Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3783 

Solano, and Sonoma Counties, 

California. 

(i) The San Francisco Bay-Delta Unit 

consists of a total of 91,603 ac (37,082 

ha) of water and shoreline areas in a 

portion of the San Francisco Bay estuary 

bordering Contra Costa, Napa, 

Sacramento, Solano, and Sonoma 

Counties, California, and is composed of 

Federal (20 ac (8 ha)), State (257 ac (104 

ha)), local government (7 ac (3 ha)), 

private, and nonprofit or 

nongovernmental organization lands (49 

ac (20 ha)), and other water and 

shoreline area of undetermined 

ownership (91,297 ac (36,947 ha)). 

(ii) Map of the San Francisco BayDelta Unit follows: 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 

Figure 1 to San Francisco Bay-Delta 

longfin smelt (Spirinchus 

thaleichthys) paragraph (5)(ii) 

* * * * * 

Sara Prigan, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2024–29641 Filed 1–14–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2022–0150; 

FF09E21000–256–FXES11130900000] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding for the 

Northern Continental Divide 

Ecosystem of the Grizzly Bear in the 

Lower-48 States 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notification of finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to 

establish and delist a Northern 

Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) 

distinct population segment (DPS) of the 

grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in 

the lower-48 States. After a thorough 

review of the best scientific and 

commercial data available, we find that 

grizzly bears in the petitioned DPS do 

not, on their own, represent a valid DPS. 

Thus, we find that the petitioned action 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1EP15JA25.001</GPH>

Critical Habitat for the San Francisco Bay-Delta Longtin Smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys): 

Contra Costa, Napa, Sacramento, Solano, and Sonoma Counties, California 

SONllMActl, 

ngfin Smelt Estuary Range 

Longtin Smelt Ocean Range 

County 

0 4 a 

0 10 

16 

20 

24 

Miles 

KIiometers 

40 
3784 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

to establish and delist an NCDE DPS is 

not warranted at this time. 

DATES: The finding in this document 

was made on January 15, 2025. 

ADDRESSES: The finding and the 

supporting information that we 

developed for this finding, including the 

species status assessment report and 

species assessment form, are available 

on the internet at https://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2022–0150. Please submit 

any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

finding to the appropriate person, as 

specified under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Coordinator, Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Office, telephone: 406–243–4903, email: 

hilary_cooley@fws.gov. 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-ofcontact in the United States. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Previous Federal Actions 

Under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.; hereafter, ‘‘Act’’), the grizzly bear 

(Ursus arctos horribilis) is currently 

listed as a threatened species in the 

lower-48 States (40 FR 31734, July 28, 

1975). We detail the original rulemaking 

and our subsequent actions for the 

species in our species status assessment 

(SSA) report (Service 2024, pp. 74–76) 

and summarize the relevant actions for 

this finding below. 

On March 30, 2021, we completed a 

5-year status review for the grizzly bear 

in the lower-48 States in which we 

concluded that the listed entity should 

retain its status as a threatened species 

under the Endangered Species Act (Act) 

(Service 2021, entire). On December 17, 

2021, we received a petition from the 

State of Montana (petitioner) to revise 

the listed entity of grizzly bear under 

the Act. The petition requested that we: 

(1) establish a NCDE DPS; and (2) 

remove it from the List (‘‘delist’’), 

asserting that the NCDE DPS did not 

meet the definition of an endangered or 

threatened species. On February 6, 

2023, we published a 90-day finding (88 

FR 7658) that the petition contained 

substantial information indicating that 

establishing and delisting a NCDE DPS 

may be warranted. This document and 

our supporting species assessment form 

constitutes our 12-month finding on the 

December 17, 2021, petition to establish 

and delist a NCDE DPS of grizzly bear 

under the Act. 

Background 

Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to 

make a finding, within 12 months after 

receiving any petition that we have 

determined contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

indicating that the petitioned action 

may be warranted, as to whether the 

petitioned action is warranted, not 

warranted, or warranted but precluded 

by other pending proposals (known as a 

‘‘12-month finding’’). We must publish 

a notification of this 12-month finding 

in the Federal Register. 

This document announces the notwarranted finding on the petition for the 

NCDE grizzly bear population in 

accordance with the regulations at 50 

CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i). In this document, 

we have also elected to include a 

summary of the analysis on which this 

finding is based. This supporting 

information can be found on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

under Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2022– 

0150 (see ADDRESSES, above). We 

provide the full analysis, including our 

rationale and the data on which the 

finding is based, in the decisional file 

for the petition and our subsequent 

finding. The species assessment form 

contains an explanation of why we 

determined that grizzly bears in the 

petitioned DPS do not, on their own, 

represent a valid listable entity such 

that the petitioned actions are not 

warranted at this time. The following is 

a summary of the documents containing 

this full analysis. 

