Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67193 

set-aside part of the multiple-award 

contract (e.g., an order set aside for a 

women-owned small business concern 

under the small business set-aside part 

of the multiple-award contract). 

* * * * * 

19.302 [Amended] 

■ 5. Amend section 19.302 in paragraph 

(j) by removing ‘‘Post-Award’’ and 

adding ‘‘Postaward’’ in its place. 

19.309 [Amended] 

■ 6. Amend section 19.309 in paragraph 

(c)(1) by removing ‘‘Post-Award’’ and 

adding ‘‘Postaward’’ in its place. 

PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS 

AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 

■ 7. Amend section 52.212–5 by 

revising the date of the clause and 

removing from paragraph (b)(23)(i) 

‘‘Post Award’’ and ‘‘(MAR 2023)’’ and 

adding ‘‘Postaward’’ and ‘‘(DATE)’’ in 

its place. 

The revision reads as follows: 

52.212–5 Contract Terms and Conditions 

Required To Implement Statutes or 

Executive Orders—Commercial Products 

and Commercial Services. 

* * * * * 

Contract Terms and Conditions Required To 

Implement Statutes or Executive Orders— 

Commercial Products and Commercial 

Services (DATE) 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Amend section 52.219–28 by— 

■ a. Revising the section heading; 

■ b. Revising the clause heading and 

date of the clause; 

■ c. Revising paragraph (c); and 

■ d. Removing from paragraph (f) 

‘‘paragraph (b) and (c)’’ and adding 

‘‘paragraphs (b) and (c)’’ in its place. 

The revisions read as follows: 

52.219–28 Postaward Small Business 

Program Rerepresentation. 

* * * * * 

Postaward Small Business Program 

Rerepresentation (DATE) 

* * * * * 

(c) If the Contractor represented its 

status as any of the small business 

concerns identified in 19.000(a)(3) prior 

to award of this contract and its 

socioeconomic status is not certified by 

the SBA, the Contractor shall 

rerepresent its size and socioeconomic 

status according to paragraph (f) of this 

clause or, if applicable, paragraph (h) of 

this clause, for an order (except that 

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this 

section do not apply to an order issued 

under a Federal Supply Schedule 

contract at subpart 8.4)— 

(1) Set aside exclusively for a small 

business concern identified at 

19.000(a)(3) that is issued under an 

unrestricted multiple-award contract 

(unless the order is issued under an 

unrestricted multiple-award contract 

with reserves); 

(2) Issued under a set-aside multipleaward contract that is further set aside 

for a specific socioeconomic category 

that differs from the underlying 

multiple-award contract (e.g., an order 

set aside for a HUBZone small business 

concern under a small business setaside multiple-award contract); 

(3) Issued under the set-aside part of 

a multiple-award contract that is further 

set aside for a specific socioeconomic 

category that differs from the underlying 

set-aside part of the multiple-award 

contract (e.g., an order set aside for a 

HUBZone small business concern under 

a multiple-award contract that is 

partially set-aside for small businesses); 

and 

(4) When the Contracting Officer 

explicitly requires it for an order issued 

under a multiple-award contract, 

including for an order issued under a 

Federal Supply Schedule contract (see 

8.405–5(b) and 19.301–2(b)(2)). 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2023–21354 Filed 9–28–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2023–0074; 

FXES11130100000–234F1611MD– 

FF01E00000] 

RIN 1018–BG89 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Establishment of a 

Nonessential Experimental Population 

of Grizzly Bear in the North Cascades 

Ecosystem, Washington State 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS or Service), 

propose to establish a nonessential 

experimental population (NEP) of the 

grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) 

within the U.S. portion of the North 

Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) in the State 

of Washington under section 10(j) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act or ESA). Establishment of 

this NEP is intended to support 

reintroduction and recovery of grizzly 

bears within the NCE and provide the 

prohibitions and exceptions under the 

Act necessary and appropriate to 

conserve the species within a defined 

NEP area. The proposed NEP area 

includes most of the State of 

Washington except for an area in 

northeastern Washington that 

encompasses the Selkirk Ecosystem 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone. The best 

available data indicate that 

reintroduction of the grizzly bear to the 

NCE, within the NEP area, is 

biologically feasible and will promote 

the conservation of the species. We are 

seeking comments on this proposed 

section 10(j) rule. 

DATES: We will accept comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

November 13, 2023. Comments 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES), must be received by 11:59 

p.m. eastern time on the closing date. 

Public information sessions and 

public hearings: In conjunction with the 

National Park Service (NPS), we will 

hold public information meetings and 

public hearings during the public 

comment period. The public 

information meetings and hearings 

address the reintroduction proposal by 

the NPS and USFWS, including this 

proposed rule and the associated draft 

environmental impact statement (DEIS). 

The dates, times, and specific 

locations of the meetings will be posted 

on the internet at https://parkplanning.

nps.gov/NCEGrizzly. If unable to access 

the internet, please call 360–753–4370 

for more information about meeting 

dates, times, and locations. During the 

public hearings we will also take oral 

comments on this proposed rule. The 

public information meetings and 

hearings will be physically accessible to 

people with disabilities. Please direct 

requests for reasonable accommodations 

(e.g., auxiliary aids or sign language 

interpretation) to the person listed in 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at 

least 7 working days prior to the date of 

the meeting you wish to attend. 

Information Collection Requirements: 

In this proposed rule, we propose to 

authorize take of grizzly bears involved 

in conflict, in certain limited situations. 

Such authorizations may require 

submittal of information to the Service 

(e.g., information about grizzly bear 

observations or depredation events) and 

this information collection is also 

subject to public comment. If you wish 

to comment on the information 

collection requirements in this proposed 

rule, please note that the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the collection of information contained 

in this proposed rule between 30 and 60 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67194 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

days after publication of this proposed 

rule in the Federal Register. Therefore, 

such comments should be submitted to 

the Service Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, (see ‘‘Information 

Collection’’ section below under 

ADDRESSES) by November 28, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comments on the proposed 

nonessential experimental population: 

You may submit comments regarding 

this proposed rule by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: https://

www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, 

enter Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2023– 

0074, which is the docket number for 

this rulemaking. Then, click on the 

Search button. On the resulting page, in 

the Search panel on the left side of the 

screen, under the Document Type 

heading, click on the box next to 

Proposed Rules to locate this document. 

You may submit a comment by clicking 

on ‘‘Comment.’’ 

(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail 

or hand-delivery to: Public Comments 

Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–ES–2023– 

0074, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

MS: PRB/3W; 5275 Leesburg Pike; Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803. 

(3) By oral comments at a public 

hearing: Although written comments are 

preferred, we will accept oral comments 

submitted during one of the public 

hearings described above. Oral 

comments will be transcribed and 

posted as written comments. 

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). To increase our efficiency 

in downloading comments, groups 

providing mass submissions should 

submit their comments in an Excel file. 

Comments on Information Collection 

Requirements: Send your comments on 

the information collection request to the 

Service Information Collection 

Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, by email to Info_Coll@

fws.gov; or by mail to 5275 Leesburg 

Pike, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), Falls Church, 

VA 22041–3803. Please reference OMB 

Control Number 1018–BG89 in the 

subject line of your comments. 

Availability of supporting materials: 

This proposed rule is available at http:// 

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2023–0074. Hardcopies of 

the documents are also available for 

public inspection at the address shown 

in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Additional supporting information that 

we developed for this proposed rule is 

available at https://

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad 

Thompson, State Supervisor, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish 

and Wildlife Office, 500 Desmond 

Drive, Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503; 

telephone 360–753–9440. 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. In 

compliance with the Providing 

Accountability Through Transparency 

Act of 2023, please see docket FWS–R1– 

ES–2023–0074 on https://

www.regulations.gov for a document 

that summarizes this proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 regarding: 

(1) The proposed NEP area; 

(2) Management zone boundaries; 

(3) Proposed management flexibility 

within each management zone; 

(4) Proposed measures to prevent and 

minimize human-grizzly bear conflicts; 

(5) Potential adverse effects to the 

grizzly bear donor populations; 

(6) Proposed adaptive management 

toward achieving population goals; and 

(7) The biological or ecological 

requirements of the grizzly bear as 

related to the proposed NEP area, 

management zones, or proposed 

regulations. 

Please note that by separate Federal 

Register notice of availability on this 

same date by the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the NPS and USFWS 

are also soliciting public comments on 

the draft environmental impact 

statement (DEIS) (NPS and USFWS 

2023) for the agencies’ proposed 

reintroduction of grizzly bears to the 

U.S. portion of the NCE. The DEIS 

analyzes the potential environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

reintroduction and designation of a 

nonessential experimental population. 

Written comments specific to the DEIS 

should be made to the NPS in 

accordance with that separate notice; 

more information can be found on the 

internet at https://parkplanning.

nps.gov/NCEGrizzly. Comments specific 

to this proposed section 10(j) rule 

should be made to the USFWS docket 

specified in this document (see 

ADDRESSES above). As noted above, 

while we prefer written comments on 

this proposed rule, we will take oral 

comments at the scheduled public 

hearings. 

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. 

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. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you provide 

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 

as well as written transcripts of any oral 

comments made regarding the proposed 

rule at a public hearing on https://

www.regulations.gov. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our Interagency 

Cooperative Policy for Peer Review in 

Endangered Species Act Activities, 

which was published on July 1, 1994 

(59 FR 34270), and the internal 

memorandum clarifying the USFWS’s 

interpretation and implementation of 

that policy (USFWS in litt. 2016), we 

will seek the expert opinion of at least 

three appropriate independent 

specialists regarding scientific data and 

interpretations contained in this 

proposed rule. We will send copies of 

this proposed rule to the peer reviewers 

immediately following publication in 

the Federal Register. The purpose of 

such review is to ensure that our 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67195 

decisions are based on scientifically 

sound data, assumptions, and analysis. 

Accordingly, the final decision may 

differ from this proposal. 

Previous Federal Actions 

The grizzly bear was first federally 

listed under the Act in 1975 as a 

threatened species in the conterminous 

United States (40 FR 31734, July 28, 

1975). The listing included special 

regulations deemed necessary and 

advisable for the conservation of the 

species in accordance with section 4(d) 

of the Act. The section 4(d) regulations 

for grizzly bear were revised in 1985, 

1986, and again in 1992 (50 FR 35086, 

August 29, 1985; 51 FR 33753, 

September 23, 1986; 57 FR 37478, 

August 19, 1992). The USFWS proposed 

critical habitat for the grizzly bear in 

1976 (41 FR 48757, November 5, 1976); 

however, the designation was never 

finalized. On February 6, 2023, we 

announced positive 90-day findings on 

two petitions to delist the grizzly bear 

in two specific ecosystems, the Northern 

Continental Divide Ecosystem and the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (88 FR 

7658, February 6, 2023). We 

subsequently initiated a status review to 

determine whether the petitioned 

actions are warranted. For a full history 

of actions related to the grizzly bear, 

please see our Environmental 

Conservation Online System (ECOS) 

species profile at https://ecos.fws.gov/ 

ecp/species/7642. 

The NCE, where we are proposing to 

reintroduce grizzly bears, is one of six 

recovery zones designated to recover 

grizzly bears in the lower 48 States. We 

received and reviewed five petitions 

requesting a change in status for the 

NCE grizzly bear population from a 

threatened to an endangered species 

since 1990 (55 FR 32103, August 7, 

1990; 56 FR 33892, July 24, 1991; 57 FR 

14372, April 20, 1992; 58 FR 43856, 

August 18, 1993; and 63 FR 30453, June 

4, 1998). In response to these petitions, 

we determined that the NCE grizzly bear 

population warranted a change to 

endangered status. We continued to find 

that these petitions were warranted but 

precluded through our annual 

Candidate Notice of Review (CNOR) 

process through 2022 (87 FR 26152, 

May 3, 2022; 88 FR 41560, June 27, 

2023). However, we found in our 2023 

CNOR that the NCE no longer contains 

a population based on: (1) the amount 

of search effort without finding any 

evidence of grizzly bears or a confirmed 

population; (2) a limited number of 

grizzly bear detections in the NCE in the 

past few decades; and (3) the length of 

time since the last confirmed detection 

in 1996 (88 FR 41560, June 27, 2023). 

Background and Biological Information 

We provide detailed background 

information on grizzly bears in a 

separate Species Status Assessment 

(SSA) (USFWS 2022, entire). 

Information in the SSA is relevant to 

reintroduction efforts for grizzly bears 

that may be undertaken in Washington, 

and it can be found along with this 

proposed rule at https://

www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 

FWS–R1–ES–2023–0074 (see 

Supporting and Related Material). We 

summarize relevant information from 

the SSA below. 

Taxonomy and Species Description 

Grizzly bears are a member of the 

brown bear species (U. arctos) that 

occurs in North America, Europe, and 

Asia. In the lower 48 States, the grizzly 

bear subspecies occurs in a variety of 

habitat types in portions of Idaho, 

Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. 

Grizzly bears weigh up to 800 pounds 

(363 kilograms) 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 (USFWS 2022, p. 40). 

Historical and Current Range 

Historically, grizzly bears occurred 

throughout much of the western half of 

the contiguous United States, central 

Mexico, western Canada, and most of 

Alaska. Prior to European settlement, an 

estimated 50,000 grizzly bears were 

distributed in one large contiguous area 

throughout all or portions of 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). Populations 

declined in the late 1800s with the 

arrival of European settlers, 

government-funded bounty programs, 

and the conversion of habitats to 

agricultural uses. Grizzly bears were 

reduced to less than 2 percent of their 

former range in the lower 48 States by 

the time the species was listed as 

threatened under the Act in 1975, with 

an estimated population (in the lower 

48 States) of 700 to 800 individuals 

(USFWS 2022, p. 4). 

Grizzly bear populations in the lower 

48 States consist of approximately 2,000 

bears and currently occupy portions of 

Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and 

Washington. Outside the lower 48 

States, approximately 55,000 grizzly 

bears exist in the largely unsettled areas 

of Alaska and western Canada. 

Grizzly Bear Ecosystems and Recovery 

Zones 

The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan refers 

to six grizzly bear ecosystems to target 

species’ recovery (Service 1993, p. 10). 

Currently, approximately 2,000 grizzly 

bears exist primarily in 4 ecosystems in 

the lower 48 States: the Northern 

Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE), 

the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

(GYE), the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem 

(CYE), and the Selkirk Ecosystem. There 

are no known grizzly bear populations 

in the remaining two ecosystems: the 

North Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) or 

Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE), nor any 

known populations outside these 

ecosystems, although we have 

documented bears, primarily solitary, 

outside these ecosystems. Current 

populations in the NCDE, Selkirk 

Ecosystem, and CYE extend into Canada 

to varying degrees. Although there is 

currently no known population in the 

NCE, it constitutes a large block of 

contiguous habitat that spans the 

international border. Although the 

USFWS has not explicitly defined 

ecosystem boundaries, we have 

identified recovery zones at the core of 

each ecosystem (USFWS 2022, p. 56) 

(figure 1). Therefore, each recovery zone 

pertains to a specific area within the 

larger ecosystem. 

At the time of the original recovery 

plan, grizzly bear distribution within 

the conterminous United States was 

primarily within and around areas 

identified as recovery zones (USFWS 

1993, pp. 10–13, 17–18). The Service 

identified the six recovery zones, which 

correspond with the six ecosystems, as 

follows: 

(1) the GYE Recovery Zone in 

northwestern Wyoming, eastern Idaho, 

and southwestern Montana (9,200 sq mi 

(24,000 sq km)) at approximately 1,063 

individuals inside the Demographic 

Monitoring Area (Haroldson et al. 2022, 

p. 13); 

(2) the NCDE Recovery Zone of northcentral Montana (9,600 sq mi (25,000 sq 

km)) at approximately 1,114 individuals 

(Costello and Roberts 2022, p. 10); 

(3) the NCE Recovery Zone of northcentral Washington (9,500 sq mi (25,000 

sq km)), although no functional 

population of grizzly bears currently 

exists in the NCE (see Status of Grizzly 

Bears in the North Cascades Ecosystem, 

below); 

(4) the Selkirk Ecosystem Recovery 

Zone of northern Idaho, northeastern 

Washington, and southeastern British 

Columbia (2,200 sq mi (5,700 sq km)) at 

approximately 83 individuals (Proctor et 

al. 2012, p. 31); 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67196 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

(5) the CYE Recovery Zone of 

northwestern Montana and northern 

Idaho (2,600 sq mi (6,700 sq km)) at 

approximately 60–65 bears (Kasworm et 

al. 2022a, p. 42); and 

(6) the Bitterroot Recovery Zone of 

central Idaho and western Montana 

(5,830 sq mi (15,100 sq km)), although 

no functional population of grizzly 

bears currently exists in the BE. 

NCE and NCE Recovery Zone Relation 

to Proposed Experimental Population 

Although the USFWS considers the 

North Cascades Ecosystem to include 

areas within Canada, the North 

Cascades Recovery Zone is a component 

of the ecosystem and occurs only within 

the United States. Throughout this 

proposed rule, we will reference the 

broader North Cascades Ecosystem, 

which includes habitat in Canada, as the 

‘‘NCE’’ and reference its recovery zone 

(solely within the United States) as the 

‘‘NCE Recovery Zone.’’ The proposed 

nonessential experimental population 

area (see Proposed Experimental 

Population below) in this rulemaking 

action encompasses the entire NCE 

Recovery Zone and the portion of the 

larger NCE within the United States. 

Behavior and Life History 

Adult grizzly bears are normally 

solitary except when females have 

dependent young, but they are not 

territorial and home ranges of adult 

bears frequently overlap. Home range 

sizes vary among ecosystems because of 

population densities and habitat 

productivity. Average home range size 

for males varies from 183 to 835 square 

miles (sq mi) (475–2,162 square 

kilometers (sq km)) and for females from 

50 to 138 sq mi (130–358 sq km) across 

the recovery areas in the United States 

(USFWS 2022, p. 44). 

Grizzly bears have a promiscuous 

mating system. Mating occurs from May 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP29SE23.056</GPH>

Cascades 

WASHINGTON 

•c:::1111••· Kilometers 

0 50 100 200 IDAHO 

Northern 

~....,.....,.....,."'"T'Continental 

Greater 

Yellowstone 

Divide 

MONTANA 

--====---•Miles 1-------,-----,WYOMING 

0 50 100 200 

CJ Recovery Zones 

[2'.:;2] Estimated occupied range lower-48 States 

State boundaries 

Figure 1. Current estimated distribution of grizzly bears in the lower 48 States and grizzly bear 

recovery zones. 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67197 

through July with a peak in mid-June. 

Average age of first reproduction can 

vary from 3 to 8 years of age. Litter sizes 

range from one to four cubs, although 

two is the most common. Cubs are 

typically born in the den in late January 

or early February and typically remain 

with the female for 2.5 years, making 

the average time between litters (i.e., the 

interbirth interval) approximately 3 

years. Grizzly bears have one of the 

slowest reproductive rates among 

terrestrial mammals, resulting primarily 

from the late age of first reproduction, 

small average litter size, and the long 

interbirth interval. A population is 

made up of numerous overlapping 

generations. It is possible for mothers, 

daughters, and granddaughters to be 

reproductively active at the same time. 

Grizzly bear females typically cease 

reproducing some time in their mid-tolate 20s (USFWS 2022, pp. 44–45). 

Grizzly bears hibernate for 4 to 6 

months each year in winter to cope with 

seasons of low food abundance. Grizzly 

bears in the lower 48 States typically 

enter dens between October and 

December. In the 2 to 4 months before 

den entry, bears increase their food 

intake dramatically during a process 

called hyperphagia. Grizzly bears must 

consume foods rich in protein and 

carbohydrates during this time (between 

August and November) in order to build 

up fat reserves to survive denning and 

post-denning periods. Grizzly bears 

typically hibernate alone in dens, except 

for females with young and subadult 

siblings who occasionally hibernate 

together. Most dens are located at higher 

elevations, above 8,000 feet (ft) (2,500 

meters (m)) in the GYE and above 6,400 

ft (1,942 m) in the NCDE and on slopes 

ranging from 30 to 60 degrees. Grizzly 

bears exit their dens between March and 

May; females with cubs exit later than 

other adults (USFWS 2022, pp. 45–46). 

When not hibernating, grizzly bears 

use a variety of cover types to rest and 

shelter. Grizzly bears often select bed 

sites with horizontal and vertical cover, 

especially at day bed sites, suggesting 

that bed site selection is important for 

concealment from potential threats. The 

relative importance of cover to grizzly 

bears was documented in a 4-year study 

of grizzly bears in the GYE. Of 2,261 

aerial radio signals from 46 

instrumented bears, 90 percent were 

located in forest cover too dense to 

observe the bear (USFWS 2022, p. 47). 

