Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)

[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4234-4276]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00329]

[[Page 4233]]

Vol. 90

Wednesday,

No. 9

January 15, 2025

Part V

Department of the Interior

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

Fish and Wildlife Service

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

50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Grizzly Bear Listing on
the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife With a Revised Section
4(d) Rule; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 90 , No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 4234]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2024-0186; FXES1111090FEDR-256-FF09E21000]
RIN 1018-BI14

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Grizzly Bear
Listing on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife With a
Revised Section 4(d) Rule

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or FWS),
propose to revise the listing of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos
horribilis) in the lower-48 States under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act or ESA). After a review of the best scientific
and commercial data available, we affirm that the currently listed
grizzly bear population meets our requirements for consideration as a
distinct population segment (DPS) under the Act and that the population
remains likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future. However, we find that clarification of the geographic areas
included within the DPS is warranted. Therefore, we propose to revise
the listing by defining the boundaries of the contiguous U.S. grizzly
bear DPS. The revised entity would include all geographic portions of
the currently listed lower-48 entity that contain suitable habitat and
where grizzly bears are currently found or are likely to be found in
the future as populations recover. This area includes all of Washington
and portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. The contiguous U.S.
grizzly bear DPS would retain threatened species status. This proposed
rule would promote conservation of the grizzly bear by ensuring that
the listing under the Act explicitly reflects the areas where grizzly
bears currently occur and are likely to occur in the future. Clarifying
that the listing does not include areas outside of the grizzly bear's
historical range will assist as recovery proceeds. We are also
proposing to revise protective regulations for the grizzly bear issued
under section 4(d) of the Act.

DATES:
Written comments: We will accept comments received or postmarked on
or before March 17, 2025. Comments submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received by
11:59 p.m. eastern time on the closing date.
Public informational meetings and public hearings: Four public
hearings will be held on this proposed rule on the following dates:
On January 30, 2025, a virtual public informational
meeting will run from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
On January 29, 2025, in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. The public
informational meeting will run from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., and the public
hearing will run from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
On January 28, 2025, in Missoula, Montana. The public
informational meeting will run from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., and the public
hearing will run from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.
On February 10, 2025, in Cody, Wyoming. The public
informational meeting will run from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., and the public
hearing will run from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m.

ADDRESSES:
Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R6-ES-
2024-0186, which is the docket number for this rulemaking. Then, click
on the Search button. On the resulting page, in the panel on the left
side of the screen, under the Document Type heading, check the Proposed
Rule box to locate this document. You may submit a comment by clicking
on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2024-0186, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the species status assessment report, are available at https://www.fws.gov/species/grizzly-bear-ursus-arctos-horribilis or at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2024-0186.
Public informational meetings and public hearings: The public
information meetings and public hearings will be held on the dates and
the times listed above in DATES at the following locations:
Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. Kootenai County Fairgrounds, 4056 N.
Government Way, Building 19.
Missoula, Montana. Hilton Garden Inn, 3720 N Reserve
Street.
Cody, Wyoming. Holiday Inn, 1701 Sheridan Ave.
Virtual: We will announce the details regarding how to
participate on our website at https://www.fws.gov/grizzlyrulemaking.
For more information on the public informational meetings and
public hearings, see Public Hearings, below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, #356 Corbin, University of
Montana, Missoula, MT 59812; telephone 406-243-4903. Individuals in the
United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United
States should use the relay services offered within their country to
make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
Please see Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2024-0186 on https://www.regulations.gov for a document that summarizes this proposed rule.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

Why we need to publish a rule. On July 28, 1975, we published in
the Federal Register (40 FR 31734) a final rule to list the grizzly
bear in the lower-48 States as a threatened species under the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). According to our ``Policy Regarding the
Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments Under the
Endangered Species Act'' (DPS policy; 61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996),
the appropriate application of the policy to pre-1996 DPS listings will
be considered in our 5-year status reviews. We conducted a DPS analysis
as part of our 2011 5-year status review, and concluded that the
population segment of the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States is
discrete from other grizzly populations and significant to the
remainder of the taxon (i.e., Ursus arctos horribilis) and that it
meets the 1996 DPS Policy's standards for recognition as a DPS under
the Act.
We now reaffirm that the currently listed grizzly bear population
satisfies the elements of our 1996 DPS Policy and that the population
meets the Act's definition of a threatened species.

[[Page 4235]]

However, we find that clarification of the DPS boundary is warranted,
and we propose to revise the listing by defining the geographic extent
of the contiguous U.S. DPS of the grizzly bear (hereafter, ``grizzly
bear DPS'') and to retain its threatened status. Pursuant to the
Administrative Procedure Act, we must initiate a rulemaking to revise
the listing (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). In a February 22, 2024, settlement
agreement in Save the Yellowstone Grizzly v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, No. 23-363 (D. Id), we committed to submit a final rule to the
Office of the Federal Register on or before January 31, 2026.
What this document does. This document proposes to revise the
current listing of the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States by defining
the geographic extent of the grizzly bear DPS, to retain its status as
a threatened species, and to revise its protective regulations under
section 4(d) of the Act (a revised ``4(d) rule''). As such, this action
would revise the listing of the grizzly bear in title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) at Sec. 17.11(h) (50 CFR 17.11(h)) and the
grizzly bear's protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act at
50 CFR 17.40(b).
The basis for our action. Under our 1996 DPS policy, in any
proposed or final rule affecting the status of a possible DPS as an
endangered or threatened species under the Act we analyze the following
three elements: (1) discreteness of the population segment in relation
to the remainder of the taxon to which it belongs; (2) the significance
of the population segment to the taxon to which it belongs; and (3) the
conservation status of the population segment in relation to the Act's
standards for listing (61 FR 4725, February 7, 1996).
Under the Act, we determine whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species because of any of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence. We have determined that the proposed grizzly bear
DPS, which includes all of the grizzly bears in the currently listed
entity, is a threatened species due to the following threats: habitat
destruction and modification (Factor A); human-caused mortality
(Factors B and C); and the isolated nature of some populations (Factor
E).

Information Requested

We intend that any final action resulting from this proposed rule
will be based on the best scientific and commercial data available and
be as accurate and as effective as possible. Therefore, we request
comments or information from other governmental agencies, Native
American Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other
interested parties concerning this proposed rule. We particularly seek
comments concerning:
(1) The proposed geographic boundary of the DPS;
(2) The species' biology, range, and population trends, including:
(a) Biological or ecological requirements of the species, including
habitat requirements for feeding, breeding, and sheltering;
(b) Genetics and taxonomy;
(c) Historical and current range, including distribution patterns
and the locations of any additional populations of this species;
(d) Historical and current population levels, and current and
projected trends; and
(e) Past and ongoing conservation measures for the species, its
habitat, or both.
(3) Threats and conservation actions affecting the species,
including:
(a) Factors that may be affecting the continued existence of the
species, which may include habitat modification or destruction,
overutilization, disease, predation, the inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms, or other natural or manmade factors;
(b) Biological, commercial trade, or other relevant data concerning
any threats (or lack thereof) to this species; and
(c) Existing regulations or conservation actions that may be
addressing threats to this species.
(4) Additional information concerning the historical and current
status of this species.
(5) Information to assist with applying or issuing protective
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act that may be necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of the grizzly bear. In
particular, we seek information concerning:
(a) The extent to which we should include or clarify any of the
section 9 prohibitions in the 4(d) rule;
(b) Whether we should consider any additional or different
exceptions from the prohibitions in the proposed 4(d) rule, such as:
(i) incidental take resulting from legal trapping for other species
conducted consistent with State and Tribal trapping rules or guidelines
that contain steps to minimize the potential for capture and injury of
grizzly bears; (ii) incidental take from issuance of State or Tribal
hunting permits for other species; (iii) incidental take resulting from
legal hunting of other species; and (iv) take from regulated State or
Tribal grizzly bear hunting in areas where grizzly bear populations are
expanding.
Please include sufficient information with your submission (such as
scientific journal articles or other publications) to allow us to
verify any scientific or commercial information you include.
Please note that submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information, although noted, do not provide substantial
information necessary to support a determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of
the Act directs that determinations as to whether any species is an
endangered or a threatened species must be made solely on the basis of
the best scientific and commercial data available.
You may submit your comments and materials concerning this proposed
rule by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation we used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Our final determination may differ from this proposal because we
will consider all comments we receive during the comment period as well
as any information that may become available after this proposal. Based
on the new information we receive (and, if relevant, any comments on
that new information), we may conclude that the species is endangered
instead of threatened, or we may conclude that the species does not
warrant listing as either an endangered species or a threatened
species. We may also change the geographic area included within the
proposed DPS as the result of new information we receive. In addition,
we

[[Page 4236]]

may change the parameters of the prohibitions or the exceptions to
those prohibitions in the protective regulations under section 4(d) of
the Act if we conclude it is appropriate in light of comments and new
information received. For example, we may expand the prohibitions if we
conclude that the protective regulation as a whole, including those
additional prohibitions, is necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of the species. Conversely, we may establish additional or
different exceptions to the prohibitions in the final rule if we
conclude that the activities would facilitate or are compatible with
the conservation and recovery of the species. In our final rule, we
will clearly explain our rationale and the basis for our final
decision, including why we made changes, if any, that differ from this
proposal.

Public Hearings

We will hold four public informational meetings and public hearings
on the dates and at the locations listed above in DATES. The public
informational meetings allow the public the opportunity to interact
with Service staff, who will be available to provide information and
address questions on the proposed rule and its supporting documents. In
contrast to the public informational meetings, we are holding the
public hearings to provide interested parties an opportunity to present
verbal testimony (formal, oral comments) or written comments regarding
the proposed rule and its supporting documents. A formal public hearing
is not, however, an opportunity for dialogue with the Service; it is
only a forum for accepting formal verbal testimony.
We cannot accept verbal testimony at any of the public
informational meetings; verbal testimony can only be accepted at the
public hearings. Anyone wishing to make an oral statement at a public
hearing for the record is encouraged to provide a written copy of their
statement to us at the hearing. In the event there is a large
attendance, the time allotted for oral statements may be limited.
Speakers can sign up at a hearing if they desire to make an oral
statement. Oral and written statements receive equal consideration.
There are no limits on the length of written comments submitted to us.
Persons with disabilities needing reasonable accommodations to
participate in a public informational meeting or public hearing should
contact the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. Reasonable accommodation requests
should be received at least 3 business days prior to the public
informational meeting or public hearing to help ensure availability;
American Sign Language or English as a second language interpreter
needs should be received at least 2 weeks prior to the public
informational meeting or public hearing.

Previous Federal Actions

Listing as Threatened and Recovery Plans

On July 28, 1975, we published in the Federal Register (40 FR
31734) a final rule to list the grizzly bear as a threatened species in
the conterminous United States (lower-48 States). Accordingly, we
developed a Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1982) and have updated
that plan several times (USFWS 1993, 1996, 1997, 2007a, 2007b, 2017,
2018). The 1993 recovery plan identified recovery ecosystems, each
containing a recovery zone at its core, within the lower-48 States
thought to be capable of supporting grizzly bears. The 1993 recovery
plan, and subsequent supplements, outlined three demographic recovery
criteria for each ecosystem (in their entirety: Service 1993, 1996,
1997, 2007a, 2017).

Petitions Regarding Grizzly Bear Ecosystems (1990s)

In the 1990s, we received a number of petitions to change the
status on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife (the List) of
grizzly bear populations in three ecosystems: the North Cascades,
Selkirk, and Cabinet-Yaak.
We determined that reclassifying grizzly bears in those ecosystems
to endangered was warranted but precluded by higher priorities
beginning in 1991 for the North Cascades ecosystem (56 FR 33892, July
24, 1991), 1993 for the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem (CYE) (58 FR 8250,
February 12, 1993), and 1999 for the Selkirk ecosystem (SE) (64 FR
26725, May 17, 1999).
However, in 2014, the Service determined that the CYE and SE
populations had recovered to the point that they were no longer
warranted for uplisting as endangered and should instead remain listed
as threatened (79 FR 72450 at 72487 and 72488, December 5, 2014).
In 2017, in Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Zinke et al., the
District Court of Montana remanded the 2014 determination for the CYE
grizzly bear back to the Service for further consideration.
In 2022, the Service again determined that the CYE population had
recovered to the point that it was no longer warranted for uplisting to
endangered, and therefore should remain listed as threatened (87 FR
26152 at 26153 and 26171-26172, May 3, 2022).
In 2023, we determined that the North Cascades population was no
longer warranted for uplisting to endangered because the population in
that area of the United States is extirpated (88 FR 41560 at 41562,
41577, and 41579-41580, June 27, 2023).

Bitterroot Ecosystem

On December 18, 2000, we designated the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE)
as a nonessential experimental population under section 10(j) of the
Act and published a final environmental impact statement (EIS) and
record of decision (ROD) to release an experimental population of
grizzly bears in that ecosystem (65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000; 65 FR
69644, November 17, 2000; Service 2000a and 2000b, entire).
On June 22, 2001, we indicated a change of position and published a
notice to propose the no action alternative as the preferred
alternative (66 FR 33623) and a proposed rule to remove the section
10(j) regulations for grizzly bears in the BE 10(j) population (66 FR
33620). However, no further action was taken on the notice, and the
proposed rule was never finalized. The 2000 ROD remains in effect, but
it has never been implemented. Because we have not released or
reintroduced any grizzly bears into the area, the current section 10(j)
rule for grizzly bears in the Bitterroot grizzly bear nonessential
experimental population area (50 CFR 17.84(1)) does not apply to
grizzly bears that have dispersed into the area on their own. Grizzly
bears that have dispersed into the area on their own, including all
recent verified sightings, are not covered by the section 10(j) rule
and receive the protection associated with the threatened status of the
lower-48 States listed entity and associated section 4(d) regulations
(50 CFR 17.40(b)).
In November 2021, the Service was challenged in Federal district
court for alleged unreasonable delay in implementing nondiscretionary
actions described in the action alternative selected in the 2000 final
EIS (Alliance for the Wild Rockies et al. v. Cooley et al., 9:21-cv-
136-DWM (D. Mont. 2021)). The court remanded this matter to the Service
and ordered the Service to propose a timeline and plan for completion
of a supplemental EIS and, if warranted, a new ROD and final rule. On
April 26, 2023, the court issued an order approving the Service's
proposal and timeline to complete this process within 43 months
(Alliance for the Wild Rockies et al. v. Cooley et al.,

[[Page 4237]]

9:31-cv-136-DWM). On January 18, 2024, the Service published a notice
to initiate the public scoping process to evaluate restoration of
grizzly bears to the BE (89 FR 3411).

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem

On March 29, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR
14866) a final rule recognizing the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE)
population of grizzly bears as a DPS and removing it from the List
(i.e., delisting it).
This final determination was vacated and remanded by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana on September 21, 2009, in
Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et al., 672 F.Supp.2d 1105
(D. Mont. 2009). The District Court ruled against the Service on two of
the claims: (1) that the Service was arbitrary and capricious in its
evaluation of whitebark pine; and (2) that the identified regulatory
mechanisms were inadequate because they were not legally enforceable.
In compliance with the court's order, we issued a final rule
reinstating the Act's protections for the GYE grizzly bear population
(see 75 FR 14496, March 26, 2010).
The Service appealed the 2009 district court decision, and on
November 15, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
issued an opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the District
Court's decision vacating and remanding the final rule delisting
grizzly bears in the GYE (Greater Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et
al., 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011)). The Ninth Circuit held that the
Service's consideration of regulatory mechanisms was permissible
because the elements of the 2007 GYE conservation strategy were
incorporated into binding regulatory documents, specifically national
forest (NF) plans and National Park Service (NPS) Superintendent's
compendia. However, the Ninth Circuit found that the Service did not
adequately explain why the loss of whitebark pine was not a threat to
the GYE grizzly bear population. Therefore, the GYE population of
grizzly bears remained federally listed as part of the lower-48 State
threatened species listing under the Act, and the Interagency Grizzly
Bear Study Team (IGBST) initiated more thorough research into the
potential impact of whitebark pine decline on GYE grizzly bears.
On June 30, 2017, we published in the Federal Register (82 FR
30502) a final rule recognizing the GYE population of grizzly bears as
a DPS and removing it from the List (i.e., delisting it). In that final
rule, among the other findings, we responded to the District Court's
remand and the Ninth Circuit's determination that the Service failed to
support its conclusion that whitebark pine declines did not threaten
GYE grizzly bears.
That final determination was vacated and remanded by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana on September 24, 2018, in
Crow Indian Tribe, et al. v. United States, et al., 343 F. Supp.3d 999
(D. Mont. 2018). The District Court cited three main deficiencies in
support of vacatur: (1) the Service did not sufficiently assess the
effect of delisting the GYE population on the recovery of grizzly bears
in the rest of the lower-48 States; (2) the Service and its partners
did not commit to recalibration of potential new population estimators
in the future to ensure the ongoing applicability of the 2016 GYE
conservation strategy's mortality limits; and (3) the Service
inadequately analyzed the genetic health of the GYE grizzly bear
population. In compliance with this order, we again issued a final rule
reinstating the Act's protections for the GYE grizzly bear population
(see 84 FR 37144, July 31, 2019).
The Service appealed the district court decision, and on July 8,
2020, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the district
court's decision vacating and remanding the final rule delisting
grizzly bears in the GYE (Crow Indian Tribe v. United States, 965 F.3d
662 (9th Cir. 2020)).

North Cascades Ecosystem

On January 13, 2017, North Cascades National Park (NCNP) and the
Service jointly released a North Cascades Draft Restoration Plan and
EIS to evaluate the impacts of a range of alternatives for restoring
grizzly bears to the North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) (82 FR 4336).
On July 10, 2020, the Service and NPS announced their decision to
discontinue the proposal to develop and implement a grizzly bear
restoration plan for the NCE and to terminate the EIS process (85 FR
41624).
On November 14, 2022, the Service and NPS announced initiation of a
new EIS process to evaluate options for restoring and managing grizzly
bears in the North Cascades, including a section 10(j) experimental
population designation (87 FR 68190). On September 29, 2023, NPS and
the Service opened a public comment period on a draft EIS to evaluate
restoration of grizzly bears to the North Cascades (88 FR 67277; NPS
and Service 2024, entire) and on a proposed section 10(j) rule that
would allow management flexibility for a reintroduced population (88 FR
67193). On March 21, 2024, the Service and NPS released a final EIS
identifying translocation of grizzly bears to the North Cascades with
an experimental designation as the preferred alternative (NPS and
Service 2024, entire). On April 25, 2024, NPS and the Service published
a ROD to release an experimental population of grizzly bears in the NCE
with the goal of establishing an initial population of 25 grizzly bears
and then continuing to monitor and adaptively manage the population
(NPS and Service 2024, pp. v-vi). In addition, the Service designated
the North Cascades as a nonessential experimental population under
section 10(j) of the Act (89 FR 36982, May 3, 2024, codified at 50 CFR
17.84(y)).

Petitions Regarding the Grizzly Bear Listing (2020s)

On December 17, 2021, we received a petition from the State of
Montana to establish and delist a Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem
(NCDE) DPS of the grizzly bear under the Act. On January 21, 2022, we
received a petition from the State of Wyoming to establish and delist a
GYE DPS of the grizzly bear under the Act. On March 9, 2022, we
received a petition from the State of Idaho to delist the grizzly bear
in the lower-48 States.
On February 6, 2023, we announced our 90-day findings on these
three petitions (88 FR 7658). Based on our review, we found that the
petitions pertaining to the NCDE and GYE presented substantial
scientific or commercial information indicating that the petitioned
actions may be warranted, and we initiated status reviews to determine
whether the petitioned actions are warranted. We found that the
petition from the State of Idaho to delist the grizzly bear in the
lower-48 States on the basis of it not being a valid listable entity
did not present substantial scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted; therefore, we
took no further action on that petition.
In today's issue of the Federal Register, we announce our 12-month
findings on the petitions to establish and delist GYE and NCDE DPSs of
grizzly bears, respectively. Based on a thorough review of the best
scientific and commercial data available, we found that the petitioned
GYE and NCDE DPS grizzly bear populations were not valid listable
entities. We acknowledge that this determination differs from our 2017
determination that the GYE population was discrete because it was
markedly, physically

[[Page 4238]]

separated from other grizzly bear populations and was significant due
to its persistence in an ecological setting unique for the taxon and
because the loss of the population would result in a significant gap in
the range (82 FR 30502 at 30517-30519, June 30, 2017). However,
estimated occupied range now extends beyond the 2017 GYE DPS western
boundary, and we expect this trend to increase over time. Similarly,
the estimated occupied range for the NCDE population extends beyond the
boundary proposed by the petitioner. As populations expand, individual
grizzly bears are dispersing into new areas outside the estimated
occupied range (see figure 1, below). Thus, we found that the
petitioned actions to establish and delist GYE and NCDE DPSs were not
warranted.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA25.031

In 2023, the State of Idaho, a co-defendant in Save the Yellowstone
Grizzly v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, No. 23-363 (D. Id), raised
counter-claims against the Service alleging that: (1) the lower-48
listing is invalid and the Service has exceeded the Act's jurisdiction
by keeping the listing in place; (2) the Service unlawfully denied
Idaho's petition to delist grizzlies in the lower-48 United States; and
(3) take of the three grizzly bears at issue in the case was consistent
with the grizzly bear's section 4(d) rule (50 CFR 17.40(b)). As part of
a February 22, 2024, settlement with the plaintiff, Save the
Yellowstone Grizzly, and the State of Idaho, the Service agreed to
submit to the Office of the Federal Register by January 31, 2026, a
final rule complying with the Act and its implementing regulations that
revises or removes the entire listing of grizzly bears in the lower-48
States.

Relationship of Grizzly Bear Listing to Legislative Changes to the Act

The grizzly bear subspecies was first listed in its entirety in
North America in 1967 under the Endangered Species Preservation Act,
which only allowed the listing of species or subspecies. When the Act
was passed in 1973, it allowed for listing of ``any other group of fish
or wildlife of the same species or smaller taxa in common spatial
arrangement that interbreed when mature.'' The 1975 listing was
``designed to ensure the species' conservation'' within the Yellowstone
(the GYE), Bob Marshall (now the NCDE), and Selway-Bitterroot (the BE)
ecosystems, and ``to protect any members of the species occurring
elsewhere in'' the lower-48 States. (40 FR 31734 at 31735, July 28,
1975). It was not an indication that grizzly bears were present in all
areas covered by the listing, or that the Service intended to recover
grizzly bears throughout the lower-48 States.
The listing of the grizzly bear as a threatened species in the
lower-48 States in 1975 was not predicated upon a formal DPS analysis,
because the listing predated the 1978 amendments to the Act, which
revised the definition of ``species'' to include DPSs of vertebrate
fish or wildlife. The 1978 amendments revised the definition of

[[Page 4239]]

``species'' by adding the phrase ``any distinct population segment of
any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when
mature'' (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). In addition, in 1996, the Service and
the National Marine Fisheries Service published our joint ``Policy
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
Under the Endangered Species Act'' (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996).
In the 2011 5-year status review of the grizzly bear, we reviewed
the application of the DPS Policy to the grizzly bear listing (Service
2011, entire). We concluded that the population segment of grizzly bear
in the lower-48 States was discrete from other grizzly populations and
significant to the remainder of the taxon and that it met the standards
for recognition as a DPS under the Act, but we did not propose to
revise the listed entity. In this proposed rule, we are undertaking a
new DPS analysis as part of our reevaluation of the current listed
entity of grizzly bears in the lower-48 States.

Peer Review

A species status assessment (SSA) team prepared an SSA report for
the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States. The SSA team was composed of
Service biologists, in consultation with other species experts. The SSA
report represents a compilation of the best scientific and commercial
data available concerning the status of the species, including the
impacts of past, present, and future factors (both negative and
beneficial) affecting the species.
In accordance with our joint policy on peer review published in the
Federal Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), and our August 22,
2016, memorandum updating and clarifying the role of peer review in
listing and recovery actions under the Act (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/peer-review-policy-directors-memo-2016-08-22.pdf), we solicited independent scientific review of the information
contained in the grizzly bear SSA report. We sent the SSA report to
four independent peer reviewers and received three responses. Results
of this structured peer review process can be found at https://www.regulations.gov and https://fws.gov/library/categories/peer-review-plans. In preparing this proposed rule, we incorporated the results of
these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the
foundation for this proposed rule.

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments

As discussed in Peer Review, above, we received comments from three
peer reviewers on the SSA report. We reviewed all comments we received
from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new information
regarding the information contained in the SSA report. The peer
reviewers generally concurred with our methods and conclusions, and
provided additional information, clarifications, and suggestions,
including clarifications in discussion of current conservation measures
relating to human-caused mortality and habitat, clarifications in the
discussion of connectivity and genetic health, additional scientific
literature to consider, and other editorial suggestions. There were
several comments regarding our assessment of current and future
conditions for the two habitat and six demographic factors for each
ecosystem under the current and future condition scenarios, which were
further clarified in the SSA report for the species.

I. Proposed Revision of Grizzly Bear Listing

Background

A thorough review of the taxonomy, life history, and ecology of the
grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the lower-48 States is
presented in the SSA report (version 2.2; Service 2024, pp. 39-48),
which we summarize here.
Please note that, in this document, we refer to the grizzly bear in
the lower-48 States both as a ``species,'' as it is listed as a
threatened species under the Act, and as a ``subspecies'' because Ursus
arctos horribilis is a subspecies of Ursus arctos. Later in this
document (where indicated), we also use the term ``the grizzly bear
DPS'' to refer to the contiguous U.S. grizzly bear DPS.

Species Description

The grizzly bear is a large, long-lived mammal that occurs in a
variety of habitat types. It is distributed across large portions of
Alaska, as well as western and northern Canada, but its distribution in
the lower-48 States is limited to portions of Idaho, Montana,
Washington, and Wyoming. Grizzly bears hibernate in the winter,
typically in dens; feed on a wide variety of foods; weigh up to 363
kilograms (800 pounds); and live more than 25 years in the wild.
Grizzly bears are light brown to nearly black and are so named for
their ``grizzled'' coats with silver or golden tips. Grizzly bears are
a member of the brown bear species (U. arctos) that occurs in North
America, Europe, and Asia. The subspecies U. a. horribilis is limited
to North America and is the subspecies that occurs in the lower-48
States (Rausch 1963, p. 43; Servheen 1999, pp. 50-53). Grizzly bears
have three life stages: dependent young, subadults, and adults.

Habitat and Range

Grizzly bears use a variety of habitats (LeFranc et al. 1987, p.
120). In general, a grizzly bear's individual habitat needs and daily
movements are largely driven by the search for food, water, mates,
cover, security, or den sites. The available habitat for bears is also
influenced by people and their activities. Adult grizzly bears are
normally solitary except when breeding or when females have dependent
young (Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. 971), but they are not territorial
and home ranges of adult bears frequently overlap (Schwartz et al.
2003, pp. 565-566). Home range size is highly variable and is affected
by resource availability, habitat quality, sex, age, and reproductive
status (LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 31; Blanchard and Knight 1991, pp. 48-
51; Mace and Waller 1997, p. 48). Grizzly bears hibernate in winter;
hibernation is a life-history strategy that bears use to cope with
seasons of low food abundance.
Adult bears are 4 years old or older when they reach sexual
maturity, although some bears may not breed until they are older.
Mating occurs from May through July (Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p.
522; Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. 971); however, their fertilized
embryos do not implant into the uterus for further development until
late fall. Cubs are born in the den in late January or early February
and nurse for 3 to 4 months inside the den. Offspring typically remain
with the female for about 2.5 years. Reproduction may be related to
nutritional state and/or density-dependent effects (Stringham 1990, p.
433; McLellan 1994, p. 20; Hilderbrand et al. 1999, pp. 135-136;
Schwartz et al. 2006c, p. 21; van Manen et al. 2016, pp. 307-308;
Hilderbrand et al. 2019, pp. 115-116). Grizzly bears have one of the
slowest reproductive rates among terrestrial mammals (Nowak and
Paradiso 1983, p. 971; Schwartz et al. 2003, p. 564), and it may take a
female grizzly bear 10 or more years to replace herself in a population
(Service 1993, p. 4).
The lower-48 States provides highly diverse landscapes containing a
wide array of habitat types and bear foods across and within the
ecosystems. Grizzly bears are opportunistic omnivores and display great
diet plasticity within and across populations (Edwards et al. 2011, pp.
883-886), shifting their diet according to foods that are most
nutritious (i.e., high in fat, protein, and/or carbohydrates) and

[[Page 4240]]

available (Mealey 1980, pp. 284-291; Servheen 1981, pp. 99-102; Kendall
1986, pp. 12-18; Mace and Jonkel 1986, p. 108; Martinka and Kendall
1986, pp. 21-22; LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 111-114; Aune and Kasworm
1989, pp. 63-71; Kasworm and Thier 1993, pp. 38-41; McLellan and Hovey
1995, pp. 706-709; Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 568-569; Van Daele et al.
2012, pp. 25-27; Gunther et al. 2014, p. 65). The ability to use
whatever food resources are available is likely one reason brown bears
are the most widely distributed bear species in the world, occupying
habitats from deserts to alpine mountains and everything in between.
This ability to live in a variety of habitats and eat a wide array of
foods makes grizzly bears a generalist species.

