Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Three Petitions To Delist the Grizzly Bear in the Lower-48 States, 7658-7660 [2023-02467]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
7658
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules
1. On page 5968, in the first and second
columns, in the ADDRESSES section, the text
‘‘BOEM–2022–0019’’ is corrected to read
‘‘BOEM–2023–0005’’.
2. On page 5968, in the second column, in
the ADDRESSES section, the text ‘‘BOEM–
2020–0033’’ is corrected to read ‘‘BOEM–
2023–0005’’.
3. On page 5969, in the second column, in
footnote 2, the text ‘‘https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=BOEM-20200033’’ is corrected to read ‘‘https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=BOEM-20230005.’’
4. On page 5971, in the first column, in
paragraph (a) of section 5, the text ‘‘BOEM–
2020–0033’’ is corrected to read ‘‘BOEM–
2023–0005’’.
5. On page 6014, in the third column, in
footnote 95, the text ‘‘https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=BOEM-20200033’’ is corrected to read ‘‘https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=BOEM-20230005.’’
6. On page 6018, in the first column, in
footnote 102, the text ‘‘https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=BOEM-20200033’’ is corrected to read ‘‘https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=BOEM-20230005.’’
7. On page 6019, in the first column, in
footnote 108, the text ‘‘https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=BOEM-20200033’’ is corrected to read ‘‘https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=BOEM-20230005.’’
Elizabeth Klein,
Director, Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management.
[FR Doc. 2023–02398 Filed 2–3–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4340–98–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2022–0150;
FF09E21000 FXES11130900000234]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Three
Petitions To Delist the Grizzly Bear in
the Lower-48 States
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notification of petition findings
and initiation of status review.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce
three 90-day findings on petitions to
delist the grizzly bear in the lower-48
States (Ursus arctos horribilis) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). One petition requests
delisting the grizzly bear in the lower48 States, and the other two petitions
request delisting populations in two
specific ecosystems, the Northern
DDrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:16 Feb 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE)
and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
(GYE). Based on our review, we find
that the petitions pertaining to the two
ecosystems present substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating
that the petitioned actions may be
warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this document, we
announce that we plan to initiate a
status review to determine whether the
petitioned actions are warranted. To
ensure that the status review is
comprehensive, we are requesting new
scientific and commercial data and
other information regarding the grizzly
bear in the NCDE and GYE and factors
that may affect its status in those
ecosystems, including the adequacy of
existing regulatory mechanisms to
address threats now and in the
foreseeable future. Based on the status
review, we will issue a 12-month
petition finding, which will address
whether or not the petitioned actions
are warranted, in accordance with the
Act. If we ultimately do find that one or
more of the petitioned actions is
warranted and proceed to propose to
delist one or more distinct population
segments (DPSs), we will consider the
effects of any proposed delisting on the
ongoing recovery of the larger listed
entity of grizzly bears. We also found
that a petition 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 actions may be
warranted; therefore, we will take no
further action on that petition.
DATES: The findings announced in this
document were made on February 6,
2023.
ADDRESSES:
Supporting documents: A summary of
the basis for the petition findings
contained in this document is available
on https://www.regulations.gov in
Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2022–0150. In
addition, this supporting information is
available by contacting the person
specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Status reviews: If you have new
scientific or commercial data or other
information concerning the status of, or
threats to, the grizzly bear in the NCDE
and GYE or its habitats, particularly
new information available since our
March 30, 2021, 5-year status review,
please provide those data or information
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–2022–0150, which is
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the docket number for this action. Then,
click on the ‘‘Search’’ button. After
finding the correct document, you may
submit information by clicking on
‘‘Comment.’’ If your information will fit
in the provided comment box, please
use this feature of https://
www.regulations.gov, as it is most
compatible with our information review
procedures. If you attach your
information as a separate document, our
preferred file format is Microsoft Word.
If you attach multiple comments (such
as form letters), our preferred format is
a spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
to: Public Comments Processing, Attn:
FWS–R6–ES–2022–0150, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/3W, 5275
Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041–
3803.
We request that you send information
only by the methods described above.
Any information we receive during the
course of our status review will be
considered, and we will post all
information we receive on https://
www.regulations.gov. This generally
means that we will post any personal
information you provide us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery
Coordinator, Grizzly Bear Recovery
Office, telephone: 406–243–4903, email:
hilary_cooley@fws.gov. Individuals in
the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY,
TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Submitted for a Status
Review
You may submit your comments and
materials concerning the status of, or
threats to, the grizzly bear in the NCDE
and GYE or its habitats, by one of the
methods listed above in ADDRESSES. We
request that you send comments only by
the methods described in ADDRESSES.