Grizzly bears make seasonal 

movements within their home ranges to 

locations where food is abundant (e.g., 

ungulate winter ranges and calving 

areas, talus slopes). They are 

opportunistic omnivores and display 

great diet plasticity, even within a 

population, shifting their diet according 

to foods that are most nutritious (i.e., 

high in fat, protein, and/or 

carbohydrates) and available. They will 

consume almost any food available 

including living or dead mammals or 

fish, insects, worms, plants, humanrelated foods, garbage, livestock, and 

agricultural crops. Cattle and sheep 

depredation rates are generally higher 

where bear densities are higher and in 

later summer months. In areas where 

animal matter is less available, berries, 

grasses, roots, bulbs, tubers, seeds, and 

fungi are important in meeting protein 

and caloric requirements (USFWS 2022, 

pp. 47–48). 

In general, an individual grizzly bear’s 

habitat needs and daily movements are 

largely driven by the search for food, 

water, mates, cover, security, or den 

sites. Grizzly bears display dietary 

adjustability across ecosystems and 

exploit a broad diversity of habitat 

types. Large intact blocks of land 

directly influence the quality and 

quantity of the species’ resource needs, 

highlighting the importance of this 

habitat factor to all life stages. The 

larger, more intact, and ecologically 

diverse the block of land, it follows that 

high-caloric foods, dens, and cover 

would be more readily available to 

individuals. Grizzly bears also need 

large, intact blocks of land with limited 

human influence and thus low potential 

for displacement and human-bear or 

livestock-bear interactions that could 

result in human-caused mortality. 

Grizzly bears in the lower 48 States 

need multiple resilient ecosystems 

distributed across a geographical area to 

reduce the risk of catastrophic events. A 

wide distribution of multiple 

ecosystems ensures that all ecosystems 

are not exposed to the same catastrophic 

event at the same time, thereby reducing 

risk to the species. Grizzly bears also 

need genetic and ecological diversity 

across their range in the lower 48 States 

to adapt to changing environmental 

conditions (USFWS 2022, pp. 98–100). 

Kasworm et al. (2014, entire) 

evaluated grizzly bear food data from 

the CYE. The CYE has a Pacific 

maritime climate that may be similar to 

the climate in the central and western 

Cascade Mountains. Therefore, an 

evaluation of grizzly bear food selection 

in the CYE could be useful for 

predicting food habits of grizzly bears in 

the NCE. Huckleberry (Vaccinium spp.) 

appears to be an important component 

of the grizzly bear’s diet in the CYE. 

Data were collected over several years, 

using both isotope analysis on hairs and 

scat. Isotope analysis showed a highly 

variable use of meat (6 percent to 37 

percent of diet), and that meat was 

found in many scats in some months (40 

percent of dry matter in April and May), 

including fall (carrion). Overall, 

mammals and shrubs (berries) 

constituted 64 percent of total dry 

matter annually. In a diet study of 

grizzly bears in several western 

ecosystems, researchers found that adult 

male grizzly bears were more 

carnivorous than any other age or sex 

class, with diets composed of around 70 

percent meat (Jacoby et al. 1999, pp. 

924–926). Other sex and age groups of 

grizzly bears displayed diets similar to 

black bears living in the same areas 

reflective of diets described by Kasworm 

et al. 2014 (Jacoby et al. 1999, pp. 924– 

926). 

Threats 

Excessive human-caused mortality 

including ‘‘indiscriminate illegal 

killing,’’ defense of life and property 

mortality, accidental mortality, and 

management removal was the primary 

factor contributing to rangewide grizzly 

bear decline during the 19th and 20th 

centuries, eventually leading to their 

listing as a threatened species in 1975 

(40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). Habitat 

destruction, modification, and isolation 

and conflict resulting from human 

access to formerly secure habitat were 

also identified as threats in the 1975 

listing. In the State of Washington, the 

northwest fur trade was probably the 

primary driver of rapid grizzly bear 

decline in the period 1810–1870. In 

addition to the influx of trappers, 

resource extraction and livestock 

production fragmented and degraded 

grizzly bear habitat in Washington; a 

mining boom in the early 1800s created 

a rapid increase in human activity and 

habitat alteration to accommodate 

mining infrastructure and human 

settlements. In the NCE, grizzly bears 

were also regularly shot and removed by 

herders of sheep and cattle, and by the 

late 1800s habitat fragmentation and 

isolation of the ecosystem accelerated 

due to the dominance of logging, as well 

as the expansion of rural development, 

road and railway access, and orchards 

(Almack et al. 1993, p. 3; Rine et al. 

2020, pp. 5–13; USFWS 2022, p. 143). 

Though human-caused mortality has 

been greatly reduced since the 1800s, 

excessive human-caused mortality is 

still currently the primary factor 

affecting grizzly bears at both the 

individual and ecosystem levels 

(USFWS 2022, p. 7). Human-caused 

mortalities of grizzly bears currently 

include: (1) accidental killings; (2) 

management removals; (3) mistakenidentity killing; (4) defense-of-life kills; 

and (5) illegal killings or poaching 

(USFWS 2022, pp. 144–145). Human 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67198 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

activities are the primary factor 

currently impacting habitat security and 

the ability of bears to find and access 

foods, mates, cover, and den sites. Users 

of public lands and recreationists in 

grizzly bear habitat often increase the 

risk of human–grizzly conflict by 

leaving containers of food, garbage, and 

other bear attractants open or unstored 

(Gunther et al. 2004, pp. 13–14). 

However, road access to grizzly bear 

habitat likely poses the most imminent 

current threat to grizzly bears by 

reducing the availability of the 

necessary large, intact blocks of land; 

increasing disturbance and 

displacement of individual bears 

through increased noise, activity, or 

human presence; and increasing 

mortality of individual bears through 

vehicle strikes or other activities 

associated with human-caused mortality 

(USFWS 2022, p. 117). 

While existing motorized access 

levels are unknown on U.S. Forest 

Service (USFS) lands (USFWS 2022, p. 

212), the primary factors related to past 

destruction and modification of grizzly 

bear habitat have been reduced through 

changes in management practices that 

have been formally incorporated into 

regulatory documents. In the NCE, 

approximately 64 percent of the public 

lands are designated Wilderness or 

Inventoried Roadless Areas, and the 

remaining Federal lands are managed 

under a ‘‘no net loss’’ approach that 

supports core habitat. Population 

monitoring data collected by Federal, 

State, and Tribal agencies is used to 

help identify where human–grizzly bear 

conflicts occur and compare trends in 

locations, sources, land ownership, and 

types of conflicts to inform proactive 

management of human–grizzly bear 

conflicts. 

Fire is a natural part of all grizzly bear 

ecosystems, but fire frequency, severity, 

and burned area may increase with late 

summer droughts predicted under 

climate change scenarios (Nitschke and 

Innes 2008, p. 853; McWethy et al. 2010, 

p. 55; Halofsky et al. 2020, p. 10; 

Whitlock et al. 2017; pp. 123–131, 216, 

XXXII). In the North Cascades, wildfire 

is projected to burn nearly four times 

more area by the 2080s compared to the 

historical period of 1980 to 2006 

(Halofsky et al. 2020, p. 10). Highintensity fires may reduce grizzly bear 

habitat quality immediately afterwards 

by decreasing hiding cover, changing 

movement patterns, and delaying 

regrowth of vegetation. Predators with 

large territories, like grizzly bears, have 

more flexibility to exploit resources in 

burned and unburned landscapes (as 

cited in Nimmo et al. 2019, p. 986). 

Moreover, in conifer-dominated forest 

ecosystems, wildfires transition forest to 

earlier succession stages, which can 

increase prey densities due to increases 

in the availability of vegetative food 

resources (Snobl et al. 2022, pp. 14–15; 

Lyons et al. 2018, p. 10). 

Even if cover is lost, movement is 

changed, and vegetation growth is 

delayed, depending on their size and 

severity, fires may have only short-term 

adverse impacts on grizzly bears while 

providing more long-term benefits. For 

example, fire plays an important role in 

maintaining an open forest canopy, 

shrub fields, and meadows that provide 

for grizzly bear food resources, such as 

increased production of forbs, root 

crops, and berries (Hamer and Herrero 

1987b, pp. 183–185; Blanchard and 

Knight 1996, p. 121; Apps et al. 2004, 

p. 148; Pengelly and Hamer 2006, p. 

129). Because grizzly bears have shown 

resiliency to changes in vegetation 

resulting from fires, we do not expect 

altered fire regimes predicted under 

most climate change scenarios to have 

significant negative impacts on grizzly 

bear survival or reproduction, despite 

the potential short-term effects on 

vegetation important to grizzly bears. 

Climate models predict that the NCE 

will experience substantial vegetation 

changes from longer growing seasons, 

drier summer months and wetter winter 

and spring months, decreased 

snowpack, and an increased number of 

disturbance events that are expected to 

improve food resources for grizzly bears 

and thus increase habitat quality 

(Ransom et al. 2018, p. 26). Modeling of 

grizzly bear habitat in the North 

Cascades under various projected 

climate change scenarios shows 

increased carrying capacity and 

increased potential grizzly bear density 

estimates under all scenarios (Ransom et 

al. 2023, pp. 6–8; USFWS 2022, table 

27, p. 243). The complex relationship 

between changes in climate, natural 

processes, and natural and 

anthropogenic features will ultimately 

determine the future quality of grizzly 

bear habitat across the ecosystem 

(Ransom et al. 2018, entire). 

Status of Grizzly Bears in the North 

Cascades Ecosystem 

In the Service’s 2023 status review, 

we determined that the NCE no longer 

contained a population of grizzly bears 

(88 FR 41560 at 41579, June 27, 2023). 

We also indicated that we were 

continuing to evaluate options for 

restoring grizzly bears to the NCE (88 FR 

41560 at 41580, June 27, 2023). 

Factors contributing to the extirpation 

of a functional population of grizzly 

bears from the NCE include historical 

habitat loss and fragmentation and 

human-caused mortality (USFWS 2022, 

pp. 49–51). Historical records indicate 

that grizzly bears once occurred 

throughout the NCE (Bjorklund 1980, p. 

7; Sullivan 1983 p. 4; Almack et al. 1993 

p. 2, Rine et al. 2020, pp. 10–13). There 

has been no confirmed evidence of 

grizzly bears within the U.S. portion of 

the NCE since 1996 when an individual 

grizzly bear was observed on the 

southeastern side of Glacier Peak within 

the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area. The 

most recent direct evidence of 

reproduction in the U.S. portion of the 

NCE was a confirmed observation of a 

female and cub on upper Lake Chelan 

in 1991 (Almack et al. 1993, p. 34). 

In the United States, most habitat 

within the NCE is federally owned and 

managed by the NPS including North 

Cascades National Park (NP), Ross Lake 

National Recreation Area (NRA), and 

Lake Chelan NRA, but some areas are 

managed by the USFS. Sixty-four 

percent of the NCE Recovery Zone is 

protected from motorized routes due to 

designation as Wilderness or protected 

from roads due to designation as 

Inventoried Roadless Areas. Despite the 

lack of recent observations, five studies 

have evaluated portions of the NCE for 

grizzly bear habitat suitability (Agee et 

al. 1989, entire; Almack et al. 1993, 

entire; Gaines et al. 1994, entire; Lyons 

et al. 2018, entire; Ransom et al. 2023, 

entire), and all conclude that the U.S. 

portion of the NCE has the habitat 

resources essential for the maintenance 

of a grizzly bear population. 

Grizzly bear populations in Canada 

are not part of the U.S. listed grizzly 

bear entity. However, suitable habitat 

within the NCE spans the international 

border. The NCE within Canada is 

relatively isolated from other 

ecosystems with grizzly bear 

populations in Canada (Morgan et al. 

2019, p. 3). The current range of grizzly 

bears in British Columbia is divided 

into 55 Grizzly Bear Population Units 

(GBPUs) that are used for monitoring 

and management. The British Columbia 

North Cascades GBPU is immediately 

north of the U.S. portion of the NCE and 

was described as isolated and small 

with possibly three females remaining 

(Morgan et al. 2019, p. 19). To the north 

and west of this GBPU lie the SteinNahatlach and the Garibaldi-Pit GBPUs 

that are also described as small and 

largely isolated with estimated female 

populations of 12 and 2, respectively 

(Morgan et al. 2019, p. 19). All three of 

these units are ranked as being of 

extreme management concern (Morgan 

et al. 2019, p. 21) using the NatureServe 

methodology, integrating rarity (e.g., 

range extent, population size), 

population trend, and severity of threats 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67199 

to produce a conservation status rank 

for discrete geographical units (Morgan 

et al. 2019, p. 6). The International 

Union for the Conservation of Nature 

classified these populations as critically 

endangered on their Red List due to 

small size and isolation (McLellan et al. 

2017, p. 2). The Kettle-Granby GBPU 

lies 60 miles to the northeast of the NCE 

across the Okanogan River in British 

Columbia with an estimated female 

population of 48 grizzly bears in 2018 

(Morgan et al. 2019, p. 19). Based on 

this information there appears to be 

little demographic or genetic 

connectivity from other GBPUs to the 

North Cascades GBPU. 

Recovery Efforts to Date 

In accordance with section 4(f)(1) of 

the Act, the USFWS completed a grizzly 

bear recovery plan in 1982 (USFWS 

1982, entire) and released a revised 

recovery plan in 1993 (USFWS 1993, 

entire; other revisions and supplements 

affecting other populations can be found 

in ECOS). Recovery plans serve as ‘‘road 

maps’’ for species recovery—they lay 

out where we need to go and how to get 

there through specific actions. Recovery 

plans are not regulatory documents and 

are instead intended to provide 

guidance to the USFWS, States, and 

other partners on methods of 

minimizing threats to listed species and 

on criteria that may be used to 

determine when recovery is achieved. 

In 1993, the USFWS revised the 

grizzly bear recovery plan (hereafter, 

‘‘recovery plan’’) to include additional 

tasks and new information that 

increased the focus and effectiveness of 

recovery efforts (USFWS 1993, pp. 41– 

58). In 1996 and 1997, we released 

supplemental chapters to the recovery 

plan to direct recovery in the BE and 

NCE Recovery Zones, respectively 

(USFWS 1996; USFWS 1997). In our 

recovery plan supplement for the NCE 

Recovery Zone, we outlined the 

following recovery goals for the U.S. 

portion of the NCE: 

(1) that the population is large enough 

to offset some level of human-induced 

mortality and be self-sustaining despite 

foreseeable influences of demographic 

and environmental variation; and 

(2) reproducing bears are distributed 

through the NCE Recovery Zone. Such 

a population may comprise 200–400 

grizzly bears in the U.S. portion of the 

ecosystem (USFWS 1997, p. 3). 

This supplement to the recovery plan 

supported fostering grizzly bear 

restoration in the NCE, specifically 

identifying translocations as an 

alternative for recovering this 

population. 

Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee 

In 1983, the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee (IGBC) was established ‘‘to 

ensure recovery of viable grizzly bear 

populations and restoration of their 

habitats in the lower 48 States through 

interagency coordination of policy, 

planning, management and research’’ 

(IGBC 1983, entire). The IGBC consists 

of representatives from the Service, 

USFS, NPS, the Bureau of Land 

Management, the U.S. Geological 

Survey, and representatives of the State 

wildlife agencies of Idaho, Montana, 

Washington, and Wyoming. At the 

ecosystem level, Native American 

Tribes that manage grizzly bear habitat 

and county governments are 

represented, along with other partners. 

The IGBC NCE subcommittee guides 

and coordinates habitat management 

and conflict prevention for grizzly bears 

in the NCE Recovery Zone (USFWS 

1997, p. 8). In 1997, the North Cascades 

NP Superintendent and three National 

Forest (NF) Supervisors (Mt. BakerSnoqualmie NF, Okanogan NF, and 

Wenatchee NF) agreed to a ‘‘no-net-loss 

of core’’ approach within any bear 

management unit to protect and secure 

grizzly bear habitat in the U.S. portion 

of the NCE (see USFS 1997, entire), and 

they have managed the national park 

and national forests using that guidance 

since. Under this approach, ‘‘core area’’ 

is defined as the area more than 0.3 mi 

(500 m) from any open-motorized access 

route or high-use nonmotorized trail 

(more than 20 parties per week). 

Management Efforts in the NCE and 

NCE Recovery Zone 

A number of habitat management 

measures have been implemented 

within the NCE Recovery Zone to 

improve habitat connectivity, habitat 

security, and safety for grizzly bears and 

humans, in areas where interactions are 

likely. These measures include 

management of human access to grizzly 

bear habitat and improved sanitation 

and food storage measures to prevent or 

minimize human–grizzly bear 

interactions. 

Management of human access is one 

of the most important and significant 

management strategies for grizzly bears. 

It includes balancing the need for road 

and motorized trail access with 

providing secure areas for grizzly bears. 

Access management in the NCE 

Recovery Zone is guided by the ‘‘no-netloss of core’’ approach described above 

(USFS 1997, entire). In simplest terms, 

this approach indicates that if a road is 

constructed or opened to motorized 

travel, another road must be closed to 

motorized use in order to maintain core 

habitat. 

In an effort to minimize the potential 

for human-caused mortality of grizzly 

bears, substantial outreach efforts have 

been put in place by the NPS and USFS 

over the last 30 years to reduce 

unsecured attractants (e.g., garbage, 

human food) and provide the public 

with tips on identifying and coexisting 

with grizzly bears (e.g., Western 

Wildlife Outreach 2023; Braaten et al. 

2013, pp. 7–8). The NPS has servicewide food storage regulations (36 CFR 

2.2(a), 2.10(d), and 2.14(a)), including 

requiring campers to use food storage 

canisters or park-provided food storage 

lockers at the North Cascades NPS 

Complex. In early 2023, Mt. BakerSnoqualmie NF issued a forest-wide, 

year-round food storage order. The 

Okanogan-Wenatchee NF does not have 

food storage restrictions but continues 

to place bear-resistant facilities, 

including food storage lockers, at 

campgrounds. 

It is illegal to negligently feed, attempt 

to feed, or attract large carnivores to 

land or a building in Washington State, 

and doing so may result in an infraction 

(see Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 

77.15.790). There are exceptions for 

individuals engaging in acceptable 

practices related to waste disposal, 

forestry, wildlife control, and farming or 

ranching operations. Any person who 

intentionally feeds or attempts to feed or 

attracts large carnivores to land or a 

building is guilty of a misdemeanor (see 

RCW 77.15.792). The Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW) has also implemented a 

regulation that requires black bear 

hunters to take and pass a bear 

identification test when hunting black 

bears in specific areas within grizzly 

bear recovery zones, with the intent of 

minimizing the potential for accidental 

killings of grizzly bears because of 

mistaken identification (WDFW 2023, p. 

70). 

State and Canadian Protections 

Grizzly bears are State-listed as an 

endangered species in Washington 

(RCW 77.12.020, Washington 

Administrative Code 220–610–010, 

Lewis 2019, p. 1). In British Columbia, 

grizzly bears are ranked as ‘‘Special 

Concern’’ by both the British Columbia 

Conservation Data Centre and federally 

under Canada’s Species at Risk Act (B.C. 

Conservation Data Centre 2023; SARA 

2018). The International Union for 

Conservation of Nature (IUCN) 

identifies four populations within 

British Columbia on the IUCN Red List 

of Threatened Species, including three 

that border Washington State with Red 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67200 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

List Categories reflecting heightened 

extinction risk (North Cascades– 

Critically Endangered, South Selkirk– 

Vulnerable, and the Yahk/Yaak– 

Endangered, McLellan et al. 2016, pp. 

1–2). Currently, there appears to be little 

to no demographic or genetic 

connectivity to the NCE from other 

populations in Canada. 

The feasibility of recovering grizzly 

bears in the Canadian portion of the 

NCE is under consideration in British 

Columbia. First Nations have declared 

grizzly bears within the North Cascades 

GBPU as in immediate need of 

restoration and protection (ONA 2014, 

entire, Piikani Nation 2018, entire). The 

British Columbia Government in 

collaboration with Canadian First 

Nations have established a Joint Nation 

partnership to outline population 

recovery objectives and strategies in a 

North Cascades Grizzly Bear 

Stewardship Strategy (in review). The 

team is also developing a 

communication strategy to assess public 

reception for recovery in the area. 

Additionally, the Provincial 

Government has identified management 

options for all grizzly bear populations 

as outlined in the British Columbia 

Grizzly Bear Stewardship Framework 

(in review). Should augmentation efforts 

occur in British Columbia, it is likely 

that some grizzly bears reintroduced 

into the Canadian portion of the 

ecosystem may move into the proposed 

NEP area in the United States, either as 

transients that return to Canada or that 

ultimately remain in the United States. 

Statutory and Regulatory Framework 

Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538) 

sets forth the prohibitions afforded to 

species listed under the Act. Section 9 

of the Act prohibits take of endangered 

wildlife. ‘‘Take’’ is defined by the Act as 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

attempt to engage in any such conduct. 

Section 7 of the Act outlines the 

procedures for Federal interagency 

cooperation to conserve federally listed 

species and protect designated critical 

habitat. It mandates that all Federal 

agencies use their existing authorities to 

further the purposes of the Act by 

carrying out programs for the 

conservation of listed species. It also 

requires that Federal agencies, in 

consultation with the Service, ensure 

that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out is not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a listed species 

or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical 

habitat. Section 7 of the Act does not 

affect activities undertaken on private 

land unless they are authorized, funded, 

or carried out by a Federal agency. 

