Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly Bears in the Bitterroot Area of Idaho and Montana

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: November 17, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 223)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 69623-69643]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17no00-14]

[[Page 69623]]

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

Part IV

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a
Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly Bears in the Bitterroot
Area of Idaho and Montana; Final Rule

Record of Decision Concerning Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot
Ecosystem; Notice

[[Page 69624]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018-AE00

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a
Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly Bears in the Bitterroot
Area of Idaho and Montana

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to restore
the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), a threatened species, into east-
central Idaho and a portion of western Montana. We are designating
grizzly bears to be reintroduced into the area described in this rule
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 Selkirk and Cabinet-
Yaak ecosystems in north Idaho, northeastern Washington, and
northwestern Montana; 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. We evaluated potential
effects of this final rule in the ``Final Environmental Impact
Statement on Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem.'' This
grizzly bear reintroduction does not conflict with existing or
anticipated Federal agency actions or traditional public uses of
wilderness areas or surrounding lands.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective December 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: The complete file for this final rule is available for
inspection, by appointment during normal business hours, at U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, University Hall, Room 309, University of Montana,
Missoula, Montana 59812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear
Recovery Coordinator, at the above address, or telephone (406) 243-
4903.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

1. Legislative

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. 1531-1540), including the creation of section 10(j),
which provides for the designation of specific populations of listed
species as ``experimental populations.'' Previous authorities in the
Act permitted us to reintroduce a listed species for conservation and
recovery purposes. However, local opposition to reintroduction efforts
from parties concerned about potential restrictions, and prohibitions
on Federal and private activities contained in sections 7 and 9 of the
Act, reduced the effectiveness of reintroduction as a conservation and
recovery tool.
Under section 10(j), the Secretary can designate reintroduced
populations established outside the species' current range but within
its historical range as ``experimental.'' Reintroduction of the
experimental populations must further the conservation of the listed
species. An experimental population must be separate geographically
from nonexperimental populations of the same species. Designation of a
population as experimental increases our flexibility and discretion in
managing reintroduced listed species.
After designating a population as experimental under section 10(j)
of the Act, the Secretary must determine whether such populations are
essential, or nonessential, to the continued existence of the species.
Regulatory restrictions may be considerably reduced under a
nonessential experimental population designation, which is defined as
being nonessential to the survival of the species. For the purposes of
section 7 of the Act, we treat nonessential experimental populations
that are located outside of the National Wildlife Refuge System or
National Park System as if they are species proposed for listing. If a
nonessential experimental population is located within such a refuge or
park, the population is treated as if it is listed as a threatened
species.
Section 7 provisions for Federal agency coordination have limited
application to nonessential experimental populations found outside such
refuges and parks. The two provisions that apply are: (1) Section
7(a)(1), which requires all Federal agencies to use their authority to
conserve listed species; and (2) section 7(a)(4), which requires
Federal agencies to confer with the Service on actions that are likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species throughout
its range. Section 7 of the Act does not affect activities undertaken
on private lands unless they are authorized, funded, or carried out by
a Federal agency.
Individual animals used in establishing an experimental population
may be obtained from other populations if their removal is not likely
to jeopardize the continued existence of the species and a permit has
been issued in accordance with 50 CFR part 17.22 prior to their
removal.

2. Biological

This final experimental population rule addresses 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 1,000-1,100 grizzly bears remain in a few isolated
populations in Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, and Washington. This represents
approximately 2 percent of their historic range in the lower 48 States
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993). The grizzly bear was listed as a
threatened species in the lower 48 States under the Act in 1975 (40 FR
3173).
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.
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 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

[[Page 69625]]

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 Bitterroot ecosystem (Melquist 1998).

Recovery Efforts

The reestablishment of a grizzly bear population in the Bitterroot
ecosystem will increase the survival probabilities and further the
conservation of the species in the lower 48 States. If the experimental
population is lost, it will not diminish the survival probabilities for
bears in other ecosystems. However, if the experimental population is
successful, it will enhance grizzly bear survival and conservation over
the long term by providing an additional population and thus adding a
measure of security for the species.
The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan, finalized in 1982 (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1982), called for the evaluation of the Selway-
Bitterroot ecosystem as a potential recovery area. Subsequently, an
interagency team of grizzly bear scientists concluded the area provided
suitable habitat and could support 200 to 400 grizzly bears (Servheen
et al. 1991). In 1991, the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee
subsequently endorsed the Bitterroot ecosystem as a grizzly bear
recovery area, and requested that we initiate measures to achieve
recovery in the area.
In 1992, we organized a Technical Working Group to develop a
Bitterroot ecosystem chapter to append to the Grizzly Bear Recovery
Plan. This interagency group of biologists worked with a citizens'
involvement group composed 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. We revised the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan in
1993 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993) and later 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 Bitterroot
ecosystem as an experimental, nonessential population under section
10(j) of the Act and the preparation of a special rule and an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this proposal. By establishing
a nonessential experimental population, more flexible management
practices may be implemented to address potential negative impacts or
concerns regarding the recovery. The Chapter identified a tentative
long-term recovery objective of approximately 280 grizzly bears for the
Bitterroot ecosystem.
Planning for the recovery of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot
ecosystem 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. We then formed and funded an
interagency team to prepare the EIS in 1995. The team included our
specialists and those from the 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 for the Bitterroot ecosystem
emphasized public participation from the outset.
We developed a public participation and interagency coordination
program to identify issues and alternatives to be considered in the EIS
process. We published a Notice of Intent (NOI) concerning grizzly bear
recovery in the Bitterroot ecosystem in the Federal Register on January
9, 1995 (60 FR 2399). The notice was furnished as required by National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 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, we issued a
news release announcing the beginning of the NEPA process and the start
of an EIS on grizzly bear recovery to the Bitterroot ecosystem.
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, which was mailed to 1,100
people and distributed at 7 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. We asked interested parties to identify
relevant issues and alternatives related to grizzly bear reintroduction
into the Bitterroot ecosystem for the analysis. On June 5, 1995, we
published a notice in the Federal Register initiating the formal
scoping process with a 45-day comment period (60 FR 29708). We sent a
news release 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. We initiated public scoping of issues by
mailing a brochure detailing the EIS process.
From July 5 to 11, 1995, we held seven public scoping sessions in
the form of open houses 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 representatives of the Service, the Forest Service, and
State fish and wildlife agencies were available to discuss grizzly
bears, their recovery, and the EIS process. Those attending the open
houses received copies of the issue and alternative scoping brochure
and the question-and-answer booklet. We encouraged them to leave
written comments with agency personnel or mail their comments later.
Verbal comments or questions were also 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. We extended
the scoping comment period for 30 days (from July 20 to August 21,
1995). On July 25, we provided a press release to local and national
media to announce the extension. This extension was requested by
numerous public interests with varied opinions on this complex topic.
We solicited written public comments on issues and alternatives at
the open houses and through the media. In response, we received more
than 3,300 written comments from individuals, organizations, and
government agencies. These comments arrived in more than 565 letters,
open house meeting notes, 6 petitions, and 6 form letters or postcards.
Strong polarization of concerns regarding grizzly bear management
typified the public comments. 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.
We continued public involvement and outreach activities in 1995 and
began to prepare the EIS. The Bitterroot Ecosystem Chapter--Supplement
to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan was finalized and signed on September
11, 1996. The EIS Team continued to follow

[[Page 69626]]

the NEPA process to prepare the Draft EIS. The team completed the Draft
EIS in August 1996, and released it to us and then to agency partners
for internal review and comment. Comments were incorporated, and we
reviewed the final draft in February 1997. We incorporated comments
from the final review and completed the Draft EIS in June 1997 (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1997).
We released the Draft EIS and proposed special rule for public
review and comment on July 1, 1997. The proposed rule, ``Proposed
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly
Bears in the Bitterroot Area of Idaho and Montana'' was then published
in the Federal Register on July 2, 1997 (62 FR 35762) (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1997a). Comments were accepted through September 30,
1997. We then extended the comment period to November 1, 1997, based on
numerous requests for more time to prepare responses. Following a
request from a member of the Idaho congressional delegation, we
extended the comment period a second time to December 1, 1997.
During October 1997, we held public hearings/open houses in seven
communities on the perimeter of the Bitterroot area to gather public
comments on the Draft EIS and proposed rule. Approximately 1,400 people
attended these hearings, and 293 individuals testified. The Salmon and
Hamilton hearings both had more people signed up to speak than time
allowed. The dates and locations for the public hearings were Challis,
Idaho, and Hamilton, Montana (October 1); Missoula, Montana, and
Lewiston, Idaho (October 2); Boise, Idaho, and Helena, Montana (October
3); and Salmon, Idaho (October 8). In addition, we held meetings with
local community and State leaders, and interest groups in communities
around the perimeter of the proposed recovery area. The Draft EIS, the
Summary of the Draft EIS, and the Special Rule were all published on
our web site at http://www.r6/fws/gov/endspp/grizzly.
We received comments on the two draft documents from more than
24,000 individuals, organizations, and government agencies. These
comments arrived in more than 2,660 letters, Draft EIS summary forms,
resolutions, and hearing testimonies. Ten petitions were received with
more than 21,000 signatures. Fifteen form letters were identified. This
degree of interest from the public indicates the strong feelings people
have about the possibility of grizzly bear recovery in the Bitterroot
ecosystem.
An analysis of the public comments on the Draft EIS and proposed
rule was performed by an interagency team of 14 employees from our
agency and the U.S. Forest Service (Content Analysis Team) in December
1997 and January 1998. The system used to analyze comments was
objective, reliable, and traceable. We prepared a detailed summary
report, ``Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem'' and
an executive summary report of 24,251 public comments and released the
summary to the public in April 1998 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1998).
The major issues raised by the public included recovery area
boundaries; bear sources; designation of experimental nonessential
population; the Endangered Species Act; restrictions on use of public
lands; local control; best available science; the grizzly bear as a
missing component of the ecosystem; what is a viable grizzly
population; population corridor linkages; range requirements of the
grizzly; effects to the grizzly (genetics, disease, bear safety,
adequate food); ecosystem protection; effects of grizzlies on human
health and safety; effects of grizzlies on livestock and pets; effects
of grizzlies on big game species and hunting opportunities; effects of
grizzlies on recreational opportunities and public access; effects on
local economy (jobs); and the need for education. Issues raised during
public comment on the Draft EIS were similar to the issues identified
during public scoping.
The Content Analysis Team briefed the EIS Team regarding the
results of the Draft EIS comment analysis in February 1998. The EIS
Team met numerous times to thoroughly review the content analysis
reports and original comment letters. They identified significant
issues and, through the NEPA process, discussed and decided on
necessary revisions to the Draft EIS and proposed rule to be responsive
to public comment. During 1998, the EIS Team prepared the Final EIS and
revised the special rule. In early 1999, we began our internal review
of the draft final EIS and the draft final rule.
We released the Final EIS on grizzly bear recovery in the
Bitterroot ecosystem on March 24, 2000. Chapter 5 of the Final EIS
contains a detailed review of public comments on the Draft EIS,
including comments on the proposed rule, and the Service's response.
The Final EIS considers six alternatives: (1) Restoration of Grizzly
Bears as a Nonessential Experimental Population with Citizen Management
(Preferred Alternative); (1A) Restoration of Grizzly Bears as a
Nonessential Experimental Population with Service Management; (2)
Natural Recovery--The No Action Alternative; (3) No Grizzly Bear
Alternative; (4) Restoration of Grizzly Bears as a Threatened
Population with Full Protection of the Act and Habitat Restoration; and
(4A) Restoration of Grizzly Bears as a Threatened Population with Full
Protection of the Act and Service Management. All comments on the Final
EIS received from the public during the 30-day public review period
were considered prior to preparation of the Record of Decision.
On November 13, 2000, the Service signed the Record of Decision on
the Final EIS, and selected the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 1 in
the Final EIS) for implementation (see following document in this
section of the Federal Register). This alternative is the Restoration
of Grizzly Bears as a Nonessential Experimental Population with Citizen
Management.

