`[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 223 (Friday, November 17, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 69624-69643]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29530]



[[Page 69623]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part IV





Department of the Interior





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



Fish and Wildlife Service



-----------------------------------------------------------------------



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a 
Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly Bears in the Bitterroot 
Area of Idaho and Montana; Final Rule



Record of Decision Concerning Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot 
Ecosystem; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 69624]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE00


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a 
Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly Bears in the Bitterroot 
Area of Idaho and Montana

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to restore 
the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), a threatened species, into east-
central Idaho and a portion of western Montana. We are designating 
grizzly bears to be reintroduced into the area described in this rule 
as a nonessential experimental population pursuant to section 10(j) of 
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Grizzly bear 
populations have been extirpated from most of the lower 48 United 
States. They presently occur in populations in the Selkirk and Cabinet-
Yaak ecosystems in north Idaho, northeastern Washington, and 
northwestern Montana; the North Cascades ecosystem in northwestern 
Washington; the Northern Continental Divide ecosystem in Montana; and 
the Yellowstone ecosystem in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho.
    The purpose of this reintroduction is to reestablish a viable 
grizzly bear population in the Bitterroot ecosystem in east-central 
Idaho and adjacent areas of Montana, one of six grizzly recovery areas 
identified in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. We evaluated potential 
effects of this final rule in the ``Final Environmental Impact 
Statement on Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem.'' This 
grizzly bear reintroduction does not conflict with existing or 
anticipated Federal agency actions or traditional public uses of 
wilderness areas or surrounding lands.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective December 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this final rule is available for 
inspection, by appointment during normal business hours, at U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service, University Hall, Room 309, University of Montana, 
Missoula, Montana 59812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear 
Recovery Coordinator, at the above address, or telephone (406) 243-
4903.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. Legislative

    The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982, Public Law 97-304, 
made significant changes to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973 as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1540), including the creation of section 10(j), 
which provides for the designation of specific populations of listed 
species as ``experimental populations.'' Previous authorities in the 
Act permitted us to reintroduce a listed species for conservation and 
recovery purposes. However, local opposition to reintroduction efforts 
from parties concerned about potential restrictions, and prohibitions 
on Federal and private activities contained in sections 7 and 9 of the 
Act, reduced the effectiveness of reintroduction as a conservation and 
recovery tool.
    Under section 10(j), the Secretary can designate reintroduced 
populations established outside the species' current range but within 
its historical range as ``experimental.'' Reintroduction of the 
experimental populations must further the conservation of the listed 
species. An experimental population must be separate geographically 
from nonexperimental populations of the same species. Designation of a 
population as experimental increases our flexibility and discretion in 
managing reintroduced listed species.
    After designating a population as experimental under section 10(j) 
of the Act, the Secretary must determine whether such populations are 
essential, or nonessential, to the continued existence of the species. 
Regulatory restrictions may be considerably reduced under a 
nonessential experimental population designation, which is defined as 
being nonessential to the survival of the species. For the purposes of 
section 7 of the Act, we treat nonessential experimental populations 
that are located outside of the National Wildlife Refuge System or 
National Park System as if they are species proposed for listing. If a 
nonessential experimental population is located within such a refuge or 
park, the population is treated as if it is listed as a threatened 
species.
    Section 7 provisions for Federal agency coordination have limited 
application to nonessential experimental populations found outside such 
refuges and parks. The two provisions that apply are: (1) Section 
7(a)(1), which requires all Federal agencies to use their authority to 
conserve listed species; and (2) section 7(a)(4), which requires 
Federal agencies to confer with the Service on actions that are likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species throughout 
its range. Section 7 of the Act does not affect activities undertaken 
on private lands unless they are authorized, funded, or carried out by 
a Federal agency.
    Individual animals used in establishing an experimental population 
may be obtained from other populations if their removal is not likely 
to jeopardize the continued existence of the species and a permit has 
been issued in accordance with 50 CFR part 17.22 prior to their 
removal.

2. Biological

    This final experimental population rule addresses the grizzly bear, 
a threatened species that once ranged throughout most of western North 
America. An estimated 50,000 grizzly bears roamed the American West 
prior to European settlement (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). 
However, distribution and population levels of this species have been 
diminished by excessive human-caused mortality and loss of habitat. 
Today, only 1,000-1,100 grizzly bears remain in a few isolated 
populations in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington. This represents 
approximately 2 percent of their historic range in the lower 48 States 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). The grizzly bear was listed as a 
threatened species in the lower 48 States under the Act in 1975 (40 FR 
3173).
    The natural history of grizzly bears and their ecological role was 
poorly understood during the period of their eradication in the 
conterminous United States. As with other large predators, grizzly 
bears were considered a nuisance and threat to humans. Today, the 
grizzly bear's role as an important and necessary part of natural 
ecosystems is better understood and appreciated.
    The grizzly bear was a widespread inhabitant of the Bitterroot 
Mountains in east-central Idaho and western Montana. Historic grizzly 
bear range includes national forest lands within and surrounding the 
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area and Frank Church-River of No Return 
Wilderness Area on both sides of the Salmon River. The demise of the 
grizzly from the Bitterroot ecosystem was due to the actions of humans. 
Bears were actively killed for their fur, for sport, and to eliminate 
possible threats to humans and domestic livestock. The last verified 
death of a grizzly bear in the Bitterroot Mountains occurred in 1932, 
and the last tracks were observed in 1946 (Moore 1984, 1996). Although

[[Page 69625]]

occasional unverified reports of grizzly sightings persist in the 
ecosystem (Melquist 1985), no verified tracks or sightings have been 
documented in more than 50 years, and currently there is no evidence of 
any grizzly bears in the Bitterroot ecosystem (Melquist 1998).

Recovery Efforts

    The reestablishment of a grizzly bear population in the Bitterroot 
ecosystem will increase the survival probabilities and further the 
conservation of the species in the lower 48 States. If the experimental 
population is lost, it will not diminish the survival probabilities for 
bears in other ecosystems. However, if the experimental population is 
successful, it will enhance grizzly bear survival and conservation over 
the long term by providing an additional population and thus adding a 
measure of security for the species.
    The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, finalized in 1982 (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1982), called for the evaluation of the Selway-
Bitterroot ecosystem as a potential recovery area. Subsequently, an 
interagency team of grizzly bear scientists concluded the area provided 
suitable habitat and could support 200 to 400 grizzly bears (Servheen 
et al. 1991). In 1991, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 
subsequently endorsed the Bitterroot ecosystem as a grizzly bear 
recovery area, and requested that we initiate measures to achieve 
recovery in the area.
    In 1992, we organized a Technical Working Group to develop a 
Bitterroot ecosystem chapter to append to the Grizzly Bear Recovery 
Plan. This interagency group of biologists worked with a citizens' 
involvement group composed of local residents and agency personnel to 
draft a recovery plan chapter. Public comments, including those from 
local communities in central Idaho and western Montana, were integrated 
into the final chapter. We revised the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan in 
1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993) and later produced the 
Bitterroot Ecosystem Recovery Plan Chapter (Chapter) as an appendix 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). This Chapter called for the 
reintroduction of a small number of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot 
ecosystem as an experimental, nonessential population under section 
10(j) of the Act and the preparation of a special rule and an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this proposal. By establishing 
a nonessential experimental population, more flexible management 
practices may be implemented to address potential negative impacts or 
concerns regarding the recovery. The Chapter identified a tentative 
long-term recovery objective of approximately 280 grizzly bears for the 
Bitterroot ecosystem.
    Planning for the recovery of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot 
ecosystem of east-central Idaho and western Montana was initiated in 
1993, when the agencies of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 
requested that an EIS be prepared. We then formed and funded an 
interagency team to prepare the EIS in 1995. The team included our 
specialists and those from the Forest Service, Idaho Department of Fish 
and Game, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and the Nez 
Perce Tribe. The Grizzly Bear EIS program for the Bitterroot ecosystem 
emphasized public participation from the outset.
    We developed a public participation and interagency coordination 
program to identify issues and alternatives to be considered in the EIS 
process. We published a Notice of Intent (NOI) concerning grizzly bear 
recovery in the Bitterroot ecosystem in the Federal Register on January 
9, 1995 (60 FR 2399). The notice was furnished as required by National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) to obtain 
input from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues to be 
addressed in the EIS. This NOI asked the public to identify issues that 
should be addressed in the Draft EIS. A few days earlier, we issued a 
news release announcing the beginning of the NEPA process and the start 
of an EIS on grizzly bear recovery to the Bitterroot ecosystem.
    Eight preliminary issues were identified in March 1995 from scoping 
meetings for the Chapter and the NOI to prepare an EIS. Three 
preliminary alternatives also were identified and published in a 
Scoping of Issues and Alternatives brochure, which was mailed to 1,100 
people and distributed at 7 open houses. The brochure gave background 
information, described the purpose and need of the proposed action, 
listed preliminary issues and alternatives, and explained how to become 
involved in the EIS process. We asked interested parties to identify 
relevant issues and alternatives related to grizzly bear reintroduction 
into the Bitterroot ecosystem for the analysis. On June 5, 1995, we 
published a notice in the Federal Register initiating the formal 
scoping process with a 45-day comment period (60 FR 29708). We sent a 
news release to the print, radio, and television media in western 
Montana and Idaho on June 26, 1995, announcing the dates and locations 
for public open houses. We initiated public scoping of issues by 
mailing a brochure detailing the EIS process.
    From July 5 to 11, 1995, we held seven public scoping sessions in 
the form of open houses in Grangeville, Orofino, and Boise, Idaho; 
Missoula, Helena, and Hamilton, Montana; and in Salt Lake City, Utah. 
At the open houses, people could watch a 5-minute introductory video 
about the proposed action of reintroducing a nonessential experimental 
population, and representatives of the Service, the Forest Service, and 
State fish and wildlife agencies were available to discuss grizzly 
bears, their recovery, and the EIS process. Those attending the open 
houses received copies of the issue and alternative scoping brochure 
and the question-and-answer booklet. We encouraged them to leave 
written comments with agency personnel or mail their comments later. 
Verbal comments or questions were also heard and responded to by the 
agency representatives, but verbal testimony was not formally recorded. 
More than 300 people attended these scoping sessions and offered 
comments on the proposal, the preliminary issues, and alternatives, and 
voiced their opinions on grizzly bears and reintroduction. We extended 
the scoping comment period for 30 days (from July 20 to August 21, 
1995). On July 25, we provided a press release to local and national 
media to announce the extension. This extension was requested by 
numerous public interests with varied opinions on this complex topic.
    We solicited written public comments on issues and alternatives at 
the open houses and through the media. In response, we received more 
than 3,300 written comments from individuals, organizations, and 
government agencies. These comments arrived in more than 565 letters, 
open house meeting notes, 6 petitions, and 6 form letters or postcards. 
Strong polarization of concerns regarding grizzly bear management 
typified the public comments. Approximately 80 percent of written 
responses were from residents of counties in Montana and Idaho adjacent 
to the proposed reintroduction area. Major concerns raised included 
public safety, impacts of grizzly bears on existing land uses, travel 
corridors and linkages, nuisance bears and their control, and 
depredation by bears on domestic livestock and native ungulates.
    We continued public involvement and outreach activities in 1995 and 
began to prepare the EIS. The Bitterroot Ecosystem Chapter--Supplement 
to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan was finalized and signed on September 
11, 1996. The EIS Team continued to follow