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.
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
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DDrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS
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 these findings, will be
available for public inspection on
https://www.regulations.gov.
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533
et seq.) and its implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (50 CFR part 424)
set forth the procedures for adding
species to, removing species from, or
reclassifying species on the Federal
Lists of Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants (Lists) in 50 CFR
part 17. Section 4(b)(3)(A) of the Act
requires that we make a finding on
whether a petition to add a species to
the Lists (i.e., ‘‘list’’ a species), remove
a species from the Lists (i.e., ‘‘delist’’ a
species), or change a listed species’
status from endangered to threatened or
from threatened to endangered (i.e.,
‘‘reclassify’’ a species) presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. To
the maximum extent practicable, we are
to make this finding within 90 days of
our receipt of the petition and publish
the finding promptly in the Federal
Register.
Our regulations establish that
substantial scientific or commercial
information with regard to a 90-day
petition finding refers to credible
scientific or commercial information in
support of the petition’s claims such
that a reasonable person conducting an
impartial scientific review would
conclude that the action proposed in the
petition may be warranted (50 CFR
424.14(h)(1)(i)).
A species may be determined to be an
endangered species or a threatened
species because of one or more of the
five factors described in section 4(a)(1)
of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The
five factors are:
(a) The present or threatened
destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range
(Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial,
recreational, scientific, or educational
purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing
regulatory mechanisms (Factor D); and
(e) Other natural or manmade factors
affecting its continued existence (Factor
E).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Feb 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
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,
affect individuals of a species
negatively. 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) may not
be sufficient to compel a finding that the
information in the petition is substantial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. The
information presented in a petition to
delist a species must include evidence
sufficient to suggest that these threats
may no longer be affecting the species
to the point that the species may no
longer meet the definition of an
endangered species or threatened
species under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents
such information, our subsequent status
review will evaluate all identified
threats by considering the individual-,
population-, and species—level effects
and the expected response by the
species. We will evaluate individual
threats and their expected effects on the
species, then analyze the cumulative
effect 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 are expected
to have positive effects on the species—
such as any existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts that
may ameliorate threats. It is only after
conducting this cumulative analysis of
threats and the actions that may
ameliorate them, and the expected effect
on the species now and in the
foreseeable future, that we can
determine whether the species meets
the definition of an endangered species
or threatened species under the Act. If
we find that a petition presents
substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted, the
Act requires that we promptly
commence a review of the status of the
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7659
species, and we will subsequently
complete a status review.
History of the Petitions Received
On December 17, 2021, we received a
petition from the State of Montana to
designate and delist a Northern
Continental Divide Ecosystem distinct
population segment (DPS) of the grizzly
bear under the Act. The NCDE occurs
only in Montana. On January 21, 2022,
we received a petition from the State of
Wyoming to designate and delist a
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem DPS of
the grizzly bear under the Act. The GYE
occurs in portions of Wyoming,
Montana, and Idaho. On March 9, 2022,
we received a petition from the State of
Idaho to delist the grizzly bear in the
lower-48 States. All three petitions
clearly identified themselves as such
and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, required
at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This finding
addresses all three petitions.
