|
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ABOUT THE DELISTING OF THE YELLOWSTONE GRIZZLY POPULATION - WHAT IT MEANS
Q1. Why have the grizzly bears in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) been delisted and taken off the Endangered Species list and what does this mean?
Robust population growth, coupled with state and federal cooperation to manage mortality and habitat, widespread public support for grizzly bear recovery, and the development of adequate regulatory mechanisms brought the Yellowstone grizzly bear population to the point where a change in status is appropriate.
Delisting means that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population will no longer be managed under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act. The population and its habitat will now be managed under the terms of the Yellowstone Conservation Strategy by the states of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho and the National Park Service, and the Forest Service. The grizzly and its habitat will now be protected through other regulatory mechanisms including the Yellowstone Conservation Strategy, NPS Management Plans, Forest Service Forest Plans, state grizzly bear management plans, and over 70 state and federal laws, statutes, and regulations already in place.
Q2. How does delisting the Yellowstone grizzly bear population affect the status of other grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 states?
The delisting of the Yellowstone grizzly population does not affect the status of other grizzly bear populations in the lower 48 states. Their threatened status under the ESA remains unchanged.
Q3. Is a population of more than 500 bears really a (genetically) viable population?
To be sure that genetic issues are not going to be a threat to the Yellowstone grizzly population, the agencies relied on research and advice from non-agency university genetics scientists. Their published work (Miller and Waits 2003, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) shows that the population is not presently threatened by genetic inbreeding problems and that viability of the Yellowstone population will not be affected by genetic factors in the foreseeable future (several decades). If no grizzly bears have moved into the GYA from other populations in the next 20 years, agencies will transplant 1 or 2 grizzlies every 10 years into the GYA population so that genetic diversity does not decrease in the future. Transplanting grizzly bears into other populations has been successful in increasing the genetic diversity of these populations. This will very effectively combat any negative effects genetic isolation may have on the Yellowstone population in the future.
Q4. Will genetic characteristics of Yellowstone grizzly bears be monitored since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
Yes. Genetic material from mortalities and research trapped bears will be collected and analyzed to see if any Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) bears have moved into the GYA by looking for genetic material from the NCDE in samples collected in Yellowstone.
Q5. Who is now responsible for managing Yellowstone grizzly bears since delisting has been finalized?
The population and its habitat will now be managed by the states of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, the Forest Service and the NPS and protected through regulatory mechanisms including the Conservation Strategy, NPS management plans, Forest Service Forest Plans, state grizzly bear management plans, and over 70 state and federal laws, statutes, and regulations already in place. The Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) is responsible for monitoring compliance with the demographic and habitat standards described in the Conservation Strategy and will report these monitoring results annually. Should there be deviations from the population or habitat standards in the Conservation Strategy, the IGBST will produce a biology and monitoring review that details why the standards have not been met, the impacts of any deviations on population health, and recommendations on how to achieve these standards. Management will be a cooperative effort involving affected state and federal agencies through a committee called the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee. This committee will implement the Yellowstone Conservation Strategy, which is the management document that defines and specifies management and monitoring post-delisting.
Q6. Can people shoot grizzly bears that are threatening livestock since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
No. All 3 states have classified grizzlies in the GYA as game animals, and state laws prohibit citizens from shooting or injuring grizzlies that are threatening livestock. Threatening is an undefined term and is different from actual attacking of livestock. Some states allow killing of wild animals “in the act” of actually attacking livestock. Such “in the act” killings must be promptly reported and proof of actual ongoing attack is necessary for such kills to be legal. It is important to note there are few if any records in the past 25 years of anyone actually seeing a grizzly bear attacking any livestock, so the number of such “in the act” killings is likely to be very rare in the future. All such mortalities count against the mortality limits so these mortalities will be strictly controlled in order to stay below the sustainable mortality limits. Outside of the National Parks grizzly bear/livestock conflicts will be addressed by state wildlife managers as per the direction in the Conservation Strategy.
Q7. Will there be a hunting season for grizzly bears since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
It is possible that the states of Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana will create limited hunting seasons for grizzly bears in the GYA. Such hunting seasons would occur only after the best available scientific data indicates that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population can sustain any mortality from hunting in addition to all other causes. All mortalities from hunting would be counted against the sustainable mortality limits. Hunting of females accompanied by offspring would be prohibited. Because any hunting mortalities will be limited and must be within the limits of sustainable mortality, hunting will never threaten the Yellowstone grizzly population.