Recovery Criteria

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to develop and implement
recovery plans for the conservation and survival of endangered and
threatened species unless we determine that such a plan will not
promote the conservation of the species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii),
recovery plans must, to the maximum extent practicable, include
objective, measurable criteria that, when met, would result in a
determination, in accordance with provisions of section 4 of the Act,
that the species be removed from the Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants.
Recovery plans provide a roadmap for us and our partners on methods
of enhancing conservation and minimizing threats to listed species, as
well as measurable criteria against which to evaluate progress towards
recovery and assess the species' likely future condition. However, they
are not regulatory documents and do not substitute for the
determinations and promulgation of regulations required under section
4(a)(1) of the Act. A decision to revise the status of a species or to
delist a species is ultimately based on an analysis of the best
scientific and commercial data available to determine whether a species
is no longer an endangered species or a threatened species, regardless
of whether that information differs from the recovery plan.
There are many paths to accomplishing recovery of a species, and
recovery may be achieved without all of the criteria in a recovery plan
being fully met. For example, one or more criteria may be exceeded
while other criteria may not yet be accomplished. In that instance, we
may determine that the threats are minimized sufficiently and that the
species is robust enough that it no longer meets the Act's definition
of an endangered species or a threatened species. In other cases, we
may discover new recovery opportunities after having finalized the
recovery plan. Parties seeking to conserve the species may use these
opportunities instead of methods identified in the recovery plan.
Likewise, we may learn new information about the species after we
finalize the recovery plan. The new information may change the extent
to which existing criteria are appropriate for identifying recovery of
the species. The recovery of a species is a dynamic process requiring
adaptive management that may, or may not, follow all of the guidance
provided in a recovery plan.
The 1993 recovery plan for the grizzly bear, and subsequent
supplements, identified six recovery ecosystems, each containing a
recovery zone at its core, within the lower-48 States thought to be
capable of supporting grizzly bears (Service 1993, pp. 10-13, 17-18).
Today, current grizzly bear distribution is primarily within and around
four of these areas identified as recovery zones. The current recovery
plan states an objective of ``delisting each of the remaining
populations by population as they achieve the recovery targets'' (USFWS
1993, pp. ii, 33-34). The recovery plan outlines three demographic
recovery criteria for each ecosystem. We updated the GYE demographic
recovery criteria in 2007, and again in 2017, to reflect the best
available science, including expansion of mortality limits in the third
criterion to include total mortality (in their entirety: Service 2007b,
2017).
Due to a settlement agreement in Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 967
F.Supp. 6 (D.D.C. 1997) regarding the 1993 recovery plan, the Service
agreed to establish habitat-based recovery criteria for each ecosystem
prior to publishing any proposed rule to delist that grizzly bear
population. In addition, the Service agreed to convene a workshop
during the public comment period on the draft habitat-based recovery
criteria. Habitat-based recovery criteria were published as
supplemental chapters to the 1993 recovery plan for the GYE and the
NCDE in 2007 and 2018, respectively (in their entirety: Service 2007a,
2018). As explained in detail in our SSA report, because of the
inability to calculate minimum habitat values for a recovered
population, we use a ``no net loss'' approach by assessing which
habitat factors are compatible with a stable to increasing grizzly bear
population (Service 2024, pp. 79-82, 87-89).
The following discussion provides a summary and assessment of the
recovery criteria as they relate to evaluating the status of the
species. Further details about the progress toward achieving recovery
criteria can be found in our SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 80-100).
Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria
For both the GYE and NCDE, habitat-based recovery criteria define
threshold levels for habitat security (areas with no motorized access;
``secure core'' in the NCDE and ``secure habitat'' in the GYE, as
defined in appendix B in the SSA report (Service 2024)), livestock
allotments, and developed sites as their habitat-based recovery
criteria (Service 2007a, pp. 2-6; Service 2018, pp. 5-8; Yellowstone
Ecosystem Subcommittee (YES) 2024, chapter 3 and appendix E). These
habitat-based recovery criteria have been met or improved upon since
their incorporation into the recovery plan for both the GYE and NCDE
(in their entirety: Service 2007a, 2018; Ake 2022, 2023a, 2023b;
Grizzly Bear Habitat Monitoring Team 2024). The Service has not yet
developed habitat-based recovery criteria for the remaining ecosystems.
Demographic Recovery Criterion 1
The first criterion establishes a minimum population size through
the monitoring of females with cubs. In the GYE, this criterion has
been met since 2003, with an estimated 87 females with cubs and 1,030
individuals in 2023 (Gould et al. 2024c, in prep.). A new trend
monitoring program was implemented in the NCDE in 2004 because
documenting females with cubs from visual observations is limited due
to the forested nature of the NCDE (see Mortality Limits in the SSA
report for further details; Service 2024, pp. 176-178). Based on the
new methods, the population in the NCDE has likely met this criterion
since at least 2004, with an estimated 1,163 individuals in 2023
(Costello et al. 2024, in prep.). Although progress has been made
towards recovery in the CYE, this criterion has not yet been met. In
2023, there were an estimated 70 bears in the CYE, below the target of
100 bears (Kasworm et al. 2024a, p. 43). The SE, due to its small size
in the United States, is the only population where the population
criterion (90 bears) spans the U.S.-Canada border. In the U.S. portion
of the SE, there were a minimum of 51 bears as of 2023 (Kasworm et al.
2024b, p. 21). There were an estimated 69 bears in the Canadian portion
of the SE population as of 2021 (Proctor et al. 2022, p. 2). However,
the U.S. and British Columbia (B.C). population estimates for the SE
are not exclusive because numerous

[[Page 4241]]

bears overlap their home ranges; therefore, adding the estimates
together would cause some double counting. An effort to integrate the
population estimates from the U.S. and B.C. portions of the SE is
ongoing. There is no known population in either the BE or North
Cascades; therefore, this criterion has not been met for all
ecosystems.
Demographic Recovery Criterion 2
The second criterion ensures reproductive females (i.e., females
with young) are well distributed across the recovery zone, as measured
by bear management units (BMUs), and are not concentrated in one
portion of the ecosystem. In the GYE, this recovery criterion has been
met since at least 2001, with 18 of 18 BMUs occupied by females with
young for the most recent 6-year period of 2018-2023. In the NCDE, this
recovery criterion has been met since at least 2009, with 23 of 23 BMUs
occupied by females with young for the most recent 6-year period of
2018-2023. In the SE, this recovery criterion has been met since at
least 2014, with 9 of 10 BMUs occupied by females with young for the
most recent 6-year period of 2018-2023. Although progress has been made
towards recovery in the CYE, this criterion has not yet been met. There
is no known population in either the BE or North Cascades; therefore,
this criterion has not been met for all ecosystems.
Demographic Recovery Criterion 3
The third criterion outlines annual human-caused mortality limits
that would allow the population to achieve and sustain recovery. In
2017, this criterion was revised for the GYE to implement new
scientific methods to estimate the population size and determine
sustainable total mortality limits. In the GYE, this recovery criterion
has been met for all age and sex classes since 2021. A new population
estimation framework, an integrated population model (IPM), was
implemented in 2022, which replaces the model-averaged Chao2 population
estimation method (Gould et al. 2024a, entire). Demographic recovery
criterion 3 relies on the model-averaged Chao2 method; therefore, we
cannot assess the mortality limits as set forth in the recovery plan.
However, mortality rates in 2023 for independent females, independent
males, and dependent young were consistent with a population growth
rate from 2020 to 2023 of 3.4 percent. Therefore, the GYE grizzly bear
population has likely met the intent of this demographic recovery
criterion.
In the NCDE, human-caused mortality has been below the threshold
since 2009, but the female proportion of human-caused mortality was
above the threshold in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Even though the female
mortality exceeded the criterion in these three years, the NCDE likely
meets the intent of this criterion. In 1993, the mortality limits were
set conservatively to compensate for unknown/unreported mortality,
which we now have the ability to estimate (NCDE Subcommittee 2020,
chapter 2 and appendix 2). The NCDE conservation strategy implements a
methodology that includes an estimate of total reported and unreported
(TRU) mortality, which includes known and probable mortality from all
causes (i.e., human-caused, natural, and undetermined) as well as an
estimate of unknown/unreported mortality (using the methods of Cherry
et al. 2002, entire; Costello et al. 2016, p. 29). As discussed in the
NCDE conservation strategy, during the period of 2018-2023, TRU
mortalities for independent females and independent males were below
the maximum threshold, compatible with an annual 2.3 percent growth in
the population since 2004 (Costello et al. 2016, p. 2; Costello et al.
2024, in prep.; Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP), unpublished
data).
In the CYE and SE, the known, human-caused mortality threshold is 4
percent of the minimum population size, no more than 30 percent of
which shall be females. In the CYE from 2018-2023, the average annual
human-caused mortality was 1.7 bears per year and 0.5 female bears per
year, which exceeds the calculated mortality limits for total and
female bears of 1.4 and 0.4 bears per year, respectively. In the SE
from 2018-2023, the average annual human-caused mortality was 2.0 bears
per year and 0.5 female bears per year, which is at or below both the
total and female mortality limits of 2.0 and 0.6 bears per year,
respectively. Although progress has been made towards recovery in the
CYE and SE, and this threshold has been met in some recent years, this
criterion has not been met consistently. There is no known population
in either the BE or North Cascades; therefore, this criterion has not
been met for all ecosystems.

Recovery Criteria Applicability to the Grizzly Bear DPS

The 1993 recovery plan identified six recovery areas (GYE, NCDE,
CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades), and recommended further evaluation of
other potential areas to determine recovery potential (Service 1993,
pp. 11, 15-16, 121). As discussed below in ``Areas Where Bears Do Not
or Are Unlikely To Occur,'' the Service has completed this analysis,
focusing on habitat security in the historical range outside of the six
ecosystems (see Service 2024, appendix A, for further details). Given
this analysis, the Service's approach to grizzly bear recovery under
the Act is focused on, and will continue to be focused on, the current
six ecosystems, and additional areas, such as the San Juan Mountains
and other mountain ranges in the West, are not needed to recover the
species.
The current condition of the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States
partially meets the recovery criteria set forth in the 1993 recovery
plan and its supplements. Demographic criteria have been met for the
GYE and NCDE populations and have been partially met for the CYE and SE
populations, but the BE and North Cascades are functionally extirpated.
Habitat-based recovery criteria have been met where they have been
developed (i.e., for the GYE and NCDE populations), but they have not
yet been developed for the other four ecosystems.
In recent decades, the amount of available science regarding the
grizzly bear has increased, including knowledge about the species and
its associated threats. For example, minimum population sizes (i.e.,
Demographic Recovery Criterion 1) did not consider long-term genetic
health and population connectivity. Furthermore, the recovery zone
boundaries and the application of annual human-caused mortality limits
within them (i.e., Demographic Recovery Criterion 3) did not reflect
the need for natural connectivity that may be necessary for the long-
term genetic health of small or isolated populations in order for
populations to be self-sustaining. As such, although we are not
required to do so under the Act, we expect to revise the recovery plan
for the grizzly bear in the future.

Distinct Population Segment

Pursuant to the Act, we must consider for listing any species,
subspecies, or, for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa, if there is
sufficient information to indicate that such action may be warranted.
To interpret and implement the DPS provision of the Act and
Congressional guidance, the Service and the National Marine Fisheries
Service published an interagency ``Policy Regarding the Recognition of
Distinct Population Segments under the Act'' (DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722,
February 7, 1996). The DPS Policy addresses the recognition of DPSs for
potential listing actions. The DPS Policy contemplates

[[Page 4242]]

that listing DPSs, when appropriate, will help focus conservation
efforts on populations that warrant protection under the Act while
avoiding unnecessary regulations in other parts of the taxon's range.
Under our DPS Policy, three elements are considered in a decision
regarding the status of a possible DPS as an endangered or threatened
species under the Act. These are applied similarly for additions to the
Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists),
reclassification, and removal from the Lists. They are: (1)
Discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of
the taxon; (2) the biological or ecological significance of the
population segment to the taxon to which it belongs; and (3) the
population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's
standards for listing (i.e., whether the population segment is, when
treated as if it were a species or subspecies, an endangered or
threatened species). Discreteness refers to the degree of isolation of
a population from other members of the species, and we evaluate this
factor based on specific criteria. If the population segment is
considered discrete, we must consider whether the discrete segment is
``significant'' to the taxon to which it belongs by using the best
scientific and commercial data available. When determining if a
potential DPS is significant, our policy directs us to sparingly list
DPSs while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. If we
determine that a population segment is both discrete and significant,
we then evaluate it for endangered or threatened species status based
on the Act's standards.

Distinct Population Segment Analysis for Grizzly Bear in the Contiguous
United States

Background
As discussed above in Previous Federal Actions, the listing of the
grizzly bear as a threatened species in the lower-48 States occurred
before the publication of our DPS Policy on February 7, 1996 (61 FR
4722). However, consistent with our DPS Policy, we evaluate the
application of the DPS policy on a case-by-case basis if we consider
revising a species' listing status, and in our 5-year reviews under
section 4(c)(2) of the Act (61 FR 4722 at 4725, February 7, 1996). The
1975 grizzly bear listing was intended primarily to conserve grizzly
bears in those areas where they occurred at that time, and to protect
any individual bears found in other parts of the lower-48 States. It
was not an indication that grizzly bears were present in all areas
covered by the listing, or that the Service intended to recover them
throughout the lower-48 United States. In fact, grizzly bears did not
historically occur in the eastern United States and have long been
extirpated from a large percentage of their historical range in the
lower-48 States. Thus, the 1975 listing of grizzly bears in the
``U.S.A., conterminous (lower 48) States'' does not reflect where
grizzly bears occur now and are expected to occur in the future as they
recover.
In this proposed rule, we are evaluating the currently listed
entity of grizzly bears in the lower-48 States under the DPS Policy and
revising the current listing to: (1) include all existing grizzly bear
populations within the lower-48 States; (2) include any designated
experimental populations; (3) encompass areas where the grizzly bear's
range may naturally expand in the future; and (4) use landscape or
anthropogenic features (e.g., highways) or administrative boundaries
(e.g., State boundary) to clearly define the DPS boundary for the
public. Areas outside of historical range of the subspecies and areas
within historical range that are no longer suitable to support a
grizzly bear population due to human development would not be part of a
revised grizzly bear DPS (see below, ``Areas Where Bears Do Not or Are
Unlikely To Occur'').
Proposed DPS Boundaries
We are proposing to revise the existing lower-48 State grizzly bear
listing by defining the DPS with the boundary depicted below in figure
2 for the reasons articulated in Previous Federal Actions and
``Background,'' above.
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P

[[Page 4243]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15JA25.032

BILLING CODE 4333-15-C
The proposed grizzly bear DPS includes all of the State of
Washington and portions of the States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
The northwest point of the northern boundary begins at the western
terminus of the coterminous U.S.-Canada border near Blaine, Washington,
and follows the international border east to its intersection with
Montana Highway (MT) 16. The eastern boundary follows MT-16 from the
Canadian border south to the intersection with Interstate (I) 94 near
Glendive, Montana; then continues south along I-94 to the intersection
with MT-47 in between Custer and Bighorn, Montana; then follows MT-47
south to the intersection with I-90 in Harden, Montana; then continues
south along I-90 to the intersection with U.S. Highway (Hwy) 25 in
Buffalo, Wyoming; then follows Hwy 25 south to the intersection with
Wyoming Highway (WY) 220 in Casper, Wyoming; then continues south to
the intersection with WY-287 near Three Forks, Wyoming; then follows
WY-287 south to the intersection with I-80 in Rawlins, Wyoming. The
southern boundary follows I-80 west from the southeastern point in
Rawlins, Wyoming, to the intersection with Hwy 30, at which point it
continues west on Hwy 30 to the intersection with the Snake River near
Pocatello, Idaho, where it follows the Snake River west and north until
it intersects with the Washington State line. The boundary then follows
the Washington State line west to the Pacific Ocean. The western
boundary follows the Washington coastline north to the U.S.-Canada
border at Blaine, Washington.
The proposed grizzly bear DPS boundary encompasses all six grizzly
bear recovery zones (GYE, NCDE, CYE, BE, North Cascades, and the U.S.
portion of the SE), as well as important connectivity habitat between
the recovery zones (USFWS 1993, p. 11; Sells et al. 2023, p. 6; Service
2024, p. 60). These areas include large amounts of public lands,
including several national forests (Shoshone, Beaverhead-Deerlodge,
Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, Custer-Gallatin, Flathead, Helena-Lewis
and Clark, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie, Gifford Pinchot, Wenatchee, Okanogan,
Colville, Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle, Lolo, Nez Perce-Clearwater,
Bitterroot, Payette, Salmon-Challis, Boise, Sawtooth, and Caribou-
Targhee national forests (NFs)), several national parks (Yellowstone
National Park (YNP), Grand Teton National Park (GTNP), Glacier National
Park (GNP), and NCNP Complex), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands,
Tribal lands, and State and private lands. As discussed below in
``Areas Where Bears Do Not or Are Unlikely To Occur,'' the proposed
grizzly bear DPS boundary includes all habitat in the lower-48 States
that is suitable for supporting self-sustaining grizzly bear
populations.
Areas Where Bears Do Not or Are Unlikely To Occur
Grizzly bears are currently listed as they were originally listed
in 1975 (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975), as a threatened species in the
lower-48 States (see 50 CFR 17.11(h)). The 1975 listing was intended
primarily to ensure the species' conservation where grizzly bears were
thought to occur at the time of listing and to protect any members of
the species occurring elsewhere in the lower-48 States. However, this
broadly described listing created confusion because it includes areas
outside the historical and current range of the grizzly bear. Grizzly
bears historically existed throughout all or portions of only 18
western States (i.e., Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana,
Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas)
(Servheen 1989, pp. 1-2; USFWS 1993, p. 9; Servheen 1999, pp. 50-51;
Haroldson et al. 2021, pp. 163, 165). To ensure that grizzly

[[Page 4244]]

bears are designated on the List as a valid listable entity, we are
proposing to revise the current listing to recognize a DPS and are
defining the boundaries of the DPS based on biological principles and
the best scientific and commercial data available.
The proposed DPS boundary encompasses 800,116 square kilometers
(km\2\) (308,926 square miles (mi\2\)) or 26 percent of historical
range circa 1850 (Haroldson et al. 2021, pp. 163, 165). Historically,
grizzly bears were probably most common in the Rocky Mountains, along
the Upper Missouri River, and in California (Storer and Tevis 1955, pp.
15-21; Schneider 1977, pp. 15, 17, 25-36; Mattson and Merrill 2002, pp.
1125, 1127-1128; Haroldson et al. 2021, pp. 163, 165). Grizzly bears
were less common or did not occur in large expanses of the North
American deserts and Great Plains ecoregions (Rollins 1935, p. 191;
Wade 1947, p. 444; Mattson and Merrill 2002, p. 1128; Haroldson et al.
2021, pp. 163, 165). Large portions of the remaining historical range
are no longer suitable habitat. Grizzly bears have experienced immense
loss of historical range primarily due to human persecution and
reduction of habitat (Roosevelt 1907, pp. 27-28; Wright 1909, p. vii;
Storer and Tevis 1955, pp. 26-27; Leopold 1967, p. 30; Koford 1969, p.
95; Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 516; Servheen 1999, pp. 50-51).
Many grizzly bear habitats within the species' historical range have
been permanently developed and converted into agricultural land (Woods
et al. 1999, entire). Traditional food sources, such as bison and elk,
have been reduced, eliminated, or replaced with domestic livestock,
such as cattle, sheep, chickens, goats, pigs, and agricultural
products. Consequently, numerous large areas within the lower-48 States
that historically supported grizzly bear populations are no longer
suitable for grizzly bears.
In 1993, the recovery plan identified six recovery areas (GYE,
NCDE, CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades), and recommended further
evaluation of other potential areas to determine recovery potential
(Service 1993, pp. 11, 15-16, 121). The San Juan Mountains were
specifically identified for further evaluation, but no confirmed
sightings of grizzly bears have occurred there since a grizzly bear
mortality in 1979 (Service 1993, p. 11). The recovery plan recommended
conducting an evaluation of these areas to focus on habitat values,
size of area, human use and activities in general, relation to other
areas where grizzly bears exist, and historical information (Service
1993, p. 121). The Service conducted this analysis as documented in the
SSA report, focusing on habitat security in historical range outside of
the six ecosystems in 2019-2020, which we summarize here (Service 2024,
appendix A).
The most crucial element in grizzly bear recovery is habitat
security, which is primarily influenced by motorized access management
(USFWS 1993, pp. 21-22; Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 530). Unmanaged
motorized access increases grizzly bear mortality risk and the
potential for displacement from important habitat. For this reason,
habitat-based recovery criteria for both the NCDE and GYE recovery
zones include threshold levels for secure habitat (areas with no
motorized access) (Service 2007a, entire; Service 2018, entire; Service
2024, pp. 80-82, 87-89). The recovery plan also recommended that areas
to be considered for grizzly bear recovery must have the potential to
sustain themselves as viable grizzly bear populations, either as large
populations or through connectivity to other populations (Service 1982,
p. 1; Service 1993, pp. 13, 15, 24, 121). Therefore, our evaluation of
potentially suitable habitats considered habitat security (roads) and
size, human population density, land ownership (Federal, State, and
Tribal), historical range, and the potential to maintain a self-
sustaining population.
We analyzed habitat security within mapped historical grizzly bear
range circa 1850 (Mattson and Merrill 2002, p. 1125). The largest area
of secure core/habitat within the grizzly bear's historical range
outside of the six recovery ecosystems (NCDE, GYE, North Cascades, BE,
SE, and CYE) is the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range in California. We
further analyzed the Sierra Nevada Range to determine if the area
contains enough habitat security to support an isolated grizzly bear
population. We also analyzed habitat security in the San Juan Mountains
as recommended in the recovery plan (Service 1993, pp. 16, 121).
Finally, we considered the potential of these areas to maintain a self-
sustaining population by examining potential population size and the
future ability of individuals to move between ecosystems (e.g.,
potential for connectivity), including distance from existing grizzly
bear populations and potential barriers to dispersal (Service 1993, pp.
13, 24, 121). Details of this analysis can be found in our SSA report
(Service 2024, appendix A).
To compare the amount of habitat security in the Sierra Nevada and
San Juan mountains with habitat security in recovery zones, we
calculated secure core using the definition used in the NCDE and secure
habitat using the definition used in the GYE (see appendix B in the SSA
report for those definitions (Service 2024)). The Sierra Nevada
Mountains consists of 52,531 km\2\ (20,282 mi\2\) of habitat, of which
76 percent (39,872 km\2\ (15,395 mi\2\)) is Federal, State, and Tribal
lands. Forty-three percent of these Federal, State, and Tribal lands is
secure core, and 47 percent is secure habitat. The San Juan Mountains
analysis area consists of 26,512 km\2\ (10,236 mi\2\) of habitat, of
which 82 percent (21,636 km\2\ (8,354 mi\2\)) is Federal, State, and
Tribal lands. Fifty-two percent of these Federal, State, and Tribal
lands is secure core, and 56 percent is secure habitat. We note that
the specific boundary and size of analysis areas influence the percent
of secure core and secure habitat. Our selection of these boundaries
was based primarily on the presence of large continuous patches of
Federal lands and political boundaries; however, the analysis areas
also include some patches of land that are primarily private land or
checkerboards of private and public land.
These percentages of secure core and secure habitat in the Sierra
Nevada (43 and 47 percent, respectively) and San Juan Mountains (52 and
56 percent, respectively) are significantly lower than the percentages
in the GYE and NCDE recovery zones (NCDE Subcommittee 2020, appendix 4;
YES 2024, appendix E). Secure habitat averages 85.6 percent of the
recovery zone in the GYE (YES 2024, appendix E), and secure core
averages 76.4 percent of the recovery zone in the NCDE (NCDE
Subcommittee 2020, appendix 4). The total amount of public access to
Federal, State, and Tribal lands in the Sierra Nevada and San Juan
Mountains is high, and we would expect resultant high human-caused
mortality levels and habitat displacement (McLellan and Shackleton
1988, pp. 458-459; McLellan 1989, pp. 1862-1864; Mace et al. 1996, pp.
1402-1403; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661).
The Sierra Nevada and San Juan Mountains are larger in area than
either the CYE or SE recovery zones and could be large enough to
support a population of grizzly bears. However, natural recolonization
of these areas is unlikely because of the distance from existing
grizzly bear populations. The Sierra Nevada and San Juan Mountain
ranges are very far (a minimum of 1,000 km (621 mi) and 620 km (385
mi), respectively) from current grizzly bear populations. Maximum
dispersal distances of 67-176 km (42-109 mi) for males have been
documented in the GYE and NCDE (Blanchard and Knight 1991, pp. 50, 55;
McLellan and Hovey

[[Page 4245]]

2001, p. 841; Peck et al. 2017, p. 2), while female grizzly bears
rarely disperse long distances (Swenson et al. 1998, pp. 822-824;
Jerina and Adami[ccaron] 2008, pp. 1495-1497). Recolonization and
recovery of a new area would require continuous occupation by females,
which is unlikely to occur in areas at great distance from existing
populations.
Additionally, the areas between the Sierra Nevada and San Juan
Mountain ranges and current populations include large blocks of
rangeland with open canopy coverage, agriculture, and private lands,
and are bisected by several major highways and interstates. Increasing
human development will increase these barriers in the future. Thus, the
likelihood of even one male bear successfully immigrating from existing
populations to these areas is minimal, and it is even more unlikely
that a population would naturally recolonize and become self-
sustaining.
One or more populations of grizzly bears could be established
through reintroduction. However, neither of these areas is large enough
to sustain a sufficient number of bears to maintain long-term fitness,
and ongoing translocations would likely be needed to ensure long-term
genetic health. A total population size of approximately 400 grizzly
bears is sufficient for short-term fitness of an isolated population
(Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). For long-term genetic health, the
population would require one to two effective immigrants from one of
the other established grizzly bear populations approximately every 10
years (e.g., a generation interval) (Mills and Allendorf 1996, pp.
1510, 1516; Newman and Tallmon 2001, pp. 1059-1061; Miller and Waits
2003, p. 4338). Even if a population were reintroduced, there is a very
low likelihood of natural connectivity to existing populations, which
is needed for the reintroduced population to maintain long-term genetic
fitness and become self-sustaining (Service 1982, p. 1; Service 1993,
pp. 13, 24).
Although other grizzly bear populations and unoccupied recovery
zones included in the lower-48 States, such as the GYE, North Cascades,
and BE, are currently isolated, they are within male dispersal distance
of existing populations, and connectivity is possible. In addition,
with the expansion of the NCDE population, the BE is within female
dispersal distance. Although the GYE grizzly bear population remains
isolated today, the distance between current distributions of grizzly
bears in the GYE and NCDE has decreased recently, and distributions are
now close (98 km (61 mi)) (see figure 1, above; Costello et al. 2023,
p. 14; Dellinger et al. 2023, p. 23), with multiple verified sightings
in between. It is expected that, with the continued protections of the
Act, natural connectivity will occur in the near future (see
Connectivity and Genetic Health in the GYE in the SSA report for more
information (Service 2024, pp. 187-190)).
The SE and CYE are small recovery zones and do not have the
potential to contain 400 bears. However, both recovery zones are
contiguous with grizzly bear habitat northward into Canada, and a
recovered population would be a subset of a much larger population.
Bears can and do move between these recovery zones and contiguous
habitat to the north in Canada, thereby enabling demographic
connectivity and long-term genetic fitness.
Our initial analysis indicated other areas within the grizzly
bear's historical range that currently contain substantial secure
habitat, such as the Uinta and Mogollon mountains in the southwestern
United States (Juliusson 2019, in litt.). However, each of these areas
is smaller than the Sierra Nevada and San Juan mountains and has the
same limiting factors that would most likely prevent them from
supporting a self-sustaining population, including low amounts of
secure core, extremely low potential of connectivity to existing
grizzly bear populations due to high human densities, transecting
highways and interstates, agriculture, lack of cover, and high
densities of motorized routes. Therefore, we did not further analyze
these other areas.
In conclusion, this proposed revision clarifies the original 1975
listing for grizzly bears by identifying a single DPS comprised of
those areas within the lower-48 States where bears currently occur and
are likely to occur in the future as recovery proceeds. The proposed
DPS includes all six grizzly bear recovery zones, along with
connectivity habitat between the recovery zones. The proposed grizzly
bear DPS boundary does not include: (1) areas outside of historical
range; (2) areas where bears do not currently occur; and (3) areas
where bears are not likely to occur in the future.
Analysis of Discreteness
Under our DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either one of the following
conditions: (1) It is markedly separated from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) it is
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
differences in control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (inadequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms).
Discreteness Based on Marked Separation--In our SSA report, we
analyzed connectivity between populations within the lower-48 States
and between populations within the lower-48 States and those in Canada.
Grizzly bears have been documented moving between the NCDE, CYE, and SE
populations and adjacent populations in southwestern Canada (Paetkau et
al. 1998, p. 412; Kendall et al. 2009, p. 12; Proctor et al. 2012, pp.
12, 20-21, 39; Kasworm et al. 2024a, pp. 34, 76-112; Kasworm et al.
2024b, pp. 24, 61-79). The NCDE population is genetically and
demographically well connected to Canadian populations (Proctor et al.
2012, p. 28). However, connectivity between the CYE and SE populations
with those in Canada is more limited. Reproduction has been documented
in the CYE from 9 individuals (8 males, 1 female) from the North
Purcell Mountains in Canada, resulting in 26 offspring in the CYE
(Kasworm et al. 2024a, p. 34). In the SE, reproduction has been
documented for 5 individuals (4 males, 1 female) from the South Purcell
Mountains, resulting in 25 offspring in the SE (Proctor et al. 2022, p.
25; Kasworm et al. 2024b, p. 24). For more information, see
Connectivity and Genetic Health in our SSA report (Service 2024, pp.
182-197).
Several studies have documented genetic differences between grizzly
bears in some populations in the grizzly bear DPS, including the GYE
and SE, and other populations in North America (Paetkau et al. 1998,
pp. 421-424; Waits et al. 1998, p. 310; Proctor et al. 2012, pp. 12,
31). However, these differences are likely a result of recent habitat
fragmentation rather than long-term isolation that resulted in the
evolution of unique traits (Proctor et al. 2012, p. 35). Please see
Marked Genetic Differences, below, for further discussion.
Therefore, we find that there are no physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors separating grizzly bears in the
contiguous United States from grizzly bears in Canada. We do not
consider grizzly bears in the contiguous United States to be
genetically or morphologically discontinuous from grizzly bears in
Canada, as existing

