69644 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Record of Decision Concerning Grizzly

Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot

Ecosystem

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)

issues this Record of Decision (ROD)

and Statement of Findings upon

consideration of the Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

for the Recovery of the Grizzly Bear in

the Bitterroot Ecosystem.

The Service has considered

alternatives and evaluated their impacts

for the recovery of the grizzly bear

(Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Bitterroot

Ecosystem of east central Idaho and

western Montana as presented in the

FEIS. We have solicited public and

agency comments and considered these

comments in the NEPA process and in

making our decision. Based on that

evaluation and review, the Service has

decided to implement the Proposed

Action Alternative as described in the

FEIS. This determination was based on

a thorough analysis of environmental,

social, economic, and other

considerations.

ADDRESSES: Additional copies of this

ROD may be requested from Dr.

Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear

Recovery Coordinator, Bitterroot Grizzly

Bear FEIS, P.O. Box 5127, Missoula,

Montana 59806, or e-mail

‘‘fw6_bitterroot@fws.gov.’’ The

document also is available for viewing

and downloading at ‘‘http://

www.r6.fws.gov/endspp/grizzly/.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear

Recovery Coordinator, at the above

address, or telephone (406) 243–4903.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The intent of this action is to recover

the threatened grizzly bear in the

Bitterroot Ecosystem. Grizzly bears are a

part of America’s rich wildlife heritage

and once ranged throughout most of the

western United States. However,

distribution and population levels of

this species have been diminished by

excessive human-caused mortality and

loss of habitat. Today, only 1,000 to

1,100 grizzly bears remain in a few

populations in Montana (Northern

Continental Divide, Yellowstone, and

Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystems), Idaho

(Yellowstone, Cabinet-Yaak, and Selkirk

Ecosystems), Wyoming (Yellowstone

Ecosystem), and Washington (Selkirk

and North Cascades Ecosystems).

Wildlife species, like grizzly bear, are

most vulnerable when confined to small

portions of their historical range and

limited to a few, small populations.

Expansion of the range of the species

will increase the number of bears within

the lower 48 United States, increase

habitat size and extent, and further

conservation of the species.

The Bitterroot Ecosystem is one of the

largest contiguous blocks of Federal

land remaining in the lower 48 United

States. The core of the ecosystem

contains two wilderness areas which

comprise the largest block of wilderness

habitat in the Rocky Mountains south of

Canada. Of all remaining unoccupied

grizzly bear habitat in the lower 48

States, this area in the Bitterroot

Mountains has the best potential for

grizzly bear recovery, primarily due to

the large wilderness area. As such, the

Bitterroot Ecosystem offers excellent

potential to support a healthy

population of grizzly bears and to boost

long-term survival and recovery

prospects for this species in the

contiguous United States.

The Selected Alternative

The Selected Alternative is the

Proposed Action as described in the

FEIS. The purpose of this alternative is

to restore grizzly bears to central Idaho,

designate this population as

‘‘nonessential experimental,’’ and

implement provisions within sections 4

and 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act

(ESA) to conduct special management to

address local concerns. A Citizen

Management Committee (CMC) will be

tasked with management

implementation responsibilities for the

Bitterroot grizzly bear experimental

population. The ‘‘experimental

population’’ designation gives the

Service the flexibility to promulgate a

special rule that applies only to the

reintroduced population. Protections

established by the special rule can thus

be tailored to specific areas and specific

local conditions. Because these

reintroduced grizzly bears will be

classified as an experimental

population, the Service can institute

management practices that address local

concerns about excessive government

regulation on private lands,

uncontrolled livestock depredation,

excessive big game predation, and lack

of State government and local citizen

involvement in the program. The

Service considers this a ‘‘nonessential’’

experimental population because

several additional populations exist

within the 48 conterminous United

States and, as such, its loss would not

be likely to appreciably reduce the

likelihood of the survival of the species

in the wild.

The Bitterroot Grizzly Bear

Experimental Population Area

(Experimental Population Area), which

includes most of central Idaho and part

of western Montana, will be established

by the Service under authority of

section 10(j) of the ESA. The

Experimental Population Area

encompasses approximately 25,140

square miles. This 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. The best scientific evidence

available indicates there are no grizzly

bears in the Experimental Population

Area at this time. Ongoing grizzly bear

monitoring efforts will continue.