Summary of Petition Findings
Evaluation of a Petition To Designate
and Delist an NCDE DPS of Grizzly Bear
The grizzly bear is currently listed in
50 CFR 17.11(h) as a threatened species
in the lower-48 States (see 40 FR 31734;
July 28, 1975). The State of Montana’s
petition requests that we designate and
delist an NCDE DPS of the grizzly bear
in the lower-48 States. We find that the
petition presents substantial
information that the NCDE may qualify
as a DPS. Additionally, we find that the
petition presents substantial
information that the population size and
trends have improved and that threats
have been reduced in the NCDE such
that the population may no longer meet
the definition of a threatened species
under the Act. Therefore, we find that
the petition presents substantial
information that the petitioned action,
designating and then delisting an NCDE
DPS, may be warranted and we will
commence a status review to determine
if the action is warranted. During our
status review, we will fully evaluate all
relevant threats and conservation
actions in detail based on the best
scientific and commercial data
available, including newly enacted State
regulations in the State of Montana,
such as MCA 87–6–106. We will
determine whether these and other
existing state regulatory mechanisms are
adequate to address the threat of
increased human-caused mortality such
that an affected DPS is not in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
7660
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DDrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS
Evaluation of a Petition To Designate
and Delist a GYE DPS of Grizzly Bear
The State of Wyoming’s petition
requests that we designate and delist a
GYE DPS of the grizzly bear in the
lower-48 States. We find that the
petition presents substantial
information that the GYE may qualify as
a DPS. Additionally, we find that the
petition presents substantial
information that the population size and
trends have improved and that threats
have been reduced in the GYE such that
the population may no longer meet the
definition of a threatened species under
the Act. Therefore, we find that the
petition presents substantial
information that the petitioned action,
designating and then delisting a GYE
DPS, may be warranted and we will
commence a status review to determine
if the action is warranted. Our status
review will evaluate all relevant threats
and conservation actions in detail based
on the best scientific and commercial
data available, including whether
existing state regulatory mechanisms,
such as controls on human-caused
mortality or implementation of
recalibration, are adequate to support a
finding that a GYE DPS is not in danger
of extinction now or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
Evaluation of a Petition To Delist the
Grizzly Bear in the Lower-48 States
The State of Idaho’s petition requests
that we delist the grizzly bear in the
lower-48 States. The petition asserts that
the currently listed entity, the grizzly
bear in the lower-48 States is not a valid
DPS and, therefore, does not meet the
Act’s definition of a ‘‘species’’ and it
should be delisted on that basis. The
petitioner did not make any claims
related to the biological status of or
threats to the grizzly bear in the lower48 States. Specifically, the petitioner
claims that the listed entity: (1) does not
identify a grizzly bear population; (2)
does not identify a population that
interbreeds when mature; and (3) is not
discrete from grizzly bears in Canada.
As summarized in our petition response
form, the petitioner failed to present any
credible scientific or commercial
information with respect to certain
claims; therefore, we do not consider
the petition to present substantial
information supporting those claims.
With respect to the remaining claims,
for the reasons discussed in our petition
response form we conclude that the
petitioner failed to present credible
scientific or commercial information
such that a reasonable person
conducting an impartial scientific
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:17 Feb 03, 2023
Jkt 259001
review would conclude that removing
the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States
from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife may be warranted.
Therefore, we find that the petition does
not provide substantial information that
the petitioned action may be warranted.
Evaluation of Information Summary
and Finding
We reviewed the petitions, sources
cited in the petitions, and other readily
available information. We considered
the factors under section 4(a)(1) of the
Act and assessed the effect that the
threats identified within the factors may
have on the grizzly bear in the lower-48
States now and in the foreseeable future.
We also considered existing regulatory
mechanisms or conservation efforts that
may ameliorate, reduce, or exacerbate
the threats. Based on our review of the
petitions and readily available
information regarding the improvement
in condition and reduction of threats in
the NCDE and GYE, we find that the two
petitions concerning the NCDE and GYE
present credible and substantial
information that the petitioned actions
may be warranted.
We appreciate the three States’
historical commitment to recover grizzly
bears, particularly conflict prevention
efforts that have been effective in
reducing human-caused mortality, and
we hope that these efforts will continue
and expand as needed to provide for
effective management of these
populations in the future. Although
notable progress has been made to
address deficiencies in future state
management identified by the courts,
the impact of recently enacted state
statutes affecting these two grizzly bear
populations is of concern and will
require careful consideration. We will
fully evaluate these and all other
potential threats and associated state
regulatory mechanisms, as well as the
validity of each DPS, in detail based on
the best scientific and commercial data
available when we conduct the status
assessment and make the 12-month
finding.
In accordance with the requirements
of the statute, our 12-month findings on
the two petitions to identify and delist
DPSs (the NCDE and GYE) will be based
upon the best scientific and commercial
data available and will not be limited to
the information presented in the
petitions. Similarly, if we make one or
more ‘‘warranted’’ 12-month findings,
we will identify the DPS or DPSs in that
finding on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available; we will
not be limited to the possible DPSs
described in the petitions. If we
ultimately do find that one or more of
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
the petitioned actions is warranted and
proceed to propose to delist one or more
DPSs, we will consider the effects of any
proposed delisting on the ongoing
recovery of the larger listed entity of
grizzly bears.
Finally, we find that the petition from
the State of Idaho does not present
substantial information that the grizzly
bear in the lower-48 States is not a valid
‘‘species’’ as defined by the Act.
The basis for our finding on these
petitions, and other information
regarding our review of the petitions,
including the 2011 and 2021 5-year
status reviews, can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R6–ES–2022–0150 under the
Supporting Documents section.
Conclusion
On the basis of our evaluation of the
information presented in the petitions
under sections 4(b)(3)(A) and
4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act, we have
determined that two of the three
petitions summarized above for the
grizzly bear in the lower-48 States
present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that
the petitioned actions for the GYE and
the NCDE may be warranted. We are,
therefore, initiating a status review of
the grizzly bear in the GYE and NCDE
to determine whether the actions are
warranted under the Act. At the
conclusion of the status review, we will
issue a finding, in accordance with
section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to
whether the petitioned actions are not
warranted, warranted, or warranted but
precluded by pending proposals to
determine whether other species are an
endangered or threatened species.
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are staff members of the Grizzly Bear
Recovery Office, Ecological Services
Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Authority
The authority for these actions is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–02467 Filed 2–3–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
E:\FR\FM\06FEP1.SGM
06FEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7658-7660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02467]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0150; FF09E21000 FXES11130900000234]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings
for Three Petitions To Delist the Grizzly Bear in the Lower-48 States
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of petition findings and initiation of status
review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce
three 90-day findings on petitions to delist the grizzly bear in the
lower-48 States (Ursus arctos horribilis) under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). One petition requests delisting the
grizzly bear in the lower-48 States, and the other two petitions
request delisting populations in two specific ecosystems, the Northern
Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) and the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem (GYE). Based on our review, we find that the petitions
pertaining to the two ecosystems present substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions may be
warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this document, we
announce that we plan to initiate a status review to determine whether
the petitioned actions are warranted. To ensure that the status review
is comprehensive, we are requesting new scientific and commercial data
and other information regarding the grizzly bear in the NCDE and GYE
and factors that may affect its status in those ecosystems, including
the adequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to address threats now
and in the foreseeable future. Based on the status review, we will
issue a 12-month petition finding, which will address whether or not
the petitioned actions are warranted, in accordance with the Act. If we
ultimately do find that one or more of the petitioned actions is
warranted and proceed to propose to delist one or more distinct
population segments (DPSs), we will consider the effects of any
proposed delisting on the ongoing recovery of the larger listed entity
of grizzly bears. We also found that a petition 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 actions may be warranted;
therefore, we will take no further action on that petition.
DATES: The findings announced in this document were made on February 6,
2023.
ADDRESSES:
Supporting documents: A summary of the basis for the petition
findings contained in this document is available on https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0150. In addition,
this supporting information is available by contacting the person
specified in FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Status reviews: If you have new scientific or commercial data or
other information concerning the status of, or threats to, the grizzly
bear in the NCDE and GYE or its habitats, particularly new information
available since our March 30, 2021, 5-year status review, please
provide those data or information 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-2022-0150,
which is the docket number for this action. Then, click on the
``Search'' button. After finding the correct document, you may submit
information by clicking on ``Comment.'' If your information will fit in
the provided comment box, please use this feature of https://www.regulations.gov, as it is most compatible with our information
review procedures. If you attach your information as a separate
document, our preferred file format is Microsoft Word. If you attach
multiple comments (such as form letters), our preferred format is a
spreadsheet in Microsoft Excel.
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2022-0150, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send information only by the methods described
above. Any information we receive during the course of our status
review will be considered, and we will post all information we receive
on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post
any personal information you provide us.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery
Coordinator, Grizzly Bear Recovery Office, telephone: 406-243-4903,
email: [email protected]. Individuals in the United States who are
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay
services offered within their country to make international calls to
the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Information Submitted for a Status Review
You may submit your comments and materials concerning the status
of, or threats to, the grizzly bear in the NCDE and GYE or its
habitats, by one of the methods listed above in ADDRESSES. We request
that you send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
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.
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
[[Page 7659]]
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 these findings, will be available
for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Background
Section 4 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533 et seq.) and its implementing
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR part
424) set forth the procedures for adding species to, removing species
from, or reclassifying species on the Federal Lists of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife and Plants (Lists) in 50 CFR part 17. Section
4(b)(3)(A) of the Act requires that we make a finding on whether a
petition to add a species to the Lists (i.e., ``list'' a species),
remove a species from the Lists (i.e., ``delist'' a species), or change
a listed species' status from endangered to threatened or from
threatened to endangered (i.e., ``reclassify'' a species) presents
substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that the
petitioned action may be warranted. To the maximum extent practicable,
we are to make this finding within 90 days of our receipt of the
petition and publish the finding promptly in the Federal Register.
Our regulations establish that substantial scientific or commercial
information with regard to a 90-day petition finding refers to credible
scientific or commercial information in support of the petition's
claims such that a reasonable person conducting an impartial scientific
review would conclude that the action proposed in the petition may be
warranted (50 CFR 424.14(h)(1)(i)).
A species may be determined to be an endangered species or a
threatened species because of one or more of the five factors described
in section 4(a)(1) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(a)(1)). The five factors
are:
(a) The present or threatened destruction, modification, or
curtailment of its habitat or range (Factor A);
(b) Overutilization for commercial, recreational, scientific, or
educational purposes (Factor B);
(c) Disease or predation (Factor C);
(d) The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms (Factor D);
and
(e) Other natural or manmade factors affecting its continued
existence (Factor E).
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, affect
individuals of a species negatively. 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) may not be sufficient to compel a
finding that the information in the petition is substantial information
indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted. The information
presented in a petition to delist a species must include evidence
sufficient to suggest that these threats may no longer be affecting the
species to the point that the species may no longer meet the definition
of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act.
If we find that a petition presents such information, our
subsequent status review will evaluate all identified threats by
considering the individual-, population-, and species--level effects
and the expected response by the species. We will evaluate individual
threats and their expected effects on the species, then analyze the
cumulative effect 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 are expected to have positive effects on the
species--such as any existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation
efforts that may ameliorate threats. It is only after conducting this
cumulative analysis of threats and the actions that may ameliorate
them, and the expected effect on the species now and in the foreseeable
future, that we can determine whether the species meets the definition
of an endangered species or threatened species under the Act. If we
find that a petition presents substantial scientific or commercial
information indicating that the petitioned action may be warranted, the
Act requires that we promptly commence a review of the status of the
species, and we will subsequently complete a status review.
History of the Petitions Received
On December 17, 2021, we received a petition from the State of
Montana to designate and delist a Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem
distinct population segment (DPS) of the grizzly bear under the Act.
The NCDE occurs only in Montana. On January 21, 2022, we received a
petition from the State of Wyoming to designate and delist a Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem DPS of the grizzly bear under the Act. The GYE
occurs in portions of Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. On March 9, 2022, we
received a petition from the State of Idaho to delist the grizzly bear
in the lower-48 States. All three petitions clearly identified
themselves as such and included the requisite identification
information for the petitioner, required at 50 CFR 424.14(c). This
finding addresses all three petitions.
Summary of Petition Findings
Evaluation of a Petition To Designate and Delist an NCDE DPS of Grizzly
Bear
The grizzly bear is currently listed in 50 CFR 17.11(h) as a
threatened species in the lower-48 States (see 40 FR 31734; July 28,
1975). The State of Montana's petition requests that we designate and
delist an NCDE DPS of the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States. We find
that the petition presents substantial information that the NCDE may
qualify as a DPS. Additionally, we find that the petition presents
substantial information that the population size and trends have
improved and that threats have been reduced in the NCDE such that the
population may no longer meet the definition of a threatened species
under the Act. Therefore, we find that the petition presents
substantial information that the petitioned action, designating and
then delisting an NCDE DPS, may be warranted and we will commence a
status review to determine if the action is warranted. During our
status review, we will fully evaluate all relevant threats and
conservation actions in detail based on the best scientific and
commercial data available, including newly enacted State regulations in
the State of Montana, such as MCA 87-6-106. We will determine whether
these and other existing state regulatory mechanisms are adequate to
address the threat of increased human-caused mortality such that an
affected DPS is not in danger of extinction now or likely to become so
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range.