[[Page 4246]]

genetic data support that Canadian grizzly bears are connected to the
populations in the NCDE, CYE, and SE. Therefore, grizzly bears in the
contiguous United States are not discrete based on marked separation
from other populations of the same taxon.
We next evaluate whether grizzly bear populations in the contiguous
United States are discrete based on the international boundary with
Canada. Specifically, we consider differences between the two countries
in terms of control of exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms that are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms). In our analysis of discreteness at the
international border, we compare existing regulatory mechanisms in
Canada with non-Act regulatory mechanisms in the contiguous United
States. This approach ensures that our analyses for listing and
delisting a species are the same with respect to the international
border discreteness element per our 1996 DPS Policy.
Discreteness Based on the International Border--Differences in
Control of Exploitation--In the absence of the protections of the Act,
there are differences in control of exploitation of grizzly bears
between the United States and Canada. A province-wide ban on grizzly
bear hunting in B.C. came into effect on April 1, 2018. A similar ban
on grizzly bear hunting was enacted in Alberta in 2006; however,
hunting of potential conflict bears in Alberta recently became
possible, albeit heavily restricted, pursuant to a Ministerial Order
issued on June 17, 2024. Grizzly bear hunting is currently prohibited
in the proposed grizzly bear DPS. However, absent the protections of
the Act, we anticipate that State-authorized hunting seasons would be
established in Idaho and Wyoming. In addition, hunting could occur in
Montana within 5 years post-delisting (Administrative Rules of Montana
(ARM) subchapter 12.9.14 at 12.9.1413). We do not anticipate grizzly
bear hunting would occur in Washington in the foreseeable future
because the population there is small and grizzly bears are currently
listed by the State as an endangered species (Washington Administrative
Code (WAC) at section 220-610-010).
Discreteness Based on the International Border--Differences in
Conservation Status--There is also a difference in conservation status
of grizzly bears between the United States and Canada. The grizzly bear
population in Canada is estimated at nearly 29,000, with the
populations of B.C. and Alberta estimated at around 15,000 and 700,
respectively (Service 2024, appendix E, p. 343). Grizzly bears
throughout Canada are designated as a species of ``special concern'' by
the Canadian Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada
(COSEWIC) (2012, entire) and under the Species at Risk Act (SARA)
(2018). This designation is intended to ensure the species is managed
to prevent it from becoming endangered or threatened. No federal
protections are provided to them as a result of this designation. The
conservation status of grizzly bears varies provincially, with separate
conservation and management plans for each province.
In B.C., grizzly bears are listed as a species of ``special
concern'' by the B.C. Conservation Data Center (Environmental Reporting
B.C. 2020, entire). A B.C. grizzly bear conservation strategy was
prepared but never implemented (Office of the Auditor General of B.C.
2017, p. 29). In response to a 2017 audit, a draft grizzly bear
stewardship framework was prepared and released for public comment in
2023; it is unknown when it will be finalized (B.C. Ministry of Forests
2023, entire).
In Alberta, grizzly bears were listed as threatened in 2010, under
Alberta's Wildlife Act (Alberta Environment and Parks 2020, p. 9). In
2020, Alberta updated their provincial grizzly bear recovery plan that
provides the basis for bear conservation and management (Alberta
Environment and Parks 2020, entire). The plan identifies recovery zones
where the province intends to recover bears, support zones to manage
human-wildlife conflict to support the populations within the recovery
zones, and linkage zones for dispersal (Alberta Environment and Parks
2020, p. 10).
The proposed grizzly bear DPS contains far fewer bears than Canada,
with an estimated population of 2,314 bears as of 2023 (Costello et al.
2024, in prep.; Gould et al. 2024c, in prep.; Kasworm et al. 2024a, p.
43; Kasworm et al. 2024b, p. 21) versus an approximately 29,000 bears
in Canada (Service 2024, appendix E, p. 343). Federal protections under
the Act have been necessary to reach the current population sizes.
Absent adequate conservation measures, human-caused mortality would
continue to be a threat to grizzly bears in the proposed grizzly bear
DPS because regulatory mechanisms currently in place would not
adequately limit sources of human-caused mortality to sustainable
thresholds (see ``Mortality Limits,'' below, for further details). In
addition, habitat threats, such as motorized access and habitat
security, remain an issue for the NCDE, CYE, SE, and North Cascades,
where conservation mechanisms to address these stressors are not yet
finalized or standards have not been met (see ``Motorized Access,''
below, for further details).
Discreteness Conclusion--Based on our analysis described above and
supported by information in the grizzly bear SSA report (Service 2024,
entire), the contiguous U.S. population segment of grizzly bear meets
the discreteness criterion in our DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, February 7,
1996). It is delimited by the international boundary with Canada, given
the differences in control of exploitation and conservation status that
are significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. After
determining that a vertebrate population is discrete, we are required
to complete an analysis to determine if the population in question is
significant pursuant to our DPS Policy; that analysis follows.
Analysis of Significance
If we determine a population segment is discrete, we will then
consider its biological and ecological significance in light of
Congressional guidance that the authority to list DPSs be used
sparingly while encouraging the conservation of genetic diversity. In
carrying out this examination, we consider available scientific
evidence of the population's importance to the taxon to which it
belongs. Therefore, in this case, we consider the significance of the
proposed grizzly bear DPS to the entire subspecies (i.e., Ursus arctos
horribilis). Our DPS Policy states that this consideration may include,
but is not limited to: (1) persistence of the discrete population
segment in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; (2)
evidence that loss of the discrete population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon; (3) evidence that the
discrete population segment represents the only surviving natural
occurrence of a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an
introduced population outside its historic range; or (4) evidence that
the discrete population segment differs markedly from other populations
of the species in its genetic characteristics. Below, we address
considerations 1, 2, and 4. Consideration 3 does not apply to the
proposed grizzly bear DPS because grizzly bears are distributed widely
across Alaska and Canada.
Given the grizzly bear's historical occupancy of the lower-48
States, grizzly bear recovery in the lower-48 States has long been
viewed as important to the taxon (40 FR 31734,

[[Page 4247]]

July 28, 1975). As discussed further in our SSA report (Service 2024,
pp. 231-264), the proposed DPS is significant because of the
resiliency, redundancy, and representation it would provide to the
taxon. Resiliency allows a species to recover from periodic disturbance
and environmental variation. A species is more resilient if large
populations exist in high-quality habitat that is distributed
throughout the range of the species in such a way as to capture the
environmental variability found within the range of the species. The
wide geographic area over which grizzly bears in the proposed grizzly
bear DPS exist extends the geographic distribution of the subspecies
and increases the viability of grizzly bears in all of North America by
making it less likely that an environmental disturbance or stochastic
event would impact the entire subspecies. For example, grizzly bears in
the proposed grizzly bear DPS would be less vulnerable than more
northernly populations to a wildfire or a disease outbreak that
originated in northern B.C. Additionally, with stark declines of
grizzly bears across North America from 1850-1975, the fact that
remnant populations exist in these ecosystems today demonstrates that
these areas serve as refugia against human-caused mortality. For these
reasons, the proposed grizzly bear DPS contributes to the resiliency of
the subspecies in North America.
Redundancy of populations may be needed to provide a margin of
safety for the species to withstand catastrophic events. The idea is to
conserve enough areas of the range such that random catastrophes in the
system act on only a few populations. In terms of redundancy, we view
the proposed grizzly bear DPS as important because it ensures there are
additional (i.e., redundant) populations outside of the large,
contiguous populations in Canada and Alaska. Collectively, the multiple
grizzly bear populations and habitat units provide a margin of safety
to withstand catastrophic events and, thus, meaningfully contribute to
the redundancy of grizzly bears in North America.
Representation of populations in multiple ecological contexts
increases the likelihood that a species' adaptive potential is
conserved. The current distribution of grizzly bear populations in the
GYE, NCDE, CYE, and SE, spread across multiple ecoregions, contributes
to maintaining the species' adaptive potential. The addition of
populations in the BE and North Cascades would contribute to additional
ecosystem representation in the proposed grizzly bear DPS.
Unusual or Unique Ecological Setting--Grizzly bears occupy a
variety of habitats within North America, including coastal meadows and
salmon streams, mid-elevation mountain forest communities, alpine
grasslands and alpine tundra, western prairies, and tundra (Haroldson
et al. 2021, pp. 166-169). In the contiguous United States, grizzly
bears exist in ecosystems that range from a maritime climate to
forested, mountainous habitat to dry sagebrush and prairie grasslands.
Some of the ecoregions inhabited by grizzly bears in the proposed
grizzly bear DPS are also present in portions of their occupied range
in Canada, including the Northwestern Glaciated Plains, Canadian
Rockies, Northern Rockies, and North Cascades. However, multiple
ecoregions inhabited by grizzly bears in the contiguous United States
are not present in other parts of their range, including the Idaho
Batholith (the BE), Middle Rockies (the GYE and NCDE), Great Plains
(the NCDE), Wyoming Basin (the GYE), and Snake River Plain (the GYE)
(Woods et al. 1999, entire).
Habitats within the proposed grizzly bear DPS provide a diverse
landscape of habitat types and bear foods across and within the
ecosystems. As discussed in further detail in our SSA report (Service
2024, pp. 46-48, 197-211), grizzly bears are opportunistic omnivores,
and diets are highly variable among individuals, seasons, and years,
and between ecosystems. Grizzly bears will consume almost any food
available, including living or dead mammals or fish, insects, worms,
plants, and human-related foods. In areas where animal matter is less
available, berries, grasses, roots, bulbs, tubers, seeds, and fungi are
important in meeting protein and caloric requirements. In the trans-
boundary populations, grizzly bears in the contiguous United States
appear to use food resources similar to grizzly bear populations in
Canada and Alaska. Unique food resources, such as bison, may occur in
the ecoregions present in the proposed grizzly bear DPS that are not
present north of the U.S.-Canada border.
Within the proposed grizzly bear DPS, grizzly bears are unique in
their consumption of bison (Mattson 1997, p. 167; Fortin et al. 2013,
p. 275; Gunther 2017, in litt.) and in their interactions with wolves
to obtain carcasses (Ballard et al. 2003, pp. 261-262; Smith et al.
2003, p. 336; Metz et al. 2012, p. 556). In addition, grizzly bears in
the DPS have been documented to consume unique food items such as
geothermal soil (Mattson et al. 1999, p. 109) and false-truffles
(Fortin et al. 2013, p. 277; Gunther et al. 2014, p. 64). Consumption
of these food sources, which are not known to be consumed in other
parts of the species' range, is indicative of a unique ecological
setting. Although grizzly bears have flexible diets and the
availability of the wide variety of foods, the availability and use of
unique food resources in certain ecological settings may increase a
species' adaptive potential.
In light of data indicating that some grizzly bears in the DPS
consume some unique food resources compared to other grizzly bear
populations, where we have considerable information about the taxon's
diet, we consider the proposed grizzly bear DPS to meet the DPS Policy
standard for significance based on its persistence in an ecological
setting unusual or unique for the taxon.
Significant Gap in the Range of the Taxon--Historically, grizzly
bears were distributed throughout the North American Rockies from
Alaska and Canada, and south into central Mexico. During the late 1800s
and early 1900s, grizzly bear populations declined or were extirpated
from most of the southern portions of their historical range and the
Canadian plains (Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 557-558). Grizzly bear
populations have since increased in size and range in parts of the
contiguous United States, and the current estimated occupied range
includes portions of Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming (Service
2024, figure 17). Although we have verified increasing numbers of
outlier observations between the estimated occupied ranges, there are
no known populations outside those in the GYE, NCDE, CYE, and SE (see
figure 1, above).
The current estimated occupied range of grizzly bears in the
contiguous United States covers approximately 152,643 km\2\ (58,936
mi\2\) (Costello et al. 2023, p. 14; Dellinger et al. 2023, p. 23;
Kasworm et al. 2024a, p. 74; Kasworm et al. 2024b, p. 50; Service 2024,
figure 17). This estimate does not include low-density outlying
locations and represents a minimum known area of occupancy, not an
extent of occurrence. The loss of this estimated occupied range would
move the southern terminus of the subspecies' distribution
approximately 6.5 degrees latitude (725 km (450 mi)) to the north.
The extirpation of peripheral populations is concerning because of
the potential conservation value that peripheral populations can
provide to the subspecies (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, p. 756; Fraser
1999, p. 50; Bunnell et al. 2004, p. 2242). Specifically, peripheral
populations can possess slight genetic or phenotypic divergence

[[Page 4248]]

from the core populations, which may be central to the survival of the
subspecies in the face of environmental changes (Lesica and Allendorf
1995, p. 756; Bunnell et al. 2004, p. 2242). Therefore, we find that
the proposed grizzly bear DPS meets the significance criterion under
our DPS Policy because its loss would represent a significant gap in
the range of the taxon.
Marked Genetic Differences--Several studies have documented genetic
differences between some grizzly bears in the proposed grizzly bear
DPS, including the GYE and SE, and other populations in North America,
as evidenced by lower heterozygosity (i.e., lower level of genetic
diversity within a population) (Paetkau et al. 1998, pp. 421-424; Waits
et al. 1998, p. 310; Proctor et al. 2012, p. 12). However, the lower
genetic diversity likely reflects recent population fragmentation
rather than natural separation of populations that were on divergent
evolutionary trajectories. Therefore, it is unknown if grizzly bears in
the grizzly bear DPS possess unique genetic traits that evolved in
response to the environment in the grizzly bear DPS such that they
would meaningfully contribute to the survival of the subspecies.
Therefore, we do not consider these genetic differences to meet the DPS
Policy's standard for significance.
Summary of Significance--We evaluated whether the discrete
population segment of grizzly bears in the contiguous United States is
significant, considering factors such as whether the population segment
is in an ecological setting unusual or unique for the taxon; whether
the loss of the discrete population segment would result in a
significant gap in the range of the taxon; whether the discrete
population segment represents the only surviving natural occurrence of
a taxon that may be more abundant elsewhere as an introduced population
outside its historical range; or whether the discrete population
segment differs markedly from other populations of the species in its
genetic characteristics. We conclude that the grizzly bear DPS is
significant because it occurs in an ecological setting unusual or
unique for the subspecies and its loss would result in a significant
gap in the range of the subspecies.
DPS Conclusions
Based on the best available information, we conclude that the
grizzly bear DPS is discrete and significant in relation to the
remainder of the subspecies in North America. As a result, the grizzly
bear DPS meets the definition of a species under section 3(16) of the
Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)) and therefore is a listable entity.
Where, as here, a vertebrate population is both discrete and
significant under our DPS policy, we evaluate the conservation status
of the population based on the factors enumerated at section 4(a) of
the Act to determine whether it meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species. Below, we provide a status
determination for the grizzly bear DPS.

Regulatory and Analytical Framework

Regulatory Framework

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and the implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations set forth
the procedures for determining whether a species is an endangered
species or a threatened species, issuing protective regulations for
threatened species, and designating critical habitat for endangered and
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species that is
likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires
that we determine whether any species is an endangered species or a
threatened species because of any of the following factors:
(A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range;
(B) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes;
(C) Disease or predation;
(D) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms; or
(E) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence.
These factors represent broad categories of natural or human-caused
actions or conditions that could have an effect on a species' continued
existence. In evaluating these actions and conditions, we look for
those that may have a negative effect on individuals of the species, as
well as other actions or conditions that may ameliorate any negative
effects or may have positive effects.
We use the term ``threat'' to refer in general to actions or
conditions that are known to or are reasonably likely to negatively
affect individuals of a species. The term ``threat'' includes actions
or conditions that have a direct impact on individuals (direct
impacts), as well as those that affect individuals through alteration
of their habitat or required resources (stressors). The term ``threat''
may encompass--either together or separately--the source of the action
or condition or the action or condition itself.
However, the mere identification of any threat(s) does not
necessarily mean that the species meets the statutory definition of an
``endangered species'' or a ``threatened species.'' In determining
whether a species meets either definition, we must evaluate all
identified threats by considering the species' expected response and
the effects of the threats--in light of those actions and conditions
that will ameliorate the threats--on an individual, population, and
species level. We evaluate each threat and its expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative effect of all of the threats on
the species as a whole. We also consider the cumulative effect of the
threats in light of those actions and conditions that will have
positive effects on the species, such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts. The Secretary determines whether
the species meets the Act's definition of an ``endangered species'' or
a ``threatened species'' only after conducting this cumulative analysis
and describing the expected effect on the species.
The Act does not define the term ``foreseeable future,'' which
appears in the statutory definition of ``threatened species.'' Our
implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a framework for
evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-case basis which is
further described in the 2009 Memorandum Opinion on the foreseeable
future from the Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor (M-
37021, January 16, 2009; ``M-Opinion,'' available online at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/uploads/M-37021.pdf).
The foreseeable future extends as far into the future as the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service (hereafter,
the Services) can make reasonably reliable predictions about the
threats to the species and the species' responses to those threats. We
need not identify the foreseeable future in terms of a specific period
of time. We will describe the foreseeable future on a case-by-case
basis, using the best available data and taking into account
considerations such as the species' life-history characteristics,
threat-projection timeframes, and environmental variability. In other
words, the foreseeable future is the period of time over which we can
make reasonably

[[Page 4249]]

reliable predictions. ``Reliable'' does not mean ``certain''; it means
sufficient to provide a reasonable degree of confidence in the
prediction, in light of the conservation purposes of the Act.

Analytical Framework

The SSA report documents the results of our comprehensive
biological review of the best scientific and commercial data regarding
the status of the species, including an assessment of the potential
threats to the species. The SSA report does not represent our decision
on whether the species should remain listed as a threatened species,
reclassified to an endangered species, or delisted under the Act.
However, it does provide the scientific basis that informs our
regulatory decisions, which involve the further application of
standards within the Act and its implementing regulations and policies.
The SSA report summarizes the results of our comprehensive
viability analysis for the currently listed entity, the grizzly bear in
the lower-48 States, which comprises all six ecosystems proposed for
the grizzly bear DPS (Service 2024, entire). The six ecosystems are the
foundation for the SSA analysis and are the scale at which we evaluated
threats, the health of populations, and the species' overall viability.
As a result, the SSA report's analysis provides the best scientific and
commercial data available regarding the viability of the proposed
grizzly bear DPS. Because the scales are the same, in the following
summary, we replace ``grizzly bear in the lower-48 States'' from the
SSA report with ``grizzly bear DPS'' for the purposes of this
discussion.
To assess the viability of the grizzly bear DPS, we used the three
conservation biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and
representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, pp. 306-310). Briefly,
resiliency is the ability of the grizzly bear DPS to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity (for example, wet or dry,
warm or cold years); redundancy is the ability of the grizzly bear DPS
to withstand catastrophic events (for example, droughts, large
pollution events); and representation is the ability of the grizzly
bear DPS to adapt to both near-term and long-term changes in its
physical and biological environment (for example, climate conditions,
pathogens). In general, viability will increase with increases in
resiliency, redundancy, and representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 306).
Using these principles, we identified the grizzly bear DPS's ecological
requirements for survival and reproduction at the individual,
population, and grizzly bear DPS levels, and described the beneficial
and risk factors influencing the grizzly bear DPS's viability.
The SSA process can be categorized into three sequential stages.
During the first stage, we evaluated the individual grizzly bear DPS's
life-history needs. The next stage involved an assessment of the
historical and current condition of the grizzly bear DPS's demographics
and habitat characteristics, including an explanation of how the
grizzly bear DPS arrived at its current condition. The final stage of
the SSA involved making predictions about the grizzly bear DPS's
responses to positive and negative environmental and anthropogenic
influences. Throughout all of these stages, we used the best available
information to characterize viability as the ability of the grizzly
bear DPS to sustain populations in the wild over time, which we then
used to inform our regulatory decision.
The following is a summary of the key results and conclusions from
the SSA report; the full SSA report can be found at Docket No. FWS-R6-
ES-2024-0186 on https://www.regulations.gov and at https://www.fws.gov/species/grizzly-bear-ursus-arctos-horribilis.

Summary of Biological Status and Threats

In this discussion, we review the biological condition of the
grizzly bear DPS and its resources, and the threats that influence the
grizzly bear DPS's current and future condition, in order to assess the
grizzly bear DPS's overall viability and the risks to that viability.

Grizzly Bear DPS Needs

Here we summarize, based on the SSA report, what individual grizzly
bears in the grizzly bear DPS, need to breed, feed, and shelter. We
also summarize the results of our analysis regarding the factors that
ecosystems need to be resilient and the factors that grizzly bears in
the grizzly bear DPS need with respect to redundancy and
representation, with greater detail provided in our SSA report (Service
2024, pp. 7, 99-102).
In general, food, water, mates, cover, security, and den sites
drive a grizzly bear's habitat needs and daily movements. Grizzly bears
in the grizzly bear DPS need access to habitat security (i.e., habitat
that is relatively undisturbed by human influence), and habitat that
provides cover, high-caloric foods, dens, and areas for dispersal. The
specific quality and quantity of these resources influence the ability
of individual grizzly bears to reproduce, grow, and survive at
different life stages (Service 2024, pp. 100-101). These resources
support resilient ecosystems, which may be characterized generally by
grizzly bear abundance, population trends, survival rates, fecundity,
and connectivity levels sufficient to withstand environmental
stochasticity (Service 2024, p. 101). Grizzly bear populations need
sufficient qualities and quantities of these habitat and demographic
needs to be resilient, both currently and into the future (Service
2024, p. 101).

Threats

As documented in our SSA report, we evaluated stressors (also known
as threats) that can negatively affect grizzly bears at the individual,
ecosystem, or grizzly bear DPS levels, either currently or into the
future (see figure 2, above; Service 2024, pp. 103-228). Although the
SSA report is a rangewide analysis for the currently listed lower-48
State entity, we evaluated each stressor at the ecosystem level. A wide
variety of stressors may influence the resiliency of the ecosystems,
either by directly affecting individuals or by reducing the quality and
quantity of habitats. The stressors we evaluated fit into three broad
categories: sources of human-caused mortality, those with habitat-
related effects, and other stressors. These stressors are interrelated
to varying degrees; for example, motorized access influences both
habitat availability and human-caused mortality.
The primary stressors (i.e., threats) affecting grizzly bears at
both the individual and ecosystem levels are excessive human-caused
mortality and human activity that reduces the quality and quantity of
habitats (Service 2024, pp. 150-178). We evaluated the following
sources of human-caused mortality: management removals; accidental
killings (e.g., train and vehicular strikes); mistaken-identity
killings; illegal killings; and defense-of-life killings (Service 2024,
pp. 155-166). We analyzed the following habitat-related stressors:
motorized access and its management; developed sites; livestock
allotments; mineral and energy development; recreation; vegetation
management; habitat fragmentation; development on private lands; and
activities that may disturb dens (Service 2024, pp. 110-150). We also
evaluated other stressors, including: natural mortality; connectivity
and genetic health; changes in food resources; effects of climate
change; and stochastic events, such as widespread wildfires,
earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, some of which could be
catastrophic if

[[Page 4250]]

they occur on a large enough scale (Service 2024, pp. 178-222). With
the exception of connectivity and genetic health, we did not find these
other stressors to be current or future threats (Service 2024, pp. 223-
225). We summarize the primary stressors below, with additional details
and analysis provided in our SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 103-228).
I. Human-Caused Mortality
The primary factor contributing to grizzly bear decline during the
19th and 20th centuries was excessive human-caused mortality, including
``indiscriminate illegal killing'' and management removals (Leopold
1967, p. 30; Koford 1969, p. 95; Servheen 1990, p. 1; Servheen 1999,
pp. 50-52; Mattson and Merrill 2002, pp. 1129, 1132; Schwartz et al.
2003, p. 571). This eventually led to their listing as a threatened
species under the Act in 1975 (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975).
Human-caused mortalities continue to be the leading cause of
grizzly bear mortalities rangewide; therefore, understanding and
managing for sustainable mortality levels is necessary to facilitate
and maintain recovery. We differentiate between types of human-caused
mortalities, as follows: (1) accidental killings; (2) management
removals; (3) mistaken-identity killings; (4) defense-of-life killings;
and (5) illegal killings or poaching. In addition, we use methods
described by Cherry et al. (2002, entire) to calculate a statistical
estimate of the number of unknown/unreported human-caused mortalities
(see ``Mortality Limits,'' below, for further details). Grizzly bear
mortalities may be detected because: the individual is radio-collared,
the mortality resulted from a management removal, or it was reported by
the public. For all causes of mortality, except management removals,
there are unknown/unreported mortalities. Illegal mortalities, such as
poaching, have the lowest rate of reporting (Costello et al. 2016, p.
30). Using the methods described by Cherry et al. (2002, entire)
improves our understanding of mortality levels, but that study (Cherry
et al. 2002, entire) was based on a small sample size and does not
provide perfect knowledge, particularly of mortalities in connectivity
areas where we do not have radio-collared bears for research. Table 1
provides a summary of the numbers of human-caused mortality, and a
discussion for each ecosystem follows.

Table 1--Number of Grizzly Bear Mortalities by Causes in the GYE, NCDE, CYE, and the U.S. Portion of the SE, 2002-2023. Mortalities in the GYE and NCDE
are Reported Inside and Outside the Demographic Monitoring Area (DMA) and Include All Known and Probable Mortalities for Independent-Age Bears;
Mortalities of Dependent Young are Displayed in Parentheses. Mortalities in the CYE and SE Include Independent-Age and Dependent Young and are Reported
Within the Recovery Zone (RZ) Plus a 10-Mile Buffer, Excluding Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GYE: Inside GYE: Outside NCDE: Inside NCDE: Outside
Cause of mortalities (all sources) DMA DMA DMA DMA CYE: Inside RZ SE: Inside RZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Natural................................................. 42 (100) 1 (5) 11 (14) 0 (3) 9 4
Undetermined \a\........................................ 54 (12) 2 (1) 30 (5) 3 (1) 4 0
Human-caused............................................ 433 (119) 163 (29) 357 (162) 48 (27) 34 18
Total mortalities....................................... 529 (231) 166 (35) 398 (181) 51 (31) 47 22
Human-caused mortalities: \b\
Accidental .............. .............. .............. .............. 3 2
Automobile collision................................ 42 (15) 5 (0) 45 (45) 8 (4) .............. ..............
Capture related..................................... 8 (5) 0 (2) 9 (5) 1 (0) .............. ..............
Drowning............................................ 0 (0) 6 (2) 0 (0) 1 (0) .............. ..............
Poisoning........................................... 1 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (2) .............. ..............
Train collision..................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 22 (18) 2 (2) .............. ..............
Defense-of-life......................................... 134 (60) 15 (4) 49 (20) 5 (6) 6 2
Illegal \c\............................................. 27 (6) 4 (1) 67 (15) 12 (5) 7 2
Management removal .............. .............. .............. .............. 2 4
Site conflicts/human safety \d\..................... 101 (27) 56 (12) 56 (33) 4 (4) .............. ..............
Injured or diseased bear............................ 2 (5) 0 (3) 9 (7) 1 (1) .............. ..............
Livestock depredation............................... 91 (1) 70 (5) 62 (15) 13 (2) .............. ..............
Augmentation \e\.................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 15 (0) 0 (0) .............. ..............
Mistaken identification................................. 27 (0) 7 (0) 16 (2) 0 (0) 4 5
Unknown \f\............................................. 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (2) 1 (1) 12 3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Under investigation and believed to be human-caused.
\b\ Orphaned dependent offspring were classified according to cause of death of their mother.
\c\ Illegal includes poaching, malicious, and defense-of-property kills.
\d\ Site conflicts/human safety include anthropogenic food and property damage-related management removals in the front- and backcountry.
\e\ When bears are relocated from the NCDE to augment the CYE population, they are counted as mortalities in the NCDE.
\f\ Cause unknown and may include mortalities that are under investigation.

