[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 223 (Friday, November 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69644-69649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29531]
Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 223 / Friday, November 17, 2000 /
Notices
[[Page 69644]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Record of Decision Concerning Grizzly Bear Recovery in the
Bitterroot Ecosystem
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) issues this Record of Decision
(ROD) and Statement of Findings upon consideration of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Recovery of the Grizzly
Bear in the Bitterroot Ecosystem.
The Service has considered alternatives and evaluated their impacts
for the recovery of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the
Bitterroot Ecosystem of east central Idaho and western Montana as
presented in the FEIS. We have solicited public and agency comments and
considered these comments in the NEPA process and in making our
decision. Based on that evaluation and review, the Service has decided
to implement the Proposed Action Alternative as described in the FEIS.
This determination was based on a thorough analysis of environmental,
social, economic, and other considerations.
ADDRESSES: Additional copies of this ROD may be requested from Dr.
Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator, Bitterroot
Grizzly Bear FEIS, P.O. Box 5127, Missoula, Montana 59806, or e-mail
``[email protected].'' The document also is available for viewing
and downloading at ``http://www.r6.fws.gov/endspp/grizzly/.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear
Recovery Coordinator, at the above address, or telephone (406) 243-
4903.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The intent of this action is to recover the threatened grizzly bear
in the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Grizzly bears are a part of America's rich
wildlife heritage and once ranged throughout most of the western United
States. However, distribution and population levels of this species
have been diminished by excessive human-caused mortality and loss of
habitat. Today, only 1,000 to 1,100 grizzly bears remain in a few
populations in Montana (Northern Continental Divide, Yellowstone, and
Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystems), Idaho (Yellowstone, Cabinet-Yaak, and Selkirk
Ecosystems), Wyoming (Yellowstone Ecosystem), and Washington (Selkirk
and North Cascades Ecosystems). Wildlife species, like grizzly bear,
are most vulnerable when confined to small portions of their historical
range and limited to a few, small populations. Expansion of the range
of the species will increase the number of bears within the lower 48
United States, increase habitat size and extent, and further
conservation of the species.
The Bitterroot Ecosystem is one of the largest contiguous blocks of
Federal land remaining in the lower 48 United States. The core of the
ecosystem contains two wilderness areas which comprise the largest
block of wilderness habitat in the Rocky Mountains south of Canada. Of
all remaining unoccupied grizzly bear habitat in the lower 48 States,
this area in the Bitterroot Mountains has the best potential for
grizzly bear recovery, primarily due to the large wilderness area. As
such, the Bitterroot Ecosystem offers excellent potential to support a
healthy population of grizzly bears and to boost long-term survival and
recovery prospects for this species in the contiguous United States.
The Selected Alternative
The Selected Alternative is the Proposed Action as described in the
FEIS. The purpose of this alternative is to restore grizzly bears to
central Idaho, designate this population as ``nonessential
experimental,'' and implement provisions within sections 4 and 10(j) of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to conduct special management to
address local concerns. A Citizen Management Committee (CMC) will be
tasked with management implementation responsibilities for the
Bitterroot grizzly bear experimental population. The ``experimental
population'' designation gives the Service the flexibility to
promulgate a special rule that applies only to the reintroduced
population. Protections established by the special rule can thus be
tailored to specific areas and specific local conditions. Because these
reintroduced grizzly bears will be classified as an experimental
population, the Service can institute management practices that address
local concerns about excessive government regulation on private lands,
uncontrolled livestock depredation, excessive big game predation, and
lack of State government and local citizen involvement in the program.
The Service considers this a ``nonessential'' experimental population
because several additional populations exist within the 48 conterminous
United States and, as such, its loss would not be likely to appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild.
The Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Experimental Population Area
(Experimental Population Area), which includes most of central Idaho
and part of western Montana, will be established by the Service under
authority of section 10(j) of the ESA. The Experimental Population Area
encompasses approximately 25,140 square miles. This 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. The best
scientific evidence available indicates there are no grizzly bears in
the Experimental Population Area at this time. Ongoing grizzly bear
monitoring efforts will continue.
The Service will designate a Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Recovery Area
(Recovery Area) to consist of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness and the
Frank Church-River of No Return Wilderness. The Recovery Area, a
portion of the Experimental Population Area, encompasses approximately
5,785 square miles. The Recovery Area is the area of recovery emphasis.
