Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 30502-30633 [2017-13160]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 125 (Friday, June 30, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30502-30633]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-13160]



[[Page 30501]]

Vol. 82

Friday,

No. 125

June 30, 2017

Part III

Book 3 of 3 Books

Pages 30501-30720





 Department of the Interior





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



Fish and Wildlife Service



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



50 CFR Part 17



Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the Greater 
Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the Federal List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 125 / Friday, June 30, 2017 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 30502]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-0042; FXES11130900000C6-178-FF09E42000]
RIN 1018-BA41


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Removing the 
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of Grizzly Bears From the 
Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule; availability of final Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 
Supplement: Revised Demographic Criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The best available scientific and commercial data indicate 
that the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) population of grizzly 
bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) is a valid distinct population segment 
(DPS) and that this DPS has recovered and no longer meets the 
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Endangered 
Species Act, as amended (Act). Therefore, we, the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service (Service), hereby revise the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife, under the authority of the Act, by establishing a 
DPS and removing the GYE grizzly bear DPS. The Service has determined 
that the GYE grizzly bear population has increased in size and more 
than tripled its occupied range since being listed as threatened under 
the Act in 1975 and that threats to the population are sufficiently 
minimized. The participating States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and 
Federal agencies have adopted the necessary post-delisting plans and 
regulations, which adequately ensure that the GYE population of grizzly 
bears remains recovered.
    Concurrent to this final rule, we are appending the Grizzly Bear 
Recovery Plan Supplement: Revised Demographic Criteria to the 1993 
Recovery Plan. Moreover, prior to publication of this final rule, the 
Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee finalized the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy that will guide post-delisting monitoring and management of 
the grizzly bear in the GYE. Additionally, the U.S. Forest Service 
finalized in 2006 the Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear 
Conservation for the GYE National Forests and made a decision to 
incorporate this Amendment into the affected National Forests' Land 
Management Plans. Yellowstone National Park and Grand Teton National 
Park appended the habitat standards to their Park Superintendent's 
Compendia, thereby ensuring that these national parks would manage 
habitat in accordance with the habitat standards. The States of Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming have signed a Tri-State Memorandum of Agreement 
and enacted regulatory mechanisms to ensure that State management of 
mortality limits is consistent with the demographic recovery criteria.

DATES: This final rule becomes effective July 31, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials received, as well as supporting 
documentation used in preparation of this final rule, are available for 
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours, at the 
Grizzly Bear Recovery Office, University Hall, Room #309, University of 
Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812. To make arrangements, call 406-243-
4903.
    Document availability: This final rule and supporting documents are 
available on https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-
2016-0042. In addition, certain documents, such as the final 2016 
Conservation Strategy, the final Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Supplement: 
Revised Demographic Criteria, and a list of references cited, are 
available at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php. 
The Service will complete the decision file shortly.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear 
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University Hall, 
Room #309, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812; telephone 406-
243-4903; facsimile 406-329-3212. For Tribal inquiries, contact Roya 
Mogadam, Deputy Assistant Regional Director, External Affairs, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service; telephone: 303-236-4572. Persons who use a 
telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Relay 
Service at 800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

Executive Summary
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE)
Previous Federal Actions
Background
Population Ecology--Background
Recovery Planning and Implementation
    --Background
    --Recovery Planning
    --Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria
    --Suitable Habitat
    --Demographic Recovery Criteria
    [cir] Demographic Recovery Criterion 1
    [cir] Demographic Recovery Criterion 2
    [cir] Demographic Recovery Criterion 3
    --The 2016 Conservation Strategy
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview
Past Practice and History of Using DPSs
Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Analysis
    --Analysis of Discreteness in Relation to Remainder of Taxon
    --Analysis of Significance of Population Segment to Taxon
    [cir] Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting
    [cir] Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon
    [cir] Marked Genetic Differences
Summary of Distinct Population Segment Analysis
Summary of Factors Affecting the Species
    --Factor A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, 
or Curtailment of Its Habitat or Range.
    [cir] Habitat Management Inside the Primary Conservation Area
    [ssquf] Motorized Access Management
    [ssquf] Developed Sites
    [ssquf] Livestock Allotments
    [ssquf] Mineral and Energy Development
    [ssquf] Recreation
    [ssquf] Snowmobiling
    [ssquf] Vegetation Management
    [ssquf] Climate Change
    [ssquf] Habitat Fragmentation
    [cir] Habitat Management Outside the Primary Conservation Area
    [cir] Summary of Factor A
    --Factors B and C Combined. Overutilization for Commercial, 
Recreational, Scientific, or Educational Purposes; Disease or 
Predation
    [cir] Human-Caused Mortality
    [cir] Disease
    [cir] Natural Predation
    [cir] Summary of Factors B and C Combined
    --Factor D. Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms
    Factor E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its 
Continued Existence
    [cir] Genetic Health
    [cir] Changes in Food Resources
    [cir] Climate Change
    [cir] Catastrophic Events
    [cir] Public Support and Human Attitudes
    [cir] Summary of Factor E
    --Cumulative Effects of Factors A Through E
Summary of Factors Affecting the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 
Grizzly Bear Population
Summary of and Responses to Peer Review and Public Comment
    --General Issues
    --Delisting Process and Compliance With Applicable Laws, 
Regulations, and Policies Issues
    --Geographic Scope of Recovery and Delisting Issues
    --Working With Tribes and Tribal Issues
    --Recovery Criteria and Management Objective Issues
    --Other Comments on Whether To Delist
    --Measurement of and Interpretation of Population Parameters 
Issues
    --Habitat Management Issues (Factor A)
    --Human-Caused Mortality Issues (Factors B and C Combined)
    --Adequate Regulatory Mechanisms and Post-Delisting Monitoring 
Issues (Factor D)

[[Page 30503]]

    --Genetic Health Issues (Factor E)
    --Food Resource Issues (Factor E)
    --Climate Change Issues (Factor E)
    --Other Potential Threat Factor Issues (Factor E)
    --Cumulative Impacts of Threats Issues
    --Distinct Population Segment and Significant Portion of Its 
Range Issues
Determination
Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis
    --Background
    --Significant Portion of Its Range Analysis for the GYE Grizzly 
Bear DPS
Effects of the Rule
Post-Delisting Monitoring
    --Monitoring
    --Triggers for a Biology and Monitoring Review by the 
Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team
    --Triggers for a Service Status Review
Required Determinations
    --Clarity of the Rule
    --National Environmental Policy Act
    --Government-to-Government Relationships With Tribes
Glossary
References Cited
Authors

Executive Summary

(1) Purpose of the Regulatory Action

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations in part 424 
of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424) set 
forth the procedures for revising the Federal Lists of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Rulemaking is required to remove a 
species from these lists. Accordingly, we are issuing this final rule 
to identify the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear 
distinct population segment (DPS) and revise the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife by removing the DPS from the List. The population 
is stable (i.e., no statistical trend in the population trajectory), 
threats are sufficiently ameliorated, and a post-delisting monitoring 
and management framework has been developed and has been incorporated 
into regulatory mechanisms or other operative documents. The best 
scientific and commercial data available, including our detailed 
evaluation of information related to the population's trend and 
structure, indicate that the GYE grizzly bear DPS has recovered and 
threats have been reduced such that it no longer meets the definition 
of threatened, or endangered, under the Act. To better articulate 
demographic criteria that adequately describe a recovered population, 
we are releasing a supplement to the 1993 Recovery Plan's demographic 
recovery criteria for this population of grizzly bears. In addition, 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy was finalized and signed by all partner 
agencies in December 2016. Identifying the GYE grizzly bear DPS and 
removing that DPS from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 
does not change the threatened status of the remaining grizzly bears in 
the lower 48 States, which remain protected by the Act.
    On September 21, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the District of 
Montana vacated and remanded the Service's previous final rule 
establishing and delisting this DPS. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 
affirmed the district court finding that the Service had not adequately 
analyzed the effects of whitebark pine as a food source for this DPS, 
but reversed the district court finding that the Service had 
permissibly and appropriately considered the 2007 Conservation Strategy 
under section 4 of the Act. Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, 
665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011). This final rule completes that remand 
order by addressing the effects of whitebark pine, as well as the other 
applicable factors under section 4 of the Act.

(2) Major Provision of the Regulatory Action

    This action is authorized by the Act. We are amending 50 CFR 
17.11(h) by revising the listing for ``Bear, grizzly'' under 
``Mammals'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to remove 
the GYE grizzly bear DPS.

(3) Costs and Benefits

    We have not analyzed the costs or benefits of this rulemaking 
action because the Act precludes consideration of such impacts on 
listing and delisting determinations. Instead, listing and delisting 
decisions are based solely on the best scientific and commercial data 
available regarding the status of the subject species.

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE)

    The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) refers to the larger 
ecological system containing and surrounding Yellowstone National Park 
(YNP). The GYE includes portions of five National Forests; YNP, Grand 
Teton National Park (GTNP), and the John D. Rockefeller Memorial 
Parkway (JDR; administered by GTNP); and State, Tribal, and private 
lands. The GYE is generally defined as those lands surrounding YNP with 
elevations greater than 1,500 meters (m) (4,900 feet (ft)) (see USDA FS 
2004, p. 46; Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 9). While we consider the terms 
``Greater Yellowstone Area'' and ``Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem'' to 
be interchangeable, we use GYE in this final rule to be consistent with 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy. The Primary Conservation Area (PCA) 
boundary is the same as and replaces the existing Yellowstone Recovery 
Zone as identified in the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993, 
p. 41) to reflect the paradigm shift from managing for recovery as a 
listed species under the Act to one of conservation as a non-listed 
species (figure 1). Monitoring of the demographic criteria for the GYE 
grizzly bear population will occur, by the Interagency Grizzly Bear 
Study Team (IGBST), within the demographic monitoring area (DMA) to 
ensure a recovered population (figure 1).
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 30504]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN17.251

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C

Previous Federal Actions

    On July 28, 1975, we published a rule to designate the grizzly bear 
as threatened in the conterminous (lower 48) United States (40 FR 
31734). Accordingly, we developed a Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service 1982) and updated that plan as necessary (72 
FR 11376, March 13, 2007; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993, 2007a, 
2007b, 2017). On November 17, 2005, we proposed to designate the GYE 
population of grizzly

[[Page 30505]]

bears as a DPS and to remove (delist) this DPS from the Federal List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (70 FR 69854). On March 29, 2007, we 
finalized this proposed action, designating the GYE population as a DPS 
and removing (delisting) grizzly bears in the GYE from the Federal List 
of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (72 FR 14866). This final 
determination was vacated and remanded by the U.S. District Court for 
the District of Montana on September 21, 2009, in Greater Yellowstone 
Coalition v. Servheen, et al., 672 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009). The 
District Court ruled against the Service on two of the four points 
brought against it: That the Service was arbitrary and capricious in 
its evaluation of whitebark pine and that the identified regulatory 
mechanisms were inadequate because they were not legally enforceable. 
In compliance with this order, the GYE grizzly bear population was once 
again made a threatened population under the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 
seq.) (see 75 FR 14496, March 26, 2010), and the Service withdrew the 
delisting rule.
    The Service appealed the District Court decision, and on November 
15, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion 
affirming in part and reversing in part the district court's decision 
vacating and remanding the final rule delisting grizzly bears in the 
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. 
Servheen, et al., 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011)). The Ninth Circuit 
held that the Service's consideration of the regulatory mechanisms was 
permissible, but that the Service inadequately explained why the loss 
of whitebark pine was not a threat to the GYE grizzly bear population. 
In compliance with this order, the GYE population of grizzly bears 
remained federally listed as ``threatened'' under the Act, and the 
IGBST initiated more thorough research into the potential impact of 
whitebark pine decline on GYE grizzly bears. In this final rule, among 
the other findings, we respond to the District Court's remand and the 
Ninth Circuit's determination that the Service failed to support its 
conclusion that whitebark pine declines did not threaten GYE grizzly 
bears.
    On March 11, 2016, we proposed to designate the GYE population of 
grizzly bears as a DPS and to remove (delist) this DPS from the Federal 
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (81 FR 13174). In addition, 
our proposed rule included a notice announcing the availability of the 
draft Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Supplement: Revised Demographic 
Criteria and the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy. The proposed rule 
was followed by a 60-day comment period, during which we held two open 
houses and two public hearings (81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016). The 
public comment period was later reopened for an additional 30 days in 
light of the receipt of five peer reviews and the States of Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming finalizing regulatory mechanisms to manage human-
caused mortality of grizzly bears (81 FR 61658, September 7, 2016). 
Please refer to the proposed rule for more detailed information on 
previous Federal actions (81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016).

Background

    Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) are 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, p. 43; Servheen 1999, pp. 50-53). Grizzly bears are 
generally larger than other bears and average 200 to 300 kilograms (kg) 
(400 to 600 pounds (lb)) for males and 110 to 160 kg (250 to 350 lb) 
for females in the lower 48 States (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, pp. 
517-520; Schwartz et al. 2003, p. 558). Although their coloration can 
vary widely from light brown to nearly black (LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 
17-18), they can be distinguished from black bears by longer curved 
claws, humped shoulders, and a face that appears to be concave 
(Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 517). Grizzly bears are long-lived 
mammals, generally living to be around 25 years old (LeFranc et al. 
1987, pp. 47, 51).
    Adult grizzly bears are normally solitary except when females have 
dependent young (Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. 971), but they are not 
territorial and home ranges of adult bears frequently overlap (Schwartz 
et al. 2003, pp. 565-566). Home range size is affected by resource 
availability, sex, age, and reproductive status (LeFranc et al. 1987, 
p. 31; Blanchard and Knight 1991, pp. 48-51; Mace and Waller 1997, p. 
48). The annual home ranges of adult male grizzly bears in the GYE are 
approximately 800 square kilometers (km\2\) (309 square miles (mi\2\)), 
while female home ranges are typically smaller, approximately 210 km\2\ 
(81 mi\2\) (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, p. 3). The large home ranges of 
grizzly bears, particularly males, enhance maintenance of genetic 
diversity in the population by enabling males to mate with numerous 
females (Blanchard and Knight 1991, pp. 46-51; Craighead et al. 1998, 
p. 326).
    Grizzly bears are extremely omnivorous, display great diet 
plasticity--even within a population (Edwards et al. 2011, pp. 883-
886)--and shift and switch food habits according to their availability 
(Servheen 1983, pp. 1029-1030; Mace and Jonkel 1986, p. 108; LeFranc et 
al. 1987, pp. 113-114; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 63-71; Schwartz et 
al. 2003, pp. 568-569; Gunther et al. 2014, p. 65). Gunther et al. 
(2014, p. 65) conducted an extensive literature review and documented 
over 260 species of foods consumed by grizzly bears in the GYE, 
representing 4 of the 5 kingdoms of life. The ability to use whatever 
food resources are available is one reason grizzly bears are the most 
widely distributed bear species in the world, occupying habitats from 
deserts to alpine mountains and everything in between. This ability to 
live in a variety of habitats and eat a wide array of foods makes 
grizzly bears a generalist species.
    Grizzly bears use a variety of habitats in the GYE (LeFranc et al. 
1987, p. 120). In general, a grizzly bear's individual habitat needs 
and daily movements are largely driven by the search for food, mates, 
cover, security, or den sites. The available habitat for bears is also 
influenced by people and their activities. Human activities are the 
primary factor impacting habitat security and the ability of bears to 
find and access foods, mates, cover, and den sites (Mattson et al. 
1987, pp. 269-271; McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. 458-459; McLellan 
1989, pp. 1862-1864; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402-1403; Nielsen et al. 
2006, p. 225; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661). Other factors influencing 
habitat use and function for grizzly bears include overall habitat 
productivity (e.g., food distribution and abundance), the availability 
of habitat components (e.g., denning areas, cover types), grizzly bear 
social dynamics, learned behavior and preferences of individual grizzly 
bears, grizzly bear population density, and random variation (LeFranc 
et al. 1987, p. 120).
    For detailed information on the biology of this species, see the 
``Taxonomy and Species Description, Behavior and Life History, 
Nutritional Ecology, and Habitat Management'' sections of the March 11, 
2016, proposed rule Removing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 
Population of Grizzly Bears from the Federal List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife; proposed rule (81 FR 13176-13186).

Population Ecology--Background

    The scientific discipline that informs decisions about most 
wildlife population management is population

[[Page 30506]]

ecology: The study of how populations change over time and space and 
interact with their environment (Vandermeer and Goldberg 2003, p. 2; 
Snider and Brimlow 2013, p. 1). Ultimately, the goal of population 
ecology is to understand why and how populations change over time. 
Wildlife managers and population ecologists monitor a number of factors 
to gauge the status of a population and make scientifically informed 
decisions. These measures include population size, population trend, 
density, and current range.
    While population size is a well-known and easily understood metric, 
it only provides information about a population at a single point in 
time. Wildlife managers often want to know how a population is changing 
over time and why. Population trend is determined by births, deaths, 
and how many animals move into or out of the population (i.e., 
disperse) and is typically expressed as the population growth rate 
(represented by the symbol [lambda], the Greek letter ``lambda''). For 
grizzly bear populations, lambda estimates the average rate of annual 
growth, with a value of 1.0 indicating a stable population trend with 
no net growth or decline. A lambda value of 1.03 means the population 
size is increasing at 3 percent per year. Conversely, a lambda value of 
0.98 means the population size is decreasing at 2 percent per year.
    In its simplest form, population trend is driven by births and 
deaths. Survival and reproduction are the fundamental demographic vital 
rates driving whether the grizzly bear population increases, decreases, 
or remains stable. When wildlife biologists refer to demographic vital 
rates, they are referring to all of the different aspects of 
reproduction and survival that cumulatively determine a population's 
trend (i.e., lambda). Some of the demographic factors influencing 
population trend for grizzly bears are age-specific survival, sex-
specific survival, average number of cubs per litter, the time between 
litters (i.e., interbirth interval), age ratios, sex ratios, average 
age of first reproduction, lifespan, transition probabilities (see 
Glossary), immigration, and emigration. These data are all used to 
determine if and why a population is increasing or decreasing (Anderson 
2002, p. 53; Mills 2007, p. 59; Mace et al. 2012, p. 124).
    No population can grow forever because the resources it requires 
are finite. This understanding led ecologists to develop the concept of 
carrying capacity (expressed as the symbol ``K''). This is the maximum 
number of individuals a particular environment can support over the 
long term without resulting in population declines caused by resource 
depletion (Vandermeer and Goldberg 2003, p. 261; Krebs 2009, p. 148). 
Classical studies of population growth occurred under controlled 
laboratory conditions where populations of a single organism, often an 
insect species or single-celled organism, were allowed to grow in a 
confined space with a constant supply of food (Vandermeer and Goldberg 
2003, pp. 14-17). Under these conditions, K is a constant value that is 
approached in a predictable way and can be described by a mathematical 
equation. However, few studies of wild populations have demonstrated 
the stability and constant population size suggested by this equation. 
Instead, many factors affect carrying capacity of animal populations in 
the wild, and carrying capacity itself typically varies over time. 
Populations usually fluctuate above and below carrying capacity, 
resulting in relative population stability over time (i.e., lambda 
value of approximately 1.0 over the long term) (Colinvaux 1986, pp. 
138-139, 142; Krebs 2009, p. 148). For populations at or near carrying 
capacity, population size may fluctuate just above and below carrying 
capacity around a long-term mean, sometimes resulting in annual 
estimates of lambda showing a declining population (figure 2). However, 
to obtain a biologically meaningful estimate of average annual 
population growth rate for a long-lived species like the grizzly bear 
that reproduces only once every 3 years and does not start reproducing 
until at least 4 years old, we must examine lambda over a longer period 
of time to see what the average trend is over that specified time. This 
is not an easy task. For grizzly bears, it takes at least 6 years of 
monitoring as many as 30 females with radio-collars to accurately 
estimate average annual population growth (Harris et al. 2011, p. 29).

[[Page 30507]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN17.252

    When a population is at or near carrying capacity, mechanisms that 
regulate or control population size fall into two broad categories: 
Density-dependent effects and density-independent effects. Generally, 
factors that limit population growth more strongly as population size 
increases are density-dependent effects, or intrinsic factors, usually 
expressed through individual behaviors, physiology, or genetic 
potential (McLellan 1994, p. 15). Extrinsic factors, such as drought or 
fire that kill individuals regardless of how many individuals are in a 
population, are considered density-independent effects (Colinvaux 1986, 
p. 172). These extrinsic factors may include changes in resources, 
predators, or human impacts and may cause carrying capacity to vary 
over time. Population stability (i.e., fluctuation around carrying 
capacity or a long-term equilibrium) is often influenced by a 
combination of density-dependent and density-independent effects. Among 
grizzly bears, indicators of density-dependent population regulation 
can include: (1) Decreased yearling and cub survival due to increases 
in intraspecific killing (i.e., bears killing other bears), (2) 
decreases in home range size, (3) increases in generation time, (4) 
increases in age of first reproduction, and (5) decreased reproduction 
(McLellan 1994, entire; Eberhardt 2002, pp. 2851-2852; Kamath et al. 
2015, p. 5516; van Manen et al. 2016, pp. 307-308). Indicators that 
density-independent effects are influencing population growth can 
include: (1) Larger home range sizes (because bears are roaming more 
widely in search of foods) (McLoughlin et al. 2000, pp. 49-51), (2) 
decreased cub and yearling survival due to starvation, (3) increases in 
age of first reproduction due to limited food resources, and (4) 
decreased reproduction due to limited food resources.
    As a result of these sometimes similar indicators, determining 
whether a population is affected more strongly by density-dependent or 
density-independent effects can be a complex undertaking. For long-
lived mammals such as grizzly bears, extensive data collected over 
decades are needed to understand if and how these factors are operating 
in a population. We have these data for the GYE grizzly bear 
population, and the IGBST examined some of these confounding effects to 
find that density-dependent effects are the likely cause of the recent 
slowing in population growth factors. The slowing of population growth 
since the early 2000s was primarily a function of lower survival of 
dependent young and moderate reproductive suppression (IGBST 2012, p. 
8). Survival of cubs-of-the-year and reproduction were lower in areas 
with higher grizzly bear densities but showed no association with 
estimates of decline in whitebark pine tree cover, suggesting that 
density-dependent factors contributed to the change in population 
growth (van Manen et al. 2016, entire). In addition, female home range 
sizes have decreased in areas of greater bear densities, as would be 
expected if density-dependent regulation is occurring (Bjornlie et al. 
2014b, p. 4) (see Changes in Food Resources under Factor E, below, for 
more detailed information).
    Population viability analyses (PVAs) are another tool population 
ecologists often use to assess the status of a population by estimating 
its likelihood of persistence in the future. Boyce et al.

[[Page 30508]]

(2001, pp. 1-11) reviewed the existing published PVAs for GYE grizzly 
bears and updated these previous analyses using data collected since 
the original analyses were completed. They also conducted new PVAs 
using two software packages that had not been available to previous 
investigators. They found that the GYE grizzly bear population had a 1 
percent chance of going extinct within the next 100 years and a 4 
percent chance of going extinct in the next 500 years (Boyce et al. 
2001, pp. 1, 10-11). The authors cautioned that their analyses were not 
entirely sufficient because they were not able to consider possible 
changes in habitat and how these may affect population vital rates 
(Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 31-32). Based on the recommendation that the 
population models incorporate habitat variables, Boyce worked with 
other researchers to develop a habitat-based framework for evaluating 
mortality risk of a grizzly bear population in Alberta, Canada (Nielsen 
et al. 2006, p. 225). They concluded that secure habitat (low mortality 
risk) was the key to grizzly bear survival. Schwartz et al. (2010, p. 
661) created a similar mortality risk model for the GYE with similar 
results. Both studies suggest that managing for secure habitat is one 
of the most effective management actions to ensure population 
persistence.

Recovery Planning and Implementation

Background

    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, pp. 27-28; 
Wright 1909, pp. vii, 3, 185-186; Merriam 1922, p. 1; Storer and Tevis 
1955, p. 18; Rausch 1963, p. 35; Herrero 1972, pp. 224-227; Schwartz et 
al. 2003, pp. 557-558). Pre-settlement population levels for the 
western contiguous United States are believed to have been in the range 
of 50,000 animals (Servheen 1999, p. 50). With European settlement of 
the American West and government-funded bounty programs aimed at 
eradication, grizzly bears were shot, poisoned, and trapped wherever 
they were found, and the resulting declines in range and population 
were dramatic (Roosevelt 1907, pp. 27-28; Wright 1909, p. vii; Storer 
and Tevis 1955, pp. 26-27; Leopold 1967, p. 30; Koford 1969, p. 95; 
Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 516; Servheen 1999, pp. 50-51). The 
range and numbers of grizzly bears were reduced to less than 2 percent 
of their former range and numbers by the 1930s, approximately 125 years 
after first contact with European settlers (USFWS 1993, p. 9; Servheen 
1999, p. 51). Of 37 grizzly bear populations present within the lower 
48 States in 1922, 31 were extirpated by 1975 (Servheen 1999, p. 51).
    By the 1950s, with little or no conservation effort or management 
directed at maintaining grizzly bears anywhere in their range, the GYE 
population had been reduced in numbers and was restricted largely to 
the confines of YNP and some surrounding areas (Craighead et al. 1995, 
pp. 41-42; Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 575-579). High grizzly bear 
mortality in 1970 and 1971, following closure of the open-pit garbage 
dumps in YNP (Gunther 1994, p. 550; Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 34-36), 
and concern about grizzly bear 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 Act (40 FR 31734, 
July 28, 1975). When the grizzly bear was listed in 1975, the 
population estimate in the GYE ranged from 136 to 312 individuals 
(Cowan et al. 1974, pp. 32, 36; Craighead et al. 1974, p. 16; 
McCullough 1981, p. 175).
    Grizzly bear recovery has required, and will continue to require, 
cooperation among numerous government agencies and the public for a 
unified management approach. To this end, there are three interagency 
groups that help guide grizzly bear management in the GYE. The IGBST, 
created in 1973, provides the scientific information necessary to make 
informed management decisions about grizzly bear habitat and 
conservation in the GYE. Since its formation in 1973, the published 
work of the IGBST has made the GYE grizzly bear population the most 
studied in the world. The wealth of biological information produced by 
the IGBST over the years includes 30 annual reports, hundreds of 
articles in peer-reviewed journals, dozens of theses, and other 
technical reports (see: https://www.usgs.gov/science/interagency-grizzly-bear-study-team?qt-science_center_objects=4#qt-science_center_objects). Members of the IGBST include scientists and 
wildlife managers from the Service, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 
National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), academia, and 
each State wildlife agency involved in grizzly bear recovery.
    The second interagency group guiding grizzly bear conservation 
efforts is the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC). Created in 
1983, its members coordinate management efforts and research actions 
across multiple Federal lands and States to recover the grizzly bear in 
the lower 48 States (USDA and USDOI 1983, entire). One of the 
objectives of the IGBC is to change land management practices to more 
effectively provide security and maintain or improve habitat conditions 
for the grizzly bear (USDA and USDOI 1983, entire). IGBC members 
include upper level managers from the Service, USFS, USGS, Bureau of 
Land Management (BLM), and the States of Idaho, Montana, Washington, 
and Wyoming (USDA and USDOI 1983, entire). The IGBST Team Leader, the 
National Carnivore Program Leader, and the Service Grizzly Bear 
Recovery Coordinator are advisors to the subcommittee providing all the 
scientific information on the GYE grizzly bear population and its 
habitat.
    The third interagency group guiding management of the GYE grizzly 
bear is a subcommittee of the IGBC: The Yellowstone Ecosystem 
Subcommittee (YES). Formed in 1983 to coordinate recovery efforts 
specific to the GYE, the YES includes mid-level managers and 
representatives from the Service; the five GYE National Forests (the 
Shoshone, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Custer Gallatin, and 
Caribou-Targhee); YNP; GTNP; the Wyoming Game and Fish Department 
(WGFD); the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP); the 
Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG); the BLM; county governments 
from each affected State; and the Shoshone Bannock, Northern Arapahoe, 
and Eastern Shoshone Tribes (USDA and USDOI 1983). The IGBST Team 
Leader and the Service Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator are advisors 
to the subcommittee providing all the scientific information on the GYE 
grizzly bear population and its habitat. Upon implementation of the 
2016 Conservation Strategy, the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating 
Committee (YGCC) will replace the YES.

Recovery Planning

    In accordance with section 4(f)(1) of the Act, the Service 
completed a Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (Recovery Plan) in 1982 (USFWS 
1982, p. ii). Recovery plans serve as road maps for species recovery--
they lay out where we need to go and how to get there through specific 
actions. Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are instead 
intended to provide guidance to the Service, States, and other partners 
on methods of minimizing threats to listed species and on criteria that 
may be used to determine when recovery is achieved.
    The Recovery Plan identified six recovery ecosystems within the 
conterminous United States thought to support grizzly bears. Today, 
current

[[Page 30509]]

grizzly bear distribution is primarily within and around the areas 
identified as Recovery Zones (USFWS 1993, pp. 10-13, 17-18), including: 
(1) The GYE in northwestern Wyoming, eastern Idaho, and southwestern 
Montana (24,000 km\2\ (9,200 mi\2\)) at more than 700 bears (Haroldson 
et al. 2014, p. 17); (2) the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem 
(NCDE) of north-central Montana (25,000 km\2\ (9,600 mi\2\)) at more 
than 900 bears (Kendall et al. 2009, p. 9; Mace et al. 2012, p. 124); 
(3) the North Cascades area of north-central Washington (25,000 km\2\ 
(9,500 mi\2\)) at fewer than 20 bears (last documented sighting in 
1996) (Almack et al. 1993, p. 4; NPS and USFWS 2015, p. 3); (4) the 
Selkirk Mountains area of northern Idaho, northeastern Washington, and 
southeastern British Columbia (5,700 km\2\ (2,200 mi\2\)) at 
approximately 88 bears (USFWS 2011, p. 26); and (5) the Cabinet-Yaak 
area of northwestern Montana and northern Idaho (6,700 km\2\ (2,600 
mi\2\)) at approximately 48 bears (Kendall et al. 2016, p. 314). The 
Bitterroot Ecosystem in the Bitterroot Mountains of central Idaho and 
western Montana (14,500 km\2\ (5,600 mi\2\)) is not known to contain a 
population of grizzly bears at this time (USFWS 1996, p. 1; 65 FR 
69624, November 17, 2000; USFWS 2000, pp. 1-3). The San Juan Mountains 
of Colorado also were identified as an area of possible grizzly bear 
occurrence (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975; USFWS 1982, p. 12; USFWS 1993, 
p. 11), but no confirmed sightings of grizzly bears have occurred there 
since a grizzly bear mortality in 1979 (USFWS 1993, p. 11).
    In 1993, the Service completed revisions to the Recovery Plan to 
include additional tasks and new information that increased the focus 
and effectiveness of recovery efforts (USFWS 1993, pp. 41-58). In 1996 
and 1997, we released supplemental chapters to the Recovery Plan to 
direct recovery in the Bitterroot and North Cascades Recovery Zones, 
respectively (USFWS 1996; USFWS 1997). In the GYE, we updated both the 
habitat and demographic recovery criteria in 2007 (72 FR 11376, March 
13, 2007). We proposed revisions to the demographic recovery criteria 
in 2013 (78 FR 17708, March 22, 2013) and proposed additional revisions 
concurrent with the proposed rule (81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016) to 
reflect the best available science. Although it is not necessary to 
update recovery plans prior to delisting, the Recovery Plan Supplement: 
Revised Demographic Recovery Criteria was updated to reflect the best 
available science because the 2016 Conservation Strategy directly 
incorporates the Recovery Plan for post-delisting monitoring. The final 
revised demographic recovery criteria are appended to the Recovery Plan 
concurrent with this final rule. Below, we report the status of both 
the habitat and demographic recovery criteria in the GYE.
    In 1979, the IGBST developed the first comprehensive ``Guidelines 
for Management Involving Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone 
Area'' (hereafter referred to as the Guidelines) (Mealey 1979, pp. 1-
4). We determined in a biological opinion that implementation of the 
Guidelines by Federal land management agencies would promote 
conservation of the grizzly bear (USFWS 1979, p. 1). Beginning in 1979, 
the five affected National Forests (Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-
Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer Gallatin, and Shoshone), YNP and GTNP, 
and the BLM in the GYE began managing habitats for grizzly bears under 
direction specified in the Guidelines.
    In 1986, the IGBC modified the Guidelines to more effectively 
manage habitat by mapping and managing according to three different 
management situations (USDA FS 1986, pp. 35-39). In areas governed by 
``Management Situation One,'' grizzly bear habitat maintenance and 
improvement and grizzly bear-human conflict minimization received the 
highest management priority. In areas governed by ``Management 
Situation Two,'' grizzly bear use was important, but not the primary 
use of the area. In areas governed by ``Management Situation Three,'' 
grizzly bear habitat maintenance and improvement were not management 
considerations.
    The National Forests and National Parks delineated 18 different 
bear management units (BMUs) within the GYE Recovery Zone to aid in 
managing habitat and monitoring population trends. Each BMU was further 
subdivided into subunits, resulting in a total of 40 subunits contained 
within the 18 BMUs (see map at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/species/mammals/grizzly/Yellowstone_Recovery_Zone_map.pdf). The BMUs 
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, p. 
236). The BMUs and subunits were identified to provide enough quality 
habitat and to ensure that grizzly bears were well distributed across 
the GYE Recovery Zone as per the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2007c, pp. 20, 
41, 44-46). Management improvements made as a result of these 
Guidelines are discussed under Factor A, below.

Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria

    On June 17, 1997, we held a public workshop in Bozeman, Montana, to 
develop and refine habitat-based recovery criteria for the grizzly 
bear, with an emphasis on the GYE. This workshop was held as part of 
the settlement agreement in Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 967 F.Supp.6 
(D. D.C. 1997). 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, we developed biologically based habitat 
recovery criteria, which were appended to the 1993 Recovery Plan in 
2007 (USFWS 2007b, entire), with the overall goal of maintaining or 
improving habitat conditions at levels that existed in 1998.
    There is no published method to deductively calculate minimum 
habitat values required for a healthy and recovered population. Grizzly 
bears are long-lived opportunistic omnivores whose food and space 
requirements vary depending on a multitude of environmental and 
behavioral factors and on variation in the experience and knowledge of 
each individual bear. Grizzly bear home ranges overlap and change 
seasonally, annually, and with reproductive status. While these factors 
make the development of threshold habitat criteria difficult, these may 
be established by assessing what habitat factors in the past were 
compatible with a stable to increasing grizzly bear population, and 
then using these habitat conditions as threshold values to be 
maintained to ensure a healthy population (i.e., a ``no net loss'' 
approach), as suggested by Nielsen et al. (2006, p. 227). We selected 
1998 levels as our baseline year because it was known that habitat 
values at that time were compatible with an increasing grizzly bear 
population throughout the 1990s (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48) and that 
the levels of both secure habitat and the number and capacity of 
developed sites (those sites or facilities on federal public land with 
features intended to accommodate public use or recreation) had changed 
little from 1988 to 1998 (USDA FS 2004, pp. 140-141, 159-162). The 1998 
baseline is also described in detail in Factor A, below.
    The habitat-based recovery criteria established objective, 
measurable values

[[Page 30510]]

for levels of motorized access, secure habitat, developed sites, and 
livestock allotments (i.e., ``the 1998 baseline'') for the GYE. The 
1998 values will not change through time, unless improvements benefit 
bears (e.g., expansion of existing administrative sites to enhance 
public land management if other viable alternatives are not available, 
modifications to dispersed or developed sites to reduce grizzly bear 
conflicts, such as installing bear-resistant storage structures). As 
each of these management objectives are central to potential present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of habitat or 
range, they are discussed in detail under Factor A, below. These 
habitat-based recovery criteria have been met since their incorporation 
into the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2007b, entire).
    Additionally, we developed several monitoring items that may help 
inform management decisions or explain population trends: (1) Trends in 
the location and availability of food sources such as whitebark pine 
(Pinus albicaulis), cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki), army cutworm 
moths (Euxoa auxiliaris), and ungulates (bison (Bison bison) and elk 
(Cervus canadensis)); and (2) grizzly bear mortality numbers, 
locations, and causes; grizzly bear-human conflicts; conflict bear 
management actions; bear-hunter conflicts; and bear-livestock conflicts 
(YES 2016a, pp. 33-91). Federal and State agencies monitor these items, 
and the IGBST produces an annual report with their results. This 
information is used to examine relationships between food availability, 
human activity, and demographic parameters of the population such as 
survival, population growth, or reproduction. The habitat-based 
recovery criteria were appended to the Recovery Plan in 2007 and are 
included in the 2016 Conservation Strategy, which is the comprehensive 
post-delisting management plan for a recovered population as called for 
in the Recovery Plan.

Suitable Habitat

    Because we used easily recognized boundaries to delineate the 
boundaries of the GYE grizzly bear DPS, it includes both suitable and 
unsuitable habitat (figure 1). For the purposes of this final rule, 
``suitable habitat'' is considered the area within the DPS boundaries 
capable of supporting grizzly bear reproduction and survival now and in 
the foreseeable future. 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) being contiguous with the current 
distribution of GYE grizzly bears such that natural recolonization 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 accepted conclusions of extensive research (Craighead 1980, pp. 
8-11; Knight 1980, pp. 1-3; Peek et al. 1987, pp. 160-161; Merrill et 
al. 1999, pp. 233-235; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661) 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, the topographic variation necessary to ensure a wide variety of 
seasonal foods, and the steep slopes used for denning (Judd et al. 
1986, pp. 114-115; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 29-58; Linnell et al. 
2000, pp. 403-405). Higher elevation, mountainous regions in the GYE 
(Omernik 1987, pp. 118-125; Omernik 1995, pp. 49-62; Woods et al. 1999, 
entire; McGrath et al. 2002, entire; Chapman et al. 2004, entire) 
contain high-energy foods such as whitebark pine seeds (Mattson and 
Jonkel 1990, p. 223; Mattson et al. 1991a, p. 1623) and army cutworm 
moths (Mattson et al. 1991b, 2434; French et al. 1994, p. 391).
    For our analysis of suitable habitat, we considered the Middle 
Rockies ecoregion, within which the GYE is contained (Omernik 1987, pp. 
120-121; Woods et al. 1999, entire; McGrath et al. 2002, entire; 
Chapman et al. 2004, entire), to meet grizzly bear biological needs 
providing food, seasonal foraging opportunities, cover, and denning 
areas (Mattson and Merrill 2002, p. 1125). Although grizzly bears 
historically occurred throughout the area of the proposed GYE grizzly 
bear DPS (Stebler 1972, pp. 297-298), today many of these habitats are 
not biologically suitable for grizzly bears. While there are records of 
grizzly bears in eastern Wyoming near present-day Sheridan, Casper, and 
Wheatland, 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 (Rollins 1935, p. 191; Wade 1947, 
p. 444).
    Grizzly bear presence in these drier, grassland habitats was 
associated with rivers and streams where grizzly bears used bison 
carcasses as a major food source (Burroughs 1961, pp. 57-60; Herrero 
1972, pp. 224-227; Stebler 1972, pp. 297-298; Mattson and Merrill 2002, 
pp. 1128-1129). Most of the short-grass prairie on the east side of the 
Rocky Mountains has been converted into agricultural land (Woods et al. 
1999, entire), and high densities of traditional food sources are no 
longer available due to land conversion and human occupancy of urban 
and rural lands. Traditional food sources such as bison and elk have 
been reduced and replaced with domestic livestock such as cattle, 
sheep, chickens, goats, pigs, and bee hives, which can become 
anthropogenic sources of prey for grizzly bears. While food sources 
such as grasses and berries are abundant in some years in the riparian 
zones within which the bears travel, these are not reliable every year 
and can only support a small number of bears. These nutritional 
constraints and the potential for human-bear conflicts limit the 
potential for a self-sustaining population of grizzly bears to develop 
in the prairies, although we expect some grizzly bears to live in these 
areas. Because wild bison herds no longer exist in these areas, and are 
mainly contained within YNP in the GYE, they are no longer capable of 
contributing in a meaningful way to the overall status of the GYE 
grizzly bear DPS. Thus, we did not include drier sagebrush, prairie, or 
agricultural lands within our definition of suitable habitat because 
these land types no longer contain adequate food resources (i.e., 
bison) to support grizzly bears. Figure 1 illustrates suitable habitat 
within the GYE grizzly bear DPS.
    Although there are historical records of grizzly bears throughout 
the GYE DPS, evidence suggests that grizzly bears were less common in 
prairie habitats (Rollins 1935, p. 191; Wade 1947, p. 444). Bears in 
these peripheral areas will not establish self-sustaining, year-round 
populations due to a lack of suitable habitat, land ownership patterns, 
and the lack of traditional, natural grizzly bear foods (i.e., bison). 
Instead, bears in these peripheral areas will likely always rely on the 
GYE grizzly bear population inside the DMA as a source population. 
Grizzly bears in these peripheral areas are not biologically necessary 
to the GYE grizzly bear population and a lack of occupancy outside the 
DMA boundaries in peripheral areas will not impact whether the GYE 
population is likely to become endangered or threatened in the 
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range. Grizzly bear recovery in these portions of the species' 
historical range is unnecessary, because there is more than enough 
suitable habitat to support a viable and

[[Page 30511]]

recovered grizzly bear population as set forth in the demographic 
recovery criteria. Therefore, additional recovery efforts in these 
areas are beyond what is required by the Act.
    Human-caused mortality risk also can impact which habitat might be 
considered suitable. Some human-caused mortality is unavoidable in a 
dynamic system where hundreds of bears inhabit large areas of diverse 
habitat with several million human visitors and residents. The negative 
impacts of humans on grizzly bear survival and habitat use are well 
documented (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278; McLellan and Shackleton 
1988, pp. 458-459; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 83-103; McLellan 1989, 
pp. 1862-1864; McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. 377-378; Mattson 1990, 
pp. 41-44; Mattson and Knight 1991, pp. 9-11; Mace et al. 1996, p. 
1403; McLellan et al. 1999, pp. 914-916; White et al. 1999, p. 150; 
Woodroffe 2000, pp. 166-168; Boyce et al. 2001, p. 34; Johnson et al. 
2004, p. 976; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661). These effects range from 
temporary displacement to actual mortality. Grizzly bear persistence in 
the contiguous United States between 1920 and 2000 was negatively 
associated with human and livestock densities (Mattson and Merrill 
2002, pp. 1129-1134).
    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, pp. 1014-1015). 
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, p. 12; Knight and Judd 1983, pp. 188-
189; Orme and Williams 1986, pp. 199-202; Anderson et al. 2002, pp. 
252-253). If repeated depredations occur, managers either relocate the 
bear or remove it (i.e., euthanize or place in an approved American 
Zoological Association facility) from the population, resulting in such 
domestic sheep areas becoming population sinks (areas where death rates 
exceed birth rates) (Knight et al. 1988, pp. 122-123).
    Because urban sites and sheep allotments possess high mortality 
risks for grizzly bears, we did not include these areas as suitable 
habitat (Knight et al. 1988, pp. 122-123). Based on 2000 census data, 
we defined urban areas as census blocks with human population densities 
of more than 50 people per km\2\ (129 people per mi\2\) (U.S. Census 
Bureau 2005, entire). 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 Mountain Range, the Salt River Mountain Range, 
and portions of the Wind River Mountain Range on the Bridger-Teton and 
the Targhee National Forests (see figure 1). 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/or 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, pp. 3-4; Yahner 1988, pp. 335-337; 
Mills 1995, p. 396). 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, p. 2126). Due to the negative edge 
effects of this distribution of sheep allotments on the periphery of 
current grizzly bear range, our analysis did not classify linear strips 
and isolated patches of habitat as suitable habitat.
    Finally, dispersal capabilities of grizzly bears were considered in 
our determination of which potential habitat areas might be considered 
suitable. 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 comprise 6,341 km\2\ (2,448 mi\2\) of habitat 
that is classified as part of the Middle Rockies ecoregion, but 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, entire). Although there is a possibility that individual 
bears may emigrate from the GYE to the Bighorn Mountains occasionally, 
this dispersal distance exceeds the average dispersal distance for both 
males (30 to 42 km (19 to 26 mi)) and females (10 to 14 km (6 to 9 mi)) 
(McLellan and Hovey 2001, p. 842; Proctor et al. 2004, p. 1108). 
Without constant emigrants from suitable habitat, the Bighorn Mountains 
will not support a self-sustaining 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 Bighorn Mountains as suitable habitat within the 
GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries.
    Some areas that do not meet our definition of suitable habitat may 
still be used by grizzly bears (4,635 km\2\ (1,787 mi\2\)) (Schwartz et 
al. 2002, p. 209; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66). 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 may contain grizzly bears but do not support 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.
    According to the habitat suitability criteria described above, the 
GYE contains approximately 46,035 km\2\ (17,774 mi\2\) of suitable 
grizzly bear habitat within the DPS boundaries; or roughly 24 percent 
of the total area within the DPS boundaries (see figure 1). The Service 
concluded that this amount of suitable habitat is sufficient to meet 
all habitat needs of a recovered grizzly bear population and provide 
ecological resiliency to the population through the availability of 
widely distributed, high-quality habitat that will allow the population 
to respond to environmental changes. This amount of secure habitat was 
chosen because it existed at the time when the population was 
increasing at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year (Schwartz et al. 2006b, 
p. 48). Grizzly bears currently occupy about 92 percent of that 
suitable habitat (42,180 km\2\ (16,286 mi\2\)) (Fortin-Noreus 2015, in 
litt.) and are expected to occupy the remaining 8 percent in the near 
future. Grizzly bears have nearly doubled their occupied range since 
the early 1980s (USFWS 1982, p. 11) and have increased the amount of 
suitable habitat from the 68 percent that was occupied in the early 
2000s (Schwartz et al. 2002, pp. 207-209; Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 
64-66). It is important to note that the

[[Page 30512]]

current grizzly bear occupancy does not mean that equal densities of 
grizzly bears are found throughout the region. Instead, most grizzly 
bears (approximately 75 percent of females with cubs-of-the-year) are 
within the PCA for most or part of each year (Schwartz et al. 2006a, 
pp. 64-66; Haroldson 2014a, in litt.). 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, pp. 48-62). As predicted by Pyare et al. (2004, pp. 5-6), grizzly 
bears have naturally recolonized the vast majority of suitable habitat 
and currently occupy about 92 percent of suitable habitat (42,180 km\2\ 
(16,286 mi\2\)) (Fortin-Noreus 2015, in litt.).

Demographic Recovery Criteria

    The 1993 Recovery Plan and subsequent supplements to it identified 
three demographic criteria to objectively measure and monitor recovery 
in the GYE (USFWS 1993, pp. 20-21; USFWS 2007a, p. 2). The first 
criterion established a minimum population size. The second criterion 
ensured reproductive females were distributed across the Recovery Zone, 
and the third criterion created annual human-caused mortality limits 
that would allow the population to achieve and sustain recovery. Since 
the 1993 Recovery Plan was released, we have evaluated and updated how 
we assess those recovery criteria as newer, better science became 
available. These revisions include implementing new scientific methods 
to determine the status of the GYE grizzly bear population in the DMA, 
estimate population size, and determine what levels of mortality the 
population could withstand to maintain recovery goals (i.e., the 
sustainable mortality rate). The DMA is the area within which the 
population is annually surveyed and estimated and within which the 
total mortality limits apply, and is based on the suitable habitat area 
(see figure 2). The Wildlife Monograph: ``Temporal, Spatial, and 
Environmental Influences on The Demographics of Grizzly Bears in The 
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem'' (Schwartz et al. 2006b, entire); the 
report: ``Reassessing Methods to Estimate Population Size and 
Sustainable Mortality Limits for the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear'' (IGBST 
2005, entire); and the report: ``Reassessing Methods to Estimate 
Population Size and Sustainable Mortality Limits for the Yellowstone 
Grizzly Bear Workshop Document Supplement 19-21 June, 2006'' (IGBST 
2006, entire) provided the scientific basis for revising the 
demographic recovery criteria in the GYE in 2007 (72 FR 11376, March 
13, 2007). Similarly, the revisions we proposed to implement in 2013 
(78 FR 17708, March 22, 2013) were based on updated demographic 
analyses using the same methods as before (Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 
9-16) and reported in the IGBST's 2012 report: ``Updating and 
Evaluating Approaches to Estimate Population Size and Sustainable 
Mortality Limits for Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone 
Ecosystem'' (hereafter referred to as the 2012 IGBST report).
    In 2013, we proposed to change two of the recovery criteria for the 
Yellowstone Ecosystem in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (78 FR 17708, 
March 22, 2013). The proposed changes were: (1) Update demographic 
recovery criterion 1 to maintain a minimum population of 500 animals 
and at least 48 females with cubs-of-the-year, and to eliminate this 
criterion's dependence on a specific counting method; (2) revise the 
area where the demographic recovery criteria apply; and (3) update the 
sustainable mortality rates for independent females to 7.6 percent 
(IGBST 2012). We chose to revise the criteria because they no longer 
represented the best scientific data or the best technique to assess 
recovery of the GYE grizzly bear DMA population (78 FR 17708, March 22, 
2013). Specifically, these criteria warranted revision because: (1) 
Updated demographic analyses for 2002-2011 indicated that the rate of 
growth seen during the 1983-2001 period has slowed and sex ratios have 
changed; (2) there was consensus among scientists and statisticians 
that the area within which we apply total mortality limits should be 
the same area we use to estimate population size; and (3) the 
population had basically stabilized inside the DMA since 2002, with an 
average population size between 2002-2014 of 674 using the model-
averaged Chao2 population estimator (see Glossary) (95% confidence 
interval (CI) = 600-747). This stabilization is evidence that the 
population was close to its carrying capacity as supported by density-
dependent regulation occurring inside the DMA (van Manen et al. 2016, 
entire).
    We released these proposed revisions related to population size and 
total mortality limits for public comment in 2013 (78 FR 17708, March 
22, 2013) but did not finalize them so that we could consider another 
round of public comments on these revisions in association with the 
comments on the proposed rule (81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016). Further 
proposed revisions to the Recovery Plan Supplement: Revised Demographic 
Criteria and the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear 
in the GYE were made available for public review and comment concurrent 
with the proposed rule (81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016). The first two 
proposed changes were the same as those proposed in 2013: (1) Update 
demographic recovery criterion 1 to maintain a minimum population of 
500 animals and at least 48 females with cubs-of-the-year, and to 
eliminate this criterion's dependence on a specific counting method; 
and (2) revise the area where the demographic recovery criteria apply. 
The third change is to update the mortality limits for independent 
females, independent males, and dependent young to maintain the 
population within the DMA around the 2002-2014 population size. After 
review and incorporation of appropriate public comments, we are 
releasing a final Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Supplement: Revised 
Demographic Criteria (USFWS 2017, entire) and announcing the 
availability of the 2016 Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in 
the GYE concurrent with this final rule.
    Below, we summarize relevant portions of the demographic analyses 
contained in the IGBST's 2012 report (IGBST 2012, entire) and compare 
them with the previous results of Schwartz et al. (2006b, entire) to 
draw conclusions concerning the grizzly bear population in the GYE DMA 
using these collective results. These analyses inform the scientific 
basis for our revisions. While Schwartz et al. (2006b, p. 11) used data 
from 1983 through 2001; the 2012 IGBST report examined a more recent 
time period, 2002 through 2011 (IGBST 2012, p. 33). The IGBST found 
that population growth had slowed since the previous time period, but 
was still stable to slightly increasing, meaning the population had not 
declined. Because the fates of some radio-collared bears are unknown, 
Harris et al. (2006, p. 48) and the IGBST (2012, p. 34) calculated two 
separate estimates of population growth rate: One based on the 
assumption that every bear with an unknown fate had died (i.e., a 
conservative estimate) and the other simply removing bears with an 
unknown fate from the sample. The true population growth rate is 
assumed to be somewhere in between these two estimates because we know 
from 40 years of tracking grizzly bears with radio-collars that every 
lost collar does not indicate a dead bear. While Harris et al. (2006, 
p. 48) found the GYE grizzly bear DMA population increased at a rate 
between 4.2 and 7.6 percent per year

[[Page 30513]]

between 1983 and 2002, the IGBST (2012, p. 34) found this growth had 
slowed and leveled off and was between 0.3 percent and 2.2 percent per 
year during 2002-2011. The population trajectory that includes the most 
recent data is based on the Chao2 estimator and indicates no 
statistical trend (i.e., relatively flat population trajectory) within 
the DMA for the period 2002 to 2014 (van Manen 2016a, in litt.).
    The model-averaged Chao2 population estimator is currently the best 
available science to derive annual estimates of total population size 
in the GYE. The basis for the estimation is an annual count of female 
grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year, based on sightings on aerial 
surveys and ground observations. Those sightings are clustered into 
those estimated to be from the same family group (i.e., female with 
cubs-of-the-year) using a ``rule set'' to avoid duplicate counts, 
primarily based on spatial, temporal, and litter size criteria (Knight 
et al. 1995). In clustering the observations, a balance must be 
obtained between overestimating or underestimating the actual number of 
unique females with cubs-of-the-year. The rule set was constructed to 
be conservative (i.e., reduce Type I errors or mistakenly identifying 
sightings of the same family as different families). Using the 
frequencies of sightings of unique females with cubs-of-the-year 
obtained from application of the rule set, an annual estimate of the 
total number of females with cubs-of-the-year is calculated using the 
Chao2 estimator, a bias-corrected estimator that is robust to 
differences in sighting probabilities among individuals (Chao 1989; 
Keating et al. 2002; Cherry et al. 2007). In the final step, the annual 
estimate of total number of females with cubs-of-the-year is combined 
with those of previous years to assess trend. Changes in numbers of 
females with cubs-of-the-year are representative of the rate of change 
for the entire population, but additional process variation comes from 
the proportion of females that have cubs-of-the-year.
    Annual estimates of females with cubs-of-the-year based on Chao2 
have been reported by IGBST since 2005, accompanied by the derivation 
of total population estimates. The model-averaged Chao2 estimates of 
females with cubs-of-the-year and derived total population estimates 
have been applied and reported by the IGBST since 2007.
    As the grizzly bear population has increased, the model-averaged 
Chao2 population estimates have become increasingly conservative (i.e., 
prone to underestimation), primarily due to conservative criteria of 
the ``rule set'' (Schwartz et al. 2008) as well as underestimation bias 
associated with the Chao2 estimator itself (Cherry et al. 2007). As a 
conservative approach to population estimation, the model-averaged 
Chao2 population estimator will continue to be the method used to 
assess criterion 1 (see YES 2016b, Appendix C, for the application 
protocol for deriving the annual population estimation from the model-
averaged Chao2 estimate of females with cubs) until a new population 
estimator is approved. The IGBST may continue to investigate new 
methods for population estimation as appropriate; however, the model-
averaged Chao2 method will continue to be used for the foreseeable 
future.
    Schwartz et al. (2006b, entire) estimated survivorship of cubs-of-
the-year, yearlings, and independent (2 years old or older) bears as 
well as reproductive performance to estimate population growth. They 
examined geographic patterns of population growth based on whether 
bears lived inside YNP, outside the Park but inside the Recovery Zone 
or PCA, or outside the PCA entirely. The PCA boundaries (containing 
23,853 km\2\ (9,210 mi\2\)) correspond to those of the Yellowstone 
Recovery Zone (USFWS 1993, p. 41) and will replace the Recovery Zone 
boundary (see figure 1). Based on decreased cub and yearling survival 
inside YNP compared to outside YNP, Schwartz et al. (2006b, p. 29) 
concluded that grizzly bears were approaching carrying capacity inside 
YNP. The IGBST (2012, p. 33) documented lower cub and yearling survival 
than in the previous time period, results consistent with the 
conclusion by Schwartz et al. (2006b). Importantly, annual survival of 
independent females (the most influential age-sex cohort on population 
trend) remained the same while independent male survival increased 
(IGBST 2012, p. 33). The GYE grizzly bear population exhibited signs of 
density-dependent effects, suggesting that it may be approaching 
carrying capacity (K), including: Decreased cub survival and 
reproduction in areas with higher bear densities (van Manen et al. 
2016, entire) and decreasing female home ranges (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, 
p. 4). Collectively, these studies indicate that the growth rate of the 
GYE grizzly bear DMA population has slowed as bear densities have 
approached carrying capacity, particularly in the core area of their 
current range.
    Mortality reduction is a key part of any successful management 
effort for grizzly bears; however, some mortality, including most 
human-caused mortality, is unavoidable in a dynamic system where 
hundreds of bears inhabit large areas of diverse habitat with several 
million human visitors and residents. Adult female mortality influences 
the population trajectory more than mortality of males or dependent 
young (Eberhardt 1977, p. 210; Knight and Eberhardt 1985, p. 331; 
Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48). Low adult female survival was the 
critical factor that caused decline in the GYE population prior to the 
mid-1980s (Knight and Eberhardt 1985, p. 331). In the early 1980s, with 
the development of the first Recovery Plan (USFWS 1982, pp. 21-24), 
agencies began to address mortality and increased adult female 
survivorship (USDA FS 1986, pp. 1-2; Knight et al. 1999, pp. 56-57).
    The most current demographic criteria were appended to the 1993 
Recovery Plan in 2007, and proposed revisions to those were released 
for public comment in 2013, though not finalized, as explained above. 
Further revisions to the demographic criteria were released for public 
comment concurrent with the proposed rule (81 FR 13174, March 11, 
2016). Below, we detail each recovery criterion that is appended to the 
Recovery Plan concurrent with this final rule and included in the 2016 
Conservation Strategy.
    To achieve mortality management in the area appropriate to the 
long-term conservation of the GYE population and to assure that the 
area of mortality management was the same as the area where the 
population estimates are made, the Service, based on recommendations in 
an IGBST report (2012), has modified the area where mortalities are 
counted against the total mortality limits to be the same area that is 
monitored for unique adult female grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year 
(see Glossary) and in which the population size is estimated. The basis 
for the DMA was the boundary developed in 2007 by the Service (USFWS 
2007b) for what was termed ``suitable habitat.'' This suitable habitat 
boundary (enclosing a total area of 46,035 km\2\ (17,774 mi\2\)) is 
sufficiently large to support a viable population in the long term, so 
that mortalities outside of it and inside the DPS could be excluded 
from consideration. This DMA area is thus most appropriate for applying 
total mortality limits. The IGBST's 2012 report noted, however, that 
because the suitable habitat boundary was drawn using mountainous 
ecoregions, there were narrow, linear areas along valley floors that 
did not meet the definition of suitable habitat and where population 
sinks may be created. These edge effects

[[Page 30514]]

are exacerbated in small habitat patches that are long and narrow and 
in wide-ranging species such as grizzly bears because they are more 
likely to encounter surrounding, unsuitable habitat (Woodroffe and 
Ginsberg 1998, p. 2126). Mortalities in these areas would be outside 
suitable habitat but could have disproportionate effects on the 
population generally contained within the suitable habitat zone, 
potentially acting as mortality sinks. The Service accepted the 
recommendation of the IGBST in the 2012 report for an alternative 
boundary that includes these narrow areas outside of, but largely 
bounded by, suitable habitat (see figure 1). The final designation of 
the DMA includes suitable habitat plus the potential sink areas for a 
total area of approximately 49,928 km\2\ (19,279 mi\2\) (see figure 1). 
The DMA contains 100 percent of the PCA and 100 percent of the suitable 
habitat, as shown in figure 1.
    Demographic Recovery Criterion 1--Maintain a minimum population 
size of 500 grizzly bears \1\ and at least 48 females with cubs-of-the-
year in the DMA (figure 1) as indicated by methods established in 
published, peer-reviewed scientific literature and calculated by the 
IGBST using the most updated Application Protocol as posted on their 
Web site. If the estimate of total population size drops below 500 in 
any year or below 48 with cubs-of-the-year in 3 consecutive years, this 
criterion will not be met. The 48 females with cubs-of-the-year metric 
is a model-averaged number of documented unique females with cubs-of-
the-year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ This number is required to maintain short-term genetic 
fitness in the next few decades. It is not a population target, but 
a minimum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A minimum population size of at least 500 animals within the DMA 
will ensure short-term genetic health (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338) 
and is not a population goal. Population size will be quantified by 
methods established in published, peer-reviewed scientific literature 
and calculated by the IGBST using the most updated protocol, as posted 
on their Web site. Five hundred is a minimum population threshold and 
will ensure the short-term fitness of the population is not threatened 
by losses in genetic diversity in such an isolated population. The goal 
is to maintain the population well above this threshold to ensure that 
genetic issues are not a detriment to the short-term genetic fitness of 
the GYE grizzly bear population. The Service will initiate a formal 
status review if the total population estimate is less than 500 inside 
the DMA in any year or if counts of females with cubs-of-the-year fall 
below 48 for 3 consecutive years. Status: This recovery criterion has 
been met since 2003 (see IGBST annual reports available at https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/igbst-annual-reports?qt-science_center_objects=1#qt-sicence_center_objects).
    Demographic Recovery Criterion 2--Sixteen of 18 BMUs within the 
Recovery Zone (see map at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/species/mammals/grizzly/Yellowstone_Recovery_Zone_map.pdf) must be 
occupied by females with young, with no two 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. If less than 16 of 18 bear management units are 
occupied by females with young for 3 successive 6-year sums of 
observations this criterion will not be met. See table 1 below for most 
current 3 consecutive 6-year sums of observations data. Status: This 
recovery criterion has been met since at least 2001.

    Table 1--Demographic Recovery Criterion 2 Is Measured by the Number of Occupied Bear Management Units (BMUs) for Each 6-Year Sum of Observations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Number of BMUs occupied by females with young by year                          Criteria met (16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  of 18  occupied
         6-year period              2008         2009         2010         2011         2012         2013         2014         2015      at least once)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008-2013.....................           18           18           18           16           15           18  ...........  ...........  Yes.
2009-2014.....................  ...........           18           18           16           15           18           18  ...........  Yes.
2010-2015.....................  ...........  ...........           18           16           15           18           18           17  Yes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Demographic Recovery Criterion 3--Maintain the population within 
the DMA around the 2002-2014 model-averaged Chao2 population estimate 
average size (average = 674; 95% CI = 600-747; 90% CI = 612-735) by 
maintaining annual mortality limits for independent females, 
independent males, and dependent young as shown in table 2 in this 
final rule. These adjustable mortality rates were calculated as those 
necessary to manage the population to the modeled average Chao2 
population estimate of 674 bears, which occurred during the time period 
that this population had a relatively flat population trajectory. If 
mortality limits are exceeded for any sex/age class for 3 consecutive 
years and any annual population estimate falls below 612 (the lower 
bound of the 90% confidence interval), the IGBST will produce a Biology 
and Monitoring Review to inform the appropriate management response. If 
any annual population estimate falls below 600 (the lower bound of the 
95% confidence interval), this criterion will not be met and there will 
be no discretionary mortality (see Glossary), except as necessary for 
human safety.
    The population had stabilized during the period of 2002-2014, and 
the mean model-averaged Chao2 population estimate over that time period 
was 674 (95% CI = 600-747), which is very close to the population size 
of 683 when the GYE population was previously delisted in 2007 (72 FR 
14866, March 29, 2007). The population naturally stabilized because of 
reduced survival of dependent young and subadults, and lower 
reproduction in areas with higher grizzly bear densities, suggesting 
density-dependent population effects associated with the population 
approaching carrying capacity. The existence of lower subadult survival 
and occupancy by grizzly bears in almost all suitable habitat inside 
the DMA has been demonstrated by van Manen et al. (2016, entire). 
Status: This criterion has been met for all age and sex classes since 
2004.

[[Page 30515]]



     Table 2--Total Mortality Rate Used To Establish Annual Total Mortality Limits for Independent Females,
                           Independent Males, and Dependent Young \1\ Inside the DMA.
   [These mortality limits are on a sliding scale to achieve the population goal inside the DMA of the model-
averaged Chao2 population size of 674 between 2002-2014 (95% CI = 600-747). For populations less than 600, there
                     will be no discretionary mortality unless necessary for human safety.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Total grizzly bear population estimate *
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                      <=674 %        675-747 %        >747 %
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total mortality rate for independent FEMALES....................            <7.6               9              10
Total mortality rate for independent MALES......................              15              20              22
Total mortality rate for DEPENDENT YOUNG........................            <7.6               9              10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total mortality: Documented known and probable grizzly bear mortalities from all causes including but not
 limited to: management removals, illegal kills, mistaken identity kills, self-defense kills, vehicle kills,
 natural mortalities, undetermined-cause mortalities, grizzly bear hunting, and a statistical estimate of the
 number of unknown/unreported mortalities.......................................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Using the model-averaged Chao2 estimate.
\1\ Total mortality rates are based on the mortality percentage of the respective population segment relative to
  the population estimates.

The 2016 Conservation Strategy

    In order to document the regulatory mechanisms and coordinated 
management approach necessary to ensure the long-term maintenance of a 
recovered 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) 
(USFWS 1993, p. 55). To accomplish this goal, a Conservation Strategy 
Team was formed in 1993. This team included biologists and managers 
from the Service, NPS, USFS, USGS, IDFG, WGFD, and MFWP.
    In March 2000, a draft Conservation Strategy for the GYE 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 2003, the 
draft Final Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the GYE was 
released, along with drafts of State grizzly bear management plans (all 
accessible at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php). 
We responded to all public comments and peer reviews received on the 
Conservation Strategy and involved partners finalized the Conservation 
Strategy, which was published in the Federal Register in 2007 (72 FR 
11376, March 13, 2007).
    Revisions were made to the Conservation Strategy, and a draft 2016 
Conservation Strategy was presented for public comment concurrent with 
the proposed rule to delist the GYE grizzly bear DPS (81 FR 13174, 
March 11, 2016). The 2016 Conservation Strategy was finalized on 
December 16, 2016 (available at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php). Both the 2007 and 2016 Conservation Strategies 
describe the coordinated, multi-agency efforts to monitor and manage 
the GYE grizzly bear population that have been ongoing for decades. 
These efforts contributed to the recovery of the GYE grizzly bear and 
will ensure the maintenance of a recovered population. The most 
significant change between the 2007 and 2016 Conservation Strategies is 
the update of the demographic recovery criteria to reflect revisions to 
the Recovery Plan based on the best available science.
    The 2016 Conservation Strategy will guide post-delisting management 
of the GYE grizzly bear population for the foreseeable future, beyond 
the minimum 5-year post-delisting monitoring period required by the 
Act. The purposes of the 2016 Conservation Strategy and associated 
State, Tribal, and Federal implementation plans are to: (1) Describe, 
summarize, and implement the coordinated efforts to manage the grizzly 
bear population and its habitat to ensure continued conservation of the 
GYE grizzly bear population; (2) specify and implement the population/
mortality management, habitat, and conflict bear standards to maintain 
a recovered grizzly bear population for the future; (3) document 
specific State, Tribal, and Federal regulatory mechanisms and legal 
authorities, policies, management, and monitoring programs that exist 
to maintain the recovered grizzly bear population; and (4) document the 
actions that participating agencies have agreed to implement (YES 
2016a, pp. 1-12).
    Implementation of the 2016 Conservation Strategy by all agency 
partners will coordinate management and monitoring of the GYE grizzly 
bear population and its habitat after delisting. The 2016 Conservation 
Strategy summarizes the regulatory framework that Federal and State 
agencies will use for management of the GYE grizzly bear population 
after delisting. The 2016 Conservation Strategy also identifies and 
defines adequate post-delisting monitoring to maintain a healthy GYE 
grizzly bear population (YES 2016a, pp. 33-85). The 2016 Conservation 
Strategy has objective, measurable habitat and population standards, 
with clear State and Federal management responses if deviations occur 
(YES 2016a, pp. 100-103). It represents 20 years of a collaborative, 
interagency effort among the members of the YES. State grizzly bear 
management plans were developed in all three affected States (Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming) and are incorporated into the final 2016 
Conservation Strategy as appendices (accessible at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php). All State and Federal agencies 
party to the 2016 Conservation Strategy signed a memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) agreeing to implement the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy prior to publication of this final rule.
    The 2016 Conservation Strategy identifies and provides a framework 
for managing habitat within the PCA and managing demographic parameters 
within the DMA (see figure 1). The PCA contains adequate seasonal 
habitat components for a portion of the recovered GYE grizzly bear 
population for the future and to allow bears to continue to expand 
outside the PCA. The PCA includes approximately 51 percent of suitable 
grizzly bear habitat within the GYE, and approximately 75 percent of 
the population of female grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year spent part 
or all of the year within the PCA (Haroldson 2014a, in litt.) (For more 
information about what constitutes ``suitable habitat,'' see the 
Suitable

[[Page 30516]]

Habitat discussion under Factor A, below).
    The 2016 Conservation Strategy will be implemented and funded by 
Federal, Tribal, and State agencies within the GYE. The signatories to 
the final 2016 Conservation Strategy have a demonstrated track record 
of funding measures to ensure recovery of this grizzly bear population 
for more than 3 decades. Post delisting, mortality management will be 
the responsibility of State fish and wildlife agencies. In general, the 
USFS and NPS will be responsible for habitat management to reduce the 
risk of human-caused mortality to grizzly bears, while the NPS, and 
State and Tribal wildlife agencies, will be responsible for managing 
the population within specific total mortality limits within their 
respective areas of responsibility. The USFS and NPS collectively 
manage approximately 98 percent of lands inside the PCA. Specifically, 
YNP; GTNP; and the Shoshone, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, 
Caribou-Targhee, and Custer Gallatin National Forests are the Federal 
entities responsible for implementing the 2016 Conservation Strategy. 
Affected National Forests and National Parks have incorporated the 
habitat standards and criteria into their Forest Plans and National 
Park management plans and/or Superintendent's Compendia via appropriate 
amendment processes so that they are legally applied to these public 
lands within the GYE (USDA FS 2006b, p. 4; YNP 2014b, p. 18; GTNP and 
JDR 2016, p. 3). Outside of the PCA, grizzly bear habitat is well 
protected via Wilderness Area designation (Wilderness or Wilderness 
Study Area (WSA)) or Forest Plan direction, and demographic standards 
will protect the population throughout the DMA.
    When this final rule goes into effect, the YGCC will replace the 
YES as the interagency group coordinating implementation of the 2016 
Conservation Strategy's habitat and population standards, and 
monitoring (YES 2016a, pp. 96-98). Similar to the YES, the YGCC members 
include representatives from YNP, GTNP, the five affected National 
Forests, BLM, USGS, IDFG, MFWP, WGFD, one member from local county 
governments within each State, and one member from the Shoshone 
Bannock, Northern Arapahoe, and Eastern Shoshone Tribes. Through this 
action, the Service is transferring primary management authority from 
the Service to the States, other Federal agencies, and the Tribes; 
therefore, the Service is not a member of the YGCC. The Service Grizzly 
Bear Recovery Coordinator and the IGBST Team Leader will serve as 
advisors to the YGCC as they did to the YES. All meetings will be open 
to the public. Besides coordinating management, research, and financial 
needs for successful conservation of the GYE grizzly bear population, 
the YGCC will review the IGBST Annual Reports and review and respond to 
any deviations from habitat or population standards. As per the 
implementation section of the 2016 Conservation Strategy, the YGCC will 
coordinate management and implementation of the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy and work together to rectify problems and to ensure that the 
habitat and population standards and total mortality limits will be met 
and maintained.
    The 2016 Conservation 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. The signatories to the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy have agreed that any changes and updates to the 2016 
Conservation Strategy will occur only if they are based on the best 
available science, and subject to public comment before being 
implemented by the YGCC (YES 2016a, pp. 2, 18).

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy Overview

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying 
species, or removing species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined 
by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife 
or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment of fish or 
wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). We, along 
with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (now the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Fisheries), developed the 
Policy Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population 
Segments (DPS policy) (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), to help us in 
determining what constitutes a distinct population segment (DPS). Under 
this policy, the Service considers two factors to determine whether the 
population segment is a valid DPS: (1) Discreteness of the population 
segment in relation to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs; 
and (2) the significance of the population segment to the taxon to 
which it belongs. If a population meets both tests, it is a DPS, and 
the Service then evaluates the population segment's conservation status 
according to the standards in section 4 of the Act for listing, 
delisting, or reclassification (i.e., is the DPS endangered or 
threatened). Our policy further recognizes it may be appropriate to 
assign different classifications (i.e., endangered or threatened) to 
different DPSs of the same vertebrate taxon (61 FR 4725, February 7, 
1996).

Past Practice and History of Using DPSs

    As of April 11, 2017, of the 439 native vertebrate listings, 97 are 
listed as less than an entire taxonomic species or subspecies 
(henceforth referred to in this discussion as populations) under one of 
several authorities, including the ``distinct population segment'' 
language in the Act's definition of species (section 3(16)). Twenty-
three of these 97 populations, which span 5 different taxa, predate 
either the 1978 amendments to the ESA which revised the definition of 
``species'' to include DPSs of vertebrate fish and wildlife or the 1996 
DPS Policy; as such, the final listing determinations for these 
populations did not include formal policy-based analyses or expressly 
designate the listed entity as a DPS. In several instances, however, 
the Service and NMFS have established a DPS and revised the List of 
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife in a single action, as shown in 
several of the following examples (see proposed rule for further 
details, 81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016) for the brown pelican (Pelecanus 
occidentalis) (50 FR 4938, February 4, 1985; 74 FR 59444, November 17, 
2009), gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus) (59 FR 31094, June 16, 1994), 
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus) (62 FR 24345, May 5, 1997), 
Columbian white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus leucurus) (68 FR 
43647, July 24, 2003; 80 FR 60850, October 8, 2015), American crocodile 
(Crocodylus acutus) (72 FR 13027, March 20, 2007), loggerhead sea 
turtle (Caretta caretta) (76 FR 58868, September 22, 2011), green sea 
turtle (Chelonia mydas) (81 FR 20058, April 6, 2016), and humpback 
whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) (81 FR 93639, December 21, 2016). 
Although some of these examples predate the DPS policy, the authority 
to list and delist DPSs had already been clearly established with the 
1978 amendments to the ESA.
    Our authority to make these determinations and to revise the list 
accordingly is a reasonable interpretation of the language of the Act, 
and our ability to do so is an important component of the Service's 
program for the conservation of endangered and threatened species. Our 
authority to revise the existing listing of a species (the grizzly bear 
in the lower 48 States) to identify a GYE DPS and determine

[[Page 30517]]

that it is healthy enough that it no longer needs the Act's protections 
is found in the precise language of the Act. Moreover, even if that 
authority were not clear, our interpretation of this authority to make 
determinations under section 4(a)(1) of the Act and to revise the 
endangered and threatened species list to reflect those determinations 
under section 4(c)(1) of the Act is reasonable and fully consistent 
with the Act's text, structure, legislative history, relevant judicial 
interpretations, and policy objectives.
    On December 12, 2008, a formal opinion was issued by the Solicitor, 
``U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Authority Under Section 4(c)(1) of the 
Endangered Species Act to Revise Lists of Endangered and Threatened 
Species to `Reflect Recent Determinations''' (M-37018, U.S. DOI 2008). 
The Service fully agrees with the analysis and conclusions set out in 
the Solicitor's Memorandum opinion. This final action is consistent 
with the opinion. The complete text of the Solicitor's opinion can be 
found at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37018.pdf.
    We recognize that our interpretation and use of the DPS policy to 
revise and delist distinct population segments has been challenged in 
Humane Society of the United States v. Jewell, 76 F.Supp.3d 69 (D. DC 
2014). Partly at issue in that case was our application of the DPS 
policy to Western Great Lakes wolves in a delisting rule (76 FR 81666, 
December 28, 2011). Our rule was vacated by the district court's 
decision. We respectfully disagree with the district court's 
interpretation of the DPS policy, and the United States has appealed 
that decision. Humane Society of the United States v. Jewell, case no. 
15-5041 (D.C. Cir.). No decision has been issued on that litigation.
    In the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, the Service identifies six 
grizzly bear ecosystems and identifies unique demographic recovery 
criteria for each one (see map at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php). The 1993 Recovery Plan states that ``grizzly bear 
populations may be listed, recovered, and delisted separately'' and 
that it is the intent of the Service to delist individual populations 
as they achieve recovery (USFWS 1993, pp. ii, 16-17). The Service has 
proceeded in a manner consistent with the Recovery Plan with respect to 
individual population treatment. For example, grizzly bears in the 
Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirk, and North Cascades Ecosystems, all included in 
the original grizzly bear listing, were petitioned for reclassification 
from threatened to endangered. Although already listed as threatened, 
we determined that reclassifying those grizzly bears to endangered was 
warranted but precluded by higher priorities beginning in 1991 for the 
North Cascades (56 FR 33892, July 24, 1991), 1993 for the Cabinet-Yaak 
(58 FR 8250, February 12, 1993), and 1999 for the Selkirk Ecosystems 
(64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999). In 2014, the Service determined that the 
Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Ecosystems had recovered to the point that 
they were no longer warranted but precluded from listing as endangered; 
they remain listed as threatened (79 FR 72487, December 5, 2014). 
Grizzly bears in the North Cascades Ecosystem are still warranted but 
precluded for reclassification from threatened to endangered (80 FR 
80606, December 24, 2015). The Bitterroot Ecosystem now has status 
under section 10(j) of the Act (65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000), which 
addresses the Service's proposal to release an experimental population 
of grizzly bears in that ecosystem.

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Analysis

Analysis of Discreteness in Relation to Remainder of Taxon

    Under our DPS Policy, a population of a vertebrate taxon 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., Ursus arctos horribilis in the GYE) 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 Act. The taxon (U. a. horribilis) is currently distributed 
throughout Alaska, northwestern and western Canada, and the six 
ecosystems in the lower 48 States (Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 557-558). 
The DPS Policy does not require complete separation of one DPS from 
another, and occasional interchange does not undermine the discreteness 
of potential DPSs. If complete separation is required, the loss of the 
population has little significance to other populations (61 FR 4722, 
4724, February 7, 1996). The DPS policy requires only that populations 
be ``markedly separated'' from each other. Thus, if occasional 
individual grizzly bears move between populations, the population could 
still display the required level of discreteness per the DPS Policy. 
The standard adopted allows for some limited interchange among 
population segments considered to be discrete, so that loss of an 
interstitial population could well have consequences for gene flow and 
demographic suitability of a species as a whole.
    Although the DPS Policy does not allow State or other intra-
national governmental boundaries to be used as the basis for 
determining the discreteness of a potential DPS, an artificial or 
human-made boundary may be used to clearly identify the geographic area 
included within a DPS designation. Easily identified human-made 
objects, such as the center line of interstate highways, Federal 
highways, and State highways are useful for delimiting DPS boundaries. 
Thus, the GYE grizzly bear DPS consists of: 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; and that portion of Wyoming that is south of 
Interstate Highway 90, west of Interstate Highway 25, west of Wyoming 
State Highway 220, and west of 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) (see DPS boundary in figure 1). Due to the use of 
highways as easily described boundaries, large areas of unsuitable 
habitat are included in the DPS boundaries.
    The core of the GYE grizzly bear DPS is the Yellowstone PCA (24,000 
km\2\ (9,200 mi\2\)) (USFWS 1993, p. 39). The Yellowstone PCA includes 
YNP; a portion of GTNP; JDR; sizable contiguous portions of the 
Shoshone, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer Gallatin, and 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forests; BLM lands; and surrounding State 
and private lands (USFWS 1993, p. 39). As grizzly bear populations have 
rebounded and densities have increased, bears have expanded their 
current range beyond the PCA, into other suitable habitat in the DMA. 
Grizzly bears now occupy about 44,624 km\2\ (17,229 mi\2\) or 89 
percent of the GYE DMA (Haroldson 2015, in litt.), with occasional 
occurrences well beyond this estimate of current range. No grizzly 
bears originating from the GYE have been suspected or confirmed beyond 
the borders of the GYE grizzly bear DPS described above. Similarly, no 
grizzly bears originating from other ecosystems have been detected 
inside the borders of

[[Page 30518]]

the GYE grizzly bear DPS (Wildlife Genetics International 2014, in 
litt.).
    The GYE grizzly bear population is the southernmost population 
remaining in the conterminous United States and has been physically 
separated from other areas where grizzly bears occur for at least 100 
years (Merriam 1922, pp. 1-2; Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4334). The 
nearest population of grizzly bears is found in the NCDE approximately 
115 km (70 mi) to the north. Although their current range continues to 
expand north (Bjornlie et al. 2014a, p. 185), grizzly bears from the 
GYE have not been documented north of Interstate 90 outside the DPS 
boundaries (Frey 2014, in litt.). Over the last few decades, the NCDE 
grizzly bear population has been slowly expanding to the south, and 
there have been several confirmed grizzly bears from the NCDE within 32 
to 80 km (20 to 50 mi) of the GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries near 
Butte, Deerlodge, and Anaconda, Montana (Jonkel 2014, in litt.). 
However, there is currently no known connectivity between these two 
grizzly bear populations.
    Genetic data also support the conclusion that grizzly bears from 
the GYE are separated from other grizzly bears. Genetic studies 
estimating heterozygosity (which provides a measure of genetic 
diversity) show 60 percent heterozygosity in the GYE grizzly bears 
compared to 67 percent in the NCDE grizzly bears (Haroldson et al. 
2010, p. 7). 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 grizzly bears of the early 1900s, Miller and 
Waits (2003, p. 4338) concluded that gene flow and, therefore, 
population connectivity between the GYE grizzly bear population and 
populations to the north was low even 100 years ago. The reasons for 
this historic limitation of gene flow are unclear, but we do know 
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 GYE, likely resulting in the current lack of 
connectivity (Proctor et al. 2012, p. 35).
    Based on the best available scientific data about grizzly bear 
locations and movements, we find that the GYE grizzly bear population 
and other remaining grizzly bear populations are markedly, physically 
separated from each other. Therefore, the GYE grizzly bear population 
meets the criterion of discreteness under our DPS Policy. Occasional 
movement of bears from other grizzly bear populations into the GYE 
grizzly bear population would be beneficial to its long-term 
persistence (Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 25, 26). While future connectivity 
is desirable and will be actively managed for, this would not undermine 
discreteness, as all that is required is ``marked separation,'' not 
absolute separation. Even if occasional individual grizzly bears 
disperse among populations, the GYE grizzly bear population would still 
display the required level of discreteness per the DPS Policy. And, as 
stated in the 1993 Recovery Plan, we recognize that natural 
connectivity is important to long-term grizzly bear conservation, and 
we will continue efforts to work toward this goal independent of the 
delisting of the GYE grizzly bear DPS (USFWS 1993, p. 53). This issue 
is discussed further under Factor E below.

Analysis of Significance of Population Segment to Taxon

    If we determine that a population segment is discrete under one or 
more of the conditions described in the Service's DPS policy, its 
biological and ecological significance will then be considered in light 
of Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPS's be used 
``sparingly'' while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity 
(see Senate Report 151, 96th Congress, 1st Session). In carrying out 
this examination, we consider available scientific evidence of the 
population's importance to the taxon (i.e., Ursus arctos horribilis) to 
which it belongs. As noted previously, 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 and the Canadian plains 
(Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 557-558). Since precise circumstances are 
likely to vary considerably from case to case, the DPS policy does not 
describe all the classes of information that might be used in 
determining the biological and ecological importance of a discrete 
population. However, the DPS policy describes four possible classes of 
information that provide evidence of a population segment's biological 
and ecological importance to the taxon to which it belongs.
    As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), this 
consideration of the population segment's significance 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; or (4) evidence that 
the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations 
of the species in its genetic characteristics. To be considered 
significant, a population segment needs to satisfy only one of these 
conditions, or other classes of information that might bear on the 
biological and ecological importance of a discrete population segment, 
as described in the DPS policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). Below we 
address Factors 1, 2, and 4. Factor 3 does not apply to the GYE grizzly 
bear population because there are several other naturally occurring 
populations of grizzly bears in North America.
Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting
    In the 2007 final rule, we concluded that the GYE was a unique 
ecological setting because GYE grizzly bears were more carnivorous than 
in other ecosystems where the taxon occurs and they still used 
whitebark pine seeds extensively while other populations no longer did. 
New research shows that meat constitutes approximately the same 
percentage of annual grizzly bear diets in the NCDE (38 and 56 percent 
for females and males, respectively) (Teisberg et al. 2014b, p. 7) and 
the GYE (44 percent of all GYE grizzly bears) (Schwartz et al. 2014a, 
p. 75). We also now have information suggesting that whitebark pine has 
been reduced in the GYE since 2002 and, therefore, may not be as major 
of a food source as previously concluded (see 72 FR 14866, March 29, 
2007). Although consumption of meat and whitebark pine by GYE grizzly 
bears individually may not be exceptional, we believe that the 
combination of food sources in the GYE grizzly bear, including army 
cutworm moths, whitebark pine, cutthroat trout, and ungulates (bison, 
elk, moose (Alces alces), and deer (Odocoileus species)) (Schwartz et 
al. 2003, p. 568) comprises a unique ecological setting because we are 
unaware of any other population of Ursus arctos horribilis that 
utilizes this combination.
    In addition to the unique combination of food sources available in 
the GYE, there is a gradient of foraging strategies across the 
ecosystem with bears in different parts of the GYE having access

[[Page 30519]]

to different combinations of these food sources (see figure 2 in 
Gunther et al. 2014, p. 68). Mealey (1980, entire) documented three 
``feeding economies'' within YNP alone. Grizzly bears in the core 
(i.e., around Yellowstone Lake) of the GYE consume ungulates (primarily 
elk and bison, winter killed or usurped from wolf kills), cutthroat 
trout, whitebark pine, and army cutworm moths as a regular part of 
their diets (Fortin et al. 2013a, pp. 271, 275-276; see figure 2 in 
Gunther et al. 2014, p. 68). We are not aware of other populations that 
contain this combination of food sources. As the population extends out 
from the core, bears have access to some but not all of the main foods 
in the core. While elk are available to grizzly bears throughout most 
of the GYE, army cutworm moths are only available on the east side and 
whitebark pine is only available to two-thirds of grizzly bears 
(Costello et al. 2014, p. 2009; see figure 2 in Gunther et al. 2014, p. 
68).
    Although grizzly bears in other ecosystems consume meat in similar 
quantities as the GYE, grizzly bears in the GYE are unique in their 
consumption of bison (Mattson 1997, p. 167; Fortin et al. 2013a, p. 
275; Gunther 2017, in litt.) and in their interactions with wolves to 
obtain carcasses (Ballard et al. 2003, pp. 261-262; Smith et al. 2003, 
p. 336; Metz et al. 2012, p. 556). In addition, GYE grizzly bears have 
been documented to consume unique food items such as geothermal soil 
(Mattson et al. 1999, p. 109) and false-truffles (Fortin et al. 2013a, 
p. 277; Gunther et al. 2014, p. 64). We are not aware of other grizzly 
bear populations that consume these food items. GYE grizzly bears 
opportunistically feed on more than 260 species of food to supplement 
their diets (Gunther et al. 2014, entire), which is more than other 
populations of grizzly bears of which we are aware. This unique 
combination of food sources utilized by grizzly bears in the GYE is 
significant because of the potential conservation value provided by 
variation in food availability and use by grizzly bears in light of 
potential environmental changes (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, p. 756; 
Bunnell et al. 2004, p. 2242).
    In light of these new data indicating that grizzly bears in the GYE 
consume a unique combination of food sources compared to other grizzly 
bear populations, where we have considerable information about the 
taxon's diet, we consider the GYE grizzly bear population to meet the 
DPS policy standard for significance based on its persistence in an 
ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon.
Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon
    Historically, grizzly bears were distributed 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 and the Canadian plains (Schwartz et al. 2003, 
pp. 557-558). Given the grizzly bear's historic occupancy of the 
conterminous United States and the portion of the taxon's historic 
range the conterminous United 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, July 28, 
1975). The GYE grizzly bear population is significant in achieving the 
Recovery Plan objectives, as it is one of only five known occupied 
areas and one unoccupied area and constitutes approximately half of the 
estimated number of grizzly bears remaining in the conterminous 48 
States. Today, the GYE grizzly bear population represents the 
southernmost reach of the taxon. The loss of this population would 
significantly impact representation of the species because it would 
substantially curtail the range of the grizzly bear in North America by 
moving the range approximately 3 degrees of latitude or 200 mi (350 km) 
to the north. The extirpation of peripheral populations, such as the 
GYE grizzly bear population, is concerning because of the potential 
conservation value that peripheral populations can provide to the 
subspecies (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, p. 756; Fraser 2000, p. 50; 
Bunnell et al. 2004, p. 2242). Specifically, peripheral populations can 
possess slight genetic or phenotypic divergence from the core 
populations, which may be central to the survival of the subspecies in 
the face of environmental changes (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, p. 756; 
Bunnell et al. 2004, p. 2242). Therefore, we find that the GYE 
population of grizzly bears meets the significance criterion under our 
DPS policy because its loss would represent a significant gap in the 
range of the taxon.
Marked Genetic Differences
    Several studies have documented some level of genetic differences 
between grizzly bears in the GYE and other populations in North America 
(Paetkau et al. 1998, pp. 421-424; Waits et al. 1998, p. 310; Proctor 
et al. 2012, p. 12). The GYE population has been isolated from other 
grizzly bear populations for 100 years or more (Miller and Waits 2003, 
p. 4334). However, Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4334) could only 
speculate as to the reasons behind this historical separation or how 
long it had been occurring. Proctor et al. (2012, p. 35) concluded that 
observed differences in heterozygosity among grizzly bear populations 
in southern Canada and the United States were an artifact of human-
caused habitat fragmentation, not the result of different evolutionary 
pressures selecting for specific traits. We do not know whether these 
differences in heterozygosity levels are biologically meaningful, and 
we have no data indicating they are. Because we do not know the 
biological significance (if any) of the observed differences, we cannot 
say with certainty that the GYE grizzly bear population's genetics 
differ ``markedly'' from other grizzly bear populations. Therefore, we 
do not consider these genetic differences to meet the DPS policy's 
standard for significance.
    In summary, while we no longer consider the GYE grizzly bear 
population to be significant due to marked genetic differences, we 
still conclude that the GYE grizzly bear population is significant due 
to its persistence in an ecological setting unique for the taxon and 
because the loss of this population would result in a significant gap 
in the range of the taxon.

Summary of Distinct Population Segment Analysis

    Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, as 
described above, we find that the GYE grizzly bear population is 
discrete from other grizzly bear populations and significant to the 
remainder of the taxon (i.e., Ursus arctos horribilis). Because the GYE 
grizzly bear population is discrete and significant, it meets the 
definition of a DPS under the Act. Therefore, the GYE grizzly bear DPS 
is a listable entity under the Act, and we now assess this DPS's 
conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing, 
delisting, or reclassification (i.e., whether this DPS meets the 
definition of an endangered or threatened species under the Act).

Summary of Factors Affecting the Species

    Section 4 of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR part 
424) set forth the procedures for listing species, reclassifying 
species, or removing species from listed status. ``Species'' is defined 
by the Act as including any species or subspecies of fish or wildlife 
or plants, and any distinct vertebrate population segment

[[Page 30520]]

of fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). 
A species may be determined to be an endangered or threatened species 
due to one or more of the five factors described in section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or 
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C) 
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory 
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its 
continued existence. We must consider these same five factors in 
delisting a species. We may delist a species according to 50 CFR 
424.11(d) if the best available scientific and commercial data indicate 
that the species is neither endangered nor threatened for the following 
reasons: (1) The species is extinct; (2) the species has recovered and 
is no longer endangered or threatened; and/or (3) the original 
scientific data used at the time the species was classified were in 
error.
    A recovered species is one that no longer meets the Act's 
definition of endangered or threatened. A species is endangered for 
purposes of the Act if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range (SPR) and is threatened if it is 
likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or 
a significant portion of its range. The word ``range'' in ``significant 
portion of its range'' refers to the range in which the species 
currently exists at the time of this status review. Determining whether 
a species is recovered requires consideration of the same five 
categories of threats specified in section 4(a)(1) of the Act. For 
species that are already listed as endangered or threatened, this 
analysis of threats is an evaluation of both the threats currently 
facing the species and the threats that are reasonably likely to affect 
the species in the foreseeable future following the removal of the 
Act's protections. For the purposes of this analysis, we first evaluate 
the status of the species throughout all of its range, then consider 
whether the species is in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in any significant portion of its range.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the exposure of the species to a particular factor to evaluate 
whether the species may respond to the factor in a way that causes 
actual impacts to the species. If there is exposure to a factor and the 
species responds negatively, the factor may be a threat, and during the 
five-factor threats analysis, we attempt to determine how significant a 
threat it is. The threat is significant if it drives or contributes to 
the risk of extinction of the species such that the species warrants 
listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined by the 
Act. However, the identification of factors that could affect a species 
negatively may not be sufficient to justify a finding that the species 
warrants listing. The information must include evidence sufficient to 
suggest that the potential threat is likely to materialize and that it 
has the capacity (i.e., it should be of sufficient magnitude and 
extent) to affect the species' status such that it meets the definition 
of endangered or threatened under the Act. The following analysis 
examines the five factors affecting, or likely to affect, the GYE 
grizzly bear population within the foreseeable future. We previously 
concluded that GYE grizzly bears are recovered and warranted delisting 
(72 FR 14866, March 29, 2007). In this final rule, we make a 
determination as to whether the distinct population segment of GYE 
grizzly bears is an endangered or threatened species, based on the best 
scientific and commercial information available. In so doing, we 
address the issues raised by the Ninth Circuit in Greater Yellowstone 
Coalition v. Servheen, 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011), which were 
briefly discussed above.

A. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment 
of Its Habitat or Range

    Factor A requires the Service to consider present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of grizzly bear habitat or 
its range. Here, the following considerations warrant discussion 
regarding the GYE grizzly bear population, effects due to: (1) 
Motorized access management, (2) developed sites, (3) livestock 
allotments, (4) mineral and energy development, (5) recreation, (6) 
snowmobiling, (7) vegetation management, (8) climate change, and (9) 
habitat fragmentation.
    Habitat destruction and modification were contributing factors 
leading to the listing of the grizzly bear as a threatened species 
under the Act in 1975 (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). Both the dramatic 
decreases in historical range and land management practices in formerly 
secure grizzly bear habitat led to the 1975 listing (40 FR 31734, July 
28, 1975). For consideration under the Act's listing provisions in this 
final rule, the word range applies to where the species currently 
exists. To address this source of population decline, the IGBST 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 IGBC was 
created to coordinate management efforts across multiple Federal lands 
and different States within the various ecosystems 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 Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines (USDA FS 1986, pp. 
1-2) to manage grizzly bear habitat in the Yellowstone PCA.
    Management improvements made as a result of the Interagency Grizzly 
Bear 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) seasonal 
closure of some areas to all human access in National Parks that are 
particularly important to grizzly bears; (5) closure of many areas in 
the GYE to oil and gas leasing, or implementing restrictions such as no 
surface occupancy; (6) elimination of six active and four vacant sheep 
allotments on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest since 1998, resulting 
in an 86 percent decrease in total sheep animal months inside the 
Yellowstone PCA; and (7) expanded information and education (I&E) 
programs in the Yellowstone PCA to help reduce the number of grizzly 
bear mortalities caused by big-game hunters (outside National Parks). 
Overall, adherence to the Interagency Grizzly Bear 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 GYE grizzly bear population, allowing it to significantly increase 
in size and distribution since its listing in 1975.
    In December 2016, the YES released the final 2016 Conservation 
Strategy for the grizzly bear in the GYE to guide management and 
monitoring of the habitat and population of GYE grizzly bears after 
delisting. The 2016 Conservation Strategy is the most recent iteration 
of the Conservation Strategy, which was first published in final form 
in 2007 (see our notice of availability published on March 13, 2007, at 
72 FR

[[Page 30521]]

11376). The 2016 Conservation Strategy incorporates the explicit and 
measurable habitat criteria established in the ``Recovery Plan 
Supplement: Habitat-based Recovery Criteria for the Greater Yellowstone 
Ecosystem'' (USFWS 2007b). Whereas the Interagency Grizzly Bear 
Guidelines helped to guide successful recovery efforts, the 2016 
Conservation Strategy will help guide the recovered GYE population 
post-delisting. The 2016 Conservation Strategy identifies and provides 
a framework for managing two areas, the PCA and adjacent areas of the 
DMA, where occupancy by grizzly bears is anticipated to continue in the 
foreseeable future. What follows is an assessment of present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of the grizzly 
bear's habitat within the PCA and adjacent areas of the DMA.
Habitat Management Inside the Primary Conservation Area
    As per the 2016 Conservation Strategy and the habitat-based 
recovery criteria discussed above, the PCA will be a core secure area 
for grizzly bears where human impacts on habitat conditions will be 
maintained at or below levels that existed in 1998 (YES 2016a, pp. 54-
73). Specifically, the amount of secure habitat will not decrease below 
1998 levels while the number and capacity of developed sites and the 
number and acreage of livestock allotments will not increase above 1998 
levels. The majority of land, all suitable habitat, within the PCA is 
managed by the NPS (39.4 percent (9,409 of 23,853 km\2\ (3,632 of 9,210 
mi\2\)) and the USFS (58.5 percent (13,942 of 23,853 km\2\ (5,383 of 
9,210 mi\2\)). The 1998 baseline standards have been incorporated into 
the National Park Compendia (YNP 2014b, p. 18; GTNP and JDR 2016, p. 3) 
and the USFS Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for the 
Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests (USDA FS 2006b, entire). The 
1998 baseline for habitat standards was chosen because the levels of 
secure habitat and developed sites on public lands remained relatively 
constant in the 10 years preceding 1998 (USDA FS 2004, pp. 140-141), 
and the selection of 1998 ensured that habitat conditions existing at a 
time when the population was increasing at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per 
year (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48) would be maintained. For each of 
the 40 bear management subunits, located in the PCA, 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, and the number and capacity of developed sites on public 
lands.
    Motorized Access Management: When we listed the grizzly bear in 
1975, we identified land management practices that create new ways for 
humans to access formerly secure grizzly bear habitat as the mechanism 
that resulted in bears being more susceptible to the threat of human-
caused mortality and human-bear conflicts (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). 
We recognized early on that managing this human access to grizzly bear 
habitat would be the key to effective habitat management, and an 
extensive body of literature supports this approach. Specifically, 
unmanaged motorized access impacts grizzly bears by: (1) Increasing 
human interaction and potential grizzly bear mortality risk; (2) 
increasing displacement from important habitat; (3) increasing 
habituation to humans; and (4) decreasing habitat where energetic 
requirements can be met with limited disturbance from humans (Mattson 
et al. 1987, pp. 269-271; McLellan and Shackleton 1988, pp. 458-459; 
McLellan 1989, pp. 1862-1864; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402-1403; Schwartz 
et al. 2010, p. 661).
    Motorized access affects grizzly bears primarily through increased 
human-caused mortality risk (Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661). 
Secondarily, motorized access may affect grizzly bears through 
temporary or permanent habitat loss due to human disturbance. Managing 
motorized access by providing large proportions of secure habitat helps 
ameliorate the impacts of displacement and increased human-caused 
mortality risk in grizzly bear habitat. Secure habitat refers to those 
areas with no motorized access that are at least 4 ha (10 ac) in size 
and more than 500 m (1,650 ft) from a motorized access route or 
recurring helicopter flight line (USDA FS 2004, p. 18). In the 1998 
baseline, secure habitat comprised 45.4 to 100 percent of the total 
area within a given subunit with an average of 85.6 percent throughout 
the entire PCA (YES 2016b, Appendix E). These levels of secure habitat 
have been successfully maintained and will continue to be maintained or 
improved, as directed by the 2016 Conservation Strategy and the MOU 
signed by all State and Federal partner agencies (YES 2016a, pp. 13-
14). Thirty-seven subunits were determined to have sufficient levels of 
secure habitat. Three subunits were identified as in need of 
improvement from 1998 levels. These subunits have shown on average a 
7.5 percent increase in secure habitat, and these improved levels will 
serve as the new baseline for these three subunits with the 
implementation of the 2006 Gallatin National Forest Travel Management 
Plan (Gallatin NF 2006, pp. 30, 83-84). Because of the positive effect 
that secure habitat has on grizzly bear survival and reproduction, one 
of the 2016 Conservation Strategy objectives is no net decrease in the 
1998 baseline levels of secure habitat inside the PCA so that the PCA 
can continue to function as a source area for grizzly bears in the GYE. 
Therefore, motorized access management inside the PCA does not 
currently pose a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS, and we do not 
foresee that motorized access management will pose a threat in the 
foreseeable future.
    Developed Sites: 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 (YES 2016a, pp. 54-73). These exceptions to the 1998 
baseline for administrative and maintenance needs are narrow in scope 
and require mitigation (i.e., food storage structures) to reduce 
potential detrimental impacts to grizzly bears (see the 2016 
Conservation Strategy for a detailed description of the exception 
guidance, which are referred to as application rules; YES 2016a, pp. 
64-66). ``Developed sites'' refer to those sites or facilities on 
public land with features intended to accommodate public use or 
recreation. Such sites are typically identified or advertised via 
visitor maps or information displays as identifiable destination sites 
promoted by the agency. Examples of developed sites include, but are 
not limited to, campgrounds, picnic areas, trailheads, boat launches, 
rental cabins, summer homes, lodges, service stations, restaurants, 
visitor centers, administrative sites, and permitted resource 
exploration or extraction sites such as oil and gas exploratory wells, 
production wells, plans of operation for mining activities, and work 
camps.
    ``Administrative sites'' are those sites or facilities constructed 
for use primarily by government employees to facilitate the 
administration and management of public lands. Administrative sites are 
counted toward developed sites, and examples include headquarters, 
ranger stations, patrol cabins, park entrances, Federal employee 
housing, and other facilities supporting government operations. In 
contrast to developed or administrative sites, ``dispersed sites'' are 
those not associated with a developed site, such as a front-country 
campground. These sites are typically characterized as having no 
permanent agency-constructed features, are temporary in

[[Page 30522]]

nature, have minimal to no site modifications, have informal spacing, 
and possibly include primitive road access. Dispersed sites are not 
counted toward developed sites. Developed sites on public lands are 
currently inventoried and tracked in GIS databases. As of 1998, there 
were 593 developed sites on public land within the PCA (YES 2016b, 
Appendix E). As of 2014, the number of developed sites on public lands 
had decreased to 578 (Greater Yellowstone Area Grizzly Bear Habitat 
Modeling Team 2015, p. 90).
    The primary concern related to developed sites is direct mortality 
from bear-human encounters and unsecured attractants. Secondary 
concerns include temporary or permanent habitat loss and displacement 
due to increased length of time of human use and increased human 
disturbance to surrounding areas. 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 (YES 2016a, pp. 30-31, 
84-85). These regulations will continue to be enforced and are in 
effect for nearly all currently occupied grizzly bear habitat within 
the GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries (YES 2016a, pp. 30-31, 84-85). 
Developed sites inside the PCA do not currently constitute a threat to 
the GYE grizzly bear DPS. Additionally, because the National Parks and 
National Forests within the PCA will continue to manage developed sites 
at 1998 levels within each bear management subunit, with some 
exceptions as per the application rules (YES 2016a, pp. 65-67), and 
because food storage rules will be enforced on these public lands, we 
do not expect developed sites inside the PCA to pose a threat to the 
GYE grizzly bear DPS in the foreseeable future.
    Livestock Allotments: When grizzly bears were listed in 1975, the 
Service identified ``livestock use of surrounding national forests'' as 
detrimental to grizzly bears ``unless management measures favoring the 
species are enacted'' (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). Impacts to grizzly 
bears from livestock operations potentially include: (1) Direct 
mortality from control actions resulting from livestock depredation; 
(2) direct mortality due to control actions resulting from grizzly bear 
habituation and/or learned use of bear attractants, such as livestock 
carcasses and feed; (3) increased chances of a grizzly bear livestock 
conflict; (4) displacement due to livestock or related management 
activity; and (5) direct competition for preferred forage species.
    Approximately 14 percent (45 of 311) of all human-caused grizzly 
bear mortalities in the GYE between 2002 and 2014 were due to 
management removal actions associated with livestock depredations. This 
human-caused mortality is the main impact to grizzly bears in the GYE 
associated with livestock. Increased chances of grizzly bear conflict 
related to livestock have been minimized through requirements to 
securely store and/or promptly remove attractants associated with 
livestock operations (e.g., livestock carcasses, livestock feed, etc.). 
The effects of displacement and direct competition with livestock for 
forage are considered negligible to grizzly bear population dynamics 
because, even with direct grizzly bear mortality, current levels of 
livestock allotments have not precluded grizzly bear population growth 
and expansion.
    The Recovery Plan Supplement: Habitat-based Recovery Criteria for 
the Yellowstone Ecosystem (USFWS 2007b, entire) and the USFS Record of 
Decision implementing their forest plan amendments (USDA FS 2006b, 
entire) established habitat standards regarding livestock allotments. 
The number of active livestock allotments, total acres affected, and 
permitted sheep animal months within the PCA will not increase above 
1998 levels (USDA FS 2006b, p. 5; YES 2016a, pp. 56, 67-68). 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 (USDA FS 2006b, p. 6; YES 
2016a, pp. 67-68).
    A total of 106 livestock allotments existed inside the PCA in 1998. 
Of these 1998 allotments, there were 72 active and 13 vacant cattle 
allotments and 11 active and 10 vacant sheep allotments, with a total 
of 23,090 sheep animal months (YES 2016b, Appendix E). Sheep animal 
months are calculated by multiplying the permitted number of animals by 
the permitted number of months. Any use of vacant allotments will be 
permitted only if the number and net acreage of allotments inside the 
PCA does not increase above the 1998 baseline (YES 2016a, p. 68). Since 
1998, the Caribou-Targhee National Forest has closed six sheep 
allotments within the PCA, while the Shoshone National Forest has 
closed two sheep allotments and the Gallatin National Forest has closed 
four (Greater Yellowstone Area Grizzly Bear Habitat Modeling Team 2015, 
p. 86). This situation has resulted in a reduction of 21,120 sheep 
animal months, a 91 percent reduction, from the total calculated for 
1998 within the PCA, and is a testament to the commitment that land 
management agencies have to the ongoing success of the grizzly bear 
population in the GYE. As of 2014, there is only one active sheep 
allotment within the PCA, on the Caribou-Targhee National Forest.
    The mandatory restriction on creating new livestock allotments and 
the voluntary phasing out of livestock allotments with recurring 
conflicts further ensure that the PCA will continue to function as 
source habitat. Although it is possible to reopen closed allotments, 
such an action would be subject to NEPA and the majority of allotments 
would have a low probability of reopening because the rationale behind 
closing them is still applicable (e.g., limited forage). Livestock 
allotments do not currently constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear 
DPS. Additionally, because there will continue to be no net increase 
above 1998 levels in cattle or sheep allotments allowed on public lands 
inside the PCA, we do not expect that livestock allotments inside the 
PCA will constitute a threat in the foreseeable future.
    Mineral and Energy Development: Management of oil, gas, and mining 
are tracked as part of the developed site standard (YES 2016a, pp. 64-
67). There were no active oil and gas leases inside the PCA as of 1998 
(USDA FS 2006a, p. 209). Based on Forest Plan direction, there are 
approximately 243 km\2\ (94 mi\2\) of secure habitat that could allow 
surface occupancy for oil and gas projects within the PCA (USDA FS 
2006a, figures 48 and 96). This comprises less than 4 percent of all 
suitable habitat within the PCA. Additionally, 1,354 preexisting mining 
claims were located in 10 of the subunits inside the PCA (YES 2016b, 
Appendix E), but only 28 of these mining claims had operating plans. 
These operating plans are included in the 1998 developed site baseline.
    Under the conditions of the 2016 Conservation Strategy, any new 
oil, gas, or mineral project will be approved only if it conforms to 
secure habitat and developed site standards (USFWS 2007b, pp. 5-6; YES 
2016a, pp. 61-67). For instance, any oil, gas, or mineral project that 
reduces the amount of secure habitat permanently will have to provide 
replacement secure habitat of similar habitat quality (based on our 
scientific understanding of grizzly bear habitat), and any change in 
developed sites will require mitigation equivalent to the type and 
extent of the impact, and such mitigation must be in place before 
project initiation or be provided concurrently with project development 
as an integral part of the project plan (YES 2016a, p. 62). For 
projects that temporarily change the amount of secure habitat, only one 
project is

[[Page 30523]]

allowed in any subunit at any time (YES 2016a, p. 63). Mitigation of 
any project will occur within the same subunit and will be proportional 
to the type and extent of the project (YES 2016a, p. 62). In 
conclusion, because any new mineral or energy development will continue 
to be approved only if it conforms to the secure habitat and developed 
site standards set forth in the 2016 Conservation Strategy, we do not 
expect that such development inside the PCA will constitute a threat to 
the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the foreseeable future.
    Recreation: At least 3 million people visit and recreate in the 
National Parks and National Forests of the GYE annually (USDA FS 2006a, 
pp. 176, 184; Cain 2014, p. 46; Gunther 2014, p. 47). Based on past 
trends, visitation and recreation are expected to increase in the 
future. For instance, YNP has shown an approximate 15 percent increase 
in the number of people visiting each decade since the 1930s (USDA FS 
2006a, p. 183); however, the number of people recreating in the 
backcountry there has remained relatively constant from the 1970s 
through 2010s (Gunther 2014, p. 47). The concern related to increased 
recreation is that it may increase the probability of grizzly bear-
human encounters, with subsequent increases in human-caused mortality 
(Mattson et al. 1996, p. 1014).
    Recreation in the GYE can be divided into six basic categories 
based on season of use (winter or all other seasons), mode of access 
(motorized or non-motorized), and level of development (developed or 
dispersed) (USDA FS 2006a, p. 187). Inside the PCA, the vast majority 
of lands available for recreation are accessible through non-motorized 
travel only (USDA FS 2006a, p. 179). Motorized recreation during the 
summer, spring, and fall inside the PCA will be limited to existing 
roads as per the standards in the 2016 Conservation Strategy that 
restrict increases in roads or motorized trails. Current and projected 
levels of non-motorized recreation, including mountain biking, do not 
occur at a level that requires limitations. Recreation at developed 
sites such as lodges, downhill ski areas, and campgrounds will be 
limited by the developed sites habitat standard described in the 2016 
Conservation Strategy. Ongoing I&E efforts are an important 
contributing factor to successful grizzly bear conservation and will 
continue under the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 92-95). 
The number and capacity of existing developed sites on Federal lands 
has not increased from the 1998 baseline and will not increase once 
delisting occurs. For a more complete discussion of projected increases 
in recreation in the GYE National Forests, see the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement for the Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat 
Conservation for the GYE National Forests (USDA FS 2006a, pp. 176-189).
    In conclusion, because the few motorized access routes inside the 
PCA will not increase, because the number and capacity of developed 
sites on public lands within the PCA will not increase, and because the 
National Parks and National Forests within the PCA will continue to 
educate visitors on their lands about how to recreate safely in bear 
country and avoid grizzly bear-human conflicts, the current level of 
recreation does not currently constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly 
bear DPS, and we do not expect recreation to constitute a threat in the 
foreseeable future.
    Snowmobiling: Snowmobiling has the potential to disturb bears while 
in their dens and after emergence from their dens in the spring. 
Because grizzly bears are easily awakened in the den (Schwartz et al. 
2003, p. 567) and have been documented abandoning den sites after 
seismic disturbance (Reynolds et al. 1986, p. 174), the potential 
impact from snowmobiling should be considered. We found no studies in 
the peer-reviewed literature documenting the effects of snowmobile use 
on any denning bear species, and the information that is available is 
anecdotal in nature (USFWS 2002, entire; Hegg et al. 2010, entire).
    Disturbance in the den could result in increased energetic costs 
(increased activity and heart rate inside the den) and possibly den 
abandonment, which, in theory, could ultimately lead to a decline in 
physical condition of the individual or even cub mortality (Swenson et 
al. 1997, p. 37; Graves and Reams 2001, p. 41). Although the potential 
for this type of disturbance while in the den certainly exists, 
Reynolds et al. (1986, p. 174) found that grizzly bears denning within 
1.4 to 1.6 km (0.9 to 1.0 mi) of active seismic exploration and 
detonations moved around inside their dens but did not leave them. 
Harding and Nagy (1980, p. 278) documented two instances of den 
abandonment during fossil fuel extraction operations. One bear 
abandoned its den when a seismic vehicle drove directly over the den 
(Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278). The other bear abandoned its den when 
a gravel mining operation literally destroyed the den (Harding and Nagy 
1980, p. 278). Reynolds et al. (1986, entire) also examined the effects 
of tracked vehicles and tractors pulling sledges. In 1978, there was a 
route for tractors and tracked vehicles within 100 m (328 ft) of a den 
inhabited by a female with three yearlings. This family group did not 
abandon their den at any point (Reynolds et al. 1986, p. 174). Reynolds 
et al. (1986, p. 174) documented one instance of possible den 
abandonment due to detonations for seismic testing within 200 m of a 
den. This bear was not marked, but an empty den was reported by seismic 
crews.
    Swenson et al. (1997, entire) monitored 13 different grizzly bears 
for at least 5 winters each and documented 18 instances of den 
abandonment, 12 of which were related to human activities. Four of 
these instances were hunting related (i.e., gunshots fired within 100 m 
(328 ft) of the den), two occurred after ``forestry activity at the den 
site,'' one had moose and dog tracks within 10 m (33 ft) of a den, one 
had dog tracks at the den site, one had ski tracks within 80 to 90 m 
(262 to 295 ft) from a den, one had an excavation machine working 
within 75 m (246 ft) of a den, and two were categorized as ``human 
related'' without further details (Swenson et al. 1997, p. 37). Swenson 
et al. (1997) found that most den abandonment (72 percent) occurred 
early in the season before pregnant females give birth. However, there 
still may be a reproductive cost of these early den abandonments: 60 
percent (sample size of 5) of female bears that abandoned a den site 
before giving birth lost at least one cub whereas only 6 percent 
(sample size of 36) of pregnant females that did not abandon their dens 
lost a cub in or near their den (Swenson et al. 1997, p. 37). In the 
GYE, the one documented observation of snowmobile use at a known den 
site found the bear did not abandon its den, even though snowmobiles 
were operating directly on top of it (Hegg et al. 2010, p. 26). We 
found no records of litter abandonment by grizzly bears in the lower 48 
States due to snowmobiling activity. Additionally, monitoring of den 
occupancy for 3 years on the Gallatin National Forest in Montana did 
not document any den abandonment (Gallatin NF 2006, entire).
    In summary, the available data about the potential for disturbance 
while denning and den abandonment from nearby snowmobile use are 
extrapolated from studies examining the impacts of other human 
activities and are identified as ``anecdotal'' in nature (Swenson et 
al. 1997, p. 37), with sample sizes so small they cannot be 
legitimately applied to assess population-level impacts (in their 
entirety: Harding and Nagy 1980;

[[Page 30524]]

Reynolds et al. 1986; Hegg et al. 2010). Because there are no data or 
information suggesting snowmobile use in the GYE is negatively 
affecting the grizzly bear population, or even individual bears, we 
determine that snowmobiling does not constitute a threat to the GYE 
grizzly bear DPS now, or in the foreseeable future. Yet, because the 
potential for disturbance and impacts to reproductive success exists, 
monitoring will continue to support adaptive management decisions about 
snowmobile use in areas where disturbance is documented or likely to 
occur.
    Vegetation Management: Vegetation management occurs throughout the 
GYE on lands managed by the USFS and NPS. Vegetation management 
projects typically include timber harvest, thinning, prescribed fire, 
and salvage of burned, diseased, or insect-infested stands. If not 
implemented properly, vegetation management programs can negatively 
affect grizzly bears by: (1) Removing hiding cover; (2) disturbing or 
displacing bears from habitat during the logging period; (3) increasing 
grizzly bear-human conflicts or mortalities as a result of unsecured 
attractants; and (4) increasing mortality risk or displacement due to 
new roads into previously roadless areas and/or increased vehicular use 
on existing restricted roads, especially if roads remain open to the 
public after vegetation management is complete.
    Conversely, vegetation management may result in positive effects on 
grizzly bear habitat once the project is complete, provided key 
habitats such as riparian areas and known food production areas are 
maintained or enhanced. For instance, tree removal for thinning or 
timber harvest and prescribed burning can result in localized increases 
in bear foods through increased growth of grasses, forbs, and berry-
producing shrubs (Zager et al. 1983, p. 124; Kerns et al. 2004, p. 
675). Vegetation management may also benefit grizzly bear habitat by 
controlling undesirable invasive species, improving riparian 
management, and limiting livestock grazing in important food production 
areas.
    Changes in the distribution, quantity, and quality of cover are not 
necessarily detrimental to grizzly bears as long as they are 
coordinated on a BMU or subunit scale to ensure that grizzly bear needs 
are addressed throughout the various projects occurring on multiple 
jurisdictions at any given time. Although there are known, usually 
temporary, impacts to individual bears from timber management 
activities, these impacts have been adequately mitigated using the 
Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines in place since 1986, and will 
continue to be managed at levels acceptable to the grizzly bear 
population under the 2016 Conservation Strategy. Therefore, we do not 
expect that vegetation management inside the PCA will constitute a 
threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the foreseeable future.
    Climate Change: The effects of climate change may result in a 
number of changes to grizzly bear habitat, including a reduction in 
snowpack levels, which may shorten the denning season (Leung et al. 
2004, pp. 93-94), shifts in denning times (Craighead and Craighead 
1972, pp. 33-34; Van Daele et al. 1990, p. 264; Haroldson et al. 2002, 
pp. 34-35), shifts in the abundance and distribution of some natural 
food sources (Rodriguez et al. 2007, pp. 41-42), and changes in fire 
regimes (Nitschke and Innes 2008, p. 853; McWethy et al. 2010, p. 55). 
Most grizzly bear biologists in the United States and Canada do not 
expect habitat changes predicted under climate change scenarios to 
directly threaten grizzly bears (Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4). These 
effects may even make habitat more suitable and food sources more 
abundant. However, these ecological changes may affect the timing and 
frequency of grizzly bear-human interactions and conflicts (Servheen 
and Cross 2010, p. 4) and are discussed below under Factor E (Other 
Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence).
    Habitat Fragmentation: The GYE grizzly bear population is currently 
a contiguous population across its range, and there are no data to 
indicate habitat fragmentation within this population is occurring. 
Although currently not occurring, habitat fragmentation can cause loss 
of connectivity and increase human-caused mortalities, and thus is a 
potential threat to grizzly bears. To prevent habitat fragmentation and 
degradation, the evaluation of all highway construction projects in 
suitable habitat on Federal lands throughout the GYE DMA will continue 
to include the impacts of the project on grizzly bear habitat 
connectivity. This evaluation would go through an open and public 
planning process (USFWS 2007b, pp. 38-41; YES 2016a, pp. 82-83). By 
identifying areas used by grizzly bears, officials can mitigate 
potential impacts from road construction both during and after a 
project. Federal agencies will continue to 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 data collection requirement include 
reduction of grizzly bear mortality due to vehicle collisions, access 
to seasonal habitats, maintenance of traditional dispersal routes, and 
decreased risk of fragmentation of individual home ranges. For example, 
work crews will place temporary work camps in areas with lower risk of 
displacing grizzly bears, and food and garbage will be kept in bear-
resistant containers. Highway planners will incorporate warning signs 
and crossing structures such as culverts or underpasses into projects 
when possible to facilitate safe highway crossings by wildlife. 
Additionally, the conflict prevention, response, and outreach elements 
of the 2016 Conservation Strategy play an important role in preventing 
habitat fragmentation by keeping valleys that are mostly privately 
owned from becoming mortality sinks to grizzly bears attracted to human 
sources of foods. In conclusion, because these activities that combat 
habitat fragmentation will continue to occur under the 2016 
Conservation Strategy, we do not expect that fragmentation within the 
GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries will constitute a threat to the GYE 
grizzly bear DPS now, or in the foreseeable future.
Habitat Management Outside the Primary Conservation Area
    In suitable habitat outside of the PCA within the DPS boundaries, 
the USFS, BLM, and State wildlife agencies will monitor habitat and 
population criteria to prevent potential threats to habitat, ensuring 
that the measures of the Act continue to be unnecessary (Idaho's 
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 2-3; MFWP 
2013, p. 5; USDA FS 2006a, pp. 44-45; WGFD 2016, p. v; YES 2016a, pp. 
1-12). Factors impacting suitable habitat outside of the PCA in the 
future are similar to those inside the PCA and may include projects 
that involve road construction, livestock allotments, developed sites, 
and increased human-caused grizzly bear mortality risk.
    Of the 22,783 km\2\ (8,797 mi\2\ or 5.6 million acres) of suitable 
habitat outside of the PCA within the DPS boundaries, the USFS manages 
17,292 km\2\ (6,676 mi\2\), or 76 percent. Of the 76 percent of 
suitable habitat outside of the PCA but within the DMA that the USFS 
manages, nearly 80 percent (13,685 km\2\ (5,284 mi\2\)) is Designated 
Wilderness (6,799 km\2\ (2,625 mi\2\)), Wilderness Study Area (WSA) 
(708 km\2\ (273 mi\2\)), or Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) (6,179

[[Page 30525]]

km\2\ (2,386 mi\2\)). These designations provide regulatory mechanisms 
outside of the Act and the 2016 Conservation Strategy that protect 
grizzly bear habitat from new road construction, new oil and gas 
development, new livestock allotments, and timber harvest. This large 
area of widely distributed habitat allows for continued population 
expansion and provides additional resiliency to environmental change.
    Specifically, the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.) 
does not allow for timber harvest, new road construction, new livestock 
allotments, new developed sites, and new mining claims in designated 
Wilderness areas (6,799 km\2\ (2,625 mi\2\)), with the exception of 
valid existing rights. This secure suitable habitat is biologically 
significant to the GYE grizzly bear DPS because it allows for 
population expansion into these areas that are minimally affected by 
humans. If preexisting valid mining claims are pursued, the plans of 
operation are subject to reasonable regulation to protect wilderness 
values with mitigation to offset potential impacts from development.
    Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) (Wilderness Study Act of 1977) have 
been designated by Congress as areas having wilderness characteristics 
and warranting further study by Federal land management agencies (e.g., 
USFS or BLM) and consideration by Congress as formally designated 
Wilderness. Individual National Forests manage the 708 km\2\ (273 
mi\2\) of WSAs to maintain their wilderness characteristics, generally 
until Congress acts to either designate them as permanent Wilderness or 
release them to multiple use management. This generally means that 
individual WSAs are protected from timber harvest, new road 
construction, new livestock allotments, and new developed sites by the 
legislation creating them, subject to valid existing rights. If mining 
claims are pursued, the plans of operation are subject to reasonable 
regulations to protect wilderness values with mitigation to offset 
potential impacts from development. Existing uses at the time of 
creation of the WSAs are generally allowed to continue so long as the 
wilderness characteristics of the area are maintained.
    Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) currently provide 4,891 km\2\ 
(1,888 mi\2\) of secure habitat for grizzly bears outside of the PCA 
within the DPS boundaries. This amount of secure habitat is less than 
the total area contained within IRAs (6,179 km\2\ (2,386 mi\2\)) 
because some motorized use occurs due to roads that existed before the 
area was designated as roadless. The 2001 Roadless Areas Conservation 
Rule (66 FR 3244, January 12, 2001; hereafter referred to as the 
``Roadless Rule'') prohibits new road construction, road re-
construction, and commercial timber harvest in IRAs. If mining claims 
are pursued, the plans of operation are subject to reasonable 
regulations to protect roadless characteristics with mitigation to 
offset potential impacts from development. Motorized roads and trails 
may exist within IRAs subject to forest travel management plans. 
Potential changes in the management of these areas are not anticipated 
because the Roadless Rule was upheld by the Tenth Circuit Court of 
Appeals in 2011. (See Wyoming v. USDA, 661 F.3d 1209 (10th Cir. 2011).)
    Based on the amount of Wilderness, WSA, and IRA, an estimated 71 
percent (12,396 of 17,291 km\2\ (4,786 of 6,676 mi\2\)) of suitable 
habitat outside the PCA on USFS lands within the DPS is currently 
secure habitat and is likely to remain secure habitat. Upon delisting 
of the GYE grizzly bear, the USFS will evaluate GYE grizzly bear 
management as a Regional Forest Sensitive Species, and a determination 
of whether this status is warranted will be made at that time (USDA FS 
2005). The USFS will consider the GYE grizzly bear as a potential 
species of conservation concern during any plan revision within the 
range of the GYE grizzly bear as required by FSH 1909.12 Ch. 10, 
12.52(d)(2)(b), which requires consideration for any species that was 
removed from the Federal lists of endangered and threatened species 
within the past 5 years.
    Additional protections occur on suitable habitat on Federal (BLM 
and NPS) and Tribal lands outside of the PCA but inside the DMA. The 
BLM manages an additional 22 percent (5,064 km\2\ (1,955 mi\2\)) of 
suitable habitat outside of the PCA. Upon delisting of the GYE grizzly 
bear, the BLM in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming will classify the grizzly 
bear as a Sensitive Species in the GYE for at least 5 years post-
delisting. Grizzly bears and their habitats on BLM lands will then be 
managed consistent with Manual 6840 (BLM 2008, entire). GTNP manages 
837 km\2\ (323 mi\2\) of suitable habitat outside of the PCA. 
Protections for grizzly bears throughout NPS lands, including but not 
limited to seasonal area closures and food storage orders, are provided 
through the National Park compendium (GTNP and JDR 2016, pp. 6, 13, 21-
22). The Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes manage the 1,360 
km\2\ (525 mi\2\) of suitable habitat within the boundaries of the Wind 
River Reservation (WRR), all of which is outside the PCA. The Tribes' 
Grizzly Bear Management Plan (Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho 
Tribes 2009) will facilitate grizzly bear occupancy in areas of 
suitable habitat and allow grizzly bears access to high-elevation 
whitebark pine and army cutworm moth aggregation sites. The WRR Forest 
Management Plan calls for no net increase in roads in the Wind River 
Roadless Area and the Monument Peak area of the Owl Creek Mountains. In 
the remaining lands occupied by grizzly bears, open road densities of 
1.6 km/km\2\ (1 mi/mi\2\) or less will be maintained (Eastern Shoshone 
and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2009, p. 11).
    Federal, State, and Tribal agencies are committed to managing 
habitat so that the GYE grizzly bear DPS remains recovered and is not 
likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of 
its range in the foreseeable future (Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear 
Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 2-3; USDA FS 2006b, entire; Eastern 
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2009, p. 11; MFWP 2013, p. 6; YNP 
2014b, p. 18; GTNP and JDR 2016, p. 3; WGFD 2016, p. v; YES 2016a, pp. 
54-85). In suitable habitat outside of the PCA, restrictions on human 
activities are more flexible, but the USFS, BLM, and Tribal and State 
wildlife agencies will still 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 (Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear 
Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 16-17; USDA FS 2006b, pp. A1-A27; 
Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2009, pp. 9-11; MFWP 2013, 
pp. 53-59; WGFD 2016, pp. 20-25; YES 2016a, pp. 86-91).
    By and large, habitat management on Federal public lands is 
directed by Federal land management plans, not State management plans. 
However, the 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 boundaries on Federal lands. 
For example, the Montana and Wyoming plans recommend limiting average 
road densities to 1.6 km/2.6 km\2\ (1 mi/mi\2\) or less in these areas 
(MFWP 2013, pp. 37-39; WGFD 2016, p. 19). 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

[[Page 30526]]

should focus on areas that have road densities of 1.6 km/2.6 km\2\ (1 
mi/mi\2\) or less. 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 
management prescriptions outside the PCA that provide for long-term 
security in 59 percent of existing secure habitat outside of the PCA 
(USDA FS 2006a, pp. 78, 109).
    In 2004, there were roughly 150 active cattle allotments and 12 
active sheep allotments in suitable habitat outside the PCA within the 
DPS boundaries (USDA FS 2004, p. 129). The Targhee National Forest 
closed two of these sheep allotments in 2004, and there have not been 
any new allotments created since then (USDA FS 2006a, p. 168; 
Landenburger 2014, in litt.). The USFS is committed to working with 
willing permittees to retire allotments with recurring conflicts that 
cannot be resolved by modifying grazing practices (USDA FS 2006b, p. 
6). Although conflicts with livestock have the potential to result in 
mortality for grizzly bears, the 2016 Conservation Strategy's specific 
total mortality limits will preclude population-level impacts. The 2016 
Conservation Strategy directs the IGBST to monitor and spatially map 
all grizzly bear mortalities (both inside and outside the PCA), causes 
of death, and the source of the problem, and alter management to 
maintain a recovered population and prevent the need to relist the 
population under the Act (YES 2016a, p. 48).
    There are over 500 developed sites on the five National Forests in 
the areas identified as suitable habitat outside the PCA within the DPS 
boundaries (USDA FS 2004, p. 138). While grizzly bear-human conflicts 
at developed sites on public lands do occur, the most frequent reason 
for management removals are conflicts on private lands (Servheen et al. 
2004, p. 21). 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 IGBST 
determine developed sites on public lands are related to increases in 
mortality beyond the sustainable limits discussed above, managers may 
choose to close specific developed sites or otherwise alter management 
in the area in order to maintain a recovered population and prevent the 
need to relist the population under the Act. Due to the USFS's 
commitment to manage National Forest lands in the GYE to maintain a 
recovered population (USDA FS 2006b, pp. iii, A-6; YES 2016a, pp. 54-
83), we do not expect livestock allotments or developed sites in 
suitable habitat outside of the PCA to reach densities that are likely 
to be a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS in the foreseeable future.
    According to current Forest Plan direction, less than 19 percent 
(3,213 km\2\ (1,240 mi\2\)) of suitable habitat outside the PCA within 
the DPS boundaries on USFS land allows surface occupancy for oil and 
gas development, and 17 percent (3,967 km\2\ (1,532 mi\2\)) 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 increases in human access, grizzly bear-
human encounters, and human-caused grizzly bear mortalities (McLellan 
and Shackleton 1988, pp. 458-459; McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. 
377-379; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402-1403). Although seismic exploration 
associated with oil and gas development or mining may disturb denning 
grizzly bears (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278; Reynolds et al. 1986, pp. 
174-175), actual den abandonment is rarely observed, and there has been 
no documentation of such abandonment by grizzly bears in the GYE. 
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 3,967 km\2\ (1,532 mi\2\) identified as having both suitable 
timber and a management prescription that allows timber harvest, from 
2003 to 2014, an average of only 4.7 km\2\ (1.8 mi\2\) was actually 
logged annually (Jackson 2017, in litt.). Similarly, although nearly 
3,213 km\2\ (1,240 mi\2\) of suitable habitat on National Forest lands 
inside the DPS boundaries allow surface occupancy for oil and gas 
development, there currently are no active wells inside these areas 
(Vaculik 2017, in litt.).
    Ultimately, the five 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 the DMA to allow for a recovered grizzly bear population. 
Under the National Forest Management Act of 1976, the USFS will 
consider all potential impacts of projects to the GYE grizzly bear 
population in the NEPA planning process and then ensure that activities 
will provide appropriate habitat to maintain the population's recovered 
status.
    Rapidly accelerating growth of human populations in some areas 
outside of the PCA continues to define the limits of grizzly bear 
range, and will likely limit the expansion of the GYE grizzly bear 
population onto private lands in some areas outside the PCA. Urban and 
rural sprawl (low-density 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 
(USFWS 2007c, figures 15 and 16). 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 
agencies will work to balance impacts from private land development 
(Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. 10; 
MFWP 2013, p. 37; WGFD 2016, p. 15). Outside the PCA, State agencies 
will assist nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other entities to 
identify and prioritize potential lands suitable for permanent 
conservation through easements and other means as much as possible 
(USFWS 2007c, p. 54). Due to the large areas of widely distributed 
suitable habitat on public lands that are protected by Federal 
legislation and managed by agencies committed to the maintenance of a 
recovered grizzly bear population, we do not consider human population 
growth on private lands to constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear 
DPS now or in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor A
    In summary, the following factors warranted consideration as 
possible threats to the GYE grizzly bear DPS under Factor A: Effects 
due to (1) motorized access management, (2) developed sites, (3) 
livestock allotments, (4) mineral and energy development, (5) 
recreation, (6) snowmobiling, (7) vegetation management, (8) climate 
change, and (9) habitat fragmentation. Restrictions on motorized 
access, developed sites, and livestock allotments ensure that they will 
be maintained at or below 1998 levels, a time when the population was 
increasing at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year (Schwartz et al. 2006b, 
p. 48). Additionally, secure habitat will be maintained at or above 
1998 levels. The primary factors related to past habitat destruction 
and modification have been reduced through changes in

[[Page 30527]]

management practices that have already been formally incorporated into 
regulatory documents.
    Within suitable habitat, different levels of management and 
protection are applied to areas based on their level of importance. 
Within the PCA, habitat protections for grizzly bear conservation are 
in place across the current range where 75 percent of the females with 
cubs-of-the-year live most or all of the time (Schwartz et al. 2006a, 
p. 66; Haroldson 2014a, in litt.). For this area, the Service developed 
objective and measurable habitat-based recovery criteria to limit 
habitat degradation and human-caused mortality risk related to 
motorized access, developed sites, and livestock allotments (i.e., the 
1998 baseline). When delisting occurs, the GYE National Forests and 
National Parks will continue their 15-year history of implementation by 
legally implementing the appropriate planning documents that 
incorporate the 1998 baseline values as habitat standards (USDA FS 
2006b, p. 26). Together, these two Federal agencies manage 98 percent 
of lands within the PCA and 88 percent of all suitable habitat within 
the DPS boundaries. As it has done for the last decade, the IGBST will 
continue to monitor compliance with the 1998 baseline values and will 
also continue to monitor grizzly bear body condition, fat levels, and 
diet composition. Accordingly, the PCA, which comprises 51 percent of 
the suitable habitat within the DPS boundaries and contains 75 percent 
of all females with cubs-of-the-year (Schwartz et al. 2006a, p. 64; 
Haroldson 2014a, in litt.), will remain a highly secure area for 
grizzly bears, with habitat conditions maintained at or above levels 
documented in 1998. Maintenance of the 1998 baseline values inside the 
PCA will continue to adequately ameliorate the multitude of stressors 
on grizzly bear habitat such that they do not become threats to the GYE 
grizzly bear DPS in the foreseeable future.
    Suitable habitat outside the PCA provides additional ecological 
resiliency and habitat redundancy to allow the population to respond to 
environmental changes. Habitat protections specifically for grizzly 
bear conservation are not necessary here because other binding 
regulatory mechanisms are in place for nearly 60 percent of the area 
outside the PCA. In these areas, the Wilderness Act, the Roadless Areas 
Conservation Rule, and National Forest Land Management Plans limit 
development and motorized use. Management of individual projects on 
public land outside the PCA will continue to consider and minimize 
impacts on grizzly bear habitat. Efforts by NGOs and Tribal, State, and 
county agencies will seek to minimize bear-human conflicts on private 
lands (YES 2016a, pp. 86-91). These and other conservation measures 
ensure threats to the GYE grizzly bear population's suitable habitat 
outside the PCA will continue to be ameliorated and will not be a 
threat to this population's long-term persistence (USDA FS 2006b).
    Other management practices on Federal lands have been changed to 
provide security and to maintain or improve habitat conditions for 
grizzly bears. All operating plans for oil and gas leases must conform 
to secure habitat and developed site standards, which require 
mitigation for any change in secure habitat. Recreation inside the GYE 
is limited through existing road and developed site standards. 
Additionally, I&E campaigns educate visitors about how to recreate 
safely in bear country and avoid bear-human conflicts. There are no 
data available on the impacts of snowmobiling on grizzly bears to 
suggest an effect on grizzly bear survival or recovery of the 
population. Although vegetation management may temporarily impact 
individual grizzly bears, these activities are coordinated on a BMU or 
subunit scale according to the Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines to 
mitigate for any potentially negative effect. As a result of vegetation 
management, there may also be positive effects on grizzly bears where 
key habitats are maintained or enhanced. The habitat changes that are 
predicted under climate change scenarios are not expected by most 
grizzly bear biologists to directly threaten grizzly bears. The 
potential for changes in the frequency and timing of grizzly bear-human 
interactions is discussed below under Factor E. Finally, there are no 
data to indicate that habitat fragmentation is occurring within the 
GYE.
    In summary, the factors discussed under Factor A continue to occur 
across the current range of the GYE grizzly bear population but are 
sufficiently ameliorated so they affect only a small proportion of the 
population. Despite these factors related to habitat, the population 
has increased and stabilized while its current range has expanded. 
Therefore, based on the best available information and on continuation 
of current regulatory commitment, we do not consider the present or 
threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or 
range to constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the 
foreseeable future.

B and C. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or 
Educational Purposes; Disease or Predation

    Factors B and C require the Service to consider overutilization, 
disease, or predation affecting the continued existence of a species. 
In addition to disease and natural predation, we consider here human-
caused mortality including legal hunting, illegal kills (see Glossary), 
defense of life and property mortality, accidental mortality, and 
management removals.
    Excessive human-caused mortality, including ``indiscriminate 
illegal killing'' and management removals, was the primary factor 
contributing to grizzly bear decline during the 19th and 20th centuries 
(Leopold 1967, p. 30; Koford 1969, p. 95; Servheen 1990, p. 1; Servheen 
1999, pp. 50-52; Mattson and Merrill 2002, pp. 1129, 1132; Schwartz et 
al. 2003, p. 571), eventually leading to their listing as a threatened 
species in 1975 (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). Grizzly bears were seen 
as a threat to livestock and human safety and, therefore, an impediment 
to westward expansion. Both the Federal Government and most early 
settlers were dedicated to eradicating large predators. Grizzly bears 
were shot, poisoned, trapped, and killed wherever humans encountered 
them (Servheen 1999, p. 50). By the time grizzly bears were listed 
under the Act in 1975, there were only a few hundred remaining in the 
lower 48 States in less than 2 percent of their former range (USFWS 
1993, pp. 8-10).
Human-Caused Mortality
    From 1980 to 2002, 66 percent (191) of the 290 known grizzly bear 
mortalities were human-caused (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). The main 
types of human-caused mortality were human site conflicts, self-
defense, and illegal kills, all of which can be partially mitigated for 
through management actions (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). In our March 
29, 2007, final rule (72 FR 14866), we report that despite these 
mortalities, this period corresponds to one during which the GYE 
grizzly bear population experienced population growth and range 
expansion. Since then, the IGBST has updated these demographic analyses 
using data from 2002-2011 (IGBST 2012, entire). Below, we evaluate 
human-caused mortality for 2002-2014, as it represents the most recent 
and best available information on the subject. For more information on 
the demographic vital rates for 2002-2011, please see Population and 
Demographic Recovery Criteria in the Recovery

[[Page 30528]]

Planning and Implementation section, above. In this section, we discuss 
impacts from human-caused mortality, including legal hunting, illegal 
kills, defense of life and property, accidental mortality, and 
management removals.
    We define poaching as intentional, illegal killing of grizzly 
bears. People may kill grizzly bears for several reasons, including a 
general perception that grizzly bears in the area may be dangerous, 
frustration over livestock depredations, or to protest land-use and 
road-use restrictions associated with grizzly bear habitat management 
(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). Regardless of the reason, poaching 
continues to occur. We are aware of at least 22 such killings in the 
GYE between 2002 and 2014 (Haroldson 2014b, in litt.; Haroldson and 
Frey 2015, p. 26). This constituted 7 percent of known grizzly bear 
mortalities from 2002 to 2014. This level of take occurred during a 
period when poaching was subject to Federal prosecution. We do not 
expect poaching to significantly increase upon implementation of this 
final rule because State and Tribal designation as a game animal means 
poaching will remain illegal and prosecutable (W.S. 23-1-101 
(a)(xii)(A); MCA 87-2-101 (4); IC 36-2-1; IDAPA 13.01.06.100.01(e); 
Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 18-
21; MFWP 2013, p. 6; Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Tribes 
2009, p. 9; WGFD 2016, p. 9; YES 2016a, pp. 104-116).
    State and Federal law enforcement agents have cooperated to ensure 
consistent enforcement of laws protecting grizzly bears. Currently, 
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. 
This cooperation means illegal grizzly bear mortalities are often 
prosecuted under State statutes instead of the Act. We have a long 
record of this enforcement approach being effective, and no reason to 
doubt its effectiveness in the absence of the Act's additional layer of 
Federal protections.
    When this final rule becomes effective, all three affected States 
and the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes of the WRR will 
classify grizzly bears in the GYE as game animals, which cannot be 
taken without authorization by State or Tribal wildlife agencies (W.S. 
23-1-101(a)(xii)(A); W.S. 23-3-102(a); MCA 87-2-101(4); MCA 87-1-301; 
MCA 87-1-304; MCA 87-5-302; IC 36-2-1; IDAPA 13.01.06.100.01(e); IC 36-
1101(a); Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, 
pp. 18-21; MFWP 2013, p. 6; Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe 
Tribes 2009, p. 9; WGFD 2016, p. 9; YES 2016a, pp. 104-116). In other 
words, it will still be illegal for private citizens to kill grizzly 
bears unless it is in self-defense (as is currently allowed under the 
Act's protections), or if they have a hunting license issued by State 
or Tribal wildlife agencies.
    In addition, in the Montana portion of the DPS, a grizzly bear may 
be killed if it is caught in the act of attacking or killing livestock 
(87-6-106 MCA). With respect to this exception, there must be injured 
or dead livestock associated with any grizzly bear killed in defense of 
livestock in Montana. There are no documented cases of livestock owners 
or herders actually observing a grizzly bear depredating on livestock 
since records began to be kept in 1975. Before that time, it would have 
been legal for a livestock operator to kill a grizzly bear just for 
being present. A similar exception that occurs in the Idaho portion of 
the DPS allows a grizzly bear to be killed if it is ``molesting or 
attacking livestock or domestic animals'' (Senate Bill 1027: Section 7: 
36-1107(d)). Because Idaho contains only 6.6 percent of the DMA and has 
experienced low numbers of conflicts and management removals from 2002 
to 2014 (9.9 and 0.3 per year, respectively, inside the DMA), we do not 
expect Idaho Senate Bill 1027 to be a significant source of mortality 
to the GYE grizzly bear.
    The States will continue to enforce, prosecute, and sentence 
poachers as they do for any game animal such as elk, black bears, and 
cougars (W.S. 23-3-102(d); W.S. 23-6-202; W.S. 23-6-206; W.S. 23-6-208; 
MCA 87-6-301; IC 36-1404). Although it is widely recognized that 
poaching still occurs, this illegal source of mortality is not 
significant enough to hinder population stability for the GYE grizzly 
bear population (IGBST 2012, p. 34) or range expansion (Pyare et al. 
2004, pp. 5-6; Bjornlie et al. 2014a, p. 184).
    I&E campaigns (described in detail in Factor E) have a long record 
of implementation, have helped minimize the potential threat of 
poaching and will continue after delisting under the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy. More specifically, these programs address illegal killing by 
working to change human perceptions and beliefs about grizzly bears, 
and lack of tolerance to some restrictions on use of Federal lands that 
are designed for grizzly bear protection (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 27). 
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 to multiple species of restricting motorized 
access. 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 km\2\ (1 mi/mi\2\)). This level of motorized access meets the 
needs of a variety of wildlife species, while maintaining reasonable 
opportunities for public access. I&E programs also reduce the threat of 
poaching and defense kills by teaching people about bear behavior and 
ecology so that they can avoid encounters and conflicts or respond 
appropriately if encounters do occur. In this way, we can correct 
common misconceptions and lessen the perceived threat grizzly bears 
pose. Additionally, I&E programs foster relationships and build trust 
between the general public and the government agencies implementing 
them by initiating communication and dialogue.
    From 2002 to 2014, 31 percent (97) of human-caused grizzly bear 
mortalities in the GYE were self-defense or defense of other persons 
kills (Haroldson 2014b, in litt.; Haroldson and Frey 2015, p. 26). This 
type of grizzly bear mortality is currently allowed under regulations 
issued under the provisions of section 4(d) of the Act (50 CFR 
17.40(b)). These grizzly bear mortalities occurred primarily with elk 
hunters on public lands during the fall, but also at other times and 
locations (IGBST 2009, p. 18). These self-defense situations with elk 
hunters occur during surprise encounters, at hunter-killed carcasses or 
gut piles, or when packing out carcasses. Federal and State agencies 
have many options to potentially reduce conflicts with hunters (IGBST 
2009, pp. 21-31), but self-defense mortalities will always be a reality 
when conserving a species that is capable of killing humans. By 
promoting the use of bear spray and continuing I&E programs pertaining 
to food and carcass storage and retrieval, many of these grizzly bear 
deaths can be avoided. Through its enabling legislations, the NPS 
authorizes an elk reduction program in GTNP. Elk hunters in GTNP are 
required to carry bear spray in an accessible location, thus reducing 
the potential for an encounter that results in grizzly bear mortality. 
Outside GTNP, carrying bear spray is strongly encouraged through hunter 
education programs and other I&E materials.
    Another primary source of human-caused mortality is agency removal 
of conflict bears following grizzly bear-

[[Page 30529]]

human conflicts. Between 2002 and 2014, agency removals resulted in 135 
mortalities, accounting for 43 percent of human-caused mortalities. 
This type of grizzly bear mortality is allowed under the Act through a 
section 4(d) rule (50 CFR 17.40(b)). While lethal to the individual 
grizzly bears involved, these removals promote conservation of the GYE 
grizzly bear population by minimizing illegal killing of bears, 
providing an opportunity to educate the public about how to avoid 
conflicts, and promoting tolerance of grizzly bears by responding 
promptly and effectively when bears pose a threat to public safety or 
repeatedly depredate livestock.
    Conflicts at developed sites (on either public or private lands) 
were responsible for 90 of the 135 agency removals between 2002 and 
2014. 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, understanding, 
and tolerance toward grizzly bears. Mandatory food storage orders on 
public lands decrease the change of conflicts while State and Federal 
I&E programs reduce grizzly bear-human conflicts on both private and 
public lands by educating the public about potential grizzly bear 
attractants and how to store them properly. Accordingly, the majority 
of grizzly bear budgets of the agencies responsible for implementing 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy and managing the GYE grizzly bear 
population post-delisting is for grizzly bear-human conflict 
management, outreach, and education. To address public attitudes and 
knowledge levels, I&E programs present grizzly bears as a valuable 
public resource while acknowledging the potential dangers associated 
with them and ways to avoid conflicts (for a detailed discussion of 
I&E, see Factor E, below). These outreach programs have been 
successful, as evidenced by a 4.2 to 7.6 percent per year population 
growth rate from 1983 to 2002 (Harris et al. 2006, p. 48) and a 
relatively flat grizzly bear population trajectory since 2002, despite 
large increases in people living and recreating in the GYE over the 
last 3 decades. I&E programs are integral components of the 2016 
Conservation Strategy and will continue to be implemented by all 
partners whether the GYE grizzly bear is listed or not (YES 2016a, pp. 
92-95).
    Agency removals due to grizzly bear conflicts with livestock 
accounted for nearly 33 percent (45/135) of agency removals (Haroldson 
2014b, in litt.; Haroldson and Frey 2015, p. 26). Only 1 of these 45 
mortalities occurred inside the PCA where several measures to reduce 
livestock conflicts are in place. The USFS phases out sheep allotments 
within the PCA as opportunities arise and, currently, only one active 
sheep allotment remains inside the PCA (USDA FS 2006a, p. 167; 
Landenburger 2014, in litt.). The USFS also has closed sheep allotments 
outside the PCA to resolve conflicts with species such as bighorn sheep 
as well as grizzly bears. Additionally, the alternative chosen by the 
USFS during its NEPA process to amend the five National Forest plans 
for grizzly bear habitat conservation includes direction to resolve 
recurring conflicts on livestock allotments through retirement of those 
allotments with willing permittees (USDA FS 2006b, pp. 16-17; YES 
2016a, pp. 67-68). Livestock grazing permits include special provisions 
regarding reporting of conflicts, proper food storage and attractant 
storage procedures, and carcass removal. The USFS monitors compliance 
with these special provisions associated with livestock allotments 
annually (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 28). We consider these measures 
effective at reducing this threat, as evidenced by the rarity of 
livestock depredation removals inside the PCA. Upon delisting, the USFS 
will continue to implement these measures that minimize grizzly bear 
conflicts with livestock. The 2016 Conservation Strategy also 
recognizes that removal of individual conflict bears is sometimes 
required, as most livestock depredations are done by a few individuals 
(Jonkel 1980, p. 12; Knight and Judd 1983, p. 188; Anderson et al. 
2002, pp. 252-253).
    The 2016 Conservation Strategy and State grizzly bear management 
plans will guide decisions about agency removals of conflict bears 
post-delisting and keep this source of human-caused mortality within 
the total mortality limits for each age/sex class as per tables 2 and 
3. The 2016 Conservation Strategy is consistent with current protocols 
(USDA FS 1986, pp. 53-54), emphasizing the individual's importance to 
the entire population. Females will continue to receive a higher level 
of protection than males. Location, cause of incident, severity of 
incident, history of the bear, health, age, and sex of the bear, and 
demographic characteristics are all considered in any relocation or 
removal action. Upon delisting, State, Tribal, and NPS bear managers 
will continue to coordinate and consult with each other and relevant 
Federal agencies (i.e., USFS, BLM) about conflict bear relocation and 
removal decisions, but coordination with the Service during each 
incident will no longer be required (50 CFR 17.40). The 2016 
Conservation Strategy emphasizes removal of the human cause of the 
conflict when possible, or management and education action to limit 
such conflicts (YES 2016a, pp. 86-91). In addition, the I&E team will 
continue to coordinate the development, implementation, and 
dissemination of programs and materials to aid in preventative 
management of bear-human conflicts. The 2016 Conservation Strategy 
recognizes that successful management of grizzly bear-human conflicts 
requires an integrated, multi-agency approach to continue to keep 
human-caused grizzly bear mortality within sustainable levels.
    Overall, we consider agency management removals a necessary 
component of grizzly bear conservation. Conflict bears can become a 
threat to human safety and erode public support if they are not 
addressed. Without the support of the people that live, work, and 
recreate in grizzly bear country, conservation will not be successful. 
Therefore, we do not consider management removals a threat to the GYE 
grizzly bear population now, or in the foreseeable future. However, we 
recognize the importance of managing these sanctioned removals within 
sustainable levels, and Federal, Tribal, and State management agencies 
are committed to working with citizens, landowners, and visitors to 
address unsecured attractants to reduce the need for grizzly bear 
removals.
    Humans kill grizzly bears unintentionally in a number of ways. From 
2002 to 2014, there were 34 accidental mortalities and 23 mortalities 
associated with mistaken identification (totaling 18 percent of human-
caused mortality for this time period) (Haroldson 2014b, in litt.; 
Haroldson and Frey 2015, p. 26). Accidental sources of mortality during 
this time included road kills, electrocution, and mortalities 
associated with research trapping by the IGBST. For the first time 
since 1982, there were grizzly bear mortalities possibly associated 
with scientific research capture and handling in 2006. That year, four 
different bears died within 4 days of being captured, most likely from 
clostridium infections but the degraded nature of the carcasses made 
the exact cause of death impossible to determine. Then in 2008, two 
more grizzly bear mortalities suspected of being related to research 
capture and handling occurred. A necropsy was able to confirm the cause 
of death for one of these bears as a clostridium infection at the 
anesthesia injection site. Once the cause of death was confirmed, the 
IGBST changed its

[[Page 30530]]

handling protocol to include antibiotics for each capture (Haroldson 
and Frey 2009, p. 21). There has not been a research-related capture 
mortality since. Because of the IGBST's rigorous protocols and adaptive 
approach dictating proper bear capture, handling, and drugging 
techniques, this type of human-caused mortality is not a threat to the 
GYE grizzly bear population. 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 (Servheen et al. 2004, 
p. 28). Cost-effective mitigation efforts to facilitate safe crossings 
by wildlife will be voluntarily incorporated in highway construction or 
reconstruction projects on Federal lands within suitable grizzly bear 
habitat (YES 2016a, pp. 82-83).
    Mistaken identification of grizzly bears by black bear hunters is a 
manageable source of mortality. The 2016 Conservation Strategy 
identifies I&E programs targeted at hunters that emphasize patience, 
awareness, and correct identification of targets to help reduce grizzly 
bear mortalities from inexperienced black bear and ungulate hunters 
(YES 2016a, pp. 92-95). 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 license (see https://fwp.mt.gov/education/hunter/bearID/ for more information and details). Idaho and 
Wyoming provide a voluntary bear identification test online (MFWP 2013, 
p. 65; WGFD 2016, p. 16). In addition, all three States include grizzly 
bear encounter management as a core subject in basic hunter education 
courses.
    The IGBST prepares annual reports analyzing the causes of 
conflicts, known and probable mortalities, and proposed management 
solutions (Servheen et al. 2004, pp. 1-29). The IGBST will continue to 
use these data to identify where problems occur and compare trends in 
locations, sources, land ownership, and types of conflicts to inform 
proactive management of grizzly bear-human conflicts. As directed by 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy, upon delisting, the IGBST will continue 
to summarize conflict bear control actions in annual reports and the 
YGCC will continue the YES's role reviewing and implementing management 
responses (IGBST 2009, entire; YGCC 2009, entire; YES 2016a, pp. 86-
91). The IGBST and YGCC implemented this adaptive management approach 
when the GYE grizzly bear population was delisted between 2007 and 
2009. After high levels of mortality in 2008, the IGBST provided 
management options to the YGCC about ways to reduce human-caused 
mortality. In fall 2009, the YGCC provided updates on what measures 
they had implemented since the report was released the previous spring. 
These efforts, conducted through I&E and State fish and game agencies, 
included: increased outreach on the value of bear spray; development of 
a comprehensive encounter, conflict, and mortality database; and 
increased agency presence on USFS lands during hunting season. For a 
complete summary of agency responses to the IGBST's recommendations, 
see pages 9-18 of the fall YGCC 2009 meeting minutes (YGCC 2009). 
Because human-caused mortality has been reduced through I&E programs 
(e.g., bear identification education to reduce grizzly bears killed by 
black bear hunters as a result of mistaken identity kills) and 
management of bear removals (e.g., reduction in livestock predation), 
we conclude this source of mortality does not constitute a threat to 
the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, or in the foreseeable future.
    No grizzly bears have been removed from the GYE since 1975 for 
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes. While 
there have been some mortalities related to research trapping since 
1975, these were accidental as discussed above. The only commercial or 
recreational take anticipated post-delisting is a limited, controlled 
hunt, discussed below.
    The population has stabilized inside the DMA since 2002, with the 
model-averaged Chao2 population estimate for 2002-2014 being 674 (95% 
CI = 600-747). This stabilization over 13 years is strong evidence that 
the population is exhibiting density-dependent population regulation 
inside the DMA, and this has recently been documented (van Manen et al. 
2016, entire). The fact that the population inside the DMA has 
stabilized is probably due to density-dependent effects and is further 
evidence that the population has achieved recovery within the DMA.
    Accordingly, the agencies implementing the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy have decided that the population in the DMA will be managed to 
maintain the population around the long-term average population size 
for 2002-2014 of 674 (95% CI = 600-747) (using the model-averaged Chao2 
population estimate), consistent with the revised demographic recovery 
criteria (USFWS 2017, entire) and the Tri-State Memorandum of Agreement 
(MOA) (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission et al. 2016). The population 
inside the DMA has stabilized at this population size, and density-
dependent regulation may be a contributing factor (van Manen et al. 
2016, entire). The model-averaged Chao2 population estimator will be 
used by the IGBST to annually estimate population size inside the DMA 
(in their entirety: Wyoming Game and Fish Commission et al. 2016; YES 
2016a), as this currently represents the best available science. To 
achieve a population in the DMA that remains around the 2002-2014 
average of 674, total mortality is limited to <7.6 percent for 
independent females when the population is at or below 674, with higher 
mortality limits when the population is higher than 674 (as per tables 
2 and 3). A total mortality rate of 7.6 percent for independent females 
is the mortality level that the best available science shows results in 
population stability (IGBST 2012, entire). Annual estimates of 
population size in the DMA will be derived each fall by the IGBST from 
the model-averaged Chao2 estimate of females with cubs-of-the-year 
(i.e., the model-averaged Chao2 population estimate). These annual 
estimates will normally vary as in any wild animal population. The 
annual model-averaged Chao2 population estimate for a given year within 
the DMA will be used to set the total mortality limits from all causes 
for the DMA for the following year as per tables 2 and 3. Mortalities 
will be managed on a sliding scale within the DMA as set forth in table 
2.
    When this final rule is made effective, grizzly bears will be 
classified as a game species throughout the GYE DPS boundaries outside 
National Parks and the WWR in the States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho 
(W.S. 23-1-101 (a)(xii)(A); MCA 87-2-101 (4); IC 36-2-1; IDAPA 
13.01.06.100.01(e); Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory 
Team 2002, pp. 18-21; MFWP 2013, p. 6; Eastern Shoshone and Northern 
Arapahoe Tribes 2009, p. 9; WGFD 2016, p. 9; YES 2016a, pp. 104-116). 
While the States may choose to institute a carefully regulated hunt 
with ecosystem-wide coordinated total mortality limits (Wyoming Game 
and Fish Commission et al. 2016, p. 5; YES 2016a, p. 46), we do not 
expect grizzly bear trapping to occur due to public safety 
considerations and the precedent that there has never been public 
grizzly bear trapping in the modern era. The States of Montana, Idaho, 
and Wyoming do not permit public trapping of any bears currently, and 
there is no information to indicate they will begin. Public trapping is 
not identified as a possible management tool in any of their State 
management plans. Even if the States were to allow trapping in the

[[Page 30531]]

future, the mortality limits would apply, as described in table 3. 
Hunting on the WRR will be at the discretion of the Tribes and only be 
available to Tribal members (Title XVI Fish and Game Code, Eastern 
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2009, p. 9). The NPS will not 
allow grizzly bear hunting within National Park boundaries. Within the 
DMA (see figure 1), the NPS, the MFWP, the WGFD, the IDFG, and the 
Tribes of the WRR will manage total mortality to ensure all recovery 
criteria continue to be met.

                          Table 3--Framework To Manage Mortality Limits Inside the DMA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Management framework                              Background and application protocol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Area within which mortality                     49,928 km\2\ (19,279 mi\2\) DMA (see figure 1).
 limits apply.
2. 2016 Conservation Strategy Goal/     To ensure the continuation of a recovered grizzly bear population in
 Recovery Criteria.                  accordance with the established Recovery Criteria. See Demographic Recovery
                                         Criteria in the Recovery Planning and Implementation section, above.
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Population estimator...........  The model-averaged Chao2 population estimator will be used as the population
                                        measurement tool for the foreseeable future. The model-averaged Chao2
                                            population estimate for 2002-2014 was 674 (95% CI = 600-747).
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Mortality limit setting           Each fall the IGBST will annually produce a model-averaged Chao2 population
 protocol.                             estimate for the DMA. That population estimate will be used to establish
                                         the total mortality limit percentages for each age/sex class for the
                                                    following year as per #8, #9, and #10 (below).
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Allocation process for managed     As per the Tri-State MOA, the States* will meet annually in the month of
 mortalities.                             January to review population monitoring data supplied by IGBST and
                                      collectively establish discretionary mortality within the total mortality
                                          limits per age/sex class available for regulated harvest for each
                                      jurisdiction (MT, ID, WY) in the DMA, so DMA thresholds are not exceeded.
                                       If requested, the WRR will receive a portion of the available mortality
                                       limit based on the percentage of the WRR geographic area within the DMA.
                                     Mortalities outside the DMA are the responsibility of each State and do not
                                                        count against total mortality limits.
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. State regulatory mechanisms        For specific State regulatory mechanisms, please see the discussion below
 specific to discretionary sport        regarding the Tri-State MOA and State regulations for ID, MT, and WY.
 take.
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Management review by the IGBST.   A demographic review will be conducted by the IGBST every 5 to 10 years at
                                         the direction of the YGCC. This management review will assess if the
                                       management system is achieving the desired goal of ensuring a recovered
                                          grizzly bear population in accordance with recovery criteria. The
                                      management review is a science-based process that will be led by the IGBST
                                       (which includes all State and Federal agencies and the WRR Tribes) using
                                     all recent available scientific data to assess population numbers and trend
                                      against the recovery criteria. Age/sex-specific survival and reproductive
                                      rates will also be reevaluated using the most recent data to adjust total
                                                            mortality levels as necessary.
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Total mortality limit % for      Pop. Size **................           <=674         675-747            >747
 independent FEMALES.               Mort. %.....................           <7.6%              9%             10%
9. Total mortality limit % for      Pop. Size **................           <=674         675-747            >747
 independent MALES.                 Mort. %.....................             15%             20%             22%
10. Total mortality limit % for     Pop. Size **................           <=674         675-747            >747
 dependent young.                   Mort. %.....................           <7.6%              9%             10%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The States will confer with the NPS, the USFS, and the BLM annually and will invite representatives of both
  GYE National Parks, the NPS regional office, the GYE USFS Forest Supervisors, and a representative from the
  BLM to attend the annual meeting.
** Using the model-averaged Chao2 estimate.

    The States have enacted the following regulatory mechanisms by law 
and regulations that address human-caused mortality, including 
mortality from hunting. The State regulatory mechanisms include: 
Grizzly Bear Management Hunting Regulations; Wyoming Game and Fish 
Commission Chapter 67 Grizzly Bear Management Regulation; Proclamation 
of the Idaho Fish and Game Relating to the Limit of the Take of Grizzly 
Bear in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem; Montana Fish, Wildlife & 
Parks Grizzly Bear Montana Hunting Regulations; and the Memorandum of 
Agreement Regarding the Management and Allocation of Discretionary 
Mortality of Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (the 
Tri-State MOA) (in their entirety: Idaho Fish and Game Commission 2016; 
MFWP 2016; Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission Resolution, July 13, 
2016, pp. 753-761; approving the Tri-State MOA; Wyoming Game and Fish 
Commission 2016; Wyoming Game and Fish Commission et al. 2016). These 
regulatory mechanisms include:
     Suspend all discretionary mortality inside the DMA, except 
if required for human safety, if the model-averaged

[[Page 30532]]

Chao2 population estimate falls below 600 (Montana Fish and Wildlife 
Commission Resolution, July 13, 2016, pp. 753-761; approving the Tri-
State MOA; Tri-State MOA: Section IV(2)(c)(i), Section IV (2)(a)(i); 
Chapter 67 of WY Game and Commission Regulations: Section 4(c); Idaho 
Fish and Game Commission Proclamation: Section 2);
     Suspend grizzly bear hunting inside the DMA if total 
mortality limits for any sex/age class (as per tables 2 and 3) are met 
at any time during the year (Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission 
Resolution, July 13, 2016, pp. 753-761; approving the Tri-State MOA; 
Tri-State MOA: Section IV(2)(c), Section IV(4)(a), Section IV(6); 
Chapter 67 of WY Game and Commission Regulations: Section 4(d); Idaho 
Fish and Game Commission Proclamation: Section 5);
     Prohibit hunting of female grizzly bears accompanied by 
young (Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission Resolution, July 13, 2016, 
pp. 753-761; approving the Tri-State MOA; Tri-State MOA: Section 
IV(4)(b); MT State Hunting Regulations pp. 4, 7; Chapter 67 of WY Game 
and Commission Regulations: Section 4(e); Idaho Fish and Game 
Commission Proclamation: Section 4);
     In a given year, discretionary mortality will be allowed 
only if non-discretionary mortality does not meet or exceed total 
mortality limits for that year (Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission 
Resolution, July 13, 2016, pp. 753-761; approving the Tri-State MOA; 
Tri-State MOA: Section IV(2)(c), Section IV(4)(a), Section IV(6); 
Chapter 67 of WY Game and Commission Regulations: Section 4(d), Section 
4(k); Idaho Fish and Game Commission Proclamation: Section 5); and
     Any mortality that exceeds allowable total mortality 
limits in any year will be subtracted from that age/sex class allowable 
total mortality limit for the following year to ensure that long-term 
mortality levels remain within prescribed limits inside the DMA 
(Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission Resolution, July 13, 2016; 
approving the Tri-State MOA; Tri-State MOA: Section IV(2)(c); Chapter 
67 of WY Game and Commission Regulations: Section 4(g), Section 4(k), 
and Section 4(l); Idaho Fish and Game Proclamation: Section 6).
    The Tri-State MOA was signed by Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming 
wildlife agencies in July/August 2016. In it, the three States commit 
to manage grizzly bears consistent with the 2007 Conservation Strategy 
and all revisions associated with delisting (which includes the 2016 
Conservation Strategy approved by all three States), to use the best 
science to collectively manage grizzly bears, and to manage 
discretionary mortality consistent with the model-average Chao2 
population estimate from 2002 to 2014. The Service believes the Tri-
State MOA will be implemented because all parties have approved it. In 
addition to their signatures on the MOA, the States have either adopted 
the entire MOA or key parts of it via regulatory mechanisms. The Idaho 
Fish and Game Commission adopted a proclamation agreeing to the MOA 
mortality limits (Idaho Fish and Game Commission 2016; Trever 2017, in 
litt.). Montana adopted the Tri-State MOA by resolution (Resolution of 
the Montana Fish and Game Commission, July 13, 2016, pp. 753-761). 
Wyoming regulations require Wyoming to coordinate management of grizzly 
bears in the DMA through the Tri-State MOA (Wyo. Code R. Ch. 67, 
Section 4(k)).
    The States' authorities to implement important aspects of the Tri-
State MOA are set forth in Attachment B of the Tri-State MOA. These 
regulatory mechanisms include the authority to suspend hunting seasons, 
prohibit the take of females with young, and to enact emergency 
closures for other reasons, e.g., mortality, habitat changes. State 
staffing and funding are expected to be consistent with the State's 
long-term track records of effectively managing other big game species. 
The Service believes the Tri-State MOA will be effective because it 
implements population goals, including mortality limits, set forth in 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy. These objectives are based on 
successful management criteria from the 2007 Conservation Strategy, and 
are largely responsible for stable to increasing populations within the 
GYE. The States also have a strong incentive to manage within the 
recovery criteria to maintain management flexibility to respond to 
conflict bears. As reflected in the Tri-State MOA, if the grizzly bear 
population estimate falls below 600, discretionary mortality (including 
conflict bears) is prohibited, unless necessary for human safety.
    In addition to the regulatory mechanism above, the IGBST will 
complete a Biology and Monitoring Review to evaluate the impacts of 
these total mortality levels on the population and present it to the 
YGCC and the public if any of the following conditions are met: (1) 
Exceeding independent female mortality limits in 3 consecutive years, 
or (2) exceeding independent male mortality limits in 3 consecutive 
years, or (3) exceeding dependent young mortality limits in 3 
consecutive years (YES 2016a, pp. 100-102). The States will coordinate 
via the Tri-State MOA to manage total mortalities within the DMA to be 
within the age/sex mortality limits as per tables 2 and 3.
    The number of grizzly bears available for discretionary mortality 
in a given year is based on the model-averaged Chao2 population 
estimate inside the DMA from the previous year, the total annual 
allowable mortality rate (see table 2), the total annual allowable 
mortality numbers, and the non-discretionary mortality from the 
previous year. Total annual allowable mortality numbers are calculated 
each year by multiplying the total annual mortality rate by the size of 
each sex/age cohort, which varies with population size, from the 
previous year. Total mortality includes documented known and probable 
grizzly bear mortalities from all causes, including but not limited to: 
management removals, illegal kills, mistaken identity kills, self-
defense kills, vehicle kills, natural mortalities, undetermined-cause 
mortalities, grizzly bear hunting, and a statistical estimate of the 
number of unknown/unreported mortalities (Cherry et al. 2002). The 
number of non-discretionary mortalities for independent females and 
males from the previous year will then be subtracted from the total 
number of allowable mortalities for the most recent population estimate 
resulting in the number of independent female and male bears available 
for discretionary mortality (hunting allocation or management 
removals). If the previous year's total mortality exceeded total 
allowable mortality, then any exceedance will be subtracted from 
allowable discretionary mortality for the current year. The example 
(table 4) serves to demonstrate how the expected number of bears 
available for hunting mortality will be calculated and the number of 
independent female and male bears available for hunting inside the DMA.

[[Page 30533]]



 Table 4--Example Calculation of Allowable Total Annual Mortality Inside
    the DMA and Expected Number of Independent Female and Male Bears
Available for Hunting Inside the DMA in 2016 Based on the 2015 Estimated
     Population Size of 717 and Mortality That Occurred During 2015
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Independent     Independent
                                              females          males
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Size of sex/age cohort at this                       250             250
 population size from 2015..............
Total annual mortality rate.............              9%             20%
Allowable total annual mortality number               22              50
 for 2016...............................
Non-discretionary mortality from 2015                 22              19
 (to be subtracted).....................
Exceedance of total mortality resulting                3               0
 from discretionary actions, if any,
 from 2015 (to be subtracted)...........
Bears available for discretionary                      0              31
 mortality (hunting or management
 removals) inside the DMA for 2016......
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This example serves to explain the process that the States will use 
to determine allowable discretionary mortality. State fish and wildlife 
agencies, or their Wildlife Commissions, have discretion to determine 
whether they intend to propose a grizzly bear hunting season in any 
year and, if so, how much discretionary mortality they will authorize 
to allocate to discretionary mortality while remaining within the 
limits that maintain a recovered population.
    Other regulations, such as timing and location of hunting seasons, 
should seasons be implemented, would be devised by the States to 
minimize the possibility of exceeding total mortality limits of 
independent females within the DMA (Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear 
Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. 20; MFWP 2013, p. 61; WGFD 2016, p. 
16).
    To ensure that the distribution criterion (16 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) is maintained, the IGBST will annually monitor and 
report the current distribution of reproducing females. If the 
necessary distribution of reproducing females is not met for 3 
consecutive years, the IGBST will complete a Biology and Monitoring 
Review to evaluate the impacts of reduced distribution of reproducing 
females on the population and present it to the YGCC. This Biology and 
Monitoring Review will consider the significance of the reduced 
distribution of reproducing females and make recommendations to 
increase their current distribution as necessary.
    The Service will initiate a formal status review and could 
emergency re-list the GYE grizzly bear population until the formal 
status review is complete under any of the following conditions:
    (1) If there are any changes in Federal, State, or Tribal laws, 
rules, regulations, or management plans that depart significantly from 
the specifics of population or habitat management detailed in this 
final rule or the 2016 Conservation Strategy that would significantly 
increase the threat to the GYE grizzly bear population. The Service 
will promptly conduct such an evaluation of any change in a State or 
Federal agency's regulatory mechanisms to determine if such a change 
represents a threat to the GYE grizzly bear population. As the Service 
has done for the Rocky Mountain DPS of gray wolf, such an evaluation 
will be documented for the record and acted upon if necessary.
    (2) If the population falls below 500 in any year using the model-
averaged Chao2 population estimator, or counts of females with cubs-of-
the-year fall below 48 for 3 consecutive years.
    (3) If fewer than 16 of 18 bear management units are occupied by 
females with young for 3 consecutive 6-year sums of observations. 
Monitoring and status review provisions are discussed in detail later 
in this final rule.
    In areas of the GYE grizzly bear DPS outside the DMA boundaries, 
respective States and Tribes may establish hunting seasons independent 
of the total mortality limits inside the DMA. Hunting mortality outside 
the DMA boundary would not threaten the GYE grizzly bear DPS because 
total mortality limits are in place as per tables 2 and 3 for the 
source population within the DMA boundary.
    To increase the likelihood of occasional genetic interchange 
between the GYE grizzly bear population and the NCDE grizzly bear 
population, the State of Montana has indicated they will manage 
discretionary mortality in this area in order to retain the opportunity 
for natural movements of bears between ecosystems (MFWP 2013, p. 9). 
Maintaining the presence of non-conflict grizzly bears in areas between 
the NCDE management area and the DMA of the GYE, such as the Tobacco 
Root and Highland Mountains, would likely facilitate periodic grizzly 
bear movements between the NCDE and GYE.
    To ensure total mortality rates remain consistent with population 
objectives after delisting, the IGBST will conduct a demographic review 
of population vital rates (table 3, item #7) at least every 5 to 10 
years for the foreseeable future. The results of these reviews will be 
used to make appropriate adjustments to ensure that the population 
remains recovered in accordance with the recovery criteria. The 5- to 
10-year time interval was selected based on life-history 
characteristics of bears and methodologies in order to obtain estimates 
with acceptable levels of uncertainty and statistical rigor (Harris et 
al. 2011, p. 29).
    In the period 2002-2014, 76 percent of known or probable grizzly 
bear mortalities in the GYE DMA (311/410) were human-caused (Haroldson 
2014b, in litt.; Haroldson and Frey 2015, p. 26). Human-caused 
mortalities of independent female grizzly bears have increased 
gradually each year; however, human-caused mortality of these females 
as a proportion of the estimated population size (i.e., mortality rate) 
has remained relatively constant in the fall when bears are at an 
increased risk of conflicts involving hunters (van Manen 2015, in 
litt.). Overall, human-caused mortality rates have been low enough to 
allow the GYE grizzly bear population to increase in numbers and range 
(Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 64-66; Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48; 
Bjornlie et al. 2014a, p. 184). Total mortality limits and State 
regulations to manage within agreed-upon limits as per tables 2 and 3 
will ensure that mortality will continue to be managed at levels that 
avoid persistent population decline. Therefore, we conclude that human-
caused mortality does not constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear 
DPS now, or in the foreseeable future.
Disease
    Although grizzly bears have been documented with a variety of 
bacteria

[[Page 30534]]

and other pathogens, parasites, and disease, fatalities are uncommon 
(LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 61) and do not appear to have population-level 
impacts on grizzly bears (Jonkel and Cowan 1971, pp. 31-32; Mundy and 
Flook 1973, p. 13; Rogers and Rogers 1976, p. 423). Researchers have 
found grizzly bears with brucellosis (type 4), clostridium, 
toxoplasmosis, canine distemper, canine parvovirus, canine hepatitis, 
and rabies (LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 61; Zarnke and Evans 1989, p. 586; 
Marsilio et al. 1997, p. 304; Zarnke et al. 1997, p. 474). However, 
based on nearly 40 years of research by the IGBST, natural mortalities 
in the wild due to disease have never been documented (IGBST 2005, pp. 
34-35; Craighead et al. 1988, pp. 24-84). Based on this absence in more 
than 50 years of data, we conclude that mortalities due to bacteria, 
pathogens, or disease are negligible components of total mortality in 
the GYE and are likely to remain an insignificant factor in population 
dynamics into the foreseeable future. Therefore, we conclude that this 
source of mortality does not constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly 
bear DPS now or in the foreseeable future.
Natural Predation
    Grizzly bears are occasionally killed by other wildlife. Adult 
grizzly bears kill dependent young, subadults, or other adults 
(Stringham 1980, p. 337; Dean et al. 1986, pp. 208-211; Hessing and 
Aumiller 1994, pp. 332-335; McLellan 1994, p. 15; Schwartz et al. 2003, 
pp. 571-572). This type of intraspecific killing seems to occur rarely 
(Stringham 1980, p. 337) and has only been observed among grizzly bears 
in the GYE 28 times between 1986 and 2012 (Haroldson 2014b, in litt.). 
Wolves and grizzly bears often scavenge similar types of carrion and, 
sometimes, will interact with each other in an aggressive manner. Since 
wolves were reintroduced into the GYE in 1995, we know of 339 wolf-
grizzly bear interactions with 6 incidents in which wolf packs likely 
killed grizzly bear cubs-of-the-year and 2 incidents in which wolves 
likely killed adult female grizzly bears (Gunther and Smith 2004, pp. 
233-236; Gunther 2014, in litt.). Overall, these types of aggressive 
interactions among grizzly bears or with other wildlife are rare and 
are likely to remain an insignificant factor in population dynamics 
into the foreseeable future. Therefore, we conclude this source of 
mortality does not constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, 
or in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factors B and C Combined
    In summary, the following factors warranted consideration as 
possible threats to the GYE grizzly bear DPS under Factors B and C 
Combined: (1) Human-caused mortality, including legal hunting; (2) 
natural disease; and (3) natural predation. Both natural disease and 
natural predation are rare occurrences and, therefore, are not 
considered a threat to the GYE grizzly bear population. Human-caused 
mortality includes legal hunting, illegal kills, defense of life and 
property mortality, accidental mortality, and management removals. I&E 
programs reduce human-caused mortality by: (1) Changing human 
perceptions and beliefs about grizzly bears; (2) educating 
recreationists and hunters on how to avoid encounters and conflicts, 
how to react during a bear encounter, use of bear spray, and proper 
food storage; and (3) educating black bear hunters on bear 
identification.
    Overall, from 2002 to 2014, the GYE grizzly bear population 
incurred an average of 23.9 human-caused mortalities per year 
(Haroldson 2014b, in litt.; Haroldson and Frey 2015, p. 26). Despite 
these mortalities, the GYE grizzly bear population has continued to 
increase in size and expand its current distribution (Pyare et al. 
2004, pp. 5-6; Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 64-66; Schwartz et al. 2006b, 
p. 48; IGBST 2012, p. 34; Bjornlie et al. 2014a, p. 184). Although 
humans are still directly or indirectly responsible for the majority of 
grizzly bear deaths, this source of mortality is effectively mitigated 
through science-based management, monitoring, and outreach efforts. The 
agencies have institutionalized the careful management and monitoring 
of human-caused mortality through the 2016 Conservation Strategy, 
National Forest and National Park management plans, State grizzly bear 
management plans, and State wildlife commission rules and regulations 
(Idaho Fish and Game Commission 2016; MFWP 2016; Wyoming Game and Fish 
Commission 2016; Wyoming Game and Fish Commission et al. 2016; YES 
2016a). Because a section 4(d) rule (50 CFR 17.40(b)) currently allows 
grizzly bears to be killed in self-defense, defense of others, or by 
agency removal of conflict bears, management of human-caused mortality 
post-delisting will not differ significantly once protections of the 
Act are no longer in place.
    If grizzly bear hunting occurs, hunting mortality would be within 
the total mortality limits for independent females and males noted in 
tables 2 and 3 that ensure the population remains recovered within the 
DMA as measured by adherence to total mortality limits and annual 
population estimates. Hunting will not occur if other sources of 
mortality exceed the total mortality limits (see table 3). The States 
have incorporated the total mortality limits for each age/sex class 
based on annual IGBST model-averaged Chao2 population estimates set 
forth in table 2 in the Tri-State MOA and State regulations (Idaho Fish 
and Game Commission 2016; MFWP 2016; Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 
2016; Wyoming Game and Fish Commission et al. 2016). The States have 
also implemented laws and regulations that will guide management 
responses to any departures from total mortality limits for independent 
females, independent males, and dependent young to maintain the 
population inside the DMA around the average population size from 2002-
2014 (Idaho Fish and Game Commission 2016; MFWP 2016; Wyoming Game and 
Fish Commission 2016; Wyoming Game and Fish Commission et al. 2016). In 
addition, the State of Montana will manage discretionary mortality in 
the area between the GYE and the NCDE in order to retain the 
opportunity for natural movements of bears between ecosystems (MFWP 
2013, p. 14).
    In addition, as discussed above, the Service will initiate a status 
review with possible emergency re-listing pursuant to the Act if: (1) 
There are any changes in Federal, State, or Tribal laws, rules, 
regulations, or management plans that depart significantly from the 
specifics of population or habitat management detailed in this final 
rule or the 2016 Conservation Strategy that would significantly 
increase the threat to the GYE grizzly bear population. The Service 
will promptly conduct such an evaluation of any change in a State or 
Federal agencies change in regulatory mechanisms to determine if such a 
change represents a threat to the GYE grizzly bear population. As the 
Service has done for the Rocky Mountain DPS of gray wolf, such an 
evaluation will be documented for the record and acted upon if 
necessary; or (2) the population falls below 500 in any year using the 
model-averaged Chao2 population estimator, or counts of females with 
cubs-of-the-year fall below 48 for 3 consecutive years; or (3) fewer 
than 16 of 18 bear management units are occupied by females with young 
for 3 consecutive 6-year sums of observations.
    These commitments have been implemented into regulations and 
ameliorate impacts related to potential commercial and recreational 
hunting

[[Page 30535]]

such that hunting will not threaten the GYE grizzly bear DPS in the 
foreseeable future. In addition to State laws and regulations, the 
IGBST will conduct a demographic review of the population vital rates 
every 5 to 10 years on which allowable total mortality limits are based 
to ensure adherence to the population objective. We consider the 
regulatory commitment by State and Federal agencies outlined above to 
reasonably ensure conservation of the GYE grizzly bear DPS.
    Therefore, based on the best available scientific and commercial 
information, detailed State and Federal regulatory and other 
commitments, application of mortality management detailed in this final 
rule and the 2016 Conservation Strategy, and the expectation that these 
bear management practices will continue into the foreseeable future, we 
conclude that natural disease, predation, and human-caused mortality do 
not constitute threats to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now and are not 
anticipated to constitute threats in the foreseeable future.

D. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

    Under this factor, we examine the stressors identified within the 
other factors as ameliorated or exacerbated by any existing regulatory 
mechanism or conservation effort designed to address threats to a 
species or pertain to the overall State management of a species. 
Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires that the Service take into 
account ``those efforts, if any, being made by any State or foreign 
nation, or any political subdivision of a State or foreign nation, to 
protect such species. . . .'' We consider relevant Federal, State, and 
Tribal laws, regulations, and other binding legal mechanisms that may 
ameliorate or exacerbate any of the threats we describe in threat 
analyses under the other four factors or otherwise enhance the species' 
conservation. Our consideration of regulatory mechanisms is described 
in detail within the discussion of each of the threats or stressors to 
the species (see discussion under each of the other Factors).
    The following existing regulatory mechanisms are specifically 
considered and discussed as they relate to the stressors, under the 
applicable Factors, affecting the GYE grizzly bear DPS. Under Factor A:
     2006 Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat 
Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests,
     Wilderness Act of 1964, the 2001 Roadless Rule, and
     YNP and GTNP Compendia implemented under the National Park 
Service Organic Act. The Organic Act of 1916, 16 U.S.C. Section 1, 
created the NPS and assigned it the responsibility to manage the 
national parks. The Organic Act requires the NPS to manage park units 
to conserve scenery, natural and historic objects within parks, and 
wildlife, and to provide for their enjoyment in a manner that leaves 
them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.
Under Factors B and C Combined
     State of Idaho Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Management Plan,
     Proclamation of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission 
Relating to the Limit of the Take of Grizzly Bear in the Greater 
Yellowstone Ecosystem,
     Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Southwestern Montana,
     Montana Hunting Regulations for Grizzly Bear,
     Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission Resolution approving 
the Tri-State MOA (July 13, 2016),
     Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management Plan,
     Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Chapter 67 Grizzly Bear 
Management Regulation, and
     Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the Management and 
Allocation of Discretionary Mortality of Grizzly Bears in the GYE.
    Therefore, based on the best available information and on 
continuation of current regulatory commitment, we do not consider 
inadequate regulatory mechanisms to constitute a threat to the GYE 
grizzly bear DPS now or in the foreseeable future.

