on the 

grizzly bear population. 

J. Whitebark Pine 

Issue 1—Numerous commenters 

noted the importance of whitebark pine 

to grizzly bear survival and reproductive 

success. They believe that we were 

overly optimistic about the severity of 

the decline of whitebark pine in the 

GYA and the potential impacts to the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. These 

commenters suggested that we complete 

a more thorough analysis of impacts of 

potential decreases in whitebark pine 

cone production. Several commenters 

were concerned that the monitoring 

systems described by the Strategy will 

not detect changes in the grizzly bear 

population related to decreases in 

whitebark pine cone production soon 

enough, and that there is no clear 

management response if this occurs. 

Response—We have added additional 

information to the final rule concerning 

potential threats to whitebark pine and 

possible impacts to grizzly bears. The 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14891 

extent to which whitebark pine nut 

production will be affected across the 

landscape is unknown and difficult to 

calculate with any degree of certainty. 

Instead, managers will use an adaptive 

management approach that addresses 

poor food years with responsive 

management actions. 

The Strategy commits the agencies to 

intensive monitoring of all grizzly bear 

vital rates, and the relationship of these 

rates to changes in major foods and 

levels and types of human activities. 

Vital rates that are more sensitive to 

habitat changes such as litter size and 

cub survival also will be monitored. Due 

to the reproductive biology of grizzly 

bears in which fertilized eggs are not 

implanted into the uterus if the 

nutritional status of the female is 

inadequate, poor whitebark pine 

production resulting from a landscape 

scale decrease in overall carrying 

capacity would be detected by a 

decreased number of females with cubsof-the-year. 

In the short-term, management 

responses to poor whitebark pine cone 

production years will include 

immediate limitation on all 

discretionary mortalities; enhanced 

outreach and education to minimize 

bear/human conflicts and the 

availability of attractants in bear habitat 

that might promote such conflicts; 

notice to residents and users of bear 

habitat about the possible increased 

foraging of bears in peripheral habitats; 

detailed monitoring of food habit shifts 

and possible changes in home range size 

and locations, particularly for adult 

females; limitation of human activities 

in new or expanded feeding areas 

should there be changes in range or 

feeding area; and requests for a status 

review and/or immediate emergency 

relisting. The long-term response to 

decreases in whitebark pine will be 

continued efforts to replant whitebark 

pine, habitat management that 

encourages whitebark pine recruitment 

and growth, and enhancing secure 

habitat availability in specific areas 

outside the PCA where healthy 

whitebark pine may be available. 

Issue 2—Some commenters critiqued 

the current monitoring protocol for 

whitebark pine. Specifically, one 

commenter suggested that the Service 

update the monitoring protocol for 

whitebark pine to count dead trees as 

cone production equal to zero, so that 

whitebark pine mortality due to pine 

beetle and blister rust is reflected in 

total cone production estimates. Other 

commenters recommended that any 

delisting proposal be intimately tied 

with whitebark pine restoration and 

protection from mountain pine beetle 

attack via verbenone (a hormone that 

decreases mountain pine beetle 

success). 

Response—We believe that the 

current whitebark monitoring system 

provides a representative, ecosystemwide index of cone production, 

numbers of dead trees and the sources 

of death, and changes in pine nut 

production over time. This 

comprehensive monitoring system is 

made possible by the synergistic work of 

the Study Team, the Greater 

Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring 

Working Group, and the Whitebark Pine 

Subcommittee. 

Currently, the Study Team monitors 

19 whitebark pine cone production 

transects within the PCA, 9 of which 

have been monitored on an annual basis 

since 1980 (Knight et al. 1997, p. 14). 

The purpose of monitoring these 

transects is to assess whitebark pine 

production, because Blanchard (1990, p. 

362) demonstrated that grizzly bears in 

the GYA use whitebark pine seeds 

almost exclusively when pine cone 

production averages more than 20 cones 

per tree. As such, counting dead trees 

which have no cone production 

produces an unreliable estimate of cone 

production of live trees. 

We agree that it is important to 

monitor mortality of whitebark pine 

trees due to blister rust infection and 

mountain pine beetle infestation. One of 

the three stated objectives of the Greater 

Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring 

Working Group is to ‘‘* * * estimate 

survival of individual whitebark pine 

trees greater than 1.4 m high’’ (Greater 

Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring 

Working Group 2005, p. 96). To assess 

whitebark pine mortality, the Greater 

Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring 

Working Group has established more 

than 70 transects outside the PCA and 

works closely with statisticians to 

ensure a representative sample and a 

high power of inference (Greater 

Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring 

Working Group 2006, p. 76) for more 

accurate results. 

The Whitebark Pine Subcommittee, 

formed in 1998, is an interagency group 

comprised of members from the USDA 

Forest Service, the National Park 

Service, the Study Team, and the 

Whitebark Pine Ecosystem Foundation 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 148). 

The Whitebark Pine Subcommittee 

coordinates the implementation of 

restoration techniques, management 

responses, and gathering whitebark pine 

status information. Current work on 

whitebark pine includes planting in 

several areas, cone collection from 

healthy trees, silvicultural treatments to 

improve growth and establishment, 

prescribed burning to encourage natural 

whitebark pine seedling establishment, 

and surveys for healthy trees that may 

possess blister rust resistant genes. 

Verbenone is an anti-aggregation 

pheromone of the mountain pine beetle 

(Kegley and Gibson 2004, p. 1). It has 

usefulness in protecting individual trees 

or small areas 0.4 ha (1 ac) from pine 

beetle attack (Kegley et al. 2003, pp. 4–

5, Kegley and Gibson 2004, p. 1), but its 

use is limited to individual high-value 

trees or very small areas. Its use is 

impractical over thousands of square 

kilometers throughout an ecosystem. 

Under the Strategy, the Study Team 

will continue to work with the Greater 

Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring 

Working Group and the Whitebark Pine 

Subcommittee to monitor whitebark 

pine cone production, the prevalence of 

white pine blister rust, whitebark pine 

mortality, and to actively restore 

whitebark pine in the GYA. 

Issue 3—One commenter stated that 

the Service failed to consider the threat 

of dwarf mistletoe to whitebark pine. 

Response—While dwarf mistletoe can 

infect and kill whitebark pine trees, it 

has only ever been detected on one 

whitebark pine tree in the GYA of the 

thousands surveyed each year (Greater 

Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring 

Working Group 2005, p. 111). There is 

no evidence to suggest that dwarf 

mistletoe represents a serious threat to 

whitebark pine as a food source for 

grizzly bears, but the Greater 

Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring 

Working Group will continue to monitor 

for its presence on the transects it has 

distributed throughout the GYA. 

K. Cutthroat Trout 

Issue 1—Some commenters suggest 

delisting be delayed until the 

Yellowstone cutthroat trout status 

review is complete and the findings can 

be considered in our decision. 

Response—The Yellowstone cutthroat 

trout was found to be not warranted for 

listing under the Act on February 21, 

2006 (71 FR 8818). 

Issue 2—Some commenters noted that 

we did not assess the threat to cutthroat 

trout from direct competition for food 

between non-native, invasive New 

Zealand mud snails and cutthroat trout 

fry. 

Response—The New Zealand mud 

snail (Potamopyrgus antipodarum) is a 

recently arrived invasive species that 

was first observed in the GYA in 1994 

(Hall et al. 2006, p. 1122). They are most 

abundant in the mid-elevation 

geothermal streams in Yellowstone 

National Park. New Zealand mud snails 

can occur in such great abundance that 

they out-compete and displace native 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14892 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

aquatic invertebrates that are the 

preferred foods of cutthroat trout. 

However, the Service’s 12-month 

finding on a petition to list Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout stated that ‘‘While it is 

likely this organism (New Zealand mud 

snail) is increasingly becoming more 

widespread and will continue to spread, 

to date there is no evidence that 

implicates the New Zealand mud snail 

in the collapse of any conservation 

populations of Yellowstone cutthroat 

trout’’ (71 FR 8829, February 21, 2006). 

Because cutthroat trout are not as 

important to reproductive female grizzly 

bears as previously thought (Felicetti et 

al. 2004, p. 496, Reinhart and Mattson 

1990, p. 349; Mattson and Reinhart 

1995, pp. 2076–2079), we do not foresee 

New Zealand mud snails as a threat to 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in all 

or a significant portion of its range in 

the foreseeable future. 

Issue 3—A few commenters noted 

that the Yellowstone National Park lake 

trout removal program has not 

succeeded in reversing the decline in 

the number of cutthroat trout spawning 

in the tributaries to Yellowstone Lake. 

Response—Over 100,000 lake trout 

were removed from Yellowstone Lake 

between 1994 and 2004. The average 

length of captured lake trout and the 

catch per unit effort have declined 

during this time, suggesting that lake 

trout control efforts are impacting the 

population. Fewer and smaller lake 

trout will have a reduced impact on 

cutthroat trout. The lake trout removal 

program will continue. Overall, we do 

not foresee a decline in Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout as a threat to the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in all or 

a significant portion of its range in the 

foreseeable future (see Factor E below). 

Issue 4—One commenter stated that 

the decline in availability of spawning 

cutthroat trout may be forcing more 

grizzlies out of Yellowstone National 

Park where they are at greater risk of 

human-caused mortality. 

Response—Only a small proportion of 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS eat 

cutthroat trout and the nutritional 

contribution of cutthroat trout to the 

overall diet of those few bears is 

minimal (Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 496). 

Movement data from radio-collared 

grizzly bears who consume trout do not 

indicate these bears move outside 

Yellowstone National Park any more 

than bears eating foods other than trout. 

The Strategy and the Study Team have 

established biologically sustainable 

mortality limits for the entire GYA and 

if bears experience unsustainable 

mortality levels as a result of leaving 

Yellowstone National Park in search of 

alternative foods to cutthroat trout, this 

trend will be detected and addressed. 

L. Army Cutworm Moths 

Issue 1—Most comments we received 

about army cutworm moths addressed 

the proposed rule’s lack of a discussion 

about the impacts of global climate 

change and pesticide use on the moths. 

Some commenters believe that we 

should analyze the impacts of human 

recreation on grizzly bear use of army 

cutworm moth sites and that identified 

sites should be protected from heavy 

recreation and development. 

Response—The final rule contains a 

discussion of the potential effects of 

global climate change and pesticides on 

army cutworm moths. The Study Team 

is sponsoring research on the geospatial 

prediction of army cutworm moth sites 

that will help managers identify sites 

that are potentially exposed to human 

recreational use. It is highly unlikely 

that any of the high-elevation sites used 

by the moths, all of which are on public 

lands, will be exposed to development. 

M. Availability of Ungulates 

Issue 1—Some commenters noted that 

we failed to consider the multiple 

factors that may affect the availability of 

ungulate carcasses to grizzly bears in the 

future. These include brucellosis control 

and management plan impacts on the 

availability of elk and bison, the 

potential for chronic wasting disease to 

afflict elk populations, competition with 

wolves at carcasses, displacement of 

female grizzlies with cubs, loss of 

winter habitat and migration routes due 

to human housing trends, and fewer 

carcasses available to grizzlies in the 

spring due to milder winters. 

Response—The final rule contains a 

discussion of all of these issues. 

Issue 2 —One commenter noted that 

we failed to consider the large declines 

of the northern Yellowstone elk 

population and how or if this may affect 

the grizzly bear population. 

Response—The northern elk herd 

declined from about 17,000 elk in 1995 

to about 8,000 elk in 2005. The decline 

has been attributed to a variety of factors 

including severe winters, drought, 

hunter harvest, and increased predation 

on elk calves by grizzly bears, black 

bears, and wolves (Vucetich et al. 2005, 

pp. 266–268; Barber et al. 2005, pp. 42–

43). The grizzly bear population has 

continued to increase at 4 to 7 percent 

per year during this time period, 

meaning there is no detectable cause 

and effect relationship between the elk 

population decline and the health of the 

grizzly population. 

N. Hunting 

Issue 1—Many commenters were 

concerned that the Yellowstone 

population cannot sustain additional 

human-caused mortality and that this 

will lead to a decline in the population 

and eventually to their extinction. 

Response—Because the revised 

sustainable mortality limits for 

independent males and females include 

mortalities from all sources (Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team 2005, pp. 6–

7), including hunting, and are applied 

ecosystem-wide within the 

Conservation Strategy Management Area 

(Figure 1), hunting should never 

threaten the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population. Hunting is a discretionary 

mortality source and will occur only if 

the mortality limits from all causes have 

not been exceeded (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 31). 

Issue 2—Some commenters requested 

that we discuss the potentially negative 

impacts on grizzly bear population 

dynamics that can be caused by 

hunting, particularly when large males 

are targeted. 

Response—When large males are 

removed from the population, new male 

bears may move into an area and kill 

resident females’ cubs (Swenson et al. 

1997b, p. 450). This process of sexuallyselected infanticide has been 

documented in Scandinavia (Swenson 

et al. 1997b, p. 450). However, the only 

study of sexually-selected infanticide 

conducted in North America concluded 

that a limited hunting season under a 

sustainable mortality regime does not 

decrease cub survival (McLellan 2005, 

p. 146). This issue is still being debated 

in the scientific community. For more 

discussion about this issue, please see 

Issue 2 under subheading A in the 

Summary of Peer Review Comments 

section below. Because hunting in the 

Yellowstone ecosystem will be limited, 

it is unlikely to have an impact on the 

population dynamics of the Yellowstone 

ecosystem population. 

Issue 3—Many commenters are 

opposed to sport hunting of any kind 

and believe such practices to be 

barbaric, unnecessary, and unethical. 

Response—While we respect the 

values and opinions of all commenters, 

we are required by law to make 

decisions based on the best available 

science. As such, the various values that 

people hold about sport hunting are 

outside the scope of our decisionmaking authority. The Study Team has 

established sustainable mortality limits 

for the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population that ensure that hunting will 

not threaten the overall status of the 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14893 

population (Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Study Team 2005, pp. 5–9). 

Issue 4—One commenter noted that 

hunting mortality would not be 

compensatory, because it would take 

place mostly in Wilderness Areas rather 

than developed areas, where most 

human-caused mortalities occur. 

Response—Hunting will always be a 

source of compensatory mortality for the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS because 

all hunting mortalities will fall within 

the sustainable mortality limits 

established by the Study Team and the 

Strategy. Hunting permits will not be 

issued by the States if mortality limits 

are exceeded. 

Response—One commenter suggested 

that we research the effects of hunting 

on grizzly bear/human conflicts. 

Response—We agree that it would be 

useful to compare grizzly bear/human 

conflicts before and after the 

implementation of a hunting season to 

demonstrate its effects on the frequency 

of grizzly bear/human conflicts. The 

Study Team and State agencies collect 

data on grizzly bear/human conflicts, 

and will continue to do so after 

delisting. These data are reported and 

displayed spatially in the Study Team’s 

Annual Report. If the effects of any 

change in the frequency, location, or 

nature of grizzly bear/human conflicts 

are detectable, the data will indicate 

these changes. 

O. Disease 

Issue 1—Most comments we received 

that mentioned disease did so in the 

context of increased susceptibility to 

diseases as a result of genetic isolation 

and are discussed below in the genetic 

concerns section. Some commenters 

referenced the 2005 outbreak of 

parvovirus in the Yellowstone wolf 

population and suggested that, because 

this outbreak was not anticipated, we 

should have a plan to manage a 

potential epidemic disease in bears. 

Response—Approximately 10 percent 

of the Yellowstone grizzly population is 

currently tracked using radio collars. 

The Study Team examines all bears 

captured for research or management 

purposes, and performs post mortem 

examinations on the carcasses of dead 

bears. If a disease outbreak were to 

occur, it would be identified promptly. 

Due to the lack of evidence that diseases 

and parasites play any significant role in 

grizzly bear population dynamics in the 

GYA (see Factor C below), we do not 

view developing a management plan to 

respond to a potential outbreak as 

necessary. 

P. Human-caused Mortality, Poaching, 

Grizzly Bear/Human Conflicts, and 

Information and Education Programs 

Issue 1—Several commenters were 

concerned that poaching would increase 

without the deterrent of prosecution 

under the Act. Many more questioned 

how much enforcement would occur 

after delisting and whether the States 

had the infrastructure or the desire to 

pursue poaching investigations. Some 

commenters noted that the number of 

State enforcement officers is lower than 

Federal enforcement officers, and that 

enforcement would be reduced under 

State management. 

Response—The States are committed 

to prosecuting illegal grizzly bear kills, 

as per the State plans (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 15), and they 

have the legal authorities to do so under 

State law (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, pp. 72–76). There are no 

data to suggest that the jurisdiction 

under which poaching is prosecuted 

affects the willingness of poachers to 

commit the crime. 

State and Federal conservation 

officers are usually cross-commissioned, 

so that Federal conservation officers cite 

State law violators when they encounter 

them, and vice versa. National Park 

Service rangers would have little 

occasion to encounter State 

conservation law violators, but State 

conservation officers, our special 

wildlife agents, Tribal conservation 

officers, and USDA Forest Service 

enforcement officers will continue to 

cooperate in the investigation of 

poaching incidents. 

Issue 2—We received numerous 

comments suggesting how and why we 

should focus on reducing grizzly bear/ 

hunter conflicts. Many thought we 

should expand efforts to reduce grizzly 

bear/hunter conflicts with black bear 

and elk hunters either through I & E or 

stricter regulations. Some commenters 

recommended that all hunters be 

required to carry bear spray and hang 

their meat immediately when hunting in 

grizzly bear territory. Several 

commenters believed that the practice of 

black bear baiting, (currently permitted 

in Idaho and Wyoming) should be 

illegal in all suitable grizzly bear habitat 

or outlawed entirely. 

Response—The Strategy prioritizes 

outreach and education to minimize 

grizzly bear/human conflicts (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 57–62). 

The State plans also contain direction 

on ways to minimize grizzly bear/hunter 

conflicts (Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly 

Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. 

15; MTFWP 2002, pp. 24, 62; WGFD 

2005, pp. 31–35). Although the States 

do not currently require hunters to carry 

pepper spray, it is strongly encouraged 

in hunter education courses and other 

educational materials. Elk hunters in 

Grand Teton National Park are required 

to carry bear spray, and this may prove 

to be a research opportunity to quantify 

how much, if any, this requirement 

reduces grizzly bear conflicts with elk 

hunters. 

Montana does not allow black bear 

baiting in any areas and black bear 

baiting inside the PCA is not allowed in 

Idaho or Wyoming (Servheen et al. 

2004, p. 11). In areas outside the PCA 

in Idaho and Wyoming, State wildlife 

agencies will monitor grizzly bear 

mortality associated with black bear 

hunting to respond to problems if they 

occur. The Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population has increased while black 

bear baiting has been allowed in Idaho 

and Wyoming outside the PCA, so it 

cannot be identified as a significant 

factor that will threaten the recovered 

status of the Yellowstone DPS. 

Issue 3—One commenter noted that 

we must consider the impacts of 

increased poaching in habitat 

surrounding areas of high-density oil 

and gas production. 

Response—Poaching violations may 

increase in the vicinity of resource 

extraction boom towns, and the 

magnitude of increase relative to 

population growth is greater at 

industrial sites than at agricultural or 

recreational sites (Berger and Daneke 

1988, pp. 285–287). State agencies are 

aware of this potential and will manage 

accordingly through increased 

Information and Education efforts and 

enforcement near boom towns. 

Issue 4—To prevent grizzly bear/ 

human conflicts before they occur, 

many commenters recommended that 

proper sanitation and garbage storage be 

implemented in all occupied habitat 

and, preferably, in all suitable habitat. 

These preventative measures should be 

in place before delisting occurs and are 

especially important in light of 

projected increases in human 

population and private land 

development over the next several 

decades. 

Response—The USDA Forest Service 

currently has food storage orders in 

most Service-defined suitable habitat, 

and food storage orders will be 

implemented in all suitable habitat 

found within National Forests by 2008. 

For a complete map of when and where 

food storage orders will take effect on 

National Forest lands in the GYA, 

please see http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ 

grizzly/yellowstone.htm. Extensive 

collaborative efforts involving State 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14894 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

wildlife agencies, NGOs, waste 

management companies, and private 

landowners to improve garbage storage 

and to avoid future grizzly bear/human 

conflicts on private lands will continue 

(Servheen et al. 2004, pp. 6–7). Over 

two-thirds of the suggested budgets 

created by the States and Federal 

agencies responsible for managing the 

grizzly bear post-delisting are for 

managing grizzly bear/human conflicts 

and Information and Education efforts 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 

154). This level of commitment by 

responsible agencies demonstrates their 

understanding that I & E efforts and 

conflict management and prevention are 

crucial elements of maintaining a 

healthy Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population. 

Issue 5—Some commenters believe 

that aversive conditioning, not 

management removals, should be 

emphasized when conflicts with 

livestock occur or when conflicts are the 

result of human attractants. 

Response—The Federal and State 

management agencies emphasize 

preventative measures and aversive 

conditioning whenever possible (Idaho’s 

Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting 

Advisory Team 2002, pp. 15–16; 

MTFWP 2002, pp. 46–49; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 59–60; WGFD 

2005, pp. 28, 31). Management removal 

is only used as a last resort. 

Issue 6—Some commenters thought 

that grizzly bear conflicts with livestock 

grazing on public lands should always 

be settled in favor of the grizzly bear. 

Response—Inside the PCA, numerous 

sheep allotments have been retired or 

relocated to other, less-conflict-prone 

areas to accommodate grizzly bears 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 170). As 

of 2006, there are only two remaining 

active sheep allotments inside the PCA 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 168). In 

areas inside the PCA, grizzly bears 

involved in any livestock conflict will 

be given a second chance and relocated 

at least once before removal is used 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 

59). Management of grizzly bear 

conflicts with livestock grazing on 

public lands outside of the PCA will be 

guided by the respective State wildlife 

agency’s grizzly bear management plan 

and will remain within the sustainable 

mortality limits established for the 

Conservation Strategy Management 

Area. As such, this source of mortality 

will not threaten the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population. 

Q. Adequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms 

Issue 1—Several commenters noted 

that the Strategy, the State plans, and 

the revised mortality methods cannot be 

considered adequate regulatory 

mechanisms because they are not legally 

enforceable. Numerous commenters also 

noted that the habitat standards 

described in the Strategy will be 

unenforceable due to the 2005 USDA 

Forest Service Planning Regulations, 

which revoked the use of ‘‘standards’’ in 

Forest Land Management Plans (70 FR 

1023). 

Response—By signing the Strategy, 

responsible agencies demonstrate that 

they are committed to implementing the 

features within their discretion and 

authority. The Strategy provides 

adequate assurance that the 

participating agencies will implement 

the agreement, which is sufficient to 

meet the reasonableness required for 

regulatory mechanisms. Furthermore, 

the USDA Forest Service finalized the 

Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear 

Habitat Conservation for the GYA 

National Forests and has incorporated 

this Amendment into the affected 

National Forests’ Land Management 

Plans (USDA Forest Service 2006a, 

2006b, p. 4). This amendment was 

completed pursuant to the 1982 

planning regulations and supported by 

full Environmental Impact Statement 

analysis under the National 

Environmental Policy Act and would 

not be invalidated by a revision of the 

Forest Plan pursuant to the 2005 

planning regulations. Yellowstone and 

Grand Teton National Parks appended 

the habitat standards to their Park 

Superintendent’s Compendiums, 

thereby assuring that these National 

Parks would manage habitat in 

accordance with the habitat standards 

(Grand Teton National Park 2006, p. 1; 

Yellowstone National Park 2006, p. 44). 

These issues, and the use and impact of 

the various forest planning regulations 

(1982 and 2005), are discussed under 

Factor D below. 

Issue 2—One commenter noted that 

the States of Wyoming, Montana, and 

Idaho do not currently have sufficient 

State laws to prevent excessive 

mortality. Some commenters suggested 

that the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee petition Congress for legally 

binding, habitat protection for the PCA 

as a prerequisite for delisting, resulting 

in a piece of legislation that provides 

permanent, Federal, legal protection for 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS 

similar to that afforded to bald eagles 

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) by the Bald 

Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 

Response—State agencies have the 

authority and the necessary State laws 

to limit human-caused mortality (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 72–

76) and have committed to do so by 

signing the Strategy (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 13). 

Issue 3—Some commenters noted that 

because of the 2005 Roadless Rule (70 

FR 25653, May 13, 2005), Inventoried 

Roadless Areas cannot be considered 

secure habitat protected by adequate 

regulatory mechanisms. 

Response—The State Petitions for 

Inventoried Roadless Area Management 

Rule (70 FR 25654, May 13, 2005) that 

replaced the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (‘‘Roadless Rule’’) (66 

FR 3244, January 12, 2001) was 

overturned September 19, 2006. 

Management of roadless areas must 

comply with the provisions of the 2001 

Roadless Rule. Such areas are protected 

by adequate regulatory mechanisms. For 

further discussion, see Factor D below 

and our response to Issue 3 under 

subheading H above. 

Issue 4—Some commenters noted that 

the proposed rule failed to include 

significant habitat on the Wind River 

Reservation. These commenters 

recommended that the final rule 

recognize the Eastern Shoshone and 

Northern Arapaho Tribes as active 

participants and discuss their plans to 

create grizzly bear management plans 

for the Wind River Reservation. 

Response—The Eastern Shoshone and 

the Northern Arapaho Tribes of the 

Wind River Reservation manage wildlife 

within their Federally recognized 

boundaries (see Figure 1 above). Both of 

these tribes have been invited to 

participate as representatives on the 

Coordinating Committee under the 

Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, p. 9). They are working with us 

to develop a Grizzly Bear Management 

Plan specific to their lands. Less than 

three percent of all suitable habitat will 

be affected by Tribal management 

decisions. We anticipate that their 

management plan will encourage grizzly 

bear occupancy in areas of suitable 

habitat on the Wind River Reservation. 

We have recommended that the Tribal 

Grizzly Bear Management Plan 

(currently being drafted) include grizzly 

bear occupancy of the Wind River 

Mountains on the Reservation, as this 

will allow grizzly bears continued 

access to high-elevation whitebark pine 

and army cutworm moths in these 

mountains. 

Issue 5—Some commenters noted that 

case history (Federation of Fly Fishers v. 

Daley, 131 F. Supp. 2d 1158, 1167–68 

(N.D. Cal. 2000)) suggests that the 

Strategy cannot be considered an 

adequate regulatory mechanism because 

‘‘no reliable source for its future 

funding’’ exists. 

Response—It is not possible to predict 

with certainty future governmental 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14895 

appropriations, nor can we commit or 

require Federal funds beyond those 

appropriated (31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)), 

but by signing the Strategy, State and 

Federal management agencies have 

committed to implement the protective 

features that are within their discretion 

and authority, and to seek adequate 

funding for implementation. The 

Strategy provides adequate assurance 

that the participating agencies will 

implement the agreement, which is 

sufficient to meet the reasonableness 

required for regulatory mechanisms. We 

are authorized to provide grants to 

States to assist in monitoring the status 

of recovered species under section 6(d) 

of the Act. 

Issue 6—Some commenters disagreed 

with our assertion that the NEPA will 

adequately protect habitat outside of the 

PCA regarding road construction and 

resource extraction. They noted that 

reliance on NEPA or ‘‘sensitive species’’

designation to adequately protect 

suitable habitat outside of the PCA is 

not adequate because of the 2005 USDA 

Forest Service Planning regulations, 

which eliminated species’ viability 

requirements. 

Response—We believe that the 

potential effects on grizzly bears of any 

proposed projects on public land will be 

fully and adequately considered through 

the requirements of NEPA. The USDA 

Forest Service is designating the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS a ‘‘species 

of concern’’ upon delisting (USDA 

Forest Service 2006b, p. 26). This 

designation means that the GYA 

National Forests must ‘‘* * * provide 

the appropriate ecological conditions 

(i.e., habitats) necessary to continue to 

provide for a recovered population’’

(USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26). For 

further discussion of the USDA Forest 

Service Planning regulations, see Factor 

D below. 

Issue 7—Some commenters disputed 

the adequacy of State management plans 

because none of the plans contain 

clearly defined standards or methods of 

enforcing compliance of their 

population goals, and because States 

cannot compel Federal land 

management agencies to manage their 

lands in accordance with the State plans 

or the Strategy. 

Response—It is true that States cannot 

compel Federal agencies to manage their 

lands in accordance with their State 

plans. However, as participants in the 

Strategy, both State and Federal 

agencies have agreed to carry out all 

provisions of the Strategy, including the 

appended State plans. 

Issue 8—Some commenters expressed 

concern about the decentralization of 

grizzly bear monitoring and 

management efforts, believing that it 

would be confusing and challenging to 

effectively implement monitoring and 

management efforts across multiple 

jurisdictions without the cohesive force 

of the Act. 

Response—All monitoring, reporting 

results, and management actions are 

centralized under the Coordinating 

Committee and the Study Team, as 

described in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 25–67), 

which all the State and Federal agencies 

have signed and agreed to implement. 

The agencies responsible for managing 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

upon delisting helped develop the 

Strategy and have been effectively 

cooperating and communicating with 

each other about grizzly bear 

management decisions for the last 25 

years. 

R. Genetic Concerns, Isolation, and 

Connectivity With Other Grizzly Bear 

Populations 

Issue 1—Numerous commenters 

expressed concern that, due to the 

isolation of the Yellowstone population, 

we should maintain an effective 

population size of at least 500 

individuals to ensure long-term 

viability. Therefore, many commenters 

believe that we should set a population 

objective of 2,000 to 3,000 bears in the 

GYA or reestablish connectivity among 

all grizzly bear populations in the Lower 

48 States (so that the total population 

size is approximately 2,000) before 

delisting occurs. 

Response—Although the effective 

population size (i.e., the number of 

breeding individuals in an idealized 

population that would show the same 

amount of dispersion of allele 

frequencies under random genetic drift 

or the same amount of inbreeding as the 

population under consideration) of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population is 

lower than recommended for 

evolutionary success in the absence of 

management in published literature on 

evolutionary theory (e.g., Franklin 1980, 

p.136), the genetic program for the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

will effectively address future genetic 

concerns (Hedrick 1995, p. 1004; Miller 

and Waits 2003, p. 4338). As Miller and 

Waits (2003, p. 4338) recommend, we 

will continue efforts to reestablish 

natural connectivity, but our partners 

will transplant one to two effective 

migrants per generation if no movement 

or genetic exchange is documented by 

2020 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, p. 37). 

Issue 2—Several commenters believe 

that the reduced heterozygosity of the 

Yellowstone population increases their 

vulnerability to disease epidemics due 

to a likely decrease in allelic diversity 

at the major histocompatibility complex 

locus. They noted that because the 

Yellowstone DPS has been isolated for 

the last 100 years and has not been 

challenged with any epidemic diseases, 

disease-resistant genetic material may 

have decreased, thereby ensuring that if 

an epidemic does occur, it will be 

severe. 

Response—We do not know that 

allelic diversity has declined at the 

major histocompatibility complex locus 

in the GYA grizzly population. Because 

overall allelic diversity has declined 

some over the 20th century (Miller and 

Waits 2003, p. 4337), it may have 

declined at the major histocompatibility 

complex locus too. We do not know that 

the GYA population has not been 

challenged by epidemic diseases in the 

past 100 years. We can say that 

epidemic diseases are not known to 

have caused high mortality in any 

grizzly or brown bear population, 

including the Kodiak Island, Alaska 

population, in which heterozygosity, 

and presumably allelic diversity, is 

much lower than in the GYA 

population. The Study Team monitors 

the health of GYA grizzlies by 

examining all bears captured each year 

(approximately 60–80 captures per year) 

and all known mortalities. If disease or 

an epidemic occurs, it will be detected 

promptly and responded to 

appropriately. 

Issue 3—Some commenters noted that 

relatively modest decreases in 

heterozygosity values (the proportion in 

an individual of loci that have more 

than one allele) correspond to much 

larger decreases in allelic diversity (due 

to inbreeding) and that the proposed 

rule does not contain an adequate 

discussion of this effect or its 

conservation implications. In other 

words, they believe that a population 

could be experiencing declines in allelic 

diversity that would not be detected if 

the only measure of genetic diversity 

was heterozygosity, and that we should 

evaluate the biological and conservation 

implications of a reduction in allelic 

diversity, if this is occurring in the 

Yellowstone DPS. 

Response—Although allelic diversity 

has declined in the GYA population 

over the 20th century, the decline was 

not as precipitous as previously 

anticipated (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 

4338). As measured by Miller and Waits 

(2003, p. 4337), allelic richness 

decreased from approximately 5.89 

alleles per locus at the beginning of the 

20th century (1910s) to 5.50 at the end 

of the century (1990s). Considering all 

of the information available that 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14896 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

examines heterozygosity and allelic 

diversity of grizzly bears in the GYA, 

Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338) 

conclude that ‘‘the viability of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population is 

unlikely to be compromised by genetic 

factors in the near future * * *’’ and 

that ‘‘* * * one to two effective 

migrants per generation from the NCDE 

to the YE (Yellowstone ecosystem) is an 

appropriate level of gene flow.’’ We 

considered these conclusions pertinent 

to the genetic management of the DPS 

and incorporated them into the Strategy 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, 

p. 37). 

Issue 4—One commenter noted that 

our statement in Appendix D of the 

Strategy that ‘‘current levels of genetic 

diversity * * * are not resulting in 

deleterious effects’’ is not supported by 

the literature and that Miller and Waits’

(2003, p. 4335) study was not designed 

to answer this question. Another 

commenter noted that deleterious 

effects to the Yellowstone population as 

a result of genetic isolation have already 

been documented by Dr. Michael Gilpin 

in his guest commentary in the 

Bozeman Chronicle newspaper on 

January 23, 2006, and that the level of 

inbreeding in the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population is analogous to mating 

with first cousins. 

Response—Indicators of fitness in the 

Yellowstone population demonstrate 

that the current levels of genetic 

heterozygosity are adequate, as 

evidenced by measures such as litter 

size, little evidence of disease, high 

survivorship, an equal sex ratio, normal 

body size and physical characteristics, 

and an increasing population. These 

indicators of fitness will be monitored 

annually, in perpetuity. The assertion 

by Dr. Gilpin that grizzly bears in the 

GYA are experiencing inbreeding 

coefficients of 12.5 percent, equivalent 

to mating with their first cousins, is 

incorrect (Miller 2006). Dr. Gilpin did 

not cite a source for his reported 

inbreeding coefficient for GYA bears, 

and we are unaware of this figure being 

reported elsewhere. Miller (2006) 

estimated an inbreeding coefficient for 

the GYA population of approximately 6 

percent over the last 10 generations, not 

12.5 percent over a single generation, as 

implied by a scenario in which first 

cousins mate with each other. The very 

low rate of loss of heterozygosity over 

the 20th century, in combination with 

the introduction of 1 or 2 effective 

migrants per generation (naturally or 

through augmentation), will ensure 

long-term genetic viability, and the 

recovered status, of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS (Miller and Waits 2003, 

p. 4338). 

Issue 5—A few commenters believed 

that we failed to consider the 

relationship between isolation and 

elevated extinction risk. Extinction of 

isolated populations can occur simply 

as a function of their isolation and 

habitat size or due to increases in the 

magnitude of population fluctuations 

resulting from environmental and 

demographic stochasticity. They believe 

that we should fully consider these 

sources of stochasticity on the 

extinction risk of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS. 

Response—This comment refers to 

PVAs and questions whether the 

persistence of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population will be significantly 

impacted by the effects of 

environmental and demographic 

stochasticity due to its isolation. The 

Service has considered population 

viability in considerable depth (Boyce et 

al. 2001, p. 2). Boyce et al. (2001, p. 1) 

concluded that the available data 

‘‘provide optimistic projections of the 

likelihood of persistence for grizzly 

bears in the GYE; a 99.2% probability 

that the GYE grizzly bear population 

will persist for 100 years.’’

Boyce et al. (2001, pp. 30–31) discuss 

the implications of several types of 

stochastic (random) events on the 

likelihood of persistence for the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population. 

Catastrophes were believed merely to 

represent extreme environmental events 

that had a low probability of occurrence 

and were unpredictable. They believe 

that there are insufficient data on grizzly 

bear genetics to understand or model 

genetic stochasticity, such as inbreeding 

depression or genetic drift. Boyce et al. 

(2001, p. 30) believe that demographic 

stochasticity, such as chance events 

associated with births and deaths, only 

affects viability when populations are 

very small (e.g., 30 to 50 bears). 

Similarly, Harris et al. (2006, p. 50) 

found that demographic stochasticity 

had little effect on the growth rate 

estimates unless population size fell 

below 100 females. 

Environmental stochasticity is 

generally thought to be more important 

than demographic stochasticity when 

calculating extinction risk (Lande 1988, 

p. 1457). In light of this, Boyce et al. 

(2001, pp. 31–32, 34) recommend that 

the best possible analysis of population 

viability for the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population would be based on 

relationships between grizzly bear vital 

rates (survival and reproduction) and 

habitat factors (a habitat-based PVA). 

However, the range of possible 

outcomes of such a modeling exercise, 

based on compound uncertainties, 

provides little management value and 

minimal confidence about future 

viability. Instead, the Strategy will 

ensure monitoring of multiple indices 

and use an adaptive management 

system that allows rapid feedback about 

the success of management actions 

designed to address the maintenance of 

a viable population. 

Because it is generally accepted that 

isolated populations are at greater risk 

of extinction over the long-term, we will 

continue efforts to reestablish natural 

connectivity between the GYA and 

other grizzly bear ecosystems. Although 

natural connectivity is the best possible 

scenario, isolation does not constitute a 

long-term threat to the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population because of 

intensive monitoring and adaptive 

management strategies that will remain 

in effect post-delisting. 

Issue 6—One commenter requested 

that we undertake an in-depth 

discussion of what inbreeding 

depression is and the three ways in 

which it is manifested: (1) The 

unmasking of recessive, lethal alleles; 

(2) unmasking of partially recessive, 

deleterious alleles; and (3) decreases in 

genetic diversity; and what conservation 

implications these have for the 

Yellowstone DPS. 

Response—This issue is discussed in 

the Supplemental Information 

Appended to the Recovery Plan, its 

supporting literature, and the literature 

cited in this final rule. Both the Strategy 

and this final rule recognize that 

declines in genetic diversity due to 

inbreeding effects are expected in 

isolated populations (Ralls et al. 1986, 

p. 35; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, p. 37). We agree that inbreeding 

depression has the potential to 

negatively affect the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear DPS if genetic diversity declines 

below current levels. For this reason, we 

have reviewed relevant literature about 

this topic (Ralls and Ballou 1983, pp. 

147–179; Allendorf and Leary 1986, pp. 

