4234 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2024–0186; 

FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] 

RIN 1018–BI14 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Grizzly Bear Listing on the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife With a Revised Section 4(d) 

Rule 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service or FWS), 

propose to revise the listing of the 

grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in 

the lower-48 States under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act or ESA). After a review of 

the best scientific and commercial data 

available, we affirm that the currently 

listed grizzly bear population meets our 

requirements for consideration as a 

distinct population segment (DPS) 

under the Act and that the population 

remains likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future. 

However, we find that clarification of 

the geographic areas included within 

the DPS is warranted. Therefore, we 

propose to revise the listing by defining 

the boundaries of the contiguous U.S. 

grizzly bear DPS. The revised entity 

would include all geographic portions 

of the currently listed lower-48 entity 

that contain suitable habitat and where 

grizzly bears are currently found or are 

likely to be found in the future as 

populations recover. This area includes 

all of Washington and portions of Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming. The 

contiguous U.S. grizzly bear DPS would 

retain threatened species status. This 

proposed rule would promote 

conservation of the grizzly bear by 

ensuring that the listing under the Act 

explicitly reflects the areas where 

grizzly bears currently occur and are 

likely to occur in the future. Clarifying 

that the listing does not include areas 

outside of the grizzly bear’s historical 

range will assist as recovery proceeds. 

We are also proposing to revise 

protective regulations for the grizzly 

bear issued under section 4(d) of the 

Act. 

DATES: 

Written comments: We will accept 

comments received or postmarked on or 

before March 17, 2025. Comments 

submitted electronically using the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal (see 

ADDRESSES, below) must be received by 

11:59 p.m. eastern time on the closing 

date. 

Public informational meetings and 

public hearings: Four public hearings 

will be held on this proposed rule on 

the following dates: 

• On January 30, 2025, a virtual 

public informational meeting will run 

from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. 

• On January 29, 2025, in Coeur 

d’Alene, Idaho. The public 

informational meeting will run from 3 

p.m. to 5 p.m., and the public hearing 

will run from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. 

• On January 28, 2025, in Missoula, 

Montana. The public informational 

meeting will run from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., 

and the public hearing will run from 6 

p.m. to 8 p.m. 

• On February 10, 2025, in Cody, 

Wyoming. The public informational 

meeting will run from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m., 

and the public hearing will run from 6 

p.m. to 8 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: 

Comment submission: You may 

submit comments by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal: 

https://www.regulations.gov. In the 

Search box, enter FWS–R6–ES–2024– 

0186, which is the docket number for 

this rulemaking. Then, click on the 

Search button. On the resulting page, in 

the panel on the left side of the screen, 

under the Document Type heading, 

check the Proposed Rule box to locate 

this document. You may submit a 

comment by clicking on ‘‘Comment.’’ 

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

to: Public Comments Processing, Attn: 

FWS–R6–ES–2024–0186, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275 

Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041– 

3803. 

We request that you send comments 

only by the methods described above. 

We will post all comments on https:// 

www.regulations.gov. This generally 

means that we will post any personal 

information you provide us (see 

INFORMATION REQUESTED, below, for more 

information). 

Availability of supporting materials: 

Supporting materials, such as the 

species status assessment report, are 

available at https://www.fws.gov/ 

species/grizzly-bear-ursus-arctoshorribilis or at https://

www.regulations.gov at Docket No. 

FWS–R6–ES–2024–0186. 

Public informational meetings and 

public hearings: The public information 

meetings and public hearings will be 

held on the dates and the times listed 

above in DATES at the following 

locations: 

• Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Kootenai 

County Fairgrounds, 4056 N. 

Government Way, Building 19. 

• Missoula, Montana. Hilton Garden 

Inn, 3720 N Reserve Street. 

• Cody, Wyoming. Holiday Inn, 1701 

Sheridan Ave. 

• Virtual: We will announce the 

details regarding how to participate on 

our website at https://www.fws.gov/ 

grizzlyrulemaking. 

For more information on the public 

informational meetings and public 

hearings, see Public Hearings, below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, #356 Corbin, University of 

Montana, Missoula, MT 59812; 

telephone 406–243–4903. Individuals in 

the United States who are deaf, 

deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a 

speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, 

TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 

telecommunications relay services. 

Individuals outside the United States 

should use the relay services offered 

within their country to make 

international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States. Please see 

Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2024–0186 on 

https://www.regulations.gov for a 

document that summarizes this 

proposed rule. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Why we need to publish a rule. On 

July 28, 1975, we published in the 

Federal Register (40 FR 31734) a final 

rule to list the grizzly bear in the lower48 States as a threatened species under 

the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

According to our ‘‘Policy Regarding the 

Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate 

Population Segments Under the 

Endangered Species Act’’ (DPS policy; 

61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996), the 

appropriate application of the policy to 

pre-1996 DPS listings will be considered 

in our 5-year status reviews. We 

conducted a DPS analysis as part of our 

2011 5-year status review, and 

concluded that the population segment 

of the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States 

is discrete from other grizzly 

populations and significant to the 

remainder of the taxon (i.e., Ursus 

arctos horribilis) and that it meets the 

1996 DPS Policy’s standards for 

recognition as a DPS under the Act. 

We now reaffirm that the currently 

listed grizzly bear population satisfies 

the elements of our 1996 DPS Policy 

and that the population meets the Act’s 

definition of a threatened species. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4235 

However, we find that clarification of 

the DPS boundary is warranted, and we 

propose to revise the listing by defining 

the geographic extent of the contiguous 

U.S. DPS of the grizzly bear (hereafter, 

‘‘grizzly bear DPS’’) and to retain its 

threatened status. Pursuant to the 

Administrative Procedure Act, we must 

initiate a rulemaking to revise the listing 

(5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). In a February 22, 

2024, settlement agreement in Save the 

Yellowstone Grizzly v. U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, No. 23–363 (D. Id), we 

committed to submit a final rule to the 

Office of the Federal Register on or 

before January 31, 2026. 

What this document does. This 

document proposes to revise the current 

listing of the grizzly bear in the lower48 States by defining the geographic 

extent of the grizzly bear DPS, to retain 

its status as a threatened species, and to 

revise its protective regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act (a revised ‘‘4(d) 

rule’’). As such, this action would revise 

the listing of the grizzly bear in title 50 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

at § 17.11(h) (50 CFR 17.11(h)) and the 

grizzly bear’s protective regulations 

under section 4(d) of the Act at 50 CFR 

17.40(b). 

The basis for our action. Under our 

1996 DPS policy, in any proposed or 

final rule affecting the status of a 

possible DPS as an endangered or 

threatened species under the Act we 

analyze the following three elements: (1) 

discreteness of the population segment 

in relation to the remainder of the taxon 

to which it belongs; (2) the significance 

of the population segment to the taxon 

to which it belongs; and (3) the 

conservation status of the population 

segment in relation to the Act’s 

standards for listing (61 FR 4725, 

February 7, 1996). 

Under the Act, we determine whether 

a species is an endangered species or a 

threatened species because of any of the 

following factors: (A) The present or 

threatened destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. We have determined that the 

proposed grizzly bear DPS, which 

includes all of the grizzly bears in the 

currently listed entity, is a threatened 

species due to the following threats: 

habitat destruction and modification 

(Factor A); human-caused mortality 

(Factors B and C); and the isolated 

nature of some populations (Factor E). 

Information Requested 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available and be as 

accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we request comments or 

information from other governmental 

agencies, Native American Tribes, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested parties concerning this 

proposed rule. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) The proposed geographic 

boundary of the DPS; 

(2) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Biological or ecological 

requirements of the species, including 

habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range, 

including distribution patterns and the 

locations of any additional populations 

of this species; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat, or 

both. 

(3) Threats and conservation actions 

affecting the species, including: 

(a) Factors that may be affecting the 

continued existence of the species, 

which may include habitat modification 

or destruction, overutilization, disease, 

predation, the inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms, or other natural 

or manmade factors; 

(b) Biological, commercial trade, or 

other relevant data concerning any 

threats (or lack thereof) to this species; 

and 

(c) Existing regulations or 

conservation actions that may be 

addressing threats to this species. 

(4) Additional information concerning 

the historical and current status of this 

species. 

(5) Information to assist with applying 

or issuing protective regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act that may be 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the grizzly bear. In 

particular, we seek information 

concerning: 

(a) The extent to which we should 

include or clarify any of the section 9 

prohibitions in the 4(d) rule; 

(b) Whether we should consider any 

additional or different exceptions from 

the prohibitions in the proposed 4(d) 

rule, such as: (i) incidental take 

resulting from legal trapping for other 

species conducted consistent with State 

and Tribal trapping rules or guidelines 

that contain steps to minimize the 

potential for capture and injury of 

grizzly bears; (ii) incidental take from 

issuance of State or Tribal hunting 

permits for other species; (iii) incidental 

take resulting from legal hunting of 

other species; and (iv) take from 

regulated State or Tribal grizzly bear 

hunting in areas where grizzly bear 

populations are expanding. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Please note that submissions merely 

stating support for, or opposition to, the 

action under consideration without 

providing supporting information, 

although noted, do not provide 

substantial information necessary to 

support a determination. Section 

4(b)(1)(A) of the Act directs that 

determinations as to whether any 

species is an endangered or a threatened 

species must be made solely on the 

basis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available. 

You may submit your comments and 

materials concerning this proposed rule 

by one of the methods listed in 

ADDRESSES. We request that you send 

comments only by the methods 

described in ADDRESSES. 

If you submit information via https:// 

www.regulations.gov, your entire 

submission—including any personal 

identifying information—will be posted 

on the website. If your submission is 

made via a hardcopy that includes 

personal identifying information, you 

may request at the top of your document 

that we withhold this information from 

public review. However, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

We will post all hardcopy submissions 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Comments and materials we receive, 

as well as supporting documentation we 

used in preparing this proposed rule, 

will be available for public inspection 

on https://www.regulations.gov. 

Our final determination may differ 

from this proposal because we will 

consider all comments we receive 

during the comment period as well as 

any information that may become 

available after this proposal. Based on 

the new information we receive (and, if 

relevant, any comments on that new 

information), we may conclude that the 

species is endangered instead of 

threatened, or we may conclude that the 

species does not warrant listing as either 

an endangered species or a threatened 

species. We may also change the 

geographic area included within the 

proposed DPS as the result of new 

information we receive. In addition, we 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4236 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

may change the parameters of the 

prohibitions or the exceptions to those 

prohibitions in the protective 

regulations under section 4(d) of the Act 

if we conclude it is appropriate in light 

of comments and new information 

received. For example, we may expand 

the prohibitions if we conclude that the 

protective regulation as a whole, 

including those additional prohibitions, 

is necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of the species. 

Conversely, we may establish additional 

or different exceptions to the 

prohibitions in the final rule if we 

conclude that the activities would 

facilitate or are compatible with the 

conservation and recovery of the 

species. In our final rule, we will clearly 

explain our rationale and the basis for 

our final decision, including why we 

made changes, if any, that differ from 

this proposal. 

Public Hearings 

We will hold four public 

informational meetings and public 

hearings on the dates and at the 

locations listed above in DATES. The 

public informational meetings allow the 

public the opportunity to interact with 

Service staff, who will be available to 

provide information and address 

questions on the proposed rule and its 

supporting documents. In contrast to the 

public informational meetings, we are 

holding the public hearings to provide 

interested parties an opportunity to 

present verbal testimony (formal, oral 

comments) or written comments 

regarding the proposed rule and its 

supporting documents. A formal public 

hearing is not, however, an opportunity 

for dialogue with the Service; it is only 

a forum for accepting formal verbal 

testimony. 

We cannot accept verbal testimony at 

any of the public informational 

meetings; verbal testimony can only be 

accepted at the public hearings. Anyone 

wishing to make an oral statement at a 

public hearing for the record is 

encouraged to provide a written copy of 

their statement to us at the hearing. In 

the event there is a large attendance, the 

time allotted for oral statements may be 

limited. Speakers can sign up at a 

hearing if they desire to make an oral 

statement. Oral and written statements 

receive equal consideration. There are 

no limits on the length of written 

comments submitted to us. 

Persons with disabilities needing 

reasonable accommodations to 

participate in a public informational 

meeting or public hearing should 

contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Reasonable accommodation requests 

should be received at least 3 business 

days prior to the public informational 

meeting or public hearing to help ensure 

availability; American Sign Language or 

English as a second language interpreter 

needs should be received at least 2 

weeks prior to the public informational 

meeting or public hearing. 

Previous Federal Actions 

Listing as Threatened and Recovery 

Plans 

On July 28, 1975, we published in the 

Federal Register (40 FR 31734) a final 

rule to list the grizzly bear as a 

threatened species in the conterminous 

United States (lower-48 States). 

Accordingly, we developed a Grizzly 

Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1982) and 

have updated that plan several times 

(USFWS 1993, 1996, 1997, 2007a, 

2007b, 2017, 2018). The 1993 recovery 

plan identified recovery ecosystems, 

each containing a recovery zone at its 

core, within the lower-48 States thought 

to be capable of supporting grizzly 

bears. The 1993 recovery plan, and 

subsequent supplements, outlined three 

demographic recovery criteria for each 

ecosystem (in their entirety: Service 

1993, 1996, 1997, 2007a, 2017). 

Petitions Regarding Grizzly Bear 

Ecosystems (1990s) 

In the 1990s, we received a number of 

petitions to change the status on the List 

of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

(the List) of grizzly bear populations in 

three ecosystems: the North Cascades, 

Selkirk, and Cabinet-Yaak. 

We determined that reclassifying 

grizzly bears in those ecosystems to 

endangered was warranted but 

precluded by higher priorities beginning 

in 1991 for the North Cascades 

ecosystem (56 FR 33892, July 24, 1991), 

1993 for the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem 

(CYE) (58 FR 8250, February 12, 1993), 

and 1999 for the Selkirk ecosystem (SE) 

(64 FR 26725, May 17, 1999). 

However, in 2014, the Service 

determined that the CYE and SE 

populations had recovered to the point 

that they were no longer warranted for 

uplisting as endangered and should 

instead remain listed as threatened (79 

FR 72450 at 72487 and 72488, December 

5, 2014). 

In 2017, in Alliance for the Wild 

Rockies v. Zinke et al., the District Court 

of Montana remanded the 2014 

determination for the CYE grizzly bear 

back to the Service for further 

consideration. 

In 2022, the Service again determined 

that the CYE population had recovered 

to the point that it was no longer 

warranted for uplisting to endangered, 

and therefore should remain listed as 

threatened (87 FR 26152 at 26153 and 

26171–26172, May 3, 2022). 

In 2023, we determined that the North 

Cascades population was no longer 

warranted for uplisting to endangered 

because the population in that area of 

the United States is extirpated (88 FR 

41560 at 41562, 41577, and 41579– 

41580, June 27, 2023). 

Bitterroot Ecosystem 

On December 18, 2000, we designated 

the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE) as a 

nonessential experimental population 

under section 10(j) of the Act and 

published a final environmental impact 

statement (EIS) and record of decision 

(ROD) to release an experimental 

population of grizzly bears in that 

ecosystem (65 FR 69624, November 17, 

2000; 65 FR 69644, November 17, 2000; 

Service 2000a and 2000b, entire). 

On June 22, 2001, we indicated a 

change of position and published a 

notice to propose the no action 

alternative as the preferred alternative 

(66 FR 33623) and a proposed rule to 

remove the section 10(j) regulations for 

grizzly bears in the BE 10(j) population 

(66 FR 33620). However, no further 

action was taken on the notice, and the 

proposed rule was never finalized. The 

2000 ROD remains in effect, but it has 

never been implemented. Because we 

have not released or reintroduced any 

grizzly bears into the area, the current 

section 10(j) rule for grizzly bears in the 

Bitterroot grizzly bear nonessential 

experimental population area (50 CFR 

17.84(1)) does not apply to grizzly bears 

that have dispersed into the area on 

their own. Grizzly bears that have 

dispersed into the area on their own, 

including all recent verified sightings, 

are not covered by the section 10(j) rule 

and receive the protection associated 

with the threatened status of the lower48 States listed entity and associated 

section 4(d) regulations (50 CFR 

17.40(b)). 

In November 2021, the Service was 

challenged in Federal district court for 

alleged unreasonable delay in 

implementing nondiscretionary actions 

described in the action alternative 

selected in the 2000 final EIS (Alliance 

for the Wild Rockies et al. v. Cooley et 

al., 9:21–cv–136–DWM (D. Mont. 

2021)). The court remanded this matter 

to the Service and ordered the Service 

to propose a timeline and plan for 

completion of a supplemental EIS and, 

if warranted, a new ROD and final rule. 

On April 26, 2023, the court issued an 

order approving the Service’s proposal 

and timeline to complete this process 

within 43 months (Alliance for the Wild 

Rockies et al. v. Cooley et al., 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4237 

9:31–cv–136–DWM). On January 18, 

2024, the Service published a notice to 

initiate the public scoping process to 

evaluate restoration of grizzly bears to 

the BE (89 FR 3411). 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

On March 29, 2007, we published in 

the Federal Register (72 FR 14866) a 

final rule recognizing the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) 

population of grizzly bears as a DPS and 

removing it from the List (i.e., delisting 

it). 

This final determination was vacated 

and remanded by the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Montana on 

September 21, 2009, in Greater 

Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et 

al., 672 F.Supp.2d 1105 (D. Mont. 2009). 

The District Court ruled against the 

Service on two of the claims: (1) that the 

Service was arbitrary and capricious in 

its evaluation of whitebark pine; and (2) 

that the identified regulatory 

mechanisms were inadequate because 

they were not legally enforceable. In 

compliance with the court’s order, we 

issued a final rule reinstating the Act’s 

protections for the GYE grizzly bear 

population (see 75 FR 14496, March 26, 

2010). 

The Service appealed the 2009 district 

court decision, and on November 15, 

2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

Ninth Circuit issued an opinion 

affirming in part and reversing in part 

the District Court’s decision vacating 

and remanding the final rule delisting 

grizzly bears in the GYE (Greater 

Yellowstone Coalition v. Servheen, et 

al., 665 F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2011)). The 

Ninth Circuit held that the Service’s 

consideration of regulatory mechanisms 

was permissible because the elements of 

the 2007 GYE conservation strategy 

were incorporated into binding 

regulatory documents, specifically 

national forest (NF) plans and National 

Park Service (NPS) Superintendent’s 

compendia. However, the Ninth Circuit 

found that the Service did not 

adequately explain why the loss of 

whitebark pine was not a threat to the 

GYE grizzly bear population. Therefore, 

the GYE population of grizzly bears 

remained federally listed as part of the 

lower-48 State threatened species listing 

under the Act, and the Interagency 

Grizzly Bear Study Team (IGBST) 

initiated more thorough research into 

the potential impact of whitebark pine 

decline on GYE grizzly bears. 

On June 30, 2017, we published in the 

Federal Register (82 FR 30502) a final 

rule recognizing the GYE population of 

grizzly bears as a DPS and removing it 

from the List (i.e., delisting it). In that 

final rule, among the other findings, we 

responded to the District Court’s 

remand and the Ninth Circuit’s 

determination that the Service failed to 

support its conclusion that whitebark 

pine declines did not threaten GYE 

grizzly bears. 

That final determination was vacated 

and remanded by the U.S. District Court 

for the District of Montana on 

September 24, 2018, in Crow Indian 

Tribe, et al. v. United States, et al., 343 

F. Supp.3d 999 (D. Mont. 2018). The 

District Court cited three main 

deficiencies in support of vacatur: (1) 

the Service did not sufficiently assess 

the effect of delisting the GYE 

population on the recovery of grizzly 

bears in the rest of the lower-48 States; 

(2) the Service and its partners did not 

commit to recalibration of potential new 

population estimators in the future to 

ensure the ongoing applicability of the 

2016 GYE conservation strategy’s 

mortality limits; and (3) the Service 

inadequately analyzed the genetic 

health of the GYE grizzly bear 

population. In compliance with this 

order, we again issued a final rule 

reinstating the Act’s protections for the 

GYE grizzly bear population (see 84 FR 

37144, July 31, 2019). 

The Service appealed the district 

court decision, and on July 8, 2020, the 

Ninth Circuit issued an opinion 

affirming the district court’s decision 

vacating and remanding the final rule 

delisting grizzly bears in the GYE (Crow 

Indian Tribe v. United States, 965 F.3d 

662 (9th Cir. 2020)). 

North Cascades Ecosystem 

On January 13, 2017, North Cascades 

National Park (NCNP) and the Service 

jointly released a North Cascades Draft 

Restoration Plan and EIS to evaluate the 

impacts of a range of alternatives for 

restoring grizzly bears to the North 

Cascades Ecosystem (NCE) (82 FR 4336). 

On July 10, 2020, the Service and NPS 

announced their decision to discontinue 

the proposal to develop and implement 

a grizzly bear restoration plan for the 

NCE and to terminate the EIS process 

(85 FR 41624). 

On November 14, 2022, the Service 

and NPS announced initiation of a new 

EIS process to evaluate options for 

restoring and managing grizzly bears in 

the North Cascades, including a section 

10(j) experimental population 

designation (87 FR 68190). On 

September 29, 2023, NPS and the 

Service opened a public comment 

period on a draft EIS to evaluate 

restoration of grizzly bears to the North 

Cascades (88 FR 67277; NPS and 

Service 2024, entire) and on a proposed 

section 10(j) rule that would allow 

management flexibility for a 

reintroduced population (88 FR 67193). 

On March 21, 2024, the Service and 

NPS released a final EIS identifying 

translocation of grizzly bears to the 

North Cascades with an experimental 

designation as the preferred alternative 

(NPS and Service 2024, entire). On 

April 25, 2024, NPS and the Service 

published a ROD to release an 

experimental population of grizzly bears 

in the NCE with the goal of establishing 

an initial population of 25 grizzly bears 

and then continuing to monitor and 

adaptively manage the population (NPS 

and Service 2024, pp. v–vi). In addition, 

the Service designated the North 

Cascades as a nonessential experimental 

population under section 10(j) of the 

Act (89 FR 36982, May 3, 2024, codified 

at 50 CFR 17.84(y)). 

Petitions Regarding the Grizzly Bear 

Listing (2020s) 

On December 17, 2021, we received a 

petition from the State of Montana to 

establish and delist a Northern 

Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) 

DPS of the grizzly bear under the Act. 

On January 21, 2022, we received a 

petition from the State of Wyoming to 

establish and delist a GYE DPS of the 

grizzly bear under the Act. On March 9, 

2022, we received a petition from the 

State of Idaho to delist the grizzly bear 

in the lower-48 States. 

On February 6, 2023, we announced 

our 90-day findings on these three 

petitions (88 FR 7658). Based on our 

review, we found that the petitions 

pertaining to the NCDE and GYE 

presented substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned actions may be 

warranted, and we initiated status 

reviews to determine whether the 

petitioned actions are warranted. We 

found that the petition from the State of 

Idaho to delist the grizzly bear in the 

lower-48 States on the basis of it not 

being a valid listable entity did not 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

the petitioned action may be warranted; 

therefore, we took no further action on 

that petition. 

In today’s issue of the Federal 

Register, we announce our 12-month 

findings on the petitions to establish 

and delist GYE and NCDE DPSs of 

grizzly bears, respectively. Based on a 

thorough review of the best scientific 

and commercial data available, we 

found that the petitioned GYE and 

NCDE DPS grizzly bear populations 

were not valid listable entities. We 

acknowledge that this determination 

differs from our 2017 determination that 

the GYE population was discrete 

because it was markedly, physically 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4238 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

separated from other grizzly bear 

populations and was significant due to 

its persistence in an ecological setting 

unique for the taxon and because the 

loss of the population would result in a 

significant gap in the range (82 FR 

30502 at 30517–30519, June 30, 2017). 

However, estimated occupied range now 

extends beyond the 2017 GYE DPS 

western boundary, and we expect this 

trend to increase over time. Similarly, 

the estimated occupied range for the 

NCDE population extends beyond the 

boundary proposed by the petitioner. As 

populations expand, individual grizzly 

bears are dispersing into new areas 

outside the estimated occupied range 

(see figure 1, below). Thus, we found 

that the petitioned actions to establish 

and delist GYE and NCDE DPSs were 

not warranted. 

In 2023, the State of Idaho, a codefendant in Save the Yellowstone 

Grizzly v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, No. 23–363 (D. Id), raised 

counter-claims against the Service 

alleging that: (1) the lower-48 listing is 

invalid and the Service has exceeded 

the Act’s jurisdiction by keeping the 

listing in place; (2) the Service 

unlawfully denied Idaho’s petition to 

delist grizzlies in the lower-48 United 

States; and (3) take of the three grizzly 

bears at issue in the case was consistent 

with the grizzly bear’s section 4(d) rule 

(50 CFR 17.40(b)). As part of a February 

22, 2024, settlement with the plaintiff, 

Save the Yellowstone Grizzly, and the 

State of Idaho, the Service agreed to 

submit to the Office of the Federal 

Register by January 31, 2026, a final rule 

complying with the Act and its 

implementing regulations that revises or 

removes the entire listing of grizzly 

bears in the lower-48 States. 

Relationship of Grizzly Bear Listing to 

Legislative Changes to the Act 

The grizzly bear subspecies was first 

listed in its entirety in North America in 

1967 under the Endangered Species 

Preservation Act, which only allowed 

the listing of species or subspecies. 

When the Act was passed in 1973, it 

allowed for listing of ‘‘any other group 

of fish or wildlife of the same species or 

smaller taxa in common spatial 

arrangement that interbreed when 

mature.’’ The 1975 listing was 

‘‘designed to ensure the species’ 

conservation’’ within the Yellowstone 

(the GYE), Bob Marshall (now the 

NCDE), and Selway-Bitterroot (the BE) 

ecosystems, and ‘‘to protect any 

members of the species occurring 

elsewhere in’’ the lower-48 States. (40 

FR 31734 at 31735, July 28, 1975). It was 

not an indication that grizzly bears were 

present in all areas covered by the 

listing, or that the Service intended to 

recover grizzly bears throughout the 

lower-48 States. 

The listing of the grizzly bear as a 

threatened species in the lower-48 

States in 1975 was not predicated upon 

a formal DPS analysis, because the 

listing predated the 1978 amendments 

to the Act, which revised the definition 

of ‘‘species’’ to include DPSs of 

vertebrate fish or wildlife. The 1978 

amendments revised the definition of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP15JA25.031</GPH>

MONTA:\A 

WASHINGTON 

IDAHO 

Estimated occupied range 

-- Miles 

0 2() 40 80 120 160 

• Verified Outliers 2014 to June 20, 2024 ·'4l WTOMJNG 

D Recovery Zones -- Kilomt:ters • 0 35 70 140 2111 280 

Figure 1-Map of recovery zone boundaries, estimated occupied range of grizzly bears in the NCDE (2008-2022 data; 

Costello et aL 2023, p. 14), GYE (2008-2022 data; Dellinger et aL 2023, p. 23), CYE (2000-2022 data, Kasworm et aL 

2024a, p. 74), and SE (2000-2022 data, Kasworm et aL 2024b, p. 50), and verified grizzly bear outlier observations 

between the ecosystems based on data from 2014 to June 20, 2024. 
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4239 

‘‘species’’ by adding the phrase ‘‘any 

distinct population segment of any 

species of vertebrate fish or wildlife 

which interbreeds when mature’’ (16 

U.S.C. 1532(16)). In addition, in 1996, 

the Service and the National Marine 

Fisheries Service published our joint 

‘‘Policy Regarding the Recognition of 

Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments 

Under the Endangered Species Act’’ 

(DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996). 

In the 2011 5-year status review of the 

grizzly bear, we reviewed the 

application of the DPS Policy to the 

grizzly bear listing (Service 2011, 

entire). We concluded that the 

population segment of grizzly bear in 

the lower-48 States was discrete from 

other grizzly populations and significant 

to the remainder of the taxon and that 

it met the standards for recognition as 

a DPS under the Act, but we did not 

propose to revise the listed entity. In 

this proposed rule, we are undertaking 

a new DPS analysis as part of our 

reevaluation of the current listed entity 

of grizzly bears in the lower-48 States. 

Peer Review 

A species status assessment (SSA) 

team prepared an SSA report for the 

grizzly bear in the lower-48 States. The 

SSA team was composed of Service 

biologists, in consultation with other 

species experts. The SSA report 

represents a compilation of the best 

scientific and commercial data available 

concerning the status of the species, 

including the impacts of past, present, 

and future factors (both negative and 

beneficial) affecting the species. 

In accordance with our joint policy on 

peer review published in the Federal 

Register on July 1, 1994 (59 FR 34270), 

and our August 22, 2016, memorandum 

updating and clarifying the role of peer 

review in listing and recovery actions 

under the Act (https://www.fws.gov/ 

sites/default/files/documents/peerreview-policy-directors-memo-2016-08- 

22.pdf), we solicited independent 

scientific review of the information 

contained in the grizzly bear SSA 

report. We sent the SSA report to four 

independent peer reviewers and 

received three responses. Results of this 

structured peer review process can be 

found at https://www.regulations.gov 

and https://fws.gov/library/categories/ 

peer-review-plans. In preparing this 

proposed rule, we incorporated the 

results of these reviews, as appropriate, 

into the SSA report, which is the 

foundation for this proposed rule. 

Summary of Peer Reviewer Comments 

As discussed in Peer Review, above, 

we received comments from three peer 

reviewers on the SSA report. We 

reviewed all comments we received 

from the peer reviewers for substantive 

issues and new information regarding 

the information contained in the SSA 

report. The peer reviewers generally 

concurred with our methods and 

conclusions, and provided additional 

information, clarifications, and 

suggestions, including clarifications in 

discussion of current conservation 

measures relating to human-caused 

mortality and habitat, clarifications in 

the discussion of connectivity and 

genetic health, additional scientific 

literature to consider, and other 

editorial suggestions. There were several 

comments regarding our assessment of 

current and future conditions for the 

two habitat and six demographic factors 

for each ecosystem under the current 

and future condition scenarios, which 

were further clarified in the SSA report 

for the species. 

I. Proposed Revision of Grizzly Bear 

Listing 

Background 

A thorough review of the taxonomy, 

life history, and ecology of the grizzly 

bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the 

lower-48 States is presented in the SSA 

report (version 2.2; Service 2024, pp. 

39–48), which we summarize here. 

Please note that, in this document, we 

refer to the grizzly bear in the lower-48 

States both as a ‘‘species,’’ as it is listed 

as a threatened species under the Act, 

and as a ‘‘subspecies’’ because Ursus 

arctos horribilis is a subspecies of Ursus 

arctos. Later in this document (where 

indicated), we also use the term ‘‘the 

grizzly bear DPS’’ to refer to the 

contiguous U.S. grizzly bear DPS. 

Species Description 

The grizzly bear is a large, long-lived 

mammal that occurs in a variety of 

habitat types. It is distributed across 

large portions of Alaska, as well as 

western and northern Canada, but its 

distribution in the lower-48 States is 

limited to portions of Idaho, Montana, 

Washington, and Wyoming. Grizzly 

bears hibernate in the winter, typically 

in dens; feed on a wide variety of foods; 

weigh up to 363 kilograms (800 

pounds); and live more than 25 years in 

the wild. Grizzly bears are light brown 

to nearly black and are so named for 

their ‘‘grizzled’’ coats with silver or 

golden tips. Grizzly bears are a member 

of the brown bear species (U. arctos) 

that occurs in North America, Europe, 

and Asia. The subspecies U. a. horribilis 

is limited to North America and is the 

subspecies that occurs in the lower-48 

States (Rausch 1963, p. 43; Servheen 

1999, pp. 50–53). Grizzly bears have 

three life stages: dependent young, 

subadults, and adults. 

Habitat and Range 

Grizzly bears use a variety of habitats 

(LeFranc et al. 1987, p. 120). In general, 

a grizzly bear’s individual habitat needs 

and daily movements are largely driven 

by the search for food, water, mates, 

cover, security, or den sites. The 

available habitat for bears is also 

influenced by people and their 

activities. Adult grizzly bears are 

normally solitary except when breeding 

or when females have dependent young 

(Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. 971), but 

they are not territorial and home ranges 

of adult bears frequently overlap 

(Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 565–566). 

Home range size is highly variable and 

is affected by resource availability, 

habitat quality, sex, age, and 

reproductive status (LeFranc et al. 1987, 

p. 31; Blanchard and Knight 1991, pp. 

48–51; Mace and Waller 1997, p. 48). 

Grizzly bears hibernate in winter; 

hibernation is a life-history strategy that 

bears use to cope with seasons of low 

food abundance. 

Adult bears are 4 years old or older 

when they reach sexual maturity, 

although some bears may not breed 

until they are older. Mating occurs from 

May through July (Craighead and 

Mitchell 1982, p. 522; Nowak and 

Paradiso 1983, p. 971); however, their 

fertilized embryos do not implant into 

the uterus for further development until 

late fall. Cubs are born in the den in late 

January or early February and nurse for 

3 to 4 months inside the den. Offspring 

typically remain with the female for 

about 2.5 years. Reproduction may be 

related to nutritional state and/or 

density-dependent effects (Stringham 

1990, p. 433; McLellan 1994, p. 20; 

Hilderbrand et al. 1999, pp. 135–136; 

Schwartz et al. 2006c, p. 21; van Manen 

et al. 2016, pp. 307–308; Hilderbrand et 

al. 2019, pp. 115–116). Grizzly bears 

have one of the slowest reproductive 

rates among terrestrial mammals 

(Nowak and Paradiso 1983, p. 971; 

Schwartz et al. 2003, p. 564), and it may 

take a female grizzly bear 10 or more 

years to replace herself in a population 

(Service 1993, p. 4). 

The lower-48 States provides highly 

diverse landscapes containing a wide 

array of habitat types and bear foods 

across and within the ecosystems. 

Grizzly bears are opportunistic 

omnivores and display great diet 

plasticity within and across populations 

(Edwards et al. 2011, pp. 883–886), 

shifting their diet according to foods 

that are most nutritious (i.e., high in fat, 

protein, and/or carbohydrates) and 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4240 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

available (Mealey 1980, pp. 284–291; 

Servheen 1981, pp. 99–102; Kendall 

1986, pp. 12–18; Mace and Jonkel 1986, 

p. 108; Martinka and Kendall 1986, pp. 

21–22; LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 111–114; 

Aune and Kasworm 1989, pp. 63–71; 

Kasworm and Thier 1993, pp. 38–41; 

McLellan and Hovey 1995, pp. 706–709; 

Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 568–569; Van 

Daele et al. 2012, pp. 25–27; Gunther et 

al. 2014, p. 65). The ability to use 

whatever food resources are available is 

likely one reason brown bears are the 

most widely distributed bear species in 

the world, occupying habitats from 

deserts to alpine mountains and 

everything in between. This ability to 

live in a variety of habitats and eat a 

wide array of foods makes grizzly bears 

a generalist species. 