This means grizzly bear management decisions in the Recovery Area will
favor bear recovery, allowing this area to serve as core habitat for
survival, reproduction, and dispersal of the recovering population.
During the first few months of implementation a CMC will be formed.
The CMC will be tasked with management implementation responsibilities
by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior, in consultation
with the governors of Idaho and Montana, for the Bitterroot grizzly
bear nonessential experimental population. The CMC will be comprised of
local citizens and agency representatives from Federal and State
agencies and the Nez Perce Tribe. Two scientific advisors will be
appointed by
[[Page 69645]]
the Secretary to the CMC as non-voting members, to attend all meetings
and provide scientific expertise to the CMC. The CMC will be
responsible for recommending changes in land-use standards and
guidelines as necessary for grizzly bear management. Recommendations
made by the CMC to land and wildlife management agencies will be
subject to review and final decisions on implementation will be made by
the responsible agency. All decisions of the CMC including components
of its management plans must lead toward recovery of the grizzly bear
and minimize social and economic impacts to the extent practicable
within the context of the existing recovery goals for the species.
Grizzly bear management will allow for resource extraction activities
to continue.
Subject to availability of funding, grizzly bears will be
reintroduced into the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness portion of the
Recovery Area during the second year of implementation. Specific
reintroduction sites will be identified by the land and wildlife
management agencies and the CMC. The Service, in coordination with the
Forest Service, States of Idaho and Montana, Nez Perce Tribe, and the
CMC will release a minimum of 25 grizzly bears into the Recovery Area
over a period of 5 years. In order to increase the probability of
survival of the initial bears, we will consider accelerating the
release of the bears in the first few years, as appropriate, and in
coordination with the CMC. The origin of bears for placement will
include areas more than 10 miles beyond existing recovery zone lines in
the Yellowstone and Northern Continental Divide Ecosystems, and British
Columbia and Alaska (nonsalmon-eating bears), as appropriate. Bears
will be removed from source populations only if there is no significant
impact to population health or recovery. This release will be no sooner
than 1 year after initiation of formation of the CMC and initiation of
sanitation and information efforts.
Bears moving outside the Recovery Area will be accommodated through
management provisions in a final Special Rule and through
recommendations on land and wildlife management plans and policies
developed by the CMC, unless potential conflicts are significant and
cannot be corrected. The term ``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
threat to human safety or livestock.
People can continue to kill grizzly bears in self-defense or in
defense of others, provided that such taking is reported within 24
hours to appropriate authorities. Grizzly bears will be managed
according to existing grizzly bear guidelines, except in the case of
grizzly bears on private land that are killing livestock and could not
be captured by management authorities. In such cases, landowners will
be issued a permit by the Service and the Idaho Fish and Game
Department, or the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, or
appropriate Tribal authorities. Following issuance of a permit by the
Service and the Idaho Fish and Game Department, or the Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, or appropriate Tribal
authorities, the permittee will be allowed to harass, through
noninjurious means, a grizzly bear attacking livestock (cattle, sheep,
horses, and mules) or bees. A livestock owner may be issued a permit to
kill a grizzly bear killing or pursuing livestock on private lands if
it has not been possible to capture such a bear or deter depredations
through agency efforts. If significant conflicts occur between grizzly
bears and livestock within the Experimental Population Area outside of
the Recovery Area, these can be resolved in favor of the livestock by
agencies capturing or eliminating the bear, depending on the
circumstances. There will be no Federal compensation program for
livestock losses, but compensation from existing private funding
sources will be encouraged.
It is anticipated that ongoing animal damage control activities
will not be affected by grizzly bear recovery. Animal control toxicants
lethal to bears are not used on public lands within the Recovery Area
and the Experimental Population Area. Any conflicts or mortalities
associated with these activities will result in a review by the CMC,
and any necessary changes will be recommended by the CMC.