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Its Continued Existence

    Factor E requires the Service to consider other natural or manmade 
factors affecting the continued existence of a species. Here, five 
other considerations warrant additional discussion regarding the GYE 
grizzly bear DPS: Effects due to: (1) Genetic health; (2) changes in 
food resources; (3) climate change; (4) catastrophic events; and (5) 
human attitudes toward grizzly bear conservation.
Genetic Health
    The isolated nature of the GYE grizzly bear population was 
identified as a potential threat when listing occurred in 1975. 
Declines in genetic diversity are expected in isolated populations 
(Allendorf et al. 1991, p. 651; Burgman et al. 1993, p. 220). For the 
GYE grizzly bear population, decreases in genetic diversity would occur 
gradually over decades due to long generational time and relatively 
large population size (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). Indicators of 
fitness in the GYE grizzly bear population demonstrate that the current 
levels of genetic diversity are capable of supporting healthy 
reproductive and survival rates, as evidenced by normal litter size, no 
evidence of disease, high survivorship, an equal sex ratio, normal body 
size and physical characteristics, and a relatively constant population 
size within the DMA (van Manen 2016a, in litt.). These indicators of 
fitness will be monitored annually for the foreseeable future. Because 
current levels of genetic diversity are adequate and heterozygosity 
values have increased slightly over the last few decades from 0.55 
(Paetkau et al. 1998, p. 421), to 0.56 (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 
4337), to 0.60 using more recent data and larger sample sizes 
(Haroldson et al. 2010, p. 7), we know there is no immediate need for 
new genetic material (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). Heterozygosity 
is a measure of genetic diversity, which when low can negatively impact 
demographic rates and reduce the species' ability to respond to 
environmental change.
    Effective population size is a metric used by geneticists to 
distinguish between total population size and the actual number of 
individuals available to reproduce at any given time. For example, many 
individuals in a population may be too young to reproduce and, 
therefore, are not part of the ``effective population size.'' For 
short-term fitness (i.e., evolutionary response), the effective 
population size of the GYE grizzly bear population should remain above 
100 animals (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). In grizzly bears, Miller 
and Waits (2003, p. 4337) reported that an effective population size is 
approximately 25 to 27 percent of total population size, so an 
effective population size of 100 corresponds to a total population size 
of about 400 animals. However, reported ratios of effective population 
size to census size for grizzly bear populations vary widely from 0.04 
to 0.6 (Paetkau et al. 1998; Miller and Waits 2003; Schregel et al. 
2012). The ratio of effective population size to census size of 0.42 
reported by Kamath et al. (2015) falls towards the upper middle of that 
range and most likely reflects the underestimation bias of the Chao2 
population estimator.
    To further ensure this minimum number of animals in the population 
necessary for genetic health is always maintained, the revised 
demographic recovery criteria as well as the 2016

[[Page 30536]]

Conservation Strategy established a standard to maintain the total 
population size above 500 animals to ensure short-term genetic fitness 
(YES 2016a, pp. 33-53; USFWS 2017, pp. 2-3). Recent work (Kamath et al. 
2015, p. 5512) demonstrates that the effective population size 
(Ne) of the GYE population has increased from 102 (95% CI = 
64-207) in 1982, to 469 (95% CI= 284-772) in 2010. The current 
effective population is more than four times the minimum effective 
population size suggested in the literature (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 
4338).
    While this current estimated effective population size of 
approximately 469 animals (Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5512) is adequate to 
maintain genetic health in this population, 1 to 2 effective migrants 
from other grizzly bear populations every 10 years would maintain or 
enhance this level of genetic diversity and, therefore, ensure genetic 
health in the long term (Mills and Allendorf 1996, pp. 1510, 1516; 
Newman and Tallmon 2001, pp. 1059-1061; Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338) 
and benefit its long-term persistence (Boyce et al. 2001, pp. 25, 26; 
Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5517). We have defined an effective migrant as 
an individual that immigrates into an isolated population from a 
separate area, survives, breeds, and whose offspring survive.
    Based on Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338), the 2007 Conservation 
Strategy recommended that if no movement or successful genetic 
interchange was detected by 2020, grizzly bears from the NCDE would be 
translocated into the GYE grizzly bear population to achieve the goal 
of two effective migrants every 10 years (i.e., one generation) to 
maintain current levels of genetic diversity (USFWS 2007c, p. 37). In 
light of new information in Kamath et al. (2015, entire) documenting 
stable levels of heterozygosity and a current effective population size 
of 469 animals (Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5512), the deadline of 2020 for 
translocation is no longer contained in the 2016 Conservation Strategy. 
As stated by Kamath et al. (2015, p. 5517), the current effective 
population size is sufficiently large to avoid substantial accumulation 
of inbreeding depression, thereby reducing concerns regarding genetic 
factors affecting the viability of GYE grizzly bears. However, the 
Service recognizes that the long-term viability of the GYE grizzly bear 
population will benefit from occasional gene flow from nearby grizzly 
bear populations like that in the NCDE. Thus, efforts will continue to 
facilitate occasional movement of male bears between the NCDE and GYE 
(WGFD 2016, p. 13).
    To increase the likelihood of occasional genetic interchange 
between the GYE grizzly bear population and the NCDE grizzly bear 
population, the State of Montana has indicated they will manage 
discretionary mortality in this area in order to retain the opportunity 
for natural movements of bears between ecosystems. Translocation of 
bears between these ecosystems will be a last resort and will be 
implemented only if there are demonstrated effects of lowered 
heterozygosity among GYE grizzly bears or other genetic measures that 
indicate a decrease in genetic diversity, as monitored by the IGBST 
(WGFD 2016, p. 13).
    To document natural connectivity between the GYE and the NCDE, 
Federal and State agencies will continue to monitor bear movements on 
the northern periphery of the GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries and the 
southern edges of the NCDE using radio-telemetry and will collect 
genetic samples from all captured or dead bears to document possible 
gene flow between these two ecosystems (YES 2016a, pp. 51-53). These 
genetic samples will detect migrants using an ``assignment test'' to 
identify the area from which individuals are most likely to have 
originated based on their unique genetic signature (Paetkau et al. 
1995, p. 348; Waser and Strobeck 1998, p. 43; Paetkau et al. 2004, p. 
56; Proctor et al. 2005, pp. 2410-2412). This technique also identifies 
bears that may be the product of reproduction between GYE and NCDE 
grizzly bears (Dixon et al. 2006, p. 158). In addition to monitoring 
for gene flow and movements, the signatories to the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy will continue interagency efforts to provide and maintain 
movement opportunities for grizzly bears, and reestablish natural 
connectivity and gene flow between the GYE grizzly bear DPS and other 
grizzly bear populations. To promote natural connectivity, there are 
attractant storage rules on public lands between the GYE and other 
grizzly bear Recovery Zones in the NCDE and Bitterroot to minimize the 
grizzly bear-human conflicts. We do not consider connectivity to the 
east, west, or south a relevant issue to the GYE grizzly bear 
population's long-term persistence because there are no extant 
populations in these directions to enhance the genetic diversity of the 
GYE population. However, we recognize the GYE grizzly bear population 
could be a possible source population to re-colonize the Bitterroot 
Ecosystem to the west.
    In summary, genetic concerns are not currently a threat to the GYE 
grizzly bear population (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338; Kamath et al. 
2015, entire). Attractant storage orders on public lands, through a 
reduction in conflict situations, and careful regulation of hunting in 
key connectivity areas provide adequate measures to promote natural 
connectivity and prevent reductions in genetic diversity. The IGBST 
will carefully monitor movements and the presence of alleles from 
grizzly bear populations outside the GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries 
(YES 2016a, pp. 51-53). The IGBST will continue to monitor genetic 
diversity of the GYE grizzly bear population so that a possible 
reduction in genetic diversity due to the geographic isolation of the 
GYE grizzly bear population will be detected and responded to 
accordingly with translocation of outside grizzly bears into the GYE. 
This approach ensures that long-term genetic diversity is not a 
continued threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS. Therefore, based on the 
best available scientific information, we conclude that genetic 
diversity does not constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, 
nor is it anticipated to in the foreseeable future.
Changes in Food Resources
    A comprehensive study of the GYE grizzly bear diet documented over 
266 distinct plant and animal species ranging from grasses, fungi, 
berries, and seeds, to fish, carrion, and other meat sources (e.g., 
young and weakened animals). Monitoring foods comprising such a diverse 
diet is challenging, which is why efforts have focused on four foods 
with relatively high energetic value and for which abundance (or use by 
bears) is relatively easy to measure. The IGBST currently monitors the 
productivity or grizzly bear use of four grizzly bear foods in the GYE: 
Whitebark pine seeds, army cutworm moths, ungulates, and spawning 
cutthroat trout. While these are some of the highest calorie food 
sources available to grizzly bears in the GYE (Mealey 1975, pp. 84-86; 
Pritchard and Robbins 1990, p. 1647; Craighead et al. 1995, pp. 247-
252), only whitebark pine seeds are known to have an influence on 
grizzly bear mortality risk and reproduction. There is no known 
relationship between grizzly bear mortality risk or reproduction and 
any other individual food (Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 662).
    Grizzly bears consume elk and bison as winter-killed carrion in the 
early spring, kill calves opportunistically, consume hunter-killed 
carcasses or gut piles, and prey upon adults weakened during the fall 
breeding season. Ungulate populations are threatened by brucellosis 
(Brucella abortus) and resulting management practices

[[Page 30537]]

resulting in bison removal, chronic wasting disease (CWD), competition 
with other top predators for ungulates, and decreasing winter severity. 
Brucellosis does not affect bison as a food source for grizzly bears, 
and the subsequent removal program is managed to ``maintain a wild, 
free-ranging population of bison'' (USDOI NPS and USDA Animal and Plant 
Health Inspection Service 2000, p. 22). CWD is fatal to deer and elk 
but has not been detected in the GYE, and, as transmission is density-
dependent (Schauber and Woolf 2003, pp. 611-612), CWD would not result 
in local extinction of deer or elk populations. The availability of 
ungulate carcasses is not anticipated to be impacted by either of these 
diseases such that they are a threat to the GYE grizzly bear population 
now or in the foreseeable future. The reintroduction of gray wolves 
(Canis lupus) to the GYE in 1995 has created competition between 
grizzly bears and wolves for carrion; however, there has been no 
documentation of negative influence on the GYE grizzly bear population 
(Servheen and Knight 1993, p. 36). Decreasing winter severity and 
length as a result of climate change could reduce spring carrion 
availability (Wilmers and Getz 2005, p. 574; Wilmers and Post 2006, p. 
405). A reduction of winter-killed ungulates may be buffered by an 
increase of availability of meat to adult grizzly bears during the 
active season as a result of grizzly bears usually prevailing in 
usurping wolf-killed ungulate carcasses (Ballard et al. 2003, p. 262). 
Therefore, fluctuations in the availability of ungulates are not a 
threat to the GYE grizzly bear population now or in foreseeable future.
    A decline in the Yellowstone cutthroat trout population has 
resulted from a combination of factors: the introduction of nonnative 
lake trout (Salvelinus naymaycush), a parasite that causes whirling 
disease (Myxobolus cerebralis), and several years of drought conditions 
in the Intermountain West (Koel et al. 2005, p. 10). Although there has 
been a corresponding decrease in grizzly bear use of cutthroat trout, 
only a small portion of the GYE grizzly bear population uses cutthroat 
trout (Haroldson et al. 2005, p. 175), and grizzly bears that fish in 
spawning streams only consume, on average, between 8 and 55 trout per 
year (Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499). Therefore, potential declines in 
cutthroat trout are not currently, nor are they likely to become, a 
threat in the foreseeable future to the GYE grizzly bear population.
    Army cutworm moths aggregate on remote, high-elevation talus slopes 
where grizzly bears forage on them from mid- to late summer. Grizzly 
bears could potentially be disturbed by backcountry visitors (White et 
al. 1999, p. 150), but this has not been documented in the GYE. The 
situation is monitored by the IGBST and the WGFD, who will take 
appropriate management action as necessary. Climate change may affect 
army cutworm moths by changing the distribution of plants that the 
moths feed on or the flowering times of the plants (Woiwod 1997, pp. 
152-153). However, the GYE plant communities have a wide elevational 
range that would allow for distributional changes (Romme and Turner 
1991, p. 382), and army cutworm moths display foraging plasticity 
(Burton et al. 1980, pp. 12-13). Therefore, potential changes to army 
cutworm moth availability are not likely to threaten the GYE grizzly 
bear population in the foreseeable future.
    More details on the specific ways in which changes in ungulates, 
cutthroat trout, and army cutworm moths could affect the GYE grizzly 
bear population are discussed in detail in the 2007 final rule (72 FR 
14866, March 29, 2007, 14928-14933). Our analysis focuses on the 
potential impacts that the loss of whitebark pine could have on the GYE 
grizzly bear population. While we discussed notable declines in 
whitebark pine due to mountain pine beetle in the 2007 final rule, the 
data used to estimate population growth only went through 2002. The 
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals questioned our conclusions about future 
population viability based on data gathered before the sharp decline in 
whitebark pine began (Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Inc. v. Servheen, 
et al., 665 F.3d 1015, 1030 (9th Cir. 2011)). To assess the 
population's vital rates since 2002, the IGBST completed a 
comprehensive demographic review using data from 2002-2011 (IGBST 2012, 
p. 7) and extensive analyses to determine if the decline in whitebark 
pine is driving observed changes in grizzly bear population vital rates 
(IGBST 2013, entire).
    The threats to whitebark pine reported in our 2007 final rule and 
reiterated in our 12-month finding for whitebark pine are currently 
being analyzed in a Species Status Assessment (76 FR 42631, July 19, 
2011). Whitebark pine is currently warranted for protected status under 
the Act, but that action is precluded by higher priority actions. This 
status is primarily the result of direct mortality due to white pine 
blister rust and mountain pine beetles but also less obvious impacts 
from climate change and fire suppression. For more details on the 
status of whitebark pine, please see the 2013 candidate notice of 
review (78 FR 70104, November 22, 2013).
    Whitebark pine is a masting species, which means it produces large 
seed crops in some years and poor crops in other years. In the GYE, a 
good seed crop occurs approximately every 2 to 3 years. During years of 
low availability of whitebark pine seeds, grizzly bear-human conflicts 
tend to increase as bears use lower elevations, and when those areas 
are within less secure habitats (Gunther et al. 2004, pp. 13-15; 
Schwartz et al. 2010, pp. 661-662). Approximately six more independent 
females and six more independent males die across the ecosystem in poor 
versus good whitebark pine years (IGBST 2013, p. 25, figure 5). These 
mortalities are primarily due to defense of life encounters and 
wildlife management agency removals of conflict bears (Gunther et al. 
2004, pp. 13-14; IGBST 2009, p. 4). Additionally, litter size and the 
likelihood of producing a litter may decrease slightly in years 
following poor whitebark pine crops (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 21). 
Therefore, an important question was whether decline of whitebark pine 
would make most years similar to years with poor seed crops.
    Using data from 2002 to 2011, the IGBST documented an average 
annual population growth rate for the GYE grizzly bear population 
between 0.3 and 2.2 percent (IGBST 2012, p. 34). Although the 
population was still increasing in this more recent time period, it was 
increasing at a slower rate than in the previous time period (1983-
2001) and coincided with the rapid decline of whitebark pine that began 
in the early 2000s. Therefore, the IGBST examined the potential 
influence of whitebark pine decline on the change in population growth 
rate. Because extrinsic, density-independent factors (e.g., 
availability of whitebark pine seeds) and intrinsic, density-dependent 
factors (i.e., a population with high bear density) can produce similar 
changes in population vital rates, the IGBST conducted several analyses 
to clarify and tease apart these two similar effects. The results of 
these analyses were summarized in a report titled ``Response of 
Yellowstone grizzly bears to changes in food resources: a synthesis'' 
(hereafter referred to as ``the Food Synthesis Report'') (IGBST 2013). 
Regardless of whether these changes are being driven by declines in 
whitebark pine or are simply an indication of the population reaching 
high densities, the

[[Page 30538]]

management response would be the same: To carefully manage human-caused 
mortality based on scientific monitoring of the population.
    For the Food Synthesis Report, the IGBST developed a comprehensive 
set of research questions and hypotheses to evaluate grizzly bear 
responses to changes in food resources. Specifically, the IGBST asked 
eight questions:
    (1) How diverse is the diet of GYE grizzly bears?
    (2) Has grizzly bear selection of whitebark pine habitat decreased 
as tree mortality increased?
    (3) Has grizzly bear body condition decreased as whitebark pine 
declined?
    (4) Has animal matter provided grizzly bears with an alternative 
food resource to declining whitebark pine?
    (5) Have grizzly bear movements increased during the period of 
whitebark pine decline (2000-2011)?
    (6) Has home range size increased as grizzly bears sought 
alternative foods, or has home-range size decreased as grizzly bear 
density increased?
    (7) Has the number of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities 
increased as whitebark pine decreased?
    (8) Are changes in vital rates during the last decade associated 
more with decline in whitebark pine resources than increases in grizzly 
bear density?
    The preliminary answers to these questions are contained in the 
Synthesis Report and the final results have been (or will be) published 
in peer-reviewed journals (in their entirety: Bjornlie et al. 2014a; 
Costello et al. 2014; Gunther et al. 2014; Schwartz et al. 2014a and 
2014b; van Manen et al. 2016; Ebinger et al. 2016; Haroldson et al. in 
prep.).
    Key findings of the Synthesis Report are summarized below. To 
address the first question about how diverse diets of grizzly bears in 
the GYE are, Gunther et al. (2014, entire) conducted an extensive 
literature review and documented over 260 species of foods consumed by 
grizzly bears in the GYE, representing four of the five kingdoms of 
life (for more information, please see the proposed rule, 81 FR 13174, 
March 11, 2016). Regarding the second research question, if whitebark 
pine seeds were highly selected over other fall foods, grizzly bears 
would continue to seek this food even if availability declined. 
Costello et al. (2014, p. 2013) found that grizzly bear selection of 
whitebark pine habitat and duration of use decreased between 2000 and 
2011. Additionally, (regarding the third research question) if grizzly 
bears were dependent on whitebark pine to meet their nutritional 
requirements, body condition would be expected to have decreased. 
Schwartz et al. (2014a, p. 75) and the IGBST (2013, p. 18) found body 
mass and percent body fat in the fall had not changed from 2000 to 
2010. When they examined trends in females only, the data showed a 
moderate decline in female body fat during the fall, starting around 
2006 (Schwartz et al. 2014a, p. 72). However, they suggested it could 
be the result of small sample sizes (n = 2.6 bears/year) and noted the 
data for 2011 (not included in their published paper) showed an 
increase in fall body fat for females, ultimately cautioning that more 
data were needed before it could be determined if there was truly a 
trend (Schwartz et al. 2014a, p. 76). In the Food Synthesis Report, the 
IGBST revisited the previous analysis with data collected since 2010, 
and concluded that body condition was not different between poor and 
good years of whitebark pine production (IGBST 2013, p. 18).
    In response to the fourth research question, in years with poor 
whitebark pine seed production, grizzly bears shifted their diets and 
consumed more meat (Schwartz et al. 2014a, p. 68). These results were 
consistent with previous findings (Mattson 1997, p. 169). Given these 
observations of diet shifts, Ebinger et al. (2016, p. 705) examined 
whether grizzly bear use of ungulate carcasses in the fall had 
increased during the period of whitebark pine decline. This was indeed 
the case, supporting the interpretation that responses to changing food 
resources were primarily behavioral. In response to the fifth and sixth 
questions, if overall food resources were declining, one would expect 
daily movements, fall movements, and home range sizes to increase if 
bears were roaming more widely in search of foods. However, movement 
rates did not change during 2000 to 2011, suggesting that grizzly bears 
were finding alternate foods within their home range as whitebark pine 
seeds became less available over the past decade (Costello et al. 2014, 
p. 2013). For females, home ranges actually decreased in size from the 
period before (1989-1999) to the period after (2007-2012) whitebark 
pine decline. This decrease was greater in areas with higher grizzly 
bear densities but showed no relationship with the amount of live 
whitebark pine in the home range (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, pp. 4-6). Male 
home ranges did not change in size (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, pp. 4-6). 
Finally, at the population level, bear density, but not whitebark pine 
decline, was associated with lower cub survival and reproductive 
suppression, factors contributing to the slowing of population growth 
since the early 2000s. Combined, these findings suggest that changes in 
population vital rates since the early 2000s are more indicative of the 
population approaching carrying capacity than a shortage of resources 
(van Manen et al. 2016, p. 310).
    In response to the seventh question, while land managers have 
little influence on how calories are spread across the landscape, we 
have much more influence on human-caused mortality risk. Consistent 
with findings from earlier studies, the IGBST (2013, p. 24) found that 
grizzly bear mortalities increased in poor compared to good whitebark 
pine seed production years. Assuming the poorest observed whitebark 
pine cone production, the IGBST (2013, p. 25) predicted an increase of 
10 annual mortalities ecosystem-wide of independent females comparing 
2000 with 2012, encompassing the period that coincided with whitebark 
pine decline (IGBST 2013, p. 25). The greatest increase in predicted 
mortality occurred outside the PCA, which may be partially attributable 
to range expansion and continued population increase (IGBST 2013, p. 
25). However, increased mortality numbers during poor whitebark pine 
cone production years have not led to a declining population trend 
(IGBST 2012, p. 34), and total mortality will be maintained within the 
total allowable mortality limits set forth in table 3.
    In response to the eighth question, the IGBST found that while 
whitebark pine seed production can influence reproductive rates the 
following year, the overall fecundity rates during the last decade 
(2002-2011) did not decline when compared with data from 1983-2001 
(IGBST 2013, p. 32). This is important because fecundity rates are a 
function of both litter size and the likelihood of producing a litter, 
the two ways in which whitebark pine seed production may affect 
reproduction. Although Schwartz et al. (2006a, p. 21) found one-cub 
litters were more common in years following poor whitebark pine seed 
production, one-cub litters are still adequate for population growth. 
Furthermore, one-cub litters are still relatively uncommon following 
poor whitebark pine years, as evidenced by a very consistent average 
litter size around two since the IGBST began reporting this metric. 
Fecundity and mean litter size did not change between the two 
monitoring periods (1983-2001 versus 2002-2011) examined by the IGBST 
even though the availability of whitebark pine seeds declined (IGBST 
2013, pp. 33-34).

[[Page 30539]]

    In contrast to previous studies that concluded increased mortality 
in poor whitebark pine cone production years led to population decline 
in those years (Pease and Mattson 1999, p. 964), the IGBST found the 
population did not decline despite increased mortality in poor 
whitebark pine cone production years. Therefore, we determined that the 
conclusions of Pease and Mattson (1999, p. 964) are inaccurate. First 
and foremost, estimating population growth for individual, non-
consecutive years, as Pease and Mattson (1999, p. 962) did, is ``not 
legitimate'' and results in an ``incorrect estimate'' (Eberhardt and 
Cherry 2000, p. 3257). Even assuming their methods of separating out 
individual, non-consecutive years of data for a species whose 
reproduction and survival are inextricably linked to multiple, 
consecutive years (e.g., reproductive status in 1 year affects status 
in the following year), many other aspects of their analysis do not 
reflect the best available science. An important difference between 
Pease and Mattson (1999, p. 964) and other population growth rate 
estimates (Eberhardt et al. 1994, p. 362; Boyce 1995, entire; Schwartz 
et al. 2006b, p. 48; IGBST 2012, p. 34) is related to their treatment 
of conflict bears. Pease and Mattson (1999, p. 967) assumed that 
grizzly bears with any history of conflict would experience lower 
survival rates associated with conflict bears for the rest of their 
lives.
    The findings of Schwartz et al. (2006b, p. 42) challenge this 
assumption, finding that while survival of conflict bears decreases 
during the year of the conflict and the next year, survival returns to 
approximately normal within 2 years. In other words, management-trapped 
bears often return to foraging on naturally occurring food sources, 
away from human developments. Another assumption made by Pease and 
Mattson (1999, p. 967) was that 73 percent of the GYE grizzly bear 
population were conflict bears, with correspondingly lower survival 
rates. However, Schwartz et al. (2006b, p. 39) found only about 28 
percent of the GYE grizzly bear population were ever involved in 
conflicts. Together, these two erroneous assumptions by Pease and 
Mattson (1999, p. 967) resulted in a gross underestimation of 
population trend. As a result, we do not consider Pease and Mattson 
(1999) to be the best available science.
    Earlier studies suggested that increased grizzly bear mortalities 
in poor whitebark pine cone production years are a result of bears 
roaming more widely in search of foods and exposing themselves to 
higher mortality risk in roaded habitats at lower elevations. However, 
Costello et al. (2014, p. 2014) showed that grizzly bears did not roam 
over larger areas or canvass more area within their fall ranges as 
whitebark pine declined rapidly starting in the early 2000s, and 
suggested bears found alternative foods within their fall ranges. 
Furthermore, Bjornlie et al. (2014b, p. 4) found that home range size 
has not increased after whitebark pine declined, and Schwartz et al. 
(2010, p. 662) found that when bears use lower elevations in poor 
whitebark pine seed production years, it is the amount of secure 
habitat that determines mortality risk. Meaning, in both good and poor 
whitebark pine seed years, survival is determined primarily by levels 
of secure habitat. Therefore, our approach of maintaining these levels 
of secure habitat on Federal lands, which comprise 98 percent of lands 
within the PCA and 60 percent of suitable habitat outside the PCA, 
provides strong mitigation against any impacts the decline of whitebark 
pine may have on this grizzly bear population because the mechanism 
driving the increased mortality risk is secure habitat, not the 
presence or absence of whitebark pine.
    Evidence suggests that observed changes in population vital rates 
were driven by density-dependent effects and have resulted in a 
relatively flat population trajectory (van Manen 2016a, in litt.). Van 
Manen et al. (2016, entire) found cub survival, yearling survival, and 
reproductive transition (see Glossary: Transition probability) from no 
young to cubs all changed from 1983 to 2012, with lower rates evident 
during the last 10 years of that time period. Cub survival and 
reproductive transition were negatively associated with an index of 
grizzly bear density, indicating greater declines of those parameters 
where bear densities were higher. Their analysis did not support a 
similar relationship with estimates of decline in whitebark pine tree 
cover. Moreover, changes in vital rates started in the late 1990s and 
early 2000s (van Manen et al. 2016, pp. 307-308), which preceded the 
beginning and peak time period of whitebark pine decline. The results 
of van Manen et al. (2016, entire) support the interpretation that 
slowing of population growth during the last decade was associated more 
with increasing grizzly bear density than the decline in whitebark 
pine.
    We recognize that changes in food resources can also influence 
population vital rates. These research questions and results do not 
refute that possibility, but the preponderance of evidence supports the 
conclusion that bears so far are finding alternative food resources and 
that those resources are sufficient to maintain body mass and body 
condition (IGBST 2013, p. 20; Costello et al. 2014, p. 2013; Schwartz 
et al. 2014a, p. 75; Ebinger et al. 2016, p. 705). In other words, 
evidence for density dependence suggests that the population may be 
approaching carrying capacity (van Manen et al. 2016, entire). The 
combined evidence from these recent studies further supports the 
recovered status of the GYE grizzly bear population. This status has 
remained unchanged over the last 15 years despite significant changes 
in food resources in the GYE.
    While there was some concern that the rapid loss of whitebark pine 
could result in mortality rates similar to those experienced after the 
open-pit garbage dumps were closed in the early 1970s (Schwartz et al. 
2006b, p. 42), we now know this has not been the case. This is most 
likely due to the fact that whitebark pine has never been a spatially 
or temporally predictable food source on the landscape like the open-
pit garbage dumps were. The dumps were open year round and provided 
high-calorie foods the entire time. They were in the exact same 
location every year and for the entire season. Grizzly bears 
congregated at these known locations in large numbers and in very close 
proximity to each other and to people. None of these circumstances are 
true for grizzly bears foraging on whitebark pine seeds.
    GYE grizzly bears have high diet diversity (Gunther et al. 2014, p. 
65) and use alternate foods in years of low whitebark pine seed 
production (Schwartz et al. 2014a, pp. 75-76). Nearly one third of 
grizzly bears in the GYE do not have whitebark pine in their home 
range, so they do not use this food (Costello et al. 2014, p. 2013). 
Grizzly bears in the GYE that do use whitebark pine are accustomed to 
successfully finding alternative natural foods in years when whitebark 
pine seeds are not available, and body mass and body fat are not 
different between good and poor whitebark pine seed years (Schwartz et 
al. 2014a, pp. 72-73, 75).
    The IGBST will continue to monitor annual production of common 
foods, grizzly bear-human conflicts, survival rates, reproductive 
rates, and the causes and locations of grizzly bear mortality, as 
detailed in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 33-91). 
These data provide the 2016 Conservation Strategy's signatory agencies 
with the scientific information necessary to inform and implement 
adaptive management (Holling 1978, pp. 11-16) actions in response to 
ecological

[[Page 30540]]

changes that may impact the future of the GYE grizzly bear population. 
These management responses may involve increased habitat protection, 
increased mortality management, or a status review and emergency re-
listing of the population if management actions are unable to address 
the problems.
    Grizzly bears are resourceful omnivores that will make behavioral 
adaptations regarding food acquisition (Schwartz et al. 2014a, p. 75). 
Diets of grizzly bears vary among individuals, seasons, years, and 
where they reside within the GYE (Mealey 1980, pp. 284-287; Mattson et 
al. 1991a, pp. 1625-1626; Felicetti et al. 2003, p. 767; Felicetti et 
al. 2004, p. 499; Koel et al. 2005, p. 14; Costello et al. 2014, p. 
2013; Gunther et al. 2014, pp. 66-67), reflecting their ability to find 
adequate food resources across a diverse and changing landscape. In 
other nearby areas such as the NCDE (100 miles north of the GYE), 
whitebark pine has been functionally extinct as a bear food for at 
least 40 years (Kendall and Keane 2001, pp. 228-232), yet the NCDE 
grizzly bear population has continued to increase and thrive with an 
estimated 765 bears in 2004, and a subsequent average 3 percent annual 
rate of growth (Kendall et al. 2009, p. 9; Mace et al. 2012, p. 124). 
Similarly, although whitebark pine seed production and availability of 
cutthroat trout in the Yellowstone Lake area varied dramatically over 
the last 3 decades due to both natural and human-introduced causes 
(Reinhart and Mattson 1990, pp. 345-349; Podruzny et al. 1999, pp. 134-
137; Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499; Haroldson et al. 2005, pp. 175-178; 
Haroldson 2015, p. 47; Teisberg et al. 2014a, pp. 375-376), the GYE 
grizzly bear population has continued to increase and expand during 
this time period despite these changes in foods (Schwartz et al. 2006a, 
p. 66; IGBST 2012, p. 34; Bjornlie et al. 2014a, p. 184).
    The GYE grizzly bear population has been coping with the 
unpredictable nature of whitebark pine seed production for millennia. 
Grizzly bears are not dependent upon whitebark pine seeds for survival, 
nor do they have a diet that is specialized on consumption of these 
seeds. While we know whitebark pine seed production can influence 
reproductive and survival rates, it has not caused a negative 
population trend, as evidenced by a relatively constant population size 
between 2002 and 2014 (IGBST 2012, p. 34; van Manen 2016a, in litt.). 
As articulated in the Food Synthesis Report by the IGBST (IGBST 2013, 
pp. 32-35) and supporting studies (in their entirety: Bjornlie et al. 
2014b; Costello et al. 2014; Gunther et al. 2014), the demonstrated 
resiliency to declines in whitebark pine seed production and other 
high-calorie foods such as cutthroat trout shows that changes in food 
resources are not likely to become substantial impediments to the long-
term persistence of the GYE grizzly bear population.
    In Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, 665 F.3d 1015 (9th 
Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit faulted the Service's conclusion that 
whitebark pine losses did not pose a threat to grizzly bears. First, 
the Ninth Circuit noted that grizzly bears' adaptability and 
resourcefulness increased the threat from whitebark pine loss because 
it raised the risk of conflicts with humans as bears looked for other 
food sources. The Service acknowledges this component of the threat 
from whitebark pine loss, but despite increased mortality during poor 
whitebark pine cone production years, the population trend has 
maintained a relatively flat trajectory (IGBST 2012, p. 34; van Manen 
2016a; in litt.). Additionally, during years of poor whitebark pine 
seed availability, grizzly bears did not roam over larger areas 
(Costello et al. 2014, p. 2014); rather, the increased risk of 
mortality was related to the use of lower elevations and less secure 
habitat within their home range (Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 662).
    Second, the court noted that the Service's data on long-term 
population growth came from 2002, before the pine beetle epidemic 
began. The population growth rate slowed from the 4 to 7 percent that 
occurred from 1983 to 2001 (Eberhardt et al. 1994, p. 362; Knight and 
Blanchard 1995, pp. 18-19; Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48), to 0.3 to 2.2 
percent from 2002 to 2011 (IGBST 2012, p. 34). The population 
trajectory that includes the most recent data indicates no statistical 
trend (i.e., relatively flat population trajectory) within the DMA for 
the period 2002 to 2014 (van Manen 2016a, in litt.). Third, the court 
faulted the Service for using a study of NCDE bears to prove GYE 
grizzly bears continued to increase despite whitebark pine losses, even 
though GYE bears were reported to be unique because of their reliance 
on whitebark pine seeds. Current data show that the GYE bear population 
has stabilized or increased despite the loss of whitebark pine seeds 
(IGBST 2012, p. 34; van Manen 2016b, in litt.). A recent study found 
that nearly one third of collared grizzly bears in the GYE did not even 
have whitebark pine within their home ranges and those that did made 
use of other foods within their home ranges during poor whitebark pine 
years (Costello et al. 2014, pp. 2009, 2013).
    Fourth, the Ninth Circuit observed that the Service contradicted 
itself by stating that the entire PCA was necessary to support a 
recovered population, yet acknowledged that whitebark pine would 
persist in only a small part of the PCA. New data show that, despite 
the decline in whitebark pine, the GYE population has been relatively 
constant, is close to carrying capacity, and is exhibiting density-
dependent regulation inside the DMA (van Manen et al. 2016, entire; van 
Manen 2016b, in litt.). Fifth, the court determined it was arbitrary 
and capricious for the Service to rely on scientific uncertainty about 
whitebark pine loss in a delisting decision. Any uncertainty about the 
loss of whitebark pine has been resolved by GYE population numbers that 
show a relatively stable population size despite loss of whitebark pine 
seeds (IGBST 2012, p. 34; van Manen 2016b, in litt.) and no long-term 
changes in vital rates (IGBST 2012, pp. 32-34). Furthermore, whitebark 
pine tree mortality has significantly slowed since 2009, suggesting 
that the current beetle outbreak may have run its course (Haroldson 
2015, p. 47). Finally, the Ninth Circuit faulted the Service for 
relying on adaptive management and monitoring without describing 
management responses and specific triggering criteria. The population 
objectives that will be incorporated into regulations provide specific 
triggers for management action (see Factors B and C Combined 
discussion, above). The Service continues to believe that adaptive 
management will play a role in future management decisions because new 
data and new information will require appropriate management responses.
    In summary, the best scientific and commercial data available 
regarding grizzly bear responses to food losses suggest this issue is 
not a threat to the GYE grizzly bear population and is not an 
impediment to long-term population persistence. Therefore, we conclude 
that changes in food resources do not constitute a threat to the GYE 
grizzly bear DPS now, nor are such changes anticipated to constitute a 
threat in the foreseeable future.
Climate Change
    Our analyses under the Act include consideration of observed or 
likely environmental changes resulting from ongoing and projected 
changes in climate. As defined by the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change (IPCC), the term ``climate'' refers

[[Page 30541]]

to the mean and variability of different types of weather conditions 
over time, with 30 years being a typical period for such measurements, 
although shorter or longer periods also may be used (IPCC 2013a, p. 
1450). The term ``climate change'' thus refers to a change in the state 
of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean or the 
variability of relevant properties, which persists for an extended 
period, typically decades or longer, due to natural conditions (e.g., 
solar cycles), or human-caused changes in the composition of the 
atmosphere or in land use (IPCC 2013a, p. 1450).
    Scientific measurements spanning several decades demonstrate that 
changes in climate are occurring. In particular, warming of the climate 
system is unequivocal, and many of the observed changes in the last 60 
years are unprecedented over decades to millennia (IPCC 2013b, p. 4). 
The current rate of climate change may be as fast as any extended 
warming period over the past 65 million years and is projected to 
accelerate in the next 30 to 80 years (National Research Council 2013, 
p. 5). Thus, rapid climate change is adding to other sources of 
extinction pressures, such as land use and human-caused mortality, 
which will likely place extinction rates in this era among just a 
handful of the severe biodiversity crises observed in Earth's 
geological record (American Association for the Advancement of Sciences 
2014, p. 17).
    Examples of various other observed and projected changes in climate 
and associated effects and risks, and the bases for them, are provided 
for global and regional scales in recent reports issued by the IPCC (in 
their entirety: 2013b, 2014), and similar types of information for the 
United States and regions within it are available via the National 
Climate Assessment (Melillo et al. 2014, entire). Results of scientific 
analyses presented by the IPCC show that most of the observed increase 
in global average temperature since the mid-20th century cannot be 
explained by natural variability in climate and is ``extremely likely'' 
(defined by the IPCC as 95-100 percent likelihood) to be due to the 
observed increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere as 
a result of human activities, particularly carbon dioxide emissions 
from fossil fuel use (IPCC 2013b, p. 17).
    Scientists use a variety of climate models, which include 
consideration of natural processes and variability, as well as various 
scenarios of potential levels and timing of greenhouse gas emissions, 
to evaluate the causes of changes already observed and to project 
future changes in temperature and other climate conditions. Model 
results yield very similar projections of average global warming until 
about 2030, and thereafter the magnitude and rate of warming vary 
through the end of the century depending on the assumptions about 
population levels, emissions of greenhouse gases, and other factors 
that influence climate change. Thus, absent extremely rapid 
stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions at a global level, there is 
strong scientific support for projections that warming will continue 
through the 21st century, and that the magnitude and rate of change 
will be influenced substantially by human actions regarding greenhouse 
gas emissions (IPCC 2013b, p. 19; IPCC 2014, entire).
    Global climate projections are informative, and, in some cases, the 
only or the best scientific information available for us to use. 
However, projected changes in climate and related impacts can vary 
substantially across and within different regions of the world (in 
their entirety: IPCC 2013b, 2014), and within the U.S. (Melillo et al. 
2014, entire). Therefore, we use ``downscaled'' projections when they 
are available and have been developed through appropriate scientific 
procedures, because such projections provide higher resolution 
information that is more relevant to spatial scales used for analyses 
of a given species (see Glick et al. 2011, pp. 58-61, for a discussion 
of downscaling).
    The hydrologic regime in the Rocky Mountains has changed and is 
projected to change further (Bartlein et al. 1997, p. 786; Cayan et al. 
2001, p. 411; Leung et al. 2004, p. 75; Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223-
224; Pederson et al. 2011, p. 1666). The western United States may 
experience milder, wetter winters with warmer, drier summers and an 
overall decrease in snowpack (Leung et al. 2004, pp. 93-94). While some 
climate models do not demonstrate significant changes in total annual 
precipitation for the western United States (Duffy et al. 2006, p. 
893), an increase in ``rain on snow'' events is expected (Leung et al. 
2004, p. 93; McWethy et al. 2010, p. 55). The amount of snowpack and 
the timing of snowmelt may also change, with an earlier peak stream 
flow each spring (Cayan et al. 2001, p. 410; Leung et al. 2004, p. 75; 
Stewart et al. 2004, pp. 223-224). Although there is some disagreement 
about changes in the water content of snow under varying climate 
scenarios (Duffy et al. 2006, p. 893), reduced runoff from decreased 
snowpack could translate into decreased soil moisture in the summer 
(Leung et al. 2004, p. 75). However, Pederson et al. (2011, p. 1682) 
found that increased spring precipitation in the northern Rocky 
Mountains is offsetting these impacts to total annual stream flow from 
expected declines in snowpack thus far.
    The effects related to climate change may result in a number of 
changes to grizzly bear habitat, including a reduction in snowpack 
levels, shifts in denning times, shifts in the abundance and 
distribution of some natural food sources, and changes in fire regimes. 
Most grizzly bear biologists in the United States and Canada do not 
expect habitat changes predicted under climate change scenarios to 
directly threaten grizzly bears (Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4). These 
changes may even make habitat more suitable and food sources more 
abundant (Servheen and Cross 2010, Appendix D). However, these 
ecological changes may affect the timing and frequency of grizzly bear-
human interactions and conflicts (Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4).
    Because timing of den entry and emergence is at least partially 
influenced by food availability and weather (Craighead and Craighead 
1972, pp. 33-34; Van Daele et al. 1990, p. 264), less snowpack would 
likely shorten the denning season as foods become available later in 
the fall and earlier in the spring. In the GYE, Haroldson et al. (2002, 
pp. 34-35) reported later den entry dates for male grizzly bears, 
corresponding with increasing November temperatures from 1975 to 1999. 
This increased time outside of the den could increase the potential for 
conflicts with humans (Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4).
    The effects related to climate change could create temporal and 
spatial shifts in grizzly bear food sources (Rodriguez et al. 2007, pp. 
41-42). Changes in plant communities have already been documented, with 
species' ranges shifting farther north and higher in elevation due to 
environmental constraints (Walther et al. 2002, pp. 390-391; Walther 
2003, pp. 172-175; Walther et al. 2005, p. 1428) and increases in 
outbreaks of insects that reduce survival (Bentz et al. 2010, entire). 
It is unclear whether avalanche chutes, an important habitat component 
to grizzly bears, will decrease, possibly as a result of decreased 
snowpack, or increase, as a result of increases in ``rain on snow'' 
events that may decrease the stability of snowpack. Changes in 
vegetative food distributions also may influence other mammal 
distributions, including potential prey species like ungulates. While 
the extent and rate to which individual plant species will be impacted 
is difficult to foresee with any level of confidence (in their 
entirety: Walther et al. 2002; Fagre et al. 2003),

[[Page 30542]]

there is general consensus that grizzly bears are flexible enough in 
their dietary needs that they will not be impacted directly by 
ecological constraints such as shifts in food distributions and 
abundance (Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4; IGBST 2013, p. 35).
    Fire regimes can affect the abundance and distribution of some 
vegetative bear foods (e.g., grasses, berry-producing shrubs) (LeFranc 
et al. 1987, p. 150). For instance, fires can reduce canopy cover, 
which usually increases berry production. However, on steep south or 
west slopes, excessive canopy removal due to fires or vegetation 
management may decrease berry production through subsequent moisture 
stress and exposure to sun, wind, and frost (Simonin 2000, entire). 
Fire frequency and severity may increase with late summer droughts 
predicted under climate change scenarios (Nitschke and Innes 2008, p. 
853; McWethy et al. 2010, p. 55). Increased fire frequency has the 
potential to improve grizzly bear habitat, with low to moderate 
severity fires being the best. For example, fire treatment most 
beneficial to huckleberry shrubs is that which results in damage to 
stems, but does little damage to rhizomes (Simonin 2000, entire). High-
intensity fires may reduce grizzly bear habitat quality immediately 
afterwards by decreasing hiding cover and delaying regrowth of 
vegetation, although Blanchard and Knight (1996, p. 121) found that 
increased production of forbs and root crops in the years following the 
high-intensity, widespread Yellowstone fires of 1988 benefited grizzly 
bears. Because grizzly bears have shown resiliency to changes in 
vegetation resulting from fires, we do not anticipate altered fire 
regimes predicted under most climate change scenarios will have 
significant negative impacts on grizzly bear survival or reproduction, 
despite the potential effects on vegetation. Therefore, we conclude 
that the effects of climate change do not constitute a threat to the 
GYE grizzly bear DPS now, nor are they anticipated to in the 
foreseeable future.
Catastrophic Events
    Here we analyze a number of possible catastrophic events including 
fire, volcanic activity, and earthquake. Fire is a natural part of the 
GYE system; however, 20th century forest management, which included 
extensive wildfire suppression efforts, promoted heightened potential 
for a large fire event. The 1988 fires, the largest wildfires in YNP's 
recorded history, burned a total of 3,213 km\2\ (1,240 mi\2\) or 36 
percent of the Park. However, large mobile species such as grizzly 
bears and their ungulate prey usually were not meaningfully adversely 
affected. Surveys after the 1988 fires found that 345 elk, 36 deer, 12 
moose, 6 black bears, and 9 bison died in GYE as a direct result of the 
conflagration (YNP 2011, p. 3). Regarding impacts to grizzly bears, YNP 
concluded, ``Grizzly bears have evolved in association with landscapes 
strongly influenced by fire, the primary forest disturbance agent 
within the GYE, are highly vagile, and are adaptable to changing 
ecological conditions. Wildland fires will provide significant long-
term benefits to grizzly bears by maintaining natural ecosystem 
processes'' (YNP 2005, Appendix H). YNP's fire management policy (YNP 
2014a, entire) indicates natural wildfires should be allowed to burn, 
so long as parameters regarding fire size, weather, and potential 
danger are not exceeded. Those fires that do exceed the standards set 
forth in the fire management policy, as well as all human-caused fires, 
are to be suppressed (YNP 2014a, entire). National Forests manage 
natural wildfires to allow them to play their ``natural ecological 
role'' while ``minimizing negative effects to life, investments and 
valuable resources'' (Caribou-Targhee NF 2005, p. 11; USDA FS 2011, pp. 
3-4; Shoshone NF 2012, p. 2; Bridger-Teton NF 2015, p. 8). Future fires 
are likely in the GYE system. Overall, we agree with the YNP conclusion 
(YNP 2005, Appendix H) that grizzly bears are adaptable and will 
benefit from fires in the long term. Wildfires often lead to an 
increase in ungulate food supplies and an increase in ungulate numbers. 
While minor, localized, short-term impacts are likely, fire will not 
threaten the viability of the grizzly bear population in the GYE.
    The GYE has also experienced several exceedingly large volcanic 
eruptions in the past 2.1 million years. Super eruptions occurred 2.1 
million, 1.3 million, and 640,000 years ago (Lowenstern et al. 2005, 
pp. 1-2). Such a similar event would devastate the GYE. While one could 
argue ``we are due'' for such an event, scientists with the Yellowstone 
Volcano Observatory maintain that they ``see no evidence that another 
cataclysmic eruption will occur at Yellowstone in the foreseeable 
future. . . [and that] recurrence intervals of these events are neither 
regular nor predictable'' (Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 6). We agree and 
do conclude that such an event is not likely within the foreseeable 
future.
    More likely to occur is a nonexplosive lava flow eruption or a 
hydrothermal explosion. There have been 30 nonexplosive lava flows in 
YNP over the last 640,000 years, most recently 70,000 years ago 
(Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 2). During such an eruption, flows ooze 
slowly over the surface, moving a few hundred feet per day for several 
months or several years (Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 2). Any renewed 
volcanic activity at YNP would most likely take this form (Lowenstern 
et al. 2005, p. 3). In general, such events would have localized 
impacts and be far less devastating than a large eruption (although 
such an event could also cause fires; fire as a threat is discussed 
above). Hydrothermal explosions, triggered by sudden changes in 
pressure of the hydrothermal system, also occasionally affect the 
region. More than a dozen large hydrothermal explosion craters formed 
between 14,000 and 3,000 years ago (Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 4). The 
largest hydrothermal-explosion crater documented in the world is along 
the north edge of Yellowstone Lake in an embayment known as Mary Bay; 
this 2.6-km (1.5-mi) diameter crater formed about 13,800 years ago 
(Lowenstein et al. 2005, p. 4). We do not consider either nonexplosive 
lava flow eruptions or a hydrothermal-explosion likely within the 
foreseeable future, but even if one of these did occur, the impact to 
grizzly bears would likely be localized, temporary, and would not 
threaten the viability of the grizzly bear population in the GYE.
    Earthquakes also occur in the region. The most notable earthquake 
in YNP's recent history was a magnitude 7.5 in 1959 (Lowenstern et al. 
2005, p. 3). Similarly, a magnitude 6.5 earthquake hit within YNP in 
1975 (Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 3). The 1959 earthquake killed 28 
people, most of them in a massive landslide triggered by the quake 
(Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 3). Such massive landslides and other 
earthquake-related impacts could also affect wildlife. But as with 
other potential catastrophic events, the impact of a large earthquake 
to grizzly bears would be localized, temporary, and would not threaten 
the viability of the grizzly bear in the GYE.
    We considered catastrophic and stochastic (random probability) 
events that might reasonably occur in the GYE within the foreseeable 
future, to the extent possible. Most catastrophic events discussed 
above are unpredictable and unlikely to occur within the foreseeable 
future. Other events that might occur within the foreseeable future 
would likely cause only localized and temporary impacts that would not 
threaten the GYE grizzly bear population.

[[Page 30543]]

Public Support and Human Attitudes
    Public support is paramount to any successful large carnivore 
conservation program (Servheen 1998, p. 67). Historically, human 
attitudes played a primary role in grizzly bear population declines by 
promoting a culture and government framework that encouraged excessive, 
unregulated, human-caused mortality. Through government-endorsed 
eradication programs and perceived threats to human life and economic 
livelihood, humans settling the Western United States were able to 
effectively eliminate most known grizzly bear 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 
grizzly bears vary geographically and demographically, there has been a 
revival of positive attitudes toward the grizzly bear and its 
conservation (Kellert et al. 1996, pp. 983-986).
    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 about individual species, and 
specific interactions or experiences with species (Kellert 1994, pp. 
44-48; Kellert et al. 1996, pp. 983-986). I&E programs teach visitors 
and residents about grizzly bear biology, ecology, and behavior, and 
enhance appreciation for this large predator while dispelling myths 
about its temperament and feeding habits. Effective I&E programs have 
been an essential factor contributing to the recovery of the GYE 
grizzly bear population since its listing in 1975. By identifying 
values common to certain user groups, the I&E working group can 
disseminate appropriate materials and provide workshops catered to 
these values. By providing general information to visitors and 
targeting specific user groups about living and working in grizzly bear 
country, we believe continued coexistence between grizzly bears and 
humans will be accomplished.
    Traditionally, residents of the GYE involved in resource extraction 
industries, such as loggers, miners, livestock operators, and hunting 
guides, were opposed to land-use restrictions that were perceived to 
place the needs of the grizzly bear above human needs (Kellert 1994, p. 
48; Kellert et al. 1996, p. 984). 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, p. 985). Delisting could increase acceptance of 
grizzly bears by giving local government and private citizens more 
discretion in decisions that affect them. Increased flexibility 
regarding livestock depredating bears in areas outside of the PCA may 
increase tolerance for the grizzly bear by landowners and livestock 
operators by potentially reducing the number of conflict situations.
    Ultimately, the future of the grizzly bear will depend on the 
people who live, work, and recreate in grizzly bear habitat and the 
willingness and ability of these people to learn to coexist with the 
grizzly bear and to accept this animal as a cohabitant of the land. 
Other management strategies are unlikely to succeed without effective 
and innovative public I&E programs. The objective of the I&E is to 
proactively address grizzly bear-human conflicts by informing the 
public about the root causes of these conflicts and providing 
suggestions on how to prevent them (YES 2016a, pp. 92-95). By 
increasing awareness of grizzly bear behavior and biology, we hope to 
enhance public involvement and appreciation of the grizzly bear. In 
addition to public outreach programs, the States have implemented other 
programs to help reduce conflicts with the people that are directly 
affected by grizzly bears. These efforts include livestock carcass 
removal programs, electric fencing subsidies for apiaries and orchards, 
and sharing costs of bear-resistant garbage bins where appropriate.
    Although some 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 I&E are provided to people who live, work, and recreate in 
occupied grizzly bear habitat and proper management infrastructure is 
in place (Linnell et al. 2001, p. 345). For example, even though more 
than 3 million people visit the National Parks and National Forests of 
the GYE each year, (USDA FS 2006a, pp. 176, 183, 184; Cain 2014, p. 46; 
Gunther 2014, p. 47), the average number of conflicts per year between 
1992 and 2010 was only 150 (Gunther et al. 2012, p. 51). The current 
I&E working group has been a major component contributing to the 
successful recovery of the GYE grizzly bear population over the last 30 
years. Both Federal and State management agencies are committed to 
continuing to work with citizens, landowners, and visitors within the 
GYE grizzly bear DPS boundaries to address the human sources of 
conflicts.
    From 1980 through 2002, at least 36 percent (72 out of 196) of 
human-caused mortalities may have been avoided if relevant I&E 
materials had been presented, understood, and used by involved parties 
(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 15). Educating back- and front-country users 
about the importance of securing potential bear attractants can reduce 
grizzly bear mortality risk. Similarly, adhering to hiking 
recommendations, such as making noise, hiking with other people, and 
hiking during daylight hours, can further reduce grizzly bear 
mortalities by decreasing the likelihood that hikers will encounter 
bears. Hunter-related mortalities may involve hunters defending their 
life 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 can be 
further reduced through I&E programs.
    Outside the PCA, State wildlife agencies recognize that the key to 
preventing grizzly bear-human conflicts is providing I&E 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 survival and successful coexistence with humans in the GYE so that 
the measures of the Act continue not to be necessary. All three States 
have been actively involved in I&E outreach for over a decade, and 
their respective management plans contain chapters detailing efforts to 
continue current programs and expand them when possible. For example, 
the WGFD created a formal grizzly bear-human conflict management 
program in July 1990 and has coordinated an extensive I&E program since 
then. Similarly, since 1993, MFWP has implemented countless public 
outreach efforts to minimize bear-human conflicts, and the

[[Page 30544]]

IDFG has organized and implemented education programs and workshops 
focused on private and public lands on the western periphery of the 
grizzly bear's range.
    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 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's 
Wildlife Services, IDFG, MFWP, or WGFD, affected livestock owners are 
compensated. Since 1997, compensation in Montana and Idaho has been 
provided primarily by private organizations, principally Defenders of 
Wildlife. Since the program's inception in 1997, the Defenders of 
Wildlife Grizzly Bear Compensation Trust paid over $400,000 to 
livestock operators in the northern Rockies for confirmed and probable 
livestock losses to grizzly bears (Edge 2013, entire). In 2013, the 
State of Montana passed legislation establishing a compensation program 
for direct livestock losses caused by grizzly bears (MCA 2-15-3113). In 
light of this legislation, Defenders of Wildlife stopped their 
compensation program in Montana and redirected funds to other conflict 
prevention programs.
    In Wyoming, compensation has always been paid directly by the 
State. Upon delisting, both Idaho and Wyoming's grizzly bear management 
plans call for State funding of compensation programs (Idaho's Grizzly 
Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. 16; WGFD 2016, pp. 53-55). In 
Idaho, compensation funds would come from the secondary depredation 
account, and the program would be administered by the appropriate IDFG 
Regional Landowner Sportsman Coordinators and Regional Supervisors 
(Idaho's Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. 16). In Wyoming, 
the WGFD will pay for all compensable damage to agricultural products 
as provided by State law and regulation (WGFD 2016, p. 58). The WGFD 
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, long-term funding to compensate livestock 
owners for direct kills has been secured through the general fund. A 
long-term funding source has not been identified for conflict 
prevention projects but is being actively pursued. Based on the 
analysis provided above, we conclude that, through the positive 
influence of the I&E program, public support and attitude does not 
constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS now, nor is it 
anticipated to in the foreseeable future.
Summary of Factor E
    Factor E requires the Service to consider other natural or man-made 
factors affecting a species' continued existence. The following factors 
warranted consideration as possible threats to the GYE grizzly bear 
population: Effects due to: (1) Genetic health, (2) potential changes 
in food resources, (3) climate change, (4) catastrophic events, and (5) 
human attitudes toward grizzly bear recovery. We do not consider 
genetic concerns to be a threat for the following reasons: We have an 
effective population size more than four times that recommended by the 
best available science; we know levels of genetic diversity have not 
declined in the last century; we know current levels of genetic 
diversity are sufficient to support healthy reproduction and survival; 
and we know that genetic contribution from individual bears outside of 
the GYE will not be necessary for the next several decades (Miller and 
Waits 2003, p. 4338; Kamath et al. 2015, entire). We do not anticipate 
that genetic issues will affect grizzly bears in the future because of 
ongoing efforts to restore natural connectivity and a commitment to 
translocate animals in the future, if needed, as provided in the 2016 
Conservation Strategy.
    Because the GYE grizzly bear population has increased or remained 
relatively constant in size during declines in whitebark pine seed 
production and other high-calorie foods since the early 1990s, there is 
no evidence that changes in food resources will become substantial 
impediments to the long-term persistence of the GYE grizzly bear 
population. Changing climate conditions have the potential to affect 
grizzly bear habitat with subsequent implications for grizzly bear-
human conflicts. While we do not consider the effects of climate change 
to be a direct threat to grizzly bear habitat in the GYE, it could 
influence the timing and frequency of some grizzly bear-human conflicts 
with possible increases in grizzly bear mortality. This possible 
increase in grizzly bear mortality risk is not expected to be a threat 
because of coordinated total mortality limits within the DMA (see table 
3 and Factors B and C Combined discussion, above). Catastrophic fires, 
volcanic eruptions, and earthquakes are unlikely to occur in the 
foreseeable future or would likely cause only localized and temporary 
impacts to the GYE grizzly bear population. Finally, we do not 
anticipate human attitudes becoming a threat to the GYE grizzly bear 
population due to effective outreach programs and established 
regulatory frameworks.
    Essentially, the management response to all of these potential 
threats would be to limit human-caused mortality through conflict 
prevention and management to limit discretionary mortality (see table 3 
and Factors B and C Combined discussion, above). Because of the 
manageable nature of these potential threats through conflict 
prevention and response efforts and the large area of suitable, secure 
habitat within the GYE, we do not consider them to be a threat to the 
GYE grizzly bear DPS now or in the foreseeable future.

Cumulative Effects of Factors A Through E

    Many of the threats faced by grizzly bears are interrelated and 
could be synergistic. Principal threats discussed above include habitat 
loss through road building and the resulting increased human access to 
grizzly bear habitat, human-caused mortality of grizzly bears, and the 
legal mechanisms that direct habitat and population management. The 
principal threats assessed in previous sections may cumulatively impact 
the GYE grizzly bear population beyond the scope of each individual 
threat. For example, the loss of whitebark pine could lead to lower 
survival rates at the same time of the year when grizzly bears are 
vulnerable to human-caused mortality from elk hunting. Alternatively, 
expected increases in human populations across the Western United 
States and climate change both have the potential to increase grizzly 
bear conflicts and human-caused mortality. Historically, each of these 
factors impacted grizzly bears in the GYE and cumulatively acted to 
reduce their range and abundance over time. Today, these stressors have 
been adequately minimized and ameliorated and do not impact the GYE 
grizzly bear population with the same intensity.
    While these numerous stressors on grizzly bear persistence are 
challenging to conservation, our experience demonstrates that it is 
possible for large carnivore conservation to be compatible with them 
(Linnell et al. 2001, p. 48). Despite these risks, the best available 
data indicate the GYE grizzly bear population's trend has been 
relatively constant with no evidence to date of a decline, and range 
extent has continued to expand. We consider estimates of population 
trend (i.e., ``lambda'') to be the ultimate metric to assess cumulative 
impacts to the population. It reflects all

[[Page 30545]]

of the various stressors on the population. This calculation reflects 
total mortality, changes in habitat quality, changes in population 
density, change in current range, displacement effects, and so forth. 
In other words, there will always be stressors acting on the GYE 
grizzly bear population that lead to human-caused mortality or 
displacement, but if these are not causing the population to decline, 
we cannot consider them substantial.

Summary of Factors Affecting the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Grizzly 
Bear Population

    The primary factors related to past habitat destruction and 
modification have been reduced through changes in management practices 
that have been formally incorporated into regulatory documents. 
Maintenance of the 1998 baseline values for secure habitat, developed 
sites on public lands, and livestock allotments inside the PCA will 
adequately ameliorate the multitude of stressors on grizzly bear 
habitat such that they do not become threats to the GYE grizzly bear 
population in the foreseeable future. We expect many of the threats 
discussed under Factor A to continue to occur at some level, but they 
are sufficiently ameliorated so they affect only a small proportion of 
the population.
    Upon delisting, the GYE National Forests and National Parks will 
continue to implement and maintain the 1998 baseline. Together, these 
two Federal agencies manage 98 percent of lands within the PCA and 88 
percent of all suitable habitat within the DPS boundaries. Suitable 
habitat outside the PCA provides additional ecological resiliency and 
habitat redundancy to allow the population to respond to environmental 
changes. Habitat protections specifically for grizzly bear conservation 
are not necessary here because other regulatory mechanisms that limit 
development and motorized use are already in place for nearly 60 
percent of suitable habitat outside the PCA. These and other 
conservation measures discussed in the USFS's Record of Decision 
(2006b) ensure threats to the GYE grizzly bear population's habitat 
outside the PCA will not become substantial enough to threaten this 
population's long-term persistence. Therefore, based on the best 
available information and expectation that current management practices 
will continue into the foreseeable future, we conclude that the present 
or threatened destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat 
or range does not constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear DPS and 
is not expected to become a threat in the foreseeable future.
    When grizzly bears were listed in 1975, we identified human-caused 
mortality, mainly ``indiscriminate illegal killing'' and management 
removals, as threats to the population under Factors B and C Combined. 
In response, we implemented demographic recovery criteria to maintain a 
minimum population size and a well-distributed population and to 
establish total mortality limits based on scientific data and direct 
monitoring of the population. Since implementing these criteria, the 
GYE grizzly bear population has tripled in size and range (Eberhardt et 
al. 1994, pp. 361-362; Knight and Blanchard 1995, pp. 2-11; Boyce et 
al. 2001, pp. 1-11; Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48; Pyare et al. 2004, 
pp. 5-6; Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 64-66; IGBST 2012, p. 34; Bjornlie 
et al. 2014a, p. 184). Inside the DMA, the population has stabilized 
since 2002 and is exhibiting density-dependent population regulation 
(van Manen et al. 2016, entire). Although humans are still directly or 
indirectly responsible for the majority of grizzly bear deaths, this 
source of mortality is effectively mitigated through science-based 
management, State regulations, careful population monitoring, and 
outreach efforts. Since 1975, no grizzly bears have been removed from 
the GYE for commercial, recreational, scientific, or education 
purposes. Although the States may choose to institute carefully 
regulated grizzly bear hunting outside of the national parks, it would 
be within scientifically determined sustainable levels to maintain the 
population in the long term and would not occur if other sources of 
human-caused mortality were excessive. Therefore, based on the best 
available information and State regulatory mechanisms that will limit 
total mortality levels within the levels detailed in tables 2 and 3 and 
that these regulatory mechanisms will continue into the foreseeable 
future, we conclude that disease, natural predation, and human-caused 
mortality do not constitute threats now or in the foreseeable future.
    The importance of regulatory mechanisms and effective wildlife 
management infrastructure to large carnivore conservation cannot be 
understated, as described under Factors A and B and C Combined (see 
Linnell et al. 2001, p. 348). Before publication of this final rule, 
the regulatory mechanisms in place include National Park 
Superintendent's Compendia, the USFS Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat 
Conservation for the GYE National Forests, and State and Tribal 
commission regulations controlling mortality as described under Factors 
A and B and C Combined. The management infrastructure is already in 
place and described in the 2016 Conservation Strategy. Because the 
signatory agencies to the 2016 Conservation Strategy are the same 
agencies that have been managing grizzly bear habitat, population, and 
monitoring for the last 40 years, the management transition would be 
minimal. Existing regulatory mechanisms will ensure the GYE grizzly 
bear population continues to meet the recovery criteria. Therefore, we 
conclude that the existing regulatory mechanisms are adequate to 
maintain a healthy and recovered population of grizzly bears into the 
foreseeable future and do not pose a threat now, or in the foreseeable 
future.
    Other factors under Factor E we considered that could become 
threats to the GYE grizzly bear population included: (1) Genetic 
health, (2) potential changes in food resources, (3) climate change, 
(4) catastrophic events, and (5) human attitudes toward grizzly bear 
recovery. Essentially, the management response to all of these 
potential threats would be to limit human-caused mortality through 
conflict prevention and management as well as managing discretionary 
mortality. Because of the manageable nature of these potential threats 
through conflict prevention and response efforts and the large amount 
of suitable, secure habitat within the GYE, we do not expect other 
natural or manmade factors to become threats to the GYE grizzly bear 
population.
    Many of the threats faced by grizzly bears are interrelated and 
could cumulatively impact the GYE grizzly bear population through 
excessive grizzly bear mortality. While these numerous stressors on 
grizzly bear persistence are challenging to conservation, our 
experience demonstrates it is possible for large carnivore conservation 
to be compatible with them (Linnell et al. 2001, p. 48), particularly 
given the rigorous scientific monitoring protocols established for the 
GYE grizzly bear population. There will always be stressors to the GYE 
grizzly bear population, but if these are not causing the population to 
decline, we do not consider them to threaten the long-term persistence 
of the population.

Summary of and Responses to Peer Review and Public Comment

    In the proposed rule published on March 11, 2016 (81 FR 13174), we 
requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by May 10, 2016. We also

[[Page 30546]]

contacted appropriate Federal and State agencies, Tribes, scientific 
experts and organizations, and other interested parties and invited 
them to comment on the proposal. A newspaper notice inviting general 
public comment was published in the Bozeman Chronicle on March 27, 
2016, the Cody Enterprise and the Casper Star-Tribune on March 29, 
2016, and the Jackson Hole News & Guide on March 30, 2016. On September 
7, 2016 (81 FR 61658), we reopened the comment period on the proposed 
rule until October 7, 2016, to make available comments from five peer 
reviewers and additional supplemental material. We held two public 
meetings followed by public hearings, one in Cody, Wyoming (April 11, 
2016), and another in Bozeman, Montana (April 12, 2016). All 
substantive information provided during the comment periods has either 
been incorporated directly into this final determination or addressed 
in the more specific responses to comments below.
    A number of commenters, including peer reviewers, Federal agencies, 
and the States, provided new information or clarifications on 
information presented in the GYE proposed delisting rule (81 FR 13174, 
March 11, 2016) and its supporting documents. Categories of new or 
clarified information include corrections of discrepancies between the 
proposed rule and draft 2016 Conservation Strategy (e.g., table 2 
clarifies that mortality limits apply to total mortality), the 
discussion of carrying capacity, our analysis of density-independent 
and density-dependent effects on GYE grizzly bear population dynamics, 
our use of ``cause'' versus ``association'' in our density-dependent 
analysis, and range versus distribution (please see the Population 
Ecology--Background section above). This new or clarified information 
has been incorporated, as appropriate, into this final rule, the 2016 
Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, entire), and the Recovery Plan 
supplement (USFWS 2017, entire). In the proposed and final rules, we 
presented data as of 2014, and did not update in the five-factor 
threats assessment because: (1) We would not have been able to update 
all of the data given the amount of time available to do so between the 
proposed rule and this final rule, and (2) intensive monitoring has 
been ongoing since prior to 2014 (e.g., habitat management has been in 
compliance with the 1998 baseline, the three demographic recovery 
criteria have been maintained, and monitoring has not detected a change 
in the population trajectory); therefore, including data since 2014 
would not have changed our assessment. In response to specific public 
comments, we did respond using the most recent available data. When 
talking about data, we mean raw data that has not been published. We 
did, however, include all relevant peer-reviewed publications since 
2014 and up to this final rule.

General Issues

    Issue 1--Several commenters submitted comments on topics related to 
other issues not specific to the GYE delisting proposal. These issues 
include (a) general criticism of the Act (litigation driving regulatory 
decisions, failure to delist species exceeding recovery criteria could 
jeopardize the Act, suggested updates to the Act, funding of the Act 
should be reconsidered); (b) a desire for removing colonial occupation 
and restoring the continent to self-sufficiency, which would allow 
wildlife to flourish; (c) simpler methods for uploading comments on 
regulations.gov; (d) the potentially negative impact of delisting on 
tourism and the local economy; (e) the negative impact to ecosystem 
function if grizzly bears decline and the resulting trophic cascade, 
and other species' conservation; and (f) delisting means the GYE is no 
longer a true wilderness and true wilderness areas must be protected in 
perpetuity.
    Response--All of these comments are outside the scope of this final 
delisting rule and will not be addressed here. Substantive comments 
related to the conservation of the other grizzly bear populations would 
be addressed during the Recovery Plan revision process for those 
populations, should we decide revisions are necessary.
    Issue 2--Several commenters expressed general concerns related to 
grizzly bear management including: (a) Consideration, analyses, and 
commitments to recovery of grizzly bear populations elsewhere in the 
lower 48 States; (b) ethical concerns related to hunting generally or 
``trophy hunting'' of grizzly bears; and (c) delisting could 
prematurely halt the current development of local tolerance towards 
grizzly bears and their habitat expansion.
    Response--This listing action is specific to the grizzly bear 
population in the GYE and, therefore, affects only the legal status of 
grizzly bears within the GYE. In other words, when this regulation 
takes effect, grizzly bear populations occurring outside of the 
boundary of the GYE DPS will remain listed as a threatened species 
under the ESA. Therefore, consideration and analyses of grizzly bear 
populations elsewhere in the lower 48 States is outside the scope of 
this rulemaking.
    While we respect the values and opinions of all commenters, the Act 
does not allow us to factor ethical objections to hunting into our 
delisting decision. Section 4(a)(1) of the Act specifies that we shall 
determine whether any species is threatened or endangered because of 
any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. Section 4(b)(1)(A) further specifies 
that we shall make such determinations based solely on the best 
scientific and commercial data available.
    The best scientific and commercial data available indicate that the 
GYE grizzly bear population is recovered and no longer meets the 
definition of a threatened or endangered species. However, we 
acknowledge tolerance of grizzly bears remains a concern in some areas. 
The 2016 Conservation Strategy contains a strong Information and 
Education (I&E) program component that will continue efforts to improve 
local tolerance towards the species.

Delisting Process and Compliance With Applicable Laws, Regulations, and 
Policies

    Issue 3--Several commenters expressed concern that the opportunity 
for public involvement was inadequate. Specifically, the commenters 
requested longer public comment periods, more public hearings at 
additional locations across the country, timely access to all necessary 
data and materials presented at an appropriately accessible level, and 
accommodations for the visually impaired and those without internet 
access to ensure their ability to provide comments on the rule.
    Response--We appreciate the time and thought put into comments on 
the proposed rule to delist the GYE grizzly bear. Collectively, we 
believe the public had ample opportunity for input, as explained below. 
We followed Service practice and policy in managing the public comment 
process. We provided multiple opportunities and avenues for public 
involvement. Notifications of comment periods, meetings, and hearings 
were provided in the proposed rule, which was published in the Federal 
Register, posted on our Web site, and publicized in newspapers. These 
postings were compliant with the

[[Page 30547]]

requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 
amended (29 U.S.C. 794(d)). We also provided access information for 
persons using a telecommunications device.
    The public comment period on the proposed rule was open for a total 
of 90 days, during which time we received more than 665,000 comments. 
We offered a variety of options for submitting comments; the public 
could submit their comments electronically, using a specified Web site, 
or in hard copy, via U.S. mail or hand delivery.
    As mentioned above, we also held two public meetings and public 
hearings in Cody, WY, and Bozeman, MT, where verbal or written comments 
could be submitted. These two cities were selected because of their 
proximity to the GYE. We declined to hold additional public hearings 
because we satisfied section 4(b)(5)(E)'s statutory requirement that we 
hold at least one public hearing and the substantial cost associated 
with conducting public hearings. Although we appreciate the public's 
desire to give public testimony, oral and written comments are given 
the same consideration in our process. We again provided access 
information for persons using a telecommunications device. In our 
notifications of comment periods, meetings, and hearings, we stated 
that persons with disabilities wanting to participate in a public 
meeting or hearing, including the need for American Sign Language or 
English as a second language interpreter, could be accommodated.
    Issue 4--Commenters suggested that a second round of peer review 
and additional public comment period was needed once a final 2016 
Conservation Strategy and final regulatory mechanisms were available; 
they noted that reviewers were asked to answer questions about the 
adequacy of regulatory mechanisms without these final documents, 
casting doubt on the ``utility and accuracy'' of their review and that 
``significant changes'' being made to the draft 2016 Conservation 
Strategy released in March 2016 could alter the opinion of peer 
reviewers and the public on the adequacy of the management described in 
these documents. Some commenters referred to previous promises at 
Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee (YES) meetings for additional public 
comment on the final 2016 Conservation Strategy. Finally, one commenter 
could not understand why the Service re-released a proposed rule for 
additional public comment with ``fundamental issues still in debate and 
unresolved.''
    Response--We gave the public two opportunities to comment on the 
proposed rule, including an opportunity to comment on its content in 
light of the revised State regulatory mechanisms, the draft 2016 
Conservation Strategy, and the peer review. The public and peer 
reviewers also had an opportunity to provide feedback on the draft 2016 
Conservation Strategy during the same public comment periods as the 
proposed rule. We made no promises to allow additional comment from the 
public at the YES meetings. Changes to the draft 2016 Conservation 
Strategy took into account public comments. The final rule and the 
final 2016 Conservation Strategy are a logical outgrowth of the 
considerations in the peer review and in the more than 665,000 public 
comments we received. Changes to the 2016 Conservation Strategy were 
made to remove inconsistency with the proposed rule and to improve 
clarity, but there were not significant changes to the tenets of the 
strategy from the draft to final. We do not believe that fundamental 
issues are still in debate; we believe the best available science 
clearly shows that the GYE population is recovered.
    Issue 5--Commenters expressed concerns that the consideration the 
Service gives public comments is a flawed process designed to ensure 
that only some comments are considered. They stated that the Service 
considers only comments that are based on a scientific rationale and 
ignores those that were based on general public opinion or contained 
insubstantial content, and further suggested we did not consider these 
comments because we disagreed with their content. Other commenters 
requested a more prominent role in the recovery and delisting process 
and more opportunity to communicate concern for the future of the 
species.
    Response--We fully considered and evaluated all public comments 
received during the comment periods and public hearings, and evaluated 
all comments, whether they agree with or disagree with our proposal.
    The Act requires the Service to make a decision based solely on the 
best available scientific and commercial information available (section 
4(b)(1)(A)) when determining if a species meets the definition of 
endangered or threatened. Substantive comments raising scientific, 
legal, and policy issues are the most relevant for consideration in our 
determination. We focused our attention on unique comments that provide 
substantive feedback on potential errors or oversights in our analyses. 
We appreciate and consider additional data or substantive remarks, with 
supporting documentation, that broaden our understanding of whether 
grizzly bears meet the definition of a threatened or endangered species 
under the Act. We considered all scientific and commercial information 
included in the public comments, and incorporated this information into 
this final rule as appropriate.
    Issue 6--We received public comments that the public opposed the 
previous delisting effort and encouraged us to address all claims made 
in challenges to the 2007 proposed delisting including issues related 
to: Habitat loss, current habitat protections, funding for post-
delisting conservation efforts, lag effects, failure to account for 
hunting mortality, political interference, peer review, and disease and 
predation.
    Response--All relevant topics related to these comments are 
addressed in the specific issues below.
    Issue 7--Multiple commenters requested we release the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documentation associated with the 
proposed rule to delist the GYE population of grizzly bears.
    Response--This delisting rule is promulgated under section 4(a) of 
the Act and consequently is exempt from NEPA procedures. Our decision 
that NEPA does not apply under section 4(a) is based on the reasoning 
in Pacific Legal Foundation v. Andrus, 657 F.2d 829 (6th Cir. 1981) 
that we cannot consider environmental impacts beyond those addressed by 
the five factors described in section 4(a) and must use only the best 
scientific and commercial data available in evaluating those factors. 
After this ruling, we published a determination in the Federal Register 
(48 FR 49244, October 25, 1983). Therefore, this delisting decision is 
based solely on the five-factor analysis described in section 4(a), and 
there is no NEPA documentation required.
    Issue 8--Several commenters expressed concerns over a perceived 
lack of collaboration among the Service and other stakeholders in the 
delisting process and requested increased collaboration among the 
Service, NGOs, general public, Tribes, States, Interagency Grizzly Bear 
Study Team (IGBST), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service 
(USFS), and Canada. Commenters suggested that increased collaboration 
would allow for the synchronization of multiple conservation efforts 
prior to delisting, ensure the concerns of all associated organizations 
are addressed, and enhance support for the proposal. Commenters 
expressed concerns that the long-term conservation efforts will be 
diminished if the species is delisted

[[Page 30548]]

on the current timeline without sufficient collaboration among 
partners. They especially expressed that we should more adequately 
address the NPS' concerns, that the NPS should have a larger role in 
the delisting decision, and that the NPS should have greater 
involvement in species management outside of (and especially adjacent 
to) park boundaries.
    Response--The Service has regularly coordinated with a wide variety 
of stakeholders through the more than 40 years of the grizzly bear 
recovery program. Please see the Recovery Planning and Implementation 
section of this rule for a description of the role of Federal, Tribal, 
State, and local agencies involved in the formal interagency groups 
that collaboratively help guide grizzly bear management in the GYE. In 
addition, these agencies worked with local landowners, NGOs, and other 
interested parties to implement the 1993 Recovery Plan. It is through 
these successful partnerships that the GYE has recovered and no longer 
meets the definition of a threatened or endangered species. These 
important partnerships will continue through the implementation of the 
2016 Conservation Strategy.
    The Service appreciates the long-standing efforts of all of our 
partners in the GYE's recovery; however, the decision on whether or not 
to list, delist, or reclassify species under the Act remains the sole 
regulatory responsibility of our agency. The NPS only has jurisdiction 
to manage natural resources within the Park boundaries, but often 
collaborates with adjacent landowners on wildlife-specific issues. NPS 
manages approximately 39 percent of lands within the PCA. Please see 
Issue 65 for a discussion about hunting on and adjacent to NPS lands 
and Issue 82 about inclusion of the NPS in annual meetings with the 
States allocating discretionary mortality.
    Issue 9--Commenters expressed confusion and concerns over the 
functionality and role of the YES and the YGCC. Commenters were 
concerned that the role and influence in the delisting process given to 
these committees far outweighed that of the public and other 
organizations.
    Response--Upon delisting, the YGCC will take the place of YES. 
Whereas the primary objective of YES was interagency coordination to 
achieve recovery, the primary objective of the YGCC will be interagency 
coordination to maintain a recovered grizzly bear population in the GYE 
through implementation of the 2016 Conservation Strategy. The IGBST 
will continue their monitoring of the GYE grizzly bear population and 
provide this information to the YGCC and the States so that the States 
may make scientifically informed decisions regarding population 
management. Please see the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 
96-103) at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/ConservationStrategygrizzlybearGYA.pdf for further details 
about membership and primary activities of the YGCC. Although the 
proposed and final rules are solely within the purview of the Service, 
conservation strategies serve as guiding documents for post-delisting 
management and monitoring by the multiple State and Federal agencies 
responsible for these tasks. The Conservation Strategy ensures that the 
regulatory mechanisms and coordinated management that led to recovery 
will be maintained following delisting. Post delisting, mortality 
management will be the responsibility of State fish and wildlife 
agencies.
    Accordingly, it is appropriate that they would be responsible for 
articulating their post-delisting management plans. Likewise the 
Federal land management agencies will be responsible for habitat 
management. Our role is to analyze these commitments and ensure they 
will allow the species to remain recovered. Please see Issue 5 for 
further discussion about the processing and consideration of public 
comments.
    Issue 10--Many commenters raised concerns about our peer review 
process. First, commenters expressed doubt as to the five peer 
reviewers' professional ability to comment on the proposed rule since 
only one peer reviewer specialized in grizzly bears, while the other 
four focused on polar bears or black bears, which differ ecologically 
and behaviorally. One commenter asked why Dr. David Mattson was not 
asked to review.
    Second, commenters expressed concern about peer reviewer selection 
and suggested we had not adequately disclosed this process. Some 
commenters suggested that our peer reviewers had a conflict of interest 
because the Service's contractor who facilitated their selection works 
in the oil and gas industry rather than wildlife science, while other 
commenters suggested that the peer reviewers had a conflict of interest 
since they all hunt or trap. Some commenters claimed that documents 
released under the Freedom of Information Act indicated we ``hand-
picked reviewers'' to ensure a favorable review, subverting the 
validity and independence of the peer review process, and that we 
purposefully selected reviewers that were not grizzly bear experts, 
since the majority of grizzly bear experts would have been opposed to 
our proposed action, according to a survey from Ohio State University. 
Another commenter suggested that we could not legally use a contractor 
for the peer review process because: (1) The contractor is not 
disclosing the process to the public; (2) we cannot outsource the 
preparation of the Administrative Record; and (3) it violates a 2004 
OMB policy, ``Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review'' (70 
FR 2664, January 14, 2005), and a 1994 Service policy, ``Interagency 
Policy for Peer Review in ESA Activities'' (59 FR 34270, July 1, 1994). 
One commenter suggested that only a National Academy of Sciences panel 
would be adequate for performing review of the rule.
    Third, commenters stated that we did not follow up with the peer 
reviewers to ask them additional questions, noting that not doing so 
suggested that we did not give the peer review or our delisting 
decision enough thought. Another commenter suggested that this 
situation implied the need for another round of peer review (see Issue 
4). Fourth, one commenter took issue with the fact that we did not 
share with the public which peer reviewer authored each review. 
Finally, one commenter thought we did not give the peer reviewers 
enough time to review the proposed rule and associated documents.
    Response--To ensure the quality and credibility of the scientific 
information we use to make decisions, we follow a formal ``peer 
review'' process for influential scientific documents. This process 
follows the guidelines for Federal agencies spelled out in the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) ``Final Information Quality Bulletin for 
Peer Review'' (70 FR 2664, January 14, 2005). The Service updated its 
policy guidance for conducting such scientific peer reviews on listing 
and recovery actions in August 2016; however, the proposed rule was 
sent out for peer review prior to that new policy. The 2005 guidelines 
leave selection of an appropriate peer review mechanism up to the 
agency's discretion, but require the process to be transparent, that 
reviewers possess the necessary expertise, and that the process 
addresses reviewers' potential conflicts of interest and independence 
from the agency. The names of reviewers may be disclosed publicly or 
may remain anonymous; however, anonymous reviews are standard practice 
within the Service in order to encourage candor.

[[Page 30549]]

    We chose to contract the peer review out due to the controversial 
nature of our decision. Nothing in the current Service peer review 
guidance and policy prohibits the Service from doing so. As part of 
this process, we drafted a statement of work to the peer-review 
contractor, which included criteria: ``The independent peer reviewers 
shall be experienced senior-level ecologists, bear biologists, or 
population modelers, and bear managers who have previously conducted 
similar reviews or regularly provided reviews of research and 
conservation articles for the scientific literature. Reviewers must be 
well-versed in the demographic management of mammals, preferably bears 
or other carnivores.'' We also identified potential conflicts of 
interest, including: employment or affiliation with the Service, the 
States of Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho, the IGBST, or the Western 
Governors Association; those who have offered a public opinion or a 
statement either for or against delisting; and those who are directly 
or indirectly employed by or associated in any way with any 
organization that has either litigated the Federal Government 
concerning grizzly bears or wolves or taken a position on one side or 
the other about recovery and delisting of grizzly bears or wolves. Our 
statement of work also included topics and questions for the reviewers 
to consider and deliverables, including a proposed timeline, original 
scientific reviews, and a Complete Official Record.
    The contractor then selected the reviewers based on our statement 
of work. We do not know why any particular person was not chosen, such 
as Dr. David Mattson; however, we do know that those reviewers chosen 
did meet the above criteria. Neither we nor the contractor handpicked 
reviewers hoping to get a favorable review, as that would be 
counterproductive to the Act's requirements that we base our decisions 
based on the best available data.
    Peer reviewers are generally selected for their expertise on the 
particular species, closely related species, relevant threats or 
conservation actions, or other relevant topics (e.g., landscape 
ecology). To the extent that a member of the National Academy of 
Science has relevant expertise, they could be a peer reviewer, but that 
organization is not the only source of adequate or appropriate peer 
review. Peer reviewers were asked not to provide recommendations on the 
species' listing determination; rather they were asked to comment 
specifically on the quality of any information and analyses used or 
relied on in the document; identify oversights, omissions, and 
inconsistencies; provide advice on reasonableness of judgments made 
from the scientific evidence; ensure that scientific uncertainties are 
clearly identified and characterized, and that potential implications 
of uncertainties for the technical conclusions drawn are clear; and 
provide advice on the overall strengths and limitations of the 
scientific data used in the document.
    The peer reviewers were asked to provide comments within the open 
public comment period to allow for the public to access and comment on, 
should they choose, the peer reviewers' comments. No peer reviewers 
requested additional time for review. The peer reviewer comments were 
posted in regulations.gov under the docket for this rulemaking. As 
previously noted, the first comment period was open for 60 days, and a 
second comment period was open for an additional 30 days, which 
provided ample time for the public to review the proposed rule and 
supplemental documents and provide comments. Once the process is 
complete, we take into consideration the context of all comments, 
including those from peer reviewers, in our evaluation of the 
substantive information provided.
    Using a contractor for peer review does not indicate we are 
outsourcing the administrative record for this decision, as the 
administrative record comprises many documents throughout the listing 
determination process and compilation of the administrative record 
remains the Service's obligation. The Service is maintaining the 
decision file and will be preparing an administrative record per the 
Department of the Interior's guidance for compiling decision files and 
administrative records (282 FW 5).
    Issue 11--Many commenters expressed general concern that this rule 
to delist the GYE grizzly bear population allowed ``politics and 
private interests to trump science,'' that we have been ``bought,'' 
that we are ``biased,'' that our process is ``politically driven,'' and 
that we have rushed the process for the purposes of political 
expediency (e.g., by forgoing public involvement on the 2016 
Conservation Strategy and sacrificing needed updates to state 
management plans). Commenters suggested the need for a ``scientific 
integrity review'' into potentially undue political influence on the 
Service's decision-making process. Claims of this inappropriate 
influence included that: (1) The Service's Director and State governors 
used ``under the table agreements'' to set the mortality limits in the 
rule, recovery plan supplement, and 2016 Conservation Strategy; (2) the 
former grizzly bear recovery coordinator's studies were biased and not 
open to peer or public review and that he was unable to be objective 
regarding the delisting; (3) Service managers bullied staff biologists 
to delist the GYE grizzly bear population; (4) there was political 
interference with the 2015 IGBST report on grizzly bear mortality; (5) 
the Service is a pro-hunting organization and Service staff involved in 
the delisting process have ties to hunting organizations, oil and gas 
companies, or initiatives working to exterminate wolves; (6) the States 
pressured the Service to use population estimates that produce the 
maximum number of bears; (7) the Service is only proposing to delist 
the GYE population (and not the ``larger northern population'') because 
of the influence of hunting, oil, gas, mining, and property development 
lobbies; (8) industrial interests on the YES/YGCC inappropriately 
influenced the delisting proposal and will inappropriately influence 
any future changes to the 2016 Conservation Strategy; and (9) a 2015 
Union of Concerned Scientists Report suggested a dearth of ``scientific 
integrity'' at the FWS due to ``political interference.''
    Lastly, some commenters suggested that the delisting decision was a 
``political stunt to weaken the Endangered Species Act,'' referencing 
recently proposed legislation that would prevent litigation from 
overturning delisting decisions, thus ``denying opponents [of 
delisting] due process.'' On the other hand, one commenter suggested 
that delisting the grizzly bears was a stunt to save the Act from 
legislative destruction.
    Conversely, a number of commenters expressed support for the 
Service's scientific integrity and the validity and breadth of the data 
the Service used in the decision-making process.
    Response--There is no data or evidence of political interference or 
bias. While we respect and understand that some members of the public 
disapprove of this decision, it is the appropriate decision because the 
GYE grizzly bear no longer meets the definition of a threatened or 
endangered species, based on a thorough analysis of the best available 
scientific and commercial information. We are compelled to make this 
delisting decision under the statutory requirements of the Act. 
Furthermore, the IGBST, as well as senior scientists in the agency, 
recommended to senior leadership within the agency that moving forward 
with delisting was scientifically appropriate. We will respond to each 
specific claim of undue influence below.

[[Page 30550]]

    First, commenters claimed that the Service's Director and State 
governors used ``under the table agreements'' to set the mortality 
limits in the rule, recovery plan supplement, and 2016 Conservation 
Strategy. The mortality limits are set in the recovery plan supplement 
(demographic recovery criterion #3) and carried over into this rule and 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy. Section 4 of the Act provides direction 
for developing and implementing endangered species recovery. The 
Section gives the Service the ability to procure the services of 
appropriate public and private agencies and institutions, and other 
qualified persons. We discussed mortality limits with the States 
because they are the agencies that will be directly responsible for 
implementing them. More importantly, the mortality limits in the 
recovery criteria are scientifically defensible and will insure that 
the GYE grizzly bear population within the DMA will be maintained 
around the 2002 to 2014 population size (see Issue 66 for further 
discussion on the mortality rates). Throughout the more than 40 years 
of grizzly bear recovery, the Service has collaborated closely with 
state agencies to ensure positive conservation outcomes for grizzly 
bears and effective, coordinated management. This collaboration is 
partly responsible for a recovered GYE grizzly bear population. This 
collaboration continued throughout the delisting process to ensure 
effective post-delisting management and will persist after delisting 
through the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee.
    Second, commenters suggested that the former grizzly bear 
coordinator's studies were biased and not open to peer or public review 
and that he was unable to be objective regarding the delisting. The 
delisting determination used the best available scientific and 
commercial data to come to the conclusion that grizzly bears should be 
removed from the list of threatened and endangered wildlife and plants. 
The Service relied on literature from a broad range of scientists; this 
literature included peer-reviewed studies from Dr. Chris Servheen, 
former grizzly bear recovery coordinator for the Service, but also 
research from other scientists. This broad range of peer-reviewed 
sources indicated that grizzly bears in the GYE were recovered and 
would remain so after delisting.
    Third, commenters claimed that Service managers bullied staff 
biologists to delist the GYE grizzly bear population. Commenters 
provided no evidence of any alleged ``bullying'' of staff biologists. 
The Service acknowledges that its former grizzly bear coordinator, Dr. 
Chris Servheen, may have concluded that the Service did not always 
agree with his recommendations. However, there was no ``bullying.'' The 
delisting recommendation came from staff biologists. There were a 
number of issues worked out between Serve staff and management. 
Internal agency disagreement and debate are expected with a delisting 
rule for a controversial species like grizzly bears. The decision to 
delist the GYE population of grizzly bears was based on the best 
available scientific and commercial data available. Service biologists 
presented this information, including data on grizzly population trends 
and State management regulations, to Service leadership to inform their 
decision-making about the status of grizzly bears in the GYE. The 
Service's decision-making process provides opportunity for staff 
biologists who are species experts to outline all relevant information, 
ask questions, and provide recommendations.
    Fourth, commenters claimed that there was political interference 
with the 2015 IGBST report on grizzly bear mortality because 
publication of the report was delayed. There is no annual due date for 
this report, and while it is usually published midsummer, sometimes 
there are delays. The delays in the release of the 2015 IGBST report on 
grizzly bear mortality were not a result of political interference but 
a combination of the IGBST team leader being on detail as the Acting 
Center Director of the USGS Northern Rocky Mountain Science Center for 
three months, transitions within the IGBST, and scientific 
presentations, which delayed finalization of the report. We had all 
relevant data from this report available to inform our decision-making 
process about the status of grizzly bears. Considering the relevant 
content of this report, we believe that grizzly bears are recovered and 
will remain so for the foreseeable future.
    Fifth, commenters suggested that the Service is a pro-hunting 
organization and Service staff involved in the delisting process have 
ties to hunting organizations, oil and gas companies, or initiatives 
working to exterminate wolves. The Service supports hunting as a form 
of wildlife-dependent recreation and as a useful element in a suite of 
management strategies. However, the Service is not an agency whose 
purpose is to promote hunting or hunting interests; the Service mission 
is working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, 
wildlife, plants, and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the 
American people. While hunting can be an essential element of 
conserving wildlife and their habitats and can be a benefit that 
wildlife provide to the American people, the Service considers a broad 
range of factors and benefits when managing species and making 
decisions supportive of this mission. Furthermore, very little of the 
Service's budget and none of the Endangered Species program's budget 
comes from hunting revenue. While many Service staff support or 
contribute to a variety of causes in their personal capacity, Service 
ethics rules and guidelines (for example, 212 FW 1 through11), 
Departmental Regulations (for example, 5 CFR 3501.105), and government-
wide laws and regulations (for example, 18 U.S.C. Sections 201-209; 5 
CFR 2635.502) ensure these affiliations do not impact or bias their 
decision-making and management.
    Sixth, commenters claimed that the States pressured the Service to 
use population estimates that produce the maximum number of bears. This 
unsupported accusation is false. The population estimates the Service 
used in its delisting determination (the model-averaged Chao2 
population estimator) is based on the best available commercial and 
scientific data available and not States' individual preferences. 
Moreover, the model-averaged Chao2 population estimator is a relatively 
conservative estimate of the number of bears on the landscape in the 
GYE and likely underestimates the actual number of bears (Schwartz et 
al. 2008, figure 5). Other population estimators considered by the 
Service (see Issues 28 and 31), but determined not to be accurate in 
detecting population trend, yielded higher population numbers.
    Seventh, commenters claimed that the Service is only proposing to 
delist the GYE population (and not the ``larger northern population'') 
because of the influence of hunting, oil, gas, mining, and property 
development lobbies. The recovery of grizzly bears has always been 
focused around six different recovery zones. Each recovery zone has 
different recovery needs and criteria based on the biology of the 
species in that area and the relevant stressors. Thus, delisting of the 
bears in each recovery zone may occur on a different timeline as the 
populations meet unique recovery criteria. Based purely on the best 
available scientific and commercial data available, the population of 
grizzly bears in the GYE was the first to achieve recovery and warrant 
delisting. As other populations achieve this milestone, as determined 
by the best available scientific and commercial data

[[Page 30551]]

available, the Service will proceed with proposing to delist these 
populations.
    Eighth, commenters suggested that industrial interests on the YES/
YGCC inappropriately influenced the delisting proposal and will 
inappropriately influence any future changes to the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy. The Service has regularly coordinated with a wide variety of 
stakeholders through the more than 40 years of the grizzly bear 
recovery program. Please see the Recovery Planning and Implementation 
section of the final rule for a description of the role of Federal, 
Tribal, State, and local agencies involved in the formal interagency 
groups that collaboratively help guide grizzly bear management in the 
GYE. In addition, these agencies worked with local landowners, NGOs, 
and other interested parties to implement the 1993 Recovery Plan. The 
Service also met with a broad variety of stakeholders throughout the 
delisting process, including environmental NGOs. It is through these 
successful partnerships that the GYE has recovered and no longer meets 
the definition of a threatened or endangered species. These important 
partnerships will continue through the implementation of the 2016 
Conservation Strategy to ensure a wide variety of interested parties 
can contribute to the continued success of grizzly bear management 
following delisting. In addition, any changes to the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy will be open to public comment.
    Ninth, commenters referenced a 2015 Union of Concerned Scientists 
Report, which suggested a dearth of ``scientific integrity'' at the FWS 
due to ``political interference.'' The Union of Concerned Scientists 
surveyed scientists at four federal agencies, including the Service, on 
``the state of scientific integrity at their agencies, their ability to 
communicate with colleagues and the public, and overall agency 
effectiveness'' (Union of Concerned Scientists 2015, p. 4). This survey 
included biologists Service wide and did not include information on the 
particular work being conducted by survey participants. It did not 
directly address grizzly bears. The Service has a rigorous policy on 
scientific integrity that guides the agency's work and decision-making 
(212 FW 7). The policy states, ``Scientific and scholarly information 
that we consider in our decision-making must be robust, of the highest 
quality, and the result of the most rigorous scientific and scholarly 
processes as can be achieved. Most importantly, it must be trustworthy. 
We must establish and maintain integrity in our scientific and 
scholarly activities because this information is a critical factor for 
making public policies.'' In addition, delisting decisions are subject 
to scientific peer review according to the Service's peer review policy 
set forth in the Office of Management and Budget ``Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review'' (70 FR 2664, January 14, 2005). The 
Service is committed to using the best available scientific and 
commercial data available in our delisting decisions, as required by 
the Endangered Species Act. For all of these reasons, the Service does 
not believe a scientific integrity review is needed.
    The Service has been considering delisting of the GYE grizzly bear 
population for over a decade and previously published a final rule to 
delist this population in 2007 (72 FR 14866, March 29, 2007). As 
described in the Background section, that final determination was 
vacated by the Montana district court in Greater Yellowstone Coalition 
v. Servheen, et al., 672 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009), and the 
vacatur was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Greater 
Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et al., 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 
2011). During those intervening years, the Service has continued to 
work with its partners and the public to ensure GYE grizzly recovery. 
This delisting rule is the culmination of a process that began over a 
decade ago, and it is by no means rushed.

Geographic Scope of Recovery and Delisting Issues

    Issue 12--The Service received comments indicating that the 
proposed habitat protections and demographic standards are too limited 
in geographic scope. Commenters took specific issue with the scope of 
our threats, or ``five factor'' analysis. They claimed that we failed 
to fulfill the requirements in section 4(a)(1) of the Act since we only 
analyzed the importance of threats inside the DMA; commenters suggested 
that the threats analysis should not be ``limited to suitable 
habitat.'' These commenters requested we provide a more thorough 
analysis that considers threats and their impact on grizzly bears in 
the entire GYE DPS because invisible boundaries cannot be used to 
classify the health of a population.
    Response--Our threats analysis focused on those portions of grizzly 
bear range that currently contribute meaningfully to the GYE grizzly 
bear population or have the potential to contribute in the foreseeable 
future (i.e., suitable habitat, as defined and discussed in the 
Suitable Habitat section). In total, grizzly bears currently occupy 
58,314 km\2\ (22,515 mi\2\) of land within the GYE DPS boundaries. 
Seventy-two percent of the area occupied occurs within areas we 
consider suitable habitat, 28 percent of the area occupied is in 
unsuitable habitat, and 77 percent of occupancy is within the DMA 
boundaries. The DMA provides more than enough suitable habitat for a 
large, robust, healthy, and viable population and will continue to do 
so for the foreseeable future. Put another way, the DMA contains 
sufficient numbers and distribution of reproductive individuals to 
maintain the population's recovered status (i.e., does not meet the 
definition of a threatened or endangered species). Additional occupancy 
beyond this area is above what is needed to maintain recovery. 
Therefore, we believe focusing on this area is a reasonable and 
biologically rational approach.
    To the extent that this comment requests consideration of threats 
outside of the suitable habitat, we respond as follows (considering 
Factors A, B, C, D, and E). Although grizzly bears once occurred 
throughout the area within the GYE DPS boundaries (Stebler 1972, pp. 
297-299), records indicate that even in the early 19th century, grizzly 
bears were less common in these eastern prairie habitats than in 
mountainous areas to the west and south (Rollins 1935, p. 191; Wade 
1947, p. 444). Today, these habitats are no longer biologically 
suitable for grizzly bears as they lack adequate natural food resources 
and land use changes have altered the suitability of the habitat for 
grizzly bear persistence (considering Factors A, B, C, D, and E). These 
marginal, peripheral areas are either unoccupied or might in some 
instances have limited occupancy due to dispersal from core source 
population within the PCA, DMA, and suitable habitat. While grizzly 
bears that do establish or move into these unsuitable habitats will 
face a reduced probability of persistence (considering Factors A, B, C, 
D, and E), these bears will constitute a small percentage of the 
population and, thus, are of minimal importance to the sustainability 
of the overall population. Such peripheral impacts will not compromise 
the viability of the GYE population. Impacts to GYE bears in unsuitable 
habitat will not and do not singularly, or in combination with other 
factors, cause the GYE population to become in danger of extinction nor 
likely to become so within the foreseeable future in all or a 
significant portion of its range.
    Issue 13--Many commenters, including some with differing viewpoints 
on the status of the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE)

[[Page 30552]]

grizzly bear population, wanted clarification on what delisting for the 
GYE would mean for other grizzly bear populations. One commenter 
requested clarification on how this rule would distinguish grizzly 
bears that are a part of the GYE population from those who might be 
part of a different population located in Idaho, Montana or Wyoming.
    Response--Upon delisting of the GYE grizzly bear population, all 
grizzly bears in the lower 48 outside of the GYE DPS boundaries will 
continue to be fully protected under the Act. DNA samples are 
opportunistically collected from all grizzly bears trapped for research 
or management and all known mortalities. Genetic differences between 
GYE grizzly bears and other grizzly bear populations allow us to detect 
immigration and emigration from the GYE. As stated in Issue 2, the 
management and potential status of other grizzly bear populations is 
outside the scope of this final rule. That said, a draft Environmental 
Impact Statement (EIS) that examines recovery options for grizzly bears 
in the North Cascades was published in the Federal Register on January 
13, 2017 (82 FR 4336). Between 1993 and 1999, we issued warranted but 
precluded findings to reclassify grizzly bears as endangered in the 
Cabinet-Yaak (58 FR 8250-8251, February 12, 1993; 64 FR 26725-26733, 
May 17, 1999), and the Selkirk Ecosystems (64 FR 26725-26733, May 17, 
1999). However, as of 2014, both the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak 
populations were reclassified as threatened (79 FR 72440, December 5, 
2014) because of improving population trends (79 FR 72488). However, 
the Service's determination about Cabinet-Yaak bears has been 
challenged in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Jewell, et al., case no 
9:16-cv-00021 (D. Mont.) The NCDE grizzly bear population is likely 
biologically recovered; the IGBC NCDE subcommittee drafted a 
Conservation Strategy in 2013 that was published by the Service in the 
Federal Register for public comment and peer review.
    Issue 14--One commenter requested additional clarification on how 
we define range and distribution of grizzly bears. He asked how heavily 
an area needs to be used to be considered part of a species' range and 
what disqualifies an area from being part of a species' range (e.g., 
when Colorado was removed from the species' identified range a few 
decades ago). This commenter also asked whether the term 
``distribution'' is synonymous with ``range,'' how distribution is 
defined, and how much of the current GYE population is contained within 
the current distribution.
    Response--The term range generally encompasses the outer limits of 
a species' historical or current occupancy based on the data from 
reliable published scientific literature, submitted manuscripts, and 
species' experts; occurrence data; and analysis. In the proposed rule 
we used distribution, occupancy, occurrence, and current range 
interchangeably, and for this final rule we consistently use current 
range. We also discuss historical range in this final rule. A species 
may be distributed in greater or lesser numbers within its current 
range, depending on season, food availability, or other biological 
needs. Therefore, we continue to use the term distribution as it 
relates to food resources and in reference to recovery criterion #2 
(relating to the number of bear management units occupied by females 
with young).

Working With Tribes and Tribal Issues

    Issue 15--A number of commenters stated that (a) Native American 
interests and concerns were not adequately addressed in the rule; (b) 
more than 100 Tribal nations oppose the delisting; (c) we did not 
adequately consider the cultural, spiritual, and ecological 
significance of the grizzly bear to Native American Tribes, thus 
violating Executive Orders, Secretarial Orders, and Federal laws 
(including the American Indian Religious Freedom Act); (d) we did not 
appropriately analyze the significance of Tribal territory and treaty 
rights in the GYE, thus violating Tribal sovereignty; and (e) we did 
not fulfill our obligation under Executive Order 13175 to consult with 
the Tribes on the proposed rule. In addition, several commenters 
questioned whether all Federally recognized Tribes west of the 
Mississippi River (including Canadian Tribes) had been properly 
contacted, asserting that communications through form letters, emails, 
etc., are not sufficient to meet the intent of and requirement for 
face-to-face and government-to-government consultation. Furthermore, 
commenters stated that all consultations should have been conducted 
prior to publishing the proposed rule; commenters suggested that the 
delisting process should be halted until these formal consultations are 
completed. One commenter suggested the Service collaborate with Tribal 
nations prior to delisting to develop cooperative management plans for 
grizzly bear conservation and reintroduction on Tribal lands.
    Response--We take our relationships with Tribes very seriously. In 
accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the DOI manual at 512 DM 2, 
we readily acknowledge our responsibility for meaningful communication 
with Federal Tribes. In accordance with Secretarial Order 3206 
(American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, 
and the Endangered Species Act), we also acknowledge and continuously 
work to fulfill our responsibilities to Tribes to solicit and consider 
information from Tribes in our decision-making processes, to develop 
programs for healthy ecosystems, to recognize that Tribal lands are not 
subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to remain 
sensitive to Tribal culture, and to make information available to 
Tribes. We did consider the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and 
while we understand the concerns tribes have voiced about the potential 
hunting of grizzly bears, we do not agree that this final rule will 
burden religious practice to the extent that religious freedoms are 
violated because bears will still exist on the landscape and will be 
managed by Tribes on Tribal lands.
    We regularly work with directly affected Tribes as active 
participants in recovery and management of the GYE grizzly bear. The 
Northern Arapahoe and Eastern Shoshone Tribes are participants in the 
YES of the IGBC as they manage nearly 4 percent of suitable habitat 
(1,360 km\2\ (525 mi\2\), although no Tribally managed land occurs 
within the PCA (Primary Conservation Area). The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 
also participate in the YES, although they do not manage any suitable 
habitat. We also recognized our partnership with Tribal agencies and 
others in the 2016 Conservation Strategy. The YGCC will be the 
interagency group coordinating implementation of the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy and will include representatives from the Shoshone-Bannock, 
Northern Arapahoe, and Eastern Shoshone Tribes. Grizzly bear hunting on 
the Wind River Reservation will be at the discretion of these sovereign 
Tribes.
    Beginning in April 2014, the Service sent consultation invitation 
letters via registered mail to the four Tribes having treaty interests 
in the proposed GYE grizzly bear delisting area: The Northern Arapaho, 
Eastern Shoshone, Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation, and 
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Over the next year the Service was made aware 
of many more Tribes having an interest in the GYE grizzly bear and 
expanded our efforts in explaining the

[[Page 30553]]

status of the grizzly bear and offering government-to-government 
consultation to Tribes.
    On February 17, 2015, the Service sent letters offering government-
to-government consultation to 26 Tribes. On June 15, 2015, the Service 
sent out a second round of letters to 48 tribes, offering another 
opportunity for consultation, followed by personal phone calls or 
emails from Service leadership to the 48 tribes, personally inviting 
them to engage in government-to-government consultation. On August 13, 
2015, the Service met with the Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council in 
Billings, Montana and invited tribal representative to engage in 
consultation concerning the GYE grizzly bear.
    On October 29, 2015, the Service sent letters to 53 tribes, which 
included all Tribes, Tribal Councils, and First Nations in Canada that 
have contacted the Service regarding the GYE grizzly bear population. 
The letters invited all Federal Tribes to engage in government-to-
government consultation. In addition, the letter invited Tribes to 
participate in an informational webinar and conference call held on 
November 13, 2015.
    On March 3, 2016, the Service announced its proposal to delist 
grizzly bears in the GYE. The announcement was disseminated to all 
Tribes west of the Mississippi River with Tribes being notified by both 
email and hard copy mail. In addition, the Service announced two 
consultation meeting opportunities in the Federal Register and in the 
Tribal leader letters at the same time the proposed rule published. The 
two meetings were hosted in Bozeman, Montana and in Rapid City, South 
Dakota.
    On March 10, 2016, the Service hosted a tribal conference call to 
provide an overview of the proposed delisting and discuss any questions 
or concerns. It was not considered government-to-government 
consultation. The announcement for this call was included in the March, 
3rd notifications sent to Tribes.
    To date, the Service has conducted ten Tribal consultations with 
the following Tribes: June 10, 2015: Confederated Salish and Kootenai 
Tribes; June 18, 2015: Blackfeet Nation Wildlife Committee; July 21, 
2015: Northern Arapahoe Tribal Council; July 21, 2015: Eastern Shoshone 
Tribal Council; July 30, 2015: Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council; April 
28, 2016: Bozeman Montana (Tribes Present at meeting: Shoshone Bannock 
Tribes, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Northwest Band 
of the Shoshone); May 5, 2016: Rapid City, South Dakota (Northern 
Arapaho, Rosebud Sioux); November 2, 2016: Eastern Shoshone Tribe; 
November 16, 2016: Shoshone Bannock Tribe; April 07, 2017: Northern 
Cheyenne Tribal Council.
    We considered issues of cultural, spiritual, and ecological 
importance that Tribes raised and we are sensitive to those concerns. 
However, the Act requires the Service to make decisions based on the 
biological status of the species as informed solely by the best 
scientific and commercial data available. That said, once this action 
becomes effective, Tribes will have the right to manage grizzly bears 
on their Tribal lands in accordance with their spiritual, cultural, and 
historic traditions.