Recovery Criteria 

Section 4(f) of the Act directs us to 

develop and implement recovery plans 

for the conservation and survival of 

endangered and threatened species 

unless we determine that such a plan 

will not promote the conservation of the 

species. Under section 4(f)(1)(B)(ii), 

recovery plans must, to the maximum 

extent practicable, include objective, 

measurable criteria that, when met, 

would result in a determination, in 

accordance with provisions of section 4 

of the Act, that the species be removed 

from the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 

Recovery plans provide a roadmap for 

us and our partners on methods of 

enhancing conservation and minimizing 

threats to listed species, as well as 

measurable criteria against which to 

evaluate progress towards recovery and 

assess the species’ likely future 

condition. However, they are not 

regulatory documents and do not 

substitute for the determinations and 

promulgation of regulations required 

under section 4(a)(1) of the Act. A 

decision to revise the status of a species 

or to delist a species is ultimately based 

on an analysis of the best scientific and 

commercial data available to determine 

whether a species is no longer an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, regardless of whether that 

information differs from the recovery 

plan. 

There are many paths to 

accomplishing recovery of a species, 

and recovery may be achieved without 

all of the criteria in a recovery plan 

being fully met. For example, one or 

more criteria may be exceeded while 

other criteria may not yet be 

accomplished. In that instance, we may 

determine that the threats are 

minimized sufficiently and that the 

species is robust enough that it no 

longer meets the Act’s definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species. In other cases, we may discover 

new recovery opportunities after having 

finalized the recovery plan. Parties 

seeking to conserve the species may use 

these opportunities instead of methods 

identified in the recovery plan. 

Likewise, we may learn new 

information about the species after we 

finalize the recovery plan. The new 

information may change the extent to 

which existing criteria are appropriate 

for identifying recovery of the species. 

The recovery of a species is a dynamic 

process requiring adaptive management 

that may, or may not, follow all of the 

guidance provided in a recovery plan. 

The 1993 recovery plan for the grizzly 

bear, and subsequent supplements, 

identified six recovery ecosystems, each 

containing a recovery zone at its core, 

within the lower-48 States thought to be 

capable of supporting grizzly bears 

(Service 1993, pp. 10–13, 17–18). 

Today, current grizzly bear distribution 

is primarily within and around four of 

these areas identified as recovery zones. 

The current recovery plan states an 

objective of ‘‘delisting each of the 

remaining populations by population as 

they achieve the recovery targets’’ 

(USFWS 1993, pp. ii, 33–34). The 

recovery plan outlines three 

demographic recovery criteria for each 

ecosystem. We updated the GYE 

demographic recovery criteria in 2007, 

and again in 2017, to reflect the best 

available science, including expansion 

of mortality limits in the third criterion 

to include total mortality (in their 

entirety: Service 2007b, 2017). 

Due to a settlement agreement in 

Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 967 

F.Supp. 6 (D.D.C. 1997) regarding the 

1993 recovery plan, the Service agreed 

to establish habitat-based recovery 

criteria for each ecosystem prior to 

publishing any proposed rule to delist 

that grizzly bear population. In addition, 

the Service agreed to convene a 

workshop during the public comment 

period on the draft habitat-based 

recovery criteria. Habitat-based recovery 

criteria were published as supplemental 

chapters to the 1993 recovery plan for 

the GYE and the NCDE in 2007 and 

2018, respectively (in their entirety: 

Service 2007a, 2018). As explained in 

detail in our SSA report, because of the 

inability to calculate minimum habitat 

values for a recovered population, we 

use a ‘‘no net loss’’ approach by 

assessing which habitat factors are 

compatible with a stable to increasing 

grizzly bear population (Service 2024, 

pp. 79–82, 87–89). 

The following discussion provides a 

summary and assessment of the 

recovery criteria as they relate to 

evaluating the status of the species. 

Further details about the progress 

toward achieving recovery criteria can 

be found in our SSA report (Service 

2024, pp. 80–100). 

Habitat-Based Recovery Criteria 

For both the GYE and NCDE, habitatbased recovery criteria define threshold 

levels for habitat security (areas with no 

motorized access; ‘‘secure core’’ in the 

NCDE and ‘‘secure habitat’’ in the GYE, 

as defined in appendix B in the SSA 

report (Service 2024)), livestock 

allotments, and developed sites as their 

habitat-based recovery criteria (Service 

2007a, pp. 2–6; Service 2018, pp. 5–8; 

Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee 

(YES) 2024, chapter 3 and appendix E). 

These habitat-based recovery criteria 

have been met or improved upon since 

their incorporation into the recovery 

plan for both the GYE and NCDE (in 

their entirety: Service 2007a, 2018; Ake 

2022, 2023a, 2023b; Grizzly Bear Habitat 

Monitoring Team 2024). The Service has 

not yet developed habitat-based 

recovery criteria for the remaining 

ecosystems. 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 1 

The first criterion establishes a 

minimum population size through the 

monitoring of females with cubs. In the 

GYE, this criterion has been met since 

2003, with an estimated 87 females with 

cubs and 1,030 individuals in 2023 

(Gould et al. 2024c, in prep.). A new 

trend monitoring program was 

implemented in the NCDE in 2004 

because documenting females with cubs 

from visual observations is limited due 

to the forested nature of the NCDE (see 

Mortality Limits in the SSA report for 

further details; Service 2024, pp. 176– 

178). Based on the new methods, the 

population in the NCDE has likely met 

this criterion since at least 2004, with an 

estimated 1,163 individuals in 2023 

(Costello et al. 2024, in prep.). Although 

progress has been made towards 

recovery in the CYE, this criterion has 

not yet been met. In 2023, there were an 

estimated 70 bears in the CYE, below 

the target of 100 bears (Kasworm et al. 

2024a, p. 43). The SE, due to its small 

size in the United States, is the only 

population where the population 

criterion (90 bears) spans the U.S.- 

Canada border. In the U.S. portion of the 

SE, there were a minimum of 51 bears 

as of 2023 (Kasworm et al. 2024b, p. 21). 

There were an estimated 69 bears in the 

Canadian portion of the SE population 

as of 2021 (Proctor et al. 2022, p. 2). 

However, the U.S. and British Columbia 

(B.C). population estimates for the SE 

are not exclusive because numerous 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4241 

bears overlap their home ranges; 

therefore, adding the estimates together 

would cause some double counting. An 

effort to integrate the population 

estimates from the U.S. and B.C. 

portions of the SE is ongoing. There is 

no known population in either the BE 

or North Cascades; therefore, this 

criterion has not been met for all 

ecosystems. 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 2 

The second criterion ensures 

reproductive females (i.e., females with 

young) are well distributed across the 

recovery zone, as measured by bear 

management units (BMUs), and are not 

concentrated in one portion of the 

ecosystem. In the GYE, this recovery 

criterion has been met since at least 

2001, with 18 of 18 BMUs occupied by 

females with young for the most recent 

6-year period of 2018–2023. In the 

NCDE, this recovery criterion has been 

met since at least 2009, with 23 of 23 

BMUs occupied by females with young 

for the most recent 6-year period of 

2018–2023. In the SE, this recovery 

criterion has been met since at least 

2014, with 9 of 10 BMUs occupied by 

females with young for the most recent 

6-year period of 2018–2023. Although 

progress has been made towards 

recovery in the CYE, this criterion has 

not yet been met. There is no known 

population in either the BE or North 

Cascades; therefore, this criterion has 

not been met for all ecosystems. 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 3 

The third criterion outlines annual 

human-caused mortality limits that 

would allow the population to achieve 

and sustain recovery. In 2017, this 

criterion was revised for the GYE to 

implement new scientific methods to 

estimate the population size and 

determine sustainable total mortality 

limits. In the GYE, this recovery 

criterion has been met for all age and 

sex classes since 2021. A new 

population estimation framework, an 

integrated population model (IPM), was 

implemented in 2022, which replaces 

the model-averaged Chao2 population 

estimation method (Gould et al. 2024a, 

entire). Demographic recovery criterion 

3 relies on the model-averaged Chao2 

method; therefore, we cannot assess the 

mortality limits as set forth in the 

recovery plan. However, mortality rates 

in 2023 for independent females, 

independent males, and dependent 

young were consistent with a 

population growth rate from 2020 to 

2023 of 3.4 percent. Therefore, the GYE 

grizzly bear population has likely met 

the intent of this demographic recovery 

criterion. 

In the NCDE, human-caused mortality 

has been below the threshold since 

2009, but the female proportion of 

human-caused mortality was above the 

threshold in 2021, 2022, and 2023. Even 

though the female mortality exceeded 

the criterion in these three years, the 

NCDE likely meets the intent of this 

criterion. In 1993, the mortality limits 

were set conservatively to compensate 

for unknown/unreported mortality, 

which we now have the ability to 

estimate (NCDE Subcommittee 2020, 

chapter 2 and appendix 2). The NCDE 

conservation strategy implements a 

methodology that includes an estimate 

of total reported and unreported (TRU) 

mortality, which includes known and 

probable mortality from all causes (i.e., 

human-caused, natural, and 

undetermined) as well as an estimate of 

unknown/unreported mortality (using 

the methods of Cherry et al. 2002, 

entire; Costello et al. 2016, p. 29). As 

discussed in the NCDE conservation 

strategy, during the period of 2018– 

2023, TRU mortalities for independent 

females and independent males were 

below the maximum threshold, 

compatible with an annual 2.3 percent 

growth in the population since 2004 

(Costello et al. 2016, p. 2; Costello et al. 

2024, in prep.; Montana Fish, Wildlife 

and Parks (MFWP), unpublished data). 

In the CYE and SE, the known, 

human-caused mortality threshold is 4 

percent of the minimum population 

size, no more than 30 percent of which 

shall be females. In the CYE from 2018– 

2023, the average annual human-caused 

mortality was 1.7 bears per year and 0.5 

female bears per year, which exceeds 

the calculated mortality limits for total 

and female bears of 1.4 and 0.4 bears per 

year, respectively. In the SE from 2018– 

2023, the average annual human-caused 

mortality was 2.0 bears per year and 0.5 

female bears per year, which is at or 

below both the total and female 

mortality limits of 2.0 and 0.6 bears per 

year, respectively. Although progress 

has been made towards recovery in the 

CYE and SE, and this threshold has 

been met in some recent years, this 

criterion has not been met consistently. 

There is no known population in either 

the BE or North Cascades; therefore, this 

criterion has not been met for all 

ecosystems. 

Recovery Criteria Applicability to the 

Grizzly Bear DPS 

The 1993 recovery plan identified six 

recovery areas (GYE, NCDE, CYE, SE, 

BE, and North Cascades), and 

recommended further evaluation of 

other potential areas to determine 

recovery potential (Service 1993, pp. 11, 

15–16, 121). As discussed below in 

‘‘Areas Where Bears Do Not or Are 

Unlikely To Occur,’’ the Service has 

completed this analysis, focusing on 

habitat security in the historical range 

outside of the six ecosystems (see 

Service 2024, appendix A, for further 

details). Given this analysis, the 

Service’s approach to grizzly bear 

recovery under the Act is focused on, 

and will continue to be focused on, the 

current six ecosystems, and additional 

areas, such as the San Juan Mountains 

and other mountain ranges in the West, 

are not needed to recover the species. 

The current condition of the grizzly 

bear in the lower-48 States partially 

meets the recovery criteria set forth in 

the 1993 recovery plan and its 

supplements. Demographic criteria have 

been met for the GYE and NCDE 

populations and have been partially met 

for the CYE and SE populations, but the 

BE and North Cascades are functionally 

extirpated. Habitat-based recovery 

criteria have been met where they have 

been developed (i.e., for the GYE and 

NCDE populations), but they have not 

yet been developed for the other four 

ecosystems. 

In recent decades, the amount of 

available science regarding the grizzly 

bear has increased, including 

knowledge about the species and its 

associated threats. For example, 

minimum population sizes (i.e., 

Demographic Recovery Criterion 1) did 

not consider long-term genetic health 

and population connectivity. 

Furthermore, the recovery zone 

boundaries and the application of 

annual human-caused mortality limits 

within them (i.e., Demographic 

Recovery Criterion 3) did not reflect the 

need for natural connectivity that may 

be necessary for the long-term genetic 

health of small or isolated populations 

in order for populations to be selfsustaining. As such, although we are not 

required to do so under the Act, we 

expect to revise the recovery plan for 

the grizzly bear in the future. 

Distinct Population Segment 

Pursuant to the Act, we must consider 

for listing any species, subspecies, or, 

for vertebrates, any DPS of these taxa, if 

there is sufficient information to 

indicate that such action may be 

warranted. To interpret and implement 

the DPS provision of the Act and 

Congressional guidance, the Service and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service 

published an interagency ‘‘Policy 

Regarding the Recognition of Distinct 

Population Segments under the Act’’ 

(DPS Policy; 61 FR 4722, February 7, 

1996). The DPS Policy addresses the 

recognition of DPSs for potential listing 

actions. The DPS Policy contemplates 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4242 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

that listing DPSs, when appropriate, 

will help focus conservation efforts on 

populations that warrant protection 

under the Act while avoiding 

unnecessary regulations in other parts of 

the taxon’s range. 

Under our DPS Policy, three elements 

are considered in a decision regarding 

the status of a possible DPS as an 

endangered or threatened species under 

the Act. These are applied similarly for 

additions to the Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists), 

reclassification, and removal from the 

Lists. They are: (1) Discreteness of the 

population segment in relation to the 

remainder of the taxon; (2) the 

biological or ecological significance of 

the population segment to the taxon to 

which it belongs; and (3) the population 

segment’s conservation status in relation 

to the Act’s standards for listing (i.e., 

whether the population segment is, 

when treated as if it were a species or 

subspecies, an endangered or threatened 

species). Discreteness refers to the 

degree of isolation of a population from 

other members of the species, and we 

evaluate this factor based on specific 

criteria. If the population segment is 

considered discrete, we must consider 

whether the discrete segment is 

‘‘significant’’ to the taxon to which it 

belongs by using the best scientific and 

commercial data available. When 

determining if a potential DPS is 

significant, our policy directs us to 

sparingly list DPSs while encouraging 

the conservation of genetic diversity. If 

we determine that a population segment 

is both discrete and significant, we then 

evaluate it for endangered or threatened 

species status based on the Act’s 

standards. 

Distinct Population Segment Analysis 

for Grizzly Bear in the Contiguous 

United States 

Background 

As discussed above in Previous 

Federal Actions, the listing of the 

grizzly bear as a threatened species in 

the lower-48 States occurred before the 

publication of our DPS Policy on 

February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722). 

However, consistent with our DPS 

Policy, we evaluate the application of 

the DPS policy on a case-by-case basis 

if we consider revising a species’ listing 

status, and in our 5-year reviews under 

section 4(c)(2) of the Act (61 FR 4722 at 

4725, February 7, 1996). The 1975 

grizzly bear listing was intended 

primarily to conserve grizzly bears in 

those areas where they occurred at that 

time, and to protect any individual 

bears found in other parts of the lower48 States. It was not an indication that 

grizzly bears were present in all areas 

covered by the listing, or that the 

Service intended to recover them 

throughout the lower-48 United States. 

In fact, grizzly bears did not historically 

occur in the eastern United States and 

have long been extirpated from a large 

percentage of their historical range in 

the lower-48 States. Thus, the 1975 

listing of grizzly bears in the ‘‘U.S.A., 

conterminous (lower 48) States’’ does 

not reflect where grizzly bears occur 

now and are expected to occur in the 

future as they recover. 

In this proposed rule, we are 

evaluating the currently listed entity of 

grizzly bears in the lower-48 States 

under the DPS Policy and revising the 

current listing to: (1) include all existing 

grizzly bear populations within the 

lower-48 States; (2) include any 

designated experimental populations; 

(3) encompass areas where the grizzly 

bear’s range may naturally expand in 

the future; and (4) use landscape or 

anthropogenic features (e.g., highways) 

or administrative boundaries (e.g., State 

boundary) to clearly define the DPS 

boundary for the public. Areas outside 

of historical range of the subspecies and 

areas within historical range that are no 

longer suitable to support a grizzly bear 

population due to human development 

would not be part of a revised grizzly 

bear DPS (see below, ‘‘Areas Where 

Bears Do Not or Are Unlikely To 

Occur’’). 

Proposed DPS Boundaries 

We are proposing to revise the 

existing lower-48 State grizzly bear 

listing by defining the DPS with the 

boundary depicted below in figure 2 for 

the reasons articulated in Previous 

Federal Actions and ‘‘Background,’’ 

above. 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4243 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–C 

The proposed grizzly bear DPS 

includes all of the State of Washington 

and portions of the States of Idaho, 

Montana, and Wyoming. The northwest 

point of the northern boundary begins at 

the western terminus of the coterminous 

U.S.-Canada border near Blaine, 

Washington, and follows the 

international border east to its 

intersection with Montana Highway 

(MT) 16. The eastern boundary follows 

MT–16 from the Canadian border south 

to the intersection with Interstate (I) 94 

near Glendive, Montana; then continues 

south along I–94 to the intersection with 

MT–47 in between Custer and Bighorn, 

Montana; then follows MT–47 south to 

the intersection with I–90 in Harden, 

Montana; then continues south along I– 

90 to the intersection with U.S. 

Highway (Hwy) 25 in Buffalo, 

Wyoming; then follows Hwy 25 south to 

the intersection with Wyoming Highway 

(WY) 220 in Casper, Wyoming; then 

continues south to the intersection with 

WY–287 near Three Forks, Wyoming; 

then follows WY–287 south to the 

intersection with I–80 in Rawlins, 

Wyoming. The southern boundary 

follows I–80 west from the southeastern 

point in Rawlins, Wyoming, to the 

intersection with Hwy 30, at which 

point it continues west on Hwy 30 to 

the intersection with the Snake River 

near Pocatello, Idaho, where it follows 

the Snake River west and north until it 

intersects with the Washington State 

line. The boundary then follows the 

Washington State line west to the 

Pacific Ocean. The western boundary 

follows the Washington coastline north 

to the U.S.-Canada border at Blaine, 

Washington. 

The proposed grizzly bear DPS 

boundary encompasses all six grizzly 

bear recovery zones (GYE, NCDE, CYE, 

BE, North Cascades, and the U.S. 

portion of the SE), as well as important 

connectivity habitat between the 

recovery zones (USFWS 1993, p. 11; 

Sells et al. 2023, p. 6; Service 2024, p. 

60). These areas include large amounts 

of public lands, including several 

national forests (Shoshone, BeaverheadDeerlodge, Bridger-Teton, CaribouTarghee, Custer-Gallatin, Flathead, 

Helena-Lewis and Clark, Mt. BakerSnoqualmie, Gifford Pinchot, 

Wenatchee, Okanogan, Colville, 

Kootenai, Idaho Panhandle, Lolo, Nez 

Perce-Clearwater, Bitterroot, Payette, 

Salmon-Challis, Boise, Sawtooth, and 

Caribou-Targhee national forests (NFs)), 

several national parks (Yellowstone 

National Park (YNP), Grand Teton 

National Park (GTNP), Glacier National 

Park (GNP), and NCNP Complex), 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

lands, Tribal lands, and State and 

private lands. As discussed below in 

‘‘Areas Where Bears Do Not or Are 

Unlikely To Occur,’’ the proposed 

grizzly bear DPS boundary includes all 

habitat in the lower-48 States that is 

suitable for supporting self-sustaining 

grizzly bear populations. 

Areas Where Bears Do Not or Are 

Unlikely To Occur 

Grizzly bears are currently listed as 

they were originally listed in 1975 (40 

FR 31734, July 28, 1975), as a threatened 

species in the lower-48 States (see 50 

CFR 17.11(h)). The 1975 listing was 

intended primarily to ensure the 

species’ conservation where grizzly 

bears were thought to occur at the time 

of listing and to protect any members of 

the species occurring elsewhere in the 

lower-48 States. However, this broadly 

described listing created confusion 

because it includes areas outside the 

historical and current range of the 

grizzly bear. Grizzly bears historically 

existed throughout all or portions of 

only 18 western States (i.e., Washington, 

Oregon, California, Idaho, Montana, 

Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, New 

Mexico, Arizona, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, 

Oklahoma, and Texas) (Servheen 1989, 

pp. 1–2; USFWS 1993, p. 9; Servheen 

1999, pp. 50–51; Haroldson et al. 2021, 

pp. 163, 165). To ensure that grizzly 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3EP15JA25.032</GPH>

ALBERTA SASKATCHEWAN 

OREGON 

~ Recovery Zones Miles O 35 70 140 2.IO 280 

WYOMING 

IZ:::I Proposed DI'S Boundary a:M Kilometers O 50 IOO 200 300 400 

Figure 2-Map of the proposed distinct population segment (DPS) of grizzly bears in the contiguous United States (the 

"grizzly bear DPS") and recovery zone boundaries. 
4244 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

bears are designated on the List as a 

valid listable entity, we are proposing to 

revise the current listing to recognize a 

DPS and are defining the boundaries of 

the DPS based on biological principles 

and the best scientific and commercial 

data available. 

The proposed DPS boundary 

encompasses 800,116 square kilometers 

(km2) (308,926 square miles (mi2)) or 26 

percent of historical range circa 1850 

(Haroldson et al. 2021, pp. 163, 165). 

Historically, grizzly bears were probably 

most common in the Rocky Mountains, 

along the Upper Missouri River, and in 

California (Storer and Tevis 1955, pp. 

15–21; Schneider 1977, pp. 15, 17, 25– 

36; Mattson and Merrill 2002, pp. 1125, 

1127–1128; Haroldson et al. 2021, pp. 

163, 165). Grizzly bears were less 

common or did not occur in large 

expanses of the North American deserts 

and Great Plains ecoregions (Rollins 

1935, p. 191; Wade 1947, p. 444; 

Mattson and Merrill 2002, p. 1128; 

Haroldson et al. 2021, pp. 163, 165). 

Large portions of the remaining 

historical range are no longer suitable 

habitat. Grizzly bears have experienced 

immense loss of historical range 

primarily due to human persecution and 

reduction of habitat (Roosevelt 1907, pp. 

27–28; Wright 1909, p. vii; Storer and 

Tevis 1955, pp. 26–27; Leopold 1967, p. 

30; Koford 1969, p. 95; Craighead and 

Mitchell 1982, p. 516; Servheen 1999, 

pp. 50–51). Many grizzly bear habitats 

within the species’ historical range have 

been permanently developed and 

converted into agricultural land (Woods 

et al. 1999, entire). Traditional food 

sources, such as bison and elk, have 

been reduced, eliminated, or replaced 

with domestic livestock, such as cattle, 

sheep, chickens, goats, pigs, and 

agricultural products. Consequently, 

numerous large areas within the lower48 States that historically supported 

grizzly bear populations are no longer 

suitable for grizzly bears. 

In 1993, the recovery plan identified 

six recovery areas (GYE, NCDE, CYE, 

SE, BE, and North Cascades), and 

recommended further evaluation of 

other potential areas to determine 

recovery potential (Service 1993, pp. 11, 

15–16, 121). The San Juan Mountains 

were specifically identified for further 

evaluation, but no confirmed sightings 

of grizzly bears have occurred there 

since a grizzly bear mortality in 1979 

(Service 1993, p. 11). The recovery plan 

recommended conducting an evaluation 

of these areas to focus on habitat values, 

size of area, human use and activities in 

general, relation to other areas where 

grizzly bears exist, and historical 

information (Service 1993, p. 121). The 

Service conducted this analysis as 

documented in the SSA report, focusing 

on habitat security in historical range 

outside of the six ecosystems in 2019– 

2020, which we summarize here 

(Service 2024, appendix A). 

The most crucial element in grizzly 

bear recovery is habitat security, which 

is primarily influenced by motorized 

access management (USFWS 1993, pp. 

21–22; Craighead and Mitchell 1982, p. 

530). Unmanaged motorized access 

increases grizzly bear mortality risk and 

the potential for displacement from 

important habitat. For this reason, 

habitat-based recovery criteria for both 

the NCDE and GYE recovery zones 

include threshold levels for secure 

habitat (areas with no motorized access) 

(Service 2007a, entire; Service 2018, 

entire; Service 2024, pp. 80–82, 87–89). 

The recovery plan also recommended 

that areas to be considered for grizzly 

bear recovery must have the potential to 

sustain themselves as viable grizzly bear 

populations, either as large populations 

or through connectivity to other 

populations (Service 1982, p. 1; Service 

1993, pp. 13, 15, 24, 121). Therefore, our 

evaluation of potentially suitable 

habitats considered habitat security 

(roads) and size, human population 

density, land ownership (Federal, State, 

and Tribal), historical range, and the 

potential to maintain a self-sustaining 

population. 

We analyzed habitat security within 

mapped historical grizzly bear range 

circa 1850 (Mattson and Merrill 2002, p. 

1125). The largest area of secure core/ 

habitat within the grizzly bear’s 

historical range outside of the six 

recovery ecosystems (NCDE, GYE, North 

Cascades, BE, SE, and CYE) is the Sierra 

Nevada Mountain Range in California. 

We further analyzed the Sierra Nevada 

Range to determine if the area contains 

enough habitat security to support an 

isolated grizzly bear population. We 

also analyzed habitat security in the San 

Juan Mountains as recommended in the 

recovery plan (Service 1993, pp. 16, 

121). Finally, we considered the 

potential of these areas to maintain a 

self-sustaining population by examining 

potential population size and the future 

ability of individuals to move between 

ecosystems (e.g., potential for 

connectivity), including distance from 

existing grizzly bear populations and 

potential barriers to dispersal (Service 

1993, pp. 13, 24, 121). Details of this 

analysis can be found in our SSA report 

(Service 2024, appendix A). 

To compare the amount of habitat 

security in the Sierra Nevada and San 

Juan mountains with habitat security in 

recovery zones, we calculated secure 

core using the definition used in the 

NCDE and secure habitat using the 

definition used in the GYE (see 

appendix B in the SSA report for those 

definitions (Service 2024)). The Sierra 

Nevada Mountains consists of 52,531 

km2 (20,282 mi2) of habitat, of which 76 

percent (39,872 km2 (15,395 mi2)) is 

Federal, State, and Tribal lands. Fortythree percent of these Federal, State, 

and Tribal lands is secure core, and 47 

percent is secure habitat. The San Juan 

Mountains analysis area consists of 

26,512 km2 (10,236 mi2) of habitat, of 

which 82 percent (21,636 km2 (8,354 

mi2)) is Federal, State, and Tribal lands. 

Fifty-two percent of these Federal, State, 

and Tribal lands is secure core, and 56 

percent is secure habitat. We note that 

the specific boundary and size of 

analysis areas influence the percent of 

secure core and secure habitat. Our 

selection of these boundaries was based 

primarily on the presence of large 

continuous patches of Federal lands and 

political boundaries; however, the 

analysis areas also include some patches 

of land that are primarily private land 

or checkerboards of private and public 

land. 

These percentages of secure core and 

secure habitat in the Sierra Nevada (43 

and 47 percent, respectively) and San 

Juan Mountains (52 and 56 percent, 

respectively) are significantly lower 

than the percentages in the GYE and 

NCDE recovery zones (NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020, appendix 4; YES 

2024, appendix E). Secure habitat 

averages 85.6 percent of the recovery 

zone in the GYE (YES 2024, appendix 

E), and secure core averages 76.4 

percent of the recovery zone in the 

NCDE (NCDE Subcommittee 2020, 

appendix 4). The total amount of public 

access to Federal, State, and Tribal 

lands in the Sierra Nevada and San Juan 

Mountains is high, and we would 

expect resultant high human-caused 

mortality levels and habitat 

displacement (McLellan and Shackleton 

1988, pp. 458–459; McLellan 1989, pp. 

1862–1864; Mace et al. 1996, pp. 1402– 

1403; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661). 

The Sierra Nevada and San Juan 

Mountains are larger in area than either 

the CYE or SE recovery zones and could 

be large enough to support a population 

of grizzly bears. However, natural 

recolonization of these areas is unlikely 

because of the distance from existing 

grizzly bear populations. The Sierra 

Nevada and San Juan Mountain ranges 

are very far (a minimum of 1,000 km 

(621 mi) and 620 km (385 mi), 

respectively) from current grizzly bear 

populations. Maximum dispersal 

distances of 67–176 km (42–109 mi) for 

males have been documented in the 

GYE and NCDE (Blanchard and Knight 

1991, pp. 50, 55; McLellan and Hovey 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4245 

2001, p. 841; Peck et al. 2017, p. 2), 

while female grizzly bears rarely 

disperse long distances (Swenson et al. 

1998, pp. 822–824; Jerina and Adamicˇ

2008, pp. 1495–1497). Recolonization 

and recovery of a new area would 

require continuous occupation by 

females, which is unlikely to occur in 

areas at great distance from existing 

populations. 

Additionally, the areas between the 

Sierra Nevada and San Juan Mountain 

ranges and current populations include 

large blocks of rangeland with open 

canopy coverage, agriculture, and 

private lands, and are bisected by 

several major highways and interstates. 

Increasing human development will 

increase these barriers in the future. 

Thus, the likelihood of even one male 

bear successfully immigrating from 

existing populations to these areas is 

minimal, and it is even more unlikely 

that a population would naturally 

recolonize and become self-sustaining. 

One or more populations of grizzly 

bears could be established through 

reintroduction. However, neither of 

these areas is large enough to sustain a 

sufficient number of bears to maintain 

long-term fitness, and ongoing 

translocations would likely be needed to 

ensure long-term genetic health. A total 

population size of approximately 400 

grizzly bears is sufficient for short-term 

fitness of an isolated population (Miller 

and Waits 2003, p. 4338). For long-term 

genetic health, the population would 

require one to two effective immigrants 

from one of the other established grizzly 

bear populations approximately every 

10 years (e.g., a generation interval) 

(Mills and Allendorf 1996, pp. 1510, 

1516; Newman and Tallmon 2001, pp. 

1059–1061; Miller and Waits 2003, p. 

4338). Even if a population were 

reintroduced, there is a very low 

likelihood of natural connectivity to 

existing populations, which is needed 

for the reintroduced population to 

maintain long-term genetic fitness and 

become self-sustaining (Service 1982, p. 

1; Service 1993, pp. 13, 24). 

Although other grizzly bear 

populations and unoccupied recovery 

zones included in the lower-48 States, 

such as the GYE, North Cascades, and 

BE, are currently isolated, they are 

within male dispersal distance of 

existing populations, and connectivity 

is possible. In addition, with the 

expansion of the NCDE population, the 

BE is within female dispersal distance. 

Although the GYE grizzly bear 

population remains isolated today, the 

distance between current distributions 

of grizzly bears in the GYE and NCDE 

has decreased recently, and 

distributions are now close (98 km (61 

mi)) (see figure 1, above; Costello et al. 

2023, p. 14; Dellinger et al. 2023, p. 23), 

with multiple verified sightings in 

between. It is expected that, with the 

continued protections of the Act, 

natural connectivity will occur in the 

near future (see Connectivity and 

Genetic Health in the GYE in the SSA 

report for more information (Service 

2024, pp. 187–190)). 

The SE and CYE are small recovery 

zones and do not have the potential to 

contain 400 bears. However, both 

recovery zones are contiguous with 

grizzly bear habitat northward into 

Canada, and a recovered population 

would be a subset of a much larger 

population. Bears can and do move 

between these recovery zones and 

contiguous habitat to the north in 

Canada, thereby enabling demographic 

connectivity and long-term genetic 

fitness. 

Our initial analysis indicated other 

areas within the grizzly bear’s historical 

range that currently contain substantial 

secure habitat, such as the Uinta and 

Mogollon mountains in the 

southwestern United States (Juliusson 

2019, in litt.). However, each of these 

areas is smaller than the Sierra Nevada 

and San Juan mountains and has the 

same limiting factors that would most 

likely prevent them from supporting a 

self-sustaining population, including 

low amounts of secure core, extremely 

low potential of connectivity to existing 

grizzly bear populations due to high 

human densities, transecting highways 

and interstates, agriculture, lack of 

cover, and high densities of motorized 

routes. Therefore, we did not further 

analyze these other areas. 

In conclusion, this proposed revision 

clarifies the original 1975 listing for 

grizzly bears by identifying a single DPS 

comprised of those areas within the 

lower-48 States where bears currently 

occur and are likely to occur in the 

future as recovery proceeds. The 

proposed DPS includes all six grizzly 

bear recovery zones, along with 

connectivity habitat between the 

recovery zones. The proposed grizzly 

bear DPS boundary does not include: (1) 

areas outside of historical range; (2) 

areas where bears do not currently 

occur; and (3) areas where bears are not 

likely to occur in the future. 

Analysis of Discreteness 

Under our DPS Policy, a population 

segment of a vertebrate species may be 

considered discrete if it satisfies either 

one of the following conditions: (1) It is 

markedly separated from other 

populations of the same taxon as a 

consequence of physical, physiological, 

ecological, or behavioral factors 

(quantitative measures of genetic or 

morphological discontinuity may 

provide evidence of this separation); or 

(2) it is delimited by international 

governmental boundaries within which 

differences in control of exploitation, 

management of habitat, conservation 

status, or regulatory mechanisms exist 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act (inadequacy of 

existing regulatory mechanisms). 

Discreteness Based on Marked 

Separation—In our SSA report, we 

analyzed connectivity between 

populations within the lower-48 States 

and between populations within the 

lower-48 States and those in Canada. 

Grizzly bears have been documented 

moving between the NCDE, CYE, and SE 

populations and adjacent populations in 

southwestern Canada (Paetkau et al. 

1998, p. 412; Kendall et al. 2009, p. 12; 

Proctor et al. 2012, pp. 12, 20–21, 39; 

Kasworm et al. 2024a, pp. 34, 76–112; 

Kasworm et al. 2024b, pp. 24, 61–79). 

The NCDE population is genetically and 

demographically well connected to 

Canadian populations (Proctor et al. 

2012, p. 28). However, connectivity 

between the CYE and SE populations 

with those in Canada is more limited. 

Reproduction has been documented in 

the CYE from 9 individuals (8 males, 1 

female) from the North Purcell 

Mountains in Canada, resulting in 26 

offspring in the CYE (Kasworm et al. 

2024a, p. 34). In the SE, reproduction 

has been documented for 5 individuals 

(4 males, 1 female) from the South 

Purcell Mountains, resulting in 25 

offspring in the SE (Proctor et al. 2022, 

p. 25; Kasworm et al. 2024b, p. 24). For 

more information, see Connectivity and 

Genetic Health in our SSA report 

(Service 2024, pp. 182–197). 

Several studies have documented 

genetic differences between grizzly 

bears in some populations in the grizzly 

bear DPS, including the GYE and SE, 

and other populations in North America 

(Paetkau et al. 1998, pp. 421–424; Waits 

et al. 1998, p. 310; Proctor et al. 2012, 

pp. 12, 31). However, these differences 

are likely a result of recent habitat 

fragmentation rather than long-term 

isolation that resulted in the evolution 

of unique traits (Proctor et al. 2012, p. 