Q8. Will poachers be prosecuted since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
Yes. Because all 3 affected states (Montana, Idaho, Wyoming) classify the grizzly bear as a game species, it is illegal to kill a grizzly bear without first obtaining the proper license. This means that the states will prosecute anyone caught poaching a grizzly bear just as they would for any other game species (elk, black bear, cougar, etc.). Even when grizzly bears in the GYA were listed, the majority of prosecutions for illegal grizzly killing were under state laws and regulations.
Q9. Will mortalities increase now that grizzly bears are no longer protected by the Endangered Species Act?
Although there may be some increases in mortalities in certain areas, all mortalities will continue to be carefully monitored and managed and must remain within sustainable limits so that mortalities will not threaten the population.
Q10. Will nuisance bear mortalities continue to be counted and monitored?
Yes. Monitoring of nuisance bear mortalities is a fundamental component of total mortality management. Mortalities from all sources, including nuisance bear management actions, will be counted against the total sustainable mortality limits.
Q11. Who is now responsible for managing problem bears?
Inside Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks, problem grizzly bears will be handled by NPS biologists. Outside of the National Parks, problem bears will be managed by state wildlife agencies.
Q12. How will decisions about problem bears be made?
The Conservation Strategy and state plans contain detailed protocols and guidelines for defining problem bears and making decisions about what management actions should be taken. Consultation among state wildlife agencies and Park Service biologists or Forest Service personnel will occur before decisions are made.
Q13. How will federal and state agencies work to minimize the number of grizzly bear/human conflicts?
Through continued information and education (I&E) programs, the I&E working group, which consists of personnel from the affected National Forests, Grand Teton and Yellowstone National Parks, the BLM, state wildlife agencies, and the IGBC, will work to reduce the human causes of most grizzly bear/human conflicts. In addition, the 6 affected National Forests included guidance in their Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation to maintain existing practices that minimize grizzly bear/human and grizzly bear/livestock conflicts inside the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) and in biologically suitable and socially acceptable grizzly bear habitat outside the PCA. There are also numerous non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, and Sierra Club that work in the Yellowstone area to educate and inform people about how to coexist with grizzly bears. The IGBST will annually compile, review, and spatially analyze grizzly bear/human conflicts and mortalities to look for trends and patterns so that I&E programs can be more effective.
Q14. Will linkage zone management continue since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
Yes. Intense cooperative efforts by federal and state agencies and NGO’s will continue to maintain and increase movement opportunities between Yellowstone and grizzly populations to the north. These efforts to maintain movement opportunities for bears and other wildlife will continue regardless of the listed status of Yellowstone grizzlies.
Q15. How will private land development be limited since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
Since there are no federal statutory limits to private land development under listed or delisted status for grizzly bears, there will be no difference in private land development regulation now that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population is delisted. Private land development is regulated by county and state regulations. There are no specific private land development regulations associated with grizzly bears. All mortalities on private lands count against the total sustainable mortality limits and conflicts on private lands will be reported and addressed annually by the committee of agencies implementing the Conservation Strategy.
Q16. Will the Interagency Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) continue operating after delisting? Will their Annual Reports continue to be made available to the public?
Yes. The IGBST will continue to be the primary entity responsible for data collection and analysis pertaining to Yellowstone area grizzly bears. The IGBST is responsible for preparing scientific reports to assess any deviations from the population or habitat standards described in the Conservation Strategy and presenting these reports and recommendations to the managers to fix the problem. Their reports will be made available to the public through the IGBST website at: http://www.nrmsc.usgs.gov/research/igbst-home.htm
Q17. Do we know enough about the Yellowstone grizzly bears and their habitat to delist this population?
Yes. The Yellowstone grizzly bear population is the most studied bear population of any bear species in the world (there are 8 species of bears in the world). Intensive research and monitoring has been ongoing on this population of grizzly bears since 1959. There have been more than 200 publications on grizzly bears and grizzly habitat produced by John and Frank Craighead and their co-workers, and the IGBST since 1959. In recent years, approximately 50-80 grizzly bears are captured and radio tracked at least part of each year. Major foods are monitored as well as prevalence of disease and the impacts of disease on food production. Relationships between bear mortality and changes in human activities and/or natural food abundance are carefully monitored and reported. Strong science is the foundation for all decisions on how to best manage the Yellowstone grizzly bears and their habitat.