Experimental/Reintroduction Site

We intend to restore grizzly bears into the Bitterroot ecosystem of
east-central Idaho in the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church-River of
No Return Wilderness Areas on Federal lands managed by the Forest
Service. The Bitterroot location was selected as a site for an
experimental population of grizzly bears based on several factors. The
area known as the Bitterroot ecosystem is centered around the federally
designated 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 (26,072 square
miles) of contiguous national forest lands in central Idaho and western
Montana. These include portions of the Bitterroot, Boise, Salmon/
Challis, Clearwater, Nez Perce, Payette, Sawtooth, and Panhandle
National Forests in Idaho, and the Bitterroot and Lolo National Forests
in western Montana. The core of the ecosystem contains three designated
wilderness areas including the Frank Church-River of No Return, Selway-
Bitterroot, and Gospel Hump. These areas provide approximately 15,793
square kilometers (6,098 square miles) of grizzly bear habitat. We plan
to reintroduce grizzly bears only into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness
Area unless it is later determined that reintroduction in the Frank
Church-River of No Return Wilderness is appropriate. We will identify
specific release sites that have high-quality bear habitat and low
likelihood of human encounters.

[[Page 69627]]

There is no documentation that grizzly bears from northwestern
Montana have moved into central Idaho. There is no evidence of any
grizzly bears in the Experimental Population Area, thus there is no
evidence of an existing grizzly bear population in the Experimental
Population Area. In an effort to create a definition of a population
for use in determining the feasibility of experimental population
status for the Bitterroot ecosystem, we solicited input from 54
scientists familiar with bear populations. Thirty-seven scientists
responded, and we adopted a definition. The definition of a grizzly
bear population, as used in the Final EIS to define a minimal existing
grizzly bear population in the Bitterroot, follows: ``A grizzly bear
population is defined by verified evidence within the previous six
years, consisting of photos within the area, verified tracks and/or
sightings by reputable scientists or agency personnel, of at least two
different female grizzly bears with young or one female seen with
different litters in two different years in an area geographically
distinct (separate) from other grizzly bear populations. Verifiable
evidence of females with young, to be geographically distinct
(separate), would have to occur greater than 10 miles (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1993, page 171) from the nearest non-experimental
grizzly bear population recovery zone boundary.'' Research data from
the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem indicates the average home range size of an
adult female grizzly bear, when converted to a circle, has a radius of
10 miles (Kasworm and Servheen 1995).
The term ``current range,'' as it is used in this rule, refers to
the area inside or within 10 miles of the recovery zone line of
currently occupied grizzly bear recovery zones (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1993, page 171). The term ``geographically separate,'' as it is
used in this rule, means that the Experimental Population Area and the
recovery zone boundary of any existing grizzly bear population are
separated by more than 10 miles.
The Bitterroot Experimental Population Area is outside the current
range but within the historic range of the grizzly bear. The Bitterroot
Experimental Population Area is greater than 10 miles from any recovery
zone boundary of any existing grizzly bear population. 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 will 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 Experimental Population Area, we will continue to
monitor for the presence of any grizzly bears naturally occurring in
the area, and evaluate any new reports of sightings from the area.

Reintroduction Protocol

We will undertake the grizzly bear recovery project in the
Bitterroot ecosystem 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 Provincial government. We will also enter
into agreements with the appropriate Canadian Provincial government
agencies to obtain grizzly bears.
Grizzly bears (Ursus arctos) for this reintroduction will be
obtained from Canadian and U.S. grizzly populations with permission
from the Canadian Provincial governments and concurrence from the
appropriate State officials. Grizzly bears can be taken by authorized
State, Federal, and tribal authorities for scientific or research
purposes under the authorities granted by 50 CFR 17.40.
The Bitterroot ecosystem recovery program proposes moving a minimum
of 25 grizzly bears of both sexes 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 Bitterroot ecosystem. We will
reintroduce only bears with no history of conflict with humans or
livestock. We will capture and reintroduce bears at the time of year
optimal to their survival. This process will likely occur when grizzly
bear food supplies in the Bitterroot ecosystem are optimum. We plan to
transport bears to east-central Idaho, provide any necessary veterinary
care, and fit them with radio collars in order to monitor them by the
use of radiotelemetry. We will determine the movements of individual
grizzly bears and how they use their habitat, and keep the public
informed of general bear locations and recovery efforts. We will
release bears close enough to each other to create a ``colony'' or
population of bears, providing the basis from which they will
successfully reproduce and expand in numbers.
Grizzly bears are common in western Canada (10,000 to 11,000 in
British Columbia) and Alaska (an estimated 30,000 to 35,000). An
estimated minimum of 325 grizzly bears exist in the Northern
Continental Divide ecosystem in northwestern Montana, and an estimated
minimum of 328 exist in the Yellowstone ecosystem (1998 estimates per
Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan criteria (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1993)). The Final EIS analysis indicates no significant adverse impact
to source populations from removal of grizzly bears for reintroduction
to the Bitterroot ecosystem (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000),
i.e., no significant adverse biological impact is expected from the
removal of 10-15 grizzly bears from the British Columbia population
over a 5-year period, and no significant adverse biological impact is
expected from the removal of 10-15 grizzly bears from the Northern
Continental Divide and/or Yellowstone ecosystem populations over a 5-
year period. Such removals will be from areas that are outside the
recovery zone, and not within 10 miles of the recovery zone line of
either ecosystem. Under 50 CFR 17.80(b), the term ``nonessential
experimental population'' means an experimental population whose loss
would not be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the
survival of the species in the wild. The Service finds that grizzly
bears to be used in the reintroduction effort meet the definition of
``nonessential'' because the loss of the reintroduced grizzlies is not
likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species
in the wild.
We will continue to ask private landowners and agency personnel in
or around the Bitterroot ecosystem to immediately report any grizzly
bear observations to us or to other authorized agencies. We will also
conduct an extensive public information and education program. 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 Final EIS.

Status of Reintroduced Population

In accordance with section 10(j) of the Act, this rule designates
grizzly bears reintroduced to the Bitterroot ecosystem as a
nonessential experimental population. After reintroduction, every
grizzly bear found within the Experimental Population Area will be
considered a nonessential experimental animal. The primary reasons for
this designation are the biological status of the grizzly and the need
for

[[Page 69628]]

management flexibility to achieve reintroduction goals. Such
designation will allow these grizzly bears to be treated as a species
proposed for listing for the purposes of section 7 of the Act. This
designation allows us to establish a more flexible and less restrictive
special rule, rather than applying the general prohibitions of the Act
that otherwise apply to threatened species.
We find that protective measures and management practices under
this final rule are necessary and advisable for the conservation of the
grizzly. We also find that nonessential experimental status is
appropriate for grizzly bears taken from wild populations and released
into the Bitterroot ecosystem of east-central Idaho. Formal section 7
consultation will not be required for any proposed U.S. Forest Service
activity in the Bitterroot ecosystem as a result of the experimental
reintroduction of bears, and the requirements of section 7(a)(2) will
not apply because there are no National Wildlife Refuges or National
Parks within the Bitterroot Experimental Population Area. However,
because nonessential experimental grizzly bears will be treated as a
species proposed for listing, the conferencing requirements under
section 7(a)(4) will apply. Presently, we envision no conflicts 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.
Most of the reintroduction area is composed of remote and sparsely
inhabited wild lands. However, some risks to grizzly recovery are
associated with take of grizzlies resulting from 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 Wildlife Services programs are
prohibited or strictly regulated by State and Federal law and policy.
Very few paved or unpaved roads are in the reintroduction area or
immediately outside of it. The unpaved roads typically have low levels
of vehicle traffic, and are constructed for low speeds and used only
seasonally. Grizzly bears, therefore, 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 recovery effort
are thought to be minimal.

Location of the Experimental Population Area

The Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Experimental Population Area includes
most of east-central Idaho and part of western Montana (see map
attached to rule). This approximately 65,113-square-kilometer area
(25,140-square-mile area) will include the area bounded by U.S. Highway
93 from its junction with the Bitterroot River near 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;
Interstate 90 from Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, to its junction with the Clark
Fork River near St. Regis, Montana; the Clark Fork River from its
junction with Interstate 90 near St. Regis, to its confluence with the
Bitterroot River near Missoula, Montana; and the Bitterroot River from
its confluence with the Clark Fork River to its junction with U.S.
Highway 93, near Missoula, Montana. Much of the Experimental Population
Area has high-quality bear habitat with low likelihood of conflicts
between grizzly bears and humans.
The proposed release site for restoring grizzly bears into east-
central Idaho is on national forest land in the Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness Area. The Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area (Recovery
Area) consists of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and the Frank
Church-River of No Return Wilderness (approximately 14,983 square
kilometers; 5,785 square miles) (see map attached to rule). The
Recovery Area is located within the Experimental Population Area, and
is the area where grizzly bear recovery will be emphasized. If, in the
future, new wilderness areas are designated adjacent to the Recovery
Area, the Citizen Management Committee may recommend to the Secretary
their addition to the Recovery Area. The Secretary would have to amend
this special rule to change the definition of the Recovery Area.

