Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly Bears in the Bitterroot Area of Idaho and Montana
FederalRegulations
Ask Donna
How this section applies to your facts.
Federal Register › Vol. 62 › 62 FR 35762
Text
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AE00
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Proposed
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly
Bears in the Bitterroot Area of Idaho and Montana
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposes to reintroduce the
grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), a threatened species, into
east-central Idaho and a portion of western Montana. These grizzlies
will be classified as a nonessential experimental population pursuant
to section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Grizzly bear populations have been extirpated from most of the lower 48
United States. They presently occur in populations in the Cabinet/Yaak
ecosystem in northwestern Montana and north Idaho, the Selkirk
ecosystem in north Idaho and northeastern Washington, the North
Cascades ecosystem in northwestern Washington, the Northern Continental
Divide ecosystem in Montana, and the Yellowstone ecosystem in Montana,
Wyoming, and Idaho. The purpose of this reintroduction is to
reestablish a viable grizzly bear population in the Bitterroot
ecosystem in east-central Idaho and adjacent areas of Montana, one of
six grizzly recovery areas identified in the Grizzly Bear Recovery
Plan. Potential effects of this proposed rule are evaluated in a draft
Environmental Impact Statement released concurrently with the
publication of this proposed rule. This grizzly bear reintroduction
does not conflict with existing or anticipated Federal agency actions
or traditional
public uses of wilderness areas or surrounding lands.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by October
9, 1997.
this proposed rule are evaluated in a draft
Environmental Impact Statement released concurrently with the
publication of this proposed rule. This grizzly bear reintroduction
does not conflict with existing or anticipated Federal agency actions
or traditional
public uses of wilderness areas or surrounding lands.
DATES: Comments from all interested parties must be received by October
9, 1997.
ADDRESSES: Comments or other information may be sent to Grizzly Bear
Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, University Hall,
Room 309, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812. The complete
file for this proposed rule is available for inspection, by appointment
during normal business hours, at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Christopher Servheen, at the above
address, or telephone (406) 243-4903.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service)
also will hold public hearings to obtain additional verbal and written
information. Hearings are proposed to be held in Boise, Lewiston, and
Salmon, Idaho; and Helena, Missoula, and Hamilton, Montana. The
location, dates, and times of these hearings will be announced in the
Federal Register at least 15 days prior to the first hearing, and in
local newspapers.
Background
1. Legal
The Endangered Species Act Amendments of 1982, Public Law 97-304,
made significant changes to the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973 as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including the creation of section
10(j) which provides for the designation of specific animals and
populations as ``experimental.'' Under previous authorities in the Act,
the Service was permitted to reintroduce a listed species into
unoccupied portions of its historic range for conservation and recovery
purposes
o the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973 as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), including the creation of section
10(j) which provides for the designation of specific animals and
populations as ``experimental.'' Under previous authorities in the Act,
the Service was permitted to reintroduce a listed species into
unoccupied portions of its historic range for conservation and recovery
purposes. However, local opposition to reintroduction efforts from
certain parties concerned about potential restrictions, and
prohibitions on Federal and private activities contained in sections 7
and 9 of the Act, reduced the utility of reintroduction as a management
tool.
However, under section 10(j), a listed species reintroduced outside
of its current range, but within its historic range, may be designated,
at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary), as
``experimental.'' This designation increases the Service's flexibility
and discretion in managing reintroduced endangered species because such
experimental animals may be treated as a threatened species. The Act
requires that animals used to form an experimental population be
separated geographically from nonexperimental populations of the same
species.
Additional management flexibility is possible if the experimental
population is found to be ``nonessential'' to the continued existence
of the species in question. Section 10(j) of the Act states that
nonessential experimental animals are not subject to the formal
consultation provision of the Act unless they occur on land designated
as a national wildlife refuge or national park. Individual animals
within nonessential experimental populations located outside national
parks or national wildlife refuges are treated, for purposes of section
7 of the Act, except for subsection 7(a)(1), as if they were only
proposed for listing under section 4 of the Act
y
bears from the Northern Continental Divide and/or Yellowstone ecosystem
populations over a 5-year period. Consequently, the Service finds that
grizzly bears to be used in the reintroduction effort meet the
definition of ``nonessential'' (50 CFR 17.80 (b)) because the loss of
the reintroduced grizzlies is not likely to appreciably reduce the
likelihood of survival of the species in the wild.
The grizzly bear was listed as a threatened species in the lower 48
States under the Act in 1975 (40 FR 3173).
2. Biological
This proposed rule deals with the grizzly bear, a threatened
species that once ranged throughout most of western North America. An
estimated 50,000 grizzly bears roamed the American West prior to
European settlement (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). However,
distribution and population levels of this species have been diminished
by excessive human-caused mortality and loss of habitat. Today, only
800 to 1,000 grizzly bears remain in a few isolated populations in
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington, which represents approximately
2 percent of their historic range in the lower 48 States (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1993).
The natural history of grizzly bears and their ecological role was
poorly understood during the period of their eradication in the
conterminous United States. As with other large predators, grizzly
bears were considered a nuisance and threat to humans. Today, the
grizzly bear's role as an important and necessary part of natural
ecosystems is better understood and appreciated.
Historically, the grizzly bear was a widespread inhabitant of the
Bitterroot Mountains in east-central Idaho and western Montana.
Historic grizzly bear range includes national forest lands within and
surrounding the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area and Frank Church-
River of No Return Wilderness Area on both sides of the Salmon River.
The demise of the grizzly from the Bitterroot ecosystem (BE) was due to
the actions of humans
widespread inhabitant of the
Bitterroot Mountains in east-central Idaho and western Montana.
Historic grizzly bear range includes national forest lands within and
surrounding the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area and Frank Church-
River of No Return Wilderness Area on both sides of the Salmon River.
The demise of the grizzly from the Bitterroot ecosystem (BE) was due to
the actions of humans. Bears were actively killed for their fur, for
sport, and to eliminate possible threats to humans and domestic
livestock. The last verified death of a grizzly bear in the Bitterroot
Mountains occurred in 1932 and the last tracks were observed in 1946
(Moore 1984, 1996). Although occasional unverified reports of grizzly
sightings persist in the ecosystem (Melquist 1985), no verified tracks
or sightings have been documented in more than 50 years, and currently
there is no evidence of any grizzly bears in the BE.
3. Grizzly Bear Recovery Efforts
The reestablishment of a grizzly bear population in the BE will
increase the survival probabilities and conservation of the grizzly
bear in the lower 48 States. If the experimental population is lost, it
will not further decrease the survival probability of the bear in other
ecosystems beyond what currently exists. However, if the experimental
population is successful it will enhance grizzly bear conservation over
the long
term. The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan was finalized in 1982 (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1982) and called for the evaluation of the Selway-
Bitterroot ecosystem as a potential recovery area. An interagency team
of grizzly bear scientists concluded the area provided suitable habitat
and could support 200-400 grizzly bears (Servheen et al. 1991). In
1991, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee subsequently endorsed the
BE as a grizzly bear recovery area, and requested that the Service
pursue recovery.
In 1992, the Service organized a Technical Working Group to develop
a BE chapter to append to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan
ts concluded the area provided suitable habitat
and could support 200-400 grizzly bears (Servheen et al. 1991). In
1991, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee subsequently endorsed the
BE as a grizzly bear recovery area, and requested that the Service
pursue recovery.
In 1992, the Service organized a Technical Working Group to develop
a BE chapter to append to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. This
interagency group of biologists worked with a citizens' involvement
group comprised of local residents and agency personnel to draft a
recovery plan chapter. Public comments, including those from local
communities in central Idaho and western Montana, were integrated into
the final chapter. The Service revised the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan
in 1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993) and produced the
Bitterroot Ecosystem Recovery Plan Chapter (Chapter) as an appendix
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). This Chapter called for the
reintroduction of a small number of grizzly bears into the BE as an
experimental, nonessential population under section 10(j) of the Act
and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this
proposal. By establishing a nonessential experimental population, more
liberal management practices may be implemented to address potential
negative impacts or concerns regarding the reintroduction. The Chapter
identified a tentative long-term recovery objective of approximately
280 grizzly bears for the BE.
Planning for the reintroduction of grizzly bears into the BE of
east-central Idaho and western Montana was initiated in 1993, when the
agencies of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee requested that an
EIS be prepared. The Service formed and funded an interagency team to
prepare the EIS. The team included specialists from the Service, U.S.