35). Please see Marked Genetic 

Differences, below, for further 

discussion. 

Therefore, we find that there are no 

physical, physiological, ecological, or 

behavioral factors separating grizzly 

bears in the contiguous United States 

from grizzly bears in Canada. We do not 

consider grizzly bears in the contiguous 

United States to be genetically or 

morphologically discontinuous from 

grizzly bears in Canada, as existing 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4246 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

genetic data support that Canadian 

grizzly bears are connected to the 

populations in the NCDE, CYE, and SE. 

Therefore, grizzly bears in the 

contiguous United States are not 

discrete based on marked separation 

from other populations of the same 

taxon. 

We next evaluate whether grizzly bear 

populations in the contiguous United 

States are discrete based on the 

international boundary with Canada. 

Specifically, we consider differences 

between the two countries in terms of 

control of exploitation, management of 

habitat, conservation status, or 

regulatory mechanisms that are 

significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) 

of the Act (inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms). In our analysis 

of discreteness at the international 

border, we compare existing regulatory 

mechanisms in Canada with non-Act 

regulatory mechanisms in the 

contiguous United States. This approach 

ensures that our analyses for listing and 

delisting a species are the same with 

respect to the international border 

discreteness element per our 1996 DPS 

Policy. 

Discreteness Based on the 

International Border—Differences in 

Control of Exploitation—In the absence 

of the protections of the Act, there are 

differences in control of exploitation of 

grizzly bears between the United States 

and Canada. A province-wide ban on 

grizzly bear hunting in B.C. came into 

effect on April 1, 2018. A similar ban on 

grizzly bear hunting was enacted in 

Alberta in 2006; however, hunting of 

potential conflict bears in Alberta 

recently became possible, albeit heavily 

restricted, pursuant to a Ministerial 

Order issued on June 17, 2024. Grizzly 

bear hunting is currently prohibited in 

the proposed grizzly bear DPS. 

However, absent the protections of the 

Act, we anticipate that State-authorized 

hunting seasons would be established in 

Idaho and Wyoming. In addition, 

hunting could occur in Montana within 

5 years post-delisting (Administrative 

Rules of Montana (ARM) subchapter 

12.9.14 at 12.9.1413). We do not 

anticipate grizzly bear hunting would 

occur in Washington in the foreseeable 

future because the population there is 

small and grizzly bears are currently 

listed by the State as an endangered 

species (Washington Administrative 

Code (WAC) at section 220–610–010). 

Discreteness Based on the 

International Border—Differences in 

Conservation Status—There is also a 

difference in conservation status of 

grizzly bears between the United States 

and Canada. The grizzly bear population 

in Canada is estimated at nearly 29,000, 

with the populations of B.C. and Alberta 

estimated at around 15,000 and 700, 

respectively (Service 2024, appendix E, 

p. 343). Grizzly bears throughout 

Canada are designated as a species of 

‘‘special concern’’ by the Canadian 

Committee on the Status of Endangered 

Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) (2012, 

entire) and under the Species at Risk 

Act (SARA) (2018). This designation is 

intended to ensure the species is 

managed to prevent it from becoming 

endangered or threatened. No federal 

protections are provided to them as a 

result of this designation. The 

conservation status of grizzly bears 

varies provincially, with separate 

conservation and management plans for 

each province. 

In B.C., grizzly bears are listed as a 

species of ‘‘special concern’’ by the B.C. 

Conservation Data Center 

(Environmental Reporting B.C. 2020, 

entire). A B.C. grizzly bear conservation 

strategy was prepared but never 

implemented (Office of the Auditor 

General of B.C. 2017, p. 29). In response 

to a 2017 audit, a draft grizzly bear 

stewardship framework was prepared 

and released for public comment in 

2023; it is unknown when it will be 

finalized (B.C. Ministry of Forests 2023, 

entire). 

In Alberta, grizzly bears were listed as 

threatened in 2010, under Alberta’s 

Wildlife Act (Alberta Environment and 

Parks 2020, p. 9). In 2020, Alberta 

updated their provincial grizzly bear 

recovery plan that provides the basis for 

bear conservation and management 

(Alberta Environment and Parks 2020, 

entire). The plan identifies recovery 

zones where the province intends to 

recover bears, support zones to manage 

human-wildlife conflict to support the 

populations within the recovery zones, 

and linkage zones for dispersal (Alberta 

Environment and Parks 2020, p. 10). 

The proposed grizzly bear DPS 

contains far fewer bears than Canada, 

with an estimated population of 2,314 

bears as of 2023 (Costello et al. 2024, in 

prep.; Gould et al. 2024c, in prep.; 

Kasworm et al. 2024a, p. 43; Kasworm 

et al. 2024b, p. 21) versus an 

approximately 29,000 bears in Canada 

(Service 2024, appendix E, p. 343). 

Federal protections under the Act have 

been necessary to reach the current 

population sizes. Absent adequate 

conservation measures, human-caused 

mortality would continue to be a threat 

to grizzly bears in the proposed grizzly 

bear DPS because regulatory 

mechanisms currently in place would 

not adequately limit sources of humancaused mortality to sustainable 

thresholds (see ‘‘Mortality Limits,’’ 

below, for further details). In addition, 

habitat threats, such as motorized access 

and habitat security, remain an issue for 

the NCDE, CYE, SE, and North 

Cascades, where conservation 

mechanisms to address these stressors 

are not yet finalized or standards have 

not been met (see ‘‘Motorized Access,’’ 

below, for further details). 

Discreteness Conclusion—Based on 

our analysis described above and 

supported by information in the grizzly 

bear SSA report (Service 2024, entire), 

the contiguous U.S. population segment 

of grizzly bear meets the discreteness 

criterion in our DPS Policy (61 FR 4722, 

February 7, 1996). It is delimited by the 

international boundary with Canada, 

given the differences in control of 

exploitation and conservation status 

that are significant in light of section 

4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. After determining 

that a vertebrate population is discrete, 

we are required to complete an analysis 

to determine if the population in 

question is significant pursuant to our 

DPS Policy; that analysis follows. 

Analysis of Significance 

If we determine a population segment 

is discrete, we will then consider its 

biological and ecological significance in 

light of Congressional guidance that the 

authority to list DPSs be used sparingly 

while encouraging the conservation of 

genetic diversity. In carrying out this 

examination, we consider available 

scientific evidence of the population’s 

importance to the taxon to which it 

belongs. Therefore, in this case, we 

consider the significance of the 

proposed grizzly bear DPS to the entire 

subspecies (i.e., Ursus arctos horribilis). 

Our DPS Policy states that this 

consideration may include, but is not 

limited to: (1) persistence of the discrete 

population segment in an ecological 

setting unusual or unique for the taxon; 

(2) evidence that loss of the discrete 

population segment would result in a 

significant gap in the range of the taxon; 

(3) evidence that the discrete population 

segment represents the only surviving 

natural occurrence of a taxon that may 

be more abundant elsewhere as an 

introduced population outside its 

historic range; or (4) evidence that the 

discrete population segment differs 

markedly from other populations of the 

species in its genetic characteristics. 

Below, we address considerations 1, 2, 

and 4. Consideration 3 does not apply 

to the proposed grizzly bear DPS 

because grizzly bears are distributed 

widely across Alaska and Canada. 

Given the grizzly bear’s historical 

occupancy of the lower-48 States, 

grizzly bear recovery in the lower-48 

States has long been viewed as 

important to the taxon (40 FR 31734, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4247 

July 28, 1975). As discussed further in 

our SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 231– 

264), the proposed DPS is significant 

because of the resiliency, redundancy, 

and representation it would provide to 

the taxon. Resiliency allows a species to 

recover from periodic disturbance and 

environmental variation. A species is 

more resilient if large populations exist 

in high-quality habitat that is 

distributed throughout the range of the 

species in such a way as to capture the 

environmental variability found within 

the range of the species. The wide 

geographic area over which grizzly bears 

in the proposed grizzly bear DPS exist 

extends the geographic distribution of 

the subspecies and increases the 

viability of grizzly bears in all of North 

America by making it less likely that an 

environmental disturbance or stochastic 

event would impact the entire 

subspecies. For example, grizzly bears 

in the proposed grizzly bear DPS would 

be less vulnerable than more northernly 

populations to a wildfire or a disease 

outbreak that originated in northern B.C. 

Additionally, with stark declines of 

grizzly bears across North America from 

1850–1975, the fact that remnant 

populations exist in these ecosystems 

today demonstrates that these areas 

serve as refugia against human-caused 

mortality. For these reasons, the 

proposed grizzly bear DPS contributes 

to the resiliency of the subspecies in 

North America. 

Redundancy of populations may be 

needed to provide a margin of safety for 

the species to withstand catastrophic 

events. The idea is to conserve enough 

areas of the range such that random 

catastrophes in the system act on only 

a few populations. In terms of 

redundancy, we view the proposed 

grizzly bear DPS as important because it 

ensures there are additional (i.e., 

redundant) populations outside of the 

large, contiguous populations in Canada 

and Alaska. Collectively, the multiple 

grizzly bear populations and habitat 

units provide a margin of safety to 

withstand catastrophic events and, thus, 

meaningfully contribute to the 

redundancy of grizzly bears in North 

America. 

Representation of populations in 

multiple ecological contexts increases 

the likelihood that a species’ adaptive 

potential is conserved. The current 

distribution of grizzly bear populations 

in the GYE, NCDE, CYE, and SE, spread 

across multiple ecoregions, contributes 

to maintaining the species’ adaptive 

potential. The addition of populations 

in the BE and North Cascades would 

contribute to additional ecosystem 

representation in the proposed grizzly 

bear DPS. 

Unusual or Unique Ecological 

Setting—Grizzly bears occupy a variety 

of habitats within North America, 

including coastal meadows and salmon 

streams, mid-elevation mountain forest 

communities, alpine grasslands and 

alpine tundra, western prairies, and 

tundra (Haroldson et al. 2021, pp. 166– 

169). In the contiguous United States, 

grizzly bears exist in ecosystems that 

range from a maritime climate to 

forested, mountainous habitat to dry 

sagebrush and prairie grasslands. Some 

of the ecoregions inhabited by grizzly 

bears in the proposed grizzly bear DPS 

are also present in portions of their 

occupied range in Canada, including the 

Northwestern Glaciated Plains, 

Canadian Rockies, Northern Rockies, 

and North Cascades. However, multiple 

ecoregions inhabited by grizzly bears in 

the contiguous United States are not 

present in other parts of their range, 

including the Idaho Batholith (the BE), 

Middle Rockies (the GYE and NCDE), 

Great Plains (the NCDE), Wyoming 

Basin (the GYE), and Snake River Plain 

(the GYE) (Woods et al. 1999, entire). 

Habitats within the proposed grizzly 

bear DPS provide a diverse landscape of 

habitat types and bear foods across and 

within the ecosystems. As discussed in 

further detail in our SSA report (Service 

2024, pp. 46–48, 197–211), grizzly bears 

are opportunistic omnivores, and diets 

are highly variable among individuals, 

seasons, and years, and between 

ecosystems. Grizzly bears will consume 

almost any food available, including 

living or dead mammals or fish, insects, 

worms, plants, and human-related 

foods. In areas where animal matter is 

less available, berries, grasses, roots, 

bulbs, tubers, seeds, and fungi are 

important in meeting protein and 

caloric requirements. In the transboundary populations, grizzly bears in 

the contiguous United States appear to 

use food resources similar to grizzly 

bear populations in Canada and Alaska. 

Unique food resources, such as bison, 

may occur in the ecoregions present in 

the proposed grizzly bear DPS that are 

not present north of the U.S.-Canada 

border. 

Within the proposed grizzly bear DPS, 

grizzly bears are unique in their 

consumption of bison (Mattson 1997, p. 

167; Fortin et al. 2013, p. 275; Gunther 

2017, in litt.) and in their interactions 

with wolves to obtain carcasses (Ballard 

et al. 2003, pp. 261–262; Smith et al. 

2003, p. 336; Metz et al. 2012, p. 556). 

In addition, grizzly bears in the DPS 

have been documented to consume 

unique food items such as geothermal 

soil (Mattson et al. 1999, p. 109) and 

false-truffles (Fortin et al. 2013, p. 277; 

Gunther et al. 2014, p. 64). 

Consumption of these food sources, 

which are not known to be consumed in 

other parts of the species’ range, is 

indicative of a unique ecological setting. 

Although grizzly bears have flexible 

diets and the availability of the wide 

variety of foods, the availability and use 

of unique food resources in certain 

ecological settings may increase a 

species’ adaptive potential. 

In light of data indicating that some 

grizzly bears in the DPS consume some 

unique food resources compared to 

other grizzly bear populations, where 

we have considerable information about 

the taxon’s diet, we consider the 

proposed grizzly bear DPS to meet the 

DPS Policy standard for significance 

based on its persistence in an ecological 

setting unusual or unique for the taxon. 

Significant Gap in the Range of the 

Taxon—Historically, grizzly bears were 

distributed throughout the North 

American Rockies from Alaska and 

Canada, and south into central Mexico. 

During the late 1800s and early 1900s, 

grizzly bear populations declined or 

were extirpated from most of the 

southern portions of their historical 

range and the Canadian plains 

(Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 557–558). 

Grizzly bear populations have since 

increased in size and range in parts of 

the contiguous United States, and the 

current estimated occupied range 

includes portions of Idaho, Montana, 

Washington, and Wyoming (Service 

2024, figure 17). Although we have 

verified increasing numbers of outlier 

observations between the estimated 

occupied ranges, there are no known 

populations outside those in the GYE, 

NCDE, CYE, and SE (see figure 1, 

above). 

The current estimated occupied range 

of grizzly bears in the contiguous United 

States covers approximately 152,643 

km2 (58,936 mi2) (Costello et al. 2023, 

p. 14; Dellinger et al. 2023, p. 23; 

Kasworm et al. 2024a, p. 74; Kasworm 

et al. 2024b, p. 50; Service 2024, figure 

17). This estimate does not include lowdensity outlying locations and 

represents a minimum known area of 

occupancy, not an extent of occurrence. 

The loss of this estimated occupied 

range would move the southern 

terminus of the subspecies’ distribution 

approximately 6.5 degrees latitude (725 

km (450 mi)) to the north. 

The extirpation of peripheral 

populations is concerning because of 

the potential conservation value that 

peripheral populations can provide to 

the subspecies (Lesica and Allendorf 

1995, p. 756; Fraser 1999, p. 50; Bunnell 

et al. 2004, p. 2242). Specifically, 

peripheral populations can possess 

slight genetic or phenotypic divergence 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4248 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

from the core populations, which may 

be central to the survival of the 

subspecies in the face of environmental 

changes (Lesica and Allendorf 1995, p. 

756; Bunnell et al. 2004, p. 2242). 

Therefore, we find that the proposed 

grizzly bear DPS meets the significance 

criterion under our DPS Policy because 

its loss would represent a significant 

gap in the range of the taxon. 

Marked Genetic Differences—Several 

studies have documented genetic 

differences between some grizzly bears 

in the proposed grizzly bear DPS, 

including the GYE and SE, and other 

populations in North America, as 

evidenced by lower heterozygosity (i.e., 

lower level of genetic diversity within a 

population) (Paetkau et al. 1998, pp. 

421–424; Waits et al. 1998, p. 310; 

Proctor et al. 2012, p. 12). However, the 

lower genetic diversity likely reflects 

recent population fragmentation rather 

than natural separation of populations 

that were on divergent evolutionary 

trajectories. Therefore, it is unknown if 

grizzly bears in the grizzly bear DPS 

possess unique genetic traits that 

evolved in response to the environment 

in the grizzly bear DPS such that they 

would meaningfully contribute to the 

survival of the subspecies. Therefore, 

we do not consider these genetic 

differences to meet the DPS Policy’s 

standard for significance. 

Summary of Significance—We 

evaluated whether the discrete 

population segment of grizzly bears in 

the contiguous United States is 

significant, considering factors such as 

whether the population segment is in an 

ecological setting unusual or unique for 

the taxon; whether the loss of the 

discrete population segment would 

result in a significant gap in the range 

of the taxon; whether the discrete 

population segment represents the only 

surviving natural occurrence of a taxon 

that may be more abundant elsewhere as 

an introduced population outside its 

historical range; or whether the discrete 

population segment differs markedly 

from other populations of the species in 

its genetic characteristics. We conclude 

that the grizzly bear DPS is significant 

because it occurs in an ecological setting 

unusual or unique for the subspecies 

and its loss would result in a significant 

gap in the range of the subspecies. 

DPS Conclusions 

Based on the best available 

information, we conclude that the 

grizzly bear DPS is discrete and 

significant in relation to the remainder 

of the subspecies in North America. As 

a result, the grizzly bear DPS meets the 

definition of a species under section 

3(16) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)) and 

therefore is a listable entity. 

Where, as here, a vertebrate 

population is both discrete and 

significant under our DPS policy, we 

evaluate the conservation status of the 

population based on the factors 

enumerated at section 4(a) of the Act to 

determine whether it meets the 

definition of an endangered species or a 

threatened species. Below, we provide a 

status determination for the grizzly bear 

DPS. 

Regulatory and Analytical Framework 

Regulatory Framework 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and the implementing regulations in 

title 50 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations set forth the procedures for 

determining whether a species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species, issuing protective regulations 

for threatened species, and designating 

critical habitat for endangered and 

threatened species. The Act defines an 

‘‘endangered species’’ as a species that 

is in danger of extinction throughout all 

or a significant portion of its range, and 

a ‘‘threatened species’’ as a species that 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all or a significant portion of 

its range. The Act requires that we 

determine whether any species is an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

These factors represent broad 

categories of natural or human-caused 

actions or conditions that could have an 

effect on a species’ continued existence. 

In evaluating these actions and 

conditions, we look for those that may 

have a negative effect on individuals of 

the species, as well as other actions or 

conditions that may ameliorate any 

negative effects or may have positive 

effects. 

We use the term ‘‘threat’’ to refer in 

general to actions or conditions that are 

known to or are reasonably likely to 

negatively affect individuals of a 

species. The term ‘‘threat’’ includes 

actions or conditions that have a direct 

impact on individuals (direct impacts), 

as well as those that affect individuals 

through alteration of their habitat or 

required resources (stressors). The term 

‘‘threat’’ may encompass—either 

together or separately—the source of the 

action or condition or the action or 

condition itself. 

However, the mere identification of 

any threat(s) does not necessarily mean 

that the species meets the statutory 

definition of an ‘‘endangered species’’ or 

a ‘‘threatened species.’’ In determining 

whether a species meets either 

definition, we must evaluate all 

identified threats by considering the 

species’ expected response and the 

effects of the threats—in light of those 

actions and conditions that will 

ameliorate the threats—on an 

individual, population, and species 

level. We evaluate each threat and its 

expected effects on the species, then 

analyze the cumulative effect of all of 

the threats on the species as a whole. 

We also consider the cumulative effect 

of the threats in light of those actions 

and conditions that will have positive 

effects on the species, such as any 

existing regulatory mechanisms or 

conservation efforts. The Secretary 

determines whether the species meets 

the Act’s definition of an ‘‘endangered 

species’’ or a ‘‘threatened species’’ only 

after conducting this cumulative 

analysis and describing the expected 

effect on the species. 

The Act does not define the term 

‘‘foreseeable future,’’ which appears in 

the statutory definition of ‘‘threatened 

species.’’ Our implementing regulations 

at 50 CFR 424.11(d) set forth a 

framework for evaluating the foreseeable 

future on a case-by-case basis which is 

further described in the 2009 

Memorandum Opinion on the 

foreseeable future from the Department 

of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor 

(M–37021, January 16, 2009; ‘‘MOpinion,’’ available online at https://

www.doi.gov/sites/ 

doi.opengov.ibmcloud.com/files/ 

uploads/M-37021.pdf). The foreseeable 

future extends as far into the future as 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(hereafter, the Services) can make 

reasonably reliable predictions about 

the threats to the species and the 

species’ responses to those threats. We 

need not identify the foreseeable future 

in terms of a specific period of time. We 

will describe the foreseeable future on a 

case-by-case basis, using the best 

available data and taking into account 

considerations such as the species’ lifehistory characteristics, threat-projection 

timeframes, and environmental 

variability. In other words, the 

foreseeable future is the period of time 

over which we can make reasonably 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4249 

reliable predictions. ‘‘Reliable’’ does not 

mean ‘‘certain’’; it means sufficient to 

provide a reasonable degree of 

confidence in the prediction, in light of 

the conservation purposes of the Act. 

Analytical Framework 

The SSA report documents the results 

of our comprehensive biological review 

of the best scientific and commercial 

data regarding the status of the species, 

including an assessment of the potential 

threats to the species. The SSA report 

does not represent our decision on 

whether the species should remain 

listed as a threatened species, 

reclassified to an endangered species, or 

delisted under the Act. However, it does 

provide the scientific basis that informs 

our regulatory decisions, which involve 

the further application of standards 

within the Act and its implementing 

regulations and policies. 

The SSA report summarizes the 

results of our comprehensive viability 

analysis for the currently listed entity, 

the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States, 

which comprises all six ecosystems 

proposed for the grizzly bear DPS 

(Service 2024, entire). The six 

ecosystems are the foundation for the 

SSA analysis and are the scale at which 

we evaluated threats, the health of 

populations, and the species’ overall 

viability. As a result, the SSA report’s 

analysis provides the best scientific and 

commercial data available regarding the 

viability of the proposed grizzly bear 

DPS. Because the scales are the same, in 

the following summary, we replace 

‘‘grizzly bear in the lower-48 States’’ 

from the SSA report with ‘‘grizzly bear 

DPS’’ for the purposes of this 

discussion. 

To assess the viability of the grizzly 

bear DPS, we used the three 

conservation biology principles of 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Shaffer and Stein 2000, 

pp. 306–310). Briefly, resiliency is the 

ability of the grizzly bear DPS to 

withstand environmental and 

demographic stochasticity (for example, 

wet or dry, warm or cold years); 

redundancy is the ability of the grizzly 

bear DPS to withstand catastrophic 

events (for example, droughts, large 

pollution events); and representation is 

the ability of the grizzly bear DPS to 

adapt to both near-term and long-term 

changes in its physical and biological 

environment (for example, climate 

conditions, pathogens). In general, 

viability will increase with increases in 

resiliency, redundancy, and 

representation (Smith et al. 2018, p. 

306). Using these principles, we 

identified the grizzly bear DPS’s 

ecological requirements for survival and 

reproduction at the individual, 

population, and grizzly bear DPS levels, 

and described the beneficial and risk 

factors influencing the grizzly bear 

DPS’s viability. 

The SSA process can be categorized 

into three sequential stages. During the 

first stage, we evaluated the individual 

grizzly bear DPS’s life-history needs. 

The next stage involved an assessment 

of the historical and current condition 

of the grizzly bear DPS’s demographics 

and habitat characteristics, including an 

explanation of how the grizzly bear DPS 

arrived at its current condition. The 

final stage of the SSA involved making 

predictions about the grizzly bear DPS’s 

responses to positive and negative 

environmental and anthropogenic 

influences. Throughout all of these 

stages, we used the best available 

information to characterize viability as 

the ability of the grizzly bear DPS to 

sustain populations in the wild over 

time, which we then used to inform our 

regulatory decision. 

The following is a summary of the key 

results and conclusions from the SSA 

report; the full SSA report can be found 

at Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2024–0186 

on https://www.regulations.gov and at 

https://www.fws.gov/species/grizzlybear-ursus-arctos-horribilis. 

Summary of Biological Status and 

Threats 

In this discussion, we review the 

biological condition of the grizzly bear 

DPS and its resources, and the threats 

that influence the grizzly bear DPS’s 

current and future condition, in order to 

assess the grizzly bear DPS’s overall 

viability and the risks to that viability. 

Grizzly Bear DPS Needs 

Here we summarize, based on the 

SSA report, what individual grizzly 

bears in the grizzly bear DPS, need to 

breed, feed, and shelter. We also 

summarize the results of our analysis 

regarding the factors that ecosystems 

need to be resilient and the factors that 

grizzly bears in the grizzly bear DPS 

need with respect to redundancy and 

representation, with greater detail 

provided in our SSA report (Service 

2024, pp. 7, 99–102). 

In general, food, water, mates, cover, 

security, and den sites drive a grizzly 

bear’s habitat needs and daily 

movements. Grizzly bears in the grizzly 

bear DPS need access to habitat security 

(i.e., habitat that is relatively 

undisturbed by human influence), and 

habitat that provides cover, high-caloric 

foods, dens, and areas for dispersal. The 

specific quality and quantity of these 

resources influence the ability of 

individual grizzly bears to reproduce, 

grow, and survive at different life stages 

(Service 2024, pp. 100–101). These 

resources support resilient ecosystems, 

which may be characterized generally 

by grizzly bear abundance, population 

trends, survival rates, fecundity, and 

connectivity levels sufficient to 

withstand environmental stochasticity 

(Service 2024, p. 101). Grizzly bear 

populations need sufficient qualities 

and quantities of these habitat and 

demographic needs to be resilient, both 

currently and into the future (Service 

2024, p. 101). 

Threats 

As documented in our SSA report, we 

evaluated stressors (also known as 

threats) that can negatively affect grizzly 

bears at the individual, ecosystem, or 

grizzly bear DPS levels, either currently 

or into the future (see figure 2, above; 

Service 2024, pp. 103–228). Although 

the SSA report is a rangewide analysis 

for the currently listed lower-48 State 

entity, we evaluated each stressor at the 

ecosystem level. A wide variety of 

stressors may influence the resiliency of 

the ecosystems, either by directly 

affecting individuals or by reducing the 

quality and quantity of habitats. The 

stressors we evaluated fit into three 

broad categories: sources of humancaused mortality, those with habitatrelated effects, and other stressors. 

These stressors are interrelated to 

varying degrees; for example, motorized 

access influences both habitat 

availability and human-caused 

mortality. 

The primary stressors (i.e., threats) 

affecting grizzly bears at both the 

individual and ecosystem levels are 

excessive human-caused mortality and 

human activity that reduces the quality 

and quantity of habitats (Service 2024, 

pp. 150–178). We evaluated the 

following sources of human-caused 

mortality: management removals; 

accidental killings (e.g., train and 

vehicular strikes); mistaken-identity 

killings; illegal killings; and defense-oflife killings (Service 2024, pp. 155–166). 

We analyzed the following habitatrelated stressors: motorized access and 

its management; developed sites; 

livestock allotments; mineral and energy 

development; recreation; vegetation 

management; habitat fragmentation; 

development on private lands; and 

activities that may disturb dens (Service 

2024, pp. 110–150). We also evaluated 

other stressors, including: natural 

mortality; connectivity and genetic 

health; changes in food resources; 

effects of climate change; and stochastic 

events, such as widespread wildfires, 

earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, 

some of which could be catastrophic if 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4250 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

they occur on a large enough scale 

(Service 2024, pp. 178–222). With the 

exception of connectivity and genetic 

health, we did not find these other 

stressors to be current or future threats 

(Service 2024, pp. 223–225). We 

summarize the primary stressors below, 

with additional details and analysis 

provided in our SSA report (Service 

2024, pp. 103–228). 

I. Human-Caused Mortality 

The primary factor contributing to 

grizzly bear decline during the 19th and 

20th centuries was excessive humancaused mortality, including 

‘‘indiscriminate illegal killing’’ and 

management removals (Leopold 1967, p. 

30; Koford 1969, p. 95; Servheen 1990, 

p. 1; Servheen 1999, pp. 50–52; Mattson 

and Merrill 2002, pp. 1129, 1132; 

Schwartz et al. 2003, p. 571). This 

eventually led to their listing as a 

threatened species under the Act in 

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

Human-caused mortalities continue to 

be the leading cause of grizzly bear 

mortalities rangewide; therefore, 

understanding and managing for 

sustainable mortality levels is necessary 

to facilitate and maintain recovery. We 

differentiate between types of humancaused mortalities, as follows: (1) 

accidental killings; (2) management 

removals; (3) mistaken-identity killings; 

(4) defense-of-life killings; and (5) illegal 

killings or poaching. In addition, we use 

methods described by Cherry et al. 

(2002, entire) to calculate a statistical 

estimate of the number of unknown/ 

unreported human-caused mortalities 

(see ‘‘Mortality Limits,’’ below, for 

further details). Grizzly bear mortalities 

may be detected because: the individual 

is radio-collared, the mortality resulted 

from a management removal, or it was 

reported by the public. For all causes of 

mortality, except management removals, 

there are unknown/unreported 

mortalities. Illegal mortalities, such as 

poaching, have the lowest rate of 

reporting (Costello et al. 2016, p. 30). 

Using the methods described by Cherry 

et al. (2002, entire) improves our 

understanding of mortality levels, but 

that study (Cherry et al. 2002, entire) 

was based on a small sample size and 

does not provide perfect knowledge, 

particularly of mortalities in 

connectivity areas where we do not 

have radio-collared bears for research. 

Table 1 provides a summary of the 

numbers of human-caused mortality, 

and a discussion for each ecosystem 

follows. 

TABLE 1—NUMBER OF GRIZZLY BEAR MORTALITIES BY CAUSES IN THE GYE, NCDE, CYE, AND THE U.S. PORTION OF

THE SE, 2002–2023. MORTALITIES IN THE GYE AND NCDE ARE REPORTED INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE DEMOGRAPHIC

MONITORING AREA (DMA) AND INCLUDE ALL KNOWN AND PROBABLE MORTALITIES FOR INDEPENDENT-AGE BEARS; 

MORTALITIES OF DEPENDENT YOUNG ARE DISPLAYED IN PARENTHESES. MORTALITIES IN THE CYE AND SE INCLUDE

INDEPENDENT-AGE AND DEPENDENT YOUNG AND ARE REPORTED WITHIN THE RECOVERY ZONE (RZ) PLUS A 10- 

MILE BUFFER, EXCLUDING CANADA

Cause of mortalities 

(all sources) 

GYE: 

Inside DMA 

GYE: 

Outside DMA 

NCDE: 

Inside DMA 

NCDE: 

Outside DMA 

CYE: 

Inside RZ 

SE: 

Inside RZ 

Natural ...................................................... 42 (100) 1 (5) 11 (14) 0 (3) 9 4 

Undetermined a ........................................ 54 (12) 2 (1) 30 (5) 3 (1) 4 0 

Human-caused ......................................... 433 (119) 163 (29) 357 (162) 48 (27) 34 18 

Total mortalities ........................................ 529 (231) 166 (35) 398 (181) 51 (31) 47 22 

Human-caused mortalities: b

Accidental ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 3 2 

Automobile collision .......................... 42 (15) 5 (0) 45 (45) 8 (4) ........................ ........................

Capture related ................................. 8 (5) 0 (2) 9 (5) 1 (0) ........................ ........................

Drowning ........................................... 0 (0) 6 (2) 0 (0) 1 (0) ........................ ........................

Poisoning .......................................... 1 (0) 0 (0) 2 (0) 0 (2) ........................ ........................

Train collision .................................... 0 (0) 0 (0) 22 (18) 2 (2) ........................ ........................

Defense-of-life .......................................... 134 (60) 15 (4) 49 (20) 5 (6) 6 2 

Illegal c ...................................................... 27 (6) 4 (1) 67 (15) 12 (5) 7 2 

Management removal ........................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 2 4 

Site conflicts/human safety d ............. 101 (27) 56 (12) 56 (33) 4 (4) ........................ ........................

Injured or diseased bear ................... 2 (5) 0 (3) 9 (7) 1 (1) ........................ ........................

Livestock depredation ....................... 91 (1) 70 (5) 62 (15) 13 (2) ........................ ........................

Augmentation e .................................. 0 (0) 0 (0) 15 (0) 0 (0) ........................ ........................

Mistaken identification .............................. 27 (0) 7 (0) 16 (2) 0 (0) 4 5 

Unknown f ................................................. 0 (0) 0 (0) 5 (2) 1 (1) 12 3 

a Under investigation and believed to be human-caused. 

bOrphaned dependent offspring were classified according to cause of death of their mother. 

c Illegal includes poaching, malicious, and defense-of-property kills. 

dSite conflicts/human safety include anthropogenic food and property damage-related management removals in the front- and backcountry. eWhen bears are relocated from the NCDE to augment the CYE population, they are counted as mortalities in the NCDE. 

f Cause unknown and may include mortalities that are under investigation. 

Human-caused Mortality in the 

GYE—From 2002 to 2023, 82 percent 

(433) of the 529 known and probable 

grizzly bear mortalities of independentage bears and 52 percent (119) of the 

231 known and probable mortalities for 

dependent young within the GYE 

demographic monitoring area (DMA) 

were human-caused (Gould 2024, in 

litt.; table 1). For further details see 

Human-Caused Mortality in the GYE in 

the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 154– 

155). Although the number of humancaused mortalities of independent 

female and male grizzly bears have 

increased gradually over this time 

period as the grizzly bear population 

increased, human-caused mortality as a 

proportion of estimated population size 

(i.e., the rate of mortality) has remained 

relatively constant (Gould 2024, in litt.). 

Under current management, including 

protections of the Act, human-caused 

mortality rates have been low enough to 

allow the GYE grizzly bear population 

to increase in number and range 

(Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64–66; 

Schwartz et al. 2006c, p. 48; Bjornlie et 

al. 2014, p. 184). In addition, 98 percent 

(163) of the 166 known and probable 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4251 

grizzly bear mortalities of independentage bears and 83 percent (29) of the 35 

known and probable mortalities of 

dependent young that occurred outside 

the DMA were human-caused (Gould 

2024, in litt.). Approximately 36 percent 

of estimated occupied range occurs 

beyond the DMA (Dellinger et al. 2023, 

p. 23). We do not have an estimate for 

the number of grizzly bears ecosystemwide, and mortality limits absent 

protections of the Act do not apply 

outside of the DMA (see Mortality Limits 

in the GYE, below). 

Human-caused Mortality in the 

NCDE—From 2002 to 2023, 90 percent 

(357) of the 3987 known and probable 

grizzly bear mortalities of independentage bears and 90 percent (162) of the 

181 of known and probable grizzly bear 

mortalities of dependent young within 

the NCDE DMA were human-caused 

(MFWP, unpublished data; table 1). In 

addition to the categories of humancaused mortalities discussed above, 

legal hunting of grizzly bears (i.e., for 

recreational purposes) was allowed in 

the NCDE from 1975 until 1991, under 

a rule authorizing take in the 1975 

listing (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). For 

further details, see Human-Caused 

Mortality in the NCDE in the SSA report 

(Service 2024, pp. 155–156). 

While human-caused mortalities of 

grizzly bears have increased gradually 

each year as the grizzly bear population 

has increased, the level of these 

mortalities as a proportion of the 

estimated population size (i.e., mortality 

rate) has remained relatively constant 

(MFWP, unpublished data). Under 

current management, including 

protections of the Act, human-caused 

mortality rates have been low enough to 

allow the NCDE grizzly bear population 

to increase in number and range 

(Costello 2019, in litt.; MFWP, 

unpublished data). In addition, 94 

percent (48) of the 51 known and 

probable grizzly bear mortalities of 

independent-age bears and 87 percent 

(27) of the 31 known and probable 

mortalities of dependent young that 

occurred outside the DMA were humancaused (MFWP, unpublished data). 