Q18. What steps are being taken to assure the protection of grizzly bear habitat since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
The Conservation Strategy includes habitat standards that ensure protection of sufficient habitat to support a viable grizzly bear population in the foreseeable future. These habitat standards have been implemented by Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks and the 6 affected National Forests. The overall goal for habitat management within the 9,200 square mile primary conservation area (former recovery zone) is to maintain or improve habitat conditions as of 1998. This means that the number of developed sites, livestock allotments, and total amounts of secure habitat inside the PCA will be maintained at or improved upon conditions present in 1998.
Q19. How will habitat be managed by the land management agencies since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
The land management agencies will adopt direction from the Conservation Strategy for management of grizzly bear habitat for secure habitat, developed sites, and livestock grazing within the “Primary Conservation Area”. For the National Park Service, this direction would apply to Yellowstone National Park and portions of Grand Teton National Park. For the Forest Service, the Forest Plans for the Beaverhead, Bridger-Teton, Custer, Gallatin, Shoshone, and Targhee National Forests have been amended to include this direction.
Key elements of the direction that the land management agencies have adopted are described below:
|
Secure habitat
|
Maintain secure habitat at or above 1998 levels through management of motorized access routes. Secure habitat is any area more than 500 meters from an open motorized access route or a gated motorized access route.
Permanent changes to secure habitat require replacement habitat of equal quality in the same bear subunit.
Temporary changes to secure habitat are allowed under specific rules…such as only one active project per subunit and active projects in a bear management unit cannot exceed 1% of the acreage in the largest subunit. A project is defined as requiring new road construction or reconstruction or opening a restricted road in secure habitat.
What does this 1% rule mean? Since a subunit averages around 180,000 acres, it means up to 4 ½ miles of road could be constructed that would temporarily reduce the secure habitat by 1800 acres. Within one year of project completion, all new roads would have to be permanently closed or decommissioned, and secure habitat restored.
|
|
Developed sites
|
Maintain the number and capacity of developed sites at or below 1998 levels, with some exceptions (a new developed site may be allowed if a developed site of equal capacity in the same subunit is removed). Mitigation is allowed using Application Rules. (Administrative sites for land management are excluded, thus an existing ranger station could be upgraded or a new bunkhouse built at an existing ranger station site.)
|
|
Livestock
|
Do not create new livestock grazing allotments and do not increase permitted sheep numbers from the 1998 baseline, and phase out remaining sheep allotments as opportunities arise with willing permittees.
|
|
All standards apply to the PCA, which is the same boundary as the grizzly bear recovery zone. Monitoring requirements include adherence to the above standards and monitoring changes in motorized access route density and habitat effectiveness. Outside of the PCA, approximately 76% of all suitable habitat (6,676 sq mi) is managed by the Forest Service and they have committed to manage these lands in a way that continues to provide for a recovered grizzly bear population. Approximately 79% of this Forest Service managed habitat outside of the PCA is within a designated Wilderness Area, Wilderness Study Area, or Inventoried Roadless Area.
Q20. How will the National Forests implement the habitat standards in the Conservation Strategy?
The Forest Service signed the Record of Decision in April 2006 to amend the forest plans for the Beaverhead, Bridger-Teton, Custer, Gallatin, Shoshone, and Targhee national forests for grizzly bear conservation. The selected alternative incorporated the habitat standards and other relevant direction from the Conservation Strategy and includes guidance, much of which is ongoing, for minimizing grizzly/bear human and grizzly/bear livestock conflicts and maintaining key grizzly bear foods both inside the PCA and in biologically suitable and socially acceptable habitats outside the PCA. This amendment was implemented when the Final Rule delisting the Yellowstone grizzly bear population was published in the Federal Register.
Q21. Why/how was 1998 chosen as the habitat baseline?