Listable Entity Requirements 

Under the Act, the term ‘‘species’’ 

includes any subspecies of fish or 

wildlife or plants, and any distinct 

population segment of any vertebrate 

fish or wildlife which interbreeds when 

mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). To 

interpret and implement the distinct 

population segment (DPS) provisions of 

the Act, the Service and the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration published in the 

Federal Register the Policy Regarding 

the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments Under the 

Endangered Species Act on February 7, 

1996 (61 FR 4722) (DPS Policy). Under 

the DPS Policy, we consider three 

elements to determine whether to 

classify a population of a vertebrate 

species as a DPS: (1) the discreteness of 

the population segment in relation to 

the remainder of the species to which it 

belongs; (2) the significance of the 

population segment to the species to 

which it belongs; and (3) the population 

segment’s conservation status in relation 

to the Act’s standard for listing, 

delisting, or reclassification. The Policy 

requires that a population segment meet 

both the discreteness and significance 

elements to be considered a valid DPS 

(i.e., a valid listable entity) and only 

then may we consider whether the DPS 

warrants listing under the Act. 

Summary of Biological Information 

The grizzly bear is a large, long-lived 

mammal that occurs in a variety of 

habitat types in portions of Idaho, 

Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. 

Grizzly bears are light brown to nearly 

black and are so named for their 

‘‘grizzled’’ coats with silver or golden 

tips. Grizzly bears in the NCDE 

population and the lower-48 States need 

access to large, intact blocks of land 

with limited human influence that 

provide cover, high-caloric foods, dens, 

and areas for dispersal. The specific 

quality and quantity of these resources 

influence the ability of individual 

grizzly bears to reproduce, grow, and 

survive at different life stages and for 

the NCDE population to be resilient or 

to withstand stochastic events (Service 

2024, pp. 99–101). Our SSA report 

provides our full account of the life 

history, ecology, range, and historical 

and current distribution for the grizzly 

bear in the NCDE population and the 

lower-48 States (Service 2024, pp. 39– 

73). 

Summary of Information From the 

Petition 

The petitioner requests that we 

establish a DPS for the NCDE grizzly 

bear population (petitioned DPS) that 

occurs entirely within the State of 

Montana. In their arguments to support 

delisting, the petitioner indicates that 

the NCDE grizzly bear population’s 

range has expanded, including a fourfold increase in the occupied range 

since the time of listing in 1975. The 

species assessment form provides 

additional summary of the information 

presented in the petition, including a 

map of the petitioned DPS. 

Summary of Finding 

In determining whether to recognize 

the petitioned DPS as a valid DPS (e.g., 

a listable entity under the Act), we must 

base our decision on the best scientific 

and commercial data available. Since 

the time of the original listing in 1975, 

the abundance, distribution, and 

dispersal of grizzly bears within and 

surrounding the NCDE has increased. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 3785 

New information supports the 

petitioner’s claim that the NCDE 

population has increased in size and 

distribution, so much so that grizzly 

bears have dispersed and expanded 

their occupied range and verified 

outliers are occurring beyond the 

western and southern boundary of the 

petitioned DPS. From 2014 to 2022, 

estimated occupied range in the NCDE 

increased by 21 percent, averaging 5 

percent every 2 years. As a result, the 

distance between the occupied range in 

the NCDE and that of other ecosystems 

has decreased and continues to shrink. 

Models indicate that the NCDE 

estimated occupied range overlaps with 

the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (CYE), 

although no genetic or demographic 

connectivity has been documented. In 

addition, models indicate that the 

estimated occupied ranges of the NCDE 

and Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

(GYE) populations are currently only 98 

kilometers (61 miles) apart, within 

grizzly bear dispersal distance. 

The 2022 estimated occupied range of 

the NCDE population of grizzly bear 

extends beyond the western and 

southern boundaries of the petitioned 

DPS (Service 2024, figure 1). From 2020 

to 2022, occupied range in the NCDE 

increased by 11 percent (Costello et al. 

2023, p. 13). We expect this trend to 

increase over time. Additionally, as the 

populations expand, individual grizzly 

bears are dispersing into new areas 

outside the estimated occupied range. 

Since 2014, there have been 213 verified 

observations of grizzly bears outside of 

current estimated occupied range in the 

lower-48 States. Currently, genetic 

studies have confirmed that at least 14 

grizzly bears originating from the NCDE 

population have dispersed beyond the 

boundary of the petitioned DPS. Seven 

of these individuals are known to have 

emigrated from the NCDE to the CYE, 

however, no gene flow is known to have 

occurred as of 2022 (Kasworm et al. 

2024, p. 34). These occurrences outside 

of areas considered occupied range are 

becoming increasingly common. While 

in most cases, the source population of 

such grizzly bears is unknown, a 

number of them likely originated from 

the NCDE population. The locations of 

these verified observations reveal the 

leading edges of grizzly bear range 

expansion within and between 

ecosystems (see Service 2024, figure 1) 

(Costello et al. 2023, pp. 13–17; 

Dellinger et al. 2023, pp. 22–23). With 

the increasing trend of population 

growth and expansion over the last 

several years, we anticipate range 

expansion and dispersal events to 

continue under current management, 

including the protections of the Act, 

such that natural connectivity between 

the NCDE population and other grizzly 

bear populations in the lower-48 States 

will likely occur in the near future 

(Service 2024, p. 54). 