72–76; Ralls et al. 1986, pp. 35–37; 

Lande 1988, pp. 1455–1456, 1460; 

Roelke et al. 1993, pp. 344–348; Hunter 

1996, pp. 88–90; Wang et al. 1999, 

pp. 168–176) and, upon the 

recommendation of Miller and Waits 

(2003, p. 4338), our partners will 

translocate grizzly bears from other 

populations into the GYA to maintain 

current levels of genetic diversity if 

natural movement of grizzly bears into 

the GYA from other areas is not 

documented by 2020. 

Issue 7—We received numerous 

comments regarding the plan to 

augment the Yellowstone DPS with 

grizzly bears from the NCDE population 

to address genetic concerns should 

connectivity between these two 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14897 

ecosystems not occur naturally by 2020. 

Some of these comments pertained to 

the feasibility of transplanting bears 

from the NCDE to Yellowstone. These 

commenters noted that, based on 

augmentation experiments in the 

Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem, we may have 

to move eight bears to get two to stay 

and reproduce successfully (i.e., become 

effective migrants). Some commenters 

also questioned whether survival of 

augmented bears would be affected by 

interactions with other grizzly bears 

and/or a bear’s willingness to stay in a 

new environment instead of one it was 

highly familiar with. Finally, some 

commenters suggested that high 

mortality in the NCDE may preclude 

this option, because moving bears from 

the NCDE to Yellowstone would count 

as a mortality in the NCDE ecosystem. 

Response—The feasibility of 

translocating grizzly bears for genetic 

augmentation is not untested. 

Translocation has been successfully 

employed in the Cabinet-Yaak 

Ecosystem (Kasworm et al., in press, p. 

6). Kasworm et al. (in press, pp. 6, 8) 

were only able to document successful 

reproduction by one of the three bears 

that remained in the area after being 

translocated; confirmation of successful 

reproduction events for the other two 

bears was not possible because they 

lacked reference genetic material. Any 

bear that is translocated from the NCDE 

into the GYA will be radio-collared and 

monitored to determine whether it 

remains in the area and survives. As in 

the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem, genetic 

analysis will be used in subsequent 

years to confirm whether a transplanted 

bear has successfully reproduced in the 

GYA. The exact number of translocated 

migrants into the GYA will be 

determined through these monitoring 

activities. Any bear translocated from 

the NCDE to the GYA would be counted 

as an NCDE mortality. Please see our 

response to Issue 12 in this section 

below for more discussion about the 

adequacy of the NCDE to serve as a 

source population. Augmentation in the 

GYA may not be necessary if natural 

immigration occurs before 2020. 

Issue 8—One commenter questioned 

our use of the ‘‘one-migrant-pergeneration rule’’ and believed that our 

definition of ‘‘effective migrant’’ was 

incorrect. Another commenter believed 

we failed to consider the effects of other 

evolutionary processes (mutation, 

directional, or stabilizing selection) on 

the one-migrant-per-generation rule. 

Both recommended more research to 

answer whether the one-migrant-pergeneration rule was appropriate and 

adequate to address genetic concerns for 

the Yellowstone DPS. 

Response—Our recommendation to 

augment the population with one 

migrant per generation is based on 

Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338), who 

conclude that one to two effective 

migrants per generation is appropriate 

to maintain current levels of genetic 

diversity. ‘‘The viability of the 

Yellowstone grizzly population is 

unlikely to be compromised by genetic 

factors in the near future as we 

hypothesized based on modern samples. 

Rather, the genetic consequences of 

inbreeding and isolation are likely to 

transpire over longer time periods 

(decades or centuries)’’ (Miller and 

Waits 2003, p. 4338). Regarding our 

definition of an ‘‘effective migrant’’ as 

one which remains in the area, survives, 

and successfully reproduces, we 

recognize that a more complete 

definition involves measures of 

relatedness between the source and 

recipient population, as well as other 

genetic measures (Wang 2004, p. 335). If 

translocation is required in the future, 

our partners will consult with 

geneticists and use the best available 

science to determine how many bears 

must be translocated from the source 

population to equal one effective 

migrant to the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

DPS. Regarding the effects of other 

selective forces on the one-migrant-pergeneration rule, Wang (2004, p. 341) 

concluded that, ‘‘In general, the onemigrant-per-generation rule is robust to 

the systematic forces of selection and 

mutation.’’

Issue 9—Most commenters preferred 

the idea of natural connectivity over 

artificial augmentation and noted that 

connectivity is a vital component of 

recovery and should be restored before 

delisting can occur. Numerous 

commenters wanted population 

connectivity re-established with the 

NCDE and Bitterroot ecosystem and the 

Bitterroot population reintroduction 

implemented. Conversely, some 

commenters supported the 

augmentation plan because they viewed 

it as effectively nullifying the need to 

establish natural population 

connectivity. 

Response—We prefer natural 

reconnection as well and are actively 

involved in efforts to maintain and 

expand the opportunities for grizzly 

bears to move into and out of the 

Yellowstone ecosystem via the linkage 

zone program. However, we cannot 

control bear movement and as discussed 

in the final rule (see Behavior section 

above), they have limited dispersal 

mechanisms. By working to maintain 

current movement opportunities while 

implementing conservation actions to 

recover populations in other grizzly bear 

ecosystems, we anticipate that bears 

will naturally reestablish themselves 

between recovery ecosystems and 

achieve connectivity. We agree that the 

establishment of a grizzly bear 

population in the Bitterroot Recovery 

Zone would contribute to recovery of 

the grizzly bear in the Lower 48 States 

(Boyce 2000, p. 6–243). However, the 

lack of natural connectivity will not 

threaten the Yellowstone DPS because 

of the genetic management plan 

described in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 37). 

Issue 10—Several commenters 

objected to relocating bears from the 

NCDE to the GYA to address genetic 

concerns because it would violate the 

Act’s vision of ‘‘self-sustaining 

populations,’’ ‘‘recovery of populations 

in the wild,’’ and ‘‘natural recovery.’’

They cited the need for augmentation as 

evidence that the Yellowstone DPS is 

not truly recovered. 

Response—The Act does not require a 

‘‘hands off’’ approach as a prerequisite 

for delisting. In fact, the presence of 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

ensure that appropriate management 

and monitoring activities continue is 

required before delisting can occur. For 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS to 

remain unthreatened in all or a 

significant portion of its range in the 

foreseeable future, active management is 

necessary to limit mortality, provide 

adequate habitat, respond to grizzly 

bear/human conflicts, and maintain 

genetic diversity either through natural 

connectivity or through translocation. In 

this way, the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

DPS is a ‘‘conservation-reliant species’’

(Scott et al. 2005, p. 383). Augmentation 

is proposed as a precautionary measure 

based on the recommendations of Miller 

and Waits (2003, p. 4338) to maintain 

current levels of genetic diversity, 

should grizzly bear movement into the 

GYA not occur over the next 20 years. 

Issue 11—One commenter suggested 

that we analyze the benefits and 

disadvantages of genetic augmentation 

before concluding that benefits 

outweigh potential negatives. 

Response—The recommendation to 

either allow bears to move into the 

Yellowstone ecosystem or to use 

augmentation in lieu of natural 

movement was made by genetics experts 

in Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338). 

They detail the biological and genetic 

rationale for this recommendation, and 

we agree with their analysis and 

conclusions. Should future genetic data 

challenge the conclusions of Miller and 

Waits (2003, p. 4338), the Study Team 

and the Coordinating Committee will 

rely upon the best available scientific 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14898 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

information to guide management of the 

Yellowstone DPS. 

Issue 12—A few commenters noted 

that our plan to augment the 

Yellowstone DPS with one to two bears 

per generation was flawed because it 

violated a key assumption that the 

source population is infinite in 

numbers. They believe that the 

proposed rule also overlooked the 

possibility that the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear DPS could go extinct as a result of 

the NCDE going extinct; and 

furthermore, we failed to consider the 

genetic issues affecting the NCDE, 

which may itself be an isolated 

population from Canada, due to ongoing 

and increasing development just north 

of the border. 

Response—We make no assumption 

that the NCDE or any other population 

is infinite in numbers. The NCDE is not 

genetically isolated from areas in 

Canada, and male grizzly bear 

movement across Highway 3 has been 

documented (Proctor 2003, p. 24). The 

NCDE population has higher allelic 

diversity and heterozygosity values than 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS 

(Paetkau et al. 1998, p. 421) and its 

relative proximity and short time of 

separation from the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear DPS make it an ideal genetic source 

population. The NCDE population is 

larger than previously thought, with 

more than 500 individuals (Kendall 

2006), and the portion of the population 

that is located in the North Fork of the 

Flathead Valley just north of the United 

States/Canadian border is the highest 

density grizzly bear population 

anywhere in North America outside of 

Alaska (LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 52–53; 

McLellan 1994, p. 21; Mowat et al. 2005, 

p. 41). We will continue to cooperate 

with Canadian wildlife and land 

management agencies to promote grizzly 

bear conservation and to mitigate 

projects in Canada that have the 

potential to negatively impact U.S. 

grizzly bear populations. 

The placement of bears into the 

Yellowstone by augmentation would be 

a precautionary approach to assure that 

genetic issues are not a factor in the 

survival of the Yellowstone population. 

As stated by Miller and Waits (2003, p. 

4338)—‘‘The viability of the 

Yellowstone grizzly population is 

unlikely to be compromised by genetic 

factors in the near future.’’ Although we 

view the NCDE as the most likely source 

population, many other appropriate 

grizzly bear populations in Canada 

could serve as source populations, 

should the NCDE population not be 

adequate for some unforeseen reason. 

We have previously cooperated with 

international partners to translocate 

bears from the North Fork of the 

Flathead River in Canada to the CabinetYaak ecosystem (Kasworm et al. 1998, 

p. 148). 

S. Comments About The States’ 

Management Approach 

Issue 1—Numerous commenters 

expressed concern over the management 

approach that will be taken by the States 

of Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming. In 

general, commenters questioned the 

desire of the States to manage the 

population in the best interest of grizzly 

bears, and cited the historical and 

current anti-predator attitudes 

frequently displayed by residents and 

State wildlife agencies and 

commissions, as evidence that State 

management of the Yellowstone DPS 

could result in severe decline. 

Response—The States are committed 

to manage grizzlies in accordance with 

the Strategy and its appended State 

grizzly bear management plans. By 

signing the Strategy, all management 

agencies have agreed to adhere to the 

sustainable mortality limits. 

Issue 2—Some commenters noted that 

the head of WGFD has said that 

Wyoming intends to manage the 

population down to the minimum 

allowed by the Strategy (500 bears) and 

other WGFD Commissioners have said 

they plan to push for an increase in 

allowable mortality from the recently 

revised 9 percent to 12 percent. They 

note that four Wyoming counties, which 

encompass most grizzly bear habitat in 

Wyoming, have outlawed grizzlies 

within their borders and asserted that 

their State-authorized land use planning 

legislation trumps the bear management 

responsibilities of WGFD. 

Response—In response to concerns 

about the ordinances, regulations, or 

resolutions passed by county 

governments in Wyoming regarding the 

presence or distribution of grizzly bears 

in these counties, we requested a letter 

from the Wyoming Attorney General’s 

office clarifying the authority of 

counties in Wyoming to legislate in the 

area of grizzly bear management. The 

Wyoming Attorney General’s office’s 

response, dated August 8, 2006, states 

on p. 2, ‘‘ ‘* * * as an arm of the State, 

the county has only those powers 

expressly granted by the constitution or 

statutory law or reasonably implied 

from the powers granted.’ Laramie Co. 

Comm’rs v. Dunnegan, 884 P.2d 35, 40 

(Wyo. 1994). Neither the Wyoming 

Constitution nor the legislature has 

provided the counties in Wyoming with 

any expressed or implied authority over 

management of grizzly bears. Therefore, 

counties lack the authority to enact any 

ordinances(s), regulation(s), or 

resolution(s) which would affect the 

(Wyoming Game and Fish) 

Commission’s Grizzly Bear Plan on 

mortality or distribution of grizzly bears 

in Wyoming’’ (Martin 2006). 

This letter clearly indicates that 

Wyoming county governments have no 

authority to affect grizzly bear 

management in county ordinances and 

have no legal standing or impact on 

commitments made by the Wyoming 

Game and Fish Commission. 

Wyoming has committed to the 

revised (9 percent) thresholds as per 

their signature on the Wyoming Game 

and Fish Commission approved 

Strategy. Changes in mortality limits 

cannot be completed unilaterally by 

Wyoming, or any one management 

agency, but instead must be based on 

the best available science, and 

documented by a Study Team lead 

process that is opened to public 

comment and approved through a 

Coordinating Committee majority vote 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 

63). 

T. Lack of a Secure, Long-Term Funding 

Source 

Issue 1—A number of comments 

received maintained that, before 

delisting can occur, a long-term secure 

funding source must be obtained. They 

stated that this funding issue must be 

addressed to ensure that the extensive 

monitoring and management plans, as 

well as conflict prevention through I & 

E programs described in the Strategy, 

are carried out. Some commenters 

suggested that long-term funding 

security could be achieved by creating 

a trust fund as the Yellowstone 

Ecosystem Subcommittee has discussed 

at several meetings. Other commenters 

suggested that inadequate funding in 

any given year be a trigger for a Biology 

and Monitoring Review and potential 

relisting. 

Response—It is true that there is no 

guarantee of long-term funding for 

grizzly bear management by any of the 

States or the Federal Government. 

However, the funding issue remains 

whether the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

DPS is delisted or not. It is not possible 

to predict future governmental 

appropriations, nor can we commit or 

require Federal funds beyond those 

appropriated (31 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1)(A)), 

but by signing the Strategy, responsible 

agencies demonstrate that they are 

committed to implementing the features 

within their discretion and authority, 

and to pursuing adequate funding. The 

Strategy provides adequate assurance 

that the participating agencies will 

implement the agreement, which is 

sufficient to meet the reasonableness 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14899 

required for regulatory mechanisms. 

The creation of a trust fund has been 

explored by the Interagency Grizzly 

Bear Committee, but would require the 

acquisition of an estimated $40 million 

to endow the fund. 

In response to these concerns, we 

have made inadequate funding in any 

given year a trigger for a Biology and 

Monitoring Review. The purpose of 

such a Review would be to determine 

whether the fiscal short-coming is a 

threat to the implementation of the 

Strategy to such an extent that it also 

threatened the long-term viability of the 

Yellowstone DPS. 

U. Triggers for Relisting and Monitoring 

Plan 

Issue 1—Many commenters were 

uncomfortable with the process that 

could lead to relisting, fearing that the 

process would be slow, bureaucratic, or 

subject to political influence. Many 

recommended additional, clearly 

defined thresholds leading to immediate 

relisting, rather than merely to the first 

step in a long process that may lead to 

relisting (i.e., a Biology and Monitoring 

Review). Some recommended that we 

develop an emergency response process 

specifically designed for the 

Yellowstone population that gives us 

authority to bypass the traditional Act 

listing methods. 

Response—The listing procedures 

described in the Act allow prompt 

emergency listings if necessary. For 

instance, the desert tortoise was 

petitioned in May 1989 and listed on 

August 7, 1989, in an emergency listing 

rule (54 FR 32326, August 4, 1989). An 

emergency relisting can be pursued 

independently by the Service or in 

response to a recommendation by the 

Study Team or Coordinating Committee. 

This process is adequate to respond to 

a precipitous decline in the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS or a significant threat 

to its habitat in a timely manner and 

precludes the need for a specific trigger 

that would begin an emergency 

response process. 

Issue 2—Several commenters believe 

that because a decline in any of the four 

major foods represents a decrease in the 

GYA’s carrying capacity, we should 

include threshold values for these food 

sources that either trigger a response 

action or plans to protect additional 

habitat. 

Response—Aside from the welldocumented association between 

whitebark pine cone crop size and 

subsequent management actions on 

grizzly bears (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 

432), we have not been able to detect 

any statistically significant relationships 

between abundance of the other three 

major foods and grizzly bear vital rates. 

Those foods have either fluctuated (e.g., 

ungulates, army cutworm moths), or 

declined (e.g., cutthroat trout), during 

the period when the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population was increasing at a rate 

between 4 and 7 percent annually. Due 

to this natural annual variation in 

abundance and distribution, there is no 

known way to calculate minimum 

threshold values for grizzly bear foods. 

Instead, managers will use an adaptive 

management approach that addresses 

poor food years with responsive 

management actions, such as limiting 

grizzly bear mortality, increasing 

Information and Education efforts, and 

considering relisting, if appropriate. 

Issue 3—Several commenters believe 

we failed to address the issue of lag time 

between habitat degradation and loss, 

and changes in vital rates. They believe 

that the proposed rule relies almost 

exclusively on monitoring population 

parameters rather than habitat 

parameters to detect a future threat, and 

because of this time lag, we should 

include habitat thresholds that act as 

triggers for a Biology and Monitoring 

Review. 

Response—The Strategy commits the 

management agencies to intensive 

monitoring of all grizzly bear vital rates, 

and their relationship to changes in 

major foods and the levels and types of 

human activities in their habitat. This 

monitoring does not solely rely on vital 

rate monitoring to indirectly infer 

changes in habitat, but will produce 

annual results on any changes in habitat 

values, key food production, and 

possible disease in key foods. Please see 

our response to Issue 2 in this 

subheading, above, for more 

information. 

Issue 4—Many commenters criticized 

our use of unduplicated counts of 

females with cubs-of-the-year to 

estimate population size. They 

suggested we should abandon this 

measure for a more reliable and accurate 

method because of the biases such as 

observer variability and differences in 

detection in different habitat types. 

Response—The Study Team reviewed 

the feasibility of several different 

population estimation methods 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2005, pp. 12–13, 17–31). Because of the 

high cost of DNA-based population 

surveys ($3.5 million to $5 million) and 

the lag between sampling and a 

resulting population estimate (3 years), 

annual use of DNA-based population 

surveys is not feasible or appropriate for 

our objectives of establishing annual 

population estimates and sustainable 

mortality limits. The Study Team 

rejected the idea of using capture-markrecapture techniques with the radiocollared sample of grizzly bears due to 

unreasonably large confidence intervals 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2005, p. 12). 

Because of the strict rule set used to 

collect females with cubs-of-the-year 

data (Knight et al. 1995, p. 246), it is 

inherently conservative and tends to 

underestimate the number of females 

with cubs-of-the-year. The Study Team 

chose to use the Chao2 estimator to 

correct many of the biases associated 

with females with cubs-of-the-year data 

concerning sighting heterogeneity 

(Keating et al. 2002, pp. 170–172; 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2005, p. 20). The Chao2 estimator and 

the model averaging approach described 

in the Supplement to the Reassessing 

Methods Document (Interagency Grizzly 

Bear Study Team 2006, pp. 2–10) reflect 

the best available scientific method for 

calculating an annual population index 

and establishing biologically sustainable 

annual mortality limits for the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population. 

Issue 5—Some commenters stated that 

a DNA-based survey would be a better 

monitoring method and that it would 

provide much more information about 

the population. One commenter noted 

that the proposed monitoring of genetic 

diversity does not specify the point at 

which population augmentation would 

be considered necessary. Another 

believed that the proposed monitoring 

of genetic diversity would not be 

sufficient to detect the expected slight 

decline in heterozygosity, due to 

inadequate sample size and inadequate 

statistical power. 

Response—We agree that DNA-based 

surveys may offer more information 

about the population than population 

size alone, but because the most 

immediate factors likely to impact the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

will come from habitat degradation and 

loss, and human-caused mortality, we 

believe addressing these two sources of 

potential decline is a more appropriate 

and relevant approach to ongoing 

conservation efforts in the GYA. The 

Strategy clearly establishes that 

augmentation of the Yellowstone 

population with grizzly bears from other 

populations will be pursued if no 

movement is detected between these 

two populations by 2020 (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 37). Based on 

the best available science, we have 

concluded that any threats to genetic 

diversity will be adequately addressed 

through this approach (Miller and Waits 

2003, p. 4338). There is no defined 

threshold for acceptable heterozygosity 

values because there is no consensus as 

to what value would constitute a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14900 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

biologically significant threat in any 

specific bear population. We do not 

propose to monitor changes in genetic 

diversity, as the statistical power would 

likely be insufficient to detect changes 

over time. To monitor genetic isolation, 

we will establish a repository for all 

samples from the Yellowstone 

population to document any bears 

moving from the NCDE into the GYA. 

Such movement will be detected by 

using an ‘‘assignment test,’’ which 

identifies the area from which 

individuals are most likely to have 

originated based on their unique genetic 

signature (Paetkau et al. 1995, p. 350; 

Waser and Strobeck 1998, pp. 43–44; 

Paetkau et al. 2004, pp. 56–57; Proctor 

et al. 2005, pp. 2410–2415). 

Issue 6—A few commenters wanted 

clearly formalized monitoring programs 

established outside the PCA, and some 

wanted monitoring programs inside and 

outside the PCA to determine trends in 

use of roads and trails, OHV use, and 

private land development. 

Response—Data on private land 

development are available from the 

counties. The Park Service and Forest 

Service monitor traffic volumes on some 

roads, and the Park Service controls, 

through its permit system, overnight use 

of its backcountry sites. We do not know 

what predictive value those measures 

would have for grizzly bear 

management. 

Issue 7—One commenter noted that 

the planned extent of trapping and 

radio-collaring of bears was unethical, 

and that this intensive and invasive 

monitoring approach should be 

abandoned in favor of keeping the bears 

listed as threatened. 

Response—Since 1982, there has not 

been a single capture mortality 

associated with research trapping in the 

Yellowstone area spanning more than 

468 grizzly bear captures (Servheen et 

al. 2004, p. 21). Because of rigorous 

protocols dictating proper bear capture, 

handling, and drugging techniques used 

today, this type of scientific 

overutilization is not a significant factor 

impacting the Yellowstone DPS. The 

Study Team, bear biologists, and 

researchers will continue implementing 

these protocols after delisting. 

The Act requires us to delist species 

that no longer meet the definition of 

threatened or endangered. As discussed 

in the final rule, the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear DPS does not meet either of these 

definitions. We cannot leave the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS listed in 

perpetuity, or neglect to gather data on 

its status. We are required to use the 

best available science to recover grizzly 

bears in the Lower 48 States and 

monitor their status post-delisting. With 

existing funding and technology, radiotelemetry is the best way to obtain that 

information. When equivalent or more 

effective non-invasive techniques 

become economically available, they 

will be employed. 

Issue 8—A few commenters suggested 

that Resource Selection Functions be 

used to monitor habitat rather than the 

Cumulative Effects Model. Supporters of 

Resource Selection Functions said they 

are more grounded in an empirical 

approach and, therefore, are superior to 

the Cumulative Effects Model. Some 

commenters noted that if we are going 

to rely on the Cumulative Effects Model 

so heavily, it should be validated and a 

protocol developed for training 

additional personnel on how it works. 

Response—The use of Resource 

Selection Functions offers many 

advantages over the use of the existing 

Cumulative Effects Model. However, 

critics point out that estimated Resource 

Selection Functions are not always 

proportional to the true probability of 

use (Keating and Cherry 2004, p. 788). 

The Cumulative Effects Model 

represents the best available scientific 

information in its ability to provide 

managers with a comparative index of 

how much habitat values have changed 

through time. This remains the case 

even though the validity of all 

coefficients has not been confirmed. 

This method will remain in use until 

the research community arrives at a 

consensus or a better method to replace 

the Cumulative Effects Model is 

developed. 

The Cumulative Effects Model is one 

of many tools used to monitor habitat in 

the Yellowstone ecosystem. However, it 

is not the only tool nor is it the 

dominant tool. The Forest Service is 

contracting with a computer 

programmer to make the Cumulative 

Effects Model a more user friendly, 

Windows compatible format. The Study 

Team is committed to using the best 

scientific methods and models available 

to them. Use of such models will change 

as the science changes. 

Issue 9—Some commenters 

recommended that we monitor litter 

size and cub survival of radio-collared 

females as indicators of habitat quality 

and carrying capacity. 

Response—The monitoring program 

does annually monitor litter size and 

cub survival. These data are compared 

to indicators of habitat quality such as 

annual production and availability of 

major foods. 

Issue 10—Some commenters 

recommended that we monitor human 

values and attitudes toward grizzly 

bears in the GYA. This information 

could contribute substantially to our 

understanding of human-caused 

mortality in the GYA and the human 

dimensions of grizzly bear management. 

Response—Some social science 

research has been conducted in the GYA 

on attitudes toward grizzly bears 

(Kellert 1994, pp. 44–45; Responsive 

Management 2001, pp. 5–14), but we are 

not sure of its utility in predicting or 

reducing human-caused mortalities. Our 

current methods to reduce humancaused grizzly bear mortality by 

preventing conflicts and addressing 

conflicts in a systematic, fair, and 

prompt manner were adequate to 

accommodate an increasing 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

during the last two decades. These 

efforts to address grizzly bear conflicts 

will continue to comprise the vast 

majority of fiscal expenditures post 

delisting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, p. 154). 

V. Using the Best Available Science 

Issue 1—Many commenters 

questioned the quality or interpretation 

of the data used to support the proposed 

rule. Some offered alternative 

explanations for the increases in the 

population estimates that would not 

require an actual increase in bear 

numbers while others were satisfied that 

the best available science and data had 

been used in the development of the 

proposed rule. 

Response—The peer-reviewed 

scientific journal articles used in the 

final rule represent the best available 

science. The science available on the 

Yellowstone grizzly bears and their 

habitat is the best information available 

on any bear population in the world. 

None of the alternative explanations 

offered for the increasing population 

size were compelling. 

Issue 2—Some commenters objected 

to the use of data that they believed 

were out-of-date, particularly regarding 

the spread of diseases and parasites of 

whitebark pine, and advocated the use 

of readily available and more recently 

collected data sets. 

Response—The science and data in 

the proposed rule were the most recent 

information available when the rule was 

written and submitted for review and 

publication in the Federal Register. The 

final rule incorporates newer data on 

blister rust and mountain pine beetle 

(see Factor E below) available since the 

proposed rule was written. 

Issue 3—Some commenters 

specifically critiqued sources that we 

used in the proposed rule. One 

described problems associated with the 

Monograph cited in the proposed rule as 

Schwartz et al. (2005) [note: the 

Schwartz et al. 2005 citation has been 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14901 

updated in this final rule as Schwartz et 

al. 2006]. Major commenter concerns 

included—(1) the study sample is not 

representative of the population, (2) 

habitat-based demographic analysis is 

needed, and (3) heterogeneous mortality 

rates violate assumptions described in 

the Monograph. Another comment 

received was about our assertion that 

nearly 90 percent of females with cubsof-the-year occur inside the PCA. The 

commenter noted that because Schwartz 

et al.’s (2002, pp. 204–205; 2006b, pp. 

63–64) survey methods focused 

primarily on sighting bears within the 

PCA, these publications do not provide 

reliable information on what portion of 

grizzly bears spend any time outside the 

PCA. 

Response—The Monograph fully 

discusses the assumptions that must be 

satisfied in order to draw the 

conclusions stated in the document. 

These assumptions and conclusions in 

the Monograph went through extensive 

independent peer review prior to being 

accepted for publication. Schwartz et al. 

(2006d, pp. 9–12) clearly describe their 

experimental design to obtain a 

representative sample. For our 

discussion about the need for, and the 

caveats associated with, habitat-based 

demographic analysis, please see our 

response to Issue 2 under subheading B 

above. Regarding the assertion that 

heterogeneous mortality rates violate 

assumptions made in the Monograph, 

we recognize that mortality rates are 

heterogeneous. The fact that mortality 

rates are different inside Yellowstone 

National Park, outside of Yellowstone 

National Park but inside the PCA, and 

outside of the PCA was one of the key 

findings of the Monograph (Haroldson 

et al. 2006b, p. 40). This comment is 

suggesting that, because mortality rates 

are different in the three different areas 

(i.e., heterogeneous), then we must 

know the movement rates of bears 

among those areas. Heterogeneous 

mortality rates do not violate 

assumptions made in the Monograph 

because the study sample is 

representative of bears living in all three 

areas of differing mortality rates. We 

consider the Monograph to be the best 

available scientific data about the 

demographics of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS. 

Regarding the sampling method used 

by Schwartz et al. (2002, pp. 204–205; 

2006b, pp. 63–64), the monitoring 

system for females with cubs includes 

all areas where bears are known to 

occur, both inside and outside the PCA. 

Thirty-seven search areas are flown each 

year, 12 of which are completely or 

partially outside the PCA. For an 

example of the effort in observation 

flights alone, 74 observation flights were 

flown in 2005, totaling more than 172 

hours of flight time and covering all 37 

observation areas. There also were more 

than 411 hours of telemetry flights in 

2005. These telemetry flights also 

contribute to the total sightings of 

females with cubs. The details of 

capture efforts both inside and outside 

the PCA, along with details on these 

flights and the efforts to sight females 

with cubs both inside and outside the 

PCA, are reported in the Study Team’s 

Annual Reports (Haroldson et al. 2006a, 

pp. 4–10; Haroldson 2006b, pp. 11–16; 

West 2006a, pp. 18–22; West 2006b, pp. 

23–24). The Study Team, the 

Coordinating Committee, and the 

responsible agencies will continue to 

use the best available science to update 

protocols and direct management 

responses. 

Issue 4—A few commenters suggested 

that we incorporate the findings of 

Mattson et al. (2002) into the discussion 

about threats to major foods because it 

‘‘provides a solid empirical basis for 

understanding the extent to which 

grizzly bears will be able to switch to 

alternative foods when whitebark pine 

and cutthroat trout decline.’’

Response—Mattson et al. (2002, p. 32) 

cautioned that ‘‘it is unclear to what 

extent bears can compensate by 

reverting to extant alternate foods’’ if 

any currently important food were to 

diminish in abundance. We agree that 

the extent of the bears’ potential 

compensation is unknown. However, 

the management response to decreases 

in carrying capacity established by the 

Strategy and State management plans 

includes limiting human-caused 

mortality, enhancing Information and 

Education efforts in poor food years, 

actively restoring whitebark pine 

communities, eradicating lake trout, 

minimizing disturbance at known army 

cutworm moth sites, and monitoring 

female reproductive parameters. 

Issue 5—Some commenters disagreed 

with the levels of secure habitat and 

road density standards in the Strategy 

and noted that these were not based on 

the best available science. They thought 

that we accepted road densities present 

in 1998 instead of defining acceptable 

road densities based on habitat selection 

by female grizzly bears. Similarly, some 

commenters thought that our definition 

of secure habitat did not include any 

biological requirements (such as food, 

denning, and breeding grounds) and 

ignored the minimum core sizes of 

approximately 1,012 ha (2,500 ac) 

preferred by female grizzly bears in 

other ecosystems as documented by 

Mace et al. (1998) and Kasworm (1997). 

Response—The secure habitat levels 

and road densities in the Yellowstone 

ecosystem are more secure than the 

required road density and secure habitat 

in either the NCDE or the Cabinet/Yaak 

and Selkirk ecosystems. The best 

measure of the direct effect of habitat on 

a population is the trajectory of the 

population. Under the 1998 levels of 

road density and secure habitat, the 

Yellowstone grizzly population has 

been increasing at between 4 and 7 

percent per year. From 1986 to 2002, 

there was a net reduction of more than 

1,000 miles of road on the 6 

Yellowstone Ecosystem National Forests 

(inside and outside the PCA) (USDA 

Forest Service 2006a, p. 200). Inside the 

PCA on the National Forests, roads were 

reduced an average of 42.7 miles per 

year from 1986 to 2002 (USDA Forest 

Service 2006a, p. 200). Outside the PCA, 

an average of 40.5 miles of road were 

decommissioned for the same time 

period (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 

200). The 1998 road density levels are 

lower than previous road densities and 

are at a level that has allowed the 

population to increase. 

Regarding secure habitat, the average 

percentage of secure habitat in each of 

the 40 subunits inside the PCA is 85.6 

percent, and 20 of these 40 subunits 

contain more than 90 percent secure 

habitat (USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 

368–369). These levels of secure habitat 

are higher than the percentage of secure 

habitat in the home ranges of adult 

female grizzly bears reported by Mace et 

al. (1996, p. 1400) (Note that the 

commenter was incorrect in the date of 

this citation)), where 56 percent of the 

composite adult female home range was 

inside secure habitat. We could not find 

a publication by Kasworm in 1997 that 

addressed the issue of road densities 

and female home range size, but believe 

the commenter was referring to 

Wakkinen and Kasworm (1997, p. 24), 

who found that 44 to 68 percent of adult 

female home range was in secure 

habitat. Again, the levels of secure 

habitat in each subunit within the PCA 

(approximately the size of an annual 

female’s home range) are greater than 

what was observed in these studies. 

The large secure areas of these 

subunits do include important feeding 

and denning areas. The secure or core 

area size was not limited to areas greater 

than 1,012 ha (2,500 ac) because that 

would eliminate protection for all 

secure habitat areas less than this size. 

We believe that all secure habitats are 

important and that secure pockets are 

very important for grizzly bears, 

particularly in peripheral habitats. 

Issue 6—Some commenters noted that 

there is no social or scientific literature 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14902 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

to support our contention that delisting 

will build public support and tolerance 

for grizzly bear conservation. 

Response—We agree that there is no 

scientific literature documenting that 

delisting would or could build public 

support and tolerance for grizzly bears. 

This result is inferred by professional 

wildlife biologists familiar with local 

community attitudes in the Yellowstone 

ecosystem. We have eliminated this 

rationale from the final rule. 

W. Miscellaneous 

Issue 1—A few commenters suggested 

that we could improve the Coordinating 

Committee structure by including an 

opportunity for public involvement on 

proposed actions and including a 

conservation organization 

representative. 

Response—The Coordinating 

Committee process is open to the 

public, and public comment and 

involvement at meetings is allowed and 

encouraged. Although a conservation 

organization representative is not 

formally a member of the Coordinating 

Committee, all conservation 

organization representatives will 

continue to be able to comment and be 

involved in Coordinating Committee 

meetings. 

Issue 2—Numerous commenters 

suggested that we take a more 

conservative or precautionary 

management approach. Some cited 

Schwartz et al. (2006e, p. 62) as 

supporting this idea, especially in 

relation to long-term, irreversible habitat 

alterations such as private land 

development. 

Response—The Reassessing Methods 

Document and its Supplement 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2005, pp. 6, 20, 35; Interagency Grizzly 

Bear Study Team 2006, p. 15–16) 

advocate a precautionary management 

approach by establishing biologically 

sustainable mortality limits to ensure 

that the population trajectory of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is stable 

to increasing. The adaptive management 

system in the Strategy incorporates the 

results from intensive monitoring of 

population vital rates, habitat standards, 

and major foods into management 

decisions. 

Issue 3—Many comments received 

did not pertain directly to this decision 

or were outside of our scope and 

authority. These included comments 

opposing all livestock grazing on public 

lands, opposing the sale of public lands 

proposed in the Fiscal Year 2007 

President’s budget, favoring the need to 

switch to alternative energy sources, 

and opposing or supporting Act reform. 

Also included was a comment 

proposing the transfer of public lands in 

the PCA from the USDA Forest Service 

and BLM to the National Park Service. 

A large number of commenters 

expressed some degree of mistrust about 

the motivations behind delisting and 

accused us of catering to the oil and gas 

industry, timber industry, developers, 

livestock owners, and hunting interests. 

Numerous commenters also expressed 

value-based reasons as to why they 

opposed delisting, such as animal 

rights, spiritual importance, the grizzly 

bear as a national treasure and symbol 

of wilderness, and that humans should 

behave as caretakers and stewards of the 

grizzly bear, not as pillagers of its 

habitat. 

Response—Our decision to delist the 

Yellowstone DPS is based solely on our 

assessment of the best scientific and 

commercial data available, which 

indicate that the population is neither 

threatened nor endangered. Otherwise, 

these comments are either not relevant 

to the management decision or are 

outside the scope and authority of the 

final rule. 

Summary of Peer Review Comments 

In accordance with the Service’s 1994 

Peer Review policy (59 FR 34270, July 

1, 1994) and the peer review 

requirements of the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) Final 

Information Quality Bulletin for Peer 

Review (OMB 2004), the Service 

selected and solicited peer review of the 

proposed rule (70 FR 69854, November 

17, 2005) from nine independent 

scientific experts. Eight of the nine 

reviewers accepted the opportunity to 

review the proposed rule and answered 

questions pertaining to the logic of our 

assumptions, arguments, and 

conclusions. These reviewers were 

experienced bear biologists and 

researchers who do not work for the 

Service, although two of the reviewers 

are employed by the Department of the 

Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. They 

were chosen based on their direct 

research experience with bears and their 

experience with the conservation and 

management of bears. The names and 

affiliations of the reviewers are—(1) Dr. 

Joseph D. Clark, Research Ecologist, U.S. 

Geological Survey, Southern 

Appalachian Field Branch; (2) Dr. Piero 

Genovesi, Italian National Wildlife 

Institute, Italy; (3) Dr. Steven Herrero, 

Professor Emeritus of Environmental 

Science, University of Calgary, Canada; 

(4) Dr. Djuro Huber, Biology 

Department, University of Zagreb, 

Croatia; (5) Dr. Bruce McLellan, Wildlife 

Research Ecologist, British Columbia 

Ministry of Forests Research Branch, 

Canada; (6) Dr. Gordon Stenhouse, 

Alberta Sustainable Resource 

Development and Foothills Model 

Forest Grizzly Bear Research Program, 

Canada; (7) Dr. Jon Swenson, 

Department of Ecology and Natural 

Resource Management, Norwegian 

University of Life Sciences, Norway; 

and (8) Dr. Frank T. van Manen, 

Research Ecologist, U.S. Geological 

Survey, Southern Appalachian Field 

Branch. 

Each reviewer was paid $500 (U.S.) 

for their analysis (with the exception of 

those who also work for the U.S. 

Government, who were not paid for 

their services). The purpose of seeking 

independent peer review is to ensure 

that the best biological and commercial 

data are being used in the decisionmaking process, as well as to ensure that 

reviews by recognized experts are 

incorporated into the review process of 

the rulemakings. Peer reviewers were 

asked to consider, but not limit their 

comments, to the following questions 

and provide any other relevant 

comments, criticisms, or ideas—(1) Does 

the proposed rule provide adequate 

review and analysis of the factors 

relating to the persistence of the grizzly 

bear population in the GYA 

(demographics, habitat, adequate 

regulatory mechanisms, disease and 

predation, and genetics)?; (2) Is our 

establishment of this population as a 

DPS logical and adequate? Specifically, 

are our arguments pertaining to the 

discreteness and significance of the 

population sufficient according to the 

DPS policy, as described in the rule?; (3) 

Are our assumptions and definition of 

suitable habitat logical and adequate?; 

(4) Are the conclusions we reach logical 

and supported by the evidence we 

provide?; (5) Are our conclusions 

relating to food resources logical and 

adequate?; (6) Is the post-delisting 

monitoring program for habitat and 

population criteria logical and adequate 

to ensure survival of this population of 

grizzly bears in the foreseeable future?; 

and (7) Did we include all the necessary 

and pertinent literature to support our 

assumptions/arguments/conclusions? 