The Service will designate a Bitterroot

Grizzly Bear Recovery Area (Recovery

Area) to consist of the Selway-Bitterroot

Wilderness and the Frank Church-River

of No Return Wilderness. The Recovery

Area, a portion of the Experimental

Population Area, encompasses

approximately 5,785 square miles. The

Recovery Area is the area of recovery

emphasis. This means grizzly bear

management decisions in the Recovery

Area will favor bear recovery, allowing

this area to serve as core habitat for

survival, reproduction, and dispersal of

the recovering population.

During the first few months of

implementation a CMC will be formed.

The CMC will be tasked with

management implementation

responsibilities by the Secretary of the

Department of the Interior, in

consultation with the governors of Idaho

and Montana, for the Bitterroot grizzly

bear nonessential experimental

population. The CMC will be comprised

of local citizens and agency

representatives from Federal and State

agencies and the Nez Perce Tribe. Two

scientific advisors will be appointed by

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Notices 69645

the Secretary to the CMC as non-voting

members, to attend all meetings and

provide scientific expertise to the CMC.

The CMC will be responsible for

recommending changes in land-use

standards and guidelines as necessary

for grizzly bear management.

Recommendations made by the CMC to

land and wildlife management agencies

will be subject to review and final

decisions on implementation will be

made by the responsible agency. All

decisions of the CMC including

components of its management plans

must lead toward recovery of the grizzly

bear and minimize social and economic

impacts to the extent practicable within

the context of the existing recovery

goals for the species. Grizzly bear

management will allow for resource

extraction activities to continue.

Subject to availability of funding,

grizzly bears will be reintroduced into

the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness

portion of the Recovery Area during the

second year of implementation. Specific

reintroduction sites will be identified by

the land and wildlife management

agencies and the CMC. The Service, in

coordination with the Forest Service,

States of Idaho and Montana, Nez Perce

Tribe, and the CMC will release a

minimum of 25 grizzly bears into the

Recovery Area over a period of 5 years.

In order to increase the probability of

survival of the initial bears, we will

consider accelerating the release of the

bears in the first few years, as

appropriate, and in coordination with

the CMC. The origin of bears for

placement will include areas more than

10 miles beyond existing recovery zone

lines in the Yellowstone and Northern

Continental Divide Ecosystems, and

British Columbia and Alaska

(nonsalmon-eating bears), as

appropriate. Bears will be removed from

source populations only if there is no

significant impact to population health

or recovery. This release will be no

sooner than 1 year after initiation of

formation of the CMC and initiation of

sanitation and information efforts.

Bears moving outside the Recovery

Area will be accommodated through

management provisions in a final

Special Rule and through

recommendations on land and wildlife

management plans and policies

developed by the CMC, unless potential

conflicts are significant and cannot be

corrected. The term ‘‘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 threat to human

safety or livestock.

People can continue to kill grizzly

bears in self-defense or in defense of

others, provided that such taking is

reported within 24 hours to appropriate

authorities. Grizzly bears will be

managed according to existing grizzly

bear guidelines, except in the case of

grizzly bears on private land that are

killing livestock and could not be

captured by management authorities. In

such cases, landowners will be issued a

permit by the Service and the Idaho

Fish and Game Department, or the

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife,

and Parks, or appropriate Tribal

authorities. Following issuance of a

permit by the Service and the Idaho

Fish and Game Department, or the

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife,

and Parks, or appropriate Tribal

authorities, the permittee will be

allowed to harass, through noninjurious

means, a grizzly bear attacking livestock

(cattle, sheep, horses, and mules) or

bees. A livestock owner may be issued

a permit to kill a grizzly bear killing or

pursuing livestock on private lands if it

has not been possible to capture such a

bear or deter depredations through

agency efforts. If significant conflicts

occur between grizzly bears and

livestock within the Experimental

Population Area outside of the Recovery

Area, these can be resolved in favor of

the livestock by agencies capturing or

eliminating the bear, depending on the

circumstances. There will be no Federal

compensation program for livestock

losses, but compensation from existing

private funding sources will be

encouraged.

It is anticipated that ongoing animal

damage control activities will not be

affected by grizzly bear recovery.

Animal control toxicants lethal to bears

are not used on public lands within the

Recovery Area and the Experimental

Population Area. Any conflicts or

mortalities associated with these

activities will result in a review by the

CMC, and any necessary changes will be

recommended by the CMC.