Forest Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and the Nez Perce tribe. The Grizzly Bear
EIS program emphasized public participation
agencies of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee requested that an
EIS be prepared. The Service formed and funded an interagency team to
prepare the EIS. The team included specialists from the Service, U.S.
Forest Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and the Nez Perce tribe. The Grizzly Bear
EIS program emphasized public participation.
A public participation and interagency coordination program was
developed to identify issues and alternatives to be considered. A
public Notice of Intent (NOI) concerning grizzly bear recovery in the
BE, was published in the Federal Register on January 9, 1995 (60 FR
2399). The notice was furnished as required by the National
Environmental Policy Act regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) to obtain input
from other agencies and the public on the scope of issues to be
addressed in the EIS. This NOI asked the public to identify issues that
should be addressed in the draft EIS. A few days earlier the Service
also had issued a news release announcing the beginning of the EIS
process and the start of an EIS on grizzly bear reintroduction into the
BE.
Eight preliminary issues were identified in March 1995 from scoping
meetings for the Chapter and the NOI to prepare an EIS. Three
preliminary alternatives also were identified and published in a
Scoping of Issues and Alternatives brochure. This brochure was mailed
to 1,100 people and distributed at seven open houses. The brochure gave
background information, described the purpose and need of the proposed
action, listed preliminary issues and alternatives, and explained how
to become involved in the EIS process. People were asked to identify
issues and alternatives related to grizzly bear reintroduction into the
BE. On June 5, 1995, a notice was published in the Federal Register
initiating the formal scoping process with a 45-day comment period (60
FR 29708)
e purpose and need of the proposed
action, listed preliminary issues and alternatives, and explained how
to become involved in the EIS process. People were asked to identify
issues and alternatives related to grizzly bear reintroduction into the
BE. On June 5, 1995, a notice was published in the Federal Register
initiating the formal scoping process with a 45-day comment period (60
FR 29708). A news release was sent to the print, radio, and television
media in western Montana and Idaho on June 26, 1995, announcing the
dates and locations for public open houses. Public issue scoping was
initiated by the Service by mailing a brochure that detailed the EIS
process.
From July 5-11, 1995, seven public scoping sessions in the form of
open houses were held in Grangeville, Orofino, and Boise, Idaho;
Missoula, Helena, and Hamilton, Montana; and in Salt Lake City, Utah.
At the open houses, people could watch a 5-minute introductory video
about the proposed action of reintroducing a nonessential experimental
population and talk with representatives of the Service, U.S. Forest
Service, and State Fish and Game agencies about grizzly bears, their
recovery, and the EIS process. Those who attended the open houses
received copies of the issue and alternative scoping brochure and
question-and-answer booklet. They were encouraged to leave written
comments with agency personnel or mail their comments later. Verbal
comments or questions were heard and responded to by the agency
representatives, but verbal testimony was not formally recorded. More
than 300 people attended these scoping sessions and offered comments on
the proposal, the preliminary issues and alternatives, and voiced their
opinions on grizzly bears and reintroduction. The scoping comment
period was extended 30 days (from July 20 to August 21, 1995). On July
25 a press release was sent to local and national media to announce the
extension. This extension was requested by numerous public interests
with varied opinions on this complex topic
n
the proposal, the preliminary issues and alternatives, and voiced their
opinions on grizzly bears and reintroduction. The scoping comment
period was extended 30 days (from July 20 to August 21, 1995). On July
25 a press release was sent to local and national media to announce the
extension. This extension was requested by numerous public interests
with varied opinions on this complex topic.
Written public comments on issues and alternatives were solicited
at the open houses and through the media. More than 3,300 written
comments were received from individuals, organizations, and government
agencies. These comments arrived in over 565 letters, open house
meeting notes, six petitions, and six form letters or postcards. Public
comments typified the strong polarization of concerns regarding grizzly
bear management. Approximately 80 percent of written responses were
from residents of counties in Montana and Idaho adjacent to the
proposed reintroduction area. Major concerns raised included public
safety, impacts of grizzly bears on existing land uses, travel
corridors and linkages, nuisance bears and their control, and
depredation by bears on domestic livestock and native ungulates.
Hearings and a public comment period will be conducted after the
release of the draft EIS and proposed rule to obtain public input.
4. Reintroduction Site
The Service proposes to reintroduce grizzly bears into the BE of
east-central Idaho in the Selway Bitterroot Wilderness on Federal lands
managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The Bitterroot location was
selected as a site for an experimental population of grizzly bears
because of the following factors. The area known as the BE is centered
around the Wilderness Areas of central Idaho, while a small portion
extends eastward over the crest of the Bitterroot Mountains into
Montana. It includes about 67,526 square kilometers (sq km) (26,072
square miles (sq mi)) of contiguous national forest lands in central
Idaho and western Montana
population of grizzly bears
because of the following factors. The area known as the BE is centered
around the Wilderness Areas of central Idaho, while a small portion
extends eastward over the crest of the Bitterroot Mountains into
Montana. It includes about 67,526 square kilometers (sq km) (26,072
square miles (sq mi)) of contiguous national forest lands in central
Idaho and western Montana. These include portions of the Bitterroot,
Boise, Challis, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Payette, Sawtooth, Salmon, and
Panhandle National Forests in Idaho, and the Bitterroot and Lolo
National Forests in western Montana. The core of the ecosystem contains
three wilderness areas including the Frank Church-River of No Return,
Selway-Bitterroot, and Gospel Hump. These areas provide approximately
15,793 sq km (6,098 sq mi) of grizzly bear habitat. Grizzly bears would
only be reintroduced into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area
unless the Citizen Management Committee (Committee) determines that
reintroduction in the River of No Return Wilderness is appropriate.
Specific release sites that have high quality bear habitat and low
likelihood of human encounters would be identified. The area is also
geographically separate from other existing grizzly bear populations in
Idaho and Montana. Thus, any grizzly bears documented inside the Idaho
experimental population area would probably be from reintroduction
efforts rather than naturally dispersing extant grizzly populations
from northern Idaho or northwestern Montana.
Because reintroduced grizzly bears will be classified as a
nonessential experimental population, the Service's management
practices can reduce local concerns about excessive government
regulation on private lands, uncontrolled livestock depredations,
excessive big game predation, and the lack of State government and
local citizen involvement in the program
hern Idaho or northwestern Montana.
Because reintroduced grizzly bears will be classified as a
nonessential experimental population, the Service's management
practices can reduce local concerns about excessive government
regulation on private lands, uncontrolled livestock depredations,
excessive big game predation, and the lack of State government and
local citizen involvement in the program.
Establishment of grizzly bears in the BE of central Idaho will
initiate recovery in one of the six ecosystems identified as having the
potential to provide adequate habitat to maintain the grizzly bear as a
viable and self-sustaining species, which will further the conservation
of the species and assist in the attainment of the goals of the Grizzly
Bear Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993).
5. Reintroduction Protocol
The proposed grizzly bear reintroduction project would be
undertaken by the Service in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service,
other Federal agencies, the States of Idaho and Montana, the Nez Perce
Tribe, and entities of the Canadian government. To obtain grizzly
bears, the Service will enter into formal agreements with the Canadian
and Provincial governments and/or resource management agencies and the
State of Montana.
The BE reintroduction program proposes trapping 15-25 subadult male
and female grizzly bears over a 5-year period from areas in Canada (in
cooperation with Canadian authorities) and the United States that
presently have populations of grizzly bears living in habitats that are
similar to those found in the BE. Only bears with no history of
conflict with people will be reintroduced. Bears will be captured and
reintroduced at the time of year that will optimize their survival.
This would likely occur when grizzly bear food supplies in the BE are
optimum. Bears would be transported to east-central Idaho, given any
necessary veterinary care, and fitted with radio collars so that they
can be monitored by radiotelemetry
o history of
conflict with people will be reintroduced. Bears will be captured and
reintroduced at the time of year that will optimize their survival.
This would likely occur when grizzly bear food supplies in the BE are
optimum. Bears would be transported to east-central Idaho, given any
necessary veterinary care, and fitted with radio collars so that they
can be monitored by radiotelemetry. Individual reintroduced grizzly
bears would be monitored to determine their movements and how they use
their habitat, and to keep the public informed of general bear
locations and recovery efforts. Bears would be placed close enough to
each other to create a ``colony'' or population of bears, providing a
basis from which to expand in numbers.