Peer reviewers provided individual, 

written responses during the public 

comment period. Copies of individual 

peer review responses are available 

upon request (see ADDRESSES section 

above). The issues raised by the peer 

reviewers are summarized and 

responded to below. We have grouped 

similar comments together under major 

headings that correspond to the 

questions we asked peer reviewers and 

summarized concerns into categories 

called ‘‘Issues,’’ which are followed by 

our ‘‘Responses.’’ Not all peer reviewers 

commented on all questions. The 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14903 

comments we received from peer 

reviewers generally reflected their areas 

of expertise, so when we discuss 

specific issues below, we are only 

summarizing those comments we 

received. The views discussed do not 

necessarily reflect all of the peer 

reviewers’ opinions, just the opinions of 

the reviewers who responded on that 

particular issue. 

Several reviewers also commented on 

the Reassessing Methods Document. A 

summary of those issues brought up by 

the reviewers, as well as responses to 

their concerns, were incorporated into 

the final Reassessing Methods 

Document as an appendix. 

A. Does the proposed rule provide 

adequate review and analysis of the 

factors relating to the persistence of the 

grizzly bear population in the GYA? 

Issue 1—In general, the peer 

reviewers believed the Service did an 

adequate job of discussing the relevant 

factors related to the persistence of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. One 

reviewer noted that the Yellowstone 

DPS does not meet either the Committee 

on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in 

Canada (COSEWIC) (the first stage 

toward consideration for protection 

under the Canadian Species at Risk Act) 

or the World Conservation Union 

(IUCN) standards for a non-threatened 

species. However, they further noted 

that because the threats to habitat are 

well understood and manageable (at 

least in the short-term) and the 

population has been expanding in size 

and distribution, delisting may be 

appropriate so long as the laws, plans, 

and strategies that are identified in the 

proposed rule do not get diluted after 

delisting. 

Response—While we view the IUCN 

and COSEWIC standards as informative 

in our decision-making process, the Act 

employs different standards for listing 

consideration, which are considered 

below. On the whole, we agree that the 

laws, plans, and strategies will provide 

for robust habitat protection measures; 

therefore, allowing the population to 

continue to expand and thrive. The 

Strategy will guide post-delisting 

management of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear DPS. The plans described in the 

Strategy can change after delisting only 

if new science becomes available and 

through agreement within the 

Coordinating Committee (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 63). Any future 

changes to the management documents 

for the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population will be modified in an 

adaptive management framework as a 

result of accumulated knowledge about 

grizzly bear management. 

Issue 2—The reviewers who 

commented on disease and predation 

agreed that disease is not an issue for 

grizzly bear populations. Regarding 

human-caused predation (i.e., 

mortality), some reviewers 

recommended that the Service explore 

the potential impacts of a hunting 

season that targeted adult males. It is 

possible that decreased cub survival 

through sexually selected infanticide 

may affect population trajectory. One 

reviewer also suggested that the final 

rule be more clear that although the 

impact of hunting to the total 

population is negligible, some local 

populations of bears may be reduced. 

One reviewer also recommended 

clarification about whether the penalty 

for poaching a grizzly bear will be the 

same as before delisting. 

Response—Sexually selected 

infanticide is the practice by which a 

territory vacated by an adult male is 

filled by a newly arrived subadult male, 

which then kills any cubs in the 

territory (Swenson et al. 1997b, p. 450). 

That behavior can reduce the 

population growth rate through cub 

mortality (Swenson et al. 1997b, p. 450). 

It has been documented in two 

European brown bear populations 

(Swenson et al. 2001, pp 75–77), and 

instances of infanticide by North 

American grizzly bears of both sexes 

also have been documented (McLellan 

1994, pp.15–16). However, Miller et al. 

(2003, p. 144) and McLellan (2005, pp. 

153–154) could not find evidence of 

population level effects of sexually 

selected infanticide in North American 

grizzly populations. If sport hunting 

preferentially removes adult male bears, 

and if sexually selected infanticide is 

common, sport hunting might result in 

some reduction in cub survival in 

localized areas. However, this would 

likely have little impact on overall 

population growth rate because hunting 

mortality on males would be limited in 

numbers and extent. 

The States have control over when 

and where a grizzly bear permit holder 

may hunt, so the targeting of bears in 

specific areas, or even specific 

individual bears, is possible. Sport 

hunting could be used in that way as a 

compensatory mortality source, by 

killing bears that would otherwise have 

to be removed by management action. 

However, hunting will be allowed only 

as long as the overall mortality limits 

are not exceeded. 

Each of the three States will establish 

penalties for poaching grizzly bears in 

their jurisdictions, and those penalties 

may not be the same as before delisting. 

Judges have discretion to impose fines 

under State law. Predicting the average 

poaching fine is not possible, due to the 

variety of circumstances surrounding a 

poaching incident, numerous State laws 

that may apply, and various 

punishments available under those State 

laws. We have been assured by State 

wildlife agencies that poaching 

incidents will continue to be 

investigated and prosecuted under State 

law. 

Issue 3—A few reviewers commented 

on the proposed rule’s discussion of 

grizzly bear/human conflicts. One 

reviewer thought that preventing access 

to human foods by bears should be 

better addressed. Another reviewer 

recommended that ‘‘Emphasis should be 

placed on managing human/bear 

conflicts on the interface of bear habitat 

and humans to ensure that mortality 

there does not exceed recruitment of the 

population as a whole.’’

Response—We agree that preventing 

grizzly bear habituation to humans and 

their foods is a priority. More than twothirds of all suggested funding to 

implement the Strategy is designated for 

managing conflicts and outreach efforts 

to minimize conflicts (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 154). All 

suitable habitat on GYA National 

Forests will have food storage orders in 

effect by 2008. Outreach efforts are 

directed toward decreasing attractants 

on private lands. The sustainable 

mortality limits will ensure that 

mortality in the outer zone of grizzly 

occupancy (those bears in closest 

proximity to private land) does not 

exceed the recruitment of the 

population as a whole. 

Issue 4—Although genetic isolation 

should be a consideration, one reviewer 

noted that, ‘‘Within the foreseeable 

future, demographic or habitat threats 

are much more likely than a genetic 

threat.’’ The reviewers endorsed natural 

population connectivity and stated that 

these opportunities should not decrease 

after delisting. Connectivity would 

increase the chances of long-term 

population persistence and would be a 

good buffer against the uncertainties 

surrounding major foods. One reviewer 

noted that, ideally, connectivity would 

be established before delisting occurred. 

Finally, one reviewer suggested that the 

Service analyze the ramifications of 

delisting on the ability to naturally 

recover the Bitterroot Ecosystem and to 

link the Yellowstone population with 

the NCDE. 

Response—We agree that 

demographic or habitat threats are more 

likely a threat than genetic factors in the 

foreseeable future, and that natural 

connectivity is desirable. Efforts to 

promote connectivity between existing 

populations will continue after delisting 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14904 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

as these programs are independent of 

the delisting of the GYA population. 

Due to the habitat protections, 

population standards, mortality control, 

outreach efforts, and the adaptive 

management approach described in the 

Strategy, we do not believe isolation is 

a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population and, therefore, does not 

preclude delisting. Delisting of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

should have no effect on the potential 

for natural recovery of grizzly bears 

through the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Both 

the GYA and NCDE populations are 

increasing in size and expanding their 

geographical ranges, increasing the 

likelihood of eventual dispersal to the 

Bitterroot Ecosystem. 

Issue 5—One reviewer believed that 

one of the biggest threats to grizzly bear 

habitat post-delisting ‘‘* * *will come 

from those who want to use or develop 

important grizzly bear habitat and who 

feel that their action is such a small part 

of the whole that it doesn’t matter.’’ He 

recommended that the Service more 

fully consider and discuss cumulative 

impacts of multiple projects. 

Response—The intent of the 1998 

habitat baseline is to prevent or mitigate 

those cumulative effects on bear habitat 

within the PCA, where 84 to 90 percent 

of the females with cubs occur. By 

maintaining the amount of secure 

habitat and restricting increases in the 

total mileage of roads, the number of 

developed sites, and livestock 

allotments, the PCA will be able to 

support a stable to increasing bear 

population. The USDA Forest Service 

will continue to apply and improve the 

Cumulative Effects Model and run this 

model at least every 5 years to assess the 

cumulative effects of development on 

bears. The Study Team will continue to 

pursue improved methods to assess 

cumulative impacts. 

Outside the PCA, nearly 60 percent of 

all suitable habitat is either Designated 

Wilderness Area, Wilderness Study 

Area, or Inventoried Roadless Area. 

These designations will prevent many 

extractive projects from occurring (see 

Factor D below). All projects on Federal 

lands are required to comply with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

process, which includes a section on the 

cumulative effects of the proposed 

project. Any NEPA process for a project 

on National Forest lands also will 

include an analysis of the impacts of the 

proposed project on USDA Forest 

Service species of concern, which will 

include the grizzly bear upon delisting 

(USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26). 

Issue 6—One reviewer noted, 

regarding regulatory mechanisms, only 

Montana appears to possess a law that 

mentions the importance of research 

and the best-available science to guide 

grizzly bear management, and that Idaho 

and Wyoming should be encouraged to 

adopt a similar law. One reviewer asked 

if the Strategy will have the regulatory 

power to ensure that signatories 

implement management decisions and 

that resources are available. 

Response—We have no authority to 

compel the States to enact laws, nor do 

we believe it is necessary. The Strategy, 

signed by all three affected States, is 

based on the best available science to 

guide Yellowstone grizzly bear 

management. The adaptive management 

approach described in the Strategy 

ensures that decisions are to be made 

based upon the best available science. 

While the Strategy cannot legally 

compel any of the signatories to 

implement management policies or 

obligate funding, the various Federal 

agencies’ and State governments’

signatures on the Strategy clearly 

indicate their intention to manage 

grizzly bears according to the Strategy. 

Issue 7—One reviewer commented 

that the proposed rule focused solely on 

current status and how future 

conditions will be monitored but failed 

to discuss carrying capacity of the GYA 

and ‘‘* * * what effect population 

expansion may have on a distinct 

population unit that has clear limits to 

range or habitat expansion.’’ He 

recommended that the Study Team start 

to consider this type of issue. 

Response—Schwartz et al. (2006c, p. 

29) discuss the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population’s growth towards carrying 

capacity. Carrying capacity has probably 

already been reached inside 

Yellowstone National Park (Schwartz et 

al. 2006c, p. 29), and its effect has been 

to reduce cub survival to levels found in 

grizzly bear populations at carrying 

capacity in Alaska. It does not appear 

that carrying capacity has been reached 

outside of Yellowstone National Park 

(Schwartz et al. 2006c, p. 29). There are 

14,554 sq km (5,619 sq mi) of suitable 

habitat in the GYA that are currently 

unoccupied by grizzly bears. This 

habitat, coupled with the sustainable 

mortality limits, will allow the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population to 

continue to increase and expand as per 

the State management plans. 

At some point in the future, 

monitoring data may demonstrate that 

carrying capacity has been reached 

throughout the GYA and that the 

sustainable mortality limits must be 

revised to accommodate increasing 

natural mortality or to stabilize the 

population. The Study Team will 

reevaluate demographic parameters 

including reproductive rate, survival 

rate, annual population growth rate 

(lambda), stable age distribution, and 

transition probabilities—every 8 to 10 

years; as directed by a violation of the 

population standards (for a complete list 

of all population standards and triggers 

that are considered violations, see 

Factor D below); or at the request of the 

Coordinating Committee. During these 

formal evaluations, any impacts that 

density dependence or lowered carrying 

capacity may have will be identified 

and addressed through adjustments to 

methods used to estimate population 

size, sustainable mortality, unknown 

and unreported mortality, or other 

management recommendations. The 

application of adaptive management 

will allow prompt application of new 

data or techniques to management 

decisions. Future conditions may not be 

like past conditions and the monitoring 

and adaptive management systems in 

place are designed to respond to 

changes that occur. 

B. Is our establishment of this 

population as a distinct population 

segment logical and adequate? 

Issue 1—Most of the reviewers agreed 

with our DPS analysis and stated that, 

due to its discreteness and significance, 

the GYA grizzly bear population 

warrants DPS status. Some reviewers 

did point out that DPS designation is 

biologically justified but highlights one 

of the major problems faced by the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population is 

its isolation. Gene flow must be 

attained, either through natural 

connectivity or augmentation. One 

reviewer also stated that DPS status can 

complicate future augmentation efforts 

if the source population is not similar 

enough to the recipient population. 

Response—As noted in the final rule, 

we agree that the Yellowstone 

population is both discrete and 

significant, thus qualifying as a DPS 

under our policy. Regarding isolation of 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population, 

those potential threats are related to 

genetic concerns and changes in the 

population’s habitat. Based on the best 

available science (Miller and Waits 

2003, p. 4338), the Service concludes 

that the genetic diversity of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

will be adequately maintained by the 

immigration or relocation of one to two 

effective migrants from the NCDE every 

10 years. This movement of grizzly 

bears between ecosystems may occur 

naturally or through management 

intervention. Regardless of the method, 

the Service is confident that genetic 

impoverishment will not threaten the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14905 

The source population for 

augmentation, if augmentation becomes 

necessary, will be the NCDE population. 

The NCDE bears are those most closely 

related to the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

DPS, having been separated for roughly 

100 years (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 

4334). Offspring of individuals from 

these two populations are unlikely to 

experience outbreeding depression. 

Limited gene flow, as suggested here, 

would not compromise the required 

level of discreteness for DPS status, as 

the DPS policy does not require 

complete separation of one DPS from 

other populations, but instead requires 

‘‘marked separation.’’

Issue 2—Regarding significance, a few 

of the reviewers responded that there 

are other populations of grizzlies that 

have great access to ungulates and 

whitebark pine seeds but that diets have 

not been quantified in these areas. One 

reviewer questioned just how unique 

the ecological setting of the GYA really 

is. 

Response—While we recognize that 

there are populations around the world 

that have access to large ungulates 

(Canada, Alaska, northeast Asia) and 

whitebark pine seeds (Canada), what is 

unusual and unique about the GYA is 

that there is relatively high use of 

ungulate meat. Also, although several 

berry-producing shrubs occur in the 

area, these are relatively limited by 

climatic factors and most grizzly bears 

in the GYA do not rely on berries as a 

significant portion of their diets. It is 

this combination of reliance on large 

mammals and whitebark pine seeds, 

while having little opportunity to feed 

on berries, which makes the ecological 

setting of the GYA unusual, unique, and 

significant, as none of these factors 

alone differentiates the GYA from other 

ecosystems. 

Issue 3—One reviewer thought that 

the Service should reevaluate the status 

of all of the grizzly bear populations in 

the lower 48 simultaneously with the 

Yellowstone assessment. 

Response—The Service intends to 

initiate a 5-year review of grizzly bear 

populations in the conterminous States 

outside of the Yellowstone DPS, based 

on additional scientific information that 

is currently being collected and 

analyzed. This review will likely be 

initiated a few months after the 

publication of this final rule. 

C. Are our assumptions and definition 

of suitable habitat logical and adequate? 

Issue 1—One reviewer thought it 

would be helpful for the Service to recategorize and include an analysis of 

suitable habitat, potentially suitable 

habitat (if management decisions 

favored grizzly bears), and unsuitable 

habitat, stating that this may help direct 

management decisions in the future. 

Response—In response to this 

comment and several others received by 

the general public, we have conducted 

additional analyses to determine how 

much potentially suitable habitat there 

is inside the DPS boundaries that could 

be made suitable through management 

actions. We found that an additional 

9,637 sq km (3,720 sq mi) of National 

Forest lands (including the Salt River 

and Palisades Mountain Range) could be 

made suitable by eliminating all sheep 

grazing allotments and existing oil and 

gas developments. These areas are not 

currently suitable and would require 

elimination of existing management 

activities to make them suitable. Such 

an action is not biologically necessary to 

maintain the recovered status of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. These 

areas do not constitute a significant 

portion of the range. Please see our 

response to Issue 2 under subheading G 

in the Summary of Public Comments 

section above for additional discussion 

about this concern. 

Issue 2—One reviewer agreed with 

the first two criteria for suitable habitat 

but questioned the third criterion 

(having low mortality risk as indicated 

through reasonable and manageable 

levels of grizzly bear/human conflicts). 

This reviewer suggested that the Service 

conduct ‘‘Additional work on mortality 

risk modeling in suitable habitats 

(Nielsen et al. 2006, pp. 220–222) 

[which] would serve as a valuable 

supplement to the tracking of conflicts 

and would have the added benefit of 

providing a system that could aid in 

conflict reduction.’’

Response—The Service agrees that 

such additional efforts to assess 

mortality risk in suitable habitats would 

be useful and supports such work. The 

Study Team is currently developing 

habitat-based risk analysis models that 

will provide insight into mortality risk 

across the GYA landscape. One 

management recommendation 

(Schwartz et al. 2006e, p. 62) was to 

obtain funds to explore more spatially 

explicit models beyond the three 

political zones (i.e., inside Yellowstone 

National Park, inside the recovery zone 

but outside Yellowstone National Park, 

and outside the recovery zone) that were 

addressed. In fact, before Schwartz et al. 

(2006e) was printed, the Study Team 

submitted a proposal to address this 

recommendation and obtained funding 

for this project. It took more than 1.5 

years to create the required spatial 

layers needed for the analyses. The 

Study Team then began to construct 

models looking at hazards on the 

landscape and how they affect grizzly 

bear survival. These models consider 

foods, habitat productivity, and human 

impacts to the landscape. As part of the 

adaptive management approach in the 

Strategy, the Study Team intends to link 

these hazard models with similar 

models of reproduction to develop 

models predicting population change on 

the landscape. Combined, these models 

will yield a projection of population 

viability. These efforts will 

continuously be updated and improved 

as new methods and information 

become available. 

The Study Team also analyzes the 

location of grizzly bear/human conflicts 

and mortalities in relation to land 

ownership and type of conflict in their 

annual reports. In this way, the Study 

Team identifies ‘‘hotspot’’ conflict areas 

in which I & E and prevention efforts are 

likely to be most beneficial. 

Issue 3—A few reviewers questioned 

the simplicity of the Service’s definition 

of suitable habitat. These reviewers felt 

that because the Service and the Study 

Team have abundant data regarding 

habitat use, the Service should have 

employed a more empirical definition 

‘‘* * * using data-based, statistical 

techniques, such as logistic regression 

(e.g., Mladenoff et al. 1995) or 

Mahalanobis distance (e.g., Thatcher et 

al. 2006).’’

Response—We thought it was 

adequate to use a more generalized, 

coarse-scale interpretation of what 

habitat would meet grizzly bear needs. 

Other models predicting where 

unoccupied suitable grizzly bear habitat 

occurs within the GYA produced results 

similar to ours (Noss et al. 2002, p. 903; 

Merrill and Mattson 2003, pp. 182, 184). 

The results of our analysis agree with 

previous studies that have identified the 

Wind River Mountains and the 

Centennial Mountains as potentially 

suitable, but currently unoccupied 

habitat. 

Issue 4—Several reviewers felt that 

the Service should include some 

measure of habitat quality in its 

definition because it also is important to 

understand other health parameters in 

suitable habitat, such as body condition, 

movement rates, habitat use, and 

reproductive function. A couple of 

reviewers thought habitat quality was 

particularly important to include in any 

definition of suitable habitat in light of 

climate change and possible shifts in 

habitat use to respond to declines in 

food resources. If bears show major 

shifts in habitat use in response to 

changing food availability, suitable 

habitat may need to be redefined. 

Response—We used the Middle 

Rockies Ecoregion as a surrogate for 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14906 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

habitat quality/capacity. This approach 

is supported by many previous studies 

which have found that mountainous 

regions generally possess the habitat 

components necessary for grizzly bear 

persistence, including hiding cover, 

topographic variation necessary to 

ensure a wide variety of seasonal foods, 

steep slopes used for denning, and 

remoteness from humans (Craighead 

1980, pp. 8–13; Knight 1980, pp. 1–3; 

Judd et al. 1986, pp. 114–115; Peek et 

al. 1987, 160–161; Aune and Kasworm 

1989, pp. 29–58; Merrill et al. 1999, pp. 

233–235; Pease and Mattson 1999, p. 

969; Linnell et al. 2000, pp. 403–405; 

Mattson and Merrill 2002, p. 1128). We 

have not assigned numerical quality 

scores to habitats based on grizzly bear 

body condition or productivity because 

of the uncertainties surrounding such 

calculations. 

D. Are the conclusions we reach logical 

and supported by the evidence we 

provide? 

Issue 1—A couple of reviewers 

criticized our contention that hunted 

grizzly bear populations may experience 

lower incidences of vandal killing, and 

one reviewer noted that data he had 

collected in Alberta since 1999 do not 

support the conclusion that sport 

hunting of grizzly bears lowers mortality 

from poaching. 

Response—The reviewer’s evidence 

convinced us to conclude that sport 

hunting of grizzly bears may not lower 

mortality from poaching. We have 

removed any such wording and logic 

from this final rule. 

Issue 2—One reviewer suggested that 

we could strengthen our assumptions 

about secure habitat serving adequately 

as the primary habitat component 

monitored, if we expanded the 

definition of secure habitat to include a 

probability of grizzly bear occurrence 

(through ongoing monitoring of food 

resources in space and time) coupled 

with mortality risk (Nielsen et al. 2006, 

pp. 220–222) 

Response—The negative impacts of 

humans on grizzly bear survival and 

habitat use are well documented 

(Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278; 

McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. 

458–459; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 

83–103; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862–1864; 

McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. 

377–378; Mattson 1990, pp. 41–44; 

Mattson and Knight 1991, pp. 9–11; 

Mattson et al. 1992, pp. 436–438; Mace 

et al. 1996, p. 1403; McLellan et al. 

1999, pp. 914–916; White et al. 1999, p. 

150; Woodroffe 2000, pp. 166–168; 

Boyce et al. 2001, p. 34; Johnson et al. 

2004, p. 976). In light of this, the 

importance of secure habitat, simply 

defined as a function of distance from 

roads, is indisputable. Although we do 

not include any prediction of where 

grizzly bears may occur or what their 

mortality risk in identified secure 

habitat might be, the Study Team will 

monitor food resources and grizzly bear 

mortalities in the GYA annually. 

E. Are our conclusions relating to food 

resources logical and adequate? 

Issue 1—Many reviewers thought that 

the proposed rule was too optimistic in 

its discussion of how bears may respond 

to declines in major foods. They noted 

that although bears display some 

foraging plasticity, the extent to which 

this behavior might buffer loss of one of 

the four major foods is not known. In 

contrast, one reviewer thought that food 

availability was of minor importance in 

comparison to other human influences 

such as roads and human-caused 

mortality and stated that preventing 

grizzly bear use of human garbage and 

food will become increasingly important 

if traditional foods decrease. 

Response—While we agree that the 

extent to which grizzly bears might be 

able to compensate for the loss of one 

of the four major foods is unknown, the 

rule reflects the best scientific and 

commercial data available. Future food 

source availability and the possible 

grizzly bear reaction to those possible 

future changes are discussed under 

Factor E below and in the Summary to 

Public Comments’ sections J, K, L, and 

M above. We also agree that humancaused mortality is probably the major 

factor limiting grizzly populations, 

although mortality can be mediated by 

food availability (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 

432). The Study Team will continue to 

monitor major food abundance and 

grizzly bear conflicts and mortalities. 

The combination of results and Study 

Team analyses from these multiple 

monitoring indices on foods, bear vital 

rates, and bear/human conflicts will 

allow managers to respond to changes as 

necessary. Managers will respond to 

poor food years with reductions in 

allowable mortalities and with 

increased I & E efforts that forewarn the 

public about the increased potential for 

grizzly bear/human conflicts. 

Issue 2—The reviewers thought it was 

important to continue monitoring the 

abundance and distribution of the four 

major food sources. One reviewer 

suggested that the Service use statistical 

power analyses ‘‘* * * to determine 

what level of change in each food source 

can be detected with these surveys’ and 

to make adjustments to improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of the food 

monitoring techniques. Another 

reviewer recommended that the Service 

monitor reproductive rates and define 

threshold values for these as they might 

be more sensitive to food fluctuations 

than mortality rates would be. One 

reviewer suggested that non-invasive 

methods could be used to monitor 

reproductive hormone cycles in adult 

female bears that may tie directly to 

habitat and landscape conditions. 

Response—The Greater Yellowstone 

Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working 

Group (2005, pp. 98–107) worked 

closely with statisticians to ensure the 

best possible sampling design in terms 

of statistical power and ecological 

inference. They have established over 

70 transects throughout the GYA to 

assess the status of whitebark pine. The 

Study Team also documents annual 

whitebark pine cone production through 

monitoring of 19 transects inside the 

PCA. The Study Team has found that its 

surveys of whitebark pine cone 

production can effectively predict the 

magnitude of the number of 

management actions taken on grizzly 

bears during each crop year (Haroldson 

and Podruzny 2006, p. 45). The Study 

Team’s research has resulted in a 

tentative threshold value, a mean of 20 

cones per tree, which predicts near 

exclusive use of cones by bears from 

August through October, and also 

predicts that management actions will 

be reduced in such years. This level of 

predictive ability to detect this effect is 

adequate for management purposes. 

Whitebark pine cone production 

fluctuates from year to year, as an 

evolved strategy on the part of the trees 

to avoid seed parasitism and predation. 

Human management cannot guarantee a 

large cone crop. 

Abundances of the other three major 

foods (ungulate carcasses, cutthroat 

trout, and army cutworm moths) have 

not been reliable predictors of grizzly 

bear abundance, fecundity, mortality, or 

management activity. All have 

fluctuated in abundance during the 

period in which the grizzly population 

has continued to increase. 

Although adult female survival is the 

factor most important to population 

trajectory, the Study Team also monitors 

reproductive rates to obtain a complete 

picture of the overall health of the 

grizzly bear population. Annually, the 

Study Team monitors litter size through 

counts of females with cubs-of-the-year. 

In addition, every 8 to 10 years, the 

Study Team will recalculate litter size 

and cub survival based on the radiocollared sample of female grizzly bears. 

The Study Team does not currently 

monitor reproductive hormone cycles 

but will consider its use in the future as 

it becomes more feasible and costeffective. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14907 

Issue 3—One reviewer thought the 

Service should make it clear that the 

four major foods and their potential 

declines were not included in any 

models of future population trajectory. 

Response—The potential abundances 

of the four major foods have not been 

employed in any of the PVAs predicting 

future population trajectory. The 

reasons for this and our progress toward 

this goal are discussed above in our 

response to Issue 2 under subheading B 

in the Summary of Public Comments 

section of this final rule. 

Issue 4—Two reviewers thought the 

Service should analyze the implications 

of the recently introduced wolf 

populations on the availability of 

ungulates to Yellowstone grizzly bears. 

Response—Recent models and 

investigations in the field suggest that 

reintroduced wolves have had little 

effect on ungulate availability to grizzly 

bears in the GYA (Wilmers et al. 2003a, 

pp. 914–915; Barber et al. 2005, p. 43; 

Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 259). This issue 

is discussed in more detail under Factor 

E below. 

F. Is the post-delisting monitoring 

program for habitat and population 

criteria logical and adequate to ensure 

survival of this population of grizzly 

bears in the foreseeable future? 

Issue 1—A couple of the reviewers 

commented that a clear, unequivocal set 

of criteria for automatic relisting should 

be established to reduce process-based 

uncertainty. One reviewer stated that, 

given past controversy surrounding 

listing decisions, relisting cannot be 

regarded as a potential solution to future 

problems. 

Response—The Act contains no 

provision for automatic relisting of a 

species based on quantitative criteria. If, 

at any time, data indicate that protective 

status under the Act should be 

reinstated, we can initiate listing 

procedures, including, if appropriate, 

emergency listing. Any such relisting 

would be based on the definition of 

threatened or endangered and the 5- 

factor analysis. A petition for relisting 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS would 

have to go through the same procedure 

as a species newly petitioned for listing. 

However, the Service can issue an 

emergency listing rule independent of 

the petition process or in response to a 

petition, as it did for the Mojave 

population of the desert tortoise 

(Gopherus agassizii) (54 FR 32326, 

August 4, 1989). The Service would 

then have 240 days to complete a 

conventional listing rule before the 

protections of the emergency rule 

expire. The Service believes the process 

described in this final rule is sufficient 

to ensure that relisting will be carried 

out if necessary, based upon the best 

available science. 

Issue 2—One reviewer stated that 

monitoring is not sufficient if the results 

of investigations are not promptly 

incorporated in policy and management, 

and that this type of rapid response 

requires availability of contingency 

funds, clear roles and authorities, and 

the power to impose the necessary 

actions on all involved partners. One 

reviewer believes that since the 

effectiveness of the monitoring program 

depended ‘‘* * * upon adequate 

funding to provide research results with 

scientifically acceptable confidence 

limits,’’ the monitoring plan should 

have secure funding for at least 5 to 10 

years before delisting occurs. 

Response—The signatories to the 

Strategy will practice adaptive 

management by incorporating the 

findings of the monitoring programs 

into management of the GYA grizzly 

bear population. The Federal 

Government does not have the statutory 

or constitutional authority to compel the 

States or individuals to participate in 

managing grizzly bears if they choose 

not to, although the responsible 

agencies’ signatures on the Strategy 

indicate their willingness to manage the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. Funding 

for government programs is never 

certain at any level, but the funding to 

support the grizzly bear and grizzly bear 

habitat management activities of the 

various Federal and State agencies has 

been consistently obligated for the past 

30 years. 

Issue 3—One reviewer encouraged the 

Service to investigate human 

dimensions with a protocol that would 

allow quantification of changes in the 

attitudes of the general public, farmers, 

hunters, and other stakeholders. 

Response—Although we agree that 

the values people hold about grizzly 

bears may provide some insight into 

poaching incidents and successful 

management approaches, due to the 

complications associated with 

quantifying shifts in public attitudes, we 

do not see such research as a priority 

essential to grizzly bear conservation in 

the GYA. Instead, we believe successful 

conservation of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear should focus on reducing humancaused mortality, protecting habitat, 

preventing grizzly bear/human conflicts, 

and monitoring demographic and 

habitat parameters. That said, in 2001, 

the State of Wyoming contracted a 

private business to survey its residents 

about their attitudes toward grizzly bear 

management (Responsive Management 

2001, p. i). This information was used 

in the development of the Wyoming 

State grizzly bear management plan. 

Issue 4—The reviewers supported our 

post-delisting monitoring plan to 

maintain a minimum of 25 adult female 

bears distributed throughout the GYA 

with radio collars at all times, to 

examine the trends and welfare of the 

population. One reviewer recommended 

to us that such research trapping and 

radio-collaring should strive to 

minimize the number of capture events 

per individual to minimize stress, 

perhaps by using radio transmitters that 

have a longer operational life. 

Response—The minimization of stress 

during capture events is always a 

priority for research-trapped bears. A 

strict protocol (Jonkel 1993, pp. 1–4) is 

followed by the Study Team when 

trapping grizzly bears for research 

purposes. In addition, the latest 

veterinary medical research is 

incorporated into the Study Team’s 

protocol when they renew their 

veterinary permit annually. These 

protocols are designed to minimize 

restraint time, minimize capture-related 

stress, monitor the health of captured 

animals, administer appropriate levels 

of anesthesia, and minimize the 

duration of anesthesia through the use 

of appropriate antagonists. As radiotelemetry technology improves, the 

Study Team will incorporate those 

advances into the monitoring program. 

If collars can be safely retained for 

longer periods, the Study Team will 

make use of improved battery life as 

these advancements are made. As collar 

life increases, the total number of 

capture events will decrease. 

Issue 5—One reviewer believes that 

the Service should state clearly how 

often important population parameters 

such as female survival, litter size, litter 

interval, population growth rates 

(lambda), sex ratios, and age ratios will 

be calculated. 

Response—These parameters will be 

recalculated every 8 to 10 years based 

on the radio-collared sample 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2005, p. 45) or as required by a Biology 

and Monitoring Review triggered by a 

violation of a habitat or population 

criterion. 

Issue 6—Some reviewers suggested 

that a DNA-based population estimate 

be conducted at least once to check the 

estimate given by using the methods 

described in the Reassessing Methods 

Document. Some believe that the 

Service should integrate large-scale, 

non-invasive genetic sampling into 

future monitoring protocol since the 

data gathered during such sampling 

provides much more information than 

just a population estimate. Genetic 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14908 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

sampling also can provide reliable 

estimates of sex ratio, reproductive 

success, effective population size, 

dispersal, allelic diversity, 

heterozygosity, and inbreeding levels. 

Response—The current cost of a onetime, point population estimate using 

DNA is roughly $3.5 million to $5 

million (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study 

Team 2005, p. 12). The Yellowstone 

Ecosystem Subcommittee decided in 

2001 that such funds would be spent 

more effectively on other management 

actions. The Service and the Study 

Team recognize the need to improve 

methods to estimate population size and 

calculate sustainable mortality limits 

and will continue to consider ways in 

which this might be accomplished. As 

the costs associated with DNA 

amplification and analysis decrease 

with time, the Study Team may revisit 

this possibility. The Study Team will 

continue to take DNA samples 

opportunistically from all bears trapped 

for research or management and all 

known mortalities so that future 

analyses of other genetic or 

demographic parameters are possible. 

For now, as long as mortality continues 

to remain within the sustainable 

mortality limits as evidenced by a 

Chao2 estimate of at least 48 females 

with cubs of the year, there are no data 

to indicate that this method is 

inadequate to manage for a stable to 

increasing Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population. 

Issue 7—Several reviewers thought 

the 1998 baseline gives reasonable 

assurance that grizzly bear habitat needs 

within the PCA will continue to be met. 

One reviewer commented that the 

assumption that 1998 habitat conditions 

allowed the population to increase by 4 

to 7 percent is ‘‘largely valid,’’ but 

questioned the Service’s choice of the 

year 1998 and the biological 

justification behind the criteria for 

acceptable road densities and levels of 

secure habitat. A couple of reviewers 

agreed with the Service that, currently, 

there is no known way to deductively 

calculate habitat quality for grizzly bears 

(e.g., security) and that the use of 

surrogates (e.g., levels of secure habitat) 

was appropriate, but reminded us that 

‘‘If we are monitoring the wrong 

surrogates, however, there is no 

guarantee that the true 1998 habitat 

baseline will be met. We should 

acknowledge this and continue to strive 

for better measures of what constitutes 

true habitat quality for bears.’’

Response—The year 1998 was chosen 

because we know that levels of secure 

habitat and site developments had been 

roughly the same during the previous 10 

years (USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 27), 

and that, during these years, the 

population was increasing (Eberhardt 

and Knight 1996, p. 419; Harris et al. 

2006, p. 48). Therefore, the selection of 

any other year between 1988 and 1998 

would have resulted in approximately 

the same baseline values for roads and 

developed sites but the selection of the 

latter date allowed improvements made 

since 1988 to be included in the 

baseline. To address the possibility that 

we could be monitoring the ‘‘wrong 

surrogates,’’ the responsible agencies 

also will be monitoring a suite of other 

factors including habitat parameters, 

population criteria, mortalities, and 

conflicts. Our partners will improve the 

technique for the monitoring of habitat 

as better methods become available and 

as the relationships between habitat 

quality and vital rates are better 

documented. 

Issue 8—A couple of reviewers 

suggested that in order to truly maintain 

1998 conditions, the level of human use 

also must be maintained at 1998 levels 

because the intensity of human use is 

the driving factor behind security, not 

the sheer number of developed sites and 

roads on the landscape; intensity of use 

will only increase as the human 

population in the area increases. One 

reviewer suggested that the Service 

create limits on the numbers of visitors 

(visitors/days) allowed in Yellowstone 

National Park. He believes that this 

limitation on human activities is 

especially important in light of 

uncertainties surrounding food sources. 

One reviewer also noted that, in light of 

potential decreases in important foods, 

it would be preferable to institute 

habitat guidelines that are more 

restrictive toward resource exploitation 

than the 1998 baseline. 

Response—Human use of the GYA, as 

measured by the annual number of 

people visiting Yellowstone National 

Park, has increased since the grizzly was 

listed as threatened in 1975 (Gunther 

2000, p. 48). During the 1970s, the 

average annual number of people 

visiting the Park was 2,243,737. In the 

1990s, this number was 3,023,916 

(Gunther 2000, p. 48). However, during 

that period, the grizzly population also 

has increased, and the bears within 

Yellowstone National Park appear to 

have reached the carrying capacity of 

the Park habitat (Schwartz et al. 2006c, 

p. 29). The Service considers the 

establishment of habitat thresholds for 

human population growth and 

recreation to be unrealistic and feels 

that the 1998 baseline will address these 

issues adequately through access 

management and limitations on site 

development. Using the adaptive 

management approach described in the 

Strategy, management agencies will 

respond with adequate restrictions and 

enforcement if recreation on public 

lands due to increased human 

populations in the GYA becomes 

detrimental to the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population. 

Resource extraction in grizzly bear 

habitat is primarily timber harvest, and 

it has declined. Habitat quality, as 

measured by road density and timber 

harvest, has increased due to declines in 

these activities in grizzly habitat. 

Timber harvest volumes and road 

construction have declined since the 

mid-1990s. Under the 1998 level of 

secure habitat, the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population has been increasing at 

between 4 to 7 percent per year (Harris 

et al. 2006, p. 48). From 1986 to 2002 

there has been a net reduction of more 

than 1,600 km (1,000 mi) of road on the 

six GYA National Forests (inside and 

outside the PCA). Inside the PCA on 

National Forests, there was an average 

reduction (elimination) of 59.9 km (37.2 

mi) of road per year from 1986 to 2002 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 200). 

Similarly, outside the PCA, there was an 

average reduction of 40.7 km (25.3 mi) 

of road per year for this time period 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 200). 

There are no active oil and gas wells in 

Service-defined suitable grizzly habitat. 

There has never been any high-density 

oil and gas development in suitable 

grizzly habitat in the GYA. Inside the 

PCA, the potential for increased 

resource extraction in the future is 

severely limited due to the constraints 

on road construction and site 

development established by the 

Strategy. 

We do not anticipate a dramatic 

increase in resource extraction outside 

of the PCA either due to the quantity of 

National Forest land designated as 

Wilderness Area (6,799 sq km (2,625 sq 

mi)), Wilderness Study Area (708 sq km 

(273 sq mi)), or Inventoried Roadless 

Area (6,179 sq km (2,386 sq mi)). 

Approximately 79 percent of all suitable 

habitat on National Forest lands outside 

the PCA falls into one of these 

categories. 