Recovery Criteria and Management Objective Issues

    Issue 16--Several commenters provided general concerns about the 
recovery criteria, which included: (1) Desires for additional 
discussion as to how any new population estimation method would be 
calibrated; (2) claims that the 1993 Recovery Plan is outdated and 
should be updated with the best available science; (3) suggestions that 
the Service consider Pyare and Berger (2003) in updating the 
demographic criteria; (4) concerns that any update to the Recovery Plan 
involved moving the ``goal post'' for recovery; (5) emphasis that the 
recovery criteria should be interpreted as minimums and not population 
goals; and (6) opinions that only the mortality limits in criterion #3 
are necessary to maintain a stable population size post-delisting and 
the content of criteria #1 and #2 will just restrict adaptive 
management. Both commenters and a peer reviewer wondered whether the 
criteria are tied to the model-averaged Chao2 estimate or if the 
Service retains the discretion to change the method. Some commenters 
suggested additional recovery criteria be added, including: (1) A 
criterion to monitor the changes in food resources; and (2) a criterion 
linked to a declining population trend.
    Response--Recovery plans are not regulatory documents; rather, they 
are intended to provide guidance to the Service and our partners on 
methods to ameliorate threats to listed species and on criteria that 
may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. We have updated 
portions of the 1993 Recovery Plan using the best available science, 
including a supplement to the demographic recovery criteria for the GYE 
grizzly bear concurrent with this rule, and agencies implementing the 
2016 Conservation Strategy will continue to update it as new science 
and resources allow. Despite varied suggestions of additional recovery 
criteria (i.e., consideration of Pyare and Berger (2003, pp. 70-72), 
criteria linked to food resources), peer reviewers largely supported 
the science-based approach of the recovery criteria for the GYE grizzly 
bear population and believe that these criteria will maintain a 
recovered grizzly bear population in the GYE.
    Criteria #1 and #2 are important as they set forth minimums by 
which to measure genetic health and adequate distribution of females 
with young to maintain a recovered population. The 2016 Conservation 
Strategy commits to using the model-averaged Chao2 population 
estimator, for the foreseeable future, to measure the population size 
for criterion #3 (see Issue 28 for details regarding the Chao2 method 
and Issue 31 for discussion on the implementation of a new population 
estimator). We specify that criterion #1 is no longer dependent on a 
single population estimate method. Despite these updates, we note here 
that, as discussed above, delisting determinations are based solely on 
an evaluation of whether the species meets the definition of endangered 
or threatened due to one or more of the five factors as per section 
4(a) of the Act, and while recovery criteria can inform that analysis, 
we do not need to update a species' recovery plan prior to the species' 
delisting. However, we have revised the Demographic Recovery Criteria 
for the GYE grizzly bear population concurrent with this final rule.
    Issue 17--We received several public comments that expressed 
confusion and concern about specific demographic recovery criteria. On 
criterion #1, commenters stated: (1) A desire for further biological 
justification for a population objective of 500 bears, with some 
concerns that it too low for a population objective; (2) a request for 
greater emphasis that 500 grizzly bears was based on the number of 
individuals needed for short-term genetic health (Miller and Waits 
2003) and is not a population target; (3) confusion surrounding the 
fact that the minimum of 500 bears applies within the entire DPS while 
the higher minimum of 600 bears in criterion #3 applies within the 
smaller DMA, with some commenters suggesting that this criterion be 
changed to require at least 600 bears in order to align with criterion 
#3, thus eliminating the confusion from setting two different 
population objectives, and to be consistent with the fact that 48 
females with cubs (the second part of this criterion) currently equates 
to 600, not

[[Page 30554]]

500, bears; (4) concerns that both ``and'' and ``or'' are used when 
referring to 500 bears and/or 48 females with cubs; (5) confusion as to 
why 3 consecutive years of non-compliance led to violation of the 
criterion in the supplement to the Recovery Plan, while only 2 
consecutive years of non-compliance leads to violation of the criterion 
in the 2016 Conservation Strategy; (6) concerns that there are no 
mechanisms to prevent further decline if the population falls below 
500; and (7) suggestions that the GYE population may not meet the 48 
females with cubs-of-the-year requirement if bears respond to a 
stabilizing population through decreased reproduction and that the 
criterion should be less than 48 females with cubs. Both commenters and 
the States suggested that 500 bears was an arbitrary inflation of the 
minimum number suggested by Miller and Waits (2003) and may not be as 
conservative as proposed (Waples and Yokota 2007; Luikart et al. 2010). 
Additionally, the States requested we remove any reference to genetic 
fitness from criterion #1.
    Response--In reference to criterion #1, 500 grizzly bears is not a 
population objective but a minimum population size to ensure short-term 
genetic health only. Further discussion about the biological basis for 
500 individuals as a minimum population size is provided in the final 
demographic recovery criteria supplement to the Recovery Plan. All 
criteria are measured within the same demographic monitoring area. 
Criterion #1 specifies that both minimums of 500 bears and 48 females 
with cubs-of-the-year must be maintained, and that if the population 
size drops below either of those minimums in three consecutive years, 
the criterion will be violated. The Conservation Strategy, the Recovery 
Plan supplement, and this final rule have been edited for consistency, 
with all three documents now reading `three consecutive years.'
    If the population estimate falls below 500 in any year, the Service 
will conduct a status review to determine if re-listing may be 
warranted. The 2016 Conservation Strategy establishes a process through 
which corrections to population and habitat management can be made if 
any new scientific information or change in status arise that suggests 
the need to revise. The IGBST will conduct demographic reviews of the 
vital rates for the GYE grizzly bear population every 5 to 10 years and 
be able to detect if decreased reproduction occurred as a result of a 
stabilized population. Upon completion of a demographic review, the 
IGBST will provide the information to the YGCC, who will revise or 
amend the 2016 Conservation Strategy (2016 YES, p. 96) based on the 
best biological data and the best available science. Any such 
amendments will be subject to public review. In the 2007 revision to 
the Yellowstone demographic recovery criteria, YES advised the Service 
that maintaining a minimum population size of 500 individuals would be 
a conservative approach to ensure that the population stayed above the 
minimum of 400 bears recommended by Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338) 
for genetic health.
    Commenters suggested that Waples and Yokota (2007, entire) and 
Luikart et al. (2010, entire) support the idea that 500 bears may be 
conservative. However, those authors do not address the 50/500 rule but 
rather potential biases with estimates of effective population size 
(Ne) and how to address those biases. Please see Issue 96 
for further discussion about the appropriateness of the 50/500 rule to 
ensure genetic fitness (in their entirety: Franklin 1980; Franklin et 
al. 2014) and current estimates of Ne (Kamath et al. 2015, 
entire) and the necessary minimum population size for genetic health. 
Although 48 females with cubs currently equates to 600 individuals, 
that number is dependent on the ratio of males to females in the 
population, which has varied in the past and is assessed by the IGBST 
as part of its demographic monitoring. We maintain in our discussion of 
criterion 1, in both this final rule and the revised demographic 
recovery criteria, that criterion 1 is not a population goal and that 
it refers to short-term genetic health (i.e., genetic health over the 
next several generations (see Demographic Recovery Criterion 1 under 
the Recovery Planning and Implementation section of this final rule).
    Issue 18--Commenters also supplied feedback on criterion #2 
including: (1) Confusion as to how the three consecutive 6-year sums 
are calculated and whether this would require 18 years before this 
criterion is assessed; (2) concerns that a 6-year sum of observations 
is a long time to wait to assess the criterion if female occupancy 
standards are not being met; (3) requests for clarification as to how 
occupancy is defined; and (4) suggestions that this criterion should 
apply to the whole DMA, not just the PCA.
    Response--Clarifying language was added to criterion #2 in the 
final Recovery Plan supplement and this rule to demonstrate how three 
consecutive 6-year sums are measured (table 1). The running 6-year sum 
is designed to evaluate whether adequate dispersion of females exists 
most of the time, while allowing for an anomalous year where a unit 
might be unoccupied temporarily. Occupancy of a BMU is defined as the 
documented presence of females with young (all age classes of 
offspring), which is a conservative measure because the lack of 
confirmation of females with young from sightings in a particular BMU 
does not imply absence. Criterion #2 is measured based on the Recovery 
Zone (which equates to the PCA under a delisted scenario) because that 
area represents the core of the population where presence of females 
with young is an effective indicator to ascertain that reproductive 
females occupy the majority of the Recovery Zone and are not 
concentrated in a particular area of the ecosystem.
    Issue 19--Commenters suggested that the standards in recovery 
criterion #3 were too low or too lenient, while others suggested it was 
too conservative and that the Service did not adequately justify the 
minimum numbers. Some public commenters and the States suggested that 
the criterion creates confusion on whether the population objective is 
500, 600, 612, or 674. In addition, the States suggested the wording of 
the criterion creates confusion (1) that it could be interpreted as 
requiring the States to keep bears within a range of 612-735 bears; and 
(2) about the biological purpose of this 90% confidence interval. One 
commenter expressed confusion as to why the revised criterion now 
applies only to the DMA (as opposed to the entire DPS) and requested an 
explanation as to the potential consequences of the change. Another 
commenter requested clarification as to when and how the mortality 
rates in this criterion would be adjusted.
    A number of commenters provided suggestions for how to change this 
criterion, including: (1) Making exceedance of mortality limits 
independent of a population minimum; (2) eliminating the 3-year wait 
between the population dropping below 612 and determining that the 
criterion is not met; (3) using an annual index of observed females 
with cubs-of-the-year to total observed mortality instead of proposed 
population measurement methods; (4) raising the average around which 
the population will be maintained (to be more precautionary); (5) 
halting discretionary mortality at populations of 674 bears, rather 
than 600 bears; (6) allowing the States more management flexibility for 
bear removal at populations below 600 (i.e., not limiting these 
removals to ``human safety reasons''); (7) increasing the male 
mortality limit to account for the

[[Page 30555]]

decrease in females with cubs; and (8) eliminating the mortality limit 
for dependent young, since it is not currently being measured. State 
agencies also provided suggestions for changes to this last criteria, 
including: (1) Removing the explanatory paragraph on how background and 
discretionary mortality will be calculated and simply stating that 
annual mortality limits for independent females, independent males, and 
dependent young will be as shown in table 1 (table 2 of this final 
rule); (2) consistently stating whether mortality for independent 
females at population levels less than or equal to 674 bears would be 
less than 7.6 percent or less than or equal to 7.6 percent; and (3) 
removing mention of the requirement to halt discretionary mortality at 
populations less than 600 bears since this is the Tri-State MOA and 
does not belong in the recovery criteria.
    Response--The objective of criterion #3 is to maintain the GYE 
grizzly bear population within the DMA around the average population 
estimate during the period of 2002 to 2014 as measured by the model-
averaged Chao2 population estimator. Because populations naturally 
fluctuate through time (see figure 2), it is not reasonable to manage 
to an exact population target. The minimum population size for short-
term genetic fitness did not increase from the 500 identified in 
criterion #1 as described in the 2007 delisting rule (72 FR 14866, 
March 29, 2007), our 2016 proposed delisting rule (81 FR 13174, March 
11, 2016), and this final rule. The population objective in the 2007 
delisting rule was to maintain a stable or increasing population within 
the GYE; the revised recovery criterion calls for maintaining the 
population around the average estimate from 2002 to 2014, a period 
during which natural stability was achieved.
    We recognize the confusion created by the multiple numbers in 
criterion #3. In this final rule, the 2016 Conservation Strategy, and 
the revised demographic recovery criteria, we clarify that the 
criterion calls for maintaining the population within the DMA around 
the 2002 to 2014 model-averaged Chao2 population estimate (average = 
674; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 600-747; 90% CI = 612-735). The 
lower bounds of the 90% and the 95% CIs are presented as the thresholds 
at which management changes would occur (i.e., implementing a Biology 
and Monitoring Review and halting discretionary mortality except for 
``human safety reasons,'' respectively). The demographic monitoring 
area is based on suitable habitat plus potential mortality sinks and 
was established to monitor mortality rates in the same area in which 
the population size is estimated. The suitable habitat contained within 
the DMA is sufficiently large to support a long-term, viable population 
such that mortalities outside of the DMA can be excluded from 
consideration.
    Some have criticized the population objectives in the Conservation 
Strategy and proposed rule because the States could in theory manage 
below the long-term model-averaged Chao2 estimate from 2002 to 2014 of 
674 bears. Importantly, this criticism misses the intent of criterion 
#3 as outlined in the 2016 Conservation Strategy and in the Recovery 
Plan Supplement (USFWS 2017, p. 5). The long-term model-averaged Chao2 
estimate, 674 bears, is not a minimum recovery threshold. Rather, this 
number represents a population level that is at or near carrying 
capacity (van Manen et al. 2016, entire). Under the Act, species 
recovery is considered to be the return of a species to the point where 
it is no longer threatened or endangered. Recovery under the Act does 
not require restoring a species to carrying capacity, historic levels, 
or even maximizing density, distribution, or genetic diversity. While 
the goal of the 2016 Conservation Strategy and recovery criterion #3 is 
to maintain the population around this long-term average population 
target of 674 bears, a population below this number does not mean 
recovery has not been achieved. By attempting to manage within the 95 
percent confidence interval (600-747) in accordance with criterion #3, 
the confidence interval provides a sufficient buffer to ensure that 
recovery is achieved, while also acknowledging that populations 
fluctuate naturally and it is not reasonable to manage to an exact 
population target.
    The adjustable mortality limits set forth in table 2 provide a 
mechanism for maintaining the population within this confidence 
interval and serve as a buffer to ensure the population does not drop 
and remain below the lower bound of 600 bears. For example, a 
population estimate of fewer than 674 would trigger mortality limits of 
less than 7.6 percent for independent females. The best available 
science indicates that this population will increase in size at a 
mortality limit of less than 7.6 percent. Thus, if the population is 
estimated to be fewer than 600 bears, there would be no discretionary 
mortality, likely producing a total mortality rate less than 7.6 
percent, which means the population would increase in size and return 
to the 95 percent confidence interval (600-747).
    The Service recognizes it is at least theoretically possible that, 
even with a mortality limit of 7.6 percent, a population could drop 
below 600 bears for a certain amount of time while the population is 
increasing in size; however, we do not anticipate that it will remain 
below 600 bears for an extended length of time during this rebuilding 
period because of the other mechanisms (e.g., Management Framework in 
table 3, additional safety margins listed below). The Service believes 
this is consistent with the recovery criterion. In addition, if the 
population falls below 612 individuals and the mortality limits are 
exceeded for three consecutive years, IGBST will conduct a Biology and 
Monitoring Review to inform the appropriate management response. And if 
the population drops below 600, all discretionary mortality will be 
halted, except as necessary for human safety. Additionally, if the 
limit is exceeded in any year, discretionary mortality the following 
year would be reduced by the number of mortalities that exceeded the 
limit. Non-discretionary mortality (e.g., natural causes, vehicle 
strikes) varies from year to year, and we expect that there may be 
years when non-discretionary mortality alone reaches the limits based 
on population size, and there would be no discretionary mortality 
allowed. Reduced discretionary mortality would reduce the ability of 
the States to manage the grizzly bear population, and, therefore, we 
believe that the States have a strong incentive to manage above 600 
bears.
    Further buffering our recovery criteria is the fact that the 
Service and the States agreed on a counting methodology, the model-
averaged Chao2 estimate, that is conservative, i.e., it undercounts the 
number of bears. Schwartz et al. (2008, figure 5) concluded that at the 
model-averaged Chao2 estimate of approximately 700 bears, there are 
likely 350 other bears that remain uncounted. In other words, a Chao2 
model-averaged estimate of 700 bears means that there are approximately 
1,050 bears. As with Northern Rocky Mountain wolves, the Service is 
taking a conservative approach to counting bears to ensure bears remain 
recovered.
    We provided additional safety margins to assure that the recovery 
criteria will be met. Four scenarios could lead us to initiate a status 
review and analysis of threats to determine if re-listing is warranted 
including: (1) If there are any changes in Federal, State, or Tribal 
laws, rules, regulations, or management plans that depart

[[Page 30556]]

significantly from the specifics of population or habitat management 
detailed in this final rule or the 2016 Conservation Strategy that 
would significantly increase the threat to the GYE grizzly bear 
population; or (2) a total population estimate is less than 500 inside 
the DMA in any year using the model-averaged Chao2 population 
estimator, or counts of females with cubs-of-the-year fall below 48 for 
3 consecutive years; or (3) if fewer than 16 of 18 bear management 
units are occupied by females with young for 3 consecutive 6-year sums 
of observations; and/or (4) if the Service determines a petition to re-
list from an individual or organization is substantial.
    The Service has reviewed and revised the GYE grizzly bear 
demographic recovery criteria to ensure they are adequate under the 
requirements of the Act and that they have been fully achieved, and 
determined that a population at or above 600 individuals, by managing 
for a safety margin of 674 bears, together with criterions #1 and 2, is 
biologically recovered. States have committed to maintain the GYE 
population to within these goals. Collectively, these commitments 
indicate that the entire GYE population is likely to remain recovered.
    Although there were many suggestions of slight modifications to 
this criterion, peer reviewers were supportive that this recovery 
criterion was scientifically sound and would maintain a recovered 
grizzly bear population. The mortality limit for dependent young is 
based only on human-caused mortality, which is what is currently 
measured and reported in the IGBST Annual Reports. The 2016 
Conservation Strategy, this final rule, and the supplement to the 
Recovery Plan now consistently reflect each other and the Tri-State 
MOA: At population levels less than or equal to 674, independent female 
mortality would be less than 7.6 percent.
    We disagree with comments that request we remove mention of the 
agreement to halt discretionary mortality at populations less than 600 
bears because listing actions (including this final rule) are required 
to describe threats and the measures that address those threats. 
Discretionary mortality is a potential threat to grizzly bears, and we 
must explain how that threat has been addressed in this final rule. The 
main threat of human-caused mortality has been addressed through 
carefully monitored and controlled total mortality limits established 
in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and incorporated into the 2016 
Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 33-53) and into State regulations 
as per tables 2 and 3 and Factors B and C Combined in this rule. The 
Tri-State MOA is not a replacement for our threats evaluation in this 
final rule.
    Issue 20--We received comments from peer reviewers and the public 
that expressed confusion about the population management objectives and 
their scientific basis. Some commenters and peer reviewers suggested 
that it is unrealistic to manage the population to a single number when 
the confidence intervals are large and do not account for all sources 
of variation; moreover, commenters suggested that managing to a single 
number could jeopardize connectivity to other populations. The States 
requested removal of any language that indicates a population objective 
of exactly 674 bears and instead suggested language that implies 
managing for a population around the average of 674 bears or between 
the bounds of the 95 percent confidence intervals. Some commenters 
believed that the population objective should instead be a ``stable'' 
or ``increasing'' population, which would allow the population to 
continue to expand into currently unoccupied lands within the DMA; they 
requested that all documents contain an explicit reference to 
``stability'' as the population objective. However, a few commenters 
expressed concerns with an explicit goal of managing for stability 
including: (1) that managing for stability is contrary to the Act's 
provisions; (2) that managing for stability could become challenging if 
the GYE's carrying capacity were to ever decrease (i.e., additional 
habitat would need to be provided to allow for a stable population in 
this circumstance); and (3) that the objective of stability could allow 
mortality that is high enough to preclude opportunities to grow and 
expand the population of grizzly bears into other ecosystems. The 
States suggested that the Service remove all references to 
``stability'' and instead ``refer to growth rate, reaching apparent 
carrying capacity, and population fluctuation.''
    One peer reviewer recommended that the population goals be 
periodically reevaluated to allow for consideration of natural and 
anthropogenic changes in the ecosystem. Another commenter suggested 
starting with a very protective management objective that can be made 
more liberal if State management proves to be effective.
    Response--The Service and our partners have all agreed to maintain 
the total population size around the average population estimate 
achieved during 2002 to 2014, otherwise known as the ``period of 
stability'' (YES 2016a, p. 35; YES 2016b, Appendix O). This recovery 
criterion was selected because: It represents a population level that 
is sufficiently robust to provide for the viability of the species; and 
it represents a period where the ecosystem was likely at or near long-
term carrying capacity. As measured by the model-averaged Chao2 
population estimator, this equated to 674 grizzly bears with a 95% 
confidence interval of 600 to 747. However, we agree that it is not 
practical or even possible to manage for an exact population target as 
populations naturally and inevitably fluctuate through time. The 
States' agreement to manage within the confidence intervals around 674 
bears provides reasonable management flexibility in recognition of the 
complexities of the system and of managing grizzly bears.
    The Service and the States understand that the actual population 
will vary around 674, and that mortality will be managed to ensure that 
the population does not drop and remain below 600. In our best 
professional judgement, management within this range will maintain 
recovery, as required by the Act, and a large, robust, healthy and 
viable population. We further conclude that the ecosystem can and will 
continue to support such populations. Put another way, habitat quality 
and management (discussed further under Factors A and D) provide us 
with sufficient assurance that habitat is unlikely to be the limiting 
factor in determining whether these targets are met now or within the 
foreseeable future.
    With this as the backdrop, we set human-caused mortality limits 
that the best scientific and commercial information available indicated 
would help maintain the population around the 2002-2014 average. With 
more liberal mortality rates above 674, and more restrictive mortality 
rates below that, the population should fluctuate around that average. 
We anticipate that managers will further limit mortality the closer 
they get to 600 grizzly bears, as measured by the model-averaged Chao2 
population estimator, at which point all discretionary mortality would 
be halted except as necessary for human safety. For further discussion, 
see Issue 19.
    While some expressed concern that managing for stability may 
preclude population expansion and connectivity with other ecosystems, 
the State of Montana has indicated that they will manage discretionary 
mortality in the area between the GYE and the NCDE to maintain the 
opportunity for natural movement between the ecosystems (MFWP 2013, p. 
9). Please see Issues 50

[[Page 30557]]

and 53 for further discussions on connectivity.
    We recognize that some parties support continued population growth 
in perpetuity. We conclude that this is impractical, that the system 
has biological limits, that the average population estimate for the 
period of stability likely approximates or approaches those limits, 
that expansion into unsuitable habitat is largely unsustainable, and 
that continued population growth goes beyond the requirements of the 
Act for delisting. That is, the population no longer meets the 
definition of threatened or endangered even without population growth 
in perpetuity.
    Issue 21--Many commenters expressed concern about the States' 
``management objective for the DMA of at least a range between 600 and 
747 (based on the 95% confidence interval of the estimated average 
population size between 2002 and 2014) and upon mortality rates to keep 
the population within this range,'' compared to the Service's reference 
to a management objective of a stable population around 674 bears 
within the DMA. Many commenters interpreted State management objectives 
as retracting ``any commitment to manage for a stable population of 674 
bears'' and as intentions to reduce the population to only 500 or 600 
bears, regardless of the method used to estimate the population size; 
conversely, the State agencies requested the Service emphasize in its 
final rule that the Tri-State management objective of managing for ``at 
least a range between 600 and 747'' in the DMA is ``at levels well 
above the population recovery criterion'' of 500 bears in the entire 
DPS. The States also requested that the final rule ``identify the 
States' agreed upon management objectives in relation to the recovery 
criteria.'' A peer reviewer noted that instead of ``establish[ing] 
population targets and associated specific harvest criteria,'' the 
States only identified a minimum population size for the total GYE 
grizzly bear population; the peer reviewer was concerned this oversight 
could lead to ``overharvest'' and that ``a lag in management response 
could drive the population below the desired minimum.''
    Response--The Act requires the Service to ensure that all threats 
to the species have been removed or sufficiently ameliorated such that 
the species no longer meets the definition of threatened or endangered; 
meeting or exceeding established recovery criteria assists the Service 
in determining that the species may no longer need the Act's 
protection. Specific to the demographic recovery criterion 3 (USFWS 
2017, p. 5), the States have made a number of clearly articulated 
commitments through the 2016 Conservation Strategy and Tri-State MOA to 
maintain a recovered bear population as measured by the established 
demographic recovery criteria. For example, in the Tri-State MOA 
(Wyoming Game and Fish Commission et al. 2016, pp. 4, 2.a.i.), the 
States have agreed to manage the GYE grizzly bear population within the 
DMA, to at least within the 95% confidence intervals associated with 
the 2002 to 2014 long-term average grizzly bear population estimate 
calculated using the model-averaged Chao2 estimator (i.e., 600 to 747). 
This commitment does not preclude the States from managing above this 
recovery criterion using the best available science and current 
population information. Agreed-upon mortality thresholds, as described 
in the 2016 Conservation Strategy and criterion 3 in the Recovery Plan 
Supplement, ensure this commitment will be realized because those 
threshold limits are self-regulating. At higher population levels 
(e.g., greater than 747), higher allowed mortality could cause the 
population to decline. However, once the population dropped below 747, 
a lower (more conservative) mortality rate would apply. If the 
population continued to drop and fell below 674, then a mortality rate 
would be reduced again, to a level that should result in an increasing 
population, as portrayed in table 2 in the rule.
    At any population level below 674, mortality limits would be low, 
and thus, hunting or other discretionary mortality would be managed 
within these limits. In addition, all discretionary mortality would be 
halted if the population within the DMA dropped to 600, except as 
necessary for human safety. This increases the likelihood of 
maintaining a stable population around 674 bears. See Issues 19 and 66 
for more information.
    Issue 22--We received comments both supporting and objecting to our 
conclusion that the grizzly bear is biologically recovered. Some public 
and State commenters agreed that the GYE grizzly bear population is 
recovered because density-dependent factors are most influential in 
current population demographics, the population has consistently met 
the recovery criteria in recent years, and threats have been 
sufficiently ameliorated.
    Conversely, other commenters presented reasons for disagreeing with 
our conclusions regarding recovery, including: (1) Confusion regarding 
our definition of ``recovered'' and our determination of how the GYE 
population has met demographic recovery criteria; (2) suggestions that 
higher grizzly bear numbers (ranging from 700-5,000 bears) are more 
indicative of a stable, recovered GYE population and that a 
metapopulation in the lower 48 States of 2,500-5,000 bears is necessary 
before recovery is achieved; (3) determination of recovery should 
consider age and sex structure, in addition to the number of bears; (4) 
concern that grizzly bears currently inhabit less than two percent of 
their historical range and that populations are less than three percent 
of their historical abundance; thus, we must further expand their 
range, connect to other healthy grizzly bear populations, and conduct 
additional reintroductions/reestablishment of populations before we can 
declare recovery; (5) the GYE population still meets the criteria to be 
listed as ``vulnerable'' by the IUCN Red List, and thus cannot be 
considered recovered; and (6) assertions, based on mortality rates 
exceeding mortality limits and the need to transplant bears, that 
threats have not been adequately addressed. In addition, some 
commenters suggested that recovery will not be achieved until carrying 
capacity is met, while one State suggested that carrying capacity is 
not a proper metric for assessing recovery.
    Response--The Service has determined that the GYE grizzly bear 
population has increased in size and more than tripled its occupied 
range since being listed as threatened under the Act in 1975 and that 
threats to the population are sufficiently minimized. The participating 
States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming and Federal agencies have adopted 
the necessary post-delisting management objectives, which adequately 
ensure that the GYE population of grizzly bears remains recovered in 
the foreseeable future. The Service concludes, based on the best 
available scientific and commercial data, that the GYE population of 
grizzly bears is recovered and no longer meets the definition of a 
threatened or endangered species under the Act. While grizzly bears 
currently occupy only a fraction of historical habitat in the lower 48 
States, the Service concludes that restoration of grizzly bears to all 
historical habitats (particularly those no longer capable of supporting 
grizzly bear populations) within the DPS boundaries or within the lower 
48 States is not necessary or possible. The information presented in 
this rule supports the conclusion that the GYE grizzly bear population 
has

[[Page 30558]]

recovered and no longer meets the definition of endangered or 
threatened under the Act.
    Although grizzly bears historically occurred throughout the area of 
the proposed GYE grizzly bear DPS (Stebler 1972, pp. 297-298), many of 
these habitats are not, today, biologically suitable for grizzly bears 
because of land conversion and a lack of natural food sources (i.e., 
bison). For further information, please refer to our discussion of 
Suitable Habitat. Grizzly bear recovery in these areas of the species' 
historical range (unsuitable habitat) is unnecessary, because there is 
more than enough suitable habitat (e.g., mainly public lands containing 
abundant natural food sources) to support a recovered grizzly bear 
population without grizzly bear occupancy of all historical habitat 
within the DPS boundaries. Therefore, additional recovery efforts in 
these areas are beyond what the Act requires.
    We disagree with the suggestion that there must be 2,500 to 5,000 
grizzly bears throughout the lower 48 States for recovery to be 
achieved in the GYE, and the United States District Court, District of 
Montana agreed with us, stating ``it would be nonsensical to require 
the Service to consider the grizzly bears' historic range throughout 
the United States as significant in relation to the Yellowstone grizzly 
bear'' if the GYE DPS does not remain threatened by these historical 
losses within its own boundaries (Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. 
Servheen, et al., 672 F.Supp.2d 1105, 1125 (D. Mont. 2009), aff'd on 
other grounds, Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et al., 665 
F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011) (the Montana District Court decision vacated 
the Service's 2007 delisting rule on other grounds). The fact that 
grizzly bears do not currently occupy all suitable habitat within the 
DPS boundaries does not threaten the population. To the contrary, it 
allows for ecological resiliency and population expansion in response 
to changing environmental conditions while maintaining consistency with 
the court's interpretation of the phrase, ``significant portion of its 
range'' (Servheen, 672 F.Supp.2d at 1125). Other issues such as habitat 
linkage are relevant to this rulemaking only to the extent that they 
affect the GYE DPS. For example, connectivity or a lack thereof, has 
the potential to affect this population's genetic fitness. As such, 
this issue is discussed and addressed in our five-factor analysis (see 
Factor E, above), in the 2016 Conservation Strategy, and in more detail 
in the response to Issue 96.
    We measure the demographic recovery criteria as set out in the 
current revisions to the Recovery Plan, Demographic Recovery Criteria 
for the GYE (USFWS 2017, entire). The IGBST will conduct demographic 
reviews of the vital rates (including sex ratio and survival) for the 
GYE grizzly bear population every 5 to 10 years. Upon completion of a 
demographic review, the IGBST would provide the information to the YGCC 
who could then advise States and Federal land management partners if 
modifications to the 2016 Conservation Strategy are necessary. We 
disagree with the claim that we have focused only on demographic 
recovery. While demographic factors such as mortality control and 
population monitoring are critical to recovery, we have also 
established habitat-based recovery criteria to address habitat security 
(i.e., motorized access), developed sites on public lands, and 
livestock allotments, while implementing extensive habitat monitoring 
programs for grizzly bear foods, human recreational use, and elk hunter 
numbers. Additionally, the IGBST annually monitors genetic diversity 
and trends in grizzly bear conflicts throughout the ecosystem. This 
comprehensive approach to recovery has led to reduced mortality, 
increased population numbers, and significant increases in range, and 
has allowed grizzly bears to reoccupy habitat they have been absent 
from for decades while ensuring demographic and habitat security into 
the foreseeable future, such that the species no longer meets the 
definition of a threatened or endangered species.
    As previously stated, under section 4 of the Act, a species shall 
be delisted if it does not meet the definition of a threatened or 
endangered species, considering solely the best available scientific 
and commercial data. We may not adopt the conservation classification 
criteria of other agencies or organizations, such as the IUCN. However, 
we do evaluate and consider the underlying data other agencies or 
organizations have relied upon in making their own conservation 
classifications. While it is true the GYE grizzly bear population meets 
one of the IUCN criteria for vulnerable (population size estimated at 
less than 1,000 mature individuals), our recovery and post-delisting 
management goals were designed to provide for the long-term 
conservation of the GYE grizzly bear population by ensuring sufficient 
control of human-caused mortality and maintenance of suitable habitat.
    Finally, regarding carrying capacity, this has never been one of 
our recovery criteria. While there are multiple lines of evidence 
suggesting the population is at or near carrying capacity (e.g., 
decreased cub and yearling survival, increased generation interval, 
decreased home range size), we have not used this information to assess 
recovery. Instead, this information has helped us understand some of 
the more recent demographic changes the IGBST has documented, such as a 
lower population growth rate between 2002 and 2011 than that documented 
between 1982 and 2001. See Issue 37 for further discussion on carrying 
capacity.

Other Comments on Whether To Delist

    Issue 23--Multiple commenters believed our description of the 
taxonomy of grizzly bears in the GYE is no longer the best available 
science. They presented that the GYE grizzly bears are ``part of a 
clade (Clade 4) with an ancient and unique history, a restricted 
distribution, and warranting consideration as evolutionarily unique and 
threatened genetic linkage.'' They asserted that because this unique 
taxonomic classification includes, and is limited to, the entire lower 
48 grizzly bear metapopulation, recovery must address grizzly bears in 
the entire lower 48 States as a whole unit, instead of splitting out 
the GYE.
    Response--The Act allows consideration for listing, 
reclassification, and delisting of species, subspecies, and DPSs. As 
part of the process to designate one or more units as a DPS, we 
evaluate their discreteness and significance to the taxon (61 FR 4722, 
February 7, 1996). While this analysis is often informed by genetics, 
we are not limited to large genetic units such as clades. After a 
comprehensive analysis in both our 2007 delisting determination (72 FR 
14866, March 29, 2007) and an updated analysis in the proposed 
delisting rule (81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016), and after review of peer 
and public comments addressed in this final rule, we have determined 
that the GYE population of grizzly bears is discrete and significant, 
meeting the definition of a DPS under the Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 
1996). Therefore, the GYE grizzly bear is a listable entity under the 
Act, and may be considered and classified separately from other 
listable entities. Our recognition that the GYE grizzly bear population 
qualifies as a DPS and its separate listing or delisting is also 
consistent with the 1993 Recovery Plan's (which predates the Service's 
1996 DPS policy) stated intention to delist each of the remaining 
populations as they achieve their recovery targets and an associated 
five-factor analysis under section 4 of the

[[Page 30559]]

Act indicates that they no longer meet the definition of a threatened 
or endangered species (USFWS 1993, p. ii).
    There is disagreement among geneticists as to the conclusion that 
the genetic evidence suggests four different evolutionarily significant 
units (ESU) in North America (Waits et al. 1998, p. 414), with Clade IV 
representing brown bears in Southern Canada and the coterminous lower 
48. Clades based on mitochondrial DNA may be evidence of a historical 
event but do not accurately reflect genetic divisions in current 
populations as gene flow is disproportionately affected by males as a 
result of their larger movements (Paetkau et al. 1997, p. 1950).
    In the event that a taxonomic change is eventually accepted as the 
best available science based on genetic differentiation between brown 
bears in North America (Waits et al. 1998, p. 414), the GYE 
population's discreteness would be unchanged and the significance of 
this population relative to a smaller taxonomic unit would continue to 
meet the standards of the DPS policy (loss of GYE relative to this 
smaller unit would continue to represent a significant gap in the range 
of the taxon) (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). Furthermore, such a 
hypothetical finding would not alter the recovered status of this 
population.
    Issue 24--We received comments both agreeing and disagreeing with 
our determination that the GYE grizzly bear should be delisted. Those 
who supported delisting, including State commenters, suggested that: 
(1) States would allocate more money towards grizzly bear conservation 
and management, post-delisting; (2) funds could be allocated to other 
at-risk species in greater need; (3) delisting was appropriate, even if 
future impacts to the population cannot be predicted with certainty 
because recovery criteria had been meet and the population was not at 
risk of declining; and (4) there are too many bears in the GYE, 
resulting in increased conflict with livestock and hunters, posing a 
safety issue, and potentially causing eventual collapse of the entire 
ecosystem.
    Conversely, other commenters asserted that delisting: (1) Was 
premature because we based it primarily on population size or ``social 
carrying capacity,'' or on insufficient time to measure success, public 
input, and inadequate or unreliable data; (2) contradicts the 
precautionary approach to wildlife management mandated under the Act, 
especially considering potential threats from climate change, 
implementation of hunting, and the low reproductive rates of bears; (3) 
contradicts opinions of grizzly bear biologists cited in an Ohio State 
University study; and (4) could lead to population declines or 
extinction of the GYE grizzly bear. Other commenters suggested that 
Federal protections be increased, rather than removed, while another 
suggested that excess bears should be culled rather than be delisted. 
Some commenters asserted that the goal of the Act is to recover a 
species, not delist it: We should ensure that re-listing will not be 
necessary in the foreseeable future, rather than delisting as soon as a 
population meets minimum goals.
    Many commenters recommended delaying delisting until we can 
demonstrate successful reproduction outside of National Parks and 
effective dispersal and connection between grizzly populations.
    Some commenters opposed delisting because they suggested that 
management would revert to the States and hunting would likely follow, 
with bears classified as predators and then shot, poisoned, or killed 
on sight. One commenter thought that proposed State replacements for 
section 7 consultations, section 9 take prohibitions, and an ability to 
bring legal challenge against management actions were inadequate. 
Another commenter asserted that, after the 2007 delisting, GYE grizzly 
bears were placed back on the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife because we failed to protect the species. One commenter 
suggested delisting could not be justified given the intrinsic values 
of the species.
    Response--The principal goal of the Act is to return listed species 
to a point at which protection under the Act is no longer required (50 
CFR 424.11(d)(2)). A species may be delisted on the basis of recovery 
only if the best scientific and commercial data available indicate that 
it is no longer endangered or threatened within all or a significant 
portion of its range (50 CFR 424.11(d)). As described later in this 
rule, we determine that, based on the best available data, the GYE DPS 
meets neither of these definitions for listing, thereby justifying 
delisting due to recovery.
    To be clear, the Act does not contain a mandate or requirement that 
we institute a ``precautionary approach to wildlife management.'' 
Instead, the Act mandates that we make decisions about conservation 
status based on the best available scientific and commercial data, 
which informs the Act's definitions of threatened and endangered 
species. We remain confident that this population has long been 
recovered and will remain so after delisting.
    Furthermore, this final rule, the 2016 Conservation Strategy, and 
the protective measures in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho implement a 
conservative management approach by establishing science-based 
population criteria tied to the demographic recovery criteria, while 
also maintaining distributional recovery criteria. In addition, the 
adaptive management system in the 2016 Conservation Strategy 
incorporates the results from intensive monitoring of population vital 
rates, habitat standards, and major foods into management decisions and 
ensures the GYE grizzly bear DPS will remain recovered under the 
management frameworks now in place in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. In 
short, the regulatory frameworks now in place give us great confidence 
that this success story for American conservation and the Act will be 
maintained and that future generations will be able to see and enjoy 
grizzly bears in the GYE.
    Strict regulations and regulatory mechanisms within State statute 
or codified regulation are in place to protect grizzly bears within the 
DPS boundaries. The States of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho have 
classified grizzly bears throughout the entire GYE DPS boundaries as a 
game animal and have never suggested they will be classified as 
predators (W.S. 23-1-101(a)(xii)(A); W.S. 23-3-102(a); MCA 87-2-101(4); 
MCA 87-1-301; MCA 87-1-304; MCA 87-5-302; IC 36-2-1; IDAPA 
13.01.06.100.01(e); IC 36-1101(a)). Game animal status is much more 
protective than predator status. Any grizzly bear found outside of the 
DPS boundaries would be protected under the Act as a threatened 
species. If any of the three States decided to classify grizzly bears 
as predators (an outcome that has not been proposed or even discussed 
to our knowledge), we would consider this a significant departure from 
current State laws and regulations and we would immediately initiate a 
status review.
    Lastly, while we respect the moral and ethical reasons some members 
of the public may have for disapproving of this decision, delisting is 
the appropriate decision based on the current status of the DPS and the 
statutory requirements of the Act.
    Issue 25--One commenter claimed we inappropriately conclude that 
threats become irrelevant when they ``can be managed.'' This commenter 
suggested that threats we and others successfully manage (such as 
genetic health) should still be regarded as a threat during our 
evaluation.

[[Page 30560]]

    Response--In our five-factor analysis of threats to the GYE 
population of grizzly bears, we do not claim that managed stressors are 
irrelevant but rather that these threats have been eliminated or 
sufficiently ameliorated such that the DPS no longer meets the 
definition of a threatened or endangered species. We considered all of 
the factors under section 4(a)(1) of Act and assessed the cumulative 
effect that any threats identified within the factors--as ameliorated 
by any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts--will 
have on the GYE grizzly bear population now and in the foreseeable 
future. Based on our analysis, we have determined that the GYE grizzly 
bear population no longer requires the Act's protection. Please see the 
Determination section at the end of the threats analysis for more 
information.
    Issue 26--Some commenters expressed skepticism towards our data, 
analysis, and cited research. Commenters claimed that our rule was not 
based on the best available science because: It is contrary to Dr. 
David Mattson's ideas; NPS leaders have questioned our analysis and 
conclusions; much of the published research we cited in our proposed 
rule was not adequately reviewed, thus this research is not reliable 
because it is still undergoing ``post-publication'' scrutiny; our 
process has seemed ``convoluted''; and an email from the Service's 
former Director released under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 
contained the phrase ``this recommendation seem[s] at odds with the 
best available science standard of the ESA.'' Commenters opined that 
the raw data used in our analysis was not made available for 
independent review, even though it belongs to the public since 
taxpayers paid for the research. They expressed concern that the 
``monopoly'' the IGBST has on grizzly bear population data prompts 
groupthink and a general lack of transparency. One commenter requested 
we ``establish a review panel of independent, academically qualified 
scientists who are not involved in current grizzly bear research in the 
GYE.'' Another commenter claimed that the peer review process does not 
sufficiently detect error or bias and that it is no more likely to 
detect error or bias than by random chance. The same commenter took 
issue with the proposed rule's reliance on models because there is 
never one correct model, claiming that model building is ``the most 
bias-prone form of analysis.'' Another commenter cautioned against 
committing Type II errors in analysis (a ``false negative'').
    Response--The Act requires us to make our listing determinations 
based upon the best scientific and commercial data available. In this 
case, we relied upon numerous peer-reviewed and published documents 
that were readily available either through regulations.gov in this 
rulemaking's docket, at https://www.fws/gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlybear.php, or by appointment with the Service's Grizzly Bear 
Recovery Coordinator. This information was publicly available when we 
published our proposed rule and during our public comment period. For 
example, mortality information, including date of death, sex, age, 
certainty of death, if the bear was marked or not, and drainage 
location, are published annually in the IGBST's annual reports, 
available at https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/igbst-annual-reports?qt-science_center_objects=1#qt-science_center_objects. It is 
important to note that we did not rely upon any of these raw data to 
make our decisions, but rather on the peer-reviewed published 
interpretations of that raw data. We did not have any additional data 
than what was available to the public.
    The IGBST approach to scientific studies involves extensive 
collaborations and contracts with independent academic and agency 
researchers who do not serve on the IGBST. Data used to calculate 
population size are available in the tables provided by Keating et al. 
(2002, p. 171), included in the Supplement to the Reassessing Methods 
Document (IGBST 2006, p. 7), as well as the annual reports produced by 
the IGBST. Estimates of sustainable mortality limits recommended in the 
Reassessing Methods Document are based on survival and associated 
population growth rates presented by Harris et al. (2006, p. 50). All 
results of Harris et al. (2006, p. 48) where estimates of population 
growth were made can be duplicated from data available in the other 
chapters of the Monograph. Data used to calculate transition 
probabilities are included in the Supplement to the Reassessing Methods 
Document (IGBST 2006, pp. 19-21). The IGBST also released the raw data 
files and digital records from 1975-1998 in response to a FOIA request. 
The IGBST replied to a later request for such data but has not yet 
received a formal FOIA request. We have released data that was in our 
possession and not otherwise prohibited from release by law (i.e., 
exact locations of grizzly bears obtained via VHF or GPS telemetry 
(i.e., ``raw data'') were not in our possession, and the Omnibus Parks 
and Public Lands Act of 1998 (16 U.S.C. 5937) exempts release of 
specific locations of threatened species within National Parks units).
    As discussed under Issue 10, we have followed our peer review 
policies. Peer review is a widely accepted approach within the 
scientific community to maintain the highest standards of quality and 
provide credibility. It is designed to detect biases and flawed 
assumptions by allowing objective and anonymous reviewers, when 
appropriate and applicable, to examine the methods, results, 
interpretation, and conclusions of colleagues to identify weaknesses 
and suggest improvements before publication. Peer review provides a 
critical evaluation of the subject work by similarly qualified experts 
and constitutes a form of self-regulation by qualified members of a 
profession within the relevant field. In short, peer review is an 
integral part of the scientific process, and publication in a peer-
reviewed journal is often a key consideration in our assessment of what 
constitutes best available science. The GYE grizzly bear population is 
the most studied in the world, and the peer-reviewed scientific journal 
articles used in the proposed and final rules represent the best 
available science.
    Models are never perfect, but are crucial to the scientific 
process. Models can be reliable and informative as we consider the best 
scientific and commercial data available. Modeling typically requires a 
set of assumptions and can be prone to error, including Type II errors. 
Incorrect inputs or failure to account for certain variables or 
assumptions can result in inaccurate outputs and conclusions. By 
design, scientific peer review identifies and corrects potential 
concerns with modeling. Models used by IGBST and other scientists are 
based on commonly used and broadly accepted approaches in wildlife 
science. To suggest that models should not be used or relied upon is 
too generalized a conclusion and, in our view, unfounded. Not using 
scientific inference from modeling would reject the role of science. 
Ignoring available modeling could be directly counter to the Act's 
requirement that we base our decisions on the best available science.
    We are aware of and considered ideas that are contrary to our 
conclusions, including those of Dr. David Mattson, who contends that 
the population is declining due to declining food sources, drought, 
invasive species, and habitat loss. However, the peer-reviewed research 
does not support this idea. Please see Factor E: Changes in Food 
Resources for further discussion.

[[Page 30561]]

    Issue 27--Commenters expressed concerns with the methodology used 
in population viability modeling, model selection, and modeling 
timeframe. Commenters suggested that the Service is basing decisions on 
a modeling effort that failed to investigate the relationship between 
population and habitat data that used a 100-year modeling timeframe 
that was too short for a long-lived species, and that used an improper 
modeling endpoint. Commenters thought we used modeling to determine the 
timeframe required for the population to drop to zero rather than the 
timeframe that would result in an inadequate number of individuals to 
maintain the population. Commenters also requested clarity on specific 
model parameters we used in decision-making. These include the specific 
threshold used to determine extinction probability (e.g., 5 percent 
risk of extinction), whether the model results were based on density-
dependent or independent data, and whether we included habitat change 
data.
    Response--The proposed rule (81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016) 
referenced key findings of a population viability analysis conducted by 
Boyce et al. (2001, entire), which represents the primary peer-reviewed 
source for this type of analysis for the GYE grizzly bear population. 
The details of the model parameters were provided in Boyce et al. 
(2001, p. 8), which should be consulted as the original literature 
source.
    Opinions vary regarding what criteria should be evaluated (i.e., 
population of zero versus some other threshold level), but the proposed 
rule used a commonly applied metric of population viability, the 
probability of extinction (or its reverse, probability of population 
persistence) over certain timeframes. A 100-year timeframe is commonly 
used for viability analyses of many species, including long-lived 
vertebrates. The final rule for delisting of the Louisiana black bear 
(81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016), for example, also referenced population 
viability analyses with the probability of persistence measured over a 
100-year timeframe (Laufenberg and Clark 2014, p. 2). Moreover, the GYE 
proposed rule also refers to a 500-year timeframe for the GYE grizzly 
bear population.
    The GYE proposed rule clearly cautioned the reader that the 
analyses of Boyce et al. (2001, p. 34) did not consider possible 
changes in vital rates due to habitat changes. Vital rates have indeed 
changed since the time of the analysis (although the preponderance of 
evidence indicates these changes in vital rates were associated with 
increased population density, rather than changes in food resources). 
The GYE proposed rule recognized that the outcome of the population 
viability analyses could change with different vital rates, but also 
emphasized that further research (Nielsen et al. 2006, p. 227; Schwartz 
et al. 2010, p. 665) indicated the key importance of secure habitat as 
an effective management tool to ensure population persistence.

Measurement of and Interpretation of Population Parameters Issues

    Issue 28--We received comments from peer reviewers and the public 
that expressed concern about the use of the Chao2 estimate method to 
estimate the grizzly bear population size, asked for additional 
details, declared the Chao2 method ``outdated,'' and questioned whether 
the Chao2 method is the best available science, while the States 
supported our use of Chao2 and suggested it represents ``the best 
available science for monitoring and evaluation of population trends.'' 
Peer reviewers expressed confusion about what the Chao2 estimation 
methodology entails, including: (1) Questions as to whether the Chao2 
estimator is an estimate of the total number of females with cubs or an 
estimate of overall grizzly bear abundance; and (2) requests for 
additional details on how model averaging is used with the Chao2 
estimator, given the potential issues with model-averaging (Cade 1995). 
In addition, commenters suggested that we provide more details 
regarding the demographic inputs and how they are determined; the model 
assumptions; how the initial population size was estimated; how the 
sex-age class distributions were estimated; why the current ratio of 1 
independent male to each independent female is used as opposed to the 
previous ratio of 0.635; how cumulative uncertainty in the population 
model inputs are carried over into final uncertainty of the estimated 
population size; how natural mortalities were estimated and included; 
and whether the population size is based on unique number of females 
with cubs or litter size. Peer reviewers asked if the Chao2 estimator 
was published in a single paper in its entirety or had been subject to 
peer review.
    Commenters also cast doubt on the accuracy and reliability of the 
Chao2 population estimation method, especially considering the research 
of Doak and Cutler (2014a, 2014b). These concerns included: (1) 
Concerns that Chao2 becomes less accurate with time; (2) confusion 
about the wide range of estimated population sizes (according to 
Thuermer (2016), the number of bears, based on the Chao2 method, could 
range anywhere from 552 bears to 1,110 bears); (3) suggestions that 40 
percent variance (the apparent variance associated with the Chao2 
estimate) is unacceptable; and (4) suspicions about the fact that, in 
2007, the population estimate jumped from the long-time estimate of 
260-600 bears to 700 bears because delisting was under consideration. 
One commenter wondered how the raw counts and Chao2 estimates of 
females with cubs differ in Keating et al. (2002, table 5) and records 
from the mortality workshop for the years 1999 to 2001. Another 
commenter suggested that the Chao2 estimate is only conservative if the 
population is indeed increasing; this commenter noted that, if the 
vital rates and mortality rates are incorrectly estimated, then the 
population could decline undetected. On the other hand, one commenter 
worried that the Chao2 estimator was too conservative ``when the 
population is continuing to increase and expand beyond its biologically 
suitable and socially acceptable habitats.''
    Several comments were concerned with the measurement and 
interpretation of unique females with cubs, and how potential biases in 
these counts could lead to overestimation of the Chao2 population 
estimate (which is based on counts of females with cubs). The first 
source of bias commenters cited stems from increased sightability; over 
time, as bears have increased their use of moth sites, which are easier 
to monitor, it has become easier to find and count individual bears. 
These commenters claimed that the increasing trend of the number of 
females with cubs in IGBST monitoring data could stem from the fact 
that it has become easier to count bears and not from the fact that 
there are actually more bears in the GYE. The second source of bias 
commenters cited relates to increased unreliability of unique sightings 
of females with cubs. Based on the guidelines for how the IGBST counts 
females with cubs, females sighted with differing numbers of cubs are 
considered unique (e.g., a female spotted with two cubs near where a 
female with three cubs was also spotted is counted as an additional 
unique female). However, increased cub mortality increases the 
difficulty in distinguishing between unique females with cubs; between 
multiple survey flights, a female could lose a cub and thus be counted 
twice (once as a unique female when she has three cubs and again as a 
unique female when she is

[[Page 30562]]

spotted with only two cubs). This situation can again cause 
overestimation of the number of females with cubs. The third source of 
bias comes from increased search effort; variable efforts in surveys 
could lead to artificially higher counts of females with cubs. One 
commenter suggested that courts have ruled our use of a population 
estimator based on ``females with cubs'' illegal (Funds for Animals v. 
Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96, 114 (D.D.C. 1995)). Commenters asked that we 
discuss potential methods for managing these biases associated with 
counts of females with cubs (and thus with Chao2), such as specifying 
that population monitoring will continue indefinitely at the same 
intensity, the same distribution, and under the same design to account 
for potential biases from variable search effort and conditions.
    Commenters raised concerns about other sources of bias in the Chao2 
estimator. First, some commented that the population estimate is 
influenced and potentially biased by the multipliers used for dependent 
young, pre-reproductive independent females, and independent males, and 
by changing survival rates (i.e., the increase in the population 
estimate as a result of the increased survival rate used for adult 
males after 2012). Second, commenters claimed that the Knight Rule (the 
rule we use for distinguishing unique females with cubs) could reduce 
the ability of Chao2 to detect changes in population size. Under these 
rules, we consider two females spotted within 30 km (19 mi) of each 
other as the same bear. As grizzly bear populations become denser, 
there will eventually be a maximum number of bears that surveyors can 
possibly count given these rules (i.e., one bear in every 30 km (19 mi) 
radius); they referred to this maximum number of bears countable under 
the Knight Rule as the ``density threshold.'' One commenter worried 
that once the population exceeds this threshold, managers will not be 
able to detect declines in the population between the actual number of 
bears and this threshold, since the counts of bears will be 
artificially stagnant. Another commenter worried that managers could 
misinterpret reaching the density threshold as reaching the carrying 
capacity of the population. Commenters suggested that we should use the 
methods in Ordiz et al. (2007) instead of the Knight Rule. Third, one 
commenter suggested that the method is insensitive to rapidly changing 
conditions.
    Response--The Chao2 estimate method is the best science that is 
currently available and that can apply under the current monitoring 
schemes. Whereas many other and newer estimation techniques exist, they 
do not necessarily provide the best available science for the desired 
monitoring objectives, as described below. Furthermore, the Chao2 
technique is one of several that the IGBST uses to monitor population 
size and trend. Although there are other methods that would likely 
result in greater precision and lower bias (e.g., DNA sampling), not 
only are they currently not available with the data we have, the annual 
implementation of these methods would be prohibitive both in costs and 
logistics. The IGBST estimated that the costs for a single DNA-based 
population estimate for the entire GYE would be approximately $11 
million. The IGBST will continue to investigate cost-effective 
techniques that may result in relatively unbiased estimates with 
greater precision. We have provided clarifications in this final rule 
(see Population and Demographic Recovery Criteria) and the 2016 
Conservation Strategy (see Chapter 2) to address comments concerning 
the application and transparency of the definition of the Chao2 
estimator. The model-averaged Chao2 provides an estimate of the number 
of females with cubs-of-the-year, rather than an estimate of the 
overall grizzly bear abundance, which is then used to derive a total 
population estimate. In response to a comment about potential issues 
with model-averaging, our interpretation of Cade (2015, entire) and 
others (e.g., Fieberg and Johnson 2015, entire) is that model-averaging 
of the regression coefficients is not recommended, but that model-
averaging of predictions (i.e., in this instance, annual estimates of 
the number of females with cubs-of-the-year based on a linear and 
quadratic model) is appropriate. Thus, the term ``model-averaged Chao2 
estimate'' is appropriate and should be continued.
    We have provided clarifications in the final rule (see Population 
and Demographic Recovery Criteria) and the 2016 Conservation Strategy 
(YES 2016a, pp. 33-53) to address comments concerning the transparency 
of the definition of the Chao2 estimator. Although the details of the 
Chao2 estimator are not published in their entirety in a single 
article, we have expanded the description of the Chao2 estimator to 
include all relevant peer-reviewed literature. All of the details are 
provided in the literature regarding the application of the Chao2 
estimator and the inputs and would be too technical and cumbersome to 
include in the final rule and 2016 Conservation Strategy, which were 
revised to provide all relevant references for the Chao2 estimate 
technique.
    The derivation of total population size introduces additional 
uncertainty into the total population estimate, but we have no data 
that suggest that bias would increase. Indeed, the vital rates (i.e., 
survival and fecundity) derived from the IGBST's large sample of radio-
marked bears monitored annually, which form the basis for the 
multipliers, have been published in multiple peer-reviewed papers using 
well-established techniques (e.g., in their entirety: Schwartz et al. 
2006b; van Manen et al. 2016). The most recent analyses by van Manen et 
al. (2016, p. 305) showed that male survival rates increased from 1983-
2001 to 2002-2012.
    The survival estimates are not inflated and, in fact, may be 
underestimates because IGBST assigns the month of death as the last 
month an individual bear was known to be active when a bear was lost 
from monitoring and the date of death was unknown. If some of these 
individuals were lost the following month, the overall estimate of 
survival would be higher (Haroldson et al. 2006, p. 40). Regarding 
insensitivity to rapidly changing conditions, IGBST is currently 
investigating the power of the current population estimation protocol 
to detect a declining trend (see Issue 29). One commenter referred to 
the findings of the demographic review conducted by IGBST in 2011, 
which was triggered by the monitoring system indicating a change in 
population trend had occurred. That demographic review was based on 
2002-2011 data and indicated that population growth had slowed starting 
in the early 2000s and, importantly, also indicated that several vital 
rates had changed (e.g., lower survival of cubs and yearlings, greater 
survival of independent males). Because IGBST uses vital rates to 
extrapolate population estimates of females with cubs-of-the-year to a 
total population estimate, the relative proportions of different 
population segments changed. Due to the increase in survival of 
independent males, the sex ratio of independent males and females is 
now 1:1, rather than the previous ratio of 0.635, which means the 
independent male segment in the population is now proportionally 
greater than what was documented in 1983-2001.
    Thus, while population growth indeed slowed down, a given estimate 
of the number of females with cubs-of-the-year based on 2002-2011 vital 
rates translates into a larger total population compared to 1983-2001 
data because of the greater proportion of independent males in the 
population. These observations are not an indicator of the

[[Page 30563]]

``high uncertainty in the monitoring of this population.'' In fact, the 
IGBST concluded that the monitoring system was effective: (1) The IGBST 
developed a population monitoring system and established triggers that 
indicate when a change has occurred; (2) the IGBST noted when a change 
in population growth was detected; (3) the IGBST studied the 
demographic factors (i.e., vital rates) associated with that change 
(e.g., lower cub and yearling survival, greater independent male 
survival; slight reduction in fecundity); (4) the IGBST tested 
hypotheses regarding these changes in vital rates (effects of change in 
food resources versus density dependence); and (5) the findings were 
published in peer-reviewed journals and other outlets so that managers 
can adjust management accordingly. The biases associated with the Chao2 
method and how they are carried through were identified in IGBST (2012, 
p. 20). The population size is based on the unique number of females 
with cubs-of-the-year; litter size is only a factor in separating 
unique females with cubs.
    In response to doubts on the accuracy and reliability of the Chao2 
population estimation method: (1) We acknowledge an underestimation 
bias in Chao2 that increases as the population grows (i.e., 
underestimation is greater as the number of females with cubs in the 
population increases); however, this bias translates into a 
conservative approach to management of the GYE population. (2) We also 
acknowledge that other methods yield higher population estimates (e.g., 
Thuermer 2016, entire); however, the higher population estimates 
mentioned by Thuermer (2016, entire) were based on the Mark-Resight 
technique, which also yields low precision when utilized for trend 
detection. (3) Keating et al. (2002, pp. 172-172) discusses the 
coefficient of variation associated with the Chao2 method. (4) In 2007, 
the IGBST implemented the model-averaging technique, which resulted in 
a slight increase in population estimates. The IGBST decided not to 
apply this technique retroactively to population estimates in years 
prior to 2007. In addition, population estimates increased with 
increasing male survival, which resulted in more males in the estimated 
population (IGBST 2012, p. 33). These decisions were made independently 
by the IGBST and had no connection with the delisting under 
consideration. The raw counts and Chao2 estimates of females with cubs 
differed in Keating et al. (2002, p. 166) because they used only 
females with cubs seen without the aid of telemetry in the Yellowstone 
Recovery Zone plus the 10-mile perimeter, whereas the IGBST (2006, p. 
5) assessment included females throughout the GYE. It is possible that 
the population is growing and expanding beyond the DMA while the Chao2 
method is showing a stable population because the population is only 
estimated for within the DMA and the Chao2 technique results in a 
conservative estimate and the underestimation bias increases with 
population size.
    Schwartz et al. (2008, entire) demonstrated that the bias 
associated with the measurement and interpretation of unique females 
with cubs-of-the-year results in an underestimation of the population 
estimate, with increasing negative bias as the number of females with 
cubs in the population increases. Doak and Cutler (2014a, entire) 
critiqued the approach taken by the IGBST of using the model-averaged 
Chao2 estimator of females with cubs-of-the-year to derive the total 
population estimate. They claim that increases in grizzly bear 
population estimates from 1983 to 2001 can be attributed to factors 
other than actual increases in population size, primarily observation 
effort and sightability of female grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year. 
However, in a rebuttal, van Manen et al. (2014, entire) demonstrated 
that the simulations of Doak and Cutler (2014a, entire) were not 
reflective of the true observation process nor did their results 
provide statistical support for their own conclusions. In addition, van 
Manen et al. (2014, pp. 326-328) found that there was no justification 
to account for ``bias associated with the method or disagreements in 
the scientific community about the population estimate of ~700''; 
particularly given the demonstrated underestimation bias of the rule 
set (Schwartz et al. 2008, entire) and the Chao2 estimator (Cherry et 
al. 2007, entire). Both sources of known negative bias contribute to 
conservative population estimates. The related comment disregards the 
notion of the central tendency of data and mischaracterizes the 
scientific concept of uncertainty. We answer this using a relevant 
quote from Schwartz et al. (2006b, p. 62), who addressed the issue of 
uncertainty in demographic estimates as they relate to management: 
``Thus, we see no escape from uncertainty. To claim that no decision 
about what has occurred should be adopted until uncertainty is removed 
or to claim that the only acceptable decision adopts some lower 
confidence limit as truth is to reject the role of science. If the 
possibility of population decline is treated as the fact of population 
decline (even where overwhelming evidence suggests otherwise), there is 
no need to spend money on research or monitoring because the management 
approach would be identical regardless of what data were produced. 
Because it is impossible to absolutely reject the hypothesis of 
decline, one would always manage as though a decline had occurred. To 
us this would seem poor policy.''
    The critique of increased search effort and sightability were 
addressed in substantial detail in the response by van Manen et al. 
(2014, pp. 324-325) to the critique article by Doak and Cutler (2014a, 
entire). Specifically, in figure 1 of the Supplemental file from van 
Manen et al. (2014), they demonstrated that the number of flight hours 
increased as flight observation areas were added to accommodate range 
expansion from 1986-2010. The correlation coefficient suggested this 
was a near 1-to-1 relationship. One key aspect of the Chao2 estimator 
is that it reduces bias due to variation in sightability among 
different females with cubs-of-the-year. Additionally, model averaging 
smooths annual variations in counts that are due to both sampling and 
process variation, with the process variation coming from the 
proportion of females that have cubs at the side in any particular 
year. If anything, changes in litter size would increase 
underestimation bias and thus be conservative. Moreover, while cub 
mortality has increased, the geographic distribution of observed litter 
size has not.
    The suggestion that we continue the current method of population 
monitoring indefinitely, including intensity, distribution, and design, 
is addressed in this final rule (see Population and Demographic 
Recovery Criteria) and in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, 
pp. 33-53). In response to the suggestion that we review Ordiz et al. 
(2007, entire) as an alternative to the Knight rule, there are multiple 
techniques and different rule sets that can be developed to estimate 
unique females with cubs-of-the-year. The Ordiz et al. (2007, entire) 
paper does not describe a rule set but examines relationships among 
distances and number of days of individual females with cubs-of-the-
year; data on litter size were not incorporated. Schwartz et al. (2008, 
entire) investigated similar distance and time relationships for GYE 
female grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year, but no adjustments to 
Knight et al. (1995) were made to reduce the probability of Type

[[Page 30564]]

I errors (i.e., mistakenly identifying sightings of the same family as 
different families). The IGBST may consider alternatives to the 
existing rule set in the future; if those alternatives are deemed to 
improve the best available science, new procedures will be adopted per 
the process outlined in this final rule and the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy. Although it is true that changes in the estimates of females 
with cubs-of-the-year may be more difficult to detect once above a 
density threshold, this is again a conservative approach. The analogy 
is a thermometer that does not register temperatures above 102 degrees; 
as long as the value of interest is below 102, it registers only when 
it drops to that point.
    The rule set used in the Chao2 estimate for identifying unique 
females with cubs-of-the-year is conservative and becomes increasingly 
conservative with greater numbers of unique females with cubs-of-the-
year (i.e., population level determines the level of bias, not 
population growth). Although the Chao2 estimate does become 
increasingly negatively biased with increasing density, the IGBST uses 
additional data for demographic inference (i.e., to determine the 
population trend and if the population is reaching carrying capacity). 
Please see Issue 29 for further discussion on population trend. 
Combined with recent analyses (van Manen et al. 2016, entire), these 
data suggest that density-dependent factors may be operating and are an 
indicator of the population at or near carrying capacity. Lastly, 
efforts are currently under way by the IGBST to: (1) Address the 
underestimation bias of Chao2, and (2) examine the ability of the Chao2 
technique to detect a change in population trend over time. However, 
given the detailed discussion above, the Chao2 method remains the best 
available data upon which to answer the question at hand.
    Issue 29--Commenters expressed concern about how population trend 
is measured, including: (1) A desire for justification for the use of 
linear and quadratic models; (2) that we should not use observations of 
females with cubs to estimate population trend because this measure is 
unreliable at high population densities; (3) confusion as to whether we 
use number of unique females with cubs or litter size to estimate 
population growth; (4) that we should only use data since 2000 when 
estimating population trend since the smoothing approach employed in 
the Chao2 method is highly sensitive to the time period being modelled 
(and major changes occurred in the GYE in 2000); (5) that the 
population trend declines significantly to a 0.8 percent annual 
increase if modelers only use data from 2007 to the present; (6) that 
the IGBST methods overestimate the growth rate because they do not 
adequately account for senescence in birth and death rates of females 
(Doak and Cutler 2014a, 2014b); and (7) questions as to how cumulative 
uncertainty in the population models are carried over into final 
uncertainty of estimated population growth. Some commenters were 
concerned with a potential lag effect (i.e., that the model-averaged 
approach is insensitive to rapidly changing conditions and that a 
negative population trend would not be detected until it is too late); 
Doak (1995) and McLellan (2015) have reported lag effects between 
habitat decline and population decline.
    Several commenters suggested additional or alternative methods to 
apply in detecting the population trend including: (1) Comparing the 
annual uncertainty in the population estimates to long-term averages; 
and (2) using capture-recapture data to estimate population trend 
rather than the trapping effort data used by van Manen et al. (2016) 
and Bjornlie et al. (2014b). A peer-reviewer also suggested using an 
independent measure, such as independent sampling, to verify model 
trends.
    One commenter expressed concern with our population trend 
projections from Harris et al. (2005) because they: Used only around 20 
years of data to develop growth projections for the next decade; did 
not account for transfer between ``management classes'' of bears (i.e., 
habituated versus non-habituated or problem versus nonproblem); and did 
not account for migration between geographic zones with vastly 
different mortality risk (i.e., Schwartz et al. (2006b) analysis of 
vital rates in three different zones).
    Response--In response to a previous request for a justification of 
our use of linear and quadratic models in population trend estimation, 
a detailed explanation and justification was provided in the peer-
reviewed publication (Harris et al. 2007, entire). Linear and quadratic 
regression models are fitted as an initial estimate of trend (Harris et 
al. 2007, pp. 171-172). Regression smooths variation to provide an 
estimate of trend representative of the population if the age 
distribution is relatively stable (Harris et al. 2007, pp. 171-172). 
Support for linear versus quadratic models is assessed using Akaike's 
Information Criterion (AICc; Hurvich and Tsai 1989, entire; 
Burnham and Anderson 2002, entire). Respective AICc weights 
of the linear and quadratic models are then used to obtain a model-
averaged Chao2 estimate of the total number of females with cubs-of-
the-year, using the model-averaged endpoint in the time series as the 
estimate for the current year. Change in trend since 1983 is assessed 
by examining support for the linear versus the quadratic model using 
AICc weights. Finally, a total population estimate is 
derived based on the estimated proportion of the total population that 
is represented by the estimated number of females with cubs-of-the-
year. For this final step, data on vital rates (i.e., survival of 
different sex and age classes, fecundity), as estimated from known-fate 
monitoring of radio-marked bears, are required. Please see Issue 28 for 
a detailed discussion on the estimate of unique females with cubs-of-
the-year.
    The IGBST is currently investigating the power of the current 
population estimation protocol to detect a declining trend. Primary 
findings will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal later in 2017. An 
overview of how cumulative uncertainty in the population models are 
carried over into final uncertainty of estimated population growth is 
provided in table 2.1 of the IGBST's Demographic Workshop Report (2012, 
p. 20). In a rebuttal to the critique by Doak and Cutler (2014a, 
2014b), van Manen et al. (2014, p. 328) showed that Doak and Cutler's 
choice of extreme mortality risk beyond age 20 and their incompatible 
estimate of baseline fecundity led to erroneous conclusions. We assume 
that the commenter is actually referring to Harris et al. (2006, 
entire). If so, these issues were addressed in that publication and 
other sections, of Schwartz et al. (2006b, entire). Twenty years of 
concerted efforts provides a substantial dataset for population 
projections, particularly for large vertebrates (few other projects on 
large vertebrates have such extensive datasets). We now have over 30 
years of such data. The issue of management versus research bears was 
addressed in another chapter (see p. 9, Study Area and Methods for 
Collecting and Analyzing Demographic Data on Grizzly Bears in GYE) of 
the Monograph. Migration between the three different geographic zones 
used in the analyses of Schwartz et al. (2006b) is unknown and 
difficult to estimate, but radio-telemetry data do not suggest 
movements among the zones are common, other than the fact that some 
home ranges of male bears that may straddle two zones. Thus, IGBST 
estimates of survival and lambda for the three zones are reflective of 
the sampled resident bears.
    For large vertebrate populations, lag effects can occur, if there 
is indeed

[[Page 30565]]

habitat decline and animals are affected by that decline. With 2016 
being approximately 10 years after the peak years of whitebark pine 
decline and about 20 years since the decline of cutthroat trout, there 
is currently little evidence of a lag effect either at the GYE grizzly 
bear population level (population remains stable) or at the individual 
level (lack of evidence of changes in survival, litter size, fecundity, 
etc. during the last 10 to 15 years). It should be noted that observed 
changes in vital rates (i.e., lower cub and yearling survival, slight 
suppression of reproduction) occurred during the late 1990s and early 
2000s. Even without a lag effect, these changes in vital rates occurred 
prior to, or close to, the onset of whitebark pine decline; thus, there 
is little support for a lag effect due to changes in food resources.
    The IGBST investigated the influence of ``anchoring'' the time 
series in 1983 versus 2002. The difference in model-averaged Chao2 
estimates was negligible. For example, the 2014 estimate of females 
with cubs-of-the-year using the time series of 1983-2014 was 60, 
whereas the 2002-2014 time series resulted in an estimate of 57 for 
2014. Similarly, the 2015 estimate of females with cubs-of-the-year 
based on the 1983-2015 time series was 56, whereas the 2002-2015 time 
series produced an estimate of 54 (van Manen 2016b, in litt.). It 
should be noted that there is no statistical trend based on the 2002-
2015 data, supporting the interpretation of the population being stable 
during this time period.
    In response to the comment that suggests we use additional methods 
to detect population trend and size, although the proposed rule (81 FR 
13174, March 11, 2016) describes use of only the Chao2 method to detect 
population size, the IGBST uses three additional and independent 
methods: (1) Mark-Resight estimator (i.e., capture-recapture data 
(IGBST annual reports)); (2) population projections from known-fate 
analysis (in their entirety: Schwartz et al. 2006b; IGBST 2012); and 
(3) population reconstruction (IGBST, unpublished data). Together, 
these four methods support the interpretation that the GYE grizzly bear 
population experienced robust population growth from the mid to late 
1980s through the late 1990s, followed by a slowing of population 
growth since the early 2000s. None of these methods indicate a decline. 
The assertion that the bear population may be actually declining is 
thus not supported by data. Neither van Manen et al. (2016, entire) nor 
Bjornlie et al. (2014b, entire) estimated population size. van Manen et 
al. (2016, entire) used radio-monitored bears in their analysis of 
known-fate data to estimate vital rates, and Bjornlie et al. (2014b, 
entire) was based on home-range data of grizzly bears. Thus, the four 
methods currently used to estimate population trend, and upon which we 
base our determination, remain the best available data. Of these four 
methods, the model-averaged Chao2 method is currently the only method 
used to estimate population size and to assess recovery criterion #3.
    The IGBST's primary estimates of population trajectory (i.e., 
growth or decline) have been based on population projections using 
known-fate estimates of vital rates derived from radio-monitoring a 
representative sample of grizzly bears in the GYE (e.g., see Schwartz 
et al. 2006b; IGBST 2012). Those vital rates include annual survival 
rates for independent male and female grizzly bears, age of first 
reproduction, litter size, and survival of dependent young (i.e., cubs 
of the year and yearlings) that accompany their radio-marked mothers. 
The number of unique females with cubs-of-the-year estimated to be 
present in the ecosystem annually from IGBST observation flights and 
other opportunistic verified sightings do not enter into those known-
fate projections. However, we can also estimate trend using the Chao2-
corrected annual counts of unique females with cubs. The end point for 
the model-averaged result of the linear and quadratic regressions of 
the Chao2-corrected counts with year, along with information from our 
known-fate analyses, is used to derive annual population estimates. 
Although not a primary IGBST method for assessing trend, a key 
assumption for doing this based on the number of unique females with 
cubs-of-the-year is that the trend for this observable segment of the 
population (i.e., females with cubs-of-the-year) is representative of 
trend for the whole population.
    Issue 30--Several commenters offered alternative explanations of 
the population trend, including that: (1) Any population growth after 
listing occurred because of concurrent increases in food sources and 
road closures, rather than implementation of 1986 guidelines; (2) the 
population has not grown since 2000 and may even be declining below 
population objectives; (3) lower cub survival rates and mortalities 
from conflicts with hunters and livestock caused a 6 percent population 
decline between 2014 and 2015; and (4) further population declines are 
impending due to the age structure in the GYE (more older bears and 
fewer younger bears).
    Response--We agree that implementation of the 1986 Guidelines was 
only one factor that increased the population trend in the GYE. 
However, implementation of the 1986 Guidelines by the National Forest 
and the National Parks improved habitat quality (i.e., reduced 
motorized access and livestock allotments) and reduced human-bear 
conflicts. There is no biological way to define ``baseline'' levels for 
various foods because the natural foods for grizzly bears naturally 
fluctuate, annually and spatially, across the ecosystem. Commenters 
make a valid point that the number of older bears in the GYE population 
is increasing while the number of cubs and younger bears is decreasing, 
and supports the notion that GYE grizzly bears may be nearing carrying 
capacity in portions of the ecosystem. As van Manen et al. (2016, pp. 
308-309) note, observations of more, older bears and suppression of 
recruitment support the notion of density-dependence in the GYE grizzly 
bear population. One consequence of density dependence indeed is that 
trends stabilize or possibly even decline. In response to comments that 
there was a 6 percent population decline between 2014 and 2015, for a 
long-lived vertebrate, such as grizzly bears, inference of trend based 
on model-averaged Chao2 estimates from one year to the next is 
inappropriate. Trends should be investigated over longer time periods; 
based on unpublished IGBST analyses of 2000 to 2015 data, analyses do 
not indicate a population decline (van Manen 2016b, in litt.). Trend 
analyses and population projections based on known-fate data indicate 
the population has indeed remained stable to slightly increasing since 
the early 2000s. The best available data do not indicate evidence of a 
population decline.
    Issue 31--Several commenters and a peer-reviewer raised concerns 
over utilizing a new population estimation method in the future in lieu 
of the current methodology (Chao2). Suggestions for alternative, 
potentially less-biased, methods included: (1) The Mark-Resight method; 
(2) a model ``based on a running average of annual growth rate over'' 
the six preceding years; (3) a census that includes the age, sex, and 
location of each bear; or (4) a DNA assessment (including options that 
involve hair snares as done in the NCDE (Kendall et al. 2009), rubbing 
trees (Stetz et al. 2010), or using combined data types to increase 
precision (Boulanger et al. 2008; Abadie et al. 2010)). Proponents of 
DNA methods argued that projected costs are

[[Page 30566]]

comparable to those of current methods and could be significantly lower 
than the expensive estimates in Kendall et al. (2009).
    Some public commenters requested that any new population estimation 
methodology be open to public comment prior to implementation. Some 
commenters and peer-reviewers were concerned that implementation of a 
new method could make interpretation of estimates and trends difficult 
and raised questions about how new estimates would be reconciled with 
previous estimates that used the Chao2 methodology, including a need to 
calibrate the mortality limits, population estimates, status review 
triggers, and population objectives. Commenters worried that, without 
this recalibration, adoption of a more accurate population estimation 
method would allow the States to kill hundreds of bears, while other 
commenters noted that new population estimation methodology should not 
be used to re-define what the recovered bear numbers are for future 
management decisions.
    We received several comments about the recalibration language in 
Appendix C of the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy, some suggested that 
the same language needed to not only remain in Appendix C of the 2016 
Conservation Strategy but also be included in the MOA and State plans, 
while others were concerned that it restricted the adaptability of 
future management by dictating how a new population estimator would be 
applied. Some commenters expressed that the lack of recalibration 
language in the State regulations and plans meant that adequate 
regulatory mechanisms were not in place.
    Response--The IGBST frequently reviews their protocols and 
techniques for population estimation and population trend analysis. 
They currently use four different techniques for inference. As new 
techniques or approaches are reviewed for potential adoption, the 
technique's cost, field sampling logistics, utility to managers, and 
the ability to retroactively apply population estimates to previous 
years of data are considered. In response to specific methods raised in 
public comment: (1) The IGBST developed the Mark-Resight method for 
this purpose, and recently determined that, although the estimates are 
relatively unbiased, the power to detect changes in population trend 
was not sufficient. (2) It is unclear to what model this commenter is 
referring, thus we are unable to provide a more detailed response. 
However, the IGBST is planning to annually update vital rate estimates 
over the previous 10- or 15-year period (i.e., temporal moving window). 
(3) It is impossible to truly census bear populations, especially in 
remote and inaccessible areas such as the GYE. The IGBST does use 
population reconstruction (minimum number of known live) based on an 
extensive dataset of capture and mortality records. (4) The IGBST 
considered the use of DNA sampling about 10 years ago but determined 
that logistics and costs (at the time, estimated at $11 million) were 
prohibitive. Recent advances in population estimation techniques and 
study design may allow for more efficient sampling, and the IGBST is 
currently investigating the feasibility of DNA sampling for density 
estimation.
    The final 2016 Conservation Strategy commits to using the model-
averaged Chao2 population estimator for the foreseeable future to 
maintain the population around the average population size from 2002 to 
2014. The implementation of a new method to estimate population size 
within the GYE DMA would be evaluated by the IGBST and constitute a 
change to the Conservation Strategy, which requires approval by the 
YGCC and a public comment period.
    The recalibration language in Appendix C was removed because it was 
determined to be too prescriptive as it would require data from 2002 to 
2014, the period for which the model-averaged Chao2 population estimate 
is used as the population objective. It is likely that any new method 
would require data that are not currently collected, and, therefore, 
retroactive estimation using the new method would not be possible. The 
States have made a number of clearly articulated commitments through 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy and Tri-State MOA to maintain a 
recovered bear population as measured by the established demographic 
recovery criteria. For example, in the Tri-State MOA (Wyoming Game and 
Fish Commission et al. 2016, pp. 4, 2.a.i.), the States have agreed to 
manage the GYE grizzly bear population within the DMA, to at least 
within the 95% confidence intervals associated with the 2002 to 2014 
long-term average grizzly bear population estimate calculated using the 
model-averaged Chao2 estimator (i.e., 600 to 747). See Issue 21 for 
further discussion.
    Issue 32--Several State and public commenters raised questions 
about the definitions of the types of mortality discussed in the 
proposed rule (i.e., background mortality, hunting mortality, 
discretionary mortality, non-discretionary mortality, total mortality, 
unknown/unreported mortality). These commenters found the multiple 
terms confusing and asked for thorough definitions of each type of 
mortality. One commenter suggested using ``management mortality'' 
(mortality from hunting and management removals) and ``other 
mortality'' instead of our terms. The States suggested using only the 
term ``discretionary mortality.''
    Some commenters suggested that the definitions and example 
calculations (e.g., table 3 from the proposed rule and the example 
calculations for the number of individual grizzly bears that could be 
available for hunting harvest) included in the proposed rule should 
also be included in the 2016 Conservation Strategy for clarity. 
However, the States requested the removal of table 3 from the proposed 
rule.
    Commenters also expressed concern about ``background mortality'' 
including that background mortality must take into account unknown and 
unreported mortalities, that we need to account for the uncertainty in 
the calculation of background mortality, and that we need to define the 
period over which the moving average of background mortality will be 
calculated.
    Response--The proposed rule defines ``discretionary mortality'' as 
``mortalities that are the result of hunting or management removals;'' 
thus, hunting is a form of discretionary mortality. We made changes to 
the discussion of human-caused mortality in Factors B and C Combined of 
the final rule to clarify this issue. As table 3 and the explanation of 
background mortality in the proposed rule was only an example, the YES 
concluded it was unnecessary to include in the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy. In response to comments about table 3 in the proposed rule 
and the definitions (i.e., total mortality, background mortality, and 
discretionary mortality), we revised the example (table 4 in this final 
rule) and explanatory language to clarify. To reduce confusion, the 
2016 Conservation Strategy and the final rule no longer refer to 
background mortality but rather total, discretionary (including hunting 
and management removals), and non-discretionary mortality. As stated in 
the Tri-State MOA, the States will annually calculate allowable 
discretionary mortality using the previous year's population estimate 
and the previous year's total mortality.
    Issue 33--Commenters asserted that the methods we use to estimate 
unknown/unreported mortality, presented in Cherry et al. (2002), 
underestimate mortality, are outdated, are susceptible to bias, have 
wide

[[Page 30567]]

confidence intervals (which were not included in reports), and would 
not adequately account for deaths of bears orphaned by hunting. These 
commenters claimed that bias originates from: (1) The fact that the 
cause of a grizzly bear death changes the probability of the death 
being reported; and (2) variable effort in bear capture and radio-
collaring. Commenters suggested that we need to account for the 
uncertainty in the number of unknown/unreported mortalities. In 
addition, a peer-reviewer suggested that we should use a sex assignment 
of 50 percent male and 50 percent female when determining the sex of 
probable or unrecorded mortalities (or assign any probable mortality as 
female) in order to more conservatively estimate female mortality.
    Some commenters expressed concern about our ability to accurately 
track natural death and predation, claiming that most cub and yearling 
deaths are due to predation and are undocumented. One commenter 
disagreed with the estimates of natural death and predation provided in 
the proposed rule; but did not provide alternative supporting 
documentation.
    Response--The IGBST uses the methods in Cherry et al. (2002, 
entire) to estimate unknown/unreported mortality, as it is the best 
available science. The IGBST does not report credible intervals for the 
estimate of unknown/unreported mortalities because this would 
substantially complicate implementation (i.e., a range of mortality 
thresholds is not practical for managers); instead, they rely on the 
central tendency of the data. For decision-making, relying on the 
central tendency of the data is justified. Uncertainty is often 
interpreted to reflect a possibility of worst-case scenarios (e.g., the 
low end of the credible interval that underestimates unknown/unreported 
mortality in this instance), but the tendency is towards the median and 
about 50 percent of estimates will be conservative (i.e., above the 
median and, thus, overestimating unknown/unreported mortality). In the 
estimate of unknown/unreported mortality for independent-aged bears 
(i.e., bears 2 years or older), all reported mortalities, including 
those from natural cause, are used. The method of estimating unknown/
unreported mortalities indeed has a slight underestimation bias. 
However, all other estimations associated with calculation of mortality 
rates are conservative, and in several cases very conservative, such as 
the Knight et al. (1995, entire) rule set (see Schwartz et al. 2008, 
entire). Thus, the slight low bias associated with estimation of 
unknown/unreported mortalities is relatively inconsequential.
    While there is uncertainty around estimates of unknown/unreported 
mortality, there is no inherent bias. The cause of death is indeed 
important. For example, the IGBST makes the reasonable assumption that 
deaths of radio-collared bears and those due to management removals are 
known with certainty and thus can be excluded from the Bayesian 
procedure that is used to estimate unknown/unreported mortalities from 
those documented mortalities that are discovered and reported (again 
excluding management removals and loss of radio-marked bears). The 
IGBST capture and radio-collaring efforts have been very consistent 
over time; while sampling this large ecosystem with its many remote and 
inaccessible areas is challenging, the combined effort of IGBST partner 
agencies is based on a well-distributed spatial sample with very little 
variation in annual effort over several decades of sampling. The sex 
ratio in the overall population is 50M:50F, and since 2002, the sex 
ratio for mortalities of independent-aged bears within the Recovery 
Zone is 51M:49F, which statistically is not different from 50M:50F 
(IGBST, unpublished data). However, the sex ratio of mortalities 
outside the Recovery Zone is biased towards males (70M:30F) and 
reflects the fact that range expansion is driven by males. The overall 
average M:F mortality ratio for the ecosystem is approximately 59M:41F 
and is appropriate when assigning sex to documented mortalities for 
which sex of the animal could not be determined.
    Natural deaths of cubs and yearlings (i.e., dependent young) are 
difficult to document, which is why the proposed rule only tracks the 
human-caused mortality for dependent young. Although current 
calculations for unknown/unreported mortality do not account for young 
potentially orphaned by hunting, it is extremely likely that evidence 
of lactation would be present on any female grizzly bear hide presented 
to State fish and game offices for sealing.
    Regarding natural deaths of independent-aged bears, the IGBST 
accounts for four sources in the estimate of total mortality: (1) 
Documented natural mortality from radio telemetry; (2) reported natural 
mortality; (3) a portion of the estimated unknown/unreported mortality 
previously described; and (4) a portion of reported grizzly bear 
mortalities for which a specific cause of death was undetermined but 
are likely from natural causes. These mortalities from undetermined 
causes are also used for the estimation of unknown/unreported 
mortalities, which is then included in the annual estimate of total 
mortality.
    Annual estimates of total mortality for independent female and male 
bears are subsequently used to assess annual mortality rates for each 
of those two segments of the population. Since 2010, annual estimated 
mortality rates (as derived from the Chao2 estimator) averaged 7.5 
percent and 9.8 percent for independent female and male bears, 
respectively, in the DMA. These estimates are slightly higher than the 
average mortality rates of 5 to 6 percent derived from known-fate 
monitoring of radio-marked bears (IGBST 2012). The difference is likely 
attributable to the fact that mortality rates derived from Chao2 
estimates are biased low. Using an unbiased population estimator, such 
as the Mark-Resight method, would result in lower mortality rates that 
are more in line with those derived from known-fate monitoring, 
suggesting that estimates of total mortality are reasonable and, 
therefore, estimates of natural mortalities are also reasonable.
    Issue 34--We received several public comments and concerns from 
peer-reviewers regarding the measurement and calculation of grizzly 
bear mortality. Commenters asserted that using known fate monitoring to 
measure grizzly bear mortality (with large data sets covering long time 
periods) reduces the ability to detect short-term trends and produces 
death rates that do not match reality. Another commenter asked if our 
calculation of unknown/unreported mortalities includes ``possible 
mortalities.''
    Commenters also expressed concerns about our measurement of total 
mortality including: (1) That the IGBST reports do not include 
confidence intervals on mortality rates; (2) that the IGBST does not 
include natural deaths in their mortality estimations; (3) that the 
method the IGBST uses to calculate total deaths underestimates the 
number of total deaths with an unknown and inconsistent degree of bias; 
(4) that actual total mortality is twice as high as reported levels 
because analysts are not accurately capturing mortality from unreported 
poaching and road kills; and (5) that emigration out of the DMA does 
not, but should, count towards total allowable mortality in the DMA or 
towards background mortality when calculating allowable discretionary 
mortality limits. One commenter suggested we use the upper bound of the 
95 percent confidence interval to determine the value of unreported

[[Page 30568]]

mortality we include in our calculation of total mortality.
    Other commenters requested that the rule include information on 
geographic locations of factors associated with mortality risk (e.g., 
attractants, cover, roads, etc.), seasonal and annual distribution of 
these factors, and analysis on if these factors are likely to change in 
the foreseeable future, with or without delisting, or that detailed 
mortality information be publicly reported.
    Response--Annual mortality rates are determined from Chao2-derived 
population estimates and not from known-fate modeling. Therefore, the 
comment regarding the limited ability to detect short-term trends is 
incorrect. Please see Issue 29 for further discussion on methods used 
to estimate population trend. For every reported mortality, our 
estimate is close to two unreported mortalities. In addition, grizzly 
bear mortalities are classified based on the definitions provided by 
Craighead et al. (1988), and mortality estimations include probable 
mortalities; however, they do not include possible mortalities.
    The IGBST does not report credible intervals for estimates of 
unknown/unreported mortalities, which includes natural deaths, because 
it would substantially complicate implementation (see Issue 33 for 
further discussion). The IGBST includes all sources of mortality, 
including natural deaths, in their calculations of total mortality for 
independent females and males. Although the method used for estimating 
unknown/unreported mortalities slightly underestimates mortality, it is 
inconsequential because other estimations associated with calculation 
of mortality rates are conservative (in their entirety: Knight et al. 
1995; Schwartz et al. 2008). While there is uncertainty around 
estimates of mortality, there is no inherent bias (see Issue 33). There 
is no evidence that an increase in poaching (which has remained low for 
several decades) has occurred. Please see Cherry et al. (2002, entire) 
for further discussion on how poaching and other causes are accounted 
for in calculations of unreported/unknown mortality. The assertion that 
emigration out of the DMA should count towards total allowable or 
background mortality is incorrect. Emigration out of the DMA, if it 
occurred, would result in a lower population estimate, which would 
subsequently result in a higher mortality rate if the number of 
mortalities stayed the same. As discussed above in Issue 33, it is 
reasonable to rely on the central tendency of data.
    We did not find it necessary to include detailed geographic 
locations of factors associated with mortality risk in the proposed or 
final rule because the IGBST maintains the GYE grizzly bear mortality 
database, which is available at https://www.usgs.gov/science/interagency-grizzly-bear-study-team?qt-science_center_objects=3#qt-science_center_objects (last accessed on February 22, 2017), with the 
basic information of location, date, sex, age, certainty, and cause of 
death. Additional information can be already attributed, as necessary, 
to the grizzly bear mortality records. In addition, the availability 
and quality of geographic information that can be attributed to 
mortalities and the analytical techniques are advancing rapidly. The 
IGBST routinely investigates geographic, temporal, and other 
relationships of demographic parameters, particularly when monitoring 
data indicate potential changes are occurring. Therefore, if changes in 
mortality patterns are observed, research can be initiated to examine 
patterns over time for certain geographic areas, as well as potential 
causes, such as the study by Schwartz et al. (2010, entire), who 
developed a spatially explicit model of hazards affecting survival of 
grizzly bears.
    Issue 35--Commenters expressed concern regarding recent increases 
in human-caused mortality, citing such statistics as: (1) Hunter-caused 
mortalities increased over the past 11 years from 3.7 bears to 10.2 
bears per year; (2) total human-caused mortality has increased since 
1994; (3) mortality limits for males and/or females were exceeded in 5 
out of the last 7 years; and (4) the number of mortalities grew 9 to 11 
percent annually between 2002 and 2011, leading to an average of 50 
bears dying each year in the past 10 years, despite implementation of 
I&E programs in 2008. Many commenters specifically expressed concern 
with the ``record high'' levels of mortality in 2015, claiming that 10 
percent of the GYE population died; that human-caused mortalities 
increased in 2015, with 61 known mortalities and at least 30 additional 
unknown mortalities (numbers that may underestimate total mortality by 
50 percent); and that the limit for female mortality was exceeded. Many 
commenters provided input on the causes of these recent high mortality 
levels: road/railroad mortality, poaching, and lethal control from 
conflicts with livestock and hunters.
    Commenters also suggested that 2016 mortality levels are 
``unsustainable'' and could exceed the 2015 records, which reduces 
public confidence that mortality levels will improve upon delisting. 
One commenter contended that mortality could approach 200 bears 
annually after delisting, if bears are also killed in trophy hunts. 
Commenters worried if bears could withstand this additional mortality 
from hunting considering current high mortality levels without a hunt; 
many thought any additional mortality could lead to population decline. 
Commenters asserted that if the grizzly bear population has stabilized 
since 2002 while mortality rates have simultaneously increased, then 
the bear population is actually declining.
    Many commenters also expressed concerns that the IGBST is no longer 
reporting violations of mortality thresholds, which the Service is 
required to publicly announce.
    Response--First, it is important to understand that the proportion 
of mortalities outside the DMA is steadily increasing over time and 
that any population inference should be based on mortalities inside the 
DMA (e.g., 50 bear mortalities within the DMA in 2015 vs. 61 
mortalities within the entire GYE, including 50 inside the DMA and 11 
outside the DMA). Second, although the total number of human-caused 
mortalities has increased since the early 1990s, so has the grizzly 
bear's population size, which is why IGBST estimates mortality rates to 
determine if these rates are sustainable. Third, while mortality rates 
within the DMA have been above mortality thresholds in several years 
(e.g., 2015), the average has remained under the threshold over the 
recent period of 2010 to 2015 with 7.5 percent for independent females 
and 9.8 percent for independent males. And finally, causes of mortality 
have indeed changed over time as conservation measures were implemented 
and the population increased and expanded. For example, grizzly bear 
mortalities related to livestock depredations were almost eliminated 
within the Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone as livestock allotments were 
closed or retired during the 1980s. However, with the population 
expanding well beyond the boundaries of the Recovery Zone, where 
livestock grazing remains common, these type of mortalities have again 
increased. The increase in hunter-related incidents may similarly be 
associated with range expansion. Human access in core areas of the 
ecosystem is generally lower compared with the periphery. Consequently, 
with range expansion the probability of grizzly bear encounters with 
hunters during fall ungulate hunts has increased.
    Regarding concerns over the level of mortality in 2015, the 
estimated number of annual mortalities was 25

[[Page 30569]]

independent females and 32 independent males, including unknown/
unreported mortalities (Haroldson and Frey 2016, pp. 29-30). The 
mortality rate for independent females was 10.1 percent, which exceeded 
the allowable mortality rate of 9 percent. Importantly, the demographic 
recovery criterion states that this rate is not to be exceeded for 3 
consecutive years (USFWS 2017, p. 5). We documented only one year of 
exceedance; therefore, the criterion was not violated. The independent 
male mortality rate (13 percent) was under the allowable limit of 20 
percent.
    Total mortality from any cause, including hunting, shall not exceed 
thresholds as defined in the final rule and 2016 Conservation Strategy; 
therefore, if hunting was allowed, it would be an inclusive instead of 
additive source of mortality. Although independent male mortality was 
higher in 2016 than in 2015 (37 individuals v. 32, respectively), the 
mortality rate (15.5 percent (Haroldson and Frey, in press)) did not 
exceed the annual mortality threshold of 20 percent (not to be exceeded 
for 3 consecutive years), as outlined in the demographic recovery 
criteria (USFWS 2017, pp. 5-6). The independent female mortality rate 
for 2016 (5 percent) was also below the threshold of 9 percent. 
Mortality rates are currently well below the agreed upon limits set out 
in the revised demographic recovery criteria (USFWS 2017, pp. 5-6) and 
committed to by States in the Tri-State MOA. Therefore, we expect that, 
even if a grizzly bear hunt should occur, mortality rates will be 
maintained below the total mortality limits (table 2).
    The assertion that the bear population may be actually declining is 
not supported by data. See Issue 29 for additional detail.
    The IGBST did not include in their Annual Report for 2015 whether 
mortality thresholds were exceeded because the demographic recovery 
criteria were under revision. They will report if mortality rates are 
under or over sustainable rates, as measured by the revised demographic 
recovery criteria, in future annual reports, which will be available at 
https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/igbst-annual-reports?qt-science_center_objects=1#qt-science_center_objects.
    Issue 36--Both commenters and peer-reviewers raised concerns over 
our ability to detect trends in vital rates and our interpretation of 
these trends. A peer-reviewer noted that monitored individuals may be 
more susceptible to capture and may not serve as an accurate 
representative sample in regards to the measurement of vital rates. 
Commenters also noted that negative trends in vital rates, and thus 
population declines, may not be detected until it is too late, citing 
that there has been a decrease in cub and yearling survival since the 
early 2000's, and that there is uncertainty associated with the 
ecological factors that may be contributing to this decline in vital 
rates. Finally, one commenter asked if the various reproductive 
parameters co-vary and, if they do, is it in a linear or non-linear 
manner.
    Response--Sampling the GYE grizzly bear population for known-fate 
monitoring is challenging. Long-term capture efforts are not perfect 
but are designed to obtain a representative sample of the population 
and represent the best available scientific method for the question at 
hand. While some individuals may be more susceptible to capture, there 
is no indication that this factor has caused a bias in estimation of 
vital rates. There are no studies or data suggesting that bears which 
are more susceptible to capture have lower or higher survival compared 
with bears that are less susceptible. On the contrary, population 
projections derived from vital rates for the period from 1983 to 2001 
indicated robust population growth of 4 to 7 percent (Harris et al. 
2006, p. 48), which was similar to the 4 to 5 percent trend obtained 
for counts of unique females with cubs-of-the-year for the same period 
(Harris et al. 2007, p. 175). Similarly, when a change in trajectory 
and a slowing of growth for counts of females with cubs-of-the-year was 
detected in the early 2000s, a reanalysis of vital rates for the period 
from 2002 to 2011 corroborated the slowing of population growth, 
producing population projections based on known-fate data indicating a 
0 to 2 percent growth. The concordance between these two unrelated and 
distinct methods (i.e., estimates of females with cubs-of-the-year and 
population projections based on known-fate data) used to estimate 
trend, and as applied during the two different periods, lends 
confidence that vital rates derived from known-fate monitoring are 
reasonable and unbiased. Additionally, we have found no evidence that 
the number of captures per individual bear affected survival estimates 
of independent-aged bears (IGBST, unpublished data).
    There is a lag time between when a change in trend occurs and when 
it may be detected. However, the current monitoring system effectively 
identified that a change in the population trajectory had occurred, 
which triggered the IGBST to conduct a comprehensive biology and 
monitoring review; this review led to the finding that cub and yearling 
survival and a reproductive parameter had declined, which led to 
further investigations about the potential causes for these changes. 
Those potential causes were investigated in detail as part of the 
IGBST's Food Synthesis project and indicated associations with bear 
density (cub survival and reproductive transition decreased as bear 
density increased), but not with decline of whitebark pine. Regardless, 
the issues of trend detection are important. The IGBST is currently 
investigating the ability to detect (based on the Chao2 estimator) when 
population estimates have reached specific population thresholds and 
the degree to which population thresholds may be exceeded, both in time 
and population size, before they are detected. Reproductive parameters 
in wildlife populations, including bear populations, typically co-vary 
and often in a non-linear manner. Depending on the complexity of these 
relationships, the covariance of parameters may be difficult to 
accurately estimate.
    Issue 37--Both the public and peer-reviewers presented comments 
about our discussion and analysis of the GYE's carrying capacity for 
grizzly bears, including raising concerns that figure 1 of the proposed 
rule is an oversimplification of a population at carrying capacity and 
requesting that an explanation of the additional variables influencing 
carrying capacity (e.g., food availability and emigration in search of 
food, mates, or territory) be included. One commenter noted that a 
graph illustrating how the Chao2 estimate of the GYE grizzly bear 
population is leveling off might provide a clearer demonstration of 
carrying capacity.
    Some commenters questioned whether carrying capacity has been 
reached since (1) grizzly bears occupy only 25 percent of the GYE; (2) 
there is inherent difficulty in calculating carrying capacity; and (3) 
a population that is increasing at a rate of 3 to 4 percent per year 
and for which harvest needs to be adjusted to maintain mortality levels 
at 10 to 22 percent are not parameters characteristic of a population 
at carrying capacity. In addition, a few commenters questioned if our 
conclusion that the GYE grizzly bear population has reached carrying 
capacity applied within the PCA, the DMA, or the entire GYE. 
Conversely, other commenters expressed support that carrying capacity 
has been reached based on: (1) The preponderance of the best available 
science; (2) the stability of reproduction inside YNP; and (3)

[[Page 30570]]

increased grizzly bear attacks on humans in recent years. Commenters 
worried that these attacks would increase and that male grizzly bears 
would start to kill dependent grizzly bears if the population keeps 
growing.
    One commenter and several peer-reviewers suggested alternative 
hypotheses to our claim that the GYE population is approaching carrying 
capacity: (1) That a decrease in food availability (as mentioned in van 
Manen et al. (2016, p. 309)) may be the driver behind a slowing growth 
rate in the GYE grizzly bear population, the increase in grizzly 
distribution, and the increase in human-caused mortalities; and (2) 
that grizzly bears in the GYE may have reached a human social carrying 
capacity. These commenters also suggested increasing habitat to allow 
for population expansion and recovery.
    Response--We have made clarifications in the carrying capacity 
discussion of the final rule (see Population Ecology--Background; 
Population and Demographic Recovery Criteria; and Changes in Food 
Resources) and the 2016 Conservation Strategy (see Population Trend). 
Although figure 1 of the proposed rule was a simplification of a 
population at carrying capacity (expressed as K), it is necessary to 
explain the general principles behind the concept of K. In addition, 
the narrative of carrying capacity addresses the complexity of this 
issue, including an explanation of the variables that some commenters 
proposed we include (i.e., density-dependent and density-independent 
effects) and the difficulty in measuring carrying capacity. We disagree 
that a graph illustrating how the Chao2 estimate of the GYE population 
is leveling off may be a clearer demonstration of carrying capacity, 
because the population has only recently approached carrying capacity 
compared to a population that has been fluctuating around carrying 
capacity as conveyed in figure 1 of the proposed rule.
    While one commenter noted that grizzly bears occupy only 25 percent 
of the GYE, we note that suitable habitat is roughly 24 percent of the 
total area within the GYE DPS boundaries, of which grizzly bears occupy 
90 percent (see Issue 22). We acknowledge in the proposed rule the 
inherent difficulty in calculating carrying capacity. As the population 
has approached carrying capacity, the population growth rate has 
naturally slowed with the most recent trajectory using the Chao2 
estimator showing no statistical trend within the DMA for the period 
2002 to 2014 (van Manen 2016a, in litt.). The conclusion that the GYE 
grizzly bear population has reached carrying capacity applies within 
the DMA, as that is the area in which the population is monitored for 
population size, population trend, and mortality.
    Studies by the IGBST provide strong support for a density-dependent 
effect for the leveling off of the population. Discussion of the Food 
Synthesis Report (see Factor E, above) addresses comments that 
suggested that a decrease in food availability may be the driver behind 
the slowing growth rate of the GYE grizzly bear population. Although 
van Manen et al. (2016, p. 309) recognized that a decreased carrying 
capacity was an alternative explanation for demographic changes in the 
GYE population, they also indicate the scientific evidence is not 
strong:

    If bears were responding to a decline in carrying capacity, 
however, we would have expected home-range size and movements to 
have increased (McLoughlin et al. 2000), bears to have relied on 
lower energy food resources (McLellan 2011), and body condition to 
have declined as a consequence (Rode et al. 2001, Robbins et al. 
2004, Zedrosser et al. 2006). To date, there is little support for 
these conditions in the Yellowstone Ecosystem: female home ranges 
have decreased in size and are less variable in areas with greater 
bear densities (Bjornlie et al. 2014b), daily movement rates and 
daily activity radii have not changed for either sex during fall 
(Costello et al. 2014), bears continue to use high-quality foods 
(Fortin et al. 2013), and body mass has not declined (Schwartz et 
al. 2014). As we discussed previously, percent body fat among adult 
females has not declined since the early 2000s (IGBST 2013, Schwartz 
et al. 2014) and, regardless, this effect would be consistent with 
either interference or exploitation competition and would not 
explain the changes in vital rates that occurred much earlier than 
the declines in foods. Current evidence indicates bears showed a 
functional response to declines in whitebark pine (Costello et al. 
2014) and cutthroat trout (Fortin et al. 2013) and compensated for 
the loss of these particular foods through diet shifts Schwartz et 
al. 2014).