[[Page 69626]]

the NEPA process to prepare the Draft EIS. The team completed the Draft 
EIS in August 1996, and released it to us and then to agency partners 
for internal review and comment. Comments were incorporated, and we 
reviewed the final draft in February 1997. We incorporated comments 
from the final review and completed the Draft EIS in June 1997 (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 1997).
    We released the Draft EIS and proposed special rule for public 
review and comment on July 1, 1997. The proposed rule, ``Proposed 
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly 
Bears in the Bitterroot Area of Idaho and Montana'' was then published 
in the Federal Register on July 2, 1997 (62 FR 35762) (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1997a). Comments were accepted through September 30, 
1997. We then extended the comment period to November 1, 1997, based on 
numerous requests for more time to prepare responses. Following a 
request from a member of the Idaho congressional delegation, we 
extended the comment period a second time to December 1, 1997.
    During October 1997, we held public hearings/open houses in seven 
communities on the perimeter of the Bitterroot area to gather public 
comments on the Draft EIS and proposed rule. Approximately 1,400 people 
attended these hearings, and 293 individuals testified. The Salmon and 
Hamilton hearings both had more people signed up to speak than time 
allowed. The dates and locations for the public hearings were Challis, 
Idaho, and Hamilton, Montana (October 1); Missoula, Montana, and 
Lewiston, Idaho (October 2); Boise, Idaho, and Helena, Montana (October 
3); and Salmon, Idaho (October 8). In addition, we held meetings with 
local community and State leaders, and interest groups in communities 
around the perimeter of the proposed recovery area. The Draft EIS, the 
Summary of the Draft EIS, and the Special Rule were all published on 
our web site at http://www.r6/fws/gov/endspp/grizzly.
    We received comments on the two draft documents from more than 
24,000 individuals, organizations, and government agencies. These 
comments arrived in more than 2,660 letters, Draft EIS summary forms, 
resolutions, and hearing testimonies. Ten petitions were received with 
more than 21,000 signatures. Fifteen form letters were identified. This 
degree of interest from the public indicates the strong feelings people 
have about the possibility of grizzly bear recovery in the Bitterroot 
ecosystem.
    An analysis of the public comments on the Draft EIS and proposed 
rule was performed by an interagency team of 14 employees from our 
agency and the U.S. Forest Service (Content Analysis Team) in December 
1997 and January 1998. The system used to analyze comments was 
objective, reliable, and traceable. We prepared a detailed summary 
report, ``Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement for Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem'' and 
an executive summary report of 24,251 public comments and released the 
summary to the public in April 1998 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1998).
    The major issues raised by the public included recovery area 
boundaries; bear sources; designation of experimental nonessential 
population; the Endangered Species Act; restrictions on use of public 
lands; local control; best available science; the grizzly bear as a 
missing component of the ecosystem; what is a viable grizzly 
population; population corridor linkages; range requirements of the 
grizzly; effects to the grizzly (genetics, disease, bear safety, 
adequate food); ecosystem protection; effects of grizzlies on human 
health and safety; effects of grizzlies on livestock and pets; effects 
of grizzlies on big game species and hunting opportunities; effects of 
grizzlies on recreational opportunities and public access; effects on 
local economy (jobs); and the need for education. Issues raised during 
public comment on the Draft EIS were similar to the issues identified 
during public scoping.
    The Content Analysis Team briefed the EIS Team regarding the 
results of the Draft EIS comment analysis in February 1998. The EIS 
Team met numerous times to thoroughly review the content analysis 
reports and original comment letters. They identified significant 
issues and, through the NEPA process, discussed and decided on 
necessary revisions to the Draft EIS and proposed rule to be responsive 
to public comment. During 1998, the EIS Team prepared the Final EIS and 
revised the special rule. In early 1999, we began our internal review 
of the draft final EIS and the draft final rule.
    We released the Final EIS on grizzly bear recovery in the 
Bitterroot ecosystem on March 24, 2000. Chapter 5 of the Final EIS 
contains a detailed review of public comments on the Draft EIS, 
including comments on the proposed rule, and the Service's response. 
The Final EIS considers six alternatives: (1) Restoration of Grizzly 
Bears as a Nonessential Experimental Population with Citizen Management 
(Preferred Alternative); (1A) Restoration of Grizzly Bears as a 
Nonessential Experimental Population with Service Management; (2) 
Natural Recovery--The No Action Alternative; (3) No Grizzly Bear 
Alternative; (4) Restoration of Grizzly Bears as a Threatened 
Population with Full Protection of the Act and Habitat Restoration; and 
(4A) Restoration of Grizzly Bears as a Threatened Population with Full 
Protection of the Act and Service Management. All comments on the Final 
EIS received from the public during the 30-day public review period 
were considered prior to preparation of the Record of Decision.
    On November 13, 2000, the Service signed the Record of Decision on 
the Final EIS, and selected the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1 in 
the Final EIS) for implementation (see following document in this 
section of the Federal Register). This alternative is the Restoration 
of Grizzly Bears as a Nonessential Experimental Population with Citizen 
Management.

Experimental/Reintroduction Site

    We intend to restore grizzly bears into the Bitterroot ecosystem of 
east-central Idaho in the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church-River of 
No Return Wilderness Areas on Federal lands managed by the Forest 
Service. The Bitterroot location was selected as a site for an 
experimental population of grizzly bears based on several factors. The 
area known as the Bitterroot ecosystem is centered around the federally 
designated Wilderness Areas of central Idaho, while a small portion 
extends eastward over the crest of the Bitterroot Mountains into 
Montana. It includes about 67,526 square kilometers (26,072 square 
miles) of contiguous national forest lands in central Idaho and western 
Montana. These include portions of the Bitterroot, Boise, Salmon/
Challis, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Payette, Sawtooth, and Panhandle 
National Forests in Idaho, and the Bitterroot and Lolo National Forests 
in western Montana. The core of the ecosystem contains three designated 
wilderness areas including the Frank Church-River of No Return, Selway-
Bitterroot, and Gospel Hump. These areas provide approximately 15,793 
square kilometers (6,098 square miles) of grizzly bear habitat. We plan 
to reintroduce grizzly bears only into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness 
Area unless it is later determined that reintroduction in the Frank 
Church-River of No Return Wilderness is appropriate. We will identify 
specific release sites that have high-quality bear habitat and low 
likelihood of human encounters.

[[Page 69627]]

    There is no documentation that grizzly bears from northwestern 
Montana have moved into central Idaho. There is no evidence of any 
grizzly bears in the Experimental Population Area, thus there is no 
evidence of an existing grizzly bear population in the Experimental 
Population Area. In an effort to create a definition of a population 
for use in determining the feasibility of experimental population 
status for the Bitterroot ecosystem, we solicited input from 54 
scientists familiar with bear populations. Thirty-seven scientists 
responded, and we adopted a definition. The definition of a grizzly 
bear population, as used in the Final EIS to define a minimal existing 
grizzly bear population in the Bitterroot, follows: ``A grizzly bear 
population is defined by verified evidence within the previous six 
years, consisting of photos within the area, verified tracks and/or 
sightings by reputable scientists or agency personnel, of at least two 
different female grizzly bears with young or one female seen with 
different litters in two different years in an area geographically 
distinct (separate) from other grizzly bear populations. Verifiable 
evidence of females with young, to be geographically distinct 
(separate), would have to occur greater than 10 miles (U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service 1993, page 171) from the nearest non-experimental 
grizzly bear population recovery zone boundary.'' Research data from 
the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem indicates the average home range size of an 
adult female grizzly bear, when converted to a circle, has a radius of 
10 miles (Kasworm and Servheen 1995).
    The term ``current range,'' as it is used in this rule, refers to 
the area inside or within 10 miles of the recovery zone line of 
currently occupied grizzly bear recovery zones (U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service 1993, page 171). The term ``geographically separate,'' as it is 
used in this rule, means that the Experimental Population Area and the 
recovery zone boundary of any existing grizzly bear population are 
separated by more than 10 miles.
    The Bitterroot Experimental Population Area is outside the current 
range but within the historic range of the grizzly bear. The Bitterroot 
Experimental Population Area is greater than 10 miles from any recovery 
zone boundary of any existing grizzly bear population. Thus, the 
Service has determined that the east-central Idaho reintroduction area 
is consistent with provisions of section 10(j) of the Act; 
specifically, that experimental grizzly bears must be geographically 
separate from other, nonexperimental populations. Grizzlies dispersing 
into areas outside of the Experimental Population Area will receive all 
the protections of a threatened species under the Act. Although the 
Service has determined that there is no existing grizzly bear 
population in the Experimental Population Area, we will continue to 
monitor for the presence of any grizzly bears naturally occurring in 
the area, and evaluate any new reports of sightings from the area.

Reintroduction Protocol

    We will undertake the grizzly bear recovery project in the 
Bitterroot ecosystem in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service, other 
Federal agencies, the States of Idaho and Montana, the Nez Perce Tribe, 
and entities of the Canadian Provincial government. We will also enter 
into agreements with the appropriate Canadian Provincial government 
agencies to obtain grizzly bears.
    Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) for this reintroduction will be 
obtained from Canadian and U.S. grizzly populations with permission 
from the Canadian Provincial governments and concurrence from the 
appropriate State officials. Grizzly bears can be taken by authorized 
State, Federal, and tribal authorities for scientific or research 
purposes under the authorities granted by 50 CFR 17.40.
    The Bitterroot ecosystem recovery program proposes moving a minimum 
of 25 grizzly bears of both sexes over a 5-year period from areas in 
Canada (in cooperation with Canadian authorities) and the United States 
that presently have populations of grizzly bears living in habitats 
that are similar to those found in the Bitterroot ecosystem. We will 
reintroduce only bears with no history of conflict with humans or 
livestock. We will capture and reintroduce bears at the time of year 
optimal to their survival. This process will likely occur when grizzly 
bear food supplies in the Bitterroot ecosystem are optimum. We plan to 
transport bears to east-central Idaho, provide any necessary veterinary 
care, and fit them with radio collars in order to monitor them by the 
use of radiotelemetry. We will determine the movements of individual 
grizzly bears and how they use their habitat, and keep the public 
informed of general bear locations and recovery efforts. We will 
release bears close enough to each other to create a ``colony'' or 
population of bears, providing the basis from which they will 
successfully reproduce and expand in numbers.
    Grizzly bears are common in western Canada (10,000 to 11,000 in 
British Columbia) and Alaska (an estimated 30,000 to 35,000). An 
estimated minimum of 325 grizzly bears exist in the Northern 
Continental Divide ecosystem in northwestern Montana, and an estimated 
minimum of 328 exist in the Yellowstone ecosystem (1998 estimates per 
Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan criteria (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1993)). The Final EIS analysis indicates no significant adverse impact 
to source populations from removal of grizzly bears for reintroduction 
to the Bitterroot ecosystem (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000), 
i.e., no significant adverse biological impact is expected from the 
removal of 10-15 grizzly bears from the British Columbia population 
over a 5-year period, and no significant adverse biological impact is 
expected from the removal of 10-15 grizzly bears from the Northern 
Continental Divide and/or Yellowstone ecosystem populations over a 5-
year period. Such removals will be from areas that are outside the 
recovery zone, and not within 10 miles of the recovery zone line of 
either ecosystem. Under 50 CFR 17.80(b), the term ``nonessential 
experimental population'' means an experimental population whose loss 
would not be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the 
survival of the species in the wild. The Service finds that grizzly 
bears to be used in the reintroduction effort meet the definition of 
``nonessential'' because the loss of the reintroduced grizzlies is not 
likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species 
in the wild.
    We will continue to ask private landowners and agency personnel in 
or around the Bitterroot ecosystem to immediately report any grizzly 
bear observations to us or to other authorized agencies. We will also 
conduct an extensive public information and education program. Public 
cooperation will be encouraged to ensure close monitoring of the 
grizzly bears and quick resolution of any conflicts that might arise. 
Specific information on grizzly bear reintroduction procedures can be 
found in Appendix 6, ``Scientific Techniques for the Reintroduction of 
Grizzly Bears,'' in the Final EIS.