The 1982 amendments to the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) included the 

addition of section 10(j), which allows 

for populations of listed species 

planned to be reintroduced to be 

designated as ‘‘experimental 

populations.’’ The provisions of section 

10(j) were enacted to ameliorate 

concerns that reintroduced populations 

will negatively impact landowners and 

other private parties, by giving the 

Secretary of the Interior greater 

regulatory flexibility and discretion in 

managing the reintroduced species to 

encourage recovery in collaboration 

with partners, especially private 

landowners. The Secretary may 

designate as an experimental population 

a population of endangered or 

threatened species that will be released 

into habitat that is capable of supporting 

the experimental population outside the 

species’ current range. Under section 

10(j) of the Act, we must make a 

determination as to whether or not an 

experimental population is essential to 

the continued existence of the species 

based on best available science. Our 

regulations define an essential 

population as one whose loss would be 

likely to appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of the survival of the species 

in the wild. All other experimental 

populations are classified as 

nonessential (50 CFR 17.80(b)). 

We treat any population determined 

by the Secretary to be an experimental 

population as if we had listed it as a 

threatened species for the purposes of 

establishing protective regulations 

under section 4(d) of the Act with 

respect to that population (50 CFR 

17.82). We may apply any of the 

prohibitions of section 9 of the Act to 

the members of an experimental 

population, including the prohibitions 

against the sale or possession, import 

and export, or ‘‘take’’ (50 CFR 17.82). 

The designation as an experimental 

population allows us to develop tailored 

‘‘take’’ prohibitions that are necessary 

and advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the species. The 

protective regulations adopted for an 

experimental population will contain 

applicable prohibitions as appropriate, 

and exceptions for that population, 

allowing us discretion in devising 

management programs to provide for the 

conservation of the species. 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that 

Federal agencies, in consultation with 

the Service, ensure that any action they 

authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely 

to jeopardize the continued existence of 

a listed species or adversely modify its 

critical habitat. We treat an NEP as a 

threatened species when the population 

is located within the National Wildlife 

Refuge System (NWRS) or unit of the 

NPS, and those agencies are required to 

consult with us under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act (50 CFR 17.83; see 16 U.S.C. 

1539 (j)(2)(C)(i)). When NEPs are located 

outside of an NWRS or NPS unit, for the 

purposes of section 7, we treat the 

population as proposed for listing and 

only sections 7(a)(1) (50 CFR 17.83) and 

7(a)(4) (50 CFR 402.10) of the Act apply 

(50 CFR 17.83). In these instances, NEPs 

allow additional flexibility in managing 

the nonessential population because 

Federal agencies are not required to 

consult with us under section 7(a)(2). 

Section 7(a)(1) requires all Federal 

agencies to use their authorities to carry 

out programs for the conservation of 

listed species. Section 7(a)(4) requires 

Federal agencies to confer (rather than 

consult) with the Service on actions that 

are likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of a species proposed to be 

listed. 

Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states 

that critical habitat shall not be 

designated for any experimental 

population that is determined to be 

nonessential. Accordingly, we cannot 

designate critical habitat in areas where 

we establish an NEP. 

Before authorizing the release as an 

experimental population of any 

population (including eggs, propagules, 

or individuals) of an endangered or 

threatened species, and before 

authorizing any necessary 

transportation to conduct the release, 

the Service must find by regulation that 

such release will further the 

conservation of the species. In making 

such a finding the Service uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

to consider: 

(1) Any possible adverse effects on 

extant populations of a species as a 

result of removal of individuals, eggs, or 

propagules for introduction elsewhere 

(see Effects on Wild Populations, 

below); 

(2) the likelihood that any such 

experimental population will become 

established and survive in the 

foreseeable future (see Likelihood of 

Population Establishment and Survival, 

below); 

(3) the relative effects that 

establishment of an experimental 

population will have on the recovery of 

the species (see Effects of the 

Experimental Population on Grizzly 

Bear Recovery, below); and 

(4) the extent to which the introduced 

population may be affected by existing 

or anticipated Federal or State actions or 

private activities within or adjacent to 

the experimental population area (see 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67201 

Actions and Activities in Washington 

That May Affect Reintroduced Grizzly 

Bears, below). 

Furthermore, as set forth at 50 CFR 

17.81(c), all regulations designating 

experimental populations under section 

10(j) of the Act must provide: 

(1) appropriate means to identify the 

experimental population, including but 

not limited to its actual or proposed 

location, actual or anticipated 

migration, number of specimens 

released or to be released, and other 

criteria appropriate to identify the 

experimental population (see Means To 

Identify the Experimental Population, 

below); 

(2) a finding, based solely on the best 

scientific and commercial data 

available, and the supporting factual 

basis, on whether the experimental 

population is, or is not, essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild (see Findings, below); 

(3) management restrictions, 

protective measures, or other special 

management concerns for that 

population, which may include, but are 

not limited to, measures to isolate and/ 

or contain the experimental population 

designated in the regulation from 

nonexperimental populations (see 

Management Restrictions, Protective 

Measures, and Other Special 

Management, below); and 

(4) a process for periodic review and 

evaluation of the success or failure of 

the release and the effect of the release 

on the conservation and recovery of the 

species (see Review and Evaluation of 

the Success or Failure of the NEP, 

below). 

Under 50 CFR 17.81(d), the Service 

must consult with appropriate State fish 

and wildlife agencies, affected Tribal 

governments, local government 

agencies, affected Federal agencies, and 

affected private landowners in 

developing and implementing 

experimental population rules. To the 

maximum extent practicable, rules 

issued under section 10(j) of the Act 

represent an agreement between the 

Service, the affected State and Federal 

agencies, Tribal governments, local 

governments, and persons holding any 

interest in land and water that may be 

affected by the establishment of an 

experimental population. Hereafter in 

this document, we refer to the proposed 

regulations for establishing the NEP of 

the grizzly bear within the U.S. portion 

of the NCE as the ‘‘10(j) rule.’’ 

Proposed Experimental Population 

Experimental Population Area 

The proposed geographic area for the 

grizzly bear nonessential experimental 

population (NEP) occurs within the U.S. 

portion of the NCE and encompasses the 

entire NCE Recovery Zone. It also 

includes all of Washington State except 

an area in northeastern Washington 

around the Selkirk Ecosystem Recovery 

Zone where there is currently a 

population of grizzly bears (see figure 

2). The northeastern boundary of the 

NEP is defined by the Kettle River from 

the international border with Canada, 

downstream to the Columbia River, to 

its confluence with the Spokane River, 

then upstream on the Spokane River to 

the Washington–Idaho border. We are 

proposing to designate an NEP area 

beyond the NCE Recovery Zone to allow 

management of grizzly bears within the 

NCE Recovery Zone as well as grizzly 

bears that move outside of the NCE 

Recovery Zone. 

In the U.S. portion of the NCE, the 

majority of land is under Federal 

ownership managed primarily by the 

NPS, including North Cascades National 

Park (NP), Ross Lake National 

Recreation Area (NRA), and Lake 

Chelan NRA, with some areas managed 

by the USFS. 

In drawing our NEP area and 

management zone boundaries, we 

considered the following data points: 

Those areas where a population of 

grizzly bears could be successfully 

established; an evaluation of the 

opportunities for grizzly bears to move 

between blocks of high-quality grizzly 

bear habitat in Washington (Singleton et 

al. 2004, p. 96, USFWS 2022, pp. 305– 

309, Kasworm et al. 2022b, entire); the 

potential for human–bear conflicts; 

grizzly bear movement data from other 

populations; the location of the closest 

existing grizzly bear populations and 

historical observations of dispersers 

from those populations; ease of 

implementation (using readily 

discernible features for management 

zone boundaries such as roads and 

Federal land ownership boundaries); 

and input from NPS, WDFW, USFS, and 

the public. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67202 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Management Zones 

Within the NEP area, we identified 

three management zones (see figure 2) 

based on suitability for occupancy by 

grizzly bears and the likelihood of 

human–bear conflicts, which are often 

associated with private lands. We are 

proposing to establish these 

management zones to help focus grizzly 

bear conservation within the NCE 

Recovery Zone and to allow more 

flexible management in the remaining 

portion of the NEP. Details of the 

management regulations we are 

proposing within each management 

zone are provided below in 

Management Restrictions, Protective 

Measures, and Other Management 

Concerns. 

Management Zone 1 would include 

the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF and 

Okanogan-Wenatchee NF north of 

Interstate 90 and west of Washington 

State Route 97, as well as the North 

Cascades NPS Complex. To define the 

proposed Management Zone 1 

boundary, we used the NCE Recovery 

Zone but then excluded State-owned 

and private lands so that it is easily 

identifiable. Management Zone 1 would 

be the primary area for the experimental 

population restoration and would serve 

as core habitat for survival, 

reproduction, and dispersal of the NEP. 

Management Zone 1 primarily would 

consist of remote protected lands that 

support grizzly bear diet, habitat, and 

reproduction needs (see Behavior and 

Life History section above). Therefore, 

Management Zone 1 would serve as the 

core habitat for grizzly bear 

reintroductions, where all release sites 

would occur (see Release Areas, below). 

Management Zone 2 would include 

the Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie NF and 

Okanogan-Wenatchee NF south of 

Interstate 90, Gifford Pinchot NF, and 

Mount Rainier National Park. 

Management Zone 2 also would include 

the Colville NF and OkanoganWenatchee NF lands east of Washington 

State Route 97 within the experimental 

population boundary, though it is less 

likely that bears will disperse into this 

area due to the distance from proposed 

Management Zone 1 to the west. 

Management Zone 2 is meant to 

accommodate natural movement or 

dispersal by grizzly bears. We expect 

some level of grizzly bear transience as 

well as occupancy in Management Zone 

2 because of the existing habitat on 

public lands with limited human 

influence, resulting in lower potential 

levels of human–bear conflict (due to 

food storage regulations and limited 

human-attractants). 

Management Zone 3 would comprise 

all other lands outside of proposed 

Management Zones 1 and 2 within the 

NEP boundary, and outside the area 

excluded near the Selkirk Ecosystem 

Recovery Zone. Beyond the Selkirk 

excluded area, the outer boundary of 

Management Zone 3, and thus outer 

boundary of the NEP area, would be 

delineated by the Washington State 

border. Management Zone 3 would 

contain large areas that may be 

incompatible with grizzly bear presence 

due to high levels of private land 

ownership and associated development 

and/or potential for bears to become 

involved in conflicts and resultant bear 

mortality (although some areas within 

this management zone are capable of 

supporting grizzly bears, and some 

grizzly bears may occur here). The 

intent of Management Zone 3 is to allow 

more management flexibility to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP29SE23.057</GPH>

0 25 50 100 c:::I Nonessentional Experimental Population (NEP) Boundary 

~':.": North cascades Recovery Zone Boundary 

~ :1 Selkirk Recovery Zone Boundary 

- NEP Management Zone 1 

~ IIIEP Management Zone 2 

f2Z NEP Management Zone 3 

D Outside NEP 

N 

W+E 

s 

Kilometers Miles ■■====~~~~;::::::::: 0 40 160 

Figure 2. Map of proposed grizzly bear NEP and NEP management zones. 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67203 

minimize impacts of grizzly bears on 

landowners and other members of the 

public. 

The NEP area contains human 

infrastructure and activities that pose 

some risk to the success of the 

restoration effort from human-caused 

mortality of grizzly bears. These 

activities include both controllable and 

uncontrollable sources of mortality. 

Controllable sources of mortality are 

discretionary, can be limited by the 

managing agency, and include 

permitted take and direct agency 

control. Sources of mortality that will be 

difficult to limit, or may be 

uncontrollable, occur regardless of 

population size and include things such 

as natural mortalities, illegal take, and 

accidental deaths (e.g., vehicle 

collisions, capture-related mortalities, 

defense-of-life kills) (USFWS 2022, pp. 

144–145). Accidental mortality caused 

by vehicle collision is difficult to 

control but is not anticipated to be a 

significant cause of mortality. The main 

types of human-caused mortality in the 

GYE, NCDE, CYE, and Selkirk 

Ecosystem Recovery Zones result from 

human site conflicts (e.g., when grizzly 

bears are drawn to areas with unsecured 

chickens, garbage, or bird and livestock 

feed where landowners attempt to deter 

the bear or protect themselves), selfdefense, mistaken identification kills, 

and illegal kills, some of which can be 

partially mitigated through management 

actions (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21; 

USFWS 2022, p. 144). We expect the 

same types of human-caused mortality 

identified within other recovery zones 

to occur within the NEP. 

Despite these human-caused 

mortalities, grizzly bear populations in 

other recovery zones have continued to 

increase in size and expand their 

current distribution (USFWS 2022, pp. 

167–168). The NEP would build on 

continuing success in recovering grizzly 

bears through longstanding cooperative 

and complementary programs by a 

number of Federal, State, and Tribal 

agencies. In particular, through 

coordination of policy, planning, 

management, and research, and 

communication between Federal, State, 

Tribal and Provincial agencies, the IGBC 

has proven to be a successful model for 

agencies working cooperatively and 

coordinating recovery efforts over 

multiple jurisdictions, and substantial 

progress has been made toward 

recovering the species in other 

ecosystems. With continued 

coordination through the IGBC NCE 

subcommittee, we do not expect 

Federal, State, Tribal, or private actions 

and activities in Washington to have 

significant adverse effects on grizzly 

bears within the proposed NEP area. 

For management of grizzly bears on 

Tribal lands, we expect to defer 

monitoring and day- to-day management 

of grizzly bears to the relevant Tribe if 

they have the interest and capacity to 

undertake that management. Otherwise, 

we expect that the USFWS and/or other 

Federal and/or State bear management 

staff could assist in grizzly bear 

management on these Tribal lands per 

terms in a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) involving those 

agencies in coordination with the 

affected Tribe, which would be put in 

place prior to agency involvement on 

Tribal lands. 

Grizzly bears in Washington State that 

are not within the NEP area, i.e., grizzly 

bears that are within and around the 

Selkirk Ecosystem Recovery Zone (see 

figure 2), would not be subject to 

management under this proposed rule; 

they are subject to the existing special 

rule for grizzly bears under section 4(d) 

of the Act, found at 50 CFR 17.40(b). 

Release Areas 

Proposed grizzly bear release areas 

would be limited to Federal lands and 

include portions of North Cascades NP 

and Ross Lake NRA, administered by 

NPS, and Glacier Peak, Pasayten, and 

Stephen Mather Wilderness areas, 

administered by USFS. Primary release 

sites would be remote areas that could 

be accessed by helicopter and capable of 

accommodating helicopter support 

staging areas (NPS and FWS 2023, p. 

29). Secondary release sites would be 

remote areas that could be accessed by 

vehicle or boat transportation and 

capable of accommodating appropriate 

staging areas. Secondary release sites 

would be used only if helicopter sites 

were not available due to weather 

limitations affecting flight safety. 

Staging areas would be identified in 

previously disturbed areas large enough 

for the safe landing of a helicopter, 

parking for a fuel truck, and any other 

grizzly bear transport and handling 

needs. 

Release sites would be chosen based 

on habitat suitability, connectivity to 

other release sites within the NEP, and 

the need to have released grizzly bears 

in close proximity to one another to 

facilitate interaction and breeding. 

Additional criteria for acceptable release 

sites include the following: 

• Areas that consist largely of highquality seasonal habitat; specifically, 

areas that contain readily available 

berry-producing plants that are known 

grizzly bear foods. 

• Areas that are largely roadless, and 

an adequate distance from high visitor 

use and motorized areas and have low 

human use. 

• Areas with a suitable helicopter 

landing site or a suitable vehicle- or 

boat-accessible site with little public 

use. 

• Future additional release sites 

would be informed by grizzly bear 

resource selection as determined 

through monitoring of grizzly bears 

previously released into the NEP. 

Sites for subsequent releases of grizzly 

bears would be chosen based on the 

criteria listed above and limited to 

Federal lands, unless otherwise 

authorized by relevant authorities and 

landowners. 

Capture and Release Procedures 

Grizzly bears will be captured using 

baited foot snares or culvert traps as a 

primary method. Helicopters will be 

used to transport culvert traps from 

which grizzly bears would be released. 

It is possible that helicopter support 

will also be used for the capture of 

grizzly bears through use of helicopterbased capture darting. The capture and 

release of grizzly bears will take place 

during the summer (June–September), 

depending on the selected capture and 

release site(s) and food availability. 

Grizzly bears will be moved and 

transported from capture locations to 

release staging areas by vehicle. Grizzly 

bears will then be transported from 

staging areas to remote release sites by 

helicopter or by vehicle or boat on NPS 

or USFS lands in Management Zone 1 

(NPS and USFWS 2023, p. 29). Each 

release could take up to 8 hours (1 day) 

depending on the distance between 

staging and release areas, potentially 

resulting in 5 to 10 days of helicopter 

use per year for releases. Helicopters 

could make up to four round trip flights, 

traveling approximately 500 ft (150 m) 

above the ground, and make up to four 

landings in wilderness per release, 

which would be necessary for the 

release of each grizzly bear and dropoff 

and retrieval of staff and the culvert 

trap. All operations would be conducted 

during daylight hours. 

We will attempt to capture five to 

seven bears per year. Capture success 

and availability of bears will govern the 

exact annual numbers captured and 

source population(s). Additional grizzly 

bears could be needed depending on a 

variety of factors, including humancaused mortality, genetic limitations, 

population trends, and the population’s 

sex ratio. Population modeling indicates 

the need for release of 36 bears into the 

NEP to obtain an initial population of 25 

individuals in approximately 8–9 years 

(NPS and USFWS 2023, p. 33). Until a 

population of 25 individuals is reached, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67204 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

we will capture and release grizzly bears 

to replace any previously released 

grizzly bears that die. We expect 

additional releases to maintain genetic 

diversity in this population as 

determined by long-term monitoring. 

Bears released would be roughly 60 

percent or greater females, and ages of 

all released animals (males and females) 

are expected to be 2–6 years old. 

How does the experimental population 

contribute to the conservation of the 

species? 

Under 50 CFR 17.81(b), before 

authorizing the release as an 

experimental population, the Service 

must find by regulation that such 

release will further the conservation of 

the species. We explain our rationale for 

making our finding below. In making 

such a finding, we must consider effects 

on donor populations, the likelihood of 

establishment and survival of the 

experimental population, the effects that 

establishment of the experimental 

population will have on recovery of the 

species, and the extent to which the 

experimental population will be 

affected by Federal, State, or private 

activities. 

Effects on Wild Populations 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81 

require that we consider any possible 

adverse effects on extant populations of 

a species as a result of removal of 

individuals, eggs, or propagules for 

introduction elsewhere. The preferred 

donor populations for the proposed 

reintroduction of grizzly bears to the 

NEP occur in south-central British 

Columbia or in the United States, such 

as the NCDE or GYE. We will seek 

source areas that have a healthy grizzly 

bear population so that removal of 

grizzly bears would not affect 

population viability, as the capture and 

removal of grizzly bears would be 

considered a loss for the source 

population. 

Sourcing NEP grizzly bears from 

NCDE, GYE, and/or south-central 

British Columbia populations will not 

negatively affect the donor populations 

for the following reasons. The NCDE 

and GYE demonstrate stable to slightly 

increasing demographic trends with an 

estimated 1,114 grizzly bears in the 

NCDE and 1,069 bears in the GYE in 

2021. Further, grizzly bear distribution 

has expanded well beyond these 

recovery zones (figure 1; USFWS 2022, 

pp. 63–67). Given the demonstrated 

resilience and recovery trajectory of 

these populations in the United States 

and Canada, and the limited number of 

grizzly bears that will be translocated 

(36 grizzly bears to obtain an initial 

population of 25 individual bears), we 

expect the donor populations in the 

NCDE and the GYE to remain stable and 

persist despite the translocation of these 

36 individuals for the NEP. Further, the 

number of individuals necessary for the 

NEP is minimal in relation to the 

demographic recovery criteria and the 

annual mortality of the NCDE and GYE 

populations. South-central British 

Columbia has several GBPUs with a 

sufficient number of bears and 

conservation status secure enough to 

use as sources. Wells Gray, North 

Purcells, Central Rockies, and North 

Selkirk GBPUs have a combined total 

estimated grizzly bear population of 

1,100, and populations are stable or 

increasing (Environmental Reporting 

BC, 2020, entire). 

In addition to sourcing NEP grizzly 

bears from healthy populations, we will 

prioritize source areas that are 

ecologically similar to the NCE area and 

will prioritize capturing grizzly bears 

that do not have a history of coming into 

conflict with humans. We will attempt 

to capture grizzly bears that share a 

similar ecology and food economy to 

potential release areas. Food economy 

refers to the dominant foods available to 

grizzly bears in a given area. Dominant 

foods in the NCE are expected to be 

similar to the west side of the NCDE in 

northwestern Montana, adjacent grizzly 

bear habitat in British Columbia, 

Canada, and grizzly bear habitat in 

south-central interior British Columbia. 