Approximately 29 percent of estimated 

occupied range occurs beyond the DMA 

(MFWP, unpublished data). Although 

the population estimate includes the 

entire NCDE population, mortality 

limits absent protections of the Act do 

not apply outside of the DMA (see 

Mortality Limits in the NCDE, below). 

Human-caused Mortality in the CYE, 

SE, BE, and North Cascades—From 

2002 to 2023, 72 percent (34) of the 47 

known and probable grizzly bear 

mortalities in the CYE were humancaused (Kasworm et al. 2024a, pp. 18– 

19; table 1). We recognize that some 

grizzly bears in the CYE and SE have 

home ranges that overlap the 

international border; however, it is most 

appropriate to discuss human-caused 

mortality for the U.S. portion of the SE 

because that is the area encompassed by 

the currently-listed entity and the 

proposed grizzly bear DPS. From 2002 

to 2023, 82 percent (18) of the 22 known 

and probable grizzly bear mortalities in 

the U.S. portion of the SE recovery zone 

were human-caused (Kasworm et al. 

2024b, pp. 14–15). There have been no 

known, human-caused mortalities in the 

North Cascades since 1967; however, 

the last verified sighting of a grizzly bear 

in the North Cascades occurred in 1996. 

In the BE recovery zone, the last known, 

human-caused mortality occurred in 

1932, and there has only been one 

verified sighting in the recovery zone 

since the 1940s, a collared bear from the 

CYE that spent several weeks in the 

northern part of the recovery zone in 

2019. There have been three known 

human-caused mortalities inside the 

grizzly bear DPS outside these recovery 

zones. For further details, see HumanCaused Mortality in the CYE, SE, BE, 

and North Cascades in the SSA report 

(Service 2024, pp. 156–157). 

Mortality Limits 

Within the GYE and NCDE, States, 

Tribes, and Federal agencies have 

adopted management protocols, rules, 

and regulations that would govern 

conservation and management of these 

grizzly bear populations, including 

human-caused mortality, in the absence 

of the Act’s protections. Mortality limits 

in the GYE and NCDE apply only within 

the DMA (see figure 9 in the SSA report; 

Service 2024, p. 36). Within the CYE, 

SE, BE, and North Cascades, 

management protocols, rules, and 

regulations governing conservation and 

management of these populations are 

not yet complete. Our SSA report 

evaluates the ability of existing 

regulatory mechanisms to limit humancaused mortality consistent with a 

recovered population under future 

scenarios (Service 2024, pp. 245–249). 

Independent of the Act, the States of 

Idaho, Montana, Washington, and 

Wyoming have regulations that make it 

illegal to kill a grizzly bear other than 

for defense-of-life, except for limited 

circumstances, as described below 

(Idaho Administrative Code (IAC) rules 

13.01.06.100.05 and 13.01.06.300.01; 

Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 

subchapter 12.9.14; Washington 

Administrative Code (WAC) at section 

220–610–010; Wyoming Administrative 

Rules (WAR) 040–0001–67). The States 

of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming have 

additional regulations that would take 

effect upon delisting that are currently 

superseded by take prohibitions in the 

Act. In Idaho, upon delisting, it would 

be legal to kill a grizzly bear, without a 

permit, if it is ‘‘molesting or attacking 

livestock or domestic animals’’ (Idaho 

Statutes (I.S.) at title 36, chapter 11, 

section 36–1107(e)). All grizzly bears 

taken must be reported within 72 hours. 

In Montana, upon delisting, a livestock 

owner or other authorized persons 

would be able to take a grizzly bear at 

any time without a permit when a 

grizzly bear is attacking or killing 

livestock, subject to commission rules 

(Montana Code Annotated (MCA) at 

section 87–5–301). Additionally, for 

delisted ecosystems, Montana 

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks 

would be able to issue a kill permit to 

livestock owners when a grizzly bear is 

threatening livestock, subject to 

commission rules (MCA 87–5–301(4)). 

Montana’s commission rules were 

incorporated into law in December 

2023; the commission must annually set 

mortality limits for kill permits (MCA 

87–5–301(3)(c)). However, these 

mortality limits would only apply 

within the DMA. In Wyoming, upon 

delisting, the Wyoming Game and Fish 

Commission may establish a hunting 

season for grizzly bears in accordance 

with the Tri-State memorandum of 

agreement (MOA) (WAR 040.0001.67). 

Mortality Limits in the GYE—Prior to 

our June 30, 2017, final rule to establish 

the GYE population as a DPS and delist 

it (82 FR 30502), in partnership with the 

States, other Federal agencies, and 

Tribes in the GYE, we developed a 

mortality-management framework that 

outlined sustainable mortality limits 

within the GYE DMA that would 

maintain recovery within the GYE DPS 

in the absence of the Act’s protections. 

The goal of the framework was to 

manage the population in the GYE DMA 

to maintain the population around the 

long-term average population size for 

2002–2014 of 674 bears (95 percent 

confidence interval (CI) = 600–747) 

(using the model-averaged Chao2 

population estimate) (Service 2017, 

entire). Population growth inside the 

GYE DMA had slowed and stabilized at 

this population size, and the long-term 

estimate of 674 bears represented a 

population that was exhibiting densitydependent effects in the core area of its 

range (van Manen et al. 2016, entire). To 

achieve the population goal, mortality 

thresholds within the DMA were set for 

independent females, independent 

males, and dependent young. However, 

mortality limits did not apply to grizzly 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4252 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

bears outside of the DMA, including in 

potential connectivity areas. 

As discussed above in Previous 

Federal Actions, our final rule to 

establish and delist the GYE population 

as a DPS (82 FR 30502, June 30, 2017) 

was vacated and remanded by the U.S. 

District Court for the District of Montana 

(Crow Indian Tribe et al. v. United 

States et al., 343 F. Supp. 3d 999 (D. 

Mont. 2018)). The Ninth Circuit 

affirmed the District Court decision 

vacating and remanding the final rule 

delisting the grizzly bears in the GYE 

(Crow Indian Tribe et al. v. United 

States et al., 965 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 

2020)). As a result, the GYE population 

is currently listed as threatened as part 

of the larger listed entity of the grizzly 

bear in the lower-48 States. 

One of the three main issues cited by 

the District Court in vacating the June 

30, 2017, rule was that a commitment to 

recalibration was necessary and that 

removal of a commitment to 

recalibration was not consistent with 

the best available science as required by 

the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A)). 

‘‘Recalibration refers to calibrating a 

new model’s estimates for a given year 

(e.g., 1,000 bears in 2020) to the Chao2 

population estimates generated for the 

2002–2014 time period (average of 674 

bears) . . . if a new model estimates 

1,000 bears where Chao2 found 700, the 

[S]tates will be able to treat the jump in 

population as they would treat it on 

paper—as if 300 new individuals had 

moved into the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem’’ (Crow Indian Tribe et al. v. 

United States et al., 343 F. Supp. 3d 999 

(D. Mont. 2018)). The GYE conservation 

strategy, one of two separate delisting 

recommendations outlined in the 

recovery plan, is an interagency 

agreement to ensure that adequate 

regulatory mechanisms will continue to 

be present after delisting. The Ninth 

Circuit found that the Service, ‘‘violated 

the ESA’s directive to make listing 

decisions ‘solely on the basis of the best 

scientific and commercial data’, 16 

U.S.C. 1533(b)(1)(A), when it failed to 

include a commitment to recalibration 

despite the FWS’s acknowledgment that 

a failure to provide such provision 

could threaten the Yellowstone 

grizzlies’’ (Crow Indian Tribe et al. v. 

United States et al., 965 F.3d 662 (9th 

Cir. 2020)). 

Beginning with 2022 grizzly bear 

demographic data, the IGBST began 

implementing an integrated population 

model (IPM) to estimate vital rates, 

population size, and mortality within 

the GYE population (Gould et al. 2024a, 

entire). The States have developed a 

new mortality-management framework 

using the IPM, which more accurately 

estimates population size and 

inherently recalibrates population 

estimates. In January 2024, the States of 

Idaho and Wyoming amended the TriState MOA to incorporate new 

commitments to maintain a biologically 

recovered population, including 

population objectives, total mortality 

thresholds, a threshold at which 

discretionary mortality (the amount of 

human-caused mortality over which 

state and Tribal agencies have 

discretionary authority, such as 

management removals and regulated 

harvest) ceases, and reproductive female 

distribution. The Montana Fish and 

Wildlife Commission adopted the TriState MOA in June 2024. The 

Yellowstone Ecosystem Subcommittee 

(YES) and the Interagency Grizzly Bear 

Committee (IGBC) approved 

incorporation of the new commitments 

into the conservation strategy in May 

2024 and June 2024, respectively. 

Previously, the 2016 conservation 

strategy and Tri-State MOA 

incorporated mortality thresholds to 

maintain the population within the 

DMA around the 2002–2014 modelaveraged Chao2 population estimate of 

674 bears. The 2002–2014 time period 

was selected because population growth 

slowed starting around 2000 associated 

with density-dependent effects, 

particularly in the core of the ecosystem 

(Schwartz et al. 2008, entire; van Manen 

et al. 2016, entire). 

Using the IPM, the recalibrated 

numbers correspond to an IPM 

population estimate for 2002–2014 of 

821. We note that a change point 

analysis of annual population growth 

using IPM detected a slowing in annual 

population growth around 2006 (vs. 

2002), with minor population 

fluctuations around a mean of 1.4 

percent since that time. Corresponding 

population estimates were 805 in 2006, 

and 1,030 in 2023 (Gould et al. 2024c, 

in prep.). The amended Tri-State MOA 

agrees to manage the GYE grizzly bear 

population in the DMA within or above 

a range of 800 to 950 grizzly bears 

(applying the IPM population estimate). 

At fewer than 800 bears, the Tri-State 

MOA commits to managing for a 

population increase above 800, closing 

hunting, and requesting a biology and 

monitoring review to determine 

appropriate management changes, but 

no interim management triggers exist. 

Independent of the Act, all three 

affected States and the Eastern 

Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 

of the Wind River Reservation (WRR) 

have enacted regulatory mechanisms 

that require State or Tribal authorization 

for grizzly bear take, with illegal 

poaching remaining prosecutable under 

State and Tribal laws because grizzly 

bears are designated as a game animal 

(Wyoming Statutes (W.S.) at sections 

23–1–101(a)(xii)(A) and 23–3–102(a); 

MCA at sections 87–2–101(4), 87–1– 

301, 87–1–304, and 87–5–302; I.S. at 

title 36, chapters 2 (section 36–202(h)) 

and 11 (section 36–1101(a)), and IAC at 

rule 13.01.06.100.05; Idaho’s 

Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting 

Advisory Team 2002, pp. 18–21; Eastern 

Shoshone and Northern Arapahoe 

Tribes 2009, p. 9; Wyoming Game and 

Fish Department (WGFD) 2016, p. 9; 

YES 2024, chapter 7; MFWP 2024, p. 

13). As discussed above, the States of 

Montana and Idaho have additional 

circumstances under which it is legal to 

take grizzly bears. 

Mortality Limits in the NCDE—In 

2018, we developed a mortalitymanagement framework in partnership 

with the States, other Federal agencies, 

and Tribes in the NCDE, to ensure 

sustainable mortality limits within the 

DMA to maintain recovery within the 

NCDE. The agencies agreed to manage 

mortalities from all sources to support a 

greater than or equal to 90 percent 

estimated probability that the grizzly 

bear population within the DMA 

remains above 800 individuals, 

considering the uncertainty associated 

with the demographic parameters 

(NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 2; 

ARM at subchapter 12.9.14 at 

12.9.1403). In order to consider this 

uncertainty, the model that estimates 

the probability that the population is 

above 800 individuals incorporates the 

standard error associated with 

calculating survival rates for all age/sex 

classes (e.g., cubs, yearlings, 

independent males, and independent 

females) and reproductive parameters 

(e.g., proportion of females with cubs 

and litter size). The methods to 

determine thresholds for independent 

female survival, independent female 

mortality, and independent male 

mortality that allow achievement of this 

objective into the future are set forth in 

the NCDE conservation strategy (NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020, chapter 2, 

appendix 3). 

The NCDE conservation strategy 

commits to developing and evaluating 

additional inputs to the model. 

Agencies are working to explicitly 

estimate the proportion of the 

population that has expanded outside of 

the DMA in order to exclude those 

individuals from the population 

estimate when calculating the mortality 

thresholds consistent with the 

probability that the population is above 

800 individuals within the DMA (NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020, p. 238). If the 

population in the DMA is overestimated 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4253 

because it includes bears that have 

dispersed outside of the DMA, then the 

mortality limits are also overestimated. 

While mortality rates within the DMA 

were close to thresholds in several years 

(in 2021 for independent females, and 

in 2018, 2019, and 2021 for independent 

males), TRU mortalities as measured on 

a 6-year average have been below 

mortality limits since the 

implementation of this monitoring 

method in 2018 and are thus likely still 

sustainable. 

The NCDE conservation strategy 

requires several population parameters 

to calculate allowable mortality limits 

that meet the population objective of 

supporting a greater than or equal to 90 

percent estimated probability that the 

grizzly bear population within the DMA 

remains above 800 individuals: (1) the 

6-year running average for the annual 

survival rate of independent females; (2) 

annual mortalities for independent 

males and females in the DMA (i.e., 

TRU mortality); and (3) population 

estimates. These estimates are 

calculated and reported annually by the 

Monitoring Team to the NCDE 

Subcommittee. 

Adherence to these survival and 

mortality thresholds for the DMA is 

evaluated by the Monitoring Team 

through continued demographic 

monitoring, application of stochastic 

population modeling to track size and 

trend, and management of mortality of 

independent female and independent 

male grizzly bears. The population 

modeling methods are set forth in detail 

in appendices 2 and 3 of the NCDE 

conservation strategy (NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020) and currently 

represent the best available science. 

The State of Montana and the 

Blackfeet and Confederated Salish and 

Kootenai Tribes designated grizzly bears 

as a game animal and have enacted 

regulatory mechanisms independent of 

the Act that authorize grizzly bear take 

under certain situations, with illegal 

poaching remaining prosecutable under 

State and Tribal laws (MCA at sections 

87–2–101(4), 87–1–301, 87–1–304, and 

87–5–302; Flathead Indian Reservation 

(FIR) Tribal Ordinance 44D; Blackfeet 

Tribal Business Council 2018, p. 29; 

NCDE Subcommittee 2020, chapter 6). 

As discussed above, the State of 

Montana has additional circumstances 

under which it is legal to take grizzly 

bears. 

Mortality Limits in the CYE and SE— 

For the CYE and SE, the mortality limits 

as set forth in demographic recovery 

criterion 3 of the recovery plan continue 

to apply while the species is listed 

under the Act (Service 1993, pp. 33–34). 

These mortality limits apply within the 

recovery zone and a 10-mile buffer 

around the recovery zone. In 2022, the 

Selkirk-Cabinet-Yaak Subcommittee 

convened a technical team to draft a 

conservation strategy, listing 

commitments, and policies to ensure 

that adequate regulatory mechanisms 

will continue to be present after 

delisting. The conservation strategy 

would include the development of a 

mortality-management framework in 

partnership with the States, other 

Federal agencies, and Tribes in the CYE 

and SE, and is not yet complete. 

Therefore, a management framework is 

not currently in place to ensure 

mortality is within sustainable 

thresholds independent of the Act. 

Mortality Limits in the BE—For the 

BE, which is not currently occupied, the 

mortality limits as set forth in 

demographic recovery criterion 3 of the 

recovery plan supplement continue to 

apply while the species is listed under 

the Act (Service 1996, p. 4). The 

mortality limits apply within the 

recovery zone and a 10-mile buffer 

around the recovery zone. A 

management framework has not been 

developed to ensure mortality limits for 

any potential future population would 

be within sustainable thresholds 

independent of the Act. 

Mortality Limits in the North 

Cascades—Within the North Cascades, 

the reintroduced population will be 

managed as a nonessential experimental 

population under the section 10(j) rule 

at 50 CFR 17.84(y) while the species is 

listed under the Act. The Service has 

not set specific mortality limits for the 

North Cascades, though in the near term 

as that population develops, the intent 

is to avoid any human-caused 

mortalities, to the extent practicable (see 

89 FR 36982 at 37012, May 4, 2024). 

Sustainable levels of human-caused 

mortality were not established in the 

recovery plan supplement for the North 

Cascades due to a lack of information 

for the ecosystem; however, the 

supplement established a goal of zero 

known, human-caused mortalities until 

the ‘‘population is large enough to offset 

some level of human-induced 

mortality’’ (Service 1997, pp. 3–4). A 

management framework has not been 

developed to ensure mortality is within 

sustainable thresholds independent of 

the Act. 

Summary of Mortality Limits Within the 

Grizzly Bear DPS 

Human-caused mortality can be a 

significant threat to grizzly bear 

populations if not effectively managed. 

Management frameworks to ensure 

mortality is within sustainable 

thresholds independent of the Act are 

currently only complete and 

incorporated into regulatory documents 

for two of the six ecosystems. In 

addition, there are no regulatory 

mechanisms to facilitate natural 

connectivity between grizzly bear 

populations, which could reduce the 

potential to improve long-term genetic 

health of small or isolated populations 

and natural recolonization of the 

unoccupied ecosystems. Therefore, 

without adequate conservation 

measures, human-caused mortality 

would continue to be a threat to the 

grizzly bear DPS. 

Management Removals 

Management removals encompass 

grizzly bear mortalities resulting from 

conflicts at developed sites (e.g., bears 

attracted to anthropogenic food 

sources), livestock depredation, and 

other situations where wildlife 

management agencies consider human 

life or property threatened by bear 

presence. Most management removals 

result from attractant-related conflicts at 

sites associated with frequent or 

permanent human presence (i.e., 

developed sites) and livestock 

depredations. These conflicts usually 

involve unsecured attractants, such as 

garbage, human foods, chickens, pet/ 

livestock foods, bird food, livestock 

carcasses, wildlife carcasses, barbeque 

grills, compost piles, orchard fruits, or 

vegetable gardens. While these 

mortalities are directly related to 

unsecured, human attractants, they are 

also related to human attitudes, 

knowledge, and tolerance toward grizzly 

bears. Many of these mortalities can be 

prevented through changes in human 

perceptions and actions, including 

limiting bear access to human-related 

food sources and increasing human 

understanding and tolerance towards 

grizzly bears (see Preventative Measures 

in the SSA report for further discussion; 

Service 2024, pp. 167–171). These 

strategies are outlined in the GYE 

conservation strategy; the NCDE 

conservation strategy; and Federal, 

State, and Tribal information and 

education (I&E) programs (U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s U.S. Forest 

Service (USDA FS or USFS) 2006b, pp. 

16–17; USDA FS 2018b, pp. 80–81; 

USDA FS 2018c, pp. 1–10, 1–22, 1–34, 

1–45; NCDE Subcommittee 2020, 

chapter 4; YES 2024, chapter 3; Service 

2024, pp. 161–171). 

Under the Act, management removals 

of grizzly bears—outside of any areas 

where bears have been reintroduced as 

a nonessential experimental 

population—must be consistent with 50 

CFR 17.40(b) (the grizzly bear’s ‘‘4(d) 

rule’’). The 4(d) rule sets forth the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4254 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

conditions for legally taking (e.g., 

removing or relocating) grizzly bears 

without the need for additional permits 

under the Act. Anyone may take a 

grizzly bear constituting an immediate 

threat to human safety. Grizzly bears 

taken in self-defense must be reported to 

the Service’s Office of Law Enforcement. 

The 4(d) rule allows additional take for 

bears constituting a demonstrable but 

non-immediate threat to human safety 

and for bears committing significant 

depredations to lawfully present 

livestock, crops, or beehives (50 CFR 

17.40(b)(1)(i)(B) and (C)). 

In the GYE DMA, between 2002 and 

2023, management removals resulted in 

194 mortalities of independent-age bears 

and 33 mortalities of dependent young, 

accounting for 45 percent and 28 

percent, respectively, of human-caused 

mortalities (Gould 2024, in litt.). In the 

GYE outside of the DMA, management 

removals resulted in an additional 126 

mortalities of independent-age bears 

and 20 mortalities of dependent young 

(Gould 2024, in litt.). In the NCDE, 

between 2002 and 2023, management 

removals resulted in 127 mortalities of 

independent-age bears and 55 

mortalities of dependent young within 

the DMA, accounting for 36 percent and 

34 percent of all human-caused 

mortalities, respectively (MFWP, 

unpublished data). In addition, 15 bears 

in the NCDE were trapped and moved 

to the CYE for population augmentation. 

Because these bears were ‘‘lost’’ from 

the population, they count against the 

mortality threshold. In the NCDE 

outside of the DMA, management 

removals resulted in an additional 18 

mortalities of independent-age bears 

and 7 mortalities of dependent young 

(MFWP, unpublished data). 

Management removals resulted in 2 

mortalities in the CYE and 4 mortalities 

in the SE, accounting for 6 percent and 

22 percent, respectively, of all humancaused mortalities (Kasworm et al. 

2024a, pp. 18–19; Kasworm et al. 2024b, 

pp. 14–15). For more information about 

this threat, see Management Removals 

in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 

158–161). 

Multiple measures are in place to 

reduce livestock conflicts in the GYE 

and NCDE recovery zones, including 

phasing out sheep allotments on U.S. 

Forest Service (USFS) lands, retirement 

of livestock allotments with recurring 

conflicts, and livestock grazing permits 

that include proper food and attractant 

storage provisions (USDA FS 2006b, pp. 

16–17; USDA FS 2018b, pp. 80–81; 

USDA FS 2018c, pp. 1–10, 1–22, 1–34, 

1–45; USDA FS 2018e, p. 64; YES 2024, 

chapter 3). The GYE and NCDE 

conservation strategies also recognize 

that removal of individual conflict bears 

is sometimes required, as a few 

individual bears often are responsible 

for multiple livestock depredations 

(Jonkel 1980, p. 12; Knight and Judd 

1983, p. 188; Anderson et al. 2002, pp. 

252–253; YES 2024, chapter 4; NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020, chapter 4). 

Currently, there are four active cattle 

allotments in the CYE recovery zone on 

the Kootenai National Forest (NF), three 

active cattle allotments in the SE 

recovery zone (two on the Idaho 

Panhandle NF and one on the Colville 

NF), and no active sheep allotments. On 

the Colville NF, livestock grazing 

permits include food storage measures, 

livestock depredation and carcass 

removal, measures for grizzly bear 

conflict situations, and closed road 

access measures (USDA FS 2019, pp. 63, 

82). The Kootenai and Idaho-Panhandle 

NFs have food storage requirements 

(USDA FS 2015a, pp. 31, 34; USDA FS 

2015b, pp. 31, 33). There are only four 

active allotments in the BE recovery 

zone (two cattle and two horse on the 

Salmon-Challis NF). As of 2023, there 

are 24 cattle and 9 sheep allotments on 

the Okanogan-Wenatchee NF in the 

North Cascades recovery zone. 

Mortality limits (see discussion above 

under ‘‘Mortality Limits’’) must ensure 

that overall mortality, including 

management removals, remains within 

sustainable limits. For the past several 

decades, States have managed grizzly 

bear conflicts in cooperation with the 

Service and consistent with the IGBC 

guidelines. After delisting, the Service 

would not be involved in removal 

decisions, and the IGBC guidelines 

would no longer apply; therefore, 

mortality limits that apply to 

management removals post-delisting are 

needed. As discussed above, 

management frameworks to ensure 

mortality is within sustainable 

thresholds independent of the Act are 

currently only complete and 

incorporated into regulatory documents 

for two of the six ecosystems. In 

addition, the CYE, SE, BE, and North 

Cascades populations have not yet met 

demographic recovery criteria. 

Therefore, in the absence of adequate 

conservation measures, management 

removals would continue to be a threat 

to the grizzly bear DPS. For more 

information about the conservation 

measures that have ameliorated this 

threat, see Management Removals in the 

SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 156–159). 

Accidental Killings 

Humans kill grizzly bears 

unintentionally in a number of ways, 

including vehicle collisions, train 

collisions, unintentional poisoning, 

drowning, electrocution, and mortalities 

associated with research trapping. From 

2002 to 2023, there were 51 reported 

accidental mortalities of independentage bears and 20 reported accidental 

mortalities of dependent young inside 

the GYE DMA, totaling 12 percent and 

17 percent, respectively, of humancaused mortality for this time period 

(Gould 2024, in litt.). In the GYE outside 

of the DMA, there were an additional 11 

reported accidental mortalities of 

independent-age bears and 4 reported 

accidental mortalities of dependent 

young (Gould 2024, in litt.). From 2002 

to 2023, 78 reported accidental 

mortalities accounted for nearly 22 

percent of known and probable humancaused mortalities of independent-age 

bears and 68 mortalities accounted for 

nearly 42 percent of known and 

probable human-caused mortalities of 

dependent young in the NCDE DMA 

(MFWP, unpublished data). In the 

NCDE outside of the DMA, there were 

an additional 12 reported accidental 

mortalities of independent-age bears 

and 8 reported accidental mortalities of 

dependent young (MFWP, unpublished 

data). From 2002 to 2023, 9 percent (3 

of 34) of all human-caused mortalities in 

the CYE and 11 percent (2 of 18) of all 

human-caused grizzly bear mortalities 

in the SE were accidental (Kasworm et 

al. 2024a, pp. 18–19; Kasworm et al. 

2024b, pp. 14–15). 

Accidental killings of grizzly bears in 

the GYE, CYE, and SE populations 

comprise a small portion of total 

mortalities and are factored into 

mortality limits (described in detail 

above under ‘‘Mortality Limits’’), which 

limit their impact on the resiliency of 

the population. Accidental killings, 

primarily as the result of automobile 

and train collisions, have constituted a 

higher portion of mortalities in the 

NCDE. Therefore, in the absence of 

preventative measures, accidental 

killings would continue to be a threat to 

the grizzly bear DPS. For more 

information about this threat, see 

Accidental Killings in the SSA report 

(Service 2024, pp. 161–163). 

Mistaken-Identity Killings 

Mistaken-identity mortalities include 

mistaken identification by black bear 

hunters and mortalities that result from 

wolf and black bear hunting and 

trapping. Mistaken-identity killings are 

both accidental and illegal. Twentyseven mortalities (7 percent of humancaused mortality) of independent-age 

bears were associated with mistaken 

identification of grizzly bears by black 

bear hunters within the GYE DMA from 

2002 to 2023 (Gould 2024, in litt.). An 

additional seven mortalities of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4255 

independent-age bears were associated 

with mistaken identification of grizzly 

bears by black bear hunters in the GYE 

outside of the DMA (Gould 2024, in 

litt.). Mistaken identification of grizzly 

bears by black bear hunters accounted 

for 4 percent (16 of 356) of humancaused grizzly bear mortalities of 

independent-age bears and 1 percent (2 

of 162) of human-caused grizzly bear 

mortalities of dependent young in the 

NCDE DMA from 2002 to 2023. There 

were no mortalities associated with 

mistaken identification of grizzly bears 

by black bear hunters in the NCDE 

outside of the DMA (MFWP, 

unpublished data). From 2002 to 2023, 

mistaken identification killings of 

grizzly bears by black bear or other 

hunters (on one occasion, an elk hunter 

mistakenly killed a grizzly bear) 

accounted for 12 percent (4 of 34) of 

human-caused mortalities in the CYE 

and 28 percent (5 of 18) of humancaused grizzly bear mortalities in the SE 

(Kasworm et al. 2024a, pp. 18–19; 

Kasworm et al. 2024b, pp. 14–15). In 

addition, there have been three 

mistaken identification killings of 

grizzly bears outside of the GYE DMAs 

and NCDE and the CYE, SE, and BE 

recovery zones, two of which occurred 

during a hunt in which the hunter used 

bait. Black bear hunting over bait is 

allowed in Idaho and Wyoming inside 

portions of the estimated occupied 

grizzly bear range of the GYE, CYE, and 

SE and outside of estimated occupied 

grizzly bear range in the GYE, CYE, SE, 

and BE, and has resulted in some 

mistaken-identity mortality. 

The GYE and NCDE Conservation 

Strategies identify I&E programs 

targeted at hunters that emphasize 

patience, awareness, and correct 

identification of targets to help reduce 

grizzly bear mortalities by 

inexperienced black bear and ungulate 

hunters (YES 2024, chapter 5; NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020, chapters 1 and 4). 

Mistaken-identity killings of grizzly 

bears in the GYE and NCDE populations 

comprise a small portion of total 

mortalities and are factored into total 

mortality limits (described above in 

detail in ‘‘Mortality Limits’’), and I&E 

programs aimed at preventing mistakenidentity killings limit potential risks to 

the GYE and NCDE grizzly bear 

populations from this stressor. Reducing 

this source of human-caused mortality 

is especially desirable in the CYE and 

SE due to the small population size, in 

the BE and North Cascades where there 

are currently no known populations, 

and in potential connectivity areas 

between the ecosystems. 

Wolf trapping and snaring and black 

bear hunting have the potential to 

incidentally take grizzly bears. We have 

documented one mortality as the result 

of wolf snaring in the GYE DMA. In 

addition, one of the grizzly bears 

mistakenly killed by a black bear hunter 

in the CYE had a neck snare around its 

neck that may have ultimately killed the 

bear had it not been shot. Recent 

legislation in Montana and Idaho 

expanding hunting and trapping tools 

available for wolves and black bears will 

likely increase incidental take of grizzly 

bears. Reporting of all target and nontarget trapped wildlife is required, and 

grizzly bear mortalities from these 

sources would count towards allowable 

mortality thresholds. However, there 

may be some mortalities that go 

unreported due to unknown mortalities/ 

injuries resulting from grizzly bears 

breaking away from the site with the 

snare and/or trap still attached. 

In Idaho and Montana, regulations 

allow the commission to issue 

emergency closures of any hunting 

season (I.S. at title 36, chapter 1, section 

36–104(b); MFWP 2023a, p. 2; MFWP 

2023b, p. 15). There are measures in 

place to limit potential incidental take, 

including prohibiting black bear 

hunting in most of the estimated 

occupied grizzly bear range in Montana 

and delaying Montana’s wolf season in 

grizzly bear occupied range until most 

grizzly bears have entered the den based 

on radio-collar data and field reports. 

However, measures to limit incidental 

take inside grizzly bear occupied range 

in Idaho are minimal, and measures to 

limit incidental take outside of occupied 

grizzly bear range in Montana are also 

minimal. This is important because, 

over the last several years, we have 

verified numerous bears dispersing 

outside the occupied range and through 

potential connectivity areas between the 

GYE and NCDE populations. There are 

no grizzly bear mortality limits in areas 

outside of the DMAs for the GYE and 

NCDE populations or in the CYE and SE 

populations; therefore, the number of 

grizzly bears that might be killed 

incidental to wolf and black bear 

hunting and trapping in these areas 

would not be limited. Incidental take of 

grizzly bears in these areas could reduce 

the potential for natural connectivity 

between the populations in the GYE, 

NCDE, CYE, SE, and BE, which could 

harm the long-term genetic health of 

grizzly bears. Therefore, in the absence 

of preventative measures, mistakenidentity killings would continue to be a 

threat to the grizzly bear DPS. For more 

information about this threat, see 

Mistaken-Identity Killings in the SSA 

report (Service 2024, pp. 164–167). 

Illegal Killings 

We define poaching as intentional, 

illegal killing of grizzly bears or the 

deliberative concealment of an 

unintentional killing of grizzly bears. 

People may illegally kill grizzly bears 

for several reasons, including a general 

perception that grizzly bears in the area 

may be dangerous, frustration over 

livestock depredations, or to protest 

land-use and road-use restrictions 

associated with grizzly bear habitat 

management (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 

21). We are aware of at least 27 illegal 

killings of independent-age bears and 6 

illegal killings of dependent young in 

the GYE DMA between 2002 and 2023 

(Gould 2024, in litt.). This constituted 6 

percent of human-caused mortalities of 

independent-age bears and 5 percent of 

human-caused mortalities of dependent 

young from 2002 to 2023. We are aware 

of an additional four illegal killings of 

independent-age bears and one illegal 

killing of a dependent-age bear in the 

GYE outside of the DMA (Gould 2024, 

in litt.). From 2002 to 2023, at least 67 

illegal killings of independent-age bears 

and 15 illegal killings of dependent 

bears occurred within the NCDE DMA, 

constituting nearly 19 percent and 9 

percent of human-caused mortalities, 

respectively (MFWP, unpublished data). 

We are aware of an additional 12 illegal 

killings of independent-age bears and 5 

illegal killing of dependent-age bears in 

the NCDE outside of the DMA (MFWP, 

unpublished data). From 2002 to 2023, 

at least 7 illegal killings occurred in the 

CYE, constituting 21 percent of humancaused grizzly bear mortalities 

(Kasworm et al. 2024a, pp. 18–19). Two 

illegal killing, including one neck snare, 

occurred in the SE from 2002 to 2023 

(Kasworm et al. 2024b, pp. 14–15). 

I&E campaigns (described in detail in 

Preventative Measures in the SSA 

report; Service 2024, pp. 167–178) are 

used to reduce the potential threat of 

poaching. These programs address 

illegal killing by working to change 

human perceptions and beliefs about 

grizzly bears and to increase tolerance 

for restrictions on Federal lands 

designed for grizzly bear protection 

(Servheen et al. 2004, p. 27). Poaching 

still occurs; however, these mortalities 

are factored into total mortality limits 

(described above in detail in ‘‘Mortality 

Limits’’), which limits their impact on 

population resiliency. However, in the 

absence of preventive measures, illegal 

killings would continue to be a threat to 

the grizzly bear DPS. For more 

information about this threat, see Illegal 

Killings in the SSA report (Service 2024, 

pp. 167–168). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4256 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Defense-of-Life Killings 

Grizzly bears may be legally taken in 

self-defense or in defense-of-others 

while listed (50 CFR 17.40(b)(1)(i)(B)). 

In the GYE DMA, from 2002 to 2023, 31 

percent (134 of 433) of human-caused 

mortalities of independent-age bears 

and 50 percent (60 of 119) of humancaused mortalities of dependent young 

were self-defense or defense-of-otherperson kills (Gould 2024, in litt.). An 

additional 15 defense-of-life killings of 

independent-age bears and 4 defense-oflife killings of a dependent-age bear 

occurred in the GYE outside of the DMA 

(Gould 2024, in litt.). In the NCDE DMA, 

nearly 17 percent (49 of 357) of humancaused grizzly bear mortalities of 

independent-age bears and 12 percent 

(20 of 162) of human-caused mortalities 

of dependent young were defense-of-life 

kills (MFWP, unpublished data). An 

additional five defense-of-life killings of 

independent-age bears and six defenseof-life killings of a dependent-age bear 

occurred in the NCDE outside of the 

DMA (MFWP, unpublished data). In the 

CYE, nearly 18 percent (6 of 34) of 

human-caused mortalities were from 

defense-of-life kills (Kasworm et al. 