The Service will continue to ask private landowners and agency
personnel in or around the BE to immediately report any grizzly bear
observations to the Service or other authorized agencies. An extensive
information and education program will be employed to discourage the
taking of grizzly bears by the public. Public cooperation will be
encouraged to ensure close monitoring of the grizzly bears and quick
resolution of any conflicts that might arise. Specific information on
grizzly bear reintroduction procedures can be found in Appendix 6,
``Scientific Techniques for the Reintroduction of Grizzly Bears,'' in
the draft Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery EIS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1997).
Status of Reintroduced Populations
couraged to ensure close monitoring of the grizzly bears and quick
resolution of any conflicts that might arise. Specific information on
grizzly bear reintroduction procedures can be found in Appendix 6,
``Scientific Techniques for the Reintroduction of Grizzly Bears,'' in
the draft Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery EIS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1997).
Status of Reintroduced Populations
In accordance with section 10(j) of the Act, the Service proposes
to designate this reintroduced population of grizzly bears as
nonessential experimental. Such designation would allow these grizzly
bears to be treated as a species proposed for listing for the purposes
of section 7 of the Act. This allows the Service to establish a less
restrictive special rule rather than using the general prohibitions
which might otherwise apply to threatened species. The biological
status of the grizzly and the need for management flexibility resulted
in the Service proposing to designate the grizzly bears reintroduced
into east-central Idaho as ``nonessential.'' This designation, together
with other protective measures, will contribute to the conservation and
recovery of the grizzly bear in east-central Idaho and western Montana.
The Service finds that protective measures and management practices
under this proposed rulemaking are necessary and advisable for the
conservation and recovery of the grizzly and that no additional Federal
regulations are required. The Service also finds that the nonessential
experimental status is appropriate for grizzly bears taken from wild
populations and released into the BE of east-central Idaho. The
nonessential status for such grizzlies allows for additional management
flexibility. Formal section 7 consultation would not be required for
any proposed Forest Service activity in the BE as a result of the
experimental reintroduction of bears, and the requirements of section
7(a)(2) would not apply
grizzly bears taken from wild
populations and released into the BE of east-central Idaho. The
nonessential status for such grizzlies allows for additional management
flexibility. Formal section 7 consultation would not be required for
any proposed Forest Service activity in the BE as a result of the
experimental reintroduction of bears, and the requirements of section
7(a)(2) would not apply. Presently, there are no conflicts envisioned
with any current or anticipated management actions of the U.S. Forest
Service or other Federal agencies in the area. The national forests are
beneficial to the reintroduction effort in that they form a natural
buffer to private properties and are typically managed in a manner
compatible for grizzly bears and other wildlife. The Service finds that
the more informal section 7(a)(4) conferencing requirements associated
with the nonessential designation do not pose a threat to the recovery
effort and continued existence of the grizzly bear.
Most of the reintroduction area is remote and sparsely inhabited
wild lands. However, there are some risks to grizzly recovery
associated with take of grizzlies in regard to other land uses and
various recreational activities. Potential threats are hunting,
trapping, animal damage control activities, and high speed vehicular
traffic. Hunting, trapping, and USDA Animal Damage Control programs are
prohibited or strictly regulated by State and Federal law and policy.
There are very few paved or unpaved roads in the proposed
reintroduction area or immediately outside of it. The unpaved roads
typically have low vehicle traffic, and are constructed for low speeds
and used only seasonally. Thus, grizzlies should encounter vehicles and
humans infrequently. In accordance with existing labeling, the use of
toxicants lethal to grizzlies is prohibited. Overall, the possible
risks and threats that could impact the success of the reintroduction
effort are thought to be minimal.
Location of Experimental Population
e traffic, and are constructed for low speeds
and used only seasonally. Thus, grizzlies should encounter vehicles and
humans infrequently. In accordance with existing labeling, the use of
toxicants lethal to grizzlies is prohibited. Overall, the possible
risks and threats that could impact the success of the reintroduction
effort are thought to be minimal.
Location of Experimental Population
The proposed release site for reintroducing grizzly bears into
east-central Idaho is on national forest land in the Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness Area. The Service would designate the Bitterroot Grizzly
Bear Recovery Area (Recovery Area) (approximately 14,983 sq km; 5,785
sq mi) to consist of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and the Frank
Church-River of No Return Wilderness. This is the area where grizzly
bear recovery would be emphasized. The Bitterroot Grizzly Bear
Experimental Population Area (Experimental Population Area), which
includes most of east-central Idaho and part of western Montana, would
be established by the Service under authority of section 10(j) of the
Act. This
approximately 65,113 sq km (25,140 sq mi) area would include the area
bounded by U.S. Highway 93 from Missoula, Montana, to Challis, Idaho;
Idaho Highway 75 from Challis to Stanley, Idaho; Idaho Highway 21 from
Stanley to Lowman, Idaho; Idaho Highway 17 from Lowman to Banks, Idaho;
Idaho Highway 55 from Banks to New Meadows, Idaho; U.S. Highway 95 from
New Meadows to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; and Interstate 90 from Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho, to Missoula, Montana. Much of the Experimental
Population Area has high-quality bear habitat with low likelihood of
conflicts between grizzly bears and humans.
Management
anley to Lowman, Idaho; Idaho Highway 17 from Lowman to Banks, Idaho;
Idaho Highway 55 from Banks to New Meadows, Idaho; U.S. Highway 95 from
New Meadows to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; and Interstate 90 from Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho, to Missoula, Montana. Much of the Experimental
Population Area has high-quality bear habitat with low likelihood of
conflicts between grizzly bears and humans.
Management
The special rule would authorize a 15-member Citizen Management
Committee (Committee) to be appointed by the Secretary in consultation
with the Governors of Idaho and Montana, and the Nez Perce tribe. This
Committee would implement the Bitterroot recovery chapter in the
Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and would be authorized management
implementation responsibility by the Secretary, for the Bitterroot
grizzly bear nonessential experimental population. All decisions of the
Committee must lead to recovery of the grizzly bear in the BE. The
Committee must consult with scientists to ensure that scientific
information is considered in its decision making. The members would
serve 6-year terms, although appointments may initially be of lesser
terms to ensure staggered replacement. The members would consist of
seven individuals appointed by the Secretary based on the
recommendations of the governor of Idaho, five members appointed by the
Secretary based on the recommendations of the Governor of Montana, one
member appointed by the Secretary based on the recommendation of the
Nez Perce Tribe, one member representing the U.S. Forest Service
appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture or his/her designee, and one
member representing the Service appointed by the Secretary or his/her
designee. Among the members recommended by the Governors of Idaho and
Montana would be a representative from each State fish and game agency.
If either Governor fails to make recommendations, the Secretary (or
his/her designee) will accept recommendations from interested parties
on the Governor's behalf
r designee, and one
member representing the Service appointed by the Secretary or his/her
designee. Among the members recommended by the Governors of Idaho and
Montana would be a representative from each State fish and game agency.
If either Governor fails to make recommendations, the Secretary (or
his/her designee) will accept recommendations from interested parties
on the Governor's behalf. The Secretary would solicit recommendations
from the Nez Perce Tribe and would appoint one member from the Nez
Perce Tribe. The Committee is to consist of a cross-section of
interests reflecting a balance of viewpoints, be selected for their
diversity of knowledge and experience in natural resource issues, and
for their commitment to collaborative decision making. The Committee is
to be selected from communities within and adjacent to the recovery and
experimental population areas.
The Bitterroot Chapter of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan contains a
recovery goal for the Bitterroot area. The Committee could recommend a
revised recovery goal, based on scientific advice, once sufficient
information is available. Any revised recovery goals developed by the
Committee would require public review appropriate for revision of a
recovery plan. The recovery goal for the Bitterroot grizzly bear
population would be consistent with the habitat available within the
recovery area and the best scientific and commercial data available.
Grizzly bears outside the recovery area and within the experimental
population area would contribute to meeting the recovery goal if there
were reasonable certainty for their long-term occupancy in such
habitats outside the recovery area
rroot grizzly bear
population would be consistent with the habitat available within the
recovery area and the best scientific and commercial data available.