In these areas, berries are the dominant 

food source providing calories and 

ultimately fat production necessary for 

a grizzly bear to survive hibernation and 

reproduce. As a result, these areas will 

most likely be selected for capturing 

grizzly bears for release into the NEP as 

compared, for example, to areas where 

grizzly bears rely predominately on 

salmon. However, mortality thresholds 

in these source populations may limit 

the number of grizzly bears available for 

the NEP reintroduction effort, and other 

ecosystems, such as the GYE, may be 

considered in those circumstances. 

Lastly, the entities managing the 

source area must also be willing to 

donate grizzly bears that meet the 

selection criteria and allow trapping of 

an adequate number of grizzly bears. We 

will coordinate in advance with the 

relevant authorities managing the 

potential source populations before 

seeking to capture and translocate 

grizzly bears. All applicable regulatory 

requirements would be fulfilled prior to 

translocation of grizzly bears. 

Likelihood of Population Establishment 

and Survival 

In our findings for designation of an 

experimental population, we must 

consider if the reintroduced population 

will become established and survive in 

the foreseeable future. In this section of 

the preamble, we address the likelihood 

that populations introduced into the 

proposed NEP area will become 

established and survive. The term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ appears in the Act 

in the statutory definition of 

‘‘threatened species.’’ However, the Act 

does not define the term ‘‘foreseeable 

future.’’ Similarly, our implementing 

regulations governing the establishment 

of experimental populations under 

section 10(j) of the Act use the term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ (50 CFR 

17.81(b)(2)) but do not define the term. 

Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 

424.11(d), regarding factors for listing, 

delisting, or reclassifying species, set 

forth a framework for evaluating the 

foreseeable future on a case-by-case 

basis. The term foreseeable future 

extends only so far into the future as we 

can reasonably determine that both the 

future threats and the species’ responses 

to those threats are likely. In other 

words, the foreseeable future is the 

period of time in which we can make 

reliable predictions as it relates to life 

history of the species and its response 

to threats. While we use the term 

‘‘foreseeable future’’ here in a different 

context (to determine the likelihood of 

experimental population establishment 

and to establish boundaries for 

identification of the experimental 

population), we apply a similar 

conceptual framework. Our analysis of 

the foreseeable future uses the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

and considers the timeframes applicable 

to the relevant effects of release and 

management of the species and to the 

species’ likely responses in view of its 

life-history characteristics. Data that are 

typically relevant to assessing the 

species’ biological response include 

species-specific factors such as lifespan, 

reproductive rates or productivity, 

certain behaviors, and other 

demographic factors. 

For the purposes of this proposed 

rule, we define the foreseeable future for 

our evaluation of the likelihood of 

survival and establishment of this 

proposed NEP as approximately 30–45 

years. We selected this timeframe 

because it captures approximately two 

to three generation intervals for the 

grizzly bear. A generation interval is the 

approximate time that it takes a female 

grizzly bear to replace herself in the 

population. Given the longevity of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67205 

grizzly bears, two to three generation 

intervals represent a time period during 

which a complete turnover of the 

population would have occurred and 

any positive or adverse changes in the 

status of the population would likely be 

evident. Additionally, because humancaused mortality is the primary threat to 

the species, this timeframe considers the 

possibility that USFS land management 

plans, the primary regulatory 

mechanism managing human access to 

grizzly bear habitat, could go through at 

least one revision. 

In evaluating the likelihood of 

establishment and survival of this 

proposed NEP in the foreseeable future, 

we consider the extent to which causes 

of extirpation in the NEP area have been 

addressed, habitat suitability and prey 

availability within the NEP area, and 

existing scientific and technical 

expertise and experience with 

reintroduction efforts. As discussed 

below, we expect that grizzly bears will 

become established during the 

foreseeable future. 

Addressing the Causes of Extirpation in 

the Experimental Population Area 

In the NEP, the northwest fur trade 

was probably the primary driver of 

rapid grizzly bear decline, while the 

effects of mining, logging, livestock 

production, agriculture, and 

development also fragmented and 

degraded grizzly bear habitat and 

increased conflict-related mortality 

(Almack et al. 1993, p. 3; Rine et al. 

2020, pp. 5–13; USFWS 2022, p. 143). 

By 1975, grizzly bear populations in the 

U.S. portion of the NCE had been 

reduced in number and restricted 

largely to remote areas (USFWS 2022, p. 

52). Though the NEP currently contains 

one of the largest contiguous blocks of 

Federal land remaining in the lower 48 

States, diminished grizzly bear numbers 

from past intensive killing and isolation 

from other grizzly bear populations 

contributed to the extirpation of the 

historic population and the low 

likelihood of natural recolonization 

(Lewis 2019, p. 7; USFWS 2022, p. 52; 

88 FR 41560, June 27, 2023). 

Regulation of human-caused mortality 

has substantially reduced the number of 

grizzly bear mortalities caused by 

humans. Because road access was 

identified by the IGBC as one of the 

most imminent threats to grizzly bears, 

the recovery plan recommended that 

road management be given the highest 

priority for grizzly bear recovery 

(USFWS 1993, pp. 21–22; USFWS 2022, 

p. 52). Land management agencies 

across grizzly bear range have 

incorporated habitat management 

guidance from the recovery plan 

(USFWS 1993, entire). In addition to 

road access, the IGBC has identified and 

implemented conflict prevention 

measures in the U.S. portion of the NCE 

including sanitation measures, signage 

about grizzly bears and sanitation in the 

national park and the national forests, 

and funding for education and outreach 

programs (IGBC 2019, p. 9). North 

Cascades NP and several nonprofit 

organizations provide resources, 

educational material, and workshops to 

the public to prevent bear conflict in the 

NCE. Regulating human-caused 

mortality through habitat management 

and conflict prevention are effective 

approaches to reduce negative effects to 

grizzly bear populations, as evidenced 

by increasing grizzly bear populations 

in the lower 48 States (USFWS 2022, p. 

7). The best available data indicate that, 

due to ongoing conservation efforts in 

the GYE, NCDE, CYE, and Selkirk 

Ecosystem, grizzly bear population 

trends in these ecosystems are stable or 

increasing, and range extent has 

continued to expand (figure 1; USFWS 

2022, p. 208). Given that the intent is to 

implement similar conservation efforts 

in the NCE Recovery Zone as guided by 

the IGBC, we can expect human-caused 

mortality and direct and indirect effects 

of human activity for the NEP to be 

reduced to a level such that these 

threats would not prevent population 

growth and stability. 

Habitat Suitability 

As noted above (in Status of Grizzly 

Bears in the North Cascades Ecosystem), 

five studies conclude that the U.S. 

portion of the NCE has the habitat 

resources essential for the maintenance 

of a grizzly bear population (Agee et al. 

1989, entire; Almack et al. 1993, entire; 

Gaines et al. 1994, entire; Lyons et al. 

2018, entire; Ransom et al. 2023, entire). 

The IGBC NCE Subcommittee had two 

separate research teams (Almack et al. 

1993, entire; Gaines et al. 1994, entire) 

evaluate an area encompassing more 

than 10,000 sq mi (25,900 sq km) of the 

NCE for grizzly bear habitat types and 

foods. The survey area included all the 

National Park complex and most of Mt. 

Baker-Snoqualmie NF and OkanoganWenatchee NF. Each team evaluated the 

survey area for viable grizzly bear 

habitat using common criteria, 

including the presence, abundance, and 

diversity of grizzly bear foods; habitats 

of seasonal importance and their 

distribution; and delineation of human 

activities (i.e., roads, habitation, timber 

harvest, recreation). In addition to these 

criteria, Almack et al. (1993, p. 22) 

evaluated the study area for grizzly bear 

habitat according to the seven 

characteristics identified by Craighead 

et al. (1982, p. 10): space, isolation, 

denning, safety, sanitation, vegetation 

types, and food. 

The results of these surveys were 

presented to a technical review team, 

which ultimately determined based on 

the available data, that the U.S. portion 

of the NCE could support a viable 

grizzly bear population of 200 to 400 

individuals (Servheen et al. 1991, p. 7). 

More recent work using a suite of 

spatially explicit, individual-based 

population models that integrate 

information on habitat selection, human 

activities, and population dynamics 

estimated a mean carrying capacity for 

grizzly bears in the U.S. portion of the 

NCE between 250 and 300 grizzly bears 

(Lyons et al. 2018, entire). Using the 

modeling framework developed in 

Lyons et al. (2018, entire), Ransom et al. 

(2023, entire) evaluated grizzly bear 

habitat quality and carrying capacity 

across a range of future climate 

scenarios through 2099. The net amount 

of high-quality habitat was shown to 

increase across all modeled future 

scenarios as compared to current 

conditions. Assuming a home range size 

of 108 sq mi (280 sq km), carrying 

capacity increased from a baseline of 

139 female bears under current 

conditions to 241–289 female bears 

(Ransom et al. 2023, p. 6). 

Almack et al. (1993, pp. 7–10) and 

Gaines et al. (1994, pp. 534–356) used 

Landsat multispectral scanner imagery 

and field observations to produce 

vegetation cover maps of the study area 

according to vegetation structure (e.g., 

forest, shrub, and barren rock) and 

community composition. The teams also 

identified 124 plant species known to be 

grizzly bear foods through an exhaustive 

review of sighting reports, scat analysis, 

and studies conducted on grizzly bears 

south of Alaska. Analysis of the 

vegetation maps indicated that 100 of 

the 124 identified plant species exist in 

the U.S portion of the NCE, and every 

vegetation cover type contained some 

plants that were on the list. The teams 

also mapped ranges of wildlife prey 

species known to occur in the NCE. 

Salmonid species were more abundant 

in streams on the western slope of the 

NCE, and ungulates were dispersed 

relatively evenly throughout. These 

results led both teams to conclude that 

sufficient vegetative grizzly bear foods 

are readily available in the U.S. portion 

of the NCE, and the occurrence of 

wildlife prey species can sustain a 

grizzly bear population (Almack et al. 

1993, pp. 21–22; Gaines et al. 1994, p. 

544). 

Some developed areas outside of the 

NCE Recovery Zone but within the NEP, 

such as industrial timber lands, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67206 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

agricultural areas, and towns and cities, 

contain habitat resources for grizzly 

bears. Although these areas may be 

capable of supporting grizzly bears, 

human influences may make those areas 

not conducive or compatible with 

persistent grizzly bear occupation. Our 

zoned management approach is 

intended to allow additional 

management options for grizzly bears 

that may move into these areas. 

Translocation Expertise and Experience 

Similar grizzly bear translocations to 

those we will conduct for the proposed 

NEP have been conducted in the 

Cabinet Mountains portion of the CYE 

since the 1990s. Specifically, 

researchers and managers have been 

augmenting the CYE’s small grizzly bear 

population by introducing one to two 

grizzly bears per year in the period 

1990–1994 and from 2005 to the 

present. All augmented bears have 

originated from the NCDE and British 

Columbia. The success of the CYE 

augmentation pilot program prompted 

additional augmentations between 

populations in the United States. 

Beginning in 2005, in cooperation with 

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks, 10 female bears and 8 male 

bears were moved from the Flathead 

River to the Cabinet Mountains during 

2005–2021 (Kasworm et al. 2022a, pp. 

25–33). DNA analysis from hair corrals 

has been occurring since 2000 and from 

rub trees since 2012. Based on this 

analysis, 3 females and 2 males are 

known to have produced at least 15 

first-generation, 23 second-generation, 

and 4 third-generation offspring. Of 22 

bears released through 2020, 8 are 

known to have left the target area (1 was 

recaptured and brought back, 2 returned 

in the same year, and 1 returned a year 

after leaving), 3 were killed within 4 

months of release, and 1 was killed 16 

years after release (Kasworm et al. 

2022a, p. 26). Annual survival rates of 

augmentation bears (0.784) are lower 

than native subadult female CYE bears 

(0.852) (Kasworm et al. 2022a, pp. 37– 

38). 

Data collected since the 1988 

population estimate now suggest the 

CYE population may have been even 

smaller than the previously thought 

estimate of 15 or fewer individuals in 

1988. However, recent data also suggest 

that the number of grizzly bears in the 

Cabinet portion of the CYE has 

increased. Current population size for 

the CYE is estimated to be 60–65 bears 

with approximately half this number in 

the Cabinet Mountains (Kasworm et al. 

2022a, p. 42). The population increase 

in the Cabinet Mountains has occurred 

almost exclusively through the 

augmentation effort and reproduction 

from those individuals (Kasworm et al. 

2022a, pp. 31–33). Grizzly bears in the 

CYE are expected to continue to 

increase in population and resiliency 

with ongoing augmentation efforts 

(USFWS 2022, pp. 229–242). 

These data demonstrate our technical 

expertise, experience, and success with 

grizzly bear translocations. We will be 

relying on the same measures for the 

NEP translocations. Therefore, we 

anticipate grizzly bear translocations in 

the NEP to be as successful as those 

conducted in these other areas. Based 

on the available data from other grizzly 

bear populations, we modeled annual 

population growth rates of 2 to 4 

percent and estimated there are likely to 

be 46–81 grizzly bears (2 percent annual 

growth) or 62–146 grizzly bears (4 

percent annual growth) in the NEP area 

30–45 years after translocations are 

initiated. 

Summary 

The best available scientific data 

indicate that the restoration of grizzly 

bears into the NEP is biologically 

feasible and would promote the 

conservation of the species. Specifically, 

we anticipate that grizzly bears can be 

successfully reestablished in the NEP 

for the following reasons: 

(1) The reintroduced population will 

receive ongoing demographic support 

(population augmentation) from source 

populations to replace bears that die or 

are killed until a population of 25 

individuals is achieved and to maintain 

genetic diversity in this population as 

determined by long-term monitoring 

(NPS and USFWS 2023, p. 33). 

(2) The primary causes of historical 

grizzly bear extirpation from the region 

(direct killing by humans and habitat 

loss as a result of conversion to 

agriculture and resource extraction) are 

now regulated to ensure the population 

will survive and grow (Lewis 2019, pp. 

8–9). 

(3) An established IGBC NCE 

Subcommittee can help guide the 

restoration effort. This subcommittee 

helps coordinate policy, planning, 

management, and research with the 

Federal and State agencies responsible 

for grizzly bear recovery and 

management (IGBC 2019, pp. 9–10); 

Tribal governments are also represented 

on IGBC subcommittees and engage as 

desired. 

(4) Landscape-scale modeling and 

studies of available habitat and food 

resources indicate the NEP area has the 

capacity to support a self-sustaining 

population of grizzly bears (Almack et 

al. 1993, pp. 21–22; Gaines et al. 1994, 

p. 544; Lyons et al. 2018, p. 29; Ransom 

et al. 2023, p. 6). 

(5) We have experience in 

successfully translocating grizzly bears 

in other areas and have established 

effective protocols (Kasworm et al. 2007, 

pp. 1262–1265; Kasworm et al. 2022a, 

pp. 31–33) that we will apply to NEP 

reintroductions. 

Based on these considerations, we 

anticipate that the reintroduced 

population of grizzly bears is likely to 

become established and persist in the 

proposed NEP. 

Effects of the Experimental Population 

on Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Restoring the grizzly bear to the NEP 

area and establishing the associated 

protective measures and management 

practices under this proposed rule 

would further the conservation of 

grizzly bears by establishing another 

population in a portion of the species’ 

historical range where the species is 

presently functionally extirpated. Our 

recovery plan includes a recovery 

objective to recover grizzly bears in all 

of the ecosystems known to have 

suitable space and habitat (USFWS 

1993, pp. 15–16). The NEP area contains 

one of the largest remaining areas of 

high-quality habitat for the grizzly bear 

in the contiguous United States (USFWS 

1997, p. 1). Reintroducing grizzly bears 

into the NEP area and establishing a 

self-sustaining grizzly bear population 

focused on the NCE fulfills an important 

recovery need for the grizzly bear in the 

contiguous United States. 

We assess species’ viability through 

the lens of the conservation biology 

principles of resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation (collectively known 

as the ‘‘3Rs’’) (USFWS 2016, entire). 

Resiliency describes the ability of the 

species to withstand stochastic 

disturbance events, which is associated 

with population size, growth rate, and 

habitat quality. Redundancy is the 

ability for the species to withstand 

catastrophic events, for which 

adaptation is unlikely, and is associated 

with the number and distribution of 

populations. Representation is the 

ability of a species to adapt to changes 

in the environment and is associated 

with its ecological, genetic, behavioral, 

and morphological diversity. Resiliency 

of grizzly bear ecosystems is measured 

using both habitat and demographic 

factors. Despite the moderate condition 

of habitat, without a known population 

the NCE currently has no resiliency, and 

as a result does not currently contribute 

to redundancy and representation of 

grizzly bears in the contiguous United 

States (USFWS 2022, p. 10–14). If 

successful, reintroduction in the NCE 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67207 

would improve resiliency by 

reestablishing a population of the 

species within its historical range that is 

demographically viable. Successful 

reintroduction would also improve 

redundancy by further reducing the 

likelihood that any one catastrophic 

event would affect all populations. It 

would also increase the ecological 

diversity of the habitats occupied by the 

species and improve representation by 

facilitating adaptation to a variety of 

ecological settings and potentially 

increasing the future genetic diversity of 

grizzly bears. For these reasons, 

reestablishment of a population of 

grizzly bears in the NCE as a NEP, if 

implemented and successful, would 

increase resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation, and hence viability, of 

the currently listed lower 48 States 

entity. 

Actions and Activities in Washington 

That May Affect Reintroduced Grizzly 

Bears 

Although the proposed NEP area 

contains a variety of land ownership 

types (see Experimental Population 

Area, above), it contains large blocks of 

land with limited ongoing human 

influence, such as remote Federal lands 

(including those managed as designated 

wilderness), some State lands, and lands 

acquired for conservation by 

nongovernmental organizations. These 

areas provide sufficient high-quality 

habitat for grizzly bears, and low 

potential for both displacement and 

human–bear interactions. However, 

grizzly bears will likely use other lands 

within the NEP, depending on human 

development and other human 

activities. 

Primary land uses on lands in 

Management Zone 1 (see Management 

Zones, above) include protection and 

conservation of natural and cultural 

resources, non-motorized land-based 

recreation (hiking, climbing, skiing, 

cycling, camping, hunting), motorized 

land-based recreation (off-highway 

vehicle and snowmobile riding), waterbased recreation (boating, fishing), 

hydropower production, timber harvest, 

mineral extraction, livestock grazing, 

research, and education. Although 

much of Management Zone 1 is public 

land, is largely unavailable and/or 

unsuitable for intensive development, 

and contains an abundance of wild 

ungulates, livestock grazing does occur 

within the zone on public lands, which 

may increase the potential for mortality 

of grizzly bears via lethal control of 

depredating bears. Grazing allotments 

make up 17 percent of Management 

Zone 1; however, only 8 percent of the 

grazing allotments are currently active. 

Most of these permits are for grazing 

cattle, and five allotments allow for 

sheep grazing, all of which are in the 

southern half of Management Zone 1 

close to Wenatchee and Cle Elum 

(USDA 2023, entire). Similar land 

management practices in the GYE and 

NCDE, and the expanding grizzly bear 

populations in those areas, indicate that 

livestock allotments and associated 

habitat loss are not limiting grizzly bear 

populations (USFWS 2022, p. 124). 

Primary land uses in Management 

Zone 2 (see Management Zones, above) 

are similar to those in Management 

Zone 1: Protection and conservation of 

natural and cultural resources, nonmotorized and motorized land-based 

recreation, water-based recreation, 

timber harvest, mineral extraction, 

livestock grazing, research and 

education. As described in Management 

Zone 1, these activities pose some risk 

to grizzly bears, but will not likely 

preclude grizzly bear presence in 

Management Zone 2. 

Management Zone 3 (see Management 

Zones, above) contains mostly private 

land, including developed areas, and 

areas where agricultural and industrial 

uses predominate. Large areas in this 

management zone may be incompatible 

with grizzly bear presence due to 

relatively high amounts of private land 

ownership and associated development 

and/or potential for bears to become 

involved in conflicts and resultant bear 

mortality. Grizzly bears may still occupy 

portions of Management Zone 3, but 

human activities will limit their 

presence. 

Experimental Population Regulation 

Requirements 

Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81(c) 

include a list of what we should provide 

in regulations designating experimental 

populations under section 10(j) of the 

Act. We explain what our proposed 

regulations include and provide our 

rationale for those regulations, below. 

Means To Identify the Experimental 

Population 

Our regulations require that we 

provide appropriate means to identify 

the experimental population, which 

may include geographic locations, 

number of individuals to be released, 

anticipated movements, and other 

information or criteria. The proposed 

NEP area encompasses the entire State 

of Washington except for the area 

within and around the Selkirk 

Ecosystem Recovery Zone (figure 3). As 

discussed below, we conclude that, after 

initial releases, any grizzly bears found 

in the NEP area will, with a high degree 

of likelihood, have originated from and 

be members of the NEP. However, we 

recognize that it would not be possible 

for members of the public to determine 

the origin of any individual grizzly bear. 

Therefore, we propose to use geographic 

location to identify members of the NEP. 