Issue 9—One reviewer stated that 

there are no clear management 

responses described if habitat threshold 

values are not achieved. Another 

reviewer recommended that threshold 

values for habitat effectiveness be 

established, as these would be helpful 

for managers, even if they do not trigger 

exact management responses like the 

demographic criteria do. 

Response—Because of the natural 

annual variability in the distribution 

and abundance of grizzly bear foods, 

there were no threshold values 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14909 

established for these habitat parameters. 

Instead, the 1998 baseline attempted to 

establish realistic habitat standards that 

ensure adequate habitat security and 

minimum livestock conflicts within the 

PCA. The Study Team will continue to 

communicate with managers and the 

media about whitebark pine production 

as they obtain data each year. The goal 

of this effort is to inform the public of 

ways to avoid grizzly bear conflicts in 

poor food years. 

Issue 10—One reviewer noted that the 

time lag in the feedback loop between 

habitat changes and population size 

(Doak 1995, p. 1378) poses a problem 

for monitoring population size alone. 

This reviewer suggested that a major 

research focus for the future should be 

to strive to improve habitat monitoring 

protocols such that habitat is monitored 

directly, not just via grizzly bear vital 

rates. 

Response—The Strategy commits the 

agencies to intensive monitoring of all 

grizzly bear vital rates and the 

relationship of these vital rates to 

changes in major foods and levels and 

types of human activities in their 

habitat. This monitoring does not solely 

rely on vital rate monitoring to 

indirectly infer changes in habitat. 

Annual habitat monitoring will produce 

results on any changes in habitat values 

and key food production and possible 

disease in key foods. Thus, the system 

in place will not rely on indirect 

measures of habitat values but will 

produce direct measures of habitat 

values annually. Since our partners will 

be monitoring a suite of vital rates 

including survival of radio-collared 

bears, mortality of all conflict bears, and 

fecundity, we feel confident that we will 

be able to detect the consequences of 

significantly reduced habitat 

productivity. 

Issue 11—One reviewer wanted to see 

more emphasis placed on not only 

tracking and categorizing private land 

development, but predicting it as well, 

to allow for proactive management. 

Response—Data on private land 

development are gathered by, and are 

available from, the counties. These data 

are used by nongovernmental 

organizations and university researchers 

to project future growth and prioritize 

private lands that are most important to 

landscape connectivity and species 

diversity. For more information on 

recent land sale statistics, please see our 

response to Issue 6 under subheading H 

of the Summary of Public Comments 

section above. 

The Service contends that grizzly 

bears can coexist with projected human 

population growth and land use in the 

foreseeable future, if an adequate 

management framework (i.e., the 

Strategy) is in place to manage grizzly 

bear mortality and habitat quality 

(Linnell et al. 2001, p. 348). 

Issue 12—One reviewer 

recommended that the Service abandon 

the current Cumulative Effects Model in 

favor of a model that employs Resource 

Selection Functions. He contends that 

Resource Selection Functions models 

avoid many of the limitations associated 

with the Cumulative Effects Model 

including ‘‘* * * lack of empiricism, 

pre-defined model structure, and 

arbitrary threshold criteria.’’ Another 

reviewer also endorsed the use of 

Resource Selection Functions models 

and noted that they are becoming 

sophisticated enough to incorporate 

mortality risk, which would be 

invaluable to grizzly bear management. 

Response—The Study Team is 

currently exploring alternative habitat 

models to the Cumulative Effects Model. 

Resource Selection Functions models 

are not always the best way to describe 

habitat relationships because estimated 

resource selection functions are not 

always proportional to the true 

probability of use (Keating and Cherry 

2004, p. 788). We agree that linking 

habitat conditions to demographic data 

would be an invaluable management 

tool. The Study Team is currently 

developing habitat-based risk analysis 

models that will provide insight into 

these relationships. These models 

consider foods, habitat productivity, 

and human impacts to the landscape. As 

part of the adaptive management 

approach in the Strategy, the Study 

Team intends to link these hazard 

models with similar models of 

reproduction to develop models 

predicting population change on the 

landscape. Combined, these models will 

yield a projection of population 

viability. These efforts will 

continuously be updated and improved 

as new methods and information 

become available. 

Issue 13—Several reviewers 

recommended that the Cumulative 

Effects Model be validated with 

empirical data and suggested that 

predicted use may not correlate well 

with actual grizzly bear use. They 

believed such validation would be 

helpful since the Service relies on the 

Cumulative Effects Model as a 

monitoring tool for habitat effectiveness 

and habitat mitigation. One reviewer 

suggested an approach that could link 

habitat (foods) and mortality so that the 

Cumulative Effects Model is adequate. 

Response—Although we currently 

view the Cumulative Effects Model as 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available, we agree that it would be 

valuable to confirm the Cumulative 

Effects Model with empirical data. This 

criticism of the Cumulative Effects 

Model is one reason that the Strategy 

does not include threshold values for 

habitat effectiveness as calculated by the 

Cumulative Effects Model as a trigger for 

management action or a Biology and 

Monitoring Review. What the 

Cumulative Effects Model does provide 

is a relative measure of whether habitat 

quality has increased or decreased in 

areas across the landscape. However, it 

does not provide a reliable estimate of 

exactly how those changes in habitat 

quality will affect the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population. The Study 

Team is currently exploring alternative 

habitat models to the Cumulative Effects 

Model. As the science further evolves, 

the Study Team will continue to use the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available. 

G. Did we include all the necessary and 

pertinent literature to support our 

assumptions, arguments, and 

conclusions? 

Issue 1—Several peer reviewers 

suggested additional literature to 

consider and possibly include in the 

final rule. 

Response—The literature used and 

recommended by the peer reviewers has 

been considered and incorporated, as 

appropriate, in this final rule. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the Act and regulations 

promulgated to implement the listing 

provisions of the Act (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth the procedures for listing, 

reclassifying, and delisting species. A 

species may be delisted, according to 50 

CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and 

commercial data available demonstrate 

that the species is no longer endangered 

or threatened because of (1) extinction; 

(2) recovery; or (3) error in the original 

data used for classification of the 

species. 

A recovered population is one that no 

longer meets the Act’s definition of 

threatened or endangered. The analysis 

for a delisting due to recovery must be 

based on the five factors outlined in 

section 4(a)(1) of the Act. This analysis 

must include an evaluation of threats 

that existed at the time of listing and 

those that currently exist or that could 

potentially affect the species in the 

foreseeable future once the protections 

of the Act are removed. 

The Act defines ‘‘species’’ to also 

include any subspecies or, for 

vertebrates, any DPS. Because the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population is 

discrete and significant, as defined 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14910 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

above, it warrants recognition as a DPS 

under the Act and our policy (61 FR 

4722, February 7, 1996). Therefore, our 

analysis only covers the Yellowstone 

DPS. 

In terms of the ‘‘foreseeable future,’’

for the purposes of this final rule, we 

view ‘‘foreseeable’’ as ‘‘such as 

reasonably can or should be anticipated: 

Such that a person of ordinary prudence 

would expect it to occur or exist under 

the circumstances’’ (Merriam-Webster’s 

Dictionary of Law 1996; Western 

Watershed Project v. Foss (D. Idaho 

2005)). We use this definition, as 

opposed to an a priori time period (e.g., 

100 years), to avoid placing an arbitrary 

limit on our time horizon. The 

foreseeable future is likely to differ for 

each factor potentially impacting the 

DPS. When evaluating population 

models or other modeling efforts (e.g., 

climate change models), with respect to 

foreseeable future, we take into 

consideration model variance over time 

and model outputs along with the decay 

in confidence as we forecast further into 

the future. This approach is more robust 

than simply looking at a single timehorizon because it uses all available 

data and takes into consideration the 

predictive value of that data. However, 

the Strategy which is intended to guide 

all management post-delisting, is 

anticipated to continue in perpetuity. 

To provide assurance that the DPS 

remains recovered beyond the 

foreseeable future, the Strategy provides 

that if future threats arise or known 

threats increase in magnitude, the Study 

Team and the Coordinating Committee 

are to adapt management to address any 

new or increased threats. 

A species is ‘‘endangered’’ for 

purposes of the Act if it is in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a 

‘‘significant portion of its range’’ and is 

‘‘threatened’’ if it is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a ‘‘significant 

portion of its range.’’ The following 

describes how we interpret the terms 

‘‘range’’ and ‘‘significant’’ as used in the 

phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range,’’

and explains the basis for our use of 

those terms in this rule. 

‘‘Range’’—The word ‘‘range’’ in the 

phrase ‘‘significant portion of its range’’

refers to the range in which a species 

currently exists, not to the historical 

range of the species where it once 

existed. The context in which the 

phrase is used is crucial. Under the 

Act’s definitions, a species is 

‘‘endangered’’ only if it ‘‘is in danger of 

extinction’’ in the relevant portion of its 

range. The phrase ‘‘is in danger’’

denotes a present-tense condition of 

being at risk of a future, undesired 

event. To say that a species ‘‘is in 

danger’’ in an area that is currently 

unoccupied, such as unoccupied 

historical range, would be inconsistent 

with common usage. Thus, ‘‘range’’

must mean ‘‘currently-occupied range,’’

not ‘‘historical range.’’ This 

interpretation of ‘‘range’’ is further 

supported by the fact that section 

4(a)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to 

consider the ‘‘present’’ or ‘‘threatened’’

(i.e., future), rather than the past, 

‘‘destruction, modification, or 

curtailment’’ of a species’ habitat or 

range in determining whether a species 

is endangered or threatened. 

However, the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals appeared to conclude, without 

any analysis or explanation that the 

‘‘range’’ referred to in the ‘‘significant 

portion of its range’’ phrase includes the 

historical range of the species. The court 

stated that a species ‘‘can be extinct 

‘throughout * * * a significant portion 

of its range’ if there are major 

geographical areas in which it is no 

longer viable but once was,’’ and then 

faults the Secretary for not ‘‘at least 

explain[ing] her conclusion that the area 

in which the species can no longer live 

is not a significant portion of its range.’’

Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 

F.3d 1136, 1145 (emphasis added). This 

would suggest that the range we must 

analyze in assessing endangerment 

includes unoccupied historical range—

i.e., the places where the species was 

once viable but no longer exists. 

The statute does not support this 

interpretation. This interpretation is 

based on what appears to be an 

inadvertent misquote of the relevant 

statutory language. In addressing this 

issue, the Ninth Circuit states that the 

Secretary must determine whether a 

species is ‘‘extinct throughout * * * a 

significant portion of its range.’’ Id. If 

that were true, we would have to study 

the historical range. But that is not what 

the statute says, and the Ninth Circuit 

quotes the statute correctly elsewhere in 

its opinion. Under the Act, we are not 

to determine if a species is ‘‘extinct 

throughout * * * a significant portion 

of its range,’’ but are to determine if it 

‘‘is in danger of extinction throughout 

* * * a significant portion of its range.’’

A species cannot presently be ‘‘in 

danger of extinction’’ in that portion of 

its range where it ‘‘was once viable but 

no longer is’’—if by the latter phrase the 

court meant lost historical habitat. In 

that portion of its range, the species has 

by definition ceased to exist. In such 

situations, it is not ‘‘in danger of 

extinction’’; it is extinct. 

Although we must focus on the range 

in which the species currently exists, 

data about the species’ historical range 

and how the species came to be extinct 

in that location may be relevant in 

understanding or predicting whether a 

species is ‘‘in danger of extinction’’ in 

its current range and therefore relevant 

to our 5 factor analysis. But the fact that 

it has ceased to exist in what may have 

been portions of its historical range does 

not necessarily mean that it is ‘‘in 

danger of extinction’’ in a significant 

portion of the range where it currently 

exists. 

‘‘Significant’’—The Act does not 

clearly indicate what portion(s) of a 

species’ range should be considered 

‘‘significant.’’ Most dictionaries list 

several definitions of ‘‘significant.’’ For 

example, one standard dictionary 

defines ‘‘significant’’ as ‘‘important,’’

‘‘meaningful,’’ ‘‘a noticeably or 

measurably large amount,’’ or 

‘‘suggestive’’ (Merriam-Webster’s 

Collegiate Dictionary 1088 (10th ed. 

2000)). If it means a ‘‘noticeably or 

measurably large amount,’’ then we 

would have to focus on the size of the 

range in question, either in relation to 

the rest of the range or perhaps even in 

absolute terms. If it means ‘‘important,’’

then we would have to consider factors 

in addition to size in determining a 

portion of a species’ range is 

‘‘significant.’’ For example, would a key 

breeding ground of species be 

‘‘significant,’’ even if it was only a small 

part of the species’ entire range? 

One district court interpreted the term 

to mean ‘‘a noticeably or measurably 

large amount’’ without analysis or any 

reference to other alternate meanings, 

including ‘‘important’’ or ‘‘meaningful.’’

Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 239 F. 

Supp. 2d 9, 19 (D.D.C. 2002). We 

consider the court’s interpretation to be 

unpersuasive because the court did not 

explain why we could not employ 

another, equally plausible definition of 

‘‘significant.’’ It is impossible to 

determine from the word itself, even 

when read in the context of the entire 

statute, which meaning of ‘‘significant’’

Congress intended. Moreover, even if it 

were clear which meaning was 

intended, ‘‘significant’’ would still 

require interpretation. For example, if it 

were meant to refer to size, what size 

would be ‘‘significant’’: 30 percent, 60 

percent, 90 percent? Should the 

percentage be the same in every case or 

for each species? Moreover, what 

factors, if any, would be appropriate to 

consider in making a size 

determination? Is size all by itself 

‘‘significant,’’ or does size only become 

‘‘significant’’ when considered in 

combination with other factors? On the 

other hand, if ‘‘significant’’ were meant 

to refer to importance, what factors 

would need to be considered in 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14911 

deciding that a particular portion of a 

species’ range is ‘‘important’’ enough to 

trigger the protections of the Act? 

Where there is ambiguity in a statute, 

as with the meaning of ‘‘significant,’’ the 

agency charged with administering the 

statute, in this case the Service, has 

broad discretion to resolve the 

ambiguity and give meaning to the term. 

As the Supreme Court has stated: 

In Chevron, this Court held that 

ambiguities in statutes within an agency’s 

jurisdiction to administer are delegations of 

authority to the agency to fill the statutory 

gap in reasonable fashion. Filling these gaps, 

the Court explained, involves difficult policy 

choices that agencies are better equipped to 

make than courts. If a statute is ambiguous, 

and if the implementing agency’s 

construction is reasonable, Chevron requires 

a federal court to accept the agency’s 

construction of the statute, even if the 

agency’s reading differs from what the court 

believes is the best statutory interpretation. 

Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. 

Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 

980 (2005) (internal citations omitted). 

We have broad discretion in defining 

what portion of a species’ range is 

‘‘significant.’’ No ‘‘bright line’’ or 

‘‘predetermined’’ percentage of 

historical range loss is considered 

‘‘significant’’ in all cases, and we may 

consider factors other than simply the 

size of the range portion in defining 

what is ‘‘significant.’’ In light of the 

general ecosystems conservation 

purposes and findings in section 2 of 

the Act, our goal is to define 

‘‘significant’’ in such a way as to insure 

the conservation of the species 

protected by the Act. In determining 

whether a range portion is significant, 

we consider the ecosystems on which 

the species that use that range depend 

as well as the values listed in the Act 

that would be impaired or lost if the 

species were to become extinct in that 

portion of the range or in the range as 

a whole. 

However, our discretion in defining 

‘‘significant’’ is not unlimited. The 

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, while 

acknowledging that we have ‘‘a wide 

degree of discretion in delineating’’

what portion of a range is ‘‘significant,’’

appeared to set outer limits of that 

discretion. See Defenders of Wildlife v. 

Norton, 258 F.3d 1136. On the one 

hand, it rejected what it called a 

quantitative approach to defining 

‘‘significant,’’ where a ‘‘bright line’’ or 

‘‘predetermined’’ percentage of 

historical range loss is considered 

‘‘significant’’ in all cases. 258 F.3d. at 

1143. As the court explained: 

First, it simply does not make sense to 

assume that the loss of a predetermined 

percentage of habitat or range would 

necessarily qualify a species for listing. A 

species with an exceptionally large historical 

range may continue to enjoy healthy 

population levels despite the loss of a 

substantial amount of suitable habitat. 

Similarly, a species with an exceptionally 

small historical range may quickly become 

endangered after the loss of even a very small 

percentage of habitat. 

The Ninth Circuit concluded that 

what is ‘‘significant’’ must ‘‘necessarily 

be determined on a case by case basis,’’

and must take into account not just the 

size of the range but also the biological 

importance of the range to the species. 

258 F.3d. at 1143. At the other end of 

the spectrum, the Ninth Circuit rejected 

what it called ‘‘the faulty definition 

offered by us,’’ a definition that holds 

that a portion of a species’ range is 

‘‘significant’’ only if the threats faced by 

the species in that area are so severe as 

to threaten the viability of the species as 

a whole. 258 F.3d. at 1143, 1146. It thus 

appears that within the two outer 

boundaries set by the Ninth Circuit, we 

have wide discretion to give the 

definitive interpretation of the word 

‘‘significant’’ in the phrase ‘‘significant 

portion of its range.’’

Based on these principles, we 

considered the following factors in 

determining whether a portion of the 

grizzly’s range is ‘‘significant’’—quality, 

quantity, and distribution of habitat 

relative to the biological requirements of 

the species; the historical value of the 

habitat to the species; the frequency of 

use of the habitat; the uniqueness or 

importance of the habitat for other 

reasons, such as breeding, feeding, 

migration, wintering, or suitability for 

population expansion; genetic diversity; 

and other biological factors. We focused 

on portions of the grizzly’s range 

important to its conservation, such as 

identified ‘‘recovery units’’; unique 

habitat or other ecological features that 

provide adaptive opportunities that are 

of conservation importance to the 

species; and ‘‘core’’ populations that 

generate additional individuals of a 

species that can, over time, replenish 

depleted populations or stocks at the 

periphery of the species’ range. We did 

not apply the term ‘‘significant’’ to 

portions of the species’ range that 

constitute less-productive peripheral 

habitat, artificially-created habitat, or 

areas where the species has established 

itself in urban or suburban settings. 

Such portions of the species’ range are 

not ‘‘significant,’’ in our view, to the 

conservation of the species as required 

by the Act. 

The following analysis utilizes these 

definitions and examines all important 

factors currently affecting the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS or likely 

to affect it within the foreseeable future. 

Therefore, this analysis was conducted 

over the entire current and foreseeable 

range of the grizzly bear including all 

‘‘suitable habitat’’ (defined and 

discussed under Factor A below) within 

the DPS boundaries. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Habitat destruction and modification 

were major contributing factors leading 

to the listing of the grizzly bear as a 

threatened species under the Act in 

1975 (40 FR 31734–31736, July 28, 

1975). Both the dramatic decreases in 

historical range and land management 

practices in formerly secure grizzly bear 

habitat led to the 1975 listing (40 FR 

31734–31736, July 28, 1975). To address 

this source of population decline, the 

Study Team was created in 1973 to 

collect, manage, analyze, and distribute 

science-based information regarding 

habitat and demographic parameters 

upon which to base management and 

recovery. Then, in 1983, the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Committee was created to 

coordinate management efforts across 

multiple Federal lands and different 

States within the various Recovery 

Zones ultimately working to achieve 

recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower 

48 States. Its objective was to change 

land management practices on Federal 

lands that supported grizzly bear 

populations at the time of listing to 

provide security and maintain or 

improve habitat conditions for the 

grizzly bear. Since 1986, National Forest 

and National Park plans have 

incorporated the Guidelines (USDA 

Forest Service 1986, pp. 1–2) to manage 

grizzly bear habitat in the Yellowstone 

Recovery Zone. 

Management improvements made as a 

result of the Guidelines include, but are 

not limited to—(1) Federal and State 

agency coordination to produce 

nuisance bear guidelines that allow a 

quick response to resolve and minimize 

grizzly bear/human confrontations; (2) 

reduced motorized access route 

densities through restrictions, 

decommissioning, and closures; (3) 

highway design considerations to 

facilitate population connectivity; (4) 

closure of some important habitat areas 

to all human access in National Parks 

during certain seasons that are 

particularly important to grizzlies; (5) 

closure of many areas in the GYA to oil 

and gas leasing, or implementing 

restrictions such as no surface 

occupancy; (6) elimination of two sheep 

allotments on the Caribou-Targhee 

National Forest in 1998, resulting in a 

46 percent decrease in total sheep 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14912 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

animal months inside the Yellowstone 

Recovery Zone; and (7) expanded I & E 

programs in the Yellowstone Recovery 

Zone to help reduce the number of 

grizzly mortalities caused by big-game 

hunters. Overall, adherence to the 

Guidelines has changed land 

management practices on Federal lands 

to provide security and to maintain or 

improve habitat conditions for the 

grizzly bear. Implementation of these 

Guidelines has led to the successful 

rebound of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population, allowing it to significantly 

increase in size and distribution since 

its listing in 1975. 

In 2002, an interagency group 

representing pertinent State and Federal 

parties released the draft Final 

Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly 

Bear in the GYA to guide management 

and monitoring of the habitat and 

population of Yellowstone grizzly bears 

after delisting. The Strategy identifies 

and provides a framework for managing 

two areas, the PCA and adjacent areas 

of suitable habitat where occupancy by 

grizzly bears is anticipated in the 

foreseeable future. What follows is an 

assessment of present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the grizzly bear’s habitat 

and range. More specifically, this 

analysis evaluates all areas capable of 

supporting grizzly bears including the 

PCA and all suitable habitat within the 

DPS. These terms and areas are defined 

below. 

Suitable Habitat—Because we used 

easily recognized boundaries to 

delineate the Yellowstone DPS, the DPS 

includes both suitable and unsuitable 

habitat (see Figure 1 above). For the 

purposes of this final rule, suitable 

habitat is considered the area within the 

DPS boundaries capable of supporting a 

viable grizzly bear population now or in 

the foreseeable future. We have defined 

suitable habitat for grizzly bears as areas 

having three characteristics—(1) being 

of adequate habitat quality and quantity 

to support grizzly bear reproduction and 

survival; (2) contiguous with the current 

distribution of Yellowstone grizzly bears 

such that natural re-colonization is 

possible; and (3) having low mortality 

risk as indicated through reasonable and 

manageable levels of grizzly bear 

mortality. For more information see our 

response to Issue 2 under subheading G 

in the Summary of Public Comments 

section above. 

Our definition and delineation of 

suitable habitat is built on the widely 

accepted conclusions of extensive 

research (Craighead 1980, pp. 8–11; 

Knight 1980, pp. 1–3; Peek et al. 1987, 

pp. 160–161; Merrill et al. 1999, pp. 

233–235; Pease and Mattson 1999, p. 

969) that grizzly bear reproduction and 

survival is a function of both the 

biological needs of grizzly bears and 

remoteness from human activities, 

which minimizes mortality risk for 

grizzly bears. Mountainous areas 

provide hiding cover, the topographic 

variation necessary to ensure a wide 

variety of seasonal foods, and the steep 

slopes used for denning (Judd et al. 

1986, pp. 114–115; Aune and Kasworm 

1989, pp. 29–58; Linnell et al. 2000, pp. 

403–405). Higher elevation, 

mountainous regions in the GYA 

(Omernik 1987, pp. 118–125; Omernik 

1995, pp. 49–62; Woods et al. 1999; 

McGrath et al. 2002; Chapman et al. 

2004) contain high-energy foods such as 

whitebark pine seeds (Mattson and 

Jonkel 1990, p. 223; Mattson et al. 

1991a, p. 1623) and army cutworm 

moths (Mattson et al. 1991b, 2434; 

French et al. 1994, p. 391). 

For our analysis of suitable habitat, 

we considered the Middle Rockies 

ecoregion, within which the Greater 

Yellowstone Area is contained, 

(Omernik 1987, pp. 120–121; Woods et 

al. 1999; McGrath et al. 2002; Chapman 

et al. 2004) to meet grizzly bear 

biological needs providing food, 

seasonal foraging opportunities, cover, 

and denning areas (Mattson and Merrill 

2002, p. 1125). The Middle Rockies 

ecoregion has Douglas-fir, subalpine fir, 

and Engelmann spruce forests and 

alpine areas. Forests can be open. 

Foothills are partly wooded or shruband grass-covered. Intermontane valleys 

are grass- and/or shrub-covered and 

contain a mosaic of terrestrial and 

aquatic fauna that is distinct from the 

nearby mountains. Many mountain-fed, 

perennial streams occur and 

differentiate the intermontane valleys 

from the Northwestern Great Plains. 

Recreation, logging, mining, and 

summer livestock grazing are common 

land uses in this ecoregion. 

Although grizzly bears historically 

occurred throughout the area of the 

Yellowstone DPS (Stebler 1972, pp. 

297–298), many of these habitats are 

not, today, biologically suitable for 

grizzly bears. While there are records of 

grizzly bears in eastern Wyoming near 

present-day Sheridan, Casper, and 

Wheatland, even in the early 19th 

century, indirect evidence suggests that 

grizzly bears were less common in these 

eastern prairie habitats than in 

mountainous areas to the west (Rollins 

1935, p. 191; Wade 1947, p. 444). 

Grizzly bear presence in these drier, 

grassland habitats was associated with 

rivers and streams where grizzlies used 

bison carcasses as a major food source 

(Burroughs 1961, pp. 57–60; Herrero 

1972, pp. 224–227; Stebler 1972, pp. 

297–298; Mattson and Merrill 2002, pp. 

1128–1129). Because wild bison herds 

no longer exist in these areas, these 

areas are no longer capable of 

contributing, in a meaningful way, to 

the overall status of the Yellowstone 

DPS. Thus, we did not include drier 

sagebrush, prairie, or agricultural lands 

within our definition of suitable habitat 

because these land types no longer 

contain adequate food resources (i.e., 

bison) to support grizzly bears. Figure 1 

above illustrates suitable habitat within 

the Yellowstone DPS. 

Unavoidable and uncontrollable 

mortality also can impact which habitat 

might be considered suitable. Some 

mortality, including human-caused 

mortality, is unavoidable in a dynamic 

system where hundreds of bears inhabit 

large areas of diverse habitat with 

several million human visitors and 

residents. The negative impacts of 

humans on grizzly bear survival and 

habitat use are well documented 

(Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278; 

McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. 

458–459; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 

83–103; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862–1864; 

McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. 

377–378; Mattson 1990, pp. 41–44; 

Mattson and Knight 1991, pp. 9–11; 

Mattson et al. 1992, pp. 436–438; Mace 

et al. 1996, p. 1403; McLellan et al. 

1999, pp. 914–916; White et al. 1999, p. 

150; Woodroffe 2000, pp. 166–168; 

Boyce et al. 2001, p. 34; Johnson et al. 

2004, p. 976). These effects range from 

temporary displacement to actual 

mortality. Mattson and Merrill (2002, 

pp. 1129–1134) found that grizzly bear 

persistence in the contiguous United 

States between 1920 and 2000 was 

negatively associated with human and 

livestock densities. As human 

population densities increase, the 

frequency of encounters between 

humans and grizzly bears also increases, 

resulting in more human-caused grizzly 

bear mortalities due to a perceived or 

real threat to human life or property 

(Mattson et al. 1996, pp. 1014–1015). 

Similarly, as livestock densities increase 

in habitat occupied by grizzly bears, 

depredations follow. Although grizzly 

bears frequently coexist with cattle 

without depredating them, when grizzly 

bears encounter domestic sheep, they 

usually are attracted to such flocks and 

depredate the sheep (Jonkel 1980, p. 12; 

Knight and Judd 1983, pp. 188–189; 

Orme and Williams 1986, pp. 199–202; 

Anderson et al. 2002, pp. 252–253). If 

repeated depredations occur, managers 

either relocate the bear or remove it 

from the population, resulting in such 

domestic sheep areas becoming 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14913 

population sinks (Knight et al. 1988, pp. 

122–123). 

Because urban sites and sheep 

allotments possess high mortality risks 

for grizzly bears, we did not include 

these areas as suitable habitat (Knight et 

al. 1988, pp. 122–123). Based on 2000 

Census data, we defined urban areas as 

census blocks with human population 

densities of more than 50 people per sq 

km (129 people per sq mi). Cities within 

the Middle Rockies ecoregion such as 

West Yellowstone, Gardiner, Big Sky, 

and Cooke City, Montana, and Jackson, 

Wyoming, were not included as suitable 

habitat. There are large, contiguous 

blocks of sheep allotments in peripheral 

areas of the ecosystem in the Wyoming 

Mountain Range, the Salt River 

Mountain Range, and portions of the 

Wind River Mountain Range on the 

Bridger-Teton and the Targhee National 

Forests (see Figure 1 above). This spatial 

distribution of sheep allotments on the 

periphery of suitable habitat results in 

areas of high mortality risk to bears 

within these allotments and a few small, 

isolated patches or strips of suitable 

habitat adjacent to or within sheep 

allotments. These strips and patches of 

land possess higher mortality risks for 

grizzly bears because of their enclosure 

by and proximity to areas of high 

mortality risk. This phenomenon in 

which the quantity and quality of 

suitable habitat is diminished because 

of interactions with surrounding less 

suitable habitat is known as an ‘‘edge 

effect’’ (Lande 1988, pp. 3–4; Yahner 

1988, pp. 335–337; Mills 1995, p. 396). 

Edge effects are exacerbated in small 

habitat patches with high perimeter-toarea ratios (i.e., those that are longer and 

narrower) and in wide-ranging species 

such as grizzly bears because they are 

more likely to encounter surrounding, 

unsuitable habitat (Woodroffe and 

Ginsberg 1998, p. 2126). Due to the 

negative edge effects of this distribution 

of sheep allotments on the periphery of 

grizzly range, our analysis did not 

classify linear strips and isolated 

patches of habitat as suitable habitat. 

Finally, dispersal capabilities of 

grizzly bears were factored into our 

determination of which potential habitat 

areas might be considered suitable. 

Although the Bighorn Mountains west 

of I–90 near Sheridan, Wyoming, are 

grouped within the Middle Rockies 

ecoregion, they are not connected to the 

current distribution of grizzly bears via 

suitable habitat or linkage zones, nor are 

there opportunities for such linkage. 

The Bighorn Mountains are comprised 

of 6,341 sq km (2,448 sq mi) of habitat 

that is classified as part of the Middle 

Rockies ecoregion, but are separated 

from the current grizzly bear 

distribution by approximately 100 km 

(60 mi) of a mosaic of private and BLM 

lands primarily used for agriculture, 

livestock grazing, and oil and gas 

production (Chapman et al. 2004). 

Although there is a possibility that 

individual bears may emigrate from the 

GYA to the Bighorns occasionally, this 

dispersal distance exceeds the average 

dispersal distance for both males (30 to 

42 km (19 to 26 mi)) and females (10 to 

14 km (6 to 9 mi)) (McLellan and Hovey 

2001, p. 842, Proctor et al. 2004, p. 

1108). Without constant emigrants from 

suitable habitat, the Bighorns will not 

support a self-sustaining grizzly bear 

population. Therefore, due to the fact 

that this mountain range is disjunct 

from other suitable habitat and current 

grizzly bear distribution, our analysis 

did not classify the Bighorns as suitable 

habitat within the Yellowstone DPS 

boundaries. 

Some areas that are not considered 

suitable habitat by our definition are 

occasionally used by grizzly bears 

(4,635 sq km (1,787 sq mi)) (see Figure 

1 above) (Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 209; 

Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64–66). The 

records of grizzly bears in these 

unsuitable habitat areas are generally 

due to recorded grizzly bear/human 

conflicts or to transient animals. These 

areas are defined as unsuitable due to 

the high risk of mortality resulting from 

these grizzly bear/human conflicts. 

These unsuitable habitat areas do not 

permit grizzly bear reproduction or 

survival because bears that repeatedly 

come into conflict with humans or 

livestock are usually either relocated or 

removed from these areas. 

According to the habitat suitability 

criteria described above, the 

Yellowstone DPS contains 

approximately 46,035 sq km (17,774 sq 

mi) of suitable grizzly bear habitat 

within the DPS boundaries; or roughly 

24 percent of the total area within the 

DPS boundaries (see Figure 1 above). 

This amount of suitable habitat is 

sufficient to meet all habitat needs of a 

recovered grizzly bear population and 

provide ecological resiliency to the 

population through the availability of 

widely distributed, high-quality habitat 

that will allow the population to 

respond to environmental changes. 

Grizzly bears currently occupy about 68 

percent of that suitable habitat (31,481 

sq km (12,155 sq mi)) (Schwartz et al. 

2002, pp. 207–209; Schwartz et al. 

2006b, pp. 64–66). It is important to 

note that the current grizzly bear 

distribution shown in Figure 1 does not 

mean that equal densities of grizzly 

bears are found throughout the region. 

Instead, most grizzly bears 

(approximately 84 to 90 percent of 

females with cubs-of-the-year) are found 

within the PCA (Schwartz et al. 2006b, 

pp. 64–66). Grizzly bear use of suitable 

habitat may vary seasonally and 

annually with different areas being more 

important than others in some seasons 

or years (Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 

48–62). An additional 14,554 sq km 

(5,619 sq mi) of suitable habitat is 

currently unoccupied by grizzly bears 

(see Figure 1 above) (Schwartz et al. 

2002, pp. 207–209; Schwartz et al. 

2006b, pp. 64–66). We expect natural 

recolonization of much, if not all, of this 

area in the next few decades (Pyare et 

al. 2004, pp. 5–6). 

Significant Portion of Range—We 

determined whether a portion of the 

species range is significant based on the 

biological needs of the species and the 

nature of the threats to the species. As 

stated above, the factors we used to 

determine significance include, but may 

not be limited to the following: Quality, 

quantity, and distribution of habitat 

relative to the biological requirements of 

the species; the historic value of the 

habitat to the species; the frequency of 

use of the habitat; the uniqueness or 

importance of the habitat for other 

reasons, such as breeding, feeding, 

migration, wintering, or suitability for 

population expansion; genetic diversity 

(the loss of genetically based diversity 

may substantially reduce the ability of 

the species to respond and adapt to 

future environmental changes or 

perturbations); and other biological 

factors (e.g. resilience to recover from 

periodic disturbances or environmental 

variability). 

After careful examination of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in the 

context of our definition of ‘‘significant 

portion of its range,’’ we have 

determined all suitable habitat in the 

DPS (as per our definition above) 

(approximately 46,035 sq km (17,774 sq 

mi)) (see Figure 1 above), to varying 

levels, is a significant portion of its 

range. Within suitable habitat, the PCA 

represents the most significant portion 

of the range. As such, this area is 

designated the ‘‘primary’’ conservation 

area and provides the highest levels of 

protective management. This area was 

originally selected as the focus of our 

recovery efforts because it was seen ‘‘as 

an area large enough and of sufficient 

habitat quality to support a recovered 

grizzly bear population’’ (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 1982, pp. 55–58; U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 41). 

This area includes approximately 51 

percent of the suitable habitat within 

the DPS and approximately 84 to 90 

percent of the population of female 

grizzly bears with cubs (Schwartz et al. 

2006b, pp. 64–66). Because an estimated 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14914 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

86.5 percent of the GYA grizzly bears 

live within the PCA and these bears 

have experienced positive annual 

population increases of 4 percent inside 

Yellowstone National Park, and 12 

percent in the area inside the PCA but 

outside of Yellowstone National Park 

(Schwartz et al. 2006e, p. 58), the PCA 

is particularly biologically significant to 

the Yellowstone DPS. It serves as a 

source area from which grizzly bears 

can expand into peripheral areas and 

currently unoccupied suitable habitat. 

Additionally, the PCA’s geographic 

location in the northwest corner of the 

DPS area adds to its biological 

significance because it is the area 

nearest to other grizzly bear recovery 

ecosystems. If and when connectivity is 

established among grizzly bear 

populations in the lower 48 States, the 

PCA will play a role in providing 

dispersers to other ecosystems and 

providing secure, quality habitat for 

dispersers from other grizzly bear 

ecosystems. This portion of the range is 

necessary for maintaining a recovered 

population. 

While the PCA provides for the 

primary biological needs of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS, suitable 

habitat outside the PCA also plays a role 

in ensuring the future viability of the 

species, in that it allows for continued 

population expansion into adjacent 

areas of public land in the GYA, and 

therefore, provides additional ecological 

resiliency to respond to environmental 

change. Given this differential level of 

importance, differential levels of 

management and protection (one 

standard inside the PCA and another 

standard for suitable habitat outside the 

PCA) are justified. 

As noted above, we do not believe 

that areas of unsuitable habitat: 

Contribute, in a meaningful way, to the 

biological requirements of the species; 

are of especially important historical 

value; represent unique habitats or other 

ecological features that provide adaptive 

opportunities that are of conservation 

importance to the species; or, are 

necessary to maintain genetic diversity. 

Unsuitable habitat, by and large, 

constitutes less-productive peripheral 

habitat. Therefore, we believe 

unsuitable habitat, as defined in this 

section above, is not ‘‘significant’’ to the 

conservation of the species and does not 

constitute a significant portion of range. 

A lack of occupancy in unsuitable 

habitat will not impact whether this 

population is likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Suitable Habitat Management within 

the Primary Conservation Area—As per 

the Strategy and the habitat-based 

recovery criteria discussed above, the 

PCA will be a core secure area for 

grizzlies where human impacts on 

habitat conditions will be maintained at 

or below levels that existed in 1998 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 

38). The 1998 baseline for habitat 

standards was chosen because the levels 

of secure habitat and developed sites 

remained relatively constant in the 10 

years preceding 1998 (USDA Forest 

Service 2004, pp. 140–141), and the 

selection of 1998 assured that the 

habitat conditions that allowed the 

population to increase at a rate of 4 to 

7 percent per year (Harris et al. 2006, p. 

48) would be maintained. For each of 

the 40 bear management subunits, the 

1998 baseline was determined through a 

GIS analysis of the amount of secure 

habitat, open and closed road densities, 

the number and capacity of livestock 

allotments, the number of developed 

sites on public lands, and habitat 

effectiveness. 

Secure habitat refers to those areas 

with no motorized access that are at 

least 4 ha (10 ac) in size and more than 

500 m (1650 ft) from a motorized access 

route or reoccurring helicopter flight 

line (USDA Forest Service 2004, pp. 

160–161). Grizzly bear habitat security 

is primarily achieved by managing 

motorized access which—(1) minimizes 

human interaction and reduces 

potential grizzly bear mortality risk; (2) 

minimizes displacement from important 

habitat; (3) minimizes habituation to 

humans; and (4) provides habitat where 

energetic requirements can be met with 

limited disturbance from humans 

(Mattson et al. 1987, pp. 269–271; 

McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. 

458–459; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862–

1864; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402–1403; 

Mattson et al. 1996, pp. 1014–1015). 

Secure habitat is important to the 

survival and reproductive success of 

grizzly bears, especially adult female 

grizzly bears (Mattson et al. 1987, p. 

270; Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee 1994, p. 2). In the 1998 

baseline, secure habitat comprised 45.4 

to 100 percent of the total area within 

a given subunit with an average of 85.6 

percent throughout the entire PCA (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 

133–144, Appendix F). These levels of 

secure habitat have been successfully 

maintained and will continue to be 

maintained and improved, where 

possible, as directed by the Strategy 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 

135, Table 2 in Appendix F). Because of 

the positive effect that secure habitat 

has on grizzly bear survival and 

reproduction, it is especially important 

to maintain these levels of secure 

habitat inside the PCA so that it will 

continue to function as a source area for 

grizzly bears. 

Open road densities of more than 1.6 

km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi) were 

calculated for two seasons to account for 

seasonal road closures. The percentage 

of land within each subunit containing 

road density values higher than 1.6 km/ 

2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi) in 1998 ranged 

from 0 to 46.1 percent, although the 

average for all subunits was only 10.7 

percent. Lands containing total road 

density values of more than 3.2 km/2.6 

sq km (2 mi/sq mi) in 1998 comprised 

0 to 28.1 percent of the total area within 

each subunit, with an average for all 

subunits of 5.3 percent (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 135). These 

levels of motorized access have been 

effectively maintained or improved from 

1998 levels. The Strategy assures that 

current levels of secure habitat will be 

maintained at 1998 levels (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 38). 

Several subunits within the 

boundaries of the Gallatin National 

Forest (Henry’s Lake No. 2, Gallatin No. 

3, and Madison No. 2) within the PCA 

have been identified as needing 

improvement in access parameters. 

However, the high road density values 

and subsequently low levels of secure 

habitat in these subunits is primarily 

due to motorized access on private land 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 

145–152, Appendix G). The Gallatin 

National Forest is working on several 

land exchange efforts with private 

parties in these subunits. These land 

exchanges would allow management of 

the roads on these private parcels and 

increase the secure habitat in these 

subunits. All the above-mentioned 

subunits on the Gallatin National Forest 

have the potential for improvement in 

the long term. The timing and amount 

of improvement will be determined 

through the Gallatin National Forest 

travel management planning process 

(Gallatin National Forest 2006, pp. 82–

85). Improved levels of secure habitat as 

per the Gallatin National Forest travel 

management plan will assure that the 

habitat security will be maintained. 

The Gallatin Range Consolidation and 

Protection Act of 1993 (Pub. L 103–91) 

and the Gallatin Range Consolidation 

Act of 1998 (Pub. L 105–267) will result 

in trading timber for land in the Gallatin 

No. 3 and Hilgard No. 1 subunits. The 

private land involved will become 

public land under the jurisdiction of the 

Gallatin National Forest. In order to 

complete the exchange, access values in 

these two subunits will temporarily 

decline below 1998 values. However, 

upon completion of this sale and land 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14915 

exchange, secure habitat will increase 

and motorized access route density will 

decrease in these subunits from the 

1998 baseline (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, pp. 133–144, Appendix 

F). 

The Strategy also identified several 

subunits within the boundaries of the 

Targhee National Forest within the PCA 

in need of improvement in terms of 

motorized access (Plateau No. 1, Plateau 

No. 2, and Henry’s Lake No. 1). The 

Strategy states that full implementation 

of the access management changes in 

the revised 1997 Targhee Forest Plan 

would result in those subunits having 

acceptable levels of road densities and 

secure habitat, due to the 

decommissioning of roughly 697 km 

(433 mi) of roads within the PCA (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 43–

44). As of 2005, the Targhee National 

Forest completed this decommissioning 

work (USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 

200–201). The 1998 baseline (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 133–144, 

Appendix F) for these subunits was 

modified to reflect these road closures. 

Henry’s Lake subunit No. 1 and No. 2 

still have high levels of motorized 

access density and a low secure habitat 

level due to motorized access routes on 

private lands as well as county roads, 

State and Federal highways, and roads 

to special use sites (such as the Federal 

Aviation Administration radar site on 

Sawtell Peak) that cannot be closed 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, 

pp. 133–144, Appendix F). These levels 

of secure habitat do not constitute a 

threat to the grizzly bear population in 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

At least 3 million people visit and 

recreate in the National Parks and 

National Forests of the GYA annually 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a, pp. 176, 

184). This volume of people in grizzly 

bear habitat presents a potential for 

grizzly bear/human conflicts, yet the 

average number of conflicts per year 

between 1992 and 2004 was only 135 

(Gunther et al. 2006, p. 58). Based on 

past trends, visitation and recreation are 

expected to increase in the future. For 

instance, Yellowstone National Park has 

shown an approximate 15 percent 

annual increase in the number of people 

visiting each decade since the 1930s 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 183); 

however, the number of people 

recreating in the backcountry there has 

remained relatively constant from the 

1970s through 1999 (Gunther 2000, p. 

48). Many grizzly bear/human conflicts 

with people recreating occur on 

National Forest lands and are related to 

hunting (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21) 

(also see our discussion under Factor C 

below). Black bear hunting is not 

allowed in either National Park and elk 

hunting is only allowed in Grand Teton 

National Park. Elk hunters in Grand 

Teton National Park are required to 

carry bear pepper spray in an accessible 

location. The number of elk hunter 

visits in the PCA on National Forests 

has declined 26 percent from 1991 to 

2001 (USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 

186). Most conflicts between grizzly 

bears and people recreating in grizzly 

bear habitat can be avoided if proper I 

& E materials are received and used, 

especially pertaining to food and carcass 

storage, and therefore ensure the 

Yellowstone DPS is not likely to become 

endangered in all or a significant 

portion of its range within the 

foreseeable future. 

Recreation in the GYA can be divided 

into 6 basic categories based on season 

of use (winter or all other seasons), 

mode of access (motorized or nonmotorized), and level of development 

(developed or dispersed) (USDA Forest 

Service 2006a, p. 187). Inside the PCA, 

the vast majority of lands available for 

recreation are accessible through nonmotorized travel only (USDA Forest 

Service 2006a, p. 179). Motorized 

recreation during the summer, spring, 

and fall inside the PCA will be limited 

to existing roads as per the standards in 

the Strategy that restrict increases in 

roads or motorized trails. Similarly, 

recreating at developed sites such as 

lodges, downhill ski areas, and 

campgrounds will be limited by the 

developed sites’ habitat standard 

described in the Strategy. The number 

and capacity of existing developed sites 

will not increase once delisting occurs. 

For a more complete discussion of 

projected increases in recreation in the 

GYA National Forests, see the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for the 

Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear 

Habitat Conservation for the GYA 

National Forests (USDA Forest Service 

2006a, pp. 176–189). 

Habitat standards described in the 

Strategy regarding livestock require that 

the number of commercial livestock 

allotments and permitted sheep animal 

months within the PCA not increase 

above 1998 levels (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 43). Livestock 

allotments, particularly sheep 

allotments, decrease habitat security 

(i.e., habitat effectiveness) as grizzly 

bears occupying lands with sheep are 

more likely to come into conflict with 

these sheep. This increase in encounters 

between bears and livestock or their 

human owners decreases survival rates 

of grizzly bears in areas of active sheep 

allotments, as repeat depredators are 

removed from the population. Although 

sheep and cattle also can compete 

directly to some degree with grizzly 

bears during late spring and early 

summer for desired foods such as 

grasses, sedges, and forbs (Jonkel 1980, 

p. 12), this is considered negligible to 

grizzly bear population dynamics. Due 

to the higher prevalence of grizzly bear 

conflicts associated with sheep grazing, 

existing sheep allotments will be phased 

out as the opportunity arises with 

willing permittees (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 43). 

A total of 100 livestock allotments 

existed inside the PCA in 1998. Of these 

allotments, there were—69 active and 

13 vacant cattle allotments; and 11 

active and 7 vacant sheep allotments 

with a total of 23,090 animal months 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 382). 

Sheep animal months are calculated by 

multiplying the permitted number of 

animals by the permitted number of 

months. Any use of vacant allotments 

will only be permitted after an analysis 

is completed to evaluate impacts on 

grizzly bears. Since 1998, the CaribouTarghee National Forest has closed five 

sheep allotments within the PCA while 

the Shoshone National Forest has closed 

two sheep allotments (USDA Forest 

Service 2005, p. 50). This has resulted 

in a reduction of 7,889 sheep animal 

months under the total calculated for 

1998 within the PCA, and is a testament 

to the commitment land management 

agencies have to the ongoing success of 

the grizzly bear population in the GYA. 

As of 2006, there are a total of two 

active sheep allotments within the PCA, 

both on the Targhee National Forest. 

The permittee of the two allotments on 

the Gallatin National Forest that were 

active in 2005 when the Proposed rule 

was published, agreed to waive the 

grazing permit back to the Gallatin 

National Forest without preference and 

these two sheep allotments were closed 

in 2006. The Gallatin National Forest 

plans to close three other vacant 

allotments when they revise their 

current Forest Plan. This Forest Plan 

revision process is scheduled to be 

completed by 2010 (USDA Forest 

Service 2005, p. 11). The mandatory 

restriction on creating new livestock 

allotments and the voluntary phasing 

out of livestock allotments with 

recurring conflicts further ensure that 

the PCA will continue to function as 

source habitat. 

The National Parks and National 

Forests within the PCA will manage 

developed sites at 1998 levels within 

each bear management subunit, with 

some exceptions for administrative and 

maintenance needs (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 38–56). 

Developed sites refer to sites on public 

land developed or improved for human 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14916 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

use or resource development. Examples 

include campgrounds, trailheads, 

lodges, summer homes, restaurants, 

visitor centers, oil and gas exploratory 

wells, production wells, and work 

camps. The primary concerns related to 

developed sites are direct mortality from 

bear/human encounters, food 

conditioning, and habituation of bears 

to humans (Mattson et al. 1987, p. 271). 

Habituation occurs when grizzly bears 

encounter humans or developed sites 

frequently, and without negative 

consequences, so that the bears no 

longer avoid humans and areas of 

human activity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 1993, p. 6). Habituation does not 

necessarily involve human-related food 

sources. Food conditioning occurs when 

grizzly bears receive human-related 

sources of food and thereafter seek out 

humans and human use areas as feeding 

sites (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

1993, p. 6). In areas of suitable habitat 

inside the PCA, the National Park 

Service and the USDA Forest Service 

enforce food storage rules aimed at 

decreasing grizzly bear access to human 

foods (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, pp. 23–24). These regulations will 

continue to be enforced and are in 

effect, or proposed, for all currently 

occupied grizzly bear habitat within the 

Yellowstone DPS boundaries (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 23–24). 

Gunther (1994, pp. 558–559) noted 

that grizzly bear management in 

Yellowstone National Park has shifted 

from problems involving foodconditioned bears to problems involving 

habituated (but not food-conditioned) 

bears seeking natural foods within 

developed areas or along roadsides. 

New or expanded developed sites can 

impact bears through temporary or 

permanent habitat loss and 

displacement, increased length of time 

of human use, increased human 

disturbance to surrounding areas, and, 

potentially unsecured bear attractants. 

Developed sites on public lands are 

currently inventoried in existing GIS 

databases and are input in the 

Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Cumulative 

Effects Model. As of 1998, there were 

598 developed sites on public land 

within the PCA (USDA Forest Service 

2005, pp. 56–57). All changes in 

developed sites since 1998 have been 

evaluated against the baseline and have 

been determined to be acceptable under 

the standard for developed sites 

identified in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 44–45). For a 

new developed site to be determined 

acceptable, it must be demonstrated that 

it will have no effect on grizzly bears 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, 

pp. 42). For example, a cell phone tower 

would fit this criterion because there is 

no human occupancy, nor human 

attractants such as garbage or other 

potential food sources. However, 

campgrounds, trailheads, lodges, 

summer homes, restaurants, visitor 

centers, oil and gas exploratory wells, 

production wells, and work camps 

would not be considered acceptable. 

Inside the PCA, no changes in the 1998 

baseline have occurred in terms of site 

developments. The maintenance of the 

number and capacity of developed sites 

at 1998 levels further protects this 

significant portion of the DPS’ range and 

ensures the Yellowstone DPS is not 

likely to become endangered in all or a 

significant portion of its range within 

the foreseeable future. 

Management of oil, gas, and mining 

are tracked as part of the developed site 

monitoring effort (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 44). There 

were no active oil and gas leases inside 

the PCA as of 1998 (USDA Forest 

Service 2006a, p. 209). There are 

approximately 631 sq km (244 sq mi) of 

secure habitat potentially available for 

timber projects and 243 sq km (94 sq mi) 

of secure habitat that allows surface 

occupancy for oil and gas, projects 

within the PCA (USDA Forest Service 

2006a, Figures 48, 96). This comprises 

less than 4 percent of all suitable habitat 

within the PCA. Additionally, 1,354 

mining claims existed in 10 of the 

subunits inside the PCA (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p.134, Appendix 

F), but only 27 of these mining claims 

had operating plans. These operating 

plans are included in the 1998 

developed site baseline. Under the 

conditions of the Strategy, any new 

project will be approved only if it 

conforms to secure habitat and 

developed site standards (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 44–45). For 

instance, any project that reduces the 

amount of secure habitat permanently 

will have to provide replacement secure 

habitat of equivalent habitat quality (as 

measured by the Cumulative Effects 

Model or equivalent technology) and 

any change in developed sites will 

require mitigation equivalent to the type 

and extent of the impact, and such 

mitigation must be in place before 

project initiation or be provided 

concurrently with project development 

as an integral part of the project plan 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 

40–41). For projects that temporarily 

change the amount of secure habitat, 

only one project is allowed in any 

subunit at any time (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 40–41). 

Mitigation of any project will occur 

within the same subunit and will be 

proportional to the type and extent of 

the project (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, p. 40–41). 

Finally, we established a habitat 

effectiveness baseline by documenting 

habitat effectiveness values using the 

Cumulative Effects Model and 1998 

habitat data (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, pp. 52–53). Habitat 

effectiveness values reflect the relative 

amount of energy (derived from natural 

foods) that is available to grizzly bears 

given their response to human activities. 

Important foods are key habitat-based 

criteria. The inverse relationship 

between whitebark pine cone 

production and grizzly conflicts in the 

Yellowstone Ecosystem has been 

documented (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 

436; Gunther et al. 1997, p. 38; Gunther 

et al. 2004, pp. 13–14). However, the 

relationship between other important 

foods such as spring ungulate carcasses, 

cutworm moths, and cutthroat trout is 

not as clear cut. Therefore, it is 

important to monitor foods and 

continue to relate major food abundance 

to demographics and human/bear 

conflicts. Monitoring habitat 

effectiveness using the Cumulative 

Effects Model is valuable in 

understanding and maintaining 

important habitats for grizzly bears. The 

Study Team will continue coordinating 

with the National Forests and National 

Parks within the PCA to update and 

evaluate habitat effectiveness against the 

1998 baseline. 

To establish the 1998 baseline for 

habitat effectiveness values, the USDA 

Forest Service calculated habitat 

effectiveness within each subunit for 

four important bear seasons—spring 

(March 1 to May 15); estrus (May 16 to 

July 15); early hyperphagia (July 16 to 

August 31); and late hyperphagia 

(September 1 to November 30) (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 

133–144, Table 6 in Appendix F). High 

habitat effectiveness values during 

estrus are associated with cutthroat 

trout spawning streams (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 140). 

Similarly, high habitat effectiveness 

values during early hyperphagia and 

late hyperphagia are associated with 

moth aggregation sites and whitebark 

pine, respectively (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 140). Habitat 

effectiveness values also are directly 

influenced by the amount of secure 

habitat in a subunit. This combination 

of the distribution and abundance of 

natural foods and the distribution and 

abundance of human activities produces 

relative values indicative of how 

effective a certain subunit is at 

supporting grizzly bear growth, 

reproduction, and survival (U.S. Fish 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14917 

and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 140). As 

such, values varied widely among 

seasons and across seasons within 

subunits (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, p 141, Table 6 in Appendix F). 

Because the National Park Service and 

the USDA Forest Service have not 

changed levels of road densities, secure 

habitat, developed sites, or livestock 

allotments except to improve upon the 

1998 baseline, the 1998 habitat 

effectiveness values remain applicable. 

Regardless of habitat effectiveness 

values, the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population has continued to grow and 

expand in distribution (Harris et al. 

2006, p. 48; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 

64–66). Upon delisting, the USDA 

Forest Service will measure changes in 

seasonal habitat effectiveness values in 

each Bear Management Unit and 

subunit by regular application of the 

Cumulative Effects Model or best 

available system and compare outputs 

with the 1998 baseline values (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 52–53). 

The Cumulative Effects Model provides 

a relative index of habitat change over 

time and how it has increased or 

decreased since 1998. The Cumulative 

Effects Model databases will be 

reviewed annually and updated as 

needed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, pp. 52–53). 

The Strategy calls for maintaining or 

improving the existing habitat 

effectiveness values in secure habitat in 

each subunit but recognizes that they 

change annually and seasonally due to 

natural processes such a wildfire and 

natural variations (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 52–53). The 

best way to maintain existing habitat 

effectiveness values is to manage 

motorized access and developed sites, 

as described in the Strategy. Private 

land development also will be 

monitored and linked to numbers of 

human-bear conflicts, causes of humanbear conflicts, and distribution of 

human-bear conflicts so as to direct 

management efforts to improve food 

supply and minimize bear/human 

conflicts in such areas. 

Within the PCA, each National Forest 

and National Park will monitor 

adherence to the secure habitat, 

developed site, and livestock standards 

inside the PCA, as established by the 

Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, p. 64). The Study Team will 

monitor habitat effectiveness and track 

any changes to the habitat from fire, 

insects, and disease, and other human 

activities not measured by the habitat 

standard monitoring efforts. The 

agencies will measure changes in 

seasonal habitat value and effectiveness 

in each bear management unit and 

subunit by regular application of the 

Cumulative Effects Model or the best 

available system, and compare outputs 

to the 1998 baseline. These databases 

incorporate information regarding 

vegetation, the abundance and 

distribution of the four major bear foods, 

location, duration, and intensity of use 

for motorized access routes, nonmotorized access routes, developed 

sites, and front-country and backcountry dispersed uses. The Study 

Team will review Cumulative Effects 

Model databases annually to refine and 

verify Cumulative Effects Model 

assumptions and update them as needed 

to reflect changes in intensity or 

duration of human use. The 

Coordinating Committee may review 

and revise habitat standards based on 

the best available science, after 

appropriate public processes have been 

conducted by the affected land 

management agencies. 

To prevent habitat fragmentation and 

degradation, the Strategy requires that 

all road construction projects in suitable 

habitat on Federal lands throughout the 

entire GYA (both inside and outside of 

the PCA) evaluate the impacts of the 

project on grizzly habitat connectivity 

during the NEPA process (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 38–39). By 

identifying areas used by grizzly bears, 

officials can mitigate potential impacts 

from road construction both during and 

after a project. Federal agencies will 

identify important crossing areas by 

collecting information about known 

bear crossings, bear sightings, ungulate 

road mortality data, bear home range 

analyses, and locations of game trails. 

Potential advantages of this requirement 

include reduction of grizzly bear 

mortality due to vehicle collisions, 

access to seasonal habitats, maintenance 

of traditional dispersal routes, and 

decreased fragmentation of individual 

home ranges. For example, work crews 

will place temporary work camps in 

areas with lower risk of displacing 

grizzly bears, and food and garbage will 

be kept in bear-proof containers. 

Highway planners will incorporate 

warning signs and crossing structures 

such as culverts or underpasses into 

projects when possible to facilitate safe 

highway crossings by wildlife. 

‘‘Suitable Habitat’’ Management 

Outside the Primary Conservation 

Area—In suitable habitat outside of the 

PCA within the DPS, the USDA Forest 

Service, BLM, and State wildlife 

agencies will monitor habitat and 

population criteria to prevent potential 

threats to habitat, ensuring that the 

measures of the Act continue to be 

unnecessary (Idaho’s Yellowstone 

Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 

2002, pp. 2–3; MTFWP 2002, p. 2; 

WGFD 2005, p. 1; USDA Forest Service 

2006a, pp. 44–45; U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, p. 5). Factors impacting 

suitable habitat outside of the PCA in 

the future may include increased road 

densities, livestock allotments, 

developed sites, human presence, and 

habitat fragmentation. Both Federal and 

State agencies are committed to 

managing habitat so that the measures of 

the Act are not required to assure the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is not 

likely to become endangered in all or a 

significant portion of its range in the 

foreseeable future (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 12–85; 

Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly Bear 

Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 2–3; 

MTFWP 2002, p. 2; WGFD 2005, p. 1) 

(see Factor D below). In suitable habitat 

outside of the PCA, restrictions on 

human activities are more flexible but 

still the USDA Forest Service, BLM, and 

State wildlife agencies will carefully 

manage these lands, monitor bear/ 

human conflicts in these areas, and 

respond with management as necessary 

to reduce such conflicts to account for 

the complex needs of both grizzly bears 

and humans (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, p. 58; Idaho’s Yellowstone 

Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 

2002, pp. 16–17; MTFWP 2002, pp. 55–

56; WGFD 2005, pp. 25–26; USDA 

Forest Service 2006b, pp. A1–A27). 

Currently, there are 22,783 sq km 

(8,797 sq mi) of suitable habitat outside 

of the PCA within the DPS boundaries 

(see Figure 1 above). Of this, 17,292 sq 

km (6,676 sq mi) are on National Forest 

lands. About 10 to 16 percent of the 

population of female grizzly bears with 

cubs occurs outside the PCA (Schwartz 

et al. 2006b, pp. 64–66). Management 

decisions on USDA Forest Service lands 

will continue to consider potential 

impacts on grizzly bear habitat and will 

be managed so as to maintain the habitat 

conditions necessary to support a 

recovered grizzly bear population 

(USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 26). 

Approximately 79 percent of suitable 

habitat outside the PCA on National 

Forest lands within the DPS is currently 

designated a Wilderness Area (6,799 sq 

km (2,625 sq mi)), a Wilderness Study 

Area (708 sq km (273 sq mi)), or an 

Inventoried Roadless Area (6,179 sq km 

(2,386 sq mi). The amount of designated 

Wilderness Area, Wilderness Study 

Area, and Inventoried Roadless Area 

within each National Forest ranges from 

56 to 90 percent, depending upon the 

forest. This large area of widely 

distributed habitat allows for continued 

population expansion and provides 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14918 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

additional resiliency to environmental 

change. 

Wilderness areas outside of the PCA 

are considered secure because they are 

protected from new road construction 

by Federal legislation. In addition to 

restrictions on road construction, the 

Wilderness Act of 1964 (Pub. L. 88–577) 

also protects designated wilderness 

from permanent human habitation and 

increases in developed sites. The 

Wilderness Act allows livestock 

allotments existing before the passage of 

the Wilderness Act and mining claims 

staked before January 1, 1984, to persist 

within wilderness areas, but no new 

grazing permits or mining claims can be 

established after these dates. If preexisting mining claims are pursued, the 

plans of operation are subject to 

Wilderness Act restrictions on road 

construction, permanent human 

habitation, and developed sites. 

Wilderness study areas are designated 

by Federal land management agencies 

(e.g., USDA Forest Service) as those 

having wilderness characteristics and 

being worthy of congressional 

designation as a wilderness area. 

Individual National Forests that 

designate wilderness study areas 

manage these areas to maintain their 

wilderness characteristics until 

Congress decides whether to designate 

them as permanent wilderness areas. 

This means that individual wilderness 

study areas are protected from new road 

construction by Forest Plans. As such, 

they are safeguarded from decreases in 

grizzly bear security. Furthermore, 

activities such as timber harvest, 

mining, and oil and gas development 

are much less likely to occur because 

the road networks required for these 

activities are unavailable. However, 

because these lands are not 

congressionally protected, they could 

experience changes in management 

prescription with Forest Plan revisions. 

Inventoried Roadless Areas currently 

provide 4,891 sq km (1,888 sq mi) of 

secure habitat for grizzly bears outside 

of the PCA within the DPS boundaries. 

A USDA Forest Service Interim 

Directive (69 FR 42648, July 16, 2004) 

which instructs National Forests to 

preserve the ‘‘roadless characteristics’’

of roadless areas remained in effect until 

November 2006. In September 2006, a 

Federal court remanded the 2005 State 

Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area 

Management Rule (70 FR 25653–25662, 

May 13, 2005) and reinstated the 2001 

Roadless Areas Conservation Rule (66 

FR 3244–3273, January 12, 2001) (see 

Factor D below for a more complete 

discussion of this court decision and the 

two different Federal Rules issued 

regarding Roadless Area Management). 

The 2001 Roadless Areas Conservation 

Rule prohibits road construction, road 

re-construction, and timber harvest in 

Inventoried Roadless Areas (66 FR 

3244–3273, January 12, 2001). This 

restriction on road building makes 

mining activities and oil and gas 

production much less likely because 

access to these resources becomes costprohibitive or impossible without new 

roads. Potential changes in the 

management of these areas are not 

anticipated, but are discussed further 

under Factor D. 

An estimated 7,195 sq km (2,778 sq 

mi) of suitable habitat outside the PCA 

on USDA Forest Service lands within 

the DPS could experience permanent or 

temporary changes in road densities. 

Because grizzly bears will remain on the 

USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species 

list after delisting and will be classified 

as a ‘‘species of concern’’ (USDA Forest 

Service 2006b, p. 26) under the 2005 

USDA Forest Service Planning 

Regulations, any increases in roads on 

National Forests would have to comply 

with National Forest Management Act 

and be subject to the NEPA process 

considering potential impacts to grizzly 

bears. 

Importantly, all three State grizzly 

bear management plans recognize the 

importance of areas that provide 

security for grizzly bears in suitable 

habitat outside of the PCA within the 

DPS boundaries on Federal lands. 

Although State management plans apply 

to all suitable habitat outside of the 

PCA, habitat management on public 

lands is directed by Federal land 

management plans, not State 

management plans. The Montana and 

Wyoming plans recommend limiting 

average road densities to 1.6 km/2.6 sq 

km (1 mi/sq mi) or less in these areas 

(MTFWP 2002, pp. 32–34; WGFD 2005, 

pp. 22–25). Both States have similar 

standards for elk habitat on State lands 

and note that these levels of motorized 

access benefit a variety of wildlife 

species while maintaining reasonable 

public access. Similarly, the Idaho State 

plan recognizes that management of 

motorized access outside the PCA 

should focus on areas that have road 

densities of 1.6 km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq 

mi) or less. The area most likely to be 

occupied by grizzly bears outside the 

PCA in Idaho is on the Caribou-Targhee 

National Forest. The 1997 Targhee 

Forest Plan includes motorized access 

standards and prescriptions outside the 

PCA with management prescriptions 

that provide for long-term security in 59 

percent of existing secure habitat 

outside of the PCA (USDA Forest 

Service 2006a, pp. 78, 109). 

In suitable habitat outside the PCA 

within the DPS boundaries, there are 

roughly 150 active cattle allotments and 

12 active sheep allotments (USDA 

Forest Service 2004, p. 129). The 

Targhee Forest closed two of these 

sheep allotments in 2004 (USDA Forest 

Service 2006a, p. 168). The USDA 

Forest Service will allow these 

allotments within suitable habitat to 

persist along with other existing 

livestock allotments outside of suitable 

habitat. Although conflicts with 

livestock have the potential to result in 

mortality for grizzly bears, the Strategy 

will prevent mortality from exceeding 

established sustainable mortality limits 

and preclude population level impacts. 

The Strategy directs the Study Team to 

monitor and spatially map all grizzly 

bear mortalities (both inside and outside 

the PCA), causes of death, the source of 

the problem, and alter management to 

maintain a recovered population and 

prevent the need to relist the population 

under the Act (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, pp. 31–34). 

There are over 500 developed sites on 

the 6 National Forests in the areas 

identified as suitable habitat outside the 

PCA within the DPS boundaries (USDA 

Forest Service 2004, p. 138). Grizzly 

bear/human conflicts at developed sites 

are the most frequent reason for 

management removals (Servheen et al. 

2004, p. 21). Existing USDA Forest 

Service food storage regulations for 

these areas will continue to minimize 

the potential for grizzly bear/human 

conflicts through food storage 

requirements, outreach, and education. 

The number and capacity of developed 

sites will be subject to management 

direction established in Forest Plans. 

Should the Study Team determine 

developed sites are related to increases 

in mortality beyond the sustainable 

limits discussed above, they may 

recommend closing specific developed 

sites or otherwise altering management 

in the area in order to maintain a 

recovered population and prevent the 

need to relist the population under the 

Act. Due to the USDA Forest Service’s 

commitment to manage National Forest 

lands in the GYA such that a viable 

grizzly bear population is maintained 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, 

pp. 42–43; USDA Forest Service 2006b, 

pp. iii, A–6), we do not expect livestock 

allotments or developed sites in suitable 

habitat outside of the PCA to reach 

densities that are likely to threaten the 

Yellowstone DPS in all or a significant 

portion of its range in the foreseeable 

future. 

Less than 19 percent (3,213 sq km 

(1,240 sq mi)) of suitable habitat outside 

the PCA within the DPS boundaries on 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14919 

USDA Forest Service land allows 

surface occupancy for oil and gas 

development and 11 percent (1,926 sq 

km (744 sq mi)) has both suitable timber 

and a management prescription that 

allows scheduled timber harvest. The 

primary impacts to grizzly bears 

associated with timber harvest and oil 

and gas development are increases in 

road densities, with subsequent 

increases in human access, grizzly bear/ 

human encounters, and human-caused 

grizzly bear mortalities (McLellan and 

Shackleton 1988, pp. 458–459; 

McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. 

377–379; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402–

1403). Although seismic exploration 

associated with oil and gas development 

or mining may disturb denning grizzly 

bears (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278; 

Reynolds et al. 1986, pp. 174–175), 

actual den abandonment is rarely 

observed, and there has been no 

documentation of such abandonment by 

grizzly bears in the GYA. Additionally, 

only a small portion of this total land 

area will contain active projects at any 

given time, if at all. For example, among 

the roughly 1,926 sq km (744 sq mi) 

identified as having both suitable timber 

and a management prescription that 

allows timber harvest, from 2000 to 

2002, an average of only 5 sq km (2 sq 

mi) was actually logged annually (USDA 

Forest Service 2004, p. 118). Similarly, 

although nearly 3,213 sq km (1,240 sq 

mi) of suitable habitat on National 

Forest lands allow surface occupancy 

for oil and gas development, there 

currently are no active wells inside 

these areas (USDA Forest Service 2004, 

pp. 170–171). 

Ultimately, the six affected National 

Forests (the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, 

Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, 

Gallatin, and Shoshone) will manage the 

number of roads, livestock allotments, 

developed sites, timber harvest projects, 

and oil and gas wells outside of the PCA 

in suitable habitat to allow for a viable 

grizzly bear population and ensure that 

the Yellowstone DPS is not likely to 

become endangered in all or a 

significant portion of its range within 

the foreseeable future. Because the 

grizzly bear will be classified as a 

sensitive species (or a species of 

concern when Forest Management Plans 

are again revised using the 2005 USDA 

Forest Service planning regulations and 

the USDA Forest Service Manual), land 

management activities will be managed 

so as to a provide for the needs of a 

recovered population. Any road 

construction, timber harvest, or oil and 

gas projects would require compliance 

with the NEPA and the National Forest 

Management Act of 1976 (15 U.S.C. 

1600), considering all potential impacts 

to the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population and its habitat. 

Rapidly accelerating growth of human 

populations in some areas in grizzly 

bear habitat within the DPS boundaries 

but outside of the PCA continues to 

define the limits of grizzly habitat, and 

will likely limit the expansion of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

onto private lands in some areas outside 

the PCA. Urban and rural sprawl (lowdensity housing and associated 

businesses) has resulted in increasing 

numbers of grizzly bear/human conflicts 

with subsequent increases in grizzly 

bear mortality rates. Private lands 

account for a disproportionate number 

of bear deaths and conflicts (see Figures 

15 and 16 in the Strategy). Nearly 9 

percent of all suitable habitat outside of 

the PCA is privately owned. As private 

lands are developed and as secure 

habitat on private lands declines, State 

and Federal agencies will work together 

to balance impacts from private land 

development (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, p. 54). Outside the PCA, 

State agencies will assist nongovernment organizations and other 

entities to identify and prioritize 

potential lands suitable for permanent 

conservation through easements and 

other means as possible (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 54). Due to the 

large areas of widely distributed suitable 

habitat on public lands managed by 

agencies committed to the maintenance 

of a recovered grizzly bear population, 

human population growth on private 

lands is not likely to endanger the 

Yellowstone DPS in all or a significant 

portion of its range in the foreseeable 

future. 

Summary of Factor A—In summary, 

the primary factors related to past 

habitat destruction and modification 

have been directly addressed through 

changes in management practices. 

Within suitable habitat, differential 

levels of management and protection 

(one standard inside the PCA and 

another standard for suitable habitat 

outside the PCA) are applied to areas 

based on their level of importance. 

Within the PCA, the most significant 

portion of the range where 84 to 90 

percent of the females with cubs live 

(Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 66), 

comprehensive protections are in place. 

For this area, the Service developed 

objective and measurable habitat criteria 

concerning secure habitat, human site 

developments, and livestock allotments 

which will be habitat requirements on 

public lands once this final rule 

becomes effective (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 39–45). In 

addition, the Study Team, State, 

National Park Service, and USDA Forest 

Service biologists and technicians will 

monitor the availability and abundance 

of the four major foods, and of habitat 

value and habitat effectiveness using the 

Cumulative Effects Model or other 

appropriate methods (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 45–52). The 

Coordinating Committee will respond to 

these monitoring data with adaptive 

management (Holling 1978, pp. 11–16) 

as per the Strategy (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 63–64). 

Accordingly, the PCA, which comprises 

51 percent of the suitable habitat within 

the DPS boundaries and is occupied by 

84 to 90 percent of all females with cubs 

(Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 64), will be a 

highly secure area for grizzlies upon 

delisting, with habitat conditions 

maintained at or above levels 

documented in 1998. Maintenance of 

this portion of the range, as described 

above, will satisfy the habitat 

requirements of the species relative the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS’s 

biological demands and is sufficient to 

support a recovered grizzly bear 

population. 

Suitable habitat outside the PCA is 

also significant, albeit to a lesser extent, 

in that it allows for continued 

population expansion into adjacent 

areas of public land in the GYA, and 

therefore, provides additional ecological 

resiliency to respond to environmental 

change. These areas will be carefully 

monitored and managed to ensure that 

the measures of the Act are not again 

required. Management in this area will 

provide for the complex needs of both 

grizzly bears and humans. In suitable 

habitat outside the PCA on USDA Forest 

Service lands, 74 percent (12,860 sq km 

or 4,965 sq mi) is currently secure 

habitat, 68 percent of which (8,737 sq 

km or 3,373 sq mi) is likely to remain 

secure. Areas outside the PCA contain 

10 to 16 percent of GYA’s females with 

cubs (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 64). 

Management of public land outside the 

PCA administered by State and Federal 

agencies also will continue to consider 

potential impacts of management 

decisions on grizzly bear habitat. Efforts 

by non-government organizations and 

State and county agencies will seek to 

minimize bear/human conflicts on 

private lands (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, pp. 54, 57–59). These and 

other conservation measures discussed 

in this final rule will allow for 

continued population expansion so that 

grizzly bears will likely occupy the 

remainder of the suitable habitat within 

the DPS within the foreseeable future. 

A total of 88 percent of all suitable 

habitat within the DPS boundaries 

(40,293 sq km (15,557 sq mi)) is 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14920 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

managed by the USDA Forest Service or 

National Park Service. These public 

lands are already managed, and will 

continue to be managed, such that 

adequate habitat for the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population is maintained 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, 

pp. 38–56; USDA Forest Service 2006b, 

pp. 4–7, 26). Significant areas of the 

suitable habitat outside the PCA are 

designated as wilderness where human 

development actions are prohibited. For 

example, 2,948 sq km (1,138 sq mi) of 

the Wind River Range including almost 

all of the high elevation whitebark pine 

stands are in designated Wilderness 

Areas. Habitat and population standards 

described in the Strategy have been 

incorporated into National Park 

Compendiums and National Forest Land 

Management Plans (Yellowstone 

National Park 2006, p. 12; Grand Teton 

National Park, p. 1; USDA Forest 

Service 2006b, pp. 4–7, 26) (see Factor 

D below). Collectively, these differential 

levels of management and protection 

(one standard inside the PCA and 

another standard for suitable habitat 

outside the PCA) guarantee appropriate 

protective measures for each part of the 

significant portion of range. 

Therefore, the lack of present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of the Yellowstone DPS’s 

habitat and range ensures this species is 

not likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future in all or a 

significant portion of its range. No 

current or foreseeable threats to habitat 

or range imperil the recovered status of 

the Yellowstone DPS. And all areas 

necessary for maintaining a recovered 

population are adequately safeguarded 

so that this population no longer 

requires the measures of the Act to 

protect habitat or range. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

No grizzly bears have been legally 

removed from the GYA in the last 30 

years for commercial, recreational, or 

educational purposes. The only 

commercial or recreational take 

anticipated post-delisting is a limited, 

controlled hunt. The States will manage 

grizzly bears as a game animal, 

potentially with a carefully regulated 

hunt (for a more detailed discussion, see 

the State Management Plans section 

under Factor D below). Should such a 

season be implemented, all hunting 

mortalities will be counted toward the 

ecosystem-wide mortality limits for the 

population and will be strictly 

controlled to assure that mortality limits 

are not exceeded and the Yellowstone 

DPS is not likely to become endangered 

in all or a significant portion of its range 

by this discretionary mortality source. 

Significant take for educational 

purposes is not anticipated. Mortality 

due to illegal poaching, defense of life 

and property, mistaken identity or other 

accidental take, and management 

removals are discussed under Factor C 

below. 

Between 1980 and 1982, three 

accidental trap mortalities were 

associated with scientific research 

(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Since 1982, 

there has not been a single capture 

mortality associated with research 

trapping in the GYA spanning more 

than 468 grizzly bear captures (Servheen 

et al. 2004, p. 21). Because of rigorous 

protocols dictating proper bear capture, 

handling, and drugging techniques used 

today, this type of scientific 

overutilization is not a threat to the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population. 

The Study Team, bear biologists, and 

researchers will continue implementing 

these protocols after delisting. 

Therefore, mortalities associated with 

scientific research are likely to remain 

an insignificant factor in population 

dynamics into the foreseeable future. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease—Although grizzly bears have 

been documented with a variety of 

bacteria and other pathogens, parasites, 

and disease, fatalities are uncommon 

(LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 61) and do not 

appear to have population-level impacts 

on grizzly bears (Jonkel and Cowan 

1971, pp. 31–32; Mundy and Flook 

1973, p. 13; Rogers and Rogers 1976, p. 