The selected alternative will be implemented as an overlapping
staged process. The initial stage will be formation of the CMC. The
second stage will be simultaneous with CMC formation and will include
efforts to decrease the availability of human-related foods to wildlife
by increasing the availability of bear-proof garbage storage containers
in campgrounds and facilities in and around the Recovery Area. The
sanitation program will include efforts by the Forest Service,
permittees, and private landowners in and around the Recovery Area. The
second stage also will include an enhanced information effort to inform
people who recreate in the area how to minimize their chances of
encountering bears. Public education efforts will include--
presentations at schools in and around the Recovery Area to teach
children about grizzly bears and how to recreate safely in grizzly bear
country; presentations to all civic clubs and interested organizations
about grizzly bears and how to recreate safely in grizzly bear country;
and placing of informative signs at all trail heads in and around the
Recovery Area. The third stage will be placement of bears, which will
begin after the CMC has been established and the sanitation and
information programs have begun.
The selected alternative represents the environmentally preferable
alternative which balances the biological needs of recovering grizzly
bears and public concerns about the potential management of non-
experimental grizzly bear populations under the ESA. Establishment of
the nonessential experimental population as proposed under this
alternative will require promulgation of a final special rule. This
alternative offers the most efficient and realistic plan to result in
the recovery of grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Ecosystem, given
concerns of local residents over grizzly bear restoration. The
nonessential experimental population designation under section 10(j) of
the ESA will allow for flexible and responsive management to minimize
the potential negative impacts of grizzly bears to private property,
big game populations, other listed or sensitive species, and other
natural resource programs on private and public lands. The CMC will be
tasked with management responsibilities for this grizzly bear
population to address local concerns.
In order to implement the Proposed Action Alternative in the FEIS,
the Service is required to publish a regulation to establish a
nonessential experimental population of grizzly bears. When such a
special rule establishing the experimental population is promulgated,
the Service will administer the regulation in the manner described in
the FEIS and this ROD. This will require cooperation with and by other
agencies within the Department of the Interior, including but not
limited to the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and the Department of Agriculture, including but not limited
to the Forest Service and Wildlife Services. The Service also will
cooperate with the States of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, the Nez Perce
and other potentially affected Indian Tribes, and various other
[[Page 69646]]
individuals within the United States and Canadian governments.
Implementation of this decision is contingent upon the Service
receiving adequate appropriations, so that the current level of funding
for Service activities in other grizzly bear recovery areas will not be
compromised.
Other Alternatives Considered
Other than the proposed action, the major alternatives considered
and evaluated were:
Alternative 1A. Restoration of Grizzly Bears as a Nonessential
Experimental Population with Service Management Alternative. Grizzly
bears would be reintroduced to central Idaho and designated as a
nonessential experimental population. The Service would manage this
grizzly bear population under provisions of section 10(j) of the ESA to
address local concerns. The nonessential experimental designation would
allow flexibility in the Service management of the population such that
negative impacts to private property, big game populations, other
listed species, and other natural resource programs on private and
public lands could be minimized. However, this alternative does not
address one of the most substantive issues from public comment on the
proposal--the issue of necessity for local control and input into
resource management decisions affecting local citizens. Given the
contentious nature of this proposal, and the local opposition to
Federal management actions, the Service believes the probability of
successfully recovering grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Ecosystem will
be maximized by actively involving local citizens in management of the
restored population.
Alternative 2. The No Action Alternative--Natural Recovery. This
alternative describes the implications of current management
activities, assuming these will continue over the next 50+ years. A
description of this course of no action provides a reference point to
compare and evaluate environmental consequences associated with other
alternative plans. The overall environmental effects of taking no
action would likely result in no recovery of grizzly bears in the
Bitterroot Ecosystem, although it may result in grizzly bear
repopulation in 100-160 years. Given existing information, it is very
unlikely that grizzly bears would disperse from currently occupied
areas and successfully repopulate the Bitterroot Ecosystem naturally.
If grizzly bears did disperse to the Bitterroot Ecosystem they would be
protected as threatened under the ESA. This would result in less
management flexibility for the Service to resolve local concerns about
land use restrictions on public land, predation on big game herds and
potential loss of hunting opportunity, and livestock depredation.
Alternative 3. The No Grizzly Bear Alternative. This alternative
would prevent grizzly bear recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem by
changing current laws and allowing unrestricted take of grizzly bears
by the public. This alternative would prohibit restoration of the
currently missing native grizzly bear from the largest block of
wilderness habitat in the Rocky Mountains south of Canada. Under this
alternative, the potential contribution of an additional population of
grizzly bears to the recovery effort in the conterminous United States
would never be realized. Also, none of the economic and social benefits
or costs associated with the presence of a restored grizzly bear
population would occur. This alternative would require new legislation
by Congress to change the ESA, and legislation by the States of Idaho
and Montana to change State laws that protect grizzly bears in the
Bitterroot Ecosystem.
Alternative 4. Restoration of Grizzly Bears as a Threatened
Population with Full Protection of the ESA and Habitat Restoration
Alternative. This alternative would achieve recovery through
reintroduction of a threatened population of grizzly bears and
extensive habitat protection and enhancement to promote natural
recovery. Primary grizzly bear management responsibility would reside
with the Service and include active participation by the States and the
Nez Perce Tribe. A 10-member Scientific Committee would be established
to perform additional research, implement reintroduction of bears, and
monitor results of the program. Certain actions in this alternative,
such as the road management plan to obliterate a large number of roads
to achieve a road density of 0.25 mile/square mile and the elimination
of timber harvest in all roadless areas, are not necessary actions to
achieve grizzly bear recovery, and thus decrease the efficiency with
which this alternative could achieve recovery in the Bitterroot
Ecosystem. Also, reintroduction of a threatened population would allow
less management flexibility to address local concerns about livestock
depredation, restrictions to natural resource programs on public and
private lands, and impacts to other wildlife species. Based on numerous
public comments on this proposal, the Service believes the probability
of successfully recovering grizzly bears in the Bitterroot Ecosystem
will be maximized by actively involving local citizens in management of
the restored population
Alternative 4A. Restoration of Grizzly Bears as a Threatened
Population with Full Protection of the ESA and Service Management
Alternative. This alternative would achieve recovery through
reintroduction of a threatened population of grizzly bears with the
Service managing recovery of the population. Other Federal and State
agencies and the Nez Perce Tribe would assist the Service with
management activities. A 10-member Scientific Advisory Committee would
be appointed to make recommendations regarding research needs and
strategies for reintroduction and monitoring of grizzly bears.
Reintroduction of a threatened population would allow less management
flexibility to address local concerns about livestock depredation,
restrictions to natural resource programs on public and private lands,
and impacts to other wildlife species.
Minimization of Impacts
Possible project impacts and public concerns, and methods to be
used to mitigate those impacts and concerns were addressed as follows:
(1) Lack of local public involvement in the management of the
reintroduced species was addressed by development of the CMC concept;
(2) Lack of sufficient scientific input was addressed by adding two
scientific advisors to the CMC to be nominated by the Universities of
Idaho and Montana, and requiring the CMC to use the best available
science in decision-making;
(3) Public safety on private lands in the Bitterroot Valley,
Montana, was addressed by making these private lands an exclusion zone
where any grizzly bear would be immediately captured and relocated into
the wilderness or destroyed if necessary;
(4) Possibility of political interference from the Secretary of the
Department of the Interior on the CMC was addressed by establishing a
scientific review panel that would be formed if the Service
representative determined (after consultation with the CMC) that the
CMC was not making decisions that would lead to recovery;
(5) Concern about removal of bears from existing threatened
populations was addressed by clarifying that bears will not be removed
from within the United States grizzly bear recovery zones or within 10
miles of bear recovery zones so as to not remove any
[[Page 69647]]
bears from these core areas for any listed population;
(6) Concern that the CMC would make land management decisions on
public lands was addressed by clarifying that the CMC will not make
land management decisions on public lands, but may make only
recommendations about changes in public land management or public
hunting seasons, and any changes regarding these issues would have to
be made with public involvement by the land management or State fish
and game agencies after complying with NEPA or other appropriate laws;
(7) Adequacy of the habitat in the Bitterroot Ecosystem was
addressed by adding an appendix report from the Craighead Wildlife-
Wildlands Institute documenting the abundance and distribution of
grizzly bear food groups in the Bitterroot Ecosystem, and by a habitat-
based population assessment by Dr. Mark Boyce of the University of
Alberta detailing how many grizzly bears can be expected to live in the
Bitterroot Ecosystem;
(8) Lack of a corridor between the Bitterroot Ecosystem and areas
where grizzlies presently exist was addressed by noting that the
linkage zone evaluation task in the recovery plan will be completed in
2000, and will identify where possible linkage zones exist and what can
be done to maintain the opportunities for such linkage in the future;
and,
(9) Impacts to listed steelhead and salmon species will be
minimized through Service adherence to the conservation recommendations
of the National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion for this
project dated May 1998.