    The IGBST data does not support the alternative hypothesis that 
human social carrying capacity has been reached and is contributing to 
the slowing of population growth. On average, total mortality rates 
over the last 10 to 15 years have not exceeded established mortality 
thresholds and there is no evidence of an increase in poaching, which 
has remained low for several decades. The DMA is based on an IGBT 
assessment of an area ``sufficiently large to support a viable 
population in the long term'' (IGBST 2012, p. 42). The 2016 
Conservation Strategy incorporates adaptive management and monitoring 
of population vital rates, habitat standards, and major foods into 
management decisions to ensure that the GYE grizzly bear DPS remains 
recovered.
    Issue 38--Some commenters questioned our interpretation of bear 
density in the GYE. Many commenters claimed that bear density is 
actually decreasing in the GYE because the population has stabilized or 
decreased since the early 2000s while grizzly bear range has 
simultaneously increased by as much as 40 percent (i.e., the same 
number of bears are spread across an ever-increasing area) and that 
such declines in density are suggestive of habitat decline and 
decreased carrying capacity. One commenter took issue with the methods 
we used to assess density, stating that researchers have not reviewed 
our density index to confirm its reliability.
    Commenters also raised concerns about the factors we used to 
evaluate the relative influence of density-independent and density-
dependent effects on grizzly bear population dynamics in the GYE, 
suggesting: (1) That of the four factors we analyzed, only one factor 
(home range size) differed between the analyses of density-dependence 
and density-independence, and, therefore, the other three factors 
(decreased cub and yearling survival, increased age of first 
reproduction, and decreased reproduction) cannot be used to distinguish 
between the influence of density-dependent and density-independent 
effects; (2) that we only explained one of these four factors (cub 
survival); and (3) that we did not account for temporal changes in the 
abundance of key foods and habitat. Commenters thus questioned the 
causal link we suggested between density-dependence and declining vital 
rates, and one peer-reviewer suggested we review our use of any words 
suggesting causality, as opposed to association, in our density-
dependence analysis.
    Response--The hypothesis that population density in the core area 
has decreased and that the same number of bears is spread across an 
increasing area is not supported by the best available data, including 
that:
    (1) The number of females with cubs-of-the-year in YNP showed a 
gradual but steady increase from 1973 through 2015, while the number of 
females with cubs-of-the-year observed outside of YNP increased at a 
much higher rate starting in the late 1980s (IGBST, unpublished data) 
(see figure 4 in the 2016 Conservation Strategy).
    (2) Home-range and movement data do not support the interpretation 
that bears are leaving the core of the

[[Page 30571]]

ecosystem; additionally, from a life-history aspect, range fidelity for 
adult female grizzly bears is high and female offspring also tend to 
establish their ranges adjacent to or near their maternal ranges.
    (3) Recent range expansion has occurred beyond the DMA, and thus 
beyond the area where the IGBST conducts population monitoring. 
However, we believe the population is close to carrying capacity inside 
the DMA and expect continued range expansion through bear dispersal.
    (4) The IGBST uses four independent methods to estimate population 
size and/or trend (see Issue 29).
    In regard to the density index, it was peer-reviewed (contrary to 
the comment submitted that it was not), published, and presented in 
detail in both Bjornlie et al.'s (2014b) Supplemental Materials and in 
van Manen et al. (2016, pp. 303-304). The basis for the density index 
is a spatially explicit population reconstruction--thus, it 
incorporates capture and home range information from much more than 
bears trapped in any one year.
    In response to comments about our conclusions from our analysis of 
density-independent and density-dependent effects on grizzly bear 
population dynamics in the GYE we added clarifying language in this 
rule (see Population Ecology--Background and Changes in Food Resources) 
and 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 49-50).
    In response to the comment suggesting we review our use of words 
suggesting ``causality'' as opposed to ``association'' in our density-
dependent analysis, we clarified that density-dependent effects are the 
likely cause of the recent slowing in population growth factors rather 
than ``associated with''.

Habitat Management Issues (Factor A)

    Issue 39--Regarding the delineation of boundaries, particularly for 
the DMA and PCA, some commenters: (1) Questioned why some currently 
occupied habitat was excluded from the DMA; (2) recommended that DMA 
and PCA boundaries be expanded to accommodate more potential habitat, 
including all designated wilderness lands adjacent to the proposed DMA; 
(3) suggested that the DMA boundaries should not be changed post-
delisting; or (4) noted that the PCA is based on early, rough estimates 
of the grizzly bear recovery zone, which provided habitat for 229 bears 
and was never updated. Lastly, some commenters suggested that the 
Service should first determine how many bears are needed for recovery, 
then delineate enough suitable habitat to meet those needs.
    Response--The DMA boundaries are based on the best available 
science from the IGBST (2012, pp. 41-44). While the Recovery Plan 
identified the Recovery Zone as the ``area within which the population 
and habitat criteria . . . will be measured'' (USFWS 1993, p. 17), the 
IGBST recommended that maintenance of a grizzly bear population that 
extends outside of those boundaries into adjacent suitable habitat 
would help ``ensure the long-term viability of this population'' (IGBST 
2012, p. 41). The IGBST then examined the Service's suitable habitat 
boundary, population monitoring data, and mortality data to identify 
boundaries that would be ``. . . sufficiently large to support a viable 
population in the long term, such that mortalities beyond it could be 
excluded from consideration'' (IGBST 2012, p. 42). Because the 
Service's suitable habitat line is based largely on mountainous 
ecoregions, the IGBST recommended including valley floors surrounded by 
suitable habitat in the DMA so that the disproportionate mortality that 
may occur in those areas (i.e., the `edge effect') is not excluded from 
the overall picture of population health and monitoring.
    The IGBST used the average annual activity radii of independent 
female grizzly bears to buffer and smooth the boundaries of suitable 
habitat so that the DMA would encompass areas outside of suitable 
habitat that were likely to be used by grizzly bears on a regular 
basis. This is the process by which areas such as the Upper Green River 
were included within the DMA boundaries. Conversely, because this 
quantitative technique smoothed the boundaries of suitable habitat and 
did not attempt to define suitable habitat itself, it is also the 
reason some areas in the southern Wind River Range were not included in 
the DMA even though they are found within Wilderness Areas. These were 
areas that did not meet the definition of suitable habitat because they 
possessed high mortality risk due to large, contiguous blocks of sheep 
allotments. The Service adopted the IGBST's recommended DMA boundaries 
in the Revised Demographic Criteria (USFWS 2017, entire). The Big Sandy 
and Popo Agie areas are included in the DMA because we consider most of 
the Wind River Range to be suitable habitat for grizzly bears in the 
GYE due to the large percentage of Wilderness. Lastly, recovery plans 
are not regulatory documents and are instead intended to provide 
guidance to Federal agencies, States, and other partners on criteria 
that may be used to determine when recovery is achieved.
    Issue 40--Both public commenters and peer-reviewers thought our 
definition of suitable habitat was qualitative, too weak, and lacked 
rationale. Public commenters provided additional comments regarding our 
definition of suitable habitat, including that it: (1) Did not, but 
should, include lands with sheep allotments and other livestock 
operations that can increase human-bear conflicts; (2) does not 
identify what proportion of suitable habitat is ``core habitat'' versus 
``edge habitat;'' (3) does not specify which areas (core or edge 
habitat, suitable or unsuitable habitat) are needed to sustain the GYE 
population's viability; (4) does not explain the meaning of ``support 
survival;'' (5) excluded important potential habitat on public lands 
adjacent to the DMA; (6) excluded ``some habitat outside the DMA that 
is already occupied;'' and (7) incorrectly excluded currently 
unoccupied areas based on the potential ``social intolerance'' for 
bears in these areas. Moreover, commenters noted that social acceptance 
is ephemeral and wondered how plans, regulations, and the 2016 
Conservation Strategy would allow for the changing definition of 
``socially acceptable.'' One commenter suggested using ``spatially 
dynamic boundaries'' in our definition to allow for geographical shifts 
in habitat types and changing food locations. Finally, one peer-
reviewer requested that we treat all of the three characteristics of 
suitable habitat equally, and provide more detail on characteristics 1 
and 2, in our discussion of suitable habitat.
    In addition, other commenters were uncertain as to how we defined 
unsuitable habitat and wondered if unsuitable habitat was ``non-
habitat,'' ``edge habitat,'' habitat with a certain number of human-
bear conflicts, areas where ``reasonable levels of bear/human conflict 
precautions do not suffice to prevent the death of a substantial 
fraction of bears entering this area,'' or areas that are population 
sinks. One commenter suggested that the Service makes unsupported 
claims that bears in unsuitable habitat are more ``transient'' and did 
not define ``transient.'' Commenters requested demographic data on each 
area of unsuitable habitat, presuming these areas are sinks, as well as 
information on the methods managers used to determine the number of 
bears in unsuitable habitat and how much time each bear spent in 
unsuitable habitat. Other commenters worried that declaring habitat 
unsuitable because of the high risk of mortality would become a ``self-
fulfilling prophecy'' and that

[[Page 30572]]

bears entering unsuitable habitat may no longer be a member of a viable 
population.
    One commenter requested two additional visuals: (1) A map that 
overlays locations of bear deaths with habitat suitability, the 
``range'' of viable populations, and the home ranges of the dead bears; 
and (2) a map that shows which unsuitable habitat does not meet grizzly 
bear needs because of concerns about mortality risk and which 
unsuitable habitat does not meet grizzly bear needs for other reasons. 
Another commenter asked for further details on what levels and kinds of 
management to reduce conflicts would be considered ``reasonable and 
manageable,'' specifically: I&E; efforts to reduce the availability of 
attractants; live-trapping and removal of conflict bears; and aversive 
conditioning of conflict bears.
    Response--Our definition of suitable habitat is based on biological 
criteria and the results of previously published research about grizzly 
bear mortality risk and biological needs. We used the Middle Rockies 
Ecoregion as a surrogate for habitat quality/capacity, an approach that 
is supported by many previous studies which have found that mountainous 
regions generally possess the habitat components necessary for grizzly 
bear viability, including hiding cover, topographic variation necessary 
to ensure a wide variety of seasonal foods, steep slopes used for 
denning, and remoteness from humans (Craighead 1980, pp. 8-13; Knight 
1980, pp. 1-3; Judd et al. 1986, pp. 114-115; Peek et al. 1987, pp. 
160-161; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 29-58; Merrill et al. 1999, pp. 
233-235; Pease and Mattson 1999, p. 969; Linnell et al. 2000, pp. 403-
405; Mattson and Merrill 2002, p. 1128).
    Our determination that large, contiguous blocks of sheep allotments 
were not suitable for grizzly bears was biologically based on mortality 
rates. Scattered, small, and isolated sheep allotments were included in 
suitable habitat and considered in our threats analysis under Factor A, 
above. The GYE grizzly bear population's long-term viability is ensured 
without their occupancy of areas that currently contain large, 
contiguous blocks of sheep allotments because of the habitat 
protections inside the PCA and the large percentage of suitable habitat 
outside the PCA (60 percent) that is classified as Wilderness (6,799 
km\2\ (2,625 mi\2\)), WSA (708 km\2\ (273 mi\2\)), or IRA (6,179 km\2\ 
(2,386 mi\2\)). Even with the exclusion of these large, contiguous 
blocks of sheep allotments, most of the Wind River Range met the 
definition of suitable habitat. The Palisades may be outside of 
suitable habitat but the Idaho grizzly bear management plan 
specifically identifies this area as ``likely to be inhabited by 
grizzly bears'' (Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory 
Team 2002, pp. 8-9). States have no plans or intentions of excluding 
non-conflict grizzly bears from Wilderness, WSAs, or IRAs on public 
lands and have made it clear that their management efforts outside of 
suitable habitat and the DMA will focus on conflict response in areas 
with higher human densities (e.g., subdivisions) (Idaho's Yellowstone 
Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 8-9; MFWP 2013, p. 44; 
WGFD 2016, pp. 12, 20).
    The presence of grizzly bears in places with high levels of human 
activity and human occupancy results in biological effects to grizzly 
bears in terms of increased mortality risk and displacement. The level 
of this effect is directly related to the location and numbers of 
humans, their activities, and their attitudes and beliefs about grizzly 
bears. The consideration of human activities is fundamental to the 
management of grizzly bears and their habitat. While it is true that 
the current distribution of grizzly bears extends outside of the DMA 
into unsuitable habitat, the records of grizzly bears in these areas 
are generally due to recorded grizzly bear-human conflicts or to 
transient animals, not reproductive females with offspring. For 
instance, between 1985 and 2014, only 2.1 percent of all sightings of 
unduplicated females with cubs-of-the-year were outside of the DMA 
(Haroldson 2016, in litt.). 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.
    Our definition of suitable habitat is biologically based on the 
best available science and not on ``social intolerance.'' The 2016 
Conservation Strategy specifies strategies to manage grizzly bear-human 
conflicts, and for ongoing I&E programs, both of which foster social 
tolerance (YES 2016a, pp. 86-95). The adaptive management approach 
described in the 2016 Conservation Strategy will allow management 
agencies to make changes, if necessary, to I&E efforts and conflict 
management in response to potential impacts of changes in social 
tolerance.
    Our analysis of suitable habitat was a quantitative, broad-scale 
habitat assessment. As such, its purpose was to provide an 
understanding of the broad trends in habitat distribution, not to 
address the nuances of changing food sources or dynamic mortality risk 
as ``spatially dynamic boundaries'' would. While we appreciate this 
commenter's suggestion, we conclude that the spatially explicit 
survival modeling done by the IGBST is adequate to address these 
concerns (see Schwartz et al. 2010). We have not assigned numerical 
quality scores to habitats based on grizzly bear body condition or 
productivity because of the uncertainties surrounding such 
calculations, instead concluding that it was appropriate to use a more 
generalized, coarse-scale interpretation of what habitat would meet 
grizzly bear needs. Other models that predict where suitable grizzly 
bear habitat occurs within the GYE produced results similar to ours 
(Noss et al. 2002, p. 903; Merrill and Mattson 2003, pp. 182, 184).
    The Act does not require us to quantify the proportion of suitable 
habitat that is ``core'' versus ``edge'' habitat; however, we did 
consider edge effects in our analysis and chose not to include isolated 
patches and strips of land as suitable habitat because of the potential 
for higher mortality. The IGBST tracks mortality and associated causes 
(see Issue 34). Historically, increased human-caused mortality risk was 
associated with motorized access routes, which led to implementation of 
motorized access route standards (YES 2016a, pp. 54-71; Factor A 
analysis). Currently the leading causes of human-related mortalities 
are hunting-related (including mistaken identity kills by black bear 
hunters and self-defense), and management removals due to either 
livestock depredations or site-specific human-bear conflicts, which are 
not geographically associated with an ``edge'' effect. Suitable 
habitat, as identified in the proposed and final rule, is sufficient to 
maintain a recovered grizzly bear population. Please see the Recovery 
Planning and Implementation Suitable Habitat section of this final rule 
for the definition and a discussion of suitable habitat, including all 
three of the characteristics of suitable habitat and how it was mapped. 
Because population sinks may occur in narrow, linear valley floors that 
are not suitable habitat but are largely surrounded by suitable habitat 
(i.e., ``edge effect''), these were included in the demographic 
monitoring area, the area in which the population is monitored, and 
mortality limits will be applied. See Factor A, above, for further 
discussion.
    The IGBST's annual reports include maps of mortality locations that 
show

[[Page 30573]]

the distribution of grizzly bear mortalities in the GYE and the 
boundaries for the PCA and the DMA. As only 22.3 percent of known and 
probably independent-aged grizzly bears that died from 2002 to 2014 
were collared at the time of their death (Haroldson 2017a, in litt.), 
it is not possible to show the home ranges of all dead bears. Please 
see the 2016 Conservation Strategy for discussion on conflict 
management (YES 2016a, pp. 86-91) and I&E efforts (YES 2016a, pp. 92-
95) to reduce conflicts.
    Issue 41--Commenters expressed concerns about our analysis of the 
relationship between habitat availability and grizzly bear population 
viability. A peer-reviewer expressed concerns that our discussion of 
habitat management in the proposed rule focused primarily on preventing 
human-caused mortality, rather than on systematically identifying the 
biological features characteristic of important grizzly bear habitat. 
This peer-reviewer requested that we provide information on the 
biological features of habitats that different ages and sexes of 
grizzly bears use during each season using the quantitative methods 
from Proctor et al. (2015). The peer-reviewer also suggested that these 
resource selection models could be used to bolster the definition of 
suitable habitat. One commenter believed that the Service did not 
properly evaluate the amount of habitat necessary to maintain a viable 
grizzly bear population despite available science on this subject 
(e.g., Noss et al. 1999). The commenter also believed that the Service 
failed to perform spatially explicit analysis of vegetation and habitat 
productivity, as in the Cumulative Effects Model (CEM), which the 
commenter claimed we inappropriately stopped using without scientific 
explanation or adequate replacement. One commenter did not believe we 
adequately assessed relationships between habitat features and vital 
rates and that we did not explain the time lags in this analysis.
    Response--Our habitat management standards rely heavily on reducing 
anthropogenic influences and minimizing grizzly bear-human conflicts 
because excessive human-caused mortality and subsequent population 
decline was the primary factor that led to the species' original 
threatened listing in 1975. For a detailed explanation of this 
rationale please refer to the Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria section 
of this final rule and Chapter 3 of the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 
2016a). Schwartz et al. (2010, p. 658) used 21 years of data and nearly 
12,000 known grizzly bear locations to create a habitat-based risk 
model that accounted for the habitat features associated with grizzly 
bear survival throughout the GYE. This risk model examined how 
motorized use of roads, productivity and seasonality of high-calorie 
foods, site developments, livestock allotments, number of homes on 
private lands, elk hunting units, and season influenced grizzly bear 
survival on the landscape (Schwartz et al. 2010, pp. 656-658). The 
resulting models identified source and sink habitats throughout the GYE 
and further supported our management approach of limiting motorized use 
and developed sites to improve grizzly bear survival (Schwartz et al. 
2010, p. 659).
    Schwartz et al. (2010, entire) did not use resource selection 
functions to develop their model because resource selection functions 
are not always proportional to the true probability of use and, 
therefore, are not always the best way to describe habitat 
relationships (Keating and Cherry 2004, p. 788). However, in principle, 
the spatially explicit risk model of Schwartz et al. (2010, pp. 656-
658) can be thought of as a special case of a resource selection 
function, but with the variable of interest being survival rather than 
habitat selection. In fact, we conclude that the risk model is more 
relevant for decision-making because it actually measures a demographic 
parameter (i.e., survival) as opposed to habitat selection, which may 
or may not influence demographics. We have reviewed Proctor et al. 
(2015, entire), and, while we acknowledge it is a useful tool for 
predicting areas of grizzly bear use, we find the results of Schwartz 
et al. (2010, pp. 658-661) more appropriate for making management 
decisions because Schwartz et al. (2010, pp. 658-661) linked habitat 
features to actual grizzly bear survival on the landscape.
    Although Boyce et al.'s (2001, entire) population viability 
analysis did not consider possible changes in habitat, based on female 
with cubs-of-the-year trends from 1983 to 1997, they found that the GYE 
grizzly bear population had a 1 percent chance of going extinct in the 
next 100 years. The GYE grizzly bear population has continued to expand 
in both population size and distribution since this analysis. Secure 
habitat, as discussed by Noss et al. (1999, pp. 101-102), is the key to 
reducing human-caused mortality. Secure habitat will be provided 
through application of the 1998 baseline inside the PCA and through 
Wilderness, WSAs, and IRAs that cover 60 percent of suitable habitat 
outside the PCA. Mortality limits necessary to maintain a recovered 
population, as set forth in this rule, the 2016 Conservation Strategy, 
the revised demographic recovery criteria, and the Tri-State MOA, will 
be applied within the DMA. Please see Issue 40 and Factor A for further 
discussion of the habitat necessary to maintain a viable grizzly bear 
population.
    Appendix E of the 2016 Conservation Strategy explains why the CEM 
is no longer the best available science and that the Motorized Access 
Model, established concurrently with the CEM, will be the tool used to 
project impact analysis (YES 2016b). The Motorized Access Model 
calculates and monitors secure habitat and motorized route density. The 
2016 Conservation Strategy incorporates the IGBST's long-term 
monitoring data of population vital rates, habitat standards, and major 
foods and will be used to inform management decisions on maintaining a 
recovered GYE population. Although lag effects can occur in large 
vertebrate populations affected by habitat declines, there is little 
evidence of a lag effect at the grizzly bear population or individual 
level in response to changes in food resources. The IGBST's current 
monitoring system effectively identified a change in the species' 
population trajectory, which subsequently triggered the IGBST to 
conduct a comprehensive biology and monitoring review. See Issue 36 for 
further discussion on lag effects, vital rates, and habitat features.
    Issue 42--Peer-reviewers and commenters expressed concern with our 
definition of secure habitat. Peer reviewers provided requests for 
additional rationale for our use of 10 acres as the minimum size in the 
definition of secure habitat; and suggestions to change our 
requirements for lake size in defining secure habitat since grizzly 
bears do not use most open water (and thus any lake, regardless of 
size, should be classified as insecure). A commenter worried that we 
used a definition of secure habitat from the USFS's 2006 EIS, which 
does not contain a justification for the definition.
    Commenters and peer-reviewers provided the following alternative 
means of defining secure habitat: (1) Defining ``microscale'' security 
areas as approximately 28.3 km\2\ (10.9 mi\2\) in size that have a 2- 
to 4-km (0.8- to 1.5-mi) buffer from roads or human facilities, as 
recommended in Mattson (1993); (2) increasing minimum core security 
areas to approximately 10 km\2\ (6.2 mi\2\) to allow for dietary 
flexibility and to fully encompass the average daily movements of an 
adult female grizzly bear (Gibeau et al. 2001); (3) ensuring secure 
habitat is at least 500 meters (m) (1,640 feet (ft)) from areas of high 
human use, defined as areas with more than 100 human visits per month;

[[Page 30574]]

and (4) including a buffer along lake shorelines that ``represents the 
actual area used by grizzly bears.''
    Peer-reviewers and commenters provided suggestions on the 
management of secure habitat, including that: (1) Any future changes to 
secure habitat, and subsequent mitigation efforts, need to ensure that 
secure habitat is distributed across the landscape in a way that does 
not cause habitat fragmentation and that facilitates movements of bears 
both within and between bear management units (from a peer-reviewer); 
(2) the 2016 Conservation Strategy's guidelines for road construction 
on secure habitat, signage, and crossing structures are vague, 
especially about who monitors road density, makes decisions about 
additional roads, and pursues mitigation; (3) the proposed rule and the 
2016 Conservation Strategy were not consistent in how they discussed 
USFS maintenance of secure habitat; and (4) the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy's provisions that allow only temporary reductions in the 
amount of secure habitat seem to apply only to Federal projects and 
leave open what could happen to secure habitat affected by State or 
county road projects (especially if they are emergency projects or 
broad-scale projects that could affect more than one BMU).
    Response--Our definition of secure habitat includes areas as small 
as 10 acres in size because the IGBST and YES concluded that all secure 
habitats are important for grizzly bears in the GYE, regardless of 
size, particularly in peripheral areas. We remain confident in our 
definition of secure habitat because Schwartz et al. (2010, p. 661) 
were able to demonstrate a direct link between this definition and 
grizzly bear survival in the GYE. If we heeded the recommendations of 
commenters and enlarged the minimum size of secure habitat to 10 or 
28.3 km\2\ (3.9 or 10.9 mi\2\), the end result would be that thousands 
of acres of secure habitat would no longer be considered secure and 
would, therefore, not be subject to the ``no net loss'' standard. By 
using a smaller minimum acreage requirement, we are not excluding any 
of the larger blocks of secure habitat.
    Lakes are not automatically considered secure habitat. Instead, 
secure habitat is based on the presence or absence of motorized access. 
Lakes larger than 2.6 km\2\ (1 mi\2\) are removed from the analysis and 
are not considered either secure or non-secure habitat. Security of 
lakes smaller than 2.6 km\2\ (1 mi\2\) is evaluated by the presence/
absence of motorized roads and trails within the general vicinity. The 
negative effect of humans on grizzly bear survival and habitat use are 
well documented (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 278; McLellan and Shackleton 
1988, pp. 458-459; Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 83-103; McLellan 1989, 
pp. 1862-1864; McLellan and Shackleton 1989, pp. 377-378; Mattson 1990, 
pp. 41-44; Mattson and Knight 1991, pp. 9-11; Mattson et al. 1992, pp. 
436-438; Mace et al. 1996, p. 1403; McLellan et al. 1999, pp. 914-916; 
White et al. 1999, p. 150; Woodroffe 2000, pp. 166-168; Boyce et al. 
2001, p. 34; Johnson et al. 2004, p. 976; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 
661). In light of this, the importance of secure habitat, simply 
defined as a function of distance from roads, is indisputable. 
Therefore, if a small lake is farther than 500 m (1,640 ft) from a 
motorized access route, it is deemed secure habitat; otherwise, 
portions of lakes within 500 m (1,640 ft) of motorized access routes 
are considered non-secure habitat.
    We do not think it is necessary to modify our definition of secure 
habitat to exclude areas within 500 m (1,640 ft) of high human use. 
Federal agencies lack sufficient resources and data needed to measure 
the intensity of human-use for every road and trail throughout the 
ecosystem. Instead, for grizzly bear purposes, motorized access is a 
surrogate measure of human presence on the landscape and one that can 
be reliably tracked via GIS. Research indicates that non-motorized 
trails do not significantly affect grizzly bear survival, and that 
survival was better explained by the presence of motorized routes 
(Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 659). Those areas farther than 500 m (1,640 
ft) from the nearest motorized access are considered secure habitat.
    We agree with the comment that any changes to secure habitat should 
ensure it is distributed across the landscape in a way that does not 
cause habitat fragmentation. The 2016 Conservation Strategy directs 
that, on the rare occasions when there are projects inside the PCA that 
require the construction of new roads (i.e., permanent changes to 
secure habitat), any replacement of secure habitat must be of 
equivalent quality and quantity (YES 2016a, pp. 61-63). Grizzly bear 
habitat connectivity is one of the many factors that would be assessed 
in determining if that replacement habitat was of equivalent quality. 
Additionally, any project on public lands within suitable habitat 
outside the PCA that requires highway construction would evaluate the 
impacts of this motorized use on grizzly bear habitat connectivity (YES 
2016a, pp. 82-83).
    The NPS and the USFS manage the majority of lands within the GYE 
and are responsible for managing road construction on their lands, 
including monitoring road density, making decisions about additional 
roads and pursuing mitigation. Land and resource management plans for 
National Forests and National Parks in the GYE have incorporated 
additional habitat standards and other relevant provisions of the 2016 
Conservation Strategy (USDA FS 2006b, entire; YNP 2014, p. 18; GTNP and 
JDR 2016, p. 3) and will guide decisions about road management. The 
allowance for temporary reductions in secure habitat applies only to 
areas inside the PCA, of which 97.9 percent of the land is Federally 
owned. With only 2.1 percent of the land in private and other 
ownerships, we conclude that any future State or county road projects 
would not substantially affect secure habitat. Additional specificity 
and timelines will be provided in State grizzly bear management plans, 
forest plans, and other appropriate planning documents for areas 
outside the PCA.
    Issue 43--Many public and State commenters and peer-reviewers 
commented on the adequacy of the current amount of grizzly bear habitat 
and habitat protection. While the States emphasized that current 
habitat protections are adequate, some commenters thought otherwise, 
claiming, in regard to both the amount of habitat and level of 
protection, that (1) the amount of grizzly bear habitat is 
``shrinking'' and insufficient to support long-term population growth; 
(2) more secure habitat should be protected now to compensate for 
potential future losses; (3) managers must maintain habitat conditions 
to keep grizzly bear populations stable; (4) one-third of occupied 
habitat lacks any habitat protections; (5) grizzly bears would lose 2.1 
million acres (or 23 percent) of occupied habitat under State 
regulations; and (6) the States should be required to manage for 
increasing habitat. A peer-reviewer recommended that managers develop 
plans to control important habitat components (e.g., distribution and 
abundance of ungulates). Lastly, one commenter requested additional 
information on the current amount of various types of habitat and how 
this will change in the future (such as the amount of unsuitable edge 
habitat, non-habitat, and denning habitat).
    Response--We disagree that the amount of grizzly bear habitat is 
shrinking and insufficient to support long-term population growth. We 
acknowledge that it is difficult to

[[Page 30575]]

specify the precise size of the area necessary to support a population 
of grizzly bears because these animals are long-lived, opportunistic 
omnivores whose needs for foods and space vary depending on a multitude 
of environmental and behavioral factors, and on variation in the 
experience and knowledge of each individual bear. Therefore, to guide 
us in establishing habitat criteria that will maintain a healthy 
population into the future, we evaluated the past habitat factors that 
had produced an increasing GYE population in both numbers and range. 
Habitat protection standards and monitoring protocols in the 
Conservation Strategy call for no net loss of secure habitat with 
respect to 1998 conditions, which are believed to have supported and 
contributed to robust GYE population growth observed during 1983 to 
2001. Habitat standards, as they apply to the 1998 baseline, impose 
measurable side boards on allowed levels of human activity inside the 
PCA and establish a clear benchmark against which future improvements 
and impacts to habitat can be measured. Although approximately 23 
percent of the current range occurs outside of the DMA, our assessment 
of suitable habitat is that it contains adequate habitat quality and 
quantity to support a recovered grizzly bear population (see the 
Suitable Habitat section of this final rule and Issue 41 for further 
discussion on suitable habitat). We conclude that increases in habitat 
are not necessary to support a recovered population and that our 
habitat protection criteria are adequate and biologically sound.
    Regarding the comment suggesting managers should develop plans to 
control important habitat components, the GYE National Forests and 
National Parks have incorporated the habitat components outlined in the 
Conservation Strategy into their compendia, and the National Forests' 
2006 Forest Plan Amendment will go into effect upon delisting, as 
stated in the amendment (see Issue 95 for more details on the Forest 
Plan Amendment). Their 15-year implementation history gives us 
confidence that they will do so. Additionally, the Conservation 
Strategy was signed by State agencies and Federal land management 
agencies in December 2016 and is currently in place. See Issue 48 for 
more information about which habitat components, including the 
abundance of ungulates, will be monitored. The IGBST will continue 
demographic monitoring of the GYE grizzly bear population and the 
habitat criteria set forth in the 2016 Conservation Strategy; 
therefore, the IGBST would be able to detect if changes in vital rates 
occurred and evaluate whether they were a result of changes in habitat 
quality or quantity. Upon completion of a demographic review, the IGBST 
will provide the information to the YGCC, who will decide if 
modifications to the 2016 Conservation Strategy are necessary.
    Issue 44--Some commenters requested clarity on the ``habitat 
standards'' in the 2016 Conservation Strategy, including: (1) When, 
how, and by whom the standards would be revised, and (2) additional 
information on the ``administrative and maintenance needs'' that allow 
exceptions to the standards. Commenters also worried that the plans for 
habitat management (as a means to reduce human-caused mortality) in the 
2016 Conservation Strategy lacked specificity and timelines.
    Response--The habitat standards in the 2016 Conservation Strategy 
will be in effect for the foreseeable future. Results of habitat 
monitoring, as set forth in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, 
pp. 54-85), will be reported in the IGBST annual reports. Revisions to 
the Conservation Strategy would be based on the best available science, 
approved by the YGCC, and subject to public comment. If the IGBST 
detects changes to the population as a result of habitat loss or 
modification through their demographic monitoring of the population, 
the YGCC may determine that revisions to the Conservation Strategy are 
necessary to maintain a recovered grizzly bear population in the GYE. 
The Service will initiate a formal status review if there are any 
changes in Federal, State, or Tribal laws, rules, regulations, or 
management plans that depart significantly from the specifics of 
population or habitat management detailed in this rule and the 
Conservation Strategy and significantly increase the threat to the 
population. The 2016 Conservation Strategy details the application 
rules that outline conditions under which Federal projects are 
authorized to cause permanent changes to secure habitat and developed 
sites, including administrative and maintenance activities (YES 2016a, 
pp. 61-67). The habitat management standards detailed in the 2016 
Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 54-85) to reduce human-caused 
mortality have already been implemented through National Park Compendia 
(YNP 2014b, p. 18; GTNP and JDR 2016, p. 3) and the 2006 Forest Plan 
Amendment (USDA FS 2006b, entire).
    Issue 45--We received several comments from both the public and 
peer-reviewers regarding use and development in secure habitat within 
the PCA including: (1) That increased development on lands surrounding 
the National Parks should be considered; and (2) the exceptions that 
allow changes to the 1998 baseline for secure habitat and developed 
sites for administrative and maintenance needs should either be limited 
or further clarified. In addition, public commenters suggested that: 
(1) Projects that temporarily change the amount of secure habitat 
should not be allowed; and (2) recurring low-level helicopter flights 
and temporary road construction should not be allowed during denning 
season.
    Response--We agree that developed sites on lands surrounding 
National Parks should be considered, and have done so. Within the PCA, 
the number and capacity of developed sites on public lands both inside 
and outside of the National Parks will be maintained at 1998 levels, a 
level that was compatible with an increasing grizzly bear population 
(Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). In suitable habitat outside the PCA, food 
storage orders, large percentages of Wilderness Areas, WSAs, or IRAs, 
and outreach programs will prevent and address the mortality risk 
associated with developed sites on public lands. On private lands, we 
have no authority to limit developed sites and do not think this is 
necessary. Approximately 1.5 percent of lands inside the PCA and 9 
percent of suitable habitat outside the PCA are privately owned. These 
small proportions, coupled with the extensive outreach and conflict 
prevention and response protocols in the State management plans, ensure 
private land development is not a threat to the GYE grizzly bear 
population now, or in the future. For more information, please see 
Factor A, above.
    However, we disagree that temporary projects should not be allowed 
on public lands inside the PCA. In general, it is reasonable and 
biologically sound to provide management flexibility and discretion to 
land management agencies so they can fulfill their mandates of 
balancing and accommodating multiple uses (USFS) and providing for 
public recreation while conserving resources (NPS). These allowances 
for temporary changes to secure habitat were based on known levels of 
project activities occurring during the 1990s, a time during which the 
GYE grizzly bear population was known to be increasing (Harris et al. 
2006, p. 48). There are no biological data to demonstrate that the 
temporary 1 percent level of secure

[[Page 30576]]

habitat disturbance in any subunit has had any detrimental effect on 
the grizzly bear population. Temporary changes in secure habitat may 
not exceed 3 years, can affect no more than 1 percent of the largest 
subunit size within that BMU, may occur in only one subunit at a time, 
and project roads will not be open to public use (YES 2016a, pp. 63-
64). These temporal and spatial restrictions, as well as the 
requirement that all secure habitat be restored upon completion of a 
temporary project, mean there will be no permanent loss of secure 
habitat in any subunit.
    There is no exception to the 1998 baseline regarding administrative 
use of roads that are closed to the public. All roads, even if only 
open for administrative purposes, are considered open roads and are 
included in the 1998 baseline (YES 2016a, p. 61). There is a very 
specific statement in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, p. 64) 
that allows administrative use on existing routes for the purposes of 
power line/utility maintenance. These roads are not open to the public, 
have no obvious footprint, and are used very rarely. As such, we 
continue to conclude that allowing access for power line and utility 
maintenance is not a threat to the GYE grizzly bear.
    For developed sites on public lands, expansion of existing 
administrative sites is allowed if these are ``deemed necessary for 
enhancement of public land management and other viable alternatives are 
not available'' (YES 2016a, p. 66). This does not allow new developed 
sites for administrative purposes, only expansion in capacity or 
acreage of existing administrative sites. In general, administrative 
sites are occupied by trained personnel of the National Forests or 
National Parks, contain strictly enforced requirements for securing 
attractants from grizzly bears, and prohibit most personnel from 
carrying firearms. As such, administrative sites do not pose the same 
level of risk to grizzly bear survival as sites occupied by the general 
public, so it is reasonable to allow some expansion of capacity at 
these existing sites.
    The allowance for temporary projects that include low-level 
helicopter flights and temporary road construction during the grizzly 
bear denning season (December 1-February 28) is also biologically sound 
and reasonable. While no studies have been conducted documenting 
impacts of low-level helicopter flights on grizzly bears during the 
denning season, as discussed in the Factor A--Snowmobiling section 
above, even direct disturbance at den sites due to snowmobiles does not 
necessarily result in den abandonment or any detectable consequences to 
grizzly bears. Furthermore, of the 652 grizzly bear mortalities that 
occurred between 1975 and 2014, only 1 occurred between Dec. 1 and Feb. 
28. This single mortality was a radio-collared, 20-year-old male that 
died in January from natural causes in YNP, most likely from maladies 
associated with old age. We have no information suggesting that low-
level helicopter flights during the denning season may be a threat to 
the GYE grizzly bear population now or in the future.
    Issue 46--Numerous public commenters expressed concern about the 
negative effects of existing, and potential future development of, 
roads and trails, and the species' ability to respond to these threats, 
including: Habitat loss and fragmentation, increased access by humans 
into species' habitat, reductions in forage, reductions in 
connectivity, and collision mortality. Commenters suggested that strict 
guidelines on development of roads and trails are necessary to protect 
the species and, without these guidelines, the species will not persist 
without the protections of the Act. Specifically, public commenters 
suggested: (1) Road densities should continue to be limited after 
delisting to avoid potential increases in bear mortality and in logging 
activity; and (2) the distinction between permanent and temporary roads 
should be clarified since only the density of permanent roads is 
limited in the proposed rule, even though temporary logging roads may 
have higher traffic.
    Response--There are no mandatory standards pertaining to motorized 
route densities; instead, levels of motorized access are limited 
indirectly by the standard for secure habitat. Consequently, open 
motorized access road density (OMARD) and total motorized access route 
density (TMARD) levels have been maintained at or below 1998 levels for 
all 40 subunits within the GBRZ (GYA Grizzly Bear Habitat Modeling Team 
2015, pp. 118-119). Looking forward, inside the PCA, there will be no 
net increase, from the 1998 baseline, in OMARD, TMARD, or the number 
and capacity of developed sites from the 1998 baseline. Although OMARD 
measures only the density of motorized routes (roads and trails) that 
are open to the public for 1 or more days during the non-denning season 
(March 1-November 30), TMARD measures the density of motorized routes 
open to the public and/or administrative personnel for 1 or more days 
during the non-denning season (YES 2016b, Appendix E).
    A notable number of improvements in route density since 1998 have 
taken place on subunits that are partially or completely contained 
within the Gallatin National Forest. The documented decreases in 
motorized route density can be directly attributed to implementation of 
the 2006 Gallatin National Forest (NF) Travel Plan and reflects an 
overall goal to manage motorized access in a manner that allows for 
recovery of threatened species such as the grizzly bear. In areas of 
suitable habitat outside the PCA, we do not anticipate any significant 
increases in road densities because of other existing plans and 
designations (e.g., the Gallatin NF Travel Plan, the Caribou-Targhee NF 
Travel Plan, Wilderness, WSA, and IRA designations, State Management 
Plans recommending road densities of less than 1 mi/mi\2\, etc.). In 
fact, because of these other existing plans or designations, there have 
been 0.1 to 6.1 percent increases in secure, suitable habitat outside 
the PCA since 2008 (GYA Grizzly Bear Habitat Modeling Team 2015, pp. 
102-103). In addition, 60 percent of suitable habitat outside of the 
PCA is protected from increases in motorized use and development 
through its designation as Wilderness, WSAs, or IRAs.
    Temporary roads are extremely limited by the application rules 
described in the 2016 Conservation Strategy and associated National 
Park and National Forest management plans. See Issues 44 and 45 for 
additional information.
    Issue 47--We received several public comments regarding discussion 
and treatment of stressors inside and outside of the PCA, including: 
(1) Questioning our scientific basis for allowing different management 
techniques within and outside the PCA and whether there is evidence of 
two distinct grizzly bear populations (one inside the PCA and one 
outside the PCA) warranting distinct management approaches; (2) 
claiming that it was ``disingenuous'' for us to state that ``suitable 
habitat outside the PCA provides additional ecological resiliency and 
habitat redundancy to allow the population to respond to environmental 
changes'' when the same habitat protections and monitoring do not exist 
outside of the PCA; (3) noting that habitat outside of the PCA has 
``become a sink for human-caused mortalities;'' (4) questioning the 
presence of 500 development sites on the 5 National Forests in suitable 
habitat outside the PCA; (5) suggesting that we cannot rely on State 
plans to protect habitat outside of the PCA; (6) specifying that the 
Service must address

[[Page 30577]]

in the threats analysis that 40 percent of habitat outside of the PCA 
is not protected; (7) claiming that the Service is ``writing off'' 25 
percent of independent females, since these females live outside the 
PCA in areas that will have inadequate habitat protections, which could 
result in mortality levels that exceed prescribed limits; and (8) 
suggesting that potential increased road development outside of the PCA 
will be associated with increased grizzly bear displacement, higher 
mortality, and lower fecundity. Additionally, commenters noted that if 
improved management has reduced mortality inside the PCA, management 
and protections should be similarly improved for habitats outside of 
the PCA and the same mortality limits and habitat protections apply in 
the entire DMA.
    Response--The Service has applied a reserve design approach by 
designating, and providing differential levels of management and 
protection in, the PCA. The PCA, which is a subset of suitable habitat, 
contains approximately 75 percent of the females with cubs (the 
population's most important age and sex group) (Haroldson 2014a, in 
litt.) and will continue to serve as a source area for the rest of the 
GYE. Differential levels of management and protection are based on 
their relative level of importance. Within the PCA, comprehensive 
protections are in place via the objective and measurable habitat 
criteria concerning secure habitat, human site developments, and 
livestock allotments, which will be habitat requirements on public 
lands once this final rule becomes effective (YES 2016a, pp. 54-72). 
Outside of the PCA in suitable habitat, there are not specific 
protections in place for grizzly bears (other than food storage 
orders); however, the amount of permanently secure habitat provides 
them with the most important habitat protection possible for grizzly 
bear survival: Limited motorized access. Mortality limits apply 
throughout the entire DMA.
    While there are not two distinct grizzly bear populations inside 
and outside of the PCA, the single GYE grizzly bear population 
experiences different growth rates in these areas. When the population 
was growing at 4 to 7 percent per year in the 1990s (Harris et al. 
2006, p. 48), most of this growth occurred inside the PCA (Schwartz et 
al. 2006b, p. 64). Similarly, when the growth rate for the entire GYE 
slowed between 2002 and 2011, the PCA still experienced higher growth 
rates than adjacent areas outside the PCA (IGBST 2012, p. 34). These 
differences in population growth rate inside and outside of the PCA are 
a testament to the effectiveness of the differential management 
approach (varying levels of protection based on relative importance to 
grizzly bears) under the IGBC Guidelines that led to grizzly bear 
recovery in the GYE (USDA FS 2004, p. 19). Under the Guidelines, there 
were five different ``Management Situations'' identified throughout the 
PCA, each with its own management direction (USDA FS 1986, pp. 3-5). 
These Guidelines contained no direction for management outside the PCA 
so lands within the PCA were always managed differently than areas 
outside the PCA. Such flexible management promotes communication and 
tolerance for grizzly bear recovery, and the best available science 
demonstrates that the PCA contains the habitat necessary to serve as a 
source area for a healthy and long-term viable grizzly bear population, 
and will continue to do so post-delisting.
    We maintain that suitable habitat outside the PCA provides 
additional ecological resiliency to the population. Unlike inside the 
PCA, there are areas of suitable habitat outside the PCA that are not 
currently occupied and that contain large stands of healthy whitebark 
pine (e.g., the southern Wind River Range) and vast tracts of secure 
habitat due to Wilderness, WSA, or IRA designations. For example, 2,948 
km\2\ (1,138 mi\2\) of the Wind River Range, including almost all of 
the high-elevation whitebark pine stands, are in designated Wilderness 
Areas.
    Issue 48--We received several comments from the public concerned 
with the habitat monitoring. These comments included that: (1) We do 
not explain what indices will be used to monitor changes in habitat and 
why these indices are adequate indicators of habitat degradation; (2) 
we do not provide adequate assurances that we will employ sufficient 
monitoring, beyond tracking population size, to detect possible ``lag 
effects;'' (3) we do not specify who would measure and report on the 
four habitat criteria in Chapter 3 of the 2016 Conservation Strategy, 
when the information would be collected and reported, and to whom it 
would be reported; and (4) one commenter suggested that we review land 
management activities on public lands every 3 years.
    Response--The 2016 Conservation Strategy commits the implementing 
agencies to intensive monitoring of all grizzly bear vital rates and 
the relationship of these vital rates to changes in major foods and 
levels and types of human activities in their habitat. Annual habitat 
monitoring will produce results on any changes in habitat values and 
key food production. Details on who is responsible for food and habitat 
monitoring are outlined in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016b, 
Appendices D, E, and F) and are reported in the IGBST Annual Reports. 
Thus, the system in place will not rely on indirect measures of habitat 
values but will annually produce direct measures of habitat values.
    The multiple indices used to monitor both bear foods and bear vital 
rates provide a dynamic and intensive data source that allows the 
agencies to respond in a timely manner to results that might indicate 
problems. The GYE monitoring system under the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 33-85) is one of the most detailed and 
comprehensive monitoring systems developed for any wildlife species. 
Specific habitat variables that will be monitored include: Amount and 
location of secure habitat, open motorized route densities, total 
motorized route densities, developed sites, relative abundance of 
ungulates, cutthroat trout abundance and use, grizzly bear use of army 
cutworm moth sites, whitebark pine abundance, and grizzly bear 
distribution and mortality. Since we will be monitoring a suite of 
demographic vital rates including survival of radio-collared bears, 
home range size, mortality of all bears from all causes in all areas, 
causes and locations of grizzly bear-human conflicts, body condition, 
and reproductive statistics like litter size, litter interval, 
generation time, and age of first reproduction, we are confident that 
we will be able to detect the consequences of significantly reduced 
habitat productivity soon enough to respond with changes to management 
approaches.
    For the habitat components that are part of the 1998 baseline 
(i.e., secure habitat, developed sites on public lands, and livestock 
allotments), we have de facto triggers and management responses. If 
there are any changes in these values that depart from the 1998 
baseline, there are enforceable requirements to address these 
deviations. Further, if grizzly bear mortalities exceed the mortality 
limits in a given year due to changes in habitat or resources (e.g., 
vehicle collision due to new road or management removal due to new 
livestock allotment), discretionary mortality would not be allowed, 
except for human safety. Therefore, the monitoring and adaptive 
management system described in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 
2016a, entire) ensures the maintenance of a recovered GYE grizzly bear 
population.

[[Page 30578]]

    Finally, we are not able to commit to reviewing land management 
activities on public lands every 3 years. However, we do commit to 
monitoring secure habitat and motorized access route density, developed 
sites, livestock grazing, and grizzly bear foods according to the 
protocol outlined in the Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 68-73).
    Issue 49--Several commenters raised concerns with our use of the 
1998 baseline for habitat management. Some commenters suggested that 
the 1998 baseline would be insufficient to protect grizzly bears 
(especially in the absence of the Act's protections and its associated 
section 9 ``take'' prohibitions, section 7 consultation, and citizen 
suit provisions, and the 1986 Interagency Grizzly Bear Guidelines under 
which conflict bears are managed). Other commenters questioned the 
validity, and subsequent sufficiency, of the 1998 baseline because: (1) 
1998 does not actually represent a period of population growth since 
the population growth rate from 1988 to 1998 was overestimated (Pease 
and Mattson 1999); (2) it was calculated using a nonparametric Chao2 
estimator instead of the current model-averaged Chao2 estimator; (3) it 
does not appropriately distinguish between the frequency of contact 
with humans and the lethality of these encounters with humans (i.e., 
high use does not necessarily imply high risk to grizzly bears, and low 
use does not necessarily imply low risk to grizzly bears); and (4) if 
any lands burned during the 1988 fires, the habitat on those lands was 
thus not stable during the 1988 to 1998 period, as the Service claimed.
    There were several comments regarding whether or not the 1998 
habitat baseline has been maintained in the past or could be maintained 
into the future. Peer-reviewers and several commenters asked: (1) For 
additional detail on changes in habitat, roads, and developments from 
the past 40 years (especially since 1998), even if the amount of secure 
habitat has not changed, as these specifics could shed light on the 
feasibility and appropriateness of the 1998 baseline; and (2) whether 
agencies have been, and can remain, in compliance with the 1998 
baseline; and, in particular, the three BMU subunits in the Targhee and 
Gallatin NF, which needed improvements in secure habitat in 2007. Some 
commenters expressed concern with the 2006 Gallatin Travel Management 
Plan implementation and questioned if it was approved; commenters 
expressed confusion as to ``why the Service is not enforcing the 
Gallatin NF to decommission motorized routes and develop sites to 
comply with the 1998 baselines as all other forests have done.''
    A number of commenters presented alternatives to the 1998 baseline 
including: (1) Using current conditions for the baseline, since bears 
are recovered under current conditions; and (2) using the ``moving 
window analysis'' from Mace and Waller (1996), which recommends open 
motorized route densities, total motorized route densities, and core 
amounts of habitat for each BMU. A peer-reviewer suggested using a 
defining period of 1988 to 2005, unless there were unique habitat 
features that were stable between 1988 and 1998. And lastly, many 
commenters worried that negotiations around the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy have already changed the 1998 baseline, and we have not 
adjusted our explanation of secure habitat or threats analysis 
accordingly.
    Response--The year 1998 was chosen because secure habitat and site 
developments had been roughly the same during the previous 10 years 
(USDA FS 2004, p. 27) and the population was increasing during these 
years (Eberhardt and Knight 1996, p. 419; Harris et al. 2006, p. 48). 
The selection of any other year between 1988 and 1998 would have 
resulted in approximately the same baseline values for roads and 
developed sites. We did not select baseline habitat values from years 
before 1988 because habitat improvements that occurred after the 
implementation of the IGBC (USDA FS 1986, pp. 6-21) would not have been 
reflected. Although we recognize that the frequency of human-grizzly 
bear encounters does not equate to the lethality of human-grizzly bear 
encounters, motorized access management is the most effective 
management tool for reducing grizzly bear mortality risk (Nielsen et 
al. 2006, p. 225; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661); see Issues 30, 40, 41, 
and 42. Additional measures to reduce the lethality of human-grizzly 
bear encounters include removing or securing attractants and providing 
education to modify human behavior/practices that contribute to 
conflict (YES 2016a, pp. 86-95). The 1998 baseline provides the same 
level of habitat protection whether the GYE grizzly bear is listed or 
not under the Act. The 1998 baseline refers to stability in the amount 
of secure habitat and number and capacity of developed sites to reduce 
human-bear conflicts and human-caused mortalities.
    We recognize that the 1988 fires and other natural events may alter 
habitat, including the distribution and abundance of foods across the 
landscape, in the GYE. However, there is no evidence that fires 
detrimentally affect grizzly bears (see Issue 61). We agree that 
mortality risk is not static within secure habitat. Schwartz et al. 
(2010, p. 658) mapped grizzly bear mortality risk down to the 30-m (98-
ft) pixel scale to identify areas where grizzly bear survival was 
greatest. While Schwartz et al. (2010, p. 661) found spatial variation 
in mortality risk, this fine-scale variation does not matter at the 
population level because it is accounted for in the sustainable 
mortality rates set by the IGBST. Regarding the comment that social and 
dietary changes since 1998 have resulted in increased exposure to human 
hazards despite no net increase in livestock allotments and human 
infrastructure, we note that increased exposure to human hazards in and 
of itself is not necessarily a problem. It becomes a problem when there 
are an unsustainable number of bears dying as a result of this 
increased risk and we feel confident the ecosystem-wide mortality 
limits and subsequent management responses to grizzly bear-human 
conflicts will adequately address any increased exposure to human 
hazards such that a recovered grizzly bear population is maintained 
within the GYE.
    For a discussion on overestimation of population growth estimation 
and Pease and Mattson (1999), please refer to Factor E, above.
    Habitat conditions relating to the habitat standards described in 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 54-85) have either 
remained stable or improved from the 1998 baseline levels of secure 
habitat, site developments, and livestock allotments. The Grizzly Bear 
Annual Habitat Monitoring Report includes changes and corrections to 
the 1998 baseline and is included in the IGBST Annual Reports. The 1998 
baseline: (1) Was not developed to address specific projects such as 
oil and gas development or timber harvest; (2) does not contain 
threshold values for any of the major foods due to the natural annual 
variability in their abundance and distribution; and (3) attempted to 
establish realistic habitat standards that ensure adequate habitat 
security and minimum livestock conflicts within the PCA. Therefore, we 
consider the establishment of habitat thresholds for human population 
growth, food sources, and specific projects to be unrealistic and that 
the 1998 baseline will adequately address these issues through access 
management and limitations on site development.

[[Page 30579]]

    As the commenters point out, the moving window analysis approach 
represents the best available science and is the method used for 
measuring route densities on public lands in the GYE. Motorized route 
densities and percentages of secure (``core'') habitat within the GYE 
are calculated using a suite of GIS geospatial tools that are packaged 
as the Motorized Access Model. Calculations for motorized route 
densities are based on a ``moving window analysis'' similar to that of 
Mace and Waller (1996, p. 1398), and include algorithms that have been 
improved since 1997 to more accurately calculate the total length of 
motorized routes per unit area. Mace and Waller (1996, p. 1395) 
determined that bears underutilized areas within 500 m (1,640 ft) from 
open roads with use levels greater than 10 vehicles per day. Based on 
this finding, secure (``core'') habitat is defined in the GYE as any 
contiguous area greater than 10 acres in size and more than 500 m 
(1,640 ft) from an open motorized access route during the non-denning 
period. Secure levels are expressed as the percentage of the subunit 
that meets this definition. Any road that is open to motorized traffic 
for at least 1 day or more during the non-denning season (regardless of 
vehicle use levels) detracts from secure habitat calculations. 
Furthermore, routes that are gated and closed to the public year round, 
but which may occasionally be accessed by management personnel for 
administrative purposes, also detract from secure habitat. In other 
words, open and gated motorized routes are buffered by 500 m (1,640 
ft), and these buffered areas do not count toward secure habitat.
    Although no specific standards are directly imposed on motorized 
route densities, road construction is significantly curtailed by 
imposing a no-net-decrease in secure habitat per bear management 
subunit inside the PCA. The commenter refers to the NCDE provision for 
core area amounts (68 percent/2,500 acres). It is true that most BMUs 
in the NCDE are managed to maintain a minimum of 68 percent secure 
habitat. This is also the case in the GYE. Secure habitat is maintained 
at or above 1998 baseline levels. All 40 subunits inside the GYE PCA, 
except for 3 subunits (Henrys Lake #1, Henrys Lake #2, and Madison #2), 
have secure levels exceeding 68 percent. More than half of the subunits 
(n = 21) have secure levels at or exceeding 90 percent, and 4 subunits 
are completely roadless with secure habitat levels at 100 percent. 
Throughout the PCA, approximately 87 percent (excluding major lakes) is 
deemed secure habitat. With the provision for no net loss in secure 
habitat, the 10-acre size restriction for secure habitat ensures that 
small isolated pockets of roadless areas are preserved. The deficient 
levels of secure habitat for the 3 subunits below 68 percent are mostly 
due to motorized routes on private lands, as well as the legal 
requirements that National Forest lands provide access to State and 
private lands, mining claims, and summer homes, as well as county, 
State, and Federal rights of way. Because of the disproportionate 
number of restrictions on these three subunits, little opportunity 
exists to further improve secure levels via Federal management 
practices beyond the improvements that have been implemented under the 
2006 Gallatin NF Travel Management Plan.
    The Gallatin NF Management Plan was approved in 2006 and has 
implemented the 1998 baseline. The three subunits identified by the 
2007 Conservation Strategy that were in need of improvement were on the 
Targhee and Gallatin NFs, although the portions of these subunits that 
were identified as in need of improvement were within the Gallatin NF. 
The high road density values and subsequently low levels of secure 
habitat in these subunits is primarily due to motorized access on 
private land (USFWS 2007a, pp. 145-153). Managers have made 
improvements in these areas and attained full implementation of the 
2006 Gallatin NF Travel Management Plan. These three subunits have 
shown on average a 7.5 percent increase in secure habitat, and these 
improved levels will serve as the new baseline for these three subunits 
(YES 2016b, Appendix E). These levels of secure habitat will continue 
to support a stable to increasing population of grizzly bears. 
Revisions to the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy did not change the 
1998 baseline.
    Issue 50--Some commenters expressed that there is sufficient 
connectivity between grizzly bear populations and that grizzly bears 
are making ample use of connectivity corridors, as evidenced by recent 
sightings of grizzly bears in new territory surrounding the GYE, in the 
Big Hole Valley, on ``the prairie lands of eastern Montana,'' and 
between the GYE and the Northern Rockies population. Conversely, many 
comments from the public and peer-reviewers suggested that our 
discussion of connectivity of grizzly bear habitat and populations in 
the proposed rule and the 2016 Conservation Strategy was inadequate and 
required additional detail; commenters and peer-reviewers thought 
connectivity was essential for long-term viability of the population 
and species and that current levels of connectivity are inadequate. 
Calling the GYE grizzly bear population an ``island population,'' 
commenters and peer-reviewers warned of the deleterious genetic 
effects, demographic concerns, environmental threats, and catastrophic 
events that could greatly diminish or eliminate the GYE population 
without sufficient natural or facilitated improvements in its 
demographic connectivity to other populations. Commenters suggested 
that we contradicted ourselves by saying that connectivity is both 
``vital and unnecessary.''
    Commenters suggested several remaining threats to connectivity 
warrant further discussion in the rule, including: (1) The 150 miles of 
farmland and roads that separate GYE grizzly bears from their northern 
neighbors; (2) proposed hunting (especially along NP boundaries), 
combined with high mortality rates (as much as 47 percent) outside the 
DMA could preclude future connectivity; and (3) large-scale and long-
term effects of road construction, like fragmentation, can jeopardize 
connectivity. Peer-reviewers asked us to explain the relevance of food 
storage orders to the issue of connectivity and to more fully address 
remaining barriers to movement, such as topography or manmade 
structures, including a suggestion to provide scientific evidence of 
grizzly bear use of crossing structures to strengthen our promotion of 
these structures as a management tool.
    Response--We continue to be encouraged by the expansion of grizzly 
bears into the area between the NCDE and the GYE; however, we have not 
yet documented connectivity between the ecosystems and do not know the 
origination of the bear in the Big Hole Valley. Connectivity is 
relevant to this rulemaking only to the extent that it impacts the GYE 
DPS. To that extent, connectivity or lack thereof has the potential to 
impact this population's genetic fitness. As such, this issue is 
discussed and addressed in our five-factor analysis (see Factor E, 
above) and in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 82-85). 
The Service has considered population viability in considerable depth 
(Boyce et al. 2001, p. 2). Boyce et al. (2001, p. 1) concluded that the 
available data ``provide optimistic projections of the likelihood of 
persistence for grizzly bears in the GYE; a 99.2 percent probability 
that the GYE grizzly bear population will persist for 100 years.'' 
Please see Issue 27 for further discussion about population

[[Page 30580]]

viability analysis for the GYE population by Boyce et al. (2001).
    Due to the habitat protections, population standards, mortality 
control, outreach efforts, and the adaptive management approach 
described in the 2016 Conservation Strategy, we conclude that isolation 
is not a threat to the GYE grizzly bear population and, therefore, does 
not preclude delisting. Based on estimated grizzly bear distribution in 
the NCDE (Costello et al. 2016, p. 18) and in the GYE (using the 
techniques described by Bjornlie et al. 2014a, p. 183-184, available at 
https://www.sciencebase.gov/catalog/folder/52fe7f75e4b0354fef6de4f0) as 
of 2014, the two populations are now only 71 miles apart. In addition, 
there have been multiple confirmed sightings outside of these 
distributions between the two ecosystems, such as in the Upper Big Hole 
last year. MFWP has indicated through their hunting season regulation 
framework and their Grizzly Bear Management Plan for Southwestern 
Montana that connectivity will be considered when relocating grizzly 
bears and in their setting of hunting quotas in potential connectivity 
corridors (MFWP 2013, p. 9; MFWP 2016, pp. 4-5). Please see Issue 96 
for discussion of our assessment of potential genetic effects as a 
result of the GYE being an isolated population.
    We have added a discussion of catastrophic events to this rule 
under Factor E. Although we acknowledge that connectivity is desirable 
for the long-term genetic health of the GYE grizzly bear population, at 
this time genetic health is not a concern for this population (see 
Genetic Health section of this rule). Connectivity will be facilitated 
through highway planning and food storage orders on public lands (YES 
2016a, pp. 82-85; see Issue 51 for further discussion). Grizzly bears 
have been documented to use crossing structures in Alberta, with a 
preference for structures that were ``high, wide and short in length'' 
(Clevenger and Waltho 2005, p. 453; Sawaya et al. 2014, p. 7). Distance 
to cover was also positively correlated with grizzly bear use, whereas 
human activity (i.e., traffic noise) was negatively correlated with use 
(Clevenger and Waltho 2005, p. 459).
    Issue 51--Commenters stated that the 2016 Conservation Strategy did 
not cite any methods for modeling connectivity and that plans for 
monitoring connectivity are vague or weak. Several peer-reviewers 
suggested that: (1) Monitoring and collecting genetic samples (e.g., 
through mandatory registration of bears hunted in the GYE or 
environmental DNA techniques), especially outside the DMA, could help 
detect movements between grizzly bear populations; and (2) the ``step-
selection function'' method in Thurfjell et al. (2014) should be used 
to ``model habitat attributes that facilitate movement and 
connectivity.''
    Response--Federal and State agencies will continue to monitor 
grizzly bear activity in potential connectivity areas between the GYE 
and the NCDE and between the GYE and the Bitterroot to document natural 
connectivity. Monitoring will occur using both radio telemetry and with 
the collection of genetic samples from all captured or dead bears to 
document possible gene flow between the two ecosystems. Please see the 
Genetic Health section of this final rule for further discussion on 
genetic monitoring to detect connectivity. Environmental DNA (eDNA) is 
used to detect the presence of difficult to detect species by 
collecting genetic samples present in their environment and has 
typically been used for aquatic or semi-aquatic species (Schultz and 
Lance 2015, p. 2). Methods to use eDNA for terrestrial species are 
still being developed and are not currently applicable to grizzly 
bears. Although detection may be possible at drinking water sources, 
current techniques are limited to small, slow-moving bodies of water 
(Rodgers and Mock 2015, p. 695). Current methods detect only species' 
presence and would not provide necessary information to determine the 
most likely population from which it originated. The IGBST is currently 
working on modeling to identify potential connectivity corridors 
between the NCDE and the GYE. Please visit our Web page for maps of the 
recovery zones and current known distributions, as available (https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php).
    Issue 52--Several commenters also suggested methods to facilitate 
connectivity to other ecosystems or potential habitat areas prior to, 
or concurrent with, delisting, including: (1) Creating demographic 
connectivity areas, similar to the draft NCDE Conservation Strategy; 
(2) implementing the same habitat standards in connectivity areas as 
those that apply inside the PCA, designating connectivity corridors as 
wilderness areas, and building ``wildlife bridges'' to allow bears to 
cross highways; (3) reducing the DPS boundaries to match those of the 
DMA; (4) protecting forests with large roadless tracts; and (5) working 
with the conservation group Yellowstone to Yukon.
    Response--All Federal and State agencies are committed to 
facilitating connectivity (YES 2016a, pp. 82-83). Although the 
structure of the GYE boundaries are different than those proposed in 
the draft NCDE Conservation Strategy, the DMA boundary extends all the 
way to the DPS boundary in sections to the west and north to facilitate 
connectivity between the GYE and both the NCDE and the Bitterroot 
ecosystem. Connectivity will be managed for in highway planning (YES 
2016a, p. 83). Food storage orders are already in place on the majority 
of USFS lands to facilitate connectivity by minimizing human-grizzly 
bear conflicts (YES 2016a, pp. 84-85). Lastly, the Service currently 
partners with nongovernmental organizations who work to conserve 
important habitat linkage areas, including Vital Grounds and 
Yellowstone to Yukon.
    Issue 53--Some peer-reviewers and commenters stated that we either 
did not have or did not share effective, detailed Service or State 
plans for facilitating connectivity between the 6 grizzly bear recovery 
zones in the lower 48 States. Specifically, they expressed concerns 
that State management plans and regulations will discourage movement of 
grizzly bears and prevent necessary connectivity, including that: (1) 
Recolonization of the Bitterroot Ecosystem will be prohibited by a 
combination of inadequate plans for limiting mortality in linkage zones 
between the GYE and the Bitterroot Ecosystem (i.e., the Upper Snake 
River Region) and Idaho's management plan's prohibition on movement of 
grizzly bears into new areas; (2) the proposed rule, the Tri-State MOA, 
and the 2016 Conservation Strategy do not include strong enough 
commitments and clear partnerships that will ensure grizzly bear 
habitat connectivity (especially as considerations in any new road 
construction or highway improvement projects); (3) Idaho's and 
Wyoming's State plans do not discuss connectivity at all or will 
actively prevent the successful recolonization of unoccupied historical 
range because of potential for conflict (e.g., Wyoming and southern 
Wind River range); and (4) all of the State plans will ``actively 
discourage,'' ``limit,'' ``persecute,'' or remove bears outside the DMA 
because the States have publicly shared that the Service cannot and 
should not ``impose additional requirements as to connectivity for 
delisting the GYE DPS, where connectivity and genetic exchange do not 
threaten the populations.''
    For Montana, public commenters were concerned that the State's: (1) 
Plan and regulations are noncommittal or unclear on the subject of 
connectivity,

[[Page 30581]]

and regulations fail to protect bears moving between the GYE and the 
NCDE because they (a) only promise to manage discretionary mortality 
and establish ``attractant storage rules;'' (b) requested removal of 
any language committing to effective management of mortality to 
facilitate connectivity, and the plan does not declare certain areas 
unsuitable for hunting due to importance for connectivity; (2) actions 
have not met the Service's apparent requirement in the proposed rule to 
effectively manage discretionary mortality in linkage zones; and (3) 
the plan does not contain language akin to that in the NCDE 
Conservation Strategy that discusses conflict management in the linkage 
zone between the GYE and the NCDE.
    Other commenters suggested that State plans must manage for 
connectivity rather than managing toward a minimum population level and 
should have comprehensive management plans, not just for the GYE, that 
integrate all of the grizzly bear populations in their State and 
discuss how to facilitate connectivity between them. Overall, 
commenters expressed that States must provide more explicit and robust 
commitments to ensuring connectivity for delisting to be justified and 
that the final rule must ``commit to connectivity and coordinated 
management.'' Without these commitments, commenters asserted that the 
delisting would violate Service regulations, the National Forest 
Management Act, NEPA, the APA, and Sec.  219.9 of the 2012 Forest 
Planning Rule.
    Conversely, the States commented that: (1) Their discussions of 
connectivity in plans and regulations were sufficient to ensure the 
continued recovery of the GYE grizzly bear population to which one 
public commenter agreed with Montana; (2) the proposed rule may be too 
prescriptive on the subject of connectivity and movement between 
ecosystems; and (3) the Service should remove references to bear 
occupancy outside the DMA in the recovery supplement because the best 
available science indicates genetic connectivity is not a threat to the 
GYE population and the recovery criteria ``are conservative in 
recognition of the GYE DPS' relative isolation.''
    Response--While connectivity among populations may be desirable, 
the Act does not require it for recovery or delisting. The 1993 
Recovery Plan did not require connectivity for recovery of individual 
grizzly bear populations, and the Recovery Plan indicated the Service's 
intention to delist distinct populations as they met recovery goals 
(USFWS 1993, pp. ii, 33-34). In this final rule, we are designating and 
delisting the GYE population as a DPS. As stated in the proposed rule, 
based on the best available scientific data about grizzly bear 
locations and movements, the GYE grizzly bear population and other 
remaining grizzly bear populations are markedly, physically separated 
from each other. The GYE grizzly bear population meets the criterion of 
discreteness and significance criteria under our DPS Policy (see Issues 
112, 113, 114, and 115, and the Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment 
Policy Overview, Past Practice and History of Using DPSs, and Distinct 
Vertebrate Population Segment Analysis sections of this final rule). 
Recovery of a DPS does not need to rely on genetic augmentation, 
whether natural or human assisted.
    As stated in the proposed rule, connectivity/linkage, while 
desirable, is not required to maintain the GYE DPS. Published 
information indicates the genetic variability and viability of the GYE 
DPS is strong, and lack of connectivity is not a threat to the 
existence of the GYE DPS (in their entirety: Kamath et al. 2015; 
Luikart et al. 2010). Based on our analysis of the best available 
science (81 FR 13174, 13184, 13201, March 11, 2016; YES 2016a, pp. 51-
52), we conclude that genetic concerns are not a threat to the GYE DPS 
and that bear occupancy, or lack thereof, in peripheral areas is not 
biologically necessary to the GYE DPS. In addition, as discussed in the 
Demographic Recovery Criteria section of this final rule and the 2016 
Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 34-37), we have applied 
conservative recovery and demographic monitoring criteria for the GYE 
population in recognition of its relative isolation.
    For Recovery Zones outside the GYE DPS, the Act's protections will 
continue. The 2016 Conservation Strategy describes actions for habitat 
connectivity. Although connectivity with other Recovery Zones is not 
required for recovery or delisting of the GYE DPS, the 2016 
Conservation Strategy and Montana's State management plan include a 
long-term goal of allowing grizzly bear populations in southwestern and 
western Montana to reconnect through the maintenance of non-conflict 
grizzly bears in areas between the ecosystems. The State of Montana has 
indicated that, while discretionary mortality may occur, the State will 
manage discretionary mortality to retain the opportunity for natural 
movements of bears between ecosystems. Grizzly bears have recently been 
documented in the Elkhorn Mountains, near Butte, Mill Creek, near Avon, 
and in the Big Hole, demonstrating that bears are moving into the area 
between the GYE and the NCDE and that natural connectivity is likely 
forthcoming; however, only the grizzly bears from near Butte and Mill 
Creek were confirmed as originating from the NCDE, and the ecosystem of 
origination for the other bears is unknown (pers. comm., M Haroldson). 
Montana's approved hunting regulations incorporate areas outside the 
DMA into hunting districts, and apply a quota to the whole hunting 
district based on the portion of the district within the DMA. This 
approach will better allow bears to occupy suitable habitat outside the 
DMA.
    Although the Idaho Management Plan does not allow translocation of 
bears from the PCA to unoccupied areas within Idaho, it does allow for 
natural expansion into areas that are biologically suitable and 
socially acceptable. While the Wyoming Management Plan discourages 
occupation of areas outside of the DMA that are prone to conflict, it 
does not discourage occupancy of any sort as is implied by reviewer 
comment. The DMA was developed as an area within the GYE DPS to 
maintain consistent monitoring while providing large-scale suitable 
habitat sufficient in size to maintain a recovered grizzly bear 
population in perpetuity. However, this does not imply that bears 
cannot occur outside the DMA (as they currently do now) or into the 
future.
    Issue 54--Public commenters and peer-reviewers expressed concerns 
with the adequacy of our discussion of livestock allotments in the 
proposed rule. Commenters suggested that livestock allotments remain a 
threat because: (1) They reduce connectivity since they contribute to 
habitat fragmentation, create a barrier to grizzly bear movements, and 
cause mortality sinks (including the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station); 
and (2) livestock allotments still cause a large proportion of grizzly 
bear mortality. A peer-reviewer suggested that changing environmental 
conditions could alter the conflict dynamics between grizzly bears and 
livestock allotments.
    Commenters explained that the Service and its partners lack 
sufficient plans that will effectively ameliorate the threats from 
livestock allotments because: (1) Phasing out of livestock allotments 
is not, and has not been, an effective measure to reduce conflicts with 
wildlife; (2) there are currently no requirements to securely store or 
remove attractants, including livestock carcasses and feed, on private 
lands in the PCA; (3) current methods for

[[Page 30582]]

managing bears to limit livestock predation have failed since there 
were more conflicts with livestock in 2015 than at any point in the 
past 100 years, and there have been more than 500 confirmed livestock 
deaths since 1995; and (4) allowing private interests to control the 
phase-out of allotments may violate section 7 of the Act and other 
laws. Peer-reviewers also provided comments as to the inadequacy of 
plans to ameliorate threats from livestock allotments including that: 
(1) We do not have a plan to manage for the potential to have an 
increase in impacts from livestock allotments on grizzly bears; and (2) 
our proposed rule does not specify the total number of cattle we will 
allow on limited acreage of cattle allotments.
    Commenters suggested methods to more effectively ameliorate the 
threats from livestock allotments and reduce conflict with livestock, 
including: (1) Conducting NEPA examination of all grazing allotments on 
public land and section 7 consultations before issuing any livestock 
allotment permits; (2) removing the livestock instead of the bear in 
cases of repeated conflicts; (3) encouraging landowners who have 
livestock allotment permits on Federal land to accept grizzly bear 
depredation of livestock, rather than expect retaliatory action towards 
grizzly bears; (4) instead of delisting, increasing support for 
programs that compensate landowners for livestock losses in place of 
retaliatory killing of grizzly bears; (5) requiring that livestock 
permits contain nonlethal conflict prevention measures before grizzly 
bear removal can occur; (6) including stronger, perhaps mandatory, 
language on livestock allotment phase-out, especially, according to one 
peer-reviewer, where conflicts are common, and including commitments to 
work with third parties to buy out allotments; (7) withdrawing most or 
all grazing rights on NF Land; and (8) removing leases from public 
lands that are ``edge areas'' important for connectivity or from all 
grizzly bear habitat. In addition, while some commenters suggested that 
the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station needs to be closed, others suggest 
that it has effectively used such nonlethal techniques to protect sheep 
from grizzly bears.
    Conversely, some commenters worried about heightened negative 
impacts to ranchers if management of livestock allotments is made more 
stringent because compensation for relinquishing allotments is 
insufficient to cover the lost revenue to those ranchers. These 
commenters also suggested that the impact to livestock growers as a 
result of closing livestock allotments is disproportionate to the 
threat that these allotments pose, arguing that livestock allotments 
(especially sheep) are a comparatively small source of grizzly bear 
mortality (e.g., approximately 5 and 34 percent from sheep and cattle 
conflicts, respectively). One commenter requested that the Service 
disclose the economic loss from the elimination of livestock allotments 
and collect more data on depredation of livestock. Commenters 
emphasized the problem that there are currently too many bears in the 
GYE, creating unsustainable predation pressure on the ranching 
industry. They suggested that delisting will increase the management 
flexibility of livestock owners and will provide needed tools for 
producers to protect livestock.
    Response--We have thoroughly analyzed the issue of Factor A, The 
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its 
Habitat or Range, and conclude that livestock allotments are not a 
threat to the GYE population now or in the foreseeable future. See 
Issue 40 for additional information.
    Livestock permits are regulated through National Forest Land 
Management Plans, Livestock Grazing Permits, and/or Annual Operating 
Instructions. The USFS controls the number of permits and allotments, 
herd size, and season of use. In addition, permits contain carcass 
disposal requirements and enforce USFS food storage orders, which 
include livestock feed (for more details on food storage orders see YES 
2016a, pp. 84-85). Existing permits within grizzly bear habitat, either 
under a programmatic review or for each allotment, have undergone 
section 7 analysis and any significant changes to these plans (i.e., 
changes in herd numbers) post-delisting will be subject to a NEPA 
analysis. Coordination will occur with State wildlife management 
agencies to apply the conflict bear standards, including measures to 
prevent conflicts (YES 2016a, pp. 86-91). The IGBST identifies areas of 
concentrated conflicts to enable managers to focus subsequent efforts 
to prevent grizzly bear-human conflicts. All three State management 
plans contain direction on reducing grizzly bear-livestock conflicts 
and cooperating with private landowners to reach this goal (Idaho's 
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 15-16; MFWP 
2013, pp. 51-53; WGFD 2016, pp. 22-23).
    Federal and State management agencies emphasize preventative 
measures and nonlethal techniques whenever possible (Idaho's 
Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 15-16; MFWP 
2016, pp. 51-53; WGFD 2005, pp. 21-26). Inside the PCA, numerous sheep 
allotments have been retired or relocated to other, less-conflict-prone 
areas to accommodate grizzly bears (USDA FS 2006a, p. 170). As of 2006, 
there is only one remaining active sheep allotment inside the PCA (USDA 
FS 2006a, p. 168). Management removal will be used only as a last 
resort inside the PCA. The respective State wildlife agency's grizzly 
bear management plan will guide management of grizzly bear conflicts 
with livestock grazing on public lands outside of the PCA. Thus, 
removals as a result of these conflicts will remain within the 
sustainable mortality limits established in the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy. As such, this source of mortality will not threaten the GYE 
grizzly bear population.
    The Service must make its decisions based on the best available 
scientific data. Therefore, we focus on whether or not grizzly bear 
mortalities resulting from conflicts with livestock affect the overall 
population trajectory. Grizzly bear mortalities associated with 
livestock depredations have mostly been eliminated within the PCA as 
most livestock allotments have been closed or retired. However, as the 
grizzly bear population expands beyond the PCA and beyond the DMA where 
livestock allotments remain, mortalities have again increased as a 
result of this range expansion. Mortality rates will remain within the 
biologically sustainable mortality rates in the demographic recovery 
criteria and the 2016 Conservation Strategy (see Issues 19 and 66). The 
Service has established conflict bear guidelines that are strategic in 
nature and provide managers with a framework to assess conflicts on a 
case-by-case basis. Grizzly bears depredating on lawfully present 
livestock on public lands may or may not be removed from the 
population, depending on several factors such as location of the 
conflict, severity of the incident, age and sex of the bear, and 
conflict history of the bear (YES 2016a, Chapter 4). While not required 
by the Act, State, Tribal, and Federal managers will continue to use a 
combination of management options in order to reduce grizzly bear-human 
conflicts, including nonlethal forms (Bangs et al. 2006, entire). 
However, these methods are effective in only some circumstances, and no 
single tool is a cure for every problem. Lethal control will still be 
required in many circumstances. Lethal control used in combination with 
nonlethal methods can improve the overall effectiveness of

[[Page 30583]]

both management options (Bangs et al. 2006, p. 8; Breitenmoser et al. 
2005, p. 70).
    Some commenters thought we needed stronger language making the 
phase-out of livestock allotments necessary. The Service has 
established a management system in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 
2016a, pp. 67-68, 72-73) that balances livestock grazing on public 
lands with the needs of grizzly bears. The vast majority of public 
lands in grizzly bear habitat in the GYE are managed with no livestock 
grazing. There is no livestock grazing on any of the National Parks in 
the GYE; the last livestock allotment in GTNP was closed in 2006. While 
livestock grazing allotments are a legitimate use of some public lands, 
we recognize that such grazing, especially sheep grazing, can lead to 
some grizzly bear mortality. In light of this understanding, and past 
management experience, the Service endorses an approach that includes 
minimizing livestock allotments with recurring conflicts.
    The USFS's multiple-use mandate guides management to maintain a 
healthy forest while providing opportunities for wildlife and goods and 
services, such as livestock forage. Therefore, the USFS focuses on 
whether or not grizzly bear mortalities resulting from conflicts with 
livestock affect recovery of the population. The USFS has stated that, 
``Inside the PCA, no new active commercial livestock grazing allotments 
would be created and there would be no increases in permitted sheep AMs 
from the identified 1998 baseline. Existing sheep allotments would be 
monitored, evaluated, and phased out as opportunities arise with 
willing permittees. Inside the PCA, cattle allotments or portions of 
cattle allotments with recurring conflicts that cannot be resolved 
through modification of grazing practices may be retired as 
opportunities arise with willing permittees. Outside the PCA in areas 
identified in State management plans as biologically suitable and 
socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy, livestock allotments or 
portions of allotments with recurring conflicts that cannot be resolved 
through modification of grazing practices may be retired as 
opportunities arise with willing permittees'' (USDA FA 2006a, pp. 36-
37).
    We conclude that this approach to livestock grazing is a logical 
and responsive way to manage grizzly bear-livestock conflicts. In some 
cases, the offer of financial incentives through nongovernmental 
organizations has been successful in retiring sheep allotments on 
public lands with willing participants (Gunther et al. 2004, p. 20). As 
explained in the proposed rule, as of 2014, there was only one active 
sheep allotment within the PCA, on the Caribou-Targhee NF. Because 
research has shown that grizzly bears and cattle are more likely to 
coexist without conflict than grizzly bears and sheep, the phasing out 
of cattle allotments inside the PCA will occur only when there are 
recurring, irresolvable conflicts on these allotments or if willing 
permittees volunteer to waive their permits back to the government 
(Knight and Judd 1983, p. 189; Anderson et al. 2002, pp. 254-255). 
Because there will continue to be no net increase in cattle or sheep 
allotments allowed on public lands inside the PCA, we do not expect 
that livestock allotments inside the PCA will constitute a threat to 
the GYE grizzly bear DPS now or in the future. Programs that compensate 
owners for livestock losses will continue in Idaho, Montana, and 
Wyoming regardless of the listing status of the grizzly bear.
    The Final EIS for the Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear 
Habitat Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests 
includes an analysis of the potential economic impacts of implementing 
the 2007 Conservation Strategy, including the strategy surrounding 
livestock allotments (USDA FS 2006a, pp. 242-254). This Final EIS 
concludes that the negative economic impacts of implementing the 2007 
Conservation Strategy would be minimal to livestock operators and do 
not outweigh the positive effects to grizzly bears (USDA FS 2006a, pp. 
251-252).
    Lastly, we disagree that the U.S. Sheep Experiment Station needs to 
be closed in order to conserve grizzly bears. The Station is located 6 
miles north of Dubois, Idaho, and is 113 km\2\ (70 mi\2\) in size, and 
undertakes extensive efforts to prevent grizzly bear-livestock 
conflicts, including: Modifying the grazing schedule and/or movements; 
implementing good husbandry practices to keep the animals healthy; 
using full-time sheepherders, working dogs, and guard dogs on 
rangelands; limiting evening bedding areas; removal of lame livestock; 
minimization of unnatural attractants (i.e., using bear-resistant 
containers); annual education of Sheep Station employees and herders on 
grizzly bear identification and conflict reduction; and reporting 
guidelines for all grizzly bear sightings and encounters. As a result, 
the Sheep Experiment Station has experienced no conflicts, management 
removals, or livestock losses from 2002 to 2014 (Mickelsen 2016, in 
litt.).
    Issue 55--Several commenters stated that we inaccurately 
characterized the extent of present and future oil, gas, and mineral 
leasing in grizzly bear habitat because: (1) We incorrectly state that 
there are no oil and gas leases inside the PCA as of 1998 when the USFS 
data shows 9 parcels under lease; (2) there are 1,643 active leases in 
suitable grizzly bear habitat and the USFS has never denied a 
development request once a lease is granted; (3) 28 mines will be able 
to be developed if grizzly bears are delisted; (4) we do not 
acknowledge the Crevice and Emigrant Mines, two operations in the 
process of development, in the proposed rule; (5) Lucky Minerals, a 
Canadian mining company, is planning a mining operation less than 20 mi 
(32 km) from YNP that will lead to acid mine drainage; and (6) the 
Montanore Mine in the Cabinet Mountains Wilderness, and other hard rock 
mines, are affecting important grizzly bear habitat. A peer-reviewer 
also mentioned that 4 percent of suitable habitat inside, and 19 
percent of suitable habitat outside, the PCA (but inside the DMA) 
allows for surface occupancy and that impacts of such occupancy can 
extend beyond the footprint itself.
    Commenters suggested that these oil, gas, and mineral activities, 
especially those adjacent to USFS lands, will affect grizzly bear 
habitat and lead to population declines post delisting, since: (1) 
Mitigation is voluntary; (2) NEPA will be inadequate to ``curb harmful 
activities;'' (3) the 1872 General Mining Law could restrain abilities 
to limit any new mining developments; (4) areas associated with oil and 
gas boom towns have an increased incidence of poaching (Berger and 
Daneke 1988); (5) the effects of honoring existing oil, gas, and other 
mineral leases are unclear; (6) denning bears, particularly females, 
have decreased fitness when disturbed by forest cutting, mining, oil 
and gas exploration, and human recreation; and (7) delisting will 
``lift'' restrictions on oil, gas, and mineral leases in the GYE. A 
peer-reviewer also noted that it is unclear what actions land managers 
will take to mitigate for potential impacts from existing leases given 
the current language that land managers are ``striving'' to meet the 
application rules for changes to secure habitat.
    Commenters requested additional plans and assurances to adequately 
explain amelioration of this threat such as: (1) More explicit plans 
for monitoring and mitigation; (2) complete removal, or at a minimum, 
commitments for no new oil, gas, or mining projects within the PCA 
after delisting; and (3) clarity on whether