Status of Reintroduced Population

    In accordance with section 10(j) of the Act, this rule designates 
grizzly bears reintroduced to the Bitterroot ecosystem as a 
nonessential experimental population. After reintroduction, every 
grizzly bear found within the Experimental Population Area will be 
considered a nonessential experimental animal. The primary reasons for 
this designation are the biological status of the grizzly and the need 
for

[[Page 69628]]

management flexibility to achieve reintroduction goals. Such 
designation will allow these grizzly bears to be treated as a species 
proposed for listing for the purposes of section 7 of the Act. This 
designation allows us to establish a more flexible and less restrictive 
special rule, rather than applying the general prohibitions of the Act 
that otherwise apply to threatened species.
    We find that protective measures and management practices under 
this final rule are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the 
grizzly. We also find that nonessential experimental status is 
appropriate for grizzly bears taken from wild populations and released 
into the Bitterroot ecosystem of east-central Idaho. Formal section 7 
consultation will not be required for any proposed U.S. Forest Service 
activity in the Bitterroot ecosystem as a result of the experimental 
reintroduction of bears, and the requirements of section 7(a)(2) will 
not apply because there are no National Wildlife Refuges or National 
Parks within the Bitterroot Experimental Population Area. However, 
because nonessential experimental grizzly bears will be treated as a 
species proposed for listing, the conferencing requirements under 
section 7(a)(4) will apply. Presently, we envision no conflicts with 
any current or anticipated management actions of the U.S. Forest 
Service or other Federal agencies in the area. The national forests are 
beneficial to the reintroduction effort in that they form a natural 
buffer to private properties and are typically managed in a manner 
compatible for grizzly bears and other wildlife.
    Most of the reintroduction area is composed of remote and sparsely 
inhabited wild lands. However, some risks to grizzly recovery are 
associated with take of grizzlies resulting from other land uses and 
various recreational activities. Potential threats are hunting, 
trapping, animal damage control activities, and high-speed vehicular 
traffic. Hunting, trapping, and USDA Wildlife Services programs are 
prohibited or strictly regulated by State and Federal law and policy. 
Very few paved or unpaved roads are in the reintroduction area or 
immediately outside of it. The unpaved roads typically have low levels 
of vehicle traffic, and are constructed for low speeds and used only 
seasonally. Grizzly bears, therefore, should encounter vehicles and 
humans infrequently. In accordance with existing labeling, the use of 
toxicants lethal to grizzlies is prohibited. Overall, the possible 
risks and threats that could impact the success of the recovery effort 
are thought to be minimal.

Location of the Experimental Population Area

    The Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Experimental Population Area includes 
most of east-central Idaho and part of western Montana (see map 
attached to rule). This approximately 65,113-square-kilometer area 
(25,140-square-mile area) will include the area bounded by U.S. Highway 
93 from its junction with the Bitterroot River near Missoula, Montana, 
to Challis, Idaho; Idaho Highway 75 from Challis to Stanley, Idaho; 
Idaho Highway 21 from Stanley to Lowman, Idaho; Idaho Highway 17 from 
Lowman to Banks, Idaho; Idaho Highway 55 from Banks to New Meadows, 
Idaho; U.S. Highway 95 from New Meadows to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; 
Interstate 90 from Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, to its junction with the Clark 
Fork River near St. Regis, Montana; the Clark Fork River from its 
junction with Interstate 90 near St. Regis, to its confluence with the 
Bitterroot River near Missoula, Montana; and the Bitterroot River from 
its confluence with the Clark Fork River to its junction with U.S. 
Highway 93, near Missoula, Montana. Much of the Experimental Population 
Area has high-quality bear habitat with low likelihood of conflicts 
between grizzly bears and humans.
    The proposed release site for restoring grizzly bears into east-
central Idaho is on national forest land in the Selway-Bitterroot 
Wilderness Area. The Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area (Recovery 
Area) consists of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and the Frank 
Church-River of No Return Wilderness (approximately 14,983 square 
kilometers; 5,785 square miles) (see map attached to rule). The 
Recovery Area is located within the Experimental Population Area, and 
is the area where grizzly bear recovery will be emphasized. If, in the 
future, new wilderness areas are designated adjacent to the Recovery 
Area, the Citizen Management Committee may recommend to the Secretary 
their addition to the Recovery Area. The Secretary would have to amend 
this special rule to change the definition of the Recovery Area.

Management of the Reintroduced Population

    This special rule establishes a 15-member Citizen Management 
Committee (Committee) to facilitate recovery of the experimental 
grizzly bear population in the Bitterroot ecosystem. The Committee will 
make recommendations to the land and wildlife management agencies that 
the Committee believes will lead to recovery of the grizzly bear in the 
Bitterroot ecosystem. Decisions on and implementation of these 
recommendations will remain the responsibility of the land and wildlife 
management agencies. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nez Perce 
Tribe, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and the Forest 
Service, in coordination with us, will continue to exercise day-to-day 
management responsibility within the Experimental Population Area.
    The Committee will have the authority and responsibility for 
various tasks relating to the experimental grizzly bear population, to 
include: (1) Soliciting technical advice from outside experts; (2) 
implementing the Bitterroot Chapter of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan; 
(3) establishing a public participation process to review Committee 
recommendations; (4) developing strategies to emphasize recovery in the 
Experimental Area; (5) developing grizzly bear-related guidance for 
proper camping and sanitation within the Experimental Population Area; 
and (6) developing a response protocol for responding to grizzly bear 
encounters. See question 9 of the special rule for a complete list of 
Committee tasks.

[[Page 69629]]

    Two scientific advisors will be appointed to provide the Committee 
with ready access to independent scientific information on grizzly 
bears. These advisors, which will not be employed by Federal agencies 
involved in grizzly bear recovery, will be nonvoting members, and are 
to attend all Committee meetings.
    The special rule provides a procedure to monitor the progress of 
the Committee and resolve disputes if Committee actions are not 
contributing to the recovery of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot 
ecosystem or not in compliance with this special rule. Included in this 
provision of the special rule is a process to establish a peer review 
panel of three scientists (Scientific Review Panel). The Scientific 
Review Panel will review issues, solicit additional information if 
necessary, and, using the best scientific and commercial data 
available, make timely recommendations to the Committee as to whether 
actions and decisions are in compliance with the special rule and 
leading to recovery of the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem. 
The Scientific Review Panel process is diagrammed in Figure 1. Question 
11 of the special rule contains the procedures to be followed when 
Committee actions are not leading to the recovery of the grizzly bear 
in the Experimental Population Area, including the steps that will be 
undertaken if the Secretary assumes lead management responsibility for 
the experimental population.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 69630]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17NO00.009


[[Page 69631]]


BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Potential for Conflict With Federal and Other Activities

    Public opinion surveys, public comments on grizzly bear management 
planning, and the positions taken by elected officials indicate that 
grizzly bears should not be reintroduced without assurances that 
current uses of public and private lands will not be disrupted by 
grizzly bear recovery activities. The Committee will emphasize the 
recovery of grizzly bears in the Recovery Area, but bears moving 
outside the Recovery Area into other parts of the Experimental 
Population Area will be accommodated through management provisions in 
the special rule and through the management plans and policies 
developed by the Committee.
    ``Emphasize the recovery'' means grizzly bear management decisions 
in the Recovery Area will favor bear recovery so that this area can 
serve as core habitat for survival, reproduction, and dispersal of the 
recovering population. Reintroduction of bears will occur within the 
Recovery Area, and is specifically planned within the Selway-Bitterroot 
Wilderness unless it is later determined that reintroduction in the 
Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness is appropriate. 
``Accommodate'' means grizzly bears that move outside the Recovery Area 
onto public land in the Experimental Population Area will not be 
disturbed unless they demonstrate a real and imminent threat to human 
safety or livestock. The Committee will not recommend that bears be 
disturbed or moved unless conflicts, including conflicts associated 
with livestock, are both significant and cannot be corrected as 
determined by the Committee. In this case, the Committee will develop 
strategies to discourage grizzly bear occupancy in appropriate portions 
of the Experimental Population Area.
    Unless the Committee determines otherwise, grizzly bears will be 
discouraged from occupying private lands outside the national forest 
boundary in the Bitterroot Valley, Montana (exclusion area). Bears 
entering this area will be captured and returned to the Recovery Area. 
If a grizzly bear enters the exclusion area, State and Federal wildlife 
management agencies will attempt to capture it immediately and notify 
the public of its presence as soon as possible. The public will be 
updated until the bear is caught. Further, any grizzly bear that 
occupies inhabited human settlement areas on private land within the 
Experimental Population Area that, in the judgment of the management 
agencies or Committee, presents a clear threat to human safety or that 
shows signs that it may become habituated to humans, will be relocated 
by management agencies or destroyed, if necessary. This provision is to 
prevent conflicts and possible bear-human injury or the death of bears, 
and to promote and enhance public safety.
    No formal consultation under section 7 of the Act will be required 
regarding potential impacts of land uses, including resource 
extraction, on nonessential experimental grizzly bears. However, 
because the nonessential experimental grizzly bears are treated as a 
proposed species for listing, Federal agencies will be required to 
confer, in accordance with section 7(a)(4) of the Act, on actions that 
are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the experimental 
bears. The Committee is responsible for recommending changes in land-
use standards and guidelines as necessary for grizzly bear management. 
The Committee will develop recommendations on existing management plans 
and policies of land and wildlife management agencies, as necessary, 
for the management of grizzly bears in the Experimental Population 
Area. The final decision on implementation of recommendations from the 
Committee will be made by those agencies. If the Committee 
recommendations require significant changes to existing plans and 
policy, and the agencies tentatively agree to accept those 
recommendations, then the NEPA requirements may apply. Such management 
plans and policies will be in accordance with applicable State and 
Federal laws.
    People can continue to kill grizzly bears in self-defense or in 
defense of others, with the requirement that such taking be reported 
within 24 hours to appropriate authorities (OMB #1018-0095). After 
obtaining a permit from us, a person will be allowed to harass a 
grizzly bear attacking livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules) or 
bees in the Experimental Population Area provided that all such 
harassment is by methods that are not lethal or physically injurious to 
the grizzly bear and such harassment is reported within 24 hours to the 
appropriate authorities. We will also permit the use of livestock guard 
dogs to harass grizzly bears in a nonlethal fashion around livestock. A 
livestock owner may be issued a permit to kill a grizzly bear killing 
or pursuing livestock on private lands if the response protocol 
established by the Committee has been satisfied and it has not been 
possible to capture the bear or deter depredations through agency 
efforts. If significant conflicts between grizzly bears and livestock 
occur within the Experimental Population Area but outside of the 
Recovery Area, these could be resolved in favor of livestock by capture 
or elimination of the bear depending on the circumstances. We do not 
intend to establish a Federal compensation program for grizzly bear 
depredation, but compensation from existing private funding sources 
will be encouraged. Animal control toxicants lethal to bears are 
currently not used on public lands within the Recovery and Experimental 
Population Areas. We anticipate that ongoing animal damage control 
activities will not be affected by grizzly bear recovery. The Committee 
will review any conflicts or mortalities associated with these 
activities and will recommend necessary changes.

Summary of Public Participation

    The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 2, 
1997 (62 FR 35762) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997a). The proposed 
rule also was included as Appendix 13 of the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (Draft EIS) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997) and was 
published on the Internet at http://www.r6.fws.gov/endspp/grizzly. We 
received public comments on the proposed rule and the Draft EIS through 
December 1, 1997, which included two extensions of the deadline in 
response to public requests for more time to comment. During October 
1997, we held public hearings/open houses to gather public comments on 
the Draft EIS and proposed rule in seven communities on the perimeter 
of the Bitterroot area. Approximately 1,400 people attended these 
hearings, and 293 individuals testified. The dates and locations for 
the public hearings were: Challis, Idaho, and Hamilton, Montana 
(October 1); Missoula, Montana, and Lewiston, Idaho (October 2); Boise, 
Idaho, and Helena, Montana (October 3); and Salmon, Idaho (October 8). 
In addition, we held meetings with local community leaders, State 
leaders, and interest groups in communities around the perimeter of the 
proposed Recovery Area.
    More than 24,000 individuals, organizations, and government 
agencies provided comments on the two draft documents. These comments 
arrived in more than 2,660 letters, Draft EIS summary forms, 
resolutions, and hearing testimonies. The comments received included 10 
petitions with more than 21,000 signatures and 15 form letters. An 
interagency team of 14 employees from the Fish and Wildlife Service and 
the Forest Service conducted an analysis of the public comments on the 
Draft EIS and

[[Page 69632]]

proposed rule in December 1997 and January 1998. We made a concerted 
effort to ensure that the methods used to analyze public comments were 
objective, reliable, and traceable. We prepared a detailed summary 
report, ``Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement for Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem'' and 
an executive summary report of 24,251 public comments and released the 
summary to the public in April 1998 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
1998).
    We reviewed and considered all written and oral comments relating 
to the proposed rule. Comments that specifically addressed the proposed 
rule were made in 33 individual letters. Numerous other comments on the 
draft EIS were specific to the proposed rule or related management 
considerations. We also considered these comments in our review of the 
proposed rule. We include a detailed summary of the significant issues 
raised in public comments on the Draft EIS and the proposed rule and 
our response to those issues in Chapter 5 of the Final EIS. The 
following summary of key changes made to the final rule as a result of 
issues raised in public comments on the proposed rule is abbreviated 
from the Final EIS Chapter 5 discussion of public comments. Refer to 
the Final EIS and ``Summary of Public Comments on the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement for Grizzly Bear Recovery in the 
Bitterroot Ecosystem'' for a more comprehensive discussion of public 
comments on the proposed rule and Draft EIS. Both documents are 
available to the public (see ADDRESSES section).