The relationship between bears and habitat is extremely complex and difficult to quantify. Recognizing that grizzly bears are opportunistic omnivores and that a landscape’s ability to support grizzly bears is a function of overall habitat productivity, the distribution and abundance of major food sources, the levels and type of human activities, grizzly bear social systems, bear densities, and random factors such as annual and long term climatic changes and unpredictable events like wildfires, there is no known way to deductively calculate minimum habitat values. Instead scientists and managers inductively selected 1998 levels because it was known that habitat values as of 1998 had resulted in and supported an increasing (4-7% per year) Yellowstone grizzly bear population throughout the 1990s. It was know that the amount of secure habitat had increased between 1988 and 1998, and the number and capacity of developed sites had changed little from 1988 to 1998.
Q22. What habitat factors will be monitored since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
All the key habitat parameters will continue to be monitored intensively. These include 1) the amount of secure habitat in each bear management unit; 2) road densities; 3) the number and type of developed sites; 4) the number and capacity of livestock allotments; 5) habitat effectiveness values, as calculated by the Cumulative Effects Model or newer more technologically advanced models; 6) the abundance of winter-killed ungulates; 7) the abundance of cutthroat trout and non-native lake trout; 8) whitebark pine cone production, presence of white pine blister rust fungus, presence of mountain pine beetles; and 9) grizzly bear use of army cutworm moths. The Forest Service included additional monitoring direction in their Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation. These include monitoring: 1) the amount of secure habitat outside the PCA in areas identified in state management plans that are biologically suitable and socially acceptable for grizzly bear occupancy; and 2) the occurrence, productivity, and health of whitebark pine inside and outside the PCA.
Q23. Will there be oil and gas development inside the Primary Conservation Area (PCA) since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
Ninety-seven percent of the Forest Service National Forest System Lands inside the PCA are not available for oil and gas leasing or do not allow surface occupancy. Of the remaining 3% of National Forest System lands that allow surface occupancy for oil and gas development inside the PCA, the mitigation necessary under the developed site and secure habitat standards in the Conservation Strategy makes oil and gas development unlikely. Proposals for oil and gas development would have to be mitigated by closing out other types of developed sites or consolidating dispersed site uses and closing roads to maintain the 1998 levels of developed sites and secure habitat within bear management subunits. Since existing developed sites are few and almost all recreation (i.e. Forest Service campgrounds) or management related (i.e. Forest Service ranger stations), such removal of existing facilities to allow oil and gas development is unlikely.
Q24. How much oil and gas development outside the PCA will occur since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
Less than 19 percent (1,240 sq mi) of FWS determined suitable grizzly bear habitat outside the PCA on Forest Service land allows surface occupancy for oil and gas development. The primary impacts to grizzly bears associated with oil and gas development are increases in road densities and site disturbance, with subsequent increases in human access, grizzly bear/human encounters, and humancaused grizzly bear mortalities. Only a small portion of this total land area will contain active projects at any given time, if at all. For example, although nearly 1,240 sq mi of suitable grizzly bear habitat on National Forest System lands allow surface occupancy for oil and gas development, there currently are no active wells inside these areas. Many areas where surface occupancy is allowed contain low to moderate potential for occurrence and/or development of oil and gas.
Oil and gas development outside the PCA would likely be the same whether the grizzly bear had remained a listed species or under delisted status and management as per the Conservation Strategy. Even with consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service being required while the grizzly bear was a listed species, proposals for development would likely proceed, as a jeopardy opinion would be highly unlikely due to the current healthy status of the grizzly bear population where all demographic recovery criteria have been met.
Q25. What will the Forest Service do to evaluate and mitigate the impacts of oil and gas development outside the PCA since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
The grizzly bear is now classified as a “species of concern” by the Forest Service. Any action that could potentially negatively affect grizzly bears requires a Biological Evaluation (BE) and public involvement in any decisions. This BE evaluates the potential impacts to grizzly bears and provides mitigation measures to address identified impacts as necessary.
Q26. Will grizzly bear delisting in the GYA affect current public land uses such as timber harvest?