The selected alternative will be

implemented as an overlapping staged

process. The initial stage will be

formation of the CMC. The second stage

will be simultaneous with CMC

formation and will include efforts to

decrease the availability of humanrelated foods to wildlife by increasing

the availability of bear-proof garbage

storage containers in campgrounds and

facilities in and around the Recovery

Area. The sanitation program will

include efforts by the Forest Service,

permittees, and private landowners in

and around the Recovery Area. The

second stage also will include an

enhanced information effort to inform

people who recreate in the area how to

minimize their chances of encountering

bears. Public education efforts will

include—presentations at schools in

and around the Recovery Area to teach

children about grizzly bears and how to

recreate safely in grizzly bear country;

presentations to all civic clubs and

interested organizations about grizzly

bears and how to recreate safely in

grizzly bear country; and placing of

informative signs at all trail heads in

and around the Recovery Area. The

third stage will be placement of bears,

which will begin after the CMC has been

established and the sanitation and

information programs have begun.

The selected alternative represents the

environmentally preferable alternative

which balances the biological needs of

recovering grizzly bears and public

concerns about the potential

management of non-experimental

grizzly bear populations under the ESA.

Establishment of the nonessential

experimental population as proposed

under this alternative will require

promulgation of a final special rule.

This alternative offers the most efficient

and realistic plan to result in the

recovery of grizzly bears in the

Bitterroot Ecosystem, given concerns of

local residents over grizzly bear

restoration. The nonessential

experimental population designation

under section 10(j) of the ESA will

allow for flexible and responsive

management to minimize the potential

negative impacts of grizzly bears to

private property, big game populations,

other listed or sensitive species, and

other natural resource programs on

private and public lands. The CMC will

be tasked with management

responsibilities for this grizzly bear

population to address local concerns.

In order to implement the Proposed

Action Alternative in the FEIS, the

Service is required to publish a

regulation to establish a nonessential

experimental population of grizzly

bears. When such a special rule

establishing the experimental

population is promulgated, the Service

will administer the regulation in the

manner described in the FEIS and this

ROD. This will require cooperation with

and by other agencies within the

Department of the Interior, including

but not limited to the Bureau of Land

Management and the Bureau of Indian

Affairs, and the Department of

Agriculture, including but not limited to

the Forest Service and Wildlife Services.

The Service also will cooperate with the

States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana,

the Nez Perce and other potentially

affected Indian Tribes, and various other

69646 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Notices

individuals within the United States

and Canadian governments.

Implementation of this decision is

contingent upon the Service receiving

adequate appropriations, so that the

current level of funding for Service

activities in other grizzly bear recovery

areas will not be compromised.

Other Alternatives Considered

Other than the proposed action, the

major alternatives considered and

evaluated were:

Alternative 1A. Restoration of Grizzly

Bears as a Nonessential Experimental

Population with Service Management

Alternative. Grizzly bears would be

reintroduced to central Idaho and

designated as a nonessential

experimental population. The Service

would manage this grizzly bear

population under provisions of section

10(j) of the ESA to address local

concerns. The nonessential

experimental designation would allow

flexibility in the Service management of

the population such that negative

impacts to private property, big game

populations, other listed species, and

other natural resource programs on

private and public lands could be

minimized. However, this alternative

does not address one of the most

substantive issues from public comment

on the proposal—the issue of necessity

for local control and input into resource

management decisions affecting local

citizens. Given the contentious nature of

this proposal, and the local opposition

to Federal management actions, the

Service believes the probability of

successfully recovering grizzly bears in

the Bitterroot Ecosystem will be

maximized by actively involving local

citizens in management of the restored

population.

Alternative 2. The No Action

Alternative—Natural Recovery. This

alternative describes the implications of

current management activities,

assuming these will continue over the

next 50+ years. A description of this

course of no action provides a reference

point to compare and evaluate

environmental consequences associated

with other alternative plans. The overall

environmental effects of taking no

action would likely result in no

recovery of grizzly bears in the

Bitterroot Ecosystem, although it may

result in grizzly bear repopulation in

100–160 years. Given existing

information, it is very unlikely that

grizzly bears would disperse from

currently occupied areas and

successfully repopulate the Bitterroot

Ecosystem naturally. If grizzly bears did

disperse to the Bitterroot Ecosystem

they would be protected as threatened

under the ESA. This would result in less

management flexibility for the Service

to resolve local concerns about land use

restrictions on public land, predation on

big game herds and potential loss of

hunting opportunity, and livestock

depredation.

Alternative 3. The No Grizzly Bear

Alternative. This alternative would

prevent grizzly bear recovery in the

Bitterroot Ecosystem by changing

current laws and allowing unrestricted

take of grizzly bears by the public. This

alternative would prohibit restoration of

the currently missing native grizzly bear

from the largest block of wilderness

habitat in the Rocky Mountains south of

Canada. Under this alternative, the

potential contribution of an additional

population of grizzly bears to the

recovery effort in the conterminous

United States would never be realized.

Also, none of the economic and social

benefits or costs associated with the

presence of a restored grizzly bear

population would occur. This

alternative would require new

legislation by Congress to change the

ESA, and legislation by the States of

Idaho and Montana to change State laws

that protect grizzly bears in the

Bitterroot Ecosystem.

Alternative 4. Restoration of Grizzly

Bears as a Threatened Population with

Full Protection of the ESA and Habitat

Restoration Alternative. This alternative

would achieve recovery through

reintroduction of a threatened

population of grizzly bears and

extensive habitat protection and

enhancement to promote natural

recovery. Primary grizzly bear

management responsibility would

reside with the Service and include

active participation by the States and

the Nez Perce Tribe. A 10-member

Scientific Committee would be

established to perform additional

research, implement reintroduction of

bears, and monitor results of the

program. Certain actions in this

alternative, such as the road

management plan to obliterate a large

number of roads to achieve a road

density of 0.25 mile/square mile and the

elimination of timber harvest in all

roadless areas, are not necessary actions

to achieve grizzly bear recovery, and

thus decrease the efficiency with which

this alternative could achieve recovery

in the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Also,

reintroduction of a threatened

population would allow less

management flexibility to address local

concerns about livestock depredation,

restrictions to natural resource programs

on public and private lands, and

impacts to other wildlife species. Based

on numerous public comments on this

proposal, the Service believes the

probability of successfully recovering

grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Ecosystem

will be maximized by actively involving

local citizens in management of the

restored population

Alternative 4A. Restoration of Grizzly

Bears as a Threatened Population with

Full Protection of the ESA and Service

Management Alternative. This

alternative would achieve recovery

through reintroduction of a threatened

population of grizzly bears with the

Service managing recovery of the

population. Other Federal and State

agencies and the Nez Perce Tribe would

assist the Service with management

activities. A 10-member Scientific

Advisory Committee would be

appointed to make recommendations

regarding research needs and strategies

for reintroduction and monitoring of

grizzly bears. Reintroduction of a

threatened population would allow less

management flexibility to address local

concerns about livestock depredation,

restrictions to natural resource programs

on public and private lands, and

impacts to other wildlife species.

Minimization of Impacts

Possible project impacts and public

concerns, and methods to be used to

mitigate those impacts and concerns

were addressed as follows:

(1) Lack of local public involvement

in the management of the reintroduced

species was addressed by development

of the CMC concept;

(2) Lack of sufficient scientific input

was addressed by adding two scientific

advisors to the CMC to be nominated by

the Universities of Idaho and Montana,

and requiring the CMC to use the best

available science in decision-making;

(3) Public safety on private lands in

the Bitterroot Valley, Montana, was

addressed by making these private lands

an exclusion zone where any grizzly

bear would be immediately captured

and relocated into the wilderness or

destroyed if necessary;

(4) Possibility of political interference

from the Secretary of the Department of

the Interior on the CMC was addressed

by establishing a scientific review panel

that would be formed if the Service

representative determined (after

consultation with the CMC) that the

CMC was not making decisions that

would lead to recovery;

(5) Concern about removal of bears

from existing threatened populations

was addressed by clarifying that bears

will not be removed from within the

United States grizzly bear recovery

zones or within 10 miles of bear

recovery zones so as to not remove any

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Notices 69647

bears from these core areas for any listed

population;

(6) Concern that the CMC would make

land management decisions on public

lands was addressed by clarifying that

the CMC will not make land

management decisions on public lands,

but may make only recommendations

about changes in public land

management or public hunting seasons,

and any changes regarding these issues

would have to be made with public

involvement by the land management or

State fish and game agencies after

complying with NEPA or other

appropriate laws;

(7) Adequacy of the habitat in the

Bitterroot Ecosystem was addressed by

adding an appendix report from the

Craighead Wildlife-Wildlands Institute

documenting the abundance and

distribution of grizzly bear food groups

in the Bitterroot Ecosystem, and by a

habitat-based population assessment by

Dr. Mark Boyce of the University of

Alberta detailing how many grizzly

bears can be expected to live in the

Bitterroot Ecosystem;

(8) Lack of a corridor between the

Bitterroot Ecosystem and areas where

grizzlies presently exist was addressed

by noting that the linkage zone

evaluation task in the recovery plan will

be completed in 2000, and will identify

where possible linkage zones exist and

what can be done to maintain the

opportunities for such linkage in the

future; and,

(9) Impacts to listed steelhead and

salmon species will be minimized

through Service adherence to the

conservation recommendations of the

National Marine Fisheries Service

Biological Opinion for this project dated

May 1998.

Significant New Issues Raised from

Comments Received on the FEIS

The Service appreciates all comments

on the FEIS, and the high level of public

interest and participation throughout

the NEPA process for this proposal. The

Service received a number of comments

during the 30-day time period following

publication of the notice of availability

of the FEIS. Approximately 14,800 total

comments were received from

individuals, organizations, and

government agencies, which included

800 letters and 14,000 form letters/

postcards. The Service reviewed all

public comments prior to developing

this ROD. The majority of comments

received were directed at registering

opposition or support to the

reintroduction of grizzly bears into the

Bitterroot Ecosystem. Many comments

were essentially votes which contained

a statement of opinion, and were not

substantive input to environmental

issues or alternatives to correct or

improve the content of the FEIS and

ROD.

The majority of substantive issues

raised in the FEIS comments were

identical or similar to issues raised

during three previous public comment

periods for this proposal. These issues

have been addressed by the Service

throughout the NEPA process in the

following documents, incorporated here

by reference—‘‘Final Environmental

Impact Statement on Grizzly Bear

Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem’’

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000);

‘‘Summary of Public Comments on the

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for Grizzly Bear Recovery in the

Bitterroot Ecosystem’’ (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1998); ‘‘Draft

Environmental Impact Statement on

Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot

Ecosystem’’ (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1997); ‘‘Summary of Public

Comments on the Scoping of Issues and

Alternatives for Grizzly Bear Recovery

in the Bitterroot Ecosystem’’ (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1995); ‘‘Summary

of Public Comments on the Notice of

Intent to Prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement for the Reintroduction

of Grizzly Bears to the Bitterroot

Ecosystem’’ (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995).

A few new issues were raised during

the 30-day time period following the

notice of availability of the FEIS.

Response to these new issues are listed

below.

Issue 1—Several commentors

suggested that we accelerate

reintroduction with more than 5 bears

per year and use more than 25 total

bears if more bears are available. Other

comments suggested using bears from

Alaska.

Response—The Service recognizes

that accelerating reintroduction would

foster recovery of the grizzly by

increasing their probability of survival

in the first few years, and we will

consider increasing the number of bears

released in the first few years, as

appropriate. We will coordinate any

such decision with the CMC. The

Service also will consider the possibility

of reintroducing interior Rocky

Mountain (non-salmon eating) bears

from Alaska as appropriate, and will

coordinate any such decision with the

CMC.

Issue 2—Some commentors asked

why we did not consider essential

experimental status in the range of

alternatives in the FEIS.

Response—The term ‘‘essential’’

experimental population means an

experimental population whose loss

would be likely to appreciably reduce

the likelihood of the survival of the

species in the wild. The Service has

always considered a reintroduced

Bitterroot population to be

‘‘nonessential’’ experimental because

several additional populations exist

within the 48 conterminous United

States and, as such, its loss would not

be likely to appreciably reduce the

likelihood of the survival of the species

in the wild.

Issue 3—Some commentors continue

to question the suitability of the habitat

data including those data presented in

Appendix 21D, the report on the

abundance and distribution of grizzly

bear food plant groups in the SalmonSelway Ecosystem. Other comments

questioned why the Recovery Area does

not include certain areas in the

Bitterroot Ecosystem that contain

quality food sources.

Response—The Service believes that

the data on bear foods presented in the

FEIS are the best data available and

demonstrate the sufficiency of the

habitat to support a grizzly bear

population. Under the Proposed Action

Alternative grizzly bears are expected to

occupy the areas outside the recovery

emphasis area and will be

accommodated so they can continue to

live in these areas. Accommodate means

allowing grizzly bears that move outside

the Recovery Area onto public land in

the Experimental Population Area to

remain undisturbed unless they

demonstrate a real and imminent threat

to human safety or livestock. However,

as recovery proceeds, the Service and

the CMC will cooperate to continue to

increase the available knowledge and

consider new information on the

distribution and abundance of bear

foods in the Bitterroot Ecosystem; and

will use such knowledge to make

management decisions to promote

recovery. The Service is committed to

using the best data available.

Issue 4—Some commentors stated

that the implementation of the Proposed

Action Alternative would be in conflict

with existing Forest management plans

and would require the Forest Service to

issue a ROD in order to implement the

Proposed Action Alternative.

Response—The Service has consulted

with the Forest Service on this concern,

and the Forest Service does not see any

conflicts with existing forest

management plans nor does the Forest

Service see the need to issue an EIS and

a ROD to concur with the Proposed

Action Alternative of the Service.

Issue 5—Some commentors suggested

that the Scientific Review Panel needs

specific timeframes for response and

that the governors should not have the

69648 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Notices

ability to appoint two of the three

members.

Response—The Service believes that

specific timeframes would be

unwarranted given the varied nature of

considerations in which this panel

would be involved, and notes that the

process protocol for the Scientific

Review Panel will be laid out clearly in

the Special Rule. We also believe that it

is important for the appointment of

members of the Panel to be a shared

responsibility in order to have shared

ownership of the results of the panel

review. The process of the Scientific

Review Panel will be an open public

process and the Service believes that

appointment of inappropriate members

of the panel would be contrary to the

Special Rule. Also, the Secretary has the

responsibility to consider the

recommendations of the Scientific

Review Panel but is not bound by their

recommendations as to the future of the

CMC.

Issue 6—Some commentors were

concerned that there is no guarantee

that any voting members of the CMC

would be scientists and felt that the

science advisors should be voting

members.

Response—Representation on the

CMC is expected to include scientists

from State and Federal agencies and the

CMC is directed to use the best available

scientific information in making

decisions as per their charter. The

Service also believes that having the

scientific advisors attending as nonvoting members will actually make their

input and comments less subject to

pressure and influence than scientists

from the respective States who are

voting members. The CMC process and

meetings will be open to the public. If

the input of the scientific advisors is not

sought by the CMC or if their input is

ignored in CMC decisions, then this will

be public knowledge and the CMC will

have to explain their actions. If the

advice of the scientific advisors is

ignored to the point that the decisions

of the CMC are not leading to recovery,

the Secretary’s representative will

inform the CMC of this and of the

possible empaneling of the Scientific

Review Panel. This Scientific Review

Panel could recommend that the input

of the scientific advisors should be

heeded and remind the CMC that they

are bound to use the best available

science. Thus, the Service believes there

are sufficient checks and balances in the

process to assure that the input of the

scientific advisors will be used by the

CMC.

Issue 7—One commentor stated that

the CMC will only review the plans and

policies of agencies, and not projects

that may jeopardize the continued

existence of an experimental species,

and believes this does not meet the

standard of the ESA.

Response—Meeting section 7

responsibilities is not a responsibility of

the CMC. If a Federal agency determines

that its action might jeopardize the

continued existence of the species, the

agency shall conference with the

Service, as per the mandates of section

7(a)(4) and section 10(j)(2)(C) of the

ESA.

Issue 8—Some commentors asked

where the wording is in section 10 of

the ESA that allows delegation of

decision-making authority to the CMC.

Response—The authority for creation

of the CMC is contained in section

4(f)(2) of the ESA where it states, ‘‘The

Secretary, in implementing recovery

plans, may procure the services of

appropriate public and private agencies

and institutions, and other qualified

persons.’’ Under this authority, the CMC

is tasked with specific responsibilities

for recovery by implementing the

recovery program in the Bitterroot

Ecosystem. Further, section 4(f)(2) of the

ESA states that appointments of such

groups to develop and implement

recovery plans ‘‘. . . shall not be subject

to the Federal Advisory Committee

Act.’’ Additionally, Federal agencies

have authority under case law to task

another entity to accomplish certain

functions, as long as there are

appropriate and adequate legal

safeguards.

Issue 9—One commentor asked how

corporate landowners will relate to the

CMC and how will the CMC be involved

in the review of corporate management

plans for these lands.

Response—The Governors of each

State are able to appoint corporate

landowners or employees of such

corporations to the CMC. The Service

believes that inclusion of corporate

landowners in CMC processes is

important and valuable, and will

encourage the CMC to involve corporate

landowners in CMC outreach efforts,

invite corporate landowners to CMC

meetings, and to include corporate

landowners in CMC processes. Private

land owners would not lose any of their

management authority and the CMC

would only make management

recommendations to them.

Issue 10—Some commentors

indicated the Service needs to

implement a proactive outreach and

information and education program

combined with a sanitation program to

better inform the public about grizzly

bear management and to increase the

safety of humans and bears in the

Bitterroot.

Response—The Service has included

this as stage two in the implementation

of the selected alternative.

Issue 11—Some commentors think the

success or failure of the program should

be measured over a longer timeframe

than a minimum of 10 years as stated in

the FEIS.

Response—The Service agrees that for

such a long-lived species a 10-year

timeframe to measure the success or

failure of reintroduction is not

sufficient. We have extended the

timeframe to a minimum of 20 years,

such that it reads, ‘‘* * * the success or

failure of the program cannot be

measured in less than 20 years.’’

Issue 12—Some commentors think

there is inadequate information and

research to indicate there are currently

no grizzly bears in the Bitterroot

Ecosystem.

Response—The best scientific

evidence available indicates there are no

grizzly bears in the Experimental

Population Area at this time. Published

reports by Melquist (Melquist 1985. A

preliminary survey to determine the

status of grizzly bears in the Clearwater

National Forest of Idaho) and by Groves

(Groves 1987. A compilation of grizzly

bear reports from central and northern

Idaho), as well as the March 28, 1998,

letter from Wayne Melquist to

Christopher Servheen presented in

Appendix 23 of the FEIS show no

documentation of grizzly bears in the

Bitterroot Ecosystem. Ongoing grizzly

bear monitoring efforts would continue,

and the Service will continue to follow

up on promising reports and to

cooperate with all efforts to locate

grizzly bears in the Bitterroot

Ecosystem.

Issue 13—Some commentors were

concerned that the Secretary can ignore

a notice of the Scientific Review Panel

that the CMC is not making decisions

that will lead to recovery and decide to

continue the CMC rather than disband

it.

Response—The ultimate authority to

make decisions to implement the ESA is

that of the Secretary. Nothing in the

Special Rule or the FEIS can subjugate

the authority of the Secretary to the

Scientific Review Panel. The Scientific

Review Panel process and any

subsequent decisions of the Secretary

will be open to the public and public

review.

Issue 14—One comment questions if

there is a contradiction between the

statement that grizzly bear management

decisions will favor bear recovery in the

Recovery Area, and the statement that if

significant conflicts occur between

grizzly bears and livestock in the

Experimental Population Area that the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 / Notices 69649

conflict could be resolved in favor of

livestock.

Response—The ROD has been

clarified to state that if significant

conflicts occur between grizzly bears

and livestock in the Experimental

Population Area, outside the Recovery

Area, the conflict could be resolved in

favor of livestock.

Issue 15—One comment questions if

the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirks would

have grizzly ‘‘populations’’ using the

definition of a population in the FEIS in

Appendix 25.

Response—Both the Cabinet-Yaak and

Selkirk Ecosystems have had multiple

sightings of females with cubs and with

enough offspring to meet the definition

of a population used in the FEIS.

Findings and Decision

Having reviewed and considered the

FEIS for the recovery of the grizzly bear

in the Bitterroot Ecosystem and the

public comments thereon, the Service

finds as follows:

(1) The requirements of NEPA and its

implementing regulations have been

satisfied; and

(2) Statutory authority for the Service

to implement this project exists; and

(3) The Proposed Action Alternative

represents the best balance between the

Service’s goals and the objectives and

the public’s concerns identified

throughout the public participation

process; and

(4) Consistent with the recovery goals,

and with social, economic, and other

essential considerations from among the

reasonable alternatives, the Proposed

Action Alternative minimizes or avoids

adverse environmental effects to the

maximum extent practicable, including

effects disclosed in the FEIS; and

(5) Consistent with the social,

economic, and other essential

considerations to the maximum extent

practicable, adverse environmental

effects identified in the FEIS will be

minimized or avoided.

Having made the above findings, the

Service has decided to proceed, as

funding permits, with implementation

of the Proposed Action Alternative. The

decision to implement this alternative is

subject to the following conditions that

will further minimize or avoid the

environmental impacts and public

concerns identified during the

environmental review process:

(1) The process of grizzly bear

recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem

will be implemented in a staged process

with initial formation of the CMC, and

ongoing sanitation enhancement and

public information efforts;

(2) if the Service receives adequate

funding, grizzly bears could be

reintroduced in 2002, following

formation of the CMC and successful

initiation of the sanitation and

informational efforts, which will be

ongoing as the bears are placed in the

area;

(3) bears for reintroduction will be

taken from areas more than 10 miles

beyond existing recovery zone lines in

the Yellowstone and Northern

Continental Divide Ecosystems, and

from British Columbia and Alaska

(nonsalmon-eating bears), as

appropriate;

(4) to maximize human safety and

bear survival, bears placed in the

Bitterroot will have no history of

conflict with people or livestock;

(5) all reintroduced bears will be

radio-monitored upon placement; and

(6) at least 25 bears will be placed into

the area in coordination with the CMC

and this number may increase pending

scientific considerations of the need to

have a larger initial population so as to

increase the probability of eventual

recovery.

This statement of Findings/ROD will

serve as the written facts and

conclusions relied upon in reaching this

decision.

Dated: November 13, 2000.

Ralph O. Morgenweck,

Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.

Appendix—Errata Sheet for the Final

Environmental Impact Statement on

Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot

Ecosystem

The following list includes clarifications or

corrections to the FEIS. Many of the items

listed were brought forward by the public in

their comments on the FEIS. The Service

appreciates the input, and this opportunity to

correct and improve the FEIS. None of the

corrections listed below significantly affect

the analyses or conclusions of effect in the

FEIS.

1. Table S–2 (page xl), Table 2–1 (page 2–

79), Chapter 2 (page 2–57, last paragraph)—

The FEIS incorrectly states that for the

Service to implement Alternative 4, the

principal laws that govern land management

(agencies) on Federal lands would have to be

changed. This is corrected to state that for the

Service to implement Alternative 4, the

National Forest Land Management Plans that

govern land management by agencies on

Federal lands would have to be amended or

revised.

2. Pages 2–27 (fourth paragraph, last

sentence) and 2–41 (third paragraph)—The

FEIS states, ‘‘bears found outside the

experimental population area boundaries are

a fully threatened species, not experimental

bears.’’ This is restated, ‘‘In the conterminous

United States, a grizzly bear that is outside

the experimental population area will be

considered as threatened.’’

3. Page 2–6, number 3(b); page 2–8, fourth

paragraph; page 2–12, second paragraph—

The FEIS states, ‘‘Two scientific advisors

would be appointed by the Secretary to the

CMC as non-voting members, to attend all

meetings and provide scientific expertise in

support of CMC management

recommendations.’’ This is clarified to state,

‘‘Two scientific advisors would be appointed

by the Secretary to the CMC as non-voting

members, to attend all meetings and provide

scientific expertise to the CMC.’’

4. Page 6–128, second paragraph, last

sentence—The FEIS states, ‘‘The CMC would

be responsible for developing land-use

restrictions as necessary for grizzly bear

management.’’ This is corrected to be

consistent with other statements in the FEIS

that indicate, ‘‘The CMC would be

responsible for recommending changes in

land-use standards and guidelines in the

Bitterroot Ecosystem as necessary for grizzly

bear management. Decisions on, and

implementation of these recommendations is

the responsibility of the land and wildlife

management agencies.’’

5. Page 4–18, third paragraph, first

sentence—The FEIS states, ‘‘This alternative

allows for a citizens management committee

to decide if trails, roads, and other areas

would be closed to improve recovery efforts

for grizzly bears.’’ This is corrected to state,

‘‘This alternative allows for a citizen

management committee to make

recommendations to land management

agencies for road, trail and area closures

necessary to improve recovery efforts for

grizzly bears.’’

6. Page 2–14, second paragraph—The FEIS

states, ‘‘Idaho Department of Fish and Game

and/or the Nez Perce Tribe, Montana

Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and

the USDA Forest Service, in coordination

with the Service, would exercise day-to-day

management responsibility within the

experimental population area while

implementing the Bitterroot Ecosystem

Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Chapter, the

Special Rule, and the policies and plans of

the CMC.’’ This is clarified to state, ‘‘Idaho

Department of Fish and Game and/or the Nez

Perce Tribe, Montana Department of Fish,

Wildlife, and Parks, and the USDA Forest

Service, in coordination with the Service,

would exercise day-to-day management

responsibility within the experimental

population area while implementing the

Bitterroot Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Recovery

Plan Chapter, the Special Rule, and

considering the recommendations of the

CMC.’’

7. Page 6–111, Table 6–13—The

Management Area Type of ‘‘Unroaded/

essentially undeveloped’’ is corrected to

‘‘Essentially undeveloped.’’

8. The Welcome Creek Wilderness in

western Montana was omitted from the list

of designated wilderness areas in the Primary

Analysis Area. The addition of this

designated wilderness area to the Primary

Analysis Area increases the total Wilderness

acreage by 28,000 acres.

[FR Doc. 00–29531 Filed 11–16–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P