Significant New Issues Raised from Comments Received on the FEIS
The Service appreciates all comments on the FEIS, and the high
level of public interest and participation throughout the NEPA process
for this proposal. The Service received a number of comments during the
30-day time period following publication of the notice of availability
of the FEIS. Approximately 14,800 total comments were received from
individuals, organizations, and government agencies, which included 800
letters and 14,000 form letters/postcards. The Service reviewed all
public comments prior to developing this ROD. The majority of comments
received were directed at registering opposition or support to the
reintroduction of grizzly bears into the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Many
comments were essentially votes which contained a statement of opinion,
and were not substantive input to environmental issues or alternatives
to correct or improve the content of the FEIS and ROD.
The majority of substantive issues raised in the FEIS comments were
identical or similar to issues raised during three previous public
comment periods for this proposal. These issues have been addressed by
the Service throughout the NEPA process in the following documents,
incorporated here by reference--``Final Environmental Impact Statement
on Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem'' (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 2000); ``Summary of Public Comments on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for Grizzly Bear Recovery in the
Bitterroot Ecosystem'' (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998); ``Draft
Environmental Impact Statement on Grizzly Bear Recovery in the
Bitterroot Ecosystem'' (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997); ``Summary
of Public Comments on the Scoping of Issues and Alternatives for
Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem'' (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1995); ``Summary of Public Comments on the Notice of
Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the
Reintroduction of Grizzly Bears to the Bitterroot Ecosystem'' (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1995).
A few new issues were raised during the 30-day time period
following the notice of availability of the FEIS. Response to these new
issues are listed below.
Issue 1--Several commentors suggested that we accelerate
reintroduction with more than 5 bears per year and use more than 25
total bears if more bears are available. Other comments suggested using
bears from Alaska.
Response--The Service recognizes that accelerating reintroduction
would foster recovery of the grizzly by increasing their probability of
survival in the first few years, and we will consider increasing the
number of bears released in the first few years, as appropriate. We
will coordinate any such decision with the CMC. The Service also will
consider the possibility of reintroducing interior Rocky Mountain (non-
salmon eating) bears from Alaska as appropriate, and will coordinate
any such decision with the CMC.
Issue 2--Some commentors asked why we did not consider essential
experimental status in the range of alternatives in the FEIS.
Response--The term ``essential'' experimental population means an
experimental population whose loss would be likely to appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the survival of the species in the wild. The
Service has always considered a reintroduced Bitterroot population to
be ``nonessential'' experimental because several additional populations
exist within the 48 conterminous United States and, as such, its loss
would not be likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the
survival of the species in the wild.
Issue 3--Some commentors continue to question the suitability of
the habitat data including those data presented in Appendix 21D, the
report on the abundance and distribution of grizzly bear food plant
groups in the Salmon-Selway Ecosystem. Other comments questioned why
the Recovery Area does not include certain areas in the Bitterroot
Ecosystem that contain quality food sources.
Response--The Service believes that the data on bear foods
presented in the FEIS are the best data available and demonstrate the
sufficiency of the habitat to support a grizzly bear population. Under
the Proposed Action Alternative grizzly bears are expected to occupy
the areas outside the recovery emphasis area and will be accommodated
so they can continue to live in these areas. Accommodate means allowing
grizzly bears that move outside the Recovery Area onto public land in
the Experimental Population Area to remain undisturbed unless they
demonstrate a real and imminent threat to human safety or livestock.
However, as recovery proceeds, the Service and the CMC will cooperate
to continue to increase the available knowledge and consider new
information on the distribution and abundance of bear foods in the
Bitterroot Ecosystem; and will use such knowledge to make management
decisions to promote recovery. The Service is committed to using the
best data available.
Issue 4--Some commentors stated that the implementation of the
Proposed Action Alternative would be in conflict with existing Forest
management plans and would require the Forest Service to issue a ROD in
order to implement the Proposed Action Alternative.
Response--The Service has consulted with the Forest Service on this
concern, and the Forest Service does not see any conflicts with
existing forest management plans nor does the Forest Service see the
need to issue an EIS and a ROD to concur with the Proposed Action
Alternative of the Service.
Issue 5--Some commentors suggested that the Scientific Review Panel
needs specific timeframes for response and that the governors should
not have the
[[Page 69648]]
ability to appoint two of the three members.
Response--The Service believes that specific timeframes would be
unwarranted given the varied nature of considerations in which this
panel would be involved, and notes that the process protocol for the
Scientific Review Panel will be laid out clearly in the Special Rule.
We also believe that it is important for the appointment of members of
the Panel to be a shared responsibility in order to have shared
ownership of the results of the panel review. The process of the
Scientific Review Panel will be an open public process and the Service
believes that appointment of inappropriate members of the panel would
be contrary to the Special Rule. Also, the Secretary has the
responsibility to consider the recommendations of the Scientific Review
Panel but is not bound by their recommendations as to the future of the
CMC.
Issue 6--Some commentors were concerned that there is no guarantee
that any voting members of the CMC would be scientists and felt that
the science advisors should be voting members.
Response--Representation on the CMC is expected to include
scientists from State and Federal agencies and the CMC is directed to
use the best available scientific information in making decisions as
per their charter. The Service also believes that having the scientific
advisors attending as non-voting members will actually make their input
and comments less subject to pressure and influence than scientists
from the respective States who are voting members. The CMC process and
meetings will be open to the public. If the input of the scientific
advisors is not sought by the CMC or if their input is ignored in CMC
decisions, then this will be public knowledge and the CMC will have to
explain their actions. If the advice of the scientific advisors is
ignored to the point that the decisions of the CMC are not leading to
recovery, the Secretary's representative will inform the CMC of this
and of the possible empaneling of the Scientific Review Panel. This
Scientific Review Panel could recommend that the input of the
scientific advisors should be heeded and remind the CMC that they are
bound to use the best available science. Thus, the Service believes
there are sufficient checks and balances in the process to assure that
the input of the scientific advisors will be used by the CMC.
Issue 7--One commentor stated that the CMC will only review the
plans and policies of agencies, and not projects that may jeopardize
the continued existence of an experimental species, and believes this
does not meet the standard of the ESA.
Response--Meeting section 7 responsibilities is not a
responsibility of the CMC. If a Federal agency determines that its
action might jeopardize the continued existence of the species, the
agency shall conference with the Service, as per the mandates of
section 7(a)(4) and section 10(j)(2)(C) of the ESA.
Issue 8--Some commentors asked where the wording is in section 10
of the ESA that allows delegation of decision-making authority to the
CMC.
Response--The authority for creation of the CMC is contained in
section 4(f)(2) of the ESA where it states, ``The Secretary, in
implementing recovery plans, may procure the services of appropriate
public and private agencies and institutions, and other qualified
persons.'' Under this authority, the CMC is tasked with specific
responsibilities for recovery by implementing the recovery program in
the Bitterroot Ecosystem. Further, section 4(f)(2) of the ESA states
that appointments of such groups to develop and implement recovery
plans ``. . . shall not be subject to the Federal Advisory Committee
Act.'' Additionally, Federal agencies have authority under case law to
task another entity to accomplish certain functions, as long as there
are appropriate and adequate legal safeguards.
Issue 9--One commentor asked how corporate landowners will relate
to the CMC and how will the CMC be involved in the review of corporate
management plans for these lands.
Response--The Governors of each State are able to appoint corporate
landowners or employees of such corporations to the CMC. The Service
believes that inclusion of corporate landowners in CMC processes is
important and valuable, and will encourage the CMC to involve corporate
landowners in CMC outreach efforts, invite corporate landowners to CMC
meetings, and to include corporate landowners in CMC processes. Private
land owners would not lose any of their management authority and the
CMC would only make management recommendations to them.
Issue 10--Some commentors indicated the Service needs to implement
a proactive outreach and information and education program combined
with a sanitation program to better inform the public about grizzly
bear management and to increase the safety of humans and bears in the
Bitterroot.
Response--The Service has included this as stage two in the
implementation of the selected alternative.
Issue 11--Some commentors think the success or failure of the
program should be measured over a longer timeframe than a minimum of 10
years as stated in the FEIS.
Response--The Service agrees that for such a long-lived species a
10-year timeframe to measure the success or failure of reintroduction
is not sufficient. We have extended the timeframe to a minimum of 20
years, such that it reads, ``* * * the success or failure of the
program cannot be measured in less than 20 years.''
Issue 12--Some commentors think there is inadequate information and
research to indicate there are currently no grizzly bears in the
Bitterroot Ecosystem.
Response--The best scientific evidence available indicates there
are no grizzly bears in the Experimental Population Area at this time.
Published reports by Melquist (Melquist 1985. A preliminary survey to
determine the status of grizzly bears in the Clearwater National Forest
of Idaho) and by Groves (Groves 1987. A compilation of grizzly bear
reports from central and northern Idaho), as well as the March 28,
1998, letter from Wayne Melquist to Christopher Servheen presented in
Appendix 23 of the FEIS show no documentation of grizzly bears in the
Bitterroot Ecosystem. Ongoing grizzly bear monitoring efforts would
continue, and the Service will continue to follow up on promising
reports and to cooperate with all efforts to locate grizzly bears in
the Bitterroot Ecosystem.
Issue 13--Some commentors were concerned that the Secretary can
ignore a notice of the Scientific Review Panel that the CMC is not
making decisions that will lead to recovery and decide to continue the
CMC rather than disband it.
Response--The ultimate authority to make decisions to implement the
ESA is that of the Secretary. Nothing in the Special Rule or the FEIS
can subjugate the authority of the Secretary to the Scientific Review
Panel. The Scientific Review Panel process and any subsequent decisions
of the Secretary will be open to the public and public review.
Issue 14--One comment questions if there is a contradiction between
the statement that grizzly bear management decisions will favor bear
recovery in the Recovery Area, and the statement that if significant
conflicts occur between grizzly bears and livestock in the Experimental
Population Area that the
[[Page 69649]]
conflict could be resolved in favor of livestock.
Response--The ROD has been clarified to state that if significant
conflicts occur between grizzly bears and livestock in the Experimental
Population Area, outside the Recovery Area, the conflict could be
resolved in favor of livestock.
Issue 15--One comment questions if the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirks
would have grizzly ``populations'' using the definition of a population
in the FEIS in Appendix 25.
Response--Both the Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Ecosystems have had
multiple sightings of females with cubs and with enough offspring to
meet the definition of a population used in the FEIS.
Findings and Decision
Having reviewed and considered the FEIS for the recovery of the
grizzly bear in the Bitterroot Ecosystem and the public comments
thereon, the Service finds as follows:
(1) The requirements of NEPA and its implementing regulations have
been satisfied; and
(2) Statutory authority for the Service to implement this project
exists; and
(3) The Proposed Action Alternative represents the best balance
between the Service's goals and the objectives and the public's
concerns identified throughout the public participation process; and
(4) Consistent with the recovery goals, and with social, economic,
and other essential considerations from among the reasonable
alternatives, the Proposed Action Alternative minimizes or avoids
adverse environmental effects to the maximum extent practicable,
including effects disclosed in the FEIS; and
(5) Consistent with the social, economic, and other essential
considerations to the maximum extent practicable, adverse environmental
effects identified in the FEIS will be minimized or avoided.
Having made the above findings, the Service has decided to proceed,
as funding permits, with implementation of the Proposed Action
Alternative. The decision to implement this alternative is subject to
the following conditions that will further minimize or avoid the
environmental impacts and public concerns identified during the
environmental review process:
(1) The process of grizzly bear recovery in the Bitterroot
Ecosystem will be implemented in a staged process with initial
formation of the CMC, and ongoing sanitation enhancement and public
information efforts;
(2) if the Service receives adequate funding, grizzly bears could
be reintroduced in 2002, following formation of the CMC and successful
initiation of the sanitation and informational efforts, which will be
ongoing as the bears are placed in the area;
(3) bears for reintroduction will be taken from areas more than 10
miles beyond existing recovery zone lines in the Yellowstone and
Northern Continental Divide Ecosystems, and from British Columbia and
Alaska (nonsalmon-eating bears), as appropriate;
(4) to maximize human safety and bear survival, bears placed in the
Bitterroot will have no history of conflict with people or livestock;
(5) all reintroduced bears will be radio-monitored upon placement;
and
(6) at least 25 bears will be placed into the area in coordination
with the CMC and this number may increase pending scientific
considerations of the need to have a larger initial population so as to
increase the probability of eventual recovery.
This statement of Findings/ROD will serve as the written facts and
conclusions relied upon in reaching this decision.
Dated: November 13, 2000.
Ralph O. Morgenweck,
Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.
Appendix--Errata Sheet for the Final Environmental Impact Statement on
Grizzly Bear Recovery in the Bitterroot Ecosystem
The following list includes clarifications or corrections to the
FEIS. Many of the items listed were brought forward by the public in
their comments on the FEIS. The Service appreciates the input, and
this opportunity to correct and improve the FEIS. None of the
corrections listed below significantly affect the analyses or
conclusions of effect in the FEIS.
1. Table S-2 (page xl), Table 2-1 (page 2-79), Chapter 2 (page
2-57, last paragraph)--The FEIS incorrectly states that for the
Service to implement Alternative 4, the principal laws that govern
land management (agencies) on Federal lands would have to be
changed. This is corrected to state that for the Service to
implement Alternative 4, the National Forest Land Management Plans
that govern land management by agencies on Federal lands would have
to be amended or revised.
2. Pages 2-27 (fourth paragraph, last sentence) and 2-41 (third
paragraph)--The FEIS states, ``bears found outside the experimental
population area boundaries are a fully threatened species, not
experimental bears.'' This is restated, ``In the conterminous United
States, a grizzly bear that is outside the experimental population
area will be considered as threatened.''
3. Page 2-6, number 3(b); page 2-8, fourth paragraph; page 2-12,
second paragraph--The FEIS states, ``Two scientific advisors would
be appointed by the Secretary to the CMC as non-voting members, to
attend all meetings and provide scientific expertise in support of
CMC management recommendations.'' This is clarified to state, ``Two
scientific advisors would be appointed by the Secretary to the CMC
as non-voting members, to attend all meetings and provide scientific
expertise to the CMC.''
4. Page 6-128, second paragraph, last sentence--The FEIS states,
``The CMC would be responsible for developing land-use restrictions
as necessary for grizzly bear management.'' This is corrected to be
consistent with other statements in the FEIS that indicate, ``The
CMC would be responsible for recommending changes in land-use
standards and guidelines in the Bitterroot Ecosystem as necessary
for grizzly bear management. Decisions on, and implementation of
these recommendations is the responsibility of the land and wildlife
management agencies.''
5. Page 4-18, third paragraph, first sentence--The FEIS states,
``This alternative allows for a citizens management committee to
decide if trails, roads, and other areas would be closed to improve
recovery efforts for grizzly bears.'' This is corrected to state,
``This alternative allows for a citizen management committee to make
recommendations to land management agencies for road, trail and area
closures necessary to improve recovery efforts for grizzly bears.''
6. Page 2-14, second paragraph--The FEIS states, ``Idaho
Department of Fish and Game and/or the Nez Perce Tribe, Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, and the USDA Forest
Service, in coordination with the Service, would exercise day-to-day
management responsibility within the experimental population area
while implementing the Bitterroot Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Recovery
Plan Chapter, the Special Rule, and the policies and plans of the
CMC.'' This is clarified to state, ``Idaho Department of Fish and
Game and/or the Nez Perce Tribe, Montana Department of Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks, and the USDA Forest Service, in coordination
with the Service, would exercise day-to-day management
responsibility within the experimental population area while
implementing the Bitterroot Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan
Chapter, the Special Rule, and considering the recommendations of
the CMC.''
7. Page 6-111, Table 6-13--The Management Area Type of
``Unroaded/essentially undeveloped'' is corrected to ``Essentially
undeveloped.''
8. The Welcome Creek Wilderness in western Montana was omitted
from the list of designated wilderness areas in the Primary Analysis
Area. The addition of this designated wilderness area to the Primary
Analysis Area increases the total Wilderness acreage by 28,000
acres.
[FR Doc. 00-29531 Filed 11-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P