Additionally, we anticipate that 

dispersing bears from the NCDE will reestablish a population in the Bitterroot 

Ecosystem (BE) in the next 15 to 20 

years. The estimated occupied range for 

the NCDE grizzly bear population is less 

than 5 kilometers (3 miles) from the 

Bitterroot recovery zone and a subadult 

female dispersed to within 5 kilometers 

(3 miles) of the BE in 2022. This 

information indicates that the grizzly 

bear population has expanded beyond 

the boundary of the petitioned DPS and 

continues to expand. 

To summarize, information provided 

by the petitioner and the best scientific 

and commercial data available indicate 

that grizzly bear abundance, 

distribution, and dispersal have 

increased, and grizzly bears have 

expanded beyond the petitioned DPS 

boundary. As a result, the petitioned 

DPS is not based on the best scientific 

and commercial data available and is 

obsolete. As populations have grown 

and expanded, estimated occupied 

range has expanded beyond the 

petitioned DPS boundary. In addition, 

grizzly bears have dispersed beyond the 

petitioned DPS boundary, often into 

areas considered to be previously 

unoccupied. 

Under our DPS Policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate species may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

of the following two conditions: (1) it is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors 

(quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation); or 

(2) it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

significant differences in control of 

exploitation, management of habitat, 

conservation status, or regulatory 

mechanisms exist that are significant in 

light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. In 

determining whether the test for 

discreteness has been met under the 

DPS policy, we allow but do not require 

genetic evidence to be used. 

Although the DPS Policy does not 

require absolute separation of one 

population from another, (82 FR 30502, 

June 30, 2017, p. 30518), the standard 

for discreteness must allow us to 

distinguish between the DPS and other 

members of the species for purposes of 

administering and enforcing the Act (61 

FR 4722, February 7, 1996, p. 4724). As 

summarized above, the best scientific 

and commercial data available indicate 

that the estimated occupied range of the 

grizzly bear population in the NCDE has 

expanded steadily in the past decade. 

The GYE and CYE populations have 

also expanded their range and these 

populations are increasingly closer in 

proximity to the NCDE population. 

Grizzly bears have dispersed beyond the 

boundaries of the petitioned DPS and 

the NCDE population has expanded to 

such an extent that it is not markedly 

separate from other populations of the 

taxon. Due to ongoing population 

growth and range expansion, which is 

expected to continue in the future under 

current management, including the 

protections of the Act, we do not 

consider the petitioned DPS to be 

discrete due to physical factors. Because 

grizzly bears within the boundaries of 

the petitioned DPS are not markedly 

separated from other populations of the 

taxon, the petitioned DPS does not meet 

the discreteness element in the DPS 

Policy. Therefore, we find that grizzly 

bears in the petitioned DPS do not, on 

their own, represent a valid DPS and we 

therefore do not consider the status of 

grizzly bears in this petitioned entity as 

a separately listable entity under the 

Act. 

We are in the process of fully 

evaluating the latest information 

regarding the status of the grizzly bear 

in the lower-48 States in a rulemaking 

expected by January 31, 2026. This 

rulemaking is pursuant to a settlement 

agreement associated with the State of 

Idaho’s petition to delist the grizzly bear 

in the lower-48 States. That rulemaking, 

to either remove or revise the currently 

listed entity of the grizzly bear in the 

lower-48 States, will fully evaluate the 

best scientific and commercial data 

available, which could include potential 

DPSs, while considering potential 

population segment’s conservation 

status and Congress’s direction to 

exercise DPSs sparingly and only when 

the biological evidence indicates that 

such action is warranted. The trends of 

increasing distribution and dispersal 

point to the need for a broader, holistic 

evaluation at the rangewide level, which 

will be completed as part of the 

rulemaking already underway. 

Consistent with the DPS Policy, that 

analysis will require careful 

consideration of the extent to which 

formerly isolated populations are 

connected, or likely to be connected, 

and the need for connectivity to small 

or isolated populations and unoccupied 

recovery zones, given the best and most 

recent biological data available that 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3786 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

support a durable recovered grizzly bear 

in the lower-48 States. 

Peer Review 

In accordance with our July 1, 1994, 

peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1, 

1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016, 

Director’s Memo on the Peer Review 

Process, we solicited independent 

scientific reviews of the information 

contained in the SSA report for the 

grizzly bear in the lower-48 States. 

Results of this structured peer review 

process can be found at https://

www.regulations.gov. We incorporated 

the results of these reviews, as 

appropriate, into the SSA report, which 

is the scientific foundation for this 

finding. 

References Cited 

A list of the references cited in this 

petition finding is available in the 

species assessment form, which is 

available on the internet at http://

www.regulations.gov under Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2022–0150 (see 

ADDRESSES, above). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this document 

are staff members of the Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Office, Ecological Services 

Program. 

Authority 

The authority for these actions is the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00330 Filed 1–14–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1