2024a, pp. 18–19). Two defense-of-life 

killings occurred in the U.S. portion of 

the SE from 2002 to 2023 (Kasworm et 

al. 2024b, pp. 14–15). Many of these 

self-defense situations occurred during 

surprise encounters, at hunter-killed 

carcasses or gut piles, or when packing 

out carcasses. 

By promoting the use of bear spray 

and continuing I&E programs pertaining 

to food and carcass storage and retrieval, 

risks to hunters can be substantially 

reduced and many of these grizzly bear 

deaths can be avoided. Defense-of-life 

mortalities will always occur with a 

species that can pose a threat to 

humans; however, they are factored into 

mortality limits (see discussion above 

under ‘‘Mortality Limits’’), and this 

source of mortality is not a limiting 

factor on the resiliency of grizzly bear 

populations in the grizzly bear DPS. For 

more information about this threat, see 

Defense-of-Life Killings in the SSA 

report (Service 2024, p. 168). 

Legal Hunting 

Aside from a limited hunt in the 

NCDE from 1975 to 1991, legal hunting 

of grizzly bears has not been allowed in 

the lower-48 States since grizzly bears 

in the lower-48 States were listed as a 

threatened species under the Act in 

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

hunting of grizzly bears was allowed in 

the NCDE from 1975 until 1991, under 

a rule authorizing take in the 1975 

listing (40 FR 31734 at 31736, July 28, 

1975). During this time, recreational 

hunting accounted for 50 percent of 

human-caused mortality in the NCDE 

(124 of 249). The rule allowing a limited 

hunt in the NCDE was removed in 1992 

(57 FR 37478, August 19, 1992). 

Independent of the Act, the States of 

Idaho, Montana, Washington, and 

Wyoming, and the Blackfeet and 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes have enacted regulatory 

mechanisms that require State or Tribal 

authorization for grizzly bear take, with 

illegal poaching remaining prosecutable 

under State and Tribal laws (I.S. at title 

36, chapters 2 (section 36–202(h)) and 

11 (section 36–1101(a)); IAC rules 

13.01.06.100.05 and 13.01.06.300.01; 

MCA at sections 87–2–101(4), 87–1– 

301, 87–1–304, and 87–5–302; W.S. at 

sections 23–1–101(a)(xii)(A) and 23–3– 

102(a); FIR Tribal Ordinance 44D; 

Blackfeet Tribal Business Council 2018, 

p. 29; NCDE Subcommittee 2020, 

chapter 6; WAC at section 220–610– 

010). 

Legal hunting is one source of 

discretionary mortality (described in 

detail above in ‘‘Mortality Limits’’) that 

would be regulated by mortality limits 

in the absence of the Act’s protections. 

Hunting would not occur in Montana 

for a minimum of 5 years after delisting 

(ARM subchapter 12.9.14 at 12.9.1413). 

However, management frameworks to 

ensure mortality is within sustainable 

thresholds independent of protections 

of the Act are currently only complete 

and incorporated into regulatory 

documents for two of the six 

ecosystems. In addition, mortality limits 

in the GYE and NCDE do not apply to 

grizzly bears outside of the DMAs, 

including in potential connectivity 

areas. Therefore, in the absence of such 

management frameworks, we anticipate 

that hunting would be a threat to the 

grizzly bear DPS. 

II. Habitat Destruction and Modification 

The most crucial element in grizzly 

bear recovery is habitat that is diverse, 

provides a wide range of foods, and is 

isolated from development and human 

activities, where human-bear 

interactions, which often result in 

higher bear mortalities, are minimal 

(Service 1993, p. 21; Craighead and 

Mitchell 1982, p. 530). In the 1993 

recovery plan, the Service found that 

motorized access posed the most 

imminent stressor to grizzly bear habitat 

and recommended that road 

management be given the highest 

priority for grizzly bear recovery 

(Service 1993, pp. 21–22). Motorized 

access management is an important 

management tool for grizzly bear 

populations, as it can increase habitat 

security, which is crucial for female 

reproduction, and reduce potential 

mortalities from human-bear encounters 

and vehicle strikes. 

For this reason, habitat-based 

recovery criteria for the GYE and NCDE 

recovery zones include threshold levels 

for secure habitat (areas with no 

motorized access), as well as livestock 

allotments and developed sites, which 

are also associated with grizzly bear 

mortalities due to the potential for 

conflict and resultant management 

removals (Service 2007a, pp. 2–6; 

Service 2018, entire; Service 2024, pp. 

79–80). For more information on the 

development of habitat-based recovery 

criteria, see Recovery Criteria in the SSA 

report (Service 2024, pp. 79–81, 87–88). 

For the GYE, secure habitat refers to 

those areas with no motorized access 

that are at least 10 acres (0.31 km2

(0.016 mi2)) in size and more than 500 

meters (m) (1,650 feet (ft)) from a 

motorized access route (road or trail), 

prescribed footprint of a developed site, 

or recurring helicopter flight line (USDA 

FS 2004, p. 18; YES 2024, chapter 3). 

We established 1998 as the baseline 

year, the level at which we measure 

habitat criteria, because the levels of 

secure habitat and developed sites on 

public lands remained relatively 

constant in the 10 years preceding 1998 

(USDA FS 2004, pp. 140–141), and 

represented a time when the population 

was increasing at a rate of 4 to 7 percent 

per year (Schwartz et al. 2006c, p. 48). 

In addition, levels of motorized routes 

were decreasing during the years 

preceding the 1998 baseline year. 

For the NCDE, we define secure core 

habitat as those areas on Federal lands 

within the analysis area more than 500 

m (1,650 ft) from an open or gated 

motorized access route and at least 

2,500 acres (10.1 km2 (3.9 mi2)) in size 

(Service 2018, pp. 5, 12). We selected 

2011 levels (i.e., the ‘‘baseline’’) as our 

baseline year because secure core 

habitat was increasing and motorized 

route density was decreasing between 

2004 and 2011 (NCDE Subcommittee 

2020, chapter 1; Service 2018, pp. 24– 

25), and the NCDE grizzly bear 

population was increasing at a rate of 2 

to 3 percent annually during this time 

(Mace et al. 2012, p. 124; Mace 2012, in 

litt.; Costello et al. 2016, p. 2; Service 

2018, p. 3). 

Although we have not yet developed 

habitat-based recovery criteria for the 

remaining ecosystems, some habitat 

thresholds or protections occur through 

other mechanisms. For example, the BE 

recovery zone is 98 percent wilderness. 

In the CYE and SE, the national forests 

have implemented motorized access 

standards to create and protect grizzly 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4257 

bear habitat (USDA FS 2011a, entire). 

The national forests and NPS within the 

North Cascades have agreed to a ‘‘no net 

loss’’ of core areas approach on NPS and 

USFS-managed lands (USDA FS 1997, 

entire) to maintain habitat quality 

necessary to support a self-sustaining 

grizzly bear population. The Service is 

currently coordinating with the NPS 

and USFS through the IGBC North 

Cascades Subcommittee Technical 

Team to review and update the baseline 

and memorialize the ‘‘no net loss’’ 

agreement for the North Cascades 

Recovery Zone (USDA FS 1997, entire). 

Protected Lands 

Protected lands in the form of 

wilderness areas, proposed wilderness, 

recommended wilderness, wilderness 

study areas (WSAs), and inventoried 

roadless areas (IRAs) can enhance the 

security of habitat for grizzly bears since 

these designations protect grizzly bear 

habitat from new road construction, 

new oil and gas development, new 

livestock allotments, and timber harvest 

(Service 2024, pp. 108–112). These 

lasting land designations ensure that 

large proportions of recovery zones and 

additional areas outside the recovery 

zones remain secure for grizzly bears 

into the future without the development 

of new roads, extractive industries, or 

other human structures. 

Ninety-eight percent of the GYE 

recovery zone is federally managed 

land, including all of YNP, as well as 

portions of GTNP and the Shoshone, 

Beaverhead-Deerlodge, Bridger-Teton, 

Caribou-Targhee, and Custer Gallatin 

NFs. Approximately 82 percent (19,642 

km2 of 23,853 km2 (7,583 mi2 of 9,210 

mi2)) of lands inside of the GYE 

recovery zone are considered ‘‘protected 

lands.’’ In addition, of the 23,131 km2

(8,931 mi2) of suitable habitat in the 

GYE outside of the recovery zone, 59 

percent (13,685 km2 (5,284 mi2)) is 

managed and protected by the USFS as 

‘‘protected lands.’’ 

Seventy-eight percent of the NCDE 

recovery zone is federally managed 

land, including all of GNP, as well as 

portions of the Flathead, Helena-Lewis 

and Clark, Kootenai, and Lolo NFs, and 

the FIR, and the Blackfeet Indian 

Reservation. Nearly 67 percent (15,653 

km2 of 23,119 km2 (6,044 mi2 of 8,926 

mi2)) of lands inside the NCDE recovery 

zone are considered ‘‘protected lands.’’ 

In addition, five percent (748 km2 (289 

mi2)) of Zone 1 (the portion of the DMA 

outside of the recovery zone) is 

protected as wilderness, WSAs, or IRAs. 

Nearly 98 percent of the CYE recovery 

zone is federally managed land, 

including portions of the Kootenai, 

Idaho Panhandle, and Lolo NFs. Within 

the CYE recovery zone, 44 percent of 

lands are protected as designated 

wilderness (Cabinet Mountain 

wilderness: 379 km2 (146 mi2)) or IRAs 

(2,568 km2 (992 mi2)). Nearly 79 percent 

of the SE recovery zone in the United 

States is federally managed land, 

including portions of the Idaho 

Panhandle and Colville NFs. Within the 

U.S. portion of the SE recovery zone, 

nearly 38 percent of lands are protected 

as designated wilderness (167 km2 (65 

mi2)), recommended wilderness (60 km2

(23 mi2)), or IRAs (907 km2 (350 mi2)). 

The BE recovery zone includes about 

14,984 km2 (5,785 mi2) of contiguous 

national forest lands in central Idaho 

and western Montana, 98 percent 

(14,840 km2 (5,730 mi2)) of which is 

designated wilderness. The North 

Cascades recovery zone is 97 percent 

public lands, including all of the NCNP 

Complex, most of the Mount BakerSnoqualmie and Wenatchee-Okanogan 

NFs, and the westernmost unit of the 

Colville NF. Sixty-four percent of the 

recovery zone is protected as designated 

wilderness (10,843 km2 (4,189 mi2)) or 

as IRAs (5,123 km2 (1,978 mi2)). For 

more information about this 

conservation measure, see Protected 

Lands in the SSA report (Service 2024, 

pp. 108–112). 

Motorized Access 

When grizzly bears in the lower-48 

States were listed in 1975, we 

recognized that managing human access 

to grizzly bear habitat, primarily 

through management of motorized 

access, would be the key to effective 

habitat management. Motorized access, 

which brings humans and their vehicles 

into grizzly bear habitats, may influence 

grizzly bears indirectly by reducing the 

quality and quantity of habitat security 

or directly by disturbing, displacing, or 

killing individual bears through 

increased noise, activity, presence, 

vehicle strikes, or other activities 

associated with human-caused mortality 

(figure 2 in the SSA report; Service 

2024, pp. 112–122). Managing 

motorized access to ensure bears have 

secure areas away from humans is an 

effective habitat management tool for 

reducing grizzly bear mortality risk 

(Nielsen et al. 2006, p. 225; Schwartz et 

al. 2010, p. 661; Proctor et al. 2019, pp. 

19–20). 

Within the GYE and NCDE recovery 

zones, habitat standards that help 

reduce the potential effects of motorized 

access have been incorporated into 

USFS plans and the GYE and NCDE 

conservation strategies (USDA FS 

2006b, entire; USDA FS 2018a, p. 31; 

USDA FS 2018c, pp. 10–11; NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020, chapter 3 and 

appendix 4; YES 2024, chapter 3 and 

appendix E). These standards include 

thresholds for habitat security, open 

motorized route densities, and total 

motorized route densities and are 

inventoried and tracked in geographic 

information system (GIS) databases. 

Habitat security is measured within bear 

management subunits, which 

approximate the annual home range size 

of adult females. In the GYE, secure 

habitat averages 85.6 percent throughout 

the recovery zone and in the NCDE, 

secure core habitat averages 76.4 

percent throughout the recovery zone. 

These conservation mechanisms have 

reduced the negative effects of 

motorized access in the GYE and NCDE 

populations, and these conservation 

mechanisms are expected to continue 

into the future. 

In the GYE outside of the recovery 

zone, the USFS manages 76 percent of 

suitable habitat and much of these lands 

are ‘‘protected lands’’ or protected by 

motorized access standards (USDA FS 

2006a, pp. 78, 109; Service 2024, pp. 

108–112). In addition, State and Tribal 

management plans add another layer of 

habitat protection in the GYE outside of 

the recovery zone (Idaho’s Yellowstone 

Grizzly Bear Delisting Advisory Team 

2002, p. 10; Eastern Shoshone and 

Northern Arapaho Tribes 2009, p. 11; 

WGFD 2016, pp. 18–20; MFWP 2022, p. 

54). In areas of the NCDE outside of the 

recovery zone but inside Zone 1, 

limitations on open motorized routes 

apply to lands managed by the USFS, 

BLM, and Montana Division of Natural 

Resources Conservation (DNRC) to 

maintain habitat conditions that existed 

in 2011 that were compatible with a 

stable to increasing grizzly bear 

population. In addition, specific 

protections within the demographic 

connectivity areas were identified to 

support female occupancy and eventual 

demographic connectivity to the CYE 

and BE. The Service and partner land 

management agencies will continue to 

monitor the effectiveness of these 

objectives and can modify motorized 

access management as new information 

becomes available. 

The majority of lands within the CYE 

and SE recovery zones are managed by 

the USFS, which has incorporated 

motorized route density standards into 

its management plans to effectively 

provide secure habitat (core) for grizzly 

bears (USDA FS 2011a, entire). 

However, the USFS is still working on 

an implementation schedule for the 

remaining BMUs, four in the CYE and 

two in the U.S. portion of the SE, to 

achieve all standards. Although 

motorized access standards have not yet 

been determined for the BE recovery 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4258 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

zone, the BE recovery zone is more than 

98 percent wilderness (see Protected 

Areas in the SSA report for further 

details (Service 2024, pp. 108–112)), 

and, therefore, any impact of motorized 

access on grizzly bears in the BE 

recovery zone is likely very minimal. In 

the North Cascades recovery zone, the 

Federal land management agencies are 

currently working to update the baseline 

and to memorialize the ‘‘no net loss’’ of 

core areas agreement from 1997 (USDA 

FS 1997, entire). 

Well-managed motorized access 

provides large proportions of habitat 

security on Federal lands that helps 

ameliorate the impacts of displacement 

and increased human-caused mortality 

risk in grizzly bear habitat. Motorized 

access that is well-managed on State, 

local, or private lands also provides 

conservation benefits to grizzly bears. A 

variety of conservation efforts or 

mechanisms, such as the Wilderness 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1131 et seq.), IRAs, and 

Federal land management plans, helps 

reduce the potential effects of motorized 

access on the resiliency of ecosystems. 

Conservation mechanisms to reduce the 

negative effects of motorized access 

independent of the Act are currently 

only in place for two of the six 

ecosystems. They have not been met or 

finalized for the remaining four 

ecosystems or in connectivity areas. The 

Service and partner land management 

agencies will continue to monitor the 

effectiveness of these objectives and can 

modify motorized access management 

as new information becomes available. 

However, in the absence of conservation 

mechanisms to ameliorate effects of 

motorized access, motorized access 

would continue to be a threat to the 

grizzly bear DPS. For more information 

about the conservation measures that 

have ameliorated this threat, see 

Motorized Access in the SSA report 

(Service 2024, pp. 112–122). 

Developed Sites 

The primary concern related to 

developed sites is direct mortality from 

human-bear conflicts, such as those 

caused by unsecured attractants (e.g., 

garbage), and resulting management 

removals (Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 

277; McLellan and Shackleton 1988, p. 

451; Mattson and Knight 1991, p. 3; 

Mattson et al. 1992, p. 432; Mace et al. 

1996, p. 1403; McLellan et al. 1999, p. 

918; Woodroffe 2000, entire; Johnson et 

al. 2004, pp. 974–975; Service 2024, pp. 

120–123). While human-grizzly bear 

conflicts at developed sites on public 

lands continue to occur, agencies have 

successfully worked to reduce conflicts 

and resulting mortalities. However, 

human-bear conflicts on private land 

have been increasing due to expanding 

grizzly bear distributions and are now 

more common than those on public 

lands (Cooley et al. 2018, entire). 

Secondary concerns include temporary 

or permanent habitat loss and 

displacement due to increased length of 

time of human use and increased 

human disturbance to surrounding areas 

(Harding and Nagy 1980, p. 277; 

McLellan and Shackleton 1988, p. 451; 

Mattson 1990, entire; White et al. 1999, 

pp. 3–5; Fortin et al. 2016, pp. 9–19). 

In the GYE and NCDE recovery zones, 

developed sites on public lands are 

currently inventoried and tracked in GIS 

databases. Existing regulatory 

mechanisms ensure that the national 

parks and national forests will continue 

to manage developed sites with limited 

increases in the absence of protections 

of the Act (USDA FS 2006b, entire; 

USDA FS 2018b, p. 60; USDA FS 2018c, 

pp. 1–7, 1–19, 1–31, 1–42; GNP 2024, p. 

12; YES 2024, chapter 3; NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020, chapter 3). In the 

GYE and NCDE recovery zones, the NPS 

and the USFS enforce food storage rules 

aimed at decreasing grizzly bear access 

to human foods (NCDE Subcommittee 

2020, chapter 3; YES 2024, chapters 1 

and 3). These regulations, which reduce 

the potential for human-grizzly bear 

conflicts, will continue to be enforced 

and are in effect for nearly all currently 

occupied grizzly bear habitat on NPS 

and USFS lands within the GYE and 

NCDE (NCDE Subcommittee 2020, 

chapter 3; YES 2024, chapter 1 and 3). 

The number and capacity of developed 

sites are subject to limits and 

commitments in Forest Plans and 

summarized in the GYE and NCDE 

conservation strategy. There are 

currently no standards or tracking for 

developed sites inside the CYE, SE, BE 

or North Cascades. However, the BE, 

CYE, and North Cascades recovery 

zones are characterized by large acreage 

of wilderness areas and IRAs. 

Operation and maintenance of 

developed sites may result in mortality 

of grizzly bears if interactions result in 

activities associated with human-caused 

mortality. Conservation mechanisms to 

reduce the negative effects of developed 

sites independent of the Act are 

currently only in place for two of the six 

ecosystems. We have not yet developed 

habitat-based recovery criteria for the 

CYE, SE, BE, and North Cascades. 

During that process, we would assess 

current levels and potential effects of 

developed sites on grizzly bear 

populations in the CYE, SE, BE, and 

North Cascades. In addition, protected 

areas and other regulations help 

minimize this stressor in the GYE, 

NCDE, CYE, SE, BE, and North 

Cascades. Without conservation 

mechanisms to ameliorate the effects of 

developed sites, developed sites would 

continue to be a threat to the grizzly 

bear DPS. For more information about 

this stressor and the conservation 

measures that have ameliorated this 

threat, see Developed Sites in the SSA 

report (Service 2024, pp. 122–125). 

Livestock Allotments 

Human-caused mortality resulting 

from management removals is the main 

impact to grizzly bears associated with 

livestock (Service 2024, pp. 125–129). 

The effects of displacement and direct 

competition with livestock for forage are 

considered negligible to grizzly bear 

populations because, even with direct 

grizzly bear mortality, current levels of 

livestock allotments have not precluded 

grizzly bear population growth and 

expansion. Inside the GYE and NCDE 

recovery zones, regulatory mechanisms 

limit the impact of livestock allotments 

to grizzly bears on Federal lands (USDA 

FS 2006b, entire; USDA FS 2018b, p. 80; 

USDA FS 2018c, p. 20). Due to the 

higher prevalence of grizzly bear 

conflicts associated with sheep grazing, 

sheep allotments have been phased out 

as the opportunity arises with willing 

permittees, and there is only one active 

sheep allotment remaining within the 

each of the GYE and NCDE recovery 

zones as of 2023 (USDA FS 2006b, p. 6; 

USDA FS 2018d, pp. 468–469; USDA FS 

2018e, pp. 138, 256; NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020, chapter 3; YES 

2024, chapter 3; Grizzly Bear Habitat 

Monitoring Team 2024, in prep.). 

Existing sheep allotments will continue 

to be phased out as the opportunity 

arises with willing permittees (USDA FS 

2006b, p. 6; USDA FS 2018c, pp. 1–11, 

1–23, 1–35, 1–46; NCDE Subcommittee 

2020, chapter 3; YES 2024, chapter 3). 

Cattle allotments are numerous in the 

GYE and NCDE, and occur in lower 

numbers in the CYE, SE, BE, and North 

Cascades. Grizzly bear conflicts related 

to livestock have also been reduced in 

the GYE and NCDE recovery zones 

through requirements to securely store 

and/or promptly remove attractants 

associated with livestock operations 

(e.g., livestock carcasses, livestock feed, 

etc.). In the GYE and NCDE recovery 

zones, livestock allotments are currently 

inventoried and tracked in GIS 

databases (USDA FS 2006b, p. 5; NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020, chapter 3; YES 

2024, chapter 3). Forest plans in the 

GYE and NCDE also include 

commitments to continue efforts to 

reduce grizzly bear conflicts related to 

livestock through requirements to 

securely store and/or promptly remove 

attractants associated with livestock 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4259 

operations (e.g., livestock carcasses, 

livestock feed, etc.). 

There are currently no standards for 

livestock allotments inside the CYE, SE, 

BE, and North Cascades. However, the 

BE, CYE, and North Cascades recovery 

zones are characterized by large 

acreages of wilderness areas and IRAs, 

where the lack of roads limits access 

and, therefore, limits the areas where 

livestock are released for grazing. 

Habitat-based recovery criteria, which 

include limits to livestock allotments, 

are currently only in place for two of the 

six ecosystems. Protected areas and 

other regulations help to reduce this 

stressor in the GYE, NCDE, CYE, SE, BE, 

and North Cascades; however, 

development of habitat-based recovery 

criteria would include an assessment of 

current levels and potential effects of 

livestock allotments for the outstanding 

ecosystems (CYE, SE, BE, and North 

Cascades). Therefore, in the absence of 

conservation measures across the range, 

livestock allotments would continue to 

be a threat to the grizzly bear DPS. For 

more information about this stressor and 

the conservation measures that have 

ameliorated this threat, see Livestock 

Allotments in the SSA report (Service 

2024, pp. 125–129). 

Energy and Mineral Development 

The primary concerns related to 

mineral and energy development are 

human-caused mortalities and 

displacement due to habitat loss 

(Service 2024, pp. 129–133). Oil and gas 

development is associated with higher 

road densities, increased human access, 

and resultant human-bear encounters 

and human-caused grizzly bear 

mortalities (McLellan and Shackleton 

1988, pp. 458–459; McLellan and 

Shackleton 1989b, pp. 377–379; Mace et 

al. 1996, pp. 1402–1403). Mineral and 

energy development could also cause 

displacement and habitat loss. 

Disturbance in the den could result in 

increased energetic costs and possibly 

den abandonment, which could 

ultimately lead to a decline in physical 

condition of the individual or even cub 

mortality (Swenson et al. 1997, p. 37; 

Graves and Reams 2001, p. 41). 

However, den disturbance or 

abandonment is rarely observed, and 

there have been no documented cases of 

such abandonment by grizzly bears in 

the grizzly bear DPS resulting from 

energy and mineral development. Inside 

the GYE and NCDE recovery zones, 

regulatory mechanisms in place for 

secure habitat and developed site 

standards limit the impact of energy and 

mineral development to grizzly bears 

(USDA FS 2006b, entire; YES 2024, 

chapter 3). Management of oil and gas 

development, and mining, are tracked as 

part of the developed site standard 

(NCDE Subcommittee, chapter 3; YES 

2024, chapter 3). Because any new 

mineral or energy development must 

conform to the secure habitat, 

developed site, and motorized access 

standards set forth in the habitat-based 

recovery criteria and the GYE and NCDE 

conservation strategies, negative 

impacts of such development on grizzly 

bear populations in the GYE and NCDE 

will be limited. 

There are currently no standards or 

tracking for energy and mineral 

development inside the CYE, SE, BE or 

North Cascades. However, motorized 

access standards in the CYE and SE, the 

‘‘no net loss’’ agreement in the North 

Cascades, and the large wilderness areas 

and IRAs in the BE, CYE, and North 

Cascades may help avoid or minimize 

energy and mineral development effects 

by de facto increasing habitat security 

for grizzly bears. The Wilderness Act 

and other regulations minimize this 

stressor in the North Cascades, CYE, SE, 

and BE. Although there are no data or 

information suggesting energy and 

mineral development is limiting grizzly 

bear populations in the CYE, SE, BE, 

and North Cascades, the potential for 

disturbance exists, and monitoring will 

continue to support adaptive 

management decisions. Therefore, in the 

absence of minimizing measures across 

the range, energy and mineral 

development may be a threat to the 

grizzly bear DPS. For more information 

about this threat, see Energy and 

Mineral Development in the SSA report 

(Service 2024, pp. 129–133). 

Recreation 

Outdoor recreation is increasing 

across the United States (White et al. 

2016, pp. 3–4, 7). The primary concern 

related to increased recreation is that it 

may increase the probability of humangrizzly bear encounters, with 

subsequent increases in human-caused 

mortality (Mattson et al. 1996, p. 1014; 

Service 2024, pp. 131–136). In addition, 

individuals recreating in bear country 

could cause displacement from highquality habitat. Developed sites 

associated with recreation (see 

‘‘Developed Sites,’’ above) and 

motorized recreation (see ‘‘Motorized 

Access,’’ above) can also directly limit 

secure grizzly bear habitat. Grizzly bears 

exhibit a range of responses to nonmotorized recreation depending on the 

age and sex of the bear (Jope 1985, p. 34; 

Gibeau et al. 2002, p. 232; Ladle et al. 

2018, p. 6; Loggers 2022, p. 66), 

reproductive status (Ladle et al. 2018, p. 

6), season (Elmeligi 2016, p. 113), and 

individual bear behavior (Elmeligi 2016, 

pp. 131–134; Ordiz et al. 2019, p. 232; 

Sahle ́n et al. 2015, p. 7). Although nonmotorized trails may cause 

displacement of individual grizzly bears 

to varying degrees, grizzly bear 

mortality related to non-motorized 

recreation is rare and population-level 

impacts have not been documented 

(Jope 1985, pp. 34–36; McLellan and 

Shackleton 1989a, pp. 270–274; 

Kasworm and Manley 1990, pp. 81, 84; 

Mace and Waller 1996, pp. 463–465; 

White et al. 1999, p. 149). Motorized 

recreation impacts grizzly bears through 

increased mortality as a result of 

human-bear encounters, displacement, 

habitat loss, and fragmentation (Proctor 

et al. 2019, p. 18). Recreational hunting 

(e.g., hunting for elk, black bears, 

upland birds) within grizzly bear habitat 

can also increase the chances of grizzly 

bear mortalities due to defense-of-life 

and mistaken-identity killings. 

Inside the GYE and NCDE recovery 

zones, the vast majority of lands 

available for recreation are accessible 

through non-motorized travel only 

(USDA FS 2006a, p. 179; NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020, chapter 3, figure 7). 

Motorized recreation during the 

summer, spring, and fall inside the 

recovery zone is limited to existing 

roads under standards in the habitatbased recovery criteria and the GYE and 

NCDE conservation strategies that 

restrict increases in roads or motorized 

trails. Recreation at developed sites, 

such as lodges, downhill ski areas, and 

campgrounds, is limited by the 

developed sites habitat standard 

described in the habitat-based recovery 

criteria and the GYE and NCDE 

conservation strategies. Ongoing I&E 

efforts at these recreation sites are an 

important contributing factor to 

successful grizzly bear conservation and 

will continue under the GYE and NCDE 

conservation strategies (YES 2024, 

chapter 5; NCDE Subcommittee, pp. 

103–1–5). Although there are no data or 

information suggesting recreation is 

negatively affecting grizzly bear 

populations in the CYE, SE, BE, and 

North Cascades, the potential for 

disturbance exists, and monitoring will 

continue to support adaptive 

management decisions. However, we do 

not have evidence indicating that 

current levels of recreation are limiting 

to grizzly bear populations. Therefore, 

in the absence of the protections of the 

Act, we do not anticipate that recreation 

would be a threat to the grizzly bear 

DPS. For more information about the 

conservation measures that have 

ameliorated this threat, see Recreation 

in the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 

133–138). 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4260 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

Vegetation Management 

Depending on the type of project, 

vegetation management can be 

beneficial, neutral, or harmful to grizzly 

bears (Service 2024, pp. 138–141). The 

building of roads associated with 

vegetation management projects pose 

the largest potential threat to grizzly 

bear populations. Impacts to individual 

bears from timber management activities 

are usually temporary in nature. 

Vegetation management that improves 

food resources, such as berry producing 

shrubs, tubers or corms, succulent 

broadleaves, or grasses, can benefit 

grizzly bears. Manipulations that can 

produce these effects occur in the form 

of prescribed fire, thinning, or timber 

harvest, but all actions must consider 

the individual site and desired 

condition post-treatment. 

Vegetation management occurs 

throughout all six ecosystems on lands 

managed by the USFS and NPS. 

Although there are known, usually 

temporary, impacts to individual bears 

from timber management activities, 

these impacts have been adequately 

minimized using the IGBC guidelines 

(USDA FS 1986, pp. 6–12) in place 

since 1986. These impacts will continue 

to be managed at levels compatible with 

a recovered grizzly bear population 

under the GYE and NCDE conservation 

strategies. These impacts will continue 

to be largely minimized through 

motorized access standards in the CYE 

and SE and the ‘‘no net loss’’ policy in 

the North Cascades. In addition, the 

large acreage of wilderness areas and 

IRAs reduce the effects of vegetation 

management in the six ecosystems. 

Conservation mechanisms to reduce 

the negative effects of motorized access, 

which minimize the impacts of 

vegetation management independent of 

the Act, are currently only in place for 

two of the six ecosystems. They have 

not been met or finalized for the 

remaining four ecosystems. Therefore, 

in the absence of conservation 

mechanisms across the range, vegetation 

management may be a threat to the 

grizzly bear DPS. For more information 

about the conservation measures that 

have ameliorated this threat, see 

Vegetation Management in the SSA 

report (Service 2024, pp. 138–141). 

Habitat Fragmentation 

Habitat fragmentation can cause a loss 

of connectivity and may result from 

human activities, such as habitat 

modification, road building, and human 

developments and settlement (Proctor et 

al. 2012, p. 23; Lamb et al. 2017, p. 62). 

Human activities can result in humancaused mortality, such as automobile 

collisions and management removals, 

that also cause demographic (i.e., 

female) fragmentation (Service 2024, pp. 

141–143). Long-distance dispersal by 

males enables immigrants to act as a 

counter to genetic fragmentation and 

loss of nuclear genetic diversity (e.g., 

GYE population) (Proctor et al. 2012, p. 

27; Peck et al. 2017, p. 15). 

The GYE grizzly bear population is 

currently a contiguous population 

across its range, and there are no data 

to indicate habitat fragmentation within 

this population is occurring. In other 

words, there is no indication that 

human activities are preventing grizzly 

bears from moving freely within the 

ecosystem (Service 2024, p. 140). 

In the NCDE, human-caused 

fragmentation has been identified across 

U.S. Hwy 2/the BNSF (Burlington 

Northern Santa Fe) Railway’s rail line 

corridor; however, this corridor does not 

currently prevent demographic and 

genetic connectivity within the NCDE 

(Waller and Servheen 2005, pp. 996– 

998; Mikle et al. 2016b, supplementary 

table 3). Measures of genetic diversity 

from the NCDE are similar to those from 

undisturbed populations in Canada and 

Alaska, leading to the conclusion that 

the NCDE population has high genetic 

diversity and is sufficiently connected 

to other populations. 

Grizzly bear population fragmentation 

has occurred, and currently still occurs, 

between the Yaak and Cabinet 

Mountains portions of the CYE and is 

related to human settlement, U.S. Hwy 

2, and a busy rail line (Proctor et al. 

2018, p. 350). There is recent evidence 

that some grizzly bear movements 

between the Yaak and Cabinet 

Mountains are starting to take place 

(Kasworm et al. 2024a, p. 34) and 

functional connectivity within the CYE 

remains a management objective. There 

is no indication that similar potential 

barriers exist within the SE, BE, and 

North Cascades recovery zones. 

However, habitat fragmentation 

resulting from human activities 

associated with human population 

growth and increases in recreation may 

limit connectivity between ecosystems. 

Therefore, in the absence of measures to 

allow for connectivity, habitat 

fragmentation would continue to be a 

threat to the grizzly bear DPS. Please see 

Habitat Fragmentation in the SSA 

report for further information (Service 

2024, pp. 141–143). See ‘‘Private Land 

Development,’’ below, for further 

discussion on potential impacts to 

connectivity between ecosystems. 

Private Land Development 

Private land development may lead to 

habitat fragmentation (see ‘‘Habitat 

Fragmentation,’’ above, for further 

discussion) (Service 2024, pp. 143–148). 

Urban and rural sprawl (low-density 

housing and associated businesses) have 

resulted in increasing numbers of 

human-grizzly bear conflicts, with 

subsequent increases in grizzly bear 

mortality rates in more humandominated landscapes. Continued 

development of private lands will likely 

lead to further increases in conflicts and 

mortalities, potentially limiting the 

grizzly bear’s range and connectivity 

between ecosystems. 

Conservation easements on private 

lands maintain open lands for wildlife 

use by protecting against potential 

future subdivision and development 

while maintaining traditional land uses. 

Easements and land trusts can be 

especially effective at reducing habitat 

fragmentation and increasing 

connectivity of secure grizzly bear 

habitat. In addition to addressing threats 

from private land development through 

conservation easement programs, 

Federal, State, and Tribal wildlife 

management agencies respond to 

conflicts on public and private lands. 

While human-grizzly conflicts occur at 

developed sites on public lands, most 

management removals arise from 

conflicts on private lands (Servheen et 

al. 2004, p. 21; MFWP, unpublished 

data). 

In the GYE, only 1 percent of the 

recovery zone and nearly 13 percent of 

the DMA outside of the recovery zone 

is privately owned. In the NCDE, 7 

percent of the recovery zone and nearly 

47 percent of habitat in Zones 1 and 2 

are privately owned. In the CYE and SE, 

nearly 2 percent and 14 percent of 

habitat within the recovery zone are 

privately owned, respectively. In the BE, 

less than 1 percent of habitat within the 

recovery zone is privately owned. 