Key Changes in Final Rule as a Result of Public Comment

    We made the following key changes and clarifications to the final 
rule or to discussions in the final rule based on public comments 
received on the proposed rule. These changes, individually and 
cumulatively, do not alter the predicted effect of the final rule.
    1. In response to the issues of how and where the experimental 
population of grizzly bears will be managed, we clarified and defined 
several terms in the final rule including ``recovery emphasis,'' 
``accommodate,'' and ``Recovery Area.'' We added a statement in 
paragraph (l)(2) of the final rule regarding the potential for 
consideration of future designated Wilderness areas for inclusion in 
the Recovery Area. In paragraph (l)(1) of the final rule, we modified 
the boundaries in the northeast end of the Experimental Population Area 
to use the Clark Fork River as a boundary instead of I-90, which was 
used in the proposed rule, because the Clark Fork River is a more 
logical biological boundary for the north end of the Experimental 
Population Area than the highway.
    2. In response to the issue of effects of grizzly bears on 
livestock, we clarified the types of harassment permitted, including 
the use of livestock guard dogs around livestock.
    3. The following clarifications and additions respond to the issue 
of human safety: If a grizzly bear enters the exclusion area in the 
Bitterroot Valley, State and Federal wildlife management agencies will 
attempt to capture it immediately, notify the public of its presence, 
and keep the public updated until the bear is caught. Further, any 
grizzly bear that occupies the exclusion area or other inhabited human 
settlement areas on private land within the Experimental Population 
Area and that presents a clear threat to human safety or whose behavior 
indicates that it may become habituated to humans will be relocated or 
destroyed by management agencies.
    4. We changed the minimum time for determining the success or 
failure of the experimental reintroduction that the Committee must 
incorporate into the standards that they establish for such a 
determination. The proposed rule stated that the success or failure of 
the program cannot be measured in fewer than 10 years. After 
consideration of many comments, we changed the final rule to reflect 
our belief that absent extraordinary circumstances, the success or 
failure of the program cannot be measured in fewer than 20 years.
    5. We added a clarification regarding how we would calculate a 
refined recovery goal for the Bitterroot experimental population. The 
proposed rule indicated that, if the Committee refines the recovery 
goal for the Bitterroot grizzly bear population after grizzly bears are 
reintroduced and occupy suitable habitats in the Experimental 
Population Area, the recovery goal will be consistent with the habitat 
available within the Recovery Area. The Committee will consider 
additional adjacent areas of public land for contribution of suitable 
grizzly bear habitat for recovery when setting the recovery goal if 
additional land is shown to be necessary by the best scientific and 
commercial data available.
    6. We added several clarifications and changes to the Committee 
structure and function. We made these changes in response to the 
following public comment issues: (a) How the Committee will be 
selected; (b) the need for scientific expertise on the Committee; (c) 
the need for clarification regarding mission, operations, and authority 
of the Committee; (d) the need for further insulation of the Committee 
from political influence; and (e) the need for a process to resolve 
conflicts between the Secretary and the Committee. The corresponding 
clarifications and changes are listed below:
    (a) The Governors of Idaho and Montana will include written 
documentation of the qualifications of each person they nominate to the 
Secretary, and these nominations must be made within 60 days following 
the request from the Secretary.
    (b) The Secretary will appoint two scientific advisors to the 
Committee as nonvoting members, to attend all meetings and provide 
scientific expertise to the Committee.
    (c) We added Mission and Operating Guidelines Statements for the 
Committee.
    (d) The Committee will implement the Bitterroot Chapter of the 
Recovery Plan in accordance with the final rule. The Committee may also 
make recommendations to land and wildlife management agencies regarding 
changes to plans and policies, but the final decision on implementation 
of those recommendations will be made by those agencies. NEPA 
requirements may apply.
    (e) The Secretary can assume lead management implementation 
responsibility from the Committee if the Secretary determines the 
Committee's decisions are not leading to recovery. The rule lays out a 
specific process for accomplishing this assumption of responsibility, 
which involves a Scientific Review Panel.
    7. We changed the rule to indicate that bears outside the 
boundaries of the Experimental Population Area will have the status of 
``threatened,'' rather than ``experimental.'' This is consistent with 
other experimental population rules.
    In addition to the key changes just discussed, we have also changed 
the language and organization of the final rule to comply with the 
principles of ``plain language.'' These changes do not affect the 
content of the rule.

Status of Reintroduced Grizzly Bears and Conclusion

    If the status of the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem is 
changed to threatened or endangered under the Act as a result of legal 
action or lawsuits, we will remove from the wild all reintroduced 
grizzly bears designated as nonessential experimental and revoke the 
pertinent regulations on the experimental population.

[[Page 69633]]

    We do not foresee any likely situation that would require us to 
change the nonessential experimental status until the grizzly bear is 
recovered and delisted in the Bitterroot ecosystem according to 
provisions outlined in the Recovery Plan.
    Based on the above information, and using the best scientific and 
commercial data available (in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find 
that reintroducing grizzly bears into the Bitterroot ecosystem will 
further the conservation and recovery of the species.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

    In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this rule is a 
significant regulatory action (see item ``d'') and has been reviewed by 
the Office of Management and Budget. Although the significance of this 
action under Executive Order 12866 is not related to economic effects, 
we have prepared an economic assessment for this special rule. The 
cost-benefit portion of this assessment is presented below. A complete 
copy of the assessment is available upon request see ADDRESSES section.
Cost-Benefit Assessment of the 10(j) Rule
    The Service proposes to undertake the reintroduction of an 
experimental population of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot ecosystem 
for three principal reasons: (1) It is the policy of the Federal 
government to recover federally protected listed species so that they 
may be removed from the protection of the Act; (2) there is no 
naturally occurring market for the conservation and reintroduction of 
federally protected species; and (3) the reintroduction is being 
proposed on land owned and operated by the Federal government.
    As explained previously, the Act requires the Federal government to 
conserve listed species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. 
Congress enacted the Act, as they do many other Acts, because of the 
need for the Federal government to correct for a market failure that 
results in resources being allocated inefficiently. Typically, public 
markets are able to allocate resources in the most efficient manner as 
long as there are no entry or exit constraints for market participants 
and no individual or group of individuals are able to influence the 
market price. The grizzly bear, however, like other wildlife, is not a 
publically traded commodity. This is because wildlife, in general, 
exhibits public good characteristics that render the benefits enjoyed 
by individuals unrivaled. In other words, because the benefits 
exhibited by the grizzly bear can be enjoyed by many individuals 
without effect on the level enjoyed by others, a ``free-rider'' problem 
exists whereby individuals who value the grizzly bear have an incentive 
to let others pay for its provision. Under these circumstances, such 
goods are typically under-supplied and require the Federal government 
to step in and correct for this social inefficiency.
    In addition to the public good characteristics of the grizzly bear, 
perhaps as compelling a case can be made in that the Federal government 
is proposing to reintroduce the grizzly bear on federally owned and 
operated land. As a land manager, the Federal government attempts to 
manage its lands in a manner that is most socially efficient. The 
grizzly bear is a large land mammal that requires a substantial amount 
of acreage to survive on its own. As a result, the Federal government 
is in a unique position to, among other things, manage its large land 
holdings to the benefit and reintroduction of the grizzly bear. As a 
large public landowner, the Federal government constantly tries to 
manage its lands in a manner that provides the greatest benefit to 
society. Through the Wilderness Act, Congress recognized a need for the 
Federal government to provide and manage some of its lands as 
wilderness due to its public good characteristics and the lack of a 
market to provide a socially optimal amount. By re-establishing the 
grizzly bear to a public wilderness, the Federal government is 
maximizing social welfare to those recipients who value true wilderness 
in the sense that the wilderness will more closely represent its 
original, primitive state.
Baseline
    The Service conducted an economic analysis for the EIS, looking at 
effects on hunter harvest, livestock depredation, land use 
restrictions, human safety, visitor use and existence values. This 
economic assessment uses some of the information used in the EIS. We 
recognize that we could have chosen to proceed with grizzly bear 
reintroduction in the Bitterroot without a new regulatory or rulemaking 
action (the alternative that provided for reintroduction with full Act 
protection), in which case we would not have needed to promulgate a 
10(j) rule. However, given our need for the public and their elected 
officials to lend their full support to efforts to recover the grizzly 
bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem, our doing so would be highly 
unlikely. Therefore, we have chosen to compare the economic effects of 
the 10(j) rule to reintroduce grizzly bears to the Bitterroot ecosystem 
to a ``no bear'' baseline (as done in the EIS), rather than a baseline 
that assumes full protection under the Act.
Economic Effects of the Rule
    The area affected by this rule consists of a limited area of mostly 
designated wilderness and surrounding lands in east central Idaho and 
western Montana, the Bitterroot ecosystem. The Bitterroot ecosystem, as 
characterized by data from 10 counties in central Idaho and 4 counties 
in western Montana, is approximately 44,419 square miles and 76% 
Federal land. As of 1996, the area had a population of about 241,000; a 
$4.6 billion local economy; 440,570 cattle and sheep (298,000 are 
grazed on national forest); approximately 274,360 ungulates, with a 
hunter harvest of 28,023; and, received approximately $13.2 million 
from recreational visits to national forests annually.
    Most of the reintroduction area is composed of remote and sparsely 
inhabited wild lands. Very few paved or unpaved roads are in the 
reintroduction area or immediately outside of it. These unpaved roads 
typically have low levels of vehicle traffic, and are constructed for 
low speeds and used only seasonally. Grizzly bears, therefore, should 
encounter vehicles and humans infrequently.
Potential Costs
    One of the potential costs of grizzly bear restoration to the 
Bitterroot ecosystem is reduced big game hunting opportunities in 
hunting units/districts in or near the Recovery Area. However, we do 
not expect grizzly bear recovery to have any significant effect on 
huntable populations of ungulates in the Bitterroot ecosystem. Using 
Mattson's (1997) estimates of average grizzly bear predation rates of 
1.4 and 5.8 ungulates per year for adult female and male bears 
respectively, a recovered population of 280 grizzly bears would be 
expected to prey upon 504 ungulates per year given a 50:50 sex ratio 
and a 50:50 adult-subadult ratio. This amount of loss would represent 
approximately 0.11% of estimated ungulate populations in the Bitterroot 
ecosystem, and would not measurably impact ungulate populations or 
hunter harvest. Of course, the impact would be significantly less until 
the population of grizzly bears is fully recovered, which is estimated 
to take 50-110 years.
    A second area of potential costs associated with grizzly bear 
restoration to the Bitterroot ecosystem is the