As such, any grizzly bear within the 

NEP area, regardless of origin, will be 

treated as part of the experimental 

population. Individual grizzly bears 

dispersing into or out of the 

experimental population area will 

assume the status of grizzly bears within 

the geographic area in which they are 

found. However, currently, no 

population of grizzly bears exists within 

the NEP area, and the likelihood of a 

grizzly bear moving into the NEP area 

from the nearest population of ESAlisted grizzly bears in the Selkirk 

Ecosystem is small (see Is the Proposed 

Experimental Population Wholly 

Geographically Separate from 

Nonexperimental Populations? below). 

We anticipate that eventually some 

grizzly bears may move between 

portions of the NCE in Canada and the 

United States (see Is the Proposed 

Experimental Population Wholly 

Geographically Separate from 

Nonexperimental Populations? below). 

Any grizzly bears moving from Canada 

to the NEP area will be treated as part 

of the NEP while in the NEP area, with 

all the associated ESA protections and 

exceptions of the experimental 

population. Thus, a grizzly bear 

originating in Canada but located in the 

NEP area in the United States would be 

managed in accordance with the 10(j) 

rule. Likewise, a bear originating in the 

NEP but located in the British Columbia 

portion of the ecosystem would be 

managed in accordance with 

appropriate Canadian regulations. 

Is the proposed experimental 

population wholly geographically 

separate from nonexperimental 

populations? 

Section 10(j) of the Act requires that 

an experimental population of a listed 

species be wholly geographically 

separate from other populations of the 

same listed species. Grizzly bears 

reintroduced in the NEP would be 

separated from the nearest population of 

bears in the United States, located in the 

Selkirk Ecosystem. The NEP is 

approximately 100 mi (161 km) to the 

west of the Selkirk Ecosystem, which 

contains approximately 83 individuals, 

and the NEP is 75 mi (121 km) from any 

verified grizzly bear observations to the 

west of the Selkirk Ecosystem (Proctor 

et al. 2012, p. 31). The area between the 

two populations also contains 

significant portions of human-altered 

landscape (e.g., major roads, agricultural 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67208 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

lands, rural/urban development) or 

major natural landscape features (e.g., 

Columbia River) that reinforce 

continued geographic separation. Due to 

the highly fragmented landscape 

between these areas, as well as the 

distance between these ecosystems, 

which is beyond the average female 

dispersal distance of 6.1–8.9 miles (9.8– 

14.3 km) (McLellan and Hovey 2001, p. 

842; Proctor et al. 2004, p. 1108), we 

conclude the proposed NEP to be 

wholly separate from all other extant 

populations of grizzly bears in the 

United States. Dispersal between the 

NEP and other populations or the 

likelihood of overlap is low; therefore, 

we do not expect natural recolonization 

of the NEP area could happen on its 

own. 

As noted above, the Act requires that 

an experimental population of a listed 

species be wholly geographically 

separate from other populations of the 

same listed species. In this case, the 

listed species is the grizzly bear in the 

lower 48 States, and thus the NEP is 

required to be wholly geographically 

separate only from other populations of 

the ESA-listed species, that is, other 

populations within the United States. 

However, the NEP is also currently 

separated from any known grizzly bear 

populations in Canada, which are not 

part of the listed species. Connectivity 

from the east in Canada is unlikely as 

the nearest population is over 100 km 

across the heavily human-settled 

Okanagan Valley (North Cascades 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Team 2004, p. 7, 

McLellan et al. 2017, p. 2). 

The closest GBPUs to the north 

include the Canadian North Cascades 

GBPU (adjacent to the U.S. portion of 

the NCE), estimated in 2018 to have 6 

grizzly bears, and the Stein-Nahatlatch 

GBPU (37 km from NCE), estimated to 

have 22 grizzly bears (Environmental 

Reporting B.C. 2020, p. 13). Both units 

are designated as M1, the highest level 

of conservation concern, according to 

British Columbia’s conservation ranking 

assessment (Morgan et al. 2020, pp. 19– 

24) and are designated as ‘‘Critically 

Endangered’’ by the IUCN Red list 

(McLellan et al. 2017, p. 2). While the 

Stein-Nahatlatch GBPU is within the 

dispersal distance of both male (29.9– 

41.9 km) and female (9.8–14.3 km) 

grizzly bears (McLellan and Hovey 

2001, p. 842; Proctor et al. 2004, p. 

1108) to the North Cascades GBPU, only 

the northern half of the Stein Nahatlatch 

GBPU is occupied by grizzly bears 

(Apps et al. 2008, p. 25; Apps et al. 

2014, p. 30). The distance between the 

North Cascades GBPU and the occupied 

portion of the Stein-Nahatlatch GBPU is 

significant and consists of the large 

Fraser River valley and canyon, the 

heavily travelled Trans-Canada 

Highway, two railways, human 

settlements, and other developments 

(USFWS 2022, pp. 321–324). Therefore, 

dispersal of grizzly bears from the SteinNahatlatch GBPU to the NEP is unlikely. 

As discussed above, restoring a grizzly 

bear population in the Canadian portion 

of the NCE through augmentation is 

under consideration. Should 

augmentation efforts occur in British 

Columbia, some grizzly bears 

reintroduced into the Canadian portion 

of the ecosystem may likely move into 

the proposed NEP area in the United 

States, either as a transient that returns 

to Canada or that ultimately remains in 

the United States. 

A restored population of grizzly bears 

in British Columbia would not affect the 

designation of a section 10(j) 

experimental population of grizzly bear 

listed in the United States because the 

‘‘wholly geographic’’ separation 

requirement does not apply. For this 

reason, we also propose that, upon 

finalization of the NEP (i.e., on the 

effective date of the final 10(j) rule), any 

bears entering the NEP area from 

Canada would be managed under the 

final 10(j) rule even if we have not yet 

implemented the NEP introduction. 

This would include any of the six 

current bears in the Canadian portion of 

the NCE and any bears reintroduced by 

Canada that travel into the U.S. portion 

of the NCE before we implement 

reintroduction of grizzly bears. In other 

words, if we determine to reintroduce 

bears to the U.S. portion of the NCE 

with a final 10(j) rule, but we are not 

able to implement that reintroduction 

before grizzly bears are reintroduced in 

the Canadian portion of the NCE and 

travel into the NEP area, any grizzly 

bears entering the NEP from Canada 

would still be managed pursuant to the 

10(j) rule, assuming it is made final and 

effective. 

Is the experimental population essential 

to the continued existence of the species 

in the wild? 

When we establish experimental 

populations under section 10(j) of the 

Act, we must determine whether such a 

population is essential to the continued 

existence of the species in the wild. 

This determination is based solely on 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available. Our regulations state that an 

experimental population is considered 

essential if its loss would be likely to 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival of that species in the wild (50 

CFR 17.80(b)). All other populations are 

considered nonessential. Although the 

experimental population in the U.S. 

portion of the NCE will contribute to the 

recovery of the grizzly bear in the 

United States, several factors suggest the 

restored population is not essential to 

the grizzly bear’s continued existence in 

the wild: 

(1) Approximately 2,000 grizzly bears 

exist in other ecosystems in the 

contiguous United States that are 

intensively monitored and managed 

(USFWS 2022, p. 61, see Historical and 

Current Range and Grizzly Bear 

Ecosystems and Recovery Zones; 

(2) We are proposing to capture and 

translocate a relatively small number of 

grizzly bears (up to 5–7 per year) from 

populations that are demographically 

healthy and therefore will not be 

measurably affected by this removal (see 

Effects on Wild Populations); 

(3) The experimental population is 

not expected to provide demographic 

support to the existing grizzly bear 

populations in the contiguous United 

States due to geographic distance and 

existing barriers to dispersal (see Status 

of Grizzly Bears in the North Cascades 

Ecosystem); and 

(4) The experimental population will 

be established from extant grizzly bear 

populations (see Effects on Wild 

Populations) and therefore will not 

possess any unique genetic or adaptive 

traits that are critical to the survival of 

the species. 

For these reasons, the loss of the 

experimental population would not 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of 

survival of that species in the wild. 

Therefore, as required by 50 CFR 

17.81(c)(2), we find that the proposed 

experimental population is not essential 

to the continued existence of the species 

in the wild, and we propose to designate 

the experimental population in the U.S. 

portion of the NCE as an NEP. 

Management Restrictions, Protective 

Measures, and Other Special 

Management 

Federal, State, and Tribal authorities 

will manage the reintroduced grizzly 

bears in the NEP. These entities will 

collaborate on monitoring, coordination 

with landowners and land managers, 

public awareness, and other tasks 

necessary to ensure successful 

management of the NEP consistent with 

a USFWS-partner agency MOU specific 

to implementing the 10(j) rule. Specific 

management considerations related to 

the experimental population, including 

prohibitions and exceptions involving 

the taking of individual animals, are 

addressed below. 

Section 9 of the Act prohibits various 

actions regarding species listed as 

endangered, which may be applied as 

part of protective regulations for 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67209 

experimental populations. Section 9 

prohibitions include among other things 

prohibition against the import or export 

of species, restrictions on possession, 

sale, and transport (whether commercial 

or otherwise), and the prohibition 

against ‘‘take’’ of any such species. 

Section 3(19) of the Act defines ‘‘take’’ 

as ‘‘to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 

to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct.’’ Experimental population 

rules may contain specific prohibitions 

and exceptions, including regarding 

take; these rules help the reintroduction 

and management of an experimental 

population to be compatible with most 

routine human activities in the expected 

reestablishment area. The proposed 

prohibitions and exceptions for grizzly 

bears in the NEP area are as follows: 

Defense of life—Grizzly bears in the 

NEP may be taken in self-defense or in 

defense of others, based on a good-faith 

belief that the actions are necessary to 

protect any individual from bodily 

harm. 

Deterrence—Livestock owners, 

beekeepers, orchardists, farmers, or 

other individuals are authorized 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. Individuals may 

deter grizzly bears away from the 

immediate vicinity 200 yards (yd) (182 

meters (m)) of a human-occupied 

residence or potential conflict area, such 

as a barn, livestock corral, chicken coop, 

grain bin, or schoolyard. Once bears 

have moved beyond the immediate 

vicinity 200 yd (182 m), hazing is 

unlikely to be effective and should 

cease. Any deterrence must not cause 

lasting bodily injury or death to the 

grizzly bear. Any person who deters a 

grizzly bear must use discretion and act 

safely and responsibly in confronting 

nuisance grizzly bears. The USFWS 

provides guidelines for safe and 

responsible hazing of grizzly bears in 

the USFWS Grizzly Bear Hazing 

Guidelines (USFWS 2020, entire). 

Incidental take—‘‘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. Individuals will not be in 

violation of the Act for taking a grizzly 

bear of the NEP, provided: (1) the take 

is incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

an otherwise lawful activity; (2) they 

promptly report the take to the USFWS; 

and (3) if the take occurs on National 

Forest System lands within the NEP 

area, that the USFS has maintained its 

‘‘no net-loss of core’’ approach and 

implemented food storage restrictions 

throughout Management Zone 1. To 

avoid illegally shooting a grizzly bear, 

persons lawfully engaged in hunting 

and shooting activities must correctly 

identify their target before shooting. The 

act of taking a grizzly bear that is 

wrongfully identified as another species 

is not considered incidental take and 

may be referred to appropriate 

authorities for prosecution. 

The ‘‘no net-loss of core’’ approach is 

described above under Threats. Given 

the importance of maintaining core 

habitats and restricting human 

disturbance in these habitats for grizzly 

bear population establishment and 

persistence, we are proposing that the 

exception to the prohibition against 

incidental take on lands managed by the 

USFS as National Forest System lands 

under this 10(j) rule is contingent upon 

maintenance and implementation of 

that longstanding approach within the 

NCE Recovery Zone. This exception 

would apply to lands managed by the 

USFS as National Forest System lands 

throughout the NEP, contingent on the 

continued use of the ‘‘no-net-loss-ofcore’’ approach on USFS lands in 

Management Zone 1. We are currently 

coordinating with the USFS to 

memorialize the ‘‘no-net-loss of core’’ 

approach for the U.S. portion of the NCE 

in an updated MOU. 

Research, recovery actions, and 

relocation—If we adopt the 10(j) rule as 

proposed, any employee or agent of the 

USFWS, and any employee or agent of 

another Federal, State, or Tribal entity 

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 a grizzly bear in the 

wild in the NEP area without a permit 

if such action is necessary for scientific 

purposes, to aid a law enforcement 

investigation, to euthanize an injured 

individual, to dispose of or salvage a 

dead individual for scientific purposes, 

or to relocate a grizzly bear to enhance 

conservation, including to avoid conflict 

with human activities, to prevent a 

grizzly bear from becoming habituated 

to humans, to improve grizzly bear 

survival and recovery prospects or for 

genetic purposes, or to relocate 

nontarget grizzly bears that have been 

incidentally trapped. Relocation sites 

will be identified in remote areas away 

from homes, developed areas, and 

concentrated human use. 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 age/sex of the bear, 

conflict history, and current human use 

at available relocation sites. Such taking 

must be coordinated with the USFWS. 

Non-USFWS or other non-authorized 

personnel must acquire a permit from 

the USFWS for these activities. 

Removal of grizzly bears involved in 

conflict—Grizzly bears can cause 

significant property damage, including 

depredation, or pose a threat to human 

safety if they become food conditioned, 

i.e., if they have learned to associate 

human presence with anthropogenic 

food because of repeatedly being 

rewarded with food without 

consequence (Beausoleil et al. 2022, p. 

96). When it is not reasonably possible 

to eliminate such threat by securing 

attractants, less-than-lethal deterrence, 

or relocation, we propose to allow lethal 

removal of a grizzly bear involved in 

conflict under certain conditions. Lethal 

removal of grizzly bears involved in 

conflict in Management Zone 1 may be 

conducted by authorized Federal, State, 

or Tribal authorities in accordance with 

Service-approved interagency 

guidelines. 

To become an ‘‘authorized’’ Federal, 

State, or Tribal authority, we must have 

a written agreement addressing grizzly 

bear management, such as: an MOU 

specific to implementing this proposed 

10(j) rule; a conference opinion issued 

by the USFWS to a Federal agency 

pursuant to section 7(a)(4) of the Act; an 

agreement under section 6 of the Act as 

described in 50 CFR 17.31 for State 

game and fish agencies with authority to 

manage grizzly bears; or a valid permit 

issued by the USFWS pursuant to 

§ 17.32. In addition, conditioned lethal 

take for livestock owners may be 

authorized by the USFWS after a 

confirmed livestock depredation in 

Management Zone 2. Management Zone 

3 will also allow conditioned lethal take 

authorization for landowners if the 

USFWS or an authorized agency 

determines that grizzly bears present a 

demonstrable and ongoing threat to 

human safety or to lawfully present 

livestock, domestic animals, crops, 

beehives, or other property, and that it 

is not reasonably possible to otherwise 

eliminate the threat by live-capturing 

and releasing the grizzly bear 

unharmed. 

Management Zone Proposed 

Management Actions 

Management Zone 1 (see Management 

Zones above) proposed management 

actions include: take of bears in selfdefense or defense of others; exemption 

of take resulting from otherwise lawful 

activities (e.g., timber harvest, road 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67210 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

construction, recreation); intentional 

deterrence of bears for the purposes of 

avoiding human–bear conflict and that 

does not cause harm or death; 

exemption of take associated with 

research and recovery actions; 

relocation or deterrence of bears by 

Federal, State, or Tribal authorities for 

recovery purposes; and lethal removal 

by Federal, State, or Tribal authorities of 

grizzly bears involved in conflict if a 

‘‘conflict bear’’ determination has been 

made according to Service-approved 

interagency guidelines that it is not 

reasonably possible to eliminate the 

threat through nonlethal means. 

Management Zone 2 (see Management 

Zones above) proposed management 

actions include all actions authorized 

for Management Zone 1, plus: the ability 

for Federal, State, or Tribal authorities 

to relocate bears for single-conflict 

incidents and the ability for USFWS to 

issue written time-limited conditioned 

lethal take authorization to a livestock 

owner if a depredation of livestock has 

been confirmed. 

Management Zone 3 (see Management 

Zones above) proposed management 

actions include all actions authorized 

for Management Zones 1 and 2, plus: 

the ability for Federal, State, or Tribal 

authorities to relocate any bear as a 

preemptive action to prevent conflict 

and the ability for USFWS or an 

authorized agency to issue written timelimited conditioned lethal take 

authorization to a private landowner to 

kill a bear presenting an ongoing threat 

to human safety, livestock, or other 

property (e.g., compost, chickens, 

beehives) if there is a demonstrable and 

ongoing threat and when it is not 

reasonably possible to eliminate the 

threat through nonlethal means. 

Prohibited Activities 

The proposed 10(j) rule would 

prohibit individuals to possess, sell, 

deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or 

export, by any means whatsoever, any 

grizzly bear or part thereof from the 

experimental population taken in 

violation of the 10(j) rule or in violation 

of applicable Tribal or State laws or 

regulations or the Act. The proposed 

10(j) rule would also make it unlawful 

for individuals to attempt to commit, 

solicit another to commit, or cause to be 

committed, any take of the grizzly bear, 

except as expressly allowed in the 10(j) 

rule. 

Public Awareness and Cooperation 

Coinciding with the November 14, 

2022, publication in the Federal 

Register of the notice of intent to 

prepare an EIS (87 FR 68190), we issued 

a joint news release with the NPS 

announcing the EIS process and 

proposed section 10(j) rulemaking and 

seeking comments as part of the EIS 

scoping phase. The news release was 

shared directly with counties and 

municipalities in the ecosystem, 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

other stakeholders. During the 30-day 

scoping phase, four informational 

virtual public meetings were held, 

inviting the public to ask questions 

about the EIS process, section 10(j) 

experimental populations, and grizzly 

bear recovery. Representatives from the 

Service and NPS also participated in 

numerous news media interviews to 

raise awareness about the EIS process, 

section 10(j) rulemaking, and associated 

public comment period. 

Similar techniques will be used 

during the comment period for the 

proposed 10(j) rule and DEIS to increase 

awareness and engage the public, 

including the distribution of a news 

release, virtual and in-person public 

meetings, media features, and the direct 

sharing of information. If the USFWS 

decides to designate grizzly bears 

reintroduced to the U.S. portion of the 

NCE as a nonexperimental population 

with the 10(j) rule, further public 

outreach and education will occur, both 

in the media and in the community. 

This may take the form of educational 

programs in local communities on the 

topics of bear conflict prevention and 

the management tools available under 

the 10(j) rule. Direct outreach and 

briefings to local governments and 

community organizations are also 

anticipated. Many different Federal, 

State, Tribal, and local government 

agencies and organizations in the State 

of Washington have wildlife education 

programs that can be partnered with and 

supported. 

Interagency Consultation 

As stated above under Statutory and 

Regulatory Framework, for purposes of 

section 7(a)(2) of the Act, our section 

10(j) regulations (50 CFR 17.83) provide 

that NEPs are treated as species 

proposed for listing under the Act 

except on NPS and NWRS lands, where 

they are treated as a threatened species 

for the purposes of section 7(a)(2) 

consultations. Therefore, Federal agency 

actions not affecting NPS lands or 

NWRS lands would be required only to 

confer with the USFWS under the terms 

of section 7(a)(4) of the ESA. On the 

other hand, Federal agency actions 

affecting grizzly bears within the 

experimental population area on NPS 

lands or NWRS lands would be required 

to consult with the USFWS under 

section 7(a)(2) of the ESA. The 

provisions of section 7(a)(1) of the ESA 

would still apply within the NEP area. 

Review and Evaluation of the Success or 

Failure of the NEP 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

All translocated grizzly bears will be 

fitted with global positioning system 

(GPS) collars prior to release to aid in 

monitoring habitat use and spatial 

distribution, and tissue samples will be 

collected to establish baseline 

information for genetic monitoring 

purposes. Monitoring of the releases and 

subsequent population monitoring will 

follow radio collaring and genetic 

monitoring techniques used in the 

Cabinet Mountains grizzly bear 

augmentation effort (Kasworm et al. 

2022a, pp. 9–16). Periodic recaptures 

will be conducted to maintain a GPScollared sample of the population. Other 

monitoring is likely to include habitat 

and resource selection, reproductive 

success and rate of population growth, 

genetic composition of the population, 

and instances of conflicts between 

humans and grizzly bears. Radio collars 

that communicate locations from 

satellites to biologists via periodic 

downloads will limit the need for 

aircraft monitoring. However, periodic 

use of fixed-wing aircraft will be 

necessary to determine reproductive 

status. Camera stations and hairsnagging corrals will also be established 

in remote locations to monitor grizzly 

bear presence and gather genetic 

information that could also be used to 

assess reproductive contributions and 

monitor genetic diversity. 

The USFWS will monitor the status of 

grizzly bears in the NEP annually and 

will evaluate the status of grizzly bears 

in the NEP in conjunction with our 

species status assessments and status 

reviews of the grizzly bear. Evaluations 

in our status reviews will include, but 

not be limited to: a review of 

management issues; grizzly bear 

movements; demographic rates; causes 

of mortality; project costs; and progress 

toward establishing a self-sustaining 

population. 