423). Researchers have demonstrated 

that some grizzly bears have been 

documented with brucellosis (type 4), 

clostridium, toxoplasmosis, canine 

distemper, canine parvovirus, canine 

hepatitis, and rabies (LeFranc et al. 

1987, p. 61; Zarnke and Evans 1989, p. 

586; Marsilio et al. 1997, p. 304; Zarnke 

et al. 1997, p. 474). However, based on 

30 years of research by the Study Team, 

natural mortalities in the wild are rare 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2005, pp. 34–35) and it is likely that 

mortalities due to any of these bacteria 

or pathogens are negligible components 

of total mortality in the GYA. Disease is 

not common in grizzly bears, and has 

only very rarely been documented in 

Yellowstone grizzly bears (Craighead et 

al. 1988, p. 11). Disease is likely to 

remain an insignificant factor in 

population dynamics into the 

foreseeable future. 

Natural Predation—Grizzly bears are 

occasionally killed by other wildlife. 

Adult grizzly bears kill cubs, sub-adults, 

or other adults (Stringham 1980, p. 337; 

Dean et al. 1986, pp. 208–211; Hessing 

and Aumiller 1994, pp. 332–335; 

McLellan 1994, p. 15; Schwartz et al. 

2003b, pp. 571–572). This type of 

intraspecific killing seems to occur 

rarely (Stringham 1980, p. 337) and has 

only been observed among Yellowstone 

grizzly bears in the GYA 14 times 

between 1986 and 2004 (Haroldson 

2005). Wolves and grizzly bears often 

scavenge similar types of carrion and, 

sometimes, will interact with each other 

in an aggressive manner. From 1995 

through 2003, Gunther and Smith (2004, 

pp. 233–236) documented 96 wolfgrizzly bear interactions and 2 incidents 

in which wolf packs likely killed grizzly 

bear cubs. Overall, these types of 

aggressive interactions among grizzly 

bears or with other wildlife are rare and 

are likely to remain an insignificant 

factor in population dynamics into the 

foreseeable future. 

Human Predation—Humans have 

historically been the most effective 

predators of grizzly bears. Excessive 

human-caused mortality is one of the 

major contributing factors to grizzly bear 

decline during the nineteenth and 

twentieth centuries (Leopold 1967, p. 

30; Koford 1969, p. 95; Servheen 1990, 

p. 1; Servheen 1999, pp. 50–52; Mattson 

and Merrill 2002, pp. 1129, 1132; 

Schwartz et al. 2003b, p. 571), 

eventually leading to their listing as a 

threatened species in 1975. Grizzlies 

were seen as a threat to livestock and to 

humans and, therefore, an impediment 

to westward expansion. The Federal 

government, as well as many of the 

early settlers in grizzly bear country, 

was dedicated to eradicating large 

predators. Grizzly bears were shot, 

poisoned, and killed wherever humans 

encountered them (Servheen 1999, p. 

50). By the time grizzlies were listed 

under the Act in 1975, there were only 

a few hundred grizzly bears remaining 

in the lower 48 States in less than 2 

percent of their former range (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1993, pp. 8–12). 

From 1973 to 2002, a total of 372 

known grizzly bear deaths occurred in 

the GYA (Haroldson and Frey 2003, p. 

27). Of these, 272 (73 percent of total) 

were human-caused (Haroldson and 

Frey 2003, p. 27). Since 1975, levels of 

human-caused mortality have remained 

relatively constant (Servheen et al. 

2004, p. 15). Although humans have 

been and remain the single greatest 

cause of mortality for grizzly bears 

(McLellan et al. 1999, pp. 914–916; 

Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21), rates of 

human-caused mortality have been low 

enough to allow Yellowstone bear 

population growth and range expansion 

(Harris et al. 2006, p. 48; Schwartz et al. 

2006b, pp. 64–66). Implementation of 

the revised mortality limits ensure that 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14921 

mortality will continue to be managed at 

sustainable levels. Below we consider 

human predation impacts including 

illegal poaching, defense of life and 

property, accidental mortality, and 

management removals. 

We define vandal killing as poaching, 

which is malicious, illegal killing of a 

grizzly bears. People may kill grizzly 

bears for several reasons, including a 

general perception that grizzly bears in 

the area may be dangerous, frustration 

over depredations of livestock, or to 

protest land use and road use 

restrictions associated with grizzly bear 

habitat management (Servheen et al. 

2004, p. 21). Regardless of the reason, 

poaching continues to occur. We are 

aware of at least 27 vandal killings in 

the GYA between 1980 and 2002 

(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Although 

this level of take occurred during a 

period where poaching was enforceable 

by Federal prosecution, we do not 

expect vandal killing to significantly 

increase after delisting. 

State and Federal law enforcement 

agents have cooperated to ensure 

consistent enforcement of laws 

protecting grizzly bears. Currently, State 

and Federal prosecutors and 

enforcement personnel from each State 

and Federal jurisdiction work together 

to make recommendations to all 

jurisdictions, counties, and States, on 

uniform enforcement, prosecution, and 

sentencing relating to illegal grizzly bear 

kills. Upon delisting, all three affected 

States will classify grizzly bears of the 

Yellowstone population as game 

animals, which cannot be taken without 

authorization by State wildlife agencies 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, 

pp. 72–75; Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly 

Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 

18–21; MTFWP 2002, p. 2; WGFD 2005, 

p. 20). In other words, it will still be 

illegal for private citizens to kill grizzly 

bears unless it is in self defense, they 

have a hunting license issued by State 

wildlife agencies, or in the Montana 

portion of the DPS, if a grizzly bear is 

caught in the act of attacking or killing 

livestock (87–3–130 MCA). States will 

continue to enforce, prosecute, and 

sentence poachers just as they do for 

any game animal such as elk, black 

bears, and cougars. Although it is 

widely recognized that poaching still 

occurs, this illegal source of mortality is 

not significant enough to hinder the 

continuing growth and range expansion 

of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population (Pyare et al. 2004, pp. 5–6; 

Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 203). 

One way to address vandal killing is 

to change human values, perceptions, 

and beliefs about grizzly bears and 

Federal regulation of public lands 

(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 27). To address 

the concerns of user groups who have 

objections to land use restrictions that 

accommodate grizzly bears, Federal and 

State agencies market the benefits of 

restricting motorized access to multiple 

species. For example, both Montana and 

Wyoming have recommendations for elk 

habitat security similar to those for 

grizzly bears (less than 1.6 km/2.6 sq km 

(1 mi/sq mi)) and this level of motorized 

access meets the needs of a variety of 

wildlife species, while maintaining 

reasonable opportunities for public 

access. To address the concerns of 

citizens who feel that grizzly bears are 

a threat to their safety or their lifestyle, 

I & E programs aim to change 

perspectives on the danger and behavior 

of grizzly bears (for a detailed 

discussion of I & E programs, see Factor 

E below). 

From 1980 to 2002, humans killed 49 

grizzly bears in self-defense or defense 

of others. This constituted nearly 17 

percent of known grizzly bear 

mortalities during this time period 

(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). These 

grizzly bear/human conflicts occurred 

primarily over livestock or hunter-killed 

carcasses, but also at camp and home 

sites. Federal and State agencies have 

many options to potentially reduce 

these conflicts (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 

27). By promoting the use of pepper 

spray and continuing current I & E 

programs, many of these grizzly bear 

deaths may be avoided. 

Humans kill grizzly bears 

unintentionally with vehicles or by 

mistaking them for other species when 

hunting. From 1980 to 2002, the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

incurred 9 mortalities from roadkills 

and 13 mortalities associated with 

mistaken identification (totaling 9 

percent of known mortality for this time 

period) (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). 

Measures to reduce vehicle collisions 

with grizzly bears include removing 

roadkill carcasses from the road so that 

grizzly bears are not attracted to the 

roadside (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 28). 

Cost-effective mitigation efforts to 

facilitate safe crossings by wildlife will 

be voluntarily incorporated in road 

construction or reconstruction projects 

on Federal lands within suitable grizzly 

bear habitat. 

Mistaken identification of grizzly 

bears by black bear hunters is a 

manageable source of mortality. The 

Strategy identifies I & E programs 

targeted at hunters that emphasize 

patience, awareness, and correct 

identification of targets to help reduce 

grizzly bear mortalities from 

inexperienced black bear and ungulate 

hunters (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, pp. 61–62). Beginning in license 

year 2002, the State of Montana required 

that all black bear hunters pass a Bear 

Identification Test before receiving a 

black bear hunting license (see http:// 

fwp.state.mt.us/bearid/ for more 

information and details). In addition, 

Montana and Wyoming include grizzly 

bear encounter management as a core 

subject in basic hunter education 

courses (WGFD 2005, p. 34; MTFWP 

2002, p. 63). 

Big-game hunters in the GYA are 

another source of mortality for grizzly 

bears. Between 1980 and 2002, 71 

percent (35 of 49) of grizzly bears killed 

in self defense were hunting-related 

(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). These 

deaths occur during surprise encounters 

in heavy cover, at hunter-killed 

carcasses or gut piles, or when packing 

out carcasses. Elk hunters in Grand 

Teton National Park are required to 

carry pepper spray in an accessible 

location (WGFD 2006). 

The last source of human predation 

on grizzly bears is associated with 

management removal of nuisance bears 

following grizzly bear/human conflicts. 

Effective nuisance bear management 

benefits the conservation of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population by 

promoting tolerance of grizzly bears and 

minimizing illegal killing of bears by 

citizens. The Strategy and the State 

grizzly bear management plans will 

guide nuisance bear management postdelisting. The Strategy is consistent 

with current protocol as described in 

the Guidelines (USDA Forest Service 

1986, pp. 53–54), emphasizing the 

individual’s importance to the entire 

population, with females continuing to 

receive a higher level of protection than 

males. Location, cause of incident, 

severity of incident, history of the bear, 

health, age, and sex of the bear, and 

demographic characteristics are all 

considered in any relocation or removal 

action. Upon delisting, State and 

National Park Service bear managers 

would continue to consult with each 

other and other relevant Federal 

agencies (i.e., USDA Forest Service, 

BLM) before any nuisance bear 

management decision is made, but 

consultation with us will no longer be 

required. The Strategy emphasizes 

removal of the human cause of the 

conflict when possible, or management 

and education actions to limit such 

conflicts (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007. pp. 57–60). In addition, an I & E 

team will continue to coordinate the 

development, implementation, and 

dissemination of programs and 

materials to aid in preventative 

management of human/bear conflicts. 

The Strategy recognizes that successful 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14922 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

management of grizzly bear/human 

conflicts requires an integrated, 

multiple-agency approach to continue to 

keep human-caused grizzly bear 

mortality within sustainable levels. 

The largest increase in grizzly bear 

mortalities since 1994 is related to 

grizzly bear/human conflicts at or near 

developed sites (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 

21). In fact, 20 percent (59 of 290) of 

known mortalities between 1980 and 

2002 were related to site conflicts 

(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). These 

conflicts involved food-conditioned 

bears actively seeking out human 

sources of food or bears that are 

habituated to human presence seeking 

natural sources of food in areas that are 

near human structures or roads. The 

increase in site conflicts during the last 

decade is likely due to a combination of 

encroaching human presence coinciding 

with an increasing and expanding 

grizzly bear population. These conflicts 

usually involve attractants such as 

garbage, human foods, pet/livestock/ 

wildlife foods, livestock carcasses, and 

wildlife carcasses, but also are related to 

attitudes and personal levels of 

knowledge and tolerance toward grizzly 

bears. Both State and Federal I & E 

programs are aimed primarily at 

reducing grizzly bear/human conflicts 

proactively by educating the public 

about potential grizzly bear attractants. 

Accordingly, roughly 68 percent of the 

total budgets of the agencies responsible 

for implementing the Strategy and 

managing the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

DPS post-delisting is for grizzly bear/ 

human conflict management, outreach, 

and education (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, Appendix H, p. 154). To 

address public attitudes and knowledge 

levels, I & E programs will present 

grizzly bears as a valuable public 

resource while acknowledging the 

potential dangers associated with them 

(for a detailed discussion of I & E 

programs, see Factor E below). 

Management removals due to grizzly 

bear conflicts with livestock accounted 

for nearly 4 percent of known 

mortalities between 1980 and 2002 

(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Several 

steps to reduce livestock conflicts are 

currently underway. The USDA Forest 

Service and National Park Service are 

phasing out sheep allotments within the 

PCA as opportunities arise and, 

currently, only 2 active sheep 

allotments inside the PCA remain 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 167). 

The USDA Forest Service also has 

closed sheep allotments outside the 

PCA to resolve conflicts with species 

such as bighorn sheep as well as grizzly 

bears. Additionally, the alternative 

chosen by the USDA Forest Service 

during their Environmental Impact 

Statement process to amend the six 

national forest plans for grizzly bear 

habitat conservation includes direction 

to resolve recurring conflicts on 

livestock allotments through retirement 

of those allotments with willing 

permittees (USDA Forest Service 2006b, 

pp. 16–17). Livestock grazing permits 

include special provisions regarding 

reporting of conflicts, proper food and 

attractant storage procedures, and 

carcass removal. The USDA Forest 

Service monitors compliance to these 

special provisions associated with 

livestock allotments annually (Servheen 

et al. 2004, p. 28). Upon delisting, the 

USDA Forest Service will continue to 

implement these measures that 

minimize grizzly bear conflicts with 

livestock. The Strategy also recognizes 

that active management of individual 

nuisance bears is required. Removal of 

repeat depredators of livestock has been 

an effective tool for managing grizzly 

bear/livestock conflicts as most 

depredations are done by a few 

individuals (Jonkel 1980, p. 12; Knight 

and Judd 1983, p.188; Anderson et al. 

2002, pp. 252–253). 

The Study Team coordinates an 

annual analysis of the causes of 

conflicts, known and probable 

mortalities, and proposed management 

solutions (Servheen et al. 2004, pp. 1–

29). The Yellowstone Ecosystem 

Subcommittee reviews these reports and 

initiates appropriate action if 

improvements in Federal or State 

management actions can minimize 

conflicts. As directed by the Strategy, 

upon delisting, the Study Team will 

continue to summarize nuisance bear 

control actions in their Annual Reports 

and the Coordinating Committee will 

continue with their review (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 60). The 

Study Team also would continue 

preparing annual spatial distribution 

maps of conflicts so that managers can 

identify where problems occur and 

compare trends in locations, sources, 

land ownership, and types of conflicts. 

This will facilitate proactive 

management of grizzly/human conflicts. 

Summary of Factor C—Overall, from 

1980 to 2002, the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population incurred an average of 

12.6 human-caused grizzly bear 

mortalities per year (Servheen et al. 

2004, p. 21). Despite these mortalities, 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

has continued to increase in size and 

expand its distribution in the last 2 

decades (Eberhardt et al. 1994, pp. 361–

362; Knight and Blanchard 1995, pp. 2–

11; Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 1–11; Harris 

et al. 2006, p.48; Pyare et al. 2004, pp. 

5–6; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64–66). 

Disease and natural predation are not 

currently a threat, nor are they likely to 

become a threat to the Yellowstone DPS 

in the foreseeable future in all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Although humans are still directly or 

indirectly responsible for the majority of 

grizzly bear deaths in suitable habitat 

within the DPS boundaries, we have 

learned that this source of mortality can 

be effectively controlled through 

management and I & E. 

We have institutionalized careful 

management and monitoring of humancaused mortality in the Strategy, Forest 

Plans, National Park management plans, 

and State grizzly bear management 

plans (see Factor D below). In addition, 

we revised our methodology for 

calculating the total allowable mortality 

limits (see the Recovery; Population and 

Demographic Management section 

above) to include natural mortalities 

and estimates of unreported/undetected 

deaths, so that mortality in the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population can 

be managed at sustainable levels. 

Because of these actions, human sources 

of mortality are not currently a threat, 

nor are they likely to become a threat in 

the foreseeable future in all or a 

significant portion of the Yellowstone 

DPS’s range. All significant areas are 

adequately protected. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The lack of regulatory mechanisms to 

control take and protect habitat was a 

contributing factor to grizzly bear 

population declines (40 FR 31734–

31736, July 28, 1975). Upon listing 

under the Act, the grizzly bear 

immediately benefited from a Federal 

regulatory framework that included 

prohibition of take (defined under the 

Act to include harass, harm, pursue, 

hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, 

or collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct); prohibition of habitat 

destruction or degradation if such 

activities harm individuals of the 

species; the requirement that Federal 

agencies ensure their actions will not 

likely jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species; and the 

requirement to develop and implement 

a recovery plan for the species. These 

protective measures have improved the 

status of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population to the point where delisting 

is now appropriate. 

The management of grizzly bears and 

their habitat draws from the laws and 

regulations of the Federal and State 

agencies in the Yellowstone DPS 

boundaries (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, pp. 68–78). Forty Federal 

laws, rules, guidelines, strategies, and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14923 

reports and 33 State laws, statutes, and 

regulations are in place that apply to 

management of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, pp. 157–160, Appendix J). 

These laws and regulations provide the 

legal authority for controlling mortality, 

providing secure habitats, managing 

grizzly bear/human conflicts, 

controlling hunters, limiting access 

where necessary, controlling livestock 

grazing, maintaining I & E programs to 

control conflicts, monitoring 

populations and habitats, and 

requesting management and petitions 

for relisting if necessary. 

Recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population is the result of ongoing 

partnerships between Federal and State 

agencies, the governors of these States, 

county and city governments, 

educational institutions, numerous nongovernment organizations, private 

landowners, and the public who live, 

work, and recreate in the GYA. Just as 

recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population could not have occurred 

without these excellent working 

relationships, maintenance of a 

recovered grizzly population will be the 

result of the continuation of these 

partnerships. 

The Strategy is the plan which will 

guide the management and monitoring 

of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population and its habitat after 

delisting. It establishes a regulatory 

framework and authority for Federal 

and State agencies to take over 

management of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population from the Service. The 

Strategy also identifies, defines, and 

requires adequate post-delisting 

monitoring to maintain a healthy 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, 

pp. 25–56). The Strategy is an adaptive 

and dynamic document that allows for 

continuous updating based on new 

scientific information (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 14). The 

Strategy also has a clear response 

protocol that requires the agencies to 

respond with active management 

changes to deviations from the habitat 

and population standards in a timely 

and publicly accessible manner (U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 63–

67). It represents a decade-long 

collaborative effort between us and the 

USDA Forest Service, National Park 

Service, BLM, U.S. Geological Survey, 

the Study Team, IDFG, MTFWP, and 

WGFD. State grizzly bear management 

plans were developed, reviewed, 

opened for public comment, revised, 

and completed in all three affected 

States (Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming) 

(Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly Bear 

Delisting Advisory Team 2002; MTFWP 

2002; WGFD 2005). These State plans 

were then incorporated into the Strategy 

to ensure that the plans and the Strategy 

are consistent and complementary 

(accessible at http://mountainprairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ 

grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The Strategy 

then went through a separate public 

comment process (65 FR 11340, March 

2, 2000) before being revised and 

finalized. All the State and Federal 

agencies which are party to the 

agreement have signed a memorandum 

of understanding in which they have 

agreed to implement the Strategy. 

The Strategy and the State plans 

describe and summarize the coordinated 

efforts required to manage the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population and 

its habitat such that its continued 

conservation is ensured. The Strategy 

will direct management of grizzly bears 

inside the PCA, the most significant 

portion of range, whereas the State 

plans will cover all suitable habitat 

outside of the PCA. These documents 

specify the population, habitat, and 

nuisance bear standards to maintain a 

recovered grizzly bear population. The 

plans also document the regulatory 

mechanisms and legal authorities, 

policies, management, and postdelisting monitoring plans that exist to 

maintain the recovered grizzly bear 

population. Overall, the measures 

committed to in the Strategy and the 

State grizzly bear management plans 

provide assurances to us that adequate 

regulatory mechanisms exist to maintain 

a recovered grizzly bear population in 

the Yellowstone DPS after delisting (i.e., 

they ensure that the species is not likely 

to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range). 

In areas of suitable habitat outside of 

the PCA (areas considered ‘‘significant’’

to the extent that they allow for 

continued population expansion into 

adjacent areas of public land in the 

GYA, and therefore, provide additional 

ecological resiliency to respond to 

environmental change), individual 

National Forest Plans and State grizzly 

bear management plans apply. Upon 

delisting, the USDA Forest Service will 

place grizzly bears on its Sensitive 

Wildlife Species list (USDA Forest 

Service 2006b, p. 26). This requires the 

USDA Forest Service to conduct a 

biological evaluation for any project 

which may ‘‘result in loss of species 

viability or create significant trends 

toward Federal listing’’ (USDA Forest 

Service Manual 2006). Under the 

revised Forest Planning Regulations (70 

FR 1023, January 5, 2005), Yellowstone 

grizzly bears will be classified as a 

‘‘species of concern’’ (USDA Forest 

Service 2006b, p. 26). This designation 

provides protections similar to those 

received when classified as a sensitive 

species and requires that Forest Plans 

include additional provisions to 

accommodate these species and provide 

adequate ecological conditions (i.e., 

habitats) to continue to provide for the 

needs of a recovered population. 

The USDA Forest Service conducted 

a NEPA analysis and produced a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

regarding the potential options 

available, and the effects of 

implementing the Strategy (USDA 

Forest Service 2004, p. iii). This analysis 

was undertaken by all six affected 

National Forests (Beaverhead, BridgerTeton, Custer, Gallatin, Shoshone, and 

Targhee) in suitable habitat and was 

completed in July 2004 (accessible at 

http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ 

mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The 

overall purpose of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement was to 

analyze the impacts of incorporating the 

habitat standards outlined in the 

Strategy and other relevant provisions 

into the Forest Plans of the six affected 

forests, to ensure conservation of habitat 

to sustain the recovered Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population. The USDA 

Forest Service Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision were released in April 2006 

(USDA Forest Service 2006a, p. 1; 

USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 36). The 

chosen alternative from the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement was 

Alternative 2-Modified to amend the 

Forest Plans to include all the habitat 

standards described in the Strategy 

(USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. iii). 

This alternative amends current Forest 

Plans in the GYA with the habitat 

standards required in the Strategy. In 

addition, Alternative 2-Modified 

includes guidance and direction for 

managing suitable habitat, as described 

in the State plans, outside of the PCA. 

This guidance and direction includes: a 

goal for accommodating grizzly bears 

outside the PCA; direction on managing 

livestock allotments with recurring 

conflicts through retirement of such 

allotments with willing permittees; 

direction emphasizing the use of food 

storage orders to minimize grizzly bear/ 

human conflicts; a guideline to 

maintain, to the extent feasible, 

important grizzly bear food resources; 

and several monitoring items that will 

enhance habitat management outside of 

the PCA (USDA Forest Service 2006a, 

pp. 34–37). These amendments to the 

GYA National Forest Land Management 

Plans, completed within the framework 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14924 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

established by the 1982 planning 

regulations, become effective upon 

delisting. 

Under the revised Forest Planning 

Regulation (70 FR 1023, January 5, 

2005), future revisions to Forest Plans 

will be based upon a ‘‘need for change’’

approach. Under this approach, ‘‘it is 

highly unlikely that any changes 

relating to the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

amendments * * * will be identified 

during the revision process’’ (Aus 2005). 

‘‘This means that the management 

direction developed in the 

amendment(s) will be transferred to the 

new planning format and will not 

change. The bottom line is that any 

potential changes to management 

direction in either the current plans or 

during the revision effort will be guided 

by the agreements reached in the 

Strategy and its adaptive provisions’’

(Aus 2005). In addition, we received 

written assurance from the Chief of the 

USDA Forest Service (Bosworth 2006) 

stating, ‘‘It is Forest Service policy 

under the new 2005 planning 

regulations * * * to provide for both 

ecosystem diversity and species 

diversity, including providing 

appropriate ecological conditions if 

needed to help avoid the need to list 

under the Act. In our judgment, this 

management framework provides 

adequate regulatory mechanisms to 

redeem our federal agency 

responsibilities under the Act. This is 

fundamental to our mission and 

specifically to our commitment to 

grizzly bear conservation.’’ Finally, ‘‘the 

National Forest Management Act, 

requires that all projects carried out on 

a forest be consistent with the plans 

adopted under the regulations, 

regardless of whether they are 1982 or 

2005 planning regulations’’ (Bosworth 

2006). 

Roughly 30 percent of all suitable 

habitat outside of the PCA is within a 

designated Wilderness Area (6,799 of 

22,783 sq km (2,625 of 8,797 sq mi) 

while another 27 percent is within an 

Inventoried Roadless Area (6,179 of 

22,783 sq km (2,386 of 8,797 sq mi)). 

Another three percent of all suitable 

habitat outside the PCA is considered 

Wilderness Study Area. The Wilderness 

Act of 1964 does not allow road 

construction, new livestock allotments, 

or new oil, gas, and mining 

developments in designated Wilderness 

Areas; therefore, about 6,799 sq km 

(2,625 sq mi) of secure habitat outside 

of the PCA will remain secure habitat 

protected by adequate regulatory 

mechanisms. This secure suitable 

habitat is biologically significant to the 

Yellowstone DPS because it will allow 

population expansion into these areas 

that are minimally affected by humans. 

The State Petitions for Inventoried 

Roadless Area Management Rule (70 FR 

25653–25662, May 13, 2005) which 

replaced the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule (‘‘Roadless Rule’’) (66 

FR 3244–3273, Jan. 12, 2001) was 

overturned on September 19, 2006 

(People Of The State Of California Ex 

Rel. Bill Lockyer, et al. v. United States 

Department of Agriculture; The 

Wilderness Society, California 

Wilderness Coalition, et al. v. United 

States Forest Service, Dale Bosworth, et 

al., C05–03508 EDL). The State Petitions 

for Inventoried Roadless Area 

Management Rule was set aside and the 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule, 

including the Tongass Amendment, was 

reinstated. The USDA Forest Service 

was enjoined from taking any further 

action contrary to the Roadless Area 

Conservation Rule without undertaking 

environmental analysis consistent with 

the court opinion. 

Even if this rule had remained in 

effect, the affected National Forest 

would have used the NEPA process and 

public involvement to consider the 

impacts any changes in Roadless Area 

management may have had on other 

resources and management goals. The 

USDA Forest Service would have 

monitored any impacts these changes 

may have had on habitat effectiveness, 

while the Study Team would have 

monitored any increases in grizzly bear 

mortality these changes may have 

caused. Before the 2006 court decision, 

the USDA Forest Service Interim 

Directive 1920–2004–1 regulated 

activities in Inventoried Roadless Areas 

(69 FR 42648–42649, July 16, 2004). 

Under this directive, little road building 

or timber harvest could be done in 

Inventoried Roadless Areas until Forest 

Plans were revised or amended to 

specifically address activities in 

roadless areas. The Targhee National 

Forest was exempt from this interim 

directive because it operates under a 

Revised Forest Plan, which addresses 

the management of roadless areas. 

Motorized access and other management 

activities are addressed by specific 

Management Prescription direction in 

the Revised Forest Plan. In general, this 

Management Prescription directs that 

roadless areas in the Targhee National 

Forest remain roadless. Similarly, a 

1994 amendment to the Shoshone 

National Forest Plan implemented a 

standard for no net increase in roads 

(USDA Forest Service 2004, p. 73). 

The National Park Service has 

incorporated the habitat, population, 

monitoring, and nuisance bear 

standards described in the Strategy into 

their Superintendent’s Compendium for 

each affected National Park. This was 

completed prior to the publication of 

this final rule (Grand Teton National 

Park 2006, p. 1; Yellowstone National 

Park 2006, p. 12). Because the BLM 

manages less than 2 percent of all 

suitable habitats, they are not modifying 

existing management plans. Instead, the 

BLM expressed their commitment to the 

long-term conservation of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population by 

signing the memorandum of 

understanding in the Strategy. 

The three State grizzly bear 

management plans direct State land 

management agencies to maintain or 

improve habitats that are important to 

grizzly bears and to monitor population 

criteria outside the PCA. Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming have developed 

management plans for areas outside the 

PCA to—(1) assure that the measures of 

the Act continue to be unnecessary for 

the grizzly bears in the Yellowstone 

DPS; (2) support expansion of grizzly 

bears beyond the PCA, into areas of 

biologically and socially acceptable 

suitable habitat; and (3) manage grizzly 

bears as a game animal, including 

allowing regulated hunting when and 

where appropriate. The plans for all 

three States were completed in 2002, 

and grizzly bears within the 

Yellowstone DPS will be incorporated 

into existing game species management 

plans after delisting. 

Together, the Eastern Shoshone Tribe 

and the Northern Arapaho Tribe manage 

wildlife within the boundaries of the 

Wind River Reservation (see Figure 1 

above). The Eastern Shoshone and 

Northern Arapaho Tribes have 

participated in Yellowstone Ecosystem 

Subcommittee meetings. At the 2002 

Annual Tribal Consultation, organized 

by Yellowstone National Park, we 

formally briefed the Tribe about the 

Strategy, but the Tribe did not provide 

input or feedback about the Strategy, 

nor did they sign the memorandum of 

understanding in the Strategy. The 

Eastern Shoshone Tribe is currently 

working with the Service’s Lander, 

Wyoming office to develop its own 

Grizzly Bear Management Plan. We 

anticipate that the Tribal management 

plan will allow for grizzly bear 

occupancy of suitable habitat on Tribal 

land and cooperation on managing and 

monitoring population parameters. Less 

than 3 percent of all suitable habitats 

(1,360 sq km (525 sq mi)) are potentially 

affected by Tribal decisions, so their 

management would never constitute a 

threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population. Their management plan will 

facilitate grizzly bear occupancy in areas 

of suitable habitat on the Wind River 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14925 

Reservation and would allow grizzly 

bears greater access to high-elevation 

whitebark pine and army cutworm 

moths, thus allowing for additional 

resiliency of the Yellowstone DPS in 

response to changing environmental 

conditions. 

Once this final rule becomes effective, 

the Strategy will be implemented, and 

the Coordinating Committee will 

replace the Yellowstone Ecosystem 

Subcommittee as the lead entity 

coordinating implementation of the 

habitat and population standards, and 

monitoring (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, p. 63). Similar to the 

Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee, 

the Coordinating Committee members 

include representatives from 

Yellowstone and Grand Teton National 

Parks, the six affected National Forests, 

BLM, U.S. Geological Survey, IDFG, 

MTFWP, WGFD, one member from local 

county governments within each State, 

and one member from each Native 

American Tribe within suitable habitat. 

All meetings will be open to the public. 

Besides coordinating management, 

research, and financial needs for 

successful conservation of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population, the 

Coordinating Committee will review the 

Study Team’s Annual Reports and 

review and respond to any deviations 

from habitat or population standards. 

The Coordinating Committee will 

decide on management 

recommendations to be implemented by 

appropriate member agencies to rectify 

problems and to assure that the habitat 

and population standards will be met 

and maintained. 

The Strategy’s habitat standards are 

the 1998 levels of secure habitat, 

developed sites, livestock allotments, 

and habitat effectiveness (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 38). The 

Strategy signatories have agreed that if 

there are deviations from any 

population or habitat standard, the 

Coordinating Committee will implement 

a Biology and Monitoring Review to be 

carried out by the Study Team. A 

Biology and Monitoring Review will be 

triggered by any of the following 

causes—(1) a total population estimate 

of less than 500, as indicated by a Chao2

estimate (Keating et al. 2002, pp. 167–

170) of less than 48 females with cubsof-the-year, for 2 consecutive years; (2) 

exceedance of the 9 percent total 

mortality limit for independent females 

for 2 consecutive years; (3) exceedance 

of the total mortality limits for 

independent males or dependent young 

for 3 consecutive years; (4) failure to 

meet any of the habitat standards 

described in the Strategy pertaining to 

levels of secure habitat, new developed 

sites, and number of livestock 

allotments in any given year; or (5) 

failure to receive adequate funding to 

fully implement the monitoring and 

management requirements of the 

Strategy in any given year. 

A Biology and Monitoring Review is 

led by the Study Team and will examine 

habitat management, population 

management, or monitoring efforts of 

participating agencies with an objective 

of identifying the source or cause of 

failing to meet a habitat or demographic 

goal. This review also will provide 

management recommendations to 

correct any such deviations. If the 

Biology and Monitoring Review is 

triggered by inadequate funding, the 

Review would focus on whether this 

fiscal short-coming was a threat to the 

implementation of the Strategy to such 

an extent that it required that the 

measures of the Act would be necessary 

to assure the recovered status of the 

Yellowstone DPS. If the Review is 

triggered by failure to meet a population 

goal, the Review would involve a 

comprehensive review of vital rates 

including survival rates, litter size, litter 

interval, grizzly bear/human conflicts, 

and mortalities. The Study Team will 

attempt to identify the reason behind 

any variation in vital rates such as 

habitat conditions, vandal killings, 

excessive roadkill, etc., and determine if 

the reasons that the measures of the Act 

are necessary to assure the recovered 

status of the population. Similarly, if the 

Review was triggered by failure to meet 

a habitat standard, the Review would 

examine what caused the failure, 

whether this requires that the measures 

of the Act are necessary to assure the 

recovered status of the population, and 

what actions may be taken to correct the 

problem. This Review will be completed 

and made available to the public within 

6 months of initiation. 

The Coordinating Committee is to 

respond to a Biology and Monitoring 

Review with actions to address 

deviations from habitat standards or, if 

the desired population and habitat 

standards specified in the Strategy 

cannot be met in the opinion of the 

Coordinating Committee, then the 

Coordinating Committee will petition us 

for relisting (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, p. 66). Although anyone 

can petition us for relisting, the 

Coordinating Committee’s petition is 

important because it is requested by the 

actual management agencies in charge 

of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population. Additionally, the 

Coordinating Committee possesses the 

resources, data, and experience to 

provide us with a strong argument for 

the petition. Once a potential petition is 

received, we determine if the petition 

presents substantial information. If so, 

we conduct a full status review to 

determine if relisting is warranted, 

warranted-but-precluded by higher 

priority actions, or not warranted. We 

also could consider emergency listing, 

in accordance with section 4(b)(7) of the 

Act, if the threat were severe and 

immediate (16 U.S.C. 1533(g)). Such an 

emergency relisting would be effective 

the day the regulation is published in 

the Federal Register and would be 

effective for 240 days. During this time, 

a conventional rule regarding the listing 

of the species based on the five factors 

of section 4(a)(1) of the Act could be 

drafted and take effect after the 240-day 

limit on the emergency relisting has 

expired. Both emergency listing and the 

normal listing process also could be 

undertaken by the Service independent 

of the petition process. 

The management of nuisance bears 

within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries 

will be based upon existing laws and 

authorities of State wildlife agencies 

and Federal land management agencies, 

and guided by protocols established in 

the Strategy and State management 

plans. Inside the National Parks, 

Yellowstone or Grand Teton National 

Park grizzly bear biologists will 

continue to respond to grizzly bear/ 

human conflicts. In all areas outside of 

the National Parks, State wildlife 

agencies will coordinate and carry out 

any management actions in response to 

grizzly bear/human conflicts. In areas 

within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries 

that are outside of the PCA, State grizzly 

bear management plans will apply and 

State wildlife agencies will respond to 

and manage all grizzly bear/human 

conflicts. The focus and intent of 

nuisance grizzly bear management 

inside and outside the PCA will be 

predicated on strategies and actions to 

prevent grizzly bear/human conflicts. 

Active management aimed at individual 

nuisance bears will be required in both 

areas. 

The Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming 

plans recognize that measures to reduce 

grizzly bear/human conflicts are 

paramount to successfully and 

completely addressing this issue. The 

State of Idaho Yellowstone Grizzly Bear 

Management Plan states that such 

measures must be given priority, as they 

are more effective than simply 

responding to problems as they occur 

(Idaho’s Yellowstone Grizzly Bear 

Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. 15). 

Similarly, the Grizzly Bear Management 

Plan for Southwestern Montana 

maintains that the key to dealing with 

all nuisance situations is prevention 

rather than responding after damage has 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14926 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

occurred (MTFWP 2002, p. 48). The 

Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management 

Plan also mandates the WGFD to 

emphasize long-term, non-lethal 

solutions, but relocation and lethal 

removal may occur to resolve some 

conflicts (WGFD 2005, pp. 25–25). All 

three State management plans are 

accessible at http:// mountainprairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/ 

grizzly/yellowstone.htm. The ways in 

which the Strategy and the State plans 

intend to address preventative measures 

are described in detail in the Factor EHuman Attitudes Toward Grizzly Bear 

Recovery and Information & Education 

Efforts to Improve these Attitudes 

section below. All three State plans 

allow for preemptive relocation of 

grizzly bears out of areas that have a 

high probability of conflicting with 

humans or their property, including 

livestock. The States are committed to 

responding to grizzly bear/human 

conflicts in an efficient, timely manner. 

The killing of grizzly bears in selfdefense by humans will continue to be 

allowed under both Federal and State 

management plans. State management 

plans do not allow for legal take of 

grizzly bears by humans unless it is 

within the designated seasons and 

limits for grizzly mortality or, in the 

Montana portion of the DPS, if a grizzly 

bear is caught ‘‘in the act’’ of attacking 

or killing livestock (87–3–130 MCA). 

This would have to be verified by a law 

enforcement investigation. Any 

mortality due to hunting will be within 

the sustainable mortality limits, as 

described in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, p. 126). The goal 

of such a hunting season is to reduce 

grizzly density in areas of high grizzly 

bear/human conflicts, in order to 

achieve management objectives so that 

future management actions would be 

reduced. A hunt would only occur if 

annual mortality limits specified for the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population are 

not exceeded. 

State management plans provide the 

necessary regulatory framework and 

guidelines to State wildlife agencies for 

managing and maintaining a recovered 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population in 

significant portions of the range outside 

of the PCA. By identifying the agencies 

responsible for nuisance bear 

management and responding to grizzly 

bear/human conflicts using a clearly 

orchestrated protocol, these State plans 

create a framework within which grizzly 

bears and people can both flourish. 

Effective nuisance bear management 

benefits the conservation of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population and 

State management plans adequately 

address this issue. 

Summary of Factor D—In addition to 

the Strategy, National Park 

Superintendent’s Plans, USDA Forest 

Service Amendment for Grizzly Bear 

Habitat Conservation for the GYA 

National Forests, and State grizzly bear 

management plans, more than 70 State 

and Federal laws, regulations, rules, and 

guidelines are currently in place. We are 

confident that these mechanisms 

provide an adequate regulatory 

framework within which the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

will continue to experience population 

stability and be appropriately 

distributed throughout significant 

portions of the range for the foreseeable 

future. These mechanisms also provide 

detailed protocols for future 

management, I & E programs, and 

monitoring for the foreseeable future. In 

summary, these mechanisms provide 

reasonable assurance to us and 

regulatory certainty that potential future 

threats to the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population will not jeopardize this 

recovered population and ensure that 

the Yellowstone DPS is not likely to 

become endangered in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Three other considerations warrant 

discussion as to whether or not they are 

likely to appreciably impact the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS 

including—(1) genetic concerns; (2) 

invasive species, disease, and other 

impacts to food supply; and (3) human 

attitudes toward grizzly bear recovery 

and I & E efforts to improve these 

attitudes. 