[[Page 69634]]

possibility of livestock depredation by the recovered grizzly 
population. Again, these costs are expected to be very low, and are 
expected to be minimal prior to full recovery of the population of 
grizzly bears in the Bitterroot ecosystem. Via a mathematical equation 
using depredation rates from the Yellowstone and Northern Continental 
Divide ecosystems in relation to total livestock in each of these 
ecosystems, we estimated that after a recovered population of 280 
grizzly bears is achieved, depredation incidents involving livestock 
would take from 4 to 8 cattle, and from 5 to 44 sheep annually. The 
calculation of lost value due to this depredation is straightforward. 
The lost value per year is equal to the estimated number of lost 
animals per year times the market value of those animals. Given the 
average value per cow of $565 and the average value per sheep of $92 
(average values as of 1996 according to Montana and Idaho Departments 
of Agricultural Statistics as cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
2000), we estimate that between $2,720 and $8,568 per year in livestock 
predation losses would occur after grizzly bears are fully recovered. 
It is possible that a private compensation program (such as exists for 
the gray wolf recovery program) will be set up to lessen the impact of 
these costs to individual ranchers. If this were the case, the impact 
of livestock losses would be shifted from the individual ranchers to 
contributors to such a fund.
    We expect that any land use restrictions due to the restoration of 
grizzly bears to the Bitterroot ecosystem would be minor and temporary, 
and would not result in lost economic value in recreational activities, 
timber harvest, or mineral extraction. This conclusion is based on the 
experience of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, a group composed 
of officials of the Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land 
Management and state wildlife offices, and responsible for coordinating 
management of grizzlies in nearby locations.
    It is expected that any land use restrictions on recreation due to 
the restoration of grizzly bears to the Bitterroot would not result in 
lost economic value. While some visitors may be inconvenienced due to 
occasional temporary trail closures, this inconvenience is unlikely to 
result in any appreciable loss of economic value as, based on 
experience in other areas where grizzly bears exist, such closures will 
be rare and use will shift to trails elsewhere. Regulations specific to 
outfitters operating within the Recovery Area and backcountry 
recreationists, including horsepackers and river rafters, may be 
promulgated at some future time requiring the use of bear-proof garbage 
and food containers and methods when in the backcountry.
    While these regulations would necessarily involve some economic 
impact to the outfitter and the public, we do not anticipate that this 
impact would be substantial in any respect. The cost of bear-proofing 
an outfitter's camp can vary depending on the method of protection 
used. For a small outfitter, slings and pulleys may run as much as $50 
to $100 dollars. For larger outfitters, electric fencing or containers 
could run $1,000 dollars. For very large outfitters with multiple camps 
the total cost could be $2,000 to $3,000. It is very unlikely that 
outfitters would reduce operations in the recovery area due to 
increased costs of bear-proof containers. Big game outfitting on USFS 
lands is allocated through special use permits. These permits are, in 
many areas, highly valued assets of the outfitter's business. It is 
unlikely that an outfitter would either abandon or underutilize their 
permit because of the cost of purchasing bearproof containers. The cost 
of the containers when amortized across the outfitter's clients over 
the life of the containers would represent a very small portion of the 
total operating expense that the outfitters face.
    Timber harvest and mineral extraction are land use activities that 
are compatible with bear recovery as long as they meet the standards 
and guidelines of the Forest Service's Forest Plans. Current Forest 
Plans for the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests outside of 
wilderness areas are adequate for grizzly bear recovery, and we do not 
anticipate that this grizzly bear reintroduction will result in an 
economic effect on current timber harvest plans or mineral extraction. 
It is anticipated that future Forest Plans will continue to manage for 
grizzly bears as the Forest Service is required by the Act to carry out 
programs for the conservation of this and other listed species, the 
Forest Service has been an active member of the Interagency Grizzly 
Bear Committee, and undeveloped lands will only become more rare and 
valuable to the continued existence of wildlife in the future.
    We examined the costs to human safety and found these to be 
relatively small. In the Bitterroot ecosystem, during the first several 
decades following reintroduction, chance of injury caused by grizzly 
bears would be exceedingly small due to the low density of bears in the 
area. Projections for human injury once bears are recovered 50-110+ 
years in the future, are less than one injury per year and 
approximately one grizzly bear-induced human mortality every few 
decades. Backcountry precautions, primarily keeping human foods away 
from bears, dramatically reduces human-grizzly bear incidents. The 
potential of encounters between people and grizzly bears is low, and 
injury rates for the Bitterroot are expected to be similar to the rates 
for areas outside of the national parks where grizzly bears exist.
    For comparison, we used human injury rates from areas with similar 
circumstances: The Northern Continental Divide ecosystem and the 
Yellowstone ecosystem outside of Glacier and Yellowstone National 
Parks, respectively. Human-bear interactions in a national park are 
much more numerous than would be expected in the remote Bitterroot 
wilderness, and the statistics are not comparable. In northwest Montana 
(outside of Glacier Park) and northern Idaho, only two bear-inflicted 
injuries (one mortality) have occurred in the last 50 years. In the Bob 
Marshall Wilderness in 1956 a hunter shot and injured a grizzly bear 
that responded by mortally injuring him. In the Mission Valley in 1985, 
a bird hunter shot and wounded a grizzly that responded by injuring 
him. In the Yellowstone ecosystem outside of Yellowstone National Park, 
there have been 22 injuries due to grizzly bears (including 3 
mortalities) within the last 159 years, for an average of one mortality 
every 53 years.
    Given that mortalities in both of these areas average one every 50 
years, and the generally accepted range of values for a human life is 
$4-10 million, cost in human mortalities is expected to average 
approximately 80,000-200,000 per year. Costs have only been monetized 
for human mortality. Human injury is also an additional potential cost, 
but was not determined for this assessment.
    A potential cost is a decrease in visitation of the area by the 
public. However, changes in visitor use are difficult to anticipate. 
While some individuals might wish to see a grizzly bear in the wild, 
others might wish to avoid the possibility of encountering one. The 
costs of decreased visitation was not estimated.
    Finally, the cost for the actual reintroduction is expected to be 
approximately $433,600 per year for the 5-year reintroduction period 
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). This includes the cost of 
capturing and transplanting bears ($90,600), monitoring and management 
of the population ($173,000), travel expenses of the Citizen Management 
Committee

[[Page 69635]]

($20,000), and initial costs for sanitation, outreach, and law 
enforcement activities by the Forest Service ($150,000). Annual costs 
for monitoring and citizen management is expected to be approximately 
$193,000 for each year beyond the 5-year reintroduction period.

        Summary of Potential Costs Associated With the 10(j) Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Potential annual cost  ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big game hunting..........................  Insignificant.
Livestock depredation.....................  2,720-8,568.\1\
Bear-proofing.............................  Not quantified as annual
                                             cost.
Timber harvest............................  Insignificant.
Mineral extraction........................  Insignificant.
Human mortality...........................  80,000-200,000.\1\
Human injury..............................  Not determined.\2\
Reduction in visitation...................  Not determined.
Costs of monitoring/management............  193,000.\3\
Total.....................................  275,720-401,568.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs expected to be significantly lower initially (approaching
  zero), reaching these amounts after 50-110 years.
\2\ Costs expected to be significantly lower initially with projections
  of one injury/year after 50-110 years.
\3\ Costs expected to be $433,632 for the initial 5 years.

Potential Benefits

    Grizzly bears are a high-profile species with interest nationwide. 
A survey of Yellowstone National Park visitors found that respondents 
ranked the grizzly bear highest among wildlife species they would most 
like to see on their trip to the park. Restoration of grizzly bears in 
the Bitterroot ecosystem would further increase national awareness of 
the presence of this species in the lower 48 States.
    Existence value is the value a person associates with the knowledge 
that a resource exists, even if that person has no plans or 
expectations of ever directly using that resource. People may hold this 
value for a number of reasons. In this case, the resource being valued 
is a recovered or recovering population of grizzly bears in the 
Bitterroot ecosystem. Since existence values potentially affect 
everyone in the country, some of these impacts fall to individuals 
outside of the Bitterroot ecosystem. Because the presence of grizzly 
bears completes both the biological component of the ecosystem and the 
wilderness experience, existence benefits are expected to result from 
the reintroduction.
    Another potential benefit is an increase in visitation of the area 
by the public. However, as stated in the ``Potential Costs'' section, 
changes in visitor use are difficult to anticipate. No monetary value 
is given to benefits from visitor use in this assessment.
Cost-Benefit Summary
    We anticipate no significant costs to land use activities on public 
or private land with regard to hunting, timber harvest, mining, or 
public access/recreational use. Annual costs associated with livestock 
depredation, equipment for outfitters to bear-proof camps, risk to 
human safety, and management and monitoring of the population of 
grizzly bears are estimated to be approximately $275,720-401,568 or 
more (depending on costs for bear-proofing by outfitters). It is 
uncertain what the net visitation impacts will be. They were not 
quantified in this assessment. Existence value benefits are expected to 
result from this rule.
    (a) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100 
million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the 
environment, or other units of government. The rule would allow 
management of grizzly bears by government agencies and the public to 
minimize conflicts over uses of public lands, effects on domestic 
animals and livestock, and impacts on ungulate populations. A Citizen 
Management Committee would be authorized to manage implementation of 
the experimental population and would be tasked with implementing the 
Bitterroot Chapter of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Reintroduction 
could result in grizzly bear recovery in the Bitterroot ecosystem 
(achievement of the tentative recovery goal of approximately 280 
grizzly bears occupying suitable habitat) in a minimum of 50 years (4% 
growth rate), although recovery would likely require more than 110 
years (2% growth rate after the bears were released.
    (b) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies' 
actions. Nonessential experimental population designations under 
section 10(j) of the Act reduces both the interagency consultation 
requirements (with other Federal agencies) and ``taking'' restrictions 
of the Act. The reintroduction of grizzly bears will occur on Federal 
public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The action allowed by 
this rulemaking is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the 
Forest Service. Because of the substantial regulatory relief provided 
by nonessential experimental population designations, we do not believe 
the reintroduction of these bears will conflict with existing or 
proposed human activities or hinder public use of the Bitterroot 
ecosystem.
    (c) This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user 
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients 
because we expect minimal impacts or restrictions to existing human 
uses of the Bitterroot ecosystem.
    (d) This rule will raise a novel policy issue. We have previously 
promulgated more than a dozen section 10(j) rules for experimental 
populations of other listed threatened and endangered species in 
various localities since 1984. However, this is the first experimental 
population rule that establishes a management process that includes a 
Citizen Management Committee. For this reason, the rule is a 
significant regulatory action in accordance with Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    We certify that this rule will not have a significant economic 
effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). We have determined that the 
small entities most likely to be affected by this rule are producers of 
domestic livestock. There are 4,327 farms within the 14 counties 
covering the Bitterroot grizzly bear primary analysis area in central 
Idaho and western Montana. As discussed above, grizzly depredation on 
domestic livestock would likely be minimal during the estimated 50-110+ 
years until the population of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot ecosystem 
is fully recovered. We estimate that after a recovered population of 
280 grizzly bears is achieved, depredation incidents involving 
livestock would be from 4 to 8 cattle and from 5 to 44 sheep per year. 
Prior to full recovery, depredation losses are expected to be below 
these estimated levels. In a worst-case situation, depredation could 
impact 52 out of 4,327 farms, which would not constitute a substantial 
number of small entities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

    In the economic analysis, we determined that designation of a 
nonessential experimental population of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot 
ecosystem will not cause: (a) Any effect on the economy of $100 million 
or more; (b) any major increases in costs or prices for consumers; 
individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or 
geographic regions; or (c) any significant adverse effects on 
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the 
ability

[[Page 69636]]

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. 
Based upon the analysis of identified factors, we have determined that 
no individual industries within the United States will be significantly 
affected, and no changes in the demography of populations are 
anticipated. The intent of this special rule is to facilitate and 
continue the existing commercial activity while providing for the 
conservation of the grizzly bear through reintroduction to suitable 
habitat.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

    We have determined and certified pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., that this final rulemaking will not 
impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or 
State governments or private entities.
    The management responsibility for the reintroduced population will 
rest with a Citizen Management Committee created by the Secretary. This 
Committee will involve local people in the management of this 
population. Travel and per diem for non-Federal members of this 
Committee and funding for the function of this Committee will come from 
the Service.