[[Page 30584]]

new oil, gas, or mineral projects that occur within the PCA would be 
required to mitigate for impacts on secure habitat by replacing the 
loss with intact secure habitat of similar habitat quality. A peer-
reviewer also requested ``additional clarification on the number of 
leases, the location and area of leases, and possible range of effects 
of these leases.''
    Response--We have thoroughly analyzed the issue of Factor A, The 
Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its 
Habitat or Range, and conclude that extractive industries (e.g., oil, 
gas, mining) are not a threat to the GYE grizzly bear population now or 
in the foreseeable future. The proposed rule accurately stated that 
there are no active oil and gas leases inside the PCA (81 FR 13196, 
March 11, 2016); however, in 2016 there were eight suspended oil and 
gas leases in or partially in the PCA. In addition, there are 50 leases 
in, or partially in, suitable habitat (2 are phosphate leases on the 
Caribou-Targhee and the rest are oil and gas leases). That is similar 
to or fewer than the number analyzed as part of the 2007 Conservation 
Strategy.
    The potential for future increases in oil and gas leasing inside 
the PCA on National Forest lands is guided by the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy and its limitations on road density and development (YES 
2016a, pp. 60-72). We do not anticipate a dramatic increase in resource 
extraction outside of the PCA either due to the quantity of National 
Forest land designated as Wilderness (6,799 km\2\ (2,625 mi\2\)), WSA 
(708 km\2\ (273 mi\2\)), or IRA (6,179 km\2\ (2,386 mi\2\)). 
Approximately 80 percent of all suitable habitat on National Forest 
lands outside the PCA falls into one of these categories. There are 
also moderate to low potentials for both oil and gas occurrence and 
development throughout most of the six GYE National Forests, with the 
exception of the Bridger-Teton National Forest (USDA FS 2006a, pp. 210-
213). Even with the high potential for occurrence and development in 
the Bridger-Teton, only 13 active oil and gas wells are currently 
inside that National Forest and none are within the DMA. In fact, there 
are no active oil and gas wells in suitable habitat. There has never 
been any high-density oil and gas development in suitable grizzly bear 
habitat in the GYE. The 1998 baseline for habitat standards was chosen 
as a level of development that existed during a period of robust 
grizzly bear population growth. We acknowledge that effects of not only 
mineral development but administrative and recreation uses can extend 
beyond the footprint of the activity, but those effects have been 
considered as part of our analysis. Additionally, any such proposed 
projects on Federal land would be subject to environmental review under 
the NEPA process, which requires Federal agencies to consider 
environmental effects that include, among others, impacts to wildlife, 
including possible mitigation measures.
    The proposed rule (81 FR 13196, March 11, 2017) accurately stated 
that, ``Additionally, 1,354 preexisting mining claims were located in 
10 of the subunits inside the PCA (YES 2016b, Appendix E), but only 28 
of these mining claims had operating plans. These operating plans are 
included in the 1998 developed site baseline.'' Activity on these 28 
claims in both the PCA and suitable habitat range from small 
intermittent operations to 2 large mines producing platinum and 
palladium on the Custer-Gallatin National Forests. While claimants 
under the 1872 General Mining Law have a right to explore for and 
develop valuable mineral deposits on their claims, the USFS develops 
appropriate mitigations for these claims through analysis and the NEPA 
process (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347.1970, as amended). Please see the 2016 
Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 62-67) for additional details on 
required mitigation. The proposed Montanore Mine in the Cabinet 
Mountains is outside the scope of this rulemaking because it is not 
located in the GYE. Mitigation of mineral activity on BLM-managed lands 
requires NEPA, and the effects analysis helps determine the appropriate 
mitigation.
    State agencies are authorized to permit and determine appropriate 
mitigation for operations on private and State lands. The Wyoming 
Department of Environmental Quality's Land Quality Division (LQD) 
permits and licenses to ``ensure that land disturbances resulting from 
mining are minimal, and that affected areas are properly restored once 
mining is complete'' (Wyoming Department of Environment Quality-Land 
Quality Division 2017). The Idaho Department of Lands permits surface 
and placer mining operations from beginning through reclamation. The 
Montana Department of Environmental Quality permits and licenses mining 
in Montana. The Idaho and Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commissions 
and the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation are the agencies 
authorized to permit and regulate oil and gas wells. The State agencies 
also have a role in permitting on the Federal lands. Operators 
proposing projects to develop federally owned minerals have to get both 
Federal approvals and the appropriate State permits, licenses, or 
approvals. While it varies by State, additional State agencies may be 
responsible for a variety of resources such as water discharge permits 
or air quality permits whether the proposed operations are on Federal 
or non-Federal lands.
    The level of exploration and development on Federal lands has 
remained relatively constant over approximately 20 years. Mineralized 
areas with a history of exploration and development particularly occur 
on the Custer-Gallatin NF. Activity has remained within the level 
described in the 1998 developed site list. To the fullest extent of its 
regulatory authority, the USFS will minimize effects on grizzly bear 
habitat from those activities based in statutory rights (e.g., the 1872 
General Mining Law). Mitigation requirements will follow those outlined 
in the 2016 Conservation Strategy, and described below (YES 2016a, pp. 
62-63). The 2016 Conservation Strategy and this final rule do not 
preclude future mineral development, but have set in place mitigations 
that will allow grizzly bear populations to be maintained.
    Under the 2016 Conservation Strategy, any new oil, gas, or mineral 
project will be approved only if it conforms to secure habitat and 
developed site standards (YES 2016a, pp. 54-85). For instance, any oil, 
gas, or mineral project that permanently reduces the amount of secure 
habitat will have to provide replacement secure habitat of similar 
habitat quality (based on our scientific understanding of grizzly bear 
habitat). Any change in developed sites will require mitigation 
equivalent to the type and extent of the impact, and such mitigation 
must be in place prior to project initiation or be provided 
concurrently with project development as an integral part of the 
project plan (YES 2016a, pp. 54-85). For projects that temporarily 
change the amount of secure habitat, only one project is allowed in any 
subunit at any time (YES 2016a, pp. 54-85). Mitigation of any project 
will occur within the same subunit and will be proportional to the type 
and extent of the project (YES 2016a, pp. 54-85). In conclusion, 
because any new mineral or energy development will continue to be 
approved only if it conforms to the secure habitat and developed site 
standards set forth in the 2016 Conservation Strategy, we conclude that 
such development inside the PCA will not constitute a threat to the GYE 
grizzly

[[Page 30585]]

bear DPS now or in the foreseeable future.
    Issue 56--We received comments from both the public and peer-
reviewers expressing concerns regarding our discussion of snowmobiling. 
Specifically, these commenters asserted that a lack of evidence of 
impacts does not equate to a conclusion of no impact from snowmobiles. 
Additionally, they recommended that monitoring alone is insufficient 
management and that active management programs should be initiated to 
mitigate the potential impacts of snowmobiling (e.g., minimizing 
overlap between snowmobiles and denning habitat and/or limiting 
snowmobiles after den emergence dates). Lastly, public comments 
suggested that we did not adequately consider impacts from activities 
associated with snowmobiling, such as the use of artillery to control 
avalanches.
    Response--We have thoroughly analyzed Factor A, The Present or 
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or 
Range, and conclude that snowmobile use is not a threat to the GYE 
population now or in the foreseeable future (see discussion above under 
Factor A). The Forest Plan Amendment includes guidance that, inside the 
PCA, localized area restrictions are to be used to mitigate any 
conflicts during denning or after bear emergence in the spring. Bears 
tend to den in remote areas with characteristics that are not conducive 
to snowmobiling (i.e., steep, forested habitats). Suitable denning 
habitat is well distributed on the forests, and much of the general 
grizzly bear denning habitat identified in the Forest Plan Amendment 
Final EIS as being open to snowmobiling is not actually used by 
snowmobiles (USDA FS 2006a, p. 92). For example, 85.2 percent of the 
known dens in the GYE are located in areas where snowmobile use does 
not occur and, of the 13.9 percent of dens that do occur in areas open 
to snowmobiling, only 0.8 percent are classified as high potential for 
snowmobile use (Haroldson 2017d, in litt.).
    Since 2002, we have consulted with all of the GYE National Forests 
at least once regarding the effect of snowmobiles on denning grizzly 
bears (Caribou-Targhee NF 2004, p. 15; Dixon 2016, in litt.). While the 
potential for disturbance exists, USFS and IGBST monitoring over the 
last 3 years has not documented any disturbance or conflict (Haroldson 
2016, in litt.). Additionally, during the winter of 2009-2010, a 
grizzly bear was observed digging a den in the Squaw Basin, Bridger-
Teton National Forest in an area heavily used by snowmobiles (Hegg et 
al. 2010, pp. 23-28). The grizzly bear remained in the den throughout 
the winter and emerged April 20, 2010, with one cub-of-the-year. Thus, 
our best available information suggests that current levels of 
snowmobile use are not appreciably reducing the survival or recovery of 
grizzly bears.
    As we stated in the proposed rule (81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016), 
the available data about the potential for disturbance while denning 
and den abandonment from nearby snowmobile use are extrapolated from 
studies examining the impacts of other human activities and are 
identified as ``anecdotal'' in nature (Swenson et al. 1997, p. 37) with 
sample sizes so small they cannot be legitimately applied to assess 
population-level impacts (in their entirety: Harding and Nagy 1980; 
Reynolds et al. 1986; Hegg et al. 2010). Because there are no data or 
information suggesting that snowmobile use in the GYE is negatively 
affecting the grizzly bear population, or even individual bears, we 
determine that snowmobiling does not constitute a threat to the GYE 
grizzly bear DPS now, or in the future. Yet, because the potential for 
disturbance and impacts to reproductive success exists, monitoring will 
continue to support adaptive management decisions about snowmobile use 
in areas where disturbance is documented or likely to occur.
    Inside YNP, the use of an avalanche management system is limited to 
Sylvan Pass to prevent avalanches from covering the road, and the 
Superintendent has the ability to consider the location of wintering 
wildlife and close Sylvan Pass. Furthermore, there have been no 
documented mortalities or disturbances of denning grizzly bears as a 
result of avalanche control. Avalanche control for snowmobiling does 
not occur on any of the National Forests within the DMA. Therefore, we 
conclude that avalanche control activities are not a threat now, or in 
the foreseeable future, to GYE population.
    Issue 57--Commenters expressed concerns with threats associated 
with off-road vehicles (ORV) and mountain bike use on National Forest 
lands. Commenters stated that an increased use of ORVs on highly 
accessible public lands will greatly increase the risk of grizzly bear 
mortality. Commenters suggested that in order to adequately address 
this threat, managers need to develop more stringent ORV regulations 
prior to delisting. Commenters also stated that the Service failed to 
address threats associated with mountain bikes and that regulation is 
needed despite the fact that these risks are unknown.
    Response--Limiting motorized recreation, including ORV use, is a 
fundamental component of the 2016 Conservation Strategy, hence the 
requirement for no net decrease in secure habitat inside the PCA (see 
Issues 43 and 49). This measure directly limits the total area affected 
by motorized recreation, so that grizzly bears have adequate secure 
habitat regardless of the number of people using motorized trails. 
Limitation of non-motorized recreation, including mountain bikes, is 
not a component of the 2016 Conservation Strategy because we've 
concluded that the current and projected levels of use will not 
substantially impact the GYE grizzly bear population. Because mountain 
bikers often travel quietly and at high speeds, when combined with 
environmental factors (e.g., dense vegetation, hilly terrain, and 
running water), they may be more likely to be within 50 m (164 ft) 
before being detected by a bear (Schmor 1999, pp. 118-119). MacHutchon 
(2014, p. 37) concluded that an alert mountain biker making sufficient 
noise and traveling at slow speeds would not be more likely to have a 
sudden encounter with a bear than would a hiker. The 2016 Conservation 
Strategy's adaptive management approach will allow managers to respond 
to detrimental levels of non-motorized recreation, should they occur, 
on a case-by-case basis and also provide managers with the data 
necessary to determine if ecosystem-wide limitations may be necessary 
in the future.
    Issue 58--Several commenters raised concerns about human 
encroachment into wildlife habitat claiming that grizzly bears are not 
resilient to human persecution or habitat degradation (Ripple et al. 
2016). Specifically, they cited potential effects of increased human 
recreation and visitation in bear habitat including: (1) Increasing 
numbers of encounters, as well as long-term exposure of bears to 
humans, results in higher mortality risks; and (2) potential exclusion 
of bears from habitat since grizzly bears are twice as likely to use an 
area when human activity is restricted or when people are inactive 
(i.e., nighttime) (Coleman et al. 2013). One commenter stated that the 
Service needs to better analyze current habitat security and isolation 
from people and predict how it will change in the foreseeable future, 
in all types of grizzly bear habitat.
    Commenters also proposed potential management responses that could 
alleviate these impacts including: (1)

[[Page 30586]]

Enhancing infrastructure to support increasing park visitation, 
although conversely, a peer-reviewer suggested limiting visitation to 
YNP and GTNP; (2) assessing human visitation as ``take'' under section 
9 of the Act because it harasses wildlife and causes displacement from 
food sources; (3) restricting human access to particular habitats 
during times of food shortages; (4) imposing food storage orders on all 
habitat within the DPS boundaries, especially within the DMA, to the 
maximum extent possible within the law; and (5) increasing I&E for 
tourists and hikers.
    Response--We have thoroughly analyzed Factor A, The Present or 
Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of Its Habitat or 
Range, and conclude that human recreation is not a threat to the 
population now or in the foreseeable future. Our habitat management 
standards rely heavily on reducing anthropogenic influences and 
minimizing grizzly bear-human conflicts because excessive human-caused 
mortality and subsequent population decline was the primary factor that 
led to the original listing as threatened in 1975. For a detailed 
explanation of this rationale, please refer to Issue 41, the Habitat-
Based Recovery Criteria section of this final rule, and the 2016 
Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 54-85).
    A survey of grizzly bear experts showed that research on the 
potential impacts of habituation as a result of human recreational 
activities should be a high priority (Fortin et al. 2016, p. 17). 
Although Herrero (1985, pp. entire) found that habituated bears were at 
an increased risk of being involved with conflicts, other research has 
found that habituated bears were less likely to be involved with 
conflicts (Jope 1985, p. 36; Nadeau 1987, pp. 20, 46-48; Aumiller and 
Matt 1994, pp. 53-58; Gunther and Biel 1999, p. 3). Although some 
research has found that grizzly bears avoid human activity (Coleman et 
al. 2013, pp. 1317-1317) or newly logged forests (Pigeon et al. 2016, 
pp. 1107), these avoidances were temporal with grizzly bears returning 
to the area at different times of the day. Fortin et al. (2013b, 
entire) found that grizzly bears are extremely flexible in their 
ability to switch activity profiles (i.e., nocturnal versus diurnal) 
without being negatively impacted by these switches.
    Section 7 of the Act will no longer apply to the GYE population 
upon finalization of this rule. However, the Service considers the 
establishment of habitat thresholds for human population growth and 
limits on levels of human recreation to be unrealistic and concludes 
that the 1998 baseline will adequately address these issues through 
access management, limitations on site development, and I&E efforts. 
See Issues 45, 54, and 108 for additional information. Under the 2016 
Conservation Strategy, a multi-agency effort will be conducted to 
determine the best long-term solutions for alleviating the pressures of 
increased visitation and the potential need for increased 
infrastructure.
    Issue 59--Comments from the public and peer-reviewers expressed 
concern about the potential future impacts of logging on grizzly bears 
in the GYE, including that: (1) 11 Percent of suitable habitat outside 
the PCA, but inside the DMA, allows timber harvesting; and (2) timber 
harvest would increase after delisting since there would no longer be 
limits on road densities in grizzly bear habitat, opening more than 3 
million acres to timber harvest and road building.
    Public comments provided varied perspectives on the impacts of 
logging on grizzly bears including: (1) Grizzly bears avoid recently 
logged forests (McClellan and Hovey 2001; Apps et al. 2004), 
potentially because these areas are warmer; (2) logging disturbs 
denning bears, particularly females; (3) timber harvest can degrade 
habitat quality under ``short-rotation management regimes'' (Mattson 
and Knight 1991); (4) food availability does not increase in early 
successional forests in the GYE; (5) logging could degrade red squirrel 
habitat (and red squirrels help make whitebark pine nuts available for 
grizzly bear consumption); and (6) there is not currently enough 
science to determine the impacts of logging on bears, besides the 
research on grizzly bear mortalities from roads. One commenter noted 
that, unless no logging occurred between 2002 and 2016, we need to 
analyze impacts of logging after 2002.
    Commenters also suggested that future management may worsen these 
impacts, including that: (1) The USFS could ignore habitat protections 
for grizzly bears that limit logging as previously occurred in Targhee 
NF; and (2) timber harvest lands adjacent to YNP (and in wildlife 
migration routes) will be designated Farm Bill priority lands, 
resulting in a less rigorous review. Suggestions on how to minimize 
these impacts included: (1) Mitigation for projects that impact secure 
habitat should not include land that has already been disturbed (e.g., 
previously logged land); and (2) grizzly bears should remain listed to 
avoid logging in their habitat. Conversely, a commenter suggested that 
timber harvest is part of responsibly managing natural resources and 
that bears are flexible and can adapt to multiple use landscapes.
    Response--Inside the PCA, secure habitat must be maintained at or 
above the 1998 baseline, and application rules for changes to secure 
habitat will apply. These rules limit changes to secure habitat to one 
project at a time within a bear management subunit and the impact of 
that project cannot exceed 1 percent of the area of the largest subunit 
within that BMU (YES 2016a, pp. 62-63). For permanent changes, 
replacement habitat must be in place for at least 10 years before it 
can be used for mitigation for future projects, including logging. 
These rules ensure that ``short-rotation management regimes'' will not 
occur within the PCA. In addition, although roughly 17 percent or 3,967 
km\2\ (1,532 mi\2\) of suitable habitat outside the PCA is identified 
as having both suitable timber and a management prescription that 
allows timber harvest, from 2003 to 2014, an average of only 4.7 km\2\ 
(1.8 mi\2\) was actually logged annually (Jackson 2017, in litt.). The 
IGBST would be able to detect any changes to the population as a result 
of changes in habitat through their demographic monitoring of the GYE 
grizzly bear population, which they will report to the YGCC who could 
then decide if modifications to the 2016 Conservation Strategy are 
necessary to maintain a recovered grizzly bear population in the GYE.
    Timber is the primary resource extracted in grizzly bear habitat. 
Habitat quality (as a function of road density and timber harvest) has 
improved as a result of declining timber harvest, decreasing road 
construction, and increasing road decommissioning since the mid-1990s 
(USDA FS 2006a, pp. 156, 200). Timber harvest volumes and road 
construction have declined since the mid-1990s. Under the 1998 level of 
secure habitat, the GYE grizzly bear population has tripled in size and 
has stabilized from 2002-2014 as it has reached carrying capacity 
(Haroldson et al. 2014, p. 13; van Manen 2016a, in litt.). From 1986 to 
2002 there has been a net reduction of more than 1,600 km (1,000 mi) of 
road on the six GYE National Forests (inside and outside the PCA). 
Inside the PCA on National Forests, there was an average reduction 
(elimination) of 59.9 km (37.2 mi) of road per year from 1986 to 2002 
(USDA FS 2006a, p. 200). Similarly, outside the PCA, there was an 
average reduction of 40.7 km (25.3 mi) of road per year for this time 
period (USDA FS 2006a, p. 200). Timber lands immediately adjacent to 
the YNP are contained within the PCA and protected under the 1998 
baseline standards for secure

[[Page 30587]]

habitat and developed sites. The standards and guidelines adopted in 
each Forest Plan, and the Planning Rule under which they fall, must 
still be abided by when considering a project under the 2014 Farm Bill.
    Please see the Vegetation Management section of this final rule for 
discussion of how timber harvest may impact grizzly bears, Issue 61 for 
further discussion of bear use of newly disturbed forests, and the 
Snowmobiling section of this final rule and Issue 45 for discussion of 
potential den site disturbance. Apps et al. (2004, p. 148) cautioned 
that their findings that grizzly bears avoided newly logged areas may 
be a result of an ``accelerated rate of conifer regeneration of 
cutblocks,'' ``lower shrub cover than would otherwise be expected,'' 
and they were ``associated with higher human access and influence.'' 
Although Pigeon et al. (2016, p. 1107) found that grizzly bears avoid 
newly logged forests, this was a temporal avoidance of the warmest 
parts of the day and grizzly bears returned to the area at cooler times 
of the day. Fortin et al. (2013b, entire) found that grizzly bears are 
extremely flexible in their ability to switch activity profiles (i.e., 
nocturnal versus diurnal) without being negatively impacted by these 
switches.
    Issue 60--Commenters expressed concerns with our discussion of the 
impacts to grizzly bears from human population growth and development 
activities on private lands in the GYE, including that: (1) Increasing 
development of formerly rural areas has negative impacts on grizzly 
bear population trends (Doak and Cutler 2014); (2) the 1998 baseline 
does not consider the impacts of edge effects with residential and 
recreational developments on private lands; (3) we need more discussion 
of how to minimize grizzly bear deaths and conflicts on private lands; 
(4) the potential privatization of Federal land could pose a threat to 
habitat maintenance (especially when it is easier to transfer Federal 
land to private control if it does not contain listed species); (5) the 
States (especially Montana and Idaho) have no substantive management 
restrictions in grizzly bear habitat on private lands; and (6) the 
Service does not have a system to monitor the impacts of population 
growth and increased development.
    Concerns from commenters on management strategies for bear 
conservation on private lands included: (1) Questions as to how 
``take'' prohibitions will apply to degradation of bear habitat on 
private lands since ``take'' includes habitat destruction, in addition 
to killing and harassing endangered animals; (2) suggestions to apply a 
``no net loss'' policy for grizzly bear habitat on private lands; (3) 
suggestions that the Federal Government should use public lands to 
mitigate for impacts to grizzly bears that occur on private lands; and 
(4) suggestions that we need to consider how implementation of the 2016 
Conservation Strategy will impact private landowners in the DMA, 
potentially adversely, since the process for meeting damage claims on 
real and personal property could be mired in delays. A peer-reviewer 
emphasized that education and mitigation will be key strategies in 
reducing the likelihood of ``attractant sinks'' (i.e., increased human-
caused grizzly bear mortalities as a result of unsecured attractants) 
developing on the 9 percent of suitable habitat outside the PCA that is 
private land.
    Response--Private lands comprise 2.1 percent of the PCA and 9 
percent of suitable habitat outside the PCA. The consideration of 
private land activities on grizzly bear-human conflicts is fundamental 
to the proper management of grizzly bears and to human safety because 
these conflicts often lead to grizzly bear mortality. However, the vast 
majority of suitable grizzly bear habitat is secure on public land 
(i.e., National Parks or National Forests). Thus, despite the conflicts 
that arise on private lands, we conclude that activities on private 
lands do not constitute a threat to the GYE grizzly bear now or in the 
future.
    In regard to potential privatization of Federal public land posing 
a threat to grizzly bears in the GYE, while changes to the protected 
status of grizzly bear habitat on these public lands is theoretically 
possible, such an outcome is highly improbable, especially at the scale 
that would be necessary to affect the viability of the GYE grizzly bear 
population. Although Doak and Cutler (2014a, p. 313) graph the increase 
in rural population trends from 1975 to 2005, they do not include rural 
population trends in their modeling of population trends in the GYE 
(see Issues 28 and 29 for discussion on a rebuttal to Doak and Cutler 
2014a).
    Suitable habitat excludes areas of increased mortality risk (e.g., 
high population densities and sheep allotments; ``edge'' habitat). 
However, these population sinks are included in the DMA, the area in 
which the mortality limits apply, as set forth in this final rule, the 
2016 Conservation Strategy, and the revised Demographic Recovery 
Criteria. These mortality limits apply to all lands within the DMA, 
private and public. The amount of suitable habitat, including the 1998 
baseline levels of secure habitat and developed sites, are sufficient 
to maintain a viable grizzly bear population in the GYE. However, the 
habitat standards set forth in this rule and the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy apply only to Federal lands and, therefore, will have no 
direct effect on private landowners. Upon delisting, current programs 
that compensate owners for livestock losses will continue in Idaho, 
Montana, and Wyoming regardless of the listing status of the grizzly 
bear (see Issue 54).
    Limits on developing private lands to reduce conflicts with 
resident wildlife are the responsibility of the counties and the 
States, both of which have representatives on the YGCC; the Service has 
no direct authority over private lands. As previously stated, section 9 
take prohibitions of the Act will no longer apply after this final rule 
goes into effect. Because a disproportionate number of grizzly bear-
human conflicts occur at site developments on private lands (see 
Servheen et al. 2004, p. 15), we recommend that private landowners 
become involved in efforts to reduce these conflicts. We, in 
conjunction with the counties and State wildlife agencies, will 
continue to promote outreach, education, and management of land 
development activities in grizzly bear habitat to reduce bear-human 
conflicts upon delisting. State bear management specialists will 
continue to respond to human-bear conflicts and efforts to reduce 
conflicts on both public and private lands (YES 2016a, pp. 86-95). 
These efforts to limit conflicts on private lands will continue under 
the YGCC's management, which will be informed by future IGBST 
demographic reviews.
    Issue 61--One commenter asked about the role of fire in grizzly 
bear habitat and how fire, both natural and human-induced, might be 
managed post-delisting.
    Response--Blanchard and Knight (1990, p. 592) found that the 1988 
fire resulted in the probable deaths of only a few grizzly bears and no 
increase in bear home range sizes or daily movement rates during or 
after the fire. Immediately after the fires had passed, grizzly bears 
moved into the burned areas to feed on the increased availability of 
burnt ungulate carcasses, roots, ants, and newly emerged grasses and 
forbs. Although some grizzly bears avoided burned sites in the year 
after the fire (1989), use of burned areas in subsequent years (1990 to 
1992) suggested that fires increased production of forbs and roots and 
were,

[[Page 30588]]

therefore, beneficial to grizzly bears (Blanchard and Knight 1996, pp. 
120-121). The period of most robust grizzly bear growth (4 to 7 
percent) occurred shortly after the 1988 fires, through the entire 
decade of the 1990s. The USFS uses multiple fire management strategies 
to minimize potential negative threats (i.e., to life and structures) 
while allowing fire to maintain its natural role in an ecosystem. 
Management strategies include the use of prescribed fires to ``maintain 
or improve habitat conditions'' for wildlife (Caribou-Targhee NF 2005, 
p. 11; USDA FS 2011, pp. 3-4; Shoshone NF 2012, p. 2; Bridger-Teton NF 
2015, pp. 8, 10). Please see the Factor E: Catastrophic Events, above, 
for further discussion on the potential impacts of fires and management 
practices.
    Issue 62--Several public commenters and a peer-reviewer raised 
concerns over habitat fragmentation. Specifically, commenters noted 
that: (1) There is already a high degree of fragmentation of suitable 
habitat within the PCA and, to a greater degree, within the DMA 
(Merrill et al. 1999; Carroll et al. 2001; Merrill and Mattson 2003; 
Johnson et al. 2004; USDA FS 2006a; Schwartz et al. 2010); (2) we did 
not acknowledge the negative effects of this fragmentation in our 
proposed rule, such as genetic ``isolation'' of grizzly bears, 
``reduction of species richness, inbreeding, and loss of sustainability 
of the habitat'' (Fahrig 2003) or on the quality and conservation of 
available habitat; (3) private land uses, energy development, timber 
harvest, ORV use, and livestock allotments are potential sources of 
further habitat fragmentation, especially outside the PCA; and (4) 
there was no provision in the rule designed to limit habitat 
fragmentation within the DPS boundary outside of the DMA. Lastly, one 
commenter suggested that the States be required to manage for 
decreasing fragmentation.
    Response--All the best available biological information 
demonstrates that suitable habitat, including fragmented and 
unfragmented areas, contains the habitat necessary for a healthy and 
viable grizzly bear population in the long term. Please see Issues 40 
and 96 for discussion on suitable habitat and the impacts of genetic 
isolation on the GYE grizzly bear population, respectively.
    Issue 63--A few public comments assumed that most or all of the GYE 
is designated as critical habitat for the grizzly bear.
    Response--In 1976, we proposed to designate critical habitat for 
the grizzly bear (41 FR 48757, November 5, 1976). This designation was 
made stale by the 1978 critical habitat amendments to the Act, 
including the requirement to perform an economic analysis. This 
proposal was never finalized. Recognizing the importance of habitat to 
the species, instead, the IGBC issued habitat management guidelines 
within all occupied grizzly bear habitat (USDA FS 1986, entire). These 
habitat management guidelines are considered to be one of the primary 
factors in successful GYE grizzly recovery efforts.

Human-Caused Mortality Issues (Factors B and C Combined)

    Issue 64--Public commenters expressed opinions both for and against 
the hunting of grizzly bears in the GYE. Substantive comments in favor 
of hunting indicated that it is an appropriate management tool to: (1) 
Help maintain a balance between an adequate grizzly bear population and 
adequate food resources; (2) address conflict bears and minimize future 
conflict with humans; (3) create opportunities for bears from other 
populations to immigrate into the GYE, thereby improving genetic 
diversity for the GYE grizzly bear; and (4) be a source of funding for 
grizzly bear monitoring and conservation.
    Conversely, substantive comments in opposition to hunting covered a 
range of issues, including that: (1) There is a lack of scientific data 
to support hunting and discount it as a substantial threat because it 
will be adding to the current levels of human-caused mortality that 
will not decline after delisting; (2) we did not adequately consider 
how hunting could impact the grizzly bear population given the species' 
slow reproductive cycles; (3) we should institute a 5- to 10-year 
moratorium on hunting after delisting to allow the grizzly bear 
population to reach at least 850 to 1,000 bears and there is a self-
sustaining population outside the DMA, to see how State management 
impacts populations, and to allow for additional research on the 
potential impacts of a hunt; (4) hunting could cause an increase in 
immigration of new males that result in female avoidance via the use of 
less suitable habitat and thus smaller litter sizes, as well as those 
males committing infanticide, further depressing population numbers; 
(5) hunting could negatively impact grizzly bear behavior including 
orphaning of young and the disruption of activity patterns during 
denning; (6) hunting is an ineffective management tool, noting that it 
could lead to inbreeding and eventual extinction, hunters are likely to 
target the largest, fittest animals, rather than conflict bears, and 
that there is no evidence that hunting bears will increase grizzly 
bears' fear of humans; (7) States will have incentive to allow regular 
exceedance of grizzly bear mortality limits in order to maximize 
numbers of moose and elk for ungulate hunters; and (8) hunting could 
erode support for wildlife recovery.
    Response--We agree that hunting can be an appropriate management 
tool to address conflict bears and minimize future conflict with humans 
by replacing management removals, if removals are properly targeted, 
and raising funding for conservation through hunting tag sales. 
However, while hunting may indirectly reduce competition for food among 
intra-specifics by reducing the number of individuals in the GYE, 
wildlife populations regulate themselves naturally (Caughley and 
Sinclair 1994, pp. 100-119), and we, therefore, do not believe hunting 
is necessary to ``balance an adequate grizzly bear population and 
adequate food resources.'' Additionally, although hunting may increase 
the number of mortalities in the GYE, we believe many of these 
mortalities would replace management removals. Further, the number of 
mortalities is ultimately limited by demographic recovery criterion #3 
(as outlined in the 2016 Conservation Strategy). Therefore, we do not 
believe that hunting would create many more opportunities for 
immigration than currently exist. States have demonstrated their 
expertise in managing wildlife, particularly game species as indicated 
by the relative health of most game species in the U.S. We are 
confident that if the States institute a hunt, that it will be 
carefully regulated with yearly ecosystem-wide coordination to insure 
that total mortality remains within the sustainable limits for each 
age/sex class as set forth in this final rule, the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy, and the Revised Demographic Recovery Criteria.
    We appreciate that many commenters have concerns regarding hunting 
of grizzly bears. Hunting is a discretionary mortality source that will 
occur only if mortality limits from all other causes have not been 
exceeded (YES 2016a, pp. 33-50). Because the sustainable mortality 
limits for independent males and females include mortalities from all 
sources (YES 2016a, p. 36), including hunting, and are applied within 
the DMA, hunting should never threaten the GYE grizzly bear population. 
Hunting permits will not be issued by the States if mortality limits 
are exceeded.
    Hunting is regulated by the States who will again have management 
authority and jurisdiction to regulate any future hunting when this 
final rule goes into effect as discussed in Factors

[[Page 30589]]

B and C Combined, above. Through their regulations and the Tri-State 
MOA, the States have made assurances that grizzly bear management, 
including hunting, will be managed cooperatively between the three 
States to ensure that a recovered grizzly bear population is 
maintained. As discussed above, the GYE population at its current level 
no longer meets the definition of a threatened or endangered species; 
therefore, it is not necessary to further increase the population 
inside or outside of the DMA.
    The limited hunting that may occur in the GYE if States choose to 
institute a hunt will be carefully controlled and would be unlikely to 
affect population dynamics. Some evidence of infanticide has been found 
in North American and European brown bear populations (McLellan 1994, 
pp. 15-16; Swenson et al. 1997, p. 450), which can reduce the 
population growth rate through cub mortality; however, Miller et al. 
(2003, p. 144) and McLellan (2005, pp. 153-154) could not find evidence 
of population-level effects of sexually selected infanticide in North 
American grizzly bear populations. If hunting preferentially removed 
adult male bears, and if infanticide was common, hunting might result 
in some reduction in cub survival in localized areas. However, this 
would likely have little impact on overall population growth rate 
because hunting mortality on males would be limited in numbers and 
extent. We do not anticipate that the male-to-female ratio would change 
markedly under the adopted mortality limits or that sexually selected 
infanticide would become an issue affecting population trajectory of 
the GYE grizzly bear population. Continued monitoring of the population 
through radio telemetry and observations of unmarked reproductive 
females will alert the IGBST to any substantial changes in cub survival 
or production and trigger appropriate management responses.
    Although disturbances caused by hunting during denning may have 
negative effects on individual survival and reproduction (Swenson et 
al. 1997, p. 37, Linnell et al. 2000, pp. 401, 408), there is no 
evidence of resulting population-level impacts (in their entirety: 
Harding and Nagy 1980; Reynolds et al. 1986; Hegg et al. 2010). In 
addition, there is no data or information suggesting that human 
recreational activity is negatively affecting the GYE grizzly bear 
population. The IGBST will produce an annual population estimate for 
the DMA that will be used by the States to establish total mortality 
limits for each age/sex class for the following year. Hunting seasons 
will be managed by the States so as not to exceed those mortality 
limits. Hunting seasons will be closed within 24 hours of meeting total 
mortality limits, and any mortality exceeding those limits will be 
subtracted from that age/sex class total mortality limit for the 
following year per State rules and regulations (see discussion above 
under Factors B and C Combined). A management review also will be 
conducted by the IGBST every 5 to 10 years to assess if recovery 
criteria are being maintained. Consequently, any potential changes to 
grizzly bear behavior caused by hunting that impact population numbers 
or distribution criteria would be accounted for in subsequent hunting 
seasons.
    In regard to hunting being an ineffective management tool, research 
by Swenson (1999, pp. 159-160) showed that brown bears were more wary 
of humans in areas where brown bear hunting occurred. To our knowledge, 
there is no data or information that hunting would decrease the overall 
fitness of individuals in the GYE grizzly bear population. Hunting can 
be used as a compensatory mortality source, targeting bears that would 
otherwise be removed by management action. However, as explained above, 
States will authorize hunting only as long as the overall mortality 
limits are not exceeded. The IGBST and State agencies collect data on 
grizzly bear-human conflicts and will continue to do so after 
delisting. These data are reported and displayed spatially in the 
IGBST's Annual Report. Any changes in the frequency, location, or 
nature of grizzly bear-human conflicts would be detected. State 
regulations (see Factors B and C Combined) will prevent regular 
exceedance of grizzly bear mortality limits. Exceedance of the total 
mortality limits for 3 consecutive years would trigger an IGBST Biology 
and Monitoring Review, and the Service can also initiate a status 
review independent of the IGBST or the YGCC should the total mortality 
limits be exceeded by a significant margin or routinely violated or if 
substantial management changes occur significant enough to raise 
concerns about population-level impacts.
    Issue 65--We received many comments from both the public and peer-
reviewers regarding hunting boundaries. Peer-reviewers and other 
commenters sought clarification regarding whether or not hunting would 
be allowed within the PCA, since it is defined as a ``secure area.'' 
Several comments recommended that no hunting should be allowed within 
the PCA, the DMA, secure habitat, JDR, GTNP (including on State or 
private inholdings), in Montana's Taylor Fork drainage, at food 
aggregate sites, or in other densely populated grizzly bear areas, 
while others suggested that all Federal lands should be open to hunting 
or that hunting be focused in areas prone to human-grizzly bear 
conflict. Peer-reviewers and public commenters suggested that hunting 
be prohibited in connectivity areas and key wildlife corridors. Many 
commenters suggested that Wyoming must recognize NPS' jurisdiction over 
the JDR or Wyoming would be violating the National Park Service's 
Organic Act. Noting that the boundaries of the PCA and ``secure 
habitat'' are hard to identify, comments suggested that hunting be 
limited to zones that are easier to define geographically. Some 
commenters suggested that State managers create a buffer around YNP and 
GTNP in which no hunting would be allowed since bears in those areas 
are more used to humans and thus more vulnerable to hunters. 
Additionally, comments requested that we assess the impacts of grizzly 
bear hunting on park inholdings.
    Response--As we explained in Issue 64, after de-listing, any future 
hunting would be regulated by the States. In most cases the public has 
opportunities for input when the State is adjusting hunting and 
management regulation. All hunting of grizzly bears will remain 
prohibited within National Park lands, which comprise 39.4 percent of 
the PCA. Hunting will be allowed on private lands and other public 
lands within the PCA. Within the JDR, the Secretary of the Interior is 
required to permit hunting in accordance with applicable Federal and 
State law, with exceptions for public safety, administration, or public 
use and enjoyment (Pub. L. 92-404, Sec. 3.(b)). However, the State of 
Wyoming has indicated they do not intend to allow hunting in the JDR 
(Mead 2016, in litt.).
    See Issue 40 for the definition of secure habitat; the risk of 
human-grizzly bear conflicts is reduced in secure habitat as a result 
of habitat management. However, hunting may occur in secure habitat 
where authorized by applicable Federal and State laws and will be 
limited by the applicable annual mortality thresholds (see table 1). 
Hunt areas and hunt area boundaries outside NPS and Tribal lands will 
be addressed in State hunting regulations, which are under the purview 
of the State Fish and Game Commissions. See Factors B and C Combined 
and Issue 77 for more details about how the States set harvest 
regulations.

[[Page 30590]]

    The total annual mortality limits inside the DMA by definition 
include any grizzly bear legally harvested on NPS inholdings. Any 
grizzly bears occupying private land inholdings within NPS boundaries 
are inside the DMA and are a part of both the annual population 
estimate and annual mortality limits, and as such, were explicitly 
considered during the analysis conducted in the preparation of this 
final rule.
    The management of conflict bears within the GYE grizzly bear DPS 
boundaries will be based upon existing laws and authorities of State 
wildlife agencies and Federal land management agencies, and directed by 
protocols established in the 2016 Conservation Strategy and State 
management plans. Wyoming has indicated that they intend to ``emphasize 
harvest in high conflict areas which typically occur a significant 
distance from National Park boundaries'' (Mead 2016, in litt.). Inside 
YNP and GTNP, grizzly bear biologists will continue to respond to 
grizzly bear-human conflicts. In all areas outside of the NPs, State 
and Tribal wildlife agencies will continue responding to grizzly bear-
human conflicts. All three State fish and wildlife agencies have 
significant expertise in using hunting as a management tool to reduce 
conflicts with a number of species.
    Issue 66--We received comments from peer-reviewers and the public 
expressing concerns with proposed mortality limits (total, independent 
females, and independent males). A number of commenters questioned the 
biological justification for: (1) Allowing any discretionary mortality 
at populations less than 674 bears; (2) lowered mortality rates for 
independent females and dependent young, but unchanged and relatively 
high mortality rates for independent males; and (3) independent female 
mortality limits greater than 7.6 percent (at any population size). 
Additionally, commenters asked what the mortality rate would be at 
population levels less than 600 to ensure population growth; these 
commenters suggested that merely halting all discretionary mortality 
would not be a sufficient response. A few commenters noted that other 
larger, more connected populations have much more conservative total 
mortality limits than the ones in our proposed rule. In order to 
increase confidence in the biological basis of mortality limits, 
commenters suggested independent peer-review of the models used to 
derive mortality thresholds.
    A number of commenters requested additional clarification in our 
mortality limits, such as: (1) An explanation on uncertainty around 
estimated mortality limits; (2) ``what point within the 95 percent 
confidence interval the population size estimate refers'' when 
discussing mortality rates; (3) what the mortality rate would be at 
population levels less than 674 bears (i.e., how much less than 7.6 
percent); (4) whether mortality limits undergo annual peer-review, 
would be recalculated annually, and how variability would impact 
management; and (5) how the proposed 7.6 percent mortality rate for 
independent females will maintain stability when a 9.0 percent 
mortality rate was required for stability in the 2007 Recovery Plan 
supplement. Peer-reviewers also requested example calculations of the 
number of allowable discretionary mortalities from hunting and 
management removal for each sex and age class for various population 
sizes (e.g., show how many bears would have been available for hunting 
from 2002 to 2014 and how many years would have allowed no hunting).
    Commenters worried that the proposed mortality limits could be 
easily exceeded (especially with hunting) and could lead to population 
declines because: (1) Undetected population declines could result from 
male bears being killed nearly twice as often as female bears; (2) 
models run by commenters show high probabilities of population decline 
below 500 bears with our proposed mortality limit framework, declines 
that could go undetected because of our insensitive population 
estimates based on females with cubs-of-the-year; (3) it will be 
difficult to close the hunting season when total mortality limits are 
reached because as many as half of grizzly bear mortalities occur in 
non-telemetered bears and are unknown (McLellan et al. 1999); (4) 
population thresholds at which mortality rates change (e.g., 600 and 
674) are only estimates (resulting from an estimation method with which 
the commenters took issue, see Issue 28); and (5) population estimates 
will be based on populations within the entire ecosystem (including 
National Parks), but will establish discretionary mortality in areas 
outside of the National Parks. Several commenters requested that we 
provide a full analysis of how proposed mortality thresholds will 
impact population numbers, dispersal, and connectivity, with one 
individual recommending an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to 
evaluate alternative mortality limits and habitat protections. Lastly, 
commenters worried that revisions to the population sex-age structure, 
and associated mortality limits, will happen too infrequently because 
it is a discretionary option for States only if mortality thresholds 
are violated for 3 years in a row.
    We received several comments from the public suggesting adjustments 
to our proposed mortality limits including: (1) Mortality limits should 
be more conservative to account for bias associated with the population 
size and trend and potential threats from an expanding urban-wildland 
interface; (2) mortality limits should be set at the lower end of the 
confidence interval because the use of average estimates for vital 
rates, mortality rates, and population size means there is a 50 percent 
chance that mortality limits are too high and unsustainable; (3) 
cumulative annual mortality should be indexed monthly or seasonally to 
alert managers if mortality limits may be exceeded, with a trigger to 
stop discretionary mortality for the year; (4) discretionary mortality 
should cease when the population estimate is less than 674 rather than 
less than 600 bears; (5) if discretionary mortality is allowed at less 
than 674 bears, then total human-caused mortality should be at the 
threshold proposed in the 2007 Recovery Plan: Supplement to the 
Demographic Recovery Criteria; (6) hunting should halt when the lower 
bound of the 95 percent confidence interval of the population estimate 
is less than 600 bears; and (7) only a fraction of the estimated 
population available for discretionary mortality should be harvested to 
avoid overharvest due to uncertainty in population size, a strategy 
known as proportional threshold harvesting. Peer-reviewers also 
proposed how to adjust mortality limits in the future, including: (1) 
Discretionary mortality should change in response to potential changes 
in sex-age classes; and (2) hunting limits should consider annual 
changes in environmental conditions (i.e., drought, fire, or berry crop 
failures). In addition, a commenter suggested that hunting targets 
should be spatially explicit, concentrating mortality in the southern 
and eastern portions of the GYE while encouraging expansion to the west 
and north.
    Response--The biological basis for the 7.6 percent mortality 
threshold for independent females was based on models presented in 
IGBST (2012, entire) and would maintain an average population size 
around 674 (which is the estimate for the time period 2002 to 2014, the 
timeframe during which the population began to demonstrate density-
dependent population regulation). This mortality threshold was reduced 
from 9 percent in 2007 to

[[Page 30591]]

the 7.6 percent current threshold because of changes in vital rates 
(IGBST 2012). The premise behind the 9 percent and 10 percent 
sustainable mortality rates when the population is greater than 674 is 
that a higher mortality rate would likely allow the population to 
return back to the long-term average of 674, consistent with the 
recovery criteria and the States' management commitments.
    Whereas the IGBST is currently investigating the power of the Chao2 
technique to assess how soon we can detect a change in population trend 
may be reached under the 9 percent and 10 percent scenarios, and how 
far the population may already be below the objective of 674 when this 
is detected, the premise for this adaptive management approach is well 
established in the literature. There is uncertainty around the 
mortality estimates due to unknown/unreported mortalities, but YES 
managers expressed a desire to rely on the central tendency of the data 
rather than reporting credible intervals as it would substantially 
complicate implementation of mortality monitoring (see Issue 33). Given 
that the Chao2 estimator underestimates population size, particularly 
at higher densities (Schwartz et al. 2008, figure 5), the concern that 
mortality limits should be more conservative to account for bias 
associated with the population size and trend is unfounded. Currently, 
there is no evidence that the age of first reproduction is increasing.
    On the issue of the 50 percent chance that mortality limits are 
unsustainable, this is correct if mortality limits are reached every 
year. Decisions whether to set the mortality limits at the lower end of 
the confidence interval on the population estimate or based on the 
point estimate itself are mostly policy issues; from a scientific 
standpoint, however, there is justification for basing management 
decisions on the central tendency of the data, i.e., the point estimate 
of population size (see Issues 28 and 33). It is important to point out 
that the 7.6 percent used in the GYE is a threshold for total 
mortality, and is thus not directly comparable to mortality rates for 
other populations that use thresholds for human-caused mortality. 
Taking this into account, the sustainable mortality thresholds used for 
other populations are not distinctly different from those applied in 
other populations. Furthermore, if any population estimate falls below 
600, there will be no discretionary mortality, except as necessary for 
human safety.
    In response to comments about the potential to overshoot the 
population objective, see Issue 19. There is indeed a lag time and, 
thus, the potential for the population to drop below the long-term 
average of 674. The States have indicated that they will manage the 
population around the long-term average, and we recognize that the 
population abundance will vary above and below that point estimate. 
IGBST is currently investigating the power to detect when a population 
objective has been reached and by the time it is detected, the degree 
to which the population objective may be exceeded in terms of time and 
population size. The determination of when mortality thresholds are 
reached is based on total mortality, which includes a statistical 
estimate of the number of unknown/unreported mortalities. The IGBST 
uses a similar method as McLellan et al. (1999, pp. 913-914) to 
estimate unknown/unreported mortalities, but our estimates of unknown/
unreported mortalities are actually higher (as discussed in the 
preceding paragraph); for every reported mortality, our estimates are 
closer to two unreported mortalities. The estimate of unknown/
unreported mortalities allows a full accounting of total mortality and 
thus ensures that hunting mortality does not contribute to exceeding 
allowable mortality thresholds.
    In response to the suggestion of a monthly or seasonal mortality 
index, the IGBST already summarize mortalities on a continuous basis 
(i.e., as records come in) and would allow for managers to be alerted 
in a timely manner if mortalities were exceeded. This information is 
posted on the IGBST Web site (under mortality tables; see Issue 26) and 
is available to both the public and managers. In addition, the IGBST is 
able to calculate unknown/unreported mortality every time a mortality 
is added to the mortality database so that the hunting season can be 
closed by the States if allowable total mortality is exceeded. Idaho 
and Wyoming regulations state that all hunting shall be suspended in 
the DMA if total mortality limits for any sex/age class identified in 
the management plan are met at any time (Idaho Fish and Game Commission 
2016, p. 2; Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 2016, p. 67-2). Montana 
regulations state that if a State meets any of its allocated regulation 
harvest limits at any time of the year, the respective State will cease 
hunting in the DMA (Montana Fish and Wildlife Commission Resolution, 
July 13, 2016 approving the Tri-State MOA). Calculation of these 
allocated regulated harvest limits take into consideration total, which 
includes unknown/unreported. The population thresholds at which 
mortality rates change are indeed only estimates. Management of 
wildlife populations is almost always based on estimates of population 
size; rarely are they based on a true census of population size. With a 
highly conservative population estimation technique due to documented 
underestimation bias of the model-averaged Chao2 method (see Issue 28), 
management decisions will also be conservative.
    In response to concerns that the population estimate will not 
detect a decline because males will be killed at nearly twice the rate 
as female bears and that population estimates will be based on the 
entire ecosystem while hunting occurs only outside of National Parks, 
the IGBST uses multiple techniques for monitoring, including Chao2. 
Although the model-averaged Chao2 technique would not detect changes in 
the male subpopulation, the rates and ratios we use to derive a total 
population estimate are based on our known-fate analyses. The sample of 
radio-monitored bears (females and males) will allow the IGBST to 
update these rates and ratios if they change, which would be reflected 
in the total population estimate. If male survival declines, this would 
lead to lower estimates of a total population size through changes in 
the sex ratio, which would eventually change mortality thresholds as 
specified in this final rule and the 2016 Conservation Strategy. 
Whereas hunting mortality would occur only outside the parks, mortality 
management is based on the notion that grizzly bears in the GYE 
population form a single population, within which densities vary 
naturally due to differences in habitat quality, habitat security, etc. 
Thus, some areas currently already experience different levels of 
mortality. If hunting is added as a mortality source, it may change 
these spatial patterns, potentially changing source-sink dynamics, but 
total mortality would be managed so that it remains sustainable for the 
population as a whole. This system provides management flexibility, as 
it provides agencies with a mechanism to address, for example, conflict 
issues in certain areas while allowing potential connectivity in other 
areas.
    Several of the more detailed assessments proposed by commenters, 
including the idea of an EIS, are difficult to achieve given current 
data. Assessing the impacts of different mortality thresholds on 
dispersal, for example, would be a substantial challenge and require 
new, concerted research efforts. Whereas such analyses would provide 
interesting ecological

[[Page 30592]]

insights, they are not essential for informing management decisions, 
particularly given the extensive and long-term research and population 
assessments conducted by the IGBST. Estimates of sustainable mortality 
thresholds will be updated frequently by the IGBST, and plans are under 
way to set up a system where they update vital rates and associated 
population projections annually.
    From 2002 to 2014, hunting would have been allowed for independent 
males in 10 out of 13 years and for independent females in 7 out of 13 
years. The average annual allowable allocation for discretionary 
mortality would have been 19 independent males and 4 independent 
females. Edits were made to all three documents for consistency in the 
mortality limits and to clarify that they apply annually. All three 
documents were updated to reflect that at an estimated population size 
of less than or equal to 674 bears the mortality limit for independent 
females and dependent young is less than 7.6 percent and not less than 
or equal to 7.6 percent.
    Annually, mortality limits will be applied as set forth in table 2 
of this final rule based on the previous year's population estimate. 
Mortality limits will be adjusted in the future based on reviews of 
vital rates by the IGBST every 5 to 10 years, or at any point a Biology 
and Monitoring Review is required. The current State regulations to 
maintain the mortality limits within those in table 2 will compensate 
for annual fluctuations in natural or other causes of mortality. These 
regulations include: Suspending grizzly bear hunting within the DMA if 
total mortality limits for any sex/age class are met at any time during 
the year; in a given year, discretionary mortality will be allowed only 
if non-discretionary mortality does not meet or exceed allowable total 
mortality limits for that year; and any mortality that exceeds 
allowable total mortality limits in any year will be subtracted from 
that age/sex class allowable total mortality limits for the following 
year.
    While we respect concerns from commenters about the spatial 
distribution of discretionary mortality, it is outside of the scope of 
our decision-making authority. Hunt areas will be developed by the 
States in order to direct harvest where appropriate, if hunting occurs 
(YES 2016a, p. 20; WGFD 2016, p. 16); see Issues 64 and 65 for further 
discussion. There are a number of ways in which population mortality 
thresholds can be set and measured. The IGBST has spent considerable 
effort to develop the current system, with a number of workshops over 
the past decade and associated scientific documents (i.e., workshop 
reports and journal articles). The monitoring system that was developed 
from these efforts represents the best available science. Regarding the 
``proportional harvesting'' suggestion, the number of bears available 
for discretionary mortality, including for harvest, will be 
conservative because the Chao2 estimates are very conservative.
    In response to suggestions to change the mortality limits and 
management framework, we recognize that it is unrealistic to expect to 
manage down to a single individual. The States agreed to manage the GYE 
grizzly bear population within the DMA, to at least within the 95% 
confidence intervals associated with the 2002 to 2014 long-term average 
grizzly bear population estimate calculated using the model-averaged 
Chao2 estimator (i.e., 600 to 747). The Service and the States 
understand that the actual population will vary around that level, and 
that mortality will be managed to ensure that the population does not 
drop and remain below 600.
    Issue 67--Several peer-reviewers and commenters raised concerns 
about the implications of limiting monitoring to the DMA. Commenters 
were concerned that bears outside the DMA will have no protections and 
a failure to count bears outside the DMA will put dispersal and 
connectivity in jeopardy, permanently isolating the GYE population. The 
States requested we remove the clause ``grizzly bears will not be 
persecuted because they are present there,'' in reference to the DMA, 
from our revised recovery criteria. One peer-reviewer commented that 
mortality rates may be underestimated when bears whose home ranges 
overlap the DMA boundary are killed outside the DMA. Commenters 
asserted that bears that die outside the DMA likely emigrated from the 
DMA and consequently should count as losses for the DMA; otherwise, 
threats to the population will not be accurately assessed. Peer-
reviewers point out that catastrophic events within the DMA (e.g., like 
fire in 1988), ``could displace grizzly bears forcing some to shift 
home-ranges to outside the DMA boundaries,'' which would require 
sampling outside of the DMA. One peer-reviewer noted that less 
monitoring outside the DMA may produce ``less data about individual 
bears that may behave differently than those within the DMA.'' 
Commenters thus requested we monitor grizzly bear populations outside 
the DMA or in the entire GYE DPS.
    Response--The IGBST will continue to collect data on all 
mortalities in the GYE DPS, including those outside the DMA. However, 
mortalities outside the DMA will not be counted towards mortality 
thresholds because the DMA is the area within which IGBST partner 
agencies conduct population monitoring. Expanding the population 
monitoring beyond the DMA boundaries is not biologically justified 
where habitat is not suitable for the bear's long-term viability. Bears 
that die outside the DMA may have dispersed from within or simply have 
home ranges on the periphery; regardless, the population monitoring 
protocols that are in place would detect if the level of mortality 
outside the DMA reaches a point where population size inside the DMA 
declines. Grizzly bears throughout the GYE DPS will be classified and 
regulated as a game animal in accordance with State game regulations 
(see Issue 73).
    Issue 68--We received many comments from both the public and peer-
reviewers regarding the management of human-bear conflict. One 
commenter did not understand how our calculations of mortality rates 
and bear-human conflict rates are lower currently than historically 
(e.g., during 1989 to 1998 or 1989 to 2005). This commenter suggested 
we should conduct such a comparative analysis at multiple population 
and geographic scales. Many commenters claimed that instances of human-
bear conflict have increased in recent years because of overpopulation 
of grizzly bears, habituation, bear colonization of lower elevations 
and peripheral ranges due to changing food availability and 
distribution, increasingly close proximity to humans and developed 
facilities (Steyaert et al. 2016), and higher numbers of elk hunters. 
One commenter suggested that this trend could continue since Minin et 
al. (2016) found that, as land use changes, areas that will be key to 
carnivore conservation are also areas with high potential for conflict. 
One peer-reviewer commented that the current stable population trend of 
grizzly bears in the GYE may not confirm that the efforts to reduce 
human-caused mortalities are effective. One commenter suggested that 
managers in the GYE have not adequately carried out recommendations 
from the 2009 Yellowstone Mortality and Conflict Reduction Report 
(IGBST 2009), and that this report recommended creating a publicly 
available database of all bear encounters and mortalities, which still 
does not exist.
    A few commenters weighed in on whether they thought the act of 
delisting would increase or decrease conflict.

[[Page 30593]]

Many commenters posited that delisting the GYE population of grizzly 
bears would reduce human-bear conflict because it will allow for more 
effective population management; these commenters suggested that, if 
bears remain on the list, and populations thus continue to grow, more 
bears will be removed as a result of conflicts with humans than the 
number of bears that would be killed in the context of a regulated 
hunt. On the other hand, some commenters suggested that the GYE grizzly 
bear population will self-regulate without delisting because disease 
and starvation will effectively reduce and limit the number of bears. 
Another commenter was worried that lethal responses to conflict would 
increase following delisting.
    Many commenters believed we presented an inadequate discussion of 
methods to manage and reduce conflict; they suggested the following 
improvements or additions prior to delisting: (1) Improved education 
programs that aim to change attitudes and behaviors of people living in 
grizzly bear country in order to increase risk tolerance and improve 
willingness to share habitat (see Issue 108); (2) limits on, or 
elimination of, ungulate hunting to reduce defense of life and property 
kills; (3) incentives for hunters to retreat from downed game; (4) 
additional law enforcement and field staff; (5) encouragement and 
funding of alternatives to lethal control of bears (including 
additional discussion of such methods in State management plans) since 
lethal control does not increase public tolerance or promote avoidance 
of future conflict; (6) preparation of a Grizzly Bear Management 
Relocation Plan with pre-arranged relocation sites; (7) discussion on 
how managers should resolve conflicts on Tribal lands; and (8) managing 
for higher wild ungulate populations to decrease livestock depredation. 
A peer-reviewer suggested funding for programs that reduce bear 
attractants on public and private lands.
    Commenters also provided suggestions on how to revise State 
management plans or the 2016 Conservation Strategy to better address 
conflict management, such as: (1) Explaining the 33 recommendations to 
abate grizzly bear conflicts in a 2006 IGBST report and incorporating 
these into Wyoming's grizzly bear management plan; (2) including in the 
2016 Conservation Strategy the admonition that managers and citizens 
should not ``reward'' or ``encourage'' bears around roads, campgrounds, 
cities, or landfills; and (3) changes to the nuisance bear standards.
    Peer-reviewers also presented a number of additional analyses that 
could bolster our discussion of human-bear conflict, including: (1) A 
review of ``the social aspects of managing large predators;'' (2) using 
NDVI data (satellite imagery) to understand bear distribution and how 
these distributions relate to human-bear conflict; (3) tracking of 
relocated animals to assess the efficacy of relocating problem bears; 
and (4) additional analysis on how to change mortality management 
techniques as the number of people living in and recreating in the GYE 
increases. Peer-reviewers also requested an explanation of how conflict 
bears will be treated inside versus outside the PCA.
    Response--Although the total number of conflicts has increased, the 
rate of conflicts (number of conflicts as a proportion of the 
population size) has decreased since the implementation of the IGBC 
Guidelines (USDA FS 1986, entire). As grizzly bear abundance and 
distribution have increased, conflicts have increased, especially in 
areas outside the DMA (see figure 3) where habitat is not suitable for 
the bear's long-term viability.

[[Page 30594]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN17.253

    It is not unexpected that the number of conflicts would increase as 
bears increasingly encounter humans and livestock outside the PCA, 
where human access is generally greater than within the PCA. However, 
there is no evidence that bears are leaving the core of the ecosystem 
as a result of changes in food resources (see Issue 38 for further 
discussion). Areas with a high risk of grizzly bear mortality due to 
repeated conflict with humans or livestock were not considered suitable 
habitat and are not included in our quantification of habitat available 
to meet the needs of a recovered grizzly bear population (see Issue 
40). The IGBST 2009 report (p. 3) identifies three main causes for 
increased known and probable mortalities, predation, hunting (defense 
of life and mistaken identity), and management removal as a result of 
cattle depredation. The States have invested considerable resources in 
hunter education to reduce mortalities as a result of mistaken identity 
and defense of life (see Issue 108 for further details). In addition, 
increased I&E efforts have been made to reduce attractants (YES 2016a, 
pp. 86-95). The IGBST maintains a database of known and probable GYE 
grizzly bear mortalities, including cause (see Issue 34). In addition, 
potential changes in verified conflicts will continue to be documented 
and evaluated, as well as annual evaluations of the population and 
mortality, and the YGCC can make modifications to the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy if they deem it is necessary to maintain a recovered grizzly 
bear population within the GYE.
    We agree that nonlethal control of grizzly bears is the preferred 
option for managing human-bear conflict. However, no single management 
tool can resolve all issues associated with human-bear conflict. 
Therefore, State, Tribal, and Federal managers will continue to use a 
combination of management options, including nonlethal forms of 
management. The current methods we use to reduce human-caused grizzly 
bear mortality by preventing and addressing conflicts in a systematic, 
fair, and prompt manner have accommodated an increasing GYE grizzly 
bear population and range since 2002.
    As previously noted, the 2016 Conservation Strategy identifies, 
defines, and requires adequate post-delisting monitoring to maintain a 
healthy GYE grizzly bear population, with clear State and Federal 
management responses if deviations occur. Agreed-upon total mortality 
limits will ensure that mortality will continue to be managed in 
accordance with recovery criteria. Notably, more than two-thirds of all 
suggested funding to implement the 2016 Conservation Strategy is 
designated to managing conflicts and conducting outreach to minimize 
conflicts, especially by decreasing attractants on private lands. 
Nonlethal means of addressing conflict such as relocation of conflict 
bears are included in the 2016 Conservation Strategy.
    The 2016 Conservation Strategy prioritizes I&E programs to minimize 
human-bear conflicts. These programs work to change human perceptions, 
and beliefs about grizzly bears and Federal regulation of public lands. 
For example, hunter education courses and other educational materials 
strongly encourage hunters to carry bear spray, and information and 
education programs educate the public about potential grizzly bear 
attractants and how to properly store them. A stable to increasing GYE 
grizzly bear population, despite large increases in people living and 
recreating in the GYE over the last

[[Page 30595]]

three decades, is evidence of the success of programs implemented that 
will continue under the 2016 Conservation Strategy.
    In addition to public I&E, the States have implemented programs to 
help reduce conflicts with people including: Livestock carcass removal, 
electric fencing subsidies for apiaries and orchards, and cost-sharing 
for bear-resistant garbage bins. Removal of conflict bears is still 
sometimes necessary. Removal is lethal to the individual bear, but it 
minimizes illegal killing of bears that might otherwise occur if people 
are encouraged to ``take matters into their own hands,'' and it thus 
serves a long-term conservation purpose. Bear removal also provides an 
opportunity to educate the public about how to avoid conflicts and thus 
limits removals in the future. It encourages tolerance of grizzly bears 
by responding promptly and effectively when bears pose a threat to 
public safety.
    Human-grizzly bear conflicts are reported by jurisdiction in the 
IGBST annual reports. The IGBST continues to conduct research on many 
aspects of the GYE grizzly bear and their ecosystem. Problem bears are 
radio-tracked when they are relocated, and the IGBST plans to assess 
the efficacy of relocating problem bears in the near future. The lower 
survival rates of relocated bears suggests that relocation should be 
used conservatively; however, relocated female bears have contributed 
to the population and should be used as a viable management alternative 
to removal from the population (Brannon 1987, p. 572; Blanchard and 
Knight 1995, p. 564). The 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 
86-91) and the State management plans detail the conflict bear 
standards to be applied to the GYE grizzly bear DPS once delisted. 
Inside the PCA, grizzly bears will be given a higher priority whereas 
``outside the PCA and National Park lands more consideration will be 
given to existing human uses.'' Conflict bear removals will be counted 
against the mortality limits set forth in this rule and the 2016 
Conservation Strategy.
    Issue 69--Public commenters asserted that the States' should 
prohibit black bear hunting within the DMA, or at the very least within 
the PCA, in order to reduce human-caused mortality from mistaken 
identification.
    Response--The potential mortality that occurs to grizzly bears from 
mistaken identification is not considered a threat to the grizzly bear 
population. From 2007 to 2016, a total of 18 grizzly bear mortalities 
occurred in the GYE that were considered ``mistaken identity,'' of 
which only 2 were females. In 2008, five grizzly bears were reported as 
killed due to mistaken identification, prompting an evaluation of 
management and education strategies. The evaluation indicated that the 
increase in mistaken identity mortality was the result of bears 
expanding into new areas; therefore, outreach and education was 
increased. Following 2008, fewer than two grizzly bear mistaken 
identity mortalities per year were documented in the GYE. In Wyoming, 
black bear regulations (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 2017, pp. 3-
5--3-6) require that when a grizzly bear is detected at a black bear 
bait site, the hunter must shut down the bait site immediately and bear 
hunting at that site is disallowed for the remainder of the season. 
Baiting for black bears in Wyoming and Idaho is not allowed in the PCA 
and in the majority of the DMA and is not allowed statewide in Montana. 
The GYE grizzly bear population has increased while black bear baiting 
has been allowed in Idaho and Wyoming outside the PCA; therefore, we 
conclude that bear hunting is not a significant factor that will 
threaten the recovered status of the GYE DPS.
    Issue 70--Commenters worried about the use of traps intended for 
game other than grizzly bears and the potential negative effects of 
these traps on grizzly bears, especially as grizzly bears' hibernation 
period shortens. Several commenters stated that trapping, as a means of 
harvest, should be prohibited for any animal within the PCA and/or the 
DMA to prevent the incidental take of grizzly bears. Several comments 
pointed out that the State plans do not have a reporting requirement or 
protocol if/when a grizzly bear is caught in a trap set for other game/
nuisance species.
    Response--Based on the best available information, we do not find 
any persuasive information to indicate that trapping for fur-bearing 
species will affect the viability of the GYE grizzly bear population. 
From 2002 to 2014, only one mortality occurred as a result of trapping 
for other game/nuisance species (Haroldson 2017b, in litt.). When we 
make our status determination of the GYE grizzly bear, we consider 
whether it is recovered and if State management will retain that 
recovered status if the Act's protections are removed. Harvest, 
irrespective of the method, is allowed at the States' discretion, 
contingent upon the harvest not exceeding the aforementioned mortality 
limits.
    Issue 71--One commenter expressed concern that we did not 
adequately acknowledge the grizzly bear mortalities associated with the 
annual elk hunt in GTNP as a continuing threat. This commenter cited a 
recent court decision that allowed ``an increase in the number of 
grizzly bears that could be `incidentally' killed in association with 
the annual elk hunt in Grand Teton National Park.'' Another commenter 
opined that we did not mention USDA Wildlife Services' incidental take 
of four grizzly bears since 1991.
    Response--All known mortalities, including those associated with 
incidental take permits, such as the elk reduction program in GTNP, are 
included in the IGBST mortality database and, therefore, our mortality 
assessment. The mortality database identifies mortalities by cause and 
does note if mortality is associated with an incidental take permit. 
Grizzly bear mortality due to the elk hunt in GTNP is unlikely as only 
one grizzly bear mortality has occurred in the history of the elk 
reduction program in GTNP, and that was attributed to self-defense. 
GTNP now requires elk hunters to carry bear spray. Like any other 
mortality source, if there were a grizzly bear mortality associated 
with the annual elk hunt in GTNP, it would count against the maximum 
allowable mortality. The IGBST's calculation of unknown/unreported 
mortalities accounts for any unknown mortalities associated with 
incidental take permits. Mortality will continue to be managed within 
the mortality limits set forth in this final rule, the 2016 
Conservation Strategy, and the Tri-State MOA.
    The specific statement by the commenter about bears that could be 
incidentally killed is in regard to an ``Incidental Take Statement'' 
that is a projected potential mortality to grizzly bears that could 
occur within a project area, and rather is not something that is 
suggested or purported to occur. Regardless, Incidental Take Statements 
would no longer apply after the bear is delisted.
    Issue 72--We received public comments asking that we discuss the 
trade of grizzly bear parts, including the extent of trafficking in the 
United States and the state of current legislation. The commenter 
suggested that States pass appropriate laws making such trafficking 
illegal. One commenter suggested that all grizzly bears remain listed 
until illegal harvest data is thoroughly evaluated.
    Response--The Lacey Act of 1900 (16 U.S.C. 3371-3378) is a 
conservation law in the United States that prohibits trade in wildlife, 
fish, and plants that have been illegally taken, possessed, 
transported, or sold. Under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful to import, 
export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife, or plants that are 
taken, possessed,

[[Page 30596]]

transported, or sold: (1) In violation of U.S. or Indian law; or (2) in 
interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants 
taken, possessed, or sold in violation of State or foreign law. The law 
covers all fish and wildlife and their parts or products, plants 
protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered 
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) and those protected by State 
law. Commercial guiding and outfitting are considered to be a sale 
under the provisions of the Lacey Act and must comply with U.S. Federal 
and State law.
    The Convention is an international treaty designed to regulate 
international trade in certain animal and plant species that are now, 
or potentially may become, threatened with extinction. Under this 
treaty, countries work together to regulate the international trade of 
species and ensure that this trade is not detrimental to the survival 
of wild populations. Species are listed in one of three Appendices to 
CITES, each conferring a different level of regulation and requiring 
CITES permits or certificates. Any trade in protected plant and animal 
species should be sustainable, based on sound biological understanding 
and principles. An Appendix I species is one ``threatened with 
extinction and provides the greatest level of protection, including 
restrictions on commercial trade.'' An Appendix II species is one 
``although currently not threatened with extinction, may become so 
without trade controls.'' An Appendix III species is one for which a 
range country has asked other countries to help in controlling 
international trade. See https://www.fws.gov/international/cites/ for more information.
    All international trade in brown bears is restricted by either 
CITES Appendix I (in parts of central Asia) or CITES Appendix II. All 
U.S. and Canadian populations are included in Appendix II. Even 
populations not at risk (e.g., the population in Canada) is still 
regulated by CITES as it is a look-alike to those populations in 
Appendix I (including other species of ursids). Grizzly bear harvest 
under Appendix II for the purpose of international trade is also 
monitored via the issuance of CITES Export permits. Approved States and 
Tribes have procedures for placement of CITES export tags on skins 
(including furs and pelts) that were legally taken. The presence of a 
CITES export tag on a skin provides us with reasonable assurance that 
the skin was obtained legally and that hunters can legally export the 
item from the United States. We review the information we receive 
annually from each State or Tribe to determine if there is a need to 
reevaluate our State- or Tribe-based finding or if the species needs 
closer monitoring. In addition, the States work directly with us on 
issues related to illegal trafficking of bear parts and the States have 
assisted, and will continue to assist, us with all such Lacey Act 
investigations. Although harvest of grizzly bears for the purpose of 
illegal trade in parts for medicinal purposes still occurs to some 
extent, the best available information indicates that this activity is 
not occurring at a level affecting the GYE or any lower 48-State 
grizzly bear population, nor do we conclude it is likely to do so 
within the foreseeable future.
    Issue 73--There were a number of comments from the public and peer-
reviewers related to poaching, mistaken identity kills, and self-
defense kills. Commenters expressed concern related to poaching, 
illegal take, mistaken identity kills, and self-defense kills. 
Commenters were either concerned that there would not be enough 
resources to investigate and prosecute poachers or that State penalties 
for illegal take (such as poaching), mistaken identity kills, and self-
defense kills need to be more clearly articulated and more stringent. 
Commenters asserted that regulatory mechanisms require little to no 
action against hunters for mistaken identity kills (a product of the 
McKittrick Policy), and mistaken identity and self-defense kills should 
be prosecuted as illegal take to better deter illegal take of grizzly 
bears.
    Response--After delisting, GYE grizzly bears will continue to be 
protected by State, Tribal, and Federal laws and regulations (see 
Factors B and C Combined), and enforcing agencies will continue to 
cooperate in the investigation of poaching incidents. There is no data 
that suggests that the jurisdiction under which poaching is prosecuted 
affects the willingness of poachers to commit the crime. We are aware 
of at least 22 intentional, illegal killings of grizzly bears in the 
GYE between 2002 and 2014, which constituted 7 percent of known grizzly 
bear mortalities during the same period. There is no evidence that 
illegal mortality levels increased following the 2007 delisting (GYE 
grizzlies were delisted from 2007 to 2009, before the delisting rule 
was vacated in Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et al., 672 
F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009)). We do not expect poaching to 
significantly increase post-delisting because State and Tribal 
designation of the grizzly bear as a game animal means that poaching 
will remain illegal and subject to prosecution. The USFS, Tribal 
conservation officers, and Service special wildlife agents will 
continue to cooperate with State game wardens in the investigation of 
poaching incidents. Mistaken identification is prosecuted as illegal 
take, and any grizzly bear mortality is fully investigated to determine 
cause. Investigations of self-defense mortalities occur, and there have 
been instances of prosecution by the Service where the mortality was 
not deemed a self-defense situation. As previously stated, illegal take 
and self-defense related mortality count towards the total mortality 
limits within the DMA.
    The McKittrick Policy requires proof of intent, that the individual 
knowingly killed a listed species under the Act, for Federal 
prosecution. However, intent is not necessary for prosecution under 
State law. During an investigation, the investigative officers usually 
meet with both local and Federal attorneys to decide if prosecution 
will be more successful under State or Federal jurisdiction. In most 
situations where the U.S. Attorney has declined prosecution conflicts, 
the States have taken over those prosecutions through State courts. 
There have been successful prosecutions under both Federal and State 
laws. For example, in 2015 a man knowingly shot at a grizzly bear in 
the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem, was prosecuted in Federal court, and was 
sentenced to 6 months in Federal prison. Under Idaho State 
jurisdiction, a man was successfully prosecuted in a 2014 grizzly bear 
killing after making a false claim of self-defense and was assessed a 
penalty of a $1,400 fine and civil penalties ($500 of which was 
suspended), 30 days suspended jail time, 1 year revocation of his 
hunting license, and 2 years unsupervised probation. H.R. 4751, The 
Local Enforcement for Local Lands Act of 2016, was not enacted. And 
lastly, law enforcement officers cannot comment on ongoing cases; 
therefore, it is not appropriate to publicly share the details of 
grizzly bear mortalities that are under investigation.

Adequate Regulatory Mechanisms and Post-Delisting Monitoring Issues 
(Factor D)

    Issue 74--Both peer-reviewers and public commenters expressed 
concern that the language in the Factor D section of the proposed rule 
was too non-committal. They requested we remove words such as ``may,'' 
``anticipate,'' or ``expect'' if we hope to suggest a firm commitment 
to ensuring effective management post-delisting.
    Response--Because modifications to State game regulations had not 
been

[[Page 30597]]

approved at the time the proposed rule was published, we were able to 
describe them only in conditional terms. Thus, we conclude that the 
terms ``anticipate'' and ``expect'' were used appropriately in this 
section of the proposed rule. However, prior to this final rule, State 
regulations have been finalized and are in place and will ensure the 
recovery criteria are met (i.e., 2016 Conservation Strategy, Tri-State 
MOA, and State regulations).
    Issue 75--A number of public comments questioned what we can 
legitimately consider an adequate regulatory mechanism and what plans, 
rules, regulations, and laws we can thus consider in our Factor D 
analysis (inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms). A number of 
commenters claimed that our analysis was flawed because it relied on 
management regimes that are outdated or not yet final (e.g., the Idaho 
hunting regulations and the 2016 Conservation Strategy are still 
drafts; the Montana and Idaho grizzly bear management plans and the 
2006 USFS Plan are outdated). One commenter asserted that it is not 
acceptable to simply state, ``standards and provisions not yet 
incorporated into management plans will be integrated into future land 
management plan amendments or revisions.'' These commenters emphasized 
that the analysis surrounding Factor D must be based on existing 
regulatory mechanisms; thus, we must have finalized State plans, State 
regulations, the 2016 Conservation Strategy, and MOA to consider in our 
final rule. One commenter asserted that ``adequate regulatory 
mechanisms'' not only must be final before delisting but must also be 
``proven to be effective.''
    Another commenter noted that YNP currently includes the outdated 
2007 Conservation Strategy in its Superintendent's Compendium; this 
commenter requested additional clarity on whether the 2016 
Superintendent's Compendium would incorporate the provisions in the 
revised 2016 Conservation Strategy. Other commenters questioned whether 
land use plans, State management plans, MOAs, and conservation 
strategies qualify as regulatory mechanisms since they are not binding 
and enforceable.
    Response--In Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen et al., 665 
F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit upheld the Service's 
determination that existing regulatory mechanisms were adequate. The 
Ninth Circuit reversed the Montana district court (Greater Yellowstone 
Coalition v. Servheen et al., 672 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009)) on 
this point. The Ninth Circuit determined that the elements of the 
Conservation Strategy were incorporated into binding regulatory 
documents, specifically National Forest Plans and National Park Service 
Superintendents' Compendia. The Ninth Circuit noted this was of 
particular importance because the two agencies collectively manage 98 
percent of the lands within the Primary Conservation Area. Further, 
additional wilderness protections applied to suitable grizzly bear 
habitat outside the PCA.
    On-the-ground habitat protections for GYE grizzly bears have not 
changed since the 2011 decision, and the GYE bear population has 
stabilized. The NPS and the USFS continue to manage 98 percent of the 
land within the Primary Conservation Area. These regulatory mechanisms 
have been proven to be effective. The habitat management standards 
detailed in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 54-85) to 
reduce human-caused mortality have already been implemented through 
National Park Compendia (YNP 2014b, p. 18; GTNP and JDR 2016, p. 3) and 
the 2006 Forest Plan Amendment (USDA FS 2006b, entire). Changes to both 
the Compendia and the Forest Plan amendments per the revised 2016 
Conservation Strategy are considered minor and of little biological 
significance and, therefore, largely the same as previous regulatory 
mechanisms. For example, the method to measure motorized route 
densities was updated, based on the best available science, so that the 
moving window approach calculates the total route length instead of the 
previous method of absence or presence of motorized routes, which often 
over- or under-estimated total routes (for further details see YES 
2016b, Appendix E). Both agencies are signatories to the 2016 
Conservation Strategy, which means that current habitat management 
standards will be taken into account in decision-making and that human-
caused mortality will be monitored and controlled.
    Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act requires us to make listing 
determinations based on the best available scientific and commercial 
data after taking into account the efforts of States and foreign 
nations, whether through predatory control, protection of habitat and 
food supply, or other conservation practices. The Ninth Circuit did not 
determine whether the 2007 Conservation Strategy was a ``regulatory 
mechanism'' under Factor D, but the Service is still obligated to 
consider other conservation efforts in its listing determinations under 
the Act. The 2016 Conservation Strategy is such an effort.
    In terms of regulatory mechanisms to manage mortality, we are 
confident that the GYE grizzly bear population will be managed 
according to the demographic recovery criteria set forth in the 2016 
Conservation Strategy and agreed to by the States in their Tri-State 
MOA. This framework ensures that mortality from all sources will be 
monitored and controlled by the States to ensure consistency with 
recovery criteria. Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have capably managed 
other big game species (e.g., black bears, cougars), and we believe 
their respective State agencies have the resources, expertise, and 
incentives to continue their management responsibilities toward GYE 
grizzly bears if hunting is permitted in the future.
    As to the comment that existing regulatory mechanisms must be both 
final and ``proven to be effective,'' please see our response above 
regarding the effectiveness of NPS and USFS. The Service's Policy for 
the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts when Making Listing Decisions is 
not applicable to delisting determinations (68 FR 15100, March 28, 
2003).
    Issue 76--Multiple commenters weighed in on the States' ability to 
appropriately manage grizzly bears. Commenters expressed distrust and 
claimed State management would be harmful or ineffective based on State 
``mismanagement'' of other wildlife such as elk, bison, and large 
carnivores (e.g., wolves). Commenters worried that the States may 
ignore management requirements and decision-making would be susceptible 
to political influence of special interests, and suggested that States 
may falsify mortality information to maximize the number of bears 
available for hunting.
    Commenters supportive of State management expressed confidence in 
the States' commitment and abilities to maintain a recovered population 
of grizzly bears, and State management will be more nimble, efficient, 
adaptive, and responsive to local stakeholder needs than Federal 
management. The State agencies themselves, in addition to public 
commenters, expressed confidence in their abilities to maintain a 
recovered population of grizzly bears, citing financial and staffing 
commitments to do so.
    Response--The States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana have invested 
tens of millions of dollars and dedicated considerable staff time to 
conserve and recover grizzly bears in the GYE. During this time the GYE 
population has increased to a point where it has stabilized within the 
DMA and is approaching carrying capacity.

[[Page 30598]]

Although commenters expressed concerns regarding the appropriateness of 
State management of grizzly bears, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana have 
been managing and conserving wildlife since the early 1900s with 
significant increases in both ungulate and large carnivore populations. 
The States are committed to managing grizzly bears in accordance with 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy and its appended State grizzly bear 
management plans and regulations. By signing the Strategy, all 
management agencies have agreed to adhere to the demographic recovery 
criteria and habitat standards, including managing for connectivity for 
the foreseeable future, well beyond the delisting and the minimum 5-
year monitoring period required by the Act to address the long-term 
need for continued coordination among signatory agencies (YES 2016a, p. 
13). The State and Federal regulatory mechanisms meant to achieve those 
demographic and habitat standards are currently in place, and we have 
nothing in the record to suggest that those regulations will change 
within any calculable planning horizon.
    Ongoing review and evaluation of the effectiveness of the Strategy 
is the responsibility of the State, Tribal, and Federal managers in the 
GYE and will occur at least every 5 years, allowing public comment in 
the updating process. Any significant departure from agreed-upon 
Federal and/or State management plans will trigger a status review, 
and, if data indicate that grizzly bears in the GYE are in need of 
protection under the Act, we can initiate listing procedures, 
including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
    In response to concerns about the ordinances, regulations, or 
resolutions passed by county governments in Wyoming regarding the 
presence or distribution of grizzly bears in these counties, we 
requested a letter from the Wyoming Attorney General's office 
clarifying the authority of counties in Wyoming to legislate in the 
area of grizzly bear management. The Wyoming Attorney General's 
office's response, dated August 8, 2006, states on p. 2, `` `* * * as 
an arm of the State, the county has only those powers expressly granted 
by the constitution or statutory law or reasonably implied from the 
powers granted.' Laramie Co. Comm'rs v. Dunnegan, 884 P.2d 35, 40 (Wyo. 
1994). Neither the Wyoming Constitution nor the legislature has 
provided the counties in Wyoming with any expressed or implied 
authority over management of grizzly bears. Therefore, counties lack 
the authority to enact any ordinances(s), regulation(s), or 
resolution(s) which would affect the (Wyoming Game and Fish) 
Commission's Grizzly Bear Plan on mortality or distribution of grizzly 
bears in Wyoming'' (Martin 2016, in litt.). This letter indicates that 
Wyoming county governments have no authority to enact laws that affect 
grizzly bear management commitments made by the Wyoming Game and Fish 
Commission.
    Issue 77--A number of public commenters believed that the five 
requirements for State hunting regulations that we laid out in the 
proposed rule were inadequate, allow hunting regulations that are too 
liberal, and/or could have severe impacts on population viability 
because: (1) They gave the States too much latitude in bag limits, 
seasons, and sex ratios and age limits for grizzly bear hunting; (2) 
the definition of ``human safety purposes'' when deciding whether to 
allow additional grizzly bear mortality, and its distinction from human 
conflict, is unclear; (3) they do not adequately take mortality from 
``unforeseen events, such as illness and natural disasters,'' into 
consideration; (4) they would allow for too many licenses to be issued; 
and (5) gaps in our regulatory requirements would not provide for 
adequate ecosystem-wide coordination and consistency in regulations. 
These commenters also suggested that the five requirements are 
insufficient to protect females and cubs because: (1) It would be 
difficult for the average hunter to distinguish between a male and 
female grizzly bear in the field or to tell the age of a grizzly bear; 
(2) they allowed for take of female grizzly bears and cubs; and (3) if 
a mother hides her cubs while she goes to find food, she will look like 
an independent female and will be vulnerable to take, leading to 
potential orphaning.
    Commenters also suggested the Service require additional content in 
State regulations prior to proceeding with a delisting rule, such as 
that: (1) An ``independent panel of ecological researchers'' determine 
the total number of limited hunting permits; (2) managers use a lottery 
system to distribute these few licenses; (3) all three States require 
12-hour reporting requirements as opposed to 24-hour reporting 
requirements; (4) establishment of prohibitions on the killing of any 
bear accompanied by other bears; (5) inclusion of provisions shutting 
down all hunting for the season once quotas for female grizzly bears 
are met; (6) States coordinate season dates through the YGCC and time 
seasons to minimize risks to females; (7) inclusion of provisions 
requiring proper food storage and handling of hunter-killed carcasses; 
(8) provision of subsidies for bear-proof garbage containers to 
increase affordability and use; and (9) State quotas should not change 
with intra-annual fluctuations in local population levels. On the other 
hand, another commenter suggested that the Service would fail to honor 
State wildlife laws if additional provisions are required in relation 
to grizzly bears.
    The State agencies took issue with the fact that the proposed rule 
prematurely assumed the three States would establish hunting seasons 
and suggested that the Act does not ``require states to establish 
hunting seasons before delisting can occur.'' They thought that, by 
requiring specific provisions in State hunting regulations, the Service 
``created a public expectation that hunting will occur as soon as 
delisting is finalized.''
    Conversely, some commenters believed these five requirements were 
reasonable and adequate. These commenters referred especially to our 
fourth requirement as a key safeguard in ensuring the continued 
recovery of grizzly bears and preventing exceedance of mortality 
limits; this requirement ensures that the number of grizzly bears 
available for hunting fluctuates depending on the number of bears that 
have already died.
    Response--We conclude, based on the best scientific and commercial 
data available, that the regulatory requirements we outlined in our 
proposed rule, and that the States incorporated into regulation, will 
maintain a recovered population of grizzly bears in the GYE. State fish 
and wildlife agencies have significant expertise in managing hunting in 
a sustainable way for multiple species, and, therefore, the Service did 
not feel the need to micromanage how States would implement hunting 
regulations beyond those issues discussed. We do not consider the 
hunting regulations in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho to be too liberal, 
but rather the States have agreed to strict mortality limits, with the 
additional safeguard of subtracting any excess mortality in subsequent 
years, which will ensure the GYE grizzly bear population remains at 
healthy levels.
    While State regulations include no prohibition on the taking of 
females or the taking of cubs, regulations do impose mortality limits 
on the numbers of females, males, and total bears taken, and prohibit 
the taking of female grizzly bears with dependent young. Mortality 
limits take into account all forms of mortality, including management 
removals, illegal kills, self-defense, calculated unknown/unreported 
mortalities, natural mortalities, and other causes such as vehicle 
collisions.

[[Page 30599]]

We believe this method adequately accounts for unforeseen mortalities.
    Under State management, any open hunting season will be closed 
within 24 hours of the total mortality limit being met by Idaho and 
Wyoming (Idaho Fish and Game Commission 2016, p. 2; Wyoming Game and 
Fish Commission 2016, p. 67-2) and of the harvest limits being met by 
Montana (MFWP 2016, p. 4). If a hunter kills a female by mistake and 
causes an exceedance of the total allowable mortality limits for female 
bears, managers will subtract this mortality from the total allowable 
number of kills in the subsequent year, ensuring the number of female 
grizzly bear mortalities stays in check. Any reported cubs orphaned due 
to the human-caused mortality of the mother are counted as probable 
mortalities in the mortality database maintained by IGBST and will 
count towards the dependent mortality threshold. We conclude that the 
provisions outlined in the 2016 Conservation Strategy and the Tri-State 
MOA are adequate to ensure that the three States coordinate regularly 
to reconcile mortality statistics, plan appropriate conservation 
actions, adapt management, and generally ensure the continued recovery 
of grizzly bears in the GYE. Please see Issues 68 and 89, as well as 
Factors B and C Combined for a full discussion of mortality limits and 
States' harvest regulations.
    We agree with States' comments that the Act does not require States 
to establish hunting seasons before delisting can occur, and we regret 
any false expectations our proposed rule may have established. However, 
our intent in requesting the hunting regulations prior to delisting was 
to clearly demonstrate adequate regulatory mechanisms that would 
ameliorate such a potential threat if the States chose to establish 
hunting seasons, and to ensure that the GYE grizzly bear population 
will remain recovered if States decided to implement hunting seasons. 
The willingness on the part of the three States to implement 
regulations prior to a final decision on their part to implement 
hunting seasons is further testament to their commitment to manage the 
species in a way to ensure it remains recovered post delisting.
    Issue 78--Some of the commenters critical of State plans and 
management practices focused on the difficulties surrounding 
coordination of management between all the political entities in the 
GYE. Commenters worried that inconsistent management and lack of 
communication between the three State entities, Tribes, and Federal 
land managers would pose the biggest threat to grizzly bears after 
delisting, as it could lead to errors in allocation, insufficient or 
inconsistent enforcement, delays in shutting down hunting seasons, 
exceedance of mortality limits, violations of recovery criteria, 
inadequate reduction of discretionary mortality (when needed), 
population sinks, and lack of genetic connectivity. To mitigate this 
possibility, commenters requested: (1) Information on how the States 
would be sharing and comparing data about mortality and population 
levels; (2) a formal process for collaboration between the States and 
the NPS to coordinate the management of bears that live primarily on 
NPS lands; (3) a ``unified plan'' that takes into account how many 
bears the other States will take; and (4) additional detail in the 2016 
Conservation Strategy describing the processes States will use to 
coordinate with each other. Conversely, one commenter suggested that 
entrusting the States with grizzly bear management will help State 
wildlife managers effectively and consistently manage all the wildlife 
species in their State as a complete and connected ecosystem.
    Response--All monitoring, reporting results, and management actions 
are centralized under the YGCC and the IGBST, as described in the 2016 
Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, entire), which all the State and 
Federal agencies have signed and agreed to implement. The agencies 
responsible for managing the GYE grizzly bear population upon delisting 
came together to develop the 2016 Conservation Strategy and have been 
effectively cooperating and communicating with each other about grizzly 
bear management decisions for the last 35 years.
    In Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen et al., 665 F.3d 1015 
(9th Cir. 2011), the Ninth Circuit upheld the Service's determination 
that existing regulatory mechanisms were adequate. The Ninth Circuit 
reversed the Montana district court (Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. 
Servheen, et al., 672 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009)) on this point. 
The Ninth Circuit determined that the elements of the Conservation 
Strategy were incorporated into binding regulatory documents, 
specifically National Forest Plans and National Park Service 
Superintendents' Compendia. The Ninth Circuit noted this was of 
particular importance because the two agencies collectively manage 98 
percent of the lands within the Primary Conservation Area. Further, 
additional wilderness protections applied to suitable grizzly bear 
habitat outside the PCA.
    Since then the population has increased in abundance and 
distribution, and additional regulatory mechanisms have been adopted by 
State agencies to manage the GYE DPS at the ecosystem level, to ensure 
communication is facilitated annually to improve management, and to 
regulate any future hunting in a way that would ensure the species 
remains recovered. The Tri-State MOA (Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 
et al. 2016, pp. 5-6; YES 2016b, Appendix O) signed by the Commission 
and Directors of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana defines the process by 
which the States will coordinate the management and allocation of 
discretionary mortality of grizzly bears in the GYE as follows:

     The Parties (referring to the three States) will 
support the IGBST in the annual monitoring of the GYE grizzly bear 
population.
     The Parties will meet annually in the month of January 
to review population monitoring data supplied by IGBST and 
collectively establish discretionary mortality limits for regulated 
harvest for each jurisdiction (MT, ID, WY) in the DMA, so DMA 
thresholds are not exceeded, based upon the following allocation 
protocol (YES 2016a, p. 46).
     The Parties will confer with the NPS and USFS annually. 
The Parties will invite representatives of both GYE National Parks, 
the NPS regional office, and GYE USFS Forest Supervisors to attend 
the annual meeting.
     The Parties will monitor mortality throughout the year, 
and will communicate and coordinate with each other and with Federal 
land management agencies as appropriate to minimize the likelihood 
of exceeding mortality limits.

    It is true that States cannot compel Federal agencies to manage 
their lands in accordance with their State plans. However, as 
participants in the 2016 Conservation Strategy, both State and Federal 
agencies have agreed to carry out all its provisions, including the 
appended State plans. The Tri-state MOA directly incorporates the 2007 
Conservation Strategy instead of the 2016 Conservation Strategy. The 
reason for this is that the MOA was signed before the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy was complete, but the MOA incorporates aspects of the 2016 
Conservation Strategy. In addition, the MOA states that ``The Parties 
intend this MOA to be consistent . . . with revisions to these 
documents made in conjunction with the delisting process.''
    Issue 79--Many commenters believed that the MOA, 2016 Conservation 
Strategy, and State regulatory mechanisms and management plans are 
``inadequate'' to protect grizzly bears into the future and will not 
``ensure a

[[Page 30600]]

stable, thriving, and connected grizzly bear population.'' One 
commenter expressed that, because of the history of wolf delisting and 
management, the public does not trust the Service's judgment in 
determining adequacy of State plans and regulations.
    Commenters worried that no entity is required to act if States 
exceed mortality limits and that States are not compelled to monitor 
the grizzly bear population. To enhance enforcement of mortality 
limits, commenters suggested making the 2016 Conservation Strategy 
mandatory and not ``voluntary'' and instituting penalties for States if 
they ``exceed reasonable mortality thresholds.''
    Many commenters provided detailed concerns about the content of 
regulatory mechanisms (though these concerns were not specific to any 
State regulation in particular). These included that: (1) Spring hunts 
are irresponsible since ``it is impossible to know how many bears will 
be killed later in the year through management removals, poaching, 
accidents or natural causes;'' (2) hunters would be able to kill 
hibernating grizzly bears due to provisions in the Sportsmen's Heritage 
and Recreational Enhancement (SHARE) Act of 2015; (3) States have not 
considered ``what to do with the wounded bears that will escape;'' (4) 
plans do not explain how the various entities will monitor mortality, 
revise limits, and prevent decreases in the levels of ``scientific 
oversight'' of the population; and (5) regulations lacked safeguards to 
prevent hunters, outfitters, or poachers from using radio collar 
frequencies to find collared bears.
    One commenter suggested that the grizzly bear hunting regulations 
are too stringent and that normal licensing and hunting procedures 
should apply to any grizzly bear hunt (i.e., hunts should be open to 
the public and non-resident hunters); this commenter thought that the 
hunts should not be special limited or controlled hunts. One commenter 
suggested that timing the hunt to minimize female mortality was not a 
legally binding requirement; this commenter also noted that creating 
such restrictions would be logistically challenging since denning times 
are highly variable with weather and food conditions and because males 
usually emerge from dens only 2 or 3 weeks earlier than females. Others 
shared general beliefs that the regulatory mechanisms were adequate, 
including: (1) That the proposed rule included ``every possible safety 
net, including triggers for relisting;'' and (2) that the States have 
committed to adjust mortality levels should populations fall below 675 
bears and stop hunting if populations drop to less than 600 bears. The 
three States emphasized that they have agreed to collectively manage 
the GYE population at the ecosystem scale to maintain recovery through 
the Tri-State MOA. One State emphasized that the 2011 Ninth Circuit 
Court of Appeals ruling declared the regulatory mechanisms (which are 
still in place) to be adequate and thus any regulatory requirements 
beyond that framework are unnecessary.
    Response--Comments specific to the adequacy of each State's 
individual regulations and plans, the MOA, mortality limits, and the 
2016 Conservation Strategy appear in Issue 82. However, as noted 
earlier, State fish and wildlife agencies have significant expertise in 
how to sustainably manage game species. This expertise, combined with 
commitments made by States to manage the species for long-term 
stability, is evidence that the States will adequately manage grizzly 
bears to ensure the species remains recovered.
    Issue 80--Many commenters stated that all State regulations (not 
just management plans) should require hunters to carry bear spray and 
should impose heavy fines or the threat of license revocation for those 
that fail to do so. Commenters noted that hunters are required to carry 
bear spray only in GTNP and JDR (though one State requested that we 
clarify that, since the JDR is not a NP, the bear spray requirement 
applies only in GTNP). In explaining the efficacy of bear spray, one 
commenter cited research from Smith et al. (2006), which found that 92 
percent of bear attacks end when hunters use bear spray and 98 percent 
of those that carry bear spray left encounters with bears unscathed; 
conversely, when hunters use firearms for protection, they are injured 
56 percent of the time and 61 percent of these encounters result in 
lethal removal of the offending bear (Smith et al. 2012).
    Response--Although the States do not currently require hunters to 
carry bear spray, States demonstrate and promote the proper use of bear 
spray in hunter education courses and other educational venues and 
materials. While the proper use of bear spray is promoted by the 
States, it is not 100 percent successful at stopping attacks from 
bears. Therefore, implications that greater use of bear spray would 
result in ceasing mortalities of bears or people is inaccurate. For 
more information on hunter education and public information efforts, 
see Issues 67 and 108.
    Issue 81--Commenters opined that our requirements for State 
regulations (and the regulations themselves) do not adequately regulate 
the manner or method of take (e.g., baiting, use of hounds, trapping, 
stalking). Commenters suggested that a ban on all bear baiting be put 
in place in any area where grizzly bears could be present (not just 
inside the PCA) prior to delisting. Commenters expressed that bait 
stations pose threats to human safety, increase the risk of mistaken 
identity bear kills, and ``lure [bears] outside Park boundaries.'' 
These commenters noted that Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming treat bear 
baiting differently. Conversely, one commenter suggested that the 
Service should defer to the States on the practice of baiting.
    Commenters also noted the need for bans on bear trapping and bear 
hunting with hounds in all three States (both within and outside the 
PCA) prior to delisting. Commenters worried that hunting with dogs 
leads to conflicts between dogs and grizzly bears and can attract 
grizzly bears to people. Commenters also expressed that trapping 
endangers humans and can cause severe damage to bears; this commenter 
asked if there is an Animal Care and Use Committee that has recently 
reviewed trapping in the GYE. One State suggested that a restriction on 
bear trapping should not be a foundation for grizzly bear delisting and 
that we remove the language in the rule that discusses bear trapping.
    Response--We recognize and respect that many people find some or 
all forms of human-caused grizzly bear mortality as morally or 
ethically objectionable. However, the Act requires that we make our 
determination based on the status of the subject species (is it 
recovered and will State management retain that recovered status if the 
Act's protections are removed) and does not allow us to consider the 
manner in which individuals may be killed after delisting unless it 
would affect this overarching viability determination. The manner of 
take is subject to State control once grizzly bears are delisted. Based 
on the best available information, we do not find any persuasive 
evidence to indicate that the manner of killing will affect the 
viability of the GYE grizzly bear population. Protection of the GYE 
grizzly bear population and maintenance of the ecosystems on which 
bears depend has been, and will continue to be, managed consistent with 
the Conservation Strategy. Regarding baiting, Montana does not allow 
black bear baiting in any areas; black bear baiting inside the PCA is 
not allowed in Idaho or Wyoming (Servheen et al.

