May 9, 2016
Public Comments Processing
Attn: Docket No. FWS±R6±ES±2016±0042,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife, MS: BPHC,
5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803
Dear Sir or Madam:
Please accept these comments on the proposed delisting rule for the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem (GYE) grizzly bear Distinct Population Segment (DPS), hereafter referred to as the
proposed rule. These comments represent the consensus positions of the Wyoming Game and
Fish Department (WGFD), Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), and Montana Fish,
Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), and reflect the commitment of our three agencies to work together
to collectively manage the recovered GYE grizzly bear distinct population segment (DPS) at an
ecosystem scale.
We are in strong agreement that the GYE grizzly bear population constitutes a DPS per the DPS
policy, is biologically recovered, and has been for more than a decade. This is a significant
conservation achievement about which we are very proud, and are committed to maintain. Legal
delisting is not only warranted, but necessary to achieve the objectives of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA). We strongly advocate that issuance of a final delisting rule be among the
highest priorities of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Our comments are offered in
the spirit of ensuring that a final rule is technically accurate and properly reflects the distinction
between federal ESA requirements for protection of species likely to become in danger of
extinction within the foreseeable future and state requirements for protection of species that are
not threatened or endangered. Our comments are organized by general theme, with
recommended edits to the proposed rule to accomplish these two objectives. For ease of pointing
out specific wording, the page numbers referred to in our comments refer to the PDF version of
the proposed rule (vs. the federal register notice).
We are able and willing to address or clarify any questions you have about these comments, and
look forward to celebrating this conservation success with issuance of a final delisting rule.
Sincerely,
  

Virgil Moore, Director
Idaho Dept of Fish and Game
P. O. Box 25
Boise, ID 83707

M. Jeff Hagener, Director
Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
P. O. Box 200701
Helena, MT 59620-0701
1

Scott Talbott, Director
Wyoming Game and Fish Dept
5400 Bishop Boulevard
Cheyenne, WY 82006

 *Note: All page references correspond to the initial document released by the Service prior to the
federal register notice

The three state agencies agree that the grizzly bear population in the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem (GYE) meets the criteria for a distinct population segment ('36  XQGHU 86):6¶ 
SROLF\ EDVHG RQ WKH SRSXODWLRQ¶V GLVFUHWHQHVV DQG WKH UHODWLRQVKLS RI WKLV SRSXODWLRQ WR WKH 
VSHFLHV¶ UDQJH  
The state agencies also agree the GYE DPS is not likely to become in danger of extinction
for the foreseeable future, and is a recovered population. As such, the state agencies support
the prompt removal of the recovered GYE DPS from the list of threatened species and its return
to state management consistent with congressional intent under the ESA.
The state agencies agree that the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA) encompasses
suitable habitat and is an appropriate geographic area for monitoring and mortality assessment.
The state agencies agree that Chao2 represents the best available science for monitoring
and evaluation of population trends.
Our states are signatories to a Conservation Strategy, which describes commitments of
state and federal wildlife and land management agencies to cooperatively manage grizzly bears
and their habitat in the GYE DPS. We have also developed a tri-state Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) that commits our three agencies to collaboratively manage the population at
levels and mortality rates that will keep the population above established recovery criteria. Our
three states have a strong track record, individually and collectively, for grizzly bear
conservation and management (see acknowledgement of this in text from page 191). All three
states have grizzly bear management plans, interrelated existing regulatory mechanisms, and
expertise in place that demonstrate strong commitments to a viable, healthy and recovered
Yellowstone grizzly bear population. The states find no threat from inadequate existing
regulatory mechanisms, overutilization, habitat/range destruction, disease/predation, or other
factors warranting continued listing of the GYE DPS.
Distinction between ESA Requirements for listed species and State Requirements for non-listed
species
Throughout the proposed rule, there are references to requirements that transcend the
(6$¶V DXWKRULW\ DQG DUH XQGXO\ SUHVFULSWLYH IRU PDQDJHPHQW RI WKH UHFRYHUHG *<( '36  7KHVH 
UHIHUHQFHV DUH FRQWUDU\ WR &RQJUHVV¶ GHOLQHDWLRQ EHWZHHQ IHGHUDO DXWKRULW\ XQGHr the ESA and
traditional state wildlife management authority, and contrary to the standards of the federal
Administrative Procedure Act. In the absence of other federal law, such as the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, traditional state jurisdiction and responsibility for management of non-listed species
applies.