Takings

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have 
significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment 
is not required. This designation will not ``take'' private property 
and will not alter the value of private property. More than 75% of the 
area included in the nonessential experimental population area is on 
Federal lands.

Federalism

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule will not affect 
the structure or role of States and will not have direct, substantial, 
or significant effects on States. Also, our economic analysis indicates 
that considerable economic benefits would result from the designation.
    In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, the Service 
requested information from and coordinated development of the proposal 
with appropriate State resource agencies in Idaho and Montana. In 
addition, both States participated in the development of the EIS. The 
Service will continue to coordinate any future designation of 
experimental population status with the appropriate State agencies.

Civil Justice Reform

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988, we have further 
determined that this regulation does not unduly burden the judicial 
system and meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. We have made every effort to ensure 
that this final determination contains no drafting errors, provides 
clear standards, simplifies procedures, reduces burden, and is clearly 
written such that litigation risk is minimized.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

    This final rule contains collections of information requiring the 
approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq. Authorization for this information collection has been 
approved by OMB and has been assigned control number 1018-0095. The 
Service 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.

National Environmental Policy Act

    A Final EIS on the reintroduction of the grizzly bear in the 
Bitterroot ecosystem has been prepared and is available to the public 
(see ADDRESSES). The Final EIS should be referred to for analysis of 
the Preferred Alternative chosen in the Record of Decision.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have closely coordinated 
this rule with the Nez Perce Indian Tribe, which has been involved in 
development of the rule, and determined that there are no effects.

References Cited

Duda, M.D. and K.C. Young. 1995. The public and grizzly bear 
reintroduction in the Bitterroot Mountains of Central Idaho. 
Responsive Management. Harrisonburg, VA.
Kasworm, K.F. and C. Servheen. 1995. Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem grizzly 
bear and black bear research 1994 progress report. U.S. Fish and 
Wild. Service, Missoula, Mont. 57 pp.
Mattson, D.J. 1997. Use of ungulates by Yellowstone grizzly bears 
Ursus arctos. Biological Conservation 81: 161-177.
Melquist, W. 1985. A preliminary survey to determine the status of 
grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Clearwater National 
Forest of Idaho. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. 
University of Idaho, Moscow. 54 pp.
Melquist, W. 1998. Letter to Dr. Chris Servheen clarifying 
conclusions of Melquist (1985). Appendix 25 in Final Environmental 
Impact Statement on Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot 
Ecosystem.
Moore, W.R. 1984. Last of the Bitterroot grizzly. Montana Magazine 
(November-December): 8-12.
Moore, W.R. 1996. The Lochsa story. Mountain Publishing Company, 
Missoula, Montana. 461 pp.
Servheen, C., A. Hamilton, R. Knight, B. McLellan. 1991. Report of 
the technical review team: Evaluation of the Bitterroot and North 
Cascades to sustain viable grizzly bear populations. Report to the 
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
Boise, Idaho. 9 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Grizzly bear recovery plan. 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 195 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan 
(revised). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 181 
pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Bitterroot Ecosystem Recovery 
Plan Chapter--Supplement to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 27 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Grizzly bear recovery in the 
Bitterroot Ecosystem. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 
Missoula, Montana. 464 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. Proposed Rule 10(j), Proposed 
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly 
Bears in the Bitterroot Area of Idaho and Montana. Federal Register, 
Volume 62, Number 127, pages 35762--35772.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Summary of Public Comments on 
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Grizzly Bear Recovery 
in the Bitterroot Ecosystem. 211 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Grizzly Bear Recovery in the 
Bitterroot Ecosystem. Final Environmental Impact Statement. 766pp.

Author

    The principal author of this final rule is Dr. Christopher Servheen 
(see ADDRESSES section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

    Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.

Regulation Promulgation

    Accordingly, we hereby amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, 
title 50 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

[[Page 69637]]

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 section 17.11(h) by revising the table entry for ``Bear, 
grizzly (=brown)'' under ``MAMMALS'' to read as follows:


Sec. 17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Species                                                    Vertebrate
--------------------------------------------------------                        population where                                  Critical     Special
                                                            Historic range       endangered or         Status      When listed    habitat       rules
           Common name                Scientific name                              threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
Bear, grizzly (=brown)...........  Ursus arctos........  Holarctic..........  U.S.A.,              T                    1,2D,9           NA     17.40(b)
                                                                               conterminous
                                                                               (lower 48) States,
                                                                               except where
                                                                               listed as an
                                                                               experimental
                                                                               population.
Do...............................  ......do............  ......do...........  U.S.A. (portions of  XN                      706           NA     17.84(l)
                                                                               ID and MT, see
                                                                               17.84(l)).
 
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    3. Amend section 17.84 by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:


Sec. 17.84  Special rules--vertebrates.

* * * * *
    (l) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos).
    (1) Where does this special rule apply? The special rule in this 
paragraph (l) applies to the designated Bitterroot Grizzly Bear 
Experimental Population Area (Experimental Population Area), which is 
found within the species' historic range and is defined as follows:
    The boundaries of the Experimental Population Area are delineated 
by U.S. 93 from its junction with the Bitterroot River near Missoula, 
Montana, to Challis, Idaho; Idaho 75 from Challis to Stanley, Idaho; 
Idaho 21 from Stanley to Lowman, Idaho; State Highway 17 from Lowman to 
Banks, Idaho; Idaho 55 from Banks to New Meadows, Idaho; U.S. 95 from 
New Meadows to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; Interstate 90 from Coeur d'Alene, 
Idaho, to its junction with the Clark Fork River near St. Regis, 
Montana; the Clark Fork River from its junction with Interstate 90 near 
St. Regis to its confluence with the Bitterroot River near Missoula, 
Montana; and the Bitterroot River from its confluence with the Clark 
Fork River to its junction with U.S. Highway 93, near Missoula, Montana 
(See map at the end of this paragraph (l)).
    (2) What is the legal status of the grizzly bear?
    (i) The grizzly bear is listed as ``threatened'' in Sec. 17.11 (h) 
and protected under this part. However, the grizzly bear population to 
which this paragraph (l) applies is considered a nonessential 
experimental population in accordance with section 10(j) of the Act.
    (ii) We have determined that, as of December 18, 2000, no grizzly 
bear population exists in the Experimental Population Area. We find, in 
accordance with Sec. 17.81 (b), that the reintroduction of grizzly 
bears as a nonessential experimental population, as defined in 
Sec. 17.81 (b), will further the conservation of the species and will 
be consistent with provisions of section 10(j) of the Act, which 
requires that an experimental population be geographically separate 
from other nonexperimental populations of the same species. We also 
find, in accordance with Sec. 17.81 (c)(2), that the experimental 
population of grizzly bears in the Experimental Population Area is not 
essential to the survival of the species in the wild.
    (iii) Grizzly bears within the Experimental Population Area and the 
Recovery Area will be accommodated through management provisions 
provided for in this paragraph (l) and through management plans and 
policies developed by the Citizen Management Committee (Committee; see 
paragraph (l)(6) of this section). After reintroduction, every grizzly 
bear found within the Experimental Population Area will be considered a 
member of the nonessential experimental population.
    (iv) In the conterminous United States, a grizzly bear that is 
outside the Experimental Population Area identified in paragraph (l)(1) 
of this section will be considered as threatened.
    (3) Where will grizzly bears be released, and where will recovery 
be emphasized?
    The Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area identifies the area of 
recovery emphasis within the Experimental Population Area. The Recovery 
Area consists of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and the Frank Church-
River of No Return Wilderness (See map at the end of paragraph (l) of 
this section). All reintroductions will take place in the Selway-
Bitterroot Wilderness unless it is later determined that reintroduction 
in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness is appropriate. If, 
in the future, new wilderness areas are designated adjacent to the 
Recovery Area, the Committee may recommend to the Secretary their 
addition to the Recovery Area. The Secretary would have to amend this 
paragraph (l) to change the definition of the Recovery Area.
    (4) What activities are prohibited in the Experimental Population 
Area?
    (i) You may not take (see definition in Sec. 10.12 of this 
subchapter) any grizzly bear in the Experimental Population Area, 
except as provided in this paragraph (l). We may refer unauthorized 
take of grizzly bears to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    (ii) You may not possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship, 
import, or export by any means whatsoever any grizzly bear or parts 
thereof that are taken from the Experimental Population Area or 
possessed in violation of the regulations in this paragraph (l) or in 
violation of applicable State wildlife conservation laws or regulations 
or the Act.
    (iii) You may not attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or 
cause to be committed, any offense defined in this paragraph (l).
    (5) What activities are allowed in the Experimental Population 
Area?
    (i) For purposes of this paragraph (l), except for persons engaged 
in hunting or shooting activities, you will not be in

[[Page 69638]]

violation of the Act for ``unavoidable and unintentional take'' (see 
definition in paragraph (l)(16) of this section) of grizzly bears 
within the Experimental Population Area when such take is incidental to 
a legal activity and is not a result of negligent conduct lacking 
reasonable due care, and when due care was exercised to avoid the 
taking. Any taking must be reported within 24 hours to appropriate 
authorities as listed in paragraph (l)(5)(iii) of this section. Persons 
lawfully engaged in hunting or shooting activities must correctly 
identify their target before shooting in order to avoid illegally 
shooting a grizzly bear. Shooting a grizzly bear as a result of 
mistaking it for another species is considered a lack of reasonable due 
care. The act of taking a grizzly bear that is wrongly identified as 
another species may be referred to appropriate authorities for 
prosecution.
    (ii) Any person with a valid permit issued by us may take grizzly 
bears in the Experimental Population Area for scientific purposes, the 
enhancement of propagation or survival of the species, zoological 
exhibition, and other conservation purposes. Such permits must be 
consistent with the Act, with management plans adopted for the 
nonessential experimental population, and with applicable State 
wildlife conservation laws and regulations.
    (iii) You may take grizzly bears in the Experimental Population 
Area in self-defense or in defense of the lives of others. Such taking 
must be reported within 24 hours as to date, exact location, and 
circumstances to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, University 
Hall, Room 309, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812 (406-
243-4903); or the Assistant Regional Director for Law Enforcement, 
Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-
4181 (503-231-6125); or the Assistant Regional Director for Law 
Enforcement, P.O. Box 25486, DFC, Denver, Colorado 80225 (303-236-
7540); and either the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 25, 
Boise Idaho 83707 (208-334-3700); or the Montana Department of Fish, 
Wildlife and Parks, 1420 E. Sixth Avenue, Helena, Montana 59620 (406-
444-2535); and Nez Perce Tribal authorities (208-843-2253) (as 
appropriate).
    (iv) Livestock owners may obtain a permit from the Service, and the 
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Montana Department of Fish, 
Wildlife and Parks, or appropriate Tribal authorities to harass (see 
definition in Sec. 17.3) grizzly bears found in the Experimental 
Population Area that are actually pursuing or killing livestock (to 
include permitting the use of livestock guard dogs around livestock to 
harass such grizzly bears). Prior to issuance of such a permit, 
authorized State, Federal, or Tribal officials must document pursuit or 
killing of livestock. All such harassment must be accomplished by an 
opportunistic, noninjurious method (see definition of ``opportunistic, 
noninjurious harassment'' in paragraph (l)(16) of this section) to the 
grizzly bear, and such harassment must be reported within 24 hours as 
to date, exact location, and circumstances to the authorities listed 
under paragraph (l)(5)(iii) of this section.
    (v) Livestock owners may obtain a permit from the Service, and the 
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Montana Department of Fish, 
Wildlife and Parks or appropriate Tribal authorities to take grizzly 
bears on private lands found in the Experimental Population Area in a 
manner other than harassment as defined in this paragraph (l), in order 
to protect livestock actually pursued or being killed on private 
property. Prior to issuance of such a permit, authorized State, 
Federal, or Tribal officials must document pursuit or killing of 
livestock. Any response protocol established by the Committee must have 
been satisfied and efforts to capture depredating grizzly bears by 
Service or State or Tribal wildlife agency personnel must have proven 
unsuccessful. All such taking must be reported as to date, exact 
location, and circumstances within 24 hours to the authorities listed 
under paragraph (l)(5)(iii) of this section.
    (vi) Any authorized employee or agent of the Service or appropriate 
State wildlife agency or Nez Perce Tribe who is lawfully designated for 
such purposes, when acting in the course of official duties, may take a 
grizzly bear from the wild in the Experimental Population Area if such 
action is necessary to:
    (A) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned grizzly bear;
    (B) Dispose of a dead grizzly bear, or salvage a dead grizzly bear 
that may be useful for scientific study;
    (C) Take a grizzly bear that constitutes a demonstrable but 
nonimmediate threat to human safety or that is responsible for 
depredations to lawfully present domestic animals or other personal 
property, if otherwise eliminating such depredation or loss of personal 
property has not been possible, and after eliminating such threat by 
live-capturing and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed in the area 
defined in paragraph (l)(2) of this section or other areas approved by 
the Committee has been demonstrated not to be possible;
    (D) Move a grizzly bear for genetic management purposes;
    (E) Relocate grizzly bears within the Experimental Population Area 
to improve grizzly bear survival and recovery prospects; or (F) 
Relocate a grizzly bear to avoid conflict with human activities. 
However, grizzly bears in the Experimental Population Area will not be 
disturbed unless they demonstrate a real and imminent threat to human 
safety, livestock, or bees. Unless the Committee determines otherwise, 
this rule provides that on private lands outside the national forest 
boundary in the Bitterroot Valley, Montana (exclusion area), any human/
grizzly conflicts will be considered unacceptable. Grizzly bear 
occupancy will be discouraged in the exclusion area, and grizzly bears 
found there will be captured and returned to the Recovery Area, or 
placed in captivity, or destroyed, depending on the history of each 
bear. If a grizzly bear enters the exclusion area, State and Federal 
wildlife management agencies will attempt to capture it immediately and 
notify the public of its presence as soon as possible. The public will 
be kept updated until the bear is caught. Further, any grizzly bear 
that occupies inhabited human settlement areas on private land within 
the Experimental Population Area that, in the judgment of the 
management agencies or Committee, presents a clear threat to human 
safety or whose behavior indicates that it may become habituated to 
humans, will be relocated or destroyed by management agencies.
    (6) How will local citizens be involved in the management of the 
Bitterroot nonessential experimental grizzly bear population?
    (i) The Secretary will establish a Citizen Management Committee for 
the Bitterroot grizzly bear experimental population and will authorize 
management implementation responsibility as described in paragraph 
(l)(9) of this section, in consultation with the Governors of Idaho and 
Montana. As soon as possible after the effective date of this rule, the 
Secretary will organize the Committee by requesting nominations of 
citizen members from the Governors of Idaho and Montana and the Nez 
Perce Tribe and nominations of agency members by represented agencies.
    (ii) The Committee will be composed of 15 members serving 6-year 
terms. Appointments may initially be of lesser terms to ensure 
staggered replacement.
    (A) Membership will consist of seven individuals appointed by the 
Secretary based upon the recommendations of the Governor of Idaho, five 
members

