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

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

http://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

http://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

○ Demographic Recovery Criterion 1

○ Demographic Recovery Criterion 2

○ 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

○ Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting

○ Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon

○ 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.

○ Habitat Management Inside the Primary Conservation Area

Motorized Access Management

Developed Sites

Livestock Allotments

Mineral and Energy Development

Recreation

Snowmobiling

Vegetation Management

Climate Change

Habitat Fragmentation

○ Habitat Management Outside the Primary Conservation Area

○ Summary of Factor A

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

○ Human-Caused Mortality

○ Disease

○ Natural Predation

○ 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

○ Genetic Health

○ Changes in Food Resources

○ Climate Change

○ Catastrophic Events

○ Public Support and Human Attitudes

○ 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)

—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

ER30JN17.251

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, 2007

a,

2007

b,

2017). On November 17, 2005, 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 (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

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 λ, 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).

ER30JN17.252

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.

(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

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

http://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 2007

c,

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 2007

b,

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

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 2007

b,

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.

1991

a,

p. 1623) and army cutworm moths (Mattson

et al.

1991

b,

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

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

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 2007

a,

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

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 2007

b

) 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

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

http://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

6-year period

Number of BMUs occupied by females with young by year

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

Criteria met

(16 of 18

occupied

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.

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

http://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

http://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

http://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

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

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

http://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

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

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

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

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 2007

b

). 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

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 2007

b,

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 2007

b,

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

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;

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 2007

b,

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

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, e

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.