2

 Adaptive Management and Conservation Reliance
Some of the references in the proposed rule are also at odds with fundamental tenets of
professional resource management²adaptive management. Given the recognition and reliance
of U.S. Department of Interior agencies on adaptive management, both in general and in
specific regards to grizzly bear management, these references may simply be a matter of
LQDUWIXO ZRUGLQJ  )RU H[DPSOH  WKH ILQDO UXOH VKRXOG HOLPLQDWH UHIHUHQFHV WR ³SHUSHWXLW\´ DQG 
³LQGHILQLWHO\´ ZKHQ GHVFULELQJ GRFXPHQWV RU VSHFLILF ZLOGOLIH RU Kabitat management actions.
Responsible management and conduct of government entails the ability to make legislative,
administrative, and scientific adjustments as situations or assumptions change in the future.
The proposed rule also inappropriately links post-GHOLVWLQJ UHTXLUHPHQWV EH\RQG WKH (6$¶V 
PDQGDWHV EDVHG RQ 86):6¶ FKDUDFWHUL]DWLRQ RI JUL]]O\ EHDUV DV D ³FRQVHUYDWLRQ-UHOLDQW´ 
species. These proposed requirements impinge upon the legal authority of the three state
Wildlife Commissions to manage wildlife.
1RWDEO\  WKH OLWHUDWXUH UHIHUHQFH IRU WKH *<( '36 DV ³FRQVHUYDWLRQ UHOLDQW´ UHFRPPHQGV 
DJDLQVW SHUSHWXDO UHTXLUHPHQWV DQG IRU ³QHFHVVDU\ PDQDJHPHQW DFWLRQV DV ORQJ DV QHFHVVDU\´ 
(Scott et al. 2005, p. 384). This same literature reference, as well as a more updated paper from
the same author, posits that conservation reliant species are simply those requiring
conservation management post delisting (Scott et al. 2005, p. 384, Scott et al. 2010, p. 92).
$GGLWLRQDOO\  86):6 UHODWHV ³FRQVHUYDWLRQ UHOLDQFH´ WR ORZ UHVLOLHQFH influenced by ³H[FHVVLYH´ 
human caused mortality. The tri-VWDWH 02$ DQG WKH VWDWHV¶ FRPPLWPHQW LQ PDQ\ IRUPV WR 
mortality limits and the regulatory mechanisms to maintain a recovered population all work to
SUHYHQW ³H[FHVVLYH´ KXPDQ FDXVed mortality.
$OO WKUHH VWDWHV PDQDJH D ZLGH DUUD\ RI ³FRQVHUYDWLRQ-UHOLDQW´ VSHFLHV LQ WKH DEVHQFH RI (6$ 
listing and they do so in a science-based, responsible and publicly accountable manner. Mere
³FRQVHUYDWLRQ UHOLDQFH´ GRHV QRW PDQGDWH (6$ SURWHFWLRQ or extension of federal requirements
post-delisting.
USFWS should change references in the final rule to reflect that the interagency
Conservation Strategy, habitat and population monitoring programs, and periodic review of
population vital rates demonstrate the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms as to
management of the GYE DPS and bear habitat. The final rule should not prescribe or imply any
particular management or monitoring action will be unresponsive to future change. For example,
USFWS should make the following deletions or other edits for the final rule:
x

Page 56-- Consequently, the 2016 Conservation Strategy will remain in effect
indefinitely²beyond the 5-year post-delisting monitoring period required by the Act²to
facilitate and assure continue successful management of the population and its habitat
across multiple land ownerships and jurisdictions.

3

 x

Page 121-- To ensure total mortality rates remain consistent congruent with population
objectives vital rates after delisting, the IGBST will conduct a demographic review of
population vital rates (Table2, item #7) at least every 5 to 10 years in perpetuity. The
states will use results of these reviews will be used to make appropriate adjustments to
mortality limits to ensure the population remains recovered. to assure adherence to the
population objective to maintain the average population from 2002-2014 inside the DMA
and to maintain a recovered population in accordance with the recovery criteria.

x

Page 142²The 2016 Conservation Strategy will remain in effect in perpetuity, beyond
delisting and the 5-year monitoring period required by the Act as grizzly bears, like many
RWKHU VSHFLHV  ZLOO DOZD\V EH ³FRQVHUYDWLRQ-UHOLDQW´  6FRWW HW  $O        S       EHFDXVH 
of their low resiliency to excessive human caused mortality.

x

Page 152--These indicators of fitness will be monitored annually, in perpetuity.

x

Page 203²The 2016 Conservation Strategy will remain in effect beyond the 5-year
PRQLWRULQJ SHULRG UHTXLUHG E\ WKH $FW EHFDXVH JUL]]O\ EHDUV DUH D ³FRnservation-UHOLDQW´ 
species (Scott et al. 2005, p. 384) because of their low resiliency to excessive humancaused mortality and the manageable nature of this threat.

Population / Management Objective
The proposed rule makes numerous references to a population management objective for
the GYE DPS within the DMA at 674 bears. These references confuse USFWS recovery criteria
for a listed population with state objectives for management of a non-listed population. Recovery
FULWHULD DUH ZLWKLQ 86):6¶ DXWKRULW\ WR LGHQWLI\ PHWULFV IRU D SRSXODWLRQ WR QRW ZDUUDQW IHGHUDO 
ESA protection; state management objectives incorporate various factors appropriate for a nonlisted population, which may appropriately include reducing conflicts and providing for regulated
take of wildlife.
To appropriately distinguish ESA requirements and state requirements and explain their
UHODWLRQVKLS WR HDFK RWKHU  WKH ILQDO UXOH VKRXOG LGHQWLI\ WKH VWDWHV¶ DJUHHG-upon management
objectives in relation to the recovery criteria. The states have agreed upon a tri-state
management objective for the DMA of at least a range between 600 and 747 (based on the 95%
confidence interval of the estimated average population size between 2002-2014) and upon
mortality rates to keep the population within this range. The proposed rule sometimes incorrectly
states or implies that the management objective is a single point objective of 647 bears. The
proposed rule should properly reflect the tri-state management objective as a range (600-747).
The final rule should identify that the tri-state management objective (600-747) for the DMA
is at levels well above the population recovery criterion (500 bears for the entire GYE DPS). The
tri-state MOA and individual state regulatory mechanisms for management within this objective
address threats to the GYE DPS, such that ESA protection is no longer warranted.
The proposed rule also makes references to discretionary, managed and regulated
mortality; for rule clarity  ZH UHFRPPHQG 86):6 UHIHU WR D VLQJOH WHUP ³GLVFUHWLRQDU\ PRUWDOLW\ ´ 
which encompasses the various aspects of state management.

