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, 69854-69884 [05-22784]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 221 (Thursday, November 17, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69854-69884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22784]



[[Page 69853]]

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

Part III





Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



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; Proposed Rule

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

[[Page 69854]]


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

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 habitat-based 
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 https://mountain-
prairie.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

[[Page 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 post-denning 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). Winter-killed ungulates serve as an 
important food source in early spring before most vegetation is 
available (Greene et al.

[[Page 69856]]

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 
mid-June 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 pre-
hibernation 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 human-caused 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

[[Page 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 
Cabinet-Yaak area of northwest Montana and northern Idaho (6,700 sq km 
(2,600 sq mi)) at approximately 30 to 40 bears (Kasworm and Manley 
1988; 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, non-government 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 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest; the Bridger-Teton 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 habitat-based 
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 Habitat-based 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;

[[Page 69858]]

     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 
biologically-based 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 https://mountain-prairie.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

[[Page 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 https://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-the-year 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 human-caused 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 human-caused 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 human-caused 
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 human-caused mortalities. This limit is less

[[Page 69860]]

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 radio-collared 
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 https://mountain-prairie.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 https://mountain-prairie.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

[[Page 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.

[[Page 69862]]

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 b