Genetic Management—Levels of 

genetic diversity in Yellowstone grizzly 

bears have been a concern in the past 

because of small population size and 

lack of genetic exchange with other 

grizzly bear populations. However, 

levels of genetic diversity in the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population are 

not as low as previously feared, and the 

need for novel genetic material is not 

urgent (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). 

Because the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population is an isolated population, 

declines in genetic diversity over time 

are expected (Allendorf et al. 1991, p. 

651; Burgman et al. 1993, p. 220), but 

will occur gradually over decades 

(Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). Miller 

and Waits (2003, p. 4338) state, ‘‘In our 

opinion, it is unlikely that genetic 

factors will have substantial effect on 

the viability of the Yellowstone grizzly 

over the next several decades.’’

Therefore, we do not view genetic 

diversity as a current threat to the 

Yellowstone DPS. However, low levels 

of gene flow, as seen historically, may 

be necessary in the future to maintain 

genetic diversity within the Yellowstone 

DPS. In order to assure the long-term 

genetic health of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS, we have considered 

genetic issues for the period beyond the 

next several decades. 

Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338) 

recommend that in order to avoid 

negative, short-term genetic effects 

associated with small population size, 

the effective population size (i.e., the 

number of breeding individuals in an 

idealized population that would show 

the same amount of change in allele 

frequencies due to random genetic drift 

or the same amount of inbreeding as the 

population under consideration) of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS should 

remain above 100 animals, and this will 

likely be achieved by maintaining a total 

population size above 400 animals. In 

response to this recommendation, the 

Strategy states that it is the goal of the 

implementing agencies to maintain the 

total population size at or above 500 

animals to assure that the effective 

population size does not decline to less 

than 100 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, p. 26). 

Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338) state 

that the genetic diversity necessary for 

the long-term genetic health of the 

population can only be maintained 

through gene flow from other grizzly 

bear populations, either through 

translocation or natural connectivity. 

Our DPS policy does not require 

complete geographic or reproductive 

isolation among populations, and allows 

for some limited interchange among 

population segments considered to be 

discrete (61 FR 4722). Although 

movement of just a few individuals 

between populations may be sufficient 

to prevent loss of genetic diversity, 

movement of a few individuals would 

not be sufficient to create or maintain 

significant demographic connectivity 

between grizzly bear populations. We 

believe that there is currently no 

connectivity between the Yellowstone 

DPS and other grizzly bear populations. 

Future efforts to maintain genetic 

diversity, either through translocation or 

natural connectivity, may provide for 

genetic exchange among grizzly bear 

populations but is unlikely to result in 

the Yellowstone DPS becoming no 

longer markedly separate from other 

grizzly bear populations. Natural 

connectivity will continue to be 

monitored after delisting. To document 

natural connectivity, Federal and State 

agencies will continue to monitor bear 

movements on the northern periphery of 

the Yellowstone DPS boundaries and 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14927 

the southern edges of the NCDE using 

radio-telemetry and will collect genetic 

samples from all captured or dead bears 

to document gene flow between these 

two ecosystems. Such movement will be 

detected by using an ‘‘assignment test’’

which identifies the area from which 

individuals are most likely to have 

originated based on their unique genetic 

signature (Paetkau et al. 1995, p. 348; 

Waser and Strobeck 1998, p. 43; Paetkau 

et al. 2004, p. 56; Proctor et al. 2005, pp. 

2410–2412). This technique also has the 

ability to identify bears that may be the 

product of reproduction between 

Yellowstone and NCDE bears (Dixon et 

al. 2006, p. 158). In addition to 

monitoring for gene flow and 

movements, we will continue 

interagency efforts to complete the 

linkage zone task in the Recovery Plan 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, 

pp. 24–26) to provide and maintain 

movement opportunities for grizzly 

bears, and reestablish natural 

connectivity and gene flow between the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS and other 

grizzly bear populations. 

Experimental and theoretical data 

suggest that one to two effective 

migrants per generation is an 

appropriate level of gene flow to 

maintain or increase the level of genetic 

diversity in isolated populations (Mills 

and Allendorf 1996, pp. 1510, 1516; 

Newman and Tallmon 2001, pp. 1059–

1061; Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). 

We have defined an effective migrant as 

an individual that emigrates into an 

isolated population from an outside 

area, survives, breeds, and whose 

offspring survive (we further discuss 

this issue in Issue 8 under subheading 

R in the Summary of Public Comments 

section above). Based on Miller and 

Waits (2003, p. 4338), the Strategy 

recommends that if no movement or 

successful genetic interchange is 

detected by 2020, two effective migrants 

from the NCDE be translocated into the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

every 10 years (i.e., one generation) to 

maintain current levels of genetic 

diversity (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, p. 37). Based on previous attempts 

in other grizzly bear recovery 

ecosystems to augment the grizzly bear 

population (Kasworm et al. in press, pp. 

6–7), the Service recognizes that it may 

take several re-located bears to equal 

one or two effective migrants. Each bear 

that would be relocated from the NCDE 

into the GYA would be radio-collared 

and monitored to determine if 

additional translocations were 

necessary. In this way, we can be certain 

that genetic impoverishment will not 

become a threat to the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS. 

Adequate measures to address genetic 

concerns will continue and, thus, 

genetic concerns will not adversely 

impact the long-term conservation of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population or 

its expansion into suitable habitat. The 

Study Team will carefully monitor 

movements and the presence of alleles 

from grizzly populations outside the 

Yellowstone DPS boundaries (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 2007, p. 37) so that 

reduction of genetic diversity due to the 

geographic isolation of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population will not become 

a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

DPS in all or a significant portion of its 

range in the foreseeable future. 

Invasive Species, Disease, and Other 

Impacts to Food Supply—Four food 

items have been identified as major 

components of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population’s diet (Mattson et al. 

1991a, p. 1623). These are seeds of the 

whitebark pine, army cutworm moths, 

ungulates, and spawning cutthroat trout. 

These food sources may exert a positive 

influence on grizzly bear fecundity and 

survival (Mattson et al. 2002, p. 2) and 

are some of the highest sources of 

digestible energy available to grizzly 

bears in the GYA (Mealey 1975, pp. 84–

86; Pritchard and Robbins 1990, p. 1647; 

Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Craighead et 

al. 1995, pp. 247–252). Each of these 

food sources is limited in distribution 

and subject to natural annual 

fluctuations in abundance and 

availability. Because of this natural 

variability, threshold values of 

abundance for each food have not been 

established. However, whitebark pine, 

ungulates, cutthroat trout, and army 

cutworm moths are all monitored either 

directly or indirectly on an annual basis 

(see Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan 

section below). Monitoring these 

important foods provides managers with 

some ability to predict annual seasonal 

bear habitat use, and estimate, prepare 

for, and avoid grizzly bear/human 

conflicts due to a shortage of one or 

more foods. For instance, the 

Coordinating Committee issues press 

releases annually about the abundance 

of fall foods, particularly whitebark 

pine. In poor whitebark pine years, 

these press releases warn people that 

bears might be found in lower elevation 

areas and that encounters with bears 

will likely be more common. In 

Yellowstone National Park, similar 

warnings are issued to people during 

poor food years when they obtain their 

backcountry permits and, in some years, 

warning signs are posted at trailheads. 

While there is much debate about the 

rates at which carbon dioxide levels, 

atmospheric temperatures, and ocean 

temperatures will rise, the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC), a group of leading 

climate scientists commissioned by the 

United Nations, concluded there is a 

general consensus among the world’s 

best scientists that climate change is 

occurring (Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change 2001, pp. 2–3; 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 2007, p. 4). The twentieth 

century was the warmest in the last 

1,000 years (Inkley et al. 2004, pp. 2–3) 

with global mean surface temperature 

increasing by 0.4 to 0.8 degrees Celsius 

(0.7 to 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit). These 

increases in temperature were more 

pronounced over land masses as 

evidenced by the 1.5 to 1.7 degrees 

Celsius (2.7 to 3.0 degrees Fahrenheit) 

increase in North America since the 

1940s (Vincent et al. 1999, p.96; Cayan 

et al. 2001, p. 411). According to the 

IPCC, warmer temperatures increase 1.1 

to 6.4 degrees Celsius (2.0 to 11.5 

degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100 

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change 2007, pp. 10–11). The 

magnitude of warming in the northern 

Rocky Mountains has been particularly 

great, as indicated by an 8-day advance 

in the appearance of spring 

phenological indicators in Edmonton, 

Alberta, since the 1930s (Cayan et al. 

2001, p. 400). The hydrologic regime in 

the northern Rockies also has changed 

with global climate change, and is 

projected to change further (Bartlein et 

al. 1997, p. 786; Cayan et al. 2001, p. 

411; Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223–224). 

Under global climate change scenarios, 

the GYA may eventually experience 

milder, wetter winters and warmer, 

drier summers (Bartlein et al. 1997, p. 

786). Additionally, the pattern of 

snowmelt runoff also may change, with 

a reduction in spring snowmelt (Cayan 

et al. 2001, p. 411) and an earlier peak 

(Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223–224), so 

that a lower proportion of the annual 

discharge will occur during spring and 

summer. 

Changing climate conditions have the 

potential to impact several of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear’s food sources, 

including whitebark pine seeds, winterkilled ungulates, and army cutworm 

moths. However, the extent and rate to 

which each of these food sources will be 

impacted is difficult to foresee with any 

level of confidence. The specific ways 

in which climate change may affect each 

major grizzly bear food in the GYA is 

discussed within each of their 

respective sections that follow. 

In response to normal changes in food 

supplies due to plant phenology and 

responses to weather (e. g., frost, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14928 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

rainfall), grizzly bear annual home 

ranges may change in size and extent 

(Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 48–62). 

By expanding the distribution and range 

of bears into currently unoccupied 

suitable habitat within the DPS 

boundaries, as per the State plans, 

additional areas with additional food 

resources will be available. These 

additional habitats will provide habitat 

flexibility for bears to respond to 

changes in annual food supplies and 

distribution. 

Regarding impacts to cutthroat trout, 

several factors have the potential to play 

significant roles on the abundance of 

this food source. In 1994, nonnative lake 

trout (Salvelinus naymaycush) were 

discovered in Yellowstone Lake 

(Reinhart et al. 2001, pp. 281–282). Lake 

trout are efficient predators of juvenile 

cutthroat trout and, on average, 

consume 41 cutthroat trout per year 

(Ruzycki et al. 2003, p. 23). In 1998, 

Myxobolus cerebralis, the parasite that 

causes whirling disease, was found in 

juvenile and adult cutthroat trout 

collected from Yellowstone Lake. The 

Intermountain West has experienced 

drought conditions for the past 6 years, 

which has resulted in increased water 

temperatures, lowered lake levels, and a 

reduction in peak stream flows; all of 

which negatively affect cutthroat trout 

spawning success (Koel et al. 2005, p. 

10). This combination of lake trout, 

whirling disease, and drought 

conditions has resulted in declines in 

the Yellowstone cutthroat trout 

population, with subsequent decreases 

in grizzly bear fishing activity (Koel et 

al. 2005, pp. 10–11). In fact, both black 

and grizzly bear activity at spawning 

streams decreased 87 percent between 

1989 and 2004 (Koel et al. 2005, p. 14). 

Efforts to reduce introduced lake trout 

populations have been somewhat 

successful. The Yellowstone National 

Park managers have removed more than 

100,000 lake trout since 1994, and the 

average size of lake trout caught has 

decreased, indicating that gillnetting 

efforts may be effective. The 

Yellowstone National Park managers 

will continue to monitor the 

Yellowstone Lake cutthroat trout 

population using fish weirs, spawning 

stream surveys, and hydroacoustic 

techniques and continue attempts to 

suppress nonnative lake trout in 

Yellowstone Lake through gillnetting, 

capturing on spawning grounds, and 

fishing regulations which target lake 

trout (Yellowstone National Park 2003, 

p. 33). The Yellowstone National Park 

biologists will continue to assess the 

impacts of nonnative lake trout on 

cutthroat trout populations and will 

provide an annual summary to the 

Study Team regarding the abundance of 

both cutthroat and lake trout. 

According to Stewart et al. (2004, p. 

223), cutthroat trout in the Yellowstone 

Lake drainage (a small portion of the 

overall range of Yellowstone cutthroat 

trout) may be affected by climate change 

and its effects on the hydrologic regime 

potentially causing spring runoff to 

occur as much as 30 to 40 days earlier 

and perhaps reduced scouring of 

streambeds. Should this scenario be 

realized, that would require cutthroat 

trout to migrate to the tributaries to 

spawn earlier in the spring to match 

their preferred streamflows, and it also 

would require them to return to 

Yellowstone Lake earlier in the summer 

to avoid low flows in the tributaries. 

Such a hypothetical change in the 

spawning schedule of cutthroat trout 

also would require a change in the time 

during which grizzly bears frequent the 

spawning streams. Young (2001) 

speculated that warmer water 

temperatures may be harmful to 

cutthroat trout, as evidenced by the 

failure of some warmer river reaches, 

such as the lower Tongue River, to 

support cutthroat populations. While 

some species may shift north in 

response to climate change, there is no 

evidence the introduced lake trout will 

be hampered by such climatic range 

restrictions. Despite these potential 

factors impacting Yellowstone cutthroat 

trout, a 2006 status review concluded 

that listing this salmonid was not 

warranted (71 FR 8818–8831, February 

21, 2006). This status review noted that 

although some Yellowstone cutthroat 

trout populations face severe threats, 

overall, populations are abundant and 

well distributed, and that land and 

water management practices have 

significantly reduced habitat 

degradation. 

Although the decrease in bear use of 

cutthroat trout corresponds temporally 

with cutthroat trout declines, this may 

not have a significant effect on the 

grizzly bear population because adult 

grizzlies that fish in spawning streams 

only consume, on average, between 8 

and 55 trout per year (Felicetti et al. 

2004, p. 499). The results of Felicetti et 

al. (2004, p. 499) indicate a lower 

dependence on this food source than 

previously believed (Reinhart and 

Mattson 1990, pp. 345–349; Mattson 

and Reinhart 1995, pp. 2078–2079). Of 

particular importance is the finding that 

male grizzly bear consumption of 

spawning cutthroat trout was five times 

more than average female consumption 

of this food (Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499) 

and there was minimal use of cutthroat 

trout by female grizzly bears. Haroldson 

et al. (2005, p. 175) found that a small 

proportion of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population was using cutthroat 

trout. The number of bears using trout 

varied from 15 to 33 per year from 1997 

to 2000 (Haroldson et al. 2005, p. 175). 

This low reliance on cutthroat trout by 

the grizzly bear population in general, 

and female bears specifically, has 

implications for population dynamics, 

and means that potential declines in 

this food resource are not currently, nor 

are they likely to become, a threat in the 

foreseeable future in all or a significant 

portion of the Yellowstone DPS’s range, 

even if changing climate conditions 

cause a reduction in Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout abundance. 

Regarding Whitebark Pine, two 

noteworthy factors in North America 

warrant consideration here, including 

mountain pine beetle infestation and the 

introduction of exotic species (Tomback 

et al. 2001, p. 13). Fire suppression and 

exclusion throughout most of the 

western United States during the 

twentieth century has allowed shade 

tolerant tree species to dominate some 

whitebark pine communities, thereby 

inhibiting natural regeneration by 

whitebark pine (Arno 1986, p. 93; 

Tomback et al. 2001, p. 5). These later 

successional whitebark pine 

communities are more susceptible to 

infestations of the native mountain pine 

beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) 

(Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 14–15). Their 

larvae feed on the inner bark, which can 

eventually girdle and kill trees on a 

landscape scale (Amman and Cole 1983, 

p. 12). 

During the last 2 to 4 years, there has 

been an epidemic of mountain pine 

beetles in whitebark pine in the GYA 

(Gibson 2006, p. 1). Using aerial 

detection survey data, Gibson (2006, pp. 

1, 3) estimated that 16 percent of the 

total area of whitebark pine found in the 

GYA (693 sq km / 4,308 sq km (268 sq 

mi / 1663 sq mi)) has experienced some 

level of mortality due to mountain pine 

beetles. Similarly, the Greater 

Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring 

Working Group (2006, p. 77) reported 

that 22 percent of their transects showed 

presence of mountain pine beetles. 

Between 2004 and 2005 they surveyed 

a total of 3,889 trees and found 1.4 

percent of the trees (56 trees) sampled 

showed signs of mountain pine beetle 

attack (Greater Yellowstone Whitebark 

Pine Monitoring Working Group 2006, 

p. 77). 

The introduction of white pine blister 

rust from Europe in the early 1900s also 

contributes to whitebark pine declines 

(Kendall and Arno 1990, pp. 269–270; 

Tomback et al. 2001, pp. 15–16). While 

there is evidence of blister rust in 

whitebark pines in the GYA, the blister 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14929 

rust has been present for more than 50 

years (McDonald and Hoff 2001, p. 210), 

and infection rates are still relatively 

low when compared to whitebark pine 

communities further north. The Greater 

Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring 

Working Group (2006, p. 76) estimated 

that after more than 50 years of presence 

of the pathogen in the ecosystem, 

roughly 25 percent of all whitebark pine 

trees in the GYA are currently infected 

to some level with the blister rust. 

Evidence of infection does not 

necessarily mean immediate mortality. 

Eighty percent of the rust cankers on 

2,425 infected live trees were on 

branches as opposed to the bole of the 

tree. Trees with branch cankers only are 

less impacted than trees with bole 

cankers (Greater Yellowstone Whitebark 

Pine Monitoring Working Group 2006, 

p. 76) and usually produce normal cone 

crops. This proportion of infected trees 

in the Yellowstone ecosystem is much 

lower than in whitebark pine 

communities found in the nearby Bob 

Marshall Wilderness (83 percent) or in 

communities of other 5-needled pines in 

Colorado, in which 50 percent of pines 

exposed to the fungus are infected 

(McDonald and Hoff 2001, p. 211). 

Climate change is predicted to affect 

several aspects of the ecology of 

whitebark pine, including an increase in 

the length of the growing season (Cayan 

et al. 2001, p. 410–411), an increase in 

fire frequency and severity (McKenzie et 

al. 2004, p. 893; Westerling et al. 2006, 

pp. 942–943), spatial shifts in the 

distribution of suitable growing sites 

(Bartlein et al. 1997, p. 788), and an 

increase in both mountain pine beetle 

(Logan and Powell 2001, pp. 165–170; 

Williams and Liebhold 2002, p. 95 ) and 

white pine blister rust (Koteen 2002, pp. 

352–364) outbreaks. However, the 

ultimate impacts of climate change on 

whitebark pine communities, and 

therefore impact to the GYA bears’ use 

of whitebark pine seeds as a primary 

food source, are uncertain (Kendall and 

Keane 2001, p. 236). 

While an increased growing season 

may result in increased cone crops for 

several decades, accelerated growth of 

competitive species such as Abies 

lasiocarpa (subalpine fir) could 

eventually lead to them out competing 

and replacing whitebark pine (Mattson 

et al. 2001, pp. 132–133). Additionally, 

a changing climate may shift the overall 

distribution of whitebark pine north and 

higher in elevation, resulting in local 

extinction and reduced overall 

distribution in the GYA (Romme and 

Turner 1991, p. 382). Fire frequency and 

severity may increase with late summer 

droughts predicted under climate 

change scenarios for the GYA. These 

fires may be advantageous to whitebark 

pine through elimination of smaller, 

shade-tolerant competitive tree species 

such as subalpine fir and the creation of 

open sites that will be used by Clark’s 

nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) for 

seed caches, the primary dispersal agent 

for whitebark pine (Tomback et al. 2001, 

p. 17). However, the intensity of the fire 

is a key factor. Low intensity fires may 

eliminate smaller, shade-tolerant 

competitive tree species such as 

subalpine fir, while high intensity fires 

may result in direct mortality of many 

mature whitebark pine trees (Mattson et 

al. 2001, pp. 131–132; Koteen 2002, pp. 

390–396). 

The most substantial way in which 

changing climate conditions may affect 

whitebark pine is through outbreaks of 

native mountain pine beetles that might 

not continue to be regulated by 

extremely cold winters, and an 

increased prevalence of white pine 

blister rust. As recently as 2001, Kendall 

and Keane (2001, p. 136), addressing 

primarily the effects of white pine 

blister rust, concluded that ‘‘the impact 

of climate change on whitebark pine is 

inconclusive,’’ even though they felt it 

unlikely that any whitebark pine stand 

would be safe from damage by blister 

rust under projected climate conditions. 

Subsequent research (Logan and Powell 

in review, p. 13) suggests that recent 

‘‘unprecedented outbreaks’’ of bark 

beetles in high elevation pines have 

been made possible by global climate 

change, and other investigators have 

predicted that mortality caused by 

blister rust also will increase with 

warmer, wetter conditions as predicted 

by global climate models (Koteen 2002, 

pp. 379–384). The current outbreak 

(Gibson 2006, pp. 1–3) and past 

outbreaks (Logan and Powell in review, 

p. 4) have been associated with 

unusually warm temperatures which 

allow mountain pine beetles to 

complete their life cycles in one season 

(Logan and Powell 2001, p. 161), 

suggesting that predicted milder winters 

will result in increased loss of 

whitebark pine to beetle-caused 

mortality. 

Both Gibson (2006, p. 5) and Logan et 

al. (2003, p. 136) temper their comments 

about the speed of spread of mountain 

pine beetle infestations. Logan et al. 

(2003, p. 136) caution that reporting bias 

(the tendency to report massive 

outbreaks and to disregard minor or 

receding infestations) may affect 

perceptions of the problem. Gibson 

(2006, p. 5) cites Furniss and Renkin 

(2003, p. 207), quoting from a National 

Park Service report on the mountain 

pine beetle outbreak in Yellowstone in 

the 1930s. The report, issued 70 years 

ago, stated that ‘‘practically every stand 

of whitebark pine is heavily infested’’

and that ‘‘it seems inevitable that much 

of the park will be denuded.’’ This 

1930s prediction was incorrect, 

demonstrating the uncertainty of 

predicting the impacts of such pine 

beetle infestations. 

It is not anticipated that whitebark 

pine will disappear entirely from the 

GYA in the foreseeable future. Modeling 

efforts have predicted that whitebark 

pine will remain at lower risk for 

mountain pine beetle attack in many 

high elevation habitats in the eastern 

portion of the GYA (Logan 2006, p. 3). 

Many of these high elevation mountain 

areas where whitebark is expected to 

persist (Logan 2006, p. 3) are designated 

Wilderness Areas where human 

developments are prohibited. For 

example, the Wind River mountain 

range (see Figure 1), where mountain 

pine beetle impacts are expected to be 

minimal (Logan 2006, p. 3), is within 

the Bridger, Popo Agie, and Fitzpatrick 

Wilderness Areas. This area includes of 

2,948 sq km (1,138 sq mi) of protected 

habitat. Similarly, the eastern half of the 

PCA consists of the North Absaroka, 

Teton, and Washakie Wilderness Areas, 

where whitebark pine is anticipated to 

be at lower risk of mountain pine beetle 

attack in the foreseeable future (Logan 

2006, p. 3). These areas should provide 

a large reserve area that will be 

minimally impacted by mountain pine 

beetle infestation and have only 

negligible human impacts for the 

foreseeable future. 

While we remain concerned that there 

will be future changes in whitebark pine 

abundance, we believe that the specific 

amount of decline in whitebark pine 

distribution and the rate of this decline 

are difficult to predict with certainty. 

The specific response of grizzly bears to 

declines in whitebark cone production 

is even more uncertain due to the fact 

that bears are used to feeding on 

alternative foods during the regularly 

occurring years when whitebark cone 

production is minimal (Mattson et al. 

1991a, p. 1626; Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 

767). We believe any changes in 

whitebark pine production (positive or 

negative), either individually or in 

combination with other factors, are not 

likely to impact the Yellowstone DPS to 

the point where the DPS is likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. While 

studies suggest a decrease in whitebark 

pine can change both grizzly bear 

spatial distribution and the number of 

bear/human conflicts (Mattson et al. 

1992, p. 436; Knight and Blanchard 

1995, p. 23; Gunther et al. 1997, pp. 9–


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14930 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

11; Gunther et al. 2004, p. 18), grizzly 

bears are opportunistic omnivores that 

will make behavioral adaptations 

regarding food acquisition (Weaver et al. 

1996, p. 970). The wide current and 

projected (Logan 2006, p. 3) distribution 

of whitebark pine, primarily in highelevation Wilderness Areas in the 

eastern part of the GYA where human 

development actions are prohibited, 

provides biologically significant habitat 

to grizzly bears throughout suitable 

habitat and increases the resiliency of 

the Yellowstone DPS to future changes 

in whitebark pine availability. 

In contrast to annually available 

coastal salmon runs used by other 

grizzly bear populations, whitebark pine 

nut production is not an annually 

predictable food source. Yellowstone 

DPS bears commonly have high diet 

diversity (Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1626) 

and use alternate foods in years of low 

whitebark pine nut production. During 

years of poor pine nut availability, 72 

percent of GYA grizzly bears make 

minimal use of pine nuts while 

consuming more ungulate meat 

(Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 767) and other 

natural foods. Grizzly bears in the GYA 

are accustomed to successfully finding 

alternative natural foods in years when 

whitebark pine nuts are not available. 

However, because pine nuts are an 

important food and because they vary 

naturally from year to year as well as in 

response to insect and disease, the 

Study Team has been monitoring cone 

abundance throughout the GYA since 

1980. This cone monitoring in 

combination with monitoring tree 

mortality and beetle and disease 

infestation rates will continue under the 

Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, p 43–56, 60). We believe that this 

intensive, annual monitoring of foods, 

grizzly bear/human conflicts, survival 

rates for young, reproductive rates, and 

the causes and locations of grizzly bear 

mortality, as detailed in the Strategy 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007, 

pp. 43–56, 60), will provide the 

Strategy’s signatory agencies with a 

strong, and biologically defensible, 

foundation from which to implement 

the adaptive management (Holling 1978, 

pp. 11–16) actions necessary to respond 

to ecological changes that may impact 

the future of the GYA grizzly bear DPS. 

These management changes may 

involve increased habitat management 

and/or protection, increased mortality 

management, and/or a status review and 

emergency relisting of the population if 

management is unable to successfully 

address the problems. 

In response to concerns about threats 

to whitebark pine in the GYA, the 

Coordinating Committee, a group of 

managers from the USDA Forest 

Service, National Park Service, and the 

Service, formed the Whitebark Pine 

Subcommittee in 1998 (USDA Forest 

Service 2006a, p. 148). The Whitebark 

Pine Subcommittee coordinates the 

implementation of restoration 

techniques, management responses, and 

the gathering of information on the 

status of this tree. Current work on 

whitebark pine includes planting in 

several areas, cone collection from 

healthy trees, silvicultural treatments to 

improve growth and establishment, 

prescribed burning to encourage natural 

whitebark pine seedling establishment, 

and surveys for healthy trees that may 

possess blister rust resistant genes. 

In 2003 and 2004, the Whitebark Pine 

Subcommittee formed the Greater 

Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring 

Working Group. This is an interagency 

team of resource managers, statisticians, 

and researchers established to assess the 

status of whitebark pine, its threats, and 

restoration options in the GYA. The 

Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working 

Group monitors transects throughout 

the GYA annually for white pine blister 

rust infection, mountain pine beetle 

infestation, and whitebark pine survival. 

Currently, there are 19 whitebark pine 

cone production transects within the 

PCA, 9 of which the Study Team has 

monitored on an annual basis since 

1980 (Haroldson and Podruzny 2006, 

pp. 44–45). Additionally, the Whitebark 

Pine Monitoring Working Group has 

established more than 70 transects 

outside the PCA and works closely with 

statisticians to ensure a representative 

sample and strong inference (Greater 

Yellowstone Whitebark Pine Monitoring 

Working Group 2006, p. 76). Under the 

Strategy, the Study Team will continue 

monitoring whitebark pine cone 

production, the prevalence of white 

pine blister rust, and whitebark pine 

mortality using current methods. 

Regarding impacts to ungulates, 

potential impacts to elk and bison (the 

most important ungulates to grizzlies) 

warrant consideration here. Grizzlies 

primarily consume ungulates as winterkilled carrion in the early spring, but 

also kill elk and bison calves 

opportunistically and sometimes prey 

upon adults weakened during the fall 

breeding season. Potential threats to the 

availability of these ungulates include 

brucellosis (Brucella abortus) and 

resulting management practices, chronic 

wasting disease (CWD), competition 

with other top predators for ungulates, 

and decreasing winter severity. 

Brucellosis is a bacterial disease that 

causes abortion during the first 

pregnancy after infection in many 

species of mammals, including elk, 

bison, domestic cattle (Berger and Cain 

1999, pp. 358–359), and humans 

(Wyoming Brucellosis Coordination 

Team 2005, p. 8). The disease is usually 

fatal to the fetus, but usually causes no 

lasting harm to adults, who are 

thereafter immune to its effects and 

capable of reproducing successfully. 

Animals are infected by eating material 

contaminated with the bacteria in 

aborted fetuses or vaginal discharges 

(Smith 2005, p. 7). Brucellosis is not 

known to negatively affect grizzly bears 

or any other carnivore (Reinhart et al. 

2001, pp. 280–281). Existing vaccines 

were developed specifically for 

domestic cattle, and are not effective in 

preventing infection or abortion in bison 

or elk. Brucellosis was most likely 

introduced to North America in 

domestic cattle imported from Europe 

(Meagher and Meyer 1994, p. 650). 

The effect of the disease itself on 

bison and elk populations is minimal, 

but the possibility of transmission from 

infected wildlife to domestic cattle 

causes economic concern for livestock 

producers. Removal of bison, but not 

elk, to control the spread of the disease 

to domestic cattle is currently practiced 

north of Yellowstone near Gardiner, 

Montana, and west of Yellowstone near 

West Yellowstone, Montana. While 

these removals have the potential to 

deprive grizzly bears of a carrion source 

in the spring, since many of the bison 

removed would have died over winter 

(Meagher 1973, p. 73), brucellosis is not 

a population-level issue for wild 

ungulates. The presence of brucellosis 

in wild populations of ungulates does 

not threaten this food source of grizzly 

bears. The potential threat to grizzly 

bears is created by the removal of wild 

bison that wander outside of 

Yellowstone National Park. The purpose 

of the Interagency Bison Management 

Plan, under which bison that wander 

outside the boundaries of Yellowstone 

National Park into Montana are 

managed, is to ‘‘maintain a wild, freeranging population of bison and address 

the risk of brucellosis transmission to 

protect the economic interest and 

viability of the livestock industry in the 

State of Montana’’ (U.S. Department of 

the Interior’s National Park Service and 

USDA Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service 2000, p. 22). In light 

of this goal, we do not foresee 

management of Yellowstone bison as a 

threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

DPS in all or a significant portion of its 

range in the foreseeable future. 

CWD is a member of a group of 

diseases called transmissible 

spongiform encephalopathies, caused by 

non-living proteins called prions 

(Peterson 2005, p. 1). The disease is 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14931 

known to occur in only 4 species within 

the deer family including white-tailed 

and mule deer, elk, and moose. CWD is 

invariably fatal in deer and elk once 

they develop clinical signs, but the 

period between contracting the disease 

and death of the animal is usually 2 to 

4 years (Peterson 2005, p. 3). There is 

no immune response and no 

immunization for CWD. The diseasecausing prions are shed in feces and the 

decomposing carcasses of infected deer 

and elk. Prions persist in the ground for 

at least 2 years and infect deer and elk 

that eat them while foraging on lowgrowing vegetation or human-provided 

hay or hay pellets. As is the case for 

brucellosis, CWD transmission is 

facilitated by locally high densities of 

animals, such as those occurring at 

winter feed grounds (Smith 2005, p. 16). 

CWD has not been detected in the GYA, 

but recent cases have been confirmed in 

mule deer from Worland and 

Thermopolis, Wyoming, on the eastern 

edge of the GYA. 

The prospective threat that CWD 

poses to grizzly bears is the potential 

reduction or elimination of deer and elk 

in the GYA. Unlike brucellosis, CWD is 

an emerging disease, so little empirical 

data exist concerning the magnitude of 

its effects on wild populations. In the 

absence of such data, modeling of the 

effects of the disease can generate 

predictions about future population 

sizes of deer and elk. The two modeling 

exercises that have been conducted so 

far have arrived at very different 

predictions. Gross and Miller (2001, p. 

213) created their model assuming that 

transmission of CWD was frequency 

dependent (i.e., that the transmission 

rate is constant and independent of 

density) and predicted that the disease 

would drive infected populations to 

local extinction. Schauber and Woolf 

(2003, pp. 611–612) noted that all 

frequency dependent models, as a 

consequence of their assumptions, 

inevitably drive their populations to 

extinction. They felt that modeling 

transmission as density dependent 

instead (i.e., transmission rates are low 

when population density is low and 

high when density is high) was a more 

realistic assumption. We concur with 

this assumption. Under the assumption 

of density dependent transmission, 

CWD would not result in local 

extinction of deer or elk populations. 

Overall, we do not anticipate that 

either of these diseases will significantly 

impact the availability of ungulate 

carcasses to grizzly bears or impact the 

Yellowstone DPS such that it is likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future in all or a significant 

portion of its range. The Strategy 

requires that all signatories cooperate to 

monitor historic ungulate carcass 

transects each spring. In this way, the 

Study Team can compare current counts 

of ungulate carcasses to previous years. 

Through monitoring of habitat features 

and grizzly bear population statistics, 

our adaptive management (Holling 

1978, pp. 11–16) approach will respond 

to significant shortages in spring 

ungulate carrion, should they occur in 

the future. 

Gray wolves (Canis lupus) were 

reintroduced to the GYA in 1995 and, 

since then, have flourished. 

Competition between grizzlies and 

wolves for carrion, particularly elk 

carcasses, in late winter and spring 

occurs occasionally. Servheen and 

Knight (1993, p. 136) reviewed the 

literature on wolf/grizzly competition 

and interviewed biologists and 

managers familiar with wolf/grizzly 

interactions in North America and 

Eurasia. They concluded that there was 

no documentation of negative influence 

of grizzlies on wolves or of wolves on 

grizzlies at the population level. 

However, they also concluded that the 

most severe competition would be likely 

to occur in the spring, when bears began 

to compete with wolves for carrion. 

Several investigators (Hornbeck and 

Horejsi 1986, p. 259; Kuzyk et al. 2001, 

pp. 75–76; Gunther and Smith 2004, pp. 

233–236) have reported grizzly bears 

displacing wolves from carcasses and 

wolves displacing grizzlies from 

carcasses. In all but a few cases, those 

interactions did not result in any injury 

to either bears or wolves. 

Wilmers and his colleagues, in a 

series of papers (Wilmers et al. 2003a 

pp. 914–915; Wilmers et al. 2003b, pp. 

999–1002; Wilmers and Getz 2004, pp. 

205–205; Wilmers and Getz 2005, p. 

574; Wilmers and Post 2006, pp. 405–

409) presented the results of modeling 

exercises examining the effects of wolf 

reintroduction on winter carrion 

availability to several scavenger species, 

including grizzly bears. The models 

predicted that the effect of wolves on 

carrion availability would be to spread 

carrion availability over the winter. The 

expected distribution of carrion in the 

absence of wolves would be 

concentrated in the months of March 

and April, when it was of most value to 

grizzlies. 

One potential consequence of climate 

change could be a reduction in the 

number of elk and bison dying overwinter, thus decreasing the amount of 

carrion available to bears when they 

emerge from hibernation. Wilmers and 

Getz (2005, p. 574) and Wilmers and 

Post (2006, p. 405) predicted that 

impending global climate change could 

reduce the availability of carrion by 

decreasing winter severity and length. 

However, in ecosystems such as 

Yellowstone, where wolves are present, 

these top predators may buffer climatic 

change impacts to scavengers. This may 

occur because the remains of wolf-killed 

ungulates would provide a food 

resource to scavengers. Furthermore, 

increased over-winter survival would 

likely result in overall increases in 

ungulate populations, thereby providing 

an alternative food source to grizzly 

bears during poor whitebark pine years 

(Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 767). 

The northern Yellowstone elk herd 

occupies the northern reaches of 

Yellowstone National Park and some 

adjacent USDA Forest Service and 

private lands in the Yellowstone River 

and Lamar River valleys. The size of the 

northern elk herd has declined from 

about 17,000 elk in 1995 to about 8,000 

in 2004 (Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 261). 

The onset of the decline was coincident 

with the reintroduction of wolves, but a 

modeling exercise conducted by 

Vucetich et al. (2005, p. 260) attributed 

the decline to weather and hunting 

harvests, rather than wolf predation. 

However, Tom Lemke, a wildlife 

biologist for MTFWP (as cited by 

McMillion 2005, p. 1), felt that the 

existing age distribution within the 

herd, in which very few young animals 

and many old ones are present, 

indicated that predation on elk calves 

was responsible for the decline. He 

pointed to the decline in hunting 

permits for the Gardiner winter hunt, 

from 2,880 permits in 2000 to 100 

permits in 2006, as providing a test of 

the hypothesis that hunting harvests 

were responsible for the decline of the 

northern herd. Radio-telemetry studies 

of calf mortality suggest that grizzly 

bears and black bears are the major 

predators of elk calves, rather than 

wolves (Barber et al. 2005, pp. 41–43). 

Whatever the cause of the decline, 

reduced elk numbers may have led to 

minor reductions in the availability of 

carrion to grizzly bears. 

In contrast to the northern 

Yellowstone elk herd, some other elk 

herds in the GYA where wolves exist 

are stable to increasing. For instance, 

the Jackson elk herd has remained 

around 15,000 animals since the early 

1990s (Lubow and Smith 2004, pp. 826–

828) and several herds to the west of the 

northern Yellowstone elk herd in the 

Gallatin and Madison River drainages 

are stable to increasing (Garrott et al. 

2005). With managers and scientists 

collaborating to determine the source of 

the potential population fluctuations 

and appropriate management responses, 

we feel confident that, although 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14932 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

different herds may experience differing 

population dynamics, the GYA will 

continue to support large populations of 

ungulates and that the Yellowstone DPS 

is not likely to become endangered in all 

or a significant portion of its range 

within the foreseeable future due to a 

decrease in ungulate numbers. 

The fourth important food source 

considered here is army cutworm 

moths. Army cutworm moths range 

from Alberta to New Mexico and from 

California to Kansas. Moths begin 

mating at high elevations, like the GYA, 

and then deposit their eggs at low 

elevations, such as the agricultural areas 

where they are exposed to pesticides. 