[[Page 69639]]

appointed by the Secretary based upon the recommendations of the 
Governor of Montana, one member representing the Nez Perce Tribe 
appointed by the Secretary based on the recommendation of the Nez Perce 
Tribe, one member representing the Forest Service appointed by the 
Secretary of Agriculture, and one member representing the Fish and 
Wildlife Service appointed by the Secretary. Members recommended by the 
Governors of Idaho and Montana will be based on the recommendations of 
interested parties and will include at least one representative each 
from the appropriate State wildlife agencies. If either Governor or the 
Tribe fails to make recommendations within 60 days, the Secretary (or 
his/her designee) will accept recommendations from interested parties, 
and will make the appointments.
    (B) The Committee will consist of a cross-section of interests 
reflecting a balance of viewpoints, and members are to be selected for 
their diversity of knowledge and experience in natural resource issues, 
and for their commitment to collaborative decision-making. In their 
recommendations to the Secretary, the Governors of Idaho and Montana 
will attach written documentation of the qualifications of those 
nominated relating to their knowledge of, and experience in, natural 
resource issues and their commitment to collaborative decision-making.
    (C) Except for the representatives from Federal agencies, the 
Committee will be selected from communities within and adjacent to the 
Recovery and Experimental Population Areas.
    (D) The Secretary will fill vacancies as they occur with the 
appropriate members based on the recommendation of the appropriate 
Governor, the Nez Perce Tribe, or agency.
    (7) Will independent scientific information be readily available to 
the Committee?
    The Secretary will appoint two scientific advisors to the Committee 
as nonvoting members to attend all meetings of the Committee and to 
provide scientific expertise to the Committee. These scientific 
advisors will not be employed by Federal agencies involved in grizzly 
bear recovery. The Secretary will contact the Wildlife Society Chapters 
in Idaho and Montana and the Universities of Idaho and Montana for 
nominations and will select one wildlife scientist representing each 
State and appoint them as advisors to the Committee.
    (8) What is the overall mission of the Committee, and how will it 
operate?
    (i) The mission of the Committee is to facilitate recovery of the 
grizzly bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem by assisting in implementing 
the Bitterroot ecosystem chapter of the recovery plan (Bitterroot 
Ecosystem Recovery Plan Chapter--Supplement to the Grizzly Bear 
Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana, 
1996). The Committee will make recommendations to land and wildlife 
management agencies that it believes will lead to recovery of the 
grizzly bear. Decisions on, and implementation of, these 
recommendations are the responsibility of the land and wildlife 
management agencies.
    (ii) The Committee will meet a minimum of two times per year. These 
meetings will be open to the public. Additionally, the committee will 
provide reasonable public notice of meetings, produce and provide 
written minutes of meetings to interested persons, and involve the 
public in its decision-making process. This public participation 
process will allow members of the public and/or special interest groups 
to have input to Committee decisions and management actions.
    (9) What authority will the Committee have, and what will be its 
primary tasks?
    The Committee will have the authority and the responsibility to 
carry out the following functions:
    (i) Developing a process for obtaining the best biological, social, 
and economic data. This process will include an explicit mechanism for 
soliciting peer-reviewed, scientific articles on grizzly bears and 
their management, and holding periodic public meetings not less than 
every 2 years, in which qualified scientists may submit comments to and 
be questioned by the Committee. The two scientific advisors will lead 
this process. The Committee will base its decisions upon the best 
scientific and commercial data available. All decisions of the 
Committee, including components of its management plans, must lead 
toward recovery of the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem and 
minimize social and economic impacts to the extent practicable within 
the context of the existing recovery goals for the species.
    (ii) Soliciting technical advice and guidance from outside experts. 
The scientific advisors will lead the development of an ongoing process 
to provide the Committee with the best scientific and commercial data 
available. The scientific advisors will provide this information in the 
form of peer-reviewed scientific articles on grizzly bears and their 
management, Committee meetings with presentations by scientific 
experts, and requests to State and Federal management agencies and the 
private sector for scientific expertise and advice.
    (iii) Implementing the Bitterroot Ecosystem Chapter of the Grizzly 
Bear Recovery Plan consistent with this paragraph (l). The Committee 
will develop recommendations on existing management plans and policies 
of land and wildlife management agencies, as necessary, for the 
management of grizzly bears in the Experimental Population Area. The 
Committee will make recommendations to land and wildlife management 
agencies regarding changes to plans and policies, but the final 
decision on implementation of those recommendations will be made by 
those agencies. If Committee recommendations require significant 
changes to existing plans and policy, and the agencies tentatively 
agree to accept those recommendations, then the requirements of the 
National Environmental Policy Act may apply. Such management plans and 
policies will be in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws. 
The Committee will give full consideration to Service comments and 
opinions and those of the Forest Service, Idaho Department of Fish and 
Game, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and the Nez 
Perce Tribe.
    (iv) Providing means by which the public may participate in, 
review, and comment on the decisions of the Committee. The Committee 
must thoroughly consider and respond to public input prior to making 
decisions.
    (v) Developing its internal processes, where appropriate, such as 
governance, decision-making, quorum, terms of members, officers, 
meeting schedules and location, public notice of meetings, and minutes.
    (vi) Requesting staff support from the Service, the Idaho 
Department of Fish and Game, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and 
Parks, Forest Service, other affected Federal agencies, and the Nez 
Perce Tribe, when necessary to perform administrative functions, and 
requesting reimbursement from us for non-Federal Committee members for 
costs associated with travel, lodging, and incidentals.
    (vii) Reviewing existing grizzly bear standards and guidelines used 
by the Forest Service and other agencies and landowners. The Committee 
will perform an annual review of grizzly bear mortalities and the 
number and location of bear/human conflicts. This review will be the 
primary mechanism to assess the adequacy of existing management 
techniques and standards. If the

[[Page 69640]]

Committee deems such standards and guidelines inadequate for recovery 
of grizzly bears, the Committee may recommend changes to the Forest 
Service and other agencies and landowners.
    (viii) Developing grizzly bear guidance for proper camping and 
sanitation within the Experimental Population Area and making 
recommendations to land management agencies for adoption of such 
guidelines. Existing camping and sanitation procedures developed in 
other ecosystems with grizzly bears will serve as a basis for such 
guidelines.
    (ix) Developing a protocol for responding to grizzly/human 
encounters, livestock depredations, damage to lawfully present 
property, and other grizzly/human conflicts within the Experimental 
Population Area. Any response protocol developed by the Committee will 
have to undergo public comment and be revised as appropriate based on 
comments received. Any conflicts or mortalities associated with these 
activities will result in review by the Committee to determine what the 
Committee may do to help prevent future conflicts or mortalities. The 
Committee will recommend, as necessary, policy changes on trail 
restrictions for human safety to appropriate wildlife and land 
management agencies.
    (x) Recommending to the Service changes to recovery criteria, 
including mortality limits, population determinations, and other 
criteria for recovery as appropriate.
    (xi) Reviewing all human-caused grizzly bear mortalities to 
determine whether new measures for avoiding future occurrences are 
required and make recommendations on such measures to appropriate land 
and wildlife management agencies. If grizzly bear mortalities occur as 
a result of black bear hunting, the Committee will work with the State 
Fish and Game Departments in both Idaho and Montana to develop 
solutions to minimize the effects on grizzly bears of black bear 
hunting.
    (xii) Developing strategies to emphasize recovery inside the 
Recovery Area and to accommodate grizzly bears inside other areas of 
the Experimental Population Area.
    (A) Grizzly bears may range outside the Recovery Area because 
grizzly bear habitat exists throughout the Experimental Population 
Area. The Committee will not recommend that bears be disturbed or moved 
unless conflicts are both significant and cannot be corrected as 
determined by the Committee. This provision includes conflicts 
associated with livestock, for which the Committee will develop 
strategies to discourage grizzly bear occupancy in portions of the 
Experimental Population Area outside of the Recovery Area.
    (B) Unless the Committee determines otherwise, this rule provides 
that private land outside the national forest boundary in the 
Bitterroot Valley, Montana (exclusion area), is an area where any 
human/grizzly conflicts will be considered unacceptable. Grizzly bear 
occupancy will be discouraged in these areas, and grizzly bears will be 
captured and returned to the Recovery Area. If a grizzly bear enters 
the exclusion area, State and Federal wildlife management agencies will 
attempt to capture it immediately and notify the public of its presence 
as soon as possible. The public will be kept updated until the bear is 
caught. Further, any grizzly bear that occupies the exclusion area or 
other inhabited human settlement areas on private land within the 
Experimental Population Area that, in the judgment of the management 
agencies or Committee, presents a clear threat to human safety or whose 
behavior indicates that it may become habituated to humans, will be 
relocated or destroyed by management agencies.
    (xiii) Establishing standards for determining whether the 
experimental reintroduction has been successful and making 
recommendations on the inclusion of such standards in the Grizzly Bear 
Recovery Plan. These standards will be based on the best scientific and 
commercial information available and will reflect that, absent 
extraordinary circumstances, the success or failure of the program 
cannot be measured in fewer than 20 years. General guidelines for the 
standards by which failure will be measured include, but are not 
limited to, one or more of the following conditions:
    (A) If, within the number of years established by the Committee 
following initial reintroduction, no relocated grizzly bear remains 
within the Experimental Population Area and the reasons for emigration 
or mortality cannot be identified and/or remedied; or
    (B) If, within the number of years established by the Committee 
following initial reintroduction, no cubs of the year or yearlings 
exist and the relocated bears are not showing signs of successful 
reproduction as evidenced by no cubs of the year or yearlings.
    (xiv) Developing procedures for the expeditious issuance of permits 
described in paragraphs (l)(5)(iv) and (l)(5)(v) of this section, and 
making recommendations on such procedures to appropriate agencies.
    (xv) Developing 2-year work plans for the recovery effort for 
submittal to the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (l)(11)(i) of this 
section.
    (xvi) Establishing, based on the best available science, a refined 
interim recovery goal for the Bitterroot Ecosystem Chapter of the 
Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and a final recovery goal when sufficient 
information is available and after grizzly bears are reintroduced and 
occupy suitable habitats in the Experimental Population Area. As this 
information becomes available, the Committee may recommend the recovery 
goal to the Secretary along with procedures for determining how this 
goal will be measured. The recovery goal for the Bitterroot grizzly 
bear population will be consistent with the habitat available within 
the Recovery Area. Additional adjacent areas of public land can be 
considered for contribution of suitable habitat when setting the 
recovery goal if additional land is shown to be necessary by the best 
scientific and commercial data available. Any recommendations for 
revised recovery goals developed by the Committee will require public 
review and our approval as appropriate prior to revision of any 
recovery plan. Grizzly bears outside the Recovery Area and within the 
Experimental Population Area can contribute to meeting the recovery 
goal if their long-term occupancy in such habitats outside the Recovery 
Area is reasonably certain.
    (10) What agencies will be responsible for day-to-day management 
activities?
    The Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Montana Department of 
Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Forest Service, 
in coordination with us, will exercise day-to-day management 
responsibility within the Experimental Population Area in accordance 
with this paragaraph (l). The Service and these cooperating agencies 
will share management responsibility as per agreements with, and in 
consideration of, recommendations from the Committee.
    (11) How will progress of the Committee be monitored; and what 
process will be followed by the Secretary to resolve disputes over 
whether Committee actions are leading to recovery?
    (i) The Secretary or our representative on the Committee will 
review the Committee's 2-year work plans (see paragraph (l)(9)(xv) of 
this section). If the Secretary determines, through our representative 
on the Committee, that the Committee's decisions, work plans, or the 
implementation of those plans are