Approximately 3 percent (873 km2 (338 

mi2)) of the North Cascades recovery 

zone is private land. The large areas of 

public lands protected by Federal 

legislation (e.g., designated wilderness 

or IRAs) help to minimize risks posed 

by human population growth on private 

lands and ensure that the grizzly bear 

population will continue to meet 

recovery criteria. Additional protections 

are provided by the placement of 

conservation easements or the purchase 

of private lands by public agencies (e.g., 

the Service) or qualified Land Trusts 

(e.g., The Nature Conservancy, The Vital 

Ground Foundation). We do not have 

information to indicate that current 

levels of private land development are 

limiting to grizzly bear populations at 

this time. Monitoring will continue to 

assess potential impacts associated with 

human activities (i.e., human 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4261 

population growth, private land 

development, and increases in 

recreation) that may limit connectivity 

between ecosystems. Therefore, in the 

absence of conservation measures, 

private land development may be a 

threat to the grizzly bear DPS. For more 

information about this threat, see 

Private Land Development in the SSA 

report (Service 2024, pp. 143–148). 

III. Connectivity and Genetic Health 

The isolation and lack of connectivity 

between grizzly populations in the 

lower-48 States was a recognized threat 

at the time of the original listing (40 FR 

31734, July 28, 1975). Although the 

1993 recovery plan did not require 

connectivity for delisting of individual 

grizzly bear populations, it recognized 

that natural connectivity between 

grizzly bear populations would benefit 

long-term grizzly bear conservation 

through potential genetic exchange and 

is necessary for small or isolated 

populations to sustain themselves at 

recovery levels (Service 1993, pp. 15, 

23–25). Small, isolated populations are 

vulnerable to extinction from 

demographic fluctuations resulting from 

environmental processes (e.g., poor food 

years, disease, human-caused mortality) 

and low genetic diversity due to genetic 

drift and inbreeding. Low genetic 

diversity can have deleterious effects on 

fitness and fecundity (Allendorf et al. 

1991, p. 651; Burgman et al. 1993, p. 

220), and ultimately reduces long-term 

population viability. Genetic health is 

typically assessed using a variety of 

metrics, including effective population 

size and measures of genetic diversity 

(e.g., allelic richness, heterozygosity, 

inbreeding rate). 

Connectivity, or dispersal and 

successful immigration, of males or 

females enhances genetic diversity and 

reduces genetic fragmentation (i.e., 

provides genetic or demographic 

connectivity, respectively) (Miller and 

Waits 2003, pp. 4337–4338; Proctor et 

al. 2005, pp. 27–28). As few as one to 

two effective migrants per generation 

interval can maintain or enhance 

genetic diversity (Mills and Allendorf 

1996, pp. 1510, 1516; Newman and 

Tallmon 2001, pp. 1059–1061; Miller 

and Waits 2003, p. 4338). 

In the GYE, effective population size 

and genetic diversity (e.g., allelic 

richness, heterozygosity, inbreeding 

rate), in addition to other indicators of 

genetic health (e.g., reproduction, 

survival), are monitored by the IGBST 

for the GYE grizzly bear population (in 

their entirety: Miller and Waits 2003; 

Haroldson et al. 2010; Kamath et al. 

2015). Although the GYE is isolated, 

genetic concerns are not a current threat 

to the GYE grizzly bear population 

(Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338; Kamath 

et al. 2015, entire). Recent data indicate 

an extremely low rate of inbreeding and 

an increase in the effective population 

size over the 25-year period of 1982 to 

2007, substantially reducing the 

prospects of potential negative effects 

associated with isolation of the GYE 

population in the short term (Kamath et 

al. 2015, p. 5517). These findings are 

likely a function of significant growth of 

the GYE grizzly population during the 

same 25-year period. Additionally, other 

measures of genetic health, such as 

heterozygosity and allelic richness, have 

not changed over a similar 25-year time 

period of 1985 to 2010 (Kamath et al. 

2015, p. 5512). The current level of 

genetic diversity in the GYE grizzly bear 

population also coincides with robust 

demographic vital rates (i.e., 

reproduction, survival) that are fully 

comparable with other growing or stable 

brown bear populations in North 

America (van Manen 2016, in litt.). 

Although the potential threat of 

inbreeding is currently low, the GYE 

remains isolated, and inbreeding could 

become an issue in the future without 

connectivity. The genetic health and 

long-term viability of the currently 

isolated GYE would benefit from one to 

two effective immigrants from one of the 

other established grizzly bear 

populations approximately every 

generation interval (Mills and Allendorf 

1996, pp. 1510, 1516; Newman and 

Tallmon 2001, pp. 1059–1061; Miller 

and Waits 2003, p. 4338; Kamath et al. 

2015, p. 5517). The IGBST monitors 

grizzly bear movements and 

observations, and the IGBST checks for 

the presence of alleles from grizzly bear 

populations outside the GYE population 

(YES 2024, chapter 2). We have not 

detected any effective migrants into the 

GYE population to date; however, the 

2022 estimated occupied ranges for 

grizzly bears in the GYE and NCDE were 

only 98 km (61 mi) apart, within 

maximum dispersal distances 

documented for males (Blanchard and 

Knight 1991, pp. 50, 55; McLellan and 

Hovey 2001, p. 841; Peck et al. 2017, p. 

2), and we have verified several outlier 

observations between the distributions 

(see figure 1, above). Nonetheless, 

successful immigration events will 

likely remain rare due to distance and 

barriers (e.g., interstates) unless current 

distributions continue to expand (Peck 

et al. 2017, pp. 15–16). Continued 

expansion of estimated occupied range 

will increase the likelihood of 

connectivity (Peck et al. 2017, p. 15). 

Researchers have modeled potential 

male and female dispersal pathways 

between the NCDE and GYE 

populations (Peck et al. 2017, entire; 

Sells et al. 2023, entire). These dispersal 

paths could be used to identify and 

prioritize conservation efforts that foster 

connectivity. 

The States have committed to genetic 

monitoring and translocation, if 

necessary, to address the ability of 

future GYE grizzly bears to adapt 

evolutionarily (Hedrick 1995, p. 1004; 

Miller and Waits 2003, p. 4338). The 

IGBST also monitors genetic diversity of 

the GYE grizzly bear population so that 

a possible reduction in genetic diversity 

will be detected and responded to 

accordingly with translocation of grizzly 

bears into the GYE population 

originating from another population in 

the grizzly bear DPS. A Tri-State MOA 

commits the States of Idaho, Montana, 

and Wyoming to translocate at least two 

grizzly bears from outside the GYE into 

the GYE by the end of 2025, unless 

migration from outside the GYE is 

detected in the interim (YES 2024, 

chapter 2; Wyoming Game and Fish 

Commission et al. 2024, p. 5). In July 

2024, MFWP, in collaboration with 

Wyoming Game and Fish Department 

(WGFD) and YNP, translocated a 

subadult female and a young adult male 

from the NCDE to the GYE. While 

translocation has the potential to 

improve genetic connectivity and longterm genetic health, it cannot guarantee 

these needs, as translocated bears may 

leave the ecosystem or die before 

reproducing. Translocated bears often 

exhibit unusual movement patterns, 

which can increase their mortality risk. 

Natural connectivity between the GYE 

population and other populations 

would improve the chances of long-term 

genetic health in the GYE. Although 

natural immigration will likely remain 

rare, individuals that arrive naturally 

have a higher probability of remaining 

in the area and lower mortality risk than 

translocated individuals. 

The NCDE grizzly bear population is 

genetically diverse, large enough to 

ensure genetic health, and genetically 

and demographically well connected to 

Canadian populations, and there is no 

indication that the genetic health of the 

NCDE grizzly bear population is likely 

to measurably decline in the future. 

Nevertheless, ongoing genetic sampling 

and radio telemetry enable scientists to 

examine movements, genetic diversity, 

and population structure within the 

NCDE grizzly bear population (in their 

entirety: Kendall et al. 2008; Kendall et 

al. 2009; Mace et al. 2012; Proctor et al. 

2012; Mikle et al. 2016a; Morehouse et 

al. 2016). 

In the CYE, Proctor et al. (2012, 

entire) used several metrics to evaluate 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4262 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

the genetic status and found that genetic 

diversity in the Yaak portion of the CYE 

was comparable to other healthy grizzly 

bear populations in North America. The 

sample size of native Cabinet bears was 

insufficient to include in the analysis. 

Because habitat in the CYE recovery 

zone can only support a small grizzly 

bear population, it is important to 

maintain connectivity with other 

populations. Multiple individuals (33 

males, 3 females) are known to have 

moved into the Yaak portion of the CYE 

from the NCDE, SE, and the North 

Purcells in Canada. Data suggest that the 

Yaak has experienced gene flow only 

from B.C. grizzly bear populations. 

While there is evidence of movement 

into the Cabinets from the Yaak, NCDE, 

and the SE, reproduction that would 

contribute to the genetic health of the 

population has not been documented for 

any immigrants. Of additional concern 

is population linkage between the Yaak 

and Cabinet portions of this recovery 

zone, which is split along Hwy 2 

(Proctor et al. 2012, p. 12; Kendall et al. 

2016, pp. 320–321). 

Proctor et al. (2012, entire) found 

genetic diversity was lower in the SE 

than in other grizzly bear populations in 

the grizzly bear DPS and Canada and 

that the SE grizzly bear population had 

likely been isolated in the recent past. 

In recent years, reproduction has been 

documented from several immigrants to 

the SE, resulting in an increase in 

genetic diversity. Telemetry from 

collared individuals indicates that 

grizzly bears move freely across the 

length of the international border in the 

SE (Kasworm et al. 2024b, pp. 61–79). 

These changes demonstrate that grizzly 

bears in the SE are starting to exhibit 

increased connectivity with other 

grizzly bear populations. 

There are currently no known 

populations in the BE and North 

Cascades, and isolation is a concern for 

any future populations, although of 

greater concern in the North Cascades 

than in the BE. Multiple grizzly bears 

have been confirmed in areas 

immediately surrounding the BE 

recovery zone over the last 15 years; 

they are most likely grizzly bears 

dispersing from the expanding 

populations in the GYE and NCDE. In 

the North Cascades, natural 

recolonization is unlikely in the near 

future due to the low numbers of bears 

in nearby populations and the highly 

fragmented landscape in between (NPS 

and Service 2024, p. 7). 

As discussed above in ‘‘Mistakenidentity Killings,’’ recent legislation in 

Montana and Idaho that expands 

hunting and trapping methods allowed 

for wolves and black bears could reduce 

the probability of natural connectivity 

between the GYE, NCDE, CYE, SE, and 

BE populations. In addition, there are 

no mortality thresholds in connectivity 

areas for grizzly bears taken by livestock 

owners or for other human-caused 

mortality, such as management 

removals (for more information, see 

‘‘Mortality Limits,’’ above). The lack of 

mortality thresholds in connectivity 

areas may result in a contraction of 

estimated occupied range, which could 

decrease the likelihood of successful 

immigration. Therefore, in the absence 

of conservation measures, connectivity 

and genetic health would continue to be 

a threat to the grizzly bear DPS. For 

more information about this threat, see 

Connectivity and Genetic Health in the 

SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 182–197). 

IV. Food Resources 

Grizzly bears are resourceful 

omnivores that will make behavioral 

adaptations regarding food acquisition 

(Schwartz et al. 2014, p. 75). Diets of 

grizzly bears vary among individuals, 

seasons, years, and where they reside 

(Mealey 1980, pp. 284–287; Servheen 

1981, pp. 119–123, 127–128; LeFranc et 

al. 1987, pp. 24–25; Mattson et al. 

1991a, pp. 1625–1626; Mattson et al. 

1991b, pp. 2433–2434; Felicetti et al. 

2003, p. 767; Schwartz et al. 2003, pp. 

568–569; Felicetti et al. 2004, p. 499; 

Koel et al. 2005, p. 14; Costello et al. 

2014, p. 2013; Gunther et al. 2014, pp. 

66–67), reflecting their ability to find 

adequate food resources across a diverse 

and changing landscape. 

There are no indications that longterm trends in food availability, other 

than whitebark pine nuts, cutthroat 

trout, and salmon, have changed in the 

GYE, NCDE, CYE, SE, BE, and North 

Cascades in the last several decades. 

Although whitebark pine seed 

production and the availability of 

cutthroat trout in the Yellowstone Lake 

area varied dramatically over the last 3 

decades due to both natural and humanintroduced causes (Reinhart and 

Mattson 1990, pp. 345–349; Podruzny et 

al. 1999, pp. 134–137; Felicetti et al. 

2004, p. 499; Haroldson et al. 2005, pp. 

175–178; Haroldson 2015, p. 47; 

Teisberg et al. 2014, pp. 375–376), the 

GYE grizzly bear population has 

continued to increase and expand 

during this time period despite these 

changes in food availability (Schwartz et 

al. 2006a, p. 66; IGBST 2012, p. 34; 

Bjornlie et al. 2014, p. 184). While 

salmon abundance is reduced in the BE 

and North Cascades compared to 

historical numbers, several studies have 

concluded that there are sufficient 

alternative foods to maintain grizzly 

bear populations in those ecosystems. 

We anticipate that grizzly bears will 

be able to adapt to any future potential 

changes in individual food sources 

because of the great plasticity of grizzly 

bear diets and the range of available 

foods. Thus, the highly omnivorous and 

flexible diet of grizzly bears will enable 

the species to adapt to future changes in 

food availability. It is also clear that 

grizzly bears can compensate for 

changes in the availability of food as 

long as there is sufficient habitat 

security. Therefore, we do not anticipate 

changes in food resources to be a threat 

to the grizzly bear DPS. For more 

information about this threat, see Food 

Resources in the SSA report (Service 

2024, pp. 197–212). 

V. Potential Effects of Climate Change 

We evaluated observed or likely 

future environmental changes resulting 

from ongoing and projected changes in 

climate (Service 2024, pp. 210–217). 

Effects related to climate change may 

result in a number of changes to grizzly 

bear habitat, including a reduction in 

snowpack levels (McKelvey et al. 2011, 

entire; Schwartz et al. 2016, p. 317; 

Livneh and Badger 2020, pp. 453–454), 

which may shorten the denning season 

(Leung et al. 2004, pp. 93–94), shifts in 

denning times (Craighead and Craighead 

1972, pp. 33–34; Van Daele et al. 1990, 

p. 264; Haroldson et al. 2002, pp. 34– 

35), shifts in the abundance and 

distribution of some natural food 

sources (Rodriguez et al. 2007, pp. 41– 

42), and changes in fire regimes 

(Nitschke and Innes 2008, p. 853; 

McWethy et al. 2010, p. 55). 

Most grizzly bear biologists in the 

United States and Canada do not expect 

habitat changes predicted under climate 

change scenarios to have significant 

consequences for grizzly bears 

(Servheen and Cross 2010, p. 4). Climate 

change may even make some habitat 

more suitable and some food sources 

more abundant (Servheen and Cross 

2010, appendix D). In addition, we 

anticipate that grizzly bears will adapt 

to any future potential changes in 

suitable habitat and food sources 

because they display great diet plasticity 

and switch foods according to which 

foods are most nutritious and available 

(Servheen 1981, pp. 119–123,127–128; 

Kendall 1986, pp. 12–18; Mace and 

Jonkel 1986, entire; Martinka and 

Kendall 1986, pp. 21–22; LeFranc et al. 

1987, pp. 24–25; Aune and Kasworm 

1989, pp. 64–72; Schwartz et al. 2003, 

pp. 568–569; Edwards et al. 2011, pp. 

883–886; Gunther et al. 2014, pp. 65– 

69). Timing and frequency of humangrizzly bear interactions and conflicts 

may change (Servheen and Cross 2010, 

p. 4), and monitoring will continue to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4263 

support adaptive management 

decisions. We expect that current 

conservation plans and strategies with 

mortality limits will further limit any 

potential negative effects of climate 

change on grizzly bears. Therefore, in 

the absence of the protections of the 

Act, we do not anticipate potential 

effects of climate change to be a threat 

to the grizzly bear DPS. For more 

information about this threat, see 

Potential Effects of Climate Change in 

the SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 212– 

219). 

VI. Stochastic Events 

Here, we analyze a number of possible 

stochastic events, including fire, 

volcanic activity, and earthquakes, that 

might reasonably occur in each of the 

recovery ecosystems within the 30-to45-year future, to the extent possible 

(Service 2024, pp. 219–222). Some 

stochastic events could be catastrophic 

events if they occur on a large enough 

scale to rise to the level of affecting the 

resiliency of an entire population. 

Volcanic activity is most relevant for 

the GYE population given their 

geographic location; however, fires and 

earthquakes are the most plausible 

potential stochastic stressor to all of the 

ecosystems given their geographic 

location. Fire is a natural part of all 

grizzly bear ecosystems. Even though 

fire frequency and severity may increase 

with late summer droughts predicted 

under climate change scenarios 

(Nitschke and Innes 2008, p. 853; 

McWethy et al. 2010, p. 55; Whitlock et 

al. 2017; pp. 123–131, 216, XXXII), 

increased frequency of low to moderate 

severity fires has the potential to 

improve grizzly bear habitat. The GYE 

has experienced several large volcanic 

eruptions in the past 2.1 million years, 

and such an event would devastate the 

GYE grizzly bear population 

(Lowenstern et al. 2005, pp. 1–2). In 

addition, nonexplosive lava flow 

eruptions and hydrothermal explosions 

have occurred over the past 640,000 

years (Lowenstern et al. 2005, p. 2). 

Earthquakes also occur within the 

region and can impact the surrounding 

environment through fire damage, 

rockslides, ground cracks, and changes 

in ground water (Pardee 1926, entire). 

Most catastrophic stochastic events, 

such as volcanic activity, are 

unpredictable and unlikely to occur 

within the biologically meaningful 

timeframe evaluated in our SSA report 

(Service 2024, pp. 217–220). Other 

events that might occur within the 

future, such as fire and earthquakes, 

would likely cause only localized and 

temporary impacts that would not 

significantly reduce the resiliency of the 

GYE population. Therefore, no 

conservation measures are required to 

ameliorate these stressors, and, in the 

absence of the protections of the Act, we 

do not anticipate stochastic events to be 

a threat to the grizzly bear DPS. For 

more information about this threat, see 

Stochastic Events in the SSA report 

(Service 2024, pp. 217–219). 

Current Conditions 

As documented in our SSA report, we 

evaluated the resiliency of each of the 

six ecosystems, in terms of the habitat 

and demographic factors needed by the 

grizzly bear in the grizzly bear DPS 

(Service 2024, pp. 36–38, 232–247). We 

developed a categorical model to 

calibrate resiliency based on a range of 

conditions for two habitat factors 

(natural, high-caloric foods, and habitat 

security) and six demographic factors 

(adult female survival, abundance as 

measured by population targets and 

number of bears, population trend, 

reproductive female distribution, interecosystem connectivity, and genetic 

diversity) (Service 2024, pp. 232–235). 

We selected these habitat and 

demographic factors based on their 

importance to resiliency and because we 

could evaluate them relatively 

consistently across all six ecosystems. 

We then used this categorical model as 

a key to evaluate resiliency for each 

ecosystem by systematically evaluating 

the current condition of each habitat 

and demographic factor. To calculate an 

overall score for resiliency, we assigned 

weighted values to the resiliency 

categories and then calculated a 

weighted average of the habitat and 

demographic factor ranking (Service 

2024, p. 234). These scores were then 

used to classify resiliency in the 

predefined categories of high, moderate, 

low, or very low resiliency. Ecosystems 

with higher resiliency categories are at 

less risk from potential stochastic 

events, such as extreme weather events, 

than ecosystems in lower resiliency 

categories (Service 2024, p. 234). Our 

SSA report provides additional detail 

regarding the methodology we used to 

evaluate resiliency for each of the six 

ecosystems (Service 2024, pp. 232–235). 

Currently, the GYE population has 

high resiliency (table 21 in SSA report 

(Service 2024, p. 237)). A variety of land 

protections, particularly those that have 

reduced motorized access, and the 

availability and diversity of natural 

foods contribute to the currently high 

condition of the habitat factors in the 

GYE (Service 2024, p. 238). 

Additionally, State, Federal, Tribal, and 

nongovernmental organization partners 

have implemented conservation 

activities and land protections in the 

GYE that help reduce human-caused 

mortality and contribute to the large 

GYE population size (Service 2024, p. 

238). In the GYE, the demographic 

factors of genetic diversity and interecosystem connectivity could improve if 

natural immigration into the GYE 

population occurs in the future (Service 

2024, p. 238). There currently is no 

inter-ecosystem connectivity to the GYE 

population, and genetic diversity for the 

GYE population is currently moderate 

because the population remains 

isolated. One to two effective 

immigrants from another grizzly bear 

population each generation interval (i.e., 

14 years) are necessary to ensure longterm genetic health (Service 2024, pp. 

238–239). 

Currently, the NCDE population has 

high resiliency (table 21 in SSA report 

(Service 2024, p. 237)). A variety of land 

protections, particularly those that have 

reduced motorized access, and the 

availability and diversity of natural 

foods contribute to the currently high 

condition of the habitat factors in the 

NCDE (Service 2024, p. 239). 

Additionally, State, Federal, Tribal, and 

nongovernmental organization partners 

have implemented conservation 

activities and land protections in the 

NCDE that help reduce human-caused 

mortality and contribute to the large 

NCDE population size (Service 2024, p. 

239). The demographic factors of genetic 

diversity and inter-ecosystem 

connectivity are in a high condition as 

a result of connectivity with Canadian 

populations (Service 2024, pp. 239– 

240). 

Currently, the CYE population has 

low resiliency, and the SE population 

has moderate resiliency (table 21 in SSA 

report (Service 2024, p. 237)). The 

smaller size of the CYE and SE, with a 

narrower range of habitats that may 

limit the diversity of foods available, as 

well as somewhat limiting habitat 

security contribute to the currently 

moderate condition of the habitat factors 

in the CYE and SE (Service 2024, pp. 

240–241). Despite high population 

trends and high and moderate adult 

female survival, both the CYE and SE 

currently have very low numbers of 

bears, although this factor could 

improve as bears reproduce and expand 

in the future (Service 2024, pp. 240– 

241). The demographic factors of genetic 

diversity and inter-ecosystem 

connectivity are in a low to moderate 

condition as a result of past isolation 

and limited reproducing immigrants 

from other populations (Service 2024, 

pp. 241–242). 

Despite the moderate to high 

condition of habitats, without known 

populations, the BE and North Cascades 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4264 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

are currently in functionally extirpated 

condition, and therefore have no 

resiliency (Service 2024, pp. 242–244). 

Our SSA report provides additional 

detail regarding current resiliency for 

each of the six ecosystems (Service 

2024, pp. 232–245). 

Redundancy describes the ability of 

the species to withstand catastrophic 

events. For the grizzly bear, we 

considered the number and distribution 

of ecosystems, such that the greater the 

number and the wider the distribution 

of the ecosystems, the better able grizzly 

bears in the grizzly bear DPS are to 

withstand catastrophic events. Grizzly 

bears in the grizzly bear DPS currently 

occupy four ecosystems, with two 

ecosystems with high resiliency, one 

with moderate resiliency, and one with 

low resiliency. Two ecosystems are 

currently in functionally extirpated 

condition, with no resiliency, so they do 

not contribute to redundancy. 

Representation describes the ability of 

a species to adapt to changing 

environmental conditions. For the 

grizzly bear, we considered the breadth 

of ecological diversity as a proxy for 

evaluating this ability. Representation is 

currently captured by ecological 

diversity inherent within the grizzly 

bear populations in the four occupied 

ecosystems of the GYE, NCDE, CYE, and 

SE. For example, the GYE, contained in 

the Middle Rockies ecoregion, is 

dominated by forested, mountainous 

habitat, and dry sagebrush to the east 

and south, and includes hydrothermal 

features and other unique geologic 

features. The NCDE includes parts of the 

Great Plains, Middle Rockies, and 

Northern Rockies ecoregions, and 

habitat varies from wet forested lands 

west of GNP to much drier habitat to the 

east, including prairie grasslands. The 

CYE and SE are both contained within 

the Rocky Mountains, and are 

characterized by wet, forested 

mountains. The BE and North Cascades 

ecosystems are currently unoccupied by 

a grizzly bear population and therefore 

do not currently contribute to 

representation. The BE is primarily 

contained in the Idaho Batholith 

ecoregion. It contains mountainous 

regions; canyons; dry, partly wooded 

mountains; grasslands; high glacial 

valleys; and hot dry canyons. The North 

Cascades is part of the North Cascades 

ecoregion and is characterized by steep, 

rugged, glaciated peaks dividing wet 

temperate forests on the west side and 

semi-arid forests and shrub-steppe 

grasslands on the east side. 

Future Conditions 

We evaluated future conditions for 

the six ecosystems using projections for 

the stressors, habitat factors, and 

demographic factors that influence the 

resiliency of the ecosystem, and the 

redundancy and representation of the 

grizzly bear in the grizzly bear DPS 

(Service 2024, pp. 248–252). To evaluate 

future conditions, we used the same 

methodology that we used to evaluate 

current condition, but instead 

considered the plausible conditions for 

the two habitat factors and six 

demographic factors projected into the 

future under a range of plausible future 

scenarios (Service 2024, pp. 248–252). 

We evaluated future conditions for the 

grizzly bear in the grizzly bear DPS 30 

to 45 years into the future, a timeframe 

that captures approximately two to three 

grizzly bear generation intervals. A 

generation interval is the approximate 

time that it takes a female grizzly bear 

to replace herself in the population. 

Given the longevity of grizzly bears, two 

to three generation intervals represent a 

period during which a complete 

turnover of the population would have 

occurred; any positive or adverse 

changes in the status of the population 

would be evident. Additionally, this 

timeframe is sufficient to allow for the 

possibility that land management plans, 

which may provide important 

conservation measures to reduce 

potential stressors, could go through at 

least one revision (Service 2024, p. 248). 

Below, we summarize the future 

scenarios and our evaluation of future 

condition for the six ecosystems under 

each scenario; our full analysis is 

contained in the SSA report (Service 

2024, pp. 248–265). 

As documented in our SSA report, we 

used scenario planning to describe 

plausible futures for the grizzly bear and 

to capture uncertainty associated with 

our future projections. Using future 

scenarios allowed us to explore a range 

of possible future conditions for the 

grizzly bear in the grizzly bear DPS, 

given the uncertainty in the stressors 

grizzly bears in the grizzly bear DPS 

may face, their potential response to 

those stressors, and the potential for 

possible conservation efforts to 

influence future conditions (see table 28 

in our SSA report (Service 2024, p. 

266)). As described in more detail in our 

SSA report (Service 2024, pp. 248–252), 

we developed five future scenarios, as 

summarized below: 

• Future Scenario 1—Significantly 

Decreased Conservation: Under this 

scenario, conservation actions decrease 

significantly, largely through the 

termination or non-renewal of plans or 

regulations, and the rate of private land 

development increases dramatically; 

• Future Scenario 2—Decreased 

Conservation: Under this scenario, 

conservation actions decrease, but not 

as significantly as in Scenario 1, due to 

decreased effectiveness and 

implementation of conservation actions 

and mechanisms, and the rate of private 

land development increases; 

• Future Scenario 3—Continuation of 

Conservation: Under this scenario, 

conservation actions continue at the 

same rate, magnitude, and effectiveness 

as they currently occur under the Act, 

and the rate of private land 

development remains the same; 

• Future Scenario 4—Increased 

Conservation: Under this scenario, 

conservation actions increase or 

improve, and the rate of private land 

development decreases; and 

• Future Scenario 5—Significantly 

Increased Conservation: Under this 

scenario, conservation actions increase 

significantly, and the rate of private 

land development decreases 

dramatically. 

Although there are likely different 

probabilities associated with our future 

scenarios, we considered all five 

scenarios to be plausible for the 

purposes of our SSA analysis (Service 

2024, p. 248). We used the same 

methodology to evaluate current 

condition and to project the resiliency 

of the six ecosystems 30 to 45 years into 

the future. We projected the future 

condition for the two habitat factors and 

six demographic factors under each of 

the five future scenarios and then 

calculated an overall resiliency score for 

each ecosystem under each scenario 

using the same weighted average as our 

current condition evaluation. After 

evaluating resiliency, we then evaluated 

redundancy and representation of the 

grizzly bear in the grizzly bear DPS for 

each future scenario. 

Future Scenario 1 

With a significant decrease in 

conservation under Scenario 1, there are 

projected to be subsequent decreases in 

resiliency across the habitat and 

demographic factors for populations in 

all ecosystems over the next 30 to 45 

years. The GYE and NCDE populations 

are projected to decrease in overall 

resiliency from high to moderate, the SE 

population declines from moderate to 

low, and the CYE population declines 

from low to very low under this 

scenario. 

Natural high-caloric foods remain 

high or moderate for all ecosystems 

under Scenario 1, due in part to the 

large amount of wilderness and national 

parks, which help ensure that a 

diversity of food sources would 

continue to be available to the grizzly 

bear into the future. However, as 

conservation declines significantly 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4265 

under Scenario 1, habitat security 

declines from high to moderate for the 

GYE and NCDE, and from moderate to 

low in the CYE and SE as motorized 

access increases, but habitat security 

remains high in the BE and moderate for 

the North Cascades. The quantity of 

wilderness areas and national parks that 

remain in these ecosystems helps ensure 

that the condition of this habitat factor 

does not fall below moderate for the 

GYE, NCDE, and North Cascades, or 

below high for the BE. 

Under Scenario 1, there are projected 

to be overall declines in condition for 

most of the demographic factors for the 

populations in all ecosystems. Under 

this scenario, significant reductions in 

conservation actions that address 

unsecured attractants and other sources 

of human-caused mortality lead to 

increased mortality and hence declines 

in adult female survival, abundance, 

population trend, and reproductive 

female distribution. Human-caused 

mortalities would increase if State 

regulations are enacted that allow 

grizzly bears to be killed by the public 

(e.g., if bears ‘‘threaten’’ livestock) or if 

regulatory mechanisms limiting 

mortality to sustainable levels are not 

adequate. Reproductive female 

distribution in the GYE and NCDE 

populations declines from high to 

moderate, as at least one BMU in this 

ecosystem would likely be unoccupied 

as a result of significantly decreased 

conservation. Reproductive female 

distribution in the CYE and SE also 

declines under this scenario; however, 

due to the small size of BMUs in these 

ecosystems, single female home ranges 

will likely still overlap multiple BMUs, 

contributing to reproductive 

distribution. Finally, overall resiliency 

declines for the populations in all 

ecosystems as abundance declines due 

to increasing human-caused mortality, 

the GYE population continues to be 

isolated with no inter-ecosystem 

connectivity, and connectivity for the 

CYE and SE would decline as humancaused mortality would result in 

decreased connectivity. 

Future Scenario 2 

With a decrease in conservation 

efforts under Scenario 2, potential 

projected decreases in overall resiliency 

are less severe than under Scenario 1. 

Under Scenario 2, the NCDE population 

remains in high overall resiliency, the 

GYE population is projected to drop 

from high to moderate resiliency, the 

CYE population remains in low 

resiliency, and the SE drops from 

moderate to low overall resiliency. 

As conservation is reduced under 

Scenario 2, natural high-caloric foods 

remain the same as the current 

condition for all ecosystems. However, 

in the GYE and NCDE, habitat security 

shifts from high to moderate as 

motorized access increases, but the 

quantity of wilderness areas and 

national parks that remain helps ensure 

that the condition of this habitat factor 

does not fall below moderate. Habitat 

security remains the same for the CYE, 

SE, BE, and North Cascades. 

Under Scenario 2, there are projected 

to be overall declines in condition for 

most of the demographic factors for the 

populations in all ecosystems, although 

not as significantly as in Scenario 1. 

Under this scenario, reductions in 

conservation actions that address 

unsecured attractants and other sources 

of human-caused mortality lead to some 

increased mortality and resultant 

declines in adult female survival, 

abundance, population trend, and 

reproductive female distribution. 

Human-caused mortalities would 

increase if State regulations are enacted 

that allow grizzly bears to be killed by 

the public (e.g., if bears ‘‘threaten’’ 

livestock) or if regulatory mechanisms 

limiting mortality to sustainable levels 

are not adequate. 

Despite reduced conservation, the 

number of bears is projected to remain 

high for the GYE and NCDE populations 

under Scenario 2. However, the number 

of bears is likely to hover around the 

threshold between high and moderate, 

and could drop below the population 

target such that the status decreases 

from high to moderate. The number of 

bears decreases to very low in the CYE 

and SE because small differences in 

adult female survival have a larger 

impact on all other demographic factors 

due to their small population size. In 

general, reduced conservation could 

increase human-caused mortality and 

reduce abundance for the populations in 

all ecosystems, but there is some 

uncertainty regarding the magnitude of 

the reduction under this scenario. 

Reproductive female distribution in 

the GYE and NCDE populations 

declines from high to moderate under 

this scenario, as at least one BMU in 

these ecosystems would likely be 

unoccupied as a result of decreased 

conservation. However, reproductive 

female distribution would remain at 

moderate for the CYE and SE 

populations because a significant 

decline would be required to decrease 

distribution to less than 50 percent of 

BMUs occupied and because a female 

home range can overlap multiple BMUs 

in these ecosystems. Under Scenario 2, 

inter-ecosystem connectivity remains 

the same for the four current 

populations. In the CYE, lack of 

augmentation would likely increase the 

chances of inbreeding in the Cabinet 

portion of the CYE population under 

this scenario. 

Future Scenario 3 

Future Scenario 3 is a continuation 

scenario, where all stressors and 

conservation efforts continue at their 

same rate and magnitude 30 to 45 years 

into the future, as they currently occur 

under the protections of the Act. The 

current levels of funding and 

effectiveness and implementation of 

conservation actions and mechanisms 

stay the same under this scenario. As a 

result, the GYE and NCDE populations 

are projected to remain in overall high 

resiliency, the SE population stays in 

moderate, but the CYE improves overall 

resiliency from low to moderate and the 

BE improves from functionally 

extirpated to very low. 

Habitat factors remain the same under 

Scenario 3 for all ecosystems. Habitat 

security remains moderate for the SE 

and CYE by virtue of their smaller size, 

but we anticipate that conditions will 

improve due to ongoing implementation 

of current efforts to decrease motorized 

routes. Conditions improve for specific 

demographic factors, particularly in the 

CYE and SE, as continued conservation 

allows demographic factors to improve 

over time. Most notably, adult female 

survival improves from moderate to 

high in the SE and the status of 

population targets in the CYE and SE 

improves from low to moderate and 

moderate to high, respectively. We 

anticipate that a population will be 

established in the BE in the next 30 to 

45 years with continuation of current 

dispersal into the ecosystem. 