4

 To clarify confusion and inaccuracies in the proposed rule, we recommend the following
edits:
x

Page 22--Because there are limited opportunities to increase or control these habitat
components, the objective for grizzly bear habitat management is to reduce or mitigate
the risk of human-caused mortality

x

Page 55--Total mortality rate limits inside the DMA. These mortality rates were
calculated as those limits necessary to support management toward within the range of
the long-term average population size that occurred from 2002 to 2014 using the modelaveraged Chao2 population estimate method (674, 95% CI = 600-747).

x

Page 112--the total mortality limits for independent females will be set at 7.6 percent
when the population is at 674, less than 7.6% when the population is lower, and more
than 7.6 percent when the population is higher (as per Table 1, above, and Tables 2 and
3, beORZ  ´ The States will set mortality limits within the DMA in accordance with
guidance provided in Table 1 above and Tables 2 and 3 below.

x

Page 113 - ³)UDPHZRUN WR PDQDJH LQVLGH WKH '0$ for the population goal of the
average population for 2002-2014 using the model-DYHUDJHG &KDR  PHWKRG´

x

Page 114 -:
2. Goal of the draft
2016 Conservation
Strategy Recovery
Criteria 3
requirements
Tri-state population
management
objective

x

Page 114-Table 2 number 5
5. Allocation process
for managed
discretionary
mortalities

x

To maintain the population around the average
population estimate for 2002-2014 Chao2 modeled
average (95% CI = 600-757average = 674; 95% CI =
600-757; 90% CI 612-735) during a period of population
stability using the model-averaged Chao2 methodology
(Keating et al. 2002; Cherry et al. 2007; Harris et al.
2007). by maintaining annual mortality limits for
independent females, independent males, and
dependent young as shown in Table 1 in this rule. This
will serve to ensure the continuation of a recovered
grizzly bear population in accordance with the three
demographic recovery criteria as described in the
updated supplement to the Recovery Plan and the draft
2016 Conservation Strategy.

The States will meet annually in the month of January to
review population monitoring data supplied by IGBST
and collectively establish the allocation of discretionary
mortality within the total mortality limits per age/sex class
available for regulated harvest for each jurisdiction (MT,
ID, WY) in the DMA so that DMA thresholds are not
exceeded. If requested, the WRR will receive a portion of
the available mortality limit based on the percentage of
the WRR geographic area within the DMA. Mortalities
outside the DMA are the responsibility of each State and
do not count against total mortality limits.

Page 114-Table 2 number 6:
6. Management of
hunting mortalities

Per State regulations and MOA, hunting seasons will be
closed within 24 hours of meeting total mortality limits for

5

 Conditions to stop
discretionary mortality
and contingency for
exceeding mortality
limits.

x

any age/sex class as per this table. Any mortality
exceeding total mortality limits in any year will be
subtracted from that age/sex class total mortality limit for
the following year. If any state enacts hunting seasons,
they will enact existing regulatory mechanisms that will
ensure the season is closed upon meeting any of the
mortality limits for age/sex.

Page 114 - Table 2 number 7:
7. Management
review by the IGBST.

IGBST will conduct A a management review will be
conducted by the IGBST every 5 to 10 years at the
direction of the YGCC. This management review will
assess if the management system is achieving the
desired goal of ensuring a recovered grizzly bear
population in accordance with recovery criteria. The
management review is a science-based process that will
be led by the IGBST (which includes all State and
Federal agencies and the WRR Tribes) using all recent
available scientific data to assess population numbers
and trend against the management objective and the
recovery criteria. Age/sex-specific survival and
reproductive rates will also be reevaluated using the
most recent data to adjust total mortality levels as
necessary.

x

Page 116-117-Table 3-This table creates confusion by using information that will change
and is subject to multiple variables. Since this document will endure through the 5 year
post-delisting period, a reader may refer to this document in years to come when these
variables have changed. We recommend deleting the table.

x

Page 121 ± See previous recommended edit.

x

Page 123--In addition to State Laws and regulations, the IGBST will conduct a
demographic review of the population vital rates every 5 to 10 years on which allowable
mortality limits are based to assure adherence to the population objective ensure the
population remains recovered.

Stability
The proposed rule makes numerous inaccurate references to stability, a stable population,
and the population stabilizing after 2002. The science indicates that while population growth has
slowed, it continued to grow at a rate of 0.3-2.2% per year during 2002-2011 versus 4-7% per
year during 1983-2001. In 2014, the population estimate increased by 200 grizzly bears
compared to 2002 using the model-averaged Chao2 population estimation method. As wildlife
populations are DQG ZLOO EH G\QDPLF  ZH UHFRPPHQG DOO UHIHUHQFHV WR ³VWDELOLW\´ EH GHOHWHG  DQG 
instead refer to growth rate, reaching apparent carrying capacity, and population fluctuation.
Specific recommendations for edits include:
x