[[Page 69641]]

not leading to the recovery of the grizzly bear within the Experimental 
Population Area or are not in compliance with this paragraph (l), our 
representative will ask the Committee to determine whether such a 
decision, plan, or implementation of a plan is leading to recovery and 
is in compliance with this paragraph (l). The Secretary, who retains 
final responsibility and authority for implementation of the Act, will 
review the Committee's determination, as provided in paragraphs 
(l)(11)(ii) through (iv) of this section, and then make a final 
determination. Should the Secretary find that a decision, work plan, or 
implementation of a plan by the Committee is inadequate for recovery of 
the grizzly bear or is not in compliance with this paragraph (l), the 
Secretary may assume lead management responsibility.
    (ii) The Service representative will consider Committee input 
before making any determination that Committee actions are not leading 
to recovery or are not in compliance with this paragraph (l). In the 
event that our representative on the Committee determines that the 
actions of the Committee are not leading to recovery of the Bitterroot 
grizzly bear population or are not in compliance with this paragraph 
(l), he or she will recommend to the Committee, based on the best 
scientific and commercial data available, alternative or corrective 
actions and provide 6 months for the Committee to accomplish those 
actions. Should the Committee reject these corrective actions, our 
representative will convene a Scientific Review Panel of three and will 
submit to the panel for review those Committee actions or decisions 
that he or she has determined are not leading to recovery or are not in 
compliance with this paragrpah (l). The Service representative will 
consider the views of all Committee members prior to convening a 
Scientific Review Panel.
    (iii) Members of the Scientific Review Panel will be professional 
scientists who have had no involvement with the Committee and are not 
employed by Federal agencies responsible for grizzly bear recovery 
efforts. The Secretary will select one member of the panel, and the 
Governors of Idaho and Montana in consultation with the Universities of 
Idaho and Montana (respectively), will select one panel member each. 
The Scientific Review Panel will review Committee actions or decisions, 
solicit additional information if necessary and, using the best 
scientific and commercial data available, make timely recommendations 
to the Committee as to whether Committee actions will lead to recovery 
of the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem and are in compliance 
with paragraph (l). Examples of Committee actions, decisions, or lack 
of actions that can be submitted to the Scientific Review Panel 
include, but are not limited to, the following: sufficiency of public 
involvement in Committee activities; decisions involving sanitation and 
outreach activities; management of nuisance bears; adequacy of 
recommendations to land and wildlife management agencies; adequacy of 
Committee actions in addressing issues such as excessive human-caused 
grizzly bear mortality; and other actions important to recovery of the 
grizzly bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem. Committee compliance with 
paragraph (l) provides the basis for the recommendations of the 
Scientific Review Panel.
    (iv) If, after timely review, the Committee rejects the 
recommendations of the Scientific Review Panel, and our representative 
determines that Committee actions are not leading to recovery of the 
Bitterroot population, he or she will notify the Secretary. The 
Secretary will review the Panel's recommendations and determine the 
disposition of the Committee.
    (A) If the Secretary determines that the Committee should maintain 
lead management responsibility, the Committee will continue to operate 
according to the provisions of this paragraph (l) until the recovery 
objectives under paragraph (l)(9)(xvi) of this section or the 
Bitterroot Ecosystem Chapter of the Recovery Plan have been met and the 
Secretary has completed delisting.
    (B) If the Secretary decides to assume lead management 
responsibility, the Secretary will consult with the Governors of Idaho 
and Montana regarding that decision and further attempt to resolve the 
disagreement. If, after such consultation, the Secretary assumes lead 
management responsibility, the Secretary will publish a notice in the 
Federal Register explaining the rationale for the determination and 
notify the Governors of Idaho and Montana. The Committee will disband, 
and all requirements identified in this paragraph (l) regarding the 
Committee will be nullified.
    (12) How will the Bitterroot grizzly bear population be monitored?
    The reintroduced population will be monitored closely by Federal 
and State agencies in cooperation with the Committee for the duration 
of the recovery process, generally by use of radio telemetry as 
appropriate.
    (13) How will success or failure of the project be evaluated?
    The status of Bitterroot grizzly bear recovery will be reevaluated 
separately by the Committee and by the Secretary at 5-year intervals. 
This review will take into account the reproductive success of the 
grizzly bears released, human-caused mortality, movement patterns of 
individual bears, food habits, and overall health of the population and 
will recommend changes and improvements in the recovery program. 
Evaluating these parameters will assist in determining success or 
failure of the restoration.
    (14) What process will be followed if the Secretary determines the 
project has failed?
    (i) If, based on the criteria established by the Committee, the 
Secretary, after consultation with the Committee, the Governors of 
Idaho and Montana, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Montana 
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and the Nez Perce Tribe, 
determines that the reintroduction has failed to produce a self-
sustaining population, this paragraph (l) will not be used to 
reintroduce additional bears. Any remaining bears will retain their 
experimental status.
    (ii) Prior to declaring the experimental reintroduction a failure, 
we will investigate the probable causes of the failure. If the causes 
can be determined, and legal and reasonable remedial measures 
identified and implemented, we will consider continuing the recovery 
effort and maintaining the relocated population. If such reasonable 
measures cannot be identified and implemented, we will publish the 
results of our evaluation in the Federal Register in a proposed 
rulemaking to terminate the authority for additional experimental 
grizzly bear reintroductions in the Bitterroot ecosystem.
    (15) Will the legal status of grizzly bears in the Experimental 
Population Area change?
    We do not intend to change the ``nonessential experimental'' 
designation to ``essential experimental,'' ``threatened,'' or 
``endangered'' and foresee no likely situation that would result in 
such changes. Critical habitat cannot be designated under the 
nonessential experimental classification, 16 U.S.C. 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii).
    (16) What are the definitions of key terms used in the special rule 
in this paragraph (l)?
    In addition to terms defined in Sec. 10.12 and 17.3 of this 
subchapter, the following terms apply to this paragraph (l):
    Accommodate means allowing grizzly bears that move outside the 
Recovery Area onto public land in the

[[Page 69642]]

Experimental Population Area to remain undisturbed unless they 
demonstrate a real and imminent threat to human safety or livestock.
    Citizen Management Committee (Committee) means that Committee 
described in paragraph (l)(6) of this section.
    Current range means the area inside or within 10 miles of the 
recovery zone line of currently occupied grizzly bear recovery zones or 
any area where there is a grizzly bear population, as defined in this 
paragraph (l)(16).
    Exclusion area (Bitterroot Valley) means those private lands in 
Montana lying within the Bitterroot Experimental Population Area in the 
Bitterroot Valley outside the Bitterroot National Forest boundary south 
of U.S. Highway 12 to Lost Trail Pass and west of Highway 93.
    Experimental Population Area (Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Experimental 
Population Area) means that area delineated in paragraph (l)(1) of this 
section within which management plans developed as part of the 
Committee described in paragraph (l)(9) of this section will be in 
effect. This area includes the Recovery Area. The Experimental 
Population Area is within the historic range of the grizzly bear, but 
geographically separate from the current range of the grizzly bear.
    Geographically separate means separated by more than 10 miles. The 
term refers to ``wholly separate geographically'' in section 10(j)(2) 
of the Act. The Experimental Population Area and the recovery zone 
boundary of any existing grizzly bear population must be geographically 
separate.
    Grizzly bear population is defined by verified evidence within the 
previous 6 years which consists of photos within the area, verified 
tracks, or sightings by reputable scientists or agency personnel of at 
least two different female grizzly bears with young or one female with 
different litters in 2 different years in an area geographically 
separate from other grizzly bear populations. Verifiable evidence of 
females with young, to be geographically separate, would have to occur 
greater than 10 miles from the nearest nonexperimental grizzly bear 
population recovery zone boundary.
    Opportunistic, noninjurious harassment means harassment (see 
definition of ``harass'' in Sec. 17.3) that occurs when the grizzly 
bear presents itself (for example, the bear travels onto and is 
observed on private land or near livestock). This paragraph (l) permits 
only this type of harassment. You cannot track, attract, search out, or 
chase a grizzly bear and then harass it. Any harassment must not cause 
bodily injury or death to the grizzly bear. The intent of harassment 
permitted by this definitioin is to scare bears away from the immediate 
area.
    Recovery Area (Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area) means the 
area of recovery emphasis within the Experimental Population Area, and 
is delineated in paragraph (l)(2) of this section. This area consists 
of the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness 
areas. The Recovery Area is within the historic range of the species.
    Recovery emphasis means grizzly bear management decisions in the 
Recovery Area will favor bear recovery so that this area can serve as 
core habitat for survival, reproduction, and dispersal of the 
recovering population. Reintroduction of grizzly bears is planned to 
occur within the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness portion of the Recovery 
Area unless it is later determined that reintroduction in the Frank 
Church-River of No Return Wilderness is appropriate.
    Unavoidable and unintentional take means accidental, unintentional 
take (see definition of take in Sec. 10.12 of this subchapter) that 
occurs despite reasonable care, is incidental to an otherwise lawful 
activity, and is not done on purpose. An example would be striking a 
grizzly bear with an automobile. Taking a grizzly bear by shooting will 
not be considered unavoidable and unintentional take. Shooters have the 
responsibility to be sure of their targets.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 69643]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17NO00.008


    Dated: November 14, 2000.
Kenneth L. Smith,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-29530 Filed 11-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C`