69624 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 ChurchRiver 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

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

69626 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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, SelwayBitterroot, 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 ChurchRiver of No Return Wilderness is

appropriate. We will identify specific

release sites that have high-quality bear

habitat and low likelihood of human

encounters.

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

69628 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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-squaremile 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 highquality 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 SelwayBitterroot Wilderness Area. The

Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area

(Recovery Area) consists of the SelwayBitterroot 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.

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

69630 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

69632 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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.

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

69634 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

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

69636 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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:

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

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened

wildlife.

* * * * *

(h) * * *

Species

Historic range

Vertebrate population

where endangered or

threatened

Status When listed Critical

habitat

Special

rules Common name Scientific name

MAMMALS

*******

Bear, grizzly

(=brown).

Ursus arctos ........ Holarctic .............. U.S.A., conterminous

(lower 48) States, except

where listed as an experimental population.

T 1,2D,9 NA 17.40(b)

Do ........................ ......do .................. ......do .................. U.S.A. (portions of ID and

MT, see 17.84(l)).

XN 706 NA 17.84(l)

*******

3. Amend section 17.84 by adding

paragraph (l) to read as follows:

§ 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 § 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 § 17.81 (b), that the reintroduction

of grizzly bears as a nonessential

experimental population, as defined in

§ 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 § 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

§ 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

69638 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 selfdefense 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

§ 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 livecapturing 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

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

(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 peerreviewed, 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

69640 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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

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

69642 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 § 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 ChurchRiver 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 SelwayBitterroot 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 § 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 69643

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