Inside the PCA timber harvest could continue at similar levels to what has occurred in the last decade as long as the activities are consistent with the secure habitat standard. In suitable grizzly bear habitat outside of the PCA, restrictions on human activities are more flexible but still the Forest Service, BLM, and state wildlife agencies will carefully manage these lands, monitor bear/human conflicts in these areas, and respond with management as necessary to reduce conflicts to account for the complex needs of both grizzly bears and humans. In suitable grizzly bear habitat outside of the PCA on National Forest System Lands 11 percent (744 sq mi) has suitable timber where scheduled timber harvest could occur. The Beaverhead National Forest has not designated suitable timber but rather has identified management areas where timber harvest is emphasized. Approximately 15% of the area of the Beaverhead National Forest in suitable grizzly bear habitat outside the PCA (86 sq mi) is within management areas that emphasize timber harvest. In general, timber harvest on National Forest lands in the GYA has experienced a downward trend over the last 2 decades. Similarly, there has been a net decrease of over 1000 miles of road on the 6 National Forests during this time. Current levels of timber harvest on Forest Service lands are minimal with an average of 1,230 acres (1.9 sq. mi.) harvested each year outside the PCA from 2000 to 2002.
Timber harvest activity outside the PCA would likely be the same whether the grizzly bear had remained a listed species or under delisted status and management as per the Conservation Strategy. Even with consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service with the grizzly bear as a listed species, proposals for timber harvest would likely proceed, as a jeopardy opinion is highly unlikely due to the current healthy status of the grizzly bear population where all demographic recovery criteria have been met.
Q27. How will off-road vehicle use be managed inside the PCA since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
All trails or areas that allow ORV use are included in calculations of secure habitat and road densities. So, these areas are not considered secure habitat. There will be no net increase in ORV trails anywhere inside the PCA after delisting as per the habitat standards. Recent Forest Service national direction requires that all motorized use be restricted to designated routes or areas.
Q28. What steps are being taken to assure the protection of grizzly bear habitat for bears living outside the PCA since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
The PCA has provided the vast majority of habitat for the increasing bear population and is considered to be more than adequate to maintain the recovered grizzly bear population. The PCA will be managed and monitored carefully to maintain habitat effectiveness and security. However, approximately 10-16% of female bears with cubs living in the GYA from 1990-2004 were living outside the PCA. Bears will likely continue to occupy many new areas within suitable grizzly bear habitat. Outside the PCA, there are over 4 million acres (6250 sq. mi.) on National Forest System Lands inside the FWS determined suitable habitat designation. Under current Forest Plan direction for the 6 GYA national forests approximately 75% (4687 sq. mi.) of this suitable habitat outside of the PCA is secure habitat. Almost 70% (3280 sq. mi.) of that secure habitat is within a management area designation that generally precludes building new roads. This direction will continue or result in an increase in secure habitat under the adopted Forest Plan Amendments for Grizzly Bear Conservation in the GYA.
Q29. Are there threats to major natural foods that could affect Yellowstone grizzly bears?
Currently, both whitebark pine and Yellowstone cutthroat trout are facing threats that could affect their abundance and distribution. The most severe threats to whitebark pine include mountain pine beetles and white pine blister rust. Climate change is producing conditions that favor increased attacks by pine beetles on whitebark pine and other tree species. It is expected that as climate change continues whitebark distribution will decline, particularly on the west side of the GYA. The combination of lake trout, whirling disease, and drought conditions has resulted in declines in the Yellowstone cutthroat trout population with subsequent decreases in grizzly bear fishing activity. This decrease corresponds temporally with cutthroat trout declines. The decline in cutthroat trout does not have a significant effect on the grizzly bear population because less than 10% of the Yellowstone grizzly bears eat cutthroat trout, and those that do use this resource for only a few weeks each year. Adult grizzlies that fish in spawning streams only consume, on average, between 8 and 55 trout per year. Furthermore, adult females, which are the most important determinants of population growth rates, generally depend on this food to a much lesser extent than adult males as most of the bears that eat fish are males.
In general, grizzly bears are resourceful omnivores that will make behavioral adaptations regarding food acquisition. Diets of grizzly bears vary among individuals and years, reflecting their flexibility in finding adequate food resources as necessary. Annual whitebark pine cone production is naturally unpredictable therefore bears have alternate food sources during poor cone production years. David Mattson and other authors in 1991 hypothesized that grizzly bears are always sampling new foods in small quantities so that they have alternative options in years when preferred foods are scarce. In other areas, such as the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem Recovery Zone, where grizzly bears historically relied heavily on whitebark pine cones, the population has continued to increase and thrive since the 1990s despite severe declines in whitebark pine communities in the last 50 years. However, the range of foods eaten by grizzly bears is different in NW Montana than in Yellowstone with berry consumption being much higher in NW Montana, while meat consumption is much higher in the Yellowstone ecosystem. These differences in the range of foods consumed by bears in these 2 areas makes direct comparisons of the impacts of the loss of WBP uncertain. Also, grizzly bear use of cutthroat trout has varied dramatically in the last 3 decades, most likely corresponding to fluctuations in the trout population, but the Yellowstone grizzly bear population has continued to increase and expand.
Q30. What population parameters will be monitored since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
The overall population goal set forth in the Conservation Strategy is to maintain the Yellowstone grizzly bear population above 500 bears. The IGBST will continue to monitor the number of females with cubs and their distribution within the Greater Yellowstone Area, survival rates for all sex and age classes, all sources of mortality, cub production, distribution, and movements. This information will be used to calculate the total population estimate and exactly how much mortality the bear population can sustain. The IGBST will monitor grizzly bear mortalities from all sources, including human-caused deaths, natural deaths, and undetermined causes to confirm that sustainable mortality limits are not exceeded. In their annual reports, the IGBST will analyze the spatial distribution of both mortalities and grizzly bear/human conflicts.
Q31. What is adaptive management and how will it be applied to Yellowstone grizzly bear management since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
Adaptive Management is incorporated into the Conservation Strategy and grizzly bear and grizzly bear habitat management under the Strategy. Adaptive management is an active flexible management strategy in which managers monitor the results of management practices using habitat and population data and respond as necessary with management changes. An Adaptive Management plan includes three critical elements:
- 1. Conceptual and quantitative models that make explicit the current understanding of the system, the underlying hypotheses driving management, and key uncertainties;
- 2. Rigorous monitoring plans focused on reducing the most critical uncertainties and clearly evaluating progress towards management goals; and
- 3. A scientifically defensible plan for monitoring and research including rapid feedback from management outcomes to revised management decisions.
Q32. Can the standards in the Conservation Strategy be modified?
Yes, but only by using the best available science to demonstrate that any such changes will not be detrimental to the maintenance of a recovered grizzly population and involving the public in the decision process. Any changes must be done by the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee as a whole, not by individual agencies. Any change in the Conservation Strategy would be completed as per p. 63 of the Conservation Strategy. The methods to estimate population size and sustainable mortality levels may change in the future as new scientific approaches become available or new data are analyzed that might require such a revision. The IGBST would produce a peer-reviewed report evaluating any new scientific data or methods and present this report, along with recommendations, to the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee. Any such recommendations would then be open to public comment. After considering public comments, the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee would decide whether to append the recommended revisions to the Conservation Strategy through a majority vote. No changes in the population management systems will be made unless these changes are based on the best available science and the changes have been subject to review and an open public process.
Q33. What is a Biology and Monitoring Review & what triggers it?
Failure to meet any habitat or population goal described in the Conservation Strategy will trigger a Biology and Monitoring Review that examines habitat management, population management, or monitoring efforts of participating agencies with an objective of identifying the source or cause of failing to meet a habitat or demographic goal. The IGBST will conduct the Biology and Monitoring Review and provide a report and management recommendations to the management committee to address the deviation. The Biology and Monitoring Review will be made available to the public upon completion.
Q34. What is a Status Review and what triggers it?
A Status Review is triggered by a petition submitted the the Fish and Wildlife Service to relist if the Fish and Wildlife Service finds that the petition presents substantial data indicating that the Yellowstone grizzly bear population may be threatened by any of the 5 factors required for listing, as described in section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act. Petitions may be submitted by citizens, organizations, government agencies, or the Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee (formerly known as the Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee). The Fish and Wildlife Service itself can initiate a status review if the results of a Biology and Monitoring Review show that there is an ecological system problem such as decline in whitebark pine cone production due to disease or insects that could threaten the status of the Yellowstone grizzly population. The Fish and Wildlife Service conducts the status review by carefully examining factors affecting the population and then determines if relisting is warranted, warranted but precluded by higher priority actions, or not warranted.
Q35. Under what circumstances could grizzly bears be relisted under the ESA?
The Conservation Strategy signatories have agreed that if there are deviations from any population goal or habitat standard, the IGBST will carry out a Biology and Monitoring Review. The Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee will respond to the Review with actions to address deviations from habitat standards or, if the desired population and habitat standards specified in the Strategy cannot be met, then the Coordinating Committee will request or petition the Fish and Wildlife Service for relisting. The Coordinating Committee possesses the resources, data, and experience to provide the Fish and Wildlife Service with a strong argument for the petition. Once a potential petition is received, the Fish and Wildlife Service will determine if the petition presents substantial information. If so, the Fish and Wildlife Service conducts a full status review to determine if relisting is warranted, warranted but precluded by higher priority actions, or not warranted. The Fish and Wildlife Service could also consider emergency listing, as per section 4(b)(7) of the ESA, if the threat were severe and immediate. Such an emergency relisting would be effective the day the proposed regulation is published in the Federal Register and would be effective for 240 days. During this time, a conventional rule regarding the listing of a species based on the five factors of section 4(a)(1) would be drafted and take effect after the 240day limit on the emergency relisting has expired.
Q36. How long will the Conservation Strategy remain in effect?
The Conservation Strategy is the ongoing management document since the grizzly bear is now delisted It does not have a time limit and will continue in perpetuity.
Q37. Will there be public meetings of management agencies since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
Yes. The Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Coordinating Committee, which consists of representatives from the affected National Parks, National Forests, the BLM, the USGS Biological Resources Division, the 3 state wildlife agencies, the Shoshone-Bannock and Eastern Shoshone Tribes, and counties in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, meets at least 2 times a year. Public notification of these meetings will be given, meetings will be open to the public, and the public will have the opportunity to comment at each meeting.
Q38. Would the Conservation Strategy and management under the Conservation Strategy and the Forest Plan amendments have been implemented if Yellowstone grizzly bears had not been delisted?
No. The implementation of the Conservation Strategy and all the commitments of agencies to monitoring, population standards, and habitat standards are tiered to the publication of the final rule delisting the Yellowstone area grizzly population. The MOU that the agencies have signed to implement the Conservation Strategy states that it will become effective upon the publication of the final rule delisting the Yellowstone grizzly population. If the grizzly had not been delisted, the Conservation Strategy would not be in effect and all agency commitments to implement details of the Strategy, including the Forest Plan Amendments for Grizzly Bear Conservation, would be null and void.
Q39. How will the new Forest Service planning regulations affect Yellowstone grizzly bears since the grizzly bear is now delisted?
The Fish and Wildlife Service has received written assurance from the Forest Service that, although the term “standard” will no longer be used when the affected National Forests revise their Forest Plans, the on-the-ground effect will be the same and that any new forest plan revisions under the new planning regulations will not change the habitat standards adopted in the Forest Plan Amendments for Grizzly Bear Conservation. The Forest Service regulations state at 36 CFR 219.10(b)(2) under Species Diversity that ‘If the Responsible Official determines that provisions in plan components, in addition to those required by paragraph (b)(1) of this section, are needed to provide appropriate ecological conditions for specific threatened and endangered species, species-of-concern, and species-of-interest, then the plan must include additional provisions for these species, consistent with the limits of agency authorities, the capability of the plan area, and overall multiple use objectives.’
Q40. Has the National Park Service amended its park management plans to adhere to the Conservation Strategy?
Yes. The National Park Service accomplished this through a 3-tiered procedure. First, the superintendents implemented the Conservation Strategy by amending their respective Superintendents’ Compendiums. The Compendiums cover the designations, closures, permit requirements and other restrictions imposed under the discretionary authority of the superintendent [36 CFR 1.7(B)]. Language was incorporated stating that management of grizzly bears will be in accordance with the guidelines and procedures outlined in the Conservation Strategy. Second, the two Park Superintendents prepared a document for the Regional Director’s concurrence that this mechanism will stand in place until such time that each park is able to incorporate the strategy into a General Management Plan. This process was similar to that followed for an approval of a FONSI or a Record of Decision. Third, the superintendents of each Park will incorporate the guidelines and procedures outlined in the Conservation Strategy during their next respective updates of their Park General Management Plans.
Q41. Will grizzly bear management in Yellowstone and Grand Teton National Parks change significantly since the Conservation Strategy is now implemented?
No. Grizzly bear management in these National Parks will continue to emphasize habitat protection and prevention of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities, prevention of bear-caused property damages, and prevention of bear-inflicted human injuries through storage of human foods and garbage in a bear-resistant manner, public education, and enforcement of bear-related sanitation regulations.
|