Demographic factors are rated as very 

low, largely due to the uncertainty 

around estimation resulting from small 

sample sizes and a newly established 

population. 

If conservation continues as described 

under Scenario 3, inter-ecosystem 

connectivity for the GYE population is 

projected to improve from functionally 

extirpated to a moderate condition. 

Individuals moving south from the 

NCDE population are already very close 

to the GYE population, and we expect 

that, as these populations continue to 

expand their occupied range, at least 

one male will enter the GYE population, 

establish a home range, and breed 

within the next 30–45 years if 

conservation measures continue. 

Genetic diversity would improve from 

moderate to high as the result of 

effective immigration or, if natural 

immigration does not occur by 2025, the 

States have committed to translocate 

bears into the GYE from another 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4266 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

population. We expect inter-ecosystem 

connectivity to increase from moderate 

to high for the CYE and SE with 

continuation of current conservation 

efforts that have already facilitated 

genetic connectivity. 

Future Scenario 4 

Under Scenario 4, conservation 

increases as funding increases, and the 

mechanisms that reduce motorized 

access and human-caused mortality 

increase or are more effective. Rates of 

development on private lands decrease, 

and there are increases in conservation 

easements, highway crossing structures 

for wildlife, and the amount of land 

designated as wilderness and IRAs. 

Under this scenario, individuals are 

successfully moved into the North 

Cascades, augmentation continues into 

the CYE, and translocations occur in the 

GYE population, as needed. The GYE 

and NCDE populations are projected to 

remain in overall high resiliency, the SE 

population remains in moderate 

resiliency, the CYE population improves 

from low to moderate resiliency, and 

both the BE and North Cascades shift 

from currently functionally extirpated 

with no resiliency to low resiliency. 

Habitat factors remain the same under 

Scenario 4 for all ecosystems. 

Demographic factors for the BE and 

North Cascades begin to improve from 

their currently functionally extirpated 

condition. We anticipate that a 

population will be established in the BE 

in the next 30 to 45 years with 

continuation of current dispersal into 

the ecosystem. In addition, we expect 

that successful reintroduction into the 

North Cascades would result in a 

positive population trend. However, 

many demographic factors are rated as 

very low, largely due to the uncertainty 

around estimation resulting from small 

sample sizes and a newly established 

population for the BE and North 

Cascades. Abundance improves in both 

the CYE and SE with increased 

conservation under this scenario. With 

increased conservation, inter-ecosystem 

connectivity improves for the GYE, SE, 

and BE populations. We do not 

anticipate any connectivity for the 

North Cascades under Scenario 4 

because conditions in Canada are 

assumed to remain the same. Although 

the North Cascades is within male 

dispersal distance of the SE population 

and genetic connectivity is possible, we 

anticipate these events to be rare due to 

distance and barriers (i.e., human 

development). 

Future Scenario 5 

Under Scenario 5, conservation 

increases significantly. Conditions 

under Scenario 5 generally improve 

similarly to conditions under Scenario 

4, but with additional increases in 

genetic diversity and population trend. 

Tolerance and acceptance also 

significantly increase, and there is 

general acceptance of grizzly bears 

persisting in all ecosystems and the 

importance of connectivity. The GYE 

and NCDE populations are projected to 

remain in overall high resiliency; the SE 

and CYE populations improve from 

moderate and low, respectively, to high 

resiliency; and both the BE and North 

Cascades shift from currently 

functionally extirpated with no 

resiliency to low resiliency. The 

condition for high-caloric foods 

improves from moderate to high for the 

BE with significantly increased 

conservation under Scenario 5. Habitat 

security in the North Cascades improves 

to high due to implementation of new 

habitat standards. 

Cumulative Effects 

We note that, by using the SSA 

framework to guide our analysis of the 

scientific information documented in 

the SSA report, we have analyzed the 

cumulative effects of identified threats 

and conservation actions on the species. 

To assess the current and future 

condition of the species, we evaluate the 

effects of all the relevant factors that 

may be influencing the species, 

including threats and conservation 

efforts. Because the SSA framework 

considers not just the presence of the 

factors, but to what degree they 

collectively influence risk to the entire 

species, our assessment integrates the 

cumulative effects of the factors and 

replaces a standalone cumulative-effects 

analysis. 

Conservation Efforts and Regulatory 

Mechanisms 

The following existing regulatory 

mechanisms, as of December 31, 2023, 

are specifically considered and 

discussed in our SSA report, as 

summarized above, as they relate to the 

stressors under each relevant 

discussion, affecting grizzly bears in the 

grizzly bear DPS. 

I. For Habitat-Related Effects 

• Conservation Strategy for the 

Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem, with appendices (YES 2024); 

• Conservation Strategy for the 

Grizzly Bear in the Northern 

Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020); 

• 2006 Forest Plan Amendment for 

Grizzly Bear Habitat Conservation for 

the Greater Yellowstone Area National 

Forests (USDA FS 2006a, 2006b); 

• 2011 Forest Plan Amendments for 

Motorized Access Management within 

the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly 

Bear Recovery Zones for the Kootenai, 

Lolo, and Idaho Panhandle National 

Forests (USDA FS 2011b); 

• 2015 Revision of the Land 

Management Plan for the Kootenai 

National Forest (USDA FS 2015c); 

• 2015 Revision of the Land 

Management Plan for the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forest (USDA FS 

2015b); 

• 2019 Colville National Forest Land 

Management Plan (USDA FS 2019); 

• 2000 Conservation Agreement 

between Stimson Lumber Company, 

Colville National Forest, and the Service 

(Service 2001); 

• 1997 interim Forest direction for 

the North Cascades Federal land 

management agencies (USDA FS 1997); 

• Flathead National Forest Land 

Management Plan (USDA FS 2018b); 

• Custer Gallatin National Forest 

Land Management Plan (USDA FS 

2022); 

• Helena-Lewis and Clark National 

Forest Land Management Plan (USDA 

FS 2021); 

• Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Forest Plan 

Amendments: Incorporating Habitat 

Management Direction for the Northern 

Continental Divide Ecosystem Grizzly 

Bear Population for the Helena-Lewis 

and Clark, Kootenai, and Lolo National 

Forests (USDA FS 2018e); 

• Blackfeet Forest Management Plan 

(Blackfeet Nation 2008); 

• Flathead Indian Reservation Forest 

Management Plan (CS&KT 2000); 

• Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Montana Department 

of Natural Resources and Conservation 

Forested Trust Lands Habitat 

Conservation Plan (DNRC 2010a, 

2010b); 

• Administrative Rules of Montana 

(ARM) subchapter 36.11.4 at 36.11.432 

and subchapter 12.9.14 at 12.9.1401; 

• Wilderness Act of 1964; 

• The 2001 Roadless Rule (66 FR 

3244, January 12, 2001); 

• Glacier National Park 

Superintendent’s Compendium 

implemented under the National Park 

System Organic Act (GNP 2024). The 

NPS Organic Act of 1916, 54 U.S.C. 

100101 et seq., created the NPS and 

assigned it the responsibility to manage 

the national parks. The Organic Act 

requires the NPS to manage park units 

to conserve scenery, natural and historic 

objects within parks, and wildlife, and 

to provide for their enjoyment in a 

manner that leaves them unimpaired for 

the enjoyment of future generations; 

• Yellowstone National Park (YNP 

2023) and Grand Teton National Park 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4267 

(GTNP and John D. Rockefeller, Jr. 

Memorial Parkway (JDR) 2024) 

compendia implemented under the NPS 

Organic Act; 

• Billings Field Office Approved 

Resource Management Plan, 2015 (BLM 

2015a); 

• Hiline Approved Resource 

Management Plan, 2015 (BLM 2015b); 

• Butte Field Office Approved 

Resource Management Plan, 2009 (BLM 

2009); 

• Missoula Field Office Approved 

Resource Management Plan, 2021 (BLM 

2021a); 

• Record of Decision and Approved 

Lewiston Resource Management Plan, 

2021 (BLM 2021b); and 

• Dillion Field Office Approved 

Resource Management Plan, 2006 (BLM 

2006). 

II. For Human-Caused Mortality: 

• Conservation Strategy for the 

Grizzly Bear in the Greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem with appendices (YES 2024); 

• Conservation Strategy for the 

Grizzly Bear in the Northern 

Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE 

Subcommittee 2020); 

• 2011 Forest Plan Amendments for 

Motorized Access Management within 

the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly 

Bear Recovery Zones for the Kootenai, 

Lolo, and Idaho Panhandle National 

Forests (USDA FS 2011b); 

• 2015 Revision of the Land 

Management Plan for the Kootenai 

National Forest (USDA FS 2015c); 

• 2015 Revision of the Land 

Management Plan for the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forest (USDA FS 

2015b); 

• 2019 Colville National Forest Land 

Management Plan (USDA FS 2019); 

• Montana Grizzly Bear Management 

Plan 2024 (MFWP 2024); 

• Flathead Indian Reservation Grizzly 

Bear Management Plan (Servheen et al. 

1981); 

• Bear Management Plan and 

Guidelines for Bear Management on the 

Blackfeet Indian Reservation (Blackfeet 

Tribal Business Council 2013); 

• Blackfeet National Fish and 

Wildlife Code (Blackfeet Tribal Business 

Council 2018); 

• Nez Perce Tribal Code section 3–1– 

52; 

• Flathead Indian Reservation Tribal 

Ordinance 44D; 

• Grizzly Bear Management Plan for 

the Wind River Reservation (Eastern 

Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes 

2009); 

• Administrative Rules of Montana 

(ARM) subchapter 12.9.14 at 12.9.1401, 

12.9.1403, 12.9.1405, and 12.9.1413; 

• Montana Code Annotated (MCA) at 

sections 87–2–101(4), 87–1–301, 87–1– 

304, 87–5–301, and 87–5–302; 

• Idaho Administrative Code (IAC) 

rules 13.01.06.100.05 and 

13.01.06.300.01; 

• Idaho Statutes (I.S.) at title 36, 

chapter 2 (section 36–201) and chapter 

11 (section 36–1101(a)); 

• Washington Administrative Code 

(WAC) at section 220–610–010; 

• Wyoming Statutes (W.S.) at sections 

23–1–101(a)(xii)(A) and 23–3–102(a); 

• Wyoming Administrative Rules 

(WAR) 040–0001–67; 

• State of Idaho Yellowstone Grizzly 

Bear Management Plan (Idaho’s 

Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Delisting 

Advisory Team 2002); 

• Proclamation of the Idaho Fish and 

Game Commission Relating to the Limit 

of the Take of Grizzly Bear in the 

Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (Idaho 

Fish and Game Commission 2016); 

• Draft Idaho State wildlife action 

plan 2023 (Idaho Department of Fish 

and Game (IDFG) 2023); 

• Montana Hunting Regulations for 

Grizzly Bear (MFWP 2016); 

• Wyoming Grizzly Bear Management 

Plan (WGFD 2016); 

• Wyoming Game and Fish 

Commission (2016)—chapter 67, Grizzly 

Bear Management Regulation; and 

• Tri-State Memorandum of 

Agreement Regarding the Management, 

Genetic Health, and Allocation of 

Discretionary Mortality of Grizzly Bears 

in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem 

(Wyoming Game and Fish Commission 

et al. 2024). 

Determination of Status for the Grizzly 

Bear DPS 

Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533) 

and its implementing regulations (50 

CFR part 424) set forth the procedures 

for determining whether a species meets 

the definition of an endangered species 

or a threatened species. The Act defines 

an ‘‘endangered species’’ as a species in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range, and a 

‘‘threatened species’’ as a species likely 

to become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future throughout all or 

a significant portion of its range. The 

Act requires that we determine whether 

a species meets the definition of an 

endangered species or a threatened 

species because of any of the following 

factors: (A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; (B) 

overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; (C) disease or predation; (D) 

the inadequacy of existing regulatory 

mechanisms; or (E) other natural or 

manmade factors affecting its continued 

existence. 

Status Throughout All of Its Range 

Although only four of the six 

ecosystems currently support 

populations, the grizzly bear DPS has 

improved in abundance and estimated 

occupied range since the listing of the 

subspecies in 1975. Historically, the 

grizzly bear occurred throughout much 

of the western half of North America, 

with an estimated 50,000 grizzly bears 

distributed in one large contiguous area 

that included all or portions of 18 

western States. Populations declined in 

the late 1800s with the arrival of 

European settlers, government-funded 

bounty programs, and the conversion of 

habitats to agricultural uses. When we 

listed the grizzly bear in the lower-48 

States as a threatened species under the 

Act in 1975, grizzly bears had been 

reduced to less than 2 percent of their 

former range in the lower-48 States; at 

the time, the estimated population in 

the lower-48 States, and the proposed 

grizzly bear DPS, was 700 to 800 

individuals with populations confined 

to mountainous regions, national parks, 

and wilderness areas. 

Currently, four of the six ecosystems 

of the grizzly bear in the grizzly bear 

DPS are extant (Service 2024, pp. 60– 

63). Two of these ecosystems have high 

resiliency, one has moderate resiliency, 

and one has low resiliency (Service 

2024, pp. 13–15, 212–227). The GYE 

and NCDE currently have high 

resiliency due to the high conditions of 

their habitat and demographic factors, 

such as widely available and protected 

large, intact blocks of land, positive 

population growth rates, expanding 

ranges, and high survival rates of adult 

females (Service 2024, pp. 12, 218–219). 

With high resiliency, the GYE and 

NCDE are currently the best able of the 

four extant ecosystems to withstand 

environmental and demographic 

stochasticity, followed by the SE with 

medium resiliency and the CYE with 

low resiliency. Ongoing conservation 

actions implemented since the time of 

listing, such as regulatory mechanisms 

that reduce habitat degradation and 

sources of human-caused mortality, 

have significantly improved the 

resiliency of these four ecosystems over 

the last several decades (Service 2024, 

pp. 102–106, 203–205). These levels of 

resiliency currently reduce extinction 

risk for the grizzly bear in the lower-48 

States. Considered together, the four 

resilient ecosystems provide ecological 

diversity, and their longitudinal and 

latitudinal distribution helps reduce 

current catastrophic risk to the grizzly 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4268 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

bear DPS (Service 2024, pp. 13–15, 212– 

227). 

The current condition of the grizzly 

bear in the grizzly bear DPS represents 

a marked improvement from the 

conditions in 1975, when we listed the 

grizzly bear as a threatened species. 

Over the last 45 years, threats to the 

grizzly bear in the lower-48 States, 

including the proposed grizzly bear 

DPS, have declined and, in some cases, 

have been ameliorated with 

conservation efforts and mechanisms, 

including: mortality limits; Federal land 

protections, such as the Wilderness Act 

and IRAs; State and private forestlands 

with motorized access restrictions; 

habitat improvements/vegetation 

management; attractant removal and 

community sanitation measures, such as 

food storage orders; conservation 

easements; I&E programs; effective law 

enforcement; and translocation 

programs (Service 2024, pp. 103–229). 

States, Federal agencies, and Tribes 

have implemented regulatory 

mechanisms that help address the 

stressors we identified, including 

habitat destruction and modification 

(Factor A), human-caused mortality 

(Factors B and C), and the isolated 

nature of some populations (Factor E). 

Since the original 1975 listing, new 

federally designated wilderness areas 

and IRAs helped secure large, intact 

blocks of land and reduce sources of 

human-caused mortalities. The 

management of motorized access 

similarly reduced stressors associated 

with habitat loss and human access in 

grizzly bear habitats. Additionally, in 

four of the six recovery zones (GYE, 

NCDE, CYE, and SE), Federal land 

managers have adopted land 

management plans that contain legally 

binding and enforceable science- and 

research-based measures and 

management practices designed 

specifically to conserve the grizzly bear 

in the grizzly bear DPS. These 

regulatory mechanisms also help reduce 

threats associated with habitat loss and 

fragmentation on the Federal lands 

where they apply (Service 2024, pp. 

102–106, 203–205). While humancaused mortality continues to be an 

ongoing threat to grizzly bears in the 

grizzly bear DPS, under current 

management, including the protections 

of the Act, human-caused mortality 

rates have been low enough to allow the 

GYE, NCDE, CYE, and SE grizzly bear 

populations to increase in number and 

range (Schwartz et al. 2006b, pp. 64–66; 

Schwartz et al. 2006c, p. 48; Bjornlie et 

al. 2014, p. 184; Costello 2019, in litt.; 

Costello et al. 2023, p. 14; Costello et al. 

2024, in prep.; Gould et al. 2024c, in 

prep.; Kasworm et al. 2024a, in prep.; 

Kasworm et al. 2024b, in prep.; MFWP, 

unpublished data). Due to these and 

many other conservation actions, the 

number of grizzly bears in the grizzly 

bear DPS has more than doubled since 

the time of listing, and grizzly bears 

have since expanded their range and 

abundance, growing from occupying 

approximately only 2 percent of their 

historical range in 1975 to 6 percent in 

2022 (Haroldson et al. 2021, p. 164; 

Costello et al. 2023, p. 14; Dellinger et 

al. 2023, p. 23; Kasworm et al. 2024a, 

2024b, in prep.; Service 2024, pp. 60– 

63). As a result, the viability of the 

grizzly bear DPS has improved since 

1975. 

Given the current levels of resiliency 

in four of six ecosystems, the high 

resiliency of the GYE and NCDE, and 

the lack of significant and imminent 

stressors, the grizzly bear DPS currently 

has sufficient ability to withstand 

stochastic and catastrophic events, and 

to adapt to environmental changes. 

Therefore, we conclude that the grizzly 

bear DPS’s current risk of extinction is 

low, such that the grizzly bear DPS is 

not currently in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range. 

Having determined that the grizzly 

bear DPS is not in danger of extinction 

throughout all of its range, we next 

considered whether the grizzly bear DPS 

is likely to become an endangered 

species within the foreseeable future 

throughout all of its range. We defined 

the foreseeable future as 30 to 45 years 

into the future, a timeframe that is 

biologically meaningful by accounting 

for two to three generation intervals, or 

the average amount of time it takes a 

female to breed and replace herself in 

the population. Given the longevity of 

grizzly bears, up to 37 years in the wild 

(Kasworm et al. 2024a, in prep.), two to 

three generation intervals represent a 

period during which a complete 

turnover of the population would have 

occurred and any changes in the 

demographics of the population would 

be detectable. This timeframe also 

considers the possibility that 

conservation measures that reduce and 

regulate potential stressors, such as land 

management plans, could be revised at 

least once by any applicable land 

management agencies (Service 2024, pp. 

15–16, 228). Moreover, it is a timeframe 

during which we can reasonably project 

both future threats and the grizzly bear’s 

response to those threats. 

To assist us in evaluating the status of 

the grizzly bear DPS over the next 30 to 

45 years (i.e., the foreseeable future), we 

evaluated the future condition for the 

six grizzly bear ecosystems in the lower48 States under five plausible future 

scenarios, as summarized above and 

discussed in our SSA report (Service 

2024, pp. 232–243). Over the next 30 to 

45 years, we anticipate a range of future 

conditions for the grizzly bear DPS, with 

nearly the same levels of resiliency, 

redundancy, and representation as 

current condition under one future 

scenario, improved conditions under 

two future scenarios, and decreased 

conditions under two future scenarios 

(Service 2024, pp. 15–19, 232–243). In 

three of the five future scenarios, the 

GYE and NCDE retain high resiliency, 

but where conservation efforts decline 

in the future, the resiliency for both the 

GYE and NCDE declines from high to 

moderate (Service 2024, pp. 232–235). 

Resiliency in the CYE and SE is also 

projected to decrease under future 

scenarios with decreased conservation 

(Service 2024, p. 244), such that the 

grizzly bear DPS is at increased risk of 

extinction within the foreseeable future. 

In the foreseeable future, the CYE and 

SE have moderate to very low levels of 

resiliency, and only achieve high 

resiliency under one scenario (Service 

2024, p. 244), such that the CYE and SE 

only contribute moderate, low, or very 

low levels of resiliency under four of the 

five future scenarios (Service 2024, p. 

244). Finally, the BE and North 

Cascades only begin to contribute to the 

viability of the grizzly bear DPS under 

two scenarios with improvements in 

conservation efforts (Service 2024, p. 

244). To summarize, under the plausible 

future conditions discussed in the SSA 

report (Service 2024, p. 244), the grizzly 

bear DPS would be less likely to 

withstand plausible stochastic and 

catastrophic events, and to retain 

sufficient adaptive capacity to 

withstand environmental change, 30 to 

45 years into the future. 

Additionally, as human populations 

continue to expand across all six 

ecosystems, humans may engage with 

grizzly bears and their habitats in 

increasingly unpredictable ways. In the 

foreseeable future, continued growth of 

human populations could lead to 

increased private land development, 

increased recreation, additional habitat 

loss, and more human-bear conflicts 

over the next 30 to 45 years. The 

uncertainty associated with the stressors 

of human-bear conflicts, human 

population growth, and potential 

reductions in connectivity further 

represent a possible reduction in overall 

viability of the grizzly bear DPS within 

the foreseeable future. 

After evaluating threats to the species 

and assessing the cumulative effect of 

the threats under the Act’s section 

4(a)(1) factors, we conclude that the 

grizzly bear DPS is at increased risk of 

extinction within the foreseeable future. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4269 

In the future, human-caused mortality 

would continue to be a threat to the 

grizzly bear DPS because regulatory 

mechanisms may not adequately limit 

sources of human-caused mortality. 

Further, the lack of regulatory 

mechanisms to address the threats of 

human-bear conflicts, human 

population growth, and potential 

reductions in connectivity further 

increases the risk of a possible reduction 

in the resiliency of the grizzly bear 

populations in the grizzly bear DPS 

within the foreseeable future. In 

addition, habitat-related threats, such as 

motorized access and habitat security, 

would likely remain an issue in the 

future for the CYE, SE, and North 

Cascades, as conservation mechanisms 

to address these threats are not yet 

finalized (North Cascades) or standards 

have not been met (CYE and SE). 

Finally, demographic recovery criteria 

have been achieved in only two of six 

recovery zones, and regulatory 

mechanisms are not fully in place. 

Management frameworks to ensure 

grizzly bear mortality is within 

sustainable thresholds independent of 

the Act are currently only complete and 

incorporated into regulatory documents 

for two of the six ecosystems. Thus, 

after assessing the best available 

information, we conclude that the 

grizzly bear DPS is not in danger of 

extinction but is likely to become in 

danger of extinction within the 

foreseeable future throughout all of its 

range. 

Status Throughout a Significant Portion 

of Its Range 

Under the Act and our implementing 

regulations, a species may warrant 

listing if it is in danger of extinction or 

likely to become so within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. The 

court in Center for Biological Diversity 

v. Everson, 435 F. Supp. 3d 69 (D.D.C. 

2020) (Everson), vacated the provision 

of the Final Policy on Interpretation of 

the Phrase ‘‘Significant Portion of Its 

Range’’ in the Endangered Species Act’s 

Definitions of ‘‘Endangered Species’’ 

and ‘‘Threatened Species’’ (hereafter 

‘‘Final Policy’’; 79 FR 37578, July 1, 

2014) that provided if the Service 

determines that a species is threatened 

throughout all of its range, the Service 

will not analyze whether the species is 

endangered in a significant portion of its 

range. 

Therefore, we proceed to evaluating 

whether the species is endangered in a 

significant portion of its range—that is, 

whether there is any portion of the 

species’ range for which both (1) the 

portion is significant; and (2) the species 

is in danger of extinction in that 

portion. Depending on the case, it might 

be more efficient for us to address the 

‘‘significance’’ question or the ‘‘status’’ 

question first. We can choose to address 

either question first. Regardless of 

which question we address first, if we 

reach a negative answer with respect to 

the first question that we address, we do 

not need to evaluate the other question 

for that portion of the species’ range. 

Following the court’s holding in 

Everson, we now consider whether the 

species is in danger of extinction in a 

significant portion of its range. In 

undertaking this analysis for the grizzly 

bear DPS, we choose to address the 

status question first. 

We evaluated the range of the grizzly 

bear DPS to determine if the species is 

in danger of extinction in any portion of 

its range. The range of a species can 

theoretically be divided into portions in 

an infinite number of ways. We focused 

our analysis on portions of the species’ 

range that may meet the Act’s definition 

of an endangered species. For the 

grizzly bear DPS, we considered 

whether the threats or their effects on 

the species are greater in any 

biologically meaningful portion of the 

species’ range than in other portions 

such that the species is in danger of 

extinction in that portion. 

We examined the following threats: 

habitat destruction and modification, 

human-caused mortality, natural 

mortality, effects due to genetic health, 

effects due to changes in food resources, 

and effects due to climate change, 

including cumulative effects (Service 

2024, pp. 105–230). First, we evaluated 

whether there are portions of the grizzly 

bear DPS’s range with a different 

biological status. The BE and North 

Cascades ecosystems are not significant 

portions of the range because they do 

not currently support populations. 

Similarly, although they may support 

movements between ecosystems and 

low densities of individuals, the areas 

between the six ecosystems are not 

significant portions of the range because 

they lack known populations of grizzly 

bears (Service 2024, pp. 59, 62). To 

identify potential portions, we 

considered whether the grizzly bear has 

different extinction risk in one or more 

ecosystems. Based on the information 

provided in the SSA report, we 

determined that a portion comprised of 

the GYE and NCDE, both with high 

resiliency, currently has less extinction 

risk than the remaining portion 

comprised of the CYE and SE, with low 

and moderate resiliency, respectively 

(Service 2024, p. 13). As a result, there 

may be differences in biological 

condition across the range of the grizzly 

bear DPS. 

The CYE and SE currently have lower 

levels of resiliency than the GYE and 

NCDE, so we explored whether a 

portion of the overall range consisting of 

the CYE and SE may have a different 

risk of extinction, such that the grizzly 

bear may have a different regulatory 

status in that portion of the range. The 

CYE currently has low resiliency, and 

the SE has medium resiliency, due to 

low abundance and genetic diversity 

resulting from past isolation and the 

species’ natural slow reproductive rates. 

Rates of human-caused mortality in the 

CYE and SE are similar to those in the 

GYE and NCDE (Kasworm et al. 2024a, 

in prep.; Kasworm et al. 2024b, in prep.; 

Gould et al. 2024b, in prep.; MFWP, 

unpublished data), and all four 

ecosystems have experienced positive 

population growth rates (Service 2024, 

p. 235). This indicates that although the 

CYE and SE are currently less resilient 

than the GYE and NCDE, the magnitude 

and immediacy of the threats are 

currently similar across the four 

ecosystems. Additionally, the current 

levels of resiliency for the CYE and SE, 

and the grizzly bear’s distribution across 

the two ecosystems, are sufficient for 

the grizzly bear to withstand stochastic 

and catastrophic events within the 

portion. Therefore, we determined that 

the grizzly bear is not in danger of 

extinction within the portion composed 

of the CYE and SE. 

We found no biologically meaningful 

portion of the grizzly bear DPS where 

threats are impacting individuals 

differently from how they are affecting 

the species elsewhere in its range, or 

where the biological condition of the 

species differs from its condition 

elsewhere in its range. Therefore, no 

portion of the DPS’s range provides a 

basis for determining that the grizzly 

bear is in danger of extinction in a 

significant portion of the range, and we 

determine that the grizzly bear DPS is 

likely to become in danger of extinction 

within the foreseeable future throughout 

all of its range. This does not conflict 

with the courts’ holdings in Desert 

Survivors v. U.S. Department of the 

Interior, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1011, 1070–74 

(N.D. Cal. 2018) and Center for 

Biological Diversity v. Jewell, 248 F. 

Supp. 3d 946, 959 (D. Ariz. 2017) 

because, in reaching this conclusion, we 

did not apply the aspects of the Final 

Policy, including the definition of 

‘‘significant’’ that those court decisions 

held to be invalid. 

Determination of Status 

Based on the best scientific and 

commercial data available, we 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4270 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

determine that the grizzly bear DPS 

meets the Act’s definition of a 

threatened species. Therefore, we 

propose to list the grizzly bear DPS as 

a threatened species in accordance with 

sections 3(20) and 4(a)(1) of the Act. 

Relationship of the Grizzly Bear DPS to 

Experimental Populations 

We have designated two experimental 

populations for the grizzly bear in the 

lower-48 States: one in the BE (65 FR 

69624; November 17, 2000) and one in 

the North Cascades (89 FR 36982; May 

3, 2024). Currently, grizzly bears have 

not been reintroduced to either area. 

Below, we clarify that these two 

experimental populations are part of the 

proposed grizzly bear DPS, consistent 

with our findings for the experimental 

population designations. 

When we designate an experimental 

population for a species under the Act, 

we must find by regulation that such 

release will further the conservation of 

the species. See 50 CFR 17.81(b) for 

factors we consider in making such a 

finding. Furthermore, we must 

determine whether the experimental 

population is, or is not, essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild (50 CFR 17.81(c)(2)). 

In both our experimental population 

designations for grizzly bears, we found 

that establishment of the experimental 

populations would further the 

conservation of the species (that is, 

grizzly bear in the lower-48 States). We 

also found that neither experimental 

population is essential to the continued 

existence of the grizzly bear in the 

lower-48 States. 

This proposed rule would revise the 

entry for grizzly bear on the List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife at 

50 CFR 17.11(h) to clarify where grizzly 

bears are currently found or are likely to 

be found in the future as populations 

recover. Under this proposed rule, we 

would also retain the current entries at 

50 CFR 17.11(h) for the Bitterroot and 

North Cascades nonessential 

experimental populations of the grizzly 

bear, as well as the applicable 

regulations at 50 CFR 17.84(l) and (y), 

respectively, unless we undertake 

separate rulemaking to revise or remove 

one or both of them. If we finalize this 

rule as proposed, the grizzly bear DPS 

will contain all currently extant 

populations of grizzly bears in the 

United States, as well as those areas 

likely to be occupied by grizzly bears in 

the future. This area includes both 

designated experimental populations. 

This proposed rule would not change 

the individuals of the species that are or 

will be protected by the Act, and grizzly 

bears would continue to be listed as a 

threatened species under the Act. As 

such, the two experimental populations 

would continue to be members of the 

grizzly bear DPS, and our previous 

findings for the two experimental 

populations designated for the grizzly 

bear would remain relevant and 

applicable to the grizzly bear DPS. The 

basis for those findings is summarized 

below. 

Restoring grizzly bears to the BE and 

the NCE will further the conservation of 

grizzly bears by establishing additional 

populations in portions of the species’ 

historical range where the species is 

presently extirpated. The recovery plan 

includes an objective to recover grizzly 

bears in all of the ecosystems known to 

have suitable space and habitat (USFWS 

1993, pp. 15–16). Reestablishing grizzly 

bears in the BE and NCE will fulfill 

important recovery needs for the grizzly 

bear in the lower-48 States. 

For both the North Cascades and 

Bitterroot experimental populations, we 

also confirm that these experimental 

populations of grizzly bears are not 

essential to the continued existence of 

the grizzly bear DPS. Because there are 

approximately 2,200 grizzly bears in 

other ecosystems in the lower-48 States 

that are intensively monitored and 

managed, the loss of either experimental 

population would not appreciably 

reduce the likelihood of survival of the 

species in the wild. Therefore, as 

required by 50 CFR 17.81(c)(2), we 

continue to find that the experimental 

populations are not essential to the 

continued existence of the species in the 

wild. For the BE, we are currently in the 

process of reassessing options for 

restoring grizzly bears to that ecosystem 

(89 FR 3411, January 18, 2024), which 

could result in revising or removing that 

experimental population designation. 

II. Proposed Revision of the Protective 

Regulations Under Section 4(d) of the 

Act for the Grizzly Bear 

Background 

Section 4(d) of the Act states that the 

Secretary shall issue such regulations as 

she deems necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of species 

listed as threatened species. 

Conservation is defined in the Act to 

mean the use of all methods and 

procedures which are necessary to bring 

any endangered species or threatened 

species to the point at which the 

measures provided pursuant to the Act 

are no longer necessary. Additionally, 

section 4(d) of the Act states that the 

Secretary may by regulation prohibit 

with respect to any threatened species 

any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), 

in the case of fish or wildlife, or section 

9(a)(2), in the case of plants. Congress 

delegated broad authority to the 

Secretary to determine what protections 

would be necessary and advisable to 

provide for the conservation of 

threatened species, and even broader 

authority to put in place any of the 

section 9 prohibitions for a given 

species. 

The courts have recognized the extent 

of the Secretary’s discretion under this 

standard to develop rules that are 

appropriate for the conservation of a 

species. For example, courts have 

upheld, as a valid exercise of agency 

authority, rules developed under section 

4(d) that included limited prohibitions 

against takings (see Alsea Valley 

Alliance v. Lautenbacher, 2007 WL 

2344927 (D. Or. 2007); Washington 

Environmental Council v. National 

Marine Fisheries Service, 2002 WL 

511479 (W.D. Wash. 2002)). Courts have 

also upheld 4(d) rules that do not 

address all of the threats a species faces 

(see State of Louisiana v. Verity, 853 

F.2d 322 (5th Cir. 1988)). As noted in 

the Act’s legislative history, ‘‘once an 

animal is on the threatened list, the 

Secretary has an almost infinite number 

of options available to [her] with regard 

to the permitted activities for those 

species. [She] may, for example, permit 

taking, but not importation of such 

species, or [she] may choose to forbid 

both taking and importation but allow 

the transportation of such species’’ (H.R. 

Rep. No. 412, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. 

1973). 

The grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 

horribilis) currently has a speciesspecific protective regulation at 50 CFR 

17.40(b), which we are proposing to 

amend. The provisions of this species’ 

proposed protective regulations under 

section 4(d) of the Act are one of the 

many tools that we would use to 

promote the conservation of the grizzly 

bear within the DPS. There are also 

population-specific protective 

regulations under section 10(j) of the 

Act for two nonessential experimental 

populations, the North Cascades and 

Bitterroot, that are not affected by this 

proposed rule, and any changes to those 

population-specific regulations would 

require separate rulemaking processes 

with opportunities for public review 

and comment. 

Nothing in 4(d) rules change in any 

way the recovery planning provisions of 

section 4(f) of the Act, the consultation 

requirements under section 7 of the Act, 

or the ability of the Service to enter into 

partnerships for the management and 

protection of the grizzly bear DPS. 

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

Federal agencies, including the Service, 

to ensure that any action they authorize, 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4271 

fund, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of 

any endangered species or threatened 

species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated 

critical habitat of such species. In 

addition, even before the listing of any 

species or the designation of its critical 

habitat is finalized, section 7(a)(4) of the 

Act requires Federal agencies to confer 

with the Service on any agency action 

which is likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of any species 

proposed to be listed under the Act or 

result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of critical habitat proposed 

to be designated for such species. These 

requirements are the same for a 

threatened species regardless of what is 

included in its 4(d) rule. 