Grizzly bears outside the recovery area and within the experimental
population area would contribute to meeting the recovery goal if there
were reasonable certainty for their long-term occupancy in such
habitats outside the recovery area. The Committee would develop a
process for obtaining the best biological, social, and economic data,
which would include an explicit mechanism for peer-reviewed, scientific
articles to be submitted to and considered by the Committee, as well as
periodic public meetings (not less than every 2 years) in which
qualified scientists could submit comments to and be questioned by the
Committee. Using the best scientific evidence available, and standards
and criteria developed by the agencies and the Committee, the Committee
would determine if the bear reintroduction was successful after a
minimum period of 10 years. If, based on these criteria and
recommendations by the Committee, the Secretary after consultation with
the Committee, the States of Idaho and Montana, the Idaho Department of
Fish and Game, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and
the Nez Perce Tribe, concludes the reintroduction has failed, the
experimental reintroduction would be terminated.
The Secretary would review the plans and efforts of the Committee.
If the Secretary determines, through his/her representative(s) on the
Committee, that the decisions of the Committee, the management plans,
or the implementation of those plans are not leading to the recovery of
the grizzly bear within the experimental population area, the
Secretary's representative on the Committee will solicit from the
Committee a determination whether the decision, the plan, or
implementation of components of the plan are leading to recovery
Committee, that the decisions of the Committee, the management plans,
or the implementation of those plans are not leading to the recovery of
the grizzly bear within the experimental population area, the
Secretary's representative on the Committee will solicit from the
Committee a determination whether the decision, the plan, or
implementation of components of the plan are leading to recovery.
Notwithstanding a determination by the Committee that a decision, plan,
or implementation of a plan are leading to recovery of the grizzly bear
within the experimental population area, the Secretary, who necessarily
retains final responsibility and authority for implementation of the
Act, may find that the decision, plan, or implementation of a plan are
inadequate for recovery and may resume management responsibility. In
such case the Committee would be disbanded and all requirements
identified in this rule regarding the Committee would be automatically
nullified. Otherwise, the Committee would continue until the recovery
objectives have been met and the Secretary completed delisting of the
Bitterroot population.
Public opinion surveys, public comments on grizzly bear management
planning, and the positions taken by elected officials indicate that
grizzly bears should not be reintroduced without assurances that
current uses of public and private lands will not be disrupted by
grizzly bear recovery activities. The recovery of grizzly bears would
be emphasized in the Recovery Area, but bears moving outside the
recovery area would be accommodated through management provisions in
the special rule and through the management plans and policies
developed by the Committee, unless potential conflicts were significant
and could not be corrected.
Grizzly bear management would allow for resource extraction
activities to continue without formal section 7 consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act
ide the
recovery area would be accommodated through management provisions in
the special rule and through the management plans and policies
developed by the Committee, unless potential conflicts were significant
and could not be corrected.
Grizzly bear management would allow for resource extraction
activities to continue without formal section 7 consultation under
section 7(a)(2) of the Act. All section 9 ``takings'' provisions under
the Act for the nonessential experimental population of grizzly bears
in the Bitterroot ecosystem are included in this special rule. The
Committee would be responsible for recommending changes in land-use
standards and guidelines as necessary for grizzly bear management.
People could continue to kill grizzly bears in self-defense or in
defense of others, with the requirement that such taking be reported
within 24 hours to appropriate authorities. Following the issuance of a
permit by the Service, a person would be allowed to harass a grizzly
bear attacking livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules) or bees. A
livestock owner may be issued a permit to kill a grizzly bear killing
or pursuing livestock on private lands if the response protocol
established by the Committee has been satisfied and it has not been
possible to capture the bear or deter depredations through agency
efforts. If there were
significant conflicts between grizzly bears and livestock within the
experimental population area, these could be resolved in favor of
livestock by capture or elimination of the bear depending on the
circumstances. There would be no Federal compensation program, but
compensation from existing private funding sources would be encouraged.
Animal control toxicants lethal to bears are currently not used on
public lands within the recovery and experimental population areas. The
Service anticipates that ongoing animal damage control activities would
not be affected by grizzly bear recovery
the
circumstances. There would be no Federal compensation program, but
compensation from existing private funding sources would be encouraged.
Animal control toxicants lethal to bears are currently not used on
public lands within the recovery and experimental population areas. The
Service anticipates that ongoing animal damage control activities would
not be affected by grizzly bear recovery. Any conflicts or mortalities
associated with these activities would result in review by the
Committee and any necessary changes would be recommended by the
Committee.
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks, and the U.S. Forest Service, in consultation with
the Service and the Nez Perce Tribe, would exercise day-to-day
management responsibility within the experimental population area while
implementing the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan Chapter for the BE, and the
special rules, policies, and plans of the Committee.
The experimental population area currently does not support any
grizzly bears. It is also unlikely that grizzlies from northwestern
Montana have arrived in central Idaho. No evidence of grizzly bears
exists in the BE. Thus, the Service has determined that the east-
central Idaho reintroduction area is consistent with provisions of
section 10(j) of the Act; specifically, that experimental grizzly bears
must be geographically separate from other nonexperimental populations.
Grizzlies dispersing into areas outside of the experimental population
area would receive all the protections of a threatened species under
the Act.
Although the Service has determined that there is no existing
grizzly bear population in the recovery area that would preclude
reintroduction and establishment of an experimental population in
Idaho, the Service will continue to monitor for the presence of any
grizzly bears naturally occurring in the area
pulation
area would receive all the protections of a threatened species under
the Act.
Although the Service has determined that there is no existing
grizzly bear population in the recovery area that would preclude
reintroduction and establishment of an experimental population in
Idaho, the Service will continue to monitor for the presence of any
grizzly bears naturally occurring in the area. Prior to any
reintroduction, the Service would evaluate the status of any grizzlies
found in the experimental population area.
Once this special rule is in effect and grizzly bears have been
released into the recovery area, any grizzly bears found within the
experimental area, including any bears that move in from outside the
experimental area, will be classified as part of the experimental
population. The special rule would remain in effect unless the
Secretary determines that the actions of the Committee are not
resulting in recovery of the grizzly bear in the BE, in which case the
Secretary will resume lead management implementation responsibility for
the BE experimental grizzly bear population. The Secretary's decision
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available.
Prior to resumption of lead management implementation responsibility,
the Secretary will provide the Committee with recommended corrective
actions and a 6-month time frame in which to accomplish those actions.
The Committee could review existing grizzly bear standards and
guidelines utilized by the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies and
landowners. They will be deemed adequate pending review by the
Committee, and the Committee may recommend changes to the U.S. Forest
Service and other agencies and landowners. Existing laws and
regulations governing land management activities will promote grizzly
bear recovery. The Committee's annual reviews of grizzly bear
mortalities will be the primary mechanism to assess the adequacy of
existing management techniques and standards
ding review by the
Committee, and the Committee may recommend changes to the U.S. Forest
Service and other agencies and landowners. Existing laws and
regulations governing land management activities will promote grizzly
bear recovery. The Committee's annual reviews of grizzly bear
mortalities will be the primary mechanism to assess the adequacy of
existing management techniques and standards.
The Committee will also be expected to develop grizzly bear
guidance for proper camping and sanitation within the experimental
population area. Existing grizzly bear camping and sanitation
procedures developed in other ecosystems containing grizzly bears will
serve as a basis for such guidelines.
The Committee also will be asked to develop specific guidance for
responses to grizzly/human encounters, livestock depredations, damage
to lawfully present property, and other grizzly/human conflicts within
the experimental population area. If there are significant conflicts
between grizzly bears and livestock within the experimental area, these
could be resolved in favor of the livestock by capture or elimination
of the bear depending on the circumstances. No restrictions on trail
systems in front or backcountry areas are anticipated, and policy
changes on trail restrictions would be recommended by the Committee as
necessary.
The Committee will revise mortality limits, population
determinations, and other criteria for recovery as appropriate. The
Committee also will be tasked with developing strategies to emphasize
recovery in the recovery area and to accommodate grizzly bears inside
the experimental area. If grizzly bears range outside the recovery
area, and if conflicts occur that are both significant and cannot be
corrected as determined by the Committee, then the Committee will be
expected to develop strategies to discourage grizzly bear occupancy in
reoccurring trouble spots within the experimental population area. No
changes in existing livestock allotments are anticipated
erimental area. If grizzly bears range outside the recovery
area, and if conflicts occur that are both significant and cannot be
corrected as determined by the Committee, then the Committee will be
expected to develop strategies to discourage grizzly bear occupancy in
reoccurring trouble spots within the experimental population area. No
changes in existing livestock allotments are anticipated. Unless the
Committee determines otherwise, this special rule provides that private
lands outside the national forest boundary in the Bitterroot Valley,
Montana, comprise an area where any human/grizzly conflicts would be
considered significant and not correctable. Grizzly bear occupancy will
be discouraged in these areas outside the national forest boundary in
the Bitterroot Valley, Montana, and grizzly bears will be captured and
returned to the recovery area. The purpose of this is to ensure that
grizzly bears do not move onto the private lands in the Bitterroot
Valley, Montana, where human conflict potential would be high.
The Committee will also be tasked with reviewing all human-caused
mortalities during the first 5 years to determine whether new measures
for avoiding future occurrences are required. For example, the
Committee could work with the Fish and Game Departments in both Idaho
and Montana to develop solutions to minimize conflicts between grizzly
bears and black bear hunting, should such conflicts occur.
The Committee will be asked to establish standards for determining
whether or not the experimental reintroduction has been successful.
These standards will reflect the success or failure of the program and
cannot be measured in less than 10 years. General examples for such
standards for failure could include--no bears remaining in the
experimental population area for no apparent reason; and the relocated
bears exhibiting unsuccessful reproduction as evidenced by no cubs of
the year or yearlings
oduction has been successful.
These standards will reflect the success or failure of the program and
cannot be measured in less than 10 years. General examples for such
standards for failure could include--no bears remaining in the
experimental population area for no apparent reason; and the relocated
bears exhibiting unsuccessful reproduction as evidenced by no cubs of
the year or yearlings.
All reintroduced grizzly bears designated as nonessential
experimental will be removed from the wild and the experimental
population status and regulations revoked if legal actions or lawsuits
change their status to threatened or endangered under the Act.
Based on the above information, and utilizing the best scientific
and commercial data available (in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), the
Service finds that reintroducing grizzly bears into the BE will further
the conservation and recovery of the species.
Public Comments Solicited
The Service intends that any final rule resulting from this
proposal be as accurate and effective as possible. Therefore, comments
from the public, States, tribes, other concerned government agencies,
the scientific community, industry, or any other party concerning this
proposed rule are hereby solicited. Comments must be received within 90
days of publication of this proposed rule in the Federal Register.
Any final decision on this proposal will take into consideration
the comments and any additional information received by the Service.
Such communications may lead to a final rule that differs from this
proposal.
The Service also will hold public hearings to obtain additional
verbal and written information. Hearings are proposed to be held in
Boise, Orofino, and Salmon, Idaho; and Helena, Missoula, and Hamilton,
Montana. The location, dates, and times of these hearings will be
announced in the Federal Register at least 15 days prior to the first
hearing, and in local newspapers.
National Environmental Policy Act
also will hold public hearings to obtain additional
verbal and written information. Hearings are proposed to be held in
Boise, Orofino, and Salmon, Idaho; and Helena, Missoula, and Hamilton,
Montana. The location, dates, and times of these hearings will be
announced in the Federal Register at least 15 days prior to the first
hearing, and in local newspapers.
National Environmental Policy Act
A draft EIS under the National Environmental Policy Act is
available to the public (see ADDRESSES). This proposed rule is an
implementation of the proposed action and does not require revision of
the EIS on grizzly bear recovery in the BE.
Required Determinations
This proposed rule was not subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866. Potential economic
effects of this proposed rulemaking could occur in five areas--(1)
effects on hunter harvest, (2) effects on livestock depredation, (3)
effects on land use restrictions, (4) effects on visitor use, and (5)
effects on existence values (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997).
Because reintroduction of grizzly bears to the BE will not have any
significant effect on huntable populations of ungulates in the BE, no
economic impact related to hunter harvest is expected. Grizzly
depredation on domestic livestock would likely be minimal during the
estimated 50 years required to achieve full grizzly recovery in the BE.
After recovery is achieved, depredation incidents involving livestock
are expected to be between 4 and 7 cattle and between 0 and 44 sheep
per year, with these losses spread over the entire BE area. Therefore,
economic impacts due to livestock depredations are estimated at between
$2,260 and $8,003 per year
al during the
estimated 50 years required to achieve full grizzly recovery in the BE.
After recovery is achieved, depredation incidents involving livestock
are expected to be between 4 and 7 cattle and between 0 and 44 sheep
per year, with these losses spread over the entire BE area. Therefore,
economic impacts due to livestock depredations are estimated at between
$2,260 and $8,003 per year. No economic impacts due to land use
restrictions are expected as a result of this proposed rule because
current land management practices for recreational activities, timber
harvest, and mineral extraction are compatible with grizzly bear
recovery in the BE and this proposed rule does not recommend any
changes to current management practices. Survey results show that while
visitation to the BE by local residents would likely decrease as a
result of grizzly reintroduction, visitation by regional and national
residents would increase, balancing out the decline in local
visitation. Therefore, no significant economic impact is expected as a
result of changes in visitor use. Expected effects on existence values
were derived through estimation of how much individuals would be
willing to contribute to a fund to support (or oppose) grizzly
reintroduction in the BE as described in this proposed rule. Using this
method, the Service estimates that net social benefits, including
existence values, as a result of this proposed rule would be very
large, on the order of $40-$60 million per year. This large estimate
reflects the large percentage of the U.S. population that supports
grizzly recovery and the fact that the grizzly bear is an extremely
high profile wildlife species. Based on the above discussion, the
Service concludes that this proposed rulemaking will not result in any
significant impact on the U.S. economy.
The rule will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)
ly recovery and the fact that the grizzly bear is an extremely
high profile wildlife species. Based on the above discussion, the
Service concludes that this proposed rulemaking will not result in any
significant impact on the U.S. economy.
The rule will not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Also, no direct costs, enforcement costs,
information collection, or record-keeping requirements are imposed on
small entities by this action and the rule contains no record-keeping
requirements, as detailed in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The Service has determined and certified pursuant
to the Unfunded Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this proposed
rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given
year on local or State governments or private entities. The Service has
further determined that these proposed regulations meet the applicable
standards provided in Sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order
12988.
References Cited
Melquist, W. 1985. A preliminary survey to determine the status of
grizzly bears (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the Clearwater National
Forest of Idaho. Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit.
University of Idaho, Moscow. 54 pp.
Moore, W.R. 1984. Last of the Bitterroot grizzly. Montana Magazine
(November-December): 8-12.
Moore, W.R. 1996. The Lochsa story. Mountain Publishing Company,
Missoula, Montana. 461 pp.
Servheen, C., A. Hamilton, R. Knight, B. McLellan. 1991. Report of
the technical review team: Evaluation of the Bitterroot and North
Cascades to sustain viable grizzly bear populations. Report to the
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Boise, Idaho. 9 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Grizzly bear recovery plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 195 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan
(revised). U.S
aluation of the Bitterroot and North
Cascades to sustain viable grizzly bear populations. Report to the
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Boise, Idaho. 9 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Grizzly bear recovery plan.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 195 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Grizzly bear recovery plan
(revised). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 181
pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Bitterroot Ecosystem Recovery
Plan Chapter--Supplement to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 27 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Reintroduction of grizzly
bears to the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, Missoula, Montana.
Author: The principal author of this proposed rule is Dr.
Christopher Servheen (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Proposed Regulation Promulgation
Accordingly, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service hereby proposes to
amend Part 17, Subchapter B of Chapter I, Title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. It is proposed that Sec. 17.11(h) be amended by revising the
existing entry for the ``Bear, grizzly (=brown)'' under ``MAMMALS'' and
adding a new entry under ``Bear, Grizzly (=brown)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
uthority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. It is proposed that Sec. 17.11(h) be amended by revising the
existing entry for the ``Bear, grizzly (=brown)'' under ``MAMMALS'' and
adding a new entry under ``Bear, Grizzly (=brown)'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
----------------------------------------------------- population where Critical
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat Special rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MAMMALS
* * * * * * *
Bear, Grizzly (=brown).......... Ursus arctos Holarctic......... U.S.A., T 1, 2D, 9,-- NA 17.40(b)
horribilis. conterminous
(lower 48)
States, except
where listed as
an experimental
population.
Do.............................. do................ do................ U.S.A. (portions XN ............. NA 17.84( )
of ID and MT, see
17.84(j)).
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is proposed that Sec. 17.84 be amended by adding paragraph
(k) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.84 Special rules--vertebrates.
* * * * *
(k) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis).
(1) Definitions. The definitions set out in Sec. 17.3 apply to this
paragraph (k). For purposes of this paragraph--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. It is proposed that Sec. 17.84 be amended by adding paragraph
(k) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.84 Special rules--vertebrates.
* * * * *
(k) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis).
(1) Definitions. The definitions set out in Sec. 17.3 apply to this
paragraph (k). For purposes of this paragraph--
(i) The term Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Experimental Population Area
means that area delineated in paragraph (k)(9) of this section, which
includes the Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area, and within which
management plans developed as part of the Citizen Management Committee
described in paragraph (k)(12) of this section will be in effect. This
area is within the historic range of the grizzly bear.
(ii) The term Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area (Recovery Area)
means that area delineated in paragraph (k)(10) of this section within
which a nonessential experimental population of grizzly bears is to be
released. The Recovery Area is within the historic range of the
species.
(iii) The term Bitterroot Valley means those private lands lying
within the Bitterroot Experimental Population Area outside the
Bitterroot National Forest boundary south of U.S. Highway 12 to Lost
Trail Pass.
(iv) The term Citizen Management Committee means that Committee
delineated in paragraph (k)(12) of this section.
(v) The term take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct
e Bitterroot Experimental Population Area outside the
Bitterroot National Forest boundary south of U.S. Highway 12 to Lost
Trail Pass.
(iv) The term Citizen Management Committee means that Committee
delineated in paragraph (k)(12) of this section.
(v) The term take means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. For purposes of this special rule, except for persons
engaged in hunting or shooting activities, any person may take grizzly
bears in the area defined in paragraph (k)(9) of this section, provided
that such take is incidental to, and not the purpose of, an otherwise
lawful activity, including activities conducted in accordance with
plans of the Committee, and provided that such taking shall be reported
within 24 hours to appropriate authorities as listed in paragraph
(k)(5) of this section. Persons lawfully engaged in hunting or shooting
activities must correctly identify their target before shooting in
order to avoid illegally shooting a grizzly bear. The act of taking a
grizzly bear that is wrongly identified as another species may be
referred to appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(2) The grizzly bears to be reintroduced pursuant to this special
rule will be nonessential experimental and release of grizzly bears
pursuant to this special rule will further the conservation of the
species.
(3) No person may take this species in the Experimental Area,
except as provided in paragraphs (k)(1)(v), (4), (5), and (6) of this
section.
o appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(2) The grizzly bears to be reintroduced pursuant to this special
rule will be nonessential experimental and release of grizzly bears
pursuant to this special rule will further the conservation of the
species.
(3) No person may take this species in the Experimental Area,
except as provided in paragraphs (k)(1)(v), (4), (5), and (6) of this
section.
(4) Any person with a valid permit issued by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service or by the appropriate State or Tribal agency pursuant
to a subpermit issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under
Sec. 17.32 may take grizzly bears in the Experimental Area for
scientific purposes, the enhancement of propagation or survival of the
species, zoological exhibition, and other conservation purposes. Such
permits must be consistent with the Act, with management plans adopted
for this population and with applicable State fish and wildlife
conservation laws and regulations.
(5)(i) Persons may take grizzly bears found in the area defined in
paragraph (k)(9) of this section in defense of that person's own life
or the lives of other persons. Such taking shall be reported within 24
hours as to date, exact location, and circumstances to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, University
Hall, Room 309, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812 (406-
243-4903), or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Assistant Regional
Director for Law Enforcement, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon
97232-4181 (503-231-6125), or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Assistant
Regional Director for Law Enforcement, P.O. Box 25486, DFC, Denver,
Colorado 80225 (303-236-7540), and either the Idaho Department of Fish
and Game, P.O. Box 25, Boise Idaho 83707 (208-334-3700), or the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1420 E. Sixth Avenue, Helena,
Montana 59620 (406-444-2535), and Nez Perce Tribal authorities (as
appropriate).
and Wildlife Service, Assistant
Regional Director for Law Enforcement, P.O. Box 25486, DFC, Denver,
Colorado 80225 (303-236-7540), and either the Idaho Department of Fish
and Game, P.O. Box 25, Boise Idaho 83707 (208-334-3700), or the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1420 E. Sixth Avenue, Helena,
Montana 59620 (406-444-2535), and Nez Perce Tribal authorities (as
appropriate).
(ii) Any livestock owner may be issued a permit by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, or the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks and appropriate Tribal
authorities to harass grizzly bears found in the area defined in
paragraph (k)(9) of this section that are actually harming or killing
livestock, provided that all such harassment is by methods that are not
lethal or physically injurious to the grizzly bear and such harassment
is reported within 24 hours as to date, exact location, and
circumstances to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grizzly Bear
Recovery Coordinator, University Hall, Room 309, University of Montana,
Missoula, Montana 59812 (406-243-4903), or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Assistant Regional Director for Law Enforcement, 911 NE 11th
Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-4181 (503-231-6125), or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Assistant Regional Director for Law Enforcement, P.O.
Box 25486, DFC, Denver, Colorado 80225 (303-236-7540) and either the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 25, Boise, Idaho 83707
(208-334-3700), or the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
1420 E. Sixth Avenue, Helena, Montana 59620 (406-444-2535), and the Nez
Perce Tribal authorities (as appropriate).
Wildlife Service, Assistant Regional Director for Law Enforcement, P.O.
Box 25486, DFC, Denver, Colorado 80225 (303-236-7540) and either the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 25, Boise, Idaho 83707
(208-334-3700), or the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,
1420 E. Sixth Avenue, Helena, Montana 59620 (406-444-2535), and the Nez
Perce Tribal authorities (as appropriate).
(iii) Any livestock owner may be issued a permit by the U.S. Fish
and
Wildlife Service, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, or the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks to take grizzly bears on private
lands found in the area defined in paragraph (k)(9) of this section to
protect livestock actually pursued or being killed on private property,
after any response protocol established by the Committee has been
satisfied and efforts to capture depredating grizzly bears by U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service or State or Tribal wildlife agency personnel have
proven unsuccessful, provided that all such taking shall be reported as
to date, exact location, and circumstances within 24 hours to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator,
University Hall, Room 309, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana
59812 (406-243-4903), or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Assistant
Regional Director for Law Enforcement, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland,
Oregon 97232-4181 (503-231-6125), or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Assistant Regional Director for Law Enforcement, P.O. Box 25486, DFC,
Denver, Colorado 80225 (303-236-7540) and either the Idaho Department
of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 25, Boise Idaho 83707 (208-334-3700), or the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1420 E. Sixth Avenue,
Helena, Montana 59620 (406-444-2535), and the Nez Perce Tribal
authorities (as appropriate).
d Wildlife Service,
Assistant Regional Director for Law Enforcement, P.O. Box 25486, DFC,
Denver, Colorado 80225 (303-236-7540) and either the Idaho Department
of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 25, Boise Idaho 83707 (208-334-3700), or the
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1420 E. Sixth Avenue,
Helena, Montana 59620 (406-444-2535), and the Nez Perce Tribal
authorities (as appropriate).
(6) Any authorized employee or agent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service or appropriate State wildlife agency or Nez Perce Tribe who is
lawfully designated for such purposes, when acting in the course of
official duties, may take a grizzly bear from the wild in the
Experimental Areas if such action is necessary to:
(i) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned grizzly bear;
(ii) Dispose of a dead grizzly bear, or salvage a dead grizzly bear
that may be useful for scientific study;
(iii) Take a grizzly bear that constitutes a demonstrable but
nonimmediate threat to human safety or that is responsible for
depredations to lawfully present domestic animals or other personal
property, if it has not been possible to otherwise eliminate such
depredation or loss of personal property and after it has been
demonstrated that it has not been possible to eliminate such threat by
live capturing and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed in the area
defined in paragraph (k)(10) of this section or other areas approved by
the Committee;
(iv) Move a grizzly bear for genetic purposes;
ty, if it has not been possible to otherwise eliminate such
depredation or loss of personal property and after it has been
demonstrated that it has not been possible to eliminate such threat by
live capturing and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed in the area
defined in paragraph (k)(10) of this section or other areas approved by
the Committee;
(iv) Move a grizzly bear for genetic purposes;
(v) Relocate a grizzly bear to avoid conflict with human
activities;
(vi) Relocate grizzly bears within the Experimental Area to improve
grizzly bear survival and recovery prospects.
(7) No person except those authorized under paragraphs (k)(4) (5)
and (6) of this section shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport,
ship, import, or export by any means whatsoever any grizzly bear or
part thereof from the Experimental Population Area taken in violation
of these regulations or in violation of applicable State fish and
wildlife laws or regulations or the Endangered Species Act.
(8) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit
another to commit, or cause to be committed any offense defined in
paragraphs (k) (3) and (7) of this section.
(9) Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Experimental Population Area. The
boundaries of the Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Experimental Population Area
are delineated by U.S. 93 from Missoula, Montana, to Challis, Idaho;
Idaho 75 from Challis to Stanley, Idaho; Idaho 21 from Stanley to
Lowman, Idaho; State Highway 17 from Lowman to Banks, Idaho; Idaho 55
from Banks to New Meadows, Idaho; U.S. 95 from New Meadows to Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho; and Interstate 90 from Coeur d'Alene to Missoula,
Montana. Grizzly bears within both the Recovery Area as defined in
ted by U.S. 93 from Missoula, Montana, to Challis, Idaho;
Idaho 75 from Challis to Stanley, Idaho; Idaho 21 from Stanley to
Lowman, Idaho; State Highway 17 from Lowman to Banks, Idaho; Idaho 55
from Banks to New Meadows, Idaho; U.S. 95 from New Meadows to Coeur
d'Alene, Idaho; and Interstate 90 from Coeur d'Alene to Missoula,
Montana. Grizzly bears within both the Recovery Area as defined in
(k)(10) of this section and within the Experimental Area will be
accommodated through management provisions provided for in this rule
and through the management plans and policies developed by the
Committee. All grizzly bears found in the wild within the boundaries of
this paragraph (k)(9) of this section after the first releases will be
considered nonessential experimental animals. In the conterminous
United States, a grizzly bear that is outside the experimental area (as
defined in paragraph (k)(9) of this section) would be considered as
threatened unless it is marked or otherwise known to be an experimental
animal.
(10) Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area. The Bitterroot Grizzly
Bear Recovery Area consists of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and the
Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. All reintroductions will
take place in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness unless the Committee
determines that reintroduction in the Frank Church River of No Return
Wilderness is appropriate. The term ``Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery
Area'' used here identifies the area of recovery emphasis.
(11) Recovery Goal. The Bitterroot Chapter of the Grizzly Bear
Recovery Plan identifies a tentative recovery goal. This recovery goal
may be refined by the Committee as grizzly bears are reintroduced and
occupy suitable habitats in the Experimental Area. When the final
recovery goal is met, the Secretary of the Interior intends to publish
a proposed rule for the delisting of the grizzly bear population within
the Experimental Area in accordance with the requirements of the Act
and its regulations.
goal. This recovery goal
may be refined by the Committee as grizzly bears are reintroduced and
occupy suitable habitats in the Experimental Area. When the final
recovery goal is met, the Secretary of the Interior intends to publish
a proposed rule for the delisting of the grizzly bear population within
the Experimental Area in accordance with the requirements of the Act
and its regulations.
(12) Citizen Management Committee. This Committee shall be
authorized management implementation responsibility by the Secretary of
the Interior, in consultation with the governors of Idaho and Montana,
for the Bitterroot grizzly bear experimental population. As soon as
possible after the effective date of this rule, the Committee shall be
organized by requesting nominations of citizen members by the governors
of Idaho and Montana, the Nez Perce Tribe, and nomination of agency
members by represented agencies.
(i) The Committee shall be composed of 15 members serving 6-year
terms. Appointments may initially be of lesser terms to ensure
staggered replacement. Membership shall consist of seven individuals
appointed by the Secretary of the Interior based upon the
recommendations of the Governor of Idaho, five members appointed by the
Secretary of the Interior based upon the recommendations of the
Governor of Montana, one member representing the U.S. Forest Service
appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture or his/her designee, and one
member representing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service appointed by the
Secretary of the Interior or his/her designee. Members recommended by
the Governors of Idaho and Montana shall be based on the
recommendations of the interested parties and shall include at least
one representative each from the appropriate State fish and wildlife
agencies. If either Governor fails to make recommendations, the
Secretary (or his/her designee) shall accept recommendations from
interested parties on the Governor's behalf
e. Members recommended by
the Governors of Idaho and Montana shall be based on the
recommendations of the interested parties and shall include at least
one representative each from the appropriate State fish and wildlife
agencies. If either Governor fails to make recommendations, the
Secretary (or his/her designee) shall accept recommendations from
interested parties on the Governor's behalf. The Committee shall
consist of a cross-section of interests reflecting a balance of
viewpoints, be selected for their diversity of knowledge and experience
in natural resource issues, and for their commitment to collaborative
decision making. The Committee shall be selected from communities
within and adjacent to the Recovery and Experimental areas. The
Secretary of the Interior shall solicit recommendations from the Nez
Perce Tribe and shall appoint one member. The Secretary of the Interior
shall fill vacancies as they occur with the appropriate members
based on the recommendation of the appropriate Governor or the Nez
Perce Tribe.
(ii) The Committee will be authorized and tasked with:
(A) Developing a process for obtaining the best biological, social,
and economic data, which shall include an explicit mechanism for peer-
reviewed, scientific articles to be submitted to and considered by the
Committee, as well as periodic public meetings (not less than every 2
years) in which qualified scientists may submit comments to and be
questioned by the Committee. The Committee will base its decisions upon
the best scientific and commercial data available. All decisions of the
Committee including components of its management plans must lead toward
recovery of the grizzly bear and minimize social and economic impacts.
(B) Soliciting technical advice and guidance from outside experts.
(C) Implementing the Bitterroot chapter of the Grizzly Bear
Recovery Plan. Develop management plans and policies, as necessary, for
the management of grizzly bears in the Experimental Area
mittee including components of its management plans must lead toward
recovery of the grizzly bear and minimize social and economic impacts.
(B) Soliciting technical advice and guidance from outside experts.
(C) Implementing the Bitterroot chapter of the Grizzly Bear
Recovery Plan. Develop management plans and policies, as necessary, for
the management of grizzly bears in the Experimental Area. Such
management plans and policies will be in accordance with applicable
State and Federal laws. The Committee shall give full consideration to
the comments and opinions of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho
Department of Fish and Game, and the Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, and the Nez Perce Tribe.
(D) Providing means by which the public may participate in, review,
and comment on the decisions of the Committee. The Committee must
thoroughly consider and respond to public input prior to its decisions.
(E) Developing its internal processes, where appropriate, such as
governance, decision making, quorum, officers, meeting schedules and
location, public notice of meetings, minutes, etc. Given the large size
of the Committee, an affirmative vote by a simple majority is
sufficient to approve any Committee decisions.
(F) Requesting staff support from Idaho Department of Fish and
Game, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, other affected Federal
agencies, and the Nez Perce Tribe, to perform administrative functions
and reimburse Committee members for costs associated with meetings,
travel, and incidentals.
(G) Reviewing existing grizzly bear standards and guidelines
utilized by the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies and landowners.
Existing Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as amended, will be
deemed adequate pending review by the Committee. The Committee reviews
of grizzly bear mortalities will be the primary mechanism to assess the
adequacy of existing management techniques and standards
Reviewing existing grizzly bear standards and guidelines
utilized by the U.S. Forest Service and other agencies and landowners.
Existing Forest Plan standards and guidelines, as amended, will be
deemed adequate pending review by the Committee. The Committee reviews
of grizzly bear mortalities will be the primary mechanism to assess the
adequacy of existing management techniques and standards. If the
Committee deems such standards and guidelines inadequate for recovery
of grizzly bears, the Committee may recommend changes to the U.S.
Forest Service and other agencies and landowners.
(H) Developing grizzly bear guidance for proper camping and
sanitation within the Experimental Area. Existing grizzly bear camping
and sanitation procedures developed in other ecosystems with grizzly
bears will serve as a basis for such guidelines.
(I) Develop response protocol for responding to grizzly/human
encounters, livestock depredations, damage to lawfully present
property, and other grizzly/human conflicts within the Experimental
Area. Any response protocol developed by the Committee will have to
undergo public comment and be revised as appropriate based on comments
received. Any conflicts or mortalities associated with these activities
will result in review by the Committee to determine any recommendations
that the Committee can make to help prevent future conflicts or
mortalities. Policy changes on trail restrictions will be recommended
by the Committee as necessary to appropriate wildlife and land
management agencies.
(J) Revising mortality limits, population determinations, and other
criteria for recovery as appropriate.
(K) Reviewing all human-caused mortalities during the first 5 years
to determine whether new measures for avoiding future occurrences are
required
Policy changes on trail restrictions will be recommended
by the Committee as necessary to appropriate wildlife and land
management agencies.
(J) Revising mortality limits, population determinations, and other
criteria for recovery as appropriate.
(K) Reviewing all human-caused mortalities during the first 5 years
to determine whether new measures for avoiding future occurrences are
required. If grizzly bear mortalities occur as a result of black bear
hunting, the Committee will work with the Fish and Game Departments in
both Idaho and Montana to develop solutions to minimize conflicts
between grizzly bears and black bear hunting.
(L) Developing strategies to emphasize recovery inside the recovery
area and to accommodate grizzly bears inside the Experimental Area.
Grizzly bears may range outside the Recovery Area because grizzly bear
habitat exists throughout the Experimental Area. Where conflicts are
both significant and cannot be corrected as determined by the
Committee, including conflicts associated with livestock, the Committee
will develop strategies to discourage grizzly bear occupancy in
portions of the Experimental Area. Unless the Committee determines
otherwise, this rule provides that private lands outside the national
forest boundary in the Bitterroot Valley are an area where any human/
grizzly conflicts would be considered significant. Grizzly bear
occupancy will be discouraged in these areas and grizzly bears will be
captured and returned to the Recovery Area.
(M) Establishing standards for determining whether or not the
experimental reintroduction has been successful. It is recognized that
absent extraordinary circumstances, these standards will reflect that
the success or failure of the program cannot be measured in less than
10 years. General guidelines for such standards include one or more of
the following conditions:
ed to the Recovery Area.
(M) Establishing standards for determining whether or not the
experimental reintroduction has been successful. It is recognized that
absent extraordinary circumstances, these standards will reflect that
the success or failure of the program cannot be measured in less than
10 years. General guidelines for such standards include one or more of
the following conditions:
(1) If, within the number of years established by the Committee
following initial reintroduction, no relocated grizzly bear remains
within the Experimental Area and the reasons for emigration or
mortality cannot be identified and/or remedied;
(2) If, within the number of years established by the Committee
following initial reintroduction, no cubs of the year or yearlings
exist and the relocated bears are not showing signs of successful
reproduction as evidenced by no cubs of the year or yearlings.
(N) Develop procedures for the expeditious issuance of permits
described in paragraph (k)(5)(iii) of this section.
(O) Develop 2-year work plans for submittal to the Secretary of the
Interior pursuant to paragraph (k)(14) of this section.
(P) The Committee may recommend refined recovery goals for the
Bitterroot Chapter of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and a final
recovery goal when sufficient information is available. Sufficient
information is currently not available to develop a scientifically
sound recovery goal. As this information becomes available, the
Committee may recommend the recovery goal to the Secretary of the
Interior and procedures for determining how this goal will be measured.
The recovery goal for the Bitterroot grizzly bear population will be
consistent with the habitat available within the Recovery Area and the
best scientific and commercial data available. Any revised recovery
goals developed by the Committee will require public review appropriate
for the revision of a recovery plan
of the
Interior and procedures for determining how this goal will be measured.
The recovery goal for the Bitterroot grizzly bear population will be
consistent with the habitat available within the Recovery Area and the
best scientific and commercial data available. Any revised recovery
goals developed by the Committee will require public review appropriate
for the revision of a recovery plan. Bears outside the Recovery Area
will contribute to meeting the recovery goal if there is reasonable
certainty for their long-term occupancy in such habitats outside the
Recovery Area.
(13) The Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Montana
Department
of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and Nez Perce Tribe, will exercise day-to-day
management responsibility within the Experimental Area in accordance
with this rule, the Bitterroot Chapter in the Grizzly Bear Recovery
Plan and the policies and plans described in (k)(12) of this section.
(14) The Secretary of the Interior or his or her designee shall
review 2-year work plans to be submitted by the Committee which outline
the directions for the Bitterroot reintroduction effort. If the
Secretary of the Interior determines, through his/her representative on
the Committee that the decisions of the Committee, the management
plans, or the implementation of those plans are not leading to the
recovery of the grizzly bear within the Experimental Area, the
Secretary of the Interior's representative on the Committee shall
solicit from the Committee a determination whether the decision, the
plan, or implementation of components of the plan are leading to
recovery
tee that the decisions of the Committee, the management
plans, or the implementation of those plans are not leading to the
recovery of the grizzly bear within the Experimental Area, the
Secretary of the Interior's representative on the Committee shall
solicit from the Committee a determination whether the decision, the
plan, or implementation of components of the plan are leading to
recovery. Notwithstanding a determination by the Committee that a
decision, plan, or implementation of a plan are leading to recovery of
the grizzly bear within the Experimental Area, the Secretary of the
Interior, who necessarily retains final responsibility and authority
for implementation of the Endangered Species Act, may find that the
decision, plan, or implementation of a plan are inadequate for recovery
and may resume lead management responsibility. In the event that the
Secretary of the Interior determines that the actions of the Committee
are not leading to recovery of the Bitterroot grizzly bear population,
then the Secretary of the Interior shall resume lead management
implementation responsibility for the Bitterroot experimental grizzly
bear population. The Secretary of the Interior's decision shall be
based on the best scientific and commercial data available. Prior to
such resumption of lead management implementation responsibility, the
Secretary of the Interior shall provide the Committee with recommended
corrective actions and a 6-month time frame in which to accomplish
those actions. Should the Secretary resume lead management
responsibility, the Committee would be disbanded and all requirements
identified in this rule regarding the Committee would be automatically
nullified. If the Secretary does not resume lead management
responsibility, the Committee shall continue until the recovery
objectives have been met and the Secretary of the Interior has
completed delisting.
. Should the Secretary resume lead management
responsibility, the Committee would be disbanded and all requirements
identified in this rule regarding the Committee would be automatically
nullified. If the Secretary does not resume lead management
responsibility, the Committee shall continue until the recovery
objectives have been met and the Secretary of the Interior has
completed delisting.
(15) The reintroduced population will be monitored closely for the
duration of the recovery process, generally by use of radio telemetry
as appropriate.
(16) The status of Bitterroot grizzly bear recovery will be
reevaluated by the Committee and Secretary of the Interior at 5-year
intervals. This review will take into account the reproductive success
of the grizzly bears released, human-caused mortality, movement
patterns of individual bears, food habits, and overall health of the
population and will recommend changes and improvements in the recovery
program.
(17) Determination of an Unsuccessful Reintroduction Under
Nonessential Experimental Designation by the Secretary of the Interior.
If, based on any of the criteria established by the Committee, unless
the Secretary of the Interior has resumed management under (k)(14) of
this section, the Secretary of the Interior concludes, after
consultation with the Committee, the States of Idaho and Montana, the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, and the Nez Perce Tribe, that the reintroduction
has failed to produce a self-sustaining population, this rule will not
be utilized as authority to reintroduce additional grizzly bears. Any
remaining bears will retain their experimental status. Prior to
declaring the experimental reintroduction a failure, a full evaluation
will be conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service into the
probable causes of the failure
hat the reintroduction
has failed to produce a self-sustaining population, this rule will not
be utilized as authority to reintroduce additional grizzly bears. Any
remaining bears will retain their experimental status. Prior to
declaring the experimental reintroduction a failure, a full evaluation
will be conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service into the
probable causes of the failure. If the causes can be determined, and
legal and reasonable remedial measures identified and implemented,
consideration will be given to continuing the relocation effort and the
relocated population. If such reasonable measures cannot be identified
and implemented, the results of the evaluation will be published in the
Federal Register with a proposed rulemaking to terminate the authority
for additional experimental reintroductions.
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02JY97.002
Dated: June 3, 1997.
William Leary,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary, Fish, Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 97-17136 Filed 7-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.