Management of the Reintroduced Population

This special rule establishes a 15-member Citizen Management
Committee (Committee) to facilitate recovery of the experimental
grizzly bear population in the Bitterroot ecosystem. The Committee will
make recommendations to the land and wildlife management agencies that
the Committee believes will lead to recovery of the grizzly bear in the
Bitterroot ecosystem. Decisions on and implementation of these
recommendations will remain the responsibility of the land and wildlife
management agencies. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Nez Perce
Tribe, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and the Forest
Service, in coordination with us, will continue to exercise day-to-day
management responsibility within the Experimental Population Area.
The Committee will have the authority and responsibility for
various tasks relating to the experimental grizzly bear population, to
include: (1) Soliciting technical advice from outside experts; (2)
implementing the Bitterroot Chapter of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan;
(3) establishing a public participation process to review Committee
recommendations; (4) developing strategies to emphasize recovery in the
Experimental Area; (5) developing grizzly bear-related guidance for
proper camping and sanitation within the Experimental Population Area;
and (6) developing a response protocol for responding to grizzly bear
encounters. See question 9 of the special rule for a complete list of
Committee tasks.

[[Page 69629]]

Two scientific advisors will be appointed to provide the Committee
with ready access to independent scientific information on grizzly
bears. These advisors, which will not be employed by Federal agencies
involved in grizzly bear recovery, will be nonvoting members, and are
to attend all Committee meetings.
The special rule provides a procedure to monitor the progress of
the Committee and resolve disputes if Committee actions are not
contributing to the recovery of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot
ecosystem or not in compliance with this special rule. Included in this
provision of the special rule is a process to establish a peer review
panel of three scientists (Scientific Review Panel). The Scientific
Review Panel will review issues, solicit additional information if
necessary, and, using the best scientific and commercial data
available, make timely recommendations to the Committee as to whether
actions and decisions are in compliance with the special rule and
leading to recovery of the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem.
The Scientific Review Panel process is diagrammed in Figure 1. Question
11 of the special rule contains the procedures to be followed when
Committee actions are not leading to the recovery of the grizzly bear
in the Experimental Population Area, including the steps that will be
undertaken if the Secretary assumes lead management responsibility for
the experimental population.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 69630]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17NO00.009

[[Page 69631]]

BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Potential for Conflict With Federal and Other Activities

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 Committee will emphasize the
recovery of grizzly bears in the Recovery Area, but bears moving
outside the Recovery Area into other parts of the Experimental
Population Area will be accommodated through management provisions in
the special rule and through the management plans and policies
developed by the Committee.
``Emphasize the recovery'' means grizzly bear management decisions
in the Recovery Area will favor bear recovery so that this area can
serve as core habitat for survival, reproduction, and dispersal of the
recovering population. Reintroduction of bears will occur within the
Recovery Area, and is specifically planned within the Selway-Bitterroot
Wilderness unless it is later determined that reintroduction in the
Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness is appropriate.
``Accommodate'' means grizzly bears that move outside the Recovery Area
onto public land in the Experimental Population Area will not be
disturbed unless they demonstrate a real and imminent threat to human
safety or livestock. The Committee will not recommend that bears be
disturbed or moved unless conflicts, including conflicts associated
with livestock, are both significant and cannot be corrected as
determined by the Committee. In this case, the Committee will develop
strategies to discourage grizzly bear occupancy in appropriate portions
of the Experimental Population Area.
Unless the Committee determines otherwise, grizzly bears will be
discouraged from occupying private lands outside the national forest
boundary in the Bitterroot Valley, Montana (exclusion area). Bears
entering this area will be captured and returned to the Recovery Area.
If a grizzly bear enters the exclusion area, State and Federal wildlife
management agencies will attempt to capture it immediately and notify
the public of its presence as soon as possible. The public will be
updated until the bear is caught. Further, any grizzly bear that
occupies inhabited human settlement areas on private land within the
Experimental Population Area that, in the judgment of the management
agencies or Committee, presents a clear threat to human safety or that
shows signs that it may become habituated to humans, will be relocated
by management agencies or destroyed, if necessary. This provision is to
prevent conflicts and possible bear-human injury or the death of bears,
and to promote and enhance public safety.
No formal consultation under section 7 of the Act will be required
regarding potential impacts of land uses, including resource
extraction, on nonessential experimental grizzly bears. However,
because the nonessential experimental grizzly bears are treated as a
proposed species for listing, Federal agencies will be required to
confer, in accordance with section 7(a)(4) of the Act, on actions that
are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the experimental
bears. The Committee is responsible for recommending changes in land-
use standards and guidelines as necessary for grizzly bear management.
The Committee will develop recommendations on existing management plans
and policies of land and wildlife management agencies, as necessary,
for the management of grizzly bears in the Experimental Population
Area. The final decision on implementation of recommendations from the
Committee will be made by those agencies. If the Committee
recommendations require significant changes to existing plans and
policy, and the agencies tentatively agree to accept those
recommendations, then the NEPA requirements may apply. Such management
plans and policies will be in accordance with applicable State and
Federal laws.
People can 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 (OMB #1018-0095). After
obtaining a permit from us, a person will be allowed to harass a
grizzly bear attacking livestock (cattle, sheep, horses, and mules) or
bees in the Experimental Population Area 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 to the
appropriate authorities. We will also permit the use of livestock guard
dogs to harass grizzly bears in a nonlethal fashion around livestock. 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 significant conflicts between grizzly bears and livestock
occur within the Experimental Population Area but outside of the
Recovery Area, these could be resolved in favor of livestock by capture
or elimination of the bear depending on the circumstances. We do not
intend to establish a Federal compensation program for grizzly bear
depredation, but compensation from existing private funding sources
will be encouraged. Animal control toxicants lethal to bears are
currently not used on public lands within the Recovery and Experimental
Population Areas. We anticipate that ongoing animal damage control
activities will not be affected by grizzly bear recovery. The Committee
will review any conflicts or mortalities associated with these
activities and will recommend necessary changes.

Summary of Public Participation

The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on July 2,
1997 (62 FR 35762) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997a). The proposed
rule also was included as Appendix 13 of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (Draft EIS) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997) and was
published on the Internet at http://www.r6.fws.gov/endspp/grizzly. We
received public comments on the proposed rule and the Draft EIS through
December 1, 1997, which included two extensions of the deadline in
response to public requests for more time to comment. During October
1997, we held public hearings/open houses to gather public comments on
the Draft EIS and proposed rule in seven communities on the perimeter
of the Bitterroot area. Approximately 1,400 people attended these
hearings, and 293 individuals testified. The dates and locations for
the public hearings were: Challis, Idaho, and Hamilton, Montana
(October 1); Missoula, Montana, and Lewiston, Idaho (October 2); Boise,
Idaho, and Helena, Montana (October 3); and Salmon, Idaho (October 8).
In addition, we held meetings with local community leaders, State
leaders, and interest groups in communities around the perimeter of the
proposed Recovery Area.
More than 24,000 individuals, organizations, and government
agencies provided comments on the two draft documents. These comments
arrived in more than 2,660 letters, Draft EIS summary forms,
resolutions, and hearing testimonies. The comments received included 10
petitions with more than 21,000 signatures and 15 form letters. An
interagency team of 14 employees from the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Forest Service conducted an analysis of the public comments on the
Draft EIS and

[[Page 69632]]

proposed rule in December 1997 and January 1998. We made a concerted
effort to ensure that the methods used to analyze public comments were
objective, reliable, and traceable. We prepared a detailed summary
report, ``Summary of Public Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem'' and
an executive summary report of 24,251 public comments and released the
summary to the public in April 1998 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1998).
We reviewed and considered all written and oral comments relating
to the proposed rule. Comments that specifically addressed the proposed
rule were made in 33 individual letters. Numerous other comments on the
draft EIS were specific to the proposed rule or related management
considerations. We also considered these comments in our review of the
proposed rule. We include a detailed summary of the significant issues
raised in public comments on the Draft EIS and the proposed rule and
our response to those issues in Chapter 5 of the Final EIS. The
following summary of key changes made to the final rule as a result of
issues raised in public comments on the proposed rule is abbreviated
from the Final EIS Chapter 5 discussion of public comments. Refer to
the Final EIS and ``Summary of Public Comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Grizzly Bear Recovery in the
Bitterroot Ecosystem'' for a more comprehensive discussion of public
comments on the proposed rule and Draft EIS. Both documents are
available to the public (see ADDRESSES section).