Page 7 -The population is stable growth rate of the grizzly bear population has slowed
DQG VH[ UDWLRV KDYH FKDQJHG DV EHDU GHQVLWLHV KDYH DSSURDFKHG FDUU\LQJ FDSDFLW\«

6

 x

Page 28 ±Population stability (i.e. fluctuation around carrying capacity or a long-term
equilibrium) is often influenced by a combination of density-dependent and densityindependent effects.

x

Page 48 ± (3) the population has basically stabilized slightly increased inside the DMA
since 2002, with an average population size between 2002-2014 of 674 using the modelaveraged Chao2 population estimation method (95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 600747). This stabilization is evidence that The population is close to its carrying capacity as
evidenced by density dependent regulation occurring inside the DMA (van Manen et al.
2015, entire).

x

Page 49 ±The IGBST found that that population growth had slowed since the previous
time period, but was still stable to slightly increasing. meaning the population had not
declined.

x

Page 49 ±We recommend inserting a sentence at the end of the second paragraph to
reflect continued increase of the population through 2014:
o However, subsequent annual population estimates published by IGBST indicated
the population did not level off in 2011 as population estimates continued to
increase through 2014.

x

Page 54 ±The population growth had slowed during stabilized 2002-2014 at a mean
model-averaged Chao2 population size of 674 (95% CI=600-757), which is very similar
to the population size of 683 when the Yellowstone population was previously delisted in
2007 (72 FR 14866; March 29, 2007). The population growth has now naturally
stabilized slowed because of density-dependent population effects that resulted in
reduced survival of dependent young.
Page 111 ±
o (2nd paragraph) The population growth has slowed basically stabilized inside the
'0$ VLQFH      «
o (3rd paragraph) The population inside the DMA has stabilized itself at this
population size through density-dependent regulation.

x

x

Page 112 ± A total mortality limit of 7.6 percent for independent females is the mortality
level that the best available science shows results in population stability minimizing the
fluctuation around carrying capacity or a long-term equilibrium (IGBST 2012, entire).

x

Page 113 ±These total mortality rates will result in population stability are calibrated to
maintain the population around the long-term average population size of 674 (95% CI =
600-747) that existed during 2002-2014 as calculated using the model-averaged Chao2
population estimate method.

x

Page 171 ± (6th sentence) Current data show that the GYE bear population has not
declined stabilized or increased despite the loss reduced availability of whitebark pine
seeds (IGBST 2012, p.34).

x

Page 188 ± (2nd paragraph; either eliminate or edit sentences)
o Inside the DMA, the population growth has stabilized slowed since 2002 and is
exhibiting density dependent population regulation (van Manen et al. 2015,
entire).

Hunting

7

 The states are concerned with the proposed rule's discussion of discretionary hunting of
grizzly bears. Namely, the proposed rule appears to assume that all three states will establish
hunting seasons. This assumption is premature, unnecessary and inappropriate. The States
recommend that the Service recognize this fact and alter its discussion of potential hunting
seasons and regulations accordingly.
One cannot reasonably interpret the ESA to require states to establish hunting seasons
before delisting can occur. The proposed rule apparently misunderstands existing state
regulatory mechanisms for protection of wildlife in the cases where states authorize private
individuals to hunt or otherwise take wildlife. Each state will determine whether or not it uses
hunting as a management tool, and under what circumstances it will do so. The application of
existing regulatory mechanisms for limiting mortality from potential harvest of bears is variable
depending on the specifics of a harvest season a Commission might authorize in the future;
however, the regulatory mechanisms are in existence and are adequate to limit harvest and
other discretionary mortality for bears based on geography, demographic class or time. Using
existing regulatory mechanisms, states have established or would establish general harvest
management frameworks for grizzly bears to specifically address reporting requirements,
prohibition on take of females with young, season closure where a mortality limit is reached, and
VXEWUDFWLRQ RI H[FHVV PRUWDOLW\ IURP WKH IROORZLQJ \HDU¶V DOORFDWLRQ. Notably, none of the three
states implemented hunting seasons following the 2007 final delisting rule. The language in the
SURSRVHG UXOH H[FHHGV 86):6¶ DXWKRULW\ XQGHU WKH (6$  
The states have agreed to maximum mortality thresholds that will be applied at an
ecosystem scale and will account for all forms of mortality, of which hunting is but one. By
committing to managing so those thresholds are not violated (see tri-state MOA), it is
unnecessary and inappropriate to focus on hunting as a more significant mortality issue than
any other source of mortality. By making adoption of additional, specific hunting regulations a
condition of delisting, USFWS has created a public expectation that hunting will occur as soon
as delisting is finalized, and has shifted the focus of this conservation success story to hunting
management rather than recovery. We recommend that the final rule recognize that the states
will manage all sources of mortality to ensure agreed upon mortality thresholds are not
exceeded.
Our states have many decades of proven experience at managing populations of a variety
of wildlife populations, including grizzly bears, and have a proven track record of being able to
sustainably manage wildlife populations. Existing individual state regulatory mechanisms, the tristate MOA, and the Conservation Strategy will ensure that grizzly bears will similarly be
sustainably managed. We recommend the USFWS more overtly recognize the track record and
expertise of the states towards management and conservation of grizzly bears, and
commitments to maintain that track record.

8

 We recommend the following edits:
x

Page 115/Page 119/Page 123²(Delete or replace paragraphs regarding state
regulatory mechanisms for hunting and discretionary mortality with the following or
similar language.)
The three states classify bears to protect them from hunting except where their
respective Commissions take additional action to open a hunting season. Should the
states authorize grizzly bear hunting seasons after delisting, Wyoming, Montana, and
Idaho have existing regulatory mechanisms to establish harvest limits (or otherwise
control hunting activity), and to close seasons when such limits are reached. They also
have existing regulatory mechanisms to restrict take of particular sex and age class in
such seasons to ensure compliance with mortality limits (see tri-state MOA, Attachment
B). The states also have existing regulatory mechanisms to end all discretionary
mortality when mortality limits are reached. These existing regulatory mechanisms allow
the three states to manage harvest mortality in conjunction with all sources of mortality
within the DMA, consistent with Tables 1, 2, and 3 and the tri-VWDWH 02$  $ VWDWH¶V 
application of existing regulatory mechanisms to any harvest season would vary based
on circumstances specific to the hunt (e.g., geographic, demographic, or time factors).

x

Page 23 (delete last paragraph as confusing reference to population monitoring in the
habitat standards section)- The primary factor affecting grizzly bears at both the
individual and population level is excessive human caused mRUWDOLW\««7KLV UHTXLUHV 
ongoing monitoring of the grizzly bear population to understand if it is sufficiently resilient
to allow for a conservative level of human-caused mortality without causing a population
decline.

x

Page 109 ± The only commercial or recreational take anticipated post-delisting is a
limited, controlled hunt. The states have agreed to consider all forms of mortality,
including hunting mortality, to ensure recovery criteria are not exceeded. In years where
other forms of mortality are greater, the states would reduce or eliminate hunting.

x

Page 110-111- Move description of DMA and management objectives to section
preceding specific factor analysis, as they apply throughout the rule and are not specific
to Factor B; move discussion of mortality limits to introductory section, since hunting is
just one type of mortality that will be managed in conjunction with all other sources of
mortality.

x

Page 113 ± (The paragraph regarding trapping and hunting on the Wind River
Reservation should be deleted; again, we urge the USFWS to focus the discussion of
the delisting rule on agency commitments/regulatory mechanisms to consider and
manage all sources of mortality so as not to exceed agreed upon mortality limits vs.
focusing on a single source.) While we anticipate the States will desire to institute a
carefully regulated hunt with ecosystem-wide coordinated total mortality limits, we do not
expect grizzly bear trapping to occur due to public safety considerations and the
precedent that there has never been public grizzly bear trapping in the modern era. T
Should the States of Montana, Idaho, or Wyoming authorize harvest of bears, they have
existing regulatory mechanisms for establishing harvest limits for and closing seasons
when these limits are met. do not permit public trapping of any bears currently, and there
is no information to indicate they will begin. Public trapping is not identified as a possible
management tool in any of their State management plans. The Eastern Shoshone and
Northern Arapaho Tribes would regulate any harvest on the Wind River Reservation will
be at the discretion of the Tribes and only be available to Tribal members (Title XVI Fish
and Game Code, Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2009, p. 9, restricting
potential harvest to Tribal members). The National Park Service will does not allow
harvest of grizzly bear hunting within National Park boundaries. Within the DMA (see
Figure 2, above), the National Park Service, the MFWP, the WGFD, the IDFG, and the

9

 Tribes of the Wind River Reservation (WRR) will manage total mortality to ensure all
recovery criteria continue to be met.
Page 115--USFWS should delete the information in the bottom row of the Table, as it is
confusing. (Also delete similar reference in Table 1 on page 55.)
x

Page 117-118 ± (Delete paragraphs regarding concept of background mortality based
on 4-year average and mortality requirements as confusing. The concept of background
mortality is not based on a prior definition or usage in the GYE DPS, and it lacks a basis
in the ESA. The reference also confuses discretionary mortality with hunting mortality.
USFWS may wish to refer to the tri-state MOA language for clear description of process
for calculating allowable mortality.)

x

Page 118 - (The example introduces confusion and inaccuracy to the agreed upon
process for managing mortality. We recommend that entire paragraph on page 118 be
deleted and as an alternative, we recommend the USFWS direct readers to the tri-state
MOA where the process for estimating total allowable mortality is clearly descried) As an
H[DPSOH« 

x

Page 126 ± (&ODULI\ ODQJXDJH WR DYRLG LQFRUUHFW LPSOLFDWLRQ WKDW ³KXQWLQJ UHODWHG´ LPSOLHV 
bear hunting; as noted on page 130, most if not all bear killings by hunters were in selfdefense or camp protection.) The main causes of human-caused mortality were human
site conflicts, self-defense, and vandal killings, and hunting related, all of which can be
partially mitigated for through management actions.

x

x

Page 128 ± If we delist the GYE DPS, all three affected states and the Eastern
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes will classify grizzly bear in the GYE as game
animals, Grizzly bears in all three states are classified as a game animal, which cannot
be taken without authorization by State or Tribal wildlife agencies.

x

Page 130 ± (Correct for accuracy; The elk reduction program applies to Grand Teton
National Park and not the JDR. The state manages elk hunting in the JDR and there is
no requirement to carry bear spray.) Through its enabling legislation, the National Park
Service authorizes an elk reduction program in both Grand Teton National Park and the
John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway. Elk hunters in Grand Teton National Park and
John D. Rockefeller Memorial Parkway are required to carry bear spray in an
accessible location, thus reducing the potential for an encounter that results in grizzly
bear mortality. Outside of this National Park, carrying bear spray is strongly encouraged
through hunter education programs and other information and education materials.
Page 115 ± (The process for managing hunting mortalities described in this rule is
inaccurate. The process is clearly described in the Tri-State MOA. Additionally, it must
be clear that hunting mortality is but one type of discretionary mortality) If state agencies
decide to establish hunting seasons, the following regulatory mechanisms must be in
place by law and regulation for delisting to occur. Tthe States will enact specific
requirements that will serve as adequate regulatory mechanisms over human caused
mortality, including to ensure mortality from sport hunting is managed in conjunction with
all sources of mortality so agreed upon mortality limits are not exceeded. These
regulations must may include:
o

Suspending grizzly bear hunting in a hunting district inside the DMA if total
mortality limits for any sex/age class are met at any time during the year season.

10

 o

x

In a given year, hunting discretionary mortality will only be allowed if total
nondiscretionary mortality from the previous year does not meet or exceed total
mortality limits for that year.

Page 122-123 ± (See discussion on genetic management below; delete this sentence as
it is inappropriate related to delisting) The state of MT will manage discretionary mortality
in the area between the GYE and NCDE in order to retain the opportunity for natural
movements of bears between ecosystems.
Should WY/MT/ID fail to make changes necessary detailed above to support a
recovered bear population, or deviate significantly from the changes in law and
regulation described above in Tables 1-3, delisting could not occur.

x

Page 121-122(3) ± Summary of Factor B ± These three regulatory commitments will
need to be in place prior to issuance of a final rule: (3) The State of Montana will
manage discretionary mortality in the area between the GYE and the NCDE in order to
retain the opportunity for natural movements of bears between ecosystems.

x

Page 123 ± Should Wyoming, Montana, and/or Idaho fail to make the changes
necessary detailed above to support a recovered grizzly bear population, or deviate
VLJQLILFDQWO\ IURP WKH FKDQJHV LQ ODZ DQG UHJXODWLRQV«GHOLVWLQJ FRXOG QRW RFFXU  

Recovery Criteria
The first criterion establishes a minimum population size of at least 500 animals and at least
48 females with cubs in the DMA. The States agree that this number is not a target, but a
minimum. The minimum population size includes a conservative buffer in addition to the
recommendations of Miller and Waits (2003) for a minimum population size of at least 400 bears
to adequately mitigate the potential effects of genetic drift and inbreeding depression in light of
the relative isolation of the GYE population. The proposed rule incorrectly states that 500 is a
minimum required to maintain short-term genetic fitness, genetic health, or genetic integrity.
x

Page 51 (also see page 192, last sentence) ±
o Page 51 -The three parameters that are measured have remained the same
since 1993 plan: (1) minimum population size for maintaining genetic integrity;
o Page 192 ± The recovery plan target for a minimum of 500 animals inside the
DMA to assure genetic health«« 

x

Page 52 ± (Delete reference from van Manen (2015, in litt.) regarding unoccupied
suitable habitat which is a hypothetical statement):
o A minimum population of at least 500 animals within the DMA will assure genetic
health. Population size will be quantified by methods established in published
peer-reviewed scientific literature and calculated by the IGBST using the most
updated protocol, as posted on their website. This number will ensure that the
short-term fitness of the population is not threatened by losses in genetic
diversity in such an isolated population. Five hundred is the minimum population
threshold. The goal is to maintain the population well above this threshold to
ensure that genetic issues are not a detriment to the short-term genetic fitness of
the GYE grizzly bear population. If the population declined to 500, more than one
third of the sustainable habitat in the DMA would be unoccupied (van Manen
2015, in litt.), and, therefore, the grizzly bear population could not be considered
demographically recovered.

11

 x

Page 192-193 ± Correct text to reflect that recovery criterion 1 has been met since
2003 (consistent with statement on page 53).

Genetic Management/Connectivity
Recently published information indicates the genetic variability and viability of the GYE DPS
is strong, and lack of connectivity is not a threat to the existence of the GYE DPS (see pages
52-53 of the 2016 Draft Revision to the Conservation Strategy, citing Kamath et al. (2015),
/XLNDUW HW DO          DQG RWKHU OLWHUDWXUH  86):6¶ DQDO\VLV RQ SDJHV     DQG     reflects the
best available science and concludes genetic concerns are not a threat to the GYE DPS and
that bear occupancy, or lack thereof, in peripheral areas is not biologically necessary to the
GYE DPS. In addition, recovery criteria for the GYE DPS are conservative in recognition of the
*<( '36¶ UHODWLYH LVRODWLRQ  
The proposed rule, however, includes several references to connectivity and genetic
exchange that are inconsistent with best available science and fail to recognize the assumptions
underlyiQJ FRQVHUYDWLYH UHFRYHU\ FULWHULD  7KHVH VWDWHPHQWV RYHUVWHS 86):6¶ (6$ DXWKRULW\  
We recommend that USFWS rewrite the genetic connectivity section of this proposed rule to
make it clear that the best available science indicates that genetic connectivity is not a threat to
the long-term existence of the GYE grizzly bear. The final rule should clarify that genetic
connectivity is not required for delisting, and that the genetic health of the GYE DPS is very
strong.
0RQWDQD¶V VWDWH PDQDJHPHQW SODQV DQG WKH  016 draft revision to the Conservation
Strategy state a long-term goal to allow the grizzly bear populations in southwest and western
Montana to reconnect through the maintenance of non-conflict grizzly bears in areas between
the ecosystems. The state of Montana has indicated that, while discretionary mortality may
occur, it will manage discretionary mortality to retain the opportunity for natural movements of
bears between ecosystems. However, it is inappropriate for USFWS to impose additional
requirements as to connectivity for delisting the GYE DPS, where connectivity and genetic
exchange do not threaten the population.
Specific recommended edits on this issue include:
x

Page 69 ± there is currently no known connectivity between these two populations There
is no known movement of bears between these two populations, although there is
anecdotal evidence of such movements.

x

Page 70 ± «   Future connectivity is desirable, and will be actively managed for and
Montana state management plans provide for maintaining presence of non-conflict bears
in areas in between the NCDE and GYE populations. However, this connectivity is not
necessary for long-term sustainability of the GYE DPS or the NCDE population.

x

Page 121-122(3) ± (delete) These three regulatory commitments will need to be in place
prior to issuance of a final rule: (3) The State of Montana will manage discretionary

12

 mortality in the area between the GYE and the NCDE in order to retain the opportunity
for natural movements of bears between ecosystems.
x

Page 153 ± 154 (delete) 1 ± 2 effective migrants from other pops every 10 years would
maintain or enhance this level of genetic diversity and therefore assure genetic health in
the long term.

x

However, the Service recognizes that the long term viability of the GYE grizzly bear
population will benefit from occasional gene flow from nearby grizzly bear populations
like in the NCDE. Thus, efforts will continue to facilitate occasional movement of male
bears between the NCDE and Yellowstone in the intervening areas between the GYE
and the NCDE.

x

Page 155 ±We will The USFWS encourages the management agencies to continue
interagency efforts to provide and maintain movement opportunities for grizzly bears and
reestablish natural connectivity and gene flow between the GYE grizzly bear DPS and
other grizzly bear populations.

x

Page 155 ± (delete - implies that connectivity to the north IS a relevant issue to the
EHDU¶V ORQJ WHUP SHUVLVWHQFH ± inaccurate and inconsistent with other sections of the rule
(see pages 184 and 201) ) We do not consider connectivity to the east, west, or south a
UHOHYDQW LVVXH WR WKH *<( JUL]]O\ EHDU SRSXODWLRQ¶V ORQJ-term persistence because there
are no extant populations in these directions to enhance the genetic diversity of the GYE
population.

Triggers
,QWHUVSHUVHG WKURXJKRXW WKH SURSRVHG UXOH DUH VXEMHFWLYH ³WULJJHUV´ IRU D VWDWXV UHYLHZ DQG 
potential emergency listing, regardless of whether or not they correspond to a threat to the
population. While USFWS has authority to initiate a status review and emergency listing, it
would be arbitrary and capricious to initiate a status review based, not on criteria related to
population threats under the ESA, but to conditions over which the USFWS has no authority.
:H SURSRVH WKH IROORZLQJ HGLWV WR FODULI\ 86):6¶ (6$ DXWKRULW\ 
x

Page 120 (also page 122, 150, 212 ) ± The Service may initiate a formal status review
and could emergency relist the GYE population until the formal status review is
FRPSOHWH« LI there are any changes in federal, state, or tribal laws, rule, regulations, or
management plans that depart significantly from the specifics of population or habitat
management detailed in this proposed in this proposed rule and significantly increase
the threat to the population result in significant, documented declines in the population
that threaten meeting recovery criteria for the GYE DPS.

x

Page 187 ± (This same argument (not causing population decline) applies to all of the
perceived threats, such as genetic connectivity, funding, changing of laws/rules/regs,
etc. As there are mortality thresholds in place to prevent population declines, no
potential threats should result in a population decline) - There will always be threats in
the GYE grizzly bear population that lead to human-caused mortality or displacement,
but if these are not causing population to decline that threatens meeting recovery criteria
for the GYE DPS, we cannot consider them substantial.

x

Page 191 ± There will always be threats to the GYE grizzly bear population, but if these
are not causing the a population to decline that threatens meeting recovery criteria, we
do not consider them to threaten the long-term persistence of the population.

13

 x

Page 210 ± (Delete sentence as confusing; it implies funding levels, rather than
population status, is the basis for review) A biology and monitoring review could occur if
funding becomes inadequate to the implementation of the draft 2016 CS to such an
extent that it compromised the recovered status of the GYE grizzly bear population.

x

Page 211 ± The Service can initiate a status review independent of the IGBST or YGCC
« LI VXEVWDQWLDO PDQDJHPHQW FKDQJHV RFFXU VLJQLILFDQW HQRXJK WR cause a significant
decline in the population such that it poses a threat to meeting recovery criteria for the
GYE DPS to raise concerns about population level impacts.

x

Page 212 ± For example if independent female total mortality limits were exceeded in 3
of 4 years, but they were not 3 consecutive years, the Service would not conduct a
status review.

x

USFWS should also delete multiple references to status reviews, which appear to place
undue emphasis on some of the individual factor analyses.

Miscellaneous-Edits
Based on Executive Orders and other Presidential direction for writing of rules, USFWS
should follow its standard 5-criteria analysis. Instead of folding all human-caused mortality into
the disease/predation criteria, it is more logical to place it in Criteria E to the extent the mortality
does not involve overutilization. The final rule should also revise various places where the
SURSRVHG UXOH XVHV SDVVLYH YRLFH  VXFK DV ³ZLOO EH PDQDJHG´  WKH ILQDO UXOH VKRXOG UHIOHFW WKH 
appropriate state or federal manaJLQJ DJHQFLHV  H J   ³WKH VWDWH DJHQFLHV ZLOO PDQDJH«´ RU 
³IHGHUDO DJHQFLHV ZLOO PRQLWRU KDELWDW FRQGLWLRQV´  
The agencies also recommend the following edits on miscellaneous issues:
x

Page 23 ± This requires ongoing monitoring of the grizzly bear population to understand
if it is sufficiently resilient to allow for a conservative level of human-caused mortality
without causing decline, and to ensure ongoing management and conservation actions
are maintaining recovery thresholds.

x

Page 41 - USFWS should either delete or provide a reference for its assertion that
³WUDGLWLRQDO IRRG VRXUFHV VXFK DV ELVRQ DQG HON KDYH EHHQ GUDPDWLFDOO\ UHGXFHG DQG 
replaced with domestic livestock attractants such as cattle, sheep, chickens, goats, pigs
DQG EHHKLYHV ´

x

Page 53- USFWS should clarify the purpose and science that informs the 90%
confidence interval (612±735) related to Recovery Criterion 3.

x

Page 54 ± Clarify the reference to the population estimate at the time of grizzly bear
delisting in 2007 (683). The 2007 delisting decision indicated a population estimate
around 570. We assume that USFWS retroactively applied an estimate of 683 based on
current vital rates, but USFWS should clarify the origin of this estimate.

x

Page 55-Correct reference in Demographic 5HFRYHU\ &ULWHULD    WR ³   ´  QRW      

14

 x

Page 55 ± The Conservation Strategy is the management plan that institutionalizes the
successful program that resulted in recovery of the GYE population is the post-delisting
management plan that will ensure recovery is sustained.

x

Page 58 ± (clarify that states have provided a majority of the management while the bear
has been listed): The draft 2016 Conservation Strategy details a regulatory framework
and authority for Federal and State agencies to take over management continue
management and conservation of the GYE grizzly bear population after delistingfrom the
Service.

x

Page 101/147 ± &RUUHFW UHIHUHQFHV WR 0RQWDQD¶V VWDWH SODQ         0RQWDQD UHSODFHG LWV 
2002 plan with a revised plan in 2015.

x

Page 111²(Edit to eliminate confusion between recovery criteria determined by USFWS
and population management objectives agreed-upon by various agencies). Accordingly,
the agencies implementing the CS have decided that agreed to manage the population
in the DMA will be managed around the long term average around the 95% confidence
interval of the estimated 2002-2014 population estimate using Chao2 .

x

Page 131 - USFWS should either delete or provide a reference for its assertion that
mandatory food storage orders reduce human bear conflicts and consequently bear
mortalities.

x

Page 133 ± Edit to reflect that wildlife management agencies and land management
agencies will continue to coordinate regarding nuisance wildlife as they do for other nonlisted species, and that prescriptive references for coordination on an incident-byLQFLGHQW EDVLV UHJDUGLQJ UHPRYDO DQG UHORFDWLRQ  DUH RXWVLGH 86):6¶ DXWKRULW\ IRU D QRQlisted species:
o Page 133-134-(delete) Upon delisting, State, Tribal, and National Park Service
bear managers would continue to coordinate and consult with each other and
other relevant Federal agencies (i.e., Forest Service, BLM) about nuisance bear
relocation and removal decisions, but coordination with the Service during each
incident would not be required (50 CFR 17.40).

x

Page 147 ± Delete or correct reference to state wildlife agency plans, which may
encourage but do not mandate activities by federal or state land management agencies:
o Page 147-The three State grizzly bear management plans direct State land
management agencies to maintain or improve habitats that are important to
grizzly bears and to monitor population criteria outside of the PCA.

x

Page 157²Delete assertion that availability of ungulates is threatened by Brucellosis
and resulting management practices consequential to bison removal, CWD and
competition with other top predators. This assertion is confusing as ensuing language
states this is not a concern. If USFWS makes such an assertion in the final rule, it should
provide a factual reference.

x

Page 190 ± ³%HFDXVH WKH VLJQDWRU\ DJHQFLHV WR WKH      &6 DUH WKH VDPH DJHQFLHV WKDW 
have been managing grizzly bear habitat, the GYE population and monitoring for the
past 30 years, thH WUDQVLWLRQ IURP VWDWH WR IHGHUDO PDQDJHPHQW ZLOO EH PLQLPDO ´ USFWS
should emphasize that is not relying on unsubstantiated future promises for postdelisting management. The same agencies that will manage the population and habitat
after delisting are the same agencies who have proven their expertise and commitment
in achieving recovery.

Conclusion

15

 The States are fully committed to the continued management of a recovered grizzly bear
population in the GYE. This population has met or exceeded all recovery criteria for at least 12
years and has continued to grow in size and distribution. Delisting will celebrate this
WUHPHQGRXV FRQVHUYDWLRQ VXFFHVV VWRU\ DQG ZH VWURQJO\ VXSSRUW WKH 6HUYLFH¶V SURSRVDO WR PRYH 
forward with establishing this DPS and removing it from the list of threatened and endangered
species under the ESA.

16