[[Page 30601]]

2004, p. 11). In areas outside the PCA in Idaho and Wyoming, State 
wildlife agencies will monitor grizzly bear mortality associated with 
black bear hunting and respond to problems if they occur. The GYE 
grizzly bear population has increased while black bear baiting has been 
allowed in Idaho and Wyoming outside the PCA, so we conclude that 
baiting is not a significant factor that will threaten the recovered 
status of the GYE DPS.
    Issue 82--Commenters questioned what State mechanisms qualified as 
``regulatory'' for purposes of the Service's Factor D analysis. 
Commenters challenged the adequacy of various individual State 
regulatory mechanisms, including the Tri-State MOA, individual State 
management plans, laws, and regulations, rules, proclamations, or other 
administrative mechanisms.
    Commenters questioned whether each State had regulatory mechanisms 
that met the elements that we identified in our proposed rule as 
necessary for delisting if the States decide to establish hunting 
seasons. State agencies commented that the Service exceeded our 
authority by identifying these requirements before the States decided 
whether to establish hunting seasons.
    Commenters claimed various State regulatory mechanisms were 
inadequate based on public notice or involvement, or because they were 
the subject of litigation. Commenters took issue with the contents of 
State regulatory mechanisms, claiming they did not explicitly limit 
discretionary mortality, they allowed preemptive or unlicensed killing 
of bears, or they allowed killing bears causing conflict with 
livestock. Commenters questioned the State Commission's qualifications 
to set management objectives and their commitment to honoring limits, 
claiming prior Commission actions had harmed grizzly bears or other 
wildlife, such as wolves and bison.
    Commenters claimed that the Tri-State MOA was inadequate, stating 
that it was voluntary, did not reflect all revisions in the 2016 
Conservation Strategy, or otherwise did not adequately monitor bears or 
limit mortality.
    Commenters claimed that Idaho's proclamation was not a regulatory 
mechanism and that various aspects of Idaho's, Montana's, or Wyoming's 
hunting frameworks were not final. Commenters questioned the States' 
abilities to enforce hunting closures and violations. Commenters 
questioned the timing and location of potential hunts, including their 
relationship to National Park boundaries, cutworm moth sites, 
connectivity, vulnerability of cubs and attending females, 
vulnerability during other big game hunts, or bear movement between 
hunt areas.
    Commenters claimed that Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming management plans 
were flawed because they contained outdated factual information, did 
not include recent science, did not include the most current population 
and mortality information, had inconsistencies with other documents, 
did not reflect all revisions in the 2016 Conservation Strategy, or did 
not fully commit to the 2016 Conservation Strategy. Commenters 
criticized Montana's plan for not supporting the State's claim of the 
importance of hunting for increasing human safety. Commenters 
criticized Idaho's plan for not mentioning the DMA. Commenters 
criticized Wyoming's management plan because its hunting fees were too 
low, because it had not defined the term ``human habituated'' to ensure 
that only those bears posing a safety risk (and not merely bears near 
developed areas) will be subject to removal, and because it had not 
explicitly described how it would deal with orphaned cubs. One 
commenter suggested Wyoming adopt a ``once-in-a-lifetime'' limitation 
for grizzly bear hunting.
    Response--The Act requires the Service to base its listing 
decisions on the five factors set forth in 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1) and 
1533(b)(1)(A). This includes Factor D, the inadequacy of existing 
regulatory mechanisms. Regulatory mechanisms are not defined in the 
Act, but they include those measures that, either individually or part 
of an overall framework, are designed to reduce threats to listed 
species or pertain to the overall State management and regulation of a 
listed species. The Act also directs the Service to consider other 
measures in its listing decisions, including ``those efforts, if any, 
being made by any State . . . to protect such species, whether by 
predator control, protection of habitat and food supply, or other 
conservation practices.'' (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). The Service has a 
statutory obligation to take into account State conservation efforts, 
including the full range of State measures. This is part of the 
Service's Factor D analysis, and is consistent with other 
interpretations of the Act (Defenders of Wildlife et al. v. Zinke et 
al. 849 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Circ. 2017). The Service cannot dismiss a State 
conservation measure just because it is not legally binding. Rather, 
the varying levels of commitments and enforceability are taken into 
account as part of this analysis to ensure that the overall conclusion 
is reasonable. Here, the State statutes, regulations, and management 
plans, the 2016 Conservation Strategy, MOAs, and others reviewed in 
this rule all guide and clarify the States' approaches to grizzly bear 
management after desilting. All these measures are evaluated under 
Factor D and 1533(b)(1)(a). This includes the Tri-State MOA, which we 
consider under our broader statutory obligations under the Act, 
including 16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1) and 16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A). We further 
note that the Tri-State MOA reflects the population goals set forth in 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy. This same conclusion applies to other 
mechanisms that commenters object to, including State management plans, 
policies, directives, and executive orders. Our review of the 
collective measures at issue is authorized under the Act, including the 
Act's legislative history, which indicates that section 4 listing or 
delisting inquiry was drawn broadly to allow the Secretary to determine 
whether a species is threatened or endangered (or recovered) for any 
legitimate reason. H.R. Rep. No. 93-412 (July 27, 1973). Our approach 
is also reasonable because ignoring any of these documents or aspects 
of State management would violate our responsibility under the Act to 
consider all factors relevant to determining the biological status of a 
species.
    We reached the conclusion that State regulatory mechanisms are 
adequate to protect the recovered population of GYE grizzly bears and 
that they do contain the general elements we required in our proposed 
delisting rule. Our analysis is set forth in the final rule, and we 
refer commenters to that discussion under Factors B and C Combined. We 
also note that we provided the public with another opportunity to 
review the State mechanisms through our public notice and comment 
period described in 81 FR 13174, March 11, 2016.
    To the extent that commenters objected to public notice and comment 
procedures utilized by the States in adopting their respective 
regulatory frameworks, we refer the commenters to the administrative 
procedural requirements that each State must follow under State law. 
Responding to the specific comment about Idaho's proclamations, we note 
that Idaho Fish and Game proclamations, orders, and director orders 
carry the force and effect of law under Idaho Code 36-105(3) and 36-
106(6)(D).
    As to the comment that hunting regulations are not final, we would 
not expect all State hunting regulations to be final because no 
decisions have been made to authorize hunting seasons in Idaho, 
Montana, or Wyoming. Furthermore, the process set forth in the

[[Page 30602]]

Tri-State MOA to establish discretionary mortality has not been 
undertaken yet because GYE grizzly bears have been protected by the 
Act. The allocation of discretionary mortality set forth in the Tri-
State MOA must be followed before any State can identify a bear quota 
subject to hunting because it identifies how many bears, if any, exceed 
population objectives. Only after that process is completed can States 
set hunting seasons, establish hunt unit quotas for each unit, assess 
and define hunter eligibility requirements, set licensing requirements 
and fees, and other limitations specific to administering annual 
hunting seasons.
    The States are governed by the Tri-State MOA and have agreed in 
writing to follow the 2016 Conservation Strategy. The Service's review 
of State actions is dependent on compliance with the regulatory 
measures required of each State (set forth in the proposed rule), and 
adherence to the population objectives in the Tri-State MOA and 2016 
Conservation Strategy. Outside these requirements, States will have 
considerable latitude to design hunting seasons based on their own 
knowledge and expertise. The States have an incentive to manage bears 
based upon recovery criteria and the associated mortality limits in 
both the recovery criteria and the Conservation Strategy and are, 
therefore, expected to take into account the biological requirements 
necessary for successful management, including the locations of food 
sources, travel corridors, connectivity, NPS boundaries, etc. Recovery 
of the GYE DPS would not have occurred without the active 
participation, support, and leadership of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
    The Service has analyzed and reviewed State management of other 
species, like elk, deer, and black bears. Over decades, the States have 
demonstrated responsible and professional wildlife management of these 
species and have a proven track record of managing these and other 
species to population goals and unit targets. In the many discussions 
with our State partners, the Service has not encountered any situation 
or data that evidences an intent to deviate from these established 
wildlife management practices. This historical evaluation of other 
species informs the Service's conclusion that the suite of management 
principles and commitments can be reasonably considered in our overall 
delisting determination.
    State management plans are useful because they help guide the State 
wildlife agencies in achieving management objectives, including 
population goals. The Service duly considers them in its analysis of a 
State's regulatory framework, as it is required to do under the Act. 
But management plans are not the only source of State management and 
control of wildlife populations. State management plans are just one of 
the many mechanisms the Service considered here. We understand that 
some commenters are disappointed that some State management plans for 
grizzly bears lack current data, but we look to other measures that are 
current and that will guide population management into the future. 
These include the State regulatory requirements, the Tri-State MOA, and 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy.
    Issue 83--Many commenters weighed in on the process the Service and 
its partners used to author the 2016 Conservation Strategy, including: 
(1) That the negotiations about changes to the Conservation Strategy 
have been difficult to follow and the public does not know which 
changes have actually been incorporated into the final document (even 
though these changes could significantly alter grizzly bear 
management); (2) that the States could make changes to the Conservation 
Strategy at the eleventh hour when there is no risk of public scrutiny; 
(3) that the Service should be driving the process to revise the 
Conservation Strategy, not the States (as seems to be the case); and 
(4) since the Conservation Strategy is a change in management, it needs 
to be analyzed under NEPA, the National Forest Management Act, and the 
Act (including the drafting of an EIS). Another commenter pointed out 
that the draft 2016 Conservation Strategy we released with the proposed 
rule did not contain the Tri-State MOA, an agreement that has essential 
details necessary to evaluate the adequacy of the rule and 2016 
Conservation Strategy.
    Other commenters provided input on the content of the 2016 
Conservation Strategy, in addition to the suggestions and concerns 
raised in other issues (i.e., Issues 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 31, 32, 40, 
42, 43, 48, 49, 50, 53, 66, 68, 75, 78, 79, 84, 85, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91, 
96, and 98), including: (1) Confusion as to who was responsible for 
preparing the Conservation Strategy and completing the tasks therein; 
(2) concerns that the Conservation Strategy does not adequately explain 
the process for revisions and adaptive changes (see Issue 91); (3) 
worries that it would be too expensive to keep radio collars on a 
minimum of 25 adult female grizzly bears in the GYE at all times in 
perpetuity (YES 2016a, Chapter 2); and (4) confusion as to why the 
Conservation Strategy requires States to collect and report data on the 
number of hunters if we suggest that there is no correlation between 
the number of hunters and grizzly bear mortality. One commenter worried 
about the implications of changes discussed at the October 3, 2016, YES 
meeting, namely: (1) Deletion of figures and description that explain 
when discretionary take would be permitted; and (2) removal of language 
explaining that 500 bears are necessary for genetic viability.
    Commenters also suggested potential additions to the 2016 
Conservation Strategy, including: (1) Reiteration of the five elements 
our proposed rule stated must be in State regulation; (2) inclusion of 
frequently cited documents (e.g., Food Synthesis Report) in the 
Conservation Strategy Appendices; and (3) addition of a clear timetable 
for completion of the Strategy.
    Response--The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires that 
final rules be a logical outgrowth of proposed rules, after taking into 
consideration new information and public comment. The final 2016 
Conservation Strategy and this final delisting rule are logical 
outgrowths of the draft Conservation Strategy and proposed rule, both 
documents that were made available for multiple public comment periods 
and peer-review. Additionally, all YES meetings are open to the public, 
and meeting dates and locations are posted on the IGBC Web site (https://igbconline.org/).
    Issue 84--Both public commenters and peer-reviewers raised concerns 
about the adequacy of funding moving forward to finance grizzly bear 
conservation, monitoring, and enforcement. A peer-reviewer stated that 
the draft rule is based on the assumption that sufficient Federal and 
State funds will be available into the foreseeable future ``to monitor 
and detect population changes with enough resolution to trigger 
management fallback mechanisms.'' Commenters worried that the MOA does 
not obligate any funds. Other commenters noted that implementation of 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy is dependent on funding, and one 
commenter suggested that the 2016 Conservation Strategy should require 
adequate funding to be ``fully procured'' for it to go into effect. 
Commenters and peer-reviewers also expressed confusion about the 2016 
Conservation Strategy's discussion of funding (in Appendix F in the 
Draft 2016 Conservation Strategy), claiming it did not match the 
proposed rule nor adequately provide a formal outline for budgetary 
needs (though one peer-reviewer commended its inclusion).

[[Page 30603]]

Some commenters warned that Federal and State funding is not guaranteed 
and could decline at any time, potentially jeopardizing continued 
recovery.
    Commenters expressed particular concern about the States' financial 
and administrative capacity to manage and monitor grizzly bears after 
delisting. Concerns about adequacy of State funding included: (1) A 
reminder that any Federal financial support would run dry after 5 years 
post-delisting; (2) confusion as to where States would find funds to 
make up this difference; (3) claims that delisting would cost an 
additional $1.2 million per year on top of current expenditures on 
recovery and would preclude States from pursuing certain funding 
opportunities (like Section 6 grants); (4) claims that funds generated 
from the sale of grizzly bear hunting licenses will not provide 
adequate funding to the States to manage grizzly bears; (5) worries 
that the Hicks Bill would relieve Wyoming of any obligation to pay to 
protect bears from illegal mortality; and (6) suggestions that States 
currently lack sufficient funds to combat poaching and this will only 
worsen in a delisted environment. Some commenters expressed concern 
that the States do not have sufficient staff to respond to hunting 
violations in a timely manner, close hunting seasons immediately upon 
meeting mortality thresholds, enforce adequate penalties on poachers, 
and conduct research and monitoring on grizzly bears to ensure 
effective adaptive management.
    Commenters provided suggestions for ways to enhance confidence in 
State financial capacity for grizzly bear conservation, including: (1) 
State plans should clearly identify how they will fund grizzly bear 
monitoring, conservation, conflict management, and connectivity 
facilitation; (2) the Federal Government should provide sufficient 
financial support for State field biologists, State management of 
grizzly bears, and programs to minimize bear conflict; (3) decision-
makers should develop a means to share tourism dollars with State 
wildlife managers; and (4) managers should revive the idea of an 
endowment fund for the 2016 Conservation Strategy and post-delisting 
management, which had been part of recovery and delisting discussions 
for more than 20 years.
    Response--We conclude that combined State and Federal commitments 
will provide for adequate management of the GYE grizzly bear after 
delisting. Federal funding is dependent on year-to-year appropriations 
whether or not the species is listed.
    The 2016 Conservation Strategy reflects the States' commitment to 
future management and monitoring of grizzly bears. The States have been 
funding and performing the majority of grizzly bear recovery, 
management, monitoring, and enforcement efforts within their 
jurisdictions for decades; for example, the WGFD has expended more than 
$40,000,000 for grizzly bear recovery from 1980 to 2015. There is not a 
reasonable basis to believe the States will not adequately fund grizzly 
bear management of a delisted population. Claims that it would cost an 
additional $1.2 million/year are not supported by empirical data.
    On April 12, 2017, the Secretary of the Interior issued a 
Memorandum, ``Managing Grants, Cooperative Agreements, and Other 
Significant Decisions'' establishing a new review process for Wildlife 
and Sport Fish Restoration Program grants in the amount of $100,000 or 
more. This new process may affect States, however, we do not think this 
memorandum will affect the capacity to conduct grizzly bear post-
delisting monitoring because these procedures are temporary and do not 
reduce the amount of funding available for assistance.
    The best available information does not support commenters' claims 
that the States lack the ability to monitor, manage, and respond to 
violations as States' have long demonstrated their expertise in 
managing wildlife within their borders. For example, Idaho successfully 
prosecuted a violation for unlawful take of grizzly bears in the GYE 
under State law even while the grizzly bear was listed; see State v. 
Sommer, CR-2014-1601 (7th Dist. Idaho, 2014).
    By signing the 2016 Conservation Strategy, participating agencies 
have committed to implementing the protective features that are within 
their discretion and authority, and to secure adequate funding for 
implementation. Lack of adequate funding to carry out the 2016 
Conservation Strategy grizzly bear management commitments could trigger 
a status review for possible re-listing under the Act.
    Issue 85--We received several comments on the adequacy of the 
Service's status review triggers and suggestions for revising them. The 
States requested that triggers be tied to evidence of a declining 
population, rather than those tied to a specific number of bears, 
exceedance of mortality limits, or particular regulations or 
management. Commenters also noted that the Service's triggers need to 
be standardized in the rule, the 2016 Conservation Strategy, and other 
management plans. We also received suggestions that ``a firm threshold 
for a review would be preferable to a `may initiate' position.''
    We received a few comments on the first Service Status Review 
trigger in the proposed rule, including: (1) It is unclear what 
``significantly'' means in this trigger; (2) this trigger could reduce 
the ``flexibility that any management of any ecosystem requires'' by 
constraining the ability of States to update and adapt management plans 
and strategies; and (3) it is important to keep this trigger, despite 
State desires to remove it, ``so that future changes cannot lead to a 
decline in the grizzly bear population.''
    Many commenters suggested increasing the population size in the 
second Service Status Review trigger so we would initiate a Service 
Status Review if the Chao2 population estimate fell below 600 bears in 
any given year. Other commenters suggested that the Service should 
determine whether the lower bound of the 95 percent confidence interval 
for the annual population estimate violates these requirements when 
assessing this trigger (as opposed to using the average).
    Commenters also weighed in on the third Service Status Review 
trigger, expressing concern that this trigger could allow States to 
exceed mortality limits for several years before any review, ``allowing 
for irreversible damage;'' for example, it would allow States to exceed 
mortality limits in 7 out of every 10 years (as long as the years in 
which mortality limits are exceeded never occur three times in a row), 
pushing the population below 600 bears. Many commenters worried about 
the potential consequences of consistently exceeding mortality limits, 
and both commenters and peer-reviewers expressed concern that there 
will be a lag in a decision-making response to population declines that 
drop below 600, especially in high mortality years. As such, these 
commenters suggested changing the third trigger so that the Service 
would initiate a status review if the mortality limits for independent 
females are exceeded for two consecutive years and the population is 
below 600 bears.
    Additional suggested triggers for a Service Status Review included 
those related to: A lack of funding; habitat standards/habitat 
degradation and monitoring protocols, including food monitoring 
(Johnson et al. 2004; Schwartz et al. 2010; Schwartz et al. 2012); 
population trends; lack of connectivity between the GYE and NCDE at 
least once during every 6-year period; and if the States classify 
grizzly

[[Page 30604]]

bears as a predator or vermin in the future (or any classification that 
allows for unlimited take).
    Some commenters expressed concern about the meaningfulness of our 
triggers, whether the Service would be willing to re-list the grizzly 
bear, should it become necessary, and whether the Service could re-list 
in a timely manner before populations decline further (given the 
usually lengthy process required for a listing determination). Some 
commenters expressed concern that the triggers do not require the 
Service or any other parties to act if they are violated. One commenter 
suggested that re-listing should be automatic to avoid these delays or 
failures to act. One commenter asked what recourse the Service had if 
other agencies did not abide by the agreements. One commenter asked how 
the Service would determine whether a status review is ``warranted'' if 
an individual, organization, or YGCC were to petition for such a status 
review. Another commenter warned that the Service cannot use ``the 
possibility of relisting as a justification for delisting,'' based on 
past court decisions.
    Response--The triggers for status reviews have been standardized 
between the 2016 Conservation Strategy, the Service's recovery 
criteria, and this rule. In addition, this rule uses ``would'' and 
``will'' to confirm the firm threshold for review.
    In response to comments on the first status review trigger, we 
would consider any changes in Federal, State, or Tribal laws, rules, 
regulations, or management plans to be a significant threat to the 
population if they would not maintain a recovered population. As stated 
in this final rule and the 2016 Conservation Strategy, this scenario 
does not inhibit adaptive management and application of the best-
available science.
    In response to comments on the second status review trigger, we 
believe that conducting a status review if the population estimate is 
less than 500 in any given year is appropriate. If any annual 
population estimate is less than 600, then discretionary mortality 
would cease, except for cases of human safety, thus reducing mortality 
rates. This approach allows appropriate corrective management responses 
by the management agencies to allow the population to increase prior to 
a status review. See Issue 19 for further discussion.
    In response to the comments on the third status review trigger, 
this trigger was removed from the 2016 Conservation Strategy and this 
rule. However, the Service may choose to conduct a status review at any 
point that it deems there is a threat to the recovery of the GYE 
grizzly bear population or in response to any petition to re-list from 
an individual or organization that is determined to be substantial. 
Therefore, if mortality limits are exceeded repeatedly, the Service may 
choose to conduct a status review regardless of the population 
estimate.
    In response to the comments requesting for additional triggers 
based on habitat or food monitoring, we consider the establishment of 
habitat thresholds for food sources to be unrealistic. As discussed in 
Issue 99, due to the natural annual variation in abundance and 
distribution in the four major food sources, there is no known way to 
calculate minimum threshold values for grizzly bear foods. The 1998 
baseline will address these issues adequately through access management 
and limitations on site development. Managers will use an adaptive 
management approach that addresses poor food years with responsive 
management actions such as limiting grizzly bear mortality, increasing 
(I&E) efforts, and long-term habitat restoration (i.e., revegetation, 
prescribed burning, etc.) as appropriate. The multiple indices used to 
monitor both bear foods and bear vital rates provide a dynamic and 
intensive data source to allow the agencies to respond to potential 
problems. We conclude that the adaptive management system described in 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 33-85) is one of the 
most detailed monitoring systems developed for any wildlife species and 
ensures the maintenance of a recovered grizzly bear population in the 
GYE.
    The multiple indices used to monitor both bear foods and bear vital 
rates provide a dynamic and intensive data source to allow the agencies 
to respond to potential problems. The monitoring and adaptive 
management system described in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 
2016a, entire) ensures the maintenance of a recovered grizzly bear 
population in the GYE.
    We agree that the mere possibility of re-listing is not an adequate 
regulatory mechanism. Re-listing cannot be an automatic function if the 
GYE grizzly bear population declines to the point where the protections 
of the Act become necessary because we are obligated to conduct 
rulemaking procedures, which include, among other things, an evaluation 
of threats as outlined in the Act and the APA. However, listing may be 
expedited if necessary through the Act's emergency listing procedures. 
Be that as it may, we remain confident that these provisions will not 
be necessary due to the species' current and foreseeable viability, as 
managed and monitored by the 2016 Conservation Strategy and Tri-State 
MOA.
    Issue 86--Commenters expressed concerns about the triggers for an 
IGBST Biology and Monitoring Review, including: (1) Confusion as to the 
justification for changing the Biology and Monitoring Review trigger 
from its current status (mortality limits exceeded for any sex/age 
class for 2 consecutive years) to 3 consecutive years and a population 
floor; (2) assertions that failure to meet recovery criteria should 
trigger a status review and emergency re-listing rather than a review 
by the IGBST; (3) concerns about the lack of a defined timeframe for 
completion of a review report and remedying the identified issues; (4) 
suggestions for clearer Service responses should the YGCC fail to take 
appropriate action in response to a review; (5) suggestions that the 
Biology and Monitoring Review triggers need to be standardized in the 
rule, the 2016 Conservation Strategy, and other management plans; (6) 
claims that the triggers are too low or are unclear; (7) concerns that 
there is no trigger for a lack of funding; (8) worries that a review 
would be politically influenced; and (9) recommendations that the 
delisting rule provide ``clear thresholds and corrective mechanisms'' 
with a process that ``a. ensures timely action and limits time lags 
that arise from administrative review; b. includes an opportunity for 
public involvement in proposed actions, and; c. establishes a policy of 
rejecting proposed actions, if not supported by the best available 
science.''
    Response--Edits were made to all three documents to clarify the 
triggers for an IGBST Biology and Monitoring Review and to make them 
consistent between the documents. The triggers for an IGBST Biology and 
Monitoring Review are based on the demographic recovery criteria and 
are believed by managers to be effective for decision-making given 
available data. Proposed triggers for an IGBST Biology and Monitoring 
Review are designed to be sufficient to detect meaningful demographic 
changes in a timely manner. More importantly, triggers for an IGBST 
Biology and Monitoring Review can be adjusted if the IGBST deems they 
are not sufficiently sensitive or, in contrast, too sensitive (i.e., 
causing many ``false triggers''). The IGBST Biology and Monitoring 
Review triggers are more easily activated than Service review triggers 
to supply the YGCC with ample time to respond with management actions 
if necessary. It would be more appropriate to tie any lack of funding 
for the IGBST's

[[Page 30605]]

monitoring responsibilities to a decision by YES/YGCC to address the 
issue. Details were added to this rule and the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy that a Biology and Monitoring review would be completed within 
6 months of the request by the YGCC and the resulting written report 
would be presented to the YGCC and made available to the public. Any 
proposed changes to the 2016 Conservation Strategy by the YGCC, in 
response to a Biology and Monitoring Review, to address deviations from 
the population or habitat standards will be available for public 
comment and be based on the best available science.
    Issue 87--Commenters and a peer-reviewer suggested that the IGBST 
should give a binding commitment to conduct a demographic monitoring 
review every 5 years or less (instead of every 5 to 10 years) because: 
(1) It would be more consistent with precautionary management; (2) the 
generation length for grizzly bears is close to 10 years; and (3) the 
IGBST could miss dramatic shorter term changes in grizzly bear 
populations in an interval of 5 to 10 years between reviews.
    Response--The best available data indicate that 5 to 10 years is an 
appropriate interval to conduct a monitoring review. For example, 
generation times are now actually closer to 14 years (Kamath et al. 
2015, p. 5516), further supporting the frequency of 5 to 10 years. 
Grizzly bears are a long-lived species, and estimated survival rates 
for both independent males and females in the GYE are over 95 percent 
annually until age 25, when survival begins to decline. Any demographic 
review done with shorter intervals will likely have many of the same 
individual bears in the sample. The longer the interval between 
assessments the more likely it is we will have different individuals in 
the sample. This greater independence among bears in the sample is 
desirable if we are trying to assess impacts of landscape change on the 
demographic vigor of the population.
    While official reviews will be conducted only every 5 to 10 years, 
the IGBST will closely monitor the population annually, including 
estimating population size using the model-averaged Chao2 method, 
monitoring and reporting the distribution of reproducing females, and 
monitoring and reporting mortalities. Habitat variables will also be 
monitored annually, including livestock grazing, food availability, and 
ungulate populations, Yellowstone cutthroat trout, moth aggregation 
sites, and whitebark pine cone production and health. The IGBST could 
at any time recommend a Biology and Monitoring Review to the YGCC if 
they deem necessary based on annual monitoring results. Additionally, 
the Strategy outlines specific triggers for an IGBST Biology and 
Monitoring Review as well as a Service-initiated status review.
    Issue 88--One commenter raised concerns that managers would not be 
able to effectively implement adaptive management because there is no 
commitment to funding and implementing the necessary monitoring. 
Grizzly bear managers have failed to implement adaptive management in 
the past; for example, they did not redefine the Recovery Zone even 
though 40 percent of occupied habitat is now outside of it.
    Many commenters and a peer-reviewer requested additional 
information on the adaptive process for revising the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy during its duration should the best available science indicate 
changes are warranted. One commenter hoped authors could include 
specific provisions in the 2016 Conservation Strategy requiring review 
and updating every 5 years or including language in the preamble 
explaining that the 2016 Conservation Strategy will evolve as new 
science becomes available.
    Response--We have no reason to conclude that State, Tribal, and 
Federal land managers are not committed to fund and implement 
monitoring (see Issue 84). Given that the grizzly bear generation time 
is more than 5 years and long-term data is needed to determine 
meaningful trends, it is appropriate that the IGBST has adopted an 
adaptive management process; the purpose of adaptive management is to 
change based on improving science. Recovery plans are not regulatory 
documents, rather they are intended to provide guidance to the Service 
and our partners on methods to minimize threats to listed species and 
on criteria that may be used to determine when recovery is achieved. In 
response to the comment that we have failed to implement adaptive 
management by not updating the Recovery Zone in the Recovery Plan, 
delisting determinations are based solely on an evaluation of the five 
factors under section 4 of the Act, and, while recovery criteria can 
inform that analysis, we do not need to update a species' recovery plan 
prior to the species' delisting. In accordance with the 1993 Recovery 
Plan, Recovery Zones are areas large enough and of sufficient habitat 
quality to support a recovered grizzly bear population and are not 
designed to contain all grizzly bears in the ecosystem.
    Issue 89--Public commenters presented differing perspectives on 
whether the content of the proposed rule represented an overreach of 
Service authority or too little Federal Government involvement. The 
State agencies called some of the content of the proposed rule 
(particularly demands about the content of State hunting regulations 
and the discussion of connectivity and movement of bears between 
ecosystems) ``unduly prescriptive'' and suggested that some of the 
requirements in the proposed rule ``transcend the Act's authority.'' 
Some commenters and the States questioned whether we had the authority 
to require particular hunting regulations prior to delisting, while 
others suggested that we require States to classify grizzly bears as a 
non-game species, thus, prohibiting hunting altogether. One commenter 
suggested that States should be the ones setting mortality limits and 
monitoring mortalities.
    Commenters also varied in their perspective on the proper Service 
role after delisting. Some commenters suggested the Service should have 
little to no role after delisting; one stated that after delisting 
``the Service must monitor, but not dictate, the state's or Tribes' 
management methodologies.'' One commenter requested that we clarify 
that the 2016 Conservation Strategy is a cooperative agreement and that 
the Service's role is not to oversee management but to evaluate the 
five factors under the Act should it be necessary. Others suggested the 
proposed rule did not allow enough Federal involvement after delisting 
and urged more Service engagement in independent monitoring. Some 
commenters went so far as to suggest ``management should continue to be 
the responsibility of the USFWS'' and that the Service should use the 
preemption clause of the Constitution to invalidate any State or local 
laws that jeopardize grizzly bears. Another commenter simply requested 
that we explain and clarify the Service's role in grizzly bear 
management within the GYE after delisting.
    Response--A basic tenet of wildlife management in the United States 
is that States have primary jurisdiction over most wildlife in most 
cases. The Federal Government has a ``trust resource'' responsibility 
for a few specific categories identified under Federal law, including 
species deemed threatened or endangered under the Act. When a species 
no longer qualifies as threatened or endangered, the management reverts 
back to the States.
    Under the Act, we are required to show that threats to listed 
species have

[[Page 30606]]

been sufficiently abated (and will remain so for the foreseeable 
future) such that we can reasonably reach the conclusion that the 
species is no longer threatened or endangered. Section 4(b)(1)(A) 
further clarifies that we are to take into account those efforts being 
made by any State to protect such species. Under Section 4(a)(1)(d) of 
the Act, we must determine whether it is endangered or threatened 
because of any of the following factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. The 2016 Conservation Strategy and 
the corresponding step-down State and Federal regulations implementing 
this agreement are necessary to illustrate how various risk factors are 
going to be managed and allow us to determine that threats have been 
sufficiently abated such that the species is no longer threatened or 
endangered.
    For grizzly bears, our analysis under Factors B and C Combined and 
D identifies human-caused mortality and the regulations governing it as 
crucial determinants of whether grizzly bear populations in the GYE 
will meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species. This 
is similar to our previous assessment of habitat (Factor A) and its 
long-term management (Factor D), which was previously litigated and 
upheld on appeal. Therefore, regulatory mechanisms that adequately 
address management of discretionary mortality are a necessary component 
of the path to delisting. It remains the Service's statutory 
responsibility to analyze threats to the species under the five listing 
factors and evaluate whether such regulations are consistent with a 
delisting determination under the Act. The State, Federal, and Tribal 
partner agencies implementing the 2016 Conservation Strategy continue 
to work together to implement a regulatory framework that allows 
grizzly bears in the GYE to be recovered and delisted under the Act, 
with continuing habitat and population management under the authorities 
of the individual agencies. Thus, this final rule describes standards 
for evaluating whether State game regulations are consistent with 
grizzly bear mortality targets, under the management framework of the 
interagency 2016 Conservation Strategy. The authority for promulgating 
hunting regulations for game animals remains with State wildlife 
commissions.
    We conclude that the Service's involvement in grizzly bear 
management, as described in this final rule, is appropriate in scope 
and is consistent with statutory requirements. After the delisting of 
grizzly bears in the GYE, the regulatory protections of the Act will be 
withdrawn but the Service will continue to evaluate the species' status 
through post-delisting monitoring as described in the interagency 2016 
Conservation Strategy. Post-delisting monitoring will continue to 
include data collected by various State, Tribal, and Federal agencies 
under the 2016 Conservation Strategy; we are confident that such 
monitoring can continue to provide valid data on grizzly bear status, 
and conclude that monitoring programs do not need to be funded and 
implemented separately by the Service. Because grizzly bears are 
vulnerable to excessive human-caused mortality, the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy recognizes the need for active management under the 
jurisdiction and authority of the various Federal, State, and Tribal 
agencies to implement conservation measures intended to address the 
source of such mortality.
    With continuing interagency cooperation in implementing the 2016 
Conservation Strategy, we fully expect partners will maintain healthy 
grizzly bear populations in the GYE without the protections of the Act. 
As is the case for any non-listed species, the Service can conduct a 
status review at any time and is required to consider petitions for re-
listing if ever received. Such a review will be triggered if population 
and mortality targets in the 2016 Conservation Strategy are 
consistently not met. Furthermore, although we conclude this will 
likely not be necessary, Section 4(g)(2) of the Act directs the Service 
to make prompt use of its emergency listing authority if necessary to 
prevent a significant risk to the well-being of the recovered 
population.
    We anticipate that the Federal Government will continue to be 
involved in grizzly bear management after delisting. As discussed in 
the proposed rule, the NPS, USFS, and BLM are responsible for land 
management over much of the GYE, and will continue to be actively 
involved in interagency groups implementing the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy. Similarly, Federal scientists, such as those employed by the 
USGS, will continue to monitor the GYE grizzly bear population. The 
Service plans to remain informed about grizzly bear status and 
population trends, and to remain engaged with partners as the 2016 
Conservation Strategy is implemented.
    As discussed in the proposed rule, we conclude that limited and 
well-regulated harvest of grizzly bears can be compatible with meeting 
mortality targets under the 2016 Conservation Strategy, and thus 
maintaining a healthy population that does not require the Act's 
protections. The suggestion to designate grizzly bears as non-game and 
prohibit regulated harvest altogether is not necessary, nor is it 
within Federal control for most unlisted species. For example, brown 
bear hunting is a common and sustainable practice globally. When 
managed correctly, as discussed in the final rule, carefully regulated 
harvest can be a part of the greater conservation strategy.
    Issue 90--A number of public commenters expressed concern about our 
use of the term ``conservation reliant'' species in reference to 
grizzly bears.
    Response--We no longer use the term ``conservation-reliant 
species'' in this rule.
    Issue 91--Public commenters presented differing points of view on 
the implementation period of the 2016 Conservation Strategy. Some 
parties (including the States) took issue with our characterization of 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy in the proposed rule as being indefinite 
or being in place in perpetuity. These commenters suggested that an 
overly long post-delisting monitoring period impinged upon States' 
rights. They expressed the concept that the Act is an emergency room 
statute and that once a species is recovered its management should be 
returned to the States without Federal oversight. Some commenters 
(including the States) suggested that the Service has conflated 
``conservation-reliance'' with post-delisting management that exceeds 
the Act's requirements and that the Conservation Strategy should not be 
an indefinite agreement to allow for more flexibility in adjusting 
management strategies in response to future change. One commenter 
argued that the Act does not require a 2016 Conservation Strategy for 
delisting. A number of commenters suggested the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy should stay in place only for the minimum 5-year monitoring 
period the Act requires. The States asked the Service to remove any 
mentions of the 2016 Conservation Strategy being in place ``in 
perpetuity,'' ``perpetually,'' or ``indefinitely'' and instead state 
that ``[t]he 2016 Conservation Strategy will remain in effect beyond 
the 5-year monitoring period of the Act.''

[[Page 30607]]

    Others suggested the 2016 Conservation Strategy should stay in 
place for much longer than 5 years. One commenter recommended a post-
delisting monitoring period of 18 years based on grizzly bears' slow 
reproduction and vulnerability to habitat change, noting previous 
precedents for monitoring periods up to 20 years. One commenter stated 
that ``it is critically important that the IGBST continue to be 
involved'' with GYE grizzly bear recovery GYE for 10 or more years 
after delisting. Several commenters expressed that the Conservation 
Strategy should be in place ``in perpetuity.''
    Other commenters referenced revisions to the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy that clarify how it would remain in effect for the 
``foreseeable future.'' In light of the above, commenters requested 
that we clarify how long the 2016 Conservation Strategy would remain in 
effect, how long monitoring would continue, and what would happen after 
that point. One commenter requested a definition of ``foreseeable 
future.'' Another commenter stated that common usage for ``foreseeable 
future'' was 100 years, similar to the timeframe of a forest rotation, 
and recommended monitoring over two rotations to allow their effects to 
manifest. Another commenter agreed that management was required over 
the foreseeable future because the grizzly bear is a conservation-
reliant species.
    Response--The 2016 Conservation Strategy serves as our post-
delisting monitoring plan and represents the agreement from all 
management partners on post-delisting management. Post-delisting 
monitoring refers to activities undertaken to verify that a species 
delisted due to recovery remains secure from risk of extinction after 
the protections of the Act no longer apply (USFWS and NMFS 2008, p. 1-
1). The primary goal of post-delisting monitoring is to monitor the 
species to ensure the status does not deteriorate, and if a substantial 
decline in the species (numbers of individuals or populations) or an 
increase in threats is detected, to take measures to halt the decline 
so that re-proposing it as a threatened or endangered species is not 
needed (USFWS and NMFS 2008, p. 1-1).
    Section 4(g), added to the Act in the 1988 reauthorization, 
requires the Service to implement a system in cooperation with the 
States to monitor for not less than 5 years the status of all species 
that have recovered and been removed from the list of threatened and 
endangered plants and animals (USFWS and NMFS 2008, p. 1-1). The 
legislative history of section 4(g) indicates that Congress intended to 
give the Services and States latitude to determine the extent and 
intensity of post-delisting monitoring that is needed and appropriate 
(USFWS and NMFS 2008, p. 1-1). According to our 2008 Post-Delisting 
Monitoring (PDM) Plan Guidance, decisions regarding frequency and 
duration of effective monitoring should appropriately reflect the 
species' biology and residual threats (USFWS and NMFS 2008, p. 4-4).
    Delisting criteria and the formal rulemaking process for removal 
from the list are designed to provide reasonable confidence that the 
species will remain secure for the foreseeable future, and post-
delisting monitoring provides an additional ``check'' on projections 
that the species will remain secure after removal of the Act's 
protections (USFWS and NMFS 2008, p. 4-3). There are no absolute 
guarantees against future declines, but if the species appears to 
remain secure, conclusion of post-delisting monitoring is appropriate 
(USFWS and NMFS 2008, p. 4-3).
    We agree that it is unrealistic and is beyond what is required by 
the Act to expect any single version of the Conservation Strategy and 
intensive Federal oversight to remain in effect in perpetuity. 
Therefore, the 2016 Conservation Strategy was revised to remain in 
effect for the foreseeable future as this is the time horizon that we 
must consider as we evaluate the species' status relative to the Act's 
definition of a threatened species.
    In making our determination, we considered what the ``foreseeable 
future'' means in the context of GYE grizzly bear biology and the 
factors potentially affecting bear viability. To determine whether a 
species is likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future, the 
Service must consider the period over which it can make reliable 
predictions. It cannot speculate. Solicitor's Opinion M-37021, The 
Meaning of ``Foreseeable Future'' in Section 3(20) of the Endangered 
Species Act (2009). Consideration of the foreseeable future often 
involves determining when current or future trends cannot be further 
extrapolated without veering into speculation. It can also involve 
making reliable predictions about future events. Using the best 
scientific and commercial information available, the Service must 
analyze events, trends and threats over different periods of time, and 
must synthesize that information to reach a final conclusion about GYE 
grizzly bears.
    The partners managing the GYE grizzly population have, as discussed 
above, successfully reduced or eliminated the negative trends that led 
to the listing of the bear in the first place. In addition, we 
anticipate no particular future events that will lead to the DPS 
becoming in danger of extinction in the future. Future implementation 
of the 2016 Conservation Strategy and its management objectives have 
also been expressly tied to the statutory concept of the foreseeable 
future. Under these circumstances, with a stable and protected 
population extending into the indefinite future, there is no need to 
more precisely define a particular period as being the ``foreseeable 
future'' for the bear. In other words, we cannot reliably predict on 
any human timescale that the status of the bear will deteriorate at 
all, much less that it will become in danger of extinction in the 
future.
    However, there is not an expectation that the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy will remain static during its lifespan. In fact, the YGCC (the 
body that will coordinate management and promote the exchange of 
information about the GYE grizzly bear population after delisting) can 
revise or amend the 2016 Conservation Strategy based on the best 
biological data and best available science (YES 2016a, chapter 6). Any 
such amendments will be subject to public review and comment and 
approved by YGCC (YES 2016a, p. 96). More meaningful changes will need 
to be evaluated by the Service to determine whether they would depart 
significantly from previous commitments or represent a significant 
threat to the population and thus trigger a status review.
    Periodic status reviews are consistent with Service practice for 
other species. For example, the Service has a history of conducting 
such reviews during the Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf post-
delisting monitoring period. Specifically, during this 5-year post-
delisting monitoring period, we conducted six annual evaluations of 
status (in their entirety: Bangs 2010, in litt.; Jimenez 2012, in 
litt.; Jimenez 2013a, in litt.; Jimenez 2014, in litt.; Jimenez 2015, 
in litt.; Jimenez 2016, in litt.) and seven ``on-the-spot'' evaluations 
considering whether some of the more meaningful changes to State 
management laws or regulations met that standard (Cooley 2011, in 
litt.; Cooley 2012, in litt.; Jimenez and Cooley 2012, in litt.; 
Sartorius 2012, in litt.; Jimenez 2013b, in litt.; Cooley 2013, in 
litt.; Cooley 2014, in litt.). In those cases, wolf biology, high 
population levels and a demonstrated track record of withstanding high 
levels of human-caused mortality provided us with

[[Page 30608]]

sufficient confidence that the changes did not represent a significant 
threat and did not trigger a Service status review.
    Issue 92--One commenter expressed concern that we do not discuss 
the BLM's sensitive species program in the proposed rule. This 
commenter wanted us to describe ``how grizzly bears will be classified 
for planning and management purposes on BLM lands post-delisting.'' 
Several commenters stated that the BLM must have regulatory mechanisms 
in place to protect grizzly bear habitat after delisting, provide 
connectivity between habitats, and ensure adequate habitat protections 
are in place; commenters were concerned that these mechanisms were 
missing or remained in drafts unavailable to the public.
    Response--Upon delisting, the GYE grizzly bear will be classified 
as a sensitive species by the BLM for at least 5 years. A sensitive 
species is one ``requiring special management consideration to promote 
their conservation and reduce the likelihood and need for future 
listing under the ESA'' (BLM 2008). All land use and implementation 
plans must address the conservation of sensitive species through 
appropriate habitat management. Twenty-two percent of suitable habitat 
outside of the PCA is managed by the BLM. This information and the 
habitat protections provided by this designation have been added to 
both this final rule (see Factors A and D) and the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 115-116).
    Issue 93--We received some comments from peer-reviewers and the 
public in reference to the USFS designation of the grizzly bear as a 
``sensitive species'' or ``species of conservation concern'' upon 
delisting. Commenters and one peer-reviewer considered this USFS 
designation an important component of ongoing management of grizzly 
bears. Some commenters asked for specific statutory and regulatory 
definitions for ``sensitive species'' and ``species of conservation 
concern'' and the amount of protection afforded under each designation. 
Commenters expressed concern about the different authority these USFS 
designations provide and worried that the new designation of ``species 
of conservation concern'' under the 2012 Planning Rule would not 
provide the same project-level prohibitions as the ``sensitive 
species'' designation.
    Response--The inherent protections afforded by the Sensitive 
Species designation and the Species of Conservation Concern and the 
Individual Species Direction are comparable. All three are designed to 
meet the intent of the USDA Departmental Regulations 9500-4, which 
directs the USFS to ``Avoid actions which may cause a species to become 
threatened or endangered'' and Sensitive Species Objectives (USDA FS 
2005, Manual 2670.22), which include: ``Develop and implement 
management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or 
endangered because of USFS actions and ``Develop and implement 
management objectives for populations and/or habitat of sensitive 
species.'' Following are the regulatory definitions:

    Sensitive Species: Those plant and animal species identified by 
a regional forester for which population viability is a concern, as 
evidenced by: (1) Significant current or predicted downward trends 
in population numbers or density; and (2) Significant current or 
predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a 
species' existing distribution. (USDA FS 2005, Manual 2670.05).
    Species of Conservation Concern: For purposes of this subpart, a 
species of conservation concern is a species, other than Federally 
recognized threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, 
that is known to occur in the plan area and for which the regional 
forester has determined that the best available scientific 
information indicates substantial concern about the species' 
capability to persist over the long-term in the plan area. (36 CFR 
219.9(c)).

    Issue 94--Some commenters were concerned with the Service's 
portrayal of the USFS designations of Wilderness, WSA, and IRA and the 
protections each of these areas provide. Some felt that these 
designations are not restrictive enough to assume that there will be no 
impact on grizzly bears living in those areas. In roadless areas, 
energy development or road construction can occur in conjunction with 
oil and gas leases that pre-date the effective date of the roadless 
rule. In addition, roadless areas allow for off-road vehicle use, 
motorized ATV trails, and human recreation, which may impact habitat. 
Moreover, it cannot be assumed that there will be no changes to the 
roadless rule as it is currently under judicial review. In designated 
Wilderness and WSAs, mining claims that pre-date the Wilderness Act may 
be pursued. Livestock grazing is also permitted on these lands.
    Response--In response to concerns about our portrayal of the USFS 
designations of Wilderness areas, WSAs, and IRAs in the proposed rule, 
revisions were made to the final rule (see Factors A and D) that 
provide clarification to our description of the USFS designations of 
Wilderness, WSAs, and IRAs, and the protections each of these 
designations provide. Although it is true that development can occur in 
conjunction with oil and gas leases that pre-date the roadless rule, 
these claims must be valid to be pursued and the plans of operation are 
subject to reasonable regulations to protect roadless characteristics, 
with mitigation to offset potential impacts from development. Although 
motorized roads and trails may occur in roadless areas, they are 
subject to forest travel management plans. The roadless rule is no 
longer under judicial review and was upheld by the Tenth Circuit Court 
of Appeals in Wyoming v. United States Department of Agriculture, 661 
F.3d. 1209 (10th Cir. 2011). If valid mining claims are pursued, the 
plans of operation are subject to reasonable regulations to protect 
wilderness values with mitigation to offset potential effects from 
development. Although preexisting livestock permits are allowed under 
these designations, new livestock allotments are not permitted in these 
areas.
    Issue 95--Some public commenters expressed concern about the USFS 
plans and how they will be implemented. One commenter expressed that 
the USFS's 2005 guidelines for habitat outside the PCA are not legally 
enforceable. One commenter suggested that, once delisting is finalized, 
the 2006 Amendment cannot simply be reinstated and implemented; the 
USFS needs to do a new planning and public review process to amend 
their plans because the new 2016 Conservation Strategy changes the 
habitat protections that must be provided by existing forest plans and 
removes the current tools and incentives. Commenters requested 
additional detail on when these amendments would be made and how the 
public would be involved in the review. A commenter noted that, after 
delisting, NF lands must have mechanisms for protecting grizzly bears, 
providing connectivity between habitats, and ensuring adequate habitat 
protections; commenters were concerned that these mechanisms were 
missing or remained in drafts unavailable to the public. Lastly, while 
some comments expressed that the USFS plans are not regulatory because 
of the 2012 Planning Rule, others expressed that the 2012 Planning Rule 
requires the USFS to consider connectivity, including roads (permanent 
or temporary, open or closed) and site development in light of how they 
may increase human-bear conflicts and grizzly bear mortality.
    Response--In its 2011 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court supported 
the Service's conclusion that incorporation

[[Page 30609]]

of the 2007 Conservation Strategy's habitat standards into legally 
enforceable national forest land management plans and the NPS' 
Superintendent's compendia were adequate regulatory mechanisms. The 
2006 Forest Plan Amendment was consistent with the habitat guidance in 
the 2007 Conservation Strategy (USDA FS 2006b, entire). Since 2007, the 
Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Shoshone, and Gallatin NFs have incorporated the 
habitat direction in their forest plans amendments or revisions 
(Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF 2009, p. 47 and Appendix G; Gallatin NF 2015, 
p. II-4 and Appendix G; Shoshone NF 2015, p. 39). The 2006 Forest Plan 
Amendment still stands for the Custer, Bridger-Teton, and Caribou-
Targhee NFs and will be implemented when delisting is final. The six 
GYE NFs compared the 2007 and 2016 Conservation Strategies to assess if 
changes were necessary to the management direction in current forest 
plans. They ``concluded that current forest plan direction meets the 
intent of, or is more protective than, the updated 2016 Strategy.''
    Whereas minor differences in the application rules and monitoring 
requirements indicate that the plans will need administrative change, 
amendment, or revision, these differences do not impact the adequate 
regulatory mechanisms in current forest plans (Schmid 2017, in litt.). 
Although some of the current forest plans fall under the 1982 Planning 
Rule, any revisions and amendments would be in compliance with the 2012 
Planning Rule. Under the 2012 Planning Rule, forest plan revisions and 
amendments must use the best available science and are subject to the 
same public process and litigation as they were previously. In contrast 
to the 1982 Planning Rule, compliance with both standards and 
guidelines are required under the 2012 Planning Rule. Projects 
occurring on Federal lands, such as road development, timber projects, 
and oil, gas, and mining projects, must undergo NEPA analysis to 
evaluate impacts on grizzly bears and their habitat whether the grizzly 
bear is listed or delisted.

Genetic Health Issues (Factor E)

    Issue 96--Public commenters raised concerns about the scientific 
rigor of our analysis of genetic viability. Many commenters suggested 
that the isolated GYE grizzly bear population has a shrinking gene pool 
and lacks genetic diversity since: (1) The population resulted from a 
genetic bottleneck, (2) the population has lacked connection to any 
other grizzly bears for over a century, and (3) the bears have lost 15 
to 20 percent of their genetic variability in the last 100 years 
(Craighead et al. undated). Other commenters warned of the perils to 
small, isolated, low-genetic-variability populations from inbreeding, 
genetic abnormalities, birth defects, low reproductive rates, low 
survival rates, susceptibility to extinction from disease and 
parasites, and eventual population declines that can result in 
extinction or speciation. Commenters pointed out that genomic changes 
are slow and take decades to detect and that declines in the GYE 
grizzly bear population will further deplete extant levels of genetic 
diversity.
    A few commenters suggested potential additional analysis and 
modeling to consider in our analysis of genetic viability such as: (1) 
Models of the rate of allele loss due to genetic drift at various 
population sizes (though the long-term fitness implications of changes 
in allelic diversity are not well understood); and (2) projections of 
the evolutionary health of the GYE grizzly bear population.
    Several comments raised concerns over the scientific basis for our 
lower limit of 500 bears for genetic viability, saying this threshold 
ensures only short-term genetic fitness and is based on outdated 
science (Franklin 1980) when more recent critical assessments of this 
standard are available (Frankham et al. 2014; Ewens 1990); States 
suggested that we incorrectly suggested that 500 bears is required for 
short-term genetic fitness when Miller and Waits (2003) require only 
400. Commenters thought anywhere from 500 bears to 19,800 bears were 
necessary for long-term genetic viability (Frankham et al., 2013); they 
suggested that the current actual or effective population size in the 
GYE is not sufficiently large to ensure long-term genetic viability.
    Other commenters took issue with our calculation and analysis of 
effective population size. A few commenters thought the actual 
effective population size was lower than the 469 bears we reported and 
thus not yet at the long-term viable population criterion of more than 
500 bears because: (1) ``effective population size is approximately 25-
27 percent of total population size,'' suggesting a true effective 
population size of only 179 bears given recent population estimates 
(Allendorf et al. 1991, p. 650; Miller and Waits 2003; Groom et al. 
2006, p. 405); and (2) we selectively reported the upper end of the 
effective population estimate of 469 bears when we should have chosen 
the more conservative estimates discussed by Kamath et al. (2015). One 
commenter opined that we did not explain how effective population size 
(Ne) and number of effective breeders (Nb) 
differ, nor did we offer the benefits and downsides of these different 
metrics from Kamath et al. (2015). This commenter also claimed that we 
did not use the best available science in calculating Ne and 
Nb (the SF/SA or Sibling Frequency/Assignment method) and 
instead used a method scientists have yet to fully review (EPA or 
Estimator of Parentage Assignments) (Wang 2016; Waples 2016), which 
overestimates trends in these parameters.
    Conversely, one commenter stated that the scope of the discussion 
of genetics in the proposed rule was too broad and that the Service 
should instead clearly state that ``current genetic diversity 
sufficiently supports the delisting decision and that future management 
of genetic diversity after delisting is a separate matter to be managed 
as described in the Conservation Strategy.''
    Several public commenters raised concerns over connectivity and how 
genetic connections between grizzly bear populations could become more 
challenging to facilitate in a post-delisting environment (see Issue 50 
for a more detailed discussion of public and peer-reviewer concerns 
about connectivity). Commenters claimed that lack of connectivity to 
other grizzly bear populations, habitat fragmentation, and habitat loss 
present a ``long-term genetic risk for Yellowstone grizzlies'' 
(Haroldson et al. 2010). One commenter felt that reintroductions into 
other ecosystems were the best option to expand the gene pool, restore 
gene flow, and increase fitness. Another commenter even suggested 
periodic transplants from Canada to enhance genetic diversity. One 
comment stated that we dismissed the need for immigration in our 
proposed rule and that the 2016 Conservation Strategy and the Tri-State 
MOA do not commit to providing transplants to ensure genetic quality; 
commenters suggested that, without binding commitments to connecting 
the GYE to northern populations, ensuring limited mortality in 
connective corridors, and transplanting bears, the genetic health and 
evolutionary capacity of the GYE population would be at risk.
    Many commenters weighed in on potential transplant programs. One 
commenter asked us to provide more justification behind our assertion 
that one to two immigrants or transplants per generation is an adequate 
level of gene flow into the GYE (Miller and Waits 2003). Some 
commenters suggested that managers would need to transplant anywhere 
from 7 to 15 bears

[[Page 30610]]

per decade into the GYE considering the likelihood of survival and 
reproduction. One commenter worried that a translocation program would 
be labor intensive and could jeopardize the health of the source 
population, especially if managers aim to move mostly females into the 
GYE. A few commenters stated that management should place more effort 
on facilitating natural dispersal instead of relying on translocations. 
The States requested removal of any language suggesting migrants will 
be necessary for genetic health of the GYE population and that the 
final rule more explicitly state that ``genetic connectivity is not 
required for delisting, and that the genetic health of the GYE DPS is 
very strong.''
    Response--Our analysis of genetic viability is based on peer-
reviewed literature that specifically addresses genetics of the GYE 
grizzly bears, as well as other relevant genetic literature. Kamath et 
al. (2015, entire), combined with Miller and Waits (2003, entire), 
suggests that although the GYE grizzly bear population is isolated 
there is no evidence of a ``shrinking gene pool.'' Although the current 
effective population size for the GYE grizzly bear is lower than what 
is recommended by published literature on evolutionary theory (e.g., 
Franklin 1980, p. 136) for evolutionary success in the absence of 
management, it is important to note that the recommendation is based on 
non-managed populations. We remain confident that genetic management 
for the GYE grizzly bear population will effectively address future 
genetic concerns (Hedrick 1995, p. 1004; Miller and Waits, p. 4338).
    Because it is generally accepted that isolated populations are at 
greater risk of extinction over the long term, the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 82-84) identifies and commits to a protocol to 
encourage natural habitat connectivity between the GYE and other 
grizzly bear ecosystems. Although natural connectivity is the best 
possible scenario, isolation does not constitute a threat to the GYE 
grizzly bear in the foreseeable future because of intensive monitoring 
and adaptive management strategies that will remain in effect post-
delisting. Based on the best available science (Miller and Waits 2003, 
p. 4338), the Service concludes that the genetic diversity of the GYE 
grizzly bear population will be adequately maintained by the 
immigration or relocation of one to two effective migrants from the 
NCDE every 10 years. Effective migrant is defined as a bear from 
another ecosystem that breeds with GYE bears and successfully 
reproduces. Thus, immigration of more than 1 or 2 bears may be needed, 
depending on survival and reproductive success of the migrants. See YES 
(2016a, pp. 51-53) and discussion under Factor E in this final rule for 
more information. This movement of grizzly bears between ecosystems may 
occur naturally or through management intervention. If management 
intervention is used, such translocations are not expected to have any 
discernible impact on the source population because of the relatively 
small number of bears needed and the timeframe of 10 years--and 
particularly because the most likely source population (NCDE) is 
healthy and large in size. Regardless of the method, the Service is 
confident that genetic impoverishment will not threaten the GYE grizzly 
bear population.
    Connectivity between the GYE and the NCDE is a long-term goal for 
the State of Montana, as set out in their Grizzly Bear Management Plan 
for Southwestern Montana (MFWP 2013, pp. 41-44). This connectivity 
would provide the desired gene flow for long-term genetic fitness of 
the GYE population. Frankham et al. (2014, entire) reviewed the 50/500 
rule of Franklin (1980, entire) and proposed an upward revision to at 
least 100/1000, to which Franklin et al. (2014, entire) published a 
rebuttal stating that, although a larger effective population size is 
preferable, Frankham et al. (2014, entire) ignored the fact that 
natural selection operates on phenotypes and the 50/500 is still 
appropriate guidance. Ewens' (1990, entire) concerns with Franklin's 
(1980, entire) 50/500 rule arise from their misinterpretation that 500 
is a minimum population size derived from an Ne of 50 when 
the 50/500 rule is the Ne for short-term and long-term 
genetic fitness, respectively.
    Our analysis of Ne using 469 bears reflects one method 
(EPA or Estimator of Parentage Assignment) reported by Kamath et al. 
(2015, p. 5512), which shows a 4-fold increase when compared to the 
same method applied to historical data of 102 in 1982. Other methods 
used both by Kamath et al. (2015, pp. 5512-5514) and historically by 
Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4337) did result in lower estimates of 
Ne, but with a consistent trend of all methods showing a 
significant increase in the Ne from historical data to 2007. 
Wildlife genetics is a rapidly evolving and technical field, where the 
use of newly developed techniques and approaches is commonplace. Wang 
(2016, entire), for example, compared the accuracies of different 
single-sample estimators of Ne, but those analyses did not 
directly compare estimates with those in Kamath et al. (2015), nor did 
the author suggest that EPA-based estimates are not reliable or somehow 
inferior to other techniques. Kamath et al. (2015, entire) based their 
inference on multiple techniques for estimating effective population 
size, and explicitly discussed their benefits and caveats. Regardless, 
although the EPA technique to estimate Ne is relatively new, 
it has been reliably applied to numerous species, including other brown 
bear populations.
    Although the current Ne of 469 (Kamath et al. 2015, p. 
5512) is approaching, but has not reached, the long-term viable 
population criterion of an Ne 500 bears (Franklin 1980), we 
are confident that the, as yet, lack of Ne does not 
currently pose a risk to the GYE grizzly bear population's viability. 
The Ne has increased nearly 4-fold since 1982, combined with 
a lack of evidence of loss of genetic diversity (only 0.2 percent rate 
of inbreeding) during 1985 to 2010, and more than a 3-fold increase in 
Ne (variance effective or Nev) since the early 
1900s, based on both Kamath et al. (2015, entire) and genetic factors.
    The high ratio of effective population size to census population 
size (Ne/Nc) of 0.66 reported by Kamath et al. 
(2015, p. 5513) most likely reflects the underestimation bias of the 
Chao2 estimator (see Issues 16 and 28). These ratios were lower when 
using the Mark-Resight estimate (Ne/Nc = 0.42), 
suggesting that the Mark-Resight estimate is much closer to the true 
population size than the Chao2 estimate (Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5517). 
However, Mark-Resight is not the best available science because 
investigations into Mark-Resight discovered that it was unable to 
accurately detect population trend. In addition, reported ratios of 
Ne/Nc have varied widely across grizzly bear 
populations (0.04-0.6; Paetkau et al. 1998, p. 424; Miller and Waits 
2003, p. 4337; Schregel et al. 2012, p. 3482), with the ratios of 0.42-
0.66 falling towards the upper middle of that range. Recovery criterion 
#1 identifies 500 individuals as a minimum population to ensure short-
term genetic fitness and is not a population goal. Five hundred bears 
provides a buffer above the total population of 400 (Ne of 
100) recommended by Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338) for short-term 
genetic health.
    Indicators of fitness in the GYE population demonstrate that the 
current levels of genetic heterozygosity are adequate, as evidenced by 
measures such as litter size, little evidence of disease, high 
survivorship, an equal sex ratio, normal body size and physical 
characteristics, and a stable to increasing population. None of these

[[Page 30611]]

indicators provide any evidence that inbreeding has affected fitness, 
and research on other species (e.g., Florida panther) indicates such 
effects typically manifest themselves only at extremely small 
population sizes. These indicators of fitness will be monitored 
annually, in perpetuity. The very low rate of loss of heterozygosity 
over the 20th century, in combination with the introduction of 1 or 2 
effective migrants per generation (naturally or through augmentation), 
will ensure long-term genetic viability, and the recovered status, of 
the GYE grizzly bear DPS (Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). Although 
Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338) measured a decline in allelic richness 
from the 1910s to the 1990s it had not declined as precipitously as 
previously anticipated, and Kamath et al. (2015, p. 5512) showed no 
statistical support for a decline in mean allelic richness from 1985 to 
2010. Based on all of the information available that examines 
heterozygosity and allelic diversity in the GYE grizzly bear 
population, researchers concluded that genetic factors are unlikely to 
compromise the viability of the population in the near future (Miller 
and Waits 2003, p. 4338; Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5517). The IGBST will 
continue to monitor genetic diversity in the GYE grizzly bear 
population as set forth in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, 
pp. 51-53). Although genetic connectivity is not necessary for the 
current genetic health of the GYE grizzly bear population, it is 
desired.

Food Resources Issues (Factor E)

    Issue 97--Public commenters challenged the validity of our analysis 
of the effects of food availability on grizzly bear health, citing 
potential flaws in our conclusion that female grizzly bears have 
sufficient body fat including: (1) A study by Schwartz et al. (2013), 
which shows a recent decline in body fat among female grizzly bears; 
(2) suggestions that the study we referenced ``included bears that were 
not captured specifically for monitoring change in body fat levels'' 
and only ``included female grizzly bear fat level data from spring and 
summer;'' and (3) notes that even if females have adequate levels of 
body fat in the spring and summer, they could still be fat deficient in 
the fall.
    Other commenters worried about the defensibility of the IGBST's 
models analyzing the effects of food availability on grizzly bear 
populations; these commenters noted that much of the IGBST's data for 
these models comes from observational studies, which makes it difficult 
to isolate the effects of individual variables or rule out other 
confounding drivers of birth and death rates, such as spatial and 
temporal correlations. Finally, one commenter claimed that the three 
IGBST papers (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, Costello et al. 2014, and van 
Manen et al. 2015) did not account for long-term weather trends or 
changes in the abundance of key foods (i.e., army cutworm moths, 
cutthroat trout, and ungulates) other than whitebark pine in their 
analysis of vital rates.
    Response--In their papers and reports, the IGBST recognized a 
potential decline in the trend of percent body fat among females after 
2006, as presented in Schwartz et al. (2014a, p. 73). However, the 
IGBST also clarified that those findings provided weak inference 
because they were based on very small annual sample sizes and that 
additional investigations were needed. For example, extending the 
female body fat figure from Schwartz et al. (2014a, p. 73) by several 
more years (see figure 4; IGBST, unpublished data), provides a stable 
instead of decreasing trend, which is why interpretation of sparse data 
should be done cautiously. This is also why the IGBST in the Food 
Synthesis report (IGBST 2013, pp. 18-20) presented an alternative 
analysis of body fat data, with appropriate caveats, that did not 
support the hypothesis that the rate of body fat gain over the active 
season was different for the period before versus after the period of 
peak whitebark pine decline.
    We contend that a key point regarding female body condition, 
changes in food resources, and reproduction has been overlooked: Female 
grizzly bears without adequate nutrition to support reproduction, 
especially in YNP where bear densities are high and from where the fall 
sample of female percent body fat is taken, would not support the trend 
in counts of females with cubs-of-the-year within YNP, or the entire 
ecosystem (see YES 2016a, figures 3 and 4). For example, the highest 
counts of females with cubs-of-the-year were in 2013 and 2014, 
approximately 6 to 7 years after the peak of whitebark decline and more 
than a decade after the start of decline. Additionally, compared with 
the body fat data, the inference based on vital rates (i.e., survival 
of different sex and age classes, fecundity) is much stronger and does 
not support the hypothesis that food resources have affected 
reproductive rates. Only a moderate decline in fecundity has been 
observed, and the IGBST documented those declines were greater in areas 
with higher grizzly bear densities and were not associated with decline 
of whitebark pine tree cover (van Manen et al. 2016, p. 308).
    The vital rates that showed the greatest change, and caused the 
slowing of population growth since the early 2000s, are lower cub and 
yearling survival (i.e., lower recruitment into the population). The 
IGBST investigated if the decline in cub and yearling survival could be 
a function of decline in food resources (whitebark pine) or whether 
associated with grizzly bear density. Survival of cubs-of-the-year was 
lower in areas with higher grizzly bear densities but showed no 
association with estimates of decline in whitebark pine tree cover, 
suggesting that grizzly bear density contributed to the slowing of 
population growth (van Manen et al. 2016, p. 308). Other studies 
support the interpretation of density effects playing an increasingly 
important role in the ecology of GYE's grizzly bears (Schwartz et al. 
2006b, p. 1; Bjornlie et al. 2014b, p. 5).
    There were no compelling reasons to investigate the direct 
relationship of long-term weather patterns on habitat selection, home-
range sizes, or demographics of grizzly bears; no literature exists 
that suggests such relationships exist. Of course, changes in climate 
may affect the distribution and availability of key foods, such as army 
cutworm moths, cutthroat trout, and ungulates, but those relationships 
have not been sufficiently studied to incorporate those into the 
analyses. Furthermore, with the exception of cutthroat trout, which can 
be measured but is a local food resource, no reliable metrics exist to 
measure the distribution and availability of army cutworm moths or 
ungulates, let alone the ability to measure their temporal and spatial 
variation. The focus of the analyses in these 3 papers (in their 
entirety: Bjornlie et al. 2014b, Costello et al. 2014, and van Manen et 
al. 2016) was on whitebark pine because of (1) the documented 
relationships between some grizzly bear vital rates and whitebark pine 
cone production; (2) the existence of long-term, annual monitoring data 
of whitebark pine cone production, and the ability to estimate decline 
in canopy cover of mapped whitebark pine; and (3) the emphasis on 
whitebark pine in the litigation associated with the 2007 delisting 
rule (72 FR 14866, March 29, 2007).

[[Page 30612]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR30JN17.254

    Issue 98--Both public commenters and peer-reviewers suggested 
additional monitoring and analysis of the availability of food sources 
and the potential impacts to grizzly bear health. Commenters suggested: 
(1) An analysis of the movements and home-ranges of females with cubs 
because, if the home ranges are decreasing, it could bolster claims 
that the population is approaching biological carrying capacity; (2) 
discussion of the different hazard levels associated with acquiring 
different types of high-quality food and whether these hazards are 
primarily relevant to dependent young, independent bears, or both; and 
(3) measurement of habitat in terms of food value, with annual and 
seasonal variations noted. A few commenters worried that the 2016 
Conservation Strategy stated that the IGBST would monitor the four main 
food sources only ``as budgets allow;'' this commenter wondered why the 
IGBST, and not any other entity, had this ``escape clause'' and how the 
Service could justify allowing this caveat on food source monitoring 
since lack of sufficient monitoring of food sources should trigger a 
status review. Peer-reviewers suggested a regular review of the whole 
grizzly bear diet in the GYE. And both peer-reviewers and public 
commenters suggested continued monitoring of the relationship between 
the availability of the four main food sources, grizzly bear use of the 
four main food sources, vital rates for the GYE population, and body 
condition of grizzly bears.
    Response--The amount and availability of the four high-caloric 
foods for grizzly bears will likely fluctuate due to possible changes 
in average temperature, precipitation, forest fires, introduced 
species, and resident insects. Changes in environmental conditions and 
resulting changes in foods for grizzly bears have been recognized by 
management agencies throughout the recovery process (see Factor E: 
Catastrophic Events in the rule for further discussion). That such 
changes will occur is neither exceptional nor unexpected. The key issue 
is determining if and how bears are adapting to such changes and how 
management agencies can facilitate adaptation. The compounded 
uncertainties associated with projections of possible future habitat 
changes, predicted responses of grizzly bears to multiple possible 
future conditions, and assumed changes to vital rates in response to 
any such possible future habitat changes create a wide realm of 
possible responses.
    Rather than use such a compounded uncertainty approach, the 
management system outlined in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 
2016a, pp. 33-85) depends on monitoring of multiple indices including 
production and availability of the four high-caloric foods; and 
monitoring of grizzly bear vital rates including survival, age at first 
reproduction, reproductive rate, cub survival, mortality cause and 
location, dispersal, and human-bear conflicts. The IGBST will annually 
report to the YGCC on the monitoring results of food production, bear 
mortality, and females with cubs-of-the-year. In addition, the IGBST 
will conduct a demographic monitoring review of the population vital 
rates every 5 to 10 years. The relationships between these factors will 
detect any impacts of changes in foods on bear viability in the 
ecosystem and will be the basis for an adaptive management response by 
the YGCC to address poor food years with responsive actions such as 
limiting grizzly bear mortality, increasing I&E efforts, and long-term 
habitat restoration (e.g., revegetation, prescribed burning), as 
appropriate. The continued monitoring of these multiple indices will 
allow rapid feedback on the success of management actions to address 
the

[[Page 30613]]

objective of maintaining a recovered population.
    Future studies will be directed to address further questions 
regarding grizzly bear responses to changing food resources and 
changing environmental conditions. Female home ranges decreased in size 
from the period of 1989 to 1999 and 2007 to 2012 with the decrease 
being greater in areas with higher grizzly bear densities, supporting 
evidence that the population is reaching carrying capacity (Bjornlie et 
al. 2014b, pp. 4-6).
    It is impossible to calculate with any degree of certainty the 
extent to which natural foods will change across the landscape and any 
resulting effects on bears. With the exception of whitebark pine, there 
are no documented relationships among grizzly bear demographic rates 
and the consumption of other grizzly bear foods, such as cutthroat 
trout, army cutworm moths, or ungulates. It is important to note that 
the annual abundance and distribution of whitebark pine seeds, as well 
as other food sources, vary naturally, annually and spatially, and are 
not predictable. Thus, it is not biologically possible to define 
``baseline'' levels for various foods, and the monitoring system 
discussed above is a more robust approach. During years with little or 
no whitebark pine seed production, grizzly bears switch to alternative 
foods. Indeed, the effect of whitebark pine crops on survival of 
independent-aged grizzly bears is relatively minor: For example, based 
on Haroldson et al. (2006, p. 39), annual survival among female bears 
that were not involved with conflicts varied very little and was 94.7 
percent, 95.7 percent, and 96.5 percent after years with median 
whitebark pine counts of 0 (i.e., no crop), 7.5 (average crop), and 15 
(high crop), respectively.
    The caveat of food source monitoring ``as budgets allow'' has been 
removed from the 2016 Conservation Strategy. Please see Issue 85 for 
further discussion on funding being a trigger for a status review.
    Issue 99--Several public commenters asserted that we inaccurately 
downplayed the importance of the four main food sources. Commenters 
suggested that the four main food sources are still uniquely important 
because: (1) The IGBST continues to monitor only these four food 
sources; (2) fat is especially important and is uniquely abundant in 
army cutworm moths, whitebark pine seeds, and late-season ungulates 
(Mattson et al. 2004; Erlenbach et al. 2014); (3) historically, grizzly 
bears have relied on the four main food sources and only fed on other 
foods opportunistically; (4) the list of more than 200 grizzly bear 
foods cited in Gunther et al. (2014) is inflated because to a bear ``a 
grass is a grass;'' (5) the use of false truffles during poor whitebark 
pine years was only documented in the core of the ecosystem and there 
was also no indication of the nutritional value of this food source; 
and (6) bear densities vary widely depending on habitat productivity 
(Mowat et al. 2013), which commenters suggested ran counter to our 
claims that grizzly bears are extremely flexible in their diet and thus 
resilient to changes in food abundance.
    Commenters noted that the nutritional value (i.e., fat, protein, 
and gross energy), seasonal abundance, and risk and energetic cost of 
obtaining any alternative food source must be comparable to the four 
main food sources. One commenter expressed concern that the Food 
Synthesis Report does the minimum to satisfy the requirement of the 
Ninth Circuit ruling; the commenter argued that researchers should have 
done a robust assessment of the four key food sources, at the very 
least, to detect diet changes.
    Response--Aside from the well-documented association between 
whitebark pine cone crop size and subsequent management actions on 
grizzly bears (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 432), we have not been able to 
detect any cause-effect relationships between abundances of the three 
other major foods and grizzly bear vital rates. Those foods have either 
fluctuated (e.g., ungulates, army cutworm moths) or declined (e.g., 
cutthroat trout) during the period in which the GYE grizzly bear 
population was stable to increasing.
    While we agree that the extent to which grizzly bears might be able 
to compensate for the loss of one of the four major foods is unknown, 
the final rule discusses and relies upon the best scientific and 
commercial data available. Future food source availability and the 
possible grizzly bear reaction to those possible future changes are 
discussed under Factor E, above, and in Issue 98. We also agree that 
human-caused mortality is probably the major factor limiting grizzly 
bear populations, although mortality can be mediated by food 
availability (Mattson et al. 1992, p. 432). The IGBST will continue to 
monitor major food abundance and grizzly bear conflicts and 
mortalities. The combination of results and IGBST analyses from these 
multiple monitoring indices on foods, bear vital rates, and bear-human 
conflicts will allow managers to respond to changes as necessary (see 
Issue 98).
    The use of the four high-caloric foods should not be interpreted 
that these foods are essential for a sustainable grizzly bear 
population in the GYE. In the 2013 Food Synthesis Report, the IGBST 
suggested a paradigm shift may be needed in reference to the importance 
of whitebark pine to grizzly bears (see IGBST 2013). When comparing one 
food item to another, it is unrealistic to expect that any alternative 
food is fully comparable in the factors mentioned above (e.g., risk, 
nutritional value). Even when the full suite of alternative foods is 
considered, this would be an unrealistic expectation. Ultimately, what 
matters is that use of alternative food resources does not 
substantially affect bears at either the individual level (e.g., body 
condition, home-range size) or the population level (e.g., does not 
affect vital rates or mortality patterns). These issues were thoroughly 
addressed in the Food Synthesis Report and associated peer-reviewed 
publications (in their entirety: IGBST 2013; Bjornlie et al. 2014b; 
Costello et al. 2014; Gunther et al. 2014; Schwartz et al. 2014a, 
2014b; van Manen et al. 2016; Ebinger et al. 2016; Haroldson et al., in 
prep.). The IGBST conducted extensive analyses as part of the Food 
Synthesis Report and addressed multiple research hypotheses to increase 
confidence in their ability to draw inferences from the data; this 
analysis resulted in seven peer-reviewed journal articles, several 
associated reports, and a number of popular science articles. Therefore 
the suggestion that this comprehensive research effort ``does the 
minimum to satisfy the requirement of the Ninth Circuit ruling'' is not 
factual.
    Although we agree that, in general, to a bear ``a grass is a 
grass,'' grizzly bears feed on multiple species in each phylogenetic 
kingdom including: 162 plant species (4 aquatics, 4 ferns and fern 
allies, 85 forbs, 31 graminoids, 31 shrubs, and 7 trees); 7 fungi 
species; 70 animal species (1 amphibian, 3 birds, 4 fish, 26 mammals, 
33 insects, 1 mollusk, 1 segmented worm, and 1 spider); and 1 protista 
(algae). Within the plant kingdom, energy content may be as high as 
2.52 kilocalories/gram (kcal/g) for grasses and sedges to 4.83 kcal/g 
for clover (whitebark pine seeds are 3.24 kcal/g); protein content may 
be as high as 21.1 percent for bear grass to 39 percent for the pre-
flowering foliage of spring beauty; fat content may be as high as 15.6 
percent for bear grass to 30.5 percent for whitebark pine seeds; and 
carbohydrate content averaged 55 percent for berry species and was as 
high as 88.8 percent for onion grass

[[Page 30614]]

bulbs (Gunther et al. 2014, pp. 63-64). Macronutrients vary widely 
between plant species and within plant species as they mature, with new 
growth having the highest protein content, and between plant parts 
(Robbins 1993, entire). Grizzly bears are a generalist omnivore, which 
allows them to optimize their fitness by adjusting their energy and 
macronutrient intake (i.e., protein, fat, and carbohydrates) (Erlenbach 
et al. 2014, pp. 163-164). Research by Fortin et al. (2013a, p. 277) 
that found females using false truffles in the absence of whitebark 
pine were focused around the Yellowstone Lake area; however, Gunther et 
al.'s (2014, entire) study shows the magnitude of diet fluctuation of 
grizzly bears throughout the GYE, and the Food Synthesis Report (IGBST 
2013, entire) does not show any substantial effects to grizzly bears at 
the individual or population level as a result of switching from 
declining whitebark pine resources to using alternative food sources. 
Additionally, false truffles averaged 4.8 kcal/g and 11.3 percent crude 
protein (Fortin data, unpublished), which is close to the highest 
energy found for plants as discussed in Gunther et al. (2014, p. 63).
    We do not dispute that bear densities vary widely between 
ecosystems depending on habitat productivity, as it is one factor that 
may change carrying capacity in an ecosystem; however, the ability of 
grizzly bears to survive in such a variety of habitat types with large 
differences in available food sources (i.e., coastal salmon-eating 
bears to interior bears that are largely herbivorous) is a testament to 
their dietary flexibility. In addition, there is no evidence that 
carrying capacity has declined in the GYE (van Manen et al. 2016, p. 
309). Ongoing demographic monitoring by the IGBST would be able to 
detect such a decline and be reported to the YGCC for appropriate 
adaptive management, should it be deemed necessary, to maintain a 
recovered grizzly bear population in the GYE.
    Issue 100--We received several comments from the public regarding 
current and future effects of reported declines in food resources, 
including: (1) Increased home range size and dispersal distance as an 
effort to find food, which could lead to increased bear mortalities; 
(2) changes in birth and death rates; (3) past declines in the 
population growth rate from the 4 to 7 percent annual increases to 0.3 
to 2.2 percent annual increases; and (4) leaner female bears that will 
not produce as many cubs. A peer-reviewer suggested that declines in 
food sources could have corresponding declines in a habitat's carrying 
capacity for grizzly bears.
    Peer-reviewers and commenters also provided input on potential 
management of declining food sources. A peer-reviewer disagreed with 
our statement that ``land managers have little influence on how 
calories are spread across the landscape'' and suggested a few examples 
of management actions that affect food distribution, including: 
``increasing ungulate densities through improving habitat and 
controlling hunting harvest; improving fish stocks and habitat; 
controlling invasive species to protect native food resources desired 
by grizzly bears;'' and increasing bison populations by limiting lethal 
control of bison as a means of managing brucellosis. One commenter 
suggested that the grizzly bear should not be delisted because its food 
sources are declining and it has restricted access to additional food 
sources outside a protected range.
    Response--The comments we received about the potential effects of 
declines in food sources are addressed by summarizing several key 
findings of the Food Synthesis Report (IGBST 2013, entire) and 
associated peer-reviewed publications (see Issue 37 and Factor E for 
more details). The overall findings of the Synthesis Report provided 
evidence that grizzly bear responses to changing food resources were 
primarily behavioral, with bears demonstrating substantial capacity to 
adjust their diets to include alternative foods. If overall food 
resources were declining, we would expect daily movements, fall 
movements, and home-range sizes to increase if bears were roaming more 
widely in search of foods, as suggested by commenters. However, 
movement rates did not change during 2002 to 2011, suggesting that 
grizzly bears were finding alternative foods within their home ranges 
(Costello et al. 2014, p. 2013). For females, home ranges actually 
decreased in size from the period before (1989 to 1999) to after (2007 
to 2012) whitebark pine decline, whereas male home ranges did not 
change in size (Bjornlie et al. 2014b). This decrease in female home 
range size was greater in areas with higher grizzly bear densities but 
showed no relationship with amount of live whitebark pine in the home 
range (Bjornlie et al. 2014b, pp. 4-6). Finally, at the population 
level, bear density, but not whitebark pine decline, was associated 
with lower cub survival and slightly lower fecundity, factors directly 
contributing to the slowing of population growth since the early 2000s. 
The combined findings of these studies suggest that carrying capacity 
for grizzly bears in the GYE is not so much a function of available 
food resources but more a function of high bear density in portions of 
the ecosystem. Body fat data for females in the GYE collected beyond 
those presented by Schwartz et al. (2014a, pp. 72-73) (i.e., since 
2011) were well above the 20 percent threshold for reproduction 
published by Robbins et al. (2012, p. 543).
    Several of the suggestions for management of declining food sources 
are already being implemented (e.g., cutthroat trout restoration in 
Yellowstone Lake, invasive species control) by land managers. 
Additionally, some food resources that grizzly bears consume are not 
native (at least 13 species; Gunther et al. 2014, p. 63) and may even 
be considered invasive. Finally, several of these suggestions may not 
be feasible for managers to implement as they would require managers to 
disregard other priorities. For example, bison populations actually 
have to be culled occasionally to prevent ecological damage due to 
overpopulation; therefore, increasing the bison population size is not 
a viable option. The IGBST will continue demographic monitoring of the 
GYE grizzly bear population and will present their findings to the 
YGCC, who could then decide if modifications to the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy were necessary.
    Issue 101--Commenters asserted that grizzly bears have grown to 
depend on army cutworm moths and benefit from their consumption; 
specifically, (1) grizzly bears had almost no consumption of the moths 
in the 1980s but had high sustained use in the 1990s; and (2) moths are 
a high-fat-content food source (leading to greater fecundity) and that 
the remoteness of most moth sites has led to a reduction in human-
caused mortality. As such, one commenter suggested that use of army 
cutworm moths must be encouraged. However, another commenter noted that 
there is a high correlation between moth habitat and grazing allotment 
location, thus potentially increasing the risk of human-caused 
mortality.
    Commenters maintained that we did not account for the effect of 
increasing moth use on birth and death rates and, without this 
analysis, we cannot determine ``future effects of losses of this food 
on the population.'' Commenters suggested reasons to worry about recent 
declines in and the future abundance of moths, and the associated 
health of grizzly bears, including: (1) Concerns about the unknown 
responses of moths if up to 90 percent of the subalpine and alpine 
habitat upon

[[Page 30615]]

which they depend is lost by 2099, as is predicted in some climate 
change models; (2) concerns about the potential impacts of pesticide 
use and new farming technologies; and (3) suggestions that the USFS 
needs to address the issue of human activity at moth aggregation sites 
and the potential disturbance to grizzly bears feeding at those sites. 
One commenter stated that all of the 31 known army cutworm moth sites 
are located on USFS lands (Gunther 2014); 6 of those sites are located 
outside of the PCA. Though commenters worried about potential future 
declines in moths, a peer-reviewer noted that ``bear use of army 
cutworm moth sites may not be a good measure of cutworm moth relative 
abundance because grizzly bears may return to areas where they've found 
abundant food sources in the past even though those resources are not 
present.''
    Response--The final rule contains a discussion of the potential 
effects of both global climate change and pesticides on army cutworm 
moths. There is no evidence to suggest that spraying of army cutworm 
moths has any population-level effects on grizzly bears (Robison et al. 
2006b, pp. 1706-1710). The Shoshone NF is cooperating with other 
agencies to gain knowledge about the ecology of army cutworm moths, 
grizzly bear use of moth sites, and grizzly bear-human interactions at 
moth sites (Shoshone NF 2015, p. 45). New permitted activities at moth 
sites are restricted until a comprehensive site-management plan is 
developed (Shoshone NF 2015, p. 41). It is highly unlikely that any of 
the high-elevation sites used by the moths, all of which are on public 
lands, will be exposed to development.
    There is no accurate method available to monitor moth numbers 
across thousands of square kilometers of alpine habitat. The current, 
best available method quantifies bear use of moth sites as an index of 
moth presence and distribution. Although it is known that moth 
abundance fluctuates in the spring on agricultural lands on the plains 
(Burton et al. 1980, pp. 4-5) and that moth flights vary in magnitude 
along their migration routes (Hendricks 1998, p. 165), we are not able 
to predict where army cutworm moths will occur on the landscape each 
year except by observing where bears use this food source. The IGBST is 
currently sponsoring the development of spatial models to predict 
locations of potential army cutworm moth habitat (Robison et al. 2006a, 
p. 88). The IGBST has not documented an association between grizzly 
bear use of moth aggregation sites and variation in vital rates, 
including survival, and, therefore, the direct monitoring of army 
cutworm moth abundance and status is not necessary at this time.
    Issue 102--Commenters had concerns about the status of cutthroat 
trout. Citing Haroldson et al. (2005), one commenter challenged our 
assertion that only a small portion of GYE bears use cutthroat trout 
and claimed that 15 percent or more of GYE grizzly bears eat this food 
source: Another commenter suggested increasing usage should be 
encouraged. One commenter questioned the disparity between males and 
females in their use of cutthroat trout that Mattson and Reinhardt 
(1995) discuss in contrast to Haroldson et al. (2005) and Felicetti et 
al. (2004).
    Several comments stated that there has been a substantial decrease 
(almost 90 percent) in the cutthroat population due to predation by 
nonnative lake trout, declines in winter snowfall, total lack of 
spawning in all tributaries of Yellowstone Lake, increased drought, and 
subsequent reductions of in-stream flows; commenters suggested that 
these negative population trends are likely to continue, especially as 
warmer temperatures could increase incidence of whirling disease. One 
commenter recommended that more information be provided regarding 
future populations of trout including impacts to cutthroat trout from 
lake trout, future management of lake trout, future vulnerability of 
cutthroat trout to pathogens, and future impacts from climate change.
    Commenters suggested that cutthroat trout declines have affected, 
and will continue to affect, GYE grizzly bears because: (1) The loss of 
cutthroat trout has left a seasonal gap in the diet of grizzly bears, 
which bears have filled by consuming elk calves and lower quality 
vegetation (Fortin et al. 2013a, Middleton et al. 2013, Ebinger et al. 
2016), which has likely led to decreases in cub and yearling survival; 
and (2) a decline in cutthroat trout has decreased carrying capacity in 
the core of YNP.
    Response--Prior to the 1990s, spawning cutthroat trout provided a 
seasonal food resource for a segment of GYE grizzly bears residing 
adjacent to the Yellowstone Lake basin. Since highs in the 1970s and 
1980s, the cutthroat trout population has decreased to less than 10 
percent of historical numbers due to predation by non-native lake trout 
(Salvelinus namaycush), whirling disease (Myxoblus cerebralis), and 
drought (Koel et al. 2005p. 16). By as early as 1997, estimates of 
annual consumption of fish by bears had decreased by 89 percent, with 
female consumption estimated at exceedingly low levels (8 fish per 
bear; Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499). However, the GYE grizzly bear 
population continued to grow through the 1990s and did not slow until 
the early 2000s, with a shift to stable population rate attributed to 
the increasing density of grizzly bears within the GYE core (IGBST 
2013, p. 31). The fact that cutthroat trout consumption has not 
directly influenced population-wide growth rates may be due to (1) 
limited, regional use of cutthroat trout by only a segment of the 
population, and (2) the demonstrated ability of female bears to perhaps 
augment losses from cutthroat trout with other available high-quality 
food items (Fortin et al. 2013a, p. 277; IGBST 2013, pp. 21-22; Ebinger 
et al. 2016, p. 704).
    As stated previously, trout consumption by female grizzly bears was 
quite low in the late nineties and continued at similarly low levels 
into the late 2000s (Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 496; Fortin et al. 
2013a, p. 276). Earlier studies contend that female use of cutthroat 
trout was higher than that of males in the late 1980s (Reinhart and 
Mattson 1990, p. 347; Mattson and Reinhart 1995, p. 2075). 
Discrepancies in results regarding male versus female grizzly bear use 
of trout may be due to either true shifts in bear behavior, or methods 
used within studies. Earlier studies relied on telemetry, track sizes, 
and proximity to streams to estimate consumption of fish by males and 
females and also assumed equality of trout intake based upon time spent 
near streams (Reinhart and Mattson 1990, pp. 344-345; Mattson and 
Reinhart 1995, pp. 2073-2074). Later studies used DNA and mercury 
analysis techniques to more precisely establish sex of individual bears 
and estimate fish consumption (Haroldson et al. 2005, pp. 170-172; 
Felicetti et al. 2004, pp. 494-496; Fortin et al. 2013a, pp. 274-275; 
Teisberg et al. 2014a, pp. 370-372). Because of these differences, no 
directly comparable estimates exist of female use of trout before 1997.
    The Service encourages ongoing efforts to control the lake trout 
population in Yellowstone Lake. Recent streamside counts indicate that 
numbers of spawning cutthroat trout are increasing on some tributary 
streams (Gunther et al. 2016, p. 44). Yet, numbers are still at levels 
far lower than those expected to provide any meaningful resource to 
grizzly bears in the vicinity of Yellowstone Lake. See Issue 99 for 
details regarding correlation of grizzly bear populations and food 
resources.
    Issue 103--Many public commenters weighed in on whether whitebark 
pines,

[[Page 30616]]

a grizzly bear food source, are declining. Some commenters believed 
whitebark pines are not currently declining or are not at risk of 
future decline because whitebark pines will eventually regenerate, 
ameliorating the losses that have occurred, and because cone production 
on remaining whitebark pine trees has doubled, although perhaps only 
temporarily in recent years, potentially as a result of warmer 
temperatures. Other commenters provided evidence that whitebark pines 
are in decline (from blister rust and pine beetle infestations) and 
that this negative population trend will continue into the future, 
including: (1) Notes that no whitebark pine cones were produced in the 
past year on the northern, northwestern, and western perimeters of YNP; 
(2) suggestions that if we found whitebark pine warranted but precluded 
for listing under the Act, we should not conclude that whitebark pine 
decline is not a concern for grizzly bears; (3) research that all 
whitebark pine in the GYE will be vulnerable to mountain pine beetle by 
2070 (Buotte et al., in press); (4) references to climate change models 
that predict the terminal loss of whitebark pine from the Yellowstone 
ecoregion; (5) concerns over potential future decline in whitebark pine 
due to disease, insects, fire, reproductive failure, climate change, 
and competition from lower elevation species; (6) suggestions that 
whitebark pine cannot adapt rapidly enough to changing environmental 
conditions given its long generation length; (7) claims that any newly 
planted resistant whitebark pine will take 80 years to produce seeds 
for grizzly bears to eat (which will be too late to help grizzly 
bears); and (8) suggestions that 75 percent of whitebark pine forests 
have already disappeared.
    Commenters also disagreed on whether potential whitebark pine 
declines would negatively affect grizzly bear populations. Most peer-
reviewers and some commenters did not believe these declines 
represented a threat to the GYE population because: (1) The IGBST 
provided a report in 2013 (which YES accepted) showing that declines in 
the availability of whitebark pine seeds would not lead to declines in 
grizzly bear populations; (2) the population has increased since 2001, 
concurrent with whitebark pine population decline; and (3) whitebark 
pine is not present within the home ranges of approximately one-third 
of all GYE grizzly bears and thus should be considered an opportunistic 
food source rather than a fall staple. However, another commenter 
questioned whether this absence of whitebark pine was natural, or a 
result of beetles and blister rust). Conversely, other commenters 
suggested that the decline in whitebark pine is a more serious stressor 
on the GYE grizzly bear population than we acknowledged in our proposed 
rule because: (1) Whitebark pine is the most important food source for 
GYE grizzly bear; (2) we overlooked how whitebark pine die-offs and 
grizzly bear vital rates declined simultaneously; (3) despite current 
positive grizzly bear population growth rates, the threat of declining 
whitebark pine could still be substantial and the grizzly bear 
population may be unhealthy; (4) contrary to our analysis in the 
proposed rule, the GYE population of grizzly bears may not adapt to 
losses of whitebark pine simply because the NCDE population of grizzly 
bears has continued to grow in the absence of whitebark pine; (5) low 
whitebark pine production results in grizzly bears seeking food sources 
associated with humans, leading to increased conflict between bears and 
humans; (6) ``Nearly 20% of females handled during 2008-2013 had 
season-specific body fat levels low enough to put them at risk for 
reproductive failure, whereas prior to 2004, no females assessed were 
so clearly deficient in body fat;'' and (7) the most severe losses in 
whitebark pine have occurred too recently to detect long-term 
population impacts, especially considering grizzly bear's slow 
reproductive rate.
    A few commenters expressed concerns over the methods of our 
analysis, including: (1) Concern that our analysis of whitebark pine 
availability did not account for the loss of whitebark pine that 
occurred in a 1988 fire and the subsequent lack of regeneration; (2) a 
request that we provide additional detail on the protocol we use to 
monitor the location and availability of whitebark pine, suggesting 
that our protocol may be inadequate or outdated; (3) concern that the 
three IGBST papers analyzing whitebark pine (Bjornlie et al. 2014b; 
Costello et al. 2014; and van Manen et al. 2015) failed to account for 
long-term trends in weather and for major changes in abundance of other 
key food sources (army cutworm moths, cutthroat trout, elk, and bison); 
(4) concern that the method that the IGBST uses to measure whitebark 
pine abundance (remote sensing) underestimates the extent of whitebark 
pine loss and the historical use of whitebark pine by grizzly bears; 
and (5) warnings against Type II error (i.e., even though there was not 
a statistical correlation between the decline in whitebark pine and 
body fat does not mean the relationship does not exist) and how the use 
of pooled data and small sample size can contribute to Type II errors.
    A number of commenters suggested we consider additional analyses, 
such as: (1) The creation of a cone availability index to more 
accurately assess availability; (2) analysis of the fungi that grow 
symbiotically with whitebark pine, since the health and survival of the 
pine and the fungi are closely related; (3) monitoring of additional 
transects in wilderness areas southeast, east, north, and west of YNP; 
(4) statistical analysis to determine whether GYE grizzly bear 
mortality correlates more closely with annual variation in whitebark 
pine abundance or with management practices; and (5) evaluation of the 
abundance and behavior of red squirrels regarding pine nut storage and 
the subsequent consumption of those nuts by grizzly bears. A peer-
reviewer suggested analyses comparing the vital rates of grizzly bears 
that feed on whitebark pine to the vital rates of those that do not.
    Response--We agree with the comments that whitebark pine will 
eventually regenerate and ameliorate the losses that have occurred; if 
the whitebark pine decline was negatively affecting grizzly bears, then 
the population would not have continued to increase over the same time 
period as their decline; and increased cone production on the surviving 
whitebark trees may be temporary. As for the sources of decline in 
whitebark pine, we note that blister rust, to which the newly planted 
trees are resistant, is a low source of mortality that primarily 
affects younger age classes while mountain pine beetle is the greatest 
source of mortality, primarily among older age classes. See IGBST 2013 
for an overview of factors associated with whitebark pine decline. We 
provide this background to indicate that blister rust resistant trees 
are not the panacea for ensuring the availability of this food item in 
the long term. However, more relevantly, substantial evidence to date 
indicates that whitebark pine is not a critical food resource for 
bears; rather, whitebark pine is a high-calorie food source that is 
used by grizzly bears when and where available, as part of a dynamic 
diet that varies substantially from individual to individual, from 
season to season, and depending on location within the ecosystem (IGBST 
2013, pp. 16-17); see Issue 99.
    Approximately 75 percent of mature, cone-producing whitebark pine 
trees have experienced mortality since 2002, according to an 
opportunistic sample based on cone production transects conducted by 
the IGBST since 1980 (see

[[Page 30617]]

IGBST Annual Reports). However, mortality is much lower in younger age 
classes and recruitment is healthy, according to monitoring conducted 
through the NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program (Greater Yellowstone 
Whitebark Pine Monitoring Working Group 2016, pp. 6-7). Despite 
widespread mortality, whitebark pine cone production was good in 2016, 
and in several other years since the decline peaked around 2009. 
Moreover, grizzly bears still widely used this resource in good 
production years. It is impossible to predict at this time whether 
whitebark pine will still exist as a functional resource for grizzly 
bears in the future. Regardless, even if whitebark pine were to 
disappear from the ecosystem altogether, or becomes functionally non-
existent for bears, the best available data residing in the Food 
Synthesis Report's (IGBST 2013, entire) research projects indicate that 
grizzly bears have shown substantial resilience to changing food 
sources and, so far, are able to find alternative food resources.
    The IGBST conducted a comprehensive study, using available data, to 
address eight relevant research questions regarding the potential 
effects of whitebark pine decline on grizzly bears. Several of those 
questions also addressed issues related to other foods, as well as the 
ultimate measure of how individuals are responding to changes in food 
resources, body mass and body condition. See Issue 99. While there will 
always be new research questions to address and the IGBST is currently 
pursuing several new hypotheses associated with this theme, many of the 
commenters' suggestions cannot be addressed with current data, are not 
relevant, or do not seem to use the scientific principle of 
``preponderance of evidence.'' For example, the suggestion regarding 
the 1988 fires ignores the observation that the period of most robust 
grizzly bear population growth (4 to 7 percent) occurred shortly after 
the fires, through the entire decade of the 1990s (see Issue 61).
    The changes in vital rates actually started prior to or at the 
start of whitebark pine decline, as documented in van Manen et al. 
(2016, pp. 307-308). Decline of whitebark pine (as measured in change 
of tree canopy cover) was directly considered in the analyses of van 
Manen et al. (2016, p. 308) but, unlike bear density, did not show a 
relationship with vital rates. The population size in the DMA has been 
relatively constant for the past 15 years, with no evidence of a 
decline over that time period. The year 2016 represents almost a decade 
beyond the peak of whitebark pine decline and about 7 years since the 
mountain pine beetle epidemic starting waning (see IGBST annual 
whitebark pine monitoring reports: https://www.usgs.gov/centers/norock/science/igbst-whitebark-pine-cone-production-annual-summaries?qt-science_center_objects=1#qt-science_center_objects). See Issue 97 for 
more information. The IGBST has consistently cautioned that the 
findings from their Food Synthesis Report support the interpretation 
that grizzly bears were able to respond to changing food resources so 
far. Future conditions may change these relationships, and the adaptive 
management approach presented in the 2016 Conservation Strategy is 
designed to allow managers to respond to such changes in a timely 
manner. However, the previous predictions from the IGBST's 2013 Food 
Synthesis Report, and underlying research, have been validated over 
time.
    The interpretation that Costello et al. (2014) only detected a 
decline in use of whitebark pine at the end of her study is incorrect; 
Costello et al. (2014, p. 2010) detected a steady decline in selection 
of whitebark pine habitat over the entire period of 2000 to 2010, and 
by the end of that period the selection index indicated that bears used 
whitebark pine stands in proportion to their availability. Based on 
these findings, the authors concluded that there was a population-level 
effect of a decrease in habitat selection of whitebark pine stands over 
the 2000 to 2010 time period; careful reading of that paper further 
shows that these findings supported the hypothesis that whitebark pine 
seeds are not a highly selected food, but consumed opportunistically as 
a part of a diverse diet. We agree that, just because NCDE grizzly 
bears have adapted to whitebark pine loss, this does not mean that GYE 
grizzly bears will automatically adapt. However, given the 
preponderance of data from the IGBST, this observation from another 
ecosystem is supportive of the conclusions and interpretations 
presented by the IGBST. There is currently no data on the long-term 
future of whitebark pine in the GYE. Environmental conditions may, or 
may not, change dramatically in the long term, and scientists are 
limited in their ability to reliably examine the potential effects of 
such changes. This is why the 2016 Conservation Strategy presents an 
adaptive management approach that is informed through scientific 
monitoring and research, with appropriate measures to timely adapt 
management as needed.
    The comment about potential future impacts of higher human-caused 
mortality to grizzly bears in years of low whitebark pine production 
has received much attention but is misleading. Costello et al. (2014, 
p. 2014) specifically addressed this issue:

. . . . bears were not necessarily compelled to use less secure 
habitats as a direct response to WBP decline. On average, 48% of 
fall ranges were comprised of secure habitat outside of WBP forests, 
indicating most bears had ample opportunities to use secure 
habitats, even in the absence of WBP foraging. Consequently, most 
bears selected for secure habitat, irrespective of the intensity of 
WBP use. Among our sample of bears with WBP habitat within their 
fall range, 13% used ranges entirely within national parks, 27% used 
ranges that encompassed >=95% secure habitat, and 47% selected for 
secure habitat when nonsecure habitat was present in their range. In 
other words, only the remaining 13% selected for nonsecure habitat. 
These results strengthen the supposition put forth by Schwartz et 
al. (2010) in their analysis of hazards to Yellowstone grizzly bear 
survival. Although these authors found that bears shifted to lower 
elevations during years of poor WBP production, they concluded that 
this elevation shift did not itself predispose bears to increased 
mortality. Instead, they found that bears shifting to lower 
elevations that had been altered by humans were exposed to more 
risk, whereas those bears shifting to lower elevations in secure 
habitat were not subject to increased risk.