Adaptive Management 

We anticipate that our management 

will be adaptive, in that we will 

incorporate new information during the 

restoration effort. If modifications to 

grizzly bear monitoring and 

management are needed, we will 

coordinate closely with NPS, WDFW, 

USFS, Tribal Governments, and others 

to ensure progress toward achieving 

recovery goals while concurrently 

minimizing human–grizzly bear 

conflicts in the NEP area. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67211 

Exit Strategy 

In light of the positive 90-day finding 

on two petitions to delist grizzly bears 

in the NCDE and the GYE (see Previous 

Federal Actions, above), we 

acknowledge that the boundaries of the 

listed entity may change in the future. 

We anticipate leaving the experimental 

population designation in place until all 

grizzly bears have been delisted due to 

recovery, regardless of whether the 

boundaries of the listed entity change. 

However, if grizzly bears experience 

unexpectedly high natural mortality, if 

donor bears are not available, or if we 

conclude that we and our partners have 

insufficient funding for an extended 

period to support management of the 

NEP, we may consider ending the 

releases and repealing the NEP 

designation. This would be done only 

after close coordination with partners 

and a new public process where we 

would propose to repeal the NEP before 

making any decisions to exit the 

restoration program. 

Consultation With State, Local, Tribal, 

Federal, and Affected Private 

Landowners 

In April 2018, the USFWS reached 

out to more than 90 agencies and 

organizations, including Federal, State, 

and local elected officials; federally 

recognized Tribes in Washington and 

Montana; natural resource and land 

management agencies; interest groups 

(including those representing timber, 

ranching or farming, and recreation 

interests), and environmental and 

conservation organizations to discuss a 

potential section 10(j) experimental 

population rulemaking and a zoned 

management approach for possible 

grizzly bear restoration efforts in the 

NCE. Between May and July 2018, the 

USFWS held more than 30 meetings 

with representatives from 49 different 

agencies and organizations for receiving 

feedback on the management framework 

and the zoned management approach. 

In addition, as noted above, the NPS 

and USFWS provided an opportunity 

for the public to submit scoping 

comments on the potential inclusion of 

a 10(j) rule as part of alternatives to be 

described through the EIS process. 

Public scoping meetings were held in 

November 2022, and the public scoping 

comment period concluded in 

December 2022. Feedback from the 2018 

outreach meetings and the 2022 EIS 

scoping period specific to the 10(j) rule 

were used in the development of this 

proposed rule. 

Findings 

Based on the best scientific 

information available, as described 

above and in accordance with 50 CFR 

17.81, we find that releasing grizzly 

bears into the NCE would further the 

conservation of the species, but that this 

population is not essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild. 

Required Determinations 

Regulatory Planning and Review— 

Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 

14094 

Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the 

principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 

and states that regulatory analysis 

should facilitate agency efforts to 

develop regulations that serve the 

public interest, advance statutory 

objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 

12866, E.O. 13563, and the Presidential 

Memorandum of January 20, 2021 

(Modernizing Regulatory Review). 

Regulatory analysis, as practicable and 

appropriate, shall recognize distributive 

impacts and equity, to the extent 

permitted by law. We have developed 

this proposed rule in a manner 

consistent with these requirements. 

E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563 and E.O. 14094, provides that the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) will 

review all significant rules. OIRA has 

determined that this rulemaking action 

is significant. 

The North Cascades Ecosystem 

Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan/DEIS 

analyzes the potential impacts of 

restoration of grizzly bears to the North 

Cascades including potential impacts to 

visitor use and recreational experience 

(NPS and USFWS 2023, pp. 110–123), 

human safety (NPS and USFWS 2023, 

pp. 124–132), and socioeconomic effects 

of the restoration of grizzly bear on 

various sectors in a seven-county area 

(including gateway communities) (NPS 

and USFWS 2023, pp. 133–148). The 

DEIS evaluation includes the impacts of 

restoration of grizzly bear as managed 

under this proposed section 10(j) rule, 

which is the agencies’ preferred 

alternative (NPS and USFWS 2023, pp. 

35–46). As stated above under 

Information Requested, the DEIS is 

available for comment from the NPS, 

The DEIS evaluates impacts to visitor 

use and recreational use experience 

qualitatively. Recreational use of 

Federal land in the NCE is estimated to 

be more than 8 million recreation 

visitor-days per year, most of which is 

associated with dispersed recreation 

rather than developed campgrounds or 

wilderness areas (NPS and USFWS 

2023, p. 111). Potential beneficial and 

adverse impacts on visitor use and 

experience could result from the initial 

restoration of grizzly bears in the NCE, 

and visitation could increase or 

decrease depending on visitor interest 

in or aversion to them (NPS and USFWS 

2023, p. 119). Benefits would be derived 

from the restoration of the grizzly bear 

population and the opportunity 

provided to visitors to see grizzly bears 

in their natural setting. Adverse impacts 

would include the potential for 

temporary closures lasting from a few 

hours to a few days, requiring some 

visitors to adjust their stay to avoid 

closed areas, and noise associated with 

helicopter operations. Compared to 

current conditions, these impacts, in 

addition to past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable planned actions, would be 

beneficial. Restoration under this 

proposed rule would allow for greater 

wildlife management flexibility that 

would provide an additional increment 

of benefit to the visitor use and 

recreational experience by minimizing 

negative human–bear conflicts (NPS and 

USFWS 2023, pp. 123–124). 

For potential impacts to public and 

employee safety, the DEIS qualitatively 

addresses risks associated with human– 

grizzly bear encounters related to 

employees working to restore and 

manage bears, as well as risks to visitors 

and residents in and around the NCE 

(NPS and USFWS 2023, p. 127). Overall, 

restoration of grizzly bears would have 

adverse impacts on public and 

employee safety in terms of potential 

conflicts with grizzly bears. However, 

the probability of adverse impacts 

occurring would be low for a variety of 

reasons. Restoration would begin in 

remote areas and occur in low density, 

and even as density increases as the 

target population is achieved, existing 

safety and related protocols would be 

implemented, such as food storage 

restrictions, general bear safety 

education, temporary public closures, 

and management protocols for the 

capture and release of bears. These tools 

have been demonstrated to be effective 

in reducing impacts to public safety, 

even in areas with a much higher 

density of grizzly bears than projected 

for the ultimate population targeted in 

this proposal (NPS and USFWS 2023, 

pp. 130–131). With the implementation 

of this proposed section 10(j) rule, 

additional management measures would 

be available to authorized agencies to 

use lethal and nonlethal measures to 

reduce impacts from grizzly bears that 

move outside the ecosystem, or to 

mitigate human–grizzly bear conflicts, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67212 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

including those associated with public 

safety. These management actions could 

further reduce the potential for human– 

bear conflicts and would contribute a 

reduced potential for adverse impacts 

on visitor and employee safety (NPS and 

USFWS 2023, p. 133). 

The DEIS evaluates the 

socioeconomic impacts of the proposed 

restoration considering a seven-county 

region of influence (Chelan, King, 

Kittitas, Okanogan, Skagit, Snohomish, 

and Whatcom Counties) (NPS and 

USFWS 2023, p. 133), qualitatively 

assessing potential impacts to tourism, 

agricultural and livestock grazing, and 

timber harvest and mining, as well as 

the effects to employment in each of 

these categories. For tourism, occasional 

localized wilderness closures for public 

safety during release activities could 

occur, but these closures would be sitespecific and short (hours to days). These 

closures are not expected to 

substantially affect tour operators or 

recreational visitors, including hunters 

or horseback riders. Any area closures 

are anticipated to be infrequent and 

small in scope; therefore, revenue and 

employment associated with tourism, 

including hunting, horseback riding, 

hiking, sightseeing, and tour operations, 

would not be noticeably affected as a 

result of implementing restoration 

under this proposed section 10(j) rule. 

Collaboration with potential user groups 

and public outreach and education 

would likely mitigate many potential 

tourism-related concerns as wilderness 

users become accustomed to 

backcountry practices that reduce 

chances for negative interactions with 

grizzly bears. Therefore, potential 

adverse tourism-related impacts would 

be mitigated to the extent that no 

adverse impacts on tourism are 

expected (NPS and USFWS 2023, p. 

148). 

Agriculture and livestock grazing 

operations could experience reduced 

employment or increased costs of 

operating cattle ranching operations. 

Direct impacts may occur through 

grizzly bear depredation of cattle or 

sheep. Impacts are somewhat less likely 

to occur given that no staging or release 

areas would be near active grazing 

allotments. Specific descriptions of the 

effects of potential livestock 

depredation are described in the DEIS 

on pages 143–146 and further analyzed 

in Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

601 et seq.), below. Impacts on timber 

harvesting and mining from restoration 

of grizzly bears are anticipated to be 

intermittent and short term, lasting 

minutes to hours, as workers become 

aware of grizzly bear presence in the 

area, and grizzly bears avoid areas of 

active timber harvest and mining (NPS 

and USFWS, p. 148). 

As to employment, restoration of 

bears could result in impacts on 

employment related to tourism (both 

positive and negative), agriculture, 

livestock grazing, mining, timber 

harvest, wildlife management, or 

Federal land management. Wildlife 

management and Federal land 

management may experience increases 

in employment resulting from 

implementation of this proposed section 

10(j) rule as wildlife and Federal land 

managers capture and release grizzly 

bears and educate the public. 

As displayed in the DEIS, 

implementation of a proposed section 

10(j) designation is expected to reduce 

the potential for any adverse 

socioeconomic impacts as compared 

with other proposed restoration 

alternatives. The proposed section 10(j) 

designation allows for additional 

management measures for lethal and 

nonlethal actions to minimize and 

prevent human–grizzly bear conflicts. 

Additionally, the section 10(j) 

designation eliminates the requirement 

for Federal agencies to consult with the 

Service under section 7(a)(2) of the ESA 

(except on National Park System or 

National Wildlife Refuge System lands) 

for livestock grazing, timber harvest, 

and mining operations on Federal lands, 

and under this proposed section 10(j) 

rule, incidental take of grizzly bear 

could occur on USFS lands within the 

NEP area under certain circumstances. 

As a result, implementation of the 

proposed section 10(j) designation for 

grizzly bears would reduce the potential 

costs and operational constraints that 

may have temporarily affected regular 

business operations from the presence 

of grizzly bear. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) 

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(as amended by the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

(SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), 

whenever a Federal agency is required 

to publish a notice of rulemaking for 

any proposed or final rule, it must 

prepare, and make available for public 

comment, a regulatory flexibility 

analysis that describes the effect of the 

rule on small entities (i.e., small 

businesses, small organizations, and 

small government jurisdictions). 

However, no regulatory flexibility 

analysis is required if the head of an 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

SBREFA amended the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act to require Federal 

agencies to provide a statement of the 

factual basis for certifying that a rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. We certify that this proposed 

rule would not have a significant 

economic effect on a substantial number 

of small entities. The following 

discussion explains our rationale. 

According to the Small Business 

Administration, small entities include 

small organizations such as 

independent nonprofit organizations; 

small governmental jurisdictions, 

including school boards and city and 

town governments that serve fewer than 

50,000 residents; and small businesses 

(13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 

include such businesses as 

manufacturing and mining concerns 

with fewer than 500 employees, 

wholesale trade entities with fewer than 

100 employees, retail and service 

businesses with less than $5 million in 

annual sales, general and heavy 

construction businesses with less than 

$27.5 million in annual business, 

special trade contractors doing less than 

$11.5 million in annual business, and 

forestry and logging operations with 

fewer than 500 employees and annual 

business less than $7 million. To 

determine whether small entities may 

be affected, we considered the types of 

activities that might trigger regulatory 

impacts under this designation as well 

as types of project modifications that 

may result. In general, the term 

‘‘significant economic impact’’ is meant 

to apply to a typical small business 

firm’s business operations. 

Importantly, the impacts of a rule 

must be both significant and substantial 

to prevent certification of the rule under 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and to 

require the preparation of an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis. If a 

substantial number of small entities are 

affected by the proposed rule, but the 

per-entity economic impact is not 

significant, the USFWS may certify. 

Likewise, if the per-entity economic 

impact is likely to be significant, but the 

number of affected entities is not 

substantial, the USFWS may also 

certify. 

Because of the regulatory flexibility 

provided by designating an NEP in the 

NCE, we expect this rule not to have 

significant effects on any activities 

within Federal lands within the 

experimental population area. In regard 

to section 7(a)(2) of the Act, except on 

National Park Service and National 

Wildlife Refuge System lands, the 

population is treated as proposed for 

listing, and Federal action agencies are 

not required to consult on their 

activities. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67213 

requires Federal agencies to confer 

(rather than consult) with the Service on 

actions that are likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of a proposed 

species. However, because a 

nonessential experimental population 

is, by definition, not essential to the 

survival of the species, conferencing is 

unlikely to be required within the NEP. 

State or private entities pursuing actions 

with a Federal nexus, such as for 

grazing permits, timber harvest, or 

mining claims on USFS lands, will 

experience no consultation 

requirements under section 7(a)(2) of 

the Act (NPS and USFWS 2023, p. 148). 

In addition, section 7(a)(1) of the ESA 

requires Federal agencies to use their 

authorities to carry out programs to 

further the conservation of listed 

species, which would apply on any 

lands within the experimental 

population area. As a result, and in 

accordance with these regulations, if we 

adopt this rule as proposed, some 

modifications to the Federal actions 

within the experimental population area 

may occur to benefit the grizzly bear, 

but we do not expect projects on Federal 

lands to be precluded or likely to be 

substantially modified as a result of 

these regulations. 

However, this proposed rule, if 

finalized, would govern the 

management of reintroduced grizzly 

bears in the NCE. The presence of 

reintroduced grizzly bears has the 

potential to affect small entities 

involved in ranching and livestock 

production, particularly beef cattle 

ranching (business activity code North 

American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) 112111) and sheep 

farming (business activity code NAICS 

112410). 

Small businesses involved in 

ranching and livestock production may 

be affected by grizzly bears depredating 

on domestic animals, particularly beef 

cattle and sheep. Direct effects to small 

businesses could include forgone calf or 

cow sales at auctions due to 

depredations. Indirect effects could 

include impacts such as increased ranch 

operation costs for surveillance and 

oversight of the herd. However, as 

detailed further below, we do not 

foresee a significant economic impact to 

a substantial number of small entities in 

the ranching and livestock production 

sector; in addition, the proposed rule 

designating the grizzly bears as 

experimental with this special 

management rule under section 10(j) is 

in part designed to help minimize the 

potential for conflicts that could 

increase costs to ranching and livestock 

production. 

The small size standard for beef cattle 

farming entities and sheep farms as 

defined by the Small Business 

Administration are those entities with 

less than $2.5 million for beef cattle 

ranching and $3.5 million for sheep 

farming in average annual receipts 

(https://www.sba.gov/document/ 

support-table-size-standards). As of 

2017, there were approximately 9,088 

cattle and calf farms and approximately 

1,930 sheep farms in Washington 

(USDA 2019, p. 181). Of these, 13 beef 

cattle farms and zero sheep farms had 

average annual receipts above the Small 

Business Administration thresholds for 

small entities (USDA 2019, p. 181). 

Therefore, we find the vast majority of 

cattle ranches and sheep farms in the 

State of Washington potentially affected 

by the reintroduction and management 

of grizzly bears to be small entities. 

Because the reintroduction of grizzly 

bears will primarily occur only on 

Federal lands within Management Zone 

1, the DEIS evaluates a seven-county 

region of influence (ROI) that includes 

Chelan, King, Kittitas, Okanogan, Skagit, 

Snohomish, and Whatcom Counties. 

While these counties contain several 

larger cities, including Bellingham, 

Everett, Seattle, and Wenatchee, the 

NCE is located in a predominantly rural 

area away from large urban areas. The 

area that covers the NCE makes up 

approximately 52 percent of the total 

land area of the ROI (NPS and USFWS, 

p. 133). Approximately 25 percent of 

farms in the State of Washington occur 

in the ROI (NPS and USFWS, p. 138). 

Therefore, we estimate approximately 

2,272 cattle and calf farms and 483 

sheep farms in the ROI. The actual 

number of farms that may be affected is 

far less than 25 percent because the 

grizzly bear release areas primarily 

occur on Federal lands and do not 

overlap with active grazing allotments, 

the ROI includes several counties that 

extend beyond the borders of the NCE 

Recovery Zone, and the farms occur in 

areas where we do not expect grizzly 

bear occupancy due to low habitat 

suitability (NPS and USFWS, p. 145). 

As of 2015, 773,788 acres of land were 

actively under permit for cattle and 

sheep grazing on Okanogan-Wenatchee 

National Forest, with 320,044 acres 

occurring within the NCE. Most of the 

acreage permitted on OkanoganWenatchee National Forest was for 

cattle grazing. There are no grazing 

permits on Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie 

National Forest. The 2015 OkanoganWenatchee Allotment Information Sheet 

reports that there were 4,151 animal 

unit months (AUMs) of permitted sheep 

and 47,686 AUMS of permitted cattle 

grazing on national forests within the 

NCE. In 2015, 4,100 ewe/lamb pairs 

were grazing, and 4,552 cow/calf pairs 

were authorized to graze during the 

summer on national forest service 

allotments within the NCE. No livestock 

were present within the national park 

complex as of 2015 (NPS and USFWS, 

p. 138). 

We assessed whether this proposed 

rule would have a significant economic 

impact by estimating the annual number 

of depredations we expect to occur 

when the grizzly bear population will be 

at the population goal of 200 (which is 

not expected for several decades). 

Grizzly bear depredation is highly 

variable between and among years. 

Estimates of potential grizzly bear 

depredation were generated using 

grizzly bear population estimates for the 

NCDE and livestock losses of cattle and 

sheep, generating an estimated annual 

rate of livestock loss per grizzly bear of 

0.093 cattle and 0.019 sheep. When 

these rates were applied to an NCE 

grizzly bear population of 25, annual 

livestock loss estimates were 2 to 3 

cattle and up to 1 sheep. When these 

rates were applied to an NCE grizzly 

bear population goal of 200, annual 

livestock loss estimates were 18 to 19 

cattle and 3 to 4 sheep. Rates developed 

with these data may represent 

overestimates of expected livestock loss 

in restored populations of grizzly bears 

in the NCE if grizzly bears do not 

occupy private lands where more 

livestock may be present. 

It is probable that the actual number 

of cattle and sheep killed per year 

would fall within the range of the two 

estimates (1–19 cattle per year and 1–4 

sheep per year). The number would 

likely fall on the lower end of the range 

because of a number of factors, 

including juxtaposition of grizzly bear 

habitat and grazing; type of grazing 

operation; distribution and abundance 

of other predators; and abundance and 

distribution of prey. Even with this 

uncertainty, the total number of cattle 

and sheep depredated within the NCE 

would result in minimal, adverse 

impacts on agriculture and the livestock 

grazing industry, contributing to less 

than 0.01% of the total number of cattle 

and sheep in the ROI. 

To the extent that some cattle farms 

will most likely not be impacted by 

grizzly bear recovery because they are 

not located in suitable habitat but are 

included in the total estimate of 

potentially affected farms, this estimate 

could understate the percentage of 

livestock potentially affected. However, 

for other reasons, this estimate could 

very well overstate the percentage of 

farms affected as we recognize that 

annual depredation events have not 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67214 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

been, and may not be, uniformly 

distributed across the farms operating in 

occupied grizzly bear range. Rather, 

grizzly bears seem to concentrate in 

particular areas where concentrated 

attractants occur within productive 

grizzly bear habitat. The extent of 

depredation would be most influenced 

by the extent that livestock overlap with 

grizzly bears, the size of the grazing 

operation, and the presence of 

attractants. Additionally, these impacts 

are somewhat less likely to occur given 

that no staging or release areas would 

overlap active grazing allotments. 

As of 2017, 4,100 ewe/lamb pairs and 

4,552 cow/calf pairs are authorized to 

graze during the summer on USFS 

allotments within the NCE. Few 

livestock are present within the central 

portion of the NCE because it is a 

national park. Because only 

approximately 3 to 7 bears per year 

would initially be released into the 

NCE, it is highly unlikely that 

depredation would occur during the 

primary phase; however, depredation is 

likely to increase in frequency as the 

population grows over time during the 

adaptive management phase. 

Based on a weighted average market 

value for a depredated cow/calf of 

$1,021.33 ($2022) and for a depredated 

sheep of $311.96 ($2022), a total 

estimated depredation of 1–19 cattle per 

year and 1–4 sheep per year could result 

in a loss of revenue at auction ranging 

from $1,021.33 to $19,405.29 for cattle 

and $311.96 to $1,247.84 for sheep. 