Key Changes in Final Rule as a Result of Public Comment

We made the following key changes and clarifications to the final
rule or to discussions in the final rule based on public comments
received on the proposed rule. These changes, individually and
cumulatively, do not alter the predicted effect of the final rule.
1. In response to the issues of how and where the experimental
population of grizzly bears will be managed, we clarified and defined
several terms in the final rule including ``recovery emphasis,''
``accommodate,'' and ``Recovery Area.'' We added a statement in
paragraph (l)(2) of the final rule regarding the potential for
consideration of future designated Wilderness areas for inclusion in
the Recovery Area. In paragraph (l)(1) of the final rule, we modified
the boundaries in the northeast end of the Experimental Population Area
to use the Clark Fork River as a boundary instead of I-90, which was
used in the proposed rule, because the Clark Fork River is a more
logical biological boundary for the north end of the Experimental
Population Area than the highway.
2. In response to the issue of effects of grizzly bears on
livestock, we clarified the types of harassment permitted, including
the use of livestock guard dogs around livestock.
3. The following clarifications and additions respond to the issue
of human safety: If a grizzly bear enters the exclusion area in the
Bitterroot Valley, State and Federal wildlife management agencies will
attempt to capture it immediately, notify the public of its presence,
and keep the public updated until the bear is caught. Further, any
grizzly bear that occupies the exclusion area or other inhabited human
settlement areas on private land within the Experimental Population
Area and that presents a clear threat to human safety or whose behavior
indicates that it may become habituated to humans will be relocated or
destroyed by management agencies.
4. We changed the minimum time for determining the success or
failure of the experimental reintroduction that the Committee must
incorporate into the standards that they establish for such a
determination. The proposed rule stated that the success or failure of
the program cannot be measured in fewer than 10 years. After
consideration of many comments, we changed the final rule to reflect
our belief that absent extraordinary circumstances, the success or
failure of the program cannot be measured in fewer than 20 years.
5. We added a clarification regarding how we would calculate a
refined recovery goal for the Bitterroot experimental population. The
proposed rule indicated that, if the Committee refines the recovery
goal for the Bitterroot grizzly bear population after grizzly bears are
reintroduced and occupy suitable habitats in the Experimental
Population Area, the recovery goal will be consistent with the habitat
available within the Recovery Area. The Committee will consider
additional adjacent areas of public land for contribution of suitable
grizzly bear habitat for recovery when setting the recovery goal if
additional land is shown to be necessary by the best scientific and
commercial data available.
6. We added several clarifications and changes to the Committee
structure and function. We made these changes in response to the
following public comment issues: (a) How the Committee will be
selected; (b) the need for scientific expertise on the Committee; (c)
the need for clarification regarding mission, operations, and authority
of the Committee; (d) the need for further insulation of the Committee
from political influence; and (e) the need for a process to resolve
conflicts between the Secretary and the Committee. The corresponding
clarifications and changes are listed below:
(a) The Governors of Idaho and Montana will include written
documentation of the qualifications of each person they nominate to the
Secretary, and these nominations must be made within 60 days following
the request from the Secretary.
(b) The Secretary will appoint two scientific advisors to the
Committee as nonvoting members, to attend all meetings and provide
scientific expertise to the Committee.
(c) We added Mission and Operating Guidelines Statements for the
Committee.
(d) The Committee will implement the Bitterroot Chapter of the
Recovery Plan in accordance with the final rule. The Committee may also
make recommendations to land and wildlife management agencies regarding
changes to plans and policies, but the final decision on implementation
of those recommendations will be made by those agencies. NEPA
requirements may apply.
(e) The Secretary can assume lead management implementation
responsibility from the Committee if the Secretary determines the
Committee's decisions are not leading to recovery. The rule lays out a
specific process for accomplishing this assumption of responsibility,
which involves a Scientific Review Panel.
7. We changed the rule to indicate that bears outside the
boundaries of the Experimental Population Area will have the status of
``threatened,'' rather than ``experimental.'' This is consistent with
other experimental population rules.
In addition to the key changes just discussed, we have also changed
the language and organization of the final rule to comply with the
principles of ``plain language.'' These changes do not affect the
content of the rule.

Status of Reintroduced Grizzly Bears and Conclusion

If the status of the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem is
changed to threatened or endangered under the Act as a result of legal
action or lawsuits, we will remove from the wild all reintroduced
grizzly bears designated as nonessential experimental and revoke the
pertinent regulations on the experimental population.

[[Page 69633]]

We do not foresee any likely situation that would require us to
change the nonessential experimental status until the grizzly bear is
recovered and delisted in the Bitterroot ecosystem according to
provisions outlined in the Recovery Plan.
Based on the above information, and using the best scientific and
commercial data available (in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81), we find
that reintroducing grizzly bears into the Bitterroot ecosystem will
further the conservation and recovery of the species.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

In accordance with Executive Order 12866, this rule is a
significant regulatory action (see item ``d'') and has been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget. Although the significance of this
action under Executive Order 12866 is not related to economic effects,
we have prepared an economic assessment for this special rule. The
cost-benefit portion of this assessment is presented below. A complete
copy of the assessment is available upon request see ADDRESSES section.
Cost-Benefit Assessment of the 10(j) Rule
The Service proposes to undertake the reintroduction of an
experimental population of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot ecosystem
for three principal reasons: (1) It is the policy of the Federal
government to recover federally protected listed species so that they
may be removed from the protection of the Act; (2) there is no
naturally occurring market for the conservation and reintroduction of
federally protected species; and (3) the reintroduction is being
proposed on land owned and operated by the Federal government.
As explained previously, the Act requires the Federal government to
conserve listed species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.
Congress enacted the Act, as they do many other Acts, because of the
need for the Federal government to correct for a market failure that
results in resources being allocated inefficiently. Typically, public
markets are able to allocate resources in the most efficient manner as
long as there are no entry or exit constraints for market participants
and no individual or group of individuals are able to influence the
market price. The grizzly bear, however, like other wildlife, is not a
publically traded commodity. This is because wildlife, in general,
exhibits public good characteristics that render the benefits enjoyed
by individuals unrivaled. In other words, because the benefits
exhibited by the grizzly bear can be enjoyed by many individuals
without effect on the level enjoyed by others, a ``free-rider'' problem
exists whereby individuals who value the grizzly bear have an incentive
to let others pay for its provision. Under these circumstances, such
goods are typically under-supplied and require the Federal government
to step in and correct for this social inefficiency.
In addition to the public good characteristics of the grizzly bear,
perhaps as compelling a case can be made in that the Federal government
is proposing to reintroduce the grizzly bear on federally owned and
operated land. As a land manager, the Federal government attempts to
manage its lands in a manner that is most socially efficient. The
grizzly bear is a large land mammal that requires a substantial amount
of acreage to survive on its own. As a result, the Federal government
is in a unique position to, among other things, manage its large land
holdings to the benefit and reintroduction of the grizzly bear. As a
large public landowner, the Federal government constantly tries to
manage its lands in a manner that provides the greatest benefit to
society. Through the Wilderness Act, Congress recognized a need for the
Federal government to provide and manage some of its lands as
wilderness due to its public good characteristics and the lack of a
market to provide a socially optimal amount. By re-establishing the
grizzly bear to a public wilderness, the Federal government is
maximizing social welfare to those recipients who value true wilderness
in the sense that the wilderness will more closely represent its
original, primitive state.
Baseline
The Service conducted an economic analysis for the EIS, looking at
effects on hunter harvest, livestock depredation, land use
restrictions, human safety, visitor use and existence values. This
economic assessment uses some of the information used in the EIS. We
recognize that we could have chosen to proceed with grizzly bear
reintroduction in the Bitterroot without a new regulatory or rulemaking
action (the alternative that provided for reintroduction with full Act
protection), in which case we would not have needed to promulgate a
10(j) rule. However, given our need for the public and their elected
officials to lend their full support to efforts to recover the grizzly
bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem, our doing so would be highly
unlikely. Therefore, we have chosen to compare the economic effects of
the 10(j) rule to reintroduce grizzly bears to the Bitterroot ecosystem
to a ``no bear'' baseline (as done in the EIS), rather than a baseline
that assumes full protection under the Act.
Economic Effects of the Rule
The area affected by this rule consists of a limited area of mostly
designated wilderness and surrounding lands in east central Idaho and
western Montana, the Bitterroot ecosystem. The Bitterroot ecosystem, as
characterized by data from 10 counties in central Idaho and 4 counties
in western Montana, is approximately 44,419 square miles and 76%
Federal land. As of 1996, the area had a population of about 241,000; a
$4.6 billion local economy; 440,570 cattle and sheep (298,000 are
grazed on national forest); approximately 274,360 ungulates, with a
hunter harvest of 28,023; and, received approximately $13.2 million
from recreational visits to national forests annually.
Most of the reintroduction area is composed of remote and sparsely
inhabited wild lands. Very few paved or unpaved roads are in the
reintroduction area or immediately outside of it. These unpaved roads
typically have low levels of vehicle traffic, and are constructed for
low speeds and used only seasonally. Grizzly bears, therefore, should
encounter vehicles and humans infrequently.
Potential Costs
One of the potential costs of grizzly bear restoration to the
Bitterroot ecosystem is reduced big game hunting opportunities in
hunting units/districts in or near the Recovery Area. However, we do
not expect grizzly bear recovery to have any significant effect on
huntable populations of ungulates in the Bitterroot ecosystem. Using
Mattson's (1997) estimates of average grizzly bear predation rates of
1.4 and 5.8 ungulates per year for adult female and male bears
respectively, a recovered population of 280 grizzly bears would be
expected to prey upon 504 ungulates per year given a 50:50 sex ratio
and a 50:50 adult-subadult ratio. This amount of loss would represent
approximately 0.11% of estimated ungulate populations in the Bitterroot
ecosystem, and would not measurably impact ungulate populations or
hunter harvest. Of course, the impact would be significantly less until
the population of grizzly bears is fully recovered, which is estimated
to take 50-110 years.
A second area of potential costs associated with grizzly bear
restoration to the Bitterroot ecosystem is the

[[Page 69634]]