    Several of the suggestions for additional analyses are useful. 
However, the symbiotic connections between fungi and whitebark pine, 
although of interest, would best be studied by forest ecologists, 
rather than IGBST. The IGBST previously examined (Schwartz et al. 
2006b, pp. 1-2) relationships of several vital rates with annual 
variation in whitebark pine cone production. Whereas those analyses 
indicated some statistical associations of vital rates (litter size, 
survival of independent-aged bears) with annual variation in whitebark 
pine cone production, they did not include metrics of availability of 
whitebark pine in home ranges of individual bears included in the 
analyses. Although statistical relationships were observed, biological 
effect sizes were small and somewhat confounded by other factors, such 
as whether bears were in the core versus the periphery of the 
ecosystem. Analyses by van Manen et al. (2016, entire) partially 
addressed what is suggested in this comment; they examined vital rates 
using an individual covariate based on spatiotemporal index of decline 
in canopy cover of whitebark pine habitat since 2000 (thus, providing 
an index of mortality). The index was weighted by the proportion of 
mapped whitebark pine within the activity ranges of bears. They 
examined survival of independent bears, cubs, and yearlings, as well as 
reproductive

[[Page 30618]]

transition using this covariate; results showed no associations of 
whitebark pine decline with these vital rates; rather, lower survival 
of cubs and, to a lesser degree lower reproductive transition from 
having no cubs to having cubs, were associated with an index of bear 
density. Thus, although analysis of vital rates for bears without 
whitebark pine in their home ranges has not been conducted exactly as 
proposed, extensive analyses previously conducted by the IGBST have 
addressed various aspects of the basic relationship in this comment.
    Issue 104--Commenters opined that ungulates have become a more 
prominent part of grizzly bear diets in recent years, as other food 
sources have declined (especially whitebark pine and cutthroat trout), 
noting that male and female bears now eat more comparable amounts of 
meat. Commenters also asserted that we incorrectly assumed grizzly 
bears do not depend on bison from the Northern Range herd (which is 
experiencing a population increase) because of Fortin et al. (2013a) 
findings that grizzly bears do not frequently feed on bison in the 
Central herd (which is experiencing a population decline).
    We received many comments from both the public and peer-reviewers 
regarding recent declines in the availability of ungulates as a food 
source, and potential effects on grizzly bear populations, which we 
inadequately considered in our proposed rule. These comments included 
that: (1) All elk herds in the GYE (except the Upper Madison herd) have 
declined due to increased calf depredation, drought, chronic wasting 
disease, and human hunters; (2) effects on elk from hunters are 
synergistic because hunters preferentially target top breeding 
individuals (Vucetich et al. 2005, Wright et al. 2006, Mallonee 2011); 
(3) we neglected to include a discussion of bison population trends 
and, thus, did not account for the impacts to grizzly bears of planned 
herd reductions in various bison management plans; and (4) winter 
severity and length have gone down with climate change, which has 
decreased the availability of winter-killed carrion in the spring.
    Commenters also expressed concerns regarding the potential side-
effects of grizzly bear reliance on ungulates as a food source, such 
as: (1) Declines in cub and yearling survival rates due to more deadly 
confrontations with other predators, including adult male grizzly 
bears; (2) increased conflicts with ranchers and hunters; and (3) 
consumption of food sources that are unsuitable for meeting female 
grizzly bear reproductive needs.
    Commenters also suggested we include additional monitoring and 
analysis, such as: (1) Data on the numbers of elk and bison in various 
ecosystem herds; and (2) information on the historical, current, and 
future effects of predation by grizzly bears and wolves, winter 
severity, disease, and habitat availability on ungulate abundance. 
Peer-reviewers suggested that we should (1) conduct an analysis of cub 
survival from 2002 to 2014 to assess predator-prey relationships, which 
may have a time-lag in detectability; and (2) estimate the amount of 
biomass left by ungulate hunters and available to grizzly bears instead 
of counting the number of hunters.
    Response--The availability of ungulate prey such as elk and bison 
is not a threat to the persistence of GYE grizzly bears, and future 
changes in prey abundance are not expected to change this conclusion. 
There have been documented declines in some ungulate populations, while 
others have increased, and we expect fluctuations in ungulate 
populations to continue in the future. As generalist food consumers, 
GYE grizzly bears have demonstrated flexibility in meeting their 
dietary needs and are accustomed to successfully finding alternative 
natural foods. The population decline in the northern elk herd has been 
attributed to a variety of factors including severe winters, drought, 
hunter harvest, and increased predation on elk calves by grizzly bears, 
black bears, and wolves. However, it is noteworthy that during this 
same time period the grizzly bear population has continued to increase. 
This situation suggests that there is no detectable cause and effect 
relationship between elk population declines and grizzly bear 
population trends. See Issues 97, 98, and 99 for more information about 
food sources and grizzly bear demographics.
    The GYE grizzly bear consumes bison primarily as winter-killed 
carrion, but also opportunistically kills calves and weakened adults. 
The Yellowstone bison population size has remained within the IBMP's 
recommended range of 2,500 to 4,500 bison since the year 2000, with the 
exception of 2005 and 2007 years when numbers exceeded 4,500. 
Therefore, we do not anticipate that bison as a potential food source 
will be a limiting factor for GYE grizzly bears in the future. Please 
see Issue 100 and the Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting section in 
the DPS section of the final rule for further discussion on the use of 
bison by grizzly bears.
    Areas with a high risk of grizzly bear mortality due to repeated 
conflict with humans or livestock are not considered suitable habitat 
and are not included in our quantification of habitat available to meet 
the needs of a recovered grizzly bear population. See Issue 40.
    As previously stated, the 2016 Conservation Strategy will continue 
monitoring multiple indices, including production and availability of 
all major foods and grizzly bear vital rates--survival, age at first 
reproduction, reproductive rate, mortality cause and location, 
dispersal, and human-bear conflicts. These data will allow managers to 
use an adaptive management approach that addresses poor food years with 
responsive management actions such as limiting grizzly bear mortality, 
increasing I&E efforts, and long-term habitat restoration as 
appropriate. The continued monitoring of these multiple indices will 
maintain the recovered population.
    Issue 105--One commenter suggested that huckleberries (Vaccinium 
ssp.) are currently less abundant as a result of warming temperatures 
and a persistent drought pattern in the GYE. Another commenter 
referenced McLellan (2015) to warn that the effects of huckleberry 
decline on grizzly bear populations could be delayed; the grizzly bear 
population in Canada and northern Montana did not start to decline 
until 11 years after the huckleberry abundance started to drop.
    Response--Vaccinium berries historically have not been a 
significant dietary component of the GYE grizzly bear diet, occurring 
in only 4.9 percent of the 11,478 scats analyzed from 1943 to 2009 
(Gunther et al. 2014, p. 64). Craighead et al. (1995, p. 235) found 
that berry availability was inconsistent across the GYE and between 
years. In addition, some climate models for the GYE predicted an 
increase in spruce-fir dominated forests at mid- to high-elevations 
(Schrag et al. 2007, pp. 9-10), which are associated with vaccinium 
berry species (in their entirety: Pfister et al. 1977; Steele et al. 
1983). Low-elevation Douglas-fir and lodgepole pine forests, which are 
commonly associated with dwarf huckleberry, may also expand under some 
climate models (Rice et al. 2012, p. 31). Please see Issue 36 for 
discussion of lag effects.
    The extent to which natural foods will change across the landscape 
and the resulting effects on bears is impossible to calculate with any 
degree of certainty. See Issue 98. Future food source availability and 
the possible grizzly bear reaction to those possible future changes are 
discussed under Factor E, above, and in the Issues 99 to 104 above.

[[Page 30619]]

Climate Change Issues (Factor E)

    Issue 106--We received many public and peer-review comments 
regarding effects to grizzly bears as a result of climate change. 
Overall, public commenters asserted that our discussion of climate 
change was flawed or inadequate because: (1) We reviewed the current 
literature regarding climate change but did not link effects to grizzly 
bears or their habitat; (2) we should consider and better describe the 
future impacts from climate change, despite the fact that the exact 
extent of impacts is unknown; (3) the ``downscaled'' projection we used 
to analyze climate change may have underestimated impacts; (4) we 
should have assessed impacts from the changing hydrological regime; and 
(5) we need to consider climate change impacts on Alaskan grizzly 
bears, since they are our ``fall-back grizzly bear supply.'' Commenters 
suggested that the impacts of climate change in YNP are already clear 
since conditions have become warmer and drier with ``30 fewer days per 
year with snow on the ground'' and ``80 more days each year above 
freezing.''
    Commenters mentioned the many potential ways climate change could 
continue to affect grizzly bears and increase human-bear conflicts 
(Servheen and Cross 2010), including: (1) Reduction of snowpack and 
shortening of the winter season, which could affect the timing and 
success of denning, potentially reducing reproductive success and 
increasing conflict; (2) less snowpack could result in fewer avalanche 
chutes, preferred spring and summer habitat for grizzly bears; (3) the 
effect of drought on death rates; (4) increased frequency and extent of 
fire could alter plant and animal composition (Westerling et al. 2011) 
and affect the frequency of human-grizzly bear interactions and 
conflicts; (5) the potential of hyperthermia to limit foraging 
capabilities for grizzly bears in areas of decreased forest cover 
(Pigeon et al. 2016); and (6) further reductions in food sources. One 
commenter asked for clarification on why surveyed biologists believe 
that climate change is not a threat to grizzly bears, while another 
commented that climate change ``may even make habitat more suitable and 
food sources more abundant.'' Citing the 2016 court ruling requiring 
the Service to more adequately consider and address the threats of 
climate change on wolverines, commenters suggested that declaring that 
climate change is not affecting grizzly bears was similarly nonsensical 
and ``arbitrary and capricious.'' Commenters suggested that managers 
could mitigate impacts from climate change by creating corridors for 
migration to new habitats or by keeping the bears protected under the 
Act. One commenter suggested that any decisions about delisting need to 
be postponed until an ``independent scientific review'' can look at the 
impacts of climate change on grizzly bears.
    Commenters and peer-reviewers suggested that several issues related 
to climate change require monitoring, such as: (1) Monitoring and 
modeling potential impacts of climate change on habitat suitability and 
the abundance and distribution of grizzly bear food in relation to 
temperature and moisture dependence; (2) monitoring possible effects of 
climate change on grizzly bear vital rates; and (3) monitoring for 
emerging diseases since the frequency of diseases and parasites will 
likely change in the context of climate change.
    Response--Based on workshops involving grizzly bear experts, 
Servheen and Cross (2010, p. 4) concluded that ``grizzly bears are 
opportunistic, omnivorous, and highly adaptable and that climate change 
will not threaten their populations due to ecological threats or 
constraints.'' More recent research by IGBST, including the Report and 
peer-reviewed publications associated with the Food Synthesis project, 
support this conclusion. Because of the substantial degree of 
uncertainty regarding the specific consequences of climate change on 
ecological communities (some of which may perhaps be positive), the 
questions and suggestions from the commenters are mostly speculative 
and are difficult to address based on current data, let alone with 
regard to long-term impacts. The Service must make its listing/
delisting decisions based solely on the best available scientific data. 
Our current understanding of that data indicates that the GYE grizzly 
bears are not and will not be threatened by the effects of climate 
change now or in the foreseeable future. However, continued monitoring 
and research, in combination with an adaptive management approach, will 
ensure that direct or indirect effects of climate change on grizzly 
bear ecology are detected and addressed in a timely manner.

Other Potential Threats (Factor E)

    Issue 107--Some commenters raised questions about wolves and their 
effects on grizzly bears in the GYE. One commenter asserted that wolves 
have been reintroduced too recently to determine the relationship 
between wolves and bears in the ecosystem. One commenter stated that 
wolves have decreased the availability of spring carrion, which 
disproportionately affects female grizzly bears, and have decreased elk 
populations. One commenter noted that wolves have been known to kill 
grizzly bear cubs, though this phenomena is very difficult to detect 
and quantify. One comment maintained that female grizzly bears rarely 
usurp wolf kills (Gunther and Smith 2004).
    Response--Prior to the extirpation of wolves from Yellowstone in 
the mid-1920s, grizzly bears and wolves coexisted for several thousand 
years. Post wolf reintroduction, there have been documented declines in 
some ungulate herds; however, overall, prey numbers remain healthy and 
some ungulate herds have increased (Barber-Meyer et al. 2008, p. 23). 
However, these interactions usually do not result in any injury to 
either bears or wolves and do not threaten the grizzly bear population. 
Models and field investigations suggest that, since they were 
reintroduced to the GYA in 1995, wolves have had little effect on 
ungulate availability to GYE grizzly bears (Wilmers et al. 2003, pp. 
914-915; Barber et al. 2005, p. 43; Vucetich et al. 2005, p. 259). This 
issue is discussed in more detail under Factors B and C Combined and E 
in this final rule.
    Issue 108--We received comments from both the public and peer-
reviewers requesting increased effort, time, and money towards public 
I&E campaigns regarding coexistence with grizzly bears, potentially 
using phone applications. One commenter was concerned that the Service 
would reduce I&E efforts post delisting; conversely, other commenters 
believed that we over rely on our efforts to inform and educate the 
public about potential grizzly bear encounters, and that I&E, 
specifically bear identification training, has failed to reduce human-
caused mortality from hunters. Several commenters believed that control 
and reduction of the grizzly bear population, in addition to outreach, 
would be essential to long-term conservation of grizzly bears in the 
GYE. Commenters suggested that the three States' grizzly bear 
management regulations require all hunters to take and pass a bear 
identification training, which would instruct on distinctions between 
black bears and grizzly bears, identification of grizzly bear age, 
distinguishing between male and female bears, finding cubs, proper food 
storage, and the use of bear spray. One commenter suggested that no 
hunting should be allowed in the DMA until hunters in all three States 
can show 99 percent proficiency with bear identification.
    Response--All the Federal and State agencies charged with 
management of

[[Page 30620]]

grizzly bears or their habitat in the GYE recognize the importance of 
outreach and I&E efforts to the long-term conservation of the GYE 
grizzly bear population. The details related to implementing effective 
outreach efforts and preventing and responding to grizzly bear-human 
conflicts are in the final 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 
86-95) and the State management plans (Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear 
Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 13-18; MFWP 2013, pp. 53-59, 65-69; 
WGFD 2016, pp. 20-27). Over two-thirds ($3,293,817 of $4,991,123) of 
the anticipated costs of managing the GYE grizzly bear population are 
for managing grizzly bear-human conflicts and I&E efforts. This level 
of commitment by responsible agencies demonstrates their understanding 
that I&E efforts and conflict management and prevention are crucial 
elements of maintaining a healthy GYE grizzly bear population and help 
ensure that mortality limits are not exceeded. Although the 
effectiveness of I&E, specifically bear education training, in reducing 
human-caused mortality from hunters has not been formally evaluated, 
they are credited with increasing tolerance for grizzly bears and 
reducing conflicts, especially as bears have expanded into new areas 
where people are not as educated about living in bear country; these 
efforts are ongoing, and total mortality within the DMA will be 
maintained within the mortality limits set forth in the final rule and 
the 2016 Conservation Strategy. The I&E team currently uses modern 
media, such as YouTube and Facebook, to help educate the public. In 
addition, the I&E team continuously evaluates and adapts their programs 
to effectively educate people that live and recreate in grizzly bear 
habitat. The States also all have bear management specialists who 
dedicate a majority of their time on outreach and education to educate 
people about living, working, and recreating in bear country.
    The 2016 Conservation Strategy prioritizes outreach and education, 
and the State plans also contain direction on ways, to minimize grizzly 
bear-human conflicts (Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting 
Advisory Team 2002, p. 15; MFWP 2013, pp. 65-69; YES 2016a, pp. 86-95; 
WGFD 2016, pp. 26-27). Although the States do not currently require 
hunters to carry pepper spray, it is strongly encouraged in hunter 
education courses and other educational materials. Elk hunters in GTNP 
are required to carry bear spray, and this may prove to be a research 
opportunity to quantify how much, if any, this requirement reduces 
grizzly bear conflicts with elk hunters.
    Between 2002 and 2014, 37 percent (115 of 311) of human-caused 
grizzly bear mortalities were related to hunting (defense of self or 
others and mistaken identity kills) (Haroldson 2014a, 2017c, in litt.; 
Haroldson and Frey 2015, p. 26), so an increase in backcountry user 
awareness would be beneficial. The affected States of Wyoming, Montana, 
and Idaho have cooperated with the Service to address conflicts between 
grizzly bears and hunters through extensive I&E programs. Please see 
Issue 109 for further details on the States' I&E programs. Idaho and 
Wyoming provide a voluntary bear identification test online, and all 
three States include grizzly bear encounter management as a core 
subject in their basic hunter education courses.
    Issue 109--Several commenters recommended that the Service do more 
research on attitudes, social tolerance, perspectives, and human 
behavioral intentions before delisting. A commenter opined that social 
support is important to resolving grizzly bear conflicts, rather than 
compensation programs for losses. Another commenter felt that if the 
Service concludes that hunting increases social tolerance, the hunting 
quotas and locations should be arranged so bears are allowed to 
disperse through specified corridor zones without being hunted. While 
several commenters suggested delisting could significantly improve 
tolerance of the grizzly bear in the GYE, others stated that social 
acceptance of grizzly bears will not improve if we allow more 
discretion in bear management; instead, the commenter suggested that 
increased acceptance will come from rigid enforcement of laws and 
expanded tourism.
    Response--Public support and human attitudes are discussed at 
length under Factor E of the final rule. Human attitudes toward grizzly 
bears, specifically, the resulting human-caused mortality, was 
identified as a primary cause of population decline in the species' 
1975 listing under the Act (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). Public support 
is paramount to any successful large carnivore conservation program 
(Servheen 1998, entire; Alberta Grizzly Bear Recovery Team 2008, p. 2), 
and human attitudes still play a pivotal role in grizzly bear 
conservation. Although attitudes about grizzly bears vary 
geographically and demographically, we have seen an improvement in 
public perceptions and attitudes toward grizzly bears in the last 
several decades, even among traditionally conflict-related communities, 
like the ranching industry (Kellert et al. 1996, pp. 983-986). Grizzly 
bear-human conflicts often lead to grizzly bear mortalities, either 
legally in self-defense or a management removal, or illegally through 
vandal killing. Effective I&E programs increase public understanding of 
grizzly bear biology, behavior, and recovery efforts, which in turn 
reduces grizzly bear-human conflicts and grizzly bear mortalities while 
increasing human safety. Many people who live and work in occupied 
grizzly habitat have significantly contributed to increasing social 
tolerance through voluntary use of tools and techniques aimed at 
reducing conflict. This social tolerance has been built in large part 
by proactive outreach and immediate professional response to conflict 
incidents arising from the presence of bears.
    Public outreach presents a unique opportunity to effectively 
integrate human dimensions of wildlife management 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 species, 
and specific interactions or experiences with species (in their 
entirety: Kellert 1994; Kellert et al. 1996).
    The I&E programs teach visitors and residents about grizzly bear 
biology, ecology, and behavior, which enhances appreciation for this 
large predator by dispelling myths about its temperament and feeding 
habits. Effective I&E programs have been an essential factor 
contributing to grizzly bear conservation since its listing in 1975. 
Being aware of specific values common to certain user groups allows I&E 
materials and workshops to be tailored to their specific concerns and 
perceptions. By providing general information to visitors and targeting 
specific user groups living and working in grizzly bear country, 
coexistence between grizzly bears and humans can be accomplished. 
Traditionally, people involved in resource extraction industries (i.e., 
timber harvest, mining, ranching, and hunting) are the largest 
opponents to land-use restrictions that place the needs of the grizzly 
bear above human needs (Kellert 1994, p. 48; Kellert et al. 1996, p. 
985). 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, p. 985).

[[Page 30621]]

    State wildlife agencies recognize that the key to preventing 
grizzly bear-human conflicts is providing I&E to the public and 
connecting the public with the right resources to prevent conflicts 
(Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 13-
14; MFWP 2013, pp. 49-51, 65-68; WGFD 2016, pp. 26-27; YES 2016a, pp. 
92-95). This outreach is the most effective long-term solution to 
grizzly bear-human conflicts and is paramount to ongoing grizzly bear 
survival and successful coexistence with humans so that the measures of 
the Act are no longer necessary. All three affected States wildlife 
agencies (IDFG, MFWP, and WGFD) and associated partners (e.g., Grizzly 
Bear Outreach Project) have been actively involved in I&E outreach for 
over a decade. In addition, the grizzly bear management plans developed 
by MFWP, WGFD, and IDFG contain chapters detailing efforts to continue 
current programs and expand them when possible.
    States are committed to continuing these public outreach and 
conflict response efforts to help maintain and expand that tolerance. 
Compensation programs are another tool that helps with this effort, 
since livestock producers who suffer losses from bears are likely to be 
more tolerant of them if they are compensated for losses caused by 
grizzly bears. Based on recent experiences with wolves in Idaho and 
Montana, social tolerance for wolves improved as both States 
implemented an adaptive management approach to managing conflict during 
the post-delisting monitoring period. By building and maintaining 
social tolerance, the recovered bear population will continue to be 
maintained.
    Ultimately, the future of the grizzly bear will be based on the 
people who live, work, and recreate in grizzly bear habitat and the 
willingness and ability of these people to learn to coexist with the 
grizzly bear and to accept this animal as a cohabitant of the land. 
Other management strategies are unlikely to succeed without effective 
and innovative public I&E programs. The primary goals of public 
outreach programs are to proactively address grizzly bear-human 
conflicts by educating the public about the root causes of these 
conflicts and providing options to prevent them. By continuing to 
increase awareness about grizzly bear behavior and biology, we are 
confident that the current and planned I&E efforts will reduce the 
negative outcomes of human-grizzly bear encounters such that the GYE 
grizzly bear population is no longer threatened by these activities, 
nor likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
    Issue 110--A commenter requested that the Service address the high 
prevalence of developmental malformations in newborn grizzly bears but 
did not provide any information about the source of these potential 
malformations.
    Response--To our knowledge, there have been no documented instances 
of high rates of developmental malformation in newborn grizzly bear 
cubs in the GYE or elsewhere.

Cumulative Impacts of Threats Issues

    Issue 111--Both commenters and peer-reviewers expressed concern 
that the synergistic effects of climate change, changing food 
availability, invasive species, increased human-caused mortality, 
energy development, problematic livestock husbandry practices, 
increased regional human populations, and disease are unknown and may 
not be detected for decades. The commenters and peer-reviewers 
recommended a more complete analysis of this suite of impacts and 
consideration of their potential interactions.
    Response--Our assessment of threats considered potential risk 
factors individually and cumulatively (see the Cumulative Effects 
section of the proposed and final rule). Our threats assessment is 
organized sequentially, consistent with how section 4(a) of the Act is 
organized. We then discuss the overall finding, which considers the 
cumulative impacts of all potential threat factors. We considered and 
weighed the cumulative effects of all known and reasonably foreseeable 
threat factors facing the population when reaching the conclusion that 
the grizzly bear population in the GYE no longer meets, and is unlikely 
to meet in the foreseeable future, the definition of a threatened 
species. When considering the population's recovered status, it is 
important to remember that the recovery criteria require a minimum 
population size of 500 to maintain short-term genetic health, occupancy 
of females with young to ensure adequate distribution, and sustainable 
mortality limits to maintain the population around the period of 
stability from 2002 to 2014. After delisting, Idaho, Montana, and 
Wyoming have committed, through a Tri-State MOA, State management 
plans, and regulations, to manage mortality limits to maintain a 
recovered GYE grizzly bear population. The GYE grizzly bear population 
has been biologically recovered for at least a decade, and there is 
evidence that grizzly bears within the GYE DMA have reached carrying 
capacity.
    Overall, the GYE grizzly bear population's current and expected 
abundance and geographic distribution (occurring both inside and 
outside the DMA and occurring across multiple management jurisdictions) 
provides the GYE grizzly bear population with substantial 
representation, resiliency, and redundancy (see Significant Portion of 
its Range discussion for further details). These factors provide us 
with confidence the population can continue to be viable in the face of 
the types of individual, as well as cumulative, effects mentioned in 
the above comments. For example, there is no evidence of negative 
population-level effects on grizzly bears, including accounting for a 
lag effect, as a result of declines in whitebark pine, cutthroat trout, 
or both. While it is potentially feasible that the GYE grizzly bear 
population may be at risk of such catastrophic events such as a 
cataclysmic eruption underneath YNP devastating the GYE ecosystem, such 
an event is extremely unlikely within the foreseeable future (see the 
Catastrophic Events section of the final rule).

Distinct Population Segment and Significant Portion of the Range Issues

    Issue 112--Several commenters found our approach to the DPS 
designation logical and consistent with our authority under the Act and 
stated that failing to utilize this authority would devote resources to 
a recovered population and unnecessarily punish the States and 
communities that participate in recovery. Conversely, a number of other 
commenters asserted that designating the GYE population as a DPS 
violated the law because we are purportedly not allowed to designate a 
DPS for the purposes of delisting it. Commenters alleged that no 
provision in the Act allows this process, and our approach (designating 
a DPS for the purposes of delisting) has repeatedly been rejected by 
Federal Courts. Another commenter thought delisting should not occur 
until DPSs were designated across the entire range of the subspecies. 
Commenters took issue with our position that the designation of the DPS 
in the proposed delisting rule is consistent with the Service's past 
practices.
    Response--Section 4(a)(1) of the Act authorizes the Service at any 
time to determine whether a species, which by definition includes a 
DPS, is endangered or threatened. Section 3(16) of the Act defines a 
``species'' as including any subspecies of vertebrate fish or wildlife 
which interbreeds when

[[Page 30622]]

mature. In addition, section 4(c)(1) of the Act authorizes the Service 
to revise the List to reflect recent determinations made under section 
4(a) by directing the Service to ``from time to time revise each list . 
. . to reflect recent determinations, designations, and revisions.'' 
Nothing in the Act suggests that the Service is precluded from making 
such determinations and revisions with respect to a subspecies or DPS 
that is part of a larger listed species. Therefore, the Service is 
acting within its authority in determining that the GYE grizzly bear 
DPS is neither endangered nor threatened and revising the List by 
removing the GYE grizzly bear DPS. Furthermore, while in some 
situations it may be appropriate to designate multiple DPSs 
simultaneously, the lack of such requirement provides useful 
flexibility, allowing the Service to subsequently list or delist DPSs 
when additional information becomes available or as the conservation 
status of the taxon changes. We disagree with commenters' contentions 
that the action taken in this final rule is inconsistent with the 
Service's past practice. Although a few of our examples predate the DPS 
policy, the authority to list and delist DPSs had been clearly 
established since the 1978 amendments to the Act. In addition, two of 
the examples have been finalized since publication of our proposed 
rule. Please see the Distinct Vertebrate Population Segment Policy 
Overview, Past Practice and History of Using DPSs, and Distinct 
Vertebrate Population Segment Analysis sections of this rule for 
further explanation of our DPS policy, history, and analysis.
    Issue 113--The States supported our analyses and concurred that the 
GYE population qualifies as a DPS under our DPS policy. However, others 
claimed that even if we were allowed to designate the GYE as a DPS at 
the time of delisting, our analysis did not adequately justify such a 
designation. First, in the opinion of some commenters, the Service's 
DPS policy requires that we consider three factors when determining 
whether a DPS designation is valid--discreteness, significance, and 
status. The commenters argued that our DPS policy allows designation of 
a DPS only if the DPS alone qualifies for listing as either endangered 
or threatened; this is the ``status'' portion of the DPS designation 
analysis. These commenters contended that we considered only 
discreteness and significance and left out the status portion of the 
analysis. We instead, they argued, ``rolled'' the status analysis into 
the proposed rule's five-factor analysis. These commenters suggested 
that if we had followed the ``requirement'' that the status analysis be 
done in the context of the DPS designation, we could not have 
designated the DPS because we would have concluded that the population 
does not qualify as threatened or endangered.
    Second, a few commenters seemed to have misunderstood our analysis. 
One stated that our conclusion that the GYE DPS does not qualify as an 
endangered or threatened species meant that the GYE DPS does not 
qualify as a ``species'' under the Act. Another suggested that because 
the grizzly bear is currently listed as a DPS (lower 48 States) we 
cannot designate the GYE population as a DPS because this would be 
creating a DPS of a DPS.
    Third, commenters weighed in on the geographic scope of our DPS 
designation. Some commenters thought we drew the DPS boundary 
appropriately. Others thought we should have defined it more broadly to 
include: (1) Additional unsuitable habitat where bears from the GYE 
population might roam; and (2) additional suitable habitat deemed 
necessary for connectivity to other populations of grizzly bears. Still 
others thought we should have conducted additional analyses to evaluate 
the importance of unsuitable habitat to GYE grizzly bears including 
information on: (1) How much time grizzly bears spend in unsuitable 
habitat; (2) why grizzly bears spend time in unsuitable habitat; (3) 
how much time researchers spend looking for bears in unsuitable 
habitat; and (4) the extent to which bears need this habitat as 
corridors between areas of suitable habitat. Another commenter 
suggested that the DPS should include all grizzly bears in Montana 
since all grizzly bears in the State of Montana should be removed from 
the lists of threatened and endangered species.
    Fourth, several commenters wanted greater certainty about our 
intentions for grizzly bear recovery in the remainder of the listed 
entity (lower 48 States outside of the GYE DPS). Some stated that, 
prior to taking action on any individual population, the Service must 
designate multiple DPSs encompassing the entire range of the 
subspecies, set recovery goals for each DPS, and evaluate the status of 
each DPS for listing. Others recommended that we explain our intentions 
for the remainder of the grizzly bear listed entities in a notice of 
proposed rulemaking, which should set forth a timeline for initiating 
and completing such reevaluation and allow solicitation of public 
comment on possible ways the remainder of the listed entity could be 
reclassified.
    Response--Our process for determining that the GYE grizzly bear 
population is a valid DPS is entirely consistent with the Services' 
joint 1996 DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). The 1996 DPS 
Policy identifies two elements that must be considered when identifying 
a DPS: (1) The discreteness of the population segment in relation to 
the remainder of the species (or subspecies) to which it belongs; and 
(2) the significance of the population segment to the remainder of the 
species (or subspecies) to which it belongs. Our policy clearly states 
that if a population segment is both discrete and significant then it 
is a DPS (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996). The GYE grizzly bear 
population meets both of these elements (see DPS Analysis) and, 
therefore, is a DPS.
    Because the GYE grizzly bear population is a DPS based on the 
``discreteness'' and ``significance'' qualifications, we must then 
evaluate the DPS's conservation status in relation to the Act's 
standards for determining whether the DPS is endangered or threatened. 
The authority and standards for conducting this status determination 
comes directly from section 4(a)(1) of the Act and the Service's 
implementing regulations, not the DPS policy. In other words, the 
outcome of the discreteness and significance analyses determines if a 
population is a DPS. Then the outcome of the section 4 analysis on that 
DPS determines if the DPS warrants protections under the Act. This 
final rule adheres to all of the required analyses for identifying the 
GYE grizzly bear population as a DPS. And, therefore, per section 4 of 
the Act, we have the authority to consider if the GYE grizzly bear DPS 
is endangered or threatened; and if it is neither, as we have 
determined here, to revise the lower-48 grizzly bear listing to remove 
the DPS from Federal protection.
    Our recognition of the GYE grizzly bear DPS does not create a DPS 
of a DPS. A population's discreteness and significance determinations 
are based on its discreteness and significance to the taxon (species or 
subspecies) to which it belongs; in this case the taxon is the 
subspecies Ursus arctos horribilis (see DPS Analysis). Therefore, 
consistent with our 1996 DPS Policy, the GYE grizzly bear is a DPS of 
Ursus arctos horribilis and not of the lower-48 States listing.
    As stated in the proposed and final rules, when delineating the 
boundary of the GYE grizzly bear DPS, we focused on including 
sufficient habitat that was capable of supporting grizzly bear 
reproduction and survival now and in the foreseeable future. We have 
defined

[[Page 30623]]

``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) being contiguous 
with the current distribution of GYE grizzly bears such that natural 
recolonization is possible; and (3) having low mortality risk as 
indicated through reasonable and manageable levels of grizzly bear 
mortality. The GYE grizzly bear population is the most studied grizzly 
bear population in the world, and we are confident that the suitable 
habitat encompassed within the area delineated as the GYE DPS is more 
than sufficient to maintain the recovered population now and in the 
foreseeable future. For more information on these analyses, please 
refer to the Suitable Habitat and Distinct Vertebrate Population 
Segment Analysis sections of this rule. With respect to the assertion 
that the entire State of Montana be included in the GYE DPS, there is 
no biological basis for considering all grizzly bears in the State of 
Montana as part of the GYE DPS. When this rule becomes effective, all 
areas in the lower 48 States outside of the GYE DPS boundary will 
remain protected as threatened under the Act.
    For more than 30 years, the Service has strived to maintain 
transparency in our grizzly bear recovery program. The Service's 
grizzly bear Recovery Plan, first approved in 1982 and revised in 1993, 
and its supplemental documents (USFWS 1982, 1993, 2007a, 2007b, 2016, 
2017) identify distinct Recovery Zones and unique demographic 
parameters for six different grizzly bear populations with the 
expressed intent that these individual populations would be delisted as 
they each achieve recovery (USFWS 1993, pp. ii, 33-34). Given this 
history, it is not an efficient use of our limited resources to 
initiate a rulemaking process to revise the lower-48 States listing. 
Such a rulemaking would provide no more information about our 
intentions for grizzly bear recovery than the parameters and documents 
already guiding our existing grizzly bear recovery program.
    Issue 114--While some commenters found our analysis of the best 
available science to support a determination that the population is 
discrete, others questioned the strength of our discreteness analysis. 
Some took issue with our determination that the GYE population is 
``markedly separated'' from other populations of grizzly bear. 
Commenters contended that it is well accepted in the scientific 
community that the GYE grizzly population will need to be well 
connected with other populations across the western landscape in order 
to foster the species' true recovery. Commenters found it illogical to 
use the GYE population's current lack of connectivity to other grizzly 
bear populations to justify delisting. They found our position with 
respect to genetics inconsistent because they contend we make the 
opposite argument when asserting, in our DPS analysis of significance, 
that we cannot state with certainty that the GYE grizzly population's 
genetics differ `markedly' from other grizzly bear populations.
    Response--We have determined that the GYE population is markedly, 
physically separate from other grizzly bear populations; however, this 
determination is not our justification for delisting the population. 
The GYE grizzly bear population is being delisted because we have 
determined after a thorough analysis of the five threat factors that it 
is not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. Grizzly bears 
will remain listed in the remainder of the lower 48 States outside of 
the GYE DPS, and we are committed to pursuing grizzly bear recovery in 
the five remaining Recovery Zones identified in the 1993 Grizzly Bear 
Recovery Plan.
    We refer to genetic studies estimating heterozygosity in our 
consideration of discreteness to further support the conclusion that 
grizzly bears from the GYE are markedly, physically separated from 
other grizzly bears. As we state in the rule, 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 grizzly 
bears of the early 1900s, Miller and Waits (2003, p. 4338) concluded 
that gene flow and, therefore, population connectivity between the GYE 
grizzly bear population and populations to the north was low even 100 
years ago. However, we do not know whether differences in 
heterozygosity levels between grizzly bears from the GYE and other 
populations are biologically meaningful, and we have no data indicating 
they are. Therefore, this same information is not sufficient to support 
a claim that that the discrete population segment differs markedly from 
other populations of the species in its genetic characteristics.
    Issue 115--With respect to our DPS analysis of significance, some 
commenters found our analysis adequately supported our determination of 
significance. Others found our conclusion that the population's ``loss 
would represent a significant gap in the range of the taxon'' to be 
hypocritical because it results in the delisting of the population and, 
in their opinion, makes loss of the bears more likely. Commenters 
argued that our DPS significance determination undermines our duty to 
recover the ``species as a whole'' because it doesn't make sense that 
we could argue the GYE population's essentiality to the species overall 
in order to support delisting the bears. Commenters contended that the 
Service's duty under the Act is to get listed species to a point where 
the law's protections are no longer required, not undermine recovery 
efforts for the remainder of the listed entity by using conflicting 
interpretations of scientific data.
    Response--The DPS analysis for significance is intended to 
determine the biological and ecological significance of the population 
to the taxon to which it belongs. As specified in the DPS policy (61 FR 
4722, February 7, 1996), this consideration of the population segment's 
significance 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; or (4) evidence that the discrete population segment differs 
markedly from other populations of the species in its genetic 
characteristics.
    Based on public comments, we reevaluated our assessment of the 
``unique or unusual ecological setting'' for the GYE grizzly bear and 
revised our discussion in this final rule. In this case, we determined 
that the GYE grizzly bear population is significant due to its 
persistence in an ecological setting unique for the taxon and that loss 
of the population would result in a significant gap in the range of the 
taxon (i.e., Ursus arctos horribilis). This determination means that 
the GYE grizzly bear population qualifies as a valid DPS. The GYE 
grizzly bear population is being delisted because we have determined 
after a thorough analysis of the five threat factors that this DPS is 
not in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable future throughout 
all or a significant portion of its range. Grizzly bears will remain 
listed in the

[[Page 30624]]

remainder of the lower 48 States outside of the GYE DPS, and we are 
committed to pursuing grizzly bear recovery in the five remaining 
Recovery Zones identified in the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan.
    Issue 116--Commenters expressed discontent with the Service's 
current interpretation of the phrase ``significant portion of its 
range'' (SPR) in the Act's definitions of ``endangered species'' and 
``threatened species.'' Some commenters did not believe the Service's 
interpretation is reflective of Congressional intent. Commenters 
believed that the Service erroneously interpreted ``range'' to mean 
only the range in which the species currently exists. Commenters thus 
took issue with the exclusion of historic range from any SPR analysis. 
Commenters also believed that the Service's threshold for significance 
was too stringent.
    Response--The Service's current interpretation of the phrase 
``significant portion of its range'' (SPR) is consistent with the plain 
language and mandates of the Act and provides clarity as to both the 
meaning and consequences of the SPR phrase. With respect to the 
criticism that the Service should have considered lost historical range 
in our SPR analyses, it is the Service's position that the term 
``range'' in the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' is in 
reference to a species' current range. Thus, to consider lost 
historical range in our SPR analysis would be inconsistent with this 
interpretation. We do not separately consider whether lost historical 
range is an SPR because we already evaluate the effects of lost 
historical range on the species when we evaluate the status of the 
species in its current range. Specifically, in our evaluation of 
current status, we are considering whether, without that portion (i.e., 
lost historical range), the species is in danger of extinction or 
likely to become so in the foreseeable future (See discussion under 
Factor A, above). If lost historical range had indeed been an SPR prior 
to its loss, then, with the loss having occurred, the species should 
currently be in danger of extinction or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future in its remaining current range. Such a determination 
would then result in the listing of a species throughout its range.
    Again, the Service's analysis to determine if a species ``is in 
danger of extinction'' throughout all or a significant portion of its 
range denotes a present-tense condition of being at risk of a current 
or future undesired event. To say a species ``is in danger'' in an area 
where it no longer exists--i.e., in its historical range where it has 
been extirpated--is inconsistent with common usage.
    Finally, in our SPR analysis we set forth the standard by which a 
portion of a species' range may be considered significant. It is the 
Service's position that a portion of the range of a species is 
significant if the species is not currently endangered or threatened 
throughout all of its range, but the portion's contribution to the 
viability of the species is so important that, without the members in 
that portion, the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely 
to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range. We 
have applied this standard in our final rule.
    Issue 117--Several commenters expressed concern about our 
``significant portion of its range'' analysis. A commenter expressed 
concern that the proposed rule relegates grizzly bears to small 
portions of the lower 48 States and ignores the species' lost 
historical range in the remainder of the lower 48 States. Commenters 
specified that our analysis of lost historical range should consider 
the entire population of grizzly bears across the lower 48 States. 
Further, assuming that our proposed DPS delisting process is legal, 
commenters instructed us to also consider lost historical range of the 
GYE DPS, including an analysis of what constitutes the GYE DPS' 
historical range, how that compares with the GYE DPS' current range, 
and whether or not the loss of historical range is significant. They 
further directed the Service to consider threats in areas where the 
population is either extirpated or home to only a few individuals; they 
claimed that it is insufficient to focus analysis entirely on an area 
where a population persists to support a finding that threats elsewhere 
are not significant. Commenters noted that many activities that have 
potentially adverse effects on bears are found only outside of YNP, 
outside of the PCA, or outside the DMA. They expressed concern that the 
Service acknowledges some of these threats but discounts their 
importance. Commenters stated that the standard we seemed to apply 
(localized threats must threaten extinction of the GYE DPS as a whole) 
was inappropriate and illegal. They further stated that the Service's 
SPR analysis ignores the fact that loss of bears in the peripheral 
areas would result in significant range contraction and that, according 
to our own policy, such lost range may never be reclaimed or considered 
in future listing decisions.
    Response--This action is specific to the grizzly bear population in 
the GYE and, therefore, affects the legal status only of grizzly bears 
within the GYE. In other words, when this rulemaking takes effect, 
grizzly bears in the lower 48 States occurring outside of the boundary 
of the GYE DPS will remain listed as a threatened species under the 
Act. Therefore, consideration and analyses of grizzly bear populations 
elsewhere in the lower 48 States is outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    As stated in our response to Issue 116 above, it is the Service's 
standard practice to consider the effects of lost historical range on 
the species when we evaluate the status of the species in its current 
range. In the case of the GYE DPS, we address historical range in our 
analysis of suitable habitat. In our discussion we acknowledge that 
bears historically occurred, although were probably not evenly 
distributed, throughout the area of the GYE DPS. Many of these habitats 
are no longer biologically suitable for bears (see Issue 40).
    Limited gene flow, as suggested here, would not compromise the 
required level of discreteness for DPS status, as the DPS policy does 
not require complete separation of one DPS from other populations, but 
instead requires ``marked separation.''
    As stated previously, it is the Service's standard practice to 
consider the effects of lost historical range on the species when we 
evaluate the status of the species in its current range. See discussion 
under Factor A, above. Additionally, our status analysis thoroughly 
evaluated all potential threats to the population in its current range. 
It would be inconsistent with Agency current practice to consider 
threats in areas where the grizzly bear does not currently exist.
    Our SPR analysis is consistent with current agency practice. After 
careful examination of the GYE grizzly bear population in the context 
of our definition of ``significant portion of its range,'' we 
determined areas on the periphery of the range warranted further 
consideration because human-caused mortality risk threats are 
geographically concentrated there. After identifying these areas, we 
evaluated whether they were significant and determined they were not 
significant because, even without the grizzly bears in these areas, the 
GYE grizzly bear DPS would not be in danger of extinction, or likely to 
become so in the foreseeable future. These areas will likely never 
contribute meaningfully to the GYE grizzly bear population because of 
lack of suitable habitat and loss of traditional grizzly bear foods 
(i.e., bison). Therefore, we did not need to determine if grizzly bears 
were in danger of extinction or likely to become so in these peripheral

[[Page 30625]]

areas (see SPR Analysis for the GYE Grizzly Bear DPS).

Determination

    An assessment of the need for a species' protection under the Act 
is based on whether a species is in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so because of any of five factors: (A) The present or threatened 
destruction, modification, or curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 
overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or 
educational purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of 
existing regulatory mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors 
affecting its continued existence. As required by section 4(a)(1) of 
the Act, we conducted a review of the status of this species and 
assessed the five factors to evaluate whether the GYE grizzly bear DPS 
is endangered or threatened throughout all of its range. We examined 
the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the 
past, present, and foreseeable future threats faced by the species.
    In considering what factors might constitute threats, we must look 
beyond the mere exposure of the species to the factor to determine 
whether the exposure causes actual impacts to the species. If there is 
exposure to a factor and the species responds negatively, the factor 
may be a threat and we then attempt to determine how significant the 
threat is. If the threat is significant, it may drive, or contribute 
to, the risk of extinction of the species such that the species 
warrants listing as endangered or threatened as those terms are defined 
by the Act. Alternatively, some threats may be significant enough to 
contribute to the risk of extinction but are adequately ameliorated 
through active conservation and management efforts so that the risk is 
low enough that it does not mean the species is in danger of extinction 
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
    As demonstrated in our five-factor analysis, threats to this 
population and its habitat have been sufficiently minimized and the GYE 
grizzly bear DPS is a biologically recovered population. Multiple, 
independent lines of evidence support this interpretation. Counts of 
females with cubs-of-the-year have increased. Since at least 2001, the 
demographic recovery criterion that requires 16 of the 18 BMUs to be 
occupied with females with young has been met. The Recovery Plan target 
for a minimum population size of 500 animals inside the DMA to ensure 
genetic health has been met since at least 2007, using the conservative 
model-averaged Chao2 population estimator. Calculations of population 
trajectory derived from radio-monitored female bears showed an 
increasing population trend at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per year from 
1983 through 2001 (Eberhardt et al. 1994, p. 362; Knight and Blanchard 
1995, pp. 18-19; Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 48), which had slowed to 0.3 
to 2.2 percent from 2002 to 2011 (IGBST 2012, p. 34). The population 
trajectory that includes the most recent data is based on the Chao2 
estimator and indicates no statistical trend (i.e., relatively flat 
population trend) within the DMA for the period 2002 to 2014 (van Manen 
2016a, in litt.).
    Occupied grizzly bear range has more than doubled since 1975 
(Basile 1982, pp. 3-10; Blanchard et al. 1992, p. 92; Schwartz et al. 
2002, p. 203; Pyare et al. 2004, pp. 5-6; Schwartz et al. 2006a, pp. 
64-66; Bjornlie et al. 2014a, p. 184). Independent female survival 
rates, the single most important cohort to population trajectory, are 
high and have remained unchanged for 3 decades (IGBST 2012, p. 33). In 
total, this population has increased from estimates ranging between 136 
and 312 bears when listed in 1975 (Cowan et al. 1974, pp. 32, 36; 
Craighead et al. 1974, p. 16; McCullough 1981, p. 175), to an average 
population size between 2002-2014 of 674 using the model-averaged Chao2 
population estimator.
    Grizzly bears occupied 92 percent of suitable habitat within the 
DPS boundaries as of 2014 (Fortin-Noreus 2015, in litt.) and will 
likely occupy the remainder of the suitable habitat in the future. The 
GYE grizzly bear population currently has sufficient numbers and 
distribution of reproductive individuals to maintain its recovered 
status. The main threat of human-caused mortality has been addressed 
through carefully monitored and controlled total mortality limits 
established in the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Supplement (USFWS 2017, 
entire) and carried over into the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 
2016a, pp. 33-53) and into State regulations as per tables 2 and 3 and 
discussed in Factors B and C Combined, above. These total mortality 
limits are calculated to ensure long-term population stability around 
the average population size for 2002-2014.
    During our analysis, we did not identify any factors alone or in 
combination that reach a magnitude that threatens the continued 
existence of the species now or in the foreseeable future. Significant 
threats identified at the time of listing that could have resulted in 
the extirpation of the population have been eliminated or reduced since 
listing. We conclude that known impacts to the GYE grizzly bear 
population from the loss of secure habitat and development on public 
lands (Factor A); unregulated, excessive human-caused mortality 
(Factors B and C Combined); a lack of regulatory mechanisms to manage 
habitat and population (Factor D); and genetic isolation, changes to 
food resources, climate change, catastrophic events, or negative public 
attitudes (Factor E), do not rise to a level of significance, such that 
the population is in danger of extinction now or in the foreseeable 
future. Thus, based on our assessment of the best scientific and 
commercial information available, on our expectation that current 
management practices will continue into the foreseeable future--Federal 
regulations to maintain habitat protections as per Factor A, above, and 
State regulations that will regulate total mortality as per tables 2 
and 3 and Factors B and C Combined, above--we, therefore, determine 
that the GYE grizzly bear DPS has recovered to the point at which 
protection under the Act is no longer required. The best scientific and 
commercial data available indicate that the GYE grizzly bear DPS is not 
endangered or threatened throughout all of its range.

Significant Portion of its Range Analysis

Background

    Having determined that the GYE grizzly bear DPS is not in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout 
all of its range, we next consider whether there are any significant 
portions of its range in which the GYE grizzly bear DPS is in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so. The phrase ``significant portion of 
its range'' (SPR) is not defined by the Act, and we have never 
addressed it in our regulations: (1) The outcome of a determination 
that a species is either in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future throughout a significant portion of its 
range, but not throughout all of its range; or (2) what qualifies a 
portion of a range as ``significant.''
    Two district court decisions have addressed whether the SPR 
language allows the Service to list or protect less than all members of 
a defined ``species'': Defenders of Wildlife v. Salazar, 729 F. Supp. 
2d 1207 (D. Mont. 2010), concerning the Service's delisting of the 
Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolf (74 FR 15123, April 2, 2009); and 
WildEarth Guardians v. Salazar, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105253 (D. Ariz. 
Sept. 30, 2010), concerning the Service's 2008 finding on a petition to 
list the Gunnison's

[[Page 30626]]

prairie dog (73 FR 6660, February 5, 2008). The Service had asserted in 
both of these determinations that it had authority, in effect, to 
protect only some members of a ``species,'' as defined by the Act 
(i.e., species, subspecies, or DPS), under the Act. Both courts ruled 
that the determinations were arbitrary and capricious on the grounds 
that this approach violated the plain and unambiguous language of the 
Act. The courts concluded that reading the SPR language to allow 
protecting only a portion of a species' range is inconsistent with the 
Act's definition of ``species.'' The courts concluded that, once a 
determination is made that a species (i.e., species, subspecies, or 
DPS) meets the definition of ``endangered species'' or ``threatened 
species,'' it must be placed on the list in its entirety and the Act's 
protections applied consistently to all members of that species 
(subject to modification of protections through special rules under 
sections 4(d) and 10(j) of the Act).
    Consistent with that interpretation, and for the purposes of this 
rule, we interpret the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' in 
the Act's definitions of ``endangered species'' and ``threatened 
species'' to provide an independent basis for listing a species in its 
entirety; thus there are two situations (or factual bases) under which 
a species would qualify for listing: A species may be in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future throughout 
all of its range; or a species may be in danger of extinction or likely 
to become so throughout a significant portion of its range. If a 
species is in danger of extinction throughout an SPR, it, the species, 
is an ``endangered species.'' The same analysis applies to ``threatened 
species.'' Therefore, the consequence of finding that a species is in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant 
portion of its range is that the entire species will be listed as an 
endangered species or threatened species, respectively, and the Act's 
protections will be applied to all individuals of the species wherever 
found.
    We conclude, for the purposes of this rule, that interpreting the 
SPR phrase as providing an independent basis for listing is the best 
interpretation of the Act because it is consistent with the purposes 
and the plain meaning of the key definitions of the Act; it does not 
conflict with established past agency practice (i.e., prior to the 2007 
Department of the Interior Solicitor's Opinion), as no consistent, 
long-term agency practice has been established; and it is consistent 
with the judicial opinions that have most closely examined this issue. 
Having concluded that the phrase ``significant portion of its range'' 
provides an independent basis for listing and protecting the entire 
species, we next turn to the meaning of ``significant'' to determine 
the threshold for when such an independent basis for listing exists.
    Although there are potentially many ways to determine whether a 
portion of a species' range is ``significant,'' we conclude, for the 
purposes of this rule, that the significance of the portion of the 
range should be determined based on its biological contribution to the 
conservation of the species. For this reason, we describe the threshold 
for ``significant'' in terms of an increase in the risk of extinction 
for the species. We conclude that a biologically based definition of 
``significant'' best conforms to the purposes of the Act, is consistent 
with judicial interpretations, and best ensures species' conservation. 
Thus, for the purposes of this rule, a portion of the range of a 
species is ``significant'' if the species is not currently endangered 
or threatened throughout all of its range, but the portion's 
contribution to the viability of the species is so important that, 
without the members in that portion, the species would be in danger of 
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, 
throughout all of its range.
    We evaluate biological significance based on the principles of 
conservation biology using the concepts of redundancy, resiliency, and 
representation. Resiliency describes the characteristics of a species 
that allow it to recover from periodic disturbance. Redundancy (having 
multiple populations distributed across the landscape) may be needed to 
provide a margin of safety for the species to withstand catastrophic 
events. Representation (the range of variation found in a species) 
ensures that the species' adaptive capabilities are conserved. 
Redundancy, resiliency, and representation are not independent of each 
other, and some characteristic of a species or area may contribute to 
all three. For example, distribution across a wide variety of habitats 
is an indicator of representation, but it may also indicate a broad 
geographic distribution contributing to redundancy (decreasing the 
chance that any one event affects the entire species), and the 
likelihood that some habitat types are less susceptible to certain 
stressors, contributing to resiliency (the ability of the species to 
recover from disturbance). None of these concepts is intended to be 
mutually exclusive, and a portion of a species' range may be determined 
to be ``significant'' due to its contributions under any one of these 
concepts.
    For the purposes of this rule, we determine if a portion's 
biological contribution is so important that the portion qualifies as 
``significant'' by asking whether, without that portion, the 
representation, redundancy, or resiliency of the species would be so 
impaired that the species would have an increased vulnerability to 
stressors to the point that the overall species would be in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future (i.e., 
would be ``endangered'' or ``threatened''). Conversely, we would not 
consider the portion of the range at issue to be ``significant'' if 
there is sufficient resiliency, redundancy, and representation 
elsewhere in the species' range that the species would not be in danger 
of extinction or likely to become so throughout its range if the 
population in that portion of the range in question became extirpated 
(extinct locally).
    We recognize that this definition of ``significant'' establishes a 
threshold that is relatively high. On the one hand, given that the 
outcome of finding a species to be in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so in an SPR would be listing all individuals of the species 
wherever found, it is important to use a threshold for ``significant'' 
that is robust. It would not be meaningful or appropriate to establish 
a very low threshold whereby a portion of the range can be considered 
``significant'' even if only a negligible increase in extinction risk 
would result from its loss. Because nearly any portion of a species' 
range can be said to contribute some increment to a species' viability, 
use of such a low threshold would require us to impose restrictions and 
expend conservation resources disproportionately to conservation 
benefit: Listing would be rangewide, even if only a portion of the 
range of minor conservation importance to the species is imperiled. On 
the other hand, it would be inappropriate to establish a threshold for 
``significant'' that is too high. This would be the case if the 
standard were, for example, that a portion of the range can be 
considered ``significant'' only if threats in that portion result in 
the entire species' being currently endangered or threatened. Such a 
high bar would not give the SPR phrase independent meaning, as the 
Ninth Circuit held in Defenders of Wildlife v. Norton, 258 F.3d 1136 
(9th Cir. 2001).
    The definition of ``significant'' used in this rule carefully 
balances these concerns. By setting a relatively high threshold, we 
minimize the degree to which restrictions would be imposed or

[[Page 30627]]

resources expended that do not contribute substantially to species 
conservation. But we have not set the threshold so high that the phrase 
``throughout a significant portion of its range'' loses independent 
meaning. Specifically, we have not set the threshold as high as it was 
under the interpretation presented by the Service in the Defenders 
litigation. Under that interpretation, the portion of the range would 
have to be so important that current imperilment there would mean that 
the species would be currently imperiled everywhere. Under the 
definition of ``significant'' used in this rule, the portion of the 
range need not rise to such an exceptionally high level of biological 
significance. (We recognize that if the species is imperiled in a 
portion that rises to that level of biological significance, then we 
should conclude that the species is in fact imperiled throughout all of 
its range, and that we would not need to rely on the SPR language for 
such a listing.) Rather, under this interpretation we ask whether the 
species would be in danger of extinction or likely to become so 
everywhere without that portion, i.e., if that portion were completely 
extirpated. In other words, the portion of the range need not be so 
important that even being in danger of extinction in that portion would 
be sufficient to cause the remainder of the range to be endangered; 
rather, the complete extirpation (in a hypothetical future) of the 
species in that portion would cause the remainder of the range to be in 
danger of extinction or likely to become so in the foreseeable future.
    In implementing this interpretation, the first step in our analysis 
of the status of a species is to determine its status throughout all of 
its range. If we determine that the species is in danger of extinction, 
or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its 
range, we determine the species is an endangered species (or threatened 
species) and no SPR analysis will be required. If the species is 
neither in danger of extinction nor likely to become so throughout all 
of its range, we next determine whether the species is in danger of 
extinction or likely to become so throughout a significant portion of 
its range. If it is, we determine the species is an endangered species 
or threatened species, respectively; if it is not, we conclude that the 
species is neither an endangered species nor a threatened species.
    The range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions 
in an infinite number of ways. However, there is no purpose to 
analyzing portions of the range that have no reasonable potential to be 
significant and threatened or endangered. To identify only those 
portions that warrant further consideration, we determine whether there 
is substantial information indicating that: (1) The portions may be 
``significant,'' and (2) the species may be in danger of extinction 
there or likely to become so within the foreseeable future. Depending 
on the biology of the species, its range, and the stressors it faces, 
it might be more efficient for us to address the significance question 
first or the status question first. Thus, if we determine that a 
portion of the range is not ``significant,'' we do not need to 
determine whether the species is endangered or threatened there; if we 
determine that the species is not endangered or threatened in a portion 
of its range, we do not need to determine if that portion is 
``significant.'' In practice, a key part of identifying portions for 
further analysis is to examine whether there are threats that are 
geographically concentrated in some way. If the potential threats to 
the species are essentially uniform throughout its range, no portion is 
likely to be endangered or threatened and thus would not warrant 
further consideration. Moreover, if any concentration of threats 
applies only to portions of the species' range that clearly would not 
meet the biologically based definition of ``significant,'' such 
portions will not warrant further consideration.

SPR Analysis for the GYE Grizzly Bear DPS

    Applying the process described above, we first evaluated the 
current range of the GYE grizzly bear DPS to determine if any area 
could be considered a significant portion of its 50,280 km\2\ (19,413 
mi\2\) range (Bjornlie et al. 2014a, p. 184). The current range of the 
GYE grizzly bear DPS includes 44,624 km\2\ (17,229 mi\2\) inside the 
DMA and 5,656 km\2\ (2,184 mi\2\) outside the DMA. As mentioned above, 
one way to identify portions for further analyses is to identify 
portions that might be of biological or conservation importance, such 
as any natural, biological divisions within the current range that may, 
for example, provide population redundancy or have unique ecological, 
genetic, or other characteristics. Based on examination of the best 
available science (Schwartz et al. 2006b, entire; IGBST 2012, entire), 
we determined the GYE grizzly bear population is a single, contiguous 
population within the DPS boundaries and that there are no separate 
areas of the range that are significantly different from others or that 
are likely to be of greater biological or conservation importance than 
any other areas due to natural biological reasons alone. Therefore, 
there is not substantial information that logical, biological divisions 
exist within the GYE grizzly bear population's current range.
    The Service has identified the PCA as a secure area for grizzly 
bears, with population and habitat condition maintained to ensure a 
recovered population is maintained and to allow bears into suitable 
habitat. This is likely to be significant (i.e., if this area were 
hypothetically lost, the rest of the range would at that point be 
threatened or endangered) because it contains approximately 75 percent 
of females with cubs-of-the-year for most or part of the year (Schwartz 
et al. 2006a, pp. 64-66; Haroldson 2014a, in litt.). However, as noted 
above in our summary of factors affecting the species, threats to the 
species within this area have been ameliorated through restoration and 
active management as discussed in the factors above. Surveys indicate 
that the species has been maintained and is well-established, and 
remaining factors that may affect the species occur at low levels 
throughout this area. There is no substantial information indicating 
the species is likely to be threatened or endangered throughout this 
area, the PCA. Therefore, the PCA does not warrant further 
consideration to determine whether the species may be endangered or 
threatened in a significant portion of its range.
    After determining there are no natural divisions delineating 
separate portions of the GYE grizzly bear population, or other 
important areas that warrant further consideration, we next examined 
whether any stressors are geographically concentrated in some way that 
would indicate the species could be in danger of extinction, or likely 
to become so, in that area. Through our review of potential threats, we 
identified greater mortality risk in the areas on the periphery of the 
population's current range. More grizzly bear mortality occurs toward 
the periphery of its range, as evidenced by lower population growth 
rates in these areas (Schwartz et al. 2006b, p. 58; IGBST 2012, p. 34) 
and higher likelihood of conflicts (Gunther et al. 2012, p. 50). These 
areas where greater mortality is likely to occur are outside the DMA 
boundaries (figure 1). We do not anticipate declines in relative 
population size or geographically concentrated stressors inside the DMA 
boundaries due to conservative population objectives, enforceable 
mortality limits, vast amounts of wilderness and roadless areas, and

[[Page 30628]]

additional habitat protections specifically in place for grizzly bears 
on public lands in nearly half of their current range (i.e., the PCA). 
With these measures evaluated by a meticulous monitoring program, we 
are reasonably assured that grizzly bears inside the DMA boundaries 
will continue to flourish. Because it is also reasonable to expect that 
GYE grizzly bears may not be managed as conservatively outside the DMA 
boundaries where they could be exposed to more intensive hunting and 
management pressure, we considered these peripheral areas where known 
grizzly bear range extends outside the DMA boundaries to warrant 
further consideration to determine if they are a significant portion of 
this population's range.
    Because we identified areas on the periphery of the current range 
as warranting further consideration due to the geographic concentration 
of mortality risk there, we then evaluated whether these areas are 
significant to the GYE grizzly bear population such that, without the 
members in that portion, the entire population would be in danger of 
extinction, or likely to become so in the foreseeable future, 
throughout all of its range.
    The core population inside the DMA is resilient, and its current 
range provides the necessary redundancy to offset loss of individual 
bears in peripheral areas. The areas that may experience higher 
mortality rates represent a very small proportion of the range, and an 
even smaller proportion of the total number of animals in the GYE 
grizzly bear population. Moreover, if bears in these peripheral areas 
were in fact lost, that loss would not significantly affect the long-
term viability of the GYE grizzly bear population, much less cause the 
population in the remainder of its range to be in danger of extinction 
or likely to become so. Therefore, there is not substantial information 
indicating that the peripheral portions of the GYE grizzly bear 
population's range are significant to the rest of the population.
    After careful examination of the GYE grizzly bear population in the 
context of our definition of ``significant portion of its range,'' we 
determined areas on the periphery of the range warranted further 
consideration because human-caused mortality risk is geographically 
concentrated there. After identifying these areas, we evaluated whether 
they were significant and determined they were not significant because, 
even without the grizzly bears in these areas, the GYE grizzly bear DPS 
would not be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so in the 
foreseeable future. These areas will likely never contribute 
meaningfully to the GYE grizzly bear population because of lack of 
suitable habitat and loss of traditional grizzly bear foods (i.e., 
bison). Therefore, we did not need to determine if grizzly bears were 
in danger of extinction or likely to become so in these peripheral 
areas. We have carefully assessed the best scientific and commercial 
data available and determined that the GYE grizzly bear population is 
no longer in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 
portion of its range, nor is it likely to become so in the foreseeable 
future. As a result of this determination, we hereby remove this 
population from the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife.
    We are aware of the March 28, 2017, Arizona District Court ruling 
in Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. Sally Jewel, et al., 
which vacated and remanded the Service's 2014 Final SPR Policy (79 FR 
37578, July 1, 2014). The district court found that our 2014 SPR Policy 
did not give sufficient independent meaning to the SPR phrase and 
thereby avoided the need to provide rangewide protections to a species 
based on threats in a portion of the species' range. The Service is 
currently considering appropriate next steps in light of the district 
court's decision. However, we have decided to finalize this action 
because our final determination on the recovered status of the GYE 
grizzly bear population does not hinge on the SPR analysis. As stated 
above, if grizzly bears in the periphery of the current range were in 
fact lost due to the geographic concentration of mortality risk, that 
loss would not appreciably reduce the long-term viability of the GYE 
grizzly bear population, much less cause the population in the 
remainder of its range to be in danger of extinction or likely to 
become so. In other words, under any definition of SPR it is clear that 
the GYE grizzly bear population is not in danger of extinction 
throughout all or a significant portion of its range, nor is it likely 
to become so in the future.

Effects of the Rule

    This final rule revises 50 CFR 17.11(h) by establishing a DPS and 
removing the GYE grizzly bear DPS from the Federal List of Endangered 
and Threatened Wildlife. The prohibitions and conservation measures 
provided by the Act, particularly through sections 7 and 9, would no 
longer apply to this DPS. Federal agencies would no longer be required 
to consult with the Service under section 7 of the Act in the event 
that activities they authorize, fund, or carry out may affect the GYE 
grizzly bear population. However, actions within the DPS would still be 
managed by State, Tribal, and Federal laws, regulations, policies, and 
management plans ensuring enforcement of the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy. Delisting the GYE grizzly bear DPS is expected to have 
positive effects in terms of management flexibility to the States and 
local governments. The full protections of the Act, including section 
4(d) (50 CFR 17.40), would still continue to apply to grizzly bear 
populations in other portions of the lower-48 States outside the GYE 
grizzly bear DPS' boundaries. Those grizzly bears outside the GYE DPS 
will remain fully protected by the Act.

Post-Delisting Monitoring

    Section 4(g)(1) of the Act requires us to implement a system, in 
cooperation with the States, to monitor for at least 5 years all 
delisted and recovered species. The primary purpose of this requirement 
is to ensure that the recovered species does not deteriorate, and if an 
unanticipated decline is detected, to take measures to halt the decline 
to avoid re-listing. If data indicate that protective status under the 
Act should be reinstated, we will initiate listing procedures, 
including, if appropriate, emergency listing.
    For the GYE grizzly bear population, the 2016 Conservation Strategy 
serves as the post-delisting monitoring plan. The 2016 Conservation 
Strategy will remain in effect for the foreseeable future, beyond the 
5-year monitoring period required by the Act due to their low 
resiliency to excessive human-caused mortality and the manageable 
nature of this threat. These management actions are detailed in the 
2016 Conservation Strategy and will be evaluated by the management 
agencies every 5 years, allowing for public comment should updates to 
the Conservation Strategy be made in the future.

Monitoring

    To ensure the long-term conservation of grizzly bear habitat and 
continued recovery of the GYE grizzly bear population, several 
monitoring programs and protocols have been developed and integrated 
into land management agency planning documents. The 2016 Conservation 
Strategy and appended State grizzly bear management plans satisfy the 
requirements for having a post-delisting monitoring plan for the GYE 
grizzly bear population. Monitoring programs and a coordinated approach 
to management would continue for the foreseeable future. Monitoring 
programs will focus on assessing whether demographic and

[[Page 30629]]

habitat standards described in the 2016 Conservation Strategy are being 
achieved and maintained.
    Within the PCA, the IGBST will continue to monitor habitat 
standards and adherence to the 1998 baseline. The IGBST will report on 
levels of secure habitat, developed sites, and livestock allotments 
annually, and these will not be allowed to deviate from 1998 baseline 
values unless changes were to be beneficial to grizzly bears (USDA FS 
2006b, entire; YNP 2014b, p. 18). The IGBST, with participation from 
YNP, the USFS, and State and Tribal wildlife agencies, also will 
continue to monitor the abundance and distribution of common grizzly 
bear foods. This system allows managers some degree of predictive power 
to anticipate and avoid grizzly bear-human conflicts related to a 
shortage of one or more foods in a given season.
    Within the DMA, the IGBST will continue to document population 
trends, current distribution, survival and birth rates, and the 
presence of alleles from grizzly bear populations outside the GYE 
grizzly bear DPS boundaries to document gene flow into the population. 
Throughout the DPS boundaries, locations of grizzly bear mortalities on 
private lands will be provided to the IGBST for incorporation into 
their annual report. To examine reproductive rates, survival rates, 
causes of death, and overall population trends, the IGBST will radio-
collar and monitor a minimum of 25 adult female grizzly bears every 
year and a similar representative sample of adult males. The objective 
will be to maintain a radio-marked sample of bears that are spatially 
distributed throughout the ecosystem so they provide a representative 
sample of the entire population inside the DMA. Mortalities throughout 
the GYE DPS will be monitored and reported annually and evaluated in 
accordance with the DMA total mortality limits and population 
objectives in table 3.
    Outside of the PCA, the GYE National Forests will monitor agreed-
upon habitat parameters in suitable habitat and will calculate secure 
habitat values outside of the PCA every 2 years and submit these data 
for inclusion in the IGBST's annual report (USDA FS 2006b, p. 6). The 
GYE National Forests also will monitor and evaluate livestock 
allotments for recurring conflicts with grizzly bears in suitable 
habitat outside the PCA (USDA FS 2006b, p. 6). The Greater Yellowstone 
Whitebark Pine Monitoring Group will continue to monitor whitebark pine 
occurrence, productivity, and health both inside and outside the PCA 
(USDA FS 2006b, p. 7). Members of the IGBST will monitor grizzly bear 
vital rates and population parameters within the entire DMA. Finally, 
State wildlife agencies will provide known mortality information to the 
IGBST, which will annually summarize these data with respect to 
location, type, date of incident, and the sex and age of the bear for 
the entire DPS area.
    In the 2007 final rule (72 FR 14866, March 29, 2007), we reported 
habitat quality and effectiveness values for 1998 using the Cumulative 
Effects Model and associated 1998 habitat data (USFWS 2007c, appendix 
F). Since 1998, the value of the Cumulative Effects Model has been 
questioned (Boyce et al. 2001, p. 32). Specifically, the validity of 
all the coefficients cannot be verified or ground-truthed, calling into 
question all of the model outputs. Without scientific and statistical 
defensibility, the Cumulative Effects Model will not produce credible 
results and it cannot be used (Boyce et al. 2001, p. 32; Borkowski 
2006, pp. 85-87). While the Cumulative Effects Model provided an index 
of relative change in habitat quality over time, it was never able to 
predict grizzly bear habitat use or preference or relate habitat to 
changes in population parameters. Because we no longer consider the 
Cumulative Effects Model to represent the best available science, we 
are no longer relying on or reporting measures of habitat quality or 
effectiveness using it. Instead, the IGBST will assess and report 
human-caused changes to grizzly bear habitat through maintenance of the 
1998 baseline values for developed sites, grazing allotments, and 
secure habitat (YES 2016b, appendix E).
    While the inverse relationship between whitebark pine seed 
production and grizzly bear conflicts in the GYE has been documented 
(Mattson et al. 1992, p. 436; Gunther et al. 1997, p. 38; Gunther et 
al. 2004, pp. 13-14), there are no data relating other foods such as 
spring ungulate carcasses, army cutworm moths, and cutthroat trout to 
the number of grizzly bear-human conflicts. Additionally, Schwartz et 
al. (2010, p. 662) found no relationship between the spatial 
distribution of whitebark pine, cutthroat trout, army cutworm moths, or 
ungulates and grizzly bear survival. Therefore, while it is important 
to continue to monitor food abundance, there is no scientific evidence 
that habitat quality is a limiting factor for grizzly bear survival in 
the GYE. The IGBST will continue coordinating with the National Forests 
and National Parks within the PCA to monitor food abundance but will 
focus management recommendations on regulating the risk of human-caused 
mortality through the 1998 baseline (i.e., factors the agencies have 
the authority and ability to regulate). Private land development and 
the numbers, causes, and spatial distribution of human-bear conflicts 
will continue to be monitored and reported annually, because this 
scenario is where habitat quality intersects with grizzly bear 
mortality risk.
    To address the possible ``lag effect'' associated with slow habitat 
degradation taking a decade or more to translate into detectable 
changes in population size (see Doak 1995), the IGBST will monitor a 
suite of indices 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 (Holling 1978, pp. 11-16). This ``lag effect'' is a 
concern only if the sole method to detect changes in habitat is 
monitoring changes in total population size (see Doak 1995, p. 1376). 
The monitoring systems in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, 
pp. 33-85) are far more detailed and sophisticated and would detect 
changes in vital rates in response to habitat changes sooner than the 
system described by Doak (1995, pp. 1371-1372). The IGBST will be 
monitoring a suite of vital rates including survival of radio-collared 
bears, mortality of all bears, reproductive success, litter size, 
litter interval, number of females with cubs-of-the-year, distribution 
of females with young, and overall population trajectory, in addition 
to the physical condition of bears by monitoring body mass and body fat 
levels of each bear handled. Because of the scope of monitoring, we 
feel confident that we will be able to detect the consequences of 
significant changes in habitat within a reasonable timeframe that would 
allow for appropriate management response.
    Monitoring systems in the 2016 Conservation Strategy allow for 
adaptive management (Holling 1978, pp. 11-16) as environmental issues 
change. The agencies have committed in the 2016 Conservation Strategy 
to be responsive to the needs of the grizzly bear through adaptive 
management (Holling 1978, pp. 11-16) 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. The entire process would be dynamic so that when new 
science becomes available it

[[Page 30630]]

will be incorporated into the management planning and monitoring 
systems outlined in the 2016 Conservation Strategy (YES 2016a, pp. 33-
91). The results of this extensive monitoring would allow wildlife and 
land managers to identify and address potential threats preemptively, 
allowing those managers to ensure that the GYE grizzly bear population 
remains a recovered population.

Triggers for a Biology and Monitoring Review by the IGBST

    The YGCC will use the IGBST's monitoring results and annual reports 
to determine if the population and habitat standards are being adhered 
to. The States, Tribes, and National Parks will use the IGBST's 
annually produced model-averaged Chao2 population estimates to set and 
establish total mortality limits within the DMA as per tables 2 and 3. 
The 2016 Conservation Strategy signatories have agreed that if there 
are deviations from certain population or habitat standards, the IGBST 
will conduct a Biology and Monitoring Review as described under Factors 
B and C Combined, above. A Biology and Monitoring Review would be 
initiated if any of the following scenarios occur (as further described 
under Factors B and C Combined, above): (1) Exceeding the total 
mortality limit for independent females for 3 consecutive years; (2) 
exceeding the total mortality limits for independent males for 3 
consecutive years; (3) exceeding the total mortality limit for 
dependent young for 3 consecutive years; (4) failure to meet the 
distribution criterion requiring sightings of females with young in at 
least 16 of 18 BMUs in 3 consecutive years; (5) failure to meet the 
model-averaged Chao2 estimate of 48 females with cubs-of-the-year for 
any 3 consecutive years.
    In addition to the scenarios described under Factors B and C 
Combined, a Biology and Monitoring Review by the IGBST would be 
initiated if there were a failure to meet any of the habitat standards 
described in the 2016 Conservation Strategy pertaining to levels of 
secure habitat, developed sites, and livestock allotments. These IGBST 
reviews were established to detect deviations that may occur due to 
normal variability or chance events and do not necessarily mean the GYE 
grizzly bear's status is deteriorating. As such, they are more easily 
activated than those that trigger a Service status review under the 
Act. These triggers could indicate the need to adjust management 
approaches and are intended to provide the YGCC with ample time to 
respond with management actions before involving the Service. A Biology 
and Monitoring Review would be completed within 6 months of the request 
by the YGCC, and the resulting written report would be presented to the 
YGCC and made available to the public.
    An IGBST Biology and Monitoring Review examines 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. This review also will provide management 
recommendations to correct any such deviations. A Biology and 
Monitoring Review could occur if funding becomes inadequate to the 
implementation of the 2016 Conservation Strategy to such an extent that 
it compromised the recovered status of the GYE grizzly bear population. 
If the review is triggered by failure to meet a population goal, the 
review would involve a comprehensive review of vital rates including 
survival rates, litter size, litter interval, grizzly bear-human 
conflicts, and mortalities. The IGBST will attempt to identify the 
reason behind any variation in vital rates such as habitat conditions, 
poaching, excessive roadkill, etc., and determine if these compromise 
the recovered status of the population. Similarly, if the review was 
triggered by failure to meet a habitat standard, the review would 
examine what caused the failure, whether this situation requires that 
the measures of the Act are necessary to ensure the recovered status of 
the population, and what actions may be taken to correct the problem. 
The IGBST would complete this review and release it to the public 
within 6 months of initiation and make it available to the YGCC and the 
public.
    The YGCC responds to a Biology and Monitoring Review with actions 
to address deviations from habitat standards or, if the desired 
population and habitat standards specified in the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy cannot be met in the opinion of the YGCC, the YGCC could 
recommend that the Service consider re-listing of the GYE grizzly bear 
DPS (YES 2016a, pp. 96-103). Because the YGCC possesses substantial 
information about the population's status, the Service would respond by 
conducting a status review to determine if re-listing is warranted.
    The Service can also initiate a status review independent of the 
IGBST or the YGCC should the total mortality limits be exceeded by a 
significant margin or routinely violated or if substantial management 
changes occur significant enough to raise concerns about population-
level impacts. Emergency re-listing of the population is an option we 
can and will use, if necessary, in accordance with section 4(g)(2) of 
the Act, to prevent a significant risk to the well-being of the grizzly 
bears (16 U.S.C. 1533(g)). Such an emergency re-listing would be 
effective the day the rule is published in the Federal Register and 
would be effective for 240 days. During this time, we would conduct our 
normal notice-and-comment rulemaking regarding the listing of the 
species based on the five factors of section 4(a)(1) of the Act to take 
effect when the 240-day limit on the emergency re-listing expires.

Triggers for a Service Status Review

    Upon delisting of the GYE grizzly bear population, we will use the 
information in IGBST annual reports and adherence to total mortality 
limits as per tables 2 and 3 to determine if a formal status review is 
necessary. Because we anticipate that the YGCC and IGBST are fully 
committed to maintaining GYE grizzly bear population management and 
habitat management through implementation of the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy and State and Federal management plans, and to correct any 
problems through the process established in the 2016 Conservation 
Strategy and described in the preceding section, we created a threshold 
for criteria that would trigger a formal Service status review that is 
higher than that for a Biology and Monitoring Review. Specifically, any 
of the following scenarios would result in a formal status review by 
the Service:
    (1) If there are any changes in Federal, State, or Tribal laws, 
rules, regulations, or management plans that depart significantly from 
the specifics of population or habitat management detailed in this 
final rule or the 2016 Conservation Strategy that would significantly 
increase the threat to the GYE grizzly bear population. The Service 
will promptly conduct such an evaluation of any change in a State or 
Federal agency's regulatory mechanisms to determine if such a change 
represents a threat to the GYE grizzly bear population. As the Service 
has done for the Rocky Mountain DPS of gray wolf, such an evaluation 
will be documented for the record and acted upon if necessary.
    (2) A total population estimate is less than 500 inside the DMA in 
any year using the model-averaged Chao2 population estimator, or counts 
of females with cubs-of-the-year fall below 48 for 3 consecutive years.
    (3) If fewer than 16 of 18 bear management units are occupied by 
females with young for 3 consecutive 6-year sums of observations.

[[Page 30631]]

    (4) If the Service determines a petition to re-list from an 
individual or organization is substantial.
    In addition to these four criteria for a status review, the Service 
may conduct a status review at any time that the best scientific 
information indicates a review may be necessary or if population and 
mortality targets in the 2016 Conservation Strategy are consistently 
not met. Upon completion of a formal status review, a notice of 
availability would be published in the Federal Register, and the review 
would be available at https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php. If a status review recommends re-listing the GYE 
grizzly bear DPS, a proposed listing rule would be published in the 
Federal Register, which is open to public comment and subject to peer 
review.
    Status reviews and re-listing decisions would be based on the best 
available scientific and commercial data available. If a status review 
is triggered, the Service would evaluate the status of the GYE grizzly 
bear population to determine if re-listing is warranted. We would make 
prompt use of the Act's emergency listing provisions if necessary to 
prevent a significant risk to the well-being of the GYE grizzly bear 
population. We have the authority to emergency re-list at any time, and 
a completed status review is not necessary to exercise this emergency 
re-listing authority.

Required Determinations

National Environmental Policy Act

    We have determined that environmental assessments and environmental 
impact statements, as defined under the authority of the NEPA of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), need not be prepared in connection with 
regulations pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act. We published a notice 
outlining our reasons for this determination in the Federal Register on 
October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244).

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.). The 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.

Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare Statements of 
Energy Effects when undertaking certain actions. As this rule is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, or use, 
this action is not a significant energy action and no Statement of 
Energy Effects is required.

Government-to-Government Relationships With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994, 
Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments (59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175, and the Department of the 
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our 
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with recognized Federal 
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with 
Secretarial Order 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, 
Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), 
we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with 
Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge 
that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal 
public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make 
information available to Tribes.
    Beginning in April 2014, the Service sent consultation invitation 
letters via registered mail to the four Tribes having treaty interests 
in the proposed GYE grizzly bear delisting area: the Northern Arapaho, 
Eastern Shoshone, Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation, and 
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Over the next year the Service was made aware 
of many more Tribes having an interest in the GYE grizzly bear and 
expanded our efforts in explaining the status of the bear and offering 
government-to-government consultation to Tribes.
    On February 17, 2015, the Service sent letters offering government-
to-government consultation to 26 Tribes. On June 15, 2015, the Service 
sent out a second round of letters to 48 tribes, offering another 
opportunity for consultation, followed by personal phone calls or 
emails from Service leadership to the 48 tribes, personally inviting 
them to engage in government-to-government consultation. On August 13, 
2015, the Service met with the Rocky Mountain Tribal Leaders Council in 
Billings, Montana and invited tribal representative to engage in 
consultation concerning the GYE grizzly bear.
    On October 29, 2015, the Service sent letters to 53 tribes, which 
included all Tribes, Tribal Councils, and First Nations in Canada that 
have contacted the Service regarding the GYE grizzly bear population. 
The letters invited all Federal Tribes to engage in government-to-
government consultation. In addition, the letter invited Tribes to 
participate in an informational webinar and conference call held on 
November 13, 2015.
    On March 3, 2016, the Service announced its proposal to delist 
grizzly bears in the GYE. The announcement was disseminated to all 
Tribes west of the Mississippi River with Tribes being notified by both 
email and hard copy mail. In addition, the Service announced two 
consultation meeting opportunities in the Federal Register and in the 
Tribal leader letters at the same time the proposed rule published. The 
two meetings were hosted in Bozeman, Montana and in Rapid City, South 
Dakota.
    On March 10, 2016, the Service hosted a tribal conference call to 
provide an overview of the proposed delisting and discuss any questions 
or concerns. It was not considered government-to-government 
consultation. The announcement for this call was included in the March, 
3rd notifications sent to Tribes.
    To date, the Service has conducted ten Tribal consultations with 
the following Tribes: June 10, 2015: Confederated Salish and Kootenai 
Tribes; June 18, 2015: Blackfeet Nation Wildlife Committee; July 21, 
2015: Northern Arapahoe Tribal Council; July 21, 2015: Eastern Shoshone 
Tribal Council; July 30, 2015: Shoshone Bannock Tribal Council; April 
28, 2016: Bozeman Montana (Tribes Present at meeting: Shoshone Bannock 
Tribes, Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Eastern Shoshone Tribe, Northwest Band 
of the Shoshone); May 5, 2016: Rapid City, South Dakota (Northern 
Arapaho, Rosebud Sioux); November 2, 2016: Eastern Shoshone Tribe; 
November 16, 2016: Shoshone Bannock Tribe; April 07, 2017: Northern 
Cheyenne Tribal Council. Government-to-Government consultation is not 
open to the public or media. This process involves consultation with 
Tribal members speaking on behalf of their Tribe and as a 
representative of their Tribe (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
above, for more information).

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is 
available at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2016-
0042, or is available upon request from the Grizzly Bear Recovery 
Coordinator (see ADDRESSES).

Glossary

    1998 baseline: The 1998 baseline represents the best available 
habitat measures representing ground conditions inside the

[[Page 30632]]

Primary Conservation Area (PCA) as of 1998. Habitat standards 
identified in the 2016 Conservation Strategy pertain to secure 
habitat, developed sites, and livestock grazing allotments. The 
standards demand that all three of these habitat parameters are to 
be maintained at or improved upon conditions that existed in 1998. 
The 1998 baseline represents the best estimate of what was known to 
be on the ground at that time and establishes a benchmark against 
which future improvements and/or impacts can be assessed. It also 
provides a clear standard for agency managers to follow when 
considering project-effect analysis.
    Chao2 estimator: A bias-corrected estimator of the total number 
of female grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year, derived from the 
frequency of single sightings or double sightings of unique females 
with cubs-of-the-year (Keating et al. 2002; Cherry et al. 2007) as 
identified based on a rule set by Knight et al. (1995).
    Cubs: Any use of the word cubs is synonymous to cubs-of-the-
year.
    Demographic monitoring area (DMA): The area of suitable habitat 
plus the potential sink areas within which the GYE grizzly bear 
population is annually surveyed and estimated and within which the 
total mortality limits apply. The DMA is 49,928 km\2\ (19,279 
mi\2\). See figure 1 for a map showing the DMA.
    Dependent young: Young grizzly bears less than 2 years old. 
Dependent young are with their mothers and are dependent upon them 
for survival.
    Discretionary mortality: Mortalities that are the result of 
hunting or management removals.
    Distinct population segment (DPS): The Service defined a DPS in 
the DPS policy (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996) that considers two 
factors to determine whether the population segment is a valid DPS: 
(1) Discreteness of the population segment in relation to the 
remainder of the taxon to which it belongs; and (2) the significance 
of the population segment to the taxon to which it belongs. If a 
population meets both tests, it is a DPS, and the Service then 
evaluates the population segment's conservation status according to 
the standards in section 4 of the Act for listing, delisting, or 
reclassification.
    Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE): YNP and GTNP form the core 
of the GYE, which includes portions of three States: Wyoming, 
Montana, and Idaho. At more than 90,000 km\2\ (34,750 mi\2\), it is 
one of the largest nearly intact temperate-zone ecosystems on Earth.
    Illegal kills: Illegal human-caused mortality, including but not 
limited to, vandal killings, poaching, and mistaken identity kills.
    Independent females: Grizzly bear females 2 years old or older.
    Independent males: Grizzly bear males 2 years old or older.
    Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST): The Interagency 
Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) is an interdisciplinary group of 
scientists and biologists responsible for long-term monitoring and 
research efforts on grizzly bears in the GYE. The main objectives of 
the team are to: (1) Monitor the status and trend of the grizzly 
bear population in the GYE; and (2) determine patterns of habitat 
use by bears and the relationship of land management activities to 
the welfare of the bear population. The IGBST is led by the USGS. 
IGBST members are representatives from the USGS, NPS, Service, USFS, 
the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribal Fish and Game 
Department, and the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
    Model-averaged Chao2 estimator: The method to estimate the total 
number of female grizzly bears with cubs-of-the-year based on a 
statistical weighting of linear and quadratic regression models 
fitted to data since 1983 to smooth annual variations in the time 
series, and using endpoint in the time series as the estimate for 
the current year.
    Model-averaged Chao2 population estimator: The method to 
estimate the total population size derived from the model-averaged 
Chao2 estimate of females with cubs-of-the-year.
    Primary Conservation Area (PCA): The name of the Recovery Zone 
area post-delisting. The habitat-based recovery criteria apply 
within the PCA.
    Recovery Zone: The area defined in the 1993 Grizzly Bear 
Recovery Plan within which the recovery efforts would be focused in 
the GYE. The Recovery Zone is not designed to contain all grizzly 
bears.
    Significant portion of its range (SPR): The Service defines a 
portion of the range of a species as ``significant'' if the species 
is not currently endangered or threatened throughout all of its 
range, but the portion's contribution to the viability of the 
species is so important that, without the members in that portion, 
the species would be in danger of extinction, or likely to become so 
in the foreseeable future, throughout all of its range.
    Suitable habitat: We define 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) being contiguous with the current distribution of GYE 
grizzly bears such that natural recolonization is possible; and (3) 
having low mortality risk as indicated through reasonable and 
manageable levels of grizzly bear mortality. Suitable habitat is 
made up of the Middle Rockies ecoregion, within which the GYE is 
contained. This area meets grizzly bear biological needs providing 
food, seasonal foraging opportunities, cover, and denning areas. See 
the Suitable Habitat section of this final rule for a more complete 
explanation.
    Total mortality: Documented known and probable grizzly bear 
mortalities from all causes including but not limited to: Management 
removals, illegal kills, mistaken identity kills, self-defense 
kills, vehicle kills, natural mortalities, undetermined-cause 
mortalities, grizzly bear hunting, and a statistical estimate of the 
number of unknown/unreported mortalities.
    Transition probability: The probability of a transition for an 
adult female (greater than 3 years old) among reproductive states. 
The possible reproductive states are: no young, with cubs-of-the-
year, with yearlings, or with 2-year-olds. Ten potential 
reproductive transitions are biologically feasible.
    Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee (YGCC): The 
committee of State, Federal, Tribal, and county agencies charged 
with implementing the 2016 Conservation Strategy post delisting. 
They will coordinate management and promote the exchange of 
information about the GYE grizzly bear population. Members include: 
YNP and GTNP; five National Forests: Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-
Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer Gallatin, and Shoshone; one BLM 
representative; the Biological Resources Division of the USGS; one 
representative each from Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; and one 
representative from each Native American Tribe with sovereign powers 
over reservation lands within the ecosystem.

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are staff members of the 
Service's Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT)

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11(h) by revising the first entry for ``Bear, 
grizzly'' under ``Mammals'' in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

[[Page 30633]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Listing citations
           Common name                Scientific name         Where listed          Status      and  applicable
                                                                                                     rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Mammals
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Bear, grizzly....................  Ursus arctos          U.S.A., conterminous    T             32 FR 4001, 3/11/
                                    horribilis.           (lower 48) States,                    1967;
                                                          except: (1) Where                    35 FR 16047, 10/
                                                          listed as an                          13/1970;
                                                          experimental                         40 FR 31734, 7/28/
                                                          population; and (2)                   1975;
                                                          that portion of Idaho                72 FR 14866, 3/29/
                                                          that is east of                       2007;
                                                          Interstate Highway 15                82 FR [Insert
                                                          and north of U.S.                     Federal Register
                                                          Highway 30; that                      page where the
                                                          portion of Montana                    document
                                                          that is east of                       begins], 6/30/
                                                          Interstate Highway 15                 2017;
                                                          and south of                         50 CFR
                                                          Interstate Highway                    17.40(b).\4d\
                                                          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.
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Dated: June 1, 2017.
James W. Kurth,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-13160 Filed 6-29-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4333-15-P