This proposed rule is assessed as 

alternative C in our DEIS, the preferred 

alternative for restoring grizzly bears to 

the North Cascades Ecosystem. Under 

this alternative, the designation of an 

experimental population with the 

special regulations of this proposed rule 

would allow several forms of take of 

grizzly bears on Federal and nonFederal land to address conflict 

situations between grizzly bears and 

livestock. These forms of take would 

generally not be allowed were 

reintroduced grizzly bears not 

designated as an experimental 

population, another alternative being 

considered in our DEIS. Additionally, 

grizzly bears would be released only 

into Federal lands in Management Zone 

1, and while we anticipate that bears 

will move into areas within 

Management Zones 2 and 3, in these 

zones, any grizzly bear posing a 

demonstrable threat to human safety, 

livestock, or property may be relocated 

or removed by Federal, State, or Tribal 

authorities, or with prior written 

authorization from the USFWS, and any 

grizzly bear may be deterred to prevent 

conflict, provided the deterrence does 

not cause lasting bodily injury or death 

to the grizzly bear. These flexibilities 

further reduce the impacts to small 

businesses. 

Agriculture and grazing operations 

located closest to release areas or highquality grizzly bear habitat would be the 

most likely to be affected. However, 

adverse impacts on agriculture and 

livestock grazing would be limited 

compared to the total number of 

livestock present in or adjacent to the 

NCE. The potential for impacts would 

be further reduced by the 

implementation of this proposed rule, 

including associated conflict prevention 

efforts, including the public outreach on 

minimizing unsecured attractants (e.g., 

Western Wildlife Outreach 2023; 

Braaten et al. 2013, pp. 7–8). 

Based on the preceding information, 

we find that the impact of direct effects 

of grizzly bear depredations on livestock 

would not be significant. That is, less 

than 0.01% of the total number of cattle 

and sheep in the ROI could be affected, 

and the high end of the annual potential 

loss of revenue across all farms is 

estimated at approximately $22,000. We 

do not consider either the number of 

potential livestock affected nor the 

potential loss of revenue to be a 

significant economic impact. 

Considering that less than 25 percent of 

the total farms in Washington occur 

within the ROI and no farms occur 

within proposed grizzly bear release 

areas, far fewer than 25 percent of farms 

in Washington would be likely to 

experience economic impacts. While we 

are not able to quantify this number, we 

do find that there would not be a 

substantial number of small entities 

impacted. 

For the above reasons and based on 

currently available information, we 

certify that, if adopted as proposed, the 

proposed nonessential experimental 

population designation of grizzly bears 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

business entities. Therefore, an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 

U.S.C. 1501 et seq.) 

In accordance with the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et 

seq.): 

(1) This rule would not ‘‘significantly 

or uniquely’’ affect small governments. 

We have determined and certify 

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that, 

if adopted, this rulemaking would not 

impose a cost of $100 million or more 

in any given year on local or State 

governments or private entities. A small 

government agency plan is not required. 

Small governments would not be 

affected because the proposed NEP 

designation would not place additional 

requirements on any city, county, or 

other local municipalities. 

(2) This rule would not produce a 

Federal mandate of $100 million or 

greater in any year (i.e., it is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). 

This proposed NEP designation of the 

grizzly bear in the NCE would not 

impose any additional management or 

protection requirements on the States or 

other entities. 

Takings (E.O. 12630) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12630, the proposed rule does not have 

significant takings implications. When 

reintroduced populations of federally 

listed species are designated as NEPs, 

the Act’s regulatory requirements 

regarding the reintroduced population 

are significantly reduced. 

A takings implication assessment is 

not required because this proposed rule 

(1) would not effectively compel a 

property owner to suffer a physical 

invasion of property, and (2) would not 

deny all economically beneficial or 

productive use of the land or aquatic 

resources. This proposed rule would 

substantially advance a legitimate 

government interest (conservation and 

recovery of a listed species) and would 

not present a barrier to all reasonable 

and expected beneficial use of private 

property. 

Federalism (E.O. 13132) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13132, we have considered whether this 

proposed rule has significant federalism 

effects and have determined that a 

federalism assessment is not required. 

This proposed rule would not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the Federal 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. In keeping with 

Department of the Interior policy, we 

requested information from and 

coordinated development of this 

proposed rule with the affected resource 

agencies in Washington. Establishing an 

experimental population of grizzly bears 

in the NCE Recovery Zone would 

contribute positively toward the status 

of the species, which in turn would be 

factored into future assessments of the 

status of grizzly bears in the lower 48 

States. 

We acknowledge a Washington State 

law that addresses grizzly 

reintroduction in the State. Revised 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67215 

Code of Washington 77.12.035, 

Protection of grizzly bears—Limitation 

on transplantation or introduction— 

Negotiations with federal and state 

agencies, provides as follows: 

The commission shall protect grizzly bears 

and develop management programs on 

publicly owned lands that will encourage the 

natural regeneration of grizzly bears in areas 

with suitable habitat. Grizzly bears shall not 

be transplanted or introduced into the state. 

Only grizzly bears that are native to 

Washington State may be utilized by the 

department for management programs. The 

department is directed to fully participate in 

all discussions and negotiations with federal 

and state agencies relating to grizzly bear 

management and shall fully communicate, 

support, and implement the policies of this 

section. 

This State law provision governs only 

the activities of the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW) and prohibits WDFW from 

transplanting or introducing grizzly 

bears into the State (see Washington 

State Office of the Attorney General 

memorandum to the WDFW (WA AG in 

litt. 2017)). Further, the State provision 

is interpreted to require WDFW to 

protect grizzly bears and develop 

programs that will encourage their 

natural regeneration on public lands 

with suitable bear habitat, and to allow 

for WDFW’s engagement in monitoring, 

habitat enhancement, and to respond to 

grizzly bears that are endangering public 

safety or damaging private property. Id. 

We developed this proposed rule in 

cooperation with WDFW, and in 

consideration of this Washington State 

law; grizzly bear reintroduction would 

occur on Federal lands administered by 

the NPS or the USFS, and efforts from 

WDFW to transplant or introduce 

grizzly bears would not be required. The 

proposed rule would provide for the 

State’s participation in the management 

of bears introduced by Federal agencies 

on Federal lands within the State. For 

these reasons, no intrusion on State 

policy or administration is expected, 

roles or responsibilities of Federal or 

State governments would not change, 

and fiscal capacity would not be 

substantially directly affected. The 

proposed rule would operate to 

maintain the existing relationship 

between the State and the Federal 

Government and is being undertaken in 

coordination with the State of 

Washington. Therefore, this proposed 

rule does not have significant federalism 

effects or implications to warrant the 

preparation of a federalism assessment 

pursuant to the provisions of E.O. 

13132. 

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988) 

In accordance with Executive Order 

12988 (February 7, 1996; 61 FR 4729), 

the Office of the Solicitor has 

determined that this proposed rule 

would not unduly burden the judicial 

system and would meet the 

requirements of sections (3)(a) and 

(3)(b)(2) of the Order. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed rule contains existing 

and new collections of information that 

require approval by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may 

not conduct or sponsor, and a person is 

not required to respond to, a collection 

of information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

The Service will ask OMB to review and 

approve the new information collection 

requirements contained in this 

rulemaking related to the establishment 

of an NEP of the grizzly bear in the State 

of Washington, under section 10(j) of 

the ESA. OMB has previously approved 

the information collection requirements 

associated with permitting requirements 

associated with native endangered and 

threatened species, and experimental 

populations, and assigned OMB Control 

Number 1018–0094, ‘‘Federal Fish and 

Wildlife Permit Applications and 

Reports—Native Endangered and 

Threatened Species; 50 CFR parts 10, 

13, and 17’’ (expires January 31, 2024). 

Experimental populations established 

under section 10(j) of the Act, as 

amended, require information collection 

and reporting to the Service. The 

Service would collect information on 

the grizzly bear NEP to help further the 

recovery of the species and to assess the 

success of the reintroduced populations. 

There are no forms associated with this 

information collection. The respondents 

would notify the Service when an 

incident occurred, so there would be no 

set frequency for collecting the 

information. Other Federal agencies 

would provide the Service with the vast 

majority of the information on 

experimental populations under 

cooperative agreements for the conduct 

of the recovery programs. However, the 

public also would provide some 

information to the Service. The 

proposed new information collection 

requirements identified below require 

approval by OMB: 

1. Appointment of designated agent— 

A designated agent is an employee of a 

Federal, State, or Tribal agency that is 

authorized by the Service to conduct 

grizzly bear management. A prospective 

designated agent would submit a letter 

to the Service requesting designated 

agent status. The letter would include a 

proposal for the work to be completed 

and resume of qualifications for the 

work they wish to perform. The Service 

would then respond to the requester 

with a letter authorizing them to 

complete the work. 

2. Reporting requirements—The 

respondents would notify the Service 

when an incident occurred, so there 

would be no set frequency for collecting 

the information. Other Federal agencies 

would provide the Service with the vast 

majority of the information on 

experimental populations under 

cooperative agreements for the conduct 

of the recovery programs. However, the 

public also would provide some 

information to the Service. Reporting 

parties would include, but would not be 

limited to, individuals or households, 

businesses, farms, nonprofit 

organizations, and State/local/Tribal 

governments. The Service would collect 

the information by means of telephone 

calls or emails from the public to 

Service offices specified in the 

individual regulations. Standard 

information collected would include: 

a. Name, address, and phone number 

of reporting party. 

b. Species involved. 

c. Type of incident. 

d. Take (quantity). 

e. Location and time of reported 

incident. 

f. Description of the circumstances 

related to the incident. 

3. Some of these contacts would be 

necessary follow-up reports under rules 

where the Service has authorized 

deterrence or lethal take of experimental 

animals (e.g., livestock depredation or 

in defense of human life). The Service 

would collect information in three 

categories: 

a. General take or removal. This type 

of information relates to nonlethal take 

that does not result in the death of a 

grizzly bear, as well as human-related 

mortality including unintentional taking 

incidental to otherwise lawful activities 

(e.g., highway mortalities), animal 

husbandry actions authorized to manage 

the populations (e.g., translocation or 

providing aid to sick, injured, or 

orphaned individuals), take in defense 

of human life, take related to defense of 

property (if authorized), or take in the 

form of authorized deterrence. 

• Lethal take must be reported within 

24 hours to both the Resident Agent in 

Charge and either the Service’s Grizzly 

Bear Recovery Coordinator or the 

Service’s Washington Fish and Wildlife 

Office. 

• Nonlethal take must be reported 

within 5 days to either the Service’s 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67216 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator or 

the Service’s Washington Fish and 

Wildlife Office. 

b. Depredation-related take. This type 

of reporting involves take for 

management purposes where 

depredation of livestock or guard dogs 

is documented and may include 

authorized deterrence or authorized 

lethal take of experimental animals in 

the act of attacking livestock or guard 

dogs. 

c. Recovery or reporting of dead 

individuals and specimen collection 

from experimental populations. This 

type of information is for the purpose of 

documenting incidental or authorized 

scientific collection. Most of the 

contacts with the public would deal 

primarily with the reporting of sightings 

of experimental population animals, or 

the inadvertent discovery of an injured 

or dead individual. 

4. Memorandums of Understanding 

(MOUs)—The Service would establish 

MOUs with Federal, State, or Tribal 

authorities related to the necessary 

relocation of bears, authorize lethal take 

of bears within 100 yards (91 m) of 

legally present livestock or guard dogs 

if depredation has been confirmed by 

the Service or Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), when 

necessary for public safety, or to protect 

property. The Service would collect 

information in three categories: 

a. Relocation of bears. Authorized 

Service, Federal, State, or Tribal 

authorities may live-capture any grizzly 

bear occurring in the NEP area to 

improve grizzly bear survival or 

recovery. Authorized Service, Federal, 

State, or Tribal authorities may livecapture grizzly bears in proposed 

Management Zones 2 or 3 and transport 

and release those grizzly bears in a 

remote area (1) if they depredate legally 

present livestock, (2) if necessary to 

prevent unnatural use of food materials 

that have been reasonably secured from 

the bear, or (3) after aggressive (not 

defensive) behavior toward humans that 

constitutes a demonstrable immediate or 

potential threat to human safety and/or 

that results in a human injury. 

Additionally, authorized Service, 

Federal, State, or Tribal authorities may 

live-capture any grizzly bear occurring 

in proposed Management Zone 3 and 

transport and release bears as a 

preemptive action to prevent a conflict 

that appears imminent or in an attempt 

to break habituated behavior of bears 

lingering near human-occupied areas. 

b. Conditioned lethal take. With prior 

written agreement from the Service, 

livestock owners may lethally take a 

grizzly bear within 100 yards (91 m) of 

legally present livestock in proposed 

Management Zones 2 and 3 if a 

depredation has been confirmed by the 

Service or an authorized agency. 

Additionally, the Service, or its 

designated agents, are authorized to 

issue prior written authorization to any 

individual to kill a grizzly bear in 

proposed Management Zone 3 when 

necessary for public safety or to protect 

property. 

c. Removal of grizzly bears involved in 

conflict. Authorized Service, Federal, 

State, or Tribal authorities may lethally 

take a grizzly bear in the NEP area if is 

not reasonably possible to otherwise 

eliminate the threat by non-lethal 

deterrence or live capturing and 

releasing the grizzly bear unharmed in 

a remote area agreed to by FWS, WDFW, 

and the applicable land management 

agency and if the taking is done in a 

humane manner. Grizzly bears may be 

taken in self-defense or in defense of 

other persons, based on a good-faith 

belief that the actions taken were to 

protect the person from bodily harm. 

5. Recovery or reporting of dead 

individuals and specimen collection 

from experimental populations—This 

type of information would be for the 

purpose of documenting incidental or 

authorized scientific collection and 

surrender of grizzly bear carcasses as the 

result of lethal take. Most of the contacts 

with the public deal primarily would be 

with the reporting of sightings of 

experimental population animals, or the 

inadvertent discovery of an injured or 

dead individual. 

6. Obtaining Landowner/Land 

Management Entity Authorization— 

Individuals requesting the written 

authorizations mentioned above must 

obtain authorization from the 

landowner or land management entity, 

where appropriate. 

The Service would use the 

information described above to 

document the locations of reintroduced 

animals, determine causes of mortality 

and conflict with human activities so 

that Service managers could minimize 

conflicts with people, and improve 

management techniques for 

reintroduction. The information would 

help the Service assess the effectiveness 

of control activities and develop means 

to reduce problems with livestock for 

those species where depredation is a 

problem. Service recovery specialists 

would use the information to determine 

the success of reintroductions in 

relation to established recovery plan 

goals for the threatened and endangered 

species involved. 

Title of Collection: Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife, Experimental 

Populations—Grizzly Bear (50 CFR 

17.84). 

OMB Control Number: 1018–New. 

Form Numbers: None. 

Type of Review: New. 

Respondents/Affected Public: 

Individuals; private sector; and State/ 

local/Tribal governments. 

Respondent’s Obligation: Required to 

obtain or retain a benefit. 

Frequency of Collection: Annually for 

annual report and on occasion for other 

requirements. 

Total Estimated Annual Nonhour 

Burden Cost: None. 

Requirement 

Number of 

annual 

respondents 

Number of 

annual 

responses 

each 

Total annual 

responses Average completion time Total annual burden hours 

Appointment of Designated Agent: 

Individuals .................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Private Sector ............................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ............. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Notification—General Take or Removal (Lethal Take): 

Individuals .................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Private Sector ............................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67217 

Requirement 

Number of 

annual 

respondents 

Number of 

annual 

responses 

each 

Total annual 

responses Average completion time Total annual burden hours 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ............. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Notification—General Take or Removal (Nonlethal Take): 

Individuals .................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Private Sector ............................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ............. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Notification—Recovery or Reporting 

of Dead Specimen and Specimen 

Collection: 

Individuals .................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Private Sector ............................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ............. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Memorandums of Understanding— 

Relocation of Bears: 

Individuals .................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Private Sector ............................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ............. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Memorandums of Understanding— 

Conditioned Lethal Take: 

Individuals .................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Private Sector ............................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ............. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Memorandums of Understanding— 

Removal of Bears: 

Individuals .................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Private Sector ............................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ............. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Obtaining Landowner/Land Management Entity Authorization: 

Individuals .................................. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Private Sector ............................ 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

State/Local/Tribal Gov’t ............. 1 1 1 30 min (reporting); 30 min (recordkeeping).1 

Totals: ................................. 24 ........................ 24 ........................................................... 24 

Send your written comments and 

suggestions on this information 

collection by the date indicated in 

DATES to the Service Information 

Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/PERMA 

(JAO), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls 

Church, VA 22041–3803 (mail); or by 

email to Info_Coll@fws.gov. Please 

reference OMB Control Number 1018— 

Grizzly in the subject line of your 

comments. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

In compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), we have analyzed the 

environmental impacts of this proposed 

rule. We have prepared, jointly with 

NPS, a DEIS to describe the impacts of 

restoring grizzly bears to the NCE and 

establishment of the restored population 

as experimental and managed in 

accordance with this proposed rule. The 

DEIS evaluates options for a regulatory 

framework, including a rule consistent 

with section 10(j) of the Act, for the 

reintroduction and management of 

grizzly bears in part of the species’ 

historical range in Washington. The 

DEIS analyzes potential environmental 

impacts that may result from two action 

alternatives and the no-action 

alternative and includes relevant and 

reasonable measures that could avoid or 

mitigate potential impacts. The DEIS is 

available for public review and 

comment by the NPS as described above 

in Information Requested. We will 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67218 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

complete our NEPA analysis and take 

that information into consideration in 

determining whether to finalize and 

implement this proposed 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), E.O. 13175 

(Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments), 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 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. 

Throughout the development of this 

proposed rule, we have sought the input 

of Tribal governments near the proposed 

release site as well as Tribal 

governments near the potential source 

populations in the NCDE and GYE. In 

collaboration with the NPS, we 

extended an invitation for governmentto-government consultation to all 

federally recognized Tribes in the 

proposed NEP area and formally met 

with Tribes that have requested 

government-to-government 

consultation. Corresponding with the 

start of the EIS process in November 

2022, all Tribes in Washington, and the 

Nez Perce Tribe in Idaho were invited 

to consult on grizzly bear recovery and 

the DEIS assessing options to restore 

grizzly bears to the NCE. An invitation 

to consult specifically on the 

development of the 10(j) rule was also 

sent to all Tribes in Washington in 

February 2023. Invitations to consult 

were also sent in March 2023 to Tribal 

governments near the potential source 

populations in the NCDE and GYE, 

including in the States of Colorado, 

Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North 

Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and 

Wyoming. We are available to meet with 

other Tribes that request government-togovernment or informal consultation 

and will fully consider information and 

comments received through the 

consultation process. We will also 

consider all comments received from 

Tribes and Tribal members during the 

public comment period on this 

proposed rule. 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use 

(E.O. 13211) 

Executive Order 13211 requires 

agencies to prepare statements of energy 

effects when undertaking certain 

actions. This proposed rule is not 

expected to significantly affect energy 

supplies, distribution, and use. 

Therefore, this action is not a significant 

energy action, and no Statement of 

Energy Effects is required. 

Clarity of This Regulation (E.O. 12866) 

We are required by Executive Orders 

12866 and 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: 

(a) Be logically organized; 

(b) Use the active voice to address readers 

directly; 

(c) Use clear language rather than jargon; 

(d) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(e) 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. 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

in this proposed rule is available upon 

request from our Washington Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT) or online at 

https://www.regulations.gov in Docket 

No. FWS–R1–ES–2023–0074. 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are staff of the USFWS Washington 

Fish and Wildlife Office, along with 

staff of the Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Program (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT). 

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 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Amend § 17.11 in paragraph (h) by 

revising the entry for ‘‘Bear, grizzly’’ 

under MAMMALS in the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife to 

read as follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

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

MAMMALS

* * * * * * * 

Bear, grizzly .................... Ursus arctos horribilis .... U.S.A., conterminous 

(lower 48) States, except where listed as 

an experimental population.

T 32 FR 4001, 3/11/1967; 35 FR 16047, 10/13/1970; 

40 FR 31734, 7/28/1975; 72 FR 14866, 3/29/ 

2007; 75 FR 14496, 3/26/2010; 82 FR 30502, 6/ 

30/2017; 84 FR 37144, 7/31/2019; 50 CFR 

17.40(b).4d

Bear, grizzly [Bitterroot 

XN].

Ursus arctos horribilis .... U.S.A. (portions of ID 

and MT; see 

§ 17.84(l))..

XN 65 FR 69624, 11/17/2000; 50 CFR 17.84(l).10j


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67219 

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

Bear, grizzly [North Cascades XN].Ursus arctos horribilis .... U.S.A. (WA, except the 

portion of northeastern 

Washington defined by 

the Kettle River from 

the international border 

with Canada, downstream to the Columbia River to its confluence with the Spokane River, then upstream on the Spokane River to the WA– 

ID border; see 

§ 17.84(y))..

XN [Federal Register citation of the final rule]; 50 

CFR 17.84(y).10j

* * * * * * * 

■ 3. Amend § 17.84 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (l) introductory 

text and paragraph (l)(1); and 

■ b. Adding paragraph (y). 

The revisions and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 17.84 Species-specific rules— 

vertebrates. 

* * * * * 

(l) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 

horribilis)—Bitterroot nonessential 

experimental population. 

(1) Where does this rule apply? (i) The 

rule in this paragraph (l) applies to the 

designated Bitterroot Grizzly Bear 

Experimental Population Area 

(Experimental Population Area), which 

is found within the species’ historic 

range and is defined in paragraph 

(l)(1)(ii) of this section. 