[[Page 7660]]
Evaluation of a Petition To Designate and Delist a GYE DPS of Grizzly
Bear
The State of Wyoming's petition requests that we designate and
delist a GYE DPS of the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States. We find
that the petition presents substantial information that the GYE may
qualify as a DPS. Additionally, we find that the petition presents
substantial information that the population size and trends have
improved and that threats have been reduced in the GYE such that the
population may no longer meet the definition of a threatened species
under the Act. Therefore, we find that the petition presents
substantial information that the petitioned action, designating and
then delisting a GYE DPS, may be warranted and we will commence a
status review to determine if the action is warranted. Our status
review will evaluate all relevant threats and conservation actions in
detail based on the best scientific and commercial data available,
including whether existing state regulatory mechanisms, such as
controls on human-caused mortality or implementation of recalibration,
are adequate to support a finding that a GYE DPS is not in danger of
extinction now or likely to become so within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Evaluation of a Petition To Delist the Grizzly Bear in the Lower-48
States
The State of Idaho's petition requests that we delist the grizzly
bear in the lower-48 States. The petition asserts that the currently
listed entity, the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States is not a valid
DPS and, therefore, does not meet the Act's definition of a ``species''
and it should be delisted on that basis. The petitioner did not make
any claims related to the biological status of or threats to the
grizzly bear in the lower-48 States. Specifically, the petitioner
claims that the listed entity: (1) does not identify a grizzly bear
population; (2) does not identify a population that interbreeds when
mature; and (3) is not discrete from grizzly bears in Canada. As
summarized in our petition response form, the petitioner failed to
present any credible scientific or commercial information with respect
to certain claims; therefore, we do not consider the petition to
present substantial information supporting those claims. With respect
to the remaining claims, for the reasons discussed in our petition
response form we conclude that the petitioner failed to present
credible scientific or commercial information such that a reasonable
person conducting an impartial scientific review would conclude that
removing the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States from the List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife may be warranted. Therefore, we find
that the petition does not provide substantial information that the
petitioned action may be warranted.
Evaluation of Information Summary and Finding
We reviewed the petitions, sources cited in the petitions, and
other readily available information. We considered the factors under
section 4(a)(1) of the Act and assessed the effect that the threats
identified within the factors may have on the grizzly bear in the
lower-48 States now and in the foreseeable future. We also considered
existing regulatory mechanisms or conservation efforts that may
ameliorate, reduce, or exacerbate the threats. Based on our review of
the petitions and readily available information regarding the
improvement in condition and reduction of threats in the NCDE and GYE,
we find that the two petitions concerning the NCDE and GYE present
credible and substantial information that the petitioned actions may be
warranted.
We appreciate the three States' historical commitment to recover
grizzly bears, particularly conflict prevention efforts that have been
effective in reducing human-caused mortality, and we hope that these
efforts will continue and expand as needed to provide for effective
management of these populations in the future. Although notable
progress has been made to address deficiencies in future state
management identified by the courts, the impact of recently enacted
state statutes affecting these two grizzly bear populations is of
concern and will require careful consideration. We will fully evaluate
these and all other potential threats and associated state regulatory
mechanisms, as well as the validity of each DPS, in detail based on the
best scientific and commercial data available when we conduct the
status assessment and make the 12-month finding.
In accordance with the requirements of the statute, our 12-month
findings on the two petitions to identify and delist DPSs (the NCDE and
GYE) will be based upon the best scientific and commercial data
available and will not be limited to the information presented in the
petitions. Similarly, if we make one or more ``warranted'' 12-month
findings, we will identify the DPS or DPSs in that finding on the basis
of the best scientific and commercial data available; we will not be
limited to the possible DPSs described in the petitions. If we
ultimately do find that one or more of the petitioned actions is
warranted and proceed to propose to delist one or more DPSs, we will
consider the effects of any proposed delisting on the ongoing recovery
of the larger listed entity of grizzly bears.
Finally, we find that the petition from the State of Idaho does not
present substantial information that the grizzly bear in the lower-48
States is not a valid ``species'' as defined by the Act.
The basis for our finding on these petitions, and other information
regarding our review of the petitions, including the 2011 and 2021 5-
year status reviews, can be found at https://www.regulations.gov under
Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0150 under the Supporting Documents section.
Conclusion
On the basis of our evaluation of the information presented in the
petitions under sections 4(b)(3)(A) and 4(b)(3)(D)(i) of the Act, we
have determined that two of the three petitions summarized above for
the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States present substantial scientific
or commercial information indicating that the petitioned actions for
the GYE and the NCDE may be warranted. We are, therefore, initiating a
status review of the grizzly bear in the GYE and NCDE to determine
whether the actions are warranted under the Act. At the conclusion of
the status review, we will issue a finding, in accordance with section
4(b)(3)(B) of the Act, as to whether the petitioned actions are not
warranted, warranted, or warranted but precluded by pending proposals
to determine whether other species are an endangered or threatened
species.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are staff members of the
Grizzly Bear Recovery Office, Ecological Services Program, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Authority
The authority for these actions is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2023-02467 Filed 2-3-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