Human-caused Mortality in the GYE--From 2002 to 2023, 82 percent
(433) of the 529 known and probable grizzly bear mortalities of
independent-age bears and 52 percent (119) of the 231 known and
probable mortalities for dependent young within the GYE demographic
monitoring area (DMA) were human-caused (Gould 2024, in litt.; table
1). For further details see Human-Caused Mortality in the GYE in the
SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 154-155). Although the number of human-
caused mortalities of independent female and male grizzly bears have
increased gradually over this time period as the grizzly bear
population increased, human-caused mortality as a proportion of
estimated population size (i.e., the rate of mortality) has remained
relatively constant (Gould 2024, in litt.). Under current management,
including protections of the Act, human-caused mortality rates have
been low enough to allow the GYE grizzly bear population to increase in
number and range (Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66; Schwartz et al.
2006c, p. 48; Bjornlie et al. 2014, p. 184). In addition, 98 percent
(163) of the 166 known and probable

[[Page 4251]]

grizzly bear mortalities of independent-age bears and 83 percent (29)
of the 35 known and probable mortalities of dependent young that
occurred outside the DMA were human-caused (Gould 2024, in litt.).
Approximately 36 percent of estimated occupied range occurs beyond the
DMA (Dellinger et al. 2023, p. 23). We do not have an estimate for the
number of grizzly bears ecosystem-wide, and mortality limits absent
protections of the Act do not apply outside of the DMA (see Mortality
Limits in the GYE, below).
Human-caused Mortality in the NCDE--From 2002 to 2023, 90 percent
(357) of the 3987 known and probable grizzly bear mortalities of
independent-age bears and 90 percent (162) of the 181 of known and
probable grizzly bear mortalities of dependent young within the NCDE
DMA were human-caused (MFWP, unpublished data; table 1). In addition to
the categories of human-caused mortalities discussed above, legal
hunting of grizzly bears (i.e., for recreational purposes) was allowed
in the NCDE from 1975 until 1991, under a rule authorizing take in the
1975 listing (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). For further details, see
Human-Caused Mortality in the NCDE in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp.
155-156).
While human-caused mortalities of grizzly bears have increased
gradually each year as the grizzly bear population has increased, the
level of these mortalities as a proportion of the estimated population
size (i.e., mortality rate) has remained relatively constant (MFWP,
unpublished data). Under current management, including protections of
the Act, human-caused mortality rates have been low enough to allow the
NCDE grizzly bear population to increase in number and range (Costello
2019, in litt.; MFWP, unpublished data). In addition, 94 percent (48)
of the 51 known and probable grizzly bear mortalities of independent-
age bears and 87 percent (27) of the 31 known and probable mortalities
of dependent young that occurred outside the DMA were human-caused
(MFWP, unpublished data). Approximately 29 percent of estimated
occupied range occurs beyond the DMA (MFWP, unpublished data). Although
the population estimate includes the entire NCDE population, mortality
limits absent protections of the Act do not apply outside of the DMA
(see Mortality Limits in the NCDE, below).
Human-caused Mortality in the CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades--From
2002 to 2023, 72 percent (34) of the 47 known and probable grizzly bear
mortalities in the CYE were human-caused (Kasworm et al. 2024a, pp. 18-
19; table 1). We recognize that some grizzly bears in the CYE and SE
have home ranges that overlap the international border; however, it is
most appropriate to discuss human-caused mortality for the U.S. portion
of the SE because that is the area encompassed by the currently-listed
entity and the proposed grizzly bear DPS. From 2002 to 2023, 82 percent
(18) of the 22 known and probable grizzly bear mortalities in the U.S.
portion of the SE recovery zone were human-caused (Kasworm et al.
2024b, pp. 14-15). There have been no known, human-caused mortalities
in the North Cascades since 1967; however, the last verified sighting
of a grizzly bear in the North Cascades occurred in 1996. In the BE
recovery zone, the last known, human-caused mortality occurred in 1932,
and there has only been one verified sighting in the recovery zone
since the 1940s, a collared bear from the CYE that spent several weeks
in the northern part of the recovery zone in 2019. There have been
three known human-caused mortalities inside the grizzly bear DPS
outside these recovery zones. For further details, see Human-Caused
Mortality in the CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades in the SSA report
(Service 2024, pp. 156-157).
Mortality Limits
Within the GYE and NCDE, States, Tribes, and Federal agencies have
adopted management protocols, rules, and regulations that would govern
conservation and management of these grizzly bear populations,
including human-caused mortality, in the absence of the Act's
protections. Mortality limits in the GYE and NCDE apply only within the
DMA (see figure 9 in the SSA report; Service 2024, p. 36). Within the
CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades, management protocols, rules, and
regulations governing conservation and management of these populations
are not yet complete. Our SSA report evaluates the ability of existing
regulatory mechanisms to limit human-caused mortality consistent with a
recovered population under future scenarios (Service 2024, pp. 245-
249).
Independent of the Act, the States of Idaho, Montana, Washington,
and Wyoming have regulations that make it illegal to kill a grizzly
bear other than for defense-of-life, except for limited circumstances,
as described below (Idaho Administrative Code (IAC) rules
13.01.06.100.05 and 13.01.06.300.01; Administrative Rules of Montana
(ARM) subchapter 12.9.14; Washington Administrative Code (WAC) at
section 220-610-010; Wyoming Administrative Rules (WAR) 040-0001-67).
The States of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have additional regulations
that would take effect upon delisting that are currently superseded by
take prohibitions in the Act. In Idaho, upon delisting, it would be
legal to kill a grizzly bear, without a permit, if it is ``molesting or
attacking livestock or domestic animals'' (Idaho Statutes (I.S.) at
title 36, chapter 11, section 36-1107(e)). All grizzly bears taken must
be reported within 72 hours. In Montana, upon delisting, a livestock
owner or other authorized persons would be able to take a grizzly bear
at any time without a permit when a grizzly bear is attacking or
killing livestock, subject to commission rules (Montana Code Annotated
(MCA) at section 87-5-301). Additionally, for delisted ecosystems,
Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks would be able to issue a
kill permit to livestock owners when a grizzly bear is threatening
livestock, subject to commission rules (MCA 87-5-301(4)). Montana's
commission rules were incorporated into law in December 2023; the
commission must annually set mortality limits for kill permits (MCA 87-
5-301(3)(c)). However, these mortality limits would only apply within
the DMA. In Wyoming, upon delisting, the Wyoming Game and Fish
Commission may establish a hunting season for grizzly bears in
accordance with the Tri-State memorandum of agreement (MOA) (WAR
040.0001.67).
Mortality Limits in the GYE--Prior to our June 30, 2017, final rule
to establish the GYE population as a DPS and delist it (82 FR 30502),
in partnership with the States, other Federal agencies, and Tribes in
the GYE, we developed a mortality-management framework that outlined
sustainable mortality limits within the GYE DMA that would maintain
recovery within the GYE DPS in the absence of the Act's protections.
The goal of the framework was to manage the population in the GYE DMA
to maintain the population around the long-term average population size
for 2002-2014 of 674 bears (95 percent confidence interval (CI) = 600-
747) (using the model-averaged Chao2 population estimate) (Service
2017, entire). Population growth inside the GYE DMA had slowed and
stabilized at this population size, and the long-term estimate of 674
bears represented a population that was exhibiting density-dependent
effects in the core area of its range (van Manen et al. 2016, entire).
To achieve the population goal, mortality thresholds within the DMA
were set for independent females, independent males, and dependent
young. However, mortality limits did not apply to grizzly

[[Page 4252]]

bears outside of the DMA, including in potential connectivity areas.
As discussed above in Previous Federal Actions, our final rule to
establish and delist the GYE population as a DPS (82 FR 30502, June 30,
2017) was vacated and remanded by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana (Crow Indian Tribe et al. v. United States et al.,
343 F. Supp. 3d 999 (D. Mont. 2018)). The Ninth Circuit affirmed the
District Court decision vacating and remanding the final rule delisting
the grizzly bears in the GYE (Crow Indian Tribe et al. v. United States
et al., 965 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2020)). As a result, the GYE population
is currently listed as threatened as part of the larger listed entity
of the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States.
One of the three main issues cited by the District Court in
vacating the June 30, 2017, rule was that a commitment to recalibration
was necessary and that removal of a commitment to recalibration was not
consistent with the best available science as required by the Act (16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). ``Recalibration refers to calibrating a new
model's estimates for a given year (e.g., 1,000 bears in 2020) to the
Chao2 population estimates generated for the 2002-2014 time period
(average of 674 bears) . . . if a new model estimates 1,000 bears where
Chao2 found 700, the [S]tates will be able to treat the jump in
population as they would treat it on paper--as if 300 new individuals
had moved into the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem'' (Crow Indian Tribe
et al. v. United States et al., 343 F. Supp. 3d 999 (D. Mont. 2018)).
The GYE conservation strategy, one of two separate delisting
recommendations outlined in the recovery plan, is an interagency
agreement to ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms will continue
to be present after delisting. The Ninth Circuit found that the
Service, ``violated the ESA's directive to make listing decisions
`solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data', 16
U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A), when it failed to include a commitment to
recalibration despite the FWS's acknowledgment that a failure to
provide such provision could threaten the Yellowstone grizzlies'' (Crow
Indian Tribe et al. v. United States et al., 965 F.3d 662 (9th Cir.
2020)).
Beginning with 2022 grizzly bear demographic data, the IGBST began
implementing an integrated population model (IPM) to estimate vital
rates, population size, and mortality within the GYE population (Gould
et al. 2024a, entire). The States have developed a new mortality-
management framework using the IPM, which more accurately estimates
population size and inherently recalibrates population estimates. In
January 2024, the States of Idaho and Wyoming amended the Tri-State MOA
to incorporate new commitments to maintain a biologically recovered
population, including population objectives, total mortality
thresholds, a threshold at which discretionary mortality (the amount of
human-caused mortality over which state and Tribal agencies have
discretionary authority, such as management removals and regulated
harvest) ceases, and reproductive female distribution. The Montana Fish
and Wildlife Commission adopted the Tri-State MOA in June 2024. The
Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee (YES) and the Interagency Grizzly
Bear Committee (IGBC) approved incorporation of the new commitments
into the conservation strategy in May 2024 and June 2024, respectively.
Previously, the 2016 conservation strategy and Tri-State MOA
incorporated mortality thresholds to maintain the population within the
DMA around the 2002-2014 model-averaged Chao2 population estimate of
674 bears. The 2002-2014 time period was selected because population
growth slowed starting around 2000 associated with density-dependent
effects, particularly in the core of the ecosystem (Schwartz et al.
2008, entire; van Manen et al. 2016, entire).
Using the IPM, the recalibrated numbers correspond to an IPM
population estimate for 2002-2014 of 821. We note that a change point
analysis of annual population growth using IPM detected a slowing in
annual population growth around 2006 (vs. 2002), with minor population
fluctuations around a mean of 1.4 percent since that time.
Corresponding population estimates were 805 in 2006, and 1,030 in 2023
(Gould et al. 2024c, in prep.). The amended Tri-State MOA agrees to
manage the GYE grizzly bear population in the DMA within or above a
range of 800 to 950 grizzly bears (applying the IPM population
estimate). At fewer than 800 bears, the Tri-State MOA commits to
managing for a population increase above 800, closing hunting, and
requesting a biology and monitoring review to determine appropriate
management changes, but no interim management triggers exist.
Independent of the Act, all three affected States and the Eastern
Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes of the Wind River Reservation
(WRR) have enacted regulatory mechanisms that require State or Tribal
authorization for grizzly bear take, with illegal poaching remaining
prosecutable under State and Tribal laws because grizzly bears are
designated as a game animal (Wyoming Statutes (W.S.) at sections 23-1-
101(a)(xii)(A) and 23-3-102(a); MCA at sections 87-2-101(4), 87-1-301,
87-1-304, and 87-5-302; I.S. at title 36, chapters 2 (section 36-
202(h)) and 11 (section 36-1101(a)), and IAC at rule 13.01.06.100.05;
Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002, pp. 18-
21; Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe Tribes 2009, p. 9; Wyoming
Game and Fish Department (WGFD) 2016, p. 9; YES 2024, chapter 7; MFWP
2024, p. 13). As discussed above, the States of Montana and Idaho have
additional circumstances under which it is legal to take grizzly bears.
Mortality Limits in the NCDE--In 2018, we developed a mortality-
management framework in partnership with the States, other Federal
agencies, and Tribes in the NCDE, to ensure sustainable mortality
limits within the DMA to maintain recovery within the NCDE. The
agencies agreed to manage mortalities from all sources to support a
greater than or equal to 90 percent estimated probability that the
grizzly bear population within the DMA remains above 800 individuals,
considering the uncertainty associated with the demographic parameters
(NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 2; ARM at subchapter 12.9.14 at
12.9.1403). In order to consider this uncertainty, the model that
estimates the probability that the population is above 800 individuals
incorporates the standard error associated with calculating survival
rates for all age/sex classes (e.g., cubs, yearlings, independent
males, and independent females) and reproductive parameters (e.g.,
proportion of females with cubs and litter size). The methods to
determine thresholds for independent female survival, independent
female mortality, and independent male mortality that allow achievement
of this objective into the future are set forth in the NCDE
conservation strategy (NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 2, appendix 3).
The NCDE conservation strategy commits to developing and evaluating
additional inputs to the model. Agencies are working to explicitly
estimate the proportion of the population that has expanded outside of
the DMA in order to exclude those individuals from the population
estimate when calculating the mortality thresholds consistent with the
probability that the population is above 800 individuals within the DMA
(NCDE Subcommittee 2020, p. 238). If the population in the DMA is
overestimated

[[Page 4253]]

because it includes bears that have dispersed outside of the DMA, then
the mortality limits are also overestimated. While mortality rates
within the DMA were close to thresholds in several years (in 2021 for
independent females, and in 2018, 2019, and 2021 for independent
males), TRU mortalities as measured on a 6-year average have been below
mortality limits since the implementation of this monitoring method in
2018 and are thus likely still sustainable.
The NCDE conservation strategy requires several population
parameters to calculate allowable mortality limits that meet the
population objective of supporting a greater than or equal to 90
percent estimated probability that the grizzly bear population within
the DMA remains above 800 individuals: (1) the 6-year running average
for the annual survival rate of independent females; (2) annual
mortalities for independent males and females in the DMA (i.e., TRU
mortality); and (3) population estimates. These estimates are
calculated and reported annually by the Monitoring Team to the NCDE
Subcommittee.
Adherence to these survival and mortality thresholds for the DMA is
evaluated by the Monitoring Team through continued demographic
monitoring, application of stochastic population modeling to track size
and trend, and management of mortality of independent female and
independent male grizzly bears. The population modeling methods are set
forth in detail in appendices 2 and 3 of the NCDE conservation strategy
(NCDE Subcommittee 2020) and currently represent the best available
science.
The State of Montana and the Blackfeet and Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes designated grizzly bears as a game animal and have
enacted regulatory mechanisms independent of the Act that authorize
grizzly bear take under certain situations, with illegal poaching
remaining prosecutable under State and Tribal laws (MCA at sections 87-
2-101(4), 87-1-301, 87-1-304, and 87-5-302; Flathead Indian Reservation
(FIR) Tribal Ordinance 44D; Blackfeet Tribal Business Council 2018, p.
29; NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 6). As discussed above, the State
of Montana has additional circumstances under which it is legal to take
grizzly bears.
Mortality Limits in the CYE and SE--For the CYE and SE, the
mortality limits as set forth in demographic recovery criterion 3 of
the recovery plan continue to apply while the species is listed under
the Act (Service 1993, pp. 33-34). These mortality limits apply within
the recovery zone and a 10-mile buffer around the recovery zone. In
2022, the Selkirk-Cabinet-Yaak Subcommittee convened a technical team
to draft a conservation strategy, listing commitments, and policies to
ensure that adequate regulatory mechanisms will continue to be present
after delisting. The conservation strategy would include the
development of a mortality-management framework in partnership with the
States, other Federal agencies, and Tribes in the CYE and SE, and is
not yet complete. Therefore, a management framework is not currently in
place to ensure mortality is within sustainable thresholds independent
of the Act.
Mortality Limits in the BE--For the BE, which is not currently
occupied, the mortality limits as set forth in demographic recovery
criterion 3 of the recovery plan supplement continue to apply while the
species is listed under the Act (Service 1996, p. 4). The mortality
limits apply within the recovery zone and a 10-mile buffer around the
recovery zone. A management framework has not been developed to ensure
mortality limits for any potential future population would be within
sustainable thresholds independent of the Act.
Mortality Limits in the North Cascades--Within the North Cascades,
the reintroduced population will be managed as a nonessential
experimental population under the section 10(j) rule at 50 CFR 17.84(y)
while the species is listed under the Act. The Service has not set
specific mortality limits for the North Cascades, though in the near
term as that population develops, the intent is to avoid any human-
caused mortalities, to the extent practicable (see 89 FR 36982 at
37012, May 4, 2024). Sustainable levels of human-caused mortality were
not established in the recovery plan supplement for the North Cascades
due to a lack of information for the ecosystem; however, the supplement
established a goal of zero known, human-caused mortalities until the
``population is large enough to offset some level of human-induced
mortality'' (Service 1997, pp. 3-4). A management framework has not
been developed to ensure mortality is within sustainable thresholds
independent of the Act.
Summary of Mortality Limits Within the Grizzly Bear DPS
Human-caused mortality can be a significant threat to grizzly bear
populations if not effectively managed. Management frameworks to ensure
mortality is within sustainable thresholds independent of the Act are
currently only complete and incorporated into regulatory documents for
two of the six ecosystems. In addition, there are no regulatory
mechanisms to facilitate natural connectivity between grizzly bear
populations, which could reduce the potential to improve long-term
genetic health of small or isolated populations and natural
recolonization of the unoccupied ecosystems. Therefore, without
adequate conservation measures, human-caused mortality would continue
to be a threat to the grizzly bear DPS.
Management Removals
Management removals encompass grizzly bear mortalities resulting
from conflicts at developed sites (e.g., bears attracted to
anthropogenic food sources), livestock depredation, and other
situations where wildlife management agencies consider human life or
property threatened by bear presence. Most management removals result
from attractant-related conflicts at sites associated with frequent or
permanent human presence (i.e., developed sites) and livestock
depredations. These conflicts usually involve unsecured attractants,
such as garbage, human foods, chickens, pet/livestock foods, bird food,
livestock carcasses, wildlife carcasses, barbeque grills, compost
piles, orchard fruits, or vegetable gardens. While these mortalities
are directly related to unsecured, human attractants, they are also
related to human attitudes, knowledge, and tolerance toward grizzly
bears. Many of these mortalities can be prevented through changes in
human perceptions and actions, including limiting bear access to human-
related food sources and increasing human understanding and tolerance
towards grizzly bears (see Preventative Measures in the SSA report for
further discussion; Service 2024, pp. 167-171). These strategies are
outlined in the GYE conservation strategy; the NCDE conservation
strategy; and Federal, State, and Tribal information and education
(I&E) programs (U.S. Department of Agriculture's U.S. Forest Service
(USDA FS or USFS) 2006b, pp. 16-17; USDA FS 2018b, pp. 80-81; USDA FS
2018c, pp. 1-10, 1-22, 1-34, 1-45; NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 4;
YES 2024, chapter 3; Service 2024, pp. 161-171).
Under the Act, management removals of grizzly bears--outside of any
areas where bears have been reintroduced as a nonessential experimental
population--must be consistent with 50 CFR 17.40(b) (the grizzly bear's
``4(d) rule''). The 4(d) rule sets forth the

[[Page 4254]]

conditions for legally taking (e.g., removing or relocating) grizzly
bears without the need for additional permits under the Act. Anyone may
take a grizzly bear constituting an immediate threat to human safety.
Grizzly bears taken in self-defense must be reported to the Service's
Office of Law Enforcement. The 4(d) rule allows additional take for
bears constituting a demonstrable but non-immediate threat to human
safety and for bears committing significant depredations to lawfully
present livestock, crops, or beehives (50 CFR 17.40(b)(1)(i)(B) and
(C)).
In the GYE DMA, between 2002 and 2023, management removals resulted
in 194 mortalities of independent-age bears and 33 mortalities of
dependent young, accounting for 45 percent and 28 percent,
respectively, of human-caused mortalities (Gould 2024, in litt.). In
the GYE outside of the DMA, management removals resulted in an
additional 126 mortalities of independent-age bears and 20 mortalities
of dependent young (Gould 2024, in litt.). In the NCDE, between 2002
and 2023, management removals resulted in 127 mortalities of
independent-age bears and 55 mortalities of dependent young within the
DMA, accounting for 36 percent and 34 percent of all human-caused
mortalities, respectively (MFWP, unpublished data). In addition, 15
bears in the NCDE were trapped and moved to the CYE for population
augmentation. Because these bears were ``lost'' from the population,
they count against the mortality threshold. In the NCDE outside of the
DMA, management removals resulted in an additional 18 mortalities of
independent-age bears and 7 mortalities of dependent young (MFWP,
unpublished data). Management removals resulted in 2 mortalities in the
CYE and 4 mortalities in the SE, accounting for 6 percent and 22
percent, respectively, of all human-caused mortalities (Kasworm et al.
2024a, pp. 18-19; Kasworm et al. 2024b, pp. 14-15). For more
information about this threat, see Management Removals in the SSA
report (Service 2024, pp. 158-161).
Multiple measures are in place to reduce livestock conflicts in the
GYE and NCDE recovery zones, including phasing out sheep allotments on
U.S. Forest Service (USFS) lands, retirement of livestock allotments
with recurring conflicts, and livestock grazing permits that include
proper food and attractant storage provisions (USDA FS 2006b, pp. 16-
17; USDA FS 2018b, pp. 80-81; USDA FS 2018c, pp. 1-10, 1-22, 1-34, 1-
45; USDA FS 2018e, p. 64; YES 2024, chapter 3). The GYE and NCDE
conservation strategies also recognize that removal of individual
conflict bears is sometimes required, as a few individual bears often
are responsible for multiple livestock depredations (Jonkel 1980, p.
12; Knight and Judd 1983, p. 188; Anderson et al. 2002, pp. 252-253;
YES 2024, chapter 4; NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 4).
Currently, there are four active cattle allotments in the CYE
recovery zone on the Kootenai National Forest (NF), three active cattle
allotments in the SE recovery zone (two on the Idaho Panhandle NF and
one on the Colville NF), and no active sheep allotments. On the
Colville NF, livestock grazing permits include food storage measures,
livestock depredation and carcass removal, measures for grizzly bear
conflict situations, and closed road access measures (USDA FS 2019, pp.
63, 82). The Kootenai and Idaho-Panhandle NFs have food storage
requirements (USDA FS 2015a, pp. 31, 34; USDA FS 2015b, pp. 31, 33).
There are only four active allotments in the BE recovery zone (two
cattle and two horse on the Salmon-Challis NF). As of 2023, there are
24 cattle and 9 sheep allotments on the Okanogan-Wenatchee NF in the
North Cascades recovery zone.
Mortality limits (see discussion above under ``Mortality Limits'')
must ensure that overall mortality, including management removals,
remains within sustainable limits. For the past several decades, States
have managed grizzly bear conflicts in cooperation with the Service and
consistent with the IGBC guidelines. After delisting, the Service would
not be involved in removal decisions, and the IGBC guidelines would no
longer apply; therefore, mortality limits that apply to management
removals post-delisting are needed. As discussed above, management
frameworks to ensure mortality is within sustainable thresholds
independent of the Act are currently only complete and incorporated
into regulatory documents for two of the six ecosystems. In addition,
the CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades populations have not yet met
demographic recovery criteria. Therefore, in the absence of adequate
conservation measures, management removals would continue to be a
threat to the grizzly bear DPS. For more information about the
conservation measures that have ameliorated this threat, see Management
Removals in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 156-159).
Accidental Killings
Humans kill grizzly bears unintentionally in a number of ways,
including vehicle collisions, train collisions, unintentional
poisoning, drowning, electrocution, and mortalities associated with
research trapping. From 2002 to 2023, there were 51 reported accidental
mortalities of independent-age bears and 20 reported accidental
mortalities of dependent young inside the GYE DMA, totaling 12 percent
and 17 percent, respectively, of human-caused mortality for this time
period (Gould 2024, in litt.). In the GYE outside of the DMA, there
were an additional 11 reported accidental mortalities of independent-
age bears and 4 reported accidental mortalities of dependent young
(Gould 2024, in litt.). From 2002 to 2023, 78 reported accidental
mortalities accounted for nearly 22 percent of known and probable
human-caused mortalities of independent-age bears and 68 mortalities
accounted for nearly 42 percent of known and probable human-caused
mortalities of dependent young in the NCDE DMA (MFWP, unpublished
data). In the NCDE outside of the DMA, there were an additional 12
reported accidental mortalities of independent-age bears and 8 reported
accidental mortalities of dependent young (MFWP, unpublished data).
From 2002 to 2023, 9 percent (3 of 34) of all human-caused mortalities
in the CYE and 11 percent (2 of 18) of all human-caused grizzly bear
mortalities in the SE were accidental (Kasworm et al. 2024a, pp. 18-19;
Kasworm et al. 2024b, pp. 14-15).
Accidental killings of grizzly bears in the GYE, CYE, and SE
populations comprise a small portion of total mortalities and are
factored into mortality limits (described in detail above under
``Mortality Limits''), which limit their impact on the resiliency of
the population. Accidental killings, primarily as the result of
automobile and train collisions, have constituted a higher portion of
mortalities in the NCDE. Therefore, in the absence of preventative
measures, accidental killings would continue to be a threat to the
grizzly bear DPS. For more information about this threat, see
Accidental Killings in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 161-163).
Mistaken-Identity Killings
Mistaken-identity mortalities include mistaken identification by
black bear hunters and mortalities that result from wolf and black bear
hunting and trapping. Mistaken-identity killings are both accidental
and illegal. Twenty-seven mortalities (7 percent of human-caused
mortality) of independent-age bears were associated with mistaken
identification of grizzly bears by black bear hunters within the GYE
DMA from 2002 to 2023 (Gould 2024, in litt.). An additional seven
mortalities of

[[Page 4255]]

independent-age bears were associated with mistaken identification of
grizzly bears by black bear hunters in the GYE outside of the DMA
(Gould 2024, in litt.). Mistaken identification of grizzly bears by
black bear hunters accounted for 4 percent (16 of 356) of human-caused
grizzly bear mortalities of independent-age bears and 1 percent (2 of
162) of human-caused grizzly bear mortalities of dependent young in the
NCDE DMA from 2002 to 2023. There were no mortalities associated with
mistaken identification of grizzly bears by black bear hunters in the
NCDE outside of the DMA (MFWP, unpublished data). From 2002 to 2023,
mistaken identification killings of grizzly bears by black bear or
other hunters (on one occasion, an elk hunter mistakenly killed a
grizzly bear) accounted for 12 percent (4 of 34) of human-caused
mortalities in the CYE and 28 percent (5 of 18) of human-caused grizzly
bear mortalities in the SE (Kasworm et al. 2024a, pp. 18-19; Kasworm et
al. 2024b, pp. 14-15). In addition, there have been three mistaken
identification killings of grizzly bears outside of the GYE DMAs and
NCDE and the CYE, SE, and BE recovery zones, two of which occurred
during a hunt in which the hunter used bait. Black bear hunting over
bait is allowed in Idaho and Wyoming inside portions of the estimated
occupied grizzly bear range of the GYE, CYE, and SE and outside of
estimated occupied grizzly bear range in the GYE, CYE, SE, and BE, and
has resulted in some mistaken-identity mortality.
The GYE and NCDE Conservation Strategies identify I&E programs
targeted at hunters that emphasize patience, awareness, and correct
identification of targets to help reduce grizzly bear mortalities by
inexperienced black bear and ungulate hunters (YES 2024, chapter 5;
NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapters 1 and 4). Mistaken-identity killings
of grizzly bears in the GYE and NCDE populations comprise a small
portion of total mortalities and are factored into total mortality
limits (described above in detail in ``Mortality Limits''), and I&E
programs aimed at preventing mistaken-identity killings limit potential
risks to the GYE and NCDE grizzly bear populations from this stressor.
Reducing this source of human-caused mortality is especially desirable
in the CYE and SE due to the small population size, in the BE and North
Cascades where there are currently no known populations, and in
potential connectivity areas between the ecosystems.
Wolf trapping and snaring and black bear hunting have the potential
to incidentally take grizzly bears. We have documented one mortality as
the result of wolf snaring in the GYE DMA. In addition, one of the
grizzly bears mistakenly killed by a black bear hunter in the CYE had a
neck snare around its neck that may have ultimately killed the bear had
it not been shot. Recent legislation in Montana and Idaho expanding
hunting and trapping tools available for wolves and black bears will
likely increase incidental take of grizzly bears. Reporting of all
target and non-target trapped wildlife is required, and grizzly bear
mortalities from these sources would count towards allowable mortality
thresholds. However, there may be some mortalities that go unreported
due to unknown mortalities/injuries resulting from grizzly bears
breaking away from the site with the snare and/or trap still attached.
In Idaho and Montana, regulations allow the commission to issue
emergency closures of any hunting season (I.S. at title 36, chapter 1,
section 36-104(b); MFWP 2023a, p. 2; MFWP 2023b, p. 15). There are
measures in place to limit potential incidental take, including
prohibiting black bear hunting in most of the estimated occupied
grizzly bear range in Montana and delaying Montana's wolf season in
grizzly bear occupied range until most grizzly bears have entered the
den based on radio-collar data and field reports. However, measures to
limit incidental take inside grizzly bear occupied range in Idaho are
minimal, and measures to limit incidental take outside of occupied
grizzly bear range in Montana are also minimal. This is important
because, over the last several years, we have verified numerous bears
dispersing outside the occupied range and through potential
connectivity areas between the GYE and NCDE populations. There are no
grizzly bear mortality limits in areas outside of the DMAs for the GYE
and NCDE populations or in the CYE and SE populations; therefore, the
number of grizzly bears that might be killed incidental to wolf and
black bear hunting and trapping in these areas would not be limited.
Incidental take of grizzly bears in these areas could reduce the
potential for natural connectivity between the populations in the GYE,
NCDE, CYE, SE, and BE, which could harm the long-term genetic health of
grizzly bears. Therefore, in the absence of preventative measures,
mistaken-identity killings would continue to be a threat to the grizzly
bear DPS. For more information about this threat, see Mistaken-Identity
Killings in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 164-167).
Illegal Killings
We define poaching as intentional, illegal killing of grizzly bears
or the deliberative concealment of an unintentional killing of grizzly
bears. People may illegally kill grizzly bears for several reasons,
including a general perception that grizzly bears in the area may be
dangerous, frustration over livestock depredations, or to protest land-
use and road-use restrictions associated with grizzly bear habitat
management (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21). We are aware of at least 27
illegal killings of independent-age bears and 6 illegal killings of
dependent young in the GYE DMA between 2002 and 2023 (Gould 2024, in
litt.). This constituted 6 percent of human-caused mortalities of
independent-age bears and 5 percent of human-caused mortalities of
dependent young from 2002 to 2023. We are aware of an additional four
illegal killings of independent-age bears and one illegal killing of a
dependent-age bear in the GYE outside of the DMA (Gould 2024, in
litt.). From 2002 to 2023, at least 67 illegal killings of independent-
age bears and 15 illegal killings of dependent bears occurred within
the NCDE DMA, constituting nearly 19 percent and 9 percent of human-
caused mortalities, respectively (MFWP, unpublished data). We are aware
of an additional 12 illegal killings of independent-age bears and 5
illegal killing of dependent-age bears in the NCDE outside of the DMA
(MFWP, unpublished data). From 2002 to 2023, at least 7 illegal
killings occurred in the CYE, constituting 21 percent of human-caused
grizzly bear mortalities (Kasworm et al. 2024a, pp. 18-19). Two illegal
killing, including one neck snare, occurred in the SE from 2002 to 2023
(Kasworm et al. 2024b, pp. 14-15).
I&E campaigns (described in detail in Preventative Measures in the
SSA report; Service 2024, pp. 167-178) are used to reduce the potential
threat of poaching. These programs address illegal killing by working
to change human perceptions and beliefs about grizzly bears and to
increase tolerance for restrictions on Federal lands designed for
grizzly bear protection (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 27). Poaching still
occurs; however, these mortalities are factored into total mortality
limits (described above in detail in ``Mortality Limits''), which
limits their impact on population resiliency. However, in the absence
of preventive measures, illegal killings would continue to be a threat
to the grizzly bear DPS. For more information about this threat, see
Illegal Killings in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 167-168).