(ii) The boundaries of the 

Experimental Population Area are 

delineated by U.S. 93 from its junction 

with the Bitterroot River near Missoula, 

Montana, to Challis, Idaho; Idaho 75 

from Challis to Stanley, Idaho; Idaho 21 

from Stanley to Lowman, Idaho; State 

Highway 17 from Lowman to Banks, 

Idaho; Idaho 55 from Banks to New 

Meadows, Idaho; U.S. 95 from New 

Meadows to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho; 

Interstate 90 from Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, 

to its junction with the Clark Fork River 

near St. Regis, Montana; the Clark Fork 

River from its junction with Interstate 

90 near St. Regis to its confluence with 

the Bitterroot River near Missoula, 

Montana; and the Bitterroot River from 

its confluence with the Clark Fork River 

to its junction with U.S. Highway 93, 

near Missoula, Montana (See map at the 

end of this paragraph (l)). 

* * * * * 

(y) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 

horribilis)—North Cascades 

nonessential experimental population. 

(1) Definitions. Key terms used in this 

paragraph (y) have the following 

definitions: 

Authorized agency means a Federal, 

State, or Tribal agency designated by the 

Service in: 

(A) A memorandum of understanding 

to assist in implementing all or in part 

the specified actions in this paragraph 

(y); 

(B) A conference opinion issued by 

the Service to a Federal agency pursuant 

to section 7(a)(4) of the Act; 

(C) Section 6 of the Act as described 

in § 17.31 for State game and fish 

agencies with authority to manage 

grizzly bears; or 

(D) A valid permit issued by the 

Service pursuant to § 17.32. 

Depredation means the confirmed 

killing or wounding of lawfully present 

livestock by one or more grizzly bears. 

The Service or an authorized agency 

must confirm grizzly bear depredation 

on lawfully present livestock. Livestock 

trespassing on Federal lands are not 

considered lawfully present. 

Deterrence means an intentional 

action to haze, disrupt, or annoy a 

grizzly bear away from the immediate 

vicinity (200 yards (182 meters)) of a 

human-occupied residence or potential 

conflict area with humans, such as a 

barn, livestock corral, chicken coop, 

grain bin, or schoolyard. 

(A) Once bears have moved beyond 

the immediate vicinity, hazing is 

unlikely to be effective and should 

cease. 

(B) Any such action must not cause 

lasting bodily injury or death to the 

grizzly bear; refer to current Service 

grizzly bear hazing guidelines for 

appropriate methods. 

(C) Persons may not attract, track, 

wait for, or search out a grizzly bear for 

the purposes of deterrence. 

(D) Any person who deters a nuisance 

grizzly bear must use discretion and act 

safely and responsibly in confronting 

the grizzly bear. 

Domestic animal means an individual 

of an animal species that has been 

selectively bred over many generations 

to enhance specific traits for their use by 

humans, including for use as pets. 

Domestic animal includes livestock. 

Federal, State, or Tribal authority 

means an employee or designee of a 

State, Federal, or Indian Tribal 

government who, as part of their official 

duties, normally handles large 

carnivores and is trained and/or 

experienced in immobilizing, marking, 

and handling grizzly bears. 

Grizzly bear involved in conflict 

means a grizzly bear that has caused 

depredation to lawfully present 

livestock; used foods that are unnatural 

for grizzly bear consumption and that 

had been reasonably secured; displayed 

toward humans aggressive behavior that 

constitutes a demonstrable or potential 

threat to human safety; or has had an 

encounter with people resulting in a 

substantial human injury or loss of 

human life. 

Livestock means cattle, sheep, pigs, 

horses, mules, goats, domestic bison, 

alpacas, llamas, donkeys, and herding 

and guarding animals (e.g., dogs used 

for herding or guarding livestock). 

Livestock excludes poultry. Livestock 

also excludes nonferal dogs that are not 

being used for livestock guarding or 

herding. 

(2) Where is the grizzly bear 

designated as a nonessential 

experimental population (NEP)? (i) The 

grizzly bear NEP includes Washington 

State except the portion of northeastern 

Washington defined by the Kettle River 

from the international border with 

Canada, downstream to the Columbia 

River, to its confluence with the 

Spokane River, then upstream on the 

Spokane River to the Washington–Idaho 

border. As provided by 16 U.S.C. 

1539(j)(2)(C)(ii), the NEP does not 

include critical habitat under the Act. 

The area shown in figure 1 to paragraph 

(y)(2) of this section will remain 

designated as an experimental 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67220 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

population unless future rulemaking 

determines: 

(A) The reintroduction has not been 

successful, in which case the NEP 

boundaries might be altered or the 

regulations in this paragraph (y) might 

be removed; or 

(B) The grizzly bear is recovered and 

delisted in accordance with the Act. 

(ii) Management Zone 1 includes the 

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest 

and Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

Forest north of Interstate 90 and west of 

Washington State Route 97, as well as 

the North Cascades National Park 

Service complex. Management Zone 1 

will be the primary area for restoration 

of grizzly bears and will serve as core 

habitat for survival, reproduction, and 

dispersal of the NEP. 

(iii) Management Zone 2 includes the 

Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest 

and Okanogan-Wenatchee National 

Forest south of Interstate 90, Gifford 

Pinchot National Forest, and Mount 

Rainier National Park. Management 

Zone 2 also includes the Colville 

National Forest and OkanoganWenatchee National Forest lands east of 

Washington State Route 97 within the 

experimental population boundary. 

Management Zone 2 includes areas that 

may be used for natural movement and/ 

or dispersal by grizzly bears and that 

have a lower potential for human–bear 

conflicts. 

(iv) Management Zone 3 comprises all 

other lands outside of Management 

Zones 1 and 2 within the NEP 

boundary. Management Zone 3 contains 

large areas that may be incompatible 

with grizzly bear presence due to high 

levels of private land ownership and 

associated development and/or 

potential for bears to become involved 

in conflicts with resultant bear 

mortality, although some areas within 

this management zone are capable of 

supporting grizzly bears and grizzly 

bears may occur there. 

(v) Map of the NEP area and 

associated management zones for the 

grizzly bear in the North Cascades 

Ecosystem follows: 

Figure 1 to paragraph (y)(2) 

(3) What take of the grizzly bear is 

allowed in Management Zone 1 of the 

NEP area? The exceptions to take 

described in paragraphs (y)(3)(i) through 

(vi) of this section apply in Management 

Zone 1: 

(i) Defense of life. Grizzly bears may 

be taken in self-defense or in defense of 

other persons, based on a good-faith 

belief that the actions taken were to 

protect the person from bodily harm. 

Such taking must be reported as 

described in paragraph (y)(6) of this 

section. 

(ii) Deterrence. Livestock owners, 

beekeepers, orchardists, farmers, or 

other individuals are authorized to 

conduct deterrence of grizzly bears for 

the purposes of avoiding human–bear 

conflicts. 

(iii) Incidental take. Take of a grizzly 

bear is allowed if: 

(A) The take is incidental to, and not 

the purpose of, an otherwise lawful 

activity and the take is reported as soon 

as possible as provided under paragraph 

(y)(6) of this section; or 

(B) The take occurs on National Forest 

System lands and the U.S. Forest 

Service has maintained its ‘‘no-net-lossof-core’’ approach and implemented 

food storage restrictions throughout 

Management Zone 1. 

(C) Persons lawfully engaged in 

hunting and shooting activities must 

correctly identify their target before 

shooting to avoid illegally shooting a 

grizzly bear. The act of taking a grizzly 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP29SE23.058</GPH>

c:::I Nonessentional Experimental Population (NEP) Boundary 

t~'": North Cascades Recovery Zone Boundary 

~ :1 Selkirk Recovery Zone Boundary 

- NEP Management Zone 1 

f~ NEP Management Zone 2 

l22J NEP Management Zone 3 

c:J Outside NEP 

0 

Miles 

Kilometers 

0 

25 50 100 

40 80 160 
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 67221 

bear that is wrongfully identified as 

another species is not considered 

incidental take and may be referred to 

appropriate authorities for prosecution. 

(iv) Take under permits. Any person 

with a valid permit issued under § 17.32 

by the Service or a designated agent may 

take grizzly bears pursuant to the terms 

of the permit. 

(v) Research and recovery actions. An 

authorized agency as defined in 

paragraph (y)(1) of this section may take 

grizzly bears within the NEP area if such 

action is necessary: 

(A) For scientific purposes; 

(B) To relocate or harass (as defined 

in § 17.3) grizzly bears within the NEP 

area to improve grizzly bear survival or 

recovery; 

(C) To address conflicts with ongoing 

or proposed activities in an attempt to 

improve grizzly bear survival; 

(D) To aid a sick, injured, or orphaned 

grizzly bear, including lethal removal 

for humane purposes; 

(E) To salvage a dead specimen that 

may be useful for scientific study; 

(F) To dispose of a dead specimen; or 

(G) To aid in law enforcement 

investigations involving the grizzly bear. 

(vi) Removal of grizzly bears involved 

in conflict. A grizzly bear involved in 

conflict may be taken, up to and 

including lethal removal, but only if: 

(A) It is not reasonably possible to 

otherwise eliminate the threat by 

nonlethal deterrence or live-capturing 

and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed 

in a remote area agreed to by the 

Service, the Washington Department of 

Fish and Wildlife, and the applicable 

land management agency; and 

(B) The taking is done in a humane 

manner by a Federal, State, or Tribal 

authority of an authorized agency and in 

accordance with Service-approved 

interagency guidelines. 

(vii) Reporting requirements. Any take 

pursuant to this paragraph (y)(3) must 

be reported as indicated in paragraph 

(y)(6) of this section. 

(4) What take of the grizzly bear is 

allowed in Management Zone 2 of the 

NEP area? Grizzly bears in Management 

Zone 2 will be accommodated through 

take allowances described in paragraphs 

(y)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section, in 

addition to those allowed in 

Management Zone 1 (see paragraph 

(y)(3) of this section). ‘‘Accommodated’’ 

means grizzly bears that move outside 

Management Zone 1 into these specified 

areas of Federal lands in the NEP will 

not be disturbed unless they 

demonstrate an immediate threat to 

human safety or livestock. 

(i) Relocation of bears. With prior 

approval from the Service, a Federal, 

State, or Tribal authority may livecapture grizzly bears in Management 

Zone 2 and transport and release those 

grizzly bears in a remote location agreed 

to by the Service, the Washington 

Department of Fish and Wildlife, and 

the applicable land managing agency for 

any of the following reasons: 

(A) When necessary for the purposes 

of enhancing conservation. 

(B) After depredation of lawfully 

present livestock or unnatural use of 

food materials that had been reasonably 

secured from the bear, resulting in 

conditioning of the bear or significant 

loss of property. 

(C) After aggressive (not defensive) 

behavior toward humans results in 

injury to a human or constitutes a 

demonstrable immediate or potential 

threat to human safety. 

(ii) Conditioned lethal take. With 

prior written authorization from the 

Service or authorized agency, livestock 

owners may lethally take a grizzly bear 

within 100 yards (91 m) of legally 

present livestock, but only if: 

(A) A depredation has been confirmed 

by the Service or authorized agency. 

(B) It is not reasonably possible to 

otherwise eliminate the threat by 

nonlethal deterrence or live capturing 

and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed 

in a remote area. If, after 2 weeks from 

the confirmed depredation, no further 

depredations have occurred, the 

authorization will expire. 

(C) The taking is done in a humane 

manner. 

(D) The taking is reported as indicated 

in paragraph (y)(6) of this section. 

(E) The grizzly bear carcass is 

surrendered to the Service. 

(5) What take of the grizzly bear is 

allowed in Management Zone 3 of the 

NEP area? In addition to the take 

allowances described in paragraphs 

(y)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section, all take 

allowed in Management Zones 1 and 2 

(see paragraphs (y)(3) and (4) of this 

section) are also allowed in 

Management Zone 3 of the NEP. 

(i) Relocation of any grizzly bear. 

With prior approval from the Service, a 

Federal, State, or Tribal authority of an 

authorized agency may live-capture any 

grizzly bear occurring in Management 

Zone 3 and transport and release the 

bear in a remote location agreed to by 

the Service, the Washington Department 

of Fish and Wildlife, and the applicable 

land management agency as a 

preemptive action to prevent a conflict 

that appears imminent or in an attempt 

to break habituated behavior of bears 

lingering near human-occupied areas. 

(ii) Conditioned lethal take. The 

Service, or authorized agency, may issue 

prior written authorization to any 

person to kill a grizzly bear in 

Management Zone 3 when necessary for 

public safety or to protect property, but 

only if: 

(A) The Service or authorized agency 

determines that a grizzly bear presents 

a demonstrable and ongoing threat to 

human safety or to lawfully present 

livestock, domestic animals, crops, 

beehives, or other property; and that it 

is not reasonably possible to otherwise 

eliminate the threat by live-capturing 

and releasing the grizzly bear 

unharmed. Once the Service or 

authorized agency determines the threat 

is no longer ongoing, the authorizing 

agency will notify the person, 

terminating the authorization. 

(B) The individuals requesting the 

written authorization are otherwise 

authorized by the landowner or relevant 

land management entity. 

(C) The taking is done in a humane 

manner. 

(D) The taking is reported as indicated 

in paragraph (y)(6) of this section. 

(E) The carcass is surrendered to the 

Service. 

(6) What are the reporting 

requirements for take of grizzly bears in 

the NEP? (i) Lethal take. Any grizzly 

bear that is killed under the provisions 

of this paragraph (y) must be reported 

within 24 hours to the Service. 

(ii) Nonlethal take. Any take of a 

grizzly bear under the provisions of this 

paragraph (y) that does not result in the 

death but causes obvious injury to a 

grizzly bear must be reported within 5 

calendar days of occurrence to the 

Service. 

(7) What take of the grizzly bear is not 

allowed in the NEP area? (i) Other than 

expressly provided by the regulations in 

this paragraph (y), all other forms of 

take are considered a violation of 

section 9 of the Act. Any grizzly bear or 

grizzly bear part taken legally must be 

turned over to the Service unless 

otherwise specified in the regulations in 

this paragraph (y). Any take of grizzly 

bears must be reported as set forth in 

paragraph (y)(6) of this section. 

(ii) No person shall possess, sell, 

deliver, carry, transport, ship, import, or 

export, by any means whatsoever, any 

grizzly bear or part thereof from the NEP 

taken in violation of paragraphs (y)(3) 

through (5) of this section or in violation 

of applicable Tribal or State laws or 

regulations or the Act. 

(iii) It is unlawful for any person to 

attempt to commit, solicit another to 

commit, or cause to be committed, any 

take of the grizzly bear, except as 

expressly allowed in paragraphs (y)(3) 

through (5) of this section. 

(8) How will the effectiveness of the 

grizzly bear restoration effort be 

monitored? The Service will monitor 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
67222 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 188 / Friday, September 29, 2023 / Proposed Rules 

the status of grizzly bears in the NEP 

annually and will evaluate the status of 

grizzly bears in the NEP in conjunction 

with the Service’s species status 

assessments and status reviews of the 

grizzly bear. Evaluations in the Service’s 

status reviews will include but not be 

limited to a review of management 

issues, grizzly bear movements, 

demographic rates, causes of mortality, 

project costs, and progress toward 

establishing a self-sustaining 

population. 

Janine Velasco, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 2023–21418 Filed 9–28–23; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 660 

[Docket No. 230919–0225] 

RIN 0648–BM44 

Fisheries Off West Coast States; 

Coastal Pelagic Species Fisheries; 

Biennial Specifications; 2023–2024 and 

2024–2025 Specifications for Pacific 

Mackerel 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: NMFS proposes to implement 

allowable catch levels, an overfishing 

limit, an allowable biological catch, and 

an annual catch limit for Pacific 

mackerel in the exclusive economic 

zone off the U.S. West Coast (California, 

Oregon, and Washington) for the fishing 

years (seasons) 2023–2024 and 2024– 

2025. This proposed rule is made 

pursuant to the Coastal Pelagic Species 

Fishery Management Plan. The 

proposed harvest guideline and annual 

catch target for the 2023–2024 fishing 

season are 7,871 metric tons (mt) and 

6,871 mt, respectively. The proposed 

harvest guideline and annual catch 

target for the 2024–2025 fishing season 

are 8,943 mt and 7,943 mt, respectively. 

If the fishery attains the annual catch 

target in either fishing season, the 

directed fishery will close, reserving the 

1,000-mt difference between the harvest 

guideline and annual catch target as a 

set-aside for incidental landings in other 

Coastal Pelagic Species fisheries and 

other sources of mortality. This 

rulemaking is intended to conserve and 

manage the Pacific mackerel stock off 

the U.S. West Coast. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

October 30, 2023. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

on this document, identified by NOAA– 

NMFS–2023–0085, by any of the 

following methods: 

Electronic Submissions: Submit all 

electronic public comments via the 

Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to 

https://www.regulations.gov and enter 

NOAA–NMFS–2023–0085 in the Search 

box. Click on the ‘‘Comment’’ icon, 

complete the required fields, and enter 

or attach your comments. 

Instructions: Comments sent by any 

other method or received after the end 

of the comment period may not be 

considered by NMFS. All comments 

received are a part of the public record 

and will generally be posted for public 

viewing on https://www.regulations.gov 

without change. All personal identifying 

information (e.g., name, address, etc.), 

confidential business information, or 

otherwise sensitive information 

submitted voluntarily by the sender will 

be publicly accessible. NMFS will 

accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/ 

A’’ in the required fields if you wish to 

remain anonymous). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Katie Davis, West Coast Region, NMFS, 

(323) 372–2126, Katie.Davis@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act), 16 U.S.C. 1801 

et seq., NMFS manages the Pacific 

mackerel fishery in the U.S. exclusive 

economic zone (EEZ) off the West Coast 

in accordance with the Coastal Pelagic 

Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan 

(FMP). The CPS FMP and its 

implementing regulations require NMFS 

to set annual harvest specifications for 

the Pacific mackerel fishery based on 

the annual specification framework and 

control rules in the FMP. The Pacific 

mackerel fishing season runs from July 

1 to June 30. The purpose of this 

proposed rule is to implement these 

harvest specifications, which include 

allowable harvest levels (i.e., annual 

catch target (ACT) and harvest guideline 

(HG)), an annual catch limit (ACL), and 

annual catch reference points (i.e., 

overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable 

biological catch (ABC)). The uncertainty 

surrounding the current biomass 

estimates for Pacific mackerel for the 

2023–2024 and 2024–2025 fishing 

seasons was taken into consideration in 

the development of these harvest 

specifications. Any Pacific mackerel 

harvested between July 1, 2023, and the 

effective date of the final rule will count 

toward the 2023–2024 ACT and HG. 

During public meetings held every 

other year, the NMFS Southwest 

Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) 

presents biomass estimates for Pacific 

mackerel to the Pacific Fishery 

Management Council’s (Council) CPS 

Management Team (CPSMT), the 

Council’s CPS Advisory Subpanel 

(CPSAS) and the Council’s Scientific 

and Statistical Committee (SSC), and the 

biomass estimates and the status of the 

fisheries are reviewed and discussed. 

The CPSMT, CPSAS, and SSC then 

provide recommendations and 

comments to the Council regarding the 

calculated OFL, ABC, ACL, HG, and 

ACT. Following Council review and 

after hearing public comment, the 

Council adopts biomass estimates and 

makes its harvest specification 

recommendations to NMFS. Pursuant to 

regulations at 50 CFR 660.508(e), NMFS 

publishes biennial specifications in the 

Federal Register that establish these 

allowable harvest levels (i.e., ACT/HG) 

as well as OFL, ABC, and ACL for the 

upcoming two Pacific mackerel fishing 

seasons. 

The control rules in the CPS FMP 

include the HG control rule, which, in 

conjunction with the OFL and ABC 

control rules, are used to manage Pacific 

mackerel. According to the FMP, the 

quota for the principal commercial 

fishery, the HG, is determined using the 

FMP-specified HG formula. The HG is 

based, in large part, on the estimate of 

stock biomass for the fishing year. The 

biomass estimate is an explicit part of 

the various harvest control rules for 

Pacific mackerel, and as the estimated 

biomass decreases or increases from one 

year to the next, the resulting allowable 

catch levels similarly trend. The harvest 

control rule in the CPS FMP is HG = 

[(Biomass¥Cutoff) × Fraction × 

Distribution] with the parameters 

described as follows: 

1. Biomass. The estimated stock 

biomass of Pacific mackerel for the 

2023–2024 management season is 

55,681 mt. The estimated stock biomass 

of Pacific mackerel for the 2024–2025 

management season is 60,785 mt; 

2. Cutoff. This is the biomass level 

below which no commercial fishery is 

allowed. The FMP establishes this level 

at 18,200 mt; 

3. Fraction. The harvest fraction is the 

percentage of the biomass above 18,200 

mt that may be harvested. This is set in 

the FMP at 30 percent; and 

4. Distribution. Pacific mackerel range 

from Mexico to Alaska and regularly 

migrate between Mexico and the U.S. 

West Coast. Because some of the Pacific 

mackerel stock exists outside of U.S. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1