possibility of livestock depredation by the recovered grizzly
population. Again, these costs are expected to be very low, and are
expected to be minimal prior to full recovery of the population of
grizzly bears in the Bitterroot ecosystem. Via a mathematical equation
using depredation rates from the Yellowstone and Northern Continental
Divide ecosystems in relation to total livestock in each of these
ecosystems, we estimated that after a recovered population of 280
grizzly bears is achieved, depredation incidents involving livestock
would take from 4 to 8 cattle, and from 5 to 44 sheep annually. The
calculation of lost value due to this depredation is straightforward.
The lost value per year is equal to the estimated number of lost
animals per year times the market value of those animals. Given the
average value per cow of $565 and the average value per sheep of $92
(average values as of 1996 according to Montana and Idaho Departments
of Agricultural Statistics as cited in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2000), we estimate that between $2,720 and $8,568 per year in livestock
predation losses would occur after grizzly bears are fully recovered.
It is possible that a private compensation program (such as exists for
the gray wolf recovery program) will be set up to lessen the impact of
these costs to individual ranchers. If this were the case, the impact
of livestock losses would be shifted from the individual ranchers to
contributors to such a fund.
We expect that any land use restrictions due to the restoration of
grizzly bears to the Bitterroot ecosystem would be minor and temporary,
and would not result in lost economic value in recreational activities,
timber harvest, or mineral extraction. This conclusion is based on the
experience of the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee, a group composed
of officials of the Service, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land
Management and state wildlife offices, and responsible for coordinating
management of grizzlies in nearby locations.
It is expected that any land use restrictions on recreation due to
the restoration of grizzly bears to the Bitterroot would not result in
lost economic value. While some visitors may be inconvenienced due to
occasional temporary trail closures, this inconvenience is unlikely to
result in any appreciable loss of economic value as, based on
experience in other areas where grizzly bears exist, such closures will
be rare and use will shift to trails elsewhere. Regulations specific to
outfitters operating within the Recovery Area and backcountry
recreationists, including horsepackers and river rafters, may be
promulgated at some future time requiring the use of bear-proof garbage
and food containers and methods when in the backcountry.
While these regulations would necessarily involve some economic
impact to the outfitter and the public, we do not anticipate that this
impact would be substantial in any respect. The cost of bear-proofing
an outfitter's camp can vary depending on the method of protection
used. For a small outfitter, slings and pulleys may run as much as $50
to $100 dollars. For larger outfitters, electric fencing or containers
could run $1,000 dollars. For very large outfitters with multiple camps
the total cost could be $2,000 to $3,000. It is very unlikely that
outfitters would reduce operations in the recovery area due to
increased costs of bear-proof containers. Big game outfitting on USFS
lands is allocated through special use permits. These permits are, in
many areas, highly valued assets of the outfitter's business. It is
unlikely that an outfitter would either abandon or underutilize their
permit because of the cost of purchasing bearproof containers. The cost
of the containers when amortized across the outfitter's clients over
the life of the containers would represent a very small portion of the
total operating expense that the outfitters face.
Timber harvest and mineral extraction are land use activities that
are compatible with bear recovery as long as they meet the standards
and guidelines of the Forest Service's Forest Plans. Current Forest
Plans for the Clearwater and Nez Perce National Forests outside of
wilderness areas are adequate for grizzly bear recovery, and we do not
anticipate that this grizzly bear reintroduction will result in an
economic effect on current timber harvest plans or mineral extraction.
It is anticipated that future Forest Plans will continue to manage for
grizzly bears as the Forest Service is required by the Act to carry out
programs for the conservation of this and other listed species, the
Forest Service has been an active member of the Interagency Grizzly
Bear Committee, and undeveloped lands will only become more rare and
valuable to the continued existence of wildlife in the future.
We examined the costs to human safety and found these to be
relatively small. In the Bitterroot ecosystem, during the first several
decades following reintroduction, chance of injury caused by grizzly
bears would be exceedingly small due to the low density of bears in the
area. Projections for human injury once bears are recovered 50-110+
years in the future, are less than one injury per year and
approximately one grizzly bear-induced human mortality every few
decades. Backcountry precautions, primarily keeping human foods away
from bears, dramatically reduces human-grizzly bear incidents. The
potential of encounters between people and grizzly bears is low, and
injury rates for the Bitterroot are expected to be similar to the rates
for areas outside of the national parks where grizzly bears exist.
For comparison, we used human injury rates from areas with similar
circumstances: The Northern Continental Divide ecosystem and the
Yellowstone ecosystem outside of Glacier and Yellowstone National
Parks, respectively. Human-bear interactions in a national park are
much more numerous than would be expected in the remote Bitterroot
wilderness, and the statistics are not comparable. In northwest Montana
(outside of Glacier Park) and northern Idaho, only two bear-inflicted
injuries (one mortality) have occurred in the last 50 years. In the Bob
Marshall Wilderness in 1956 a hunter shot and injured a grizzly bear
that responded by mortally injuring him. In the Mission Valley in 1985,
a bird hunter shot and wounded a grizzly that responded by injuring
him. In the Yellowstone ecosystem outside of Yellowstone National Park,
there have been 22 injuries due to grizzly bears (including 3
mortalities) within the last 159 years, for an average of one mortality
every 53 years.
Given that mortalities in both of these areas average one every 50
years, and the generally accepted range of values for a human life is
$4-10 million, cost in human mortalities is expected to average
approximately 80,000-200,000 per year. Costs have only been monetized
for human mortality. Human injury is also an additional potential cost,
but was not determined for this assessment.
A potential cost is a decrease in visitation of the area by the
public. However, changes in visitor use are difficult to anticipate.
While some individuals might wish to see a grizzly bear in the wild,
others might wish to avoid the possibility of encountering one. The
costs of decreased visitation was not estimated.
Finally, the cost for the actual reintroduction is expected to be
approximately $433,600 per year for the 5-year reintroduction period
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000). This includes the cost of
capturing and transplanting bears ($90,600), monitoring and management
of the population ($173,000), travel expenses of the Citizen Management
Committee

[[Page 69635]]

($20,000), and initial costs for sanitation, outreach, and law
enforcement activities by the Forest Service ($150,000). Annual costs
for monitoring and citizen management is expected to be approximately
$193,000 for each year beyond the 5-year reintroduction period.

Summary of Potential Costs Associated With the 10(j) Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential annual cost ($)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big game hunting.......................... Insignificant.
Livestock depredation..................... 2,720-8,568.\1\
Bear-proofing............................. Not quantified as annual
cost.
Timber harvest............................ Insignificant.
Mineral extraction........................ Insignificant.
Human mortality........................... 80,000-200,000.\1\
Human injury.............................. Not determined.\2\
Reduction in visitation................... Not determined.
Costs of monitoring/management............ 193,000.\3\
Total..................................... 275,720-401,568.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Costs expected to be significantly lower initially (approaching
zero), reaching these amounts after 50-110 years.
\2\ Costs expected to be significantly lower initially with projections
of one injury/year after 50-110 years.
\3\ Costs expected to be $433,632 for the initial 5 years.

Potential Benefits

Grizzly bears are a high-profile species with interest nationwide.
A survey of Yellowstone National Park visitors found that respondents
ranked the grizzly bear highest among wildlife species they would most
like to see on their trip to the park. Restoration of grizzly bears in
the Bitterroot ecosystem would further increase national awareness of
the presence of this species in the lower 48 States.
Existence value is the value a person associates with the knowledge
that a resource exists, even if that person has no plans or
expectations of ever directly using that resource. People may hold this
value for a number of reasons. In this case, the resource being valued
is a recovered or recovering population of grizzly bears in the
Bitterroot ecosystem. Since existence values potentially affect
everyone in the country, some of these impacts fall to individuals
outside of the Bitterroot ecosystem. Because the presence of grizzly
bears completes both the biological component of the ecosystem and the
wilderness experience, existence benefits are expected to result from
the reintroduction.
Another potential benefit is an increase in visitation of the area
by the public. However, as stated in the ``Potential Costs'' section,
changes in visitor use are difficult to anticipate. No monetary value
is given to benefits from visitor use in this assessment.
Cost-Benefit Summary
We anticipate no significant costs to land use activities on public
or private land with regard to hunting, timber harvest, mining, or
public access/recreational use. Annual costs associated with livestock
depredation, equipment for outfitters to bear-proof camps, risk to
human safety, and management and monitoring of the population of
grizzly bears are estimated to be approximately $275,720-401,568 or
more (depending on costs for bear-proofing by outfitters). It is
uncertain what the net visitation impacts will be. They were not
quantified in this assessment. Existence value benefits are expected to
result from this rule.
(a) This rule will not have an annual economic effect of $100
million or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of government. The rule would allow
management of grizzly bears by government agencies and the public to
minimize conflicts over uses of public lands, effects on domestic
animals and livestock, and impacts on ungulate populations. A Citizen
Management Committee would be authorized to manage implementation of
the experimental population and would be tasked with implementing the
Bitterroot Chapter of the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan. Reintroduction
could result in grizzly bear recovery in the Bitterroot ecosystem
(achievement of the tentative recovery goal of approximately 280
grizzly bears occupying suitable habitat) in a minimum of 50 years (4%
growth rate), although recovery would likely require more than 110
years (2% growth rate after the bears were released.
(b) This rule will not create inconsistencies with other agencies'
actions. Nonessential experimental population designations under
section 10(j) of the Act reduces both the interagency consultation
requirements (with other Federal agencies) and ``taking'' restrictions
of the Act. The reintroduction of grizzly bears will occur on Federal
public lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service. The action allowed by
this rulemaking is consistent with the policies and guidelines of the
Forest Service. Because of the substantial regulatory relief provided
by nonessential experimental population designations, we do not believe
the reintroduction of these bears will conflict with existing or
proposed human activities or hinder public use of the Bitterroot
ecosystem.
(c) This rule will not materially affect entitlements, grants, user
fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients
because we expect minimal impacts or restrictions to existing human
uses of the Bitterroot ecosystem.
(d) This rule will raise a novel policy issue. We have previously
promulgated more than a dozen section 10(j) rules for experimental
populations of other listed threatened and endangered species in
various localities since 1984. However, this is the first experimental
population rule that establishes a management process that includes a
Citizen Management Committee. For this reason, the rule is a
significant regulatory action in accordance with Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

We certify that this 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.). We have determined that the
small entities most likely to be affected by this rule are producers of
domestic livestock. There are 4,327 farms within the 14 counties
covering the Bitterroot grizzly bear primary analysis area in central
Idaho and western Montana. As discussed above, grizzly depredation on
domestic livestock would likely be minimal during the estimated 50-110+
years until the population of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot ecosystem
is fully recovered. We estimate that after a recovered population of
280 grizzly bears is achieved, depredation incidents involving
livestock would be from 4 to 8 cattle and from 5 to 44 sheep per year.
Prior to full recovery, depredation losses are expected to be below
these estimated levels. In a worst-case situation, depredation could
impact 52 out of 4,327 farms, which would not constitute a substantial
number of small entities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2000).

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

In the economic analysis, we determined that designation of a
nonessential experimental population of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot
ecosystem will not cause: (a) Any effect on the economy of $100 million
or more; (b) any major increases in costs or prices for consumers;
individual industries; Federal, State, or local government agencies; or
geographic regions; or (c) any significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the
ability

[[Page 69636]]

of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Based upon the analysis of identified factors, we have determined that
no individual industries within the United States will be significantly
affected, and no changes in the demography of populations are
anticipated. The intent of this special rule is to facilitate and
continue the existing commercial activity while providing for the
conservation of the grizzly bear through reintroduction to suitable
habitat.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

We have determined and certified pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., that this final rulemaking will not
impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or
State governments or private entities.
The management responsibility for the reintroduced population will
rest with a Citizen Management Committee created by the Secretary. This
Committee will involve local people in the management of this
population. Travel and per diem for non-Federal members of this
Committee and funding for the function of this Committee will come from
the Service.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order 12630, this rule does not have
significant takings implications, and a takings implication assessment
is not required. This designation will not ``take'' private property
and will not alter the value of private property. More than 75% of the
area included in the nonessential experimental population area is on
Federal lands.