[[Page 4256]]

Defense-of-Life Killings
Grizzly bears may be legally taken in self-defense or in defense-
of-others while listed (50 CFR 17.40(b)(1)(i)(B)). In the GYE DMA, from
2002 to 2023, 31 percent (134 of 433) of human-caused mortalities of
independent-age bears and 50 percent (60 of 119) of human-caused
mortalities of dependent young were self-defense or defense-of-other-
person kills (Gould 2024, in litt.). An additional 15 defense-of-life
killings of independent-age bears and 4 defense-of-life killings of a
dependent-age bear occurred in the GYE outside of the DMA (Gould 2024,
in litt.). In the NCDE DMA, nearly 17 percent (49 of 357) of human-
caused grizzly bear mortalities of independent-age bears and 12 percent
(20 of 162) of human-caused mortalities of dependent young were
defense-of-life kills (MFWP, unpublished data). An additional five
defense-of-life killings of independent-age bears and six defense-of-
life killings of a dependent-age bear occurred in the NCDE outside of
the DMA (MFWP, unpublished data). In the CYE, nearly 18 percent (6 of
34) of human-caused mortalities were from defense-of-life kills
(Kasworm et al. 2024a, pp. 18-19). Two defense-of-life killings
occurred in the U.S. portion of the SE from 2002 to 2023 (Kasworm et
al. 2024b, pp. 14-15). Many of these self-defense situations occurred
during surprise encounters, at hunter-killed carcasses or gut piles, or
when packing out carcasses.
By promoting the use of bear spray and continuing I&E programs
pertaining to food and carcass storage and retrieval, risks to hunters
can be substantially reduced and many of these grizzly bear deaths can
be avoided. Defense-of-life mortalities will always occur with a
species that can pose a threat to humans; however, they are factored
into mortality limits (see discussion above under ``Mortality
Limits''), and this source of mortality is not a limiting factor on the
resiliency of grizzly bear populations in the grizzly bear DPS. For
more information about this threat, see Defense-of-Life Killings in the
SSA report (Service 2024, p. 168).
Legal Hunting
Aside from a limited hunt in the NCDE from 1975 to 1991, legal
hunting of grizzly bears has not been allowed in the lower-48 States
since grizzly bears in the lower-48 States were listed as a threatened
species under the Act in 1975 (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). Legal
hunting of grizzly bears was allowed in the NCDE from 1975 until 1991,
under a rule authorizing take in the 1975 listing (40 FR 31734 at
31736, July 28, 1975). During this time, recreational hunting accounted
for 50 percent of human-caused mortality in the NCDE (124 of 249). The
rule allowing a limited hunt in the NCDE was removed in 1992 (57 FR
37478, August 19, 1992).
Independent of the Act, the States of Idaho, Montana, Washington,
and Wyoming, and the Blackfeet and Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes have enacted regulatory mechanisms that require State or Tribal
authorization for grizzly bear take, with illegal poaching remaining
prosecutable under State and Tribal laws (I.S. at title 36, chapters 2
(section 36-202(h)) and 11 (section 36-1101(a)); IAC rules
13.01.06.100.05 and 13.01.06.300.01; MCA at sections 87-2-101(4), 87-1-
301, 87-1-304, and 87-5-302; W.S. at sections 23-1-101(a)(xii)(A) and
23-3-102(a); FIR Tribal Ordinance 44D; Blackfeet Tribal Business
Council 2018, p. 29; NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 6; WAC at section
220-610-010).
Legal hunting is one source of discretionary mortality (described
in detail above in ``Mortality Limits'') that would be regulated by
mortality limits in the absence of the Act's protections. Hunting would
not occur in Montana for a minimum of 5 years after delisting (ARM
subchapter 12.9.14 at 12.9.1413). However, management frameworks to
ensure mortality is within sustainable thresholds independent of
protections of the Act are currently only complete and incorporated
into regulatory documents for two of the six ecosystems. In addition,
mortality limits in the GYE and NCDE do not apply to grizzly bears
outside of the DMAs, including in potential connectivity areas.
Therefore, in the absence of such management frameworks, we anticipate
that hunting would be a threat to the grizzly bear DPS.
II. Habitat Destruction and Modification
The most crucial element in grizzly bear recovery is habitat that
is diverse, provides a wide range of foods, and is isolated from
development and human activities, where human-bear interactions, which
often result in higher bear mortalities, are minimal (Service 1993, p.
21; Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 530). In the 1993 recovery plan,
the Service found that motorized access posed the most imminent
stressor to grizzly bear habitat and recommended that road management
be given the highest priority for grizzly bear recovery (Service 1993,
pp. 21-22). Motorized access management is an important management tool
for grizzly bear populations, as it can increase habitat security,
which is crucial for female reproduction, and reduce potential
mortalities from human-bear encounters and vehicle strikes.
For this reason, habitat-based recovery criteria for the GYE and
NCDE recovery zones include threshold levels for secure habitat (areas
with no motorized access), as well as livestock allotments and
developed sites, which are also associated with grizzly bear
mortalities due to the potential for conflict and resultant management
removals (Service 2007a, pp. 2-6; Service 2018, entire; Service 2024,
pp. 79-80). For more information on the development of habitat-based
recovery criteria, see Recovery Criteria in the SSA report (Service
2024, pp. 79-81, 87-88).
For the GYE, secure habitat refers to those areas with no motorized
access that are at least 10 acres (0.31 km\2\ (0.016 mi\2\)) in size
and more than 500 meters (m) (1,650 feet (ft)) from a motorized access
route (road or trail), prescribed footprint of a developed site, or
recurring helicopter flight line (USDA FS 2004, p. 18; YES 2024,
chapter 3). We established 1998 as the baseline year, the level at
which we measure habitat criteria, because the levels of secure habitat
and developed sites on public lands remained relatively constant in the
10 years preceding 1998 (USDA FS 2004, pp. 140-141), and represented a
time when the population was increasing at a rate of 4 to 7 percent per
year (Schwartz et al. 2006c, p. 48). In addition, levels of motorized
routes were decreasing during the years preceding the 1998 baseline
year.
For the NCDE, we define secure core habitat as those areas on
Federal lands within the analysis area more than 500 m (1,650 ft) from
an open or gated motorized access route and at least 2,500 acres (10.1
km\2\ (3.9 mi\2\)) in size (Service 2018, pp. 5, 12). We selected 2011
levels (i.e., the ``baseline'') as our baseline year because secure
core habitat was increasing and motorized route density was decreasing
between 2004 and 2011 (NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 1; Service 2018,
pp. 24-25), and the NCDE grizzly bear population was increasing at a
rate of 2 to 3 percent annually during this time (Mace et al. 2012, p.
124; Mace 2012, in litt.; Costello et al. 2016, p. 2; Service 2018, p.
3).
Although we have not yet developed habitat-based recovery criteria
for the remaining ecosystems, some habitat thresholds or protections
occur through other mechanisms. For example, the BE recovery zone is 98
percent wilderness. In the CYE and SE, the national forests have
implemented motorized access standards to create and protect grizzly

[[Page 4257]]

bear habitat (USDA FS 2011a, entire). The national forests and NPS
within the North Cascades have agreed to a ``no net loss'' of core
areas approach on NPS and USFS-managed lands (USDA FS 1997, entire) to
maintain habitat quality necessary to support a self-sustaining grizzly
bear population. The Service is currently coordinating with the NPS and
USFS through the IGBC North Cascades Subcommittee Technical Team to
review and update the baseline and memorialize the ``no net loss''
agreement for the North Cascades Recovery Zone (USDA FS 1997, entire).
Protected Lands
Protected lands in the form of wilderness areas, proposed
wilderness, recommended wilderness, wilderness study areas (WSAs), and
inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) can enhance the security of habitat
for grizzly bears since these designations protect grizzly bear habitat
from new road construction, new oil and gas development, new livestock
allotments, and timber harvest (Service 2024, pp. 108-112). These
lasting land designations ensure that large proportions of recovery
zones and additional areas outside the recovery zones remain secure for
grizzly bears into the future without the development of new roads,
extractive industries, or other human structures.
Ninety-eight percent of the GYE recovery zone is federally managed
land, including all of YNP, as well as portions of GTNP and the
Shoshone, Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, Caribou-Targhee, and
Custer Gallatin NFs. Approximately 82 percent (19,642 km\2\ of 23,853
km\2\ (7,583 mi\2\ of 9,210 mi\2\)) of lands inside of the GYE recovery
zone are considered ``protected lands.'' In addition, of the 23,131
km\2\ (8,931 mi\2\) of suitable habitat in the GYE outside of the
recovery zone, 59 percent (13,685 km\2\ (5,284 mi\2\)) is managed and
protected by the USFS as ``protected lands.''
Seventy-eight percent of the NCDE recovery zone is federally
managed land, including all of GNP, as well as portions of the
Flathead, Helena-Lewis and Clark, Kootenai, and Lolo NFs, and the FIR,
and the Blackfeet Indian Reservation. Nearly 67 percent (15,653 km\2\
of 23,119 km\2\ (6,044 mi\2\ of 8,926 mi\2\)) of lands inside the NCDE
recovery zone are considered ``protected lands.'' In addition, five
percent (748 km\2\ (289 mi\2\)) of Zone 1 (the portion of the DMA
outside of the recovery zone) is protected as wilderness, WSAs, or
IRAs.
Nearly 98 percent of the CYE recovery zone is federally managed
land, including portions of the Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle, and Lolo
NFs. Within the CYE recovery zone, 44 percent of lands are protected as
designated wilderness (Cabinet Mountain wilderness: 379 km\2\ (146
mi\2\)) or IRAs (2,568 km\2\ (992 mi\2\)). Nearly 79 percent of the SE
recovery zone in the United States is federally managed land, including
portions of the Idaho Panhandle and Colville NFs. Within the U.S.
portion of the SE recovery zone, nearly 38 percent of lands are
protected as designated wilderness (167 km\2\ (65 mi\2\)), recommended
wilderness (60 km\2\ (23 mi\2\)), or IRAs (907 km\2\ (350 mi\2\)). The
BE recovery zone includes about 14,984 km\2\ (5,785 mi\2\) of
contiguous national forest lands in central Idaho and western Montana,
98 percent (14,840 km\2\ (5,730 mi\2\)) of which is designated
wilderness. The North Cascades recovery zone is 97 percent public
lands, including all of the NCNP Complex, most of the Mount Baker-
Snoqualmie and Wenatchee-Okanogan NFs, and the westernmost unit of the
Colville NF. Sixty-four percent of the recovery zone is protected as
designated wilderness (10,843 km\2\ (4,189 mi\2\)) or as IRAs (5,123
km\2\ (1,978 mi\2\)). For more information about this conservation
measure, see Protected Lands in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 108-
112).
Motorized Access
When grizzly bears in the lower-48 States were listed in 1975, we
recognized that managing human access to grizzly bear habitat,
primarily through management of motorized access, would be the key to
effective habitat management. Motorized access, which brings humans and
their vehicles into grizzly bear habitats, may influence grizzly bears
indirectly by reducing the quality and quantity of habitat security or
directly by disturbing, displacing, or killing individual bears through
increased noise, activity, presence, vehicle strikes, or other
activities associated with human-caused mortality (figure 2 in the SSA
report; Service 2024, pp. 112-122). Managing motorized access to ensure
bears have secure areas away from humans is an effective habitat
management tool for reducing grizzly bear mortality risk (Nielsen et
al. 2006, p. 225; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661; Proctor et al. 2019,
pp. 19-20).
Within the GYE and NCDE recovery zones, habitat standards that help
reduce the potential effects of motorized access have been incorporated
into USFS plans and the GYE and NCDE conservation strategies (USDA FS
2006b, entire; USDA FS 2018a, p. 31; USDA FS 2018c, pp. 10-11; NCDE
Subcommittee 2020, chapter 3 and appendix 4; YES 2024, chapter 3 and
appendix E). These standards include thresholds for habitat security,
open motorized route densities, and total motorized route densities and
are inventoried and tracked in geographic information system (GIS)
databases. Habitat security is measured within bear management
subunits, which approximate the annual home range size of adult
females. In the GYE, secure habitat averages 85.6 percent throughout
the recovery zone and in the NCDE, secure core habitat averages 76.4
percent throughout the recovery zone. These conservation mechanisms
have reduced the negative effects of motorized access in the GYE and
NCDE populations, and these conservation mechanisms are expected to
continue into the future.
In the GYE outside of the recovery zone, the USFS manages 76
percent of suitable habitat and much of these lands are ``protected
lands'' or protected by motorized access standards (USDA FS 2006a, pp.
78, 109; Service 2024, pp. 108-112). In addition, State and Tribal
management plans add another layer of habitat protection in the GYE
outside of the recovery zone (Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear
Delisting Advisory Team 2002, p. 10; Eastern Shoshone and Northern
Arapaho Tribes 2009, p. 11; WGFD 2016, pp. 18-20; MFWP 2022, p. 54). In
areas of the NCDE outside of the recovery zone but inside Zone 1,
limitations on open motorized routes apply to lands managed by the
USFS, BLM, and Montana Division of Natural Resources Conservation
(DNRC) to maintain habitat conditions that existed in 2011 that were
compatible with a stable to increasing grizzly bear population. In
addition, specific protections within the demographic connectivity
areas were identified to support female occupancy and eventual
demographic connectivity to the CYE and BE. The Service and partner
land management agencies will continue to monitor the effectiveness of
these objectives and can modify motorized access management as new
information becomes available.
The majority of lands within the CYE and SE recovery zones are
managed by the USFS, which has incorporated motorized route density
standards into its management plans to effectively provide secure
habitat (core) for grizzly bears (USDA FS 2011a, entire). However, the
USFS is still working on an implementation schedule for the remaining
BMUs, four in the CYE and two in the U.S. portion of the SE, to achieve
all standards. Although motorized access standards have not yet been
determined for the BE recovery

[[Page 4258]]

zone, the BE recovery zone is more than 98 percent wilderness (see
Protected Areas in the SSA report for further details (Service 2024,
pp. 108-112)), and, therefore, any impact of motorized access on
grizzly bears in the BE recovery zone is likely very minimal. In the
North Cascades recovery zone, the Federal land management agencies are
currently working to update the baseline and to memorialize the ``no
net loss'' of core areas agreement from 1997 (USDA FS 1997, entire).
Well-managed motorized access provides large proportions of habitat
security on Federal lands that helps ameliorate the impacts of
displacement and increased human-caused mortality risk in grizzly bear
habitat. Motorized access that is well-managed on State, local, or
private lands also provides conservation benefits to grizzly bears. A
variety of conservation efforts or mechanisms, such as the Wilderness
Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), IRAs, and Federal land management plans,
helps reduce the potential effects of motorized access on the
resiliency of ecosystems. Conservation mechanisms to reduce the
negative effects of motorized access independent of the Act are
currently only in place for two of the six ecosystems. They have not
been met or finalized for the remaining four ecosystems or in
connectivity areas. The Service and partner land management agencies
will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these objectives and can
modify motorized access management as new information becomes
available. However, in the absence of conservation mechanisms to
ameliorate effects of motorized access, motorized access would continue
to be a threat to the grizzly bear DPS. For more information about the
conservation measures that have ameliorated this threat, see Motorized
Access in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 112-122).
Developed Sites
The primary concern related to developed sites is direct mortality
from human-bear conflicts, such as those caused by unsecured
attractants (e.g., garbage), and resulting management removals (Harding
and Nagy 1980, p. 277; McLellan and Shackleton 1988, p. 451; Mattson
and Knight 1991, p. 3; Mattson et al. 1992, p. 432; Mace et al. 1996,
p. 1403; McLellan et al. 1999, p. 918; Woodroffe 2000, entire; Johnson
et al. 2004, pp. 974-975; Service 2024, pp. 120-123). While human-
grizzly bear conflicts at developed sites on public lands continue to
occur, agencies have successfully worked to reduce conflicts and
resulting mortalities. However, human-bear conflicts on private land
have been increasing due to expanding grizzly bear distributions and
are now more common than those on public lands (Cooley et al. 2018,
entire). Secondary concerns include temporary or permanent habitat loss
and displacement due to increased length of time of human use and
increased human disturbance to surrounding areas (Harding and Nagy
1980, p. 277; McLellan and Shackleton 1988, p. 451; Mattson 1990,
entire; White et al. 1999, pp. 3-5; Fortin et al. 2016, pp. 9-19).
In the GYE and NCDE recovery zones, developed sites on public lands
are currently inventoried and tracked in GIS databases. Existing
regulatory mechanisms ensure that the national parks and national
forests will continue to manage developed sites with limited increases
in the absence of protections of the Act (USDA FS 2006b, entire; USDA
FS 2018b, p. 60; USDA FS 2018c, pp. 1-7, 1-19, 1-31, 1-42; GNP 2024, p.
12; YES 2024, chapter 3; NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 3). In the GYE
and NCDE recovery zones, the NPS and the USFS enforce food storage
rules aimed at decreasing grizzly bear access to human foods (NCDE
Subcommittee 2020, chapter 3; YES 2024, chapters 1 and 3). These
regulations, which reduce the potential for human-grizzly bear
conflicts, will continue to be enforced and are in effect for nearly
all currently occupied grizzly bear habitat on NPS and USFS lands
within the GYE and NCDE (NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 3; YES 2024,
chapter 1 and 3). The number and capacity of developed sites are
subject to limits and commitments in Forest Plans and summarized in the
GYE and NCDE conservation strategy. There are currently no standards or
tracking for developed sites inside the CYE, SE, BE or North Cascades.
However, the BE, CYE, and North Cascades recovery zones are
characterized by large acreage of wilderness areas and IRAs.
Operation and maintenance of developed sites may result in
mortality of grizzly bears if interactions result in activities
associated with human-caused mortality. Conservation mechanisms to
reduce the negative effects of developed sites independent of the Act
are currently only in place for two of the six ecosystems. We have not
yet developed habitat-based recovery criteria for the CYE, SE, BE, and
North Cascades. During that process, we would assess current levels and
potential effects of developed sites on grizzly bear populations in the
CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades. In addition, protected areas and other
regulations help minimize this stressor in the GYE, NCDE, CYE, SE, BE,
and North Cascades. Without conservation mechanisms to ameliorate the
effects of developed sites, developed sites would continue to be a
threat to the grizzly bear DPS. For more information about this
stressor and the conservation measures that have ameliorated this
threat, see Developed Sites in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 122-
125).
Livestock Allotments
Human-caused mortality resulting from management removals is the
main impact to grizzly bears associated with livestock (Service 2024,
pp. 125-129). The effects of displacement and direct competition with
livestock for forage are considered negligible to grizzly bear
populations because, even with direct grizzly bear mortality, current
levels of livestock allotments have not precluded grizzly bear
population growth and expansion. Inside the GYE and NCDE recovery
zones, regulatory mechanisms limit the impact of livestock allotments
to grizzly bears on Federal lands (USDA FS 2006b, entire; USDA FS
2018b, p. 80; USDA FS 2018c, p. 20). Due to the higher prevalence of
grizzly bear conflicts associated with sheep grazing, sheep allotments
have been phased out as the opportunity arises with willing permittees,
and there is only one active sheep allotment remaining within the each
of the GYE and NCDE recovery zones as of 2023 (USDA FS 2006b, p. 6;
USDA FS 2018d, pp. 468-469; USDA FS 2018e, pp. 138, 256; NCDE
Subcommittee 2020, chapter 3; YES 2024, chapter 3; Grizzly Bear Habitat
Monitoring Team 2024, in prep.). Existing sheep allotments will
continue to be phased out as the opportunity arises with willing
permittees (USDA FS 2006b, p. 6; USDA FS 2018c, pp. 1-11, 1-23, 1-35,
1-46; NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 3; YES 2024, chapter 3). Cattle
allotments are numerous in the GYE and NCDE, and occur in lower numbers
in the CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades. Grizzly bear conflicts related
to livestock have also been reduced in the GYE and NCDE recovery zones
through requirements to securely store and/or promptly remove
attractants associated with livestock operations (e.g., livestock
carcasses, livestock feed, etc.). In the GYE and NCDE recovery zones,
livestock allotments are currently inventoried and tracked in GIS
databases (USDA FS 2006b, p. 5; NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 3; YES
2024, chapter 3). Forest plans in the GYE and NCDE also include
commitments to continue efforts to reduce grizzly bear conflicts
related to livestock through requirements to securely store and/or
promptly remove attractants associated with livestock

[[Page 4259]]

operations (e.g., livestock carcasses, livestock feed, etc.).
There are currently no standards for livestock allotments inside
the CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades. However, the BE, CYE, and North
Cascades recovery zones are characterized by large acreages of
wilderness areas and IRAs, where the lack of roads limits access and,
therefore, limits the areas where livestock are released for grazing.
Habitat-based recovery criteria, which include limits to livestock
allotments, are currently only in place for two of the six ecosystems.
Protected areas and other regulations help to reduce this stressor in
the GYE, NCDE, CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades; however, development of
habitat-based recovery criteria would include an assessment of current
levels and potential effects of livestock allotments for the
outstanding ecosystems (CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades). Therefore, in
the absence of conservation measures across the range, livestock
allotments would continue to be a threat to the grizzly bear DPS. For
more information about this stressor and the conservation measures that
have ameliorated this threat, see Livestock Allotments in the SSA
report (Service 2024, pp. 125-129).
Energy and Mineral Development
The primary concerns related to mineral and energy development are
human-caused mortalities and displacement due to habitat loss (Service
2024, pp. 129-133). Oil and gas development is associated with higher
road densities, increased human access, and resultant human-bear
encounters and human-caused grizzly bear mortalities (McLellan and
Shackleton 1988, pp. 458-459; McLellan and Shackleton 1989b, pp. 377-
379; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402-1403). Mineral and energy development
could also cause displacement and habitat loss. Disturbance in the den
could result in increased energetic costs and possibly den abandonment,
which could ultimately lead to a decline in physical condition of the
individual or even cub mortality (Swenson et al. 1997, p. 37; Graves
and Reams 2001, p. 41). However, den disturbance or abandonment is
rarely observed, and there have been no documented cases of such
abandonment by grizzly bears in the grizzly bear DPS resulting from
energy and mineral development. Inside the GYE and NCDE recovery zones,
regulatory mechanisms in place for secure habitat and developed site
standards limit the impact of energy and mineral development to grizzly
bears (USDA FS 2006b, entire; YES 2024, chapter 3). Management of oil
and gas development, and mining, are tracked as part of the developed
site standard (NCDE Subcommittee, chapter 3; YES 2024, chapter 3).
Because any new mineral or energy development must conform to the
secure habitat, developed site, and motorized access standards set
forth in the habitat-based recovery criteria and the GYE and NCDE
conservation strategies, negative impacts of such development on
grizzly bear populations in the GYE and NCDE will be limited.
There are currently no standards or tracking for energy and mineral
development inside the CYE, SE, BE or North Cascades. However,
motorized access standards in the CYE and SE, the ``no net loss''
agreement in the North Cascades, and the large wilderness areas and
IRAs in the BE, CYE, and North Cascades may help avoid or minimize
energy and mineral development effects by de facto increasing habitat
security for grizzly bears. The Wilderness Act and other regulations
minimize this stressor in the North Cascades, CYE, SE, and BE. Although
there are no data or information suggesting energy and mineral
development is limiting grizzly bear populations in the CYE, SE, BE,
and North Cascades, the potential for disturbance exists, and
monitoring will continue to support adaptive management decisions.
Therefore, in the absence of minimizing measures across the range,
energy and mineral development may be a threat to the grizzly bear DPS.
For more information about this threat, see Energy and Mineral
Development in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 129-133).
Recreation
Outdoor recreation is increasing across the United States (White et
al. 2016, pp. 3-4, 7). The primary concern related to increased
recreation is that it may increase the probability of human-grizzly
bear encounters, with subsequent increases in human-caused mortality
(Mattson et al. 1996, p. 1014; Service 2024, pp. 131-136). In addition,
individuals recreating in bear country could cause displacement from
high-quality habitat. Developed sites associated with recreation (see
``Developed Sites,'' above) and motorized recreation (see ``Motorized
Access,'' above) can also directly limit secure grizzly bear habitat.
Grizzly bears exhibit a range of responses to non-motorized recreation
depending on the age and sex of the bear (Jope 1985, p. 34; Gibeau et
al. 2002, p. 232; Ladle et al. 2018, p. 6; Loggers 2022, p. 66),
reproductive status (Ladle et al. 2018, p. 6), season (Elmeligi 2016,
p. 113), and individual bear behavior (Elmeligi 2016, pp. 131-134;
Ordiz et al. 2019, p. 232; Sahl[eacute]n et al. 2015, p. 7). Although
non-motorized trails may cause displacement of individual grizzly bears
to varying degrees, grizzly bear mortality related to non-motorized
recreation is rare and population-level impacts have not been
documented (Jope 1985, pp. 34-36; McLellan and Shackleton 1989a, pp.
270-274; Kasworm and Manley 1990, pp. 81, 84; Mace and Waller 1996, pp.
463-465; White et al. 1999, p. 149). Motorized recreation impacts
grizzly bears through increased mortality as a result of human-bear
encounters, displacement, habitat loss, and fragmentation (Proctor et
al. 2019, p. 18). Recreational hunting (e.g., hunting for elk, black
bears, upland birds) within grizzly bear habitat can also increase the
chances of grizzly bear mortalities due to defense-of-life and
mistaken-identity killings.
Inside the GYE and NCDE recovery zones, the vast majority of lands
available for recreation are accessible through non-motorized travel
only (USDA FS 2006a, p. 179; NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 3, figure
7). Motorized recreation during the summer, spring, and fall inside the
recovery zone is limited to existing roads under standards in the
habitat-based recovery criteria and the GYE and NCDE conservation
strategies that restrict increases in roads or motorized trails.
Recreation at developed sites, such as lodges, downhill ski areas, and
campgrounds, is limited by the developed sites habitat standard
described in the habitat-based recovery criteria and the GYE and NCDE
conservation strategies. Ongoing I&E efforts at these recreation sites
are an important contributing factor to successful grizzly bear
conservation and will continue under the GYE and NCDE conservation
strategies (YES 2024, chapter 5; NCDE Subcommittee, pp. 103-1-5).
Although there are no data or information suggesting recreation is
negatively affecting grizzly bear populations in the CYE, SE, BE, and
North Cascades, the potential for disturbance exists, and monitoring
will continue to support adaptive management decisions. However, we do
not have evidence indicating that current levels of recreation are
limiting to grizzly bear populations. Therefore, in the absence of the
protections of the Act, we do not anticipate that recreation would be a
threat to the grizzly bear DPS. For more information about the
conservation measures that have ameliorated this threat, see Recreation
in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 133-138).

[[Page 4260]]

Vegetation Management
Depending on the type of project, vegetation management can be
beneficial, neutral, or harmful to grizzly bears (Service 2024, pp.
138-141). The building of roads associated with vegetation management
projects pose the largest potential threat to grizzly bear populations.
Impacts to individual bears from timber management activities are
usually temporary in nature. Vegetation management that improves food
resources, such as berry producing shrubs, tubers or corms, succulent
broadleaves, or grasses, can benefit grizzly bears. Manipulations that
can produce these effects occur in the form of prescribed fire,
thinning, or timber harvest, but all actions must consider the
individual site and desired condition post-treatment.
Vegetation management occurs throughout all six ecosystems on lands
managed by the USFS and NPS. Although there are known, usually
temporary, impacts to individual bears from timber management
activities, these impacts have been adequately minimized using the IGBC
guidelines (USDA FS 1986, pp. 6-12) in place since 1986. These impacts
will continue to be managed at levels compatible with a recovered
grizzly bear population under the GYE and NCDE conservation strategies.
These impacts will continue to be largely minimized through motorized
access standards in the CYE and SE and the ``no net loss'' policy in
the North Cascades. In addition, the large acreage of wilderness areas
and IRAs reduce the effects of vegetation management in the six
ecosystems.
Conservation mechanisms to reduce the negative effects of motorized
access, which minimize the impacts of vegetation management independent
of the Act, are currently only in place for two of the six ecosystems.
They have not been met or finalized for the remaining four ecosystems.
Therefore, in the absence of conservation mechanisms across the range,
vegetation management may be a threat to the grizzly bear DPS. For more
information about the conservation measures that have ameliorated this
threat, see Vegetation Management in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp.
138-141).
Habitat Fragmentation
Habitat fragmentation can cause a loss of connectivity and may
result from human activities, such as habitat modification, road
building, and human developments and settlement (Proctor et al. 2012,
p. 23; Lamb et al. 2017, p. 62). Human activities can result in human-
caused mortality, such as automobile collisions and management
removals, that also cause demographic (i.e., female) fragmentation
(Service 2024, pp. 141-143). Long-distance dispersal by males enables
immigrants to act as a counter to genetic fragmentation and loss of
nuclear genetic diversity (e.g., GYE population) (Proctor et al. 2012,
p. 27; Peck et al. 2017, p. 15).
The GYE grizzly bear population is currently a contiguous
population across its range, and there are no data to indicate habitat
fragmentation within this population is occurring. In other words,
there is no indication that human activities are preventing grizzly
bears from moving freely within the ecosystem (Service 2024, p. 140).
In the NCDE, human-caused fragmentation has been identified across
U.S. Hwy 2/the BNSF (Burlington Northern Santa Fe) Railway's rail line
corridor; however, this corridor does not currently prevent demographic
and genetic connectivity within the NCDE (Waller and Servheen 2005, pp.
996-998; Mikle et al. 2016b, supplementary table 3). Measures of
genetic diversity from the NCDE are similar to those from undisturbed
populations in Canada and Alaska, leading to the conclusion that the
NCDE population has high genetic diversity and is sufficiently
connected to other populations.
Grizzly bear population fragmentation has occurred, and currently
still occurs, between the Yaak and Cabinet Mountains portions of the
CYE and is related to human settlement, U.S. Hwy 2, and a busy rail
line (Proctor et al. 2018, p. 350). There is recent evidence that some
grizzly bear movements between the Yaak and Cabinet Mountains are
starting to take place (Kasworm et al. 2024a, p. 34) and functional
connectivity within the CYE remains a management objective. There is no
indication that similar potential barriers exist within the SE, BE, and
North Cascades recovery zones. However, habitat fragmentation resulting
from human activities associated with human population growth and
increases in recreation may limit connectivity between ecosystems.
Therefore, in the absence of measures to allow for connectivity,
habitat fragmentation would continue to be a threat to the grizzly bear
DPS. Please see Habitat Fragmentation in the SSA report for further
information (Service 2024, pp. 141-143). See ``Private Land
Development,'' below, for further discussion on potential impacts to
connectivity between ecosystems.
Private Land Development
Private land development may lead to habitat fragmentation (see
``Habitat Fragmentation,'' above, for further discussion) (Service
2024, pp. 143-148). Urban and rural sprawl (low-density housing and
associated businesses) have resulted in increasing numbers of human-
grizzly bear conflicts, with subsequent increases in grizzly bear
mortality rates in more human-dominated landscapes. Continued
development of private lands will likely lead to further increases in
conflicts and mortalities, potentially limiting the grizzly bear's
range and connectivity between ecosystems.
Conservation easements on private lands maintain open lands for
wildlife use by protecting against potential future subdivision and
development while maintaining traditional land uses. Easements and land
trusts can be especially effective at reducing habitat fragmentation
and increasing connectivity of secure grizzly bear habitat. In addition
to addressing threats from private land development through
conservation easement programs, Federal, State, and Tribal wildlife
management agencies respond to conflicts on public and private lands.
While human-grizzly conflicts occur at developed sites on public lands,
most management removals arise from conflicts on private lands
(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21; MFWP, unpublished data).
In the GYE, only 1 percent of the recovery zone and nearly 13
percent of the DMA outside of the recovery zone is privately owned. In
the NCDE, 7 percent of the recovery zone and nearly 47 percent of
habitat in Zones 1 and 2 are privately owned. In the CYE and SE, nearly
2 percent and 14 percent of habitat within the recovery zone are
privately owned, respectively. In the BE, less than 1 percent of
habitat within the recovery zone is privately owned. Approximately 3
percent (873 km\2\ (338 mi\2\)) of the North Cascades recovery zone is
private land. The large areas of public lands protected by Federal
legislation (e.g., designated wilderness or IRAs) help to minimize
risks posed by human population growth on private lands and ensure that
the grizzly bear population will continue to meet recovery criteria.
Additional protections are provided by the placement of conservation
easements or the purchase of private lands by public agencies (e.g.,
the Service) or qualified Land Trusts (e.g., The Nature Conservancy,
The Vital Ground Foundation). We do not have information to indicate
that current levels of private land development are limiting to grizzly
bear populations at this time. Monitoring will continue to assess
potential impacts associated with human activities (i.e., human

[[Page 4261]]

population growth, private land development, and increases in
recreation) that may limit connectivity between ecosystems. Therefore,
in the absence of conservation measures, private land development may
be a threat to the grizzly bear DPS. For more information about this
threat, see Private Land Development in the SSA report (Service 2024,
pp. 143-148).
III. Connectivity and Genetic Health
The isolation and lack of connectivity between grizzly populations
in the lower-48 States was a recognized threat at the time of the
original listing (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). Although the 1993
recovery plan did not require connectivity for delisting of individual
grizzly bear populations, it recognized that natural connectivity
between grizzly bear populations would benefit long-term grizzly bear
conservation through potential genetic exchange and is necessary for
small or isolated populations to sustain themselves at recovery levels
(Service 1993, pp. 15, 23-25). Small, isolated populations are
vulnerable to extinction from demographic fluctuations resulting from
environmental processes (e.g., poor food years, disease, human-caused
mortality) and low genetic diversity due to genetic drift and
inbreeding. Low genetic diversity can have deleterious effects on
fitness and fecundity (Allendorf et al. 1991, p. 651; Burgman et al.
1993, p. 220), and ultimately reduces long-term population viability.
Genetic health is typically assessed using a variety of metrics,
including effective population size and measures of genetic diversity
(e.g., allelic richness, heterozygosity, inbreeding rate).
Connectivity, or dispersal and successful immigration, of males or
females enhances genetic diversity and reduces genetic fragmentation
(i.e., provides genetic or demographic connectivity, respectively)
(Miller and Waits 2003, pp. 4337-4338; Proctor et al. 2005, pp. 27-28).
As few as one to two effective migrants per generation interval can
maintain or enhance genetic diversity (Mills and Allendorf 1996, pp.
1510, 1516; Newman and Tallmon 2001, pp. 1059-1061; Miller and Waits
2003, p. 4338).
In the GYE, effective population size and genetic diversity (e.g.,
allelic richness, heterozygosity, inbreeding rate), in addition to
other indicators of genetic health (e.g., reproduction, survival), are
monitored by the IGBST for the GYE grizzly bear population (in their
entirety: Miller and Waits 2003; Haroldson et al. 2010; Kamath et al.
2015). Although the GYE is isolated, genetic concerns are not a current
threat to the GYE grizzly bear population (Miller and Waits 2003, p.
4338; Kamath et al. 2015, entire). Recent data indicate an extremely
low rate of inbreeding and an increase in the effective population size
over the 25-year period of 1982 to 2007, substantially reducing the
prospects of potential negative effects associated with isolation of
the GYE population in the short term (Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5517).
These findings are likely a function of significant growth of the GYE
grizzly population during the same 25-year period. Additionally, other
measures of genetic health, such as heterozygosity and allelic
richness, have not changed over a similar 25-year time period of 1985
to 2010 (Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5512). The current level of genetic
diversity in the GYE grizzly bear population also coincides with robust
demographic vital rates (i.e., reproduction, survival) that are fully
comparable with other growing or stable brown bear populations in North
America (van Manen 2016, in litt.).
Although the potential threat of inbreeding is currently low, the
GYE remains isolated, and inbreeding could become an issue in the
future without connectivity. The genetic health and long-term viability
of the currently isolated GYE would benefit from one to two effective
immigrants from one of the other established grizzly bear populations
approximately every generation interval (Mills and Allendorf 1996, pp.
1510, 1516; Newman and Tallmon 2001, pp. 1059-1061; Miller and Waits
2003, p. 4338; Kamath et al. 2015, p. 5517). The IGBST monitors grizzly
bear movements and observations, and the IGBST checks for the presence
of alleles from grizzly bear populations outside the GYE population
(YES 2024, chapter 2). We have not detected any effective migrants into
the GYE population to date; however, the 2022 estimated occupied ranges
for grizzly bears in the GYE and NCDE were only 98 km (61 mi) apart,
within maximum dispersal distances documented for males (Blanchard and
Knight 1991, pp. 50, 55; McLellan and Hovey 2001, p. 841; Peck et al.
2017, p. 2), and we have verified several outlier observations between
the distributions (see figure 1, above). Nonetheless, successful
immigration events will likely remain rare due to distance and barriers
(e.g., interstates) unless current distributions continue to expand
(Peck et al. 2017, pp. 15-16). Continued expansion of estimated
occupied range will increase the likelihood of connectivity (Peck et
al. 2017, p. 15). Researchers have modeled potential male and female
dispersal pathways between the NCDE and GYE populations (Peck et al.
2017, entire; Sells et al. 2023, entire). These dispersal paths could
be used to identify and prioritize conservation efforts that foster
connectivity.
The States have committed to genetic monitoring and translocation,
if necessary, to address the ability of future GYE grizzly bears to
adapt evolutionarily (Hedrick 1995, p. 1004; Miller and Waits 2003, p.
4338). The IGBST also monitors genetic diversity of the GYE grizzly
bear population so that a possible reduction in genetic diversity will
be detected and responded to accordingly with translocation of grizzly
bears into the GYE population originating from another population in
the grizzly bear DPS. A Tri-State MOA commits the States of Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming to translocate at least two grizzly bears from
outside the GYE into the GYE by the end of 2025, unless migration from
outside the GYE is detected in the interim (YES 2024, chapter 2;
Wyoming Game and Fish Commission et al. 2024, p. 5). In July 2024,
MFWP, in collaboration with Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) and
YNP, translocated a subadult female and a young adult male from the
NCDE to the GYE. While translocation has the potential to improve
genetic connectivity and long-term genetic health, it cannot guarantee
these needs, as translocated bears may leave the ecosystem or die
before reproducing. Translocated bears often exhibit unusual movement
patterns, which can increase their mortality risk. Natural connectivity
between the GYE population and other populations would improve the
chances of long-term genetic health in the GYE. Although natural
immigration will likely remain rare, individuals that arrive naturally
have a higher probability of remaining in the area and lower mortality
risk than translocated individuals.
The NCDE grizzly bear population is genetically diverse, large
enough to ensure genetic health, and genetically and demographically
well connected to Canadian populations, and there is no indication that
the genetic health of the NCDE grizzly bear population is likely to
measurably decline in the future. Nevertheless, ongoing genetic
sampling and radio telemetry enable scientists to examine movements,
genetic diversity, and population structure within the NCDE grizzly
bear population (in their entirety: Kendall et al. 2008; Kendall et al.
2009; Mace et al. 2012; Proctor et al. 2012; Mikle et al. 2016a;
Morehouse et al. 2016).
In the CYE, Proctor et al. (2012, entire) used several metrics to
evaluate

[[Page 4262]]

the genetic status and found that genetic diversity in the Yaak portion
of the CYE was comparable to other healthy grizzly bear populations in
North America. The sample size of native Cabinet bears was insufficient
to include in the analysis. Because habitat in the CYE recovery zone
can only support a small grizzly bear population, it is important to
maintain connectivity with other populations. Multiple individuals (33
males, 3 females) are known to have moved into the Yaak portion of the
CYE from the NCDE, SE, and the North Purcells in Canada. Data suggest
that the Yaak has experienced gene flow only from B.C. grizzly bear
populations. While there is evidence of movement into the Cabinets from
the Yaak, NCDE, and the SE, reproduction that would contribute to the
genetic health of the population has not been documented for any
immigrants. Of additional concern is population linkage between the
Yaak and Cabinet portions of this recovery zone, which is split along
Hwy 2 (Proctor et al. 2012, p. 12; Kendall et al. 2016, pp. 320-321).
Proctor et al. (2012, entire) found genetic diversity was lower in
the SE than in other grizzly bear populations in the grizzly bear DPS
and Canada and that the SE grizzly bear population had likely been
isolated in the recent past. In recent years, reproduction has been
documented from several immigrants to the SE, resulting in an increase
in genetic diversity. Telemetry from collared individuals indicates
that grizzly bears move freely across the length of the international
border in the SE (Kasworm et al. 2024b, pp. 61-79). These changes
demonstrate that grizzly bears in the SE are starting to exhibit
increased connectivity with other grizzly bear populations.
There are currently no known populations in the BE and North
Cascades, and isolation is a concern for any future populations,
although of greater concern in the North Cascades than in the BE.
Multiple grizzly bears have been confirmed in areas immediately
surrounding the BE recovery zone over the last 15 years; they are most
likely grizzly bears dispersing from the expanding populations in the
GYE and NCDE. In the North Cascades, natural recolonization is unlikely
in the near future due to the low numbers of bears in nearby
populations and the highly fragmented landscape in between (NPS and
Service 2024, p. 7).
As discussed above in ``Mistaken-identity Killings,'' recent
legislation in Montana and Idaho that expands hunting and trapping
methods allowed for wolves and black bears could reduce the probability
of natural connectivity between the GYE, NCDE, CYE, SE, and BE
populations. In addition, there are no mortality thresholds in
connectivity areas for grizzly bears taken by livestock owners or for
other human-caused mortality, such as management removals (for more
information, see ``Mortality Limits,'' above). The lack of mortality
thresholds in connectivity areas may result in a contraction of
estimated occupied range, which could decrease the likelihood of
successful immigration. Therefore, in the absence of conservation
measures, connectivity and genetic health would continue to be a threat
to the grizzly bear DPS. For more information about this threat, see
Connectivity and Genetic Health in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp.
182-197).
IV. Food Resources
Grizzly bears are resourceful omnivores that will make behavioral
adaptations regarding food acquisition (Schwartz et al. 2014, p. 75).
Diets of grizzly bears vary among individuals, seasons, years, and
where they reside (Mealey 1980, pp. 284-287; Servheen 1981, pp. 119-
123, 127-128; LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 24-25; Mattson et al. 1991a, pp.
1625-1626; Mattson et al. 1991b, pp. 2433-2434; Felicetti et al. 2003,
p. 767; Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 568-569; Felicetti et al. 2004, p.
499; Koel et al. 2005, p. 14; Costello et al. 2014, p. 2013; Gunther et
al. 2014, pp. 66-67), reflecting their ability to find adequate food
resources across a diverse and changing landscape.
There are no indications that long-term trends in food
availability, other than whitebark pine nuts, cutthroat trout, and
salmon, have changed in the GYE, NCDE, CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades
in the last several decades. Although whitebark pine seed production
and the availability of cutthroat trout in the Yellowstone Lake area
varied dramatically over the last 3 decades due to both natural and
human-introduced causes (Reinhart and Mattson 1990, pp. 345-349;
Podruzny et al. 1999, pp. 134-137; Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499;
Haroldson et al. 2005, pp. 175-178; Haroldson 2015, p. 47; Teisberg et
al. 2014, pp. 375-376), the GYE grizzly bear population has continued
to increase and expand during this time period despite these changes in
food availability (Schwartz et al. 2006a, p. 66; IGBST 2012, p. 34;
Bjornlie et al. 2014, p. 184). While salmon abundance is reduced in the
BE and North Cascades compared to historical numbers, several studies
have concluded that there are sufficient alternative foods to maintain
grizzly bear populations in those ecosystems.
We anticipate that grizzly bears will be able to adapt to any
future potential changes in individual food sources because of the
great plasticity of grizzly bear diets and the range of available
foods. Thus, the highly omnivorous and flexible diet of grizzly bears
will enable the species to adapt to future changes in food
availability. It is also clear that grizzly bears can compensate for
changes in the availability of food as long as there is sufficient
habitat security. Therefore, we do not anticipate changes in food
resources to be a threat to the grizzly bear DPS. For more information
about this threat, see Food Resources in the SSA report (Service 2024,
pp. 197-212).
V. Potential Effects of Climate Change
We evaluated observed or likely future environmental changes
resulting from ongoing and projected changes in climate (Service 2024,
pp. 210-217). Effects related to climate change may result in a number
of changes to grizzly bear habitat, including a reduction in snowpack
levels (McKelvey et al. 2011, entire; Schwartz et al. 2016, p. 317;
Livneh and Badger 2020, pp. 453-454), which may shorten the denning
season (Leung et al. 2004, pp. 93-94), shifts in denning times
(Craighead and Craighead 1972, pp. 33-34; Van Daele et al. 1990, p.
264; Haroldson et al. 2002, pp. 34-35), shifts in the abundance and
distribution of some natural food sources (Rodriguez et al. 2007, pp.
41-42), and changes in fire regimes (Nitschke and Innes 2008, p. 853;
McWethy et al. 2010, p. 55).
Most grizzly bear biologists in the United States and Canada do not
expect habitat changes predicted under climate change scenarios to have
significant consequences for grizzly bears (Servheen and Cross 2010, p.
4). Climate change may even make some habitat more suitable and some
food sources more abundant (Servheen and Cross 2010, appendix D). In
addition, we anticipate that grizzly bears will adapt to any future
potential changes in suitable habitat and food sources because they
display great diet plasticity and switch foods according to which foods
are most nutritious and available (Servheen 1981, pp. 119-123,127-128;
Kendall 1986, pp. 12-18; Mace and Jonkel 1986, entire; Martinka and
Kendall 1986, pp. 21-22; LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 24-25; Aune and
Kasworm 1989, pp. 64-72; Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 568-569; Edwards et
al. 2011, pp. 883-886; Gunther et al. 2014, pp. 65-69). Timing and
frequency of human-grizzly bear interactions and conflicts may change
(Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4), and monitoring will continue to

[[Page 4263]]

support adaptive management decisions. We expect that current
conservation plans and strategies with mortality limits will further
limit any potential negative effects of climate change on grizzly
bears. Therefore, in the absence of the protections of the Act, we do
not anticipate potential effects of climate change to be a threat to
the grizzly bear DPS. For more information about this threat, see
Potential Effects of Climate Change in the SSA report (Service 2024,
pp. 212-219).
VI. Stochastic Events
Here, we analyze a number of possible stochastic events, including
fire, volcanic activity, and earthquakes, that might reasonably occur
in each of the recovery ecosystems within the 30-to-45-year future, to
the extent possible (Service 2024, pp. 219-222). Some stochastic events
could be catastrophic events if they occur on a large enough scale to
rise to the level of affecting the resiliency of an entire population.
Volcanic activity is most relevant for the GYE population given
their geographic location; however, fires and earthquakes are the most
plausible potential stochastic stressor to all of the ecosystems given
their geographic location. Fire is a natural part of all grizzly bear
ecosystems. Even though fire frequency and severity may increase with
late summer droughts predicted under climate change scenarios (Nitschke
and Innes 2008, p. 853; McWethy et al. 2010, p. 55; Whitlock et al.
2017; pp. 123-131, 216, XXXII), increased frequency of low to moderate
severity fires has the potential to improve grizzly bear habitat. The
GYE has experienced several large volcanic eruptions in the past 2.1
million years, and such an event would devastate the GYE grizzly bear
population (Lowenstern et al. 2005, pp. 1-2). In addition, nonexplosive
lava flow eruptions and hydrothermal explosions have occurred over the
past 640,000 years (Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 2). Earthquakes also
occur within the region and can impact the surrounding environment
through fire damage, rockslides, ground cracks, and changes in ground
water (Pardee 1926, entire).
Most catastrophic stochastic events, such as volcanic activity, are
unpredictable and unlikely to occur within the biologically meaningful
timeframe evaluated in our SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 217-220).
Other events that might occur within the future, such as fire and
earthquakes, would likely cause only localized and temporary impacts
that would not significantly reduce the resiliency of the GYE
population. Therefore, no conservation measures are required to
ameliorate these stressors, and, in the absence of the protections of
the Act, we do not anticipate stochastic events to be a threat to the
grizzly bear DPS. For more information about this threat, see
Stochastic Events in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 217-219).

Current Conditions

As documented in our SSA report, we evaluated the resiliency of
each of the six ecosystems, in terms of the habitat and demographic
factors needed by the grizzly bear in the grizzly bear DPS (Service
2024, pp. 36-38, 232-247). We developed a categorical model to
calibrate resiliency based on a range of conditions for two habitat
factors (natural, high-caloric foods, and habitat security) and six
demographic factors (adult female survival, abundance as measured by
population targets and number of bears, population trend, reproductive
female distribution, inter-ecosystem connectivity, and genetic
diversity) (Service 2024, pp. 232-235). We selected these habitat and
demographic factors based on their importance to resiliency and because
we could evaluate them relatively consistently across all six
ecosystems. We then used this categorical model as a key to evaluate
resiliency for each ecosystem by systematically evaluating the current
condition of each habitat and demographic factor. To calculate an
overall score for resiliency, we assigned weighted values to the
resiliency categories and then calculated a weighted average of the
habitat and demographic factor ranking (Service 2024, p. 234). These
scores were then used to classify resiliency in the predefined
categories of high, moderate, low, or very low resiliency. Ecosystems
with higher resiliency categories are at less risk from potential
stochastic events, such as extreme weather events, than ecosystems in
lower resiliency categories (Service 2024, p. 234). Our SSA report
provides additional detail regarding the methodology we used to
evaluate resiliency for each of the six ecosystems (Service 2024, pp.
232-235).
Currently, the GYE population has high resiliency (table 21 in SSA
report (Service 2024, p. 237)). A variety of land protections,
particularly those that have reduced motorized access, and the
availability and diversity of natural foods contribute to the currently
high condition of the habitat factors in the GYE (Service 2024, p.
238). Additionally, State, Federal, Tribal, and nongovernmental
organization partners have implemented conservation activities and land
protections in the GYE that help reduce human-caused mortality and
contribute to the large GYE population size (Service 2024, p. 238). In
the GYE, the demographic factors of genetic diversity and inter-
ecosystem connectivity could improve if natural immigration into the
GYE population occurs in the future (Service 2024, p. 238). There
currently is no inter-ecosystem connectivity to the GYE population, and
genetic diversity for the GYE population is currently moderate because
the population remains isolated. One to two effective immigrants from
another grizzly bear population each generation interval (i.e., 14
years) are necessary to ensure long-term genetic health (Service 2024,
pp. 238-239).
Currently, the NCDE population has high resiliency (table 21 in SSA
report (Service 2024, p. 237)). A variety of land protections,
particularly those that have reduced motorized access, and the
availability and diversity of natural foods contribute to the currently
high condition of the habitat factors in the NCDE (Service 2024, p.
239). Additionally, State, Federal, Tribal, and nongovernmental
organization partners have implemented conservation activities and land
protections in the NCDE that help reduce human-caused mortality and
contribute to the large NCDE population size (Service 2024, p. 239).
The demographic factors of genetic diversity and inter-ecosystem
connectivity are in a high condition as a result of connectivity with
Canadian populations (Service 2024, pp. 239-240).
Currently, the CYE population has low resiliency, and the SE
population has moderate resiliency (table 21 in SSA report (Service
2024, p. 237)). The smaller size of the CYE and SE, with a narrower
range of habitats that may limit the diversity of foods available, as
well as somewhat limiting habitat security contribute to the currently
moderate condition of the habitat factors in the CYE and SE (Service
2024, pp. 240-241). Despite high population trends and high and
moderate adult female survival, both the CYE and SE currently have very
low numbers of bears, although this factor could improve as bears
reproduce and expand in the future (Service 2024, pp. 240-241). The
demographic factors of genetic diversity and inter-ecosystem
connectivity are in a low to moderate condition as a result of past
isolation and limited reproducing immigrants from other populations
(Service 2024, pp. 241-242).
Despite the moderate to high condition of habitats, without known
populations, the BE and North Cascades

[[Page 4264]]

are currently in functionally extirpated condition, and therefore have
no resiliency (Service 2024, pp. 242-244). Our SSA report provides
additional detail regarding current resiliency for each of the six
ecosystems (Service 2024, pp. 232-245).
Redundancy describes the ability of the species to withstand
catastrophic events. For the grizzly bear, we considered the number and
distribution of ecosystems, such that the greater the number and the
wider the distribution of the ecosystems, the better able grizzly bears
in the grizzly bear DPS are to withstand catastrophic events. Grizzly
bears in the grizzly bear DPS currently occupy four ecosystems, with
two ecosystems with high resiliency, one with moderate resiliency, and
one with low resiliency. Two ecosystems are currently in functionally
extirpated condition, with no resiliency, so they do not contribute to
redundancy.
Representation describes the ability of a species to adapt to
changing environmental conditions. For the grizzly bear, we considered
the breadth of ecological diversity as a proxy for evaluating this
ability. Representation is currently captured by ecological diversity
inherent within the grizzly bear populations in the four occupied
ecosystems of the GYE, NCDE, CYE, and SE. For example, the GYE,
contained in the Middle Rockies ecoregion, is dominated by forested,
mountainous habitat, and dry sagebrush to the east and south, and
includes hydrothermal features and other unique geologic features. The
NCDE includes parts of the Great Plains, Middle Rockies, and Northern
Rockies ecoregions, and habitat varies from wet forested lands west of
GNP to much drier habitat to the east, including prairie grasslands.
The CYE and SE are both contained within the Rocky Mountains, and are
characterized by wet, forested mountains. The BE and North Cascades
ecosystems are currently unoccupied by a grizzly bear population and
therefore do not currently contribute to representation. The BE is
primarily contained in the Idaho Batholith ecoregion. It contains
mountainous regions; canyons; dry, partly wooded mountains; grasslands;
high glacial valleys; and hot dry canyons. The North Cascades is part
of the North Cascades ecoregion and is characterized by steep, rugged,
glaciated peaks dividing wet temperate forests on the west side and
semi-arid forests and shrub-steppe grasslands on the east side.

Future Conditions

We evaluated future conditions for the six ecosystems using
projections for the stressors, habitat factors, and demographic factors
that influence the resiliency of the ecosystem, and the redundancy and
representation of the grizzly bear in the grizzly bear DPS (Service
2024, pp. 248-252). To evaluate future conditions, we used the same
methodology that we used to evaluate current condition, but instead
considered the plausible conditions for the two habitat factors and six
demographic factors projected into the future under a range of
plausible future scenarios (Service 2024, pp. 248-252). We evaluated
future conditions for the grizzly bear in the grizzly bear DPS 30 to 45
years into the future, a timeframe that captures approximately two to
three grizzly bear generation intervals. A generation interval is the
approximate time that it takes a female grizzly bear to replace herself
in the population. Given the longevity of grizzly bears, two to three
generation intervals represent a period during which a complete
turnover of the population would have occurred; any positive or adverse
changes in the status of the population would be evident. Additionally,
this timeframe is sufficient to allow for the possibility that land
management plans, which may provide important conservation measures to
reduce potential stressors, could go through at least one revision
(Service 2024, p. 248). Below, we summarize the future scenarios and
our evaluation of future condition for the six ecosystems under each
scenario; our full analysis is contained in the SSA report (Service
2024, pp. 248-265).
As documented in our SSA report, we used scenario planning to
describe plausible futures for the grizzly bear and to capture
uncertainty associated with our future projections. Using future
scenarios allowed us to explore a range of possible future conditions
for the grizzly bear in the grizzly bear DPS, given the uncertainty in
the stressors grizzly bears in the grizzly bear DPS may face, their
potential response to those stressors, and the potential for possible
conservation efforts to influence future conditions (see table 28 in
our SSA report (Service 2024, p. 266)). As described in more detail in
our SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 248-252), we developed five future
scenarios, as summarized below:
Future Scenario 1--Significantly Decreased Conservation:
Under this scenario, conservation actions decrease significantly,
largely through the termination or non-renewal of plans or regulations,
and the rate of private land development increases dramatically;
Future Scenario 2--Decreased Conservation: Under this
scenario, conservation actions decrease, but not as significantly as in
Scenario 1, due to decreased effectiveness and implementation of
conservation actions and mechanisms, and the rate of private land
development increases;
Future Scenario 3--Continuation of Conservation: Under
this scenario, conservation actions continue at the same rate,
magnitude, and effectiveness as they currently occur under the Act, and
the rate of private land development remains the same;
Future Scenario 4--Increased Conservation: Under this
scenario, conservation actions increase or improve, and the rate of
private land development decreases; and
Future Scenario 5--Significantly Increased Conservation:
Under this scenario, conservation actions increase significantly, and
the rate of private land development decreases dramatically.
Although there are likely different probabilities associated with
our future scenarios, we considered all five scenarios to be plausible
for the purposes of our SSA analysis (Service 2024, p. 248). We used
the same methodology to evaluate current condition and to project the
resiliency of the six ecosystems 30 to 45 years into the future. We
projected the future condition for the two habitat factors and six
demographic factors under each of the five future scenarios and then
calculated an overall resiliency score for each ecosystem under each
scenario using the same weighted average as our current condition
evaluation. After evaluating resiliency, we then evaluated redundancy
and representation of the grizzly bear in the grizzly bear DPS for each
future scenario.
Future Scenario 1
With a significant decrease in conservation under Scenario 1, there
are projected to be subsequent decreases in resiliency across the
habitat and demographic factors for populations in all ecosystems over
the next 30 to 45 years. The GYE and NCDE populations are projected to
decrease in overall resiliency from high to moderate, the SE population
declines from moderate to low, and the CYE population declines from low
to very low under this scenario.
Natural high-caloric foods remain high or moderate for all
ecosystems under Scenario 1, due in part to the large amount of
wilderness and national parks, which help ensure that a diversity of
food sources would continue to be available to the grizzly bear into
the future. However, as conservation declines significantly

[[Page 4265]]

under Scenario 1, habitat security declines from high to moderate for
the GYE and NCDE, and from moderate to low in the CYE and SE as
motorized access increases, but habitat security remains high in the BE
and moderate for the North Cascades. The quantity of wilderness areas
and national parks that remain in these ecosystems helps ensure that
the condition of this habitat factor does not fall below moderate for
the GYE, NCDE, and North Cascades, or below high for the BE.
Under Scenario 1, there are projected to be overall declines in
condition for most of the demographic factors for the populations in
all ecosystems. Under this scenario, significant reductions in
conservation actions that address unsecured attractants and other
sources of human-caused mortality lead to increased mortality and hence
declines in adult female survival, abundance, population trend, and
reproductive female distribution. Human-caused mortalities would
increase if State regulations are enacted that allow grizzly bears to
be killed by the public (e.g., if bears ``threaten'' livestock) or if
regulatory mechanisms limiting mortality to sustainable levels are not
adequate. Reproductive female distribution in the GYE and NCDE
populations declines from high to moderate, as at least one BMU in this
ecosystem would likely be unoccupied as a result of significantly
decreased conservation. Reproductive female distribution in the CYE and
SE also declines under this scenario; however, due to the small size of
BMUs in these ecosystems, single female home ranges will likely still
overlap multiple BMUs, contributing to reproductive distribution.
Finally, overall resiliency declines for the populations in all
ecosystems as abundance declines due to increasing human-caused
mortality, the GYE population continues to be isolated with no inter-
ecosystem connectivity, and connectivity for the CYE and SE would
decline as human-caused mortality would result in decreased
connectivity.
Future Scenario 2
With a decrease in conservation efforts under Scenario 2, potential
projected decreases in overall resiliency are less severe than under
Scenario 1. Under Scenario 2, the NCDE population remains in high
overall resiliency, the GYE population is projected to drop from high
to moderate resiliency, the CYE population remains in low resiliency,
and the SE drops from moderate to low overall resiliency.
As conservation is reduced under Scenario 2, natural high-caloric
foods remain the same as the current condition for all ecosystems.
However, in the GYE and NCDE, habitat security shifts from high to
moderate as motorized access increases, but the quantity of wilderness
areas and national parks that remain helps ensure that the condition of
this habitat factor does not fall below moderate. Habitat security
remains the same for the CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades.
Under Scenario 2, there are projected to be overall declines in
condition for most of the demographic factors for the populations in
all ecosystems, although not as significantly as in Scenario 1. Under
this scenario, reductions in conservation actions that address
unsecured attractants and other sources of human-caused mortality lead
to some increased mortality and resultant declines in adult female
survival, abundance, population trend, and reproductive female
distribution. Human-caused mortalities would increase if State
regulations are enacted that allow grizzly bears to be killed by the
public (e.g., if bears ``threaten'' livestock) or if regulatory
mechanisms limiting mortality to sustainable levels are not adequate.
Despite reduced conservation, the number of bears is projected to
remain high for the GYE and NCDE populations under Scenario 2. However,
the number of bears is likely to hover around the threshold between
high and moderate, and could drop below the population target such that
the status decreases from high to moderate. The number of bears
decreases to very low in the CYE and SE because small differences in
adult female survival have a larger impact on all other demographic
factors due to their small population size. In general, reduced
conservation could increase human-caused mortality and reduce abundance
for the populations in all ecosystems, but there is some uncertainty
regarding the magnitude of the reduction under this scenario.
Reproductive female distribution in the GYE and NCDE populations
declines from high to moderate under this scenario, as at least one BMU
in these ecosystems would likely be unoccupied as a result of decreased
conservation. However, reproductive female distribution would remain at
moderate for the CYE and SE populations because a significant decline
would be required to decrease distribution to less than 50 percent of
BMUs occupied and because a female home range can overlap multiple BMUs
in these ecosystems. Under Scenario 2, inter-ecosystem connectivity
remains the same for the four current populations. In the CYE, lack of
augmentation would likely increase the chances of inbreeding in the
Cabinet portion of the CYE population under this scenario.
Future Scenario 3
Future Scenario 3 is a continuation scenario, where all stressors
and conservation efforts continue at their same rate and magnitude 30
to 45 years into the future, as they currently occur under the
protections of the Act. The current levels of funding and effectiveness
and implementation of conservation actions and mechanisms stay the same
under this scenario. As a result, the GYE and NCDE populations are
projected to remain in overall high resiliency, the SE population stays
in moderate, but the CYE improves overall resiliency from low to
moderate and the BE improves from functionally extirpated to very low.
Habitat factors remain the same under Scenario 3 for all
ecosystems. Habitat security remains moderate for the SE and CYE by
virtue of their smaller size, but we anticipate that conditions will
improve due to ongoing implementation of current efforts to decrease
motorized routes. Conditions improve for specific demographic factors,
particularly in the CYE and SE, as continued conservation allows
demographic factors to improve over time. Most notably, adult female
survival improves from moderate to high in the SE and the status of
population targets in the CYE and SE improves from low to moderate and
moderate to high, respectively. We anticipate that a population will be
established in the BE in the next 30 to 45 years with continuation of
current dispersal into the ecosystem. Demographic factors are rated as
very low, largely due to the uncertainty around estimation resulting
from small sample sizes and a newly established population.
If conservation continues as described under Scenario 3, inter-
ecosystem connectivity for the GYE population is projected to improve
from functionally extirpated to a moderate condition. Individuals
moving south from the NCDE population are already very close to the GYE
population, and we expect that, as these populations continue to expand
their occupied range, at least one male will enter the GYE population,
establish a home range, and breed within the next 30-45 years if
conservation measures continue. Genetic diversity would improve from
moderate to high as the result of effective immigration or, if natural
immigration does not occur by 2025, the States have committed to
translocate bears into the GYE from another

[[Page 4266]]

population. We expect inter-ecosystem connectivity to increase from
moderate to high for the CYE and SE with continuation of current
conservation efforts that have already facilitated genetic
connectivity.
Future Scenario 4
Under Scenario 4, conservation increases as funding increases, and
the mechanisms that reduce motorized access and human-caused mortality
increase or are more effective. Rates of development on private lands
decrease, and there are increases in conservation easements, highway
crossing structures for wildlife, and the amount of land designated as
wilderness and IRAs. Under this scenario, individuals are successfully
moved into the North Cascades, augmentation continues into the CYE, and
translocations occur in the GYE population, as needed. The GYE and NCDE
populations are projected to remain in overall high resiliency, the SE
population remains in moderate resiliency, the CYE population improves
from low to moderate resiliency, and both the BE and North Cascades
shift from currently functionally extirpated with no resiliency to low
resiliency.
Habitat factors remain the same under Scenario 4 for all
ecosystems. Demographic factors for the BE and North Cascades begin to
improve from their currently functionally extirpated condition. We
anticipate that a population will be established in the BE in the next
30 to 45 years with continuation of current dispersal into the
ecosystem. In addition, we expect that successful reintroduction into
the North Cascades would result in a positive population trend.
However, many demographic factors are rated as very low, largely due to
the uncertainty around estimation resulting from small sample sizes and
a newly established population for the BE and North Cascades. Abundance
improves in both the CYE and SE with increased conservation under this
scenario. With increased conservation, inter-ecosystem connectivity
improves for the GYE, SE, and BE populations. We do not anticipate any
connectivity for the North Cascades under Scenario 4 because conditions
in Canada are assumed to remain the same. Although the North Cascades
is within male dispersal distance of the SE population and genetic
connectivity is possible, we anticipate these events to be rare due to
distance and barriers (i.e., human development).
Future Scenario 5
Under Scenario 5, conservation increases significantly. Conditions
under Scenario 5 generally improve similarly to conditions under
Scenario 4, but with additional increases in genetic diversity and
population trend. Tolerance and acceptance also significantly increase,
and there is general acceptance of grizzly bears persisting in all
ecosystems and the importance of connectivity. The GYE and NCDE
populations are projected to remain in overall high resiliency; the SE
and CYE populations improve from moderate and low, respectively, to
high resiliency; and both the BE and North Cascades shift from
currently functionally extirpated with no resiliency to low resiliency.
The condition for high-caloric foods improves from moderate to high for
the BE with significantly increased conservation under Scenario 5.
Habitat security in the North Cascades improves to high due to
implementation of new habitat standards.
Cumulative Effects
We note that, by using the SSA framework to guide our analysis of
the scientific information documented in the SSA report, we have
analyzed the cumulative effects of identified threats and conservation
actions on the species. To assess the current and future condition of
the species, we evaluate the effects of all the relevant factors that
may be influencing the species, including threats and conservation
efforts. Because the SSA framework considers not just the presence of
the factors, but to what degree they collectively influence risk to the
entire species, our assessment integrates the cumulative effects of the
factors and replaces a standalone cumulative-effects analysis.

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory Mechanisms

The following existing regulatory mechanisms, as of December 31,
2023, are specifically considered and discussed in our SSA report, as
summarized above, as they relate to the stressors under each relevant
discussion, affecting grizzly bears in the grizzly bear DPS.

I. For Habitat-Related Effects

Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem, with appendices (YES 2024);
Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Northern
Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE Subcommittee 2020);
2006 Forest Plan Amendment for Grizzly Bear Habitat
Conservation for the Greater Yellowstone Area National Forests (USDA FS
2006a, 2006b);
2011 Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access
Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery
Zones for the Kootenai, Lolo, and Idaho Panhandle National Forests
(USDA FS 2011b);
2015 Revision of the Land Management Plan for the Kootenai
National Forest (USDA FS 2015c);
2015 Revision of the Land Management Plan for the Idaho
Panhandle National Forest (USDA FS 2015b);
2019 Colville National Forest Land Management Plan (USDA
FS 2019);
2000 Conservation Agreement between Stimson Lumber
Company, Colville National Forest, and the Service (Service 2001);
1997 interim Forest direction for the North Cascades
Federal land management agencies (USDA FS 1997);
Flathead National Forest Land Management Plan (USDA FS
2018b);
Custer Gallatin National Forest Land Management Plan (USDA
FS 2022);
Helena-Lewis and Clark National Forest Land Management
Plan (USDA FS 2021);
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Forest Plan
Amendments: Incorporating Habitat Management Direction for the Northern
Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Population for the Helena-
Lewis and Clark, Kootenai, and Lolo National Forests (USDA FS 2018e);
Blackfeet Forest Management Plan (Blackfeet Nation 2008);
Flathead Indian Reservation Forest Management Plan (CS&KT
2000);
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Montana
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Forested Trust Lands
Habitat Conservation Plan (DNRC 2010a, 2010b);
Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) subchapter 36.11.4
at 36.11.432 and subchapter 12.9.14 at 12.9.1401;
Wilderness Act of 1964;
The 2001 Roadless Rule (66 FR 3244, January 12, 2001);
Glacier National Park Superintendent's Compendium
implemented under the National Park System Organic Act (GNP 2024). The
NPS Organic Act of 1916, 54 U.S.C. 100101 et seq., created the NPS and
assigned it the responsibility to manage the national parks. The
Organic Act requires the NPS to manage park units to conserve scenery,
natural and historic objects within parks, and wildlife, and to provide
for their enjoyment in a manner that leaves them unimpaired for the
enjoyment of future generations;
Yellowstone National Park (YNP 2023) and Grand Teton
National Park

[[Page 4267]]

(GTNP and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. Memorial Parkway (JDR) 2024)
compendia implemented under the NPS Organic Act;
Billings Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan,
2015 (BLM 2015a);
Hiline Approved Resource Management Plan, 2015 (BLM
2015b);
Butte Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan, 2009
(BLM 2009);
Missoula Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan,
2021 (BLM 2021a);
Record of Decision and Approved Lewiston Resource
Management Plan, 2021 (BLM 2021b); and
Dillion Field Office Approved Resource Management Plan,
2006 (BLM 2006).

II. For Human-Caused Mortality:

Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem with appendices (YES 2024);
Conservation Strategy for the Grizzly Bear in the Northern
Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE Subcommittee 2020);
2011 Forest Plan Amendments for Motorized Access
Management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery
Zones for the Kootenai, Lolo, and Idaho Panhandle National Forests
(USDA FS 2011b);
2015 Revision of the Land Management Plan for the Kootenai
National Forest (USDA FS 2015c);
2015 Revision of the Land Management Plan for the Idaho
Panhandle National Forest (USDA FS 2015b);
2019 Colville National Forest Land Management Plan (USDA
FS 2019);
Montana Grizzly Bear Management Plan 2024 (MFWP 2024);
Flathead Indian Reservation Grizzly Bear Management Plan
(Servheen et al. 1981);
Bear Management Plan and Guidelines for Bear Management on
the Blackfeet Indian Reservation (Blackfeet Tribal Business Council
2013);
Blackfeet National Fish and Wildlife Code (Blackfeet
Tribal Business Council 2018);
Nez Perce Tribal Code section 3-1-52;
Flathead Indian Reservation Tribal Ordinance 44D;
Grizzly Bear Management Plan for the Wind River
Reservation (Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 2009);
Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) subchapter 12.9.14
at 12.9.1401, 12.9.1403, 12.9.1405, and 12.9.1413;
Montana Code Annotated (MCA) at sections 87-2-101(4), 87-
1-301, 87-1-304, 87-5-301, and 87-5-302;
Idaho Administrative Code (IAC) rules 13.01.06.100.05 and
13.01.06.300.01;
Idaho Statutes (I.S.) at title 36, chapter 2 (section 36-
201) and chapter 11 (section 36-1101(a));
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) at section 220-610-
010;
Wyoming Statutes (W.S.) at sections 23-1-101(a)(xii)(A)
and 23-3-102(a);
Wyoming Administrative Rules (WAR) 040-0001-67;
State of Idaho Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Management Plan
(Idaho's Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 2002);
Proclamation of the Idaho Fish and Game Commission
Relating to the Limit of the Take of Grizzly Bear in the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem (Idaho Fish and Game Commission 2016);
Draft Idaho State wildlife action plan 2023 (Idaho
Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) 2023);
Montana Hunting Regulations for Grizzly Bear (MFWP 2016);
Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management Plan (WGFD 2016);
Wyoming Game and Fish Commission (2016)--chapter 67,
Grizzly Bear Management Regulation; and
Tri-State Memorandum of Agreement Regarding the
Management, Genetic Health, and Allocation of Discretionary Mortality
of Grizzly Bears in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Wyoming Game and
Fish Commission et al. 2024).

Determination of Status for the Grizzly Bear DPS

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 424) set forth the procedures for determining
whether a species meets the definition of an endangered species or a
threatened species. The Act defines an ``endangered species'' as a
species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range, and a ``threatened species'' as a species likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. The Act requires that we
determine whether a species meets the definition of an endangered
species or a threatened species because of any of the following
factors: (A) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) overutilization for
commercial, recreational, scientific, or educational purposes; (C)
disease or predation; (D) the inadequacy of existing regulatory
mechanisms; or (E) other natural or manmade factors affecting its
continued existence.

Status Throughout All of Its Range

Although only four of the six ecosystems currently support
populations, the grizzly bear DPS has improved in abundance and
estimated occupied range since the listing of the subspecies in 1975.
Historically, the grizzly bear occurred throughout much of the western
half of North America, with an estimated 50,000 grizzly bears
distributed in one large contiguous area that included all or portions
of 18 western States. Populations declined in the late 1800s with the
arrival of European settlers, government-funded bounty programs, and
the conversion of habitats to agricultural uses. When we listed the
grizzly bear in the lower-48 States as a threatened species under the
Act in 1975, grizzly bears had been reduced to less than 2 percent of
their former range in the lower-48 States; at the time, the estimated
population in the lower-48 States, and the proposed grizzly bear DPS,
was 700 to 800 individuals with populations confined to mountainous
regions, national parks, and wilderness areas.
Currently, four of the six ecosystems of the grizzly bear in the
grizzly bear DPS are extant (Service 2024, pp. 60-63). Two of these
ecosystems have high resiliency, one has moderate resiliency, and one
has low resiliency (Service 2024, pp. 13-15, 212-227). The GYE and NCDE
currently have high resiliency due to the high conditions of their
habitat and demographic factors, such as widely available and protected
large, intact blocks of land, positive population growth rates,
expanding ranges, and high survival rates of adult females (Service
2024, pp. 12, 218-219). With high resiliency, the GYE and NCDE are
currently the best able of the four extant ecosystems to withstand
environmental and demographic stochasticity, followed by the SE with
medium resiliency and the CYE with low resiliency. Ongoing conservation
actions implemented since the time of listing, such as regulatory
mechanisms that reduce habitat degradation and sources of human-caused
mortality, have significantly improved the resiliency of these four
ecosystems over the last several decades (Service 2024, pp. 102-106,
203-205). These levels of resiliency currently reduce extinction risk
for the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States. Considered together, the
four resilient ecosystems provide ecological diversity, and their
longitudinal and latitudinal distribution helps reduce current
catastrophic risk to the grizzly

[[Page 4268]]

bear DPS (Service 2024, pp. 13-15, 212-227).
The current condition of the grizzly bear in the grizzly bear DPS
represents a marked improvement from the conditions in 1975, when we
listed the grizzly bear as a threatened species. Over the last 45
years, threats to the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States, including
the proposed grizzly bear DPS, have declined and, in some cases, have
been ameliorated with conservation efforts and mechanisms, including:
mortality limits; Federal land protections, such as the Wilderness Act
and IRAs; State and private forestlands with motorized access
restrictions; habitat improvements/vegetation management; attractant
removal and community sanitation measures, such as food storage orders;
conservation easements; I&E programs; effective law enforcement; and
translocation programs (Service 2024, pp. 103-229). States, Federal
agencies, and Tribes have implemented regulatory mechanisms that help
address the stressors we identified, including habitat destruction and
modification (Factor A), human-caused mortality (Factors B and C), and
the isolated nature of some populations (Factor E).
Since the original 1975 listing, new federally designated
wilderness areas and IRAs helped secure large, intact blocks of land
and reduce sources of human-caused mortalities. The management of
motorized access similarly reduced stressors associated with habitat
loss and human access in grizzly bear habitats. Additionally, in four
of the six recovery zones (GYE, NCDE, CYE, and SE), Federal land
managers have adopted land management plans that contain legally
binding and enforceable science- and research-based measures and
management practices designed specifically to conserve the grizzly bear
in the grizzly bear DPS. These regulatory mechanisms also help reduce
threats associated with habitat loss and fragmentation on the Federal
lands where they apply (Service 2024, pp. 102-106, 203-205). While
human-caused mortality continues to be an ongoing threat to grizzly
bears in the grizzly bear DPS, under current management, including the
protections of the Act, human-caused mortality rates have been low
enough to allow the GYE, NCDE, CYE, and SE grizzly bear populations to
increase in number and range (Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64-66;
Schwartz et al. 2006c, p. 48; Bjornlie et al. 2014, p. 184; Costello
2019, in litt.; Costello et al. 2023, p. 14; Costello et al. 2024, in
prep.; Gould et al. 2024c, in prep.; Kasworm et al. 2024a, in prep.;
Kasworm et al. 2024b, in prep.; MFWP, unpublished data). Due to these
and many other conservation actions, the number of grizzly bears in the
grizzly bear DPS has more than doubled since the time of listing, and
grizzly bears have since expanded their range and abundance, growing
from occupying approximately only 2 percent of their historical range
in 1975 to 6 percent in 2022 (Haroldson et al. 2021, p. 164; Costello
et al. 2023, p. 14; Dellinger et al. 2023, p. 23; Kasworm et al. 2024a,
2024b, in prep.; Service 2024, pp. 60-63). As a result, the viability
of the grizzly bear DPS has improved since 1975.
Given the current levels of resiliency in four of six ecosystems,
the high resiliency of the GYE and NCDE, and the lack of significant
and imminent stressors, the grizzly bear DPS currently has sufficient
ability to withstand stochastic and catastrophic events, and to adapt
to environmental changes. Therefore, we conclude that the grizzly bear
DPS's current risk of extinction is low, such that the grizzly bear DPS
is not currently in danger of extinction throughout all of its range.
Having determined that the grizzly bear DPS is not in danger of
extinction throughout all of its range, we next considered whether the
grizzly bear DPS is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. We defined the
foreseeable future as 30 to 45 years into the future, a timeframe that
is biologically meaningful by accounting for two to three generation
intervals, or the average amount of time it takes a female to breed and
replace herself in the population. Given the longevity of grizzly
bears, up to 37 years in the wild (Kasworm et al. 2024a, in prep.), two
to three generation intervals represent a period during which a
complete turnover of the population would have occurred and any changes
in the demographics of the population would be detectable. This
timeframe also considers the possibility that conservation measures
that reduce and regulate potential stressors, such as land management
plans, could be revised at least once by any applicable land management
agencies (Service 2024, pp. 15-16, 228). Moreover, it is a timeframe
during which we can reasonably project both future threats and the
grizzly bear's response to those threats.
To assist us in evaluating the status of the grizzly bear DPS over
the next 30 to 45 years (i.e., the foreseeable future), we evaluated
the future condition for the six grizzly bear ecosystems in the lower-
48 States under five plausible future scenarios, as summarized above
and discussed in our SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 232-243). Over the
next 30 to 45 years, we anticipate a range of future conditions for the
grizzly bear DPS, with nearly the same levels of resiliency,
redundancy, and representation as current condition under one future
scenario, improved conditions under two future scenarios, and decreased
conditions under two future scenarios (Service 2024, pp. 15-19, 232-
243). In three of the five future scenarios, the GYE and NCDE retain
high resiliency, but where conservation efforts decline in the future,
the resiliency for both the GYE and NCDE declines from high to moderate
(Service 2024, pp. 232-235).
Resiliency in the CYE and SE is also projected to decrease under
future scenarios with decreased conservation (Service 2024, p. 244),
such that the grizzly bear DPS is at increased risk of extinction
within the foreseeable future. In the foreseeable future, the CYE and
SE have moderate to very low levels of resiliency, and only achieve
high resiliency under one scenario (Service 2024, p. 244), such that
the CYE and SE only contribute moderate, low, or very low levels of
resiliency under four of the five future scenarios (Service 2024, p.
244). Finally, the BE and North Cascades only begin to contribute to
the viability of the grizzly bear DPS under two scenarios with
improvements in conservation efforts (Service 2024, p. 244). To
summarize, under the plausible future conditions discussed in the SSA
report (Service 2024, p. 244), the grizzly bear DPS would be less
likely to withstand plausible stochastic and catastrophic events, and
to retain sufficient adaptive capacity to withstand environmental
change, 30 to 45 years into the future.
Additionally, as human populations continue to expand across all
six ecosystems, humans may engage with grizzly bears and their habitats
in increasingly unpredictable ways. In the foreseeable future,
continued growth of human populations could lead to increased private
land development, increased recreation, additional habitat loss, and
more human-bear conflicts over the next 30 to 45 years. The uncertainty
associated with the stressors of human-bear conflicts, human population
growth, and potential reductions in connectivity further represent a
possible reduction in overall viability of the grizzly bear DPS within
the foreseeable future.
After evaluating threats to the species and assessing the
cumulative effect of the threats under the Act's section 4(a)(1)
factors, we conclude that the grizzly bear DPS is at increased risk of
extinction within the foreseeable future.

[[Page 4269]]

In the future, human-caused mortality would continue to be a threat to
the grizzly bear DPS because regulatory mechanisms may not adequately
limit sources of human-caused mortality. Further, the lack of
regulatory mechanisms to address the threats of human-bear conflicts,
human population growth, and potential reductions in connectivity
further increases the risk of a possible reduction in the resiliency of
the grizzly bear populations in the grizzly bear DPS within the
foreseeable future. In addition, habitat-related threats, such as
motorized access and habitat security, would likely remain an issue in
the future for the CYE, SE, and North Cascades, as conservation
mechanisms to address these threats are not yet finalized (North
Cascades) or standards have not been met (CYE and SE). Finally,
demographic recovery criteria have been achieved in only two of six
recovery zones, and regulatory mechanisms are not fully in place.
Management frameworks to ensure grizzly bear mortality is within
sustainable thresholds independent of the Act are currently only
complete and incorporated into regulatory documents for two of the six
ecosystems. Thus, after assessing the best available information, we
conclude that the grizzly bear DPS is not in danger of extinction but
is likely to become in danger of extinction within the foreseeable
future throughout all of its range.

Status Throughout a Significant Portion of Its Range

Under the Act and our implementing regulations, a species may
warrant listing if it is in danger of extinction or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range. The court in Center for Biological Diversity v. Everson,
435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 2020) (Everson), vacated the provision of
the Final Policy on Interpretation of the Phrase ``Significant Portion
of Its Range'' in the Endangered Species Act's Definitions of
``Endangered Species'' and ``Threatened Species'' (hereafter ``Final
Policy''; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 2014) that provided if the Service
determines that a species is threatened throughout all of its range,
the Service will not analyze whether the species is endangered in a
significant portion of its range.
Therefore, we proceed to evaluating whether the species is
endangered in a significant portion of its range--that is, whether
there is any portion of the species' range for which both (1) the
portion is significant; and (2) the species is in danger of extinction
in that portion. Depending on the case, it might be more efficient for
us to address the ``significance'' question or the ``status'' question
first. We can choose to address either question first. Regardless of
which question we address first, if we reach a negative answer with
respect to the first question that we address, we do not need to
evaluate the other question for that portion of the species' range.
Following the court's holding in Everson, we now consider whether
the species is in danger of extinction in a significant portion of its
range. In undertaking this analysis for the grizzly bear DPS, we choose
to address the status question first.
We evaluated the range of the grizzly bear DPS to determine if the
species is in danger of extinction in any portion of its range. The
range of a species can theoretically be divided into portions in an
infinite number of ways. We focused our analysis on portions of the
species' range that may meet the Act's definition of an endangered
species. For the grizzly bear DPS, we considered whether the threats or
their effects on the species are greater in any biologically meaningful
portion of the species' range than in other portions such that the
species is in danger of extinction in that portion.
We examined the following threats: habitat destruction and
modification, human-caused mortality, natural mortality, effects due to
genetic health, effects due to changes in food resources, and effects
due to climate change, including cumulative effects (Service 2024, pp.
105-230). First, we evaluated whether there are portions of the grizzly
bear DPS's range with a different biological status. The BE and North
Cascades ecosystems are not significant portions of the range because
they do not currently support populations. Similarly, although they may
support movements between ecosystems and low densities of individuals,
the areas between the six ecosystems are not significant portions of
the range because they lack known populations of grizzly bears (Service
2024, pp. 59, 62). To identify potential portions, we considered
whether the grizzly bear has different extinction risk in one or more
ecosystems. Based on the information provided in the SSA report, we
determined that a portion comprised of the GYE and NCDE, both with high
resiliency, currently has less extinction risk than the remaining
portion comprised of the CYE and SE, with low and moderate resiliency,
respectively (Service 2024, p. 13). As a result, there may be
differences in biological condition across the range of the grizzly
bear DPS.
The CYE and SE currently have lower levels of resiliency than the
GYE and NCDE, so we explored whether a portion of the overall range
consisting of the CYE and SE may have a different risk of extinction,
such that the grizzly bear may have a different regulatory status in
that portion of the range. The CYE currently has low resiliency, and
the SE has medium resiliency, due to low abundance and genetic
diversity resulting from past isolation and the species' natural slow
reproductive rates. Rates of human-caused mortality in the CYE and SE
are similar to those in the GYE and NCDE (Kasworm et al. 2024a, in
prep.; Kasworm et al. 2024b, in prep.; Gould et al. 2024b, in prep.;
MFWP, unpublished data), and all four ecosystems have experienced
positive population growth rates (Service 2024, p. 235). This indicates
that although the CYE and SE are currently less resilient than the GYE
and NCDE, the magnitude and immediacy of the threats are currently
similar across the four ecosystems. Additionally, the current levels of
resiliency for the CYE and SE, and the grizzly bear's distribution
across the two ecosystems, are sufficient for the grizzly bear to
withstand stochastic and catastrophic events within the portion.
Therefore, we determined that the grizzly bear is not in danger of
extinction within the portion composed of the CYE and SE.
We found no biologically meaningful portion of the grizzly bear DPS
where threats are impacting individuals differently from how they are
affecting the species elsewhere in its range, or where the biological
condition of the species differs from its condition elsewhere in its
range. Therefore, no portion of the DPS's range provides a basis for
determining that the grizzly bear is in danger of extinction in a
significant portion of the range, and we determine that the grizzly
bear DPS is likely to become in danger of extinction within the
foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This does not conflict
with the courts' holdings in Desert Survivors v. U.S. Department of the
Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070-74 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for
Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz.
2017) because, in reaching this conclusion, we did not apply the
aspects of the Final Policy, including the definition of
``significant'' that those court decisions held to be invalid.

Determination of Status

Based on the best scientific and commercial data available, we

[[Page 4270]]

determine that the grizzly bear DPS meets the Act's definition of a
threatened species. Therefore, we propose to list the grizzly bear DPS
as a threatened species in accordance with sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1)
of the Act.

Relationship of the Grizzly Bear DPS to Experimental Populations

We have designated two experimental populations for the grizzly
bear in the lower-48 States: one in the BE (65 FR 69624; November 17,
2000) and one in the North Cascades (89 FR 36982; May 3, 2024).
Currently, grizzly bears have not been reintroduced to either area.
Below, we clarify that these two experimental populations are part of
the proposed grizzly bear DPS, consistent with our findings for the
experimental population designations.
When we designate an experimental population for a species under
the Act, we must find by regulation that such release will further the
conservation of the species. See 50 CFR 17.81(b) for factors we
consider in making such a finding. Furthermore, we must determine
whether the experimental population is, or is not, essential to the
continued existence of the species in the wild (50 CFR 17.81(c)(2)).
In both our experimental population designations for grizzly bears,
we found that establishment of the experimental populations would
further the conservation of the species (that is, grizzly bear in the
lower-48 States). We also found that neither experimental population is
essential to the continued existence of the grizzly bear in the lower-
48 States.
This proposed rule would revise the entry for grizzly bear on the
List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h) to
clarify where grizzly bears are currently found or are likely to be
found in the future as populations recover. Under this proposed rule,
we would also retain the current entries at 50 CFR 17.11(h) for the
Bitterroot and North Cascades nonessential experimental populations of
the grizzly bear, as well as the applicable regulations at 50 CFR
17.84(l) and (y), respectively, unless we undertake separate rulemaking
to revise or remove one or both of them. If we finalize this rule as
proposed, the grizzly bear DPS will contain all currently extant
populations of grizzly bears in the United States, as well as those
areas likely to be occupied by grizzly bears in the future. This area
includes both designated experimental populations. This proposed rule
would not change the individuals of the species that are or will be
protected by the Act, and grizzly bears would continue to be listed as
a threatened species under the Act. As such, the two experimental
populations would continue to be members of the grizzly bear DPS, and
our previous findings for the two experimental populations designated
for the grizzly bear would remain relevant and applicable to the
grizzly bear DPS. The basis for those findings is summarized below.
Restoring grizzly bears to the BE and the NCE will further the
conservation of grizzly bears by establishing additional populations in
portions of the species' historical range where the species is
presently extirpated. The recovery plan includes an objective to
recover grizzly bears in all of the ecosystems known to have suitable
space and habitat (USFWS 1993, pp. 15-16). Reestablishing grizzly bears
in the BE and NCE will fulfill important recovery needs for the grizzly
bear in the lower-48 States.
For both the North Cascades and Bitterroot experimental
populations, we also confirm that these experimental populations of
grizzly bears are not essential to the continued existence of the
grizzly bear DPS. Because there are approximately 2,200 grizzly bears
in other ecosystems in the lower-48 States that are intensively
monitored and managed, the loss of either experimental population would
not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species in the
wild. Therefore, as required by 50 CFR 17.81(c)(2), we continue to find
that the experimental populations are not essential to the continued
existence of the species in the wild. For the BE, we are currently in
the process of reassessing options for restoring grizzly bears to that
ecosystem (89 FR 3411, January 18, 2024), which could result in
revising or removing that experimental population designation.

II. Proposed Revision of the Protective Regulations Under Section 4(d)
of the Act for the Grizzly Bear

Background

Section 4(d) of the Act states that the Secretary shall issue such
regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of species listed as threatened species. Conservation is
defined in the Act to mean the use of all methods and procedures which
are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to
the point at which the measures provided pursuant to the Act are no
longer necessary. Additionally, section 4(d) of the Act states that the
Secretary may by regulation prohibit with respect to any threatened
species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in the case of fish
or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2), in the case of plants. Congress
delegated broad authority to the Secretary to determine what
protections would be necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of threatened species, and even broader authority to put
in place any of the section 9 prohibitions for a given species.
The courts have recognized the extent of the Secretary's discretion
under this standard to develop rules that are appropriate for the
conservation of a species. For example, courts have upheld, as a valid
exercise of agency authority, rules developed under section 4(d) that
included limited prohibitions against takings (see Alsea Valley
Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington
Environmental Council v. National Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL
511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have also upheld 4(d) rules that do
not address all of the threats a species faces (see State of Louisiana
v. Verity, 853 F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in the Act's
legislative history, ``once an animal is on the threatened list, the
Secretary has an almost infinite number of options available to [her]
with regard to the permitted activities for those species. [She] may,
for example, permit taking, but not importation of such species, or
[she] may choose to forbid both taking and importation but allow the
transportation of such species'' (H.R. Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st
Sess. 1973).
The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) currently has a species-
specific protective regulation at 50 CFR 17.40(b), which we are
proposing to amend. The provisions of this species' proposed protective
regulations under section 4(d) of the Act are one of the many tools
that we would use to promote the conservation of the grizzly bear
within the DPS. There are also population-specific protective
regulations under section 10(j) of the Act for two nonessential
experimental populations, the North Cascades and Bitterroot, that are
not affected by this proposed rule, and any changes to those
population-specific regulations would require separate rulemaking
processes with opportunities for public review and comment.
Nothing in 4(d) rules change in any way the recovery planning
provisions of section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation requirements
under section 7 of the Act, or the ability of the Service to enter into
partnerships for the management and protection of the grizzly bear DPS.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires Federal agencies, including the
Service, to ensure that any action they authorize,

[[Page 4271]]

fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence
of any endangered species or threatened species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of
such species. In addition, even before the listing of any species or
the designation of its critical habitat is finalized, section 7(a)(4)
of the Act requires Federal agencies to confer with the Service on any
agency action which is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
any species proposed to be listed under the Act or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be
designated for such species. These requirements are the same for a
threatened species regardless of what is included in its 4(d) rule.
Section 7 consultation is required for Federal actions that ``may
affect'' a listed species regardless of whether take caused by the
activity is prohibited or excepted by a 4(d) rule (the ``blanket rule''
at 50 CFR 17.31(a) or species-specific 4(d) rule). A 4(d) rule does not
change the process and criteria for informal or formal consultations
and does not alter the analytical process used for biological opinions
or concurrence letters. For example, as with an endangered species, if
a Federal agency determines that an action is ``not likely to adversely
affect'' a threatened species, this will require the Service's written
concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)). Similarly, if a Federal agency
determines that an action is ``likely to adversely affect'' a
threatened species, the action will require formal consultation with
the Service and the formulation of a biological opinion (50 CFR
402.14(a)). Because consultation obligations and processes remain in
effect despite the issuance of 4(d) rules, we may consider developing
tools to streamline future intra-Service and interagency consultations
for actions that result in forms of take that are not prohibited by the
4(d) rule (but that still require consultation). These tools may
include consultation guidance; streamlined, online consultation
processes via the Service's digital project planning tool (Information
for Planning and Consultation; https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/);
template language for biological opinions; or programmatic
consultations.

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule for the Grizzly Bear DPS

Exercising the Secretary's authority under section 4(d) of the Act,
we have developed a proposed rule that is designed to address the
grizzly bear DPS's conservation needs. As discussed previously in
Summary of Biological Status and Threats, we have concluded that the
grizzly bear DPS is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future primarily due to habitat destruction and
modification, human-caused mortality, and the isolated nature of some
populations. Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to issue such
regulations as she deems necessary and advisable to provide for the
conservation of each threatened species and authorizes the Secretary to
include among those protective regulations any of the prohibitions that
section 9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for endangered species. We are
not required to make a ``necessary and advisable'' determination when
we apply or do not apply specific section 9 prohibitions to a
threatened species (In re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing
and 4(d) Rule Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 228 (D.D.C. 2011)
(citing Sweet Home Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. Babbitt, 1 F.3d
1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 (1995))).
Nevertheless, even though we are not required to make such a
determination, in the interest of transparency we explain below our
finding that, if finalized, the protections, prohibitions, and
exceptions in this proposed rule as a whole satisfy the requirement in
section 4(d) of the Act to issue regulations deemed necessary and
advisable to provide for the conservation of the grizzly bear DPS.
The protective regulations we are proposing for the grizzly bear
DPS incorporate prohibitions from section 9(a)(1) of the Act to address
the threats to the species. The prohibitions of section 9(a)(1) of the
Act, and implementing regulations codified at 50 CFR 17.21, make it
illegal for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States
to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to commit, or to
cause to be committed any of the following acts with regard to any
endangered wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, the United
States; (2) take (which includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct) within the United States, within the territorial sea of
the United States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, sell, deliver,
carry, transport, or ship, by any means whatsoever, any such wildlife
that has been taken illegally; (4) deliver, receive, carry, transport,
or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and
in the course of commercial activity; or (5) sell or offer for sale in
interstate or foreign commerce. We also propose to prohibit the acts of
possessing, selling, delivering, carrying, transporting, or shipping,
by any means whatsoever, grizzly bears that have been taken legally
with specific exceptions described below. This protective regulation
includes all of these prohibitions because the grizzly bear DPS is at
risk of extinction within the foreseeable future and putting these
prohibitions in place will help to conserve the species' remaining
populations, slow its rate of decline, and decrease synergistic,
negative effects from other stressors. In particular, this proposed
4(d) rule would provide for the conservation of the grizzly bear DPS by
prohibiting the following activities, unless they fall within specific
exceptions or are otherwise authorized or permitted: importing or
exporting; take; possession and other acts with taken specimens;
delivering, receiving, carrying, transporting, or shipping in
interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial activity; or
selling or offering for sale in interstate or foreign commerce.
Under the Act, ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any
such conduct. Some of these provisions have been further defined in
regulations at 50 CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or otherwise, by
direct and indirect impacts, intentionally or incidentally. Regulating
take would help preserve the species' remaining populations, slow their
rate of decline, and decrease synergistic, negative effects from other
stressors. Therefore, we propose to prohibit take of the grizzly bear
DPS, except for take resulting from those actions and activities
specifically excepted by the 4(d) rule.
Exceptions to the prohibitions would include allowing Federal and
State law enforcement officers to possess, deliver, carry, transport,
or ship grizzly bears as necessary in performing their official duties
and additional exceptions, as described below. Despite the prohibitions
regarding threatened species, we may under certain circumstances
authorize one or more otherwise-prohibited activities, including those
described above. The regulations that govern permits for threatened
wildlife state that the Director may issue a permit authorizing any
activity otherwise prohibited with regard to threatened species. These
include permits issued for the following purposes: for scientific
purposes, to enhance propagation or survival, for economic hardship,
for zoological exhibition, for educational purposes, for incidental
taking, or for special

[[Page 4272]]

purposes consistent with the purposes of the Act (50 CFR 17.32). The
statute also contains certain exemptions from the prohibitions, which
are found in sections 9 and 10 of the Act.
Grizzly bears may obtain anthropogenic food sources, such as pet
food, garbage, or livestock, if they are not properly secured. Grizzly
bears that repeatedly obtain anthropogenic foods (food-conditioned
bears) can become a threat to human safety. Additionally, depredating
grizzly bears can affect the livelihood of ranchers and other livestock
owners. The prompt response or removal of depredating and food-
conditioned grizzly bears helps to prevent or minimize negative
impacts, such as human safety concerns and livestock losses, leading to
broader social receptiveness and tolerance. When limited by sustainable
mortality rates according to specific populations or areas, lethal
removal is an important component of long-term grizzly bear recovery
that does not inhibit grizzly bear population growth. In this proposed
4(d) rule, we consider strategies, including nonlethal and lethal
methods (depending on the site-specific situation), to increase human
safety and reduce human-bear conflicts and thereby promote recovery of
the grizzly bear DPS.
To further the conservation of the species, we propose not to apply
the exceptions at 50 CFR 17.31(b), and instead propose multiple
species-specific exceptions. For example, we propose that any employee
or agent of the Service, any other Federal land management agency, the
National Marine Fisheries Service, a State conservation agency, or a
federally recognized Tribe, who is designated by their agency or Tribe
for such purposes, may, when acting in the course of their official
duties, take grizzly bears with prior authorization from the Service if
such action is necessary to dispose of a dead specimen or salvage a
dead specimen that may be useful for scientific study.
This proposed 4(d) rule clarifies grizzly bear management
strategies on public and private lands in accordance with recovery
status. This includes the requirement that agencies obtain prior
authorization from the Service for conflict removals, as described in a
memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the Service and authorized
agency. Authorized agencies may relocate bears as a preemptive action
to prevent conflict that appears imminent or in an attempt to break the
habituated behavior of grizzly bears lingering near human-occupied
areas. When a grizzly bear is captured, the employee will consult with
the appropriate land management agency to determine a relocation site
that is most suitable for the bear, considering age and sex of the
bear, conflict history, and current human use at available relocation
sites. Such taking must be coordinated with the Service as described in
a current MOU between the Service and the authorized agency. In
addition, we propose to except certain take associated with livestock
grazing on private lands and public allotments, private property
protection, authorized agency take outside of areas important for
recovery or connectivity, grizzly bear deterrence, and take associated
with trapping of other species for research or management conducted by
authorized agencies; we describe each in more detail below.
(1) Public Land Grazing Allotments Outside Recovery Zones
If authorized by the Service, take of grizzly bear depredating
livestock on grazing allotments on public land outside of Recovery
Zones would be excepted under a written, time-limited, conditioned
lethal take authorization issued to an individual if the following
conditions are met: (1) a depredation of livestock has been confirmed
by the Service or authorized agency; and (2) the Service or authorized
agency determine a grizzly bear poses a demonstrable and ongoing
threat. The Service would consider various factors, including recovery
status of the population involved, history of conflict in the area,
severity of the incident, mitigation efforts in place, and alternative
actions available prior to authorization.
(2) Private Land Livestock Operations Outside Recovery Zones
In addition to the excepted take described above, a producer,
lessee, or designee would be allowed to take (injure or kill) a grizzly
bear in the act of attacking livestock or working dogs on private land
located outside of Recovery Zones provided that: (1) there were no
excessive, unsecured attractants (e.g., carcasses or bone piles); (2)
there was no intentional feeding or baiting of the grizzly bear or
other wildlife; (3) the carcass of any grizzly bear taken and the area
surrounding the carcass is not disturbed; (4) the take is reported to
the Service or authorized agency within 24 hours; and (5) the Service
or authorized agency is able to confirm that the livestock or working
dog was injured or killed by a grizzly bear. The taking of any grizzly
bear without such evidence may be referred to the appropriate
authorities for prosecution. Authorized agencies must report such take
to the Service within 24 hours.
(3) Private Lands Outside Recovery Zones
If authorized by the Service, take of a grizzly bear on private
lands outside of Recovery Zones would be excepted under a written,
time-limited, conditioned lethal take authorization issued to an
individual to kill a grizzly bear if the Service or an authorized
agency identifies the bear as posing a demonstrable and ongoing threat
to human safety or to other property (e.g., compost, chickens,
beehives). The Service would consider various factors, including
recovery status of the population involved, history of conflict in the
area, severity of the incident, mitigation efforts in place, and
alternative actions available prior to authorization.
(4) Outside of Areas Important for Recovery or Connectivity
This proposed 4(d) rule prescribes management practices within
areas most important for recovery--such as recovery zones, areas
adjacent to recovery zones, and current and potential connectivity
zones--while allowing more flexible management in areas deemed less
important for recovery within the proposed DPS. Areas less important
for recovery include portions of Wyoming outside the DMA, as well as
areas that do not have the potential to provide for connectivity as
identified by the Service and partners in a planning document, such as
a recovery plan, conservation strategy, or similar agency document. For
example, Zone 3 identified in the NCDE Conservation Strategy does not
provide for recovery or connectivity and therefore is an area where
these management practices would apply. In these areas that are less
important for recovery, take would be excepted for authorized agencies
without prior authorization from the Service and without first
attempting relocation if that bear meets the definition of a grizzly
bear involved in conflict as described in this proposed rule. In these
areas, authorized agencies may also issue written, time-limited,
conditioned lethal take authorization under the conditions described in
(b)(3)(vii) and (b)(3)(viii)(B) of this section.
(5) Deterrence
Take caused by conducting deterrence of grizzly bears for the
purposes of avoiding human-bear conflicts or to discourage bears from
using areas near homes and other human-occupied areas would be excepted
from the take

[[Page 4273]]

prohibitions when the deterrence is conducted according to Service-
approved best practices, which are, at this time, the Service's current
hazing guidelines. Deterrence means an intentional, nonlethal action to
haze, disrupt, or annoy a grizzly bear out of close proximity to people
or property to promote human safety, prevent conflict, or protect
property. The deterrence must not cause lasting bodily injury to any
grizzly bear and must be undertaken safely and responsibly. Acceptable
deterrence techniques may include nonprojectile auditory deterrents,
visual stimuli/deterrents, vehicle threat pressure, bear spray, noise-
making projectiles, or soft projectiles fired from non-powder-actuated
launchers intended to break on contact. For more information about
appropriate nonlethal deterrents, individuals can contact the Service
for the most current Service-approved best practices. Any person may
deter a grizzly bear to protect themselves (e.g., using bear spray or
loud noises). An individual may not bait, stalk, or pursue a grizzly
bear for the purposes of deterrence. Individuals may deter grizzly
bears away from the immediate vicinity, defined as 200 meters (656
feet), of a human-occupied residence or potential source of conflict.
Once bears have moved beyond the immediate vicinity (200 meters (656
feet)), hazing is unlikely to be effective and is not excepted take
under this proposed rule. Authorized agencies would be allowed to use
additional tools, including contracted services for hazing as described
in a current MOU.
(6) Trapping of Other Species for Research and Management
The 4(d) rule would also provide for the conservation of the
species by excepting otherwise prohibited take associated with several
activities either intended to incentivize conservation actions or that
are expected to have negligible impacts to the grizzly bear DPS.
Although the activities may result in some minimal level of take of the
grizzly bear DPS, such take is not expected to rise to a level that
would have a negative impact (i.e., would have only de minimis impacts)
on the species' conservation. We propose to except incidental take
associated with research and management trapping of other species, such
as the gray wolf (Canis lupus) and wolverine (Gulu gulu), by an
authorized agency provided the trap is securely anchored to prevent a
grizzly bear from leaving the area and traps are checked at least every
24 hours. This provision does not authorize the use of neck snares.
We recognize the special and unique relationship that we have with
our State natural resource agency partners in contributing to
conservation of listed species. State agencies often possess scientific
data and valuable expertise on the status and distribution of
endangered, threatened, and candidate species of wildlife and plants.
State agencies, because of their authorities and their close working
relationships with local governments and landowners, are in a unique
position to assist us in implementing the Act. Section 6 of the Act
provides that we must cooperate to the maximum extent practicable with
the States in carrying out programs authorized by the Act. Therefore,
any employee of a State conservation agency that is a party to a signed
and valid cooperative agreement pursuant to section 6(c) of the Act,
who is designated by their agency for such purposes, would be able to
conduct activities designed to conserve the grizzly bear DPS that may
result in otherwise prohibited take without additional authorization,
including surveys; tagging, handling and capture; and habitat
management activities undertaken for the conservation benefit of the
species. Under the proposed 4(d) rule, States would be ``authorized
agencies'' for purpose of undertaking grizzly bear management,
including lethal removal in conflict situations as described above, if
approved by the Service in accordance with the 4(d) rule and
implemented through a current MOU between the Service and the State.
Under the proposed 4(d) rule, the authorization for employees or agents
of States to remove grizzly bears from the State for the purposes of
population introduction, population augmentation, or relocation to
mitigate human-bear conflicts, or lethal removal of a grizzly bear in
conflict, would replace the exception set forth in 50 CFR 17.31(b)(3).

Required Determinations

Clarity of the Rule
We are required by Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and E.O. 12988 and
by the Presidential memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in
plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(1) Be logically organized;
(2) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(3) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(4) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(5) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us
comments by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To better help us
revise the rule, your comments should be as specific as possible. For
example, you should tell us the numbers of the sections or paragraphs
that are unclearly written, which sections or sentences are too long,
the sections where you feel lists or tables would be useful, etc.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.)
Regulations adopted pursuant to section 4(a) of the Act are exempt
from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and do not require an environmental analysis under NEPA. We
published a document outlining our reasons for this determination in
the Federal Register on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This includes
listing, delisting, and reclassification rules, as well as critical
habitat designations and species-specific protective regulations
promulgated concurrently with a decision to list or reclassify a
species as threatened. The courts have upheld this position (e.g.,
Douglas County v. Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) (critical
habitat); Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d)
rule)).
Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes
In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal
Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments), the President's
memorandum of November 30, 2022 (Uniform Standards for Tribal
Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 2022), and the Department of the
Interior's manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our
responsibility to communicate meaningfully with federally recognized
Tribes on a government-to-government basis. In accordance with
Secretary's Order (SO) 3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal
Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered
Species Act), we readily acknowledge our responsibilities to work
directly with Tribes in developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to
acknowledge that Tribal lands are not subject to the same controls as
Federal public lands, to remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to
make information available to Tribes. In accordance with joint SO 3403
A1 of

[[Page 4274]]

November 30, 2022, we recognize our responsibility to ensure our
decisions with respect to wildlife safeguard the interests of
potentially affected Tribes. We solicited information from the Tribes
within the proposed grizzly bear DPS to inform the development of our
SSA report, but we did not receive any responses. We will continue to
coordinate with affected Tribes during the development of any final
rules for the grizzly bear DPS, as appropriate.

References Cited

A complete list of references cited in this rulemaking is available
on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov and upon request from
the Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Authors

The primary authors of this proposed rule are the staff members of
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Grizzly Bear Recovery Office.

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Plants,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.

Proposed Regulation Promulgation

Accordingly, we propose to amend part 17, subchapter B of chapter
I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 17 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245,
unless otherwise noted.
0
2. In Sec. 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife by revising the entry for ``Bear, grizzly'' under
MAMMALS to read as follows:

Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
(h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Listing citations
Common name Scientific name Where listed Status and applicable
rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * * * *
Bear, grizzly [Grizzly Bear DPS]. Ursus arctos U.S.A.: All of WA T 32 FR 4001, 3/11/
horribilis. and portions of 1967; 35 FR 16047,
MT, ID, and WY, 10/13/1970; 40 FR
except where 31734, 7/28/1975;
listed as an 72 FR 14866, 3/29/
experimental 2007; 75 FR 14496,
population, as 3/26/2010; 82 FR
follows: (1) 30502, 6/30/2017;
Northern boundary-- 84 FR 37144, 7/31/
the portion south 2019; [Federal
of the western Register citation
terminus of the when published as
U.S.-Canada border a final rule]; 50
in WA east to CFR 17.40(b).\4d\
Montana Highway
16; (2) Eastern
boundary--the
portion west of
Montana Highway 16
south from the
U.S.-Canada border
to Interstate 94
continuing south
to Montana Highway
47, then to
Interstate 90,
then to Highway
25, then to
Wyoming Highway
220, then to
Wyoming Highway
287 to the
intersection with
Interstate 80; (3)
Southern boundary--
the portion north
of Interstate 80
west to Highway
30, then follows
the Snake River
near Pocatello,
ID, to the WA
State line to the
Pacific Ocean; (4)
Western boundary--
the portion east
of the coast of WA
north to the U.S.-
Canada border.

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

0
3. Amend Sec. 17.40 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

Sec. 17.40 Species-specific rules--mammals.

* * * * *
(b) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis), Grizzly bear DPS. (1)
Definitions. As used in paragraph (b) of this section:
Authorized agency means a Federal, State, or Tribal agency
designated by the Service in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to
assist in implementing all or part of the specified actions in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
Deterrence means an intentional, nonlethal action to haze, disrupt,
or annoy a grizzly bear out of close proximity to people or property to
promote human safety, prevent conflict, or protect property.
Grizzly bear means any member of the species Ursus arctos
horribilis within the grizzly bear DPS, as described in 50 CFR
17.11(h), including any part, offspring, dead body, part of a dead
body, or product of such species.
Grizzly bear involved in conflict means a grizzly bear that has
caused substantial property damage, obtained anthropogenic foods (e.g.,
pet food, livestock feed, garbage), killed or injured lawfully present
livestock, damaged beehives, breached an intact structure or
electrified perimeter to obtain fruit or crops (e.g., greenhouse,
garden, orchard, field, stackyard or grain bin), shown repeated and
persistent signs of habituation in proximity to human-occupied areas
(e.g., has been repeatedly hazed or previously relocated), exhibited
aggressive behavior (i.e., not acting in defense of offspring or food
or in response to a surprise encounter), or has been involved in a
human-grizzly encounter resulting in

[[Page 4275]]

substantial human injury or loss of human life.
Habituation means the decrease of an animal's flight response
following repeated exposure to inconsequential stimuli.
Human food-conditioned bear means a grizzly bear that has learned
to associate people, human activities, human-use areas, or food storage
receptacles with anthropogenic food as a result of repeatedly accessing
anthropogenic foods without negative consequences on numerous
occasions.
In the act of attacking means the actual biting, wounding,
grasping, or killing by a grizzly bear.
Incidental take is take that is incidental to, and not the purpose
of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity; it must be
unintentional and not due to negligent conduct.
Lasting bodily injury/injured means damage that limits a grizzly
bear's ability to effectively move, obtain food, or defend itself for
any length of time.
Non-target means a bear that is caught that is not believed to be
the bear that is involved in the conflict.
Prior authorization from the Service means that an approved
representative from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, as specified in
a current MOU, has agreed with the proposed management action.
Recovery Zones are outlined in the 1993 Recovery Plan, and
subsequent supplements, and identify six recovery ecosystems, each
containing a recovery zone at its core, within the lower-48 States
thought to be capable of supporting grizzly bears.
Self-defense means that the person was acting to protect himself or
herself, or any other individual, from bodily harm.
Serious injury means any permanent damage or injury that limits a
grizzly bear's ability to effectively move, obtain food, or defend
itself for any length of time.
Sick means affected with disease or ill health.
Threat to human safety means a grizzly bear that exhibits
aggressive, non-defensive, behavior towards humans. Grizzly bear
presence alone does not constitute a threat to human safety. Grizzly
bears less than 2 years of age with no history of food-conditioning are
not considered a threat to human safety.
Working dog means a herding or guard dog that is actively herding
or guarding in close proximity to human-occupied areas or to lawfully
present livestock.
(2) Prohibitions. The following prohibitions that apply to
endangered wildlife also apply to the grizzly bear DPS. Except as
provided under paragraph (b)(3) of this section and Sec. Sec. 17.4 and
17.5, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States to commit, to attempt to commit, to solicit another to
commit, or cause to be committed, any of the following acts in regard
to this species:
(i) Import or export, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(b) for endangered
wildlife.
(ii) Take, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(c)(1) for endangered
wildlife.
(iii) Possession, delivery, carriage, transport, or shipment of
unlawfully or lawfully taken specimens of grizzly bears.
(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in the course of commercial
activity, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(e) for endangered wildlife.
(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth at Sec. 17.21(f) for
endangered wildlife.
(3) Exceptions from prohibitions. The following exceptions to the
prohibitions apply to the grizzly bear DPS:
(i) Federal, State, or Tribal authorities may import grizzly bears
into the United States for scientific or research purposes with prior
authorization from the Service.
(ii) Any person may conduct activities as authorized by a permit
under Sec. 17.32.
(iii) Any employee or agent of the Service, or any employee or
agent of another Federal agency, State agency, or federally recognized
Tribe defined in a current MOU with the Service who, as part of their
official duties, normally handles large carnivores and is trained and/
or experienced in immobilizing, marking, and handling grizzly bears
(which we define as a Federal, State, or Tribal ``authority''), may,
when acting in the course of official duties, take or collect samples
from a grizzly bear in the wild consistent with this paragraph (b) and
the applicable MOU if such action is necessary for scientific, genetic,
or population augmentation purposes.
(A) Mortalities or suspected serious injury must be reported to the
Service as described in a current MOU.
(1) Take that results in a grizzly bear mortality must be reported
to the Service within 24 hours.
(2) Take that results in a grizzly bear injury must be reported to
the Service within 5 days.
(B) Authorized agencies may move a grizzly bear to aid recovery or
increase the genetic health of the population after notification to the
Service.
(C) In the absence of an MOU, a permit under Sec. 17.32 is
required.
(iv) Any person may take a grizzly bear in defense of their own
life or the lives of others. Grizzly bears taken in self-defense or in
defense of human life must be reported by the individual who has taken
the bear or their designee within 24 hours of occurrence. Take must be
reported to the Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, in the appropriate region (see 50 CFR 2.2 for regional office
information), and to appropriate State and Tribal authorities. The
specimen may only be retained, disposed of, or salvaged with the
consent of, and consistent with directions from, the Office of Law
Enforcement.
(v) Take is excepted for authorized agencies aiding sick and
injured grizzly bears when conducted in a humane manner. Take
associated with orphaned cubs must have prior authorization from the
Service except when the conditions under paragraph (b)(3)(vi) apply.
(vi) An employee or agent of a Federal, State, or federally
recognized Tribe defined in a current MOU with the Service who, as part
of their official duties, normally handles large carnivores may, when
acting in the course of official duties, humanely take a grizzly bear
in the wild with prior authorization from the Service in order to avoid
conflicts, prevent habituation, improve grizzly bear survival, release
or relocate non-targets, aid in law enforcement investigations, salvage
bear carcasses, or euthanize severely wounded bears under the following
criteria:
(A) Efforts are made to eliminate such threat or depredation, when
reasonably possible, by securing attractants, using deterrence, or
live-capturing and releasing the bear unharmed in a remote area.
(1) Authorized agencies may relocate bears as a preemptive action
for the purpose of preventing conflict that appears imminent or
breaking habituated behavior of grizzly bears lingering near human-
occupied areas.
(2) When a grizzly bear is captured, the employee or agent will
consult with the appropriate land management agency to determine a
relocation site that is most suitable for the bear, considering the age
and sex of the bear, conflict history, and current human use at
available relocation sites. Such taking must be coordinated with the
Service as described in a current MOU.
(B) In grizzly bear Recovery Zones, management actions by
authorized agencies include lethal removal of a grizzly bear involved
in conflict (as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section) when the
condition set forth in paragraph (b)(3)(vi)(A) of this section is met,
with authorization from the Service, taking into consideration the

[[Page 4276]]

age and sex of the bear, nature of the conflict, and the bear's
conflict history.
(C) Outside of areas important for recovery or connectivity as
identified by the Service in a final recovery plan, or with the Service
in an approved conservation strategy, other similar agency planning
document, or, in Wyoming, outside the DMA, authorized agencies may,
without prior approval from the Service:
(1) Lethally remove a bear without first attempting relocation if
it has been determined to be a grizzly bear involved in conflict, as
defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(2) Issue a written, time-limited, conditioned lethal take
authorization as set forth in paragraphs (b)(3)(vii) and
(b)(3)(viii)(A) of this section.
(3) When taking a bear or authorizing a take of a bear under this
authority, the authorized agency assumes the responsibility of
correctly applying the definition of a grizzly bear involved in
conflict as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
(4) Authorized agencies must report any lethal take to the Service
within 24 hours of the incident if take is by the agency, or within 24
hours of reporting if take is associated with a lethal take
authorization.
(vii) On public land grazing allotments outside Recovery Zones the
Service may issue written, time-limited, conditioned lethal take
authorization to an individual if all of the following conditions are
met:
(A) All conditions set forth in paragraph (b)(3)(vi)(A) have been
met;
(B) A depredation of livestock has been confirmed by the Service or
authorized agency; and
(C) With the consideration of the recovery status of the population
involved, the history of conflict in the area, and the severity of the
incident, the Service or authorized agency determines that a bear is a
demonstrable and ongoing threat.
(viii) On private lands outside Recovery Zones, the Service may
authorize an individual to take a grizzly bear when all conditions set
forth in paragraph (b)(3)(vi)(A) have been met, provided that:
(A) The Service issues a written, time-limited, conditioned lethal
take authorization as described in paragraph (b)(3)(vii); and
(B) The Service or an authorized agency identifies the bear as a
demonstrable and ongoing threat to human safety or to protect property
(e.g., compost, chickens, beehives). The identification will include
consideration of the recovery status of the population involved, the
history of conflict in the area, and the severity of the incident.
(ix) On private lands outside Recovery Zones, a producer, lessee,
or designee may take (injure or kill) a grizzly bear in the act of
attacking livestock or working dogs on private land outside Recovery
Zones provided:
(A) Excessive unsecured attractants (e.g., carcasses or bone piles)
are absent;
(B) There was no intentional feeding or baiting of the grizzly bear
or wildlife;
(C) The take is reported to the Service or authorized agency within
24 hours. If a report of lethal take is made to an authorized agency,
then that agency must report that take to the Service within 24 hours;
(D) The Service or authorized agency is able to confirm that the
livestock or working dog was injured or killed by a grizzly bear. The
taking of any grizzly bear without such evidence may be referred to the
appropriate authorities for prosecution; and (E) For lethal take, the
carcass of any grizzly bear taken and the area surrounding it is not
disturbed to preserve the physical evidence that the take was conducted
according to these regulations.
(x) Take in the form of harassment is excepted for individuals to
conduct deterrence of grizzly bears for the purposes of avoiding human-
bear conflicts or to discourage bears from using areas near homes and
other human-occupied areas under the following conditions:
(A) Any deterrence must be conducted in accordance with Service-
approved best practices.
(B) Any deterrence must not cause lasting bodily injury to any
grizzly bear (i.e., permanent damage or injuries that limit the bear's
ability to effectively move, obtain food, or defend itself for any
length of time) or death to the grizzly bear.
(C) Acceptable deterrence techniques may include non-projectile
auditory deterrents, visual stimuli/deterrents, bear spray, vehicle
threat pressure, noise-making projectiles, or soft projectiles fired
from non-powder-actuated launchers intended to break on contact.
Unacceptable deterrence methods include screamers, whistlers, rubber
bullets, batons, bean bag and aero sock rounds, or other contact
projectiles not intended to break on contact due to their potential to
cause lasting injury. For more information about appropriate nonlethal
deterrents, individuals can contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
in the appropriate region (see 50 CFR 2.2 for regional office
information).
(D) Anyone may deter a grizzly bear in the case of self-defense
(e.g., by using bear spray or loud noises), but an individual must not
bait, stalk, or pursue a grizzly bear for the purposes of deterrence.
(E) Individuals may deter grizzly bears away from the immediate
vicinity, defined as 200 meters (656 feet), of a human-occupied
residence or potential source of conflict. Once bears have moved beyond
the immediate vicinity (200 meters (656 feet)), deterrence must cease.
(F) Authorized agencies may use additional tools, including
contracted services, as described in a current MOU.
(xi) An authorized agency may take a grizzly bear if that take is
incidental to, and not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful research and
management trapping for other species, such as wolverine (Gulu gulu)
and gray wolf (Canis lupus), provided that:
(A) The trap is securely anchored to prevent a grizzly bear from
leaving the area;
(B) The trap is checked at least every 24 hours;
(C) Trapping does not include use of neck snares; and
(D) Incidental take that results in a grizzly bear mortality must
be reported to the Service within 24 hours; or
(E) Incidental take that results in a grizzly bear injury must be
reported to the Service within 5 days.
(xii) In coordination with the Service's Office of Law Enforcement,
authorized Federal, State, or Tribal employees, when acting in the
course of their official duties, may, for scientific or research
purposes, possess, deliver, carry, transport, ship, export, or receive
grizzly bears.
(xiii) Federal and State law enforcement officers may possess,
deliver, carry, transport, or ship grizzly bears as necessary in
performing their official duties.
* * * * *

Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-00329 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P