The magnitude of future pesticide use to 

control moths and the potential effects 

of pesticides on moth populations 

cannot be predicted, but the potential 

effects of pesticides on grizzly bears are 

better documented. Robison et al. (2006, 

pp. 1708–1710) screened samples of 

army cutworm moths for 32 pesticides 

and found either trace concentrations or 

undetectable concentrations that would 

not be harmful to grizzly bears 

consuming them. The populations 

Robison (2006, p. 86) examined were 

panmictic (randomly mating), which 

indicates that army cutworm moth 

populations are more likely to persist 

through time than similarly-sized 

populations that are locally genetically 

more distinct (Robison 2006, p. 86). 

Robison et al. (2006, p. 86) predicted 

that this type of genetic structure will 

act to maintain army cutworm moth 

migration patterns into the future by 

increasing population resiliency to local 

weather patterns, pesticide use, and 

habitat alteration. 

Grizzly bears foraging at army 

cutworm moth aggregation sites are 

potentially vulnerable to disturbance by 

backcountry visitors. Moth aggregations 

are located on remote, high-elevation 

talus slopes, where the predominant 

human visitors are rock climbers and 

hikers. In a study of Glacier National 

Park grizzly bears, White et al. (1999, p. 

150) reported that foraging bears that 

were disturbed by climbers spent 53 

percent less time foraging on moths 

during observation periods. They 

recommended that these northern 

Montana climbing routes be moved to 

avoid displacing foraging bears. The 

Study Team and the WGFD will 

cooperate to monitor currently known 

moth sites, identify new moth feeding 

sites so that their location is known to 

land managers, and take appropriate 

management actions as necessary. 

Climate change may affect army 

cutworm moths by changing the 

distribution of plants that the moths 

feed on or the flowering times of those 

plants due to an increased growing 

season (Woiwod 1997, pp. 152–153). 

Food plant distribution could be 

affected by shifting the range and 

distribution of alpine plant 

communities, upon which army 

cutworm moths feed. There is a 

possibility that high elevation alpine 

plant communities might disappear 

entirely in the GYA, as they have been 

predicted to do in Britain (Thomas and 

Morris 1994, pp. 50–51). However, plant 

communities in the GYA have a much 

greater elevational range in which to 

move than do alpine plants in Britain. 

Romme and Turner (1991, p. 382) 

predicted that alpine vegetation 

communities in the GYA would be 

reduced in overall area but not 

disappear entirely. Changes in the 

distribution of alpine plants may not 

affect army cutworm moths adversely 

since they display foraging plasticity 

(Burton et al. 1980, pp. 12–13). During 

years of high snow pack when talus 

slopes (where moths are normally 

found) are covered with snow all 

summer, the moths must be feeding on 

flowers in alternative lower elevation, 

snow-free areas. Because moths have a 

one year life cycle, they must be feeding 

and reproducing in habitats other than 

alpine areas in high snow pack years 

because they are observed in alpine 

areas in subsequent years when snow 

pack is not a limiting factor. Even under 

climate change scenarios in which 

alpine plants disappear entirely, it is 

likely that the lower elevation plants 

that support moths in high snow pack 

years would still be present. 

Some have suggested potentially 

warmer temperatures and increased 

winter precipitation that may result 

from climate change could positively 

affect lepidopteran (i.e., the moth and 

butterfly order) populations (Roy et al. 

2001, p. 214). Migratory generalist 

species, such as army cutworm moths, 

are more likely to respond positively to 

climate warming than sedentary habitat 

specialists (Warren et al. 2001, p. 66). 

However, a study of lepidopteran 

species in Britain, which may be similar 

to the highly mobile army cutworm 

moths in the GYA, found that human 

caused habitat loss (unrelated to climate 

change) outweighed the positive 

responses to longer and more 

productive growing seasons (Warren et 

al. 2001, p. 67). 

In summary, the best scientific and 

commercial data available regarding 

grizzly bear responses to food losses 

suggest this issue is not a threat to the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS in all or 

a significant portion of its range, nor is 

it likely to become one in the 

foreseeable future. Grizzly bears are 

notoriously resourceful omnivores that 

will make behavioral adaptations 

regarding food acquisition (Weaver et al. 

1996, p. 970). Diets of grizzly bears vary 

among individuals, seasons, and years 

(Mattson et al. 1991a, pp. 1625–1626; 

Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 767; Felicetti et 

al. 2004, p. 499; Koel et al. 2005, p. 14), 

reflecting their flexibility in finding 

adequate food resources as necessary. 

Mattson et al. (1991a, p. 1625) 

hypothesized that grizzly bears are 

always sampling new foods in small 

quantities so that they have alternative 

options in years when preferred foods 

are scarce. In other areas such as the 

NCDE, where grizzly bears historically 

relied heavily on whitebark pine seeds, 

distributions and sighting records on the 

periphery of this ecosystem indicate 

that the population, at least in those 

areas, has continued to increase and 

thrive since the 1980s despite severe 

declines in whitebark pine communities 

in the last 50 years (Kendall and Keane 

2001, p. 30). Similarly, although 

whitebark pine seed production and 

grizzly bear use of cutthroat trout varied 

dramatically in the GYA over the last 

three decades due to both natural and 

human-introduced causes (Reinhart and 

Mattson 1990, pp. 345–349; Felicetti et 

al. 2004, p. 499; Haroldson and 

Podruzny 2006, p. 45), the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population has continued to 

increase and expand during this time 

period (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 66). 

Because of the life history strategy of 

whitebark pine, which naturally 

exhibits extreme annual variability in 

cone production, grizzly bears have 

always had to cope with a high degree 

of uncertainty regarding this food 

resource. The potential threat from 

decreases in whitebark pine cone 

production to grizzly bears is not one of 

starvation, but one of larger home range 

size and movements in years of low or 

no whitebark cone production. These 

movement patterns may result in 

increased conflicts with humans and 

increased mortality, as well as lower 

reproductive success the following year 

as females produce smaller litters. Bear/ 

human conflicts can be reduced through 

management responses and intensified I 

& E efforts. Possible lowered 

reproductive success will be detected 

through monitoring and mitigated in the 

short term by reduced mortality limits 

and efforts to reduce nuisance bear 

removals, and in the long-term by 

continued whitebark pine restoration 

and habitat management enhancing 

secure habitat availability in specific 

areas outside the PCA where healthy 

whitebark pine may be available. 

Although numerous alternative foods 

are available to GYA grizzly bears such 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14933 

as corms, insects, fungi, and forbs; in 

terms of calories or nutrition, these are 

inferior to the four major foods 

discussed above and previously in the 

‘‘Behavior’’ section. In light of the 

potential threats to several of these 

important, high-energy grizzly bear 

foods, especially whitebark pine which 

has been linked to grizzly bear survival 

and reproduction (Mattson et al. 1992, 

p. 436; Gunther et al. 1997, p. 38; 

Gunther et al. 2004, p. 15; Mattson 2000, 

p. 120), we believe the best approach is 

one of adaptive management (Holling 

1978, pp. 11–16). The Study Team, 

working with the USDA Forest Service 

and National Park Service will continue 

to monitor the abundance and 

distribution of major grizzly bear foods 

such that any decline in the grizzly bear 

population as a result of these declines 

is detected in a sufficient time and 

addressed through adaptive 

management (Holling 1978, pp. 11–16) 

actions by the Coordinating Committee. 

Because of this flexible and responsive 

management framework, we do not 

anticipate that the Yellowstone DPS is 

likely to become endangered in all or a 

significant portion of its range in the 

foreseeable future due to changes in its 

food sources. 

The Study Team monitors grizzly bear 

mortality in relation to the abundance 

and distribution of all four of the major 

foods using measurable criteria. For 

instance, increases in mortality rates of 

radio-collared independent females are 

measurable criteria that could reflect 

decreases in food availability. Because 

there were no known natural mortalities 

of independent adult females from 1983 

to 2001 (Interagency Grizzly Bear Study 

Team 2005, p. 35), any change in this 

value will be noteworthy and will be 

investigated thoroughly by the Study 

Team to determine whether it is 

reflective of a landscape-scale trend or 

simply an isolated event. Significant 

declines in important foods also could 

result in reductions in cub production 

and increases in cub mortality over 

current rates of 0.362. The Study Team 

not only monitors survival but also 

reproductive population parameters 

such as litter size and cub survival that 

are more sensitive to decreases in food 

quality and quantity. Because humancaused mortality, natural mortality of 

radio-collared bears, and numbers of 

cubs, and cub survival rates are all 

measurable criteria monitored annually 

by the Study Team, any biologically 

significant decline in important foods 

also would be reflected in changes in 

these measurable population 

parameters. When combined with data 

collected annually about the quantity 

and distribution of the four major foods, 

the Study Team will have adequate 

information to determine if declining 

food sources are affecting population 

trajectory. 

If declines in any of the four major 

foods occur and, using the best available 

scientific data and techniques, the 

Study Team concludes these are related 

to significant increases in known and 

probable bear mortalities, and that such 

increases could threaten the grizzly 

population, the Study Team would 

recommend appropriate management 

responses to the Coordinating 

Committee, or submission of a relisting 

petition to us (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, pp. 63–67). Although we 

believe such an outcome is unlikely, we 

can also relist the Yellowstone DPS 

independent of the petition process. 

This final rule and the Conservation 

Strategy describe a comprehensive 

monitoring and management system 

that will be in place for the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS upon delisting. The 

dynamic nature of the Conservation 

Strategy and its regulatory framework 

provide us with reasonable assurance 

that the Yellowstone DPS is not likely 

to become endangered in all or a 

significant portion of its range in the 

foreseeable future. 

Human Attitudes Toward Grizzly Bear 

Recovery and I & E Efforts to Improve 

these Attitudes—Public support is 

paramount to any successful large 

carnivore conservation program 

(Servheen 1998, p. 67). Historically, 

human attitudes played a primary role 

in grizzly bear population declines 

through excessive human-caused 

mortality. Through governmentendorsed eradication programs and 

perceived threats to human life and 

economic livelihood, humans settling 

the West were able to effectively 

eliminate most known grizzly 

populations after only 100 years of 

westward expansion. 

We have seen a change in public 

perceptions and attitudes toward the 

grizzly bear in the last several decades. 

The same government that once 

financially supported active 

extermination of the bear now uses its 

resources to protect the great symbol of 

American wildness. This change in 

government policy and practice is a 

product of changing public attitudes 

about the grizzly bear. Although 

attitudes about grizzlies vary 

geographically and demographically, 

there has been a revival of positive 

attitudes toward the grizzly bear and its 

conservation (Kellert et al. 1996, pp. 

983–986). 

Public outreach presents a unique 

opportunity to effectively integrate 

human and ecological concerns into 

comprehensive programs that can 

modify societal beliefs about, 

perceptions of, and behaviors toward 

grizzly bears. Attitudes toward wildlife 

are shaped by numerous factors 

including basic wildlife values, 

biological and ecological understanding 

of species, perceptions of individual 

species, and specific interactions or 

experiences with species (Kellert 1994, 

pp. 44–48; Kellert et al. 1996, pp. 983–

986). I & E programs teach visitors and 

residents about grizzly bear biology, 

ecology, and behavior enhance 

appreciation for this large predator 

while dispelling myths about its 

temperament and feeding habits. 

Effective I & E programs have been an 

essential factor contributing to the 

recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population since its listing in 1975. 

Being aware of specific values common 

to certain user groups will allow the I 

& E working group to disseminate 

appropriate materials and provide 

workshops that address particular 

values and concerns most adequately. 

By providing general information to 

visitors and targeting specific user 

groups about living and working in 

grizzly country, we believe continued 

coexistence between grizzly bears and 

humans will be accomplished. 

Traditionally, residents of the GYA 

involved in resource extraction 

industries such as loggers, miners, 

livestock operators, and hunting guides, 

are the largest opponents to land-use 

restrictions which place the needs of the 

grizzly bear above human needs (Kellert 

1994, p. 48; Kellert et al. 1996, p. 984). 

Surveys of these user groups have 

shown that they tolerate large predators 

when they are not seen as direct threats 

to their economic stability or personal 

freedoms (Kellert et al. 1996, p. 985). 

Delisting could increase acceptance of 

grizzly bears by giving local government 

and private citizens more discretion in 

decisions which affect them. Increased 

flexibility regarding depredating bears 

in areas outside of the PCA may 

increase tolerance for the grizzly bear by 

landowners and livestock operators. 

Ultimately, the future of the grizzly 

bear will be based on the people who 

live, work, and recreate in grizzly 

habitat and the willingness and ability 

of these people to learn to coexist with 

the grizzly and to accept this animal as 

a cohabitant of the land. Other 

management strategies are unlikely to 

succeed without useful and innovative 

public I & E programs. The primary 

objective of the expanded public 

outreach program will be to proactively 

address grizzly/human conflicts by 

educating the public as to the root 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14934 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

causes of these conflicts and providing 

suggestions on how to prevent them. By 

increasing awareness of grizzly bear 

behavior and biology, we hope to 

enhance public involvement and 

appreciation of the grizzly bear. 

Although many human-caused grizzly 

bear mortalities are unintentional (e.g., 

vehicle collisions, trap mortality), 

intentional deaths in response to grizzly 

bear/human conflicts are responsible for 

the majority of known and probable 

human-caused mortalities. Fortunately, 

this source of mortality can be reduced 

significantly if adequate I & E is 

provided to people who live, work, and 

recreate in occupied grizzly bear habitat. 

The current I & E working group has 

been a major component contributing to 

the successful recovery of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

over the last 30 years. Both Federal and 

State management agencies are 

committed to continuing to work with 

citizens, landowners, and visitors 

within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries 

to address the human sources of 

conflicts. 

From 1980 through 2002, at least 36 

percent (72 out of 196) of human-caused 

mortalities could have been avoided if 

adequate I & E materials had been 

presented, understood, and used by 

involved parties (Servheen et al. 2004, 

p. 15). Educating back-country and 

front-country users about the 

importance of securing potential 

attractants can prevent bears from 

becoming food conditioned and 

displaying subsequent unnaturally 

aggressive behavior. Similarly, adhering 

to hiking recommendations, such as 

making noise, hiking with other people, 

and hiking during daylight hours, can 

further reduce back-country grizzly bear 

mortalities by decreasing the likelihood 

that hikers will encounter bears. 

Hunter-related mortalities may 

involve hunters defending their life or 

property because of carcasses that are 

left unattended or stored improperly. 

Grizzly bear mortalities also occur when 

hunters mistake grizzly bears for black 

bears. All of these circumstances can be 

further reduced with enhanced I & E 

programs. 

Outside the PCA, State wildlife 

agencies recognize that the key to 

preventing grizzly bear/human conflicts 

is providing I & E to the public. State 

grizzly bear management plans also 

acknowledge that this is the most 

effective long-term solution to grizzly 

bear/human conflicts and that adequate 

public outreach programs are 

paramount to ongoing grizzly bear 

survival and successful coexistence 

with humans in the GYA so that the 

measures of the Act continue to not be 

necessary. All three States have been 

actively involved in I & E outreach for 

over a decade and their respective 

management plans contain chapters 

detailing efforts to continue current 

programs and expand them when 

possible. For example, WGFD created a 

formal human/grizzly bear conflict 

management program in July 1990 and 

has coordinated an extensive I & E 

program since then. Similarly, since 

1993, the MTFWP has implemented 

countless public outreach efforts to 

minimize bear/human conflicts, and the 

IDFG has organized and implemented 

education programs and workshops 

focused on private and public lands on 

the western edge of grizzly bear habitat. 

Compensating ranchers for losses 

caused by grizzly bears is another 

approach to build support for 

coexistence between livestock operators 

and grizzly bears. In cases of grizzly 

bear livestock depredation that have 

been verified by USDA Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife 

Services, IDFG, MTFWP, or WGFD, 

affected livestock owners are 

compensated. Since 1997, compensation 

in Montana and Idaho has been 

provided primarily by private 

organizations, principally Defenders of 

Wildlife. The Defenders of Wildlife’s 

Grizzly Bear Compensation Trust has 

paid over $140,721 to livestock 

operators within the Yellowstone DPS 

boundaries and in the northern Rockies 

for confirmed and probable livestock 

losses to grizzly bears (Johnson 2006). In 

Wyoming, compensation has always 

been paid directly by the State. Upon 

delisting both Idaho and Wyoming’s 

grizzly bear management plans provide 

for State funding of compensation 

programs (Idaho’s Grizzly Bear Delisting 

Advisory Team 2002, p. 16; WGFD 

2005, p. 30). In Idaho, compensation 

funds will come from the secondary 

depredation account, and the program 

will be administered by the appropriate 

IDFG Regional Landowner Sportsman 

Coordinators and Regional Supervisors 

(Idaho’s Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory 

Team 2002, p. 16). In Wyoming, the 

WGFD will pay for all compensable 

damage to agricultural products as 

provided by State law and regulation 

(WGFD 2005, p. 30). The WGFD will 

continue efforts to establish a long-term 

funding mechanism to compensate 

property owners for livestock and apiary 

losses caused by grizzly bears. The 

Montana State management plan does 

not include a funding mechanism to 

compensate confirmed grizzly bear 

livestock losses, so MTFWP will 

continue to rely on Defenders of 

Wildlife and other private groups to 

compensate livestock operators for 

losses due to grizzly bears while 

MTFWP focuses on preventing such 

conflicts. However, when Defenders of 

Wildlife expanded their compensation 

program to include the GYA, they 

agreed to do so while the grizzly bear 

was listed under the Act. Internal 

discussions within Defenders of 

Wildlife have begun to determine 

whether their compensation program 

will continue in the Montana portion of 

the GYA after delisting occurs (Clark 

2006). 

Summary of Factor E—Overall, these 

natural and manmade factors (genetic 

concerns; invasive species, disease, and 

other potential impacts to food supply; 

and human attitudes toward grizzly bear 

recovery and I & E efforts to improve 

these attitudes), have the potential to be 

a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

DPS in all or a significant portion of its 

range in the foreseeable future. Through 

careful monitoring and adaptive 

management (Holling 1978, pp. 11–16) 

practices, the Study Team and the States 

will be able to identify and address 

these concerns before they become 

problems for the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear at a population level. All of these 

issues have been scientifically 

researched and considered so that an 

adequate management framework is in 

place to respond to future concerns as 

they arise. Due to the large amount and 

wide distribution of quality suitable 

habitat (46,035 sq km (17,774 sq mi)), 

the protected status of large areas of 

high elevation whitebark pine stands 

not projected to be substantially 

impacted by future mountain pine 

beetle infestations, the maintenance of 

grizzly bears within the PCA as a source 

population for peripheral areas and 

potential dispersers to other grizzly bear 

populations, the secure nature of the 

PCA for potential immigrants to the 

GYA from other grizzly bear 

populations, and the commitment by 

the responsible agencies to the 

maintenance of a recovered Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS, we do not anticipate 

that genetic isolation, decreases in major 

foods, or human attitudes toward grizzly 

bears will substantially adversely 

impact the Yellowstone DPS. Therefore, 

these issues will not impact the 

Yellowstone DPS such that it is likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis 

As demonstrated in our 5-factor 

analysis, threats to this population have 

been sufficiently minimized over the 

entire current and foreseeable range of 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14935 

including all ‘‘suitable habitat’’ within 

the DPS boundaries, and there is no 

significant portion of the range where 

the DPS remains threatened or 

endangered. 

Regarding Factor A, the habitat-based 

recovery criteria have been maintained 

inside the PCA since 1998 and they will 

continue to be maintained in perpetuity 

through implementation of the Strategy. 

The PCA will continue to serve as a 

source area for grizzly bears to expand 

into peripheral areas and unoccupied 

suitable habitat. The PCA will also be 

important in achieving connectivity 

with other grizzly bear populations as it 

provides potential dispersers to other 

ecosystems outside the DPS boundaries 

and functions as secure habitat for 

immigrants from other grizzly bear 

populations. Threats to suitable habitat 

outside the PCA also have been 

sufficiently minimized by the 

commitment of the USDA Forest Service 

to manage National Forest lands in the 

GYA such that a recovered Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population will be 

maintained (USDA Forest Service 

2006b; pp. 4, 26). Outside of the PCA, 

grizzly bears will be allowed to expand 

into suitable habitat, as per direction in 

the State management plans. Highquality, suitable habitat is widely 

distributed throughout the GYA, 

providing ecological resilience for the 

Yellowstone DPS to respond to 

environmental changes. Therefore, 

sufficient habitat exists to ensure that 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is not 

likely to become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Regarding Factor B and C, all 

demographic criteria relating to 

sustainable mortality have been, and 

will continue to be, met (Schwartz, in 

press). The threat of overutilization due 

to commercial, recreational, scientific, 

or education purposes has been 

removed through cooperation among 

management agencies that ensures a 

consistent approach to mortality 

management. Sustainable mortality 

limits, coordinated conflict management 

protocols, and conflict prevention 

programs ensure that the Yellowstone 

DPS is not likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

Regarding Factor D, the USDA Forest 

Service finalized the Forest Plan 

Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat 

Conservation for the GYA National 

Forests and has incorporated this 

Amendment into the affected National 

Forests’ Land Management Plans (USDA 

Forest Service 2006b, p. 4). Yellowstone 

and Grand Teton National Parks 

appended the habitat standards to their 

Park Superintendent’s Compendiums, 

thereby assuring that these National 

Parks would manage habitat in 

accordance with the habitat standards 

(Grand Teton National Park 2006, p. 1; 

Yellowstone National Park 2006, p. 44). 

The State and Federal agencies’

agreement to implement the Strategy’s 

extensive guidelines inside the PCA, the 

USDA Forest Service’s decision to 

classify the grizzly bear in the GYA as 

a species of concern, and the State 

management plans ensure that adequate 

regulatory mechanisms remain in place 

in all significant portions of the 

Yellowstone DPS’ range and that it is 

not likely to become endangered within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. 

Regarding Factor E, the Service 

concludes other natural and manmade 

factors are not a current threat nor will 

they be in the foreseeable future due to 

widely distributed, high-quality suitable 

habitat that is protected by regulatory 

mechanisms. Intensive annual 

monitoring of multiple indices 

combined with the adaptive 

management approach will assure that 

isolation (i.e., genetic diversity or a lack 

of gene flow), threats to foods, and 

human attitudes will not impact the 

Yellowstone DPS such that it is likely to 

become endangered within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

Our current knowledge of the health 

and condition of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS illustrates that it is 

now a recovered population. Counts of 

unduplicated females with cubs-of-theyear have increased (Knight et al. 1995, 

p. 247; Haroldson and Schwartz 2002, p. 

16; Haroldson 2006a), and counts of 

cubs have increased (Knight and 

Blanchard 1995, p. 9; Knight and 

Blanchard 1996, p. 8; Knight et al. 1997, 

p. 2; Haroldson et al. 1998, p. 8; 

Haroldson 1999, p. 10; Haroldson 2000, 

p. 11; Haroldson 2001, p. 14; Haroldson 

and Schwartz 2002, p. 16; Haroldson 

2003, p. 16; Haroldson 2004, p. 11; 

Haroldson 2006b, p. 12). Grizzly range 

and distribution has expanded (Basile 

1982, pp. 3–10; Blanchard et al. 1992, p. 

92; Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 203; Pyare 

et al. 2004, pp. 5–6; Schwartz et al. 

2006b, pp. 64–66). Calculations of 

population trajectory derived from 

radio-monitored female bears 

demonstrate an increasing population 

trend at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year 

between 1983 and 2002 (Eberhardt et al. 

1994, p. 362; Knight and Blanchard 

1995, pp. 18–19; Harris et al. 2006, p. 

48), due in large part to control of 

female mortality. In total, this 

population has increased from estimates 

ranging from 229 (Craighead et al. 1974, 

p. 16) to 234 (Cowan et al. 1974, pp. 32, 

36) to 312 (McCullough 1981, p. 175) 

individuals when listed in 1975 to more 

than 500 animals as of 2005 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2006, p. 15). 

At the end of 2006, the number of 

unduplicated females with cubs-of-theyear over a 6-year average both inside 

the Recovery Zone and within a 16-km 

(10-mi) area immediately surrounding 

the Recovery Zone was 41, more than 

2.7 times the Recovery Plan target of 15. 

The Recovery Plan target for the number 

of unduplicated females with cubs-ofthe-year (15) has been exceeded since 

1988. In 2006, the 1-year total of 

unduplicated females with cubs-of-theyear within the entire GYA was 47 

(Haroldson 2006a). 

Within the Recovery Zone, the 

distribution of females with young, 

based on the most recent six years of 

observations in the ecosystem, was 18 

out of 18 bear management units at the 

end of 2004. The range of this 

population also has increased 

dramatically, as evidenced by the 48 

percent increase in occupied habitat 

since the 1970s (Schwartz et al. 2002, p. 

203; Pyare et al. 2004, p. 5–6; Schwartz 

et al. 2006b, pp. 64–66). Furthermore, 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

continues to expand its range and 

distribution today. Currently, roughly 

84 to 90 percent of the sightings of 

females with cubs are within the PCA 

and about 10 to 16 percent of females 

with cubs have expanded out beyond 

the PCA within the DPS (Schwartz et al. 

2006b, pp. 64–66). Grizzly bears now 

occupy 68 percent of suitable habitat 

within the DPS and will likely occupy 

the remainder of the suitable habitat 

within the DPS within the foreseeable 

future. The Yellowstone DPS now has 

sufficient numbers and distribution of 

reproductive individuals to ensure that 

it is not likely to become endangered 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

Applying the current mortality limits 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2005, pp. 6–9) to the 1999 to 2006 

period, the sustainable mortality limits 

have not been exceeded for 3 

consecutive years for males, for 3 

consecutive years for dependent young, 

or for 2 consecutive years for 

independent females (Schwartz, in 

press). The main threat of human 

predation has been addressed through 

carefully monitored and controlled 

mortality limits established in the 

Strategy (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

2007, p. 126) and annually monitored 

and reported by the Study Team 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

2005, pp. 6–9). In addition, I & E is a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14936 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

main component of the program to 

reduce grizzly bear/human conflicts. 

The Yellowstone DPS now has 

sufficient control of mortality to ensure 

that it is not likely to become 

endangered within the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

The Act defines a threatened species 

as one that is likely to become 

endangered in the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act defines an 

endangered species as one that is likely 

to become extinct in the foreseeable 

future throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. Based on the best 

scientific and commercial information 

available, we have determined that the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is 

recovered and no longer meets the Act’s 

definition of threatened or endangered. 

Therefore, we are hereby delisting the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. 

Petition Finding 

Additionally, we announce a 90-day 

finding on a petition (submitted during 

the public comment period for the 

proposed rule) to list the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population as endangered 

on the Federal List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife under the Act and 

to designate critical habitat. We 

reviewed the petition to list the 

Yellowstone DPS of grizzly bears and 

the literature cited in the petition, and 

evaluated that information in relation to 

other pertinent literature and 

information available to us. All 

assertions of this petition are addressed 

either in the Summary of Public 

Comments and in the 5-factor analysis 

sections of this final rule, or in the 

Reassessing Methods Document’s issues 

and responses summary. After this 

review and evaluation, we find that the 

petition and additional information in 

our files did not present substantial 

information indicating that listing the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population as 

endangered may be warranted. 

Therefore, we are not initiating a status 

review in response to this petition. 

Effects of the Rule 

Promulgation of this final rule will 

affect the protections afforded to the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS under the 

Act. Taking, interstate commerce, 

import, and export of grizzly bears from 

the Yellowstone DPS are no longer 

prohibited under the Act. Other State 

and Federal laws will still regulate take. 

In addition, with the removal of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS from the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife, Federal agencies are no longer 

required to consult with us under 

section 7 of the Act to ensure that any 

action authorized, funded, or carried out 

by them is not likely to jeopardize the 

species’ continued existence. However, 

actions within the PCA will still be 

regulated by over 70 State and Federal 

laws, regulations, and policies ensuring 

enforcement of the Strategy. Delisting 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is 

expected to have positive effects in 

terms of management flexibility to the 

States and local governments. 

However, the full protections of the 

Act will still continue to apply to 

grizzly bear in other portions of the 

lower 48-States outside the Yellowstone 

DPS. Those grizzly bears will remain 

fully protected by the Act. There is no 

designated critical habitat for this 

species. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan 

Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us, 

in cooperation with the States, to 

implement a monitoring program for not 

less than 5 years for all species that have 

been recovered and delisted. The 

purpose of this requirement is to 

develop a program that detects the 

failure of any delisted species to sustain 

itself without the protective measures 

provided by the Act. If, at any time 

during the monitoring period, data 

indicate that protective status under the 

Act should be reinstated, we can initiate 

listing procedures, including, if 

appropriate, emergency listing. 

To further ensure the long-term 

conservation of adequate grizzly bear 

habitat and continued recovery of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population, 

several monitoring programs and 

protocols have been developed and 

integrated into land management agency 

planning documents. The Strategy and 

appended State grizzly bear 

management plans effectively satisfy the 

requirements for having a Post-Delisting 

Monitoring Plan for the Yellowstone 

DPS. Monitoring programs, which we 

anticipate will be continued in 

perpetuity, will focus on assessing 

whether demographic standards and 

habitat criteria described in the Strategy 

are being achieved. A suite of indices 

will be monitored simultaneously to 

provide a highly sensitive system to 

monitor the health of the population 

and its habitat and to provide a sound 

scientific basis to respond to any 

changes or needs with adaptive 

management actions (Holling 1978, pp. 

11–16). More specifically, monitoring 

efforts will document population trends, 

distribution, survival and birth rates, 

and the presence of alleles from grizzly 

populations outside the Yellowstone 

DPS boundaries to document gene flow 

into the population. Throughout the 

DPS boundaries, locations of grizzly 

bear mortalities on private lands will be 

provided to the Study Team for 

incorporation into their Annual Report. 

Full implementation of the Strategy by 

State and Federal agencies will allow for 

a sustainable population by managing 

all suitable habitat. 

Within the Primary Conservation 

Area—As discussed in previous 

sections, habitat criteria established for 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

will be monitored carefully and any 

deviations from these will be reported 

annually. The number and levels of 

secure habitat, developed sites, and 

livestock allotments will not be allowed 

to deviate from 1998 baseline measures 

in accordance with the implementation 

protocols in the Strategy. 

The Study Team will prepare Annual 

Reports summarizing the habitat criteria 

and population statistics. The Study 

Team will be responsible for counting 

the number of unduplicated females 

with cubs-of-the-year and monitoring 

mortality, distribution, and the presence 

of alleles from grizzly populations 

outside the Yellowstone DPS 

boundaries to document gene flow into 

the population (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2007, pp. 155–156, Appendix I). 

To examine reproductive rates, survival 

rates, causes of death, and overall 

population trends, the Study Team will 

strive to radio collar and monitor a 

minimum of 25 adult female grizzly 

bears at all times. These bears will be 

spatially distributed throughout the 

ecosystem as determined by the Study 

Team. 

The Study Team, with participation 

from Yellowstone National Park, the 

USDA Forest Service, and State wildlife 

agencies, also will monitor grizzly bear 

habitats, foods, and impacts of humans. 

Documenting the abundance and 

distribution of the major foods will be 

an integral component of monitoring 

within the PCA as it allows managers 

some degree of predictive power to 

anticipate and avoid grizzly bear/human 

conflicts related to a shortage of one or 

more foods. Major foods, habitat value, 

and habitat effectiveness will be 

monitored according to Appendices E 

and I in the Strategy, and as described 

in Factor A of this final rule. 

Outside of the Primary Conservation 

Area—Although State management 

plans are the guiding documents for 

management of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear DPS outside of the PCA upon 

delisting, habitat management will 

primarily be the responsibility of the 

GYA National Forests. State wildlife 

agencies will be responsible for 

monitoring population parameters in 

areas outside of the PCA. The GYA 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 14937 

National Forests will be responsible for 

monitoring agreed-upon habitat 

parameters in suitable habitat outside 

the PCA, as defined by State 

management plans, and will calculate 

secure habitat values outside of the PCA 

every two years and submit these data 

for inclusion in the Study Team’s 

annual report (USDA Forest Service 

2006b, p. 6). The GYA National Forests 

also will monitor and evaluate livestock 

allotments for recurring conflicts with 

grizzly bears in suitable habitat outside 

the PCA as defined in the State plans 

(USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 6). The 

GYA National Forests will be 

responsible for monitoring whitebark 

pine occurrence, productivity, and 

health in suitable habitat outside the 

PCA (USDA Forest Service 2006b, p. 7). 

All three States will document sightings 

of females with cubs and provide this 

information to the Study Team. Finally, 

State wildlife agencies will provide 

known mortality information to the 

Study Team, which will annually 

summarize this data with respect to 

location, type, date of incident, and the 

sex and age of the bear for the DPS area. 

In Idaho, the IDFG will be responsible 

for monitoring population trends and 

habitat parameters. Outside of the PCA, 

the IDFG will establish data analysis 

units to facilitate monitoring of grizzly 

bear distribution, abundance, and 

mortality. Habitat criteria will be 

monitored within each unit but will not 

be established strictly for grizzly bears. 

Instead, habitat standards will be 

incorporated into current management 

plans for other game species. However, 

the IDFG will monitor food sources for 

grizzly bears including elk, deer, moose, 

Kokanee salmon, and cutthroat trout. 

The IDFG also will encourage and work 

with other land management agencies 

on public lands to monitor wetland and 

riparian habitats, whitebark pine 

production, important berry-producing 

plants, and changes in motorized access 

route density. On private lands, the 

IDFG will work with citizens, counties, 

and other agencies to monitor 

development activities and identify 

important spring habitat for grizzly 

bears, then work with landowners to 

minimize impacts to bears. 

In Montana, the MTFWP will monitor 

populations using data from research, 

distribution changes, DNA samples, 

confirmed sightings, and known 

mortalities. The MTFWP will collect 

and analyze habitat data and monitor 

habitat changes pertaining to key grizzly 

bear foods, road densities, road 

construction and improvements, and 

coal bed methane activities. In addition, 

the MTFWP will continue to use 

statewide habitat programs to conserve 

key wildlife habitats in southwestern 

Montana, working closely with private 

landowners to conserve private lands 

via lease, conservation easements, or fee 

title acquisition. 

In Wyoming, the WGFD will establish 

grizzly bear management units to collect 

and analyze demographic and 

distributional data. Habitat standards 

will be monitored in a manner 

consistent with those already in place 

for other wildlife and will not focus 

specifically on the habitat needs of 

grizzly bears. The WGFD will evaluate 

the effects of existing and proposed 

human activities in important wildlife 

habitat and work with land management 

and transportation agencies to ensure 

that projects do not adversely affect the 

grizzly bear population. Specifically, the 

WGFD will—(1) identify and evaluate 

the site-specific and cumulative effects 

of proposed projects; (2) monitor and 

recommend changes, if justified, in 

human activities on seasonally 

important wildlife habitats; (3) 

minimize road and site construction 

impacts on wildlife habitat; (4) 

encourage the use of native vegetation 

in rehabilitation projects; (5) encourage 

land management agencies to manage 

for open road densities of no more than 

1.6 km/2.6 sq km (1 mi/sq mi) which 

benefit a suite of wildlife species; (6) 

recommend seasonal road closures 

when warranted; (7) encourage the 

USDA Forest Service and BLM to 

enforce off road/trail motorized use 

restrictions; and (8) focus on improving 

habitat quality in areas of habitually 

high human-caused grizzly bear 

mortality (WGFD 2005, pp. 22–25). In 

addition, the WGFD will work with the 

USDA Forest Service to monitor bear 

use of army cutworm moths and the 

overall status and health of whitebark 

pine (WGFD 2005, p. 22). 

Monitoring systems in the Strategy 

allow for adaptive management (Holling 

1978, pp. 11–16) as environmental 

issues change. The agencies have 

committed in the Strategy to be 

responsive to the needs of the grizzly 

bear through adaptive management 

(Holling 1978, pp. 11–16) actions based 

on the results of detailed annual 

population and habitat monitoring. 

These monitoring efforts would reflect 

the best scientific and commercial data 

and any new information that has 

become available since this delisting 

determination. The entire process 

would be dynamic so that when new 

science becomes available it will be 

incorporated into the management 

planning and monitoring systems 

outlined in the Strategy (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2007, pp. 5–6). The 

results of this extensive monitoring 

would allow wildlife and land managers 

to identify and address potential threats 

preemptively thereby, allowing those 

managers and us to be certain that the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

remains a recovered population. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information other than 

those already approved under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) and assigned Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number 1018–0094, which expires on 

September 30, 2007. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

For additional information concerning 

permit and associated requirements for 

endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.21 

and 17.22. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

We have determined that 

Environmental Assessments and 

Environmental Impact Statements, as 

defined under the authority of the 

NEPA, need not be prepared in 

connection with actions adopted 

pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. A 

notice outlining our reasons for this 

determination was published in the 

Federal Register on October 25, 1983 

(48 FR 49244). 

Executive Order 13211 

On May 18, 2001, the President issued 

Executive Order 13211 on regulations 

that significantly affect energy supply, 

distribution, and use. Executive Order 

13211 requires agencies to prepare 

Statements of Energy Effects when 

undertaking certain actions. As this 

final rule is not expected to significantly 

affect energy supplies, distribution, or 

use, this action is not a significant 

energy action and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request from 

the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator 

(see ADDRESSES above). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Regulation Promulgation 

■ Accordingly, we amend part 17, 

subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations as set forth 

below: 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
14938 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 60 / Thursday, March 29, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

PART 17—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C. 

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the 

listing for ‘‘Bear, grizzly’’ under 

‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

Species 

Historic range 

Vertebrate population where endangered or threatened 

Status When listed Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

MAMMALS 

* * * * * * * 

Bear, grizzly ............. Ursus arctos 

horribilis.

North America ......... U.S.A., 

conterminous 

(lower 48) States, 

except—(1) where 

listed as an experimental population; and (2) that 

portion of Idaho 

that is east of 

Interstate Highway 

15 and north of 

U.S. Highway 30; 

that portion of 

Montana that is 

east of Interstate 

Highway 15 and 

south of Interstate 

Highway 90; that 

portion of Wyoming south of 

Interstate Highway 

90, west of Interstate Highway 25, 

Wyoming State 

Highway 220, and 

U.S. Highway 287 

south of Three 

Forks (at the 220 

and 287 intersection), and north of 

Interstate Highway 

80 and U.S. Highway 30.

T 1, 2D, 9, 

759 

NA 17.40(b) 

Do ...................... ......do ...................... ......do ...................... U.S.A. (portions of 

ID and MT, see 

17.84(l)).

XN 706 NA 17.84(l) 

* * * * * * * 

Dated: March 20, 2007. 

H. Dale Hall, 

Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–1474 Filed 3–23–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES