69854 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT38 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designating the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of 

Grizzly Bears as a Distinct Population 

Segment; Removing the Yellowstone 

Distinct Population Segment of Grizzly 

Bears From the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), propose to 

establish a distinct population segment 

(DPS) of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 

horribilis) for the greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem and surrounding area. We 

also propose to remove the Yellowstone 

DPS from the List of Threatened and 

Endangered Wildlife. The Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population is no longer an 

endangered or threatened population 

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (ESA), based on the 

best scientific and commercial 

information available. Robust 

population growth, coupled with State 

and Federal cooperation to manage 

mortality and habitat, widespread 

public support for grizzly bear recovery, 

and the development of adequate 

regulatory mechanisms, has brought the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population to 

the point where making a change to its 

status is appropriate. 

The proposed delisting of the 

Yellowstone DPS would not change the 

threatened status of the remaining 

grizzly bears in the lower 48 States, 

which will remain protected by the 

ESA. If this proposed action is finalized, 

the Service intends to initiate a 5-year 

review of grizzly bear populations in the 

conterminous States outside of the 

Yellowstone DPS based on additional 

scientific information that is currently 

being collected and analyzed. 

Additionally, prior to finalizing the 

proposed action, the Service will—(1) 

finalize the Conservation Strategy that 

will guide post-delisting management of 

the grizzly bear in the Greater 

Yellowstone Area; (2) append habitatbased recovery criteria to the Recovery 

Plan; (3) append genetic monitoring 

information to the Recovery Plan; and 

(4) finalize revised methodology for 

calculating total population size, known 

to unknown mortality ratios, and 

sustainable mortality limits for the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population. 

Both the Conservation Strategy and the 

supplemental information to be 

appended to the Recovery Plan have 

already undergone public review and 

comment (62 FR 19777, April 23, 1997; 

62 FR 47677, September 10, 1997; 64 FR 

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

16, 1999; 65 FR 11340, March 2, 2000). 

In a subsequent notice, the revised 

methodology pertaining to population 

parameters will be made available for 

public review and comment. It will be 

finalized, with public comments 

incorporated, before this proposed rule 

is finalized. Finally, the U.S. Forest 

Service will finalize their Forest Plan 

Amendments for Grizzly Bear 

Conservation for the Greater 

Yellowstone Area National Forests prior 

to the Service finalizing this action. 

DATES: We will consider comments on 

this proposed rule received until the 

close of business on February 15, 2006. 

We will hold one public hearing on this 

proposed rule scheduled hearing for 

November 15, 2005. In addition, we 

have scheduled four open houses (see 

ADDRESSES section for locations). 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment, 

you may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposal by 

any one of several methods: 

1. You may submit written comments 

to the Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, University Hall 309, University 

of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812. 

2. You may hand deliver written 

comments to our Missoula office at the 

address given above. 

3. You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

FW6_grizzly_yellowstone@fws.gov. See 

the Public Comments Solicited section 

below for file format and other 

information about electronic filing. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in preparation of this proposed action, 

will be available for inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at our Missoula office (see 

address above). In addition, certain 

documents such as the Conservation 

Strategy and information to be 

appended to the recovery plan are 

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

grizzly/yellowstone.htm. 

The public hearing will be held at the 

following location: 

• January 10, 2006, from 7 to 9 p.m. 

at the Cody Auditorium, 1240 Beck 

Avenue, Cody Wyoming. 

The open houses will be held at the 

following locations: 

• January 9, 2006, from 4 to 8 p.m. at 

the Holiday Inn, 5 Baxter Lane, 

Bozeman, Montana. 

• January 10, 2006, from 4 to 7 p.m. 

at the Cody Auditorium, 1240 Beck 

Avenue, Cody Wyoming. 

• January 11, 2006, from 4 to 8 p.m. 

at the Snow King Resort, 400 E. Snow 

King Avenue, Jackson, Wyoming. 

• January 12, 2006, from 4 to 8 p.m. 

at the Shilo Inn, 780 Lindsay Boulevard, 

Idaho Falls, Idaho. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, at our Missoula office 

(see address above) or telephone (406) 

243–4903. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Species Description 

Grizzly bears are generally larger and 

more heavily built than other bears 

(Craighead and Mitchell 1982; Schwartz 

et al. 2003a). Grizzly bears can be 

distinguished from black bears, which 

also occur in the lower 48 States, by 

longer, curved claws, humped 

shoulders, and a face that appears to be 

concave (Craighead and Mitchell 1982). 

A wide range of coloration from light 

brown to nearly black is common 

(LeFranc et al. 1987). Spring shedding, 

new growth, nutrition, and coat 

condition all affect coloration. Guard 

hairs (long, course outer hair forming a 

protective layer over the soft underfur) 

are often pale in color at the tips; hence 

the name ‘‘grizzly’’ (Craighead and 

Mitchell 1982). In the lower 48 States, 

the average weight of grizzly bears is 

generally 200 to 300 kilograms (kg) (400 

to 600 pounds (lb)) for males and 110 

to 160 kg (250 to 350 lb) for females 

(Craighead and Mitchell 1982). Grizzly 

bears are long-lived mammals, generally 

living to be around 25 years old 

(LeFranc et al. 1987). 

Taxonomy 

Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) 

are vertebrates that belong to the Class 

Mammalia, Order Carnivora, and 

Family Ursidae. The grizzly bear is a 

member of the brown bear species (U. 

arctos) that occurs in North America, 

Europe, and Asia; the subspecies U. a. 

horribilis is limited to North America 

(Rausch 1963; Servheen 1999). Early 

taxonomic descriptions of U. arctos 

based primarily on skull measurements 

described more than 90 subspecies 

(Merriam 1918), but this was later 

revised to 2 subspecies in North 

America, U. a. middendorfi on the 

islands of the Kodiak archipelago and U. 

a. horribilis in the rest of North America 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69855 

(Rausch 1963). Subsequent analyses 

(Hall 1984) suggested seven North 

American subspecies. DNA analyses 

provide an additional tool for evaluating 

taxonomic classification. Using 

mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) of brown 

bears across their worldwide range, five 

lineage groups or clades have been 

described: Clade I brown bears from 

Scandinavia and southern Europe; 

Clade II from Admiralty, Baronoff, and 

Chichagof islands in Alaska; Clade III 

from eastern Europe, Asia, and western 

Alaska; Clade IV from southern Canada 

and the lower 48 United States; and 

Clade V from eastern Alaska and 

northern Canada (Cronin et al. 1991; 

Taberlet and Bouvet 1994; Kohn et al. 

1995; Randi et al. 1994; Taberlet et al. 

1995; Talbot and Shields 1996; Waits et 

al. 1998a; Waits et al. 1999). The two 

North American subspecies approach of 

Rausch (1963) is generally accepted by 

most taxonomists today. The original 

listing has been inadvertently modified 

in the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife to U. arctos and the 

range to holarctic. We propose to correct 

this error to reflect the original listed 

entity of U. arctos horribilis with a 

historic range of North America. 

Behavior 

Although adult bears are normally 

solitary (Nowak and Paradiso 1983), 

home ranges of adult bears frequently 

overlap (Schwartz et al. 2003a). Grizzly 

bears display a behavior called natal 

philopatry in which dispersing young 

establish home ranges within or 

overlapping their mother’s (Waser and 

Jones 1983; Schwartz et al. 2003a). This 

type of movement makes dispersal 

across landscapes a slow process. For 

instance, McLellan and Hovey (2001) 

documented male and female dispersal 

over 20 years and found that grizzly 

bears gradually move farther from the 

center of their mother’s home range over 

the course of 1 to 4 years. Females 

established home ranges an average of 

9.8 kilometers (km) (6.1 miles (mi)) 

away from the center of their mother’s 

home range, whereas males generally 

strayed further, establishing home 

ranges roughly 29.9 km (18.6 mi) away 

from their mother’s (McLellan and 

Hovey 2001). Similarly, Proctor et al. 

(2004) used genetic analyses to find 

that, on average, females disperse only 

14.3 km (8.9 mi) and males disperse 

42.0 km (26.0 mi) from the center of 

their mother’s home range. 

The home range of adult male grizzly 

bears is typically 3 to 5 times the size 

of an adult female’s home range 

(LeFranc et al. 1987). The large home 

ranges of grizzly bears, particularly 

males, enhance genetic diversity in the 

population by enabling males to mate 

with numerous females (Blanchard and 

Knight 1991; Craighead et al. 1995). 

Grizzly bear population densities of 1 

bear per 20 sq km (8 sq mi) have been 

reported in Glacier National Park 

(Martinka 1976), but most populations 

in the lower 48 States are much less 

dense (LeFranc et al. 1987). For 

example, estimates of grizzly bear 

densities in the Yellowstone area range 

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

to one bear per 80 sq km (30 sq mi) 

(Blanchard and Knight 1980; Craighead 

and Mitchell 1982). 

Grizzly bears have a promiscuous 

mating system (Hornocker 1962; 

Craighead and Mitchell 1982; Schwartz 

et al. 2003a) with genetic studies 

confirming that cubs from the same 

litter can have different fathers 

(Craighead et al. 1998). Mating occurs 

from May through July with a peak in 

mid-June (Craighead and Mitchell 1982; 

Nowak and Paradiso 1983). Age of first 

reproduction and litter size may be 

related to nutritional state (Stringham 

1990; McLellan 1994; Hilderbrand et al. 

1999). Age of first reproduction varies 

from 3 to 8 years of age, and litter size 

varies from one to four cubs (Schwartz 

et al. 2003a). For the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population, the average age 

of first reproduction is approximately 6 

years old, and the average litter size is 

2.04 cubs (Schwartz et al. 2005). Cubs 

are born in a den in late January or early 

February and remain with the female for 

2 to 3 years before the mother will again 

mate and produce another litter 

(Schwartz et al. 2003a). Grizzly bears 

have one of the slowest reproductive 

rates among terrestrial mammals, 

resulting primarily from the late age of 

first reproduction, small average litter 

size, and the long interval between 

litters (Nowak and Paradiso 1983; 

Schwartz et al. 2003a). Given the above 

factors and natural mortality, it may 

take a single female 10 years to replace 

herself in a population (Service 1993). 

Grizzly bear females cease breeding 

successfully some time in their mid-to 

late 20s (Schwartz et al. 2003b). 

For 3 to 6 months during winter, 

grizzly bears across their range enter 

dens in an adaptive behavior which 

increases survival during periods of low 

food availability, deep snow, and low 

air temperature (Craighead and 

Craighead 1972). Grizzly bears in the 

lower 48 States spend up to 4 to 6 

months in dens beginning in October or 

November (Linnell et al. 2000). During 

this period, they do not eat, drink, 

urinate, or defecate (Folk et al. 1976; 

Nelson 1980). Hibernating grizzly bears 

exhibit a marked decline in heart and 

respiration rate, but only a slight drop 

in body temperature (Nowak and 

Paradiso 1983). Due to their relatively 

constant body temperature in the den, 

hibernating grizzly bears can be easily 

aroused and have been known to exit 

dens when disturbed by seismic or 

mining activity (Harding and Nagy 

1980) or by human activity (Swenson et 

al. 1997). Both males and females have 

a tendency to use the same general area 

year after year but the same exact den 

is rarely used twice by an individual 

(Schoen et al. 1987; Linnell et al. 2000). 

Females display stronger area fidelity 

than males and generally stay in their 

dens longer, depending on reproductive 

status (Judd et al. 1986; Schoen et al. 

1987; Linnell et al. 2000). 

In preparation for hibernation, bears 

increase their food intake dramatically 

during a stage called hyperphagia. 

Hyperphagia is defined simply as 

overeating (in excess of daily metabolic 

demands) and occurs throughout the 2 

to 4 months prior to den entry. During 

hyperphagia, excess food is deposited as 

fat, and grizzly bears may gain as much 

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

and Mitchell 1982). Grizzly bears must 

consume foods rich in protein and 

carbohydrates in order to build up fat 

reserves to survive denning and postdenning periods (Rode and Robbins 

2000). These layers of fat are crucial to 

the hibernating bear as they provide a 

source of energy and insulate the bear 

from cold temperatures and are equally 

important in providing energy to the 

bear upon emergence from the den 

when food is still sparse relative to 

metabolic requirements. 

Although the digestive system of 

bears is essentially that of a carnivore, 

bears are successful omnivores, and in 

some areas may be almost entirely 

herbivorous (Jacoby et al. 1999; 

Schwartz et al. 2003a). Grizzly bears are 

opportunistic feeders and will consume 

almost any available food including 

living or dead mammals or fish, and, 

sometimes, garbage (Knight et al. 1988; 

Mattson et al. 1991a; Schwartz et al. 

2003a). In areas where animal matter is 

less available, grasses, roots, bulbs, 

tubers, and fungi may be important in 

meeting protein requirements (LeFranc 

et al. 1987). High-quality foods such as 

berries, nuts, insects, and fish are 

important in some areas (Schwartz et al. 

2003a). 

The search for food has a prime 

influence on grizzly bear movements. In 

the Yellowstone area, four food sources 

have been identified as important to 

grizzly bear survival and reproductive 

success (Mattson et al. 2002). Winterkilled ungulates serve as an important 

food source in early spring before most 

vegetation is available (Greene et al. 

69856 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

1997; Mattson 1997). During early 

summer, spawning cutthroat trout 

(Oncorhynchus clarki) are a source of 

nutrition for grizzly bears in the 

Yellowstone population (Mattson et al. 

1991a; Mattson and Reinhart 1995; 

Felicetti et al. 2004). Grizzly bears feed 

on army cutworm moths (Euxoa 

auxiliaris) during late summer and early 

fall as they try to acquire sufficient fat 

levels for winter (Pritchard and Robbins 

1990; Mattson et al. 1991b; French et al. 

1994). Lastly, whitebark pine seeds 

(Pinus albicaulis) serve as a crucial fall 

food due to their high fat content and 

abundance as a pre-hibernation food 

(Mattson and Reinhart 1994). The 

distribution and abundance of these 

grizzly bear foods vary naturally among 

seasons and years. In some years, 

whitebark pine seeds are an important 

food and in other years, few seeds are 

available and bears switch to alternate 

foods. 

On average, approximately 79 percent 

of the diet of adult male and 45 percent 

of the diet of adult female grizzly bears 

in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) 

is terrestrial meat (Jacoby et al. 1999). In 

contrast, in Glacier National Park, over 

95 percent of the diets of both adult 

male and female grizzly bears is 

vegetation (Jacoby et al. 1999). 

Ungulates rank as the second highest 

source of net digestible energy available 

to grizzly bears in the GYA (Mealey 

1975; Pritchard and Robbins 1990; 

Craighead et al. 1995). Ungulates 

provide a high-quality food source in 

early spring before most plant foods 

become available. Grizzly bears with 

home ranges in areas with few plant 

foods depend extensively on ungulate 

meat (Harting 1985). Grizzly bears in the 

Yellowstone area feed on ungulates 

primarily as winter-killed carrion from 

March through May although they also 

depredate elk calves for a short period 

in early June (Gunther and Renkin 1990; 

Green et al. 1997; Mattson 1997). 

Carcass availability fluctuates with 

winter severity because fewer ungulates 

die during mild winters. 

Due to their high digestibility and 

protein and lipid content, spawning 

cutthroat trout are one of the highest 

sources of digestible energy available to 

bears during early summer in 

Yellowstone National Park (Mealey 

1975; Pritchard and Robbins 1990). 

Grizzly bears are known to prey on 

cutthroat trout in at least 36 different 

streams tributary to Yellowstone Lake 

(Reinhart and Mattson 1990). From 1997 

to 1999, Haroldson et al. (2000) 

identified 85 different grizzly bears that 

had likely fished spawning streams 

tributary to Yellowstone Lake. While 

importance varies by season and year, 

few bears develop a dependence on this 

food source. Only four individuals 

visited spawning streams consistently 

every year, suggesting that this resource 

is used opportunistically. Fishing 

activity can occur any time during the 

spawning runs but generally coincides 

with peak spawning numbers in midJune through mid-July. In contrast to 

earlier studies which used different 

assumptions and methods (Reinhart and 

Mattson 1990; Mattson and Reinhart 

1995), Felicetti et al. (2004) showed that 

male grizzly bears are the primary 

consumers of cutthroat trout, accounting 

for 92 percent of all trout consumed by 

Yellowstone grizzly bears. 

Alpine moth aggregations are an 

important food source for a considerable 

portion of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population (Mattson et al. 1991b). As 

many as 35 different grizzly bears with 

cubs-of-the-year have been observed 

feeding at moth sites in a single season 

(Ternent and Haroldson 2000). Some 

bears may feed almost exclusively on 

moths for a period of over 1 month 

(French et al. 1994). Moths have the 

highest caloric content per gram of any 

other bear food (French et al. 1994). 

Moths are available during late summer 

and early fall when bears consume large 

quantities of foods in order to acquire 

sufficient fat levels for winter (Mattson 

et al. 1991b). A grizzly bear feeding 

extensively on moths over a 30-day 

period may consume up to 47 percent 

of its annual energy budget of 960,000 

calories (White et al. 1999). Moths are 

also valuable to bears because they are 

located in remote areas, thereby 

reducing the potential for grizzly bear/ 

human conflicts during the late-summer 

tourist months. 

Due to their high fat content and 

potential abundance as a prehibernation food, whitebark pine seeds 

are an important fall food for bears in 

the GYA (Mattson and Jonkel 1990; 

Mattson et al. 1991a). Yellowstone 

grizzly bears consume whitebark pine 

seeds extensively when whitebark cones 

are available. Bears may feed 

predominantly on whitebark pine seeds 

when production exceeds 22 cones per 

tree (Mattson et al. 1992). During years 

of low whitebark pine seed availability, 

grizzly bears often seek alternate foods 

at lower elevations in association with 

human activities (Mattson et al. 1992; 

Knight and Blanchard 1995; Gunther et 

al. 1997, 2004). 

The production and availability of 

these four major foods can have a 

positive effect on reproduction and 

survival rates of Yellowstone grizzly 

bears (Mattson et al. 2002). For example, 

during years when these food sources 

are abundant, there are few grizzly bear/ 

human conflicts in the GYA (Mattson et 

al. 1992; Gunther et al. 1997; Gunther et 

al. 2004). Grizzly bear/human conflicts 

are incidents in which bears kill or 

injure people, damage property, kill or 

injure livestock, damage beehives, 

obtain anthropogenic foods, or damage 

or obtain garden and orchard fruits and 

vegetables (United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) 1986). In contrast, 

during years when there are shortages of 

natural food sources, grizzly bear/ 

human conflicts are more frequent, 

resulting in higher numbers of humancaused grizzly bear mortalities due to 

defense of life or property and 

management removals of nuisance bears 

(Mattson et al. 1992; Gunther et al. 

2004). A nuisance bear is one that seeks 

human food in human use areas, kills 

lawfully present livestock, or displays 

unnatural aggressive behavior towards 

people (USDA 1986). Introduced 

organisms (e.g., white pine blister rust 

and lake trout), habitat loss, and other 

human activities can negatively impact 

the quantity and distribution of these 

four primary foods (Reinhart et al. 

2001). The effects of invasive species on 

food supply and human/bear conflict 

are discussed in more detail in the five 

factor analysis. 

Recovery 

Prior to the arrival of Europeans, the 

grizzly bear occurred throughout the 

western half of the contiguous United 

States, central Mexico, western Canada, 

and most of Alaska (Roosevelt 1907; 

Wright 1909; Merriam 1922; Storer and 

Tevis 1955; Rausch 1963; Herrero 1972; 

Mattson et al. 1995; Schwartz et al. 

2003a). Pre-settlement population levels 

for the western contiguous United States 

were believed to be in the range of 

50,000 animals (Servheen 1999). With 

European settlement of the American 

west, grizzly bears were shot, poisoned, 

and trapped wherever they were found, 

and the resulting range and population 

declines were dramatic (Roosevelt 1907; 

Wright 1909; Storer and Tevis 1955; 

Leopold 1967; Koford 1969; Craighead 

and Mitchell 1982; Mattson et al. 1995). 

The range and numbers of grizzlies were 

reduced to less than 2 percent of their 

former range and numbers by the 1930s, 

approximately 125 years after first 

contact (Service 1993; Mattson et al. 

1995; Servheen 1999). Of 37 grizzly 

populations present in 1922, 31 were 

extirpated by 1975 (Servheen 1999). 

By the 1950s, with little or no 

conservation effort or management 

directed at maintaining grizzly bears 

anywhere in their range, the 

Yellowstone area population had been 

reduced in numbers and was restricted 

largely to the confines of Yellowstone 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69857 

National Park and some surrounding 

areas (Craighead et al. 1995; Schwartz et 

al. 2003a). High grizzly bear mortality in 

1970 and 1971, following closure of the 

open-pit dumps in Yellowstone 

National Park (Gunther 1994; Craighead 

et al. 1995), and concern about grizzly 

population status throughout its 

remaining range prompted the 1975 

listing of the grizzly bear as a threatened 

species in the lower 48 States under the 

ESA (40 FR 31734). When the grizzly 

bear was listed in 1975, the population 

estimate in the Yellowstone Ecosystem 

ranged from 229 (Craighead et al. 1974) 

to 312 (Cowan et al. 1974; McCullough 

1981) individuals. 

In 1981, the Service hired a grizzly 

bear recovery coordinator to direct 

recovery efforts and to coordinate all 

agency efforts on research and 

management of grizzly bears in the 

lower 48 States. In 1982, the first 

Grizzly bear recovery plan was 

completed (Service 1982). The 1982 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan identified 

five ecosystems within the 

conterminous United States thought to 

support grizzly bears. Today, grizzly 

bear distribution is primarily within, 

but not limited to, the areas identified 

as Recovery Zones (Service 1993), 

including the Yellowstone area in 

northwest Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and 

southwest Montana (24,000 sq km 

(9,200 sq mi)) at more than 580 bears 

(Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team 

(Study Team) 2005); the Northern 

Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) 

of north central Montana (25,000 sq km 

(9,600 sq mi)) at more than 400 bears (70 

FR 24870; May 11, 2005); the North 

Cascades area of north central 

Washington (25,000 sq km (9,500 sq 

mi)) at less than 20 bears (Almack et al. 

1993); the Selkirk Mountains area of 

north Idaho, northeast Washington, and 

southeast British Columbia (5,700 sq km 

(2,200 sq mi)) at approximately 40 to 50 

bears (64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999; 70 FR 

24870, May 11, 2005); and the CabinetYaak area of northwest Montana and 

northern Idaho (6,700 sq km (2,600 sq 

mi)) at approximately 30 to 40 bears 

(Kasworm and Manley 1988; Kasworm 

et al. 2004). There is an additional 

Recovery Zone known as the Bitterroot 

Recovery Zone in the Bitterroot 

Mountains of east-central Idaho and 

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

sq mi)), but this area does not contain 

any grizzly bears at this time (Service 

1996; 65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000; 

Service 2000). The San Juan Mountains 

of Colorado also were identified as an 

area of possible grizzly bear occurrence 

(40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975; Service 

1982, 1993), but no evidence of grizzly 

bears has been found in the San Juan 

Mountains since a bear was killed there 

in 1979 (Service 1993). 

In the initial Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Plan, the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear 

Ecosystem, later called the Yellowstone 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, was 

defined as an area large enough and of 

sufficient habitat quality to support a 

recovered grizzly bear population 

within which the population and 

habitat would be monitored (Service 

1982, 1993). A revised Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Plan (Service 1993) included 

additional tasks and new information 

that increased the focus and 

effectiveness of recovery efforts. 

Grizzly bear recovery has required 

cooperation among numerous Federal 

agencies, State agencies, nongovernment organizations (NGOs), local 

governments, and citizens. In 

recognition that grizzly bear populations 

were unsustainably low, the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team (hereafter 

referred to as the Study Team) was 

created in 1973 to provide detailed 

scientific information for the 

management and recovery of the grizzly 

bear in the Yellowstone area. Currently, 

members of the Study Team include 

scientists from the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS), U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS), the Service, academia, and each 

State game and fish agency involved in 

grizzly bear recovery. The Study Team 

has developed protocols to monitor 

grizzly bear populations and some 

important habitat parameters. These 

parameters have been used in 

demographic and habitat management. 

In 1983, the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee was created to coordinate 

management efforts and research actions 

across multiple Federal lands and States 

within the various Recovery Zones to 

recover the grizzly bear in the lower 48 

States. Its objective was to change land 

management practices to more 

effectively provide security and 

maintain or improve habitat conditions 

for the grizzly bear. The Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Committee is made up of 

upper level managers from all affected 

State and Federal agencies. Also in 

1983, the Yellowstone Ecosystem 

Subcommittee, a subcommittee of the 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, 

was formed to coordinate efforts specific 

to the Yellowstone area and to 

coordinate activities with the 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. 

Members of the Yellowstone Ecosystem 

Subcommittee are mid-level managers 

and include representatives from the 

Shoshone National Forest; the Custer 

National Forest; the BeaverheadDeerlodge National Forest; the BridgerTeton National Forest; Gallatin National 

Forest; Targhee National Forest; 

Yellowstone National Park; Grand Teton 

National Park; the Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD); the Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 

(MDFWP); the Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game (IDFG); the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM); the Study Team; 

county government from each affected 

State; and the Service. 

In 1994, The Fund for Animals, Inc., 

and 42 other organizations and 

individuals filed suit over the adequacy 

of the 1993 Recovery Plan. In 1995, the 

U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia issued an order that 

remanded for further study and 

clarification four issues that are relevant 

to the Yellowstone Ecosystem: (1) The 

method used to measure the status of 

bear populations; (2) the impacts of 

genetic isolation; (3) how mortalities 

related to livestock are monitored; and 

(4) the monitoring of disease (Fund for 

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

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

1997)). Following this decision, all 

parties filed appeals. In 1996, the parties 

reached a settlement whereby the 

Service also agreed to append habitatbased recovery criteria to the Recovery 

Plan. These issues and the necessary 

supplements to the Recovery Plan as 

required by the court order and 

subsequent settlement are discussed in 

detail in this section and in the threats 

analysis. 

Habitat Management and Habitatbased Recovery Criteria. In 1979, the 

Study Team developed the first 

comprehensive Guidelines for 

Management Involving Grizzly Bears in 

the Yellowstone area (hereafter referred 

to as the Guidelines) (Mealey 1979). The 

Service (1979) determined in a 

biological opinion that implementation 

of the Guidelines by Federal land 

management agencies would promote 

conservation of the grizzly bear. 

Beginning in 1979, the six affected 

National Forests (Beaverhead-Deerlodge, 

Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, 

Gallatin, and Shoshone), Yellowstone 

and Grand Teton National Parks, and 

BLM in the Yellowstone area began 

managing habitats for grizzly bears 

under direction specified in the 

Guidelines. 

In 1986, the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee modified the Guidelines to 

more effectively manage habitat by 

mapping and managing according to 

three different management situations: 

• Management Situation (1) Grizzly 

habitat maintenance and improvement, 

and grizzly bear/human conflict 

minimization receive the highest 

management priority; 

69858 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

• Management Situation (2) Grizzly 

bear use is important, but not the 

primary use of the area; or 

• Management Situation (3) Grizzly 

habitat maintenance and improvement 

are not management considerations 

(USDA 1986). 

Accordingly, the National Forests and 

National Parks delineated 18 different 

bear management units within the 

Recovery Zone to aid in managing 

habitat and monitoring population 

trends. Each bear management unit was 

further subdivided into subunits, 

resulting in a total of 40 subunits 

contained within the 18 bear 

management units. The bear 

management units are analysis areas 

that approximate the lifetime size of a 

female’s home range, while subunits are 

analysis areas that approximate the 

annual home range size of adult 

females. Subunits provide the optimal 

scale for evaluation of seasonal feeding 

opportunities and landscape patterns of 

food availability for grizzly bears 

(Weaver et al. 1986). The bear 

management units and subunits were 

identified to provide enough quality 

habitat and to ensure that grizzly bears 

were well distributed across the 

recovery area. 

Another tool employed to monitor 

habitat quality and assist in habitat 

management is the Yellowstone Grizzly 

Bear Cumulative Effects Model. The 

model was designed to assess the 

inherent productivity of grizzly bear 

habitat and the cumulative effects of 

human activities on bear use of that 

habitat (Weaver et al. 1986; Dixon 1997; 

Mattson et al. 2002). The model uses 

GIS databases and relative value 

coefficients of human activities, 

vegetation, and key grizzly bear foods to 

calculate habitat value and habitat 

effectiveness (Weaver et al. 1986; 

Mattson et al. 2002). Habitat value is a 

relative measure of the average net 

digestible energy potentially available to 

bears in a subunit during each season. 

Habitat value is primarily a function of 

vegetation and major foods (Weaver et 

al. 1986; Dixon 1997). Habitat 

effectiveness is that part of the energy 

potentially derived from the area that is 

available to bears given their response to 

humans (Weaver et al. 1986; Dixon 

1997; Mattson et al. 2002). More 

specifically, habitat effectiveness is a 

function of relative value coefficients of 

human activities, such as location, 

duration, and intensity of use for 

motorized access routes, non-motorized 

access routes, developed sites, and 

front- and back-country dispersed uses 

(Mattson et al. 2002). The Cumulative 

Effects Model is updated annually to 

reflect changes in vegetation, major 

foods, and the number and capacity of 

human activities. 

As per a court settlement (Fund for 

Animals v. Babbitt) and as 

recommended by Recovery Plan Task 

Y423, the Service has worked to 

‘‘establish a threshold of minimal 

habitat values to be maintained within 

each Cumulative Effects Analysis Unit 

in order to ensure that sufficient habitat 

is available to support a viable 

population’’ (Service 1993, p. 55). On 

June 17, 1997, the Service held a public 

workshop in Bozeman, Montana, to 

develop and refine habitat-based 

recovery criteria for the grizzly bear. A 

Federal Register notice notified the 

public of this workshop and provided 

interested parties an opportunity to 

participate and submit comments (62 FR 

19777, April 23, 1997). After 

considering 1,167 written comments, 

the Service developed biologicallybased habitat criteria with the overall 

goal of maintaining or improving habitat 

conditions at 1998 levels. 

Recognizing that grizzly bears are 

opportunistic omnivores and that a 

landscape’s ability to support grizzly 

bears is a function of overall habitat 

productivity, the distribution and 

abundance of major food sources, the 

levels and type of human activities, 

grizzly bear social systems, bear 

densities, and stochasticity, there is no 

known way to deductively calculate 

minimum habitat values. The Service 

instead inductively selected 1998 levels 

because it was known that these habitat 

values had adequately supported an 

increasing Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population throughout the 1990s 

(Eberhardt et al. 1994; Knight and 

Blanchard 1995; Knight et al. 1995; 

Boyce 2001) and that levels of secure 

habitat and the number and capacity of 

developed sites had changed little from 

1988 to 1998 (USFS 2004). Specific 

habitat conditions or criteria include 

limiting road densities inside the 

Recovery Zone, maintaining or 

increasing levels of secure habitat, 

maintaining or improving habitat 

effectiveness values in secure habitat, 

and limiting further site development 

and livestock grazing allotments on 

public lands within the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear Recovery Zone. 

Additionally, the Service developed 

four general habitat-based parameters to 

monitor and relate to population 

information: (1) Productivity of the four 

major foods; (2) habitat effectiveness as 

measured by the Cumulative Effects 

Model; (3) grizzly bear mortality 

numbers, locations, and causes; grizzly 

bear/human conflicts; nuisance bear 

management actions; bear/hunter 

conflicts; and bear/livestock conflicts; 

and (4) development on private lands. A 

copy of the habitat-based criteria is 

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

grizzly/yellowstone.htm. This revised 

habitat-based recovery criteria will be 

appended to the Recovery Plan and is 

included in the Conservation Strategy. 

These habitat-based criteria have been 

maintained successfully at 1998 levels, 

and the Conservation Strategy ensures 

they will continue to be met in the 

foreseeable future (see Conservation 

Strategy). 

Population and Demographic 

Management. Mortality control is a key 

part of any successful management 

effort; however, some mortality, 

including human-caused mortality, is 

unavoidable in a dynamic system where 

hundreds of bears inhabit thousands of 

square miles of diverse habitat with 

several million human visitors and 

residents. In 1977, Eberhardt 

documented that adult female survival 

was the most important of the vital rates 

influencing population trajectory. Low 

adult female survival was the critical 

factor causing decline in the 

Yellowstone area population prior to the 

mid-1980s (Knight and Eberhardt 1985). 

In the early 1980s, with the 

development of the first Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Plan (Service 1982), agencies 

began to control mortality and increase 

adult female survivorship (Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Committee 1983; USDA 

1986; Knight et al. 1999). The Recovery 

Plan (Service 1982, revised 1993) 

established three demographic 

(population) goals to objectively 

measure and monitor recovery of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population: 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 1—

Maintain a minimum of 15 

unduplicated (only counted once) 

females with cubs-of-the-year over a 

running 6-year average both inside the 

Recovery Zone and within a 16-km (10- 

mi) area immediately surrounding the 

Recovery Zone. This recovery criterion 

has been met. 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 2—

Sixteen of 18 bear management units 

within the Recovery Zone must be 

occupied by females with young, with 

no 2 adjacent bear management units 

unoccupied, during a 6-year sum of 

observations. This criterion is important 

as it ensures that reproductive females 

occupy the majority of the Recovery 

Zone and are not concentrated in one 

portion of the ecosystem. This recovery 

criterion has been met. 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 3—

The running 6-year average for total 

known, human-caused mortality should 

not exceed 4 percent of the minimum 

population estimate in any 2 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69859 

consecutive years; and human-caused 

female grizzly bear mortality should not 

exceed 30 percent of the above total in 

any 2 consecutive years. These recovery 

criteria have not been exceeded in 2 

consecutive years since 1997. 

Although the Recovery Plan suggested 

calculating sustainable mortality as a 

percentage of the minimum population 

estimate (as outlined in Demographic 

Recovery Criterion 3), this method no 

longer represents the best scientific and 

commercial information available (see 

pages 9–11 of Study Team 2005). As per 

a court settlement (Fund for Animals v. 

Babbit) and as recommended by 

Recovery Plan Task Y11, the Service has 

worked to ‘‘determine population 

conditions at which the species is viable 

and self-sustaining,’’ and to ‘‘reevaluate 

and refine population criteria as new 

information becomes available’’ (Service 

1993, p. 44). Beginning in 2000, the 

Study Team, at the request of the 

Service, began a comprehensive 

evaluation of the demographic data and 

the methodology used to estimate 

population size and establish the 

sustainable level of mortality to grizzly 

bears in the Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Accordingly, the Study Team conducted 

a critical review of the current methods 

for calculating population size, 

estimating the known to unknown 

mortality ratio, and establishing 

sustainable mortality levels for the 

Yellowstone grizzly population (Study 

Team 2005). The product of this work 

is a 60-page report compiled by the 

Study Team that evaluates current 

methods, reviews recent scientific 

literature, examines alternative 

methods, and recommends the most 

valid technique based on these reviews 

(Study Team 2005) (accessible at http:// 

mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/ 

mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The 

end result of this review is a revised 

method customized for the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population for calculating 

total population size rather than 

minimum population size (Study Team 

2005). This revised method will be 

appended to the Recovery Plan and 

included in the Conservation Strategy. 

As with the previous method, the 

revised method uses counts of 

unduplicated females with cubs-of-theyear as the baseline data upon which 

the total population is calculated. From 

this, the total number of independent 

females (>2 years old) in the 

Yellowstone population is calculated 

(Keating et al. 2002). This number is 

then divided by the modeled sex ratio 

(Schwartz et al. 2005) of grizzly bears in 

the Yellowstone population to 

determine the total number of 

independent males (>2 years old) in the 

population. The last component of 

calculating a total population is to add 

the number of cubs less than 2 years old 

(i.e., dependent young.). This number is 

extrapolated from the number of females 

with cubs-of-the-year (Study Team 

2005). Finally, by adding the number of 

independent males, independent 

females, and dependent young, the total 

population is determined. The revised 

method for calculating total population 

size produces a larger estimate than the 

current method which only calculates 

the minimum population size. For 

example, using the current method, the 

minimum population size in 2004 was 

431 bears. Using the revised method, the 

total population estimate of Yellowstone 

grizzly bears in 2004 was 588 (Study 

Team 2005). The total population 

estimate is considered a more accurate 

representation of actual population size 

(Study Team 2005). Total population 

size is critical in determining 

sustainable mortality. 

Also outdated is the Recovery Plan’s 

total human-caused mortality limit and 

female human-caused mortality limit as 

outlined in Demographic Recovery 

Criterion 3. In 1986, Harris (1986) 

concluded that healthy grizzly bear 

populations could sustain 

approximately 6.5 percent humancaused mortality without population 

decline. To account for unknown/ 

unreported deaths, the Service assumed 

that for every two bears known to be 

killed by human causes, there was one 

that was unknown. This approach on 

unknown mortalities resulted in the 

Service adopting a more conservative 4 

percent limit on known human-caused 

grizzly bear mortalities in the Grizzly 

Bear Recovery Plan (Service 1993). 

After critically reviewing the current 

method of establishing human-caused 

mortality limits, alternative methods, 

and scientific literature, the Study Team 

concluded that Harris’ (1986) method 

was no longer the best available nor the 

most biologically valid (Study Team 

2005). As a result of this effort, the 

Study Team recommended revising the 

sustainable mortality limits for the 

Yellowstone population (Study Team 

2005). The revised mortality limits are 

derived from a more accurate model for 

establishing sustainable mortality limits 

for grizzly bear populations (Schwartz et 

al. 2005). 

The refined method resulted in new, 

calculated mortality limits for 

independent females, males, and 

dependent young. Unlike the previous 

method, which only counted humancaused mortalities against a 4 percent 

limit, the revised method counts all 

deaths of grizzly bears from any source 

against the limits. This includes: (1) 

Known and probable human-caused 

mortalities; (2) reported deaths due to 

natural and undetermined causes; and 

(3) calculated unreported human-caused 

mortalities. This new method is a much 

more comprehensive mortality 

management approach. Between 1980 

and 2002, approximately 21 percent of 

all known grizzly bear deaths were from 

undetermined causes (Servheen et al. 

2004). These deaths could not be 

counted against the 4 percent humancaused mortality limit using the 

previous method because the cause of 

death could not be confirmed. The 

previous method also assumed a 2-to-1 

known-to-unknown mortality ratio. 

Many researchers hypothesize that the 

ratio of known-to-unknown mortality is 

much higher than 2-to-1 (Knight and 

Eberhardt 1985; McLellan et al. 1999). 

After careful consideration and using 

the best available science, the Study 

Team adopted a known-to-unknown 

mortalities ratio of 1-to-1.7 (Cherry et al. 

2002; Study Team 2005). 

For independent females, the revised 

annual mortality limit, not to be 

exceeded in 2 consecutive years, which 

includes all sources of mortality, is 9 

percent of the total number of 

independent females. Simulations have 

shown that a 9 percent adult female 

mortality rate allows populations to 

increase at 3 percent per year with a 

stable to increasing population 95 

percent of the time (Schwartz et al. 

2005). 

The revised mortality limit for 

independent males (≥2 years old), not to 

be exceeded in 3 consecutive years, is 

15 percent of the total number of 

independent males and, like the limit 

for independent females, includes all 

sources of mortality. This level of 

mortality was sustainable under 

different population growth model 

scenarios simulated by Schwartz et al. 

(2005). The Study Team chose this limit 

because it approximates the level of 

male mortality in the GYA from 1983 to 

2001, a period when population size 

was calculated to have increased at 4 to 

7 percent each year (Schwartz et al. 

2005). Independent males can endure a 

relatively high mortality rate without 

affecting the overall stability or 

trajectory of the population because 

they contribute little to overall 

population growth (Mace and Waller 

1998; Wielgus 2002; Study Team 2005; 

Schwartz et al. 2005). 

For dependent young (<2 years old), 

the mortality limit, not to be exceeded 

in 3 consecutive years, is 9 percent of 

the total number of dependent young 

(Study Team 2005). However, this only 

includes known and probable humancaused mortalities. This limit is less 

69860 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

than the 15 percent human-caused 

mortality documented for each sex from 

1983 to 2001, a period of population 

growth and expansion (Study Team 

2005). Although it is known that 

dependent bears experience far higher 

natural mortality rates than independent 

bears, there is no known way to sample 

these mortalities directly in the field. 

Instead, these rates are calculated from 

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

Annual allowable mortality limits for 

each bear class (independent female, 

independent male, dependent young) 

are calculated as a running 3-year 

average based on total population 

estimates of each bear class for the 

current year and the 2 preceding years 

(Study Team 2005). This dampens 

variability and provides managers with 

inter-annual stability in the threshold 

number of mortalities allowed. The 

Study Team calculates both the total 

population size and the mortality limits 

within an area designated by the 

Conservation Strategy (see The 

Conservation Strategy section) that 

overlaps and extends beyond suitable 

habitat (Figure 1, see Application of the 

Distinct Population Segment Policy 

section). Future changes to either of 

these methods will be based on the best 

scientific information available. This 

revised methodology for calculating 

total population size and establishing 

sustainable mortality limits will be 

appended to the Recovery Plan prior to 

our making a final determination on this 

proposed action and included in the 

Conservation Strategy. Applying this 

method to 1999 to 2004 data, these 

mortality limits have not been exceeded 

for consecutive years for any bear class. 

Maintaining Genetic Diversity. As per 

a court settlement (Fund for Animals v. 

Babbitt), measurable criteria to assess 

genetic isolation will be appended to 

the existing Yellowstone chapter of the 

1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 

(Service 1993) before we make a final 

determination on this proposed action. 

Changes in genetic diversity must be 

monitored over time in order to make 

sound decisions regarding the need for 

augmentation of new individuals to 

increase diversity if it is being lost. 

When the Recovery Plan was revised in 

1993, many of the genetic techniques 

and markers commonly used today to 

assess genetic diversity and isolation 

were just being developed. Following 

direction from the Court, the Service 

reviewed the best available and most 

recent scientific information pertaining 

to genetic monitoring and established 

measurable genetic criteria based on this 

review. This document was made 

available for public review in 1997 (62 

FR 47677; September 10, 1997). A draft 

of this document is available for 

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

grizzly/yellowstone.htm. This revised 

genetics recovery criteria will be 

appended to the Recovery Plan and 

included in the Conservation Strategy. 

Long-term management of genetic 

diversity is discussed in more detail 

under Factor E. 

The Conservation Strategy. In order to 

ensure the long-term preservation of a 

viable population, the Recovery Plan 

calls for the development of ‘‘a 

conservation strategy to outline habitat 

and population monitoring that will 

continue in force after recovery’’

(Recovery Plan Task Y426) (Service 

1993, p. 55). To accomplish this goal, in 

1993, the Service created the 

Interagency Conservation Strategy Team 

which included biologists from the 

National Park Service (NPS), the USFS, 

the Service, the IDFG, the WGFD, and 

MTFWP. 

In March 2000, a draft Conservation 

Strategy for the GYA was released for 

public review and comment (65 FR 

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

Governors’ Roundtable was organized to 

provide recommendations from the 

perspectives of the three States that 

would be involved with grizzly bear 

management after delisting. In 2002, the 

draft Final Conservation Strategy for the 

Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone 

Area (hereafter referred to as the 

Strategy) was released, along with drafts 

of State grizzly bear management plans 

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

grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The Service 

will sign the Strategy, and it will go into 

effect if we finalize this proposed 

action. 

The purpose of the Strategy and 

associated State and Federal 

implementation plans is to—(1) 

describe, summarize, and implement 

the coordinated efforts to manage the 

grizzly bear population and its habitat to 

ensure continued conservation of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population; (2) 

specify and implement the population, 

habitat, and nuisance bear standards to 

maintain a recovered grizzly bear 

population for the foreseeable future; (3) 

document the regulatory mechanisms 

and legal authorities, policies, 

management, and monitoring programs 

that exist to maintain the recovered 

grizzly bear population; and (4) 

document the actions which the 

participating agencies have agreed to 

implement. 

The Strategy identifies and provides a 

framework for managing two areas, the 

Primary Conservation Area (PCA) and 

adjacent areas of suitable habitat where 

occupancy by grizzly bears is 

anticipated. The PCA boundaries 

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

correspond to those of the Yellowstone 

Recovery Zone (Service 1993) and will 

replace the Recovery Zone boundary if 

this proposed delisting is finalized 

(Figure 1 (see Application of the 

Distinct Population Segment Policy 

section)). The PCA contains adequate 

seasonal habitat components needed to 

support the recovered Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population for the 

foreseeable future and to allow bears to 

continue to expand outside the PCA. 

The PCA includes approximately 51 

percent of the suitable habitat within 

the DPS and approximately 90 percent 

of the population of female grizzly bears 

with cubs (Schwartz 2005, unpublished 

data). 

The Strategy will be implemented and 

funded by both Federal and State 

agencies within the Yellowstone DPS. 

These Federal agencies will cooperate 

with the State wildlife agencies, 

MTFWP, IGFD, and WDFG, to 

implement the Strategy and its 

protective habitat and population 

standards. The USFS and NPS (which 

own and manage approximately 98 

percent of the PCA) will be responsible 

for maintaining or improving habitat 

standards inside the PCA and 

monitoring population criteria. 

Specifically, Yellowstone National Park; 

Grand Teton National Park; and the 

Shoshone, the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, 

the Bridger-Teton, the Caribou-Targhee, 

the Custer, and the Gallatin National 

Forests are the primary areas with 

Federal agencies responsible for 

implementing the Strategy. Affected 

National Forests and National Parks are 

currently in the process of incorporating 

the habitat standards and criteria into 

their Forest Plans and National Park 

management plans via appropriate 

amendment processes so that they are 

legally applied to these public lands 

within the proposed Yellowstone DPS 

boundaries. The Service would not 

finalize this proposed action until these 

amendments to current management 

plans are completed. 

Outside of the PCA, grizzly bears will 

be allowed to expand into suitable 

habitat. Here the objective is to maintain 

existing resource management and 

recreational uses and to allow agencies 

to respond to demonstrated problems 

with appropriate management actions. 

The key to successful management of 

grizzly bears outside of the PCA lies in 

their successfully utilizing lands not 

managed solely for bears, but in which 

their needs are considered along with 

other uses. Currently, approximately 10 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69861 

percent of female grizzly bears with 

cubs occupy habitat outside of the PCA 

(Schwartz 2005, unpublished data). The 

area of suitable habitat outside of the 

PCA is roughly 82.3 percent federally 

owned and administered by one of the 

six National Forests in the region, the 

BLM, the NPS, or the Service; 9.5 

percent privately owned; 6.0 percent 

tribally owned; 0.7 percent State-owned 

land; and 2 percent in other ownership 

(such as private conservation trusts or 

other Federal ownership). State grizzly 

bear management plans, Forest Plans, 

and other appropriate planning 

documents provide specific 

management direction for areas outside 

of the PCA. 

This differential management 

standard (one standard inside the PCA 

and another standard for suitable habitat 

outside the PCA) has been successful in 

the past (see USFS 2004, p. 19). Lands 

within the PCA/Recovery Zone are 

currently managed primarily to 

maintain grizzly bear habitat, whereas 

lands outside of the PCA/Recovery Zone 

boundaries are managed with more 

consideration for human uses (Service 

1993). Such flexible management 

promotes communication and tolerance 

for grizzly bear recovery. As grizzly bear 

populations within the Recovery Zone 

have rebounded in response to recovery 

efforts, there has been a gradual natural 

recolonization of suitable habitat 

outside of the PCA/Recovery Zone. 

Today, most suitable habitat outside of 

the Recovery Zone is occupied by 

grizzly bears (68 percent). 

The Strategy is an adaptive, dynamic 

document that establishes a framework 

to incorporate new and better scientific 

information as it becomes available or as 

necessary in response to environmental 

changes. Ongoing review and evaluation 

of the effectiveness of the Strategy is the 

responsibility of the State and Federal 

managers and will be updated by the 

management agencies every 5 years or 

as necessary, allowing public comment 

in the updating process. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On July 28, 1975, the grizzly bear was 

designated as threatened in the 

conterminous (lower 48) United States 

(40 FR 31734). On November 5, 1976, 

the Service proposed critical habitat for 

the grizzly bear (41 FR 48757). This 

proposed rule was never finalized and 

we withdrew this proposed designation 

in 1979 because the 1978 amendments 

to the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

imposed additional obligations on the 

Service, such as economic analysis, that 

had not been adequately addressed in 

the proposal. 

At the time of listing, special 

regulations were issued in conjunction 

with the listing determination, and were 

incorporated into 50 CFR 17.40(b). 

These rules provided general protection 

to the species, but allowed take under 

certain conditions to defend human life, 

to eliminate nuisance animals, and to 

carry out research. Legal grizzly bear 

mortality has been almost entirely due 

to removal of chronic nuisance bears by 

government bear managers due to 

repeated human/bear conflicts or to 

killing by humans in self-defense or 

defense of others (Gunther et al. 2004; 

Servheen et al. 2004). In addition, a 

limited sport hunting season was 

authorized in a specified portion of 

northwestern Montana; these rules were 

modified in 1985 (50 FR 35086; August 

29, 1985) and 1986 (51 FR 33753; 

September 23, 1986). A similar, limited 

hunt was proposed for the Yellowstone 

Ecosystem in October of 1989 (54 FR 

42524; October 17, 1989), but this rule 

was never finalized. The Service 

withdrew the hunt provisions of 50 CFR 

17.40(b) (see 57 FR 37478) in response 

to a court decision that declared 50 CFR 

17.40(b)(1)(i)(E) invalid and enjoined 

the Service from authorizing a grizzly 

bear hunt (Fund for Animals, Inc., v. 

Turner, Civil No. 91–2201 (MB), 

September 27, 1991) (57 FR 37478; 

August 19, 1992). 

According to the Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Plan (Service 1982, 1993), 

individual populations could be 

delisted as recovery goals were achieved 

(Service 1982, 1993). In the 1990s, the 

Service received a number of petitions 

to change the status of several grizzly 

bear populations. The Service issued 

warranted-but-precluded petition 

findings to reclassify the grizzly bear in 

the North Cascade Ecosystems as 

endangered in 1991 and 1998 (56 FR 

33892, July 24, 1991; 63 FR 30453, June 

4, 1998). The Service also issued 

warranted-but-precluded petition 

findings to reclassify the grizzly bear in 

the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystems as 

endangered in 1993 and 1999 (58 FR 

8250, February 12, 1993; 64 FR 26725, 

May 17, 1999). Finally, the Service 

issued a not warranted petition finding 

to uplist the Selkirk Ecosystem bears in 

1993 (58 FR 8250; February 12, 1993), 

followed by a warranted-but-precluded 

petition finding in 1999 (64 FR 26725; 

May 17, 1999). The Service reviewed 

these warranted-but-precluded findings 

in the 1999 (64 FR 57533; October 25, 

1999), 2001 (66 FR 54808; October 30, 

2001), 2002 (67 FR 40657; June 13, 

2002), 2003 (69 FR 24876; May 4, 2004), 

and 2004 (70 FR 24870; May 11, 2005) 

Candidate Notices of Review. These 

actions remain precluded by higher 

priority actions. The Service’s decision 

to manage each population separately, 

including each population’s listing 

status, predated our DPS policy (61 FR 

4722; February 7, 1996). None of the 

above decisions included formal DPS 

analysis, although the warranted 

uplisting petition finding in 1999 (64 FR 

26725; May 17, 1999) included a 

preliminary DPS analysis. In 

preparation for future application of the 

DPS policy, beyond this action, 

including that required to implement 

warranted-but-precluded uplistings or 

any additional reclassification 

proposals, we are currently collecting 

additional genetic and bear movement 

information. The Service expects that 

this information will be available within 

the next few years. In anticipation of 

this information, the Service intends to 

initiate a 5-year review of all listed 

grizzly bear populations in the 

conterminous States, including an 

evaluation of the appropriate 

application of the DPS policy and the 

threats facing each listable entity should 

this proposed rule be finalized. 

Adequate information of this type 

already exists for the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population. 

This proposed delisting action was 

not prompted by a petition. However, 

there was a March 31, 2004, petition 

from the Wyoming Farm Bureau 

Federation requesting that we declare 

the grizzly bear in the GYA as a DPS 

(Hamilton et al. in litt. 2004). This 

petition did not seek to change the 

status of grizzly bears as a threatened 

species in any or all of the species’

range. On May 17, 2004, the Service 

responded that section 4 of the ESA 

limits petitionable actions to listing, 

delisting, designation or modification of 

critical habitat, or reclassification of the 

status of a species (meaning whether a 

species is classified as endangered or 

threatened) and that this petition did 

not fit any of these categories 

(Blankenship in litt. 2004). Instead, 

petitioners were informed that the 

requested action falls within the 

authority of the Administrative 

Procedures Act; that the Service was 

currently considering the Yellowstone 

population for delisting; and that an 

evaluation of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear recovery area as a potential DPS 

was a part of this process. The 

Administrative Procedures Act provides 

no statutory time periods for processing 

petitions, but this action, if finalized, 

will address this petition. 

69862 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment 

Policy Overview 

Pursuant to the ESA, we shall 

consider for listing any species, 

subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS 

of these taxa if there is sufficient 

information to indicate that such action 

may be warranted. To interpret and 

implement the DPS provision of the 

ESA and congressional guidance, the 

Service and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service published, on 

December 21, 1994, a draft Policy 

Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 

Vertebrate Population Segments under 

the ESA and invited public comments 

on it (59 FR 65884). After review of 

comments and further consideration, 

the Services adopted the interagency 

policy as issued in draft form, and 

published it in the Federal Register on 

February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). This 

policy addresses the establishment of 

DPSs for potential listing actions. 

Under our DPS policy, three factors 

are considered in a decision regarding 

the establishment of a possible DPS. 

These are applied similarly for 

additions to the list of endangered and 

threatened species, reclassification, and 

removal from the list. They are—(1) 

discreteness of the population segment 

in relation to the remainder of the taxon 

(i.e., U. a. horribilis); (2) the significance 

of the population segment to the taxon 

to which it belongs (i.e., U. a. horribilis); 

and (3) the population segment’s 

conservation status in relation to the 

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

population segment, when treated as if 

it were a species, endangered or 

threatened). 

Application of the Distinct Population 

Segment Policy 

Although the Vertebrate Population 

Policy does not allow State or other 

intra-national governmental boundaries 

to be used in determining the 

discreteness of a potential DPS, an 

artificial or manmade boundary may be 

used as a boundary of convenience in 

order to clearly identify the geographic 

area included within a DPS designation. 

Easily identifiable manmade projects, 

such as interstate highways, Federal 

highways, and State highways, also can 

serve as a boundary of convenience for 

delineating a DPS. Thus, the proposed 

Yellowstone DPS consists of: That 

portion of Idaho that is east of Interstate 

Highway 15 and north of U.S. Highway 

30; and that portion of Montana that is 

east of Interstate Highway 15 and south 

of Interstate Highway 90; that portion of 

Wyoming south of Interstate Highway 

90, west of Interstate Highway 25, 

Wyoming State Highway 220, and U.S. 

Highway 287 south of Three Forks (at 

the 220 and 287 intersection), and north 

of Interstate Highway 80 and U.S. 

Highway 30 (Figure 1, below). 

The core of the proposed Yellowstone 

DPS is the Yellowstone Recovery Zone 

(24,000 sq km (9,200 sq mi)) (Service 

1982, 1993). The Yellowstone Recovery 

Zone includes Yellowstone National 

Park; Grand Teton National Park; John 

D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway; 

sizable contiguous portions of the 

Shoshone, Bridger-Teton, Targhee, 

Gallatin, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, and 

Custer National Forests; BLM lands; and 

surrounding State and private lands 

(Service 1993). As grizzly bear 

populations have rebounded and 

densities have increased, bears have 

expanded their range beyond the 

Recovery Zone, into other suitable 

habitat. Grizzly bears in this area now 

occupy about 36,940 sq km (14,260 sq 

mi) in and around the Yellowstone 

Recovery Zone (Schwartz et al. 2002; 

Schwartz 2005, unpublished data). No 

grizzly bears originating from the 

Yellowstone Recovery Zone have been 

suspected or confirmed beyond the 

borders of the proposed Yellowstone 

DPS. 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69863 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C 


EP17NO05.000</GPH>
69864 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Analysis for Discreteness 

Under our Policy Regarding the 

Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments, a population 

segment of a vertebrate species may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions—(1) It is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon (i.e., U. 

a. horribilis) as a consequence of 

physical, physiological, ecological, or 

behavioral factors (quantitative 

measures of genetic or morphological 

discontinuity may provide evidence of 

this separation); or (2) it is delimited by 

international governmental boundaries 

within which differences in control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms exist that are significant in 

light of section 4(a)(1)(D) (‘‘the 

inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms’’) of the ESA. 

The Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population is the southernmost 

population remaining in the 

conterminous States and has been 

physically separated from other areas 

where grizzly bears occur for at least 

100 years (Merriam 1922; Miller and 

Waits 2003). The nearest population of 

grizzly bears is found in the NCDE. 

These populations are separated by land 

ownership, vegetation, and topographic 

patterns which have promoted human 

occupation, development, and land uses 

in the intervening valleys between large 

blocks of mountainous, public lands 

(Servheen et al. 2003). These human 

activities increase grizzly bear mortality 

risk by increasing the frequency of 

encounters with humans, which 

increases the chances for grizzly bear/ 

human conflicts (Mattson et al. 1996). 

The end result of this increased 

mortality risk in the intervening valleys 

is a functional barrier to grizzly bear 

movement across the landscape and 

connectivity between the GYA and the 

NCDE. 

As of 2005, grizzly bears from the 

Yellowstone area have not migrated 

north across Interstate 90 (the northern 

boundary of the proposed DPS), 

probably for at least the last century 

(Miller and Waits 2003). Meanwhile, 

during the last decade, there have been 

occasional anecdotal reports of grizzly 

bears from the NCDE as far south as 

Highway 12 near Helena, Montana. 

These unverified reports are 

approximately 130 km (80 mi) north of 

the most northerly Yellowstone grizzly 

bears. This distance is too far for normal 

grizzly bear dispersal distances of 

roughly 10 to 40 km (6 to 25 mi) 

(McLellan and Hovey 2001; Proctor et 

al. 2004) to effectively connect the 

NCDE population with the proposed 

Yellowstone DPS. There is currently no 

connectivity, nor are there any resident 

grizzly bears in the area, between these 

two separate grizzly bear populations. 

Although future connectivity through 

this area may be possible as grizzly bear 

populations expand, grizzly bears in the 

Yellowstone area remain an island 

population separated from other grizzly 

bears further north by about 210 km 

(130 mi). 

Because the Yellowstone Ecosystem 

represents the most southerly 

population of grizzly bears, connectivity 

further south is not an issue. 

Additionally, connectivity east also is 

irrelevant to this action as grizzly bears 

in the lower 48 States no longer exist 

east of the Yellowstone area, and most 

of the habitat is unsuitable for grizzly 

bears. Finally, connectivity west into 

the Bitterroot Mountains is irrelevant to 

this action because no bears have been 

documented in this ecosystem in the 

past 30 years (Service 1993; 65 FR 

69624, November 17, 2000; Service 

2000). 

Genetic data also support the 

conclusion that grizzly bears from the 

Yellowstone area are markedly 

separated from other grizzly bears. 

Genetic studies involving heterozygosity 

(provides a measure of genetic variation 

in either a population or individual) 

estimates at 8 microsatellite loci show 

55 percent heterozygosity in the 

Yellowstone area grizzly bears 

compared to 69 percent in the NCDE 

bears (Paetkau et al. 1998). 

Heterozygosity is a useful measure of 

genetic diversity with higher values 

indicative of greater genetic variation 

and evolutionary potential. High levels 

of genetic variation are indicative of 

high levels of connectivity among 

populations or high numbers of 

breeding animals. By comparing 

heterozygosity of extant bears to 

samples from Yellowstone grizzlies of 

the early 1900s, Miller and Waits (2003) 

concluded that gene flow and therefore 

population connectivity, between the 

Yellowstone area grizzly population and 

populations to the north was very low 

historically, even prior to the arrival of 

settlers. The reasons for this historic 

limitation of gene flow are unclear. 

Increasing levels of human activity and 

settlement in this intervening area over 

the last century further limited grizzly 

bear movements into and out of the 

Yellowstone area, resulting in even less 

connectivity than in the past. 

Based on our analysis of the best 

available scientific information, we find 

that the Yellowstone area grizzly 

population and other remaining grizzly 

bears populations are markedly 

separated from each other. This 

contention is supported by evidence of 

physical separation between 

populations and evidence of genetic 

discontinuity. Therefore, the proposed 

Yellowstone DPS meets the criterion of 

discreteness under our Policy Regarding 

the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments. 

Analysis for Significance 

If we determine a population segment 

is discrete, we next consider available 

scientific evidence of its significance to 

the taxon (i.e., U. a. horribilis) to which 

it belongs. Our DPS policy states that 

this consideration may include, but is 

not limited to, the following—(1) 

Persistence of the discrete population 

segment in an ecological setting unusual 

or unique for the taxon; (2) Evidence 

that loss of the discrete population 

segment would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon; (3) 

Evidence that the discrete population 

segment represents the only surviving 

natural occurrence of a taxon that may 

be more abundant elsewhere as an 

introduced population outside its 

historic range; and/or (4) Evidence that 

the discrete population segment differs 

markedly from other populations of the 

species in its genetic characteristics. 

Below we address Factors 1, 2, and 4. 

Factor 3 does not apply to the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

because it is not the only surviving wild 

population of the species and, therefore, 

this factor is not included in our 

analysis for significance. 

Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting. 

Grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area 

exist in a unique ecosystem that has 

greater access to large-bodied ungulates 

such as bison (Bison bison), elk (Cervus 

elaphus), and moose (Alces alces) and 

less access to fall berries than any other 

interior North American, European, or 

Asian grizzly bear population 

(Stroganov 1969; Mattson et al. 1991a; 

Jacoby et al. 1999; Schwartz et al. 2003). 

Unlike most other areas in the world 

where brown or grizzly bears still exist, 

the Yellowstone area ecosystem 

contains extensive populations of 

ungulates with an estimated 100,000 

elk, 29,500 mule (Odocoileus hemionus) 

and white-tailed deer (O. virginianus), 

5,800 moose, 4,000 bison and relatively 

smaller population of pronghorn 

antelope (Antilocapra americana) 

(Service 1994; Toman et al. 1997; Smith 

et al. 2003). Although grizzly bears are 

successful omnivores, grizzlies in the 

rest of the conterminous States (Jacoby 

et al. 1999), most of Europe (Berducou 

et al. 1983; Clevenger et al. 1992; Dahle 

et al. 1998), and in Siberia (Stroganov 

1969) rely on plant and insect materials 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69865 

for the majority of their diet. In contrast, 

grizzlies in the Yellowstone area rely on 

terrestrial mammals as their primary 

source of nutrition, as indicated by bear 

scats (Mattson 1997), feed site analysis 

(Mattson 1997), and bear hair isotope 

analysis (Jacoby et al. 1999). 

Concentration of isotopic nitrogen (15N) 

in grizzly bear hair from Yellowstone 

grizzly bears suggests that meat 

constitutes 45 percent and 79 percent of 

the annual diet for females and males, 

respectively (Jacoby et al. 1999). These 

high percentages of meat in the diet for 

Yellowstone grizzly bears are in contrast 

to the 0 to 33 percent of meat in the diet 

of bears in the NCDE and 0 to 17 percent 

of meat in the diet in bears from the 

Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (Jacoby et al. 

1999). Furthermore, the source of this 

animal meat is primarily large-bodied 

ungulates, not fish, as in other 

populations of brown bears in Alaska 

and Siberia (Stroganov 1969; 

Hilderbrand et al. 1996). Of particular 

relevance is grizzly bear use of wild 

bison, a species endemic to North 

America, but eradicated in most of the 

48 States except the GYA by the end of 

the 19th century (Steelquist 1998). 

Although bison numbers have increased 

since this time, the vast majority of 

bison are found in managed or ranched 

herds (Steelquist 1998). Their habitat, 

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

almost entirely converted to agricultural 

lands (Steelquist 1998), leaving little 

opportunity for existence in areas 

outside of the isolated refuges and 

ranches they are commonly found 

today. Mattson (1997) found that wild 

bison comprised the second largest 

source of ungulate meat (24 percent) 

consumed by Yellowstone grizzly bears, 

second only to elk (53 percent). 

The Yellowstone grizzly population 

also exists in a unique ecological setting 

because it is able to use whitebark pine 

seeds as a major food source. Whitebark 

pine, a tree species found only in North 

America (Schmidt 1994), exhibits 

annual variation in seed crops with high 

seed production in some years and very 

low seed production in other years 

(Weaver and Forcella 1986; Morgan and 

Bunting 1992). During these years of 

high seed production, Yellowstone 

grizzly bears derive as much as 51 

percent of their protein from pine nuts 

(Felicetti et al. 2003). In fact, grizzly 

bear consumption of ungulates 

decreases during years of high 

whitebark pine seed production 

(Mattson 1997). In most areas of North 

America where whitebark pine 

distribution overlaps with grizzly bear 

populations, bears do not consistently 

use this potential food source (Mattson 

and Reinhart 1994). This may be due to 

different climatic regimes which sustain 

berry-producing shrubs or simply the 

scarcity of whitebark pines in some 

areas of its range (Mattson and Reinhart 

1994). Dependence of Yellowstone 

grizzly bears on whitebark pine is 

unique because in most areas of its 

range, whitebark pine has been 

significantly reduced in numbers and 

distribution due to the introduced 

pathogen whitepine blister rust 

(Cronartium ribicola) (Kendall and 

Keane 2001). While there is evidence of 

blister rust in whitebark pines in the 

Yellowstone area, the pathogen has been 

present for more than 50 years 

(McDonald and Hoff 2001) but very few 

trees have been infected (see Factor E). 

Due to this dependency of Yellowstone 

grizzly bears on animal and plant 

species endemic to North America and 

currently limited to the GYA, the 

population is significant to the taxon 

because of its unique ecological setting. 

Significant Gap in the Range of the 

Taxon. Loss of the proposed 

Yellowstone DPS would represent a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon. 

As noted above, grizzly bears once lived 

throughout the North American Rockies 

from Alaska and Canada, and south into 

central Mexico. Grizzly bears have been 

extirpated from most of the southern 

portions of their historic range. Today, 

the proposed Yellowstone DPS 

represents the southernmost reach of the 

grizzly bear. The loss of this population 

would be significant because it would 

substantially curtail the range of the 

grizzly bear by moving the range 

approximately 4 degrees of latitude to 

the north. Thus, the loss of this 

population would result in a significant 

gap in the current range of the taxon. 

Given the grizzly bear’s historic 

occupancy of the conterminous States 

and the portion of the historic range the 

conterminous States represent, recovery 

in the lower 48 States where the grizzly 

bear existed in 1975 when it was listed 

has long been viewed as important to 

the taxon (40 FR 31734). The proposed 

Yellowstone DPS is significant in 

achieving this objective as it is 1 of only 

5 known occupied areas and constitutes 

approximately half of the remaining 

grizzly bears in the conterminous 48 

States. Finally, the proposed 

Yellowstone DPS represents the only 

grizzly bear population not connected to 

bears in Canada. 

Marked Genetic Differences. Several 

genetics studies have confirmed the 

uniqueness of grizzly bears in the 

Yellowstone area. The Yellowstone area 

population has been isolated from other 

grizzly bear populations for 

approximately 100 years or more (Miller 

and Waits 2003). Yellowstone grizzly 

bears have the lowest relative 

heterozygosity of any continental grizzly 

population yet investigated (Paetkau et 

al. 1998; Waits et al. 1998b). Only 

Kodiak Island grizzly bears, a different 

subspecies (Ursus arctos middendorfi), 

have lower heterozygosity scores (26.5 

percent), reflecting as much as 12,000 

years of separation from mainland 

populations (Paetkau et al. 1998; Waits 

et al. 1998b). Miller and Waits (2003) 

conclude that gene flow between the 

Yellowstone area and the closest 

remaining population was limited prior 

to the arrival of European settlers but 

could only speculate as to the reasons 

behind this historical separation. The 

apparent long-term difference in 

heterozygosity between Yellowstone 

and other Montana populations 

indicates a unique set of circumstances 

in which limited movement between 

these areas has resulted in a markedly 

different genetic situation for the 

Yellowstone population. 

We conclude that the Yellowstone 

grizzly population is significant because 

it exists in a unique ecological setting; 

the loss of this population would result 

in a significant gap in the range of the 

taxon; and this population’s genetic 

characteristics differ markedly from 

other grizzly bear populations. 

Conclusion of Distinct Population 

Segment Review 

Based on the best available scientific 

information, as described above, we find 

that the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population is discrete from other grizzly 

populations and significant to the 

remainder of the taxon (i.e., U. a. 

horribilis). Because the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population is discrete and 

significant, it warrants recognition as a 

DPS under the ESA. Therefore, the 

remainder of this proposed rule will 

focus on the Yellowstone DPS. 

Summary of Factors Affecting the 

Species 

Section 4 of the ESA and regulations 

promulgated to implement the listing 

provisions of the ESA (50 CFR part 424) 

set forth the procedures for listing, 

reclassifying, and delisting species. A 

species may be delisted, according to 50 

CFR 424.11(d), if the best scientific and 

commercial data available demonstrate 

that the species is no longer endangered 

or threatened because of (1) Extinction; 

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

data used for classification of the 

species. The analysis for a delisting due 

to recovery must be based on the five 

factors outlined in section 4(a)(1) of the 

ESA. This analysis must include an 

69866 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

evaluation of threats that existed at the 

time of listing and those that currently 

exist or that could potentially affect the 

species in the foreseeable future once 

the protections of the ESA are removed. 

A recovered population is one that no 

longer meets the ESA’s definition of 

threatened or endangered. The ESA 

defines an endangered species as one 

that is in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. A threatened species is one 

that is likely to become an endangered 

species in the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. 

The ESA defines ‘‘species’’ to also 

include any subspecies or, for 

vertebrates, any DPS. Because the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population is 

discrete and significant, as defined 

above, it warrants recognition as a DPS 

under the ESA and our policy (61 FR 

4722). Therefore, our analysis only 

covers the DPS. 

For the purposes of this proposed 

rule, ‘‘foreseeable future’’ shall refer to 

approximately 100 years. This 

definition is based on 10 grizzly bear 

generations where a single female may 

take 10 years to replace herself in a 

population. This time period is also 

commonly used in population viability 

analyses of grizzly bear populations 

(Boyce 1995; Saether et al. 1998; Boyce 

et al. 2001). 

For the purposes of this proposed 

rule, the ‘‘range’’ of this grizzly bear 

DPS is the area within the DPS 

boundaries where viable populations of 

the species now exist. As previously 

noted, we have defined the overall DPS 

boundary by existing roads for ease in 

determining its location. Bears occupy 

or can occupy all suitable habitat within 

the DPS boundary and a few individual 

bears occasionally occupy or pass 

through the areas we define as 

unsuitable habitat. Suitable habitat 

provides food, seasonal foraging 

opportunities, cover, denning areas, and 

security. We have defined suitable 

habitat for grizzly bears as areas having 

three characteristics—(1) being of 

adequate habitat quality and quantity to 

support grizzly bear reproduction and 

survival; (2) contiguous with the current 

distribution of Yellowstone grizzly bears 

such that natural re-colonization is 

possible; and (3) having low mortality 

risk as indicated through reasonable and 

manageable levels of grizzly bear/ 

human conflicts. Unsuitable habitat 

consists of those areas within the DPS 

boundary that cannot support viable 

populations of grizzly bears. 

The Statutory standard is whether the 

species is threatened in ‘‘all or a 

significant portion’’ of its range. Because 

the grizzly bear occupies all of its range 

within this DPS, we conducted the 

following threats assessment over the 

entire current range of the grizzly bear 

and throughout all suitable habitat 

within the DPS. 

A. The Present or Threatened 

Destruction, Modification, or 

Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range 

Habitat destruction and modification 

were major contributing factors leading 

to the ‘listing of the grizzly bear as a 

threatened species under the ESA in 

1975 (40 FR 1734). Both the dramatic 

decreases in historical range and land 

management practices in formerly 

secure grizzly bear habitat lead to the 

1975 listing (40 FR 1734). To address 

this source of population decline, the 

Study Team was created in 1973 to 

collect, manage, analyze, and distribute 

science-based information regarding 

habitat and demographic parameters 

upon which to base management and 

recovery. Then, in 1983, the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Committee was created to 

coordinate management efforts across 

multiple Federal lands and different 

States within the various Recovery 

Zones ultimately working to achieve 

recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower 

48 States. Its objective was to change 

land management practices on Federal 

lands that supported grizzly bear 

populations at the time of listing to 

provide security and maintain or 

improve habitat conditions for the 

grizzly bear. Since 1986, National Forest 

and National Park plans have 

incorporated the Guidelines for 

Management Involving Grizzly Bears in 

the Yellowstone area (USDA 1986) to 

manage grizzly bear habitat in the 

Yellowstone Recovery Zone. The 

Service considers implementation of 

these Guidelines to be a primary factor 

contributing to the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population’s recovery in the last 2 

decades. 

Management improvements made as a 

result of the Guidelines include, but are 

not limited to—(1) Federal and State 

agency coordination to produce 

nuisance bear guidelines that allow a 

quick response to resolve and minimize 

grizzly bear/human confrontations; (2) 

reduced motorized access route 

densities through restrictions, 

decommissioning, and closures; (3) 

highway design considerations to 

facilitate population connectivity; (4) 

closure of some important habitat areas 

to all human access in National Parks 

during certain seasons that are 

particularly important to grizzlies; (5) 

closure of many areas in the GYA to oil 

and gas leasing or implementing 

restrictions such as no surface 

occupancy; (6) elimination of two sheep 

allotments on the Caribou-Targhee 

National Forest in 1998, resulting in a 

46 percent decrease in total sheep 

animal months inside the Yellowstone 

Recovery Area; and (7) expanded 

Information and Education (IE) 

programs in the Yellowstone Recovery 

Area to help reduce the number of 

grizzly mortalities caused by big-game 

hunters. Overall, adherence to the 

Guidelines has changed land 

management practices on Federal lands 

to provide security and to maintain or 

improve habitat conditions for the 

grizzly bear. Implementation of these 

Guidelines has led to the successful 

rebound of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population, allowing it to significantly 

increase in size and distribution since 

its listing in 1975. 

In 2002, an interagency group 

representing pertinent State and Federal 

parties released the draft Final 

Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly 

Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Area to 

guide management and monitoring of 

the habitat and population of 

Yellowstone grizzly bears after delisting. 

The Strategy identifies and provides a 

framework for managing two areas, the 

PCA and adjacent areas of suitable 

habitat where occupancy by grizzly 

bears is anticipated. What follows is an 

assessment of present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of current suitable habitat, 

or range, in both of these areas. 

Habitat Management within the 

Primary Conservation Area: As per the 

Strategy and the habitat-based recovery 

criteria discussed above, the PCA will 

be a core security area for grizzlies 

where human impacts on habitat 

conditions will be maintained at or 

below levels that existed in 1998 

(Service 2003). The 1998 baseline for 

habitat standards was chosen because 

several studies (Boyce et al. 2001; 

Schwartz et al. 2005) showed that the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

was increasing at a rate of 4 to 7 percent 

per year between 1983 and 2001, and 

1998 was within the time that this rate 

of increase was occurring. Because 

levels of secure habitat and developed 

sites remained relatively constant in the 

10 years preceding 1998 (USFS 2004), 

the selection of 1998 assured that the 

habitat conditions that allowed this rate 

of population increase would be 

maintained. For each of the 40 bear 

management subunits, the 1998 baseline 

was determined through a GIS analysis 

of the amount of secure habitat, open 

and closed road densities, the number 

and capacity of livestock allotments, the 

number of developed sites on public 

lands, and habitat effectiveness. 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69867 

Secure habitat refers to those areas 

with no motorized access that are at 

least 4 hectares (10 acres) in size and 

more than 500 meters (550 yards) from 

a motorized access route or reoccurring 

helicopter flight line (USFS 2004). 

Grizzly bear habitat security is primarily 

achieved by managing motorized access 

which—(1) minimizes human 

interaction and reduces potential grizzly 

bear mortality risk, (2) minimizes 

displacement from important habitat, (3) 

minimizes habituation to humans, and 

(4) provides habitat where energetic 

requirements can be met with limited 

disturbance from humans (Mattson et al. 

1987; McLellan and Shackleton 1988; 

McLellan 1989; Mace et al. 1996; 

Mattson et al. 1996). Secure habitat is 

especially important to the survival and 

reproductive success of grizzly bears, 

especially adult female grizzly bears 

(Mattson et al. 1987; Interagency Grizzly 

Bear Committee 1994). In the 1998 

baseline, secure habitat comprised 45.4 

to 100 percent of the total area within 

a given subunit with an average of 86.2 

percent throughout the entire PCA 

(Table 2 in Appendix F of the Strategy). 

These levels of secure habitat have been 

successfully maintained and will 

continue to be maintained and 

improved, where possible, as directed 

by the Conservation Strategy (Service 

2003). 

Open road densities of more than 1.6 

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

calculated for two seasons to account for 

seasonal road closures. The percentage 

of land within each subunit containing 

road density values higher than 1.6 km/ 

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

from 0 to 46.1 percent, although the 

average for all subunits was only 10.7 

percent. Lands containing total road 

density values of more than 3.2 km/2.6 

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

0 to 28.1 percent of the total area within 

each subunit, with the average for all 

subunits of 5.3 percent (Table 2 in 

Appendix F of the Strategy). These 

levels of motorized access have been 

effectively maintained or improved from 

1998 levels, as per the habitat-based 

recovery criteria. The Conservation 

Strategy assures that they will continue 

to be managed at 1998 levels if this 

proposed delisting action is finalized 

(Service 2003). 

Several subunits within the 

boundaries of the Gallatin National 

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

3, and Madison No. 2) within the PCA 

have been identified as needing 

improvement in access parameters. 

However, the high road density values 

and subsequently low levels of secure 

habitat in these subunits is primarily 

due to motorized access on private land 

(Appendix G in the Strategy). The 

Gallatin National Forest is working on 

several land exchange efforts with 

private parties in these subunits. These 

land exchanges allow management of 

the roads on these private parcels and 

increase the secure habitat in these 

subunits. 

All the above-mentioned subunits on 

the Gallatin National Forest have the 

potential for improvement in the long 

term. The timing and amount of 

improvement will be determined 

through the Gallatin National Forest 

travel management planning process. 

The Travel Plan will amend the Gallatin 

Forest Plan and set a 1998 baseline for 

access values in these subunits. This 

travel Plan for the Gallatin National 

Forest is in revision as of 2005. 

The Gallatin Range Consolidation and 

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

and the Gallatin Range Consolidation 

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

in trading timber for land in the Gallatin 

No. 3 and Hilgard No. 1 subunits. The 

private land involved will become 

public land under the jurisdiction of the 

Gallatin National Forest. In order to 

complete the exchange, access values in 

these two subunits will temporarily 

decline below 1998 values. However, 

upon completion of this sale and land 

exchange, secure habitat and motorized 

access route density in these subunits 

will improve from the 1998 baseline 

(see Appendix F in the Strategy). 

The Strategy identified several 

subunits within the boundaries of the 

Targhee National Forest within the PCA 

in need of improvement in terms of 

motorized access (Plateau No. 1, Plateau 

No. 2, and Henry’s Lake No. 1). The 

Strategy states that upon full 

implementation of the access 

management changes in the revised 

1997 Targhee Forest Plan, those 

subunits will have acceptable levels of 

road densities and secure habitat due to 

the decommissioning of roughly 433 

miles of roads within the PCA (Service 

2003). As of June 2005, the Targhee 

National Forest has completed 

approximately 80 percent of this 

decommissioning work with the 

remaining 20 percent likely to be 

completed in 2005, after site-specific 

National Environmental Policy Act 

analyses are completed (USDA Forest 

Service 2005). The 1998 baseline (see 

Appendix F in the Strategy) for these 

subunits was modified to reflect 

increased road closures with the full 

implementation of the 1997 Targhee 

Forest Plan. Henry’s Lake subunit No. 1 

still has high levels of motorized access 

density and a low secure habitat level 

due to motorized access routes on 

private lands (see Appendix F of the 

Strategy). 

Habitat standards described in the 

Strategy regarding livestock require that 

the number of commercial livestock 

allotments and permitted sheep animal 

months within the PCA not increase 

above 1998 levels (Service 2003). 

Livestock allotments, particularly sheep 

allotments, decrease habitat security 

(i.e., habitat effectiveness) as grizzly 

bears occupying lands with sheep are 

more likely to come into conflict with 

these sheep. This increase in encounters 

between bears and livestock or their 

human owners decreases survival rates 

of grizzly bears in areas of active sheep 

allotments as repeat depredators are 

removed from the population. 

Additionally, sheep and cattle can 

compete directly to some degree with 

grizzly bears during late spring and 

early summer for desired foods such as 

grasses, sedges, and forbs (Jonkel 1980). 

Due to the higher prevalence of grizzly 

bear conflicts associated with sheep 

grazing, existing sheep allotments will 

be phased out as the opportunity arises 

with willing permittees. 

A total of 88 livestock allotments 

existed inside the PCA in 1998. Of these 

1998 allotments within the PCA, there 

were 71 active and 2 vacant cattle 

allotments and 11 active and 4 vacant 

sheep allotments with a total of 17,279 

animal months for sheep (Service 2003). 

Sheep animal months are calculated by 

multiplying the permitted number of 

animals by the permitted number of 

months. Any use of vacant allotments 

will only be permitted after an analysis 

is completed to evaluate impacts on 

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

sheep allotments within the PCA while 

the Shoshone National Forest has closed 

two sheep allotments (USDA Forest 

Service 2005). This has resulted in a 

reduction of 7,889 sheep animal months 

under the total calculated for 1998 

within the PCA and is a testament to the 

commitment land management agencies 

have to the ongoing success of the 

grizzly bear population in the 

Yellowstone area. As of 2005, there are 

a total of four active sheep allotments 

within the PCA: Two on Targhee 

National Forest and two on the Gallatin 

National Forest. The permittee of the 

two allotments on the Gallatin National 

Forest has agreed to waive the grazing 

permit back to the Gallatin National 

Forest without preference. The Gallatin 

National Forest plans to close these two 

allotments along with three other vacant 

allotments when they revise their 

current Forest Plan. This Forest Plan 

revision process is scheduled to be 

69868 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

completed by 2010 (USDA Forest 

Service 2005). 

The National Parks and National 

Forests within the PCA will manage 

developed sites at 1998 levels within 

each bear management subunit, with 

some exceptions for administrative and 

maintenance needs. Developed sites 

refer to sites on public land developed 

or improved for human use or resource 

development. Examples include 

campgrounds, trailheads, lodges, 

summer homes, restaurants, visitor 

centers, oil and gas exploratory wells, 

production wells, and work camps. The 

primary concerns related to developed 

sites are direct mortality from bear/ 

human encounters, food conditioning, 

and habituation of bears to humans 

(Mattson et al. 1987). Habituation 

occurs when grizzly bears encounter 

humans or developed sites frequently, 

and without negative consequences, so 

that the bears no longer avoid humans 

and areas of human activity. 

Habituation does not necessarily 

involve human-related food sources. 

Food conditioning occurs when grizzly 

bears receive human-related sources of 

food and thereafter seek out humans 

and human use areas as feeding sites. In 

areas of suitable habitat inside the PCA, 

the NPS and the USFS enforce food 

storage rules aimed at decreasing grizzly 

bear access to human foods. These 

regulations will continue to be enforced 

and will be applied to all suitable 

habitat within the Yellowstone DPS 

boundaries. 

Gunther (1994) noted that grizzly bear 

management in Yellowstone National 

Park has shifted from problems 

involving food-conditioned bears to 

problems involving habituated (but not 

food-conditioned) bears seeking natural 

foods within developed areas or along 

roadsides. New or expanded developed 

sites can impact bears through 

temporary or permanent habitat loss and 

displacement, increased length of time 

of human use, increased human 

disturbance to surrounding areas, and, 

potentially unsecured bear attractants. 

Developed sites on public lands are 

currently inventoried in existing GIS 

databases and are input in the 

Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Cumulative 

Effects Model. As of 1998, there were 

598 developed sites on public land 

within the PCA (USDA Forest Service 

2005). All changes in developed sites 

since 1998 have been evaluated against 

the baseline and have been determined 

acceptable under the standard for 

developed sites identified in the 

Strategy (Service 2003). For a new 

developed site to be determined 

acceptable, it must be demonstrated that 

it will have no effect on grizzly bears. 

For example, a cell phone tower would 

fit this criteria because there is no 

human occupancy, nor human 

attractants such as garbage or other 

potential food sources. However, 

campgrounds, trailheads, lodges, 

summer homes, restaurants, visitor 

centers, oil and gas exploratory wells, 

production wells, and work camps 

would not be considered acceptable. No 

changes in the 1998 baseline have 

occurred in terms of site developments. 

Management of oil, gas, mining, and 

timber development also are tracked as 

part of the developed site monitoring 

effort. There were no oil and gas leases 

inside the PCA as of 1998. There are 

approximately 552 sq km (213 sq mi) of 

secure habitat potentially available for 

oil, gas, or timber projects within the 

PCA. This comprises only 2 percent of 

all suitable habitat within the PCA. 

Additionally, 1,354 mining claims 

existed in 10 of the subunits inside the 

PCA (Table 1 in Appendix F of the 

Strategy), but only 27 of these mining 

claims had operating plans. These 

operating plans are included in the 1998 

developed site baseline. Under the 

conditions of the Strategy, any new 

project will be approved only if it 

conforms to secure habitat and 

developed site standards (Service 2003). 

For instance, any project that reduces 

the amount of secure habitat 

permanently will have to provide 

replacement secure habitat of equivalent 

habitat quality (as measured by the 

Cumulative Effects Model or equivalent 

technology) and any change in 

developed sites will require mitigation 

equivalent to the type and extent of the 

impact. For projects that temporarily 

change the amount of secure habitat, 

only one project is allowed in any 

subunit at any time. Mitigation of any 

project will occur within the same 

subunit and will be proportional to the 

type and extent of the project. 

Finally, the Service established a 

habitat effectiveness baseline by 

documenting habitat effectiveness 

values using the Cumulative Effects 

Model and 1998 habitat data (Service 

2003). Habitat effectiveness values 

reflect the relative amount of energy 

(derived from natural foods) that is 

available to grizzly bears given their 

response to human activities. Important 

foods are key habitat-based criteria. The 

inverse relationship between whitebark 

pine cone production and grizzly 

conflicts in the Yellowstone Ecosystem 

has been documented (Mattson et al. 

1992; Knight and Blanchard 1995; 

Gunther et al. 1997, 2004). However, the 

relationship between other important 

foods such as spring ungulate carcasses, 

cutworm moths, and cutthroat trout is 

not as clear cut. Therefore, it is 

important to monitor foods and 

continue to relate major food abundance 

to demographics and human/bear 

conflicts. Monitoring habitat 

effectiveness using the Cumulative 

Effects Model is valuable in 

understanding and maintaining 

important habitats for grizzly bears. 

Should we finalize delisting, the Study 

Team would continue coordinating with 

the National Forests and National Parks 

within the PCA to update and evaluate 

habitat effectiveness against the 1998 

baseline. 

To establish the 1998 baseline for 

habitat effectiveness values, the Forest 

Service calculated habitat effectiveness 

within each subunit for four important 

bear seasons: Spring (March 1–May 15); 

estrus (May 16–July 15); early 

hyperphagia (July 16–August 31); and 

late hyperphagia (September 1–

November 30) (Table 6 in Appendix F 

of the Strategy). High habitat 

effectiveness values during estrus are 

associated with cutthroat trout 

spawning streams. Similarly, high 

habitat effectiveness values during early 

hyperphagia and late hyperphagia are 

associated with moth aggregation sites 

and whitebark pine, respectively. 

Habitat effectiveness values also are 

directly influenced by the amount of 

secure habitat in a subunit. This 

combination of the distribution and 

abundance of natural foods and the 

distribution and abundance of human 

activities produces relative values 

indicative of how effective a certain 

subunit is at supporting grizzly bear 

growth, reproduction, and survival. As 

such, values varied widely among 

seasons and across seasons within 

subunits (Table 6 in Appendix F of the 

Strategy). Because the National Park 

Service and the Forest Service have not 

changed levels of road densities, secure 

habitat, developed sites, or livestock 

allotments except to improve upon the 

1998 baseline, the 1998 habitat 

effectiveness values remain applicable. 

At this point, habitat effectiveness 

values have remained at sufficient levels 

to support grizzly bears since other 

more frequently measured and 

monitored habitat baseline (such as road 

densities, secure habitat, site 

development, and livestock allotments) 

have not changed. If this rule is 

finalized and the Strategy is 

implemented, the USFS could measure 

changes in seasonal habitat effectiveness 

values in each Bear Management Unit 

and subunit by regular application of 

the Cumulative Effects Model or best 

available system and compare outputs 

with the 1998 baseline values (Service 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69869 

2003). The Cumulative Effects Model 

databases would be reviewed annually 

and updated as needed (Service 2003). 

The Strategy calls for maintaining or 

improving the existing habitat 

effectiveness values in secure habitat in 

each subunit (Service 2003). Private 

land development would also be 

monitored and linked to numbers of 

human/bear conflicts, causes of human/ 

bear conflicts, and distribution of 

human/bear conflicts so as to direct 

management efforts to improve food 

supply and minimize bear/human 

conflicts in such areas. 

Within the PCA, each National Forest 

and National Park would monitor 

adherence to the secure habitat, 

developed site, and livestock standards 

inside the PCA, as established by the 

Strategy (Service 2003). If we finalize 

delisting, the Study Team would 

monitor habitat effectiveness and track 

any changes to the habitat from fire, 

insects, and disease, and other human 

activities not measured by the habitat 

standard monitoring efforts. The 

agencies will measure changes in 

seasonal habitat value and effectiveness 

in each bear management unit and 

subunit by regular application of the 

Cumulative Effects Model or the best 

available system, and compare outputs 

to the 1998 baseline. These databases 

incorporate information regarding 

vegetation, the abundance and 

distribution of the four major bear foods, 

location, duration, and intensity of use 

for motorized access routes, nonmotorized access routes, developed 

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

Team would review Cumulative Effects 

Model databases annually to refine and 

verify Cumulative Effects Model 

assumptions and update them as needed 

to reflect changes in intensity or 

duration of human use. The multiagency Yellowstone Grizzly 

Coordinating Committee (hereafter 

referred to as the Coordinating 

Committee) may review and revise 

habitat standards based on the best 

available science after appropriate 

public processes have been conducted 

by the affected land management 

agencies. 

To prevent habitat fragmentation and 

degradation, the Strategy requires that 

all road construction projects in suitable 

habitat throughout the entire GYA (both 

inside and outside of the PCA) evaluate 

the impacts of the project on grizzly 

habitat connectivity during the NEPA 

analysis process (Service 2003). By 

identifying areas used by grizzly bears, 

officials can mitigate potential impacts 

from road construction both during and 

after a project. Federal agencies would 

identify important crossing areas by 

collecting information about known 

bear crossings, bear sightings, ungulate 

road mortality data, bear home range 

analyses, and locations of game trails. 

Potential advantages of this requirement 

include reduction of grizzly bear 

mortality due to vehicle collisions, 

access to seasonal habitats, maintenance 

of traditional dispersal routes, and 

decreased fragmentation of individual 

home ranges. For example, work crews 

would place temporary work camps in 

areas with lower risk of displacing 

grizzly bears and food and garbage will 

be kept in bear-proof containers. 

Highway planners would incorporate 

warning signs and crossing structures 

such as culverts or underpasses into 

projects when possible to facilitate safe 

highway crossings by wildlife. 

Suitable Habitat: Because we used 

easily recognized boundaries to 

delineate the Yellowstone DPS, the DPS 

includes both suitable and unsuitable 

habitat (Figure 1, above). For the 

purposes of this proposed rule, suitable 

habitat is considered the area within the 

DPS boundaries where viable 

populations of the species now exist or 

are capable of being supported in the 

foreseeable future. Suitable habitat 

provides food, seasonal foraging 

opportunities, cover, denning areas, and 

security. We have defined suitable 

habitat for grizzly bears as areas having 

three characteristics—(1) being of 

adequate habitat quality and quantity to 

support grizzly bear reproduction and 

survival; (2) contiguous with the current 

distribution of Yellowstone grizzly bears 

such that natural re-colonization is 

possible; and (3) having low mortality 

risk as indicated through reasonable and 

manageable levels of grizzly bear 

mortality. 

Our definition and delineation of 

suitable habitat is built on the widely 

recognized conclusions of extensive 

research (Craighead 1980; Knight 1980; 

Peek et al. 1987; Merrill et al. 1999; 

Pease and Mattson 1999) that grizzly 

bear reproduction and survival is a 

function of both the biological needs of 

grizzly bears and remoteness from 

human activities which minimizes 

mortality risk for grizzly bears. 

Mountainous areas provide hiding cover 

and the topographic variation necessary 

to ensure a wide variety of seasonal 

foods and the steep slopes required for 

denning (Judd et al. 1986; Aune and 

Kasworm 1989; Linnell et al. 2000). 

Higher elevation, mountainous regions 

in the GYA (Omernik 1987, 1995; 

Woods et al. 1999; McGrath et al. 2002; 

Chapman et al. 2004) contain highenergy foods such as whitebark pine 

seeds (Mattson and Jonkel 1990; 

Mattson et al. 1991a) and army cutworm 

moths (Mattson et al. 1991b; French et 

al. 1994). 

For our analysis of suitable habitat, 

we considered the Middle Rockies 

ecoregion (Omernik 1987; Woods et al. 

1999; McGrath et al. 2002; Chapman et 

al. 2004) to meet grizzly bear biological 

needs providing food, seasonal foraging 

opportunities, cover, and denning areas 

(Mattson and Merrill 2002). The Middle 

Rockies ecoregion has Douglas-fir, 

subalpine fir, and Engelmann spruce 

forests and alpine areas. Forests can be 

open. Foothills are partly wooded or 

shrub- and grass-covered. Intermontane 

valleys are grass- and/or shrub-covered 

and contain a mosaic of terrestrial and 

aquatic fauna that is distinct from the 

nearby mountains. Many mountain-fed, 

perennial streams occur and 

differentiate the intermontane valleys 

from the Northwestern Great Plains. 

Recreation, logging, mining, and 

summer livestock grazing are common 

land uses in this ecoregion. 

Although grizzly bears historically 

occurred throughout the area of the 

Yellowstone DPS (Stebler 1972), many 

of these habitats are not, today, 

biologically suitable for grizzly bears. 

There are records of grizzly bears in 

eastern Wyoming near present-day 

Sheridan, Casper, and Wheatland, but 

even in the early 19th century, indirect 

evidence suggests that grizzly bears 

were less common in these eastern 

prairie habitats than in mountainous 

areas to the west and south (see Rollins 

1935; Wade 1947). Grizzly bear presence 

in these drier, grassland habitats was 

associated with rivers and streams 

where grizzlies used buffalo carcasses as 

a major food source (Burroughs 1961; 

Herrero 1972; Stebler 1972; Mattson and 

Merrill 2002). Wild buffalo herds no 

longer exist in these areas. Thus, we did 

not include drier sagebrush, prairie, or 

agricultural lands because these land 

types no longer contain adequate food 

resources (i.e., bison) to support grizzly 

bears. 

The negative impacts of humans on 

grizzly bear survival and habitat use are 

well documented (Harding and Nagy 

1980; McLellan and Shackleton 1988; 

Aune and Kasworm 1989; McLellan 

1989; McLellan and Shackleton 1989a; 

Mattson 1990; Mattson and Knight 1991; 

Mattson et al. 1992; Mace et al. 1996; 

McLellan et al. 1999; White et al. 1999; 

Woodroffe 2000; Boyce et al. 2001; 

Johnson et al. 2004). These effects range 

from temporary displacement to actual 

mortality. Mattson and Merrill (2002) 

found that grizzly bear persistence in 

the contiguous United States between 

1920 and 2000 was negatively 

associated with human and livestock 

69870 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

densities. As human population 

densities increase, the frequency of 

encounters between humans and grizzly 

bears also increases, resulting in more 

human-caused grizzly bear mortalities 

due to a perceived or real threat to 

human life or property (Mattson et al. 

1996). Similarly, as livestock densities 

increase in habitat occupied by grizzly 

bears, depredations follow. Although 

grizzly bears frequently coexist with 

cattle without depredating them, when 

grizzly bears encounter domestic sheep, 

they usually are attracted to such flocks 

and depredate the sheep (Jonkel 1980; 

Knight and Judd 1983; Orme and 

Williams 1986; Anderson et al. 2002). If 

repeated depredations occur, managers 

either relocate the bear or remove it 

from the population, resulting in such 

domestic sheep areas becoming 

population sinks (Knight et al. 1988). 

Because urban sites and sheep 

allotments possess high mortality risks 

for grizzly bears, we did not include 

cities or large contiguous blocks of 

active sheep allotments as suitable 

habitat (Knight et al. 1988). Our 

elimination of domestic sheep grazing 

areas on public lands from suitable 

habitat is based on current conditions. 

Should the grazing management of these 

areas change in the future it is possible 

that such areas could become suitable 

grizzly bear habitat. Based on 2000 

Census data, we defined urban areas as 

census blocks with human population 

densities of more than 50 people/sq km 

(129 people/sq mi). Cities within the 

Middle Rockies ecoregion such as West 

Yellowstone, Gardiner, Big Sky, and 

Cooke City, Montana, and Jackson, 

Wyoming, were not included as suitable 

habitat. There are large, contiguous 

blocks of sheep allotments in peripheral 

areas of the ecosystem in the Wyoming 

Salt River and Wind River Mountain 

Ranges on the Bridger-Teton and the 

Targhee National Forests (Figure 1, 

above). This spatial distribution of 

sheep allotments on the periphery of 

suitable habitat results in areas of high 

mortality risk to bears within these 

allotments and a few small, isolated 

patches or strips of suitable habitat 

adjacent to or within sheep allotments. 

These strips and patches of land possess 

higher mortality risks for grizzly bears 

because of their enclosure by and 

proximity to areas of high mortality risk. 

This phenomenon in which the quantity 

and quality of suitable habitat is 

diminished because of interactions with 

surrounding less suitable habitat is 

known as an ‘‘edge effect’’ (Lande 1988; 

Yahner 1988; Mills 1995). Edge effects 

are exacerbated in small habitat patches 

with high perimeter to area ratios (i.e., 

those that are longer and narrower) and 

in wide-ranging species such as grizzly 

bears because they are more likely to 

encounter surrounding, unsuitable 

habitat (Woodroffe and Ginsberg 1998). 

Due to the negative edge effects of this 

distribution of sheep allotments on the 

periphery of grizzly range, our analysis 

did not classify linear strips and 

isolated patches of habitat as suitable 

habitat. 

Although the Bighorn Mountains west 

of I–90 near Sheridan, Wyoming, are 

grouped within the Middle Rockies 

ecoregion, they are not connected to the 

current distribution of grizzly bears via 

suitable habitat or linkage zones, nor are 

there opportunities for such linkage. 

The Bighorn Mountains are separated 

from the current grizzly bear 

distribution by approximately 100 km 

(60 mi) of a mosaic of private and BLM 

lands primarily used for agriculture, 

livestock grazing, and oil and gas 

production (Chapman et al. 2004). 

Although there is a possibility that 

individual bears may emigrate from the 

Yellowstone area to the Bighorns 

occasionally, without constant 

emigrants from suitable habitat, the 

Bighorns will not support a selfsustaining grizzly bear population. 

Therefore, due to the fact that this 

mountain range is disjunct from other 

suitable habitat and current grizzly bear 

distribution, our analysis did not 

classify the Bighorns as suitable habitat 

within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries. 

Some areas that are not considered 

suitable habitat by our definition are 

occasionally used by grizzly bears 

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

1, above) (Schwartz et al. 2002; 

Schwartz 2005, unpublished data). The 

records of grizzly bears in these 

unsuitable habitat areas are generally 

due to recorded grizzly bear/human 

conflicts or to transient animals. These 

areas are defined as unsuitable due to 

the high risk of mortality resulting from 

these grizzly bear/human conflicts. 

These unsuitable habitat areas do not 

permit grizzly bear reproduction or 

survival because bears that repeatedly 

come into conflict with humans or 

livestock are usually either relocated or 

removed from these areas. 

Based on these factors and subsequent 

Geographic Information System (GIS) 

analysis, we found there are 46,035 sq 

km (17,774 sq mi) of suitable grizzly 

bear habitat within the DPS boundaries; 

or roughly 24 percent of the total area 

within the DPS boundaries (Figure 1, 

above). Grizzly bears currently occupy 

about 68 percent of that suitable habitat 

(31,481 sq km (12,155 sq mi)) (Schwartz 

et al. 2002; Schwartz 2005, unpublished 

data). It is important to note that the 

current grizzly bear distribution shown 

in Figure 1 does not mean that equal 

densities of grizzly bears are found 

throughout the region. Instead, most 

grizzly bears (approximately 90 percent 

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

found within the PCA (Schwartz 2005, 

unpublished data). Grizzly bear use of 

suitable habitat may vary seasonally and 

annually with different areas being more 

important than others in some seasons 

or years (Aune and Kasworm 1989). An 

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

suitable habitat is currently unoccupied 

by grizzly bears (Figure 1, above) 

(Schwartz et al. 2002; Schwartz 2005, 

unpublished data). These areas would 

allow for the continued growth and 

expansion of the population within the 

proposed Yellowstone DPS as grizzly 

bears naturally recolonize them in the 

next few decades (Pyare et al. 2004). 

Habitat Management Outside the 

Primary Conservation Area: In suitable 

habitat outside of the PCA within the 

DPS, the USFS, BLM, and State wildlife 

agencies will monitor habitat and 

population criteria to prevent potential 

threats to habitat from inhibiting the 

population’s viability. Factors impacting 

suitable habitat outside of the PCA in 

the future may include increased road 

densities, livestock allotments, 

developed sites, human presence, and 

habitat fragmentation. Both Federal and 

State agencies are committed to 

managing habitat so that a viable 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population is 

maintained (see also Factor D—

Inadequacy of Regulatory Mechanisms). 

In suitable habitat outside of the PCA, 

restrictions on human activities are 

more flexible but still the USFS, BLM, 

and State wildlife agencies will 

carefully manage these lands, monitor 

bear/human conflicts in these areas, and 

respond with management as necessary 

to reduce such conflicts to account for 

the complex needs of both grizzly bears 

and humans. 

Currently, there are 22,783 sq km 

(8,797 sq mi) of suitable habitat outside 

of the PCA within the DPS. About 10 

percent of the population of female 

grizzly bears with cubs occurs outside 

the PCA (Schwartz 2005, unpublished 

data). Of this, 17,292 sq km (6,676 sq 

mi) are on National Forest lands. 

Management decisions on USFS lands 

will continue to consider potential 

impacts on grizzly bear habitat and will 

be managed so as to allow grizzly bear 

expansion in terms of numbers and 

distribution. Approximately 79 percent 

of USFS suitable habitat outside the 

PCA within the DPS is currently 

designated a wilderness area (6,799 sq 

km (2,625 sq mi)), a wilderness study 

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

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69871 

inventoried roadless area (6,179 sq km 

(2,386 sq mi)) (USFS 2004). The amount 

of designated wilderness area, 

wilderness study area, and inventoried 

roadless area within each National 

Forest ranges from 56 to 90 percent, 

depending upon the forest. 

Wilderness areas outside of the PCA 

are considered secure because they are 

protected from new road construction 

by federal legislation. In addition to 

restrictions on road construction, the 

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

also protects designated wilderness 

from permanent human habitation and 

increases in developed sites. The 

Wilderness Act allows livestock 

allotments existing before the passage of 

the Wilderness Act and mining claims 

staked before January 1, 1984, to persist 

within wilderness areas, but no new 

grazing permits or mining claims can be 

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

plans of operation are subject to 

Wilderness Act restrictions on road 

construction, permanent human 

habitation, and developed sites. 

Wilderness study areas are designated 

by federal land management agencies as 

those having wilderness characteristics 

and being worthy of congressional 

designation as a wilderness area. 

Individual National Forests that 

designate wilderness study areas 

manage these areas to maintain their 

wilderness characteristics until 

Congress decides whether to designate 

them as a permanent wilderness area. 

This means that individual wilderness 

study areas are protected from new road 

construction by Forest Plans. As such, 

they are safeguarded from decreases in 

grizzly bear security. Furthermore, 

activities such as timber harvest, 

mining, and oil and gas development 

are much less likely to occur because 

the road networks required for these 

activities are unavailable. However, 

because these lands are not 

congressionally protected, they could 

experience changes in management 

prescription with Forest Plan revisions. 

Inventoried roadless areas are 

currently secure habitat for grizzly bears 

outside of the PCA within the DPS. A 

USFS Interim Directive (69 FR 42648; 

July 16, 2004) which instructs National 

Forests to preserve the ‘‘roadless 

characteristics’’ of roadless areas will 

remain in effect until at least November 

2006. State governors have the option to 

submit petitions with management 

recommendations to individual 

National Forests in their State by 

November 2006 (70 FR 25653; May 13, 

2005). If no petitions are received by 

this time, individual National Forests 

will continue operating under the 

Interim Directive until they revise their 

Forest Plans to include direction on 

managing roadless areas. Technically, 

the only management direction given in 

roadless areas is that no new roads may 

be constructed. However, this restriction 

makes mining activities, oil and gas 

production, and timber harvest much 

less likely because access to these 

resources becomes cost-prohibitive or 

impossible without new roads. Potential 

changes in the management of these 

areas are not anticipated, but are 

discussed further under Factor D. 

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

mi) of suitable habitat outside the PCA 

on Forest Service lands within the DPS 

could experience permanent or 

temporary changes in road densities. 

Because grizzly bears would remain a 

sensitive species on the USFS Sensitive 

Species list if we finalize this proposed 

delisting, any increases in roads on 

National Forests would have to comply 

with National Forest Management Act 

and be subject to environmental 

assessment considering potential 

impacts to grizzly bears. 

Importantly, all three State grizzly 

bear management plans recognize the 

importance of areas that provide 

security for grizzly bears in suitable 

habitat outside of the PCA within the 

DPS on Federal lands. Although State 

management plans apply to all suitable 

habitat outside of the PCA, habitat 

management on public lands is directed 

by Federal land management plans, not 

State management plans. The Montana 

and Wyoming plans recommend 

maintaining average road densities of 

<1.6 km/2.6 sq km (<1 mi/sq mi) in 

these areas (MTFWP 2002; WGFD 2002). 

Both States have similar standards for 

elk habitat on State lands and note that 

these levels of motorized access benefit 

a variety of wildlife species while 

maintaining reasonable public access. 

Similarly, the Idaho State plan 

recognizes that management of 

motorized access outside the PCA 

should focus on areas that have road 

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

sq mi). The area most likely to be 

occupied by grizzly bears outside the 

PCA in Idaho is on the Caribou-Targhee 

National Forest. The 1997 Targhee 

Forest Plan includes motorized access 

standards and prescriptions outside the 

PCA with management prescriptions 

that provide for long-term security in 61 

percent of existing secure habitat 

outside of the PCA (USFS 2004). 

In suitable habitat outside the PCA 

within the DPS, there are roughly 150 

active cattle allotments and 12 active 

sheep allotments (USFS 2004). The 

Targhee Forest Plan calls for the closing 

of two of these sheep allotments while 

the others are likely to remain active 

(Jerry Reese, USFS, pers. comm. 2005). 

The USFS will allow these allotments 

within suitable habitat to persist along 

with other existing livestock allotments 

outside of suitable habitat. Although 

conflicts with livestock have the 

potential to result in significant 

mortality for grizzly bears, with 

population-level impacts if established 

sustainable mortality limits are 

exceeded in several consecutive years, 

the Strategy should prevent this. The 

Strategy directs the Study Team to 

monitor and spatially map all grizzly 

bear mortalities (both inside and outside 

the PCA) and their causes of death, 

identify the source of the problem, and 

alter management to maintain a 

recovered population and prevent the 

need to relist the population under the 

ESA (Service 2003). 

There are over 500 developed sites on 

the 6 National Forests in the areas 

identified as suitable habitat outside the 

PCA within the DPS (USFS 2004). 

Grizzly bear/human conflicts at 

developed sites are the most frequent 

reason for management removals 

(Servheen et al. 2004). Existing USFS 

food storage regulations for these areas 

will continue to minimize the potential 

for grizzly bear/human conflicts through 

food storage requirements, outreach, 

and education. The number and 

capacity of developed sites will be 

subject to management direction 

established in Forest Plans. Should the 

Study Team determine developed sites 

are related to increases in mortality 

beyond the sustainable limits discussed 

above, they may recommend closing 

specific developed sites or otherwise 

altering management in the area in order 

to maintain a recovered population and 

prevent the need to relist the population 

under the ESA. Due to the USFS’s 

commitment to managing National 

Forest lands in the GYA such that a 

viable grizzly bear population is 

maintained (Service 2003), the Service 

does not expect livestock allotments or 

developed sites in suitable habitat 

outside of the PCA to reach densities 

that are detrimental to the long-term 

persistence of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population. 

Less than 19 percent (3,213 sq km 

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

the PCA within the DPS on USFS land 

allows surface occupancy for oil and gas 

development and 11 percent (1,926 sq 

km (744 sq mi)) has both suitable timber 

and a management prescription that 

allows scheduled timber harvest. The 

primary impacts to grizzly bears 

associated with timber harvest and oil 

and gas development are increases in 

road densities, with subsequent 

69872 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

increases in human access, grizzly bear/ 

human encounters, and human-caused 

grizzly bear mortalities (McLellan and 

Shackleton 1988, 1989; Mace et al. 

1996). Although seismic exploration 

associated with oil and gas development 

or mining may disturb denning grizzly 

bears (Harding and Nagy 1980, Reynolds 

et al. 1987), actual den abandonment is 

rarely observed, and there has been no 

documentation of such abandonment by 

grizzly bears in the Yellowstone area. 

Additionally, only a small portion of 

this total land area will contain active 

projects at any given time, if at all. For 

example, among the roughly 1,926 sq 

km (744 sq mi) identified as having both 

suitable timber and a management 

prescription that allows timber harvest, 

from 2000 to 2002, an average of only 

5 sq km (2 sq mi) was actually logged 

annually (USFS 2004). Similarly, 

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

mi) of suitable habitat on National 

Forest lands allow surface occupancy 

for oil and gas development, there 

currently are no active wells inside 

these areas (USFS 2004). 

Ultimately, the six affected National 

Forests (the Beaverhead-Deerlodge, 

Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer, 

Gallatin, and Shoshone) will manage the 

number of roads, livestock allotments, 

developed sites, timber harvest projects, 

and oil and gas wells outside of the PCA 

in suitable habitat to allow for a viable 

grizzly bear population. Because the 

grizzly bear will be classified as a 

sensitive species, under Forest Service 

Manual direction, land management 

activities will be managed so as not to 

contribute to a trend for listing or loss 

of viability for the grizzly bear. There 

must be no impacts to sensitive species 

without an analysis of the significance 

of adverse effects on the populations, its 

habitat, and the viability of the species 

(USFS 2004). Any road construction, 

timber harvest, or oil and gas projects 

would require compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4331) and the 

National Forest Management Act of 

1976 (15 U.S.C. 1600), considering all 

potential impacts to the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population and its habitat. 

Rapidly accelerating growth of human 

populations in some areas in grizzly 

bear habitat within the DPS boundaries 

but outside of the PCA continues to 

define the limits of grizzly habitat and 

will likely limit the expansion of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

onto private lands in some areas outside 

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

businesses) has resulted in increasing 

numbers of grizzly bear/human conflicts 

with subsequent increases in grizzly 

bear mortality rates. Private lands 

account for a disproportionate number 

of bear deaths and conflicts (see Figures 

15 and 16 in the Strategy). Nearly 9 

percent of all suitable habitat outside of 

the PCA is privately owned. As private 

lands are developed and as secure 

habitat on private lands declines, State 

and Federal agencies will work together 

to balance impacts from private land 

development (Service 2003). Outside 

the PCA, State agencies will assist NGOs 

and other entities to identify and 

prioritize potential lands suitable for 

permanent conservation through 

easements and other means as possible 

(Service 2003). 

In summary, the primary factors 

related to past habitat destruction and 

modification have been directly 

addressed through changes in 

management practices. Within the PCA, 

the Service and the Study Team have 

developed objective and measurable 

habitat criteria concerning secure 

habitat, road densities, human site 

developments, and livestock allotments 

which will be standards on public lands 

should we finalize delisting. In 

addition, the Study Team, State wildlife 

agencies, NPS biologists, and USFS 

biologists and technicians will monitor 

the availability and abundance of the 

four major foods, and of habitat value 

and habitat effectiveness using the 

Cumulative Effects Model. The 

Coordinating Committee will respond to 

these monitoring data with adaptive 

management as per the Strategy (Service 

2003). Accordingly, the PCA, which 

comprises 51 percent of the suitable 

habitat within the DPS boundaries and 

is occupied by approximately 90 

percent of all females with cubs 

(Schwartz 2005, unpublished data), will 

be a highly secure area for grizzlies 

should we finalize delisting with habitat 

conditions maintained at or above levels 

documented in 1998. Maintenance of 

this area as described above is sufficient 

to support a recovered grizzly bear 

population. 

In suitable habitat outside the PCA on 

Forest Service lands, 74 percent (12,860 

sq km or 4965 sq mi) is currently secure 

habitat, 68 percent of which (8,737 sq 

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

secure. Areas outside the PCA contain 

about 10 percent of GYA’s females with 

cubs (Schwartz 2005, unpublished 

data). Management of public land 

outside the PCA administered by State 

and Federal agencies also will continue 

to consider potential impacts of 

management decisions on grizzly bear 

habitat. Efforts by NGOs and State and 

county agencies will seek to minimize 

bear/human conflicts on private lands. 

A total of 88 percent of all suitable 

habitat within the DPS boundaries 

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

managed by the USFS or NPS. These 

public lands are already managed and 

will continue to be managed such that 

adequate habitat for the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population is maintained. 

Habitat and population standards 

described in the Strategy must be 

incorporated into National Parks and 

National Forests management plans 

before the Service makes a final 

determination on this proposed action 

(see Factor D—The Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms). We 

conclude that the combination of these 

actions regarding habitat will allow for 

adequate habitat to continue supporting 

a viable grizzly bear population with 

continued expansion into adjacent areas 

of public land in the GYA. 

B. Overutilization for Commercial, 

Recreational, Scientific, or Educational 

Purposes 

No grizzly bears have been legally 

removed from the GYA in the last 30 

years for commercial, recreational, or 

educational purposes. The only 

commercial or recreational take 

potentially anticipated post-delisting, if 

this action is finalized, is a limited, 

controlled hunt. The States will manage 

grizzly bears as a game animal, 

potentially with a carefully regulated 

hunt (for a more detailed discussion, see 

the State Management Plans section 

under Factor D—The Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms). 

Should such a season be implemented, 

all hunting mortalities will be counted 

toward the mortality limits for the 

population and will be strictly 

controlled to assure that mortality limits 

are not exceeded by this discretionary 

mortality source. Significant take for 

educational purposes is not anticipated. 

Mortality due to illegal poaching, 

defense of life and property, mistaken 

identity or other accidental take, and 

management removals are discussed 

under Factor C—Human Predation 

section. 

Since 1980, three accidental trap 

mortalities were associated with 

scientific research (Servheen et al. 

2004). All three mortalities occurred 

between 1980 and 1982. Since 1982, 

there has not been a single capture 

mortality associated with research 

trapping in the Yellowstone area 

spanning more than 468 grizzly bear 

captures (Servheen et al. 2004). Because 

of rigorous protocols dictating proper 

bear capture, handling, and drugging 

techniques used today, this type of 

scientific overutilization is not a threat 

to the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69873 

population. The Study Team, bear 

biologists, and researchers will continue 

implementing these protocols should 

we delist. Therefore, mortalities 

associated with scientific research will 

not be a threat to the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population in the 

foreseeable future. 

C. Disease or Predation 

Disease: Although grizzly bears have 

been documented with a variety of 

bacteria and other pathogens, parasites, 

and disease, fatalities are uncommon 

(LeFranc et al. 1987) and do not appear 

to have population-level impacts on 

grizzly bears (Jonkel and Cowan 1971; 

Kistchinskii 1972; Mundy and Flook 

1973; Rogers and Rogers 1976). 

Researchers have demonstrated that 

some grizzly bears have been 

documented with brucellosis (type 4), 

clostridium, toxoplasmosis, canine 

distemper, canine parvovirus, canine 

hepatitis, and rabies (LeFranc et al. 

1987; Zarnke and Evans 1989; Marsilio 

et al. 1997; Zarnke et al. 1997). 

However, based on 30 years of research 

by the Study Team, mortalities in the 

wild due to any of these bacteria or 

pathogens are negligible components of 

total mortality in the GYA (Study Team 

2005). Disease is not common in grizzly 

bears, has only very rarely been 

documented in Yellowstone grizzly 

bears (Craighead et al. 1988), and is not 

considered a threat to long-term 

viability of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population. 

Natural Predation: Grizzly bears are 

killed by other wildlife on occasion. 

Adult grizzly bears kill cubs, sub-adults, 

or other adults (Stringham 1980; Dean et 

al. 1986; Hessing and Aumiller 1994; 

McLellan 1994; Schwartz et al. 2003). 

This type of intraspecific killing seems 

to occur rarely (Stringham 1980) and 

has only been observed among 

Yellowstone grizzly bears in the GYA 14 

times between 1986 and 2004 (Mark 

Haroldson, USGS 2005, unpublished 

data). Wolves and grizzly bears often 

scavenge similar types of carrion and, 

sometimes, will interact with each other 

in an aggressive manner. From 1995 

through 2003, Gunther and Smith (2004) 

documented 96 wolf-grizzly bear 

interactions and 2 incidents in which 

wolf packs likely killed grizzly bear 

cubs. Overall, these types of aggressive 

interactions among grizzly bears or with 

other wildlife are rare and negligible to 

population dynamics. 

Human Predation: Humans have 

historically been the most effective 

predators of grizzly bears. Excessive 

human-caused mortality is one of the 

major contributing factors to grizzly bear 

decline during the 19th and 20th 

centuries (Leopold 1967; Koford 1969; 

Servheen 1990; Servheen 1999; Mattson 

and Merrill 2002; Schwartz et al. 2003), 

eventually leading to their listing as a 

threatened species in 1975. Grizzlies 

were seen as a threat to livestock and to 

humans and, therefore, an impediment 

to westward expansion. Many of the 

early settlers in grizzly bear country 

were dedicated to eradicating large 

predators, and grizzly bears were shot, 

poisoned, and killed wherever humans 

encountered them (Servheen 1999). By 

the time grizzlies were listed under the 

ESA in 1975, there were only a few 

hundred grizzly bears remaining in the 

lower 48 States in less than 2 percent of 

their former range. 

From 1973 to 2002, a total of 372 

known grizzly bear deaths occurred in 

the GYA (Haroldson and Frey 2003). Of 

these, 272 (73 percent of total) were 

human-caused (Haroldson and Frey 

2003). Since 1975, levels of humancaused mortality have remained 

relatively constant (see Figure 4 in 

Servheen et al. 2004). Although humans 

have been and remain the single greatest 

cause of mortality for grizzly bears 

(McLellan et al. 1999; Servheen et al. 

2004), rates of human-caused mortality 

are low enough to allow Yellowstone 

bear population growth and range 

expansion (Schwartz et al. 2005). 

Implementation of the revised mortality 

limits ensure that mortality will be 

managed at sustainable levels. Below we 

consider human predation impacts 

including illegal poaching, defense of 

life and property; accidental mortality, 

and management removals. 

Vandal killing, or poaching, is defined 

as malicious, illegal killing of a grizzly 

bear. People may kill grizzly bears for 

several reasons, including a general 

perception that grizzly bears in the area 

may be dangerous, frustration over 

depredations of livestock, or to protest 

land use and road use restrictions 

associated with grizzly bear habitat 

management (Servheen et al. 2004). 

Regardless of the reason, poaching 

continues to occur. We are aware of at 

least 27 vandal killings between 1980 

and 2002 (Servheen et al. 2004). 

Although this level of take occurred 

during a period where poaching was 

enforceable by Federal prosecution, we 

do not expect vandal killing to 

significantly increase should we finalize 

this delisting. 

State and Federal law enforcement 

agents have cooperated to ensure 

consistent enforcement of laws 

protecting grizzly bears. State and 

Federal prosecutors and enforcement 

personnel from each State and Federal 

jurisdiction work together to make 

recommendations to all jurisdictions, 

counties, and States, on uniform 

enforcement, prosecution, and 

sentencing relating to illegal grizzly bear 

kills. If this proposed action is finalized, 

all three affected States will classify 

grizzly bears of the Yellowstone 

population as game animals which 

cannot be taken without authorization 

by State wildlife agencies (see Chapter 

7 of the Strategy). In other words, it will 

still be illegal for private citizens to kill 

grizzly bears unless it is in self defense 

or they have a hunting license issued by 

State wildlife agencies. States will 

continue to enforce, prosecute, and 

sentence poachers just as they do for 

any game animal such as elk, black 

bears, and cougars. Although it is 

widely recognized that poaching still 

occurs, this illegal source of mortality is 

not significant enough to hinder the 

continuing growth and range expansion 

of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population (Pyare et al. 2004; Schwartz 

et al. 2002). 

One way to address vandal killing is 

to change human values, perceptions, 

and beliefs about grizzly bears and 

Federal regulation of public lands 

(Servheen et al. 2004). To address the 

concerns of user groups who have 

objections to land use restrictions that 

accommodate grizzly bears, Federal and 

State agencies market the benefits of 

restricting motorized access to multiple 

species. For example, both Montana and 

Wyoming have recommendations for elk 

habitat security similar to those for 

grizzly bears (less than 1.6 km/2.6 sq km 

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

access meets the needs of a variety of 

wildlife species while maintaining 

reasonable opportunities for public 

access. To address the concerns of 

citizens who feel that grizzly bears are 

a threat to their safety or their lifestyle, 

IE programs aim to change perspectives 

on the danger and behavior of grizzly 

bears (for a detailed discussion of IE 

programs, see Factor E—Other Natural 

or Manmade Factors Affecting Its 

Continued Existence). Another option is 

a limited hunt to foster a sense of 

ownership and obligation toward the 

grizzly bear. Areas with grizzly bear 

hunting seasons experience lower levels 

of poaching (McLellan et al. 1999). 

Hunting is further discussed under 

Factors B and D. 

From 1980 to 2002, humans killed 49 

grizzly bears in self-defense or defense 

of others. This constituted nearly 17 

percent of known grizzly bear 

mortalities during this time period 

(Servheen et al. 2004). These grizzly 

bear/human conflicts occurred 

primarily over livestock or hunter-killed 

carcasses, but also at camp and home 

sites. Federal and State agencies have 

69874 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

many options to potentially reduce 

these conflicts by modifying human 

behavior (Servheen et al. 2004). By 

promoting the use of pepper spray and 

continuing current IE programs, many of 

these grizzly bear deaths may be 

avoided (for a detailed discussion of IE 

programs, see Factor E—Other Natural 

or Manmade Factors Affecting Its 

Continued Existence). 

Humans kill grizzly bears 

unintentionally with vehicles or by 

mistaking them for other species when 

hunting. From 1980 to 2002, the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

incurred 9 mortalities from roadkills 

and 13 mortalities associated with 

mistaken identification. Accidental 

human-caused mortality accounts for a 

total of 9 percent of known mortality for 

this time period (Servheen et al. 2004). 

Measures to reduce vehicle collisions 

with grizzly bears include removing 

roadkill carcasses from the road so that 

grizzly bears are not attracted to the 

roadside (see Servheen et al. 2004). 

Cost-effective mitigation efforts to 

facilitate safe crossings by wildlife will 

be voluntarily incorporated in road 

construction or reconstruction projects 

on Federal lands within suitable grizzly 

bear habitat. 

Mistaken identification of grizzly 

bears by black bear hunters is a 

manageable source of mortality. The 

Strategy identifies IE programs targeted 

at hunters that emphasize patience, 

awareness, and correct identification of 

targets help reduce grizzly bear 

mortalities from inexperienced black 

bear and ungulate hunters (Service 

2003). Beginning in license year 2002, 

the State of Montana required that all 

black bear hunters pass a Bear 

Identification Test before receiving a 

black bear hunting license (see http:// 

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

information and details). Since 

implementation, no grizzly bears have 

been mistakenly killed by black bear 

hunters in Montana’s portion of the 

GYA (Study Team 2005, unpublished 

data). In addition, Montana and 

Wyoming include grizzly bear 

encounter management as a core subject 

in basic hunter education courses. 

The last source of human predation 

on grizzly bears is associated with 

management removal of nuisance bears 

following grizzly bear/human conflicts. 

Effective nuisance bear management 

benefits the conservation of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population by 

promoting tolerance of grizzly bears and 

minimizing illegal killing of bears by 

citizens. The Strategy and the State 

grizzly bear management plans are the 

regulatory documents that would guide 

nuisance bear management if we 

delisted. The Strategy is consistent with 

current protocol as described in the 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 

Guidelines (USDA 1986), emphasizing 

the individual’s importance to the entire 

population, with females continuing to 

receive a higher level of protection than 

males. Location, cause of incident, 

severity of incident, history of bear, 

health/age/sex of bear, and demographic 

characteristics are all considered in any 

relocation or removal action. If we 

delisted, State and Park Service bear 

managers would continue to consult 

with each other and other relevant 

federal agencies (i.e., USFS, BLM) 

before any nuisance bear management 

decision is made but consultation with 

the Service would no longer be 

required. The Strategy emphasizes 

removal of the human cause of the 

conflict when possible, or management 

and education actions to limit such 

conflicts (Service 2003). In addition, an 

IE team would continue to coordinate 

the development, implementation, and 

dissemination of programs and 

materials to aid in preventative 

management of human/bear conflicts. 

The Strategy recognizes that successful 

management of grizzly bear/human 

conflicts will require an integrated, 

multiple-agency approach to continue to 

reduce human-caused grizzly bear 

mortality. 

The largest increase in grizzly bear 

mortalities since 1994 is related to 

grizzly bear/human conflicts at or near 

developed sites (Servheen et al. 2004). 

In fact, 20 percent (59 of 290) of known 

mortalities between 1980 and 2002 were 

related to site conflicts. These conflicts 

involved food-conditioned bears 

actively seeking out human sources of 

food or bears that are habituated to 

human presence seeking natural sources 

of food in areas that are near human 

structures or roads. The increase in site 

conflicts during the last decade is likely 

due to a combination of encroaching 

human presence coinciding with an 

increasing and expanding grizzly bear 

population. These conflicts usually 

involve attractants such as garbage, 

human foods, pet/livestock/wildlife 

foods, livestock carcasses, and wildlife 

carcasses, but also are related to 

attitudes and personal levels of 

knowledge and tolerance toward grizzly 

bears. Both State and Federal IE 

programs are aimed primarily at 

reducing grizzly bear/human conflicts 

proactively by educating the public 

about potential grizzly bear attractants. 

To address public attitudes and 

knowledge levels, IE programs will 

present grizzly bears as a valuable 

public resource while acknowledging 

the potential dangers associated with 

them (for a detailed discussion of IE 

programs, see Factor E—Other Natural 

or Manmade Factors Affecting Its 

Continued Existence). 

Management removals due to grizzly 

bear conflicts with livestock accounted 

for nearly 4 percent of known 

mortalities between 1980 and 2002 

(Servheen et al. 2004). Several steps to 

reduce livestock conflicts are currently 

underway. The USFS and NPS are 

phasing out sheep allotments within the 

PCA as opportunities arise. The USFS 

also has closed sheep allotments outside 

the PCA to resolve conflicts with 

species such as bighorn sheep as well as 

grizzly bears. Livestock grazing permits 

include special provisions regarding 

reporting of conflicts, proper food and 

attractant storage procedures, and 

carcass removal. The USFS monitors 

compliance to these special provisions 

associated with livestock allotments 

annually (Servheen et al. 2004). If we 

delist, the USFS would continue to 

implement these measures that 

minimize grizzly bear conflicts with 

livestock. The Strategy also recognizes 

that active management of individual 

nuisance bears is required. Removal of 

repeat depredators of livestock has been 

an effective tool for managing grizzly 

bear/livestock conflicts as most 

depredations are done by a few 

individuals (Jonkel 1980; Judd and 

Knight 1983; Anderson et al. 2002). 

The Study Team coordinates an 

annual analysis of the causes of 

conflicts, known and probable 

mortalities, and proposed management 

solutions (see Servheen et al. 2004 for 

an example of the form such reports will 

take). The Yellowstone Ecosystem 

Subcommittee reviews these reports and 

initiates appropriate action if 

improvements in Federal or State 

management actions can minimize 

conflicts. As directed by the Strategy, if 

we delist, the Study Team would 

continue to summarize nuisance bear 

control actions in their Annual Reports 

and the Coordinating Committee will 

continue with their review (Service 

2003). The Study Team also would 

continue preparing annual spatial 

distribution maps of conflicts so that 

managers can identify where problems 

occur and compare trends in locations, 

sources, land ownership, and types of 

conflicts. This will facilitate proactive 

management of grizzly/human conflicts. 

Overall, from 1980 to 2002, the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

incurred an average of 12.6 grizzly bear 

mortalities per year. Despite these 

natural and human-caused mortalities, 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

has continued to increase in size and 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69875 

expand its distribution in the last 2 

decades. Disease and natural predation 

are not a threat to the long-term 

persistence of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population. Although humans are 

still directly or indirectly responsible 

for the majority of grizzly bear deaths in 

suitable habitat within the DPS 

boundaries, we have learned that this 

source of mortality can be effectively 

controlled through management and IE. 

We have institutionalized careful 

management and monitoring of humancaused mortality in the Strategy, Forest 

Plans, National Park management plans, 

and State grizzly bear management 

plans (see Factor D—The Inadequacy of 

Existing Regulatory Mechanisms). In 

addition, we revised our methodology 

for calculating the total allowable 

mortality limits (see the Recovery; 

Population and Demographic 

Management section above) to include 

natural mortalities and estimates of 

unreported/undetected deaths, so that 

mortality in the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population can be managed at 

sustainable levels. Because of these 

actions, human sources of mortality are 

no longer considered a threat to the 

future viability of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population. 

D. The Inadequacy of Existing 

Regulatory Mechanisms 

The lack of regulatory mechanisms to 

control take and protect habitat was a 

contributing factor to grizzly bear 

population declines (40 FR 31734; July 

28, 1975). Upon listing under the ESA, 

the grizzly bear immediately benefited 

from a Federal regulatory framework 

that included prohibition of take, which 

is defined broadly under the ESA to 

include killing, injuring, or attempting 

to kill or injure; prohibition of habitat 

destruction or degradation if such 

activities harm individuals of the 

species; the requirement that Federal 

agencies ensure their actions will not 

likely jeopardize the continued 

existence of the species; and the 

requirement to develop and implement 

a recovery program for the species. 

These protective measures have 

improved the status of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population to the point 

where delisting can now be proposed. 

The management of grizzly bears and 

their habitat draws from the laws and 

regulations of the Federal and State 

agencies in the Yellowstone DPS 

boundaries (Chapter 7 of the Strategy). 

Forty Federal laws, rules, guidelines, 

strategies, and reports and 33 State laws, 

statutes, and regulations in place apply 

to management of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population (Appendix J in 

the Strategy). These laws and 

regulations provide the legal authority 

for controlling mortality, providing 

secure habitats, managing grizzly bear/ 

human conflicts, controlling hunters, 

limiting access where necessary, 

controlling livestock grazing, 

maintaining education and outreach 

programs to control conflicts, 

monitoring populations and habitats, 

and requesting management and 

petitions for re-listing if necessary. 

Recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population is the result of 

partnerships between Federal and State 

agencies, the governors of these States, 

county and city governments, 

educational institutions, numerous 

NGOs, private landowners, and the 

public who live, work, and recreate in 

the Yellowstone area. Just as recovery of 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

could not have occurred without these 

excellent working relationships, 

maintenance of a recovered grizzly 

population depends on continuation of 

these partnerships. 

The Strategy is the management plan 

which will guide the management and 

monitoring of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population and its habitat after 

delisting. It establishes a regulatory 

framework and authority for Federal 

and State agencies to take over 

management of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population from the Service. The 

Strategy also identifies, defines, and 

requires adequate post-delisting 

monitoring to maintain a healthy 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

(see the Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan) 

(Service 2003). The Strategy is an 

adaptive and dynamic document that 

allows for continuous updating based 

on new scientific information. The 

Strategy also has a clear response 

protocol that requires the agencies to 

respond with active management 

changes to deviations from the habitat 

and population standards in a timely 

and publicly accessible manner. It 

represents a decade-long collaborative 

effort among the USFS, NPS, BLM, 

USGS, the Service, the Study Team, 

IDFG, MTFWP, and WGFD. State grizzly 

bear management plans were developed, 

reviewed, opened for public comment, 

revised, and completed in all three 

affected States (Idaho, Montana, and 

Wyoming). These State plans were then 

incorporated into the Strategy to ensure 

that the plans and the Strategy are 

consistent and complementary 

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

grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The Strategy 

then went through a separate public 

comment process before being revised 

(65 FR 11340; March 2, 2000). With the 

exception of the Service, all the other 

State and Federal agencies which are 

party to the agreement have signed a 

memo of understanding (MOU) in 

which they have agreed to implement 

the Strategy. If this proposed action is 

adopted, the Service will sign the MOU 

prior to finalization. 

The Strategy and the State plans 

describe and summarize the coordinated 

efforts required to manage the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population and 

its habitat such that its continued 

conservation is ensured. The Strategy 

will direct management of grizzly bears 

inside the PCA, whereas the State plans 

will cover all suitable habitat outside of 

the PCA. These documents specify the 

population, habitat, and nuisance bear 

standards to maintain a recovered 

grizzly bear population for the 

foreseeable future. The plans also 

document the regulatory mechanisms 

and legal authorities, policies, 

management, and post-delisting 

monitoring plans that exist to maintain 

the recovered grizzly bear population. 

Overall, the Conservation Strategy and 

the State grizzly bear management plans 

provide assurances to the Service that 

adequate regulatory mechanisms exist to 

maintain the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population after delisting. 

In areas of suitable habitat outside of 

the PCA, individual National Forest 

Plans and State grizzly bear 

management plans apply. Should we 

delist, the USFS would place grizzly 

bears on its Sensitive Wildlife Species 

list. This requires the USFS to conduct 

a biological evaluation for any project 

which may ‘‘result in loss of species 

viability or create significant trends 

toward Federal listing’’ (USFS Manual 

2600). Under the revised Forest 

Planning Regulations (70 FR 1023; 

January 5, 2005), Yellowstone grizzly 

bears will be classified as a ‘‘species-ofconcern’’ or a ‘‘species-of-interest’’. This 

designation provides protections similar 

to those received when classified as a 

sensitive species and requires that 

Forest Plans include additional 

provisions to accommodate these 

species. 

The USFS conducted a NEPA analysis 

and produced a Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (Draft EIS) regarding 

the potential options available and the 

effects of implementing the Strategy 

(USFS 2004). This analysis was 

undertaken by all six affected National 

Forests in suitable habitat (Beaverhead, 

Bridger-Teton, Custer, Gallatin, 

Shoshone, and Targhee) and was 

completed in July 2004 (accessible at 

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

mammals/grizzly/yellowstone.htm). The 

overall purpose of the Draft EIS is to 

analyze the impacts of incorporating the 

69876 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

habitat standards outlined in the 

Conservation Strategy and other 

relevant provisions into the Forest Plans 

of the six affected forests to ensure 

conservation of habitat to sustain the 

recovered Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population. 

The USFS Final EIS is scheduled to 

be released in 2005. The preferred 

alternative in the Draft EIS is to amend 

the Forest Plans to include all the 

habitat standards described in the 

Strategy. If the preferred alternative is 

selected, the minimum standards in 

these Forest Plan amendments will be 

the habitat standards required in the 

Strategy. These habitat standards must 

be appended to current Forest Plans 

before the Service would finalize this 

rule. 

Under the revised Forest Planning 

Regulation (70 FR 1023; January 5, 

2005), revisions to Forest Plans will be 

based upon a ‘‘need for change’’

approach. Therefore, it is highly 

unlikely that any changes relating to the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear amendments 

will be identified during the revision 

process (Aus and Steering Team, in litt. 

2005). ‘‘This means that the 

management direction developed in the 

amendment(s) will be transferred to the 

new planning format and will not 

change. The bottom line is that any 

potential changes to management 

direction in either the current plans or 

during the revision effort will be guided 

by the agreements reached in the 

Conservation Strategy and its adaptive 

provisions (Aus, in litt. 2005). 

Roughly 29 percent of all suitable 

habitat outside of the PCA is within a 

designated Wilderness Area (6,799 of 

23,091 sq km (2,625 of 8,915 sq mi) 

while another 27 percent is within an 

Inventoried Roadless Area (6,179 of 

23,091 sq km (2,386 of 8,915 sq mi)). 

Another three percent of all suitable 

habitat outside the PCA is considered 

wilderness study area. The Wilderness 

Act of 1964 does not allow road 

construction, new livestock allotments, 

or new oil, gas, and mining 

developments in designated Wilderness 

Areas; therefore, about 6,799 sq km 

(2,625 sq mi) of secure habitat outside 

of the PCA will remain secure habitat 

protected by adequate regulatory 

mechanisms. 

The USDA recently published a rule 

in the Federal Register regarding 

management direction of Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (70 FR 25653; May 13, 

2005). This new rule replaces the former 

Roadless Rule (66 FR 3244; January 12, 

2001) and establishes a formal 

petitioning process that allows 

governors of affected States until 

November 2006 to petition for changes 

in the management of Inventoried 

Roadless Areas. Any petitions received 

will be reviewed by the Roadless Area 

Conservation National Advisory 

Committee (70 FR 25653, May 13, 2005; 

70 FR 25663, May 13, 2005). If the 

Advisory Committee approves the 

petition, the affected National Forest 

must use the NEPA process and public 

involvement to consider the impacts 

any changes in Roadless Area 

management may have on other 

resources and management goals. The 

USFS will monitor any impacts these 

changes may have on habitat 

effectiveness while the Study Team will 

monitor any increases in grizzly bear 

mortality these changes may cause. In 

the meantime, the USDA-USFS Interim 

Directive 1920–2004–1 that became 

effective July 16, 2004, will continue to 

regulate activities in Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (69 FR 42648; July 16, 

2004). Under this directive, little road 

building or timber harvest can be done 

in Inventoried Roadless Areas until 

Forest Plans are revised or amended to 

specifically address activities in 

roadless areas. The Targhee National 

Forest is exempt from this interim 

directive because it operates under a 

Revised Forest Plan, which addresses 

the management of roadless areas. 

Motorized access and other management 

activities are addressed by specific 

Management Prescription direction in 

the Revised Forest Plan. In general, this 

Management Prescription directs that 

roadless areas in the Targhee National 

Forest remain roadless. Similarly, a 

1994 amendment to the Shoshone 

National Forest Plan implemented a 

standard for no net increase in roads 

(USFS 2004). 

The NPS also is incorporating the 

habitat, population, monitoring, and 

nuisance bear standards described in 

the Strategy into their Superintendent’s 

Compendium for each affected National 

Park. This would be completed prior to 

the final rule should the Yellowstone 

DPS be delisted. Because the BLM 

manages less than 2 percent of all 

suitable habitats, they are not modifying 

existing management plans. Instead, the 

BLM expressed their commitment to the 

long-term conservation of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population by 

signing the MOU in the Strategy. 

The three State grizzly bear 

management plans direct State land 

management agencies to maintain or 

improve habitats that are important to 

grizzly bears and to monitor population 

criteria outside the PCA. Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming have developed 

management plans for areas outside the 

PCA to: (1) Ensure the long-term 

viability of grizzly bears and preclude 

re-listing, (2) support expansion of 

grizzly bears beyond the PCA, into areas 

of suitable habitat, and (3) manage 

grizzly bears as a game animal, 

including allowing regulated hunting 

when and where appropriate. The plans 

for all three States were completed in 

2002, and grizzly bears within the 

Yellowstone DPS would be incorporated 

into existing game species management 

plans after delisting. 

The Eastern Shoshone Tribe of the 

Wind River Reservation has participated 

at the Yellowstone Ecosystem 

Subcommittee meetings. At the 2002 

Annual Tribal Consultation organized 

by Yellowstone National Park, the 

Service formally briefed the Tribe about 

the Conservation Strategy, but the Tribe 

did not provide input or feedback about 

the Strategy, nor did they sign the MOU 

in the Strategy. In addition, the Eastern 

Shoshone Tribe has not designed its 

own Grizzly Bear Management Plan as 

of 2005. However, less than 3 percent of 

all suitable habitats (1,360 sq km (525 sq 

mi)) are potentially affected by Tribal 

decisions. This does not constitute a 

threat to the long-term viability of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population. 

Should the Yellowstone DPS be 

delisted, the Conservation Strategy 

would be implemented, and the 

Coordinating Committee would replace 

the Yellowstone Ecosystem 

Subcommittee as the leading entity 

coordinating implementation of the 

habitat and population standards and 

monitoring (Service 2003). Similar to 

the Yellowstone Ecosystem 

Subcommittee, the Coordinating 

Committee members include 

representatives from Yellowstone and 

Grand Teton National Parks, the six 

affected National Forests, BLM, USGS, 

IDFG, MTFWP, the WGFD, one member 

from local county governments within 

each State, and one member from each 

Native American Tribe within suitable 

habitat. All meetings will be open to the 

public. Besides coordinating 

management, research, and financial 

needs for successful conservation of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population, the 

Coordinating Committee will review the 

Study Team’s Annual Reports and 

review and respond to any deviations 

from habitat or population standards, by 

implementing management actions to 

rectify problems and to assure that these 

standards will be met and maintained. 

The Conservation Strategy’s habitat 

standards are the 1998 levels of secure 

habitat, developed sites, livestock 

allotments, and habitat effectiveness 

(Service 2003). The Strategy signatories 

have agreed that if there are deviations 

from any population goal or habitat 

standard, the Coordinating Committee 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69877 

will implement a Biology and 

Monitoring Review to be carried out by 

the Study Team. A Biology and 

Monitoring Review will be triggered by 

any of the following causes: (1) A total 

population estimate of less than 500, as 

indicated by a Chao2 estimate (Keating 

et al. 2002) of less than 48 females with 

cubs-of-the-year, for 2 consecutive 

years; (2) exceedance of the 9 percent 

total mortality limit for independent 

females for 2 consecutive years; (3) 

exceedance of the total mortality limits 

for independent males or dependent 

young for 3 consecutive years; or (4) 

failure to meet any of the habitat 

standards described in the Conservation 

Strategy pertaining to road densities, 

levels of secure habitat, new developed 

sites, and number of livestock 

allotments. 

A Biology and Monitoring Review 

will examine habitat management, 

population management, or monitoring 

efforts of participating agencies with an 

objective of identifying the source or 

cause of failing to meet a habitat or 

demographic goal. The Study Team will 

give management recommendations to 

address the deviation. This Review will 

be completed and made available to the 

public within 6 months of initiation. 

The Coordinating Committee will 

respond with actions to address 

deviations from habitat standards or, if 

the desired population and habitat 

standards specified in the Strategy 

cannot be met in the opinion of the 

Coordinating Committee, then the 

Coordinating Committee will petition 

the Service for relisting (Service 2003). 

Although anyone can petition the 

Service for relisting, the Coordinating 

Committee’s petition is important 

because it is requested by the actual 

management agencies in charge of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population. 

Additionally, the Coordinating 

Committee possesses the resources, 

data, and experience to provide the 

Service with a strong argument for the 

petition. Once a potential petition is 

received, the Service will determine if 

the petition presents substantial 

information. If so, we conduct a full 

status review to determine if relisting is 

warranted, warranted-but-precluded by 

higher priority actions, or not 

warranted. The Service could also 

consider emergency listing, in 

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

ESA, if the threat were severe and 

immediate. Such an emergency relisting 

would be effective the day the proposed 

regulation is published in the Federal 

Register and would be effective for 240 

days. During this time, a conventional 

rule regarding the listing of a species 

based on the five factors of section 

4(a)(1) of the ESA could be drafted and 

take effect after the 240-day limit on the 

emergency relisting has expired. 

The management of nuisance bears 

within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries 

will be based upon existing laws and 

authorities of State wildlife agencies 

and Federal land management agencies 

and guided by protocols established in 

the Strategy and State management 

plans. Inside the National Parks, 

Yellowstone or Grand Teton National 

Park grizzly bear biologists will 

continue to respond to grizzly bear/ 

human conflicts. In all areas outside of 

the National Parks, State wildlife 

agencies will coordinate and carry out 

any management actions in response to 

grizzly bear/human conflicts. In areas 

within the Yellowstone DPS boundaries 

that are outside of the PCA, State grizzly 

bear management plans will apply and 

State wildlife agencies will respond to 

and manage all grizzly bear/human 

conflicts. The focus and intent of 

nuisance grizzly bear management 

inside and outside the PCA will be 

predicated on strategies and actions to 

prevent grizzly bear/human conflicts. 

Active management aimed at individual 

nuisance bears will be required in both 

areas. 

The Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming 

plans recognize that measures to reduce 

grizzly bear/human conflicts are 

paramount to successfully and 

completely address the issue. The State 

of Idaho Yellowstone Grizzly Bear 

Management Plan states that such 

measures must be given priority, as they 

are more effective than simply 

responding to problems as they occur. 

Similarly, the Grizzly Bear Management 

Plan for Southwestern Montana 

maintains that the key to dealing with 

all nuisance situations is prevention 

rather than responding after damage has 

occurred. The Wyoming Grizzly Bear 

Management Plan also mandates the 

WGFD to emphasize long-term, nonlethal solutions, but relocation and 

lethal removal may occur to resolve 

some conflicts (all three State 

management plans are accessible at 

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

species/mammals/grizzly/ 

yellowstone.htm). The ways in which 

the Strategy and the State plans intend 

to address preventative measures are 

described in detail in the ‘‘Information 

and Education’’ section in Factor E—

Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence. All 

three State plans allow for preemptive 

relocation of grizzly bears out of areas 

with a high probability of conflicting 

with humans or their property, 

including livestock. In general, humans 

will be given greater consideration 

outside of the PCA so long as human 

sources of conflicts are not intentional. 

The States are committed to responding 

to grizzly bear/human conflicts in an 

efficient, timely manner. 

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

allowed under both Federal and State 

management plans. State management 

plans do not allow for legal take of 

grizzly bears by humans unless it is 

within the designated seasons and 

limits for grizzly mortality. Hunting 

seasons will not be instituted in any of 

the States until adequate scientific 

information exists to ensure that any 

such hunting take is within the 

sustainable mortality limits and the 

impact to the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population is negligible. The goal of 

such a hunting season is to reduce 

grizzly density in areas of high grizzly 

bear/human conflicts so that future 

management actions would be reduced. 

Outside of the National Parks, 

individual nuisance bears deemed 

appropriate for removal may be taken by 

a licensed hunter in compliance with 

rules and regulations promulgated by 

the appropriate State wildlife agency 

commission. A hunt would only occur 

if annual mortality limits specified for 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

are not exceeded. 

In summary, these State management 

plans provide the necessary regulatory 

framework and guidelines to State 

wildlife agencies for the continued 

expansion of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population into suitable habitat 

outside of the PCA. By identifying the 

agencies responsible for nuisance bear 

management and responding to grizzly 

bear/human conflicts using a clearly 

orchestrated protocol, these State plans 

create a framework within which grizzly 

bears and people can coexist. Effective 

nuisance bear management benefits the 

conservation of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population and State management 

plans adequately address this issue. 

In addition to the Conservation 

Strategy, National Park 

Superintendent’s Plans, USFS Plans, 

and State grizzly bear management 

plans, more than 70 State and Federal 

laws, regulations, rules, and guidelines 

are currently in place. We are confident 

that these documents provide an 

adequate regulatory framework within 

which the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population will continue to experience 

population stability, as well as protocols 

for future management, IE programs, 

and monitoring. In summary, these 

documents provide reasonable 

assurance to the Service and regulatory 

certainty that potential future threats to 

69878 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

will not jeopardize its long-term 

viability. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting Its Continued Existence 

Three other considerations have the 

potential to affect long-term grizzly bear 

persistence in the Yellowstone 

including: (1) Genetic concerns; (2) 

invasive species, disease, and other 

impacts to food supply; and (3) human 

attitudes toward grizzly bear recovery 

and IE efforts to improve these attitudes. 

Genetic Management: Levels of 

genetic diversity in the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population are not as low as 

previously feared, and the need for 

novel genetic material is not urgent 

(Miller and Waits 2003). Because the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population is 

an isolated population, declines in 

genetic diversity over time due to 

inbreeding are expected (Allendorf et al. 

1991; Burgman et al. 1993), but will 

occur gradually over decades (Miller 

and Waits 2003). Experimental and 

theoretical data suggest that one to two 

effective migrants per generation is an 

appropriate level of gene flow to 

maintain or increase the level of genetic 

diversity in isolated populations (Mills 

and Allendorf 1996; Newman and 

Tallmon 2001; Miller and Waits 2003). 

An effective migrant is defined as an 

individual that emigrates into an 

isolated population from an outside 

area, survives, and breeds. Based on 

Miller and Waits (2003), the Strategy 

recommends that two bears from the 

NCDE be introduced into the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

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

maintain current levels of genetic 

diversity (Service 2003). 

Federal and State agencies will 

continue to monitor bears on the 

northern periphery of the Yellowstone 

DPS boundaries and the southern edges 

of the NCDE and collect genetic samples 

from captured or dead bears in these 

areas to document gene flow between 

these two ecosystems. To monitor 

genetic isolation, the Service will 

establish a repository for all samples 

from the Yellowstone population to 

document any bears moving from the 

NCDE into the Yellowstone area. Such 

movement will be detected by using an 

‘‘assignment test’’ which identifies the 

area from which individuals are most 

likely to have originated based on their 

unique genetic signature (Waser and 

Strobeck 1998). The Strategy dictates 

that if no movements are detected by 

2020, one to two grizzlies will be 

transplanted from the NCDE by 2022 to 

ensure that genetic diversity in the 

Yellowstone area does not decline 

below existing levels (Service 2003). 

As long as adequate measures to 

address genetic concerns are continued, 

these issues will not adversely impact 

the long-term conservation of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population or 

its expansion into suitable habitat. 

Through careful monitoring of 

movements and levels of genetic 

diversity, the geographic isolation of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

will not be a threat to population 

persistence. 

Invasive Species, Disease, and Other 

Impacts to Food Supply: Four food 

items have been identified as major 

components of the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population’s diet (Mattson et al. 

1991). These are seeds of the whitebark 

pine, army cutworm moths, ungulates, 

and spawning cutthroat trout. These 

food sources may exert a positive 

influence on grizzly bear fecundity and 

survival (Mattson et al. 2002) and are 

some of the highest sources of digestible 

energy available to grizzly bears in the 

Yellowstone area (Mealey 1975; 

Pritchard and Robbins 1990; Mattson et 

al. 1992; Craighead et al. 1995). Each of 

these food sources is limited in 

distribution and subject to natural 

annual fluctuations in abundance and 

availability. Because of this natural 

variability, threshold values of 

abundance for each food have not been 

established. However, whitebark pine, 

ungulates, cutthroat trout, and army 

cutworm moths are all monitored either 

directly or indirectly on an annual basis 

(see Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan 

section below). Monitoring these 

important foods provides managers with 

some ability to predict annual seasonal 

bear habitat use, and estimate, prepare 

for, and avoid grizzly bear/human 

conflicts due to a shortage of one or 

more foods. In response to normal 

changes in food supplies due to plant 

phenology and responses to weather 

(e.g., frost, rainfall), grizzly bear annual 

home ranges change in size and extent. 

By expanding the distribution and range 

of bears into currently unoccupied 

suitable habitat within the DPS 

boundaries, additional areas with 

additional food resources will be 

available. These additional habitats will 

provide habitat flexibility for bears to 

respond to these normal changes in 

annual food supplies and distribution. 

Several factors have the potential to 

impact Yellowstone Lake cutthroat trout 

populations. In 1994, nonnative lake 

trout (Salvelinus naymaycush) were 

discovered in Yellowstone Lake 

(Reinhart et al. 2001). Lake trout are 

efficient predators of juvenile cutthroat 

trout and, on average, consume 41 

cutthroat trout per year (Ruzycki et al. 

2003). In 1998, Myxobolus cerebralis, 

the parasite that causes whirling 

disease, was found in juvenile and adult 

cutthroat trout collected from 

Yellowstone Lake. The Intermountain 

West has experienced drought 

conditions for the past 6 years, which 

has resulted in increased water 

temperatures, lowered lake levels, and a 

reduction in peak stream flows; all of 

which negatively affect cutthroat trout 

spawning success (Koel et al. 2005). 

This combination of lake trout, whirling 

disease, and drought conditions has 

resulted in declines in the Yellowstone 

cutthroat trout population with 

subsequent decreases in grizzly bear 

fishing activity (Koel et al. 2005). In fact, 

bear activity (includes black bear and 

grizzly bear use) at spawning streams 

decreased 87 percent between 1989 and 

2004 (Koel et al. 2005). This decrease 

corresponds temporally with cutthroat 

trout declines but may not have a 

significant effect on the grizzly bear 

population because adult grizzlies that 

fish in spawning streams only consume, 

on average, between 8 and 55 trout per 

year (Felicetti et al. 2004). 

In 2001, several environmental and 

legal organizations petitioned the 

Service to list the Yellowstone cutthroat 

trout as a threatened subspecies of 

cutthroat trout (66 FR 11244; February 

23, 2001). A 12-month status review is 

currently underway and the Service will 

publish its findings when completed. 

We will consider the results of the 

status review fully when making a final 

decision on this proposed delisting. 

Efforts to reduce introduced lake trout 

populations have been somewhat 

successful. The Yellowstone National 

Park managers have removed more than 

100,000 lake trout since 1994, and the 

average size of lake trout caught has 

decreased, indicating that gillnetting 

efforts may be effective. The 

Yellowstone National Park managers 

will continue to monitor the 

Yellowstone Lake cutthroat trout 

population using fish weirs, spawning 

stream surveys, and hydroacoustic 

techniques and continue attempts to 

suppress nonnative lake trout in 

Yellowstone Lake through gillnetting, 

capturing on spawning grounds, and 

fishing regulations which target lake 

trout (Yellowstone National Park 2003). 

The Yellowstone National Park 

biologists will continue to assess the 

impacts of nonnative lake trout on 

cutthroat trout populations and will 

provide an annual summary to the 

Study Team regarding the abundance of 

both cutthroat and lake trout. 

Currently, there are two noteworthy 

threats to whitebark pine communities 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69879 

in North America. These are mountain 

pine beetle infestation and the 

introduction of exotic species (Tomback 

et al. 2001). Fire suppression and 

exclusion throughout most of the 

western United States during the 20th 

century has allowed shade tolerant tree 

species to dominate some whitebark 

pine communities thereby inhibiting 

natural regeneration by whitebark pine 

(Arno 1986; Tomback et al. 2001). These 

later successional whitebark pine 

communities are more susceptible to 

infestations of the native mountain pine 

beetle (Dendroctonus ponderosae) 

(Tomback et al. 2001). Their larvae feed 

on the inner bark, which can eventually 

girdle and kill trees on a landscape scale 

(Amman and Cole 1983). 

The introduction of white pine blister 

rust from Europe in the early 1900s also 

contributes to whitebark pine declines 

(Kendall and Arno 1990; Tomback et al. 

2001). While there is evidence of blister 

rust in whitebark pines in the 

Yellowstone area, the blister rust has 

been present for more than 50 years 

(McDonald and Hoff 2001), and only 2 

to 13 percent of whitebark pine trees 

display signs of infection (Kendall and 

Keane 2001). This proportion of infected 

trees is much lower than in whitebark 

pine communities found in the nearby 

Bob Marshall Wilderness (83 percent) or 

in communities of other 5-needled pines 

in Colorado in which 50 percent of 

pines exposed to the fungus are infected 

(McDonald and Hoff 2001). 

Both mountain pine beetle (Logan and 

Powell 2001; Williams and Liebhold 

2002) and white pine blister rust 

(Koteen 2002) outbreaks are predicted to 

increase with increasing temperatures 

associated with global climate change. 

However, the ultimate impacts of 

climate change on whitebark pine 

communities are unclear (Kendall and 

Keane 2001). 

Although tree mortality due to white 

pine blister rust and mountain pine 

beetles has been low to date in the PCA, 

some whitebark pine stands are infected 

with blister rust. The extent of the 

blister rust infection and the future 

effects it will have on whitebark pine on 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

are unknown. The USFS formed a 

Whitebark Pine Task Group to gather 

information on the status of this tree. 

Current work on whitebark pine 

includes planting in several areas, cone 

collection from healthy trees, 

silvicultural treatments to improve 

growth and establishment, prescribed 

burning to encourage natural whitebark 

pine seedling establishment, and 

surveys for healthy trees that may 

possess blister rust resistant genes. 

Currently, there are 19 whitebark pine 

cone production transects within the 

PCA, 9 of which have been monitored 

on an annual basis since 1980 (Knight 

et al. 1997). Under the Strategy, the 

Study Team will continue monitoring 

whitebark pine cone production and the 

prevalence of white pine blister rust 

using current methods (Service 2003). 

In general, grizzly bears are 

notoriously resourceful omnivores that 

will make behavioral adaptations 

regarding food acquisition (Weaver et al. 

1996). Diets of grizzly bears vary among 

individuals and years (Mattson et al. 

1991; Felicetti et al. 2004; Koel et al. 

2005) reflecting their flexibility in 

finding adequate food resources as 

necessary. Mattson et al. (1991) 

hypothesized that grizzly bears are 

always sampling new foods in small 

quantities so that they have alternative 

options in years when preferred foods 

are scarce. In other areas such as the 

NCDE, where grizzly bears historically 

relied heavily on whitebark pine seeds, 

distributions and sighting records on the 

periphery of this ecosystem indicate 

that the population, at least in those 

areas, has continued to increase and 

thrive since the 1980s (Servheen, pers. 

comm. 2005) despite severe declines in 

whitebark pine communities in the last 

50 years (Kendall and Keane 2001). 

Also, grizzly bear use of cutthroat trout 

has varied dramatically in the last three 

decades (Reinhart and Mattson 1990; 

Felicetti et al. 2004), most likely 

corresponding to fluctuations in the 

trout population, but the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population has continued to 

increase and expand. 

Although there is no way to guarantee 

how the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population will respond to decreases in 

whitebark pine crops or cutthroat trout, 

should they occur, we anticipate that 

they will compensate by shifting their 

foraging strategies to other foods such as 

forbs, fungi, ungulates, and small 

mammals. If there are reductions in any 

of these foods, they will likely be 

gradual reductions over decades, 

spanning generations of grizzly bears, 

thereby making adjustments to other 

foods gradual. 

The Study Team monitors grizzly bear 

mortality in relation to the abundance 

and distribution of all four of the major 

foods using measurable criteria. For 

instance, increases in mortality rates of 

radio-collared independent females are 

measurable criteria that could reflect 

decreases in food availability. Because 

there were no known natural mortalities 

of independent adult females from 1983 

to 2001 (Study Team 2005), any change 

in this value will be noteworthy and 

will be investigated thoroughly by the 

Study Team to determine whether it is 

reflective of a landscape-scale trend or 

simply an isolated event. Significant 

declines in important foods also could 

result in reductions in cub production 

and increases in cub mortality over 

current rates of 0.362. Because humancaused mortality, natural mortality of 

radio-collared bears, and numbers of 

cubs, and cub survival rates are all 

measurable criteria monitored annually 

by the Study Team, any significant 

decline in important foods also would 

be reflected in changes in these 

measurable population parameters. In 

summary, if declines in any of the four 

major foods occur and, using the best 

available scientific data and techniques, 

the Study Team concludes these are 

related to significant increases in known 

and probable bear mortalities and that 

such increases could threaten the 

grizzly population, the Study Team 

would recommend to the Coordinating 

Committee that they submit a petition 

for relisting to the Service (see Chapter 

6 of the Strategy—Implementation and 

Evaluation, for details on this process). 

Human Attitudes and Societal 

Acceptance: Public support is 

paramount to any successful large 

carnivore conservation program 

(Servheen 1996). Historically, human 

attitudes played a primary role in 

grizzly bear population declines through 

excessive human-caused mortality. 

Through government-endorsed 

eradication programs and perceived 

threats to human life and economic 

livelihood, humans settling the West 

were able to effectively eliminate most 

known grizzly populations after only 

100 years of westward expansion. 

We have seen a change in public 

perceptions and attitudes toward the 

grizzly bear in the last several decades. 

The same government that once 

financially supported active 

extermination of the bear now uses its 

resources to protect the great symbol of 

American wildness. This change in 

government policy and practice is a 

product of changing public attitudes 

about the grizzly bear. Although 

attitudes about grizzlies vary 

geographically and demographically, 

there has been a revival of positive 

attitudes toward the grizzly bear and its 

conservation (Kellert et al. 1996). 

Public outreach presents a unique 

opportunity to effectively integrate 

human and ecological concerns into 

comprehensive programs that can 

modify societal beliefs about, 

perceptions of, and behaviors toward 

grizzly bears. Attitudes toward wildlife 

are shaped by numerous factors 

including basic wildlife values, 

biological and ecological understanding 

of species, perceptions of individual 

69880 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

species, and specific interactions or 

experiences with species (Kellert 1994; 

Kellert et al. 1996). The IE programs to 

teach visitors and residents about 

grizzly bear biology, ecology, and 

behavior enhance appreciation for this 

large predator while dispelling myths 

about its temperament and feeding 

habits. Effective IE programs have been 

an essential factor contributing to the 

recovery of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population since its listing in 1975. 

Being aware of specific values common 

to certain user groups will allow the IE 

working group to disseminate 

appropriate materials and provide 

workshops that address particular 

values and concerns most adequately. 

By providing general information to 

visitors and targeting specific user 

groups about living and working in 

grizzly country, we believe continued 

coexistence between grizzly bears and 

humans will be accomplished. 

Traditionally, residents of the GYA 

involved in resource extraction 

industries such as loggers, miners, 

livestock operators, and hunting guides, 

are the largest opponents to land-use 

restrictions which place the needs of the 

grizzly bear above human needs (Kellert 

1994; Kellert et al. 1996). Surveys of 

these user groups have shown that they 

tolerate large predators when they are 

not seen as direct threats to their 

economic stability or personal freedoms 

(Kellert et al. 1996). Delisting would 

increase acceptance of grizzly bears by 

giving lower levels of government and 

private citizens more discretion in 

decisions which affect them. Increased 

flexibility regarding depredating bears 

in areas outside of the PCA would 

increase tolerance for the grizzly bear by 

landowners and livestock operators. A 

future hunting season also may increase 

tolerance and local acceptance of grizzly 

bears and reduce poaching in the GYA 

(McLellan et al. 1999). 

Overall, through expanded IE 

programs and continued monitoring of 

public opinion, human attitudes will 

not hinder the continued viability and 

success of the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population. 

Information and Education: The 

future of the grizzly bear will be based 

on the people who live, work, and 

recreate in grizzly habitat and the 

willingness and ability of these people 

to learn to coexist with the grizzly and 

to accept this animal as a cohabitant of 

the land. Other management strategies 

are unlikely to succeed without useful 

and innovative public IE programs. The 

primary objective of the expanded 

public outreach program will be to 

proactively address grizzly/human 

conflicts by educating the public as to 

the root causes of these conflicts. By 

increasing awareness of grizzly bear 

behavior and biology, we hope to 

enhance public involvement and 

appreciation of the grizzly bear. 

Although many human-caused grizzly 

bear mortalities are unintentional (e.g., 

vehicle collisions, trap mortality), 

intentional deaths in response to grizzly 

bear/human conflicts are responsible for 

the majority of known and probable 

human-caused mortalities. Fortunately, 

this source of mortality can be reduced 

significantly if adequate IE is provided 

to people who live, work, and recreate 

in occupied grizzly bear habitat. The 

current IE working group has been a 

major component contributing to the 

successful recovery of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population over the last 30 

years. Both Federal and State 

management agencies are committed to 

working with citizens, landowners, and 

visitors within the Yellowstone DPS 

boundaries to address the human 

sources of conflicts. 

From 1975 through 2002, as many as 

59 percent (135 out of 230) of humancaused mortalities could have been 

avoided if adequate IE materials had 

been presented, understood, and used 

by involved parties. Educating backcountry and front-country users about 

the importance of securing potential 

attractants can prevent bears from 

becoming food conditioned and 

displaying subsequent unnaturally 

aggressive behavior. Similarly, adhering 

to hiking recommendations, such as 

making noise, hiking with other people, 

and hiking during daylight hours, can 

further reduce back-country grizzly bear 

mortalities by decreasing the likelihood 

that hikers will encounter bears. 

Hunter-related mortalities usually 

involve hunters defending their life or 

property because of carcasses that are 

left unattended or stored improperly. 

Grizzly bear mortalities also occur when 

hunters mistake grizzly bears for black 

bears. All of these circumstances will be 

further reduced with enhanced IE 

programs. 

Outside the PCA, State wildlife 

agencies recognize that the key to 

preventing grizzly bear/human conflicts 

is providing IE to the public. State 

grizzly bear management plans also 

acknowledge that this is the most 

effective long-term solution to grizzly 

bear/human conflicts and that adequate 

public outreach programs are 

paramount to ongoing grizzly bear 

viability and successful coexistence 

with humans in the GYA. All three 

States have been actively involved in IE 

outreach for over a decade and 

management plans contain chapters 

detailing efforts to continue current 

programs and expand them when 

possible. State wildlife agencies have 

years of experience organizing and 

implementing effective public outreach 

programs. For example, WGFD created a 

formal human/grizzly bear conflict 

management program in July 1990 and 

has coordinated an extensive IE program 

since then. Similarly, since 1993, the 

MTFWP has implemented countless 

public outreach efforts to minimize 

bear/human conflicts, and the IDFG has 

organized and implemented education 

programs and workshops focused on 

private and public lands on the western 

edge of grizzly bear habitat. 

Compensating ranchers for losses 

caused by grizzly bears is another 

approach to build support for 

coexistence between livestock operators 

and grizzly bears. In cases of grizzly 

bear livestock depredation that have 

been verified by USDA–APHIS–Wildlife 

Services, IDFG, MTFWP, or WYDGF, 

compensation to the affected livestock 

owners will continue to occur. Since 

1997, this compensation has been 

provided primarily by private 

organizations, principally Defenders of 

Wildlife. The Defenders of Wildlife’s 

Grizzly Bear Compensation Trust has 

paid over $112,000 to livestock 

operators within the Yellowstone DPS 

boundaries and in the northern Rockies 

for confirmed and probable livestock 

losses to grizzly bears. If this proposed 

rule to delist the Yellowstone grizzly 

bear population is adopted, both Idaho 

and Wyoming’s grizzly bear 

management plans provide for State 

funding of compensation programs. In 

Idaho, compensation funds will come 

from the secondary depredation 

account, and the program will be 

administered by the appropriate IDFG 

Regional Landowner Sportsman 

Coordinators and Regional Supervisors. 

In Wyoming, the WYDGF will pay for 

all compensable damage to agricultural 

products as provided by State law and 

regulation. The WYDGF will continue 

efforts to establish a long-term funding 

mechanism to compensate property 

owners for livestock and apiary losses 

caused by grizzly bears. In Montana, 

MTFWP will continue to rely on 

Defenders of Wildlife and other private 

groups to compensate livestock 

operators for losses due to grizzly bears 

while MTFWP focuses on preventing 

such conflicts. 

Overall, these natural and manmade 

factors—genetic concerns, declines in 

natural food sources, public acceptance, 

and lack of adequate IE programs, if 

unaddressed, have the potential to affect 

long-term grizzly bear persistence. 

Through careful monitoring and 

adaptive management practices, the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69881 

Study Team and the States will be able 

to identify and address these concerns 

before they become problems for the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear at a population 

level. All of these issues have been 

scientifically researched and adequately 

addressed so that removing the 

proposed Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population from the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

would not adversely impact its longterm survival. 

Conclusion of the 5-Factor Analysis 

As demonstrated in our 5-factor 

analysis, threats to this population have 

been sufficiently minimized throughout 

all of the range and all suitable habitat 

within the DPS, and there is no 

significant portion of the range where 

the DPS remains threatened. 

Our current knowledge of the health 

and condition of the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear DPS illustrates that the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS is now a 

recovered population. Counts of 

unduplicated females with cubs-of-theyear have increased (Knight et al. 1995; 

Haroldson and Schwartz 2002; Schwartz 

et al. 2005a), indicating cub production 

has increased (Knight and Blanchard 

1995, 1996; Knight et al. 1997; 

Haroldson et al. 1998; Haroldson 1999, 

2000, 2001; Haroldson and Schwartz 

2002; Haroldson 2003, 2004; Schwartz 

et al. 2005). Grizzly range and 

distribution has expanded (Basile 1982; 

Blanchard et al. 1992; Schwartz et al. 

2002; Pyare et al. 2004). Calculations of 

population trajectory derived from 

radio-monitored female bears 

demonstrate an increasing population 

trend at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year 

since the early 1990s (Eberhardt et al. 

1994; Knight and Blanchard 1995; 

Boyce et al. 2001; Schwartz et al. 2005), 

due in large part to control of female 

mortality. In total, this population has 

increased from estimates ranging from 

229 (Craighead et al. 1974) to 312 

(Cowan et al. 1974; McCullough 1981) 

individuals when listed in 1975 to more 

than 580 animals as of 2004 (Study 

Team 2005). 

At the end of 2004, the number of 

unduplicated females with cubs-of-theyear over a 6-year average both inside 

the Recovery Zone and within a 16-km 

(10-mi) area immediately surrounding 

the Recovery Zone was 40, more than 

double the Recovery Plan target of 15. 

The Recovery Plan target for the number 

of unduplicated females with cubs-ofthe-year (15) has been exceeded since 

1988. In 2004, the 1-year total of 

unduplicated females with cubs-of-theyear within this area was 46. 

Within the Recovery Zone, the 

distribution of females with young, 

based on the most recent six years of 

observations in the ecosystem, was 

eighteen out of eighteen bear 

management units at the end of 2004. 

The range of this population also has 

increased dramatically, as evidenced by 

the 48 percent increase in occupied 

habitat since the 1970s (Schwartz et al. 

2002; Pyare et al. 2004). Furthermore, 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

continues to expand its range and 

distribution today. Currently, roughly 

90 percent of females with cubs occupy 

the PCA and about 10 percent of females 

with cubs have expanded out beyond 

the PCA within the DPS (Schwartz 

2005, unpublished data). Grizzly bears 

now occupy 68 percent of suitable 

habitat within the proposed DPS and 

may soon occupy the remainder of the 

suitable habitat within the proposed 

DPS. The Yellowstone DPS now 

represents a viable population that has 

sufficient numbers and distribution of 

reproductive individuals to provide a 

high likelihood that the species will 

continue to exist and be well-distributed 

throughout its range and additional 

suitable habitat for the foreseeable 

future. Both the threats of habitat 

destruction and modification, and low 

population levels, have been directly 

addressed through changes in 

management practices. 

As per the criteria laid out in the 1993 

Recovery Plan, the 4 percent mortality 

limit has not been exceeded for 2 

consecutive years since 1987. The 

human-caused female grizzly bear 

mortality limit has not been exceeded 

for 2 consecutive years since the 1995–

1997 period (Haroldson and Frey 2004). 

Due to the conservative nature of this 

standard designed to facilitate 

population recovery, even when humancaused adult female mortality was 

exceeded for consecutive years during 

the mid-1990s (1995, 1996, 1997), the 

population was increasing (Boyce et al. 

2001; Schwartz et al. 2005) and 

expanding its distribution (Schwartz et 

al. 2002; Pyare et al. 2004). Applying 

the revised mortality limits to the 1999–

2004 period, these criteria have not been 

exceeded for 3 consecutive years for 

males, for 3 consecutive years for 

dependent young, nor for 2 consecutive 

years for independent females. The 

main threat of human predation has 

been addressed through carefully 

monitored and controlled mortality 

limits through the State management 

plans. In addition, information and 

education is a main component of the 

program to reduce grizzly bear/human 

conflicts. 

The State and Federal agencies’

agreement to implement the extensive 

Conservation Strategy and State 

management plans will ensure that 

adequate regulatory mechanisms remain 

in place and that the Yellowstone 

grizzly bear population will not become 

an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

The threat of overutilization due to 

commercial, recreational, scientific, or 

education purposes has been removed 

due to the management of grizzly bears 

through State management plan 

mortality limits. This proposal mentions 

the possibility, in the future, of a 

carefully regulated hunt; however, 

should this hunt be formally proposed, 

all hunting mortalities would be 

counted toward the mortality limits for 

the population. 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial information available, we 

have determined that the proposed 

Yellowstone DPS is a recovered 

population no longer meeting the ESA’s 

definition of threatened or endangered. 

Therefore, we are proposing to delist the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear DPS. 

Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan 

To further ensure the long-term 

conservation of adequate grizzly bear 

habitat and continued recovery of the 

Yellowstone grizzly bear population, 

several monitoring programs and 

protocols have been developed and 

integrated into land management agency 

planning documents. The Strategy and 

appended State grizzly bear 

management plans effectively satisfy the 

requirements for having a Post-Delisting 

Monitoring Plan for the Yellowstone 

DPS. Monitoring programs will focus on 

assessing whether demographic 

standards and habitat criteria described 

in the Strategy are being achieved. A 

suite of indices will be monitored 

simultaneously to provide a highly 

sensitive system to monitor the health of 

the population and its habitat and to 

provide a sound scientific basis to 

respond to any changes or needs with 

adaptive management actions (Lee and 

Lawrence 1986). More specifically, 

monitoring efforts will document 

population trends, distribution, survival 

and birth rates, and genetic variability. 

Throughout the DPS boundaries, 

locations of grizzly bear mortalities on 

private lands will be provided to the 

Study Team for incorporation into their 

Annual Report. Full implementation of 

the Strategy by State and Federal 

agencies will allow for a sustainable 

population by managing all suitable 

habitat. 

Within the Primary Conservation 

Area—As discussed in previous 

sections, habitat criteria established for 

the Yellowstone grizzly bear population 

69882 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

will be monitored carefully and any 

deviations from these will be reported 

annually. The number and levels of 

secure habitat, road densities, 

developed sites, and livestock 

allotments will not be allowed to 

deviate from 1998 baseline measures in 

accordance with the implementation 

protocols in the Strategy. 

The Study Team will prepare Annual 

Reports summarizing the habitat criteria 

and population statistics. The Study 

Team will be responsible for counting 

the number of unduplicated females 

with cubs-of-the-year and monitoring 

mortality, distribution, and genetic 

diversity (see Appendix I of the 

Strategy). To examine reproductive 

rates, survival rates, causes of death, 

and overall population trends, the Study 

Team will strive to radio collar and 

monitor a minimum of 25 adult female 

grizzly bears at all times. These bears 

will be spatially distributed throughout 

the ecosystem as determined by the 

Study Team. 

The Study Team, with participation 

from Yellowstone National Park, the 

USFS, and State wildlife agencies, also 

will monitor grizzly bear habitats, foods, 

and impacts of humans. Documenting 

the abundance and distribution of the 

major foods will be an integral 

component of monitoring within the 

PCA as it allows managers some degree 

of predictive power to anticipate and 

avoid grizzly bear/human conflicts 

related to a shortage of one or more 

foods. Major foods, habitat value, and 

habitat effectiveness will be monitored 

according to Appendices E and I in the 

Strategy and as described in Factor A, 

‘‘The Present or Threatened Destruction, 

Modification, or Curtailment of Its 

Habitat or Range’’ in this proposed rule. 

Outside of the Primary Conservation 

Area—State wildlife agencies will be 

responsible for monitoring habitat and 

population parameters in areas outside 

of the PCA. The three State grizzly bear 

management plans detail what habitat 

and demographic criteria each State will 

monitor. All three States will document 

sightings of females with cubs and 

provide this information to the Study 

Team. Additionally, State wildlife 

agencies will provide known mortality 

information to the Study Team, which 

will annually summarize this data with 

respect to location, type, date of 

incident, and the sex and age of the bear 

for the DPS area. 

In Idaho, the IDFG will be responsible 

for monitoring population trends and 

habitat parameters. Outside of the PCA, 

the IDFG will establish data analysis 

units to facilitate monitoring of grizzly 

bear distribution, abundance, and 

mortality. Habitat criteria will be 

monitored within each unit but will not 

be established strictly for grizzly bears. 

Instead, habitat standards will be 

incorporated into current management 

plans for other game species. However, 

the IDFG will monitor important food 

sources for grizzly bears including elk, 

deer, moose, Kokanee salmon, and 

cutthroat trout. The IDFG also will 

encourage and work with other land 

management agencies on public lands to 

monitor wetland and riparian habitats, 

whitebark pine production, important 

berry-producing plants, and changes in 

motorized access route density. On 

private lands, the IDFG will work with 

citizens, counties, and other agencies to 

monitor development activities and 

identify important spring habitat for 

grizzly bears, then work with 

landowners to minimize impacts to 

bears. 

In Montana, the MTFWP will monitor 

populations using data from research, 

distribution changes, DNA samples, 

confirmed sightings, and known 

mortalities. The MTFWP will collect 

and analyze habitat data and monitor 

habitat changes pertaining to key grizzly 

bear foods, road densities, road 

construction and improvements, and 

coal bed methane activities. In addition, 

the MTFWP will continue to use 

Statewide habitat programs to conserve 

key wildlife habitats in southwestern 

Montana, working closely with private 

landowners to conserve private lands 

via lease, conservation easements, or fee 

title acquisition. 

In Wyoming, the WGFD will establish 

grizzly bear management units to collect 

and analyze demographic and 

distributional data. The WGFD will 

monitor habitat changes, human 

activities, road densities, and 

construction. Habitat standards will be 

monitored in a manner consistent with 

those already in place for other wildlife 

and will not focus specifically on the 

habitat needs of grizzly bears. 

Monitoring systems in the Strategy 

allow for adaptive management as 

environmental issues change (Lee and 

Lawrence 1986). The agencies have 

committed in the Strategy to be 

responsive to the needs of the grizzly 

bear through adaptive management 

actions based on the results of detailed 

annual population and habitat 

monitoring. These monitoring efforts 

would reflect the best scientific and 

commercial data and any new 

information that has become available 

since the delisting determination or 

most recent status review. The entire 

process would be dynamic so that when 

new science becomes available it will be 

incorporated into the management 

planning and monitoring systems 

outlined in the Strategy (Service 2003). 

The results of this extensive monitoring 

would allow wildlife and land managers 

to identify and address potential threats 

preemptively thereby allowing those 

managers and the Service to be certain 

that the Yellowstone grizzly bear 

population is not threatened with 

extinction in the foreseeable future. 

Clarity of the Rule (E.O. 12866) 

Executive Order 12866 requires 

agencies to write regulations that are 

easy to understand. We invite your 

comments on how to make this rule 

easier to understand including answers 

to the following: (1) Is the discussion in 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

of the preamble helpful in 

understanding the proposal?; (2) Does 

the proposal contain technical language 

or jargon that interferes with its clarity?; 

(3) Does the format of the proposal 

(grouping and order of sections, use of 

headings, etc.) aid or reduce its clarity; 

and (4) What else could we do to make 

the rule easier to understand? 

Send a copy of any comments that 

concern how we could make this 

proposed rule easier to understand to 

the Office of Regulatory Affairs, 

Department of the Interior, Room 7229, 

1849 C St., NW., Washington, DC 20240. 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

as accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we solicit comments or 

suggestions from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. Generally, we seek 

information, data, and comments 

concerning the status of grizzly bears in 

the Yellowstone ecosystem. 

Specifically, we seek documented, 

biological data on the status of the 

Yellowstone ecosystem grizzly bears 

and their habitat, and the management 

of these bears and their habitat. 

Submit comments as indicated under 

ADDRESSES. If you wish to submit 

comments by e-mail, please avoid the 

use of special characters and any form 

of encryption. Please also include your 

name and return address in your e-mail 

message. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their home address from 

the rulemaking record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. 

There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 69883 

rulemaking record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. However, we will not 

consider anonymous comments. We 

will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments and other information 

received, as well as supporting 

information used to write this rule, will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at our Missoula Office (see 

ADDRESSES). In making a final decision 

on this proposed rule, we will take into 

consideration the comments and any 

additional information we receive. Such 

communications may lead to a final rule 

that differs from this proposal. 

Public Hearing 

The ESA provides for public hearings 

on this proposed rule. We have 

scheduled one public hearing on this 

proposed rule as specified above in 

DATES and ADDRESSES. 

Public hearings are designed to gather 

relevant information that the public may 

have that we should consider in our 

rulemaking. During the hearing, we will 

present information about the proposed 

action. We invite the public to submit 

information and comments at the 

hearing or in writing during the open 

public comment period. We encourage 

persons wishing to comment at the 

hearing to provide a written copy of 

their statement at the start of the 

hearing. This notice and public hearing 

will allow all interested parties to 

submit comments on the proposed rule 

for the grizzly bear. We are seeking 

comments from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, 

Tribes, the scientific community, 

industry, or any other interested parties 

concerning the proposal. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our policy 

published on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 

34270), we will solicit the expert 

opinions of at least three appropriate 

and independent specialists for peer 

review of this proposed rule. The 

purpose of such review is to ensure that 

decisions are based on scientifically 

sound data, assumptions, and analyses. 

We will send peer reviewers copies of 

this proposed rule immediately 

following publication in the Federal 

Register. We will invite peer reviewers 

to comment, during the public comment 

period, on the specific assumptions and 

conclusions regarding the proposed DPS 

and its delisting. We will summarize the 

opinions of these reviewers in the final 

decision document, and we will 

consider their input as part of our 

process of making a final decision on 

the proposal. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule does not contain any new 

collections of information other than 

those already approved under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq.) and assigned Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) control 

number 1018–0094, which expires on 

September 30, 2007. An agency may not 

conduct or sponsor, and a person is not 

required to respond to, a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

For additional information concerning 

permit and associated requirements for 

endangered species, see 50 CFR 17.21 

and 17.22. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

The Service has determined that 

Environmental Assessments and 

Environmental Impact Statements, as 

defined under the authority of the NEPA 

of 1969, need not be prepared in 

connection with actions adopted 

pursuant to section 4(a) of the ESA. A 

notice outlining the Service’s reasons 

for this determination was published in 

the Federal Register on October 25, 

1983 (48 FR 49244). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available upon request from 

the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator 

(see ADDRESSES above). 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as 

set forth below: 

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. 

§ 17.11 [Amended] 

2. Amend § 17.11(h) by revising the 

listing for ‘‘Bear, grizzly’’ under 

‘‘MAMMALS’’ in the List of Endangered 

and Threatened Wildlife to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

69884 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 221 / Thursday, November 17, 2005 / Proposed Rules 

Species 

Historic range Vertebrate population where 

endangered or threatened Status When listed 

Critical 

habitat 

Special 

rules Common name Scientific name 

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Bear, grizzly ....... Ursus arctos 

horribilis.

North America .... U.S.A., conterminous (lower 48) 

States, except: (1) Where listed 

as an experimental population; 

and (2) that portion of Idaho that 

is east of Interstate Highway 15 

and north of U.S. Highway 30; 

that portion of Montana that is 

east of Interstate Highway 15 

and south of Interstate Highway 

90; that portion of Wyoming 

South of Interstate Highway 90, 

west of Interstate Highway 25, 

Wyoming State Highway 220, 

and U.S. Highway 287 south of 

Three Forks (at the 220 and 287 

intersection), and north of Interstate Highway 80 and U.S. Highway 30.

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

Do ................... ......do ................. ......do ................. U.S.A. (portions of ID and MT, see 

17.84(l)).

XN 706 NA 17.84(l) 

* * * * * * * 

Dated: November 9, 2005. 

H. Dale Hall, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–22784 Filed 11–15–05; 1:00 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U