Federalism

In accordance with Executive Order 13132, this rule will not affect
the structure or role of States and will not have direct, substantial,
or significant effects on States. Also, our economic analysis indicates
that considerable economic benefits would result from the designation.
In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, the Service
requested information from and coordinated development of the proposal
with appropriate State resource agencies in Idaho and Montana. In
addition, both States participated in the development of the EIS. The
Service will continue to coordinate any future designation of
experimental population status with the appropriate State agencies.

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order 12988, we have further
determined that this regulation does not unduly burden the judicial
system and meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. We have made every effort to ensure
that this final determination contains no drafting errors, provides
clear standards, simplifies procedures, reduces burden, and is clearly
written such that litigation risk is minimized.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This final rule contains collections of information requiring the
approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq. Authorization for this information collection has been
approved by OMB and has been assigned control number 1018-0095. The
Service may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

A Final EIS on the reintroduction of the grizzly bear in the
Bitterroot ecosystem has been prepared and is available to the public
(see ADDRESSES). The Final EIS should be referred to for analysis of
the Preferred Alternative chosen in the Record of Decision.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994,
``Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments'' (59 FR 22951) and 512 DM 2, we have closely coordinated
this rule with the Nez Perce Indian Tribe, which has been involved in
development of the rule, and determined that there are no effects.

References Cited

Duda, M.D. and K.C. Young. 1995. The public and grizzly bear
reintroduction in the Bitterroot Mountains of Central Idaho.
Responsive Management. Harrisonburg, VA.
Kasworm, K.F. and C. Servheen. 1995. Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem grizzly
bear and black bear research 1994 progress report. U.S. Fish and
Wild. Service, Missoula, Mont. 57 pp.
Mattson, D.J. 1997. Use of ungulates by Yellowstone grizzly bears
Ursus arctos. Biological Conservation 81: 161-177.
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.
Melquist, W. 1998. Letter to Dr. Chris Servheen clarifying
conclusions of Melquist (1985). Appendix 25 in Final Environmental
Impact Statement on Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot
Ecosystem.
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. 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. Grizzly bear recovery in the
Bitterroot Ecosystem. Draft Environmental Impact Statement,
Missoula, Montana. 464 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997a. Proposed Rule 10(j), Proposed
Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly
Bears in the Bitterroot Area of Idaho and Montana. Federal Register,
Volume 62, Number 127, pages 35762--35772.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Summary of Public Comments on
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Grizzly Bear Recovery
in the Bitterroot Ecosystem. 211 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Grizzly Bear Recovery in the
Bitterroot Ecosystem. Final Environmental Impact Statement. 766pp.

Author

The principal author of this final 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.

Regulation Promulgation

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

[[Page 69637]]

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. Amend section 17.11(h) by revising the table entry for ``Bear,
grizzly (=brown)'' under ``MAMMALS'' to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
-------------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals

* * * * * * *
Bear, grizzly (=brown)........... Ursus arctos........ Holarctic.......... U.S.A., T 1,2D,9 NA 17.40(b)
conterminous
(lower 48) States,
except where
listed as an
experimental
population.
Do............................... ......do............ ......do........... U.S.A. (portions of XN 706 NA 17.84(l)
ID and MT, see
17.84(l)).

* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Amend section 17.84 by adding paragraph (l) to read as follows:

Sec. 17.84 Special rules--vertebrates.

* * * * *
(l) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos).
(1) Where does this special rule apply? The special rule in this
paragraph (l) applies to the designated Bitterroot Grizzly Bear
Experimental Population Area (Experimental Population Area), which is
found within the species' historic range and is defined as follows:
The boundaries of the Experimental Population Area are delineated
by U.S. 93 from its junction with the Bitterroot River near 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; Interstate 90 from Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho, to its junction with the Clark Fork River near St. Regis,
Montana; the Clark Fork River from its junction with Interstate 90 near
St. Regis to its confluence with the Bitterroot River near Missoula,
Montana; and the Bitterroot River from its confluence with the Clark
Fork River to its junction with U.S. Highway 93, near Missoula, Montana
(See map at the end of this paragraph (l)).
(2) What is the legal status of the grizzly bear?
(i) The grizzly bear is listed as ``threatened'' in Sec. 17.11 (h)
and protected under this part. However, the grizzly bear population to
which this paragraph (l) applies is considered a nonessential
experimental population in accordance with section 10(j) of the Act.
(ii) We have determined that, as of December 18, 2000, no grizzly
bear population exists in the Experimental Population Area. We find, in
accordance with Sec. 17.81 (b), that the reintroduction of grizzly
bears as a nonessential experimental population, as defined in
Sec. 17.81 (b), will further the conservation of the species and will
be consistent with provisions of section 10(j) of the Act, which
requires that an experimental population be geographically separate
from other nonexperimental populations of the same species. We also
find, in accordance with Sec. 17.81 (c)(2), that the experimental
population of grizzly bears in the Experimental Population Area is not
essential to the survival of the species in the wild.
(iii) Grizzly bears within the Experimental Population Area and the
Recovery Area will be accommodated through management provisions
provided for in this paragraph (l) and through management plans and
policies developed by the Citizen Management Committee (Committee; see
paragraph (l)(6) of this section). After reintroduction, every grizzly
bear found within the Experimental Population Area will be considered a
member of the nonessential experimental population.
(iv) In the conterminous United States, a grizzly bear that is
outside the Experimental Population Area identified in paragraph (l)(1)
of this section will be considered as threatened.
(3) Where will grizzly bears be released, and where will recovery
be emphasized?
The Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area identifies the area of
recovery emphasis within the Experimental Population Area. The Recovery
Area consists of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and the Frank Church-
River of No Return Wilderness (See map at the end of paragraph (l) of
this section). All reintroductions will take place in the Selway-
Bitterroot Wilderness unless it is later determined that reintroduction
in the Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness is appropriate. If,
in the future, new wilderness areas are designated adjacent to the
Recovery Area, the Committee may recommend to the Secretary their
addition to the Recovery Area. The Secretary would have to amend this
paragraph (l) to change the definition of the Recovery Area.
(4) What activities are prohibited in the Experimental Population
Area?
(i) You may not take (see definition in Sec. 10.12 of this
subchapter) any grizzly bear in the Experimental Population Area,
except as provided in this paragraph (l). We may refer unauthorized
take of grizzly bears to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(ii) You may not possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship,
import, or export by any means whatsoever any grizzly bear or parts
thereof that are taken from the Experimental Population Area or
possessed in violation of the regulations in this paragraph (l) or in
violation of applicable State wildlife conservation laws or regulations
or the Act.
(iii) You may not attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or
cause to be committed, any offense defined in this paragraph (l).
(5) What activities are allowed in the Experimental Population
Area?
(i) For purposes of this paragraph (l), except for persons engaged
in hunting or shooting activities, you will not be in

[[Page 69638]]

violation of the Act for ``unavoidable and unintentional take'' (see
definition in paragraph (l)(16) of this section) of grizzly bears
within the Experimental Population Area when such take is incidental to
a legal activity and is not a result of negligent conduct lacking
reasonable due care, and when due care was exercised to avoid the
taking. Any taking must be reported within 24 hours to appropriate
authorities as listed in paragraph (l)(5)(iii) 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. Shooting a grizzly bear as a result of
mistaking it for another species is considered a lack of reasonable due
care. The act of taking a grizzly bear that is wrongly identified as
another species may be referred to appropriate authorities for
prosecution.
(ii) Any person with a valid permit issued by us may take grizzly
bears in the Experimental Population 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 the
nonessential experimental population, and with applicable State
wildlife conservation laws and regulations.
(iii) You may take grizzly bears in the Experimental Population
Area in self-defense or in defense of the lives of others. Such taking
must be reported within 24 hours as to date, exact location, and
circumstances to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, University
Hall, Room 309, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812 (406-
243-4903); or the Assistant Regional Director for Law Enforcement,
Eastside Federal Complex, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-
4181 (503-231-6125); or the 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 (208-843-2253) (as
appropriate).
(iv) Livestock owners may obtain a permit from the Service, and the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks, or appropriate Tribal authorities to harass (see
definition in Sec. 17.3) grizzly bears found in the Experimental
Population Area that are actually pursuing or killing livestock (to
include permitting the use of livestock guard dogs around livestock to
harass such grizzly bears). Prior to issuance of such a permit,
authorized State, Federal, or Tribal officials must document pursuit or
killing of livestock. All such harassment must be accomplished by an
opportunistic, noninjurious method (see definition of ``opportunistic,
noninjurious harassment'' in paragraph (l)(16) of this section) to the
grizzly bear, and such harassment must be reported within 24 hours as
to date, exact location, and circumstances to the authorities listed
under paragraph (l)(5)(iii) of this section.
(v) Livestock owners may obtain a permit from the Service, and the
Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife and Parks or appropriate Tribal authorities to take grizzly
bears on private lands found in the Experimental Population Area in a
manner other than harassment as defined in this paragraph (l), in order
to protect livestock actually pursued or being killed on private
property. Prior to issuance of such a permit, authorized State,
Federal, or Tribal officials must document pursuit or killing of
livestock. Any response protocol established by the Committee must have
been satisfied and efforts to capture depredating grizzly bears by
Service or State or Tribal wildlife agency personnel must have proven
unsuccessful. All such taking must be reported as to date, exact
location, and circumstances within 24 hours to the authorities listed
under paragraph (l)(5)(iii) of this section.
(vi) Any authorized employee or agent of the 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 Population Area if such
action is necessary to:
(A) Aid a sick, injured, or orphaned grizzly bear;
(B) Dispose of a dead grizzly bear, or salvage a dead grizzly bear
that may be useful for scientific study;
(C) 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 otherwise eliminating such depredation or loss of personal
property has not been possible, and after eliminating such threat by
live-capturing and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed in the area
defined in paragraph (l)(2) of this section or other areas approved by
the Committee has been demonstrated not to be possible;
(D) Move a grizzly bear for genetic management purposes;
(E) Relocate grizzly bears within the Experimental Population Area
to improve grizzly bear survival and recovery prospects; or (F)
Relocate a grizzly bear to avoid conflict with human activities.
However, grizzly bears in the Experimental Population Area will not be
disturbed unless they demonstrate a real and imminent threat to human
safety, livestock, or bees. Unless the Committee determines otherwise,
this rule provides that on private lands outside the national forest
boundary in the Bitterroot Valley, Montana (exclusion area), any human/
grizzly conflicts will be considered unacceptable. Grizzly bear
occupancy will be discouraged in the exclusion area, and grizzly bears
found there will be captured and returned to the Recovery Area, or
placed in captivity, or destroyed, depending on the history of each
bear. If a grizzly bear enters the exclusion area, State and Federal
wildlife management agencies will attempt to capture it immediately and
notify the public of its presence as soon as possible. The public will
be kept updated until the bear is caught. Further, any grizzly bear
that occupies inhabited human settlement areas on private land within
the Experimental Population Area that, in the judgment of the
management agencies or Committee, presents a clear threat to human
safety or whose behavior indicates that it may become habituated to
humans, will be relocated or destroyed by management agencies.
(6) How will local citizens be involved in the management of the
Bitterroot nonessential experimental grizzly bear population?
(i) The Secretary will establish a Citizen Management Committee for
the Bitterroot grizzly bear experimental population and will authorize
management implementation responsibility as described in paragraph
(l)(9) of this section, in consultation with the Governors of Idaho and
Montana. As soon as possible after the effective date of this rule, the
Secretary will organize the Committee by requesting nominations of
citizen members from the Governors of Idaho and Montana and the Nez
Perce Tribe and nominations of agency members by represented agencies.
(ii) The Committee will be composed of 15 members serving 6-year
terms. Appointments may initially be of lesser terms to ensure
staggered replacement.
(A) Membership will consist of seven individuals appointed by the
Secretary based upon the recommendations of the Governor of Idaho, five
members

[[Page 69639]]

appointed by the Secretary based upon the recommendations of the
Governor of Montana, one member representing the Nez Perce Tribe
appointed by the Secretary based on the recommendation of the Nez Perce
Tribe, one member representing the Forest Service appointed by the
Secretary of Agriculture, and one member representing the Fish and
Wildlife Service appointed by the Secretary. Members recommended by the
Governors of Idaho and Montana will be based on the recommendations of
interested parties and will include at least one representative each
from the appropriate State wildlife agencies. If either Governor or the
Tribe fails to make recommendations within 60 days, the Secretary (or
his/her designee) will accept recommendations from interested parties,
and will make the appointments.
(B) The Committee will consist of a cross-section of interests
reflecting a balance of viewpoints, and members are to be selected for
their diversity of knowledge and experience in natural resource issues,
and for their commitment to collaborative decision-making. In their
recommendations to the Secretary, the Governors of Idaho and Montana
will attach written documentation of the qualifications of those
nominated relating to their knowledge of, and experience in, natural
resource issues and their commitment to collaborative decision-making.
(C) Except for the representatives from Federal agencies, the
Committee will be selected from communities within and adjacent to the
Recovery and Experimental Population Areas.
(D) The Secretary will fill vacancies as they occur with the
appropriate members based on the recommendation of the appropriate
Governor, the Nez Perce Tribe, or agency.
(7) Will independent scientific information be readily available to
the Committee?
The Secretary will appoint two scientific advisors to the Committee
as nonvoting members to attend all meetings of the Committee and to
provide scientific expertise to the Committee. These scientific
advisors will not be employed by Federal agencies involved in grizzly
bear recovery. The Secretary will contact the Wildlife Society Chapters
in Idaho and Montana and the Universities of Idaho and Montana for
nominations and will select one wildlife scientist representing each
State and appoint them as advisors to the Committee.
(8) What is the overall mission of the Committee, and how will it
operate?
(i) The mission of the Committee is to facilitate recovery of the
grizzly bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem by assisting in implementing
the Bitterroot ecosystem chapter of the recovery plan (Bitterroot
Ecosystem Recovery Plan Chapter--Supplement to the Grizzly Bear
Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana,
1996). The Committee will make recommendations to land and wildlife
management agencies that it believes will lead to recovery of the
grizzly bear. Decisions on, and implementation of, these
recommendations are the responsibility of the land and wildlife
management agencies.
(ii) The Committee will meet a minimum of two times per year. These
meetings will be open to the public. Additionally, the committee will
provide reasonable public notice of meetings, produce and provide
written minutes of meetings to interested persons, and involve the
public in its decision-making process. This public participation
process will allow members of the public and/or special interest groups
to have input to Committee decisions and management actions.
(9) What authority will the Committee have, and what will be its
primary tasks?
The Committee will have the authority and the responsibility to
carry out the following functions:
(i) Developing a process for obtaining the best biological, social,
and economic data. This process will include an explicit mechanism for
soliciting peer-reviewed, scientific articles on grizzly bears and
their management, and holding periodic public meetings not less than
every 2 years, in which qualified scientists may submit comments to and
be questioned by the Committee. The two scientific advisors will lead
this process. 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 in the Bitterroot ecosystem and
minimize social and economic impacts to the extent practicable within
the context of the existing recovery goals for the species.
(ii) Soliciting technical advice and guidance from outside experts.
The scientific advisors will lead the development of an ongoing process
to provide the Committee with the best scientific and commercial data
available. The scientific advisors will provide this information in the
form of peer-reviewed scientific articles on grizzly bears and their
management, Committee meetings with presentations by scientific
experts, and requests to State and Federal management agencies and the
private sector for scientific expertise and advice.
(iii) Implementing the Bitterroot Ecosystem Chapter of the Grizzly
Bear Recovery Plan consistent with this paragraph (l). The Committee
will develop recommendations on existing management plans and policies
of land and wildlife management agencies, as necessary, for the
management of grizzly bears in the Experimental Population Area. The
Committee will make recommendations to land and wildlife management
agencies regarding changes to plans and policies, but the final
decision on implementation of those recommendations will be made by
those agencies. If Committee recommendations require significant
changes to existing plans and policy, and the agencies tentatively
agree to accept those recommendations, then the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act may apply. Such management plans and
policies will be in accordance with applicable State and Federal laws.
The Committee will give full consideration to Service comments and
opinions and those of the Forest Service, Idaho Department of Fish and
Game, the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and the Nez
Perce Tribe.
(iv) 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 making
decisions.
(v) Developing its internal processes, where appropriate, such as
governance, decision-making, quorum, terms of members, officers,
meeting schedules and location, public notice of meetings, and minutes.
(vi) Requesting staff support from the Service, the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game, Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and
Parks, Forest Service, other affected Federal agencies, and the Nez
Perce Tribe, when necessary to perform administrative functions, and
requesting reimbursement from us for non-Federal Committee members for
costs associated with travel, lodging, and incidentals.
(vii) Reviewing existing grizzly bear standards and guidelines used
by the Forest Service and other agencies and landowners. The Committee
will perform an annual review of grizzly bear mortalities and the
number and location of bear/human conflicts. This review will be the
primary mechanism to assess the adequacy of existing management
techniques and standards. If the

[[Page 69640]]

Committee deems such standards and guidelines inadequate for recovery
of grizzly bears, the Committee may recommend changes to the Forest
Service and other agencies and landowners.
(viii) Developing grizzly bear guidance for proper camping and
sanitation within the Experimental Population Area and making
recommendations to land management agencies for adoption of such
guidelines. Existing camping and sanitation procedures developed in
other ecosystems with grizzly bears will serve as a basis for such
guidelines.
(ix) Developing a protocol for responding to grizzly/human
encounters, livestock depredations, damage to lawfully present
property, and other grizzly/human conflicts within the Experimental
Population 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 what the
Committee may do to help prevent future conflicts or mortalities. The
Committee will recommend, as necessary, policy changes on trail
restrictions for human safety to appropriate wildlife and land
management agencies.
(x) Recommending to the Service changes to recovery criteria,
including mortality limits, population determinations, and other
criteria for recovery as appropriate.
(xi) Reviewing all human-caused grizzly bear mortalities to
determine whether new measures for avoiding future occurrences are
required and make recommendations on such measures to appropriate land
and wildlife management agencies. If grizzly bear mortalities occur as
a result of black bear hunting, the Committee will work with the State
Fish and Game Departments in both Idaho and Montana to develop
solutions to minimize the effects on grizzly bears of black bear
hunting.
(xii) Developing strategies to emphasize recovery inside the
Recovery Area and to accommodate grizzly bears inside other areas of
the Experimental Population Area.
(A) Grizzly bears may range outside the Recovery Area because
grizzly bear habitat exists throughout the Experimental Population
Area. The Committee will not recommend that bears be disturbed or moved
unless conflicts are both significant and cannot be corrected as
determined by the Committee. This provision includes conflicts
associated with livestock, for which the Committee will develop
strategies to discourage grizzly bear occupancy in portions of the
Experimental Population Area outside of the Recovery Area.
(B) Unless the Committee determines otherwise, this rule provides
that private land outside the national forest boundary in the
Bitterroot Valley, Montana (exclusion area), is an area where any
human/grizzly conflicts will be considered unacceptable. Grizzly bear
occupancy will be discouraged in these areas, and grizzly bears will be
captured and returned to the Recovery Area. If a grizzly bear enters
the exclusion area, State and Federal wildlife management agencies will
attempt to capture it immediately and notify the public of its presence
as soon as possible. The public will be kept updated until the bear is
caught. Further, any grizzly bear that occupies the exclusion area or
other inhabited human settlement areas on private land within the
Experimental Population Area that, in the judgment of the management
agencies or Committee, presents a clear threat to human safety or whose
behavior indicates that it may become habituated to humans, will be
relocated or destroyed by management agencies.
(xiii) Establishing standards for determining whether the
experimental reintroduction has been successful and making
recommendations on the inclusion of such standards in the Grizzly Bear
Recovery Plan. These standards will be based on the best scientific and
commercial information available and will reflect that, absent
extraordinary circumstances, the success or failure of the program
cannot be measured in fewer than 20 years. General guidelines for the
standards by which failure will be measured include, but are not
limited to, one or more of the following conditions:
(A) If, within the number of years established by the Committee
following initial reintroduction, no relocated grizzly bear remains
within the Experimental Population Area and the reasons for emigration
or mortality cannot be identified and/or remedied; or
(B) 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.
(xiv) Developing procedures for the expeditious issuance of permits
described in paragraphs (l)(5)(iv) and (l)(5)(v) of this section, and
making recommendations on such procedures to appropriate agencies.
(xv) Developing 2-year work plans for the recovery effort for
submittal to the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (l)(11)(i) of this
section.
(xvi) Establishing, based on the best available science, a refined
interim recovery goal for the Bitterroot Ecosystem Chapter of the
Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan and a final recovery goal when sufficient
information is available and after grizzly bears are reintroduced and
occupy suitable habitats in the Experimental Population Area. As this
information becomes available, the Committee may recommend the recovery
goal to the Secretary along with 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. Additional adjacent areas of public land can be
considered for contribution of suitable habitat when setting the
recovery goal if additional land is shown to be necessary by the best
scientific and commercial data available. Any recommendations for
revised recovery goals developed by the Committee will require public
review and our approval as appropriate prior to revision of any
recovery plan. Grizzly bears outside the Recovery Area and within the
Experimental Population Area can contribute to meeting the recovery
goal if their long-term occupancy in such habitats outside the Recovery
Area is reasonably certain.
(10) What agencies will be responsible for day-to-day management
activities?
The Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Montana Department of
Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Nez Perce Tribe, and the Forest Service,
in coordination with us, will exercise day-to-day management
responsibility within the Experimental Population Area in accordance
with this paragaraph (l). The Service and these cooperating agencies
will share management responsibility as per agreements with, and in
consideration of, recommendations from the Committee.
(11) How will progress of the Committee be monitored; and what
process will be followed by the Secretary to resolve disputes over
whether Committee actions are leading to recovery?
(i) The Secretary or our representative on the Committee will
review the Committee's 2-year work plans (see paragraph (l)(9)(xv) of
this section). If the Secretary determines, through our representative
on the Committee, that the Committee's decisions, work plans, or the
implementation of those plans are

[[Page 69641]]

not leading to the recovery of the grizzly bear within the Experimental
Population Area or are not in compliance with this paragraph (l), our
representative will ask the Committee to determine whether such a
decision, plan, or implementation of a plan is leading to recovery and
is in compliance with this paragraph (l). The Secretary, who retains
final responsibility and authority for implementation of the Act, will
review the Committee's determination, as provided in paragraphs
(l)(11)(ii) through (iv) of this section, and then make a final
determination. Should the Secretary find that a decision, work plan, or
implementation of a plan by the Committee is inadequate for recovery of
the grizzly bear or is not in compliance with this paragraph (l), the
Secretary may assume lead management responsibility.
(ii) The Service representative will consider Committee input
before making any determination that Committee actions are not leading
to recovery or are not in compliance with this paragraph (l). In the
event that our representative on the Committee determines that the
actions of the Committee are not leading to recovery of the Bitterroot
grizzly bear population or are not in compliance with this paragraph
(l), he or she will recommend to the Committee, based on the best
scientific and commercial data available, alternative or corrective
actions and provide 6 months for the Committee to accomplish those
actions. Should the Committee reject these corrective actions, our
representative will convene a Scientific Review Panel of three and will
submit to the panel for review those Committee actions or decisions
that he or she has determined are not leading to recovery or are not in
compliance with this paragrpah (l). The Service representative will
consider the views of all Committee members prior to convening a
Scientific Review Panel.
(iii) Members of the Scientific Review Panel will be professional
scientists who have had no involvement with the Committee and are not
employed by Federal agencies responsible for grizzly bear recovery
efforts. The Secretary will select one member of the panel, and the
Governors of Idaho and Montana in consultation with the Universities of
Idaho and Montana (respectively), will select one panel member each.
The Scientific Review Panel will review Committee actions or decisions,
solicit additional information if necessary and, using the best
scientific and commercial data available, make timely recommendations
to the Committee as to whether Committee actions will lead to recovery
of the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem and are in compliance
with paragraph (l). Examples of Committee actions, decisions, or lack
of actions that can be submitted to the Scientific Review Panel
include, but are not limited to, the following: sufficiency of public
involvement in Committee activities; decisions involving sanitation and
outreach activities; management of nuisance bears; adequacy of
recommendations to land and wildlife management agencies; adequacy of
Committee actions in addressing issues such as excessive human-caused
grizzly bear mortality; and other actions important to recovery of the
grizzly bear in the Bitterroot ecosystem. Committee compliance with
paragraph (l) provides the basis for the recommendations of the
Scientific Review Panel.
(iv) If, after timely review, the Committee rejects the
recommendations of the Scientific Review Panel, and our representative
determines that Committee actions are not leading to recovery of the
Bitterroot population, he or she will notify the Secretary. The
Secretary will review the Panel's recommendations and determine the
disposition of the Committee.
(A) If the Secretary determines that the Committee should maintain
lead management responsibility, the Committee will continue to operate
according to the provisions of this paragraph (l) until the recovery
objectives under paragraph (l)(9)(xvi) of this section or the
Bitterroot Ecosystem Chapter of the Recovery Plan have been met and the
Secretary has completed delisting.
(B) If the Secretary decides to assume lead management
responsibility, the Secretary will consult with the Governors of Idaho
and Montana regarding that decision and further attempt to resolve the
disagreement. If, after such consultation, the Secretary assumes lead
management responsibility, the Secretary will publish a notice in the
Federal Register explaining the rationale for the determination and
notify the Governors of Idaho and Montana. The Committee will disband,
and all requirements identified in this paragraph (l) regarding the
Committee will be nullified.
(12) How will the Bitterroot grizzly bear population be monitored?
The reintroduced population will be monitored closely by Federal
and State agencies in cooperation with the Committee for the duration
of the recovery process, generally by use of radio telemetry as
appropriate.
(13) How will success or failure of the project be evaluated?
The status of Bitterroot grizzly bear recovery will be reevaluated
separately by the Committee and by the Secretary 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.
Evaluating these parameters will assist in determining success or
failure of the restoration.
(14) What process will be followed if the Secretary determines the
project has failed?
(i) If, based on the criteria established by the Committee, the
Secretary, after consultation with the Committee, the Governors of
Idaho and Montana, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and the Nez Perce Tribe,
determines that the reintroduction has failed to produce a self-
sustaining population, this paragraph (l) will not be used to
reintroduce additional bears. Any remaining bears will retain their
experimental status.
(ii) Prior to declaring the experimental reintroduction a failure,
we will investigate the probable causes of the failure. If the causes
can be determined, and legal and reasonable remedial measures
identified and implemented, we will consider continuing the recovery
effort and maintaining the relocated population. If such reasonable
measures cannot be identified and implemented, we will publish the
results of our evaluation in the Federal Register in a proposed
rulemaking to terminate the authority for additional experimental
grizzly bear reintroductions in the Bitterroot ecosystem.
(15) Will the legal status of grizzly bears in the Experimental
Population Area change?
We do not intend to change the ``nonessential experimental''
designation to ``essential experimental,'' ``threatened,'' or
``endangered'' and foresee no likely situation that would result in
such changes. Critical habitat cannot be designated under the
nonessential experimental classification, 16 U.S.C. 1539(j)(2)(C)(ii).
(16) What are the definitions of key terms used in the special rule
in this paragraph (l)?
In addition to terms defined in Sec. 10.12 and 17.3 of this
subchapter, the following terms apply to this paragraph (l):
Accommodate means allowing grizzly bears that move outside the
Recovery Area onto public land in the

[[Page 69642]]

Experimental Population Area to remain undisturbed unless they
demonstrate a real and imminent threat to human safety or livestock.
Citizen Management Committee (Committee) means that Committee
described in paragraph (l)(6) of this section.
Current range means the area inside or within 10 miles of the
recovery zone line of currently occupied grizzly bear recovery zones or
any area where there is a grizzly bear population, as defined in this
paragraph (l)(16).
Exclusion area (Bitterroot Valley) means those private lands in
Montana lying within the Bitterroot Experimental Population Area in the
Bitterroot Valley outside the Bitterroot National Forest boundary south
of U.S. Highway 12 to Lost Trail Pass and west of Highway 93.
Experimental Population Area (Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Experimental
Population Area) means that area delineated in paragraph (l)(1) of this
section within which management plans developed as part of the
Committee described in paragraph (l)(9) of this section will be in
effect. This area includes the Recovery Area. The Experimental
Population Area is within the historic range of the grizzly bear, but
geographically separate from the current range of the grizzly bear.
Geographically separate means separated by more than 10 miles. The
term refers to ``wholly separate geographically'' in section 10(j)(2)
of the Act. The Experimental Population Area and the recovery zone
boundary of any existing grizzly bear population must be geographically
separate.
Grizzly bear population is defined by verified evidence within the
previous 6 years which consists of photos within the area, verified
tracks, or sightings by reputable scientists or agency personnel of at
least two different female grizzly bears with young or one female with
different litters in 2 different years in an area geographically
separate from other grizzly bear populations. Verifiable evidence of
females with young, to be geographically separate, would have to occur
greater than 10 miles from the nearest nonexperimental grizzly bear
population recovery zone boundary.
Opportunistic, noninjurious harassment means harassment (see
definition of ``harass'' in Sec. 17.3) that occurs when the grizzly
bear presents itself (for example, the bear travels onto and is
observed on private land or near livestock). This paragraph (l) permits
only this type of harassment. You cannot track, attract, search out, or
chase a grizzly bear and then harass it. Any harassment must not cause
bodily injury or death to the grizzly bear. The intent of harassment
permitted by this definitioin is to scare bears away from the immediate
area.
Recovery Area (Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area) means the
area of recovery emphasis within the Experimental Population Area, and
is delineated in paragraph (l)(2) of this section. This area consists
of the Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness
areas. The Recovery Area is within the historic range of the species.
Recovery emphasis means grizzly bear management decisions in the
Recovery Area will favor bear recovery so that this area can serve as
core habitat for survival, reproduction, and dispersal of the
recovering population. Reintroduction of grizzly bears is planned to
occur within the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness portion of the Recovery
Area unless it is later determined that reintroduction in the Frank
Church-River of No Return Wilderness is appropriate.
Unavoidable and unintentional take means accidental, unintentional
take (see definition of take in Sec. 10.12 of this subchapter) that
occurs despite reasonable care, is incidental to an otherwise lawful
activity, and is not done on purpose. An example would be striking a
grizzly bear with an automobile. Taking a grizzly bear by shooting will
not be considered unavoidable and unintentional take. Shooters have the
responsibility to be sure of their targets.

BILLING CODE 4310-55-P

[[Page 69643]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR17NO00.008

Dated: November 14, 2000.
Kenneth L. Smith,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 00-29530 Filed 11-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly Bears in the Bitterroot Area of Idaho and Montana

Local Navigation