Section 7 consultation is required for 

Federal actions that ‘‘may affect’’ a 

listed species regardless of whether take 

caused by the activity is prohibited or 

excepted by a 4(d) rule (the ‘‘blanket 

rule’’ at 50 CFR 17.31(a) or speciesspecific 4(d) rule). A 4(d) rule does not 

change the process and criteria for 

informal or formal consultations and 

does not alter the analytical process 

used for biological opinions or 

concurrence letters. For example, as 

with an endangered species, if a Federal 

agency determines that an action is ‘‘not 

likely to adversely affect’’ a threatened 

species, this will require the Service’s 

written concurrence (50 CFR 402.13(c)). 

Similarly, if a Federal agency 

determines that an action is ‘‘likely to 

adversely affect’’ a threatened species, 

the action will require formal 

consultation with the Service and the 

formulation of a biological opinion (50 

CFR 402.14(a)). Because consultation 

obligations and processes remain in 

effect despite the issuance of 4(d) rules, 

we may consider developing tools to 

streamline future intra-Service and 

interagency consultations for actions 

that result in forms of take that are not 

prohibited by the 4(d) rule (but that still 

require consultation). These tools may 

include consultation guidance; 

streamlined, online consultation 

processes via the Service’s digital 

project planning tool (Information for 

Planning and Consultation; https://

ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/); template 

language for biological opinions; or 

programmatic consultations. 

Provisions of the Proposed 4(d) Rule for 

the Grizzly Bear DPS 

Exercising the Secretary’s authority 

under section 4(d) of the Act, we have 

developed a proposed rule that is 

designed to address the grizzly bear 

DPS’s conservation needs. As discussed 

previously in Summary of Biological 

Status and Threats, we have concluded 

that the grizzly bear DPS is likely to 

become an endangered species within 

the foreseeable future primarily due to 

habitat destruction and modification, 

human-caused mortality, and the 

isolated nature of some populations. 

Section 4(d) requires the Secretary to 

issue such regulations as she deems 

necessary and advisable to provide for 

the conservation of each threatened 

species and authorizes the Secretary to 

include among those protective 

regulations any of the prohibitions that 

section 9(a)(1) of the Act prescribes for 

endangered species. We are not required 

to make a ‘‘necessary and advisable’’ 

determination when we apply or do not 

apply specific section 9 prohibitions to 

a threatened species (In re: Polar Bear 

Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) 

Rule Litigation, 818 F. Supp. 2d 214, 

228 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Sweet Home 

Chapter of Cmtys. for a Great Or. v. 

Babbitt, 1 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 1993), 

rev’d on other grounds, 515 U.S. 687 

(1995))). Nevertheless, even though we 

are not required to make such a 

determination, in the interest of 

transparency we explain below our 

finding that, if finalized, the protections, 

prohibitions, and exceptions in this 

proposed rule as a whole satisfy the 

requirement in section 4(d) of the Act to 

issue regulations deemed necessary and 

advisable to provide for the 

conservation of the grizzly bear DPS. 

The protective regulations we are 

proposing for the grizzly bear DPS 

incorporate prohibitions from section 

9(a)(1) of the Act to address the threats 

to the species. The prohibitions of 

section 9(a)(1) of the Act, and 

implementing regulations codified at 50 

CFR 17.21, make it illegal for any person 

subject to the jurisdiction of the United 

States to commit, to attempt to commit, 

to solicit another to commit, or to cause 

to be committed any of the following 

acts with regard to any endangered 

wildlife: (1) import into, or export from, 

the United States; (2) take (which 

includes harass, harm, pursue, hunt, 

shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 

collect, or to attempt to engage in any 

such conduct) within the United States, 

within the territorial sea of the United 

States, or on the high seas; (3) possess, 

sell, deliver, carry, transport, or ship, by 

any means whatsoever, any such 

wildlife that has been taken illegally; (4) 

deliver, receive, carry, transport, or ship 

in interstate or foreign commerce, by 

any means whatsoever and in the course 

of commercial activity; or (5) sell or 

offer for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. We also propose to prohibit 

the acts of possessing, selling, 

delivering, carrying, transporting, or 

shipping, by any means whatsoever, 

grizzly bears that have been taken 

legally with specific exceptions 

described below. This protective 

regulation includes all of these 

prohibitions because the grizzly bear 

DPS is at risk of extinction within the 

foreseeable future and putting these 

prohibitions in place will help to 

conserve the species’ remaining 

populations, slow its rate of decline, 

and decrease synergistic, negative 

effects from other stressors. In 

particular, this proposed 4(d) rule 

would provide for the conservation of 

the grizzly bear DPS by prohibiting the 

following activities, unless they fall 

within specific exceptions or are 

otherwise authorized or permitted: 

importing or exporting; take; possession 

and other acts with taken specimens; 

delivering, receiving, carrying, 

transporting, or shipping in interstate or 

foreign commerce in the course of 

commercial activity; or selling or 

offering for sale in interstate or foreign 

commerce. 

Under the Act, ‘‘take’’ means to 

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

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

to attempt to engage in any such 

conduct. Some of these provisions have 

been further defined in regulations at 50 

CFR 17.3. Take can result knowingly or 

otherwise, by direct and indirect 

impacts, intentionally or incidentally. 

Regulating take would help preserve the 

species’ remaining populations, slow 

their rate of decline, and decrease 

synergistic, negative effects from other 

stressors. Therefore, we propose to 

prohibit take of the grizzly bear DPS, 

except for take resulting from those 

actions and activities specifically 

excepted by the 4(d) rule. 

Exceptions to the prohibitions would 

include allowing Federal and State law 

enforcement officers to possess, deliver, 

carry, transport, or ship grizzly bears as 

necessary in performing their official 

duties and additional exceptions, as 

described below. Despite the 

prohibitions regarding threatened 

species, we may under certain 

circumstances authorize one or more 

otherwise-prohibited activities, 

including those described above. The 

regulations that govern permits for 

threatened wildlife state that the 

Director may issue a permit authorizing 

any activity otherwise prohibited with 

regard to threatened species. These 

include permits issued for the following 

purposes: for scientific purposes, to 

enhance propagation or survival, for 

economic hardship, for zoological 

exhibition, for educational purposes, for 

incidental taking, or for special 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4272 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

purposes consistent with the purposes 

of the Act (50 CFR 17.32). The statute 

also contains certain exemptions from 

the prohibitions, which are found in 

sections 9 and 10 of the Act. 

Grizzly bears may obtain 

anthropogenic food sources, such as pet 

food, garbage, or livestock, if they are 

not properly secured. Grizzly bears that 

repeatedly obtain anthropogenic foods 

(food-conditioned bears) can become a 

threat to human safety. Additionally, 

depredating grizzly bears can affect the 

livelihood of ranchers and other 

livestock owners. The prompt response 

or removal of depredating and foodconditioned grizzly bears helps to 

prevent or minimize negative impacts, 

such as human safety concerns and 

livestock losses, leading to broader 

social receptiveness and tolerance. 

When limited by sustainable mortality 

rates according to specific populations 

or areas, lethal removal is an important 

component of long-term grizzly bear 

recovery that does not inhibit grizzly 

bear population growth. In this 

proposed 4(d) rule, we consider 

strategies, including nonlethal and 

lethal methods (depending on the sitespecific situation), to increase human 

safety and reduce human-bear conflicts 

and thereby promote recovery of the 

grizzly bear DPS. 

To further the conservation of the 

species, we propose not to apply the 

exceptions at 50 CFR 17.31(b), and 

instead propose multiple speciesspecific exceptions. For example, we 

propose that any employee or agent of 

the Service, any other Federal land 

management agency, the National 

Marine Fisheries Service, a State 

conservation agency, or a federally 

recognized Tribe, who is designated by 

their agency or Tribe for such purposes, 

may, when acting in the course of their 

official duties, take grizzly bears with 

prior authorization from the Service if 

such action is necessary to dispose of a 

dead specimen or salvage a dead 

specimen that may be useful for 

scientific study. 

This proposed 4(d) rule clarifies 

grizzly bear management strategies on 

public and private lands in accordance 

with recovery status. This includes the 

requirement that agencies obtain prior 

authorization from the Service for 

conflict removals, as described in a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

between the Service and authorized 

agency. Authorized agencies may 

relocate bears as a preemptive action to 

prevent conflict that appears imminent 

or in an attempt to break the habituated 

behavior of grizzly bears lingering near 

human-occupied areas. When a grizzly 

bear is captured, the employee will 

consult with the appropriate land 

management agency to determine a 

relocation site that is most suitable for 

the bear, considering age and sex of the 

bear, conflict history, and current 

human use at available relocation sites. 

Such taking must be coordinated with 

the Service as described in a current 

MOU between the Service and the 

authorized agency. In addition, we 

propose to except certain take 

associated with livestock grazing on 

private lands and public allotments, 

private property protection, authorized 

agency take outside of areas important 

for recovery or connectivity, grizzly bear 

deterrence, and take associated with 

trapping of other species for research or 

management conducted by authorized 

agencies; we describe each in more 

detail below. 

(1) Public Land Grazing Allotments 

Outside Recovery Zones 

If authorized by the Service, take of 

grizzly bear depredating livestock on 

grazing allotments on public land 

outside of Recovery Zones would be 

excepted under a written, time-limited, 

conditioned lethal take authorization 

issued to an individual if the following 

conditions are met: (1) a depredation of 

livestock has been confirmed by the 

Service or authorized agency; and (2) 

the Service or authorized agency 

determine a grizzly bear poses a 

demonstrable and ongoing threat. The 

Service would consider various factors, 

including recovery status of the 

population involved, history of conflict 

in the area, severity of the incident, 

mitigation efforts in place, and 

alternative actions available prior to 

authorization. 

(2) Private Land Livestock Operations 

Outside Recovery Zones 

In addition to the excepted take 

described above, a producer, lessee, or 

designee would be allowed to take 

(injure or kill) a grizzly bear in the act 

of attacking livestock or working dogs 

on private land located outside of 

Recovery Zones provided that: (1) there 

were no excessive, unsecured attractants 

(e.g., carcasses or bone piles); (2) there 

was no intentional feeding or baiting of 

the grizzly bear or other wildlife; (3) the 

carcass of any grizzly bear taken and the 

area surrounding the carcass is not 

disturbed; (4) the take is reported to the 

Service or authorized agency within 24 

hours; and (5) the Service or authorized 

agency is able to confirm that the 

livestock or working dog was injured or 

killed by a grizzly bear. The taking of 

any grizzly bear without such evidence 

may be referred to the appropriate 

authorities for prosecution. Authorized 

agencies must report such take to the 

Service within 24 hours. 

(3) Private Lands Outside Recovery 

Zones 

If authorized by the Service, take of a 

grizzly bear on private lands outside of 

Recovery Zones would be excepted 

under a written, time-limited, 

conditioned lethal take authorization 

issued to an individual to kill a grizzly 

bear if the Service or an authorized 

agency identifies the bear as posing a 

demonstrable and ongoing threat to 

human safety or to other property (e.g., 

compost, chickens, beehives). The 

Service would consider various factors, 

including recovery status of the 

population involved, history of conflict 

in the area, severity of the incident, 

mitigation efforts in place, and 

alternative actions available prior to 

authorization. 

(4) Outside of Areas Important for 

Recovery or Connectivity 

This proposed 4(d) rule prescribes 

management practices within areas most 

important for recovery—such as 

recovery zones, areas adjacent to 

recovery zones, and current and 

potential connectivity zones—while 

allowing more flexible management in 

areas deemed less important for 

recovery within the proposed DPS. 

Areas less important for recovery 

include portions of Wyoming outside 

the DMA, as well as areas that do not 

have the potential to provide for 

connectivity as identified by the Service 

and partners in a planning document, 

such as a recovery plan, conservation 

strategy, or similar agency document. 

For example, Zone 3 identified in the 

NCDE Conservation Strategy does not 

provide for recovery or connectivity and 

therefore is an area where these 

management practices would apply. In 

these areas that are less important for 

recovery, take would be excepted for 

authorized agencies without prior 

authorization from the Service and 

without first attempting relocation if 

that bear meets the definition of a 

grizzly bear involved in conflict as 

described in this proposed rule. In these 

areas, authorized agencies may also 

issue written, time-limited, conditioned 

lethal take authorization under the 

conditions described in (b)(3)(vii) and 

(b)(3)(viii)(B) of this section. 

(5) Deterrence 

Take caused by conducting deterrence 

of grizzly bears for the purposes of 

avoiding human-bear conflicts or to 

discourage bears from using areas near 

homes and other human-occupied areas 

would be excepted from the take 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4273 

prohibitions when the deterrence is 

conducted according to Serviceapproved best practices, which are, at 

this time, the Service’s current hazing 

guidelines. Deterrence means an 

intentional, nonlethal action to haze, 

disrupt, or annoy a grizzly bear out of 

close proximity to people or property to 

promote human safety, prevent conflict, 

or protect property. The deterrence must 

not cause lasting bodily injury to any 

grizzly bear and must be undertaken 

safely and responsibly. Acceptable 

deterrence techniques may include 

nonprojectile auditory deterrents, visual 

stimuli/deterrents, vehicle threat 

pressure, bear spray, noise-making 

projectiles, or soft projectiles fired from 

non-powder-actuated launchers 

intended to break on contact. For more 

information about appropriate nonlethal 

deterrents, individuals can contact the 

Service for the most current Serviceapproved best practices. Any person 

may deter a grizzly bear to protect 

themselves (e.g., using bear spray or 

loud noises). An individual may not 

bait, stalk, or pursue a grizzly bear for 

the purposes of deterrence. Individuals 

may deter grizzly bears away from the 

immediate vicinity, defined as 200 

meters (656 feet), of a human-occupied 

residence or potential source of conflict. 

Once bears have moved beyond the 

immediate vicinity (200 meters (656 

feet)), hazing is unlikely to be effective 

and is not excepted take under this 

proposed rule. Authorized agencies 

would be allowed to use additional 

tools, including contracted services for 

hazing as described in a current MOU. 

(6) Trapping of Other Species for 

Research and Management 

The 4(d) rule would also provide for 

the conservation of the species by 

excepting otherwise prohibited take 

associated with several activities either 

intended to incentivize conservation 

actions or that are expected to have 

negligible impacts to the grizzly bear 

DPS. Although the activities may result 

in some minimal level of take of the 

grizzly bear DPS, such take is not 

expected to rise to a level that would 

have a negative impact (i.e., would have 

only de minimis impacts) on the 

species’ conservation. We propose to 

except incidental take associated with 

research and management trapping of 

other species, such as the gray wolf 

(Canis lupus) and wolverine (Gulu 

gulu), by an authorized agency provided 

the trap is securely anchored to prevent 

a grizzly bear from leaving the area and 

traps are checked at least every 24 

hours. This provision does not authorize 

the use of neck snares. 

We recognize the special and unique 

relationship that we have with our State 

natural resource agency partners in 

contributing to conservation of listed 

species. State agencies often possess 

scientific data and valuable expertise on 

the status and distribution of 

endangered, threatened, and candidate 

species of wildlife and plants. State 

agencies, because of their authorities 

and their close working relationships 

with local governments and 

landowners, are in a unique position to 

assist us in implementing the Act. 

Section 6 of the Act provides that we 

must cooperate to the maximum extent 

practicable with the States in carrying 

out programs authorized by the Act. 

Therefore, any employee of a State 

conservation agency that is a party to a 

signed and valid cooperative agreement 

pursuant to section 6(c) of the Act, who 

is designated by their agency for such 

purposes, would be able to conduct 

activities designed to conserve the 

grizzly bear DPS that may result in 

otherwise prohibited take without 

additional authorization, including 

surveys; tagging, handling and capture; 

and habitat management activities 

undertaken for the conservation benefit 

of the species. Under the proposed 4(d) 

rule, States would be ‘‘authorized 

agencies’’ for purpose of undertaking 

grizzly bear management, including 

lethal removal in conflict situations as 

described above, if approved by the 

Service in accordance with the 4(d) rule 

and implemented through a current 

MOU between the Service and the State. 

Under the proposed 4(d) rule, the 

authorization for employees or agents of 

States to remove grizzly bears from the 

State for the purposes of population 

introduction, population augmentation, 

or relocation to mitigate human-bear 

conflicts, or lethal removal of a grizzly 

bear in conflict, would replace the 

exception set forth in 50 CFR 

17.31(b)(3). 

Required Determinations 

Clarity of the Rule 

We are required by Executive Order 

(E.O.) 12866 and E.O. 12988 and by the 

Presidential memorandum of June 1, 

1998, to write all rules in plain 

language. This means that each rule we 

publish must: 

(1) Be logically organized; 

(2) Use the active voice to address 

readers directly; 

(3) Use clear language rather than 

jargon; 

(4) Be divided into short sections and 

sentences; and 

(5) Use lists and tables wherever 

possible. 

If you feel that we have not met these 

requirements, send us comments by one 

of the methods listed in ADDRESSES. To 

better help us revise the rule, your 

comments should be as specific as 

possible. For example, you should tell 

us the numbers of the sections or 

paragraphs that are unclearly written, 

which sections or sentences are too 

long, the sections where you feel lists or 

tables would be useful, etc. 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) 

Regulations adopted pursuant to 

section 4(a) of the Act are exempt from 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and do 

not require an environmental analysis 

under NEPA. We published a document 

outlining our reasons for this 

determination in the Federal Register 

on October 25, 1983 (48 FR 49244). This 

includes listing, delisting, and 

reclassification rules, as well as critical 

habitat designations and speciesspecific protective regulations 

promulgated concurrently with a 

decision to list or reclassify a species as 

threatened. The courts have upheld this 

position (e.g., Douglas County v. 

Babbitt, 48 F.3d 1495 (9th Cir. 1995) 

(critical habitat); Center for Biological 

Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2005 WL 2000928 (N.D. Cal. 

Aug. 19, 2005) (concurrent 4(d) rule)). 

Government-to-Government 

Relationship With Tribes 

In accordance with the President’s 

memorandum of April 29, 1994 

(Government-to-Government Relations 

with Native American Tribal 

Governments; 59 FR 22951, May 4, 

1994), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments), the President’s 

memorandum of November 30, 2022 

(Uniform Standards for Tribal 

Consultation; 87 FR 74479, December 5, 

2022), and the Department of the 

Interior’s manual at 512 DM 2, we 

readily acknowledge our responsibility 

to communicate meaningfully with 

federally recognized Tribes on a 

government-to-government basis. In 

accordance with Secretary’s Order (SO) 

3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian 

Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust 

Responsibilities, and the Endangered 

Species Act), we readily acknowledge 

our responsibilities to work directly 

with Tribes in developing programs for 

healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that 

Tribal lands are not subject to the same 

controls as Federal public lands, to 

remain sensitive to Indian culture, and 

to make information available to Tribes. 

In accordance with joint SO 3403 A1 of 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4274 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

November 30, 2022, we recognize our 

responsibility to ensure our decisions 

with respect to wildlife safeguard the 

interests of potentially affected Tribes. 

We solicited information from the 

Tribes within the proposed grizzly bear 

DPS to inform the development of our 

SSA report, but we did not receive any 

responses. We will continue to 

coordinate with affected Tribes during 

the development of any final rules for 

the grizzly bear DPS, as appropriate. 

References Cited 

A complete list of references cited in 

this rulemaking is available on the 

internet at https://www.regulations.gov 

and upon request from the Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT). 

Authors 

The primary authors of this proposed 

rule are the staff members of the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Office. 

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17 

Endangered and threatened species, 

Exports, Imports, Plants, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation, Wildlife. 

Proposed Regulation Promulgation 

Accordingly, we propose to amend 

part 17, subchapter B of chapter I, title 

50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

as set forth below: 

PART 17—ENDANGERED AND 

THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS 

■ 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. In § 17.11, in paragraph (h), amend 

the List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife by revising the entry for ‘‘Bear, 

grizzly’’ under MAMMALS to read as 

follows: 

§ 17.11 Endangered and threatened 

wildlife. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

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

Mammals 

*******

Bear, grizzly [Grizzly Bear DPS] Ursus arctos horribilis ................ U.S.A.: All of WA and portions 

of MT, ID, and WY, except 

where listed as an experimental population, as follows: 

(1) Northern boundary—the 

portion south of the western 

terminus of the U.S.-Canada 

border in WA east to Montana 

Highway 16; (2) Eastern 

boundary—the portion west of 

Montana Highway 16 south 

from the U.S.-Canada border 

to Interstate 94 continuing 

south to Montana Highway 

47, then to Interstate 90, then 

to Highway 25, then to Wyoming Highway 220, then to 

Wyoming Highway 287 to the 

intersection with Interstate 80; 

(3) Southern boundary—the 

portion north of Interstate 80 

west to Highway 30, then follows the Snake River near 

Pocatello, ID, to the WA State 

line to the Pacific Ocean; (4) 

Western boundary—the portion east of the coast of WA 

north to the U.S.-Canada border.

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; 

[FEDERAL REGISTER citation when published as 

a final rule]; 50 CFR 17.40(b).4d

*******

■ 3. Amend § 17.40 by revising 

paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 17.40 Species-specific rules—mammals. 

* * * * * 

(b) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 

horribilis), Grizzly bear DPS. (1) 

Definitions. As used in paragraph (b) of 

this section: 

Authorized agency means a Federal, 

State, or Tribal agency designated by the 

Service in a memorandum of 

understanding (MOU) to assist in 

implementing all or part of the specified 

actions in paragraph (b)(3) of this 

section. 

Deterrence means an intentional, 

nonlethal action to haze, disrupt, or 

annoy a grizzly bear out of close 

proximity to people or property to 

promote human safety, prevent conflict, 

or protect property. 

Grizzly bear means any member of the 

species Ursus arctos horribilis within 

the grizzly bear DPS, as described in 50 

CFR 17.11(h), including any part, 

offspring, dead body, part of a dead 

body, or product of such species. 

Grizzly bear involved in conflict 

means a grizzly bear that has caused 

substantial property damage, obtained 

anthropogenic foods (e.g., pet food, 

livestock feed, garbage), killed or 

injured lawfully present livestock, 

damaged beehives, breached an intact 

structure or electrified perimeter to 

obtain fruit or crops (e.g., greenhouse, 

garden, orchard, field, stackyard or grain 

bin), shown repeated and persistent 

signs of habituation in proximity to 

human-occupied areas (e.g., has been 

repeatedly hazed or previously 

relocated), exhibited aggressive behavior 

(i.e., not acting in defense of offspring or 

food or in response to a surprise 

encounter), or has been involved in a 

human-grizzly encounter resulting in 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 4275 

substantial human injury or loss of 

human life. 

Habituation means the decrease of an 

animal’s flight response following 

repeated exposure to inconsequential 

stimuli. 

Human food-conditioned bear means 

a grizzly bear that has learned to 

associate people, human activities, 

human-use areas, or food storage 

receptacles with anthropogenic food as 

a result of repeatedly accessing 

anthropogenic foods without negative 

consequences on numerous occasions. 

In the act of attacking means the 

actual biting, wounding, grasping, or 

killing by a grizzly bear. 

Incidental take is take that is 

incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

the carrying out of an otherwise lawful 

activity; it must be unintentional and 

not due to negligent conduct. 

Lasting bodily injury/injured means 

damage that limits a grizzly bear’s 

ability to effectively move, obtain food, 

or defend itself for any length of time. 

Non-target means a bear that is caught 

that is not believed to be the bear that 

is involved in the conflict. 

Prior authorization from the Service 

means that an approved representative 

from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

as specified in a current MOU, has 

agreed with the proposed management 

action. 

Recovery Zones are outlined in the 

1993 Recovery Plan, and subsequent 

supplements, and identify six recovery 

ecosystems, each containing a recovery 

zone at its core, within the lower-48 

States thought to be capable of 

supporting grizzly bears. 

Self-defense means that the person 

was acting to protect himself or herself, 

or any other individual, from bodily 

harm. 

Serious injury means any permanent 

damage or injury that limits a grizzly 

bear’s ability to effectively move, obtain 

food, or defend itself for any length of 

time. 

Sick means affected with disease or ill 

health. 

Threat to human safety means a 

grizzly bear that exhibits aggressive, 

non-defensive, behavior towards 

humans. Grizzly bear presence alone 

does not constitute a threat to human 

safety. Grizzly bears less than 2 years of 

age with no history of food-conditioning 

are not considered a threat to human 

safety. 

Working dog means a herding or 

guard dog that is actively herding or 

guarding in close proximity to humanoccupied areas or to lawfully present 

livestock. 

(2) Prohibitions. The following 

prohibitions that apply to endangered 

wildlife also apply to the grizzly bear 

DPS. Except as provided under 

paragraph (b)(3) of this section and 

§§ 17.4 and 17.5, it is unlawful for any 

person subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States to commit, to attempt to 

commit, to solicit another to commit, or 

cause to be committed, any of the 

following acts in regard to this species: 

(i) Import or export, as set forth at 

§ 17.21(b) for endangered wildlife. 

(ii) Take, as set forth at § 17.21(c)(1) 

for endangered wildlife. 

(iii) Possession, delivery, carriage, 

transport, or shipment of unlawfully or 

lawfully taken specimens of grizzly 

bears. 

(iv) Interstate or foreign commerce in 

the course of commercial activity, as set 

forth at § 17.21(e) for endangered 

wildlife. 

(v) Sale or offer for sale, as set forth 

at § 17.21(f) for endangered wildlife. 

(3) Exceptions from prohibitions. The 

following exceptions to the prohibitions 

apply to the grizzly bear DPS: 

(i) Federal, State, or Tribal authorities 

may import grizzly bears into the United 

States for scientific or research purposes 

with prior authorization from the 

Service. 

(ii) Any person may conduct activities 

as authorized by a permit under § 17.32. 

(iii) Any employee or agent of the 

Service, or any employee or agent of 

another Federal agency, State agency, or 

federally recognized Tribe defined in a 

current MOU with the Service who, as 

part of their official duties, normally 

handles large carnivores and is trained 

and/or experienced in immobilizing, 

marking, and handling grizzly bears 

(which we define as a Federal, State, or 

Tribal ‘‘authority’’), may, when acting in 

the course of official duties, take or 

collect samples from a grizzly bear in 

the wild consistent with this paragraph 

(b) and the applicable MOU if such 

action is necessary for scientific, 

genetic, or population augmentation 

purposes. 

(A) Mortalities or suspected serious 

injury must be reported to the Service 

as described in a current MOU. 

(1) Take that results in a grizzly bear 

mortality must be reported to the 

Service within 24 hours. 

(2) Take that results in a grizzly bear 

injury must be reported to the Service 

within 5 days. 

(B) Authorized agencies may move a 

grizzly bear to aid recovery or increase 

the genetic health of the population 

after notification to the Service. 

(C) In the absence of an MOU, a 

permit under § 17.32 is required. 

(iv) Any person may take a grizzly 

bear in defense of their own life or the 

lives of others. Grizzly bears taken in 

self-defense or in defense of human life 

must be reported by the individual who 

has taken the bear or their designee 

within 24 hours of occurrence. Take 

must be reported to the Office of Law 

Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, in the appropriate region (see 

50 CFR 2.2 for regional office 

information), and to appropriate State 

and Tribal authorities. The specimen 

may only be retained, disposed of, or 

salvaged with the consent of, and 

consistent with directions from, the 

Office of Law Enforcement. 

(v) Take is excepted for authorized 

agencies aiding sick and injured grizzly 

bears when conducted in a humane 

manner. Take associated with orphaned 

cubs must have prior authorization from 

the Service except when the conditions 

under paragraph (b)(3)(vi) apply. 

(vi) An employee or agent of a 

Federal, State, or federally recognized 

Tribe defined in a current MOU with 

the Service who, as part of their official 

duties, normally handles large 

carnivores may, when acting in the 

course of official duties, humanely take 

a grizzly bear in the wild with prior 

authorization from the Service in order 

to avoid conflicts, prevent habituation, 

improve grizzly bear survival, release or 

relocate non-targets, aid in law 

enforcement investigations, salvage bear 

carcasses, or euthanize severely 

wounded bears under the following 

criteria: 

(A) Efforts are made to eliminate such 

threat or depredation, when reasonably 

possible, by securing attractants, using 

deterrence, or live-capturing and 

releasing the bear unharmed in a remote 

area. 

(1) Authorized agencies may relocate 

bears as a preemptive action for the 

purpose of preventing conflict that 

appears imminent or breaking 

habituated behavior of grizzly bears 

lingering near human-occupied areas. 

(2) When a grizzly bear is captured, 

the employee or agent will consult with 

the appropriate land management 

agency to determine a relocation site 

that is most suitable for the bear, 

considering the age and sex of the bear, 

conflict history, and current human use 

at available relocation sites. Such taking 

must be coordinated with the Service as 

described in a current MOU. 

(B) In grizzly bear Recovery Zones, 

management actions by authorized 

agencies include lethal removal of a 

grizzly bear involved in conflict (as 

defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this 

section) when the condition set forth in 

paragraph (b)(3)(vi)(A) of this section is 

met, with authorization from the 

Service, taking into consideration the 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3
4276 Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules 

age and sex of the bear, nature of the 

conflict, and the bear’s conflict history. 

(C) Outside of areas important for 

recovery or connectivity as identified by 

the Service in a final recovery plan, or 

with the Service in an approved 

conservation strategy, other similar 

agency planning document, or, in 

Wyoming, outside the DMA, authorized 

agencies may, without prior approval 

from the Service: 

(1) Lethally remove a bear without 

first attempting relocation if it has been 

determined to be a grizzly bear involved 

in conflict, as defined in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section. 

(2) Issue a written, time-limited, 

conditioned lethal take authorization as 

set forth in paragraphs (b)(3)(vii) and 

(b)(3)(viii)(A) of this section. 

(3) When taking a bear or authorizing 

a take of a bear under this authority, the 

authorized agency assumes the 

responsibility of correctly applying the 

definition of a grizzly bear involved in 

conflict as defined in paragraph (b)(1) of 

this section. 

(4) Authorized agencies must report 

any lethal take to the Service within 24 

hours of the incident if take is by the 

agency, or within 24 hours of reporting 

if take is associated with a lethal take 

authorization. 

(vii) On public land grazing 

allotments outside Recovery Zones the 

Service may issue written, time-limited, 

conditioned lethal take authorization to 

an individual if all of the following 

conditions are met: 

(A) All conditions set forth in 

paragraph (b)(3)(vi)(A) have been met; 

(B) A depredation of livestock has 

been confirmed by the Service or 

authorized agency; and 

(C) With the consideration of the 

recovery status of the population 

involved, the history of conflict in the 

area, and the severity of the incident, 

the Service or authorized agency 

determines that a bear is a demonstrable 

and ongoing threat. 

(viii) On private lands outside 

Recovery Zones, the Service may 

authorize an individual to take a grizzly 

bear when all conditions set forth in 

paragraph (b)(3)(vi)(A) have been met, 

provided that: 

(A) The Service issues a written, timelimited, conditioned lethal take 

authorization as described in paragraph 

(b)(3)(vii); and 

(B) The Service or an authorized 

agency identifies the bear as a 

demonstrable and ongoing threat to 

human safety or to protect property 

(e.g., compost, chickens, beehives). The 

identification will include consideration 

of the recovery status of the population 

involved, the history of conflict in the 

area, and the severity of the incident. 

(ix) On private lands outside Recovery 

Zones, a producer, lessee, or designee 

may take (injure or kill) a grizzly bear 

in the act of attacking livestock or 

working dogs on private land outside 

Recovery Zones provided: 

(A) Excessive unsecured attractants 

(e.g., carcasses or bone piles) are absent; 

(B) There was no intentional feeding 

or baiting of the grizzly bear or wildlife; 

(C) The take is reported to the Service 

or authorized agency within 24 hours. If 

a report of lethal take is made to an 

authorized agency, then that agency 

must report that take to the Service 

within 24 hours; 

(D) The Service or authorized agency 

is able to confirm that the livestock or 

working dog was injured or killed by a 

grizzly bear. The taking of any grizzly 

bear without such evidence may be 

referred to the appropriate authorities 

for prosecution; and (E) For lethal take, 

the carcass of any grizzly bear taken and 

the area surrounding it is not disturbed 

to preserve the physical evidence that 

the take was conducted according to 

these regulations. 

(x) Take in the form of harassment is 

excepted for individuals to conduct 

deterrence of grizzly bears for the 

purposes of avoiding human-bear 

conflicts or to discourage bears from 

using areas near homes and other 

human-occupied areas under the 

following conditions: 

(A) Any deterrence must be 

conducted in accordance with Serviceapproved best practices. 

(B) Any deterrence must not cause 

lasting bodily injury to any grizzly bear 

(i.e., permanent damage or injuries that 

limit the bear’s ability to effectively 

move, obtain food, or defend itself for 

any length of time) or death to the 

grizzly bear. 

(C) Acceptable deterrence techniques 

may include non-projectile auditory 

deterrents, visual stimuli/deterrents, 

bear spray, vehicle threat pressure, 

noise-making projectiles, or soft 

projectiles fired from non-powderactuated launchers intended to break on 

contact. Unacceptable deterrence 

methods include screamers, whistlers, 

rubber bullets, batons, bean bag and 

aero sock rounds, or other contact 

projectiles not intended to break on 

contact due to their potential to cause 

lasting injury. For more information 

about appropriate nonlethal deterrents, 

individuals can contact the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, in the appropriate 

region (see 50 CFR 2.2 for regional office 

information). 

(D) Anyone may deter a grizzly bear 

in the case of self-defense (e.g., by using 

bear spray or loud noises), but an 

individual must not bait, stalk, or 

pursue a grizzly bear for the purposes of 

deterrence. 

(E) Individuals may deter grizzly 

bears away from the immediate vicinity, 

defined as 200 meters (656 feet), of a 

human-occupied residence or potential 

source of conflict. Once bears have 

moved beyond the immediate vicinity 

(200 meters (656 feet)), deterrence must 

cease. 

(F) Authorized agencies may use 

additional tools, including contracted 

services, as described in a current MOU. 

(xi) An authorized agency may take a 

grizzly bear if that take is incidental to, 

and not the purpose of, an otherwise 

lawful research and management 

trapping for other species, such as 

wolverine (Gulu gulu) and gray wolf 

(Canis lupus), provided that: 

(A) The trap is securely anchored to 

prevent a grizzly bear from leaving the 

area; 

(B) The trap is checked at least every 

24 hours; 

(C) Trapping does not include use of 

neck snares; and 

(D) Incidental take that results in a 

grizzly bear mortality must be reported 

to the Service within 24 hours; or 

(E) Incidental take that results in a 

grizzly bear injury must be reported to 

the Service within 5 days. 

(xii) In coordination with the 

Service’s Office of Law Enforcement, 

authorized Federal, State, or Tribal 

employees, when acting in the course of 

their official duties, may, for scientific 

or research purposes, possess, deliver, 

carry, transport, ship, export, or receive 

grizzly bears. 

(xiii) Federal and State law 

enforcement officers may possess, 

deliver, carry, transport, or ship grizzly 

bears as necessary in performing their 

official duties. 

* * * * * 

Martha Williams, 

Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2025–00329 Filed 1–14–25; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4333–15–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS3