Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly Bear in the North Cascades Ecosystem, Washington State, 36982-37025 [2024-09136]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36982-37025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-09136]



[[Page 36981]]

Vol. 89

Friday,

No. 87

May 3, 2024

Part IV





Department of the Interior





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





Fish and Wildlife Service





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





50 CFR Part 17





Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a 
Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly Bear in the North 
Cascades Ecosystem, Washington State; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 89 , No. 87 / Friday, May 3, 2024 / Rules and 
Regulations

[[Page 36982]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2023-0074; FXES11130100000-245-FF01E00000]
RIN 1018-BG89


Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of a 
Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly Bear in the North 
Cascades Ecosystem, Washington State

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), establish a 
nonessential experimental population (NEP) of the grizzly bear (Ursus 
arctos horribilis) within the U.S. portion of the North Cascades 
Ecosystem (NCE) in the State of Washington under section 10(j) of the 
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act or ESA). Establishment 
of this NEP is intended to support reintroduction and recovery of 
grizzly bears within the NCE and provide the prohibitions and 
exceptions under the Act necessary and appropriate to conserve the 
species within a defined NEP area. The geographic boundary of the NEP 
includes most of the State of Washington except for an area in 
northeastern Washington that encompasses the Selkirk Ecosystem Grizzly 
Bear Recovery Zone. The best available data indicate that 
reintroduction of the grizzly bear to the NCE, within the NEP area, is 
biologically feasible and will promote the conservation of the species.

DATES: This rule is effective June 3, 2024.
    Information Collection Requirements: If you wish to comment on the 
information collection requirements in this rule, please note that the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to make a decision 
concerning the collection of information contained in this rule between 
30 and 60 days after the date of publication of this rule in the 
Federal Register. Therefore, comments should be submitted to OMB by 
June 3, 2024.

ADDRESSES: This final rule, public comments on our September 29, 2023, 
proposed rule, a final environmental impact statement, and the record 
of decision, are available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2023-0074.
    Information Collection Requirements: Written comments and 
suggestions on the information collection requirements may be submitted 
at any time to the Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 5275 Leesburg Pike, MS: PRB (JAO/3W), 
Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or [email protected] (email). 
Please reference ``OMB Control Number 1018-0199'' in the subject line 
of your comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Thompson, State Supervisor, U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, 1009 
College Street SE, Lacey, WA 98503; telephone 360 753 9440. Individuals 
in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have 
a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access 
telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United 
States should use the relay services offered within their country to 
make international calls to the point-of contact in the United States.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Service is establishing a nonessential 
experimental population (NEP) of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 
horribilis) within the U.S. portion of the North Cascades Ecosystem 
(NCE) in the State of Washington under section 10(j) of the Act.

Previous Federal Actions

    In November 2022, the National Park Service (NPS) and Service 
jointly initiated the process for developing an Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS)/Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan for the North Cascades 
Ecosystem. On September 28, 2023, the draft Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) was published (88 FR 67277). One of three alternatives 
assessed in the draft EIS proposed to restore grizzly bears to the NCE 
through reintroduction of grizzly bears and designation of an NEP under 
the Act. On September 30, 2023, the Service published a proposed rule 
pursuant to section 10(j) of the Act (hereafter, a ``10(j) rule'') to 
reintroduce grizzly bears to a portion of the NCE in Washington State 
as an NEP and manage them in accordance with a proposed zoned 
management approach (88 FR 67193). For a description of previous 
Federal actions concerning this species, please refer to the proposed 
rule or to our Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS) species 
profile for the grizzly bear at https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7642.

Peer Review

    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, we 
solicited independent scientific review of the proposed rule (USFWS in 
litt. 2016, entire). We invited six independent peer reviewers and 
received three responses. The peer reviews can be found at https://www.regulations.gov and https://fws.gov/library/categories/peer-review-plans. In preparing this final rule, we incorporated the results of 
these reviews, as appropriate, into this final rule. A summary of the 
peer review comments, and our responses can be found in the Summary of 
Comments and Recommendations below.

Summary of Changes From the Proposed Rule

    As a result of comments, additional data received during the 
comment period, and additional analysis, we made several changes to the 
rule we proposed on September 29, 2023 (88 FR 67193). In addition to 
updating information, correcting errors, clarifying descriptions, and 
providing additional details and context in this final rule, we:
     Changed the names of Management Zones 1, 2, and 3 to 
Management Areas A, B, and C to avoid potential confusion with numbered 
management zones in other parts of the species' range.
     Specified that, within the NEP boundary, Management Area C 
would comprise all non-Federal lands within the NCE Recovery Zone and 
all other lands outside of or not otherwise included in proposed 
Management Areas A and B.
     Specified that should a grizzly bear be found in the NEP 
area before our initial translocation of a grizzly bear into the NEP 
(e.g., a grizzly bear moving from Canada to the United States), it 
would be managed under the grizzly bear section 4(d) rule (50 CFR 
17.40(b)).
     Added allowance in all Management Areas of the NEP for 
preemptive relocation of grizzly bears by authorized agencies to 
prevent imminent conflict or habituation.
     Added a provision for individuals to lethally take grizzly 
bears in Management Area C if the bear is in the act of attacking 
livestock (including working dogs) on private lands and added 
definitions of ``in the act of attacking'' and ``working dogs.''
     Reduced the timeframe for authorization to individuals for 
lethal take of a grizzly bear in Management Areas B and C from 2 weeks 
to 5 days.
     Added definitions for ``demonstrable and ongoing threat,'' 
``human-occupied areas,'' and ``threat to human safety'' in relation to 
provisions for conflict management; added a

[[Page 36983]]

definition of ``lasting bodily injury'' relative to the limits of 
actions to deter grizzly bears; and clarified the meaning of ``humane'' 
when lethally removing a grizzly bear.
     Clarified several aspects of the rule, including the 
following:
    [cir] The `no net loss' of core area requirement for the incidental 
take exception applies to U.S. Forest Service (USFS) actions on 
National Forest System lands in Management Area A only.
    [cir] We will attempt to capture 3 to 7 bears per year (rather than 
5 to 7 bears) to establish the initial target population of 25 bears.
    [cir] Authorized agencies may relocate bears to a remote area that 
is not specific to a certain management area.
    [cir] Individuals are authorized to deter grizzly bears to promote 
human safety, prevent conflict, or protect property, including 
individuals such as forest managers, loggers, and others conducting 
otherwise lawful forest management activities.
    [cir] Reporting requirements for take do not apply to incidental 
take resulting from habitat modification; such reporting may otherwise 
be addressed as a result of section 7(a)(2) consultation when 
applicable.
    [cir] USFS-issued road use permits that include hauling on non-
Federal lands are included in Federal actions that are exempt from 
section 7(a)(2) consultation requirements.
     Provided clearer definitions or enhanced discussion of the 
following terms: ``deterrence,'' ``conflict bears,'' ``humane lethal 
take,'' and ``authorized agency.''

Summary of Comments and Recommendations

    In the proposed rule published on September 29, 2023 (88 FR 67193), 
we requested that all interested parties submit written comments on the 
proposal by November 13, 2023. We also contacted appropriate Federal 
and State agencies, scientific experts and organizations, and other 
interested parties and invited them to comment on the proposal. We 
invited all federally recognized Tribes in the State of Washington to 
consult on the development of the 10(j) rule, and this invitation was 
also sent to Tribal governments near potential source populations of 
grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) and 
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE). An informational virtual 
presentation was held online on October 17, 2023, with agency staff 
describing the proposed rule and answering questions submitted by the 
public. An informational presentation was also posted online for the 
public to view. Four in-person public meetings to present information 
and obtain feedback were held around the ecosystem between October 30 
and November 3, 2023. News releases were published online announcing 
the proposal and the public meetings. During the 45-day comment period, 
we received over 12,200 comments on the proposed 10(j) rule and over 
12,700 comments on the draft EIS.
    Below, we summarize the substantive comments pertinent to the 
rulemaking and our responses to those comments. We considered 
substantive comments to be those that provided information relevant to 
our requested action, such as data, pertinent anecdotal information, or 
opinions backed by relevant experience or information, and literature 
citations. Due to the similarity of many comments, we combined multiple 
comments into a single, synthesized comment for many issues. We 
considered nonsubstantive those comments that expressed a statement or 
opinion without providing supporting information or relevance, or 
restated data or information that we already have but without an 
alternate perspective to consider. We also considered comments that 
sought actions beyond the scope of our proposal or authority to be 
nonsubstantive but have provided a response as needed in some instances 
to explain our rationale. Substantive comments from peer reviewers, 
Federal agencies, congressional representatives, State agencies, and 
Tribes are grouped separately. Comments common to multiple groups are 
presented first. All substantive information provided during the 
comment periods has either been incorporated directly into this final 
determination or is addressed below.

Comments Common to Multiple Groups

    Comment: One peer reviewer questioned whether the NEP designation 
was necessary, and asked whether the Service had a summary of other 
species designated as NEPs and whether they were successful. Another 
commenter stated that the current 4(d) rule is sufficient as it already 
allows for management of bears involved in conflict, noting that the 
Service is under no obligation to issue a new rule to expand allowable 
take.
    Response: Based on our extensive outreach efforts with Federal and 
State agencies, Tribes, local governments, and interested parties, as 
well as public comments received in the EIS process, we have concluded 
that an NEP designation is an important tool in this instance to build 
social tolerance and support for grizzly bear conservation in the NCE. 
In our experience managing grizzly bears under the 4(d) rule, by 
limiting impacts to property and safety and providing more tools to 
address threats, the public's receptivity and tolerance to having 
grizzly bears on the landscape is likely to improve.
    The Service has discretion on whether to designate experimental 
populations of listed species, and how to tailor protections and 
management of grizzly bears designated as an experimental population. 
The Service and NPS considered an alternative in the EIS that would 
reintroduce grizzly bears with existing ESA protections under the 
current 4(d) rule, but for the reasons discussed further in the final 
EIS (NPS and USFWS 2024, entire) and our Record of Decision (e.g., 
likelihood of successful grizzly bear restoration, public safety, long-
term management, and impacts on natural and socioeconomic resources), 
we selected Alternative C: Restoration with ESA section 10(j) 
designation as preferred over reintroduction under the 4(d) rule.
    Comment: Commenters expressed concern about the size and placement 
of the NEP boundary and its relation to the NCE Recovery Zone. A 
commenter stated that the NEP boundary should be smaller (extending no 
more than 25 mi (40 km) beyond the eastern side of the NCE Recovery 
Zone) to provide full ESA protections to grizzly bears in the Selkirk 
Recovery Zone. Another commenter stated that the NEP boundary should be 
larger to include the States of Idaho and Oregon.
    Response: Grizzly bear recovery zones were established by the 
Service to delineate areas in the lower 48 States that have sufficient 
habitat to support recovery for grizzly bear populations. The NCE 
Recovery Zone is not a regulatory boundary for the purposes of the 
10(j) rule, but is used as a reference for delineating Management Area 
A. The NEP boundary encompasses not only the NCE Recovery Zone, but 
also areas outside of the NCE Recovery Zone through which reintroduced 
grizzly bears may potentially pass or periodically use at some point in 
the future, and where their presence may necessitate increased 
management flexibility. The NEP boundary and the Management Area 
boundaries are clearly identified in figure 2 and in the text of the 
final rule. The NCE Recovery Zone is also shown in figure 2 for 
context. Based on verified grizzly bear occurrence data and information 
on grizzly bear dispersal distances, we anticipate the separation of 
the Selkirk Recovery Zone from the NEP boundary (see Where is the 
grizzly bear North

[[Page 36984]]

Cascades NEP?, in Sec.  17.84 Species-specific rules--vertebrates in 
the rule portion of this document), will be sufficient to protect 
grizzly bears from the Selkirk ecosystem. We did not include adjacent 
States in the NEP boundary, as reintroduced grizzly bears are unlikely 
to disperse as far as Idaho or Oregon in the near future due to limited 
habitat connectivity (e.g., human population centers, highways, 
Columbia River).
    Comment: Commenters recommended various areas be changed to a 
different Management Area designation based on perceived importance or 
lack of importance to grizzly bears, and based on the perceived default 
bear management that would likely follow under a specific Management 
Area designation. Commenters, including a peer reviewer, suggested that 
State lands (specifically Loomis State Forest, Colockum Wildlife Area, 
and Loup Loup State Forest), should be included in Management Areas A 
or B, as they contain suitable grizzly bear habitat. One commenter 
suggested including a size comparison between the NCE Recovery Zone and 
Management Area A to emphasize the limited difference between the two 
(i.e., removal of State and private lands had limited impact to the 
overall size of the NCE Recovery Zone). One commenter requested all 
Management Areas allow for management practices allowed in Management 
Area C.
    Commenters expressed concern that the characterization of 
Management Area B as having limited human influence did not reflect 
recreational or other multiple uses on these lands. They also expressed 
concern that Management Area B did not appear to be grounded in the 
biological needs of grizzly bears. Taken in combination, they expressed 
concern that the NEP delineation could be interpreted by the public as 
seeking to determine land uses on National Forest System lands, which 
could impact social acceptance of expansion of grizzly bear populations 
in similar areas outside of the NEP boundary. One commenter stated that 
the Management Area descriptions imply recovery and occupancy is 
expected only on Federal lands within the NCE Recovery Zone boundary, 
and that the Service should be more explicit about how it will manage 
for grizzly bears.
    A commenter requested clarification for why the Olympic Peninsula 
and Columbia Plateau are included in Management Area C.
    One commenter requested further information about how the Bear 
Management Units informed the designation of Management Area 
boundaries, expressed concern about proximity of urban growth areas to 
Management Area A, and expressed concern that private lands would 
become ecological sinks.
    Response: The primary grizzly bear recovery effort within the NCE 
Recovery Zone should be focused on Federal lands because these lands 
provide adequate secure habitat (large tracts of relatively undisturbed 
land), which is the most crucial element in grizzly bear recovery. 
Management Area A, which includes NPS and National Forest System lands, 
encompasses approximately 85 percent of the NCE Recovery Zone. These 
Federal lands support grizzly bear diet, habitat, and reproduction 
needs (see Behavior and Life History, below). Federal land protections, 
such as motorized restrictions, the Wilderness Act, and Inventoried 
Roadless Areas (IRAs) help ensure secure habitat on Federal lands for 
grizzly bears into the future (USFWS 2022, p. 8). To successfully 
recover and manage reintroduced grizzly bears and their progeny over 
time, the rule provides a graduated approach to management flexibility 
while focusing recovery efforts for grizzly bears on Federal lands 
within the NCE Recovery Zone (see Management Areas, below). Management 
Areas are based on suitability for occupancy by grizzly bears and the 
likelihood of human-bear conflicts.
    Although we acknowledge other landownerships within the NCE 
Recovery Zone contain suitable grizzly bear habitat, at least allowing 
for greater management flexibility is appropriate on those non-Federal 
lands within the NCE Recovery Zone by including those under Management 
Area C. However, our State partners or other authorized agencies will 
not necessarily act on that greater management flexibility, especially 
in areas where suitable habitat could complement recovery efforts for 
grizzly bears in the NCE and in areas less likely to result in human-
grizzly bear conflicts. Not all management areas allow for the 
management practices that are allowed in Management Area C, as 
requested by the commenter, because Management Area A serves as core 
habitat for the survival, reproduction, and dispersal of the NEP, and 
Management Area B is meant to accommodate natural movement or dispersal 
by grizzly bears.
    The Service included Federal lands in Management Area B to 
acknowledge their greater potential for use by grizzly bears than most 
areas in Management Area C and because the Federal lands can complement 
the recovery within the NCE Recovery Zone. The primary difference in 
management between Management Areas B and C and Management Area A is 
the additional allowance of authorized conditioned lethal take by an 
individual within Areas B and C.
    The delineation of Management Areas does not alter or affect any 
National Forest System land management decision or activity. Rather, 
the delineation provides different tools in managing grizzly bears in 
accordance with the specific Management Area. The 10(j) rule provides 
for greater flexibility in management of grizzly bears on these lands 
than without the 10(j) rule. The framework of the 10(j) rule is 
designed for restoration of grizzly bears in the NCE Recovery Zone and 
solely applies to the area within the NEP boundary within Washington 
State.
    The need for the tools and flexibilities that a 10(j) experimental 
population designation provides has been a recurring theme in public 
comment and community conversations starting with the previous North 
Cascades Grizzly Restoration Plan/EIS process that was terminated in 
2020 (85 FR 41624, July 10, 2020). The intent of the 10(j) rule is to 
limit the potential impacts of reintroduction of this listed species to 
improve tolerance.
    Grizzly bears reintroduced into the NCE Recovery Zone are highly 
unlikely to disperse to the Olympic Peninsula due to the distance, 
geographic barriers, and human population centers. Grizzly bears 
similarly would also need to cross significant barriers to reach the 
Columbia Plateau. Including these areas in the Management Area C does 
not mean that we intend on reintroducing or recovering populations 
there. However, including these areas within the NEP boundary and under 
Management Area C serves to ensure we account for any unexpected 
dispersal of bears to those areas and to allow for the greatest level 
of management flexibility should that occur. If those regions of 
Washington were not included as part of the NEP area, any grizzly bears 
that dispersed to these areas would be managed as threatened under the 
4(d) rule.
    Bear management units are delineated within recovery zones as part 
of recovery planning and used in aid of habitat and population 
monitoring; they were not used to designate management areas. All the 
bear management units for the NCE Recovery Zone are included in 
Management Area A. While management flexibilities available on private 
lands may provide for additional lethal take, the Service will monitor 
all lethal take and will not consider lethal take a first resort for 
conflict

[[Page 36985]]

management particularly on public lands, which comprise the bulk of the 
NCE Recovery Zone.
    Comment: Commenters, including Representative Dan Newhouse, 
expressed concern that the proposed restoration plan does not comply 
with Washington State Law (RCW 77.12.035).
    Response: Washington State law does not preclude the NPS and the 
Service from reintroducing grizzly bear as proposed. The Washington 
State Office of the Attorney General has interpreted the provision to 
prohibit only the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 
from transplanting or introducing bears into the State (see Federalism 
(E.O. 13132), below, for further discussion of co-management with 
Washington).
    Comment: Commenters expressed concern about adequate funding for 
agency staffing, outreach and education, nonlethal control measures 
(e.g., electric fences, bear-resistant garbage containers), conflict 
management, livestock depredation compensation, improvements to 
sanitation, and food storage infrastructure. One commenter suggested 
conservation organizations should be encouraged to provide those funds.
    Response: The final EIS (NPS and USFWS 2024) includes further 
analysis of costs associated with the restoration of grizzly bear in 
the NCE in Appendix C. The Service will develop memorandums of 
understanding with Federal, State, and Tribal agency partners to 
document roles and responsibilities and identify sources for support in 
implementing the rule (see Management Restrictions, Protective 
Measures, and Other Special Management, below). Funding for programs, 
including outreach and education, nonlethal control measures, conflict 
management, livestock depredation compensation, and improvements to 
sanitation and food storage infrastructure is often in partnership with 
other agencies, States, Tribes, and nongovernmental organizations. The 
Service will work with partners to model programs in the NCE after 
similar successful programs in other grizzly bear ecosystems. In the 
NCE, efforts are ongoing by WDFW, USFS, the North Cascades NPS complex, 
and several nongovernmental organizations to provide communities with 
resources, technical support, and education. We will work with partner 
agencies and nongovernmental organizations to identify funding needs 
and priorities, as well as potential sources.
    Comment: A commenter expressed concern that the NCE grizzly bear 
restoration plan is being proposed despite the need for the Service to 
prioritize numerous other species with their limited resources, and 
suggested a focus on land protection, habitat restoration, and grants 
to enhance species recovery. Commenters also stated that NCE recovery 
efforts should not reduce resources supporting current and ongoing 
grizzly bear recovery efforts in other ecosystems.
    Response: The Service has established recovery plans for multiple 
species including grizzly bear and works with partners to implement 
recovery actions identified in the recovery plans. Funding of recovery 
actions is provided by a combination of Federal appropriations to the 
Service and other Federal agencies and from partner contributions. The 
Service annually prioritizes and adjusts investment level in recovery 
actions across multiple species based on multiple factors including 
available Federal and partner funding. The Service seeks to recover 
grizzly bears in all six recovery zones consistent with its Grizzly 
Bear Recovery Plan (revised, USFWS 1993, entire) (hereafter Recovery 
Plan). The NCE Recovery Zone has been managed to protect and secure 
habitat for grizzly bears since 1997 (USFWS 1997, entire). Restoration 
efforts will be carried out jointly between NPS and the Service and 
interested partners. The Service will continue to work with our 
Federal, State, Tribal, and other partners to prioritize Service staff 
time to conduct grizzly bear outreach and education, provide technical 
assistance, and assist with conflict management.
    Comment: Multiple commenters expressed concerns about impacts to 
the recovery of source populations. The State of Idaho Governor's 
Office of Species Conservation (Idaho OSC), the Idaho Department of 
Fish and Game (Idaho DFG), and Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks 
(Montana FWP) stated concerns about impacts to U.S.-based source 
populations of NCE and restoration efforts in GYE and NCDE and concerns 
about coordination with responsible authorities in areas of potential 
source populations. Another commenter suggested that source populations 
of bears should not be in the lower 48 States and that bears should not 
come from coastal food economies, while another opposed the transfer of 
fully protected grizzlies from other States to the NCE, emphasizing the 
importance of keeping grizzlies in their native habitats where they are 
not yet fully recovered.
    Response: As described in the rule, the Service expects to obtain 
grizzly bears for reintroduction based on source populations that have 
a positive growth rate, could withstand the loss of bears to support 
the NCE, and have similar food economies to the NCE. The Service will 
consider bears from a number of source populations, including British 
Columbia, NCDE, and GYE. Implementation of the rule is not expected to 
result in meaningful impacts to source populations (see Effects on Wild 
Populations, below). Any bears sourced from the NCDE or GYE Demographic 
Monitoring Areas will count against the mortality thresholds addressing 
those populations. The Service will contact the relevant authorities to 
develop specific plans for bear captures for translocation to the NCE 
Recovery Zone before captures are implemented.
    Comment: Commenters, including Montana FWP, commented on issues 
related to the number of bears in a restoration population. Montana FWP 
stated that recovery criteria are not established for the NCE Recovery 
Zone and that the 200-400 grizzly bear carrying capacity number cited 
in our proposed rule may not be adequate for recovery and delisting in 
the NCE Recovery Zone, and questioned whether genetic connectivity or 
genetic augmentation will be required. Another commenter stated that 
the restoration population of 200 bears in the NCE is too low and 
instead should be 1,000 bears to ensure long-term genetic viability.
    Response: The section 10(j) rule does not set recovery criteria or 
goals for the grizzly bear listed entity, nor is it required to do so. 
Rather, the section 10(j) rule helps to implement recovery guidance 
contained in the NCE supplement to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan 
(USFWS 1997, entire), which recommended consideration of translocations 
in aid of recovery (see ``Recovery Efforts to Date'' below). The 
Service will take into account the need for genetic diversity as part 
of the restoration effort starting with selection of source populations 
that have high heterozygosity. The restoration plan and 10(j) rule 
include monitoring of genetic diversity and adaptive management through 
additional translocations if necessary to enhance heterozygosity and 
long-term genetic viability of the NEP (see Capture and Release 
Procedures, below).
    Comment: Many commenters, including Tribes, raised concern over 
human safety and the risk grizzly bears may pose for people living, 
working, and recreating in the North Cascades. Other commenters 
identified the need for additional education and outreach related to 
bear safety and conflict

[[Page 36986]]

prevention, with some commenters highlighting the importance of 
signage, grant opportunities, and direct engagement with communities.
    Response: While grizzly bear attacks on humans are rare, they can 
occur and can have serious consequences. While precautions must be 
taken, our experience with grizzly bears in other ecosystems 
demonstrates that human-bear conflict can be minimized with a variety 
of tools, including the securing of attractants and maintaining 
awareness of surroundings. Many of the precautions needed for living 
and recreating among grizzly bears are also the same as for black 
bears, which are already present in the ecosystem. The 10(j) rule 
includes provisions affirming the ability of individuals to take bears 
in self-defense and to allow individuals to deter bears out of close 
proximity to people or property.
    The Service will continue to provide information and education for 
the public and affected communities about best practices for grizzly 
bear safety. Education and outreach about how to minimize conflict is 
an important part of project implementation, and we will work with 
partners to increase outreach to people who live, work, and recreate in 
the NCE and surrounding areas. Outreach and education efforts will be 
modeled after similar efforts and practices developed in other grizzly 
bear recovery ecosystems over multiple decades.
    Comment: Commenters suggested that using grizzly bear forage 
estimates from the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (CYE) may be problematic, and 
could lead to increased movements, human conflicts, and mortality 
resulting from diet limitations. One commenter suggested that British 
Columbia would be a better analog for climate and food selection than 
the CYE or the diet of males in the NCDE and GYE that were referenced 
in the proposed rule.
    Response: The EIS includes an analysis of habitat suitability and 
grizzly bear foods and vegetation types in the North Cascades. Many of 
the vegetation types and available foods in the North Cascades are 
similar to the CYE where grizzly bear food habits have been studied. 
This makes the CYE a good analog to the NCE for evaluating potential 
grizzly bear food use. We have also added a reference to grizzly bear 
diets and dominant food sources in British Columbia (see Behavior and 
Life History, below).
    Comment: Commenters expressed concern over the possible impact that 
grizzly bear restoration could have on salmon, game, and listed 
species.
    Response: Because grizzly bears historically occupied the 
ecosystem, other species of fish and wildlife historically coinhabited 
the NCE with grizzly bears. Restoring grizzly bears in the NCE will 
contribute to restoring missing ecological interactions that help to 
shape fish and wildlife habitat through seed dispersal, increasing 
nutrient availability, and predator-prey dynamics (see van Manen et al. 
2017, pp. 75-90). The final EIS provides a detailed assessment of 
habitat suitability, predator-prey interactions, and food and 
vegetation types, including elk and other ungulates, salmon, and 
federally listed species (NPS and USFWS 2024, chapter 3: ``Grizzly 
Bears'' and ``Other Wildlife and Fish'' sections).
    In addition, the Service undertook an intra-service consultation 
and a consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service under 
section 7(a)(2) and determined that the reintroduction of grizzly bears 
under the rule is not likely to jeopardize grizzly bear or any other 
ESA-listed species, including whitebark pine and ESA-listed salmon, nor 
result in the destruction or modification of any designated critical 
habitat for ESA-listed species.
    Comment: One commenter stated the Service should consider how the 
regulation should adapt as the grizzly bear population grows and 
expands. One commenter asked that we consider including specific 
triggers, derived from proposed monitoring information, that would 
prompt specific changes in program implementation. One peer reviewer 
suggested that we more clearly define adaptive management and provide 
additional details on how adaptive management will be applied. One 
commenter asked for more details on interagency coordination in 
implementing monitoring and adaptive management.
    Response: We updated the adaptive management section to clarify 
that we are using the term adaptive management in the broad sense of 
applying management interventions, monitoring outcomes, and modifying 
future management actions to achieve grizzly bear restoration 
objectives and maximize social tolerance. Based on our experience in 
other ecosystems, this flexible approach to adaptive management (for 
both management interventions and interagency coordination) is 
necessary given that we are working in complex ecological and social 
systems where management interventions are often context dependent.
    Comment: Commenters stated that the 10(j) rule does not detail 
monitoring methods and resources and stated that data sharing in other 
recovery zones is helpful for outreach and management.
    Response: Below, we describe how we intend to monitor reintroduced 
grizzly bears (see Monitoring and Evaluation, below). Prior to 
implementation of reintroduction, a strategy for monitoring will be 
developed with further details of responsibilities between the Service 
and other participating agencies, including how we will manage and 
share data.
    Comment: We received several comments relating to the 1997 
agreement on `No net loss of existing core area within any bear 
management unit' (hereafter `no net loss' agreement) with the NPS and 
USFS. One commenter stated that the existing habitat protections for 
core grizzly bear habitat reflected in the `no net loss' agreement may 
not be sufficient. Other commenters noted that the `no net loss' 
agreement will require monitoring, that data sets analyzing core 
habitat and trail use need to be updated, and that the agencies should 
work toward improving habitat connectivity. Several commenters stated 
that the `no net loss' agreement should be extended to lands in 
Management Area B or beyond to facilitate connectivity or prevent 
habitat degradation.
    Response: The Service is currently coordinating with the NPS and 
USFS through the Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee (IGBC) North 
Cascades Subcommittee Technical Team to update the baseline and 
memorialize the `no net loss' agreement for the U.S. portion of the NCE 
Recovery Zone. We expect the baseline update will include metrics such 
as core habitat and trail data. We clarify in the final rule that the 
intent is for the `no net loss' agreement as to NPS and National Forest 
System lands to apply only within Management Area A, the focal area for 
recovery of an NCE grizzly bear population.

Peer Reviewer Comments

    As discussed in ``Peer Review'' above, we received comments on our 
proposed rule from three peer reviewers. We reviewed all comments we 
received from the peer reviewers for substantive issues and new 
information regarding the contents of the proposed rule. We summarize 
substantive peer reviewer comments below that are not included in 
``Comments Common to Multiple Groups.'' The peer reviewers generally 
concurred with our methods and conclusions and provided additional 
literature, information, clarifications, and suggestions to improve the 
final rule. For example, all three peer reviewers agreed that our 
description and analysis of the biology, habitat,

[[Page 36987]]

population trends, conservation status, and distribution of the species 
were accurate and that our conclusions were accurate and supported by 
the provided evidence, although one peer reviewer questioned the 
exclusion of specific State lands from Management Area B. All three 
peer reviewers shared that our proposed rule did not have any 
significant oversights, omissions, or inconsistencies. Finally, the 
peer reviewers provided additional literature for our consideration, 
such as additional citations, and we incorporated the recommended 
clarifications and literature, as needed.

Federal Agency Comments

    One Federal agency, the Pacific Northwest Region of the USFS, 
provided comments on the proposed rule. We summarize substantive 
comments below that are not included in ``Comments Common to Multiple 
Groups.''
    Comment: USFS stated the Service's summary of access management in 
the rule is too simplistic and should be deleted or changed.
    Response: The access management definitions from the IGBC Task 
Force Report on Grizzly Bear/Motorized Access Management (USFS 1997, 
entire; IGBC 1998, entire) describe motorized access management across 
all grizzly bear recovery zones; revising those definitions is outside 
the scope of this rulemaking process. However, the Service has updated 
its summary description of `no net loss', which requires maintenance of 
the core grizzly bear habitat area and limits net gain of the road 
network within the NCE, as recommended.
    Comment: The USFS stated that some areas in Management Area B have 
not yet adopted measures intended to reduce human-bear conflicts as in 
other recovery zones where bears are present. The USFS provided as one 
example, the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (NF), which may not have 
food storage orders in place. The USFS stated that even on forests 
where food storage orders exist, different measures need to be 
implemented based on risk.
    Response: We clarify that food storage orders are a requirement for 
national forests and NPS lands only within Management Area A for the 
purpose of incidental take allowance (see Incidental Take, below). Food 
storage orders and other methods of securing attractants are important 
tools for preventing human-wildlife conflict with many species (e.g., 
black bears), not just grizzly bears. We recognize that improved 
sanitation and updated food storage infrastructure will be important 
for reducing potential human-bear conflicts in Management Areas B and C 
into the future.

Comments From States

    We received comments from three State wildlife agencies, one 
jointly with the Idaho State Governor's Office of Species Conservation, 
which we summarize here and provide detailed responses to below. As 
previously noted, the WDFW is a cooperating agency in the planning 
process and the Service consulted with WDFW in the development of the 
proposed rule. The WDFW expressed that, if an action alternative of the 
FEIS is chosen, they support finalizing the rule to designate an NEP 
and encouraged NPS and the Service to implement releases only on NPS 
lands. Montana FWP expressed concern regarding potential negative 
impacts on grizzly bear recovery efforts in other States from grizzly 
bear restoration efforts in the NCE and establishing an NEP. Idaho OSC 
and Idaho DFG opposed NCE restoration efforts and the establishment of 
an NEP. We summarize substantive comments below that are not included 
in ``Comments Common to Multiple Groups.''
    Comment: Montana FWP commented that the proposed rule was 
contradictory in stating that recovery of grizzly bears in each of the 
six recovery zones is necessary while also stating that the NCE 
population is not essential to the survival of the species in the wild.
    Response: Reintroductions are, by their nature, experiments, the 
fate of which is uncertain. However, it is always our goal for 
reintroductions to be successful and contribute to recovery. The 
importance of reintroductions to recovery does not necessarily mean 
these populations are ``essential'' under section 10(j) of the Act. In 
fact, Congress' expectation was that ``in most cases, experimental 
populations will not be essential'' (H.R. Conference Report No. 97-835 
at 34). The preamble to our 1984 publication of ESA 10(j) implementing 
regulations reflects this understanding, stating that an essential 
population will be a special case, and not the general rule (49 FR 
33885 at 33888, August 27, 1984). The Service's objective to recover 
grizzly bears in each of the six recovery zones is not in conflict with 
the Service's determination that the North Cascades NEP will contribute 
to that recovery but is not essential for the survival of grizzly bears 
in the wild (see Is the Experimental Population Essential to the 
Continued Existence of the Species in the Wild?, below).
    Comment: Montana FWP disagreed with the use of the phrase 
``excessive human-caused mortality'' in the proposed rule and stated 
that extensive efforts in Montana and other States have minimized 
human-caused mortality to ensure it is not ``excessive.'' Montana FWP 
noted that current levels of human-caused mortality of grizzly bears in 
the NCDE and GYE are not considered excessive because these mortalities 
are below mortality thresholds at sustainable levels.
    Response: We revised our discussion of threats to reflect that 
while human-caused mortality is a primary threat, mortality thresholds 
currently in place have mitigated this threat in those ecosystems such 
that grizzly bear populations have increased in number and range (see 
Threats, below). Mortality thresholds for the NCDE are documented in 
the Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993, pp. 33-34) and in the NCDE Conservation 
Strategy (NCDE Subcommittee 2019, entire). Thresholds for the GYE are 
documented in the GYE Recovery Plan Supplement: Revised Demographic 
Criteria (USFWS 2017, p. 6) and in the 2016 GYE Conservation Strategy 
(YES 2016, p. 48).
    Comment: Idaho OSC and Idaho DFG stated there was a lack of 
coordination with ESA delisting petitions and efforts to develop 
conservation strategies in other grizzly bear recovery zones, including 
efforts by the Selkirk Cabinet-Yaak Subcommittee of the IGBC, or the 
current EIS process considering grizzly bear restoration in the 
Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE). Commentors stated the eastern boundary of 
the NCE NEP makes unsupported assumptions about these recovery efforts.
    Response: We developed the final rule based on the current listed 
entity of the grizzly bear under the Act (i.e., as a threatened species 
in the lower 48 States). The rule does not preclude the Service from 
making future revisions to the listed entity. If the Service revises 
the grizzly bear listed entity, the effect on this NEP, if any, would 
be addressed at that time. The Service developed the eastern boundary 
of the NEP based on grizzly bear data, human populations, and readily 
discernable features (e.g., roads, Federal land boundaries). The 10(j) 
rule does not interfere with or preclude developing a conservation 
strategy by the IGBC Selkirk Cabinet-Yaak Subcommittee or considering 
alternatives for addressing grizzly bear restoration to the BE.
    Comment: Idaho OSC and Idaho DFG questioned to which listed DPS of 
grizzly bear the experimental population belongs and what criteria 
would be used to determine whether

[[Page 36988]]

that DPS is recovered. They expressed concerns that the NEP would not 
itself qualify as a DPS and that establishing an NEP in the NCE could 
preclude determinations regarding delisting of the grizzly bear.
    Response: An experimental population is not a separate listed 
entity (i.e., a DPS, subspecies, or species), but instead is considered 
part of the listed entity (in this case, the grizzly bear lower-48 
DPS). The reintroduction of an experimental population is intended to 
further the recovery of the listed entity to which it belongs. We 
anticipate that a restored grizzly bear population in the NCE will 
contribute to the recovery of the listed entity, which includes grizzly 
bears throughout the conterminous United States, by providing 
additional population redundancy and representation. The NEP is part of 
the current listed entity of the grizzly bear and does not preclude the 
Service from revising the listed entity in the future, at which time 
the effect, if any, on the NCE NEP will be considered. See Recovery 
Efforts to Date and Effects of the Experimental Population on Grizzly 
Bear Recovery for additional details on the recovery plan and efforts. 
If grizzly bears are recovered and delisted under the Act, the 
experimental population designation and associated regulation will also 
be removed as part of the delisting rulemaking (see Exit Strategy, 
below).
    Comment: Montana FWP states they are hesitant to support removing 
grizzly bears from the NCDE or GYE to support the reintroduction of 
bears into the NCE because of the likelihood the bears could come into 
conflict due to the NCE's proximity to the large human population of 
the Puget Sound and because of the concern that the rule does not 
provide adequate support for conflict prevention measures.
    Response: We acknowledge that NCE is adjacent to the Puget Sound 
region, which is densely populated by humans. However, several factors 
support our determination that the NCE can support a viable grizzly 
bear population that is no more susceptible to conflict than other 
grizzly bear populations. First, the gradual reintroduction of grizzly 
bears will provide agencies additional time to further develop conflict 
prevention efforts and practices employed in other recovery areas. 
Second, even at the eventual restoration population, the NCE will have 
substantially lower grizzly bear population densities than either the 
GYE or NCDE. Third, the NCE contains sufficient habitat and resources 
to support the restoration population and is composed predominantly of 
wilderness and IRAs that helps reduce the potential for conflict as 
compared with, for example, grizzly bears in areas of subpar habitat 
(often on private land, with high road densities). As noted above, we 
expect to support the efforts necessary for the successful 
reintroduction and management of this grizzly bear NEP through a 
combination of resources from the Service and other partner Federal 
agencies, WDFW, interested Tribes, and nongovernmental organizations.
    Comment: Montana FWP suggested the Service consider more flexible 
criteria for determining grizzly bears for translocation to the NCE 
Recovery Zone (e.g., bears with some conflict history, bears from 
dissimilar food economies).
    Response: Translocating grizzly bears with no conflict history and 
grizzly bears from similar food economies produces a greater chance of 
success in the placement of these animals in the NCE Recovery Zone. 
This approach has been successful with augmentation efforts in the 
Cabinet Mountains in the CYE and is identical to the Montana FWP 
proposal for moving bears with no history of conflicts to the GYE.
    Comment: WDFW stated that releasing bears on non-NPS lands (e.g., 
USFS) could be more administratively complex for WDFW than releasing 
bears on NPS lands because in WDFW's view the NPS Organic Act provides 
clearer Federal support for releasing bears on NPS lands. In the 
scenario of releases off NPS lands, WDFW stated it would need to 
consider their position regarding RCW 77.12.035 and their role and 
responsibility to permit the importation and release of wildlife in the 
State of Washington. They encourage NPS and the Service to implement 
releases only on NPS lands.
    Response: The Service and NPS will prioritize release sites on NPS 
lands but retain the option to conduct initial releases of grizzly 
bears on National Forest System lands if unforeseen circumstances 
prevent access to release sites on NPS lands (e.g., due to aircraft 
issues). We will work with WDFW and the associated land management 
partner, whether it is NPS or USFS, to avoid administrative 
complications as appropriate.

Comments From Tribes

    We received comment letters from two Tribes, the Sauk-Suiattle 
Indian Tribe and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe. The Sauk-Suiattle 
Indian Tribe expressed general opposition to grizzly bear restoration 
efforts as described in the draft EIS. The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe 
expressed support for grizzly bear restoration with the designation of 
a nonessential experimental population (Alternative C in the draft EIS 
(NPS and USFWS 2023)). We summarize substantive comments below that are 
not included in ``Comments Common to Multiple Groups.''
    Comment: The Sauk-Suiattle Tribe highlighted concerns over the 
threats that grizzly bears may pose to treaty rights, especially 
regarding resource competition for salmon and berries.
    Response: We discuss the potential effects of grizzly bear 
restoration specific to Tribal lands and treaty right activities in 
chapter 3 of the EIS, in the ``Ethnographic Resources'' section. The 
effects on salmon and game are further addressed in chapter 3 of the 
final EIS (NPS and USFWS 2024), in the ``Other Wildlife and Fish'' 
section.
    Although grizzly bears forage on foods that the Sauk-Suiattle Tribe 
gathers, the low number of grizzly bears spread across the NCE will 
have a minimal effect on those food resources, including fish, 
wildlife, and roots or berries. Preliminary results from northwest 
Montana and north Idaho suggest grizzly bear diets, on average, are 
composed of at least 20 percent berries during the summer months (USFWS 
2019, p. 15). At that rate, we estimate an adult female grizzly bear 
typically consumes an average of 2.5 gallons of huckleberries per day. 
The bears, and this level of consumption, are expected to be 
distributed across the NCE Recovery Zone rather than concentrated in 
one area. Only minimal impacts on berry availability to humans are 
anticipated from the consumption of berries by the initial population 
levels of 25 bears and the eventual restoration population of 200 
bears.
    Comment: The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe requested that Tribal 
consultation be conducted throughout the reintroduction implementation 
process.
    Response: The Service and the NPS will engage with and involve 
affected Tribes throughout the implementation of grizzly bear 
restoration to the NCE. Given the unique responsibility and government-
to-government relationship that the Federal Government has with 
individual Tribal nations, Tribal consultation is always an ongoing 
process and will continue for the duration of grizzly bear recovery 
efforts in the NCE.
    Comment: The Upper Skagit Indian Tribe highlighted the traditional 
cultural connections between grizzly bears and the Upper Skagit Indian 
Tribe and requested consideration of this traditional ecological 
knowledge and history in support of draft EIS alternative C, including 
designation of an NEP.

[[Page 36989]]

    Response: The Service agrees that cultural connections and 
traditional ecological knowledge are important considerations and have 
factored these into the development of the rule. The traditional 
ecological knowledge of Tribes and First Nations has provided some of 
the evidence of historical grizzly bear presence in the NCE, and the 
important cultural connections underscore the importance of restoring 
and conserving a grizzly bear population in the ecosystem.

Congressional Comments

    One Federal congressional representative, Congressman Dan Newhouse, 
representing the 4th District of Washington, provided comments on the 
proposed rule. We summarize substantive comments below that are not 
included in ``Comments Common to Multiple Groups.''
    Comment: Congressman Newhouse stated that the NPS and the Service 
are not taking into the account the concerns of local communities. The 
commenter expressed concerns about the format of the October 17, 2023, 
virtual public meeting and the information presented in it, 
particularly that the Service's and NPS's definition of ``substantive 
comments'' limits public comment.
    Response: During the public scoping period and comment period on 
the proposed rule, nine public meetings took place, both virtually and 
in-person, and the public was able to provide comment through a variety 
of methods. (See ``Consultation with State, Local, Tribal, Federal, and 
Affected Private Landowners,'' below, for more information).
    As noted in the proposed rule and in the virtual public meeting, 
comments 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 or changes to the rule. Similar guidance on what 
constitutes substantive comment is included in NEPA handbooks for both 
the Service (USFWS 2014, p. 29) and the NPS (NPS 2015, p. 65). While 
agencies consider only substantive comments regarding the NEPA document 
for formal response, we do not discourage anyone from submitting their 
thoughts on the proposed rule. Through the public comment process, the 
agencies are made aware of stakeholder sentiment and factor that 
perspective into the decision-making process.
    Comment: Congressman Newhouse stated the concurrent release of the 
draft EIS and proposed 10(j) rule indicates the agencies had already 
made a decision.
    Response: A decision had not been made with the concurrent release 
of the draft EIS and proposed 10(j) rule. The proposed 10(j) rule is a 
part of the Federal proposed action to restore grizzly bear to the 
North Cascades. As such, the proposed 10(j) rule, and the environmental 
effects of that proposed rule, are appropriately considered 
concurrently. In the previous North Cascades Grizzly Restoration Plan/
EIS process, stakeholders repeatedly asked for more detailed 
information about what possible management under a 10(j) experimental 
population designation would entail. The proposed 10(j) rule was 
responsive to those concerns and provided a specific framework for what 
management of an experimental population could look like. Without both 
documents being released simultaneously, the public would not be able 
to fully evaluate the alternative in the draft EIS that includes 
designation of an experimental population.

Public Comments

    We received over 12,200 comments from the public, including 
nongovernmental organizations, trade associations on behalf of their 
memberships, local governments, and individual members of the public. 
Comments included both opposition to and support for grizzly bear 
restoration efforts in the NCE Recovery Zone and the designation of an 
NEP, as well as specific provisions of the rule. We summarize 
substantive comments below that are not included in ``Comments Common 
to Multiple Groups.''
    Comment: Some commenters were concerned that prevention of human-
bear conflict will result in travel restrictions, bear-proofing 
requirements, and permitting requirements. One commenter noted the 
possibility of restrictions on National Forest System lands outside of 
the NCE Recovery Zone. Another commenter recommended prioritizing 
efforts to provide bear-resistant food storage and bear-resistant 
garbage containers at NPS and USFS campgrounds.
    Response: While short-term closures of areas may occur to prevent 
conflict (e.g., trail closure for several days because of a grizzly 
bear known to be feeding on a carcass in the area), no long-term 
closures or travel restrictions are planned (see Regulatory Planning 
and Review--Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094, below). The NPS 
and USFS are currently working to improve sanitation and update food 
storage infrastructure and implement food storage orders where they are 
not already in place (see Management Efforts in the NCE and NCE 
Recovery Zone, below). We clarify that food storage is a requirement 
for National Forest System lands only within Management Area A for the 
purpose of the incidental take exception to the general prohibition 
against take (see Incidental Take, below).
    Comment: A commenter stated that no bear should be preemptively 
relocated if the bear is not a threat to human safety, particularly if 
the bear has not become habituated or food-conditioned, or when 
nonnatural foods/attractants have not been properly secured. Commenters 
suggested that the Service should require the use of nonlethal 
conflict-reduction measures, including securing attractants, bear-
resistant garbage containers, bear-resistant food cannisters, electric 
fences, use of guard animals or other nonlethal methods for managing 
conflict with livestock and domestic animals before bears are relocated 
or lethally removed. One commenter suggested livestock owners must be 
able to document and demonstrate the use of nonlethal deterrents. 
Commenters suggested that relocation or lethal removal of bears should 
only be considered after nonlethal management methods have been 
exhausted. Commenters stated that lethal removal should not be allowed 
for livestock depredations occurring on public lands.
    Response: Relocation of bears should and will be a tool only used 
when warranted, but bears may be relocated preemptively when 
appropriate for recovery purposes. Relocating a bear before they become 
habituated, food-conditioned, or a threat to human safety is sometimes 
the best course of action to avoid human-bear conflict and improve the 
likelihood of grizzly bear survival (see Management Restrictions, 
Protective Measures, and Other Special Management, below). Throughout 
the NEP area, we will consider lethal removal as a management tool only 
when it is not reasonably possible to eliminate the threat through 
nonlethal deterrence or live-capture and release of the grizzly bear 
unharmed. Lethal take in self-defense or defense of others remains an 
exception throughout the NEP area. We will employ methods and tools 
developed in other ecosystems to reduce human-grizzly bear conflict 
(including depredations) and/or increase the likelihood of finding and 
documenting depredation events. Livestock conflicts are not always 
preventable. Grizzly bears can cause significant losses in some 
instances, but a quick management response can increase social (or 
public) tolerance for

[[Page 36990]]

grizzly bears. We will not prohibit lethal removal for livestock 
depredation on public lands, but it should not be the first choice.
    Comment: One commenter requested a definition for the phrase 
``lasting bodily injury'' in reference to injuries a bear might sustain 
during deterrence and hazing activities. One commenter requested the 5-
day window for reporting injuries be changed to 24 hours.
    Response: We added a definition for ``lasting bodily injury'' to 
the final rule. The 5-day reporting window is consistent with our 
practices under the existing 4(d) rule for the grizzly bear outside the 
NEP, and we retain that reporting window for this NEP. In other grizzly 
bear ecosystems with this same 5-day reporting requirement, partners 
report this type of injury immediately. We would anticipate the same 
response in the NCE but include a 5-day reporting window in recognition 
that reporting an injury within 24 hours is not always feasible.
    Comment: A commenter expressed concern that unintentional lethal 
take may occur when hazing grizzly bears and requested specific 
guidance on acceptable and unacceptable hazing methods.
    Response: We have added some specific examples of what deterrence 
methods are considered acceptable, and which ones are not (see 
Deterrence, below).
    Comment: One commenter stated that the 10(j) rule does not provide 
enough flexibility for agricultural producers. The commenter stated 
that requiring confirmation of depredation in Management Area B and 
determination of a demonstrable and ongoing threat in Management Area C 
will result in harm to producers. Two commenters requested detail on 
what an ``ongoing threat'' means in regard to grizzly bear conflict 
with livestock.
    Response: In the final rule we clarified and defined what we mean 
by ``demonstrable and ongoing threat'' and ``in the act of attacking'' 
(see Sec.  17.84 Species-specific rules--vertebrates, in the rule 
portion of this document). The Service or authorized agencies will 
respond to conflicts in all Management Areas and will determine the 
best management action moving forward, including lethal control. Lethal 
take authorization with conditions will be evaluated on a case-by-case 
basis. Individuals can also conduct intentional nonlethal deterrence 
and employ preventative tools (e.g., electric fences) to prevent 
conflicts prior to a confirmed depredation or a human safety threat. In 
addition, we added a provision allowing lethal take of bears in the act 
of attacking livestock, including working dogs, if it occurs on private 
lands in Management Area C (see Management Area Management Actions, 
below).
    Comment: A commenter requested that forest managers, loggers, and 
others conducting otherwise lawful forest management activities be 
included in the list of those authorized to conduct nonlethal 
deterrence activities.
    Response: We updated the rule to confirm that individuals, which 
includes forest managers, loggers, and others conducting otherwise 
lawful forest management activities, may take 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 
(see Management Restrictions, Protective Measures, and Other Special 
Management, below).
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that lethal take would 
occur near logging operations. Other commenters disagreed with 
exemption of incidental take in the 10(j) rule, particularly lethal 
incidental take allowed as part of forestry actions, because it could 
seemingly affect an unlimited number of bears in a variety of 
unspecified scenarios.
    Response: Based on our experience in other recovery zones, we 
expect lethal take as part of forestry actions to be very rare. The 
highest quality grizzly bear habitat and the location of most release 
sites are expected to be in wilderness where logging activities do not 
occur. If grizzly bears do overlap with logging operations, we expect 
most take to be in the form of harassment rather than lethal take. The 
Service and NPS considered an alternative in the EIS that would 
reintroduce grizzly bears with existing ESA protections, including the 
general prohibition against incidental take. As discussed further in 
the final EIS and our Record of Decision, we selected Alternative C: 
Restoration with ESA section 10(j) designation as the preferred 
approach as it allows for take in various circumstances to reduce the 
regulatory burden associated with reintroduction. The Grizzly Bear 
Recovery Plan calls for maintaining human-caused mortality below 4 
percent of the population for all recovery zones (USFWS 1993, pp. 20-
21). Because we anticipate the NCE population to remain low for the 
near future, we will attempt to keep human-caused mortality to zero. 
However, zero mortalities may not be practical given the need to 
protect human safety and property, and due to accidental mortalities 
(e.g., vehicle collisions).
    Comment: One commenter requested more detail on what ``humane 
manner'' means, in terms of lethal removal of grizzly bears. Another 
commenter requested we remove the term humane and asserted that it is 
not possible to humanely remove, i.e., kill, an animal.
    Response: We revised the rule to clarify that ``humane'' means with 
compassion and consideration for the bear and minimizing pain and 
distress. We consider it possible to humanely treat an animal when 
lethally removing it and therefore decline to remove the term or the 
requirement.
    Comment: A commenter stated that baited foot snares should not be 
used to capture bears intended for reintroduction to the NCE. Another 
commenter requested that we develop a humane capture and handling 
protocol due to the potential for injury and stress, particularly with 
foot snare traps.
    Response: While trapping is expected to occur largely with culvert 
traps, foot snares have been used safely for research captures of 
grizzly bears in other areas and may be the source of trapping for some 
bears for this restoration effort. Culvert traps are not as portable as 
foot snares, which offer more opportunities to trap in remote locations 
where we would expect to locate bears without a history of conflicts. 
Agencies currently capture and handle grizzly bears humanely using the 
techniques such as culvert traps or foot snares followed by 
anesthetization and radio collaring (Jonkel 1993, entire).
    Comment: Two commenters stated that a quick response is essential 
when responding to livestock depredations and expressed concern that 
government delays will hamper response. One commenter requested that 
authorizing conditioned lethal take should be allowed in all three 
management areas. One commenter requested that conditioned lethal take 
authorization last 4 weeks rather than 2 weeks. One commenter expressed 
concern about the length of time allowed for time-limited 
authorization.
    Response: A quick response is important when responding to 
livestock depredations. We currently work closely and effectively with 
authorized agencies in four ecosystems in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming 
to ensure minimal delay. We expect to establish the same relationships 
and protocols with authorized agencies in the NCE. Authorized agencies 
may remove grizzly bears in conflict in all Management Areas of this 
NEP if the bear meets the criteria for removal. However, as Management 
Area A is entirely public land and core recovery habitat, we will

[[Page 36991]]

not support authorizing bear removals in Management Area A by 
individuals other than the Service or a Federal, State, or Tribal 
authority of an authorized agency and expect to work with the affected 
Federal land managers to address any conflict concerns.
    In response to the comments, we reevaluated the timeframes for 
lethal take authorization. In the proposed rule, we proposed a 2-week 
timeframe; however, we reconsidered because of the potential for 
killing the wrong bear with an extended timeline. With a longer 
timeline, the greater the possibility bears may move, and different 
bears may enter the area. As a result, we are not extending the 
timeline but instead are reducing it to 5 days. The Service may extend 
authorization of lethal take to individuals for an additional 5 days if 
there are additional grizzly bear depredations or injuries to livestock 
and circumstances indicate the offending bear can be identified.
    Comment: Several commenters stated the provisions or sideboards 
describing when lethal removal of bears involved in conflict is allowed 
are unclear, and it is unclear as to when and why it might not be 
``reasonably possible to otherwise eliminate the threat by non-lethal 
deterrence or live capturing and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed in 
a remote area.'' One commenter requested uniformity across all three 
Management Areas for decisions about lethal removal.
    Response: Determining whether to lethally remove a grizzly bear is 
a complex decision process, involving highly variable and fact-specific 
situations. As such, it is impossible to identify parameters to account 
for and describe all possible scenarios in the rule. Decisions on 
lethal removal will be based on many factors, including the ability to 
identify a particular bear (e.g., markings, collars, track size, canine 
spacing), the individual bear involved (e.g., sex, age, presence of 
dependent young, conflict history), relevant conflict history in the 
immediate area, and number of bears in the area. The Service has a 
history of making well-informed and timely decisions about lethal 
removal across four ecosystems with multiple authorized agencies in 
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. We expect to establish similar practices 
and protocols in the NCE. The Service also revised the final rule to 
improve clarity regarding the circumstances in which we will authorize 
lethal removal but retained the ``not reasonably possible'' language 
allowing for appropriate judgment and discretion based on the 
circumstances.
    Comment: Many commenters opposed lethal control authorizations for 
livestock owners or private individuals, citing public safety risks, 
likelihood of accidental wounding of bears, and potential for taking 
the wrong bear. Commenters stated that lethal control should be 
performed only by the Service or authorized agency personnel. One 
commenter suggested instead supplying ranchers with tranquilizer darts, 
whereby bears would await relocation by Federal officials, if a threat 
to livestock were posed.
    Response: Nonlethal actions (e.g., relocation, securing 
attractants, or deterrence) are always the first options to address 
conflicts, and authorization of lethal take for individuals will be 
considered only after these options had failed or were deemed nonviable 
by the Service or an authorized agency. The two exceptions are when 
individuals kill a bear in defense of self or others, or the limited 
conditioned exception for take of a bear in the act of attacking 
livestock or working dogs on private lands in Management Area C. The 
final rule affirms that authorization of lethal take will be issued 
only after depredations are confirmed by the Service or an authorized 
agency and if the Service or authorized agency concludes an ongoing 
threat to human safety, livestock, or other pertinent property exists. 
As discussed in the previous response, the Service will authorize 
lethal take based on many factors. The Service expects to outline these 
factors and communication and coordination support with authorized 
agencies in the agency-specific Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs). If 
the Service decides to authorize lethal removal, that authorization 
will carry clear conditions and be time-limited. Lethal removal for 
conflicts (other than in cases of self-defense, or for the limited 
exception in Management Area C described) must be performed by the 
Service, a Federal, State, or Tribal authority of an authorized agency 
in accordance with the Service-agency MOU, or via prior written 
authorization to the individual in accordance with the rule.
    Comment: Several commenters indicated that the nonlethal incidental 
take reporting requirements due to `habitat modification resulting from 
otherwise lawful activities' are impractical and should be exempted 
from reporting.
    Response: We did not intend for the general reporting requirements 
for nonlethal take to apply to incidental take in the form of harm via 
habitat modification; rather, we require reporting when lethal or 
nonlethal take occurs as a result of direct interactions with the 
grizzly bear (e.g., through self-defense, deterrence, conflict 
management, or vehicle collision, etc.) and clarified the reporting 
requirements accordingly. Incidental take of a grizzly bear in the form 
of harm via habitat modification is not prohibited within the NEP area. 
Habitat modification impacts will still be identified as a result of 
Federal actions on NPS or NWRS lands for which section 7(a)(2) 
consultation requirements remain. Any recommended reporting of habitat 
modification impacts will be part of the associated section 7(a)(2) 
biological opinion if applicable. Relatedly, as incidental take is not 
prohibited as a result of USFS actions within Management Area A 
provided the USFS maintains its `no net loss' agreement as it pertains 
to securing grizzly bear habitat, and the USFS is not required to 
consult under section 7(a)(2) on its proposed actions in the NEP area, 
we expect the USFS will maintain appropriate records on its `no net 
loss' agreement to confirm its actions are within the 10(j) rule 
incidental take exception.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the Service failed to provide any 
analysis to explain how lethal take of grizzly bears on Federal public 
lands to protect livestock grazing on public lands serves a 
conservation purpose. In addition, they stated that the proposed rule 
and draft EIS lacked adequate consideration of alternative mechanisms 
for Federal lands that would better take into account the authority 
that Federal land managers have to protect the reintroduced population, 
better fulfill the conservation purpose of section 10(j), and better 
align with the duty imposed on such agencies under section 7(a)(1) of 
the Act to further conservation of the species.
    Response: When we assess the conservation value of designating an 
experimental population and reintroducing a listed species, we evaluate 
the totality of the conservation and management actions associated with 
that designation, recognizing that some flexibility in managing the 
reintroduced population may be necessary to build support for the 
reintroduction. Lethal take on Federal lands in Management Area A is 
limited to the Service and authorized agencies only if it is not 
reasonably possible to otherwise eliminate the threat by nonlethal 
deterrence or live-capturing and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed 
and the taking is done in a humane manner. This is similar to the 
management of grizzly bears listed as threatened under the Act in other

[[Page 36992]]

ecosystems under the 4(d) rule. Therefore, the NEP designation does not 
represent a substantial change to the way grizzly bears are managed in 
relation to grazing allotments on Federal lands under the 4(d) rule.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the 10(j) rule authorize a 
grizzly bear hunting season.
    Response: The rule does not address or authorize grizzly bear 
hunting. Hunting regulations in Washington are established by State and 
Tribal authorities. Grizzly bears are currently listed as a State 
endangered species in Washington, and we do not expect that, even with 
this reintroduction, grizzly bear populations will become large enough 
to sustain recreational harvest anytime in the near future.
    Comment: A commenter noted that in the preamble of the proposed 
rule and draft EIS that we specified unintentional incidental take 
would be exempted provided such take is nonnegligent but noted that we 
did not specify it in the text of the rule itself; they considered this 
to misleadingly describe a more protective rule.
    Response: We updated the exceptions to the general take prohibition 
in the rule to clarify that take must be unintentional and nonnegligent 
for the incidental take exception to apply.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that reintroducing grizzly 
bears would require additional regulations that would hamper forestry 
activities and wildfire response on Federal and non-Federal lands. 
Another commenter recommended clarifying that permissible incidental 
take should include any habitat modification from otherwise lawful 
forest management activities consistent with the Forest Practices Act 
and pursuant to an approved habitat conservation plan, section 
10(a)(1)(A) permit, or similar authorization.
    Response: The final rule is not expected to hamper forestry 
activities or response to wildfires on Federal or non-Federal lands. 
Under the 10(j) rule, as with all designated NEPs, consultation under 
section 7(a)(2) of the Act is not required for Federal actions if they 
do not occur on a National Wildlife Refuge or NPS land. On National 
Forest System lands, this means consultation under section 7(a)(2) is 
not required, even if the proposed Federal action may affect grizzly 
bears of the NEP; however, Federal agencies including the USFS are 
still required to confer with the Service, consistent with section 
7(a)(4), for any agency action that is likely to jeopardize the 
continued existence of the listed species. In addition, provided the 
USFS retains its agreement regarding maintaining core secure habitat in 
Management Area A, incidental take from a USFS action in Management 
Area A is allowed. On all non-Federal land, including State-managed 
lands, take of a grizzly bear is allowed if the take is incidental to, 
and not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity, and reported in 
accordance with the rule. Private land and State-managed lands within 
the NEP are in Management Area C, with the most flexibility in regard 
to grizzly management tools. We do not expect the NEP to hamper or 
substantially modify forest health treatments or otherwise lawful 
forestry activities, including those consistent with the Forest 
Practices Act, on Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and 
National Forest System lands.
    Comment: A commenter requested that road use permits granted by the 
USFS on non-Federal lands be exempt from section 7(a)(2).
    Response: In accordance with our general section 10(j) regulations, 
USFS proposed actions, including the proposed issuance of USFS permits, 
will not require consultation under section 7(a)(2) within the NEP area 
when authorizing activities under USFS permits, which includes road use 
permits on non-Federal lands.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that section 7(a)(1) be applied 
only to the NCE Recovery Zone rather than the entire proposed NEP 
boundary, noting that the proposed rule recognized Management Area C as 
possibly unsuitable for grizzly bear.
    Response: Section 7(a)(1) of the Act requires all Federal agencies 
to use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of 
listed species. Under the Act, section 7(a)(1) remains applicable to 
all Federal agencies regardless of an NEP designation (see section 
10(j)(2)(C)(i)). However, Federal agencies have broad discretion in how 
they fulfill their responsibilities under section 7(a)(1), and for 
grizzly bears within the NEP boundary, we anticipate that most agencies 
will focus their efforts within the NCE Recovery Zone.
    Comment: Two commenters stated that the Service provides no 
evidence to the claim that added flexibility under the 10(j) rule would 
increase social tolerance and therefore success of the population.
    Response: The need for the tools and flexibilities that a 10(j) 
experimental population designation provides was a recurring theme in 
public comment and community conversations beginning with the previous 
North Cascades Grizzly Restoration Plan/EIS process that was terminated 
in 2020. In our experience, by limiting impacts to property and safety, 
and providing more tools to address threats, the public's receptivity 
and tolerance to having grizzly bears on the landscape is likely to 
improve.
    In the GYE, residents involved in resource extraction industries, 
livestock operators, and hunting guides were opposed to land-use 
restrictions that were perceived to place the needs of grizzly bears 
above human needs (Kellert 1994, p. 48; Kellert et al. 1996, p. 984). 
Surveys of these user groups have shown that they tolerate large 
predators when they are not seen as direct threats to their economic 
stability or personal freedoms (Kellert et al. 1996, p. 985). By 
increasing management flexibility, including allowing private citizens 
to take bears in certain situations, we believe the 10(j) rule will 
reduce conflicts and increase acceptance of grizzly bears.
    Comment: Several commenters were concerned about the impacts of 
black bear hunting on grizzly bears due to mistaken identification, and 
that accidental killing of grizzly bears due to mistaken identity could 
result in prosecution under the Act. Other commenters stated that the 
10(j) rule should not include a reference to the potential for mistaken 
shooting prosecution because of the ``McKittrick Policy.'' Commenters 
stated concerns about the potential for hound hunting of black bears 
being extended to grizzly bears as allowed by recent legislation in 
Montana and Idaho.
    Response: The WDFW implemented a regulation that requires black 
bear hunters to take and pass a bear identification test when hunting 
black bears in specific areas within grizzly bear recovery zones, with 
the intent of minimizing the potential for accidental killings of 
grizzly bears due to mistaken identification (see Management Efforts in 
the NCE and NCE Recovery Zone, below). As to potential prosecution for 
mistakenly shooting a grizzly bear, the Service retains the general 
prohibitions against take of grizzly bears of the NEP other than as 
excepted by the 10(j) rule and retains the language that taking a 
grizzly bear that is wrongfully identified as another species is not 
considered ``incidental take'' and is not allowed under the rule. The 
determination of whether the shooting of a grizzly bear is a mistake is 
a fact-specific inquiry subject to investigation, which is not 
precluded by the McKittrick Policy (which is addressed to Federal 
prosecutors regarding appropriate jury instructions, see WildEarth 
Guardians v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 752 Fed. Appx.

[[Page 36993]]

421 (9th Cir. 2018)). The decision to pursue prosecution is subject to 
the discretion of the applicable authority. The McKittrick Policy would 
not apply to prosecution determinations by the State of Washington 
under State law. As such, we retain the language that prosecution may 
result. As to the concern about hound hunting, Washington State law 
prohibits the use of hounds for hunting of black bear (see Washington 
Administrative Code 220-413-060).
    Comment: One commenter suggested tools and actions used to address 
future impacts be based on prior large carnivore restoration efforts. 
One commenter requested we consider management tools described in the 
Colorado gray wolf NEP.
    Response: We evaluated a range of management tools, including those 
described in the Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental 
Population of the Gray Wolf in Colorado (88 FR 77014, November 8, 
2023). Grizzly bears present different management challenges than 
wolves because of their life-history traits, such as long time to 
parturition, slow reproducing, and sensitivity to mortality. The 
management tools we selected were chosen to facilitate grizzly bear 
recovery in a landscape shared with people.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that species protections under a 
10(j) rule are not adequate because the rule reduces habitat 
protections and may result in more bears being killed than under the 
4(d) rule. One commenter stated that the 10(j) rule does not analyze 
how much more lethal take will occur under the rule compared to the 
4(d) rule. One commenter stated that the Service should not rely on 
information from the NCDE and GYE to assess potential impacts to a 
reintroduced grizzly bear population in the NCE as the 10(j) regulation 
will provide less protection to the NCE population than the NCDE and 
GYE populations receive under the 4(d) rule.
    Response: As previously noted, the Service is currently 
coordinating with the NPS and USFS to update the baseline and 
memorialize the `no net loss' agreement for the U.S. portion of the NCE 
Recovery Zone, providing for the habitat security needed in support of 
grizzly bears in the Management Area A, the focal area for recovery of 
an NCE grizzly bear population. It is possible that more grizzly bears 
may be killed in the NCE under the 10(j) rule than had the Service 
decided to reintroduce grizzly bears to the ecosystem under the current 
4(d) rule given the greater restrictions on lethal removal for grizzly 
bears under the 4(d) rule, but this is not a certainty. While 
designation as an NEP provides greater management flexibility than the 
existing 4(d) rule, that greater flexibility does not necessarily mean 
increased lethal take of grizzly bear. The management tools of the 
10(j) rule are designed in large part to help the Service and 
authorized agencies to intervene to avoid situations that are likely to 
result in human-bear conflicts in the first place. Also, the additional 
management flexibility provided in the 10(j) rule is optional, not 
required, and lethal removal in particular is still subject to prior 
Service approval, with limited exceptions. In addition, the recovery 
plan calls for maintaining human-caused mortality below 4 percent of 
the population for all recovery zones (USFWS 1993, p. 20). Because we 
anticipate the NCE population to remain low for the near future, we 
will attempt to keep human-caused mortality to zero.
    In terms of relying on information from the NCDE and GYE to assess 
potential impacts to the reintroduced population, the Service has 
tailored the 10(j) rule to focus on the NCE Recovery Zone, where 
protections similar to the 4(d) rule will apply. Therefore, we can use 
our experience managing grizzly bear populations in other ecosystems to 
assess potential effects to a reintroduced population in the NCE, 
particularly in Management Area A where the recovery effort is 
targeted. In addition, our experience managing grizzly bears under the 
4(d) rule in the NCDE and GYE helped inform what additional flexibility 
for the NEP would be valuable in helping address issues with grizzly 
bears on the landscape.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the Wildlife Crossings Program 
needs to be implemented with any translocation to reduce the threat 
that car or train collisions pose to grizzly bears.
    Response: Part of what makes the NCE quality grizzly bear habitat 
is its large contiguous blocks of wilderness with comparatively few 
roads and railways, such that wildlife crossings may be less of an 
issue than in other areas, although the threat is not eliminated given 
the non-wilderness areas within the NCE. We will use a mortality 
management framework to ensure that total mortality rates do not 
approach an unsustainable level, and will limit discretionary 
mortalities (i.e., management removals) if total mortality numbers 
(including any mortalities due to vehicle or train collisions) do not 
support an increasing population. Currently, more than 20 crossing 
structures over or under highways have been completed in Washington on 
the southern edge of the NCE Recovery Zone connecting areas south of I-
90 to the NCE Recovery Zone (WSDOT 2023). Washington State Department 
of Transportation, their partners, and working groups continue to 
prioritize wildlife connectivity in Washington with special focus on I-
90 and connecting the Cascades to the Kettle Mountain Range and Rocky 
Mountains (WSDOT 2023; Conservation Northwest 2023a; Conservation 
Northwest 2023b).
    Comment: A commenter requested that the EIS and 10(j) rule describe 
habitat management components outside of travel management (i.e., 
motorized road management) and should include habitat management 
components that support prey species, such as elk and other big game 
species. They also recommended that the EIS and 10(j) rule include a 
summary of active projects designed to improve habitat for wildlife, 
fuels reduction, timber management, etc., within the NCE and proposed 
NEP boundary, and an assessment of how grizzly bear restoration will 
affect active forest management projects.
    Response: Consistent with other recovery areas, the Service's focus 
is on securing core habitat for grizzly bears, using motorized road 
management as the principal metric. This does not preclude partner 
agencies such as the NPS and USFS from providing other habitat 
management components, such as for prey species, through their planning 
processes, but these are beyond the scope of this rulemaking. The final 
EIS includes a cumulative effects analysis which addresses in part 
other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable planned projects that may 
affect the grizzly bear restoration plan; based on this analysis, we do 
not expect this NEP to affect active forest management projects.
    Comment: A commenter stated that the EIS and 10(j) rulemaking 
process should be delayed allowing for additional modeling of high-
value grizzly bear habitat outside of the NCE Recovery Zone. Several 
commenters expressed concerns about the lack of more specific 
demographic goals and clear recovery criteria for the NCE Recovery 
Zone.
    Response: Recovery zones represent the Service's expectation of 
core areas for grizzly bear recovery in part because of their high-
value habitat for grizzly bear. At approximately 9,500 mi\2\ (25,000 
km\2\) in size, the NCE Recovery Zone is the largest of six recovery 
zones and represents an area large enough and of sufficient habitat 
quality to support a recovered grizzly bear population. While bears 
will likely disperse from and occupy areas outside the NCE

[[Page 36994]]

Recovery Zone in the future, we expect recovery actions to remain 
focused there due to the quality and quantity of habitat. The NCE 
supplement to the Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan provides general 
demographic and habitat assumptions and goals, including that the 
population will be considered recovered when it is large enough to 
offset human-caused mortality, and when reproducing bears are 
distributed throughout the recovery area (potentially between 200-400 
grizzly bears) (USFWS 1997, p. 3).
    Comment: One commenter questioned the projected annual growth rates 
(2-4 percent) for the reintroduced population of grizzly bears in the 
rule, particularly with a starting population of only 25 bears.
    Response: To estimate the number of reintroduced bears needed to 
reach an initial population of 25 bears, we used the survival rates of 
bears placed in the CYE through augmentation. This survival rate of CYE 
augmented bears is the best available information for the initial phase 
of NCE reintroduction. We use the 2-4 percent projected annual growth 
rate as only a range of possible growth rates based on other 
populations in the CYE, GYE, NCDE, and Selkirk Ecosystem. Once the 
population reaches 25 bears, the annual growth rate will be largely 
dependent upon reproduction and survival of those 25 bears with 
occasional additions to replace bears lost due to mortality or to 
maintain genetic diversity.
    Comment: A commenter suggested including additional metrics to 
emphasize grizzly bear mortality and adaptation resulting from climate-
induced stressors. They suggested the following potential metrics: 
availability of food source susceptible to adverse effects due to 
climate change such as whitebark pine, body fat composition, 
hibernation den entry and exit patterns, length and elevation of 
hibernation, and climate-change-induced grizzly bear habitat changes.
    Response: We will monitor the reintroduced population (see 
Monitoring and Evaluation, below). If we observe changes to bear 
mortality rates or other characteristics mentioned in this comment, we 
may adjust our management or monitoring accordingly to ensure 
conservation of the population (see Adaptive Management, below).
    Comment: One commenter stated that the 10(j) rule does not allow 
State game agencies to manage the population of grizzly bears from the 
time of reintroduction to when population goals are met. They indicated 
there is too much time between when the Federal Government releases 
control to States and the implementation of a management plan.
    Response: The Service retains the lead in management of grizzly 
bears in the NEP as they are part of the overall efforts to recover the 
federally listed grizzly bear in the United States. The Service will 
continue to partner with the WDFW and coordinate with the IGBC as the 
Service implements the 10(j) rule. The Service expects this 
collaborative management to occur until the grizzly bear is recovered 
and no longer requires listing under the Act. States that seek to 
manage grizzly bears can speed that timeline to delisting by supporting 
recovery efforts, including providing State management plans and 
regulations that will protect the grizzly bear in absence of the Act's 
protection.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that a faster timeline for the 
translocation of bears may be better biologically and more cost 
effective than the 5-10 years proposed.
    Response: The capture of bears within specific sex/age categories 
and bears with no history of conflicts limits the number of bears 
available or able to be captured in a given year. The adaptive 
management framework provides an opportunity to adjust our methods as 
results indicate.
    Comment: Commenters asked what actions will be taken to ensure that 
relocated bears remain in the relocation area, requested more 
clarification about agency roles and responsibilities for the 
management of grizzly bears that leave the NEP area or Washington 
State, and expressed concern about the safety of bears emigrating into 
neighboring States in the event of a delisting of other distinct 
population segments.
    Response: If a grizzly bear needs to be relocated within the NEP, 
relocation sites will be identified in remote areas away from homes, 
developed areas, and concentrated human use (see Management 
Restrictions, Protective Measures, and Other Special Management, 
below). Relocated grizzly bears will be able to move freely, and the 
location of collared bears will be monitored via radio collars. Grizzly 
bears that come into conflict may be relocated to remote locations as 
warranted based on the type of conflict involved. Some reintroduced 
bears will likely leave the NCE, but due to the large distances and 
relatively low landscape permeability of the habitat between 
reintroduction areas and surrounding States, we think few bears will 
emigrate into adjacent States in the near future. However, if a grizzly 
bear from the NCE migrates into adjacent States, it will be managed by 
State, Federal, or Tribal authorities based on the listing status of 
bears in that location. Grizzly bears from the U.S. portion of the NCE 
emigrating into Canada will be managed by Canadian authorities.
    Comment: One commenter said the Service should commit to returning 
dispersing grizzly bears back to the NEP area and allow other agencies 
to facilitate the return of such bears to the NEP area.
    Response: Aside from grizzly bears that may move north to the NCE 
in Canada, it is unlikely that reintroduced grizzly bears will disperse 
outside of the NEP in the near future due to the limited habitat 
connections and to human barriers. However, in the Cabinet Mountains 
augmentation program, several translocated bears left the target area, 
likely in attempt to return home. Some translocated bears in the NCE 
will likely attempt to travel home; however, the distance to potential 
source populations is much greater than in the Cabinet Mountains 
program, which may limit dispersal attempts. The NCE in the United 
States contains large blocks of unoccupied suitable habitat with 
adequate food resources and relatively low landscape permeability to 
areas outside of the NEP area. In the unlikely event that grizzly bears 
move outside of the U.S. portion of the NEP during population 
establishment, we will work with the relevant authorities to determine 
the best course of action given the specific context of the situation.
    Comment: Commenters stated that notification on release sites and 
dates, and updates on the movement of collared bears, must be shared 
with agricultural producers. One commenter expressed concerns about 
collar technology not providing real-time data for proactive grizzly 
bear management. One commenter provided suggestions on how translocated 
bears should be monitored, pairing radio-transmitting Very High 
Frequency (VHF) devices with Global Navigation Satellite System Ultra 
High Frequency devices. Another commenter asked if translocated bears 
would have ear tags.
    Response: Prior to releases, the Service will coordinate with 
relevant land management agencies, including local staff, to ensure 
that no people or livestock are in close proximity to release sites. 
The Service will provide periodic updates on bear movements to the 
public, and for situations where collared grizzly bears are in areas 
likely to result in conflict, the Service or the authorized agency will 
work closely with the affected parties to reduce the potential for 
conflict. If collar data is available for a bear involved in conflict,

[[Page 36995]]

current technology often allows managers to find the bear from the 
ground and track its movements in real time. Remote monitoring is 
limited by the frequency of satellite fixes (a tradeoff to battery 
life); therefore, bear location information is more delayed. GPS radio 
telemetry devices currently used by the Service already have a VHF 
component that can provide other means of radio tracking in the event 
of a satellite transmission failure. Translocated bears will have ear 
tags.
    Comment: A commenter stated that a quarantine and decontamination 
protocol should be established for any bears considered for 
translocation to prevent the spread of noxious weeds.
    Response: Grizzly bears selected for translocation will typically 
come from backcountry areas that are limited in invasive weed presence. 
Bears will be held in a culvert trap after capture and during 
transport, which should allow any ingested material to pass through the 
gastrointestinal tract and be voided prior to release.
    Comment: A commenter requested that a management plan be developed 
to ensure a smooth and timely transition from Federal management under 
the Act to State management upon reaching grizzly bear population 
objectives.
    Response: As stated in the final rule, if grizzly bears are 
recovered and delisted under the Act, the experimental population 
designation and associated regulation will also be removed as part of 
the delisting rulemaking. In the event grizzly bears are considered for 
delisting due to recovery, we will work with the appropriate States and 
Tribes to develop plans for a smooth and timely transition of 
management responsibilities.
    Comment: A commenter suggested that bears with a history of human 
contact may be better suited for translocation than those without.
    Response: Bears with a history of human contact may be more prone 
to seek out anthropogenic foods and come into conflict. We want to give 
reintroduced bears the best chance to act as wild bears and avoid 
humans and human-occupied areas. Therefore, we retain the bear 
selection criteria described in Effects on Wild Populations.
    Comment: Multiple commenters questioned if the NEP might be 
modified based on various factors. One commenter asked whether, if 
public tolerance rises to sufficient levels over the course of the 
restoration, could the ESA listing status of the population be changed. 
Another commenter noted that if bear mortality is too high the 
population will not be able to recover and suggests a threshold of zero 
human-caused mortalities in Management Area A. Yet another commenter 
questioned if the reintroduction effort would be stopped or the 
population re-designated as essential if the mortality reaches a 
certain threshold.
    Response: As stated in the final rule, we will consider removing 
the NEP designation only if (a) the reintroduction has not been 
successful, in which case the NEP boundaries might be altered or the 
regulations in the rule might be removed; or (b) the grizzly bear is 
recovered and delisted in accordance with the Act (see Exit Strategy, 
below). While zero human-caused mortalities is best, zero mortalities 
may not be practical given the need to protect human safety and 
property, and due to accidental mortalities (e.g., vehicle collisions). 
As discussed above, the recovery plan calls for maintaining human-
caused mortality below 4 percent of the population for all recovery 
zones. Because we anticipate the NCE population to remain small for the 
near future, we will attempt to keep human-caused mortality to zero. If 
grizzly bears of the NEP experience unexpectedly high natural 
mortality, if donor bears are not available, or if we conclude that we 
and our partners have insufficient funding for an extended period to 
support management of the NEP, we may consider ending the releases and 
removing the NEP designation. This would be done only after 
coordination with partners and a new public process where we would 
evaluate the NEP designation before making any decisions to exit the 
restoration program and remove or revise the 10(j) rule as appropriate.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the 10(j) rule include an 
``escape clause'' that authorizes the State to lethally remove all 
grizzly bears in the NEP if the Service's nonessential determination 
for the NEP is at risk due to litigation challenging that 
determination.
    Response: The Service does not consider an ``escape clause'' 
appropriate for the NCE grizzly bear NEP. Lethal removal of all grizzly 
bears of the NEP is inconsistent with our goal of restoring grizzly 
bears to the NCE. If litigation results in the Service being required 
to reevaluate its nonessential determination for the NCE experimental 
population, we will evaluate our management options at that time.
    Comment: Commenters stated that we cannot designate an experimental 
population because the NCE is not outside of the current range or 
wholly geographically separate from nonexperimental populations. One 
commenter cited the possible presence of three female grizzly bears 
north of the border in British Columbia. Another commenter stated that 
the NCE includes land in Canada and, therefore, introducing an 
experimental population of grizzly bears lacks justification under the 
Act because it would not be wholly geographically separate from other 
populations of the species.
    Response: In our most recent status review, we concluded that the 
NCE Recovery Zone no longer contains a grizzly bear population (88 FR 
41560 at 41579, June 27, 2023). We summarize why this experimental 
population designation would be wholly separate from nonexperimental 
populations in the Is the Experimental Population Wholly Geographically 
Separate from Nonexperimental Populations? section, below).
    Comment: One commenter stated that the proposal to make the 10(j) 
rule's management provisions effective regardless of whether any 
reintroduction of grizzly bears into the NCE has occurred yet is 
inconsistent with section 10(j) of the Act and would violate NEPA 
because this was not evaluated in the draft EIS.
    Response: The 10(j) rule, consistent with the Act, defines how the 
NEP can be identified, in this case by geographic area--the NEP area. 
This is also consistent with the NEPA analysis, which has an 
alternative (Alternative C) that includes restoration of grizzly bears 
with a 10(j) nonessential population designation using geographic 
location to identify members of the NEP. Nevertheless, in response to 
this comment, we carefully reviewed how we will treat any bears in the 
NEP area before and after translocation and have determined that it is 
appropriate to change our approach.
    The Act and our regulations define an experimental population as a 
population (and any offspring arising solely therefrom) authorized for 
release as experimental, but only when and at such times as the 
population is wholly separate geographically from nonexperimental 
populations. Likewise, experimental population releases are required to 
be outside the current range of the species, and the Act and our 
regulations require that we provide a means to identify the 
experimental population. The purpose of these provisions is to ensure 
that nonexperimental populations do not receive the reduced protections 
associated with the NEP designation (49 FR 33885, August 27, 1984). 
Based on the Act, our regulations, and the legislative history, we have 
determined that the experimental population

[[Page 36996]]

designation should not apply before any individuals are released.
    Therefore, the Service has changed its approach in this final rule 
to better align with the intent and purpose of identifying the 
experimental population, as reflected in our regulations. Any grizzly 
bears that are found in the NCE NEP area before the Service has 
translocated grizzly bears into the NEP area will be managed in 
accordance with the 4(d) rule. However, after our initial release of 
one or more grizzly bears into the NEP area, any grizzly bears--
including those moving from Canada into the NEP area--will be treated 
as part of the NEP while they are present within the NEP area, with all 
of the associated ESA protections and exceptions that apply to the 
experimental population. As discussed under Is the Experimental 
Population Wholly Geographically Separate from Nonexperimental 
Populations?, we have concluded that it is unlikely that bears will 
move into the NEP area from other U.S. populations and it is, 
therefore, reasonable that any bears found after the initial release 
originated from the release.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the EIS and 10(j) rulemaking 
process be put on hold until 12-month findings are issued by the 
Service in response to petitions requesting the Service delist grizzly 
bears from the Act in the GYE and NCDE.
    Response: The Service's response to petitions requesting that we 
remove the grizzly bear from the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife is outside the scope of the rule. The 10(j) rule does not 
preclude revisions to the listed entity. If the Service revises the 
grizzly bear listed entity, the effect on this NEP, if any, will be 
addressed at that time.
    Comment: One commenter stated that, during grizzly bear mating 
seasons, a moratorium on off-highway vehicle (OHV) use should be 
enforced to ensure that the grizzly bears have the best chance of 
reproducing.
    Response: Management Area A, which is the core area targeted for 
recovery of grizzly bears, is already largely composed of designated 
wilderness, which precludes motorized access generally. In addition, 
for those areas outside of wilderness, the `no net loss' agreement by 
NPS and USFS within Management Area A will provide for the habitat 
security needed in support of grizzly bears in this portion of the NEP 
area. A moratorium on OHV use is not necessary to support the 
restoration program in the NCE.

Final Rule Issued Under Section 10(j) of the Act

Background and Biological Information

    We provide detailed background information on grizzly bears in a 
separate Species Status Assessment (SSA) (USFWS 2022, entire). 
Information in the SSA is relevant to reintroduction efforts for 
grizzly bears that may be undertaken in Washington, and it can be found 
along with this final rule at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. 
FWS-R1-ES-2023-0074 (see Supporting and Related Material). We summarize 
relevant information from the SSA below.

Taxonomy and Species Description

    Grizzly bears are a member of the brown bear species (U. arctos) 
that occurs in North America, Europe, and Asia. In the lower 48 States, 
the grizzly bear subspecies occurs in a variety of habitat types in 
portions of Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. Grizzly bears 
weigh up to 800 pounds (363 kilograms) and live more than 25 years in 
the wild. Grizzly bears are light brown to nearly black and are so 
named for their ``grizzled'' coats with silver or golden tips (USFWS 
2022, p. 40).

Historical and Current Range

    Historically, grizzly bears occurred throughout much of the western 
half of the lower 48 United States, central Mexico, western Canada, and 
most of Alaska. Prior to European settlement, an estimated 50,000 
grizzly bears were distributed in one large contiguous area throughout 
all or portions of 18 western States (i.e., Washington, Oregon, 
California, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, New 
Mexico, Arizona, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, 
Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas). Populations declined in the late 1800s 
with the arrival of European settlers, government-funded bounty 
programs, and the conversion of habitats to agricultural uses. Grizzly 
bears were reduced to less than 2 percent of their former range in the 
lower 48 States by the time the species was listed as a threatened 
species under the Act in 1975, with an estimated population (in the 
lower 48 States) of 700 to 800 individuals (USFWS 2022, p. 4). The 
grizzly bear is listed under the Act in the conterminous United States, 
which comprises the lower 48 States. Unless specified otherwise, we use 
the term ``the grizzly bear in the lower 48 States'' to refer to the 
entity currently listed as a threatened species under the Act.
    Since their listing under the Act, grizzly bear populations in the 
lower 48 States have expanded in number and range. Current populations 
combined contain approximately 2,200 bears and occupy portions of 
Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and Washington. Outside the lower 48 States, 
approximately 55,000 grizzly bears exist in the largely unsettled areas 
of Alaska and western Canada.

Grizzly Bear Ecosystems and Recovery Zones

    The recovery plan refers to six grizzly bear ecosystems identified 
to target the species' recovery (USFWS 1993, p. 10). Currently, 
approximately 2,200 grizzly bears exist primarily in 4 ecosystems in 
the lower 48 States: the NCDE, the GYE, the CYE, and the Selkirk 
Ecosystem. There are no known grizzly bear populations in the remaining 
two ecosystems, the NCE and BE, nor any known populations outside these 
ecosystems, although we have documented bears, primarily solitary, 
outside the NCE and BE. Current populations in the NCDE, Selkirk 
Ecosystem, and CYE extend into Canada to varying degrees. Although 
there is currently no known population in the NCE, it constitutes a 
large block of contiguous habitat that spans the international border. 
The Service has not explicitly defined ecosystem boundaries, but we 
have identified recovery zones at the core of each ecosystem (USFWS 
2022, p. 56) (figure 1). Therefore, each recovery zone pertains to a 
specific area within the larger ecosystem.
    At the time of the original recovery plan, grizzly bear 
distribution within the lower 48 States was primarily within and around 
areas identified as recovery zones (USFWS 1993, pp. 10-13, 17-18). The 
Service identified the six recovery zones, which correspond with the 
six ecosystems. These recovery zones and the most recent grizzly bear 
population estimates for each zone are as follows:
    (1) The GYE Recovery Zone in northwestern Wyoming, eastern Idaho, 
and southwestern Montana (9,200 mi\2\ (24,000 km\2\)) at approximately 
965 individuals inside the Demographic Monitoring Area (Gould et al. 
2023, p. 37);
    (2) the NCDE Recovery Zone of north-central Montana (9,600 mi\2\ 
(25,000 km\2\)) at approximately 1,138 individuals (Costello et al. 
2023, p. 10);
    (3) the NCE Recovery Zone of north-central Washington (9,500 mi\2\ 
(25,000 km\2\)), although no functional population of grizzly bears 
currently exists in the NCE (see Status of Grizzly Bears in the North 
Cascades Ecosystem, below);

[[Page 36997]]

    (4) the Selkirk Ecosystem Recovery Zone of northern Idaho, 
northeastern Washington, and southeastern British Columbia (2,200 mi\2\ 
(5,700 km\2\)) at approximately 83 individuals (Proctor et al. 2012, p. 
31). An updated British Columbia-only estimate of 69 was made in 2022 
though it includes some bears with home ranges in the United States 
(Proctor et al. 2023 p. 2);
    (5) the CYE Recovery Zone of northwestern Montana and northern 
Idaho (2,600 mi\2\ (6,700 km\2\)) at approximately 60-65 bears (Kasworm 
et al. 2023a, p. 43); and
    (6) the BE Recovery Zone of central Idaho and western Montana 
(5,830 mi\2\ (15,100 km\2\)), although no functional population of 
grizzly bears currently exists in the BE.
NCE and NCE Recovery Zone Relation to the Experimental Population
    Although the Service considers the North Cascades Ecosystem to 
include areas within Canada, the North Cascades Recovery Zone is a 
component of the ecosystem and occurs only within the United States. 
Throughout this final rule, we will reference the broader North 
Cascades Ecosystem, which includes habitat in Canada, as the ``NCE'' 
and reference its recovery zone (solely within the United States) as 
the ``NCE Recovery Zone.'' The nonessential experimental population 
area (see ``Experimental Population'' below) in this rulemaking action 
encompasses the entire NCE Recovery Zone and the portion of the larger 
NCE within the United States.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY24.001


[[Page 36998]]



Behavior and Life History

    Adult grizzly bears are normally solitary except when females have 
dependent young, but they are not territorial and home ranges of adult 
bears frequently overlap. Home range sizes vary among ecosystems 
because of population densities and habitat productivity. Average home 
range size for males varies from 183 to 835 mi\2\ (475-2,162 km\2\) and 
for females from 50 to 138 mi\2\ (130-358 km\2\) across the recovery 
areas in the United States (USFWS 2022, p. 44).
    Grizzly bears have a promiscuous mating system. Mating occurs from 
May through July with a peak in mid-June. Average age of first 
reproduction can vary from 3 to 8 years of age. Litter sizes range from 
one to four cubs, although two is the most common. Cubs are typically 
born in the den in late January or early February and typically remain 
with the female for 2.5 years, making the average time between litters 
(i.e., the interbirth interval) approximately 3 years. Grizzly bears 
have one of the slowest reproductive rates among terrestrial mammals, 
resulting primarily from the late age of first reproduction, small 
average litter size, and the long interbirth interval. A population is 
made up of numerous overlapping generations. It is possible for 
mothers, daughters, and granddaughters to be reproductively active at 
the same time. Grizzly bear females typically cease reproducing some 
time in their mid-to-late 20s (Schwartz et al. 2003a, pp. 109-110; 
USFWS 2022, pp. 44-45).
    Grizzly bears hibernate for 4 to 6 months each year in winter to 
cope with seasons of low food abundance. Grizzly bears in the lower 48 
States typically enter dens between October and December. In the 2 to 4 
months before den entry, bears increase their food intake dramatically 
during a process called hyperphagia. Grizzly bears must consume foods 
rich in protein and carbohydrates during this time (between August and 
November) in order to build up fat reserves to survive denning and 
post-denning periods. Grizzly bears typically hibernate alone in dens, 
except for females with young and subadult siblings who occasionally 
hibernate together. Most dens are located at higher elevations, above 
8,000 feet (ft) (2,500 meters (m)) in the GYE and above 6,400 ft (1,942 
m) in the NCDE and on slopes ranging from 30 to 60 degrees. Grizzly 
bears exit their dens between March and May; females with cubs exit 
later than other adults (Mace and Waller 1997, p. 37; Haroldson et al. 
2002, p. 29; Kasworm et al. 2021a, pp. 51-54; Kasworm et al. 2021b, pp. 
33-36; USFWS 2022, pp. 45-46).
    When not hibernating, grizzly bears use a variety of cover types to 
rest and shelter. Grizzly bears often select bed sites with horizontal 
and vertical cover, especially at day bed sites, suggesting that bed 
site selection is important for concealment from potential threats. The 
relative importance of cover to grizzly bears was documented in a 4-
year study of grizzly bears in the GYE. Of 2,261 aerial radio signals 
from 46 instrumented bears, 90 percent were located in forest cover too 
dense to observe the bear (Blanchard 1978, pp. 27-29).
    Grizzly bears make seasonal movements within their home ranges to 
locations where food is abundant (e.g., ungulate winter ranges and 
calving areas, talus slopes). They are opportunistic omnivores and 
display great diet plasticity, even within a population, shifting their 
diet according to foods that are most nutritious (i.e., high in fat, 
protein, and/or carbohydrates) and available (USFWS 2022, pp. 47-48). 
They will consume almost any food available including living or dead 
mammals or fish, insects, worms, plants, human-related foods, garbage, 
livestock, and agricultural crops. Cattle and sheep depredation rates 
are generally higher where bear densities are higher and in later 
summer months (Wells et al. 2018, pp. 5-6). In areas where animal 
matter is less available, berries, grasses, roots, bulbs, tubers, 
seeds, and fungi are important in meeting protein and caloric 
requirements (USFWS 2022, pp. 47-48; LeFranc et al. 1987, pp. 111-114; 
Schwartz et al. 2003b, pp. 568-569).
    In general, an individual grizzly bear's habitat needs and daily 
movements are largely driven by the search for food, water, mates, 
cover, security, or den sites. Grizzly bears display dietary 
adjustability across ecosystems and exploit a broad diversity of 
habitat types. Large intact blocks of land directly influence the 
quality and quantity of the species' resource needs, highlighting the 
importance of this habitat factor to all life stages. The larger, more 
intact, and ecologically diverse the block of land, it follows that 
high-caloric foods, dens, and cover would be more readily available to 
individuals. Grizzly bears also need large, intact blocks of land with 
limited human influence and thus low potential for displacement and 
human-bear or livestock-bear conflict that could result in human-caused 
mortality. Grizzly bears in the lower 48 States need multiple resilient 
ecosystems distributed across a geographical area to reduce the risk of 
catastrophic events. A wide distribution of multiple ecosystems ensures 
that all ecosystems are not exposed to the same catastrophic event at 
the same time, thereby reducing risk to the species. Grizzly bears also 
need genetic and ecological diversity across their range in the lower 
48 States to adapt to changing environmental conditions (USFWS 2022, 
pp. 98-100).
    Kasworm et al. (2014, entire) evaluated grizzly bear food data from 
the CYE. The CYE has a Pacific maritime climate that may be similar to 
the climate in the central and western Cascade Mountains. Therefore, an 
evaluation of grizzly bear food selection in the CYE could be useful 
for predicting food habits of grizzly bears in the NCE. Huckleberry 
(Vaccinium spp.) is an important component of the grizzly bear's diet 
in the CYE. Data were collected over several years, using both isotope 
analysis on hairs and scat. Isotope analysis showed a highly variable 
use of meat (6 percent to 37 percent of diet), and that meat was found 
in many scats in some months (40 percent of dry matter in April and 
May), including fall (carrion). Overall, mammals and shrubs (berries) 
constituted 64 percent of total dry matter annually. In a study 
analyzing grizzly bear habitat selection, fitness, and density, 
huckleberry patches were the most influential bottom-up factors 
(Proctor et al. 2023, p. 48). In a diet study of grizzly bears in 
several western ecosystems, researchers found that adult male grizzly 
bears were more carnivorous than any other age or sex class, with diets 
composed of around 70 percent meat (Jacoby et al. 1999, pp. 924-926). 
Other sex and age groups of grizzly bears displayed diets similar to 
black bears living in the same areas reflective of diets described by 
Kasworm et al. 2014 (Jacoby et al. 1999, pp. 924-926). Grizzly bear 
source populations may also include interior British Columbia. Grizzly 
bear female diets in the interior of British Columbia were based 
largely on plant material (58 percent) and terrestrial meat (31 
percent) (Adams et al. 2017, pp. 7-10). Male diets were similar but had 
a higher proportion of plants (63 percent) and less terrestrial meat (8 
percent). These amounts are similar to those of the CYE diets, which 
were largely plants (66 percent) and a lesser amount of terrestrial 
meat (26 percent).

Threats

    Excessive human-caused mortality, including ``indiscriminate 
illegal killing,'' defense of life and property mortality, accidental 
mortality, and management removal, was the primary

[[Page 36999]]

factor contributing to rangewide grizzly bear decline during the 19th 
and 20th centuries, eventually leading to their listing as a threatened 
species in 1975 (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). Habitat destruction, 
modification, and isolation and conflict resulting from human access to 
formerly secure habitat were also identified as threats in the 1975 
listing. In the State of Washington, the northwest fur trade was 
probably the primary driver of rapid grizzly bear decline in the period 
1810-1870. In addition to the influx of trappers, resource extraction 
and livestock production fragmented and degraded grizzly bear habitat 
in Washington; a mining boom in the early 1800s created a rapid 
increase in human activity and habitat alteration to accommodate mining 
infrastructure and human settlements. In the NCE, grizzly bears were 
also regularly shot and removed by herders of sheep and cattle, and by 
the late 1800s habitat fragmentation and isolation of the ecosystem 
accelerated due to the dominance of logging, as well as the expansion 
of rural development, road and railway access, and orchards (Almack et 
al. 1993, p. 3; Rine et al. 2020, pp. 5-13; USFWS 2022, p. 143).
    Though human-caused mortality has been greatly reduced since the 
1800s, human-caused mortality is still currently the primary factor 
affecting grizzly bears at both the individual and ecosystem levels 
(USFWS 2022, p. 7). However, mortality thresholds currently in place 
have mitigated this threat such that grizzly bear populations have 
increased in number and range in the lower 48 States. Human-caused 
mortalities of grizzly bears currently include: (1) management 
removals; (2) defense-of-life-killings; (3) illegal killings or 
poaching; (4) accidental killings; and (5) mistaken-identity killing 
(USFWS 2022, pp. 144-145). Human activities are the primary factor 
currently impacting habitat security and the ability of bears to find 
and access foods, mates, cover, and den sites. Users of public lands 
and recreationists in grizzly bear habitat often increase the risk of 
human-bear conflict by leaving containers of food, garbage, and other 
bear attractants open or unstored (Gunther et al. 2004, pp. 13-14). 
However, road access to grizzly bear habitat likely poses the most 
imminent current threat to grizzly bears by reducing the availability 
of the necessary large, intact blocks of land; increasing disturbance 
and displacement of individual bears through increased noise, activity, 
or human presence; and increasing mortality of individual bears through 
vehicle strikes or other activities associated with human-caused 
mortality (Proctor et al. 2019, p. 19; Schwartz et al. 2010, p. 661, 
USFWS 2022, p. 117).
    While existing motorized access levels are unknown on National 
Forest System lands within the NCE (USFWS 2022, p. 212), there have 
been prior assessments (Lyons et al. 2018, entire; Gaines et al. 2003, 
entire; IGBC-NCE 2001, entire). However, the primary factors related to 
past destruction and modification of grizzly bear habitat have been 
reduced through changes in management practices that have been formally 
incorporated into regulatory documents. In the NCE Recovery Zone, 
approximately 64 percent of the public lands are designated Wilderness 
Areas or IRAs, and the remaining Federal lands are managed under a `no 
net loss' agreement that supports core habitat. Across the grizzly bear 
range, all data collected by Federal, State, and Tribal agencies is 
used to help identify where human-bear conflicts occur and compare 
trends in locations, sources, land ownership, and types of conflicts to 
inform proactive management of human-bear conflicts.
    Fire is a natural part of all grizzly bear ecosystems, but fire 
frequency, severity, and burned area may increase with late-summer 
droughts predicted under climate change scenarios (Nitschke and Innes 
2008, p. 853; McWethy et al. 2010, p. 55; Halofsky et al. 2020, p. 10; 
Whitlock et al. 2017; pp. 123-131, 216, XXXII). In the North Cascades, 
wildfire is projected to burn nearly four times more area by the 2080s 
compared to the historical period of 1980 to 2006 (Halofsky et al. 
2020, p. 10). High-intensity fires may reduce grizzly bear habitat 
quality immediately afterwards by decreasing hiding cover, changing 
movement patterns, and delaying regrowth of vegetation. Predators with 
large territories, like grizzly bears, have more flexibility to exploit 
resources in burned and unburned landscapes (as cited in Nimmo et al. 
2019, p. 986). Moreover, in conifer-dominated forest ecosystems, 
wildfires transition forest to earlier succession stages, which can 
increase prey densities due to increases in the availability of 
vegetative food resources (Snobl et al. 2022, pp. 14-15; Lyons et al. 
2018, p. 10).
    Even if cover is lost, movement is changed, and vegetation growth 
is delayed, depending on their size and severity, fires may have only 
short-term adverse impacts on grizzly bears while providing more long-
term benefits. For example, fire plays an important role in maintaining 
an open forest canopy, shrub fields, and meadows that provide for 
grizzly bear food resources, such as increased production of forbs, 
root crops, and berries (Hamer and Herrero 1987, pp. 183-185; Blanchard 
and Knight 1996, p. 121; Apps et al. 2004, p. 148; Pengelly and Hamer 
2006, p. 129). Because grizzly bears have shown resiliency to changes 
in vegetation resulting from fires, we do not expect altered fire 
regimes predicted under most climate change scenarios to have 
significant negative impacts on grizzly bear survival or reproduction, 
despite the potential short-term effects on vegetation important to 
grizzly bears. Climate models predict that the NCE will experience 
substantial vegetation changes from longer growing seasons, drier 
summer months and wetter winter and spring months, decreased snowpack, 
and an increased number of disturbance events that are expected to 
improve food resources for grizzly bears and thus increase habitat 
quality (Ransom et al. 2018, p. 26). Modeling of grizzly bear habitat 
in the North Cascades under various projected climate change scenarios 
shows increased carrying capacity and increased potential grizzly bear 
density estimates under all scenarios (Ransom et al. 2023, pp. 6-8; 
USFWS 2022, table 27, p. 243). The complex relationship between changes 
in climate, natural processes, and natural and anthropogenic features 
will ultimately determine the future quality of grizzly bear habitat 
across the ecosystem (Ransom et al. 2018, entire).

Status of Grizzly Bears in the North Cascades Ecosystem

    In the Service's 2023 status review, we determined that the NCE no 
longer contained a population of grizzly bears (88 FR 41560 at 41579, 
June 27, 2023). We also indicated that we were continuing to evaluate 
options for restoring grizzly bears to the NCE (88 FR 41560 at 41580, 
June 27, 2023).
    Factors contributing to the extirpation of a functional population 
of grizzly bears from the NCE include historical habitat loss and 
fragmentation and human-caused mortality (USFWS 2022, pp. 49-51). 
Historical records indicate that grizzly bears once occurred throughout 
the NCE (Bjorklund 1980, p. 7; Sullivan 1983 p. 4; Almack et al. 1993 
p. 2, Rine et al. 2020, pp. 10-13). There has been no confirmed 
evidence of grizzly bears within the U.S. portion of the NCE since 1996 
when an individual grizzly bear was observed on the southeastern side 
of Glacier Peak within the Glacier Peak Wilderness Area in the northern 
Cascade Mountains of Washington State. The most recent direct evidence 
of reproduction in the U.S. portion of the NCE was a confirmed

[[Page 37000]]

observation of a female and cub on Lake Chelan in 1991 (Almack et al. 
1993, p. 34).
    In the United States, most habitat within the NCE Recovery Zone is 
federally owned and managed by the NPS including North Cascades 
National Park, Ross Lake National Recreation Area (NRA), and Lake 
Chelan NRA, and the USFS including parts of the Mount Baker Snoqualmie 
NF and Okanogan-Wenatchee NF. Sixty-four percent of the NCE Recovery 
Zone is protected from motorized routes due to designation as 
Wilderness or protected from roads due to designation as IRAs. Despite 
the lack of recent observations, five studies have evaluated portions 
of the NCE for grizzly bear habitat suitability (Agee et al. 1989, 
entire; Almack et al. 1993, entire; Gaines et al. 1994, entire; Lyons 
et al. 2018, entire; Ransom et al. 2023, entire), and all conclude that 
the U.S. portion of the NCE has the habitat resources essential for the 
maintenance of a grizzly bear population.
    Grizzly bear populations in Canada are not part of the U.S. listed 
grizzly bear entity. However, suitable habitat within the NCE spans the 
international border. The NCE within Canada is relatively isolated from 
other ecosystems with grizzly bear populations in Canada (Morgan et al. 
2019, p. 3). The current range of grizzly bears in British Columbia is 
divided into 55 grizzly bear population units (GBPUs) that are used for 
monitoring and management. The British Columbia North Cascades GBPU is 
immediately north of the U.S. portion of the NCE and is isolated and 
small, with several surveys (DNA sampling, live-trapping effort, aerial 
survey for a helicopter darting attempt) between 1998 and 2003 yielding 
only one DNA sample and one sighting that included a female with 
offspring (USFWS 2022, appendix E, p. 321). To the north and west of 
this GBPU lie the Stein-Nahatlach and Garibaldi-Pit GBPUs, which are 
also small and largely isolated with estimated female populations of 12 
and 2, respectively (Morgan et al. 2019, p. 19). All three of these 
units are ranked as being of extreme management concern (Morgan et al. 
2019, p. 21) using the NatureServe methodology, integrating rarity 
(e.g., range extent, population size), population trend, and severity 
of threats to produce a conservation status rank for discrete 
geographical units (Morgan et al. 2019, p. 6). The International Union 
for the Conservation of Nature classified these populations as 
critically endangered on their Red List due to small size and isolation 
(McLellan et al. 2017, p. 2). The Kettle-Granby GBPU lies 60 mi (97 km) 
to the northeast of the NCE across the Okanogan River in British 
Columbia with an estimated female population of 48 grizzly bears in 
2018 (Morgan et al. 2019, p. 19). Based on this information there 
appears to be little demographic or genetic connectivity from other 
GBPUs to the North Cascades GBPU or to the NCE Recovery Zone.

Recovery Efforts to Date

    In accordance with section 4(f)(1) of the Act, the Service 
completed the grizzly bear recovery plan in 1982 (USFWS 1982, entire) 
and released a revised recovery plan in 1993 (USFWS 1993, entire; other 
revisions and supplements affecting other populations can be found in 
ECOS). Recovery plans serve as ``road maps'' for species recovery--they 
lay out where we need to go and how to get there through specific 
actions. Recovery plans are not regulatory documents and are instead 
intended to provide guidance to the Service, other Federal agencies, 
States, Tribes, and other partners on methods of minimizing threats to 
listed species and on criteria that may be used to determine when 
recovery is achieved.
    In 1993, the Service revised the grizzly bear recovery plan to 
include additional tasks and new information that increased the focus 
and effectiveness of recovery efforts (USFWS 1993, pp. 41-58). In 1997, 
we released a supplemental chapter to the recovery plan to guide 
recovery in the NCE Recovery Zone (USFWS 1997, entire). In our recovery 
plan supplement for the NCE Recovery Zone, we outlined the following 
recovery goals for the U.S. portion of the NCE:
    (1) that the population is large enough to offset some level of 
human-induced mortality despite foreseeable influences of demographic 
and environmental variation; and
    (2) reproducing bears are distributed throughout the NCE Recovery 
Zone. Such a population may comprise 200-400 grizzly bears in the U.S. 
portion of the ecosystem (USFWS 1997, p. 3).
    This supplement to the recovery plan supported fostering grizzly 
bear restoration in the NCE Recovery Zone, specifically identifying 
translocations as an alternative for recovering this population (USFWS 
1997, pp. 24-25).
Interagency Grizzly Bear Committee
    In 1983, the IGBC was established ``to ensure recovery of viable 
grizzly bear populations and restoration of their habitats in the lower 
48 States through interagency coordination of policy, planning, 
management and research'' (IGBC 1983, entire). The IGBC consists of 
representatives from the Service, USFS, NPS, the Bureau of Land 
Management, the U.S. Geological Survey, and representatives of the 
State wildlife agencies of Idaho, Montana, Washington, and Wyoming. At 
the ecosystem level, Native American Tribes that manage grizzly bear 
habitat and county governments are represented, along with other 
partners.
    The IGBC NCE subcommittee guides and coordinates habitat management 
and conflict prevention for grizzly bears in the NCE Recovery Zone 
(USFWS 1997, p. 8). In 1997, the North Cascades NP Superintendent and 
three NF Supervisors (Mount Baker Snoqualmie NF, Okanogan NF, and 
Wenatchee NF) agreed to a `no net loss' agreement within any bear 
management unit to protect and secure grizzly bear core area habitat in 
the NCE Recovery Zone (see USFS 1997, entire), and they have managed 
the NPS and National Forest System lands using that guidance since. 
Under this approach, ``core area'' is defined as the area more than 0.3 
mi (500 m) from any open-motorized access route or high-use 
nonmotorized trail (more than 20 parties per week).
Management Efforts in the NCE and NCE Recovery Zone
    A number of habitat management measures have been implemented 
within the NCE Recovery Zone to improve habitat connectivity, habitat 
security, and safety for grizzly bears and humans, in areas where 
encounters are likely. These measures include management of human 
access to grizzly bear habitat and improved sanitation and food storage 
measures to prevent or minimize human-grizzly bear conflict.
    Management of human access is one of the most important and 
significant management strategies for grizzly bears (Proctor et al. 
2019, pp. 22-33). It includes balancing the need for road and motorized 
trail access with providing secure areas for grizzly bears. Access 
management in the NCE Recovery Zone is guided by the `no net loss' 
agreement described above (USFS 1997, entire). In simple terms, this 
approach indicates that if a road is constructed or opened to motorized 
travel, another road must be closed to motorized use in order to 
maintain core habitat. Essentially, the open motorized access network 
is managed for `no net loss' of core area habitat, which can entail a 
variety of management strategies.
    In an effort to minimize the potential for human-caused mortality 
of grizzly bears, substantial outreach efforts have been put in place 
by the NPS and USFS over the last 30 years to reduce unsecured 
attractants (e.g., garbage,

[[Page 37001]]

anthropogenic food) and provide the public with tips on identifying and 
managing with grizzly bears on the landscape (e.g., Western Wildlife 
Outreach 2023; Braaten et al. 2013, pp. 7-8). The NPS has service-wide 
food storage regulations (36 CFR 2.2(a), 2.10(d), and 2.14(a)), 
including requiring campers to use food storage canisters or park-
provided food storage lockers at the North Cascades NPS Complex. The 
Colville NF has a forest-wide, seasonal (April 1--December 1) food 
storage order in place. Mount Baker Snoqualmie NF has a forest-wide, 
year-round food storage order. Okanogan-Wenatchee NF does not currently 
have food storage restrictions; however, developing a food storage 
order is part of its 2024 Program of Work, and NF employees continue to 
place bear-resistant facilities, including food storage lockers, at 
campgrounds.
    It is illegal to negligently feed, attempt to feed, or attract 
large carnivores to land or a building in Washington State (see Revised 
Code of Washington (RCW) 77.15.790). There are exceptions for 
individuals engaging in acceptable practices related to waste disposal, 
forestry, wildlife control, and farming or ranching operations. Any 
person who intentionally feeds or attempts to feed or attracts large 
carnivores to land or a building is guilty of a misdemeanor (see RCW 
77.15.792). The WDFW has also implemented a regulation that requires 
black bear hunters to take and pass a bear identification test when 
hunting black bears in specific areas, with the intent of minimizing 
the potential for accidental killings of grizzly bears because of 
mistaken identification (WDFW 2023, p. 70).
State and Canadian Protections
    Grizzly bears are State-listed as an endangered species in 
Washington (RCW 77.12.020; Washington Administrative Code 220-610-010; 
Lewis 2019, p. 1). In British Columbia, grizzly bears are ranked as 
``Special Concern'' by both the British Columbia Conservation Data 
Centre and federally under Canada's Species at Risk Act (B.C. 
Conservation Data Centre 2023; SARA 2018). The International Union for 
Conservation of Nature (IUCN) identifies four populations within 
British Columbia on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, including 
three that border Washington State with Red List Categories reflecting 
heightened extinction risk (North Cascades-Critically Endangered, South 
Selkirk-Vulnerable, and the Yahk/Yaak-Endangered, McLellan et al. 2016, 
pp. 1-2).
    The feasibility of recovering grizzly bears in the Canadian portion 
of the NCE is under consideration in British Columbia. First Nations 
have declared grizzly bears within the North Cascades GBPU as in 
immediate need of restoration and protection (ONA 2014, entire; Piikani 
Nation 2018, entire). The British Columbia Government in collaboration 
with Canadian First Nations have established a Joint Nation partnership 
to outline population recovery objectives and strategies in a North 
Cascades Grizzly Bear Stewardship Strategy (in review). The team is 
also developing a communication strategy to assess public reception for 
recovery in the area. Additionally, the Provincial Government has 
identified management options for all grizzly bear populations as 
outlined in the British Columbia Grizzly Bear Stewardship Framework (in 
review). Should augmentation efforts occur in British Columbia, some 
grizzly bears reintroduced into the Canadian portion of the ecosystem 
may move into the NEP area in the United States, either as transients 
that return to Canada or that ultimately remain in the United States.

Statutory and Regulatory Framework

    Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1538) sets forth the prohibitions 
afforded to species listed under the Act. Section 9 of the Act 
prohibits take of endangered wildlife. ``Take'' is defined by the Act 
as harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or 
collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Section 7 of the Act 
outlines the procedures for Federal interagency cooperation to conserve 
federally listed species and protect designated critical habitat. It 
mandates that all Federal agencies use their existing authorities to 
further the purposes of the Act by carrying out programs for the 
conservation of listed species. It also requires that Federal agencies, 
in consultation with the Service, ensure that any action they 
authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse 
modification of designated critical habitat. Section 7 of the Act does 
not affect activities undertaken on private land unless they are 
authorized, funded, or carried out by a Federal agency.
    The 1982 amendments to the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) included 
the addition of section 10(j), which allows for populations of listed 
species planned to be reintroduced to be designated as ``experimental 
populations.'' The provisions of section 10(j) were enacted to 
ameliorate concerns that reintroduced populations will negatively 
impact landowners and other private parties by giving the Secretary of 
the Interior greater regulatory flexibility and discretion in managing 
the reintroduced species to encourage recovery in collaboration with 
partners, especially private landowners. The Secretary may designate as 
an experimental population a population of endangered or threatened 
species that will be released into habitat that is capable of 
supporting the experimental population outside the species' current 
range. Under section 10(j) of the Act, we must make a determination as 
to whether or not an experimental population is essential to the 
continued existence of the species based on best available science. Our 
regulations define an essential population as one whose loss would be 
likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival of the 
species in the wild. All other experimental populations are classified 
as nonessential (50 CFR 17.80(b)).
    We treat any population determined by the Secretary to be an 
experimental population as if we had listed it as a threatened species 
for the purposes of establishing protective regulations under section 
4(d) of the Act with respect to that population (50 CFR 17.82). We may 
apply any of the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act to the members of 
an experimental population, including the prohibitions against the sale 
or possession, import and export, or ``take'' (50 CFR 17.82). The 
designation as an experimental population allows us to develop tailored 
``take'' prohibitions that are necessary and advisable to provide for 
the conservation of the species. The protective regulations adopted for 
an experimental population will contain applicable prohibitions as 
appropriate, and exceptions for that population, allowing us discretion 
in devising management programs to provide for the conservation of the 
species.
    Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that Federal agencies, in 
consultation with the Service, ensure that any action they authorize, 
fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 
of a listed species or adversely modify its critical habitat. We treat 
an NEP as a threatened species when the population is located within 
the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS) or unit of the NPS, and 
those programs are required to consult with us under section 7(a)(2) of 
the Act (50 CFR 17.83; see 16 U.S.C. 1539 (j)(2)(C)(i)). When NEPs are 
located outside of an NWRS or NPS unit, for the purposes of section 7, 
we treat the population as proposed for listing and

[[Page 37002]]

only sections 7(a)(1) (50 CFR 17.83) and 7(a)(4) (50 CFR 402.10) of the 
Act apply (50 CFR 17.83). In these instances, NEPs allow additional 
flexibility in managing the nonessential population because Federal 
agencies are not required to consult with us under section 7(a)(2). 
Section 7(a)(1) requires all Federal agencies to use their authorities 
to carry out programs for the conservation of listed species. Section 
7(a)(4) requires Federal agencies to confer (rather than consult) with 
the Service on actions that are likely to jeopardize the continued 
existence of a species proposed to be listed.
    Section 10(j)(2)(C)(ii) of the Act states that critical habitat 
shall not be designated for any experimental population that is 
determined to be nonessential. Accordingly, we cannot designate 
critical habitat in areas where we establish an NEP.
    Before authorizing the release as an experimental population of any 
population (including eggs, propagules, or individuals) of an 
endangered or threatened species, and before authorizing any necessary 
transportation to conduct the release, the Service must find by 
regulation that such release will further the conservation of the 
species. In making such a finding the Service uses the best scientific 
and commercial data available to consider:
    (1) Any possible adverse effects on extant populations of a species 
as a result of removal of individuals, eggs, or propagules for 
introduction elsewhere (see Effects on Wild Populations, below);
    (2) the likelihood that any such experimental population will 
become established and survive in the foreseeable future (see 
Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival, below);
    (3) the relative effects that establishment of an experimental 
population will have on the recovery of the species (see Effects of the 
Experimental Population on Grizzly Bear Recovery, below); and
    (4) the extent to which the introduced population may be affected 
by existing or anticipated Federal or State actions or private 
activities within or adjacent to the experimental population area (see 
Actions and Activities in Washington That May Affect Reintroduced 
Grizzly Bears, below).
    Furthermore, as set forth at 50 CFR 17.81(c), all regulations 
designating experimental populations under section 10(j) of the Act 
must provide:
    (1) appropriate means to identify the experimental population, 
including but not limited to its actual or proposed location, actual or 
anticipated migration, number of specimens released or to be released, 
and other criteria appropriate to identify the experimental population 
(see Means To Identify the Experimental Population, below);
    (2) a finding, based solely on the best scientific and commercial 
data available, and the supporting factual basis, on whether the 
experimental population is, or is not, essential to the continued 
existence of the species in the wild (see Findings, below);
    (3) management restrictions, protective measures, or other special 
management concerns for that population, which may include, but are not 
limited to, measures to isolate and/or contain the experimental 
population designated in the regulation from nonexperimental 
populations (see Management Restrictions, Protective Measures, and 
Other Special Management, below); and
    (4) a process for periodic review and evaluation of the success or 
failure of the release and the effect of the release on the 
conservation and recovery of the species (see Review and Evaluation of 
the Success or Failure of the NEP, below).
    Under 50 CFR 17.81(e), the Service must consult with appropriate 
State fish and wildlife agencies, affected Tribal governments, local 
government agencies, affected Federal agencies, and affected private 
landowners in developing and implementing experimental population 
rules. To the maximum extent practicable, rules issued under section 
10(j) of the Act represent an agreement between the Service, the 
affected State and Federal agencies, Tribal governments, local 
governments, and persons holding any interest in land or water that may 
be affected by the establishment of an experimental population. 
Hereafter in this document, we refer to the regulations for 
establishing the NEP of the grizzly bear within the U.S. portion of the 
NCE as the ``10(j) rule.''

Experimental Population

Experimental Population Area

    The geographic area for the grizzly bear NEP occurs within the U.S. 
portion of the NCE and encompasses the entire NCE Recovery Zone. It 
also includes all of Washington State except an area in northeastern 
Washington around the Selkirk Ecosystem Recovery Zone where there is 
currently a population of grizzly bears (see figure 2). The 
northeastern boundary of the NEP is defined by the Kettle River from 
the international border with Canada, downstream to the Columbia River, 
to its confluence with the Spokane River, then upstream on the Spokane 
River to the Washington-Idaho border. We are designating an NEP area 
beyond the NCE Recovery Zone to allow management of grizzly bears 
within the NCE Recovery Zone as well as grizzly bears that move outside 
of the NCE Recovery Zone.
    In the U.S. portion of the NCE, the majority of land is under 
Federal ownership managed primarily by the USFS, including portions of 
the Mount Baker Snoqualmie NF and the Okanogan-Wenatchee NF, and the 
NPS. The North Cascades NPS complex includes North Cascades NP, Ross 
Lake NRA, and Lake Chelan NRA.
    In drawing the NEP area and management area boundaries, we 
considered the following: Those areas where a population of grizzly 
bears could be successfully established; an evaluation of the 
opportunities for grizzly bears to move between blocks of high-quality 
grizzly bear habitat in Washington (Singleton et al. 2004, p. 96, USFWS 
2022, pp. 305-309, Kasworm et al. 2022a, entire); the potential for 
human-bear conflicts; grizzly bear movement data from other 
populations; the location of the closest existing grizzly bear 
populations and historical observations of dispersers from those 
populations; ease of implementation (using readily discernible features 
for management area boundaries such as roads and Federal land ownership 
boundaries); and input from NPS, WDFW, USFS, and the public.

[[Page 37003]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY24.002

Management Areas
    Within the NEP area, we identified three management areas (see 
figure 2) based on suitability for occupancy by grizzly bears and the 
likelihood of human-bear conflicts, which are often associated with 
private lands. We are establishing these management areas to help focus 
grizzly bear conservation within the NCE Recovery Zone and to allow 
more flexible management in the remaining portion of the NEP. Details 
of the management regulations for each management area are provided 
below in Management Restrictions, Protective Measures, and Other 
Special Management.
    Management Area A includes the Mount Baker Snoqualmie NF, Okanogan-
Wenatchee NF, and Colville NF north of Interstate 90 and west of 
Washington State Route 97, as well as the North Cascades NPS complex. 
To define the Management Area A boundary, we used the NCE Recovery Zone 
but then excluded State-owned and private lands so that it is easily 
identifiable. Management Area A is the primary area for the 
experimental population restoration and serves as core habitat for 
survival, reproduction, and dispersal of the NEP. Management Area A 
primarily consists of remote Federal lands that support grizzly bear 
diet, habitat, and reproduction needs (see Behavior and Life History 
section above). Therefore, Management Area A serves as the core habitat 
for grizzly bear reintroductions, where all release sites would occur 
(see Release Areas, below).
    Management Area B includes the Mount Baker Snoqualmie NF and 
Okanogan-Wenatchee NF south of Interstate 90, Gifford Pinchot NF, and 
Mount Rainier NP. Management Area B also would include the Colville NF 
and Okanogan-Wenatchee NF lands east of Washington State Route 97 
within the experimental population boundary, though it is less likely 
that bears will disperse into this area due to the distance from 
Management Area A to the west. Management Area B is meant to 
accommodate natural movement or dispersal by grizzly bears. We expect 
some level of grizzly bear transience as well as occupancy in 
Management Area B because of the existing habitat on public lands with 
limited human influence, resulting in lower potential levels of human-
bear conflict (due to food storage regulations and limited human-
attractants).
    Management Area C comprises all other lands in the NEP outside of 
Management Area A and B, including non-Federal lands within the NCE 
Recovery Zone. Although some areas within this management area are 
capable of supporting grizzly bears, Management Area C contains large 
areas that may be incompatible with grizzly bear presence due to high 
levels of private land ownership and associated development and/or 
potential for bears to become involved in conflicts and resultant bear 
mortality. The intent of Management Area C is to allow more management 
flexibility to minimize impacts of grizzly bears on landowners and 
other members of the public.
    The NEP area contains human infrastructure and activities that pose 
some risk to the success of the restoration effort from human-caused 
mortality of grizzly bears. These activities include both controllable 
and uncontrollable sources of mortality. Controllable sources of 
mortality are discretionary, can be limited by the managing agency, and 
include authorized take and direct agency

[[Page 37004]]

control. Sources of mortality that will be difficult to limit, or may 
be uncontrollable, occur regardless of population size and include 
things such as natural mortalities, illegal take, and accidental deaths 
(e.g., vehicle collisions, capture-related mortalities, defense-of-life 
kills) (USFWS 2022, pp. 144-145). Accidental mortality caused by 
vehicle collision is difficult to control but is not anticipated to be 
a significant cause of mortality in the NCE. The main types of human-
caused mortality in the GYE, NCDE, CYE, and Selkirk Ecosystem Recovery 
Zones result from human site conflicts (e.g., when grizzly bears are 
drawn to areas with unsecured chickens, garbage, or bird and livestock 
feed where individuals attempt to deter the bear or protect 
themselves), self-defense, mistaken-identification kills, and illegal 
kills, some of which can be partially mitigated through management 
actions (Servheen et al. 2004, p. 21; USFWS 2022, p. 144). We expect 
the same types of human-caused mortality identified within other 
ecosystems to occur within the NEP.
    Despite these human-caused mortalities, grizzly bear populations in 
other ecosystems have continued to increase in size and expand their 
current distribution (USFWS 2022, pp. 167-168). The NEP would build on 
continuing success in recovering grizzly bears through longstanding 
cooperative and complementary programs by a number of Federal, State, 
and Tribal agencies. In particular, through coordination of policy, 
planning, management, and research, and communication between Federal, 
State, Tribal and Provincial agencies, the IGBC has proven to be a 
successful model for agencies working cooperatively and coordinating 
recovery efforts over multiple jurisdictions; substantial progress has 
been made toward recovering the species in other ecosystems. With 
continued coordination through the IGBC NCE subcommittee, we do not 
expect Federal, State, Tribal, or private actions and activities in 
Washington to have significant adverse effects on grizzly bears within 
the NEP area.
    For management of grizzly bears on Tribal lands, we expect to defer 
monitoring and management of grizzly bears, consistent with this 10(j) 
rule, to the relevant Tribe if they have the interest and capacity to 
undertake that management. Otherwise, we expect that the Service and/or 
other Federal and/or State bear management staff could assist in 
grizzly bear management on these Tribal lands. The Service would 
coordinate with the affected Tribe regarding Service grizzly bear 
management actions on Tribal lands and could develop a memorandum of 
understanding to further document expectations and roles for agency 
involvement on Tribal lands if requested.
    Grizzly bears in Washington State that are not within the NEP area, 
i.e., grizzly bears that are within and around the Selkirk Ecosystem 
Recovery Zone (see figure 2), would not be subject to management under 
this final rule; they are subject to the existing species-specific rule 
for grizzly bears under section 4(d) of the Act, found at 50 CFR 
17.40(b).
Release Areas
    Grizzly bear release areas would be limited to Federal lands and 
include portions of North Cascades NP and Ross Lake NRA, administered 
by NPS, and Glacier Peak, Pasayten, and Stephen Mather Wilderness 
areas, administered by USFS. The Service will prioritize release sites 
on NPS lands but retains the option to conduct initial releases of 
grizzly bears on National Forest System lands if unforeseen 
circumstances prevent access to release sites on NPS lands (e.g., 
aircraft issues). We will work with WDFW and the associated land 
management partner (such as the USFS) to avoid administrative 
complications as appropriate. Primary release sites would be remote 
areas that could be accessed by helicopter and capable of accommodating 
helicopter support staging areas (NPS and FWS 2024, p. 30). Secondary 
release sites would be remote areas that could be accessed by vehicle 
or boat transportation and capable of accommodating appropriate staging 
areas. Secondary release sites would be considered if helicopter sites 
were not available due to weather limitations affecting flight safety 
or due to other logistical issues. Staging areas would be identified in 
previously disturbed areas large enough for the safe landing of a 
helicopter, parking for a fuel truck, and any other grizzly bear 
transport and handling needs.
    Release sites would be chosen based on habitat suitability, 
connectivity to other release sites within the NEP, and the need to 
have released grizzly bears in close proximity to one another to 
facilitate interaction and breeding. Additional criteria for acceptable 
release sites include the following:
     Areas that consist largely of high-quality seasonal 
habitat; specifically, areas that contain readily available berry-
producing plants that are known grizzly bear foods.
     Areas that are largely roadless, are an adequate distance 
from high visitor use and motorized areas, and have low human use.
     Areas with a suitable helicopter landing site or a 
suitable vehicle- or boat-accessible site with little public use.
    Sites for subsequent releases of grizzly bears would be chosen 
based on the criteria listed above and limited to Federal lands, unless 
otherwise authorized by relevant authorities and landowners. Future 
additional release sites would be informed by grizzly bear resource 
selection as determined through monitoring of grizzly bears previously 
released into the NEP.
Capture and Release Procedures
    Grizzly bears will be captured using culvert traps as a primary 
method, but foot snares may be used in some capture locations. Culvert 
traps provide the option of releasing non-candidate bears without 
anesthetization. All bears will be captured and handled humanely using 
established protocols (Jonkel 1993, entire) and with effort to minimize 
restraint time (Cattet et al. 2003, 651; Dickens et al. 2010, entire). 
Helicopters will be used to transport culvert traps from which grizzly 
bears would be released. It is possible that helicopter support will 
also be used for the capture of grizzly bears through use of 
helicopter-based capture darting. The capture and release of grizzly 
bears will take place during the summer (June-September), depending on 
the selected capture and release site(s) and food availability. Grizzly 
bears will be moved and transported from capture locations to release 
staging areas by vehicle. Grizzly bears will then be transported from 
staging areas to remote release sites by helicopter or by vehicle or 
boat on NPS or National Forest System lands in Management Area A (NPS 
and USFWS 2024, pp. 30-31). Each release could take up to 8 hours (1 
day) depending on the distance between staging and release areas, 
potentially resulting in 5 to 10 days of helicopter use per year for 
releases. Helicopters could make up to four round trip flights, 
traveling approximately 500 ft (150 m) above the ground, and make up to 
four landings in wilderness per release, which would be necessary for 
the release of each grizzly bear and drop-off and retrieval of staff 
and the culvert trap. All operations would be conducted during daylight 
hours.
    We will attempt to capture three to seven bears per year. Capture 
success and availability of bears will govern the exact annual numbers 
captured and source population(s). Additional grizzly bears could be 
needed depending on a variety of factors, including human-

[[Page 37005]]

caused mortality, genetic limitations, population trends, and the 
population's sex ratio. Population modeling indicates the need for 
release of 36 bears into the NEP to obtain an initial population of 25 
individuals in approximately 8-9 years (NPS and USFWS 2024, p. 32). 
Until a population of 25 individuals is reached, we will capture and 
release grizzly bears to replace any previously released grizzly bears 
that die. We expect additional releases to maintain genetic diversity 
in this population as determined by long-term monitoring. Bears 
released would be roughly 60 percent or greater females, and ages of 
all released animals (males and females) are expected to be 2-6 years 
old.

How does the experimental population contribute to the conservation of 
the species?

    Under 50 CFR 17.81(b), before authorizing the release as an 
experimental population, the Service must find by regulation that such 
release will further the conservation of the species. We explain our 
rationale for making our finding below. In making such a finding, we 
must consider effects on donor populations, the likelihood of 
establishment and survival of the experimental population, the effects 
that establishment of the experimental population will have on recovery 
of the species, and the extent to which the experimental population 
will be affected by Federal, State, or private activities.

Effects on Wild Populations

    Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81 require that we consider any 
possible adverse effects on extant populations of a species as a result 
of removal of individuals, eggs, or propagules for introduction 
elsewhere. The preferred donor populations for the reintroduction of 
grizzly bears to the NEP occur in south-central British Columbia or in 
the United States, such as the NCDE or GYE. We will seek source areas 
that have a healthy grizzly bear population so that removal of grizzly 
bears would not affect population viability, as the capture and removal 
of grizzly bears would be considered a loss for the source population.
    Sourcing NEP grizzly bears from NCDE, GYE, and/or south-central 
British Columbia populations will not negatively affect the donor 
populations for the following reasons. The NCDE and GYE demonstrate 
stable to slightly increasing demographic trends with an estimated 
1,114 grizzly bears in the NCDE and 965 bears in the GYE in 2021. 
Further, grizzly bear distribution has expanded well beyond these 
recovery zones (figure 1; USFWS 2022, pp. 63-67). Given the 
demonstrated resilience and recovery trajectory of these populations in 
the United States and Canada, and the limited number of grizzly bears 
that will be translocated (36 grizzly bears to obtain an initial 
population of 25 individual bears), we expect the donor populations in 
the NCDE and the GYE to remain stable and persist despite the 
translocation of these 36 individuals for the NEP. Further, the number 
of individuals necessary for the NEP is minimal in relation to the 
demographic recovery criteria and the annual mortality of the NCDE and 
GYE populations; therefore, we do not expect translocations to the NCE 
to cause population-level effects or impede connectivity from the NCDE 
to the GYE. Further, the Service will coordinate with States to ensure 
NCE translocations are balanced with other management needs (e.g., 
augmentation programs from NCDE to CYE and GYE). South-central British 
Columbia has several GBPUs with a sufficient number of bears and 
conservation status secure enough to use as sources. Wells Gray, North 
Purcells, Central Rockies, and North Selkirk GBPUs have a combined 
total estimated grizzly bear population of 1,100, and populations are 
stable or increasing (Environmental Reporting BC, 2020, entire).
    In addition to sourcing NEP grizzly bears from healthy populations, 
we will prioritize source areas that are ecologically similar to the 
NCE area and will only select grizzly bears that do not have a history 
of coming into conflict with humans. We will attempt to capture grizzly 
bears that share a similar ecology and food economy to potential 
release areas. Food economy refers to the dominant foods available to 
grizzly bears in a given area. Dominant foods in the NCE are expected 
to be similar to the west side of the NCDE in northwestern Montana, 
adjacent grizzly bear habitat in British Columbia, Canada, and grizzly 
bear habitat in south-central interior British Columbia. In these 
areas, berries are the dominant food source providing calories and 
ultimately fat production necessary for a grizzly bear to successfully 
hibernate and reproduce. As a result, these areas will most likely be 
selected for capturing grizzly bears for release into the NEP as 
compared, for example, to areas where grizzly bears rely predominately 
on salmon (Adams et al. 2017, pp. 6-9). However, mortality thresholds 
in these source populations may limit the number of grizzly bears 
available for the NEP reintroduction effort, and other ecosystems, such 
as the GYE, may be considered in those circumstances. If the number of 
mortalities in a source population is close to or at the allowable 
threshold for that year, we would not take bears from that source 
population in that year.
    Lastly, the entities managing the source area must also be willing 
to donate grizzly bears that meet the selection criteria described 
above and allow trapping of an adequate number of grizzly bears. We 
will coordinate in advance with the relevant authorities managing the 
potential source populations before seeking to capture and translocate 
grizzly bears. All applicable regulatory requirements would be 
fulfilled prior to translocation of grizzly bears.

Likelihood of Population Establishment and Survival

    In our findings for designation of an experimental population, we 
must consider if the reintroduced population will become established 
and survive in the foreseeable future. In this section of the preamble, 
we address the likelihood that populations introduced into the NEP area 
will become established and survive. The term ``foreseeable future'' 
appears in the Act in the statutory definition of ``threatened 
species.'' However, the Act does not define the term ``foreseeable 
future.'' Similarly, our implementing regulations governing the 
establishment of experimental populations under section 10(j) of the 
Act use the term ``foreseeable future'' (50 CFR 17.81(b)(2)) but do not 
define the term. Our implementing regulations at 50 CFR 424.11(d), 
regarding factors for listing, delisting, or reclassifying species, set 
forth a framework for evaluating the foreseeable future on a case-by-
case basis. The term foreseeable future extends only so far into the 
future as we can reasonably determine that both the future threats and 
the species' responses to those threats are likely. In other words, the 
foreseeable future is the period of time in which we can make reliable 
predictions as it relates to life history of the species and its 
response to threats. While we use the term ``foreseeable future'' here 
in a different context (to determine the likelihood of experimental 
population establishment and to establish boundaries for identification 
of the experimental population), we apply a similar conceptual 
framework. Our analysis of the foreseeable future uses the best 
scientific and commercial data available and considers the timeframes 
applicable to the relevant effects of release and management of the 
species and to the species' likely responses in

[[Page 37006]]

view of its life-history characteristics. Data that are typically 
relevant to assessing the species' biological response include species-
specific factors such as lifespan, reproductive rates or productivity, 
certain behaviors, and other demographic factors.
    For the purposes of this final rule, we define the foreseeable 
future for our evaluation of the likelihood of survival and 
establishment of this NEP as approximately 30-45 years. We selected 
this timeframe because it captures approximately two to three 
generation intervals for the grizzly bear. A generation interval is the 
approximate time that it takes a female grizzly bear to replace herself 
in the population. Given the longevity of grizzly bears, two to three 
generation intervals represent a time period during which a complete 
turnover of the population would have occurred and any positive or 
adverse changes in the status of the population would likely be 
evident. Additionally, because human-caused mortality is the primary 
threat to the species, this timeframe considers the possibility that 
USFS land management plans, the primary regulatory mechanism managing 
human access to grizzly bear habitat on Federal lands outside of 
designated wilderness or NPS lands, could go through at least one 
revision.
    In evaluating the likelihood of establishment and survival of this 
NEP in the foreseeable future, we consider the extent to which causes 
of extirpation in the NEP area have been addressed, habitat suitability 
and food availability within the NEP area, and existing scientific and 
technical expertise and experience with reintroduction efforts. As 
discussed below, we expect that grizzly bears will become established 
during the foreseeable future.
Addressing the Causes of Extirpation in the Experimental Population 
Area
    In the NEP, the northwest fur trade was probably the primary driver 
of rapid grizzly bear decline, while the effects of mining, logging, 
livestock production, agriculture, and development also fragmented and 
degraded grizzly bear habitat and increased conflict-related mortality 
(Almack et al. 1993, p. 3; Rine et al. 2020, pp. 5-13; USFWS 2022, p. 
143). By 1975, grizzly bear populations in the U.S. portion of the NCE 
had been reduced in number and restricted largely to remote areas 
(USFWS 2022, p. 52). Though the NEP currently contains one of the 
largest contiguous blocks of Federal land remaining in the lower 48 
States, diminished grizzly bear numbers from past intensive killing and 
isolation from other grizzly bear populations contributed to the 
extirpation of the historic population and the low likelihood of 
natural recolonization (Lewis 2019, p. 7; USFWS 2022, p. 52; 88 FR 
41560, June 27, 2023).
    Regulation of human-caused mortality has substantially reduced the 
number of grizzly bear mortalities caused by humans. Because road 
access was identified by the IGBC as one of the most imminent threats 
to grizzly bears, the recovery plan recommended that road management be 
given the highest priority for grizzly bear recovery (USFWS 1993, pp. 
21-22; USFWS 2022, p. 52). Land management agencies across the grizzly 
bear range have incorporated habitat management guidance from the 
recovery plan (USFWS 1993, entire). In addition to road access, the 
IGBC and member entities identified and implemented conflict prevention 
measures in the U.S. portion of the NCE including sanitation measures, 
signage about grizzly bears and sanitation on NPS and National Forest 
System lands, and funding for education and outreach programs (IGBC 
2019, p. 9). North Cascades NP and several nonprofit organizations 
provide resources, educational material, and workshops to the public to 
prevent human-bear conflict in the NCE. Regulating human-caused 
mortality through habitat management and conflict prevention are 
effective approaches to reduce negative effects to grizzly bear 
populations, as evidenced by increasing grizzly bear populations in the 
lower 48 States (USFWS 2022, p. 7). We will consider using a range of 
conflict prevention efforts, such as securing of attractants (e.g., 
bird feeders, pet food, garbage containers, barbeque grills), electric 
fences and electric mats, animal husbandry practices (range riders, 
human presence), and bear aware education. The best available data 
indicate that, due to ongoing conservation efforts in the GYE, NCDE, 
CYE, and Selkirk Ecosystem, grizzly bear population trends in these 
ecosystems are stable or increasing, and range extent has continued to 
expand (figure 1; USFWS 2022, p. 208). Given the intent to implement 
similar conservation efforts in the NCE Recovery Zone as guided by the 
IGBC, we can expect human-caused mortality and direct and indirect 
effects of human activity for the NEP to be managed in a way so that 
these threats would not prevent population growth and stability.
Habitat Suitability
    As noted above (in Status of Grizzly Bears in the North Cascades 
Ecosystem), five studies conclude that the U.S. portion of the NCE has 
the habitat resources essential for the maintenance of a grizzly bear 
population (Agee et al. 1989, entire; Almack et al. 1993, entire; 
Gaines et al. 1994, entire; Lyons et al. 2018, entire; Ransom et al. 
2023, entire). The IGBC NCE Subcommittee had two separate research 
teams (Almack et al. 1993, entire; Gaines et al. 1994, entire) evaluate 
an area encompassing more than 10,000 mi\2\ (25,900 km\2\) of the NCE 
for grizzly bear habitat types and foods. The survey area included all 
of the North Cascades NPS complex and most of Mount Baker Snoqualmie NF 
and Okanogan-Wenatchee NF. Each team evaluated the survey area for 
viable grizzly bear habitat using common criteria, including the 
presence, abundance, and diversity of grizzly bear foods; habitats of 
seasonal importance and their distribution; and delineation of human 
activities (i.e., roads, habitation, timber harvest, recreation). In 
addition to these criteria, Almack et al. (1993, p. 22) evaluated the 
study area for grizzly bear habitat according to the seven 
characteristics identified by Craighead et al. (1982, p. 10): space, 
isolation, denning, safety, sanitation, vegetation types, and food.
    The results of these surveys were presented to a technical review 
team, which ultimately determined based on the available data, that the 
U.S. portion of the NCE could support a viable grizzly bear population 
of 200 to 400 individuals (Servheen et al. 1991, p. 7). More recent 
work using a suite of spatially explicit, individual-based population 
models that integrate information on habitat selection, human 
activities, and population dynamics estimated a mean carrying capacity 
for grizzly bears in the U.S. portion of the NCE between 250 and 300 
grizzly bears (Lyons et al. 2018, entire). Using the modeling framework 
developed in Lyons et al. (2018, entire), Ransom et al. (2023, entire) 
evaluated grizzly bear habitat quality and carrying capacity across a 
range of future climate scenarios through 2099. The net amount of high-
quality habitat was shown to increase across all modeled future 
scenarios as compared to current conditions. Assuming a home range size 
of 108 mi\2\ (280 km\2\), carrying capacity increased from a baseline 
of 139 female bears under current conditions to 241-289 female bears 
(Ransom et al. 2023, p. 6).
    Almack et al. (1993, pp. 7-10) and Gaines et al. (1994, pp. 534-
356) used Landsat multispectral scanner imagery and field observations 
to produce vegetation cover maps of the study area according to 
vegetation structure (e.g., forest, shrub, and barren rock) and 
community composition. The teams also

[[Page 37007]]

identified 124 plant species known to be grizzly bear foods through an 
exhaustive review of sighting reports, scat analysis, and studies 
conducted on grizzly bears south of Alaska. Analysis of the vegetation 
maps indicated that 100 of the 124 identified plant species exist in 
the U.S portion of the NCE, and every vegetation cover type contained 
some plants that were on the list. The teams also mapped ranges of 
wildlife prey species known to occur in the NCE. Salmonid species were 
more abundant in streams on the western slope of the NCE, and ungulates 
were dispersed relatively evenly throughout. These results led both 
teams to conclude that sufficient vegetative grizzly bear foods are 
readily available in the U.S. portion of the NCE, and the occurrence of 
wildlife prey species can sustain a grizzly bear population (Almack et 
al. 1993, pp. 21-22; Gaines et al. 1994, p. 544).
    Some developed areas outside of the NCE Recovery Zone but within 
the NEP, such as industrial timber lands, agricultural areas, and towns 
and cities, contain habitat resources for grizzly bears. Although these 
areas may be capable of supporting grizzly bears, human influences may 
make those areas not conducive or compatible with persistent grizzly 
bear occupation. Our zoned management approach is intended to allow 
additional management options for grizzly bears that may move into 
these areas.
Translocation Expertise and Experience
    Similar grizzly bear translocations to those we will conduct for 
the NEP have been conducted in the Cabinet Mountains portion of the CYE 
since the 1990s. Specifically, researchers and managers have been 
augmenting the CYE's small grizzly bear population by introducing one 
to two grizzly bears per year in the period 1990-1994 and from 2005 to 
the present. All augmented bears have originated from the NCDE and 
British Columbia. The success of the CYE augmentation pilot program of 
four bears prompted additional augmentations between populations in the 
United States. In the period 2005-2021, in cooperation with Montana 
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 10 female bears and 8 male 
bears were moved from the Flathead River to the Cabinet Mountains 
(Kasworm et al. 2022b, pp. 25-33). Analysis of DNA from hair corrals 
has been occurring since 2000 and from rub trees since 2012. Based on 
this analysis, three females and two males are known to have produced 
at least 15 first-generation, 23 second-generation, and 4 third-
generation offspring. Of 22 bears released through 2020, 8 are known to 
have left the target area (1 was recaptured and brought back, 2 
returned in the same year, and 1 returned a year after leaving), 3 were 
killed within 4 months of release, and 1 was killed 16 years after 
release (Kasworm et al. 2022b, p. 26). Annual survival rates of 
augmentation bears (0.784) are lower than native subadult female CYE 
bears (0.852) (Kasworm et al. 2022b, pp. 37-38).
    Data collected since the 1988 population estimate now suggest the 
CYE population may have been even smaller than previously thought with 
an estimated 15 or fewer individuals in 1988. However, recent data also 
suggest that the number of grizzly bears in the Cabinet portion of the 
CYE has increased. Current population size for the CYE is estimated to 
be 60-65 bears with approximately half this number in the Cabinet 
Mountains (Kasworm et al. 2022b, p. 42). The population increase in the 
Cabinet Mountains has occurred almost exclusively through the 
augmentation effort and reproduction from those individuals (Kasworm et 
al. 2022b, pp. 31-33). Grizzly bears in the CYE are expected to 
continue to increase in population and resiliency with ongoing 
augmentation efforts (USFWS 2022, pp. 229-242).
    These data demonstrate our technical expertise, experience, and 
success with grizzly bear translocations. We will rely on the same 
measures for the NEP translocations, and we anticipate grizzly bear 
translocations in the NEP to be as successful as those conducted in 
these other areas. Based on the available data from other grizzly bear 
populations, we modeled annual population growth rates of 2 to 4 
percent and estimated there will likely be 46-81 grizzly bears (2 
percent annual growth) or 62-146 grizzly bears (4 percent annual 
growth) in the NEP area 30-45 years after translocations are initiated 
(Costello et al. 2023, pp. 10-11; Kasworm et al. 2023b, pp. 41-42; 
Kasworm et al. 2023b, pp. 28-29; Haroldson et al. 2022, pp. 12-18).
Summary
    The best available scientific data indicate that the restoration of 
grizzly bears into the NEP is biologically feasible and would promote 
the conservation of the species. Specifically, we anticipate that 
grizzly bears can be successfully reestablished in the NEP for the 
following reasons:
    (1) The reintroduced population will receive ongoing demographic 
support (population augmentation) from source populations to replace 
bears that die or are killed until a population of 25 individuals is 
achieved and to maintain genetic diversity in this population as 
determined by long-term monitoring (NPS and USFWS 2024, p. 32).
    (2) The primary causes of historical grizzly bear extirpation from 
the region (direct killing by humans and habitat loss as a result of 
conversion to agriculture and resource extraction) are now regulated to 
ensure the population will survive and grow (Lewis 2019, pp. 8-9).
    (3) An established IGBC NCE Subcommittee can help guide the 
restoration effort. This subcommittee helps coordinate policy, 
planning, management, and research with the Federal and State agencies 
responsible for grizzly bear recovery and management (IGBC 2019, pp. 9-
10). Tribal governments are also represented on IGBC subcommittees and 
engage as desired, although there are no Tribal governments currently 
represented on the NCE subcommittee.
    (4) Landscape-scale modeling and studies of available habitat and 
food resources indicate the NEP area has the capacity to support a 
population of grizzly bears (Almack et al. 1993, pp. 21-22; Gaines et 
al. 1994, p. 544; Lyons et al. 2018, p. 29; Ransom et al. 2023, p. 6).
    (5) We have experience in successfully translocating grizzly bears 
in other areas and have established effective protocols (Kasworm et al. 
2007, pp. 1262-1265; Kasworm et al. 2022b, pp. 31-33) that we will 
apply to NEP reintroductions.
    Based on these considerations, we anticipate that the reintroduced 
population of grizzly bears is likely to become established and persist 
in the NEP.

Effects of the Experimental Population on Grizzly Bear Recovery

    Restoring the grizzly bear to the NEP area and establishing the 
associated protective measures and management practices under this 
final rule would further the conservation of grizzly bears by 
establishing another population in a portion of the species' historical 
range where the species is presently functionally extirpated. Our 
recovery plan includes a recovery objective to recover grizzly bears in 
all of the ecosystems known to have suitable space and habitat (USFWS 
1993, pp. 15-16). The NEP area contains one of the largest remaining 
areas of high-quality habitat for the grizzly bear in the lower 48 
United States (USFWS 1997, p. 1). Reintroducing grizzly bears into the 
NEP area and establishing a grizzly bear population focused on the NCE 
Recovery Zone fulfills an important

[[Page 37008]]

recovery need for the grizzly bear in the lower 48 United States.
    We assess species' viability through the lens of the conservation 
biology principles of resiliency, redundancy, and representation 
(collectively known as the ``3Rs'') (USFWS 2016, entire). Resiliency 
describes the ability of the species to withstand stochastic 
disturbance events, which is associated with population size, growth 
rate, and habitat quality. Redundancy is the ability for the species to 
withstand catastrophic events, for which adaptation is unlikely, and is 
associated with the number and distribution of populations. 
Representation is the ability of a species to adapt to changes in the 
environment and is associated with its ecological, genetic, behavioral, 
and morphological diversity. Resiliency of grizzly bear ecosystems is 
measured using both habitat and demographic factors. Despite the 
moderate condition of habitat, without a known population, the NCE 
currently has no resiliency, and as a result does not currently 
contribute to redundancy and representation of grizzly bears in the 
lower 48 United States (USFWS 2022, pp. 10-14). If successful, 
reintroduction in the NCE would improve resiliency by reestablishing a 
population of the species within its historical range that is 
demographically viable. Successful reintroduction would also improve 
redundancy by further reducing the likelihood that any one catastrophic 
event would affect all populations. It would also increase the 
ecological diversity of the habitats occupied by the species and 
improve representation by facilitating adaptation to a variety of 
ecological settings and potentially increasing the future genetic 
diversity of grizzly bears. For these reasons, reestablishment of a 
population of grizzly bears in the NCE as an NEP, if implemented and 
successful, would increase resiliency, redundancy, and representation, 
and hence viability, of the currently listed lower 48 States entity.

Actions and Activities in Washington That May Affect Reintroduced 
Grizzly Bears

    Although the NEP area contains a variety of land ownership types 
(see Experimental Population Area, above), it contains large blocks of 
land with limited ongoing human influence, such as remote Federal lands 
(including those managed as designated wilderness), some State lands, 
and lands acquired for conservation by nongovernmental organizations. 
These areas provide sufficient high-quality habitat for grizzly bears, 
and low potential for both displacement and human-bear conflict. 
However, grizzly bears will likely use other lands within the NEP, 
depending on human development and other human activities.
    Primary land uses on lands in Management Area A (see Management 
Areas, above) include protection and conservation of natural and 
cultural resources, non-motorized land-based recreation (hiking, 
climbing, skiing, cycling, camping, hunting), motorized land-based 
recreation (off-highway vehicle and snowmobile riding), water-based 
recreation (boating, fishing), hydropower production, timber harvest, 
mineral extraction, livestock grazing, research, and education. 
Although much of Management Area A is public land, is largely 
unavailable and/or unsuitable for intensive development, and contains 
an abundance of wild ungulates, livestock grazing does occur within the 
Area, which may increase the potential for mortality of grizzly bears 
via lethal control of depredating bears. There are 62 total grazing 
allotments representing 19.5 percent of the total acreage in Management 
Area A. Of those allotments, 30 are currently active, representing 9 
percent of the total acreage in Management Area A. Most of these 
permits are for grazing cattle, and five allotments allow for sheep 
grazing, all of which are in the southern half of Management Area A 
close to Wenatchee and Cle Elum (USDA 2023, entire). Similar land 
management practices in the GYE and NCDE, and the expanding grizzly 
bear populations in those areas, indicate that livestock allotments and 
associated habitat loss are not limiting grizzly bear populations 
(USFWS 2022, p. 124).
    Primary land uses in Management Area B (see Management Areas, 
above) are similar to those in Management Area A. As described in 
Management Area A, these activities pose some risk to grizzly bears, 
but will not likely preclude grizzly bear presence in Management Area 
B.
    Management Area C (see Management Areas, above) contains a mixture 
of land ownerships and uses, including developed areas, and areas where 
agricultural and industrial uses predominate. Large areas in this 
management area may be incompatible with grizzly bear presence due to 
relatively high amounts of private land ownership and associated 
development and/or potential for bears to become involved in conflicts 
and resultant bear mortality. Grizzly bears may still occupy portions 
of Management Area C, but human activities will limit their presence.

Experimental Population Regulation Requirements

    Our regulations at 50 CFR 17.81(c) include a list of what we should 
provide in regulations designating experimental populations under 
section 10(j) of the Act. We explain what our regulations include and 
provide our rationale for those regulations, below.

Means To Identify the Experimental Population

    Our regulations require that we provide appropriate means to 
identify the experimental population, which may include geographic 
locations, number of individuals to be released, anticipated movements, 
and other information or criteria. The purpose of this requirement is 
to ensure that nonexperimental populations of the same species receive 
the appropriate level of protection afforded to the species by its 
listing under the Act. In other words, it ensures that the special 
regulations issued under section 10(j) apply only to the designated 
experimental population and not to other populations of the same 
species. We recognize that it would not be possible for members of the 
public to determine the origin of any individual grizzly bear. As 
discussed below, we conclude that, once we have released a grizzly 
bear, it is highly likely that any grizzly bears found in the NEP area 
will have originated from and be members of the NEP. Therefore, we will 
use geographic location to identify members of the NEP. The NEP area 
encompasses the entire State of Washington except for the area within 
and around the Selkirk Ecosystem Recovery Zone (figure 2). After we 
have released one or more grizzly bears for reintroduction into the NEP 
area, any grizzly bear within the NEP area, regardless of origin, will 
be treated as part of the experimental population. Any grizzly bears 
found in the NCE NEP area before the Service has one or more grizzly 
bears into the NEP area will be managed in accordance with the existing 
4(d) rule (50 CFR 17.40(b)). After our initial release of one or more 
grizzly bears into the NEP area, any grizzly bears, including those 
moving from Canada into the NEP area, will be treated as part of the 
NEP while they are present within the NEP area, with all the associated 
ESA protections and exceptions of the experimental population under 
this 10(j) rule. However, currently, no population of grizzly bears 
exists within the NEP area, and the likelihood of a grizzly bear moving 
into the NEP area from the nearest population of ESA-listed grizzly

[[Page 37009]]

bears in the Selkirk Ecosystem is small (see Is the Experimental 
Population Wholly Geographically Separate from Nonexperimental 
Populations? below).
    We anticipate that eventually some grizzly bears may move between 
portions of the NCE in Canada and the United States (see Is the 
Experimental Population Wholly Geographically Separate from 
Nonexperimental Populations? below). As stated above, bears entering 
the NEP area prior to our initial release will be managed in accordance 
with the existing 4(d) rule. After our initial release of one or more 
grizzly bears into the NEP area, any grizzly bears moving from Canada 
to the NEP area will be treated as part of the NEP and addressed under 
the 10(j) rule while they are within the NEP area. Likewise, a bear 
originating in the NEP but located in the British Columbia portion of 
the ecosystem would be managed in accordance with appropriate Canadian 
regulations.

Is the experimental population wholly geographically separate from 
nonexperimental populations?

    Section 10(j) of the Act requires that an experimental population 
of a listed species be wholly geographically separate from other 
populations of the same listed species. Grizzly bears reintroduced in 
the NEP would be separated from the nearest population of bears in the 
United States, located in the Selkirk Ecosystem. The NEP is 
approximately 100 mi (161 km) to the west of the Selkirk Ecosystem, 
which contains approximately 83 individuals, and the NEP is 75 mi (121 
km) from any verified grizzly bear observations to the west of the 
Selkirk Ecosystem (Proctor et al. 2012, p. 31). The area between the 
two populations also contains significant portions of human-altered 
landscape (e.g., major roads, agricultural lands, rural/urban 
development) or major natural landscape features (e.g., Columbia River) 
that reinforce continued geographic separation (Singleton et al. 2004, 
pp. 95-101). Due to the highly fragmented landscape between these 
areas, as well as the distance between these ecosystems, which is 
beyond the average female dispersal distance of 6.1-8.9 mi (9.8-14.3 
km) (McLellan and Hovey 2001, p. 842; Proctor et al. 2004, p. 1108), we 
conclude the NEP to be wholly separate from all other extant 
populations of grizzly bears in the United States. Dispersal between 
the NEP and other U.S. populations or the likelihood of overlap is low; 
therefore, we do not expect natural recolonization of the NEP area 
could happen on its own.
    As noted above, the Act requires that an experimental population of 
a listed species be wholly geographically separate from other 
populations of the same listed species. In this case, the listed 
species is the grizzly bear in the lower 48 States, and thus the NEP is 
required to be wholly geographically separate only from other 
populations of the ESA-listed species, that is, other populations 
within the United States. However, the NEP is also currently separated 
from any known grizzly bear populations in Canada, which are not part 
of the listed species. Connectivity from the east in Canada is unlikely 
as the nearest population is over 62 mi (100 km) across the heavily 
human-settled Okanagan Valley (North Cascades Grizzly Bear Recovery 
Team 2004, p. 7, McLellan et al. 2017, p. 2).
    The closest GBPUs to the north include the Canadian North Cascades 
GBPU (adjacent to the U.S. portion of the NCE) and the Stein-Nahatlatch 
GBPU (22 mi (37 km) from NCE). The North Cascades GBPU grizzly bears 
(with no confirmed sighting in over a decade) is isolated from other 
populations, and there is no known reproduction. The Stein-Nahatlatch 
hosts a very low estimated bear density and very low genetic diversity 
(USFWS 2022, appendix E, p. 323). Both units are designated as M1, the 
highest level of conservation concern, according to British Columbia's 
conservation ranking assessment (Morgan et al. 2020, pp. 19-24) and are 
designated as ``Critically Endangered'' by the IUCN Red list (McLellan 
et al. 2017, p. 2). While the Stein-Nahatlatch GBPU is within the 
dispersal distance of both male (18.6-26 mi (29.9-41.9 km)) and female 
(6.1-8.9 mi (9.8-14.3 km)) grizzly bears (McLellan and Hovey 2001, p. 
842; Proctor et al. 2004, p. 1108) to the North Cascades GBPU, only the 
northern half of the Stein Nahatlatch GBPU is occupied by grizzly bears 
(Apps et al. 2008, p. 25; Apps et al. 2014, p. 30). The distance 
between the North Cascades GBPU and the occupied portion of the Stein-
Nahatlatch GBPU is significant and consists of the large Fraser River 
valley and canyon, the heavily travelled Trans-Canada Highway, two 
railways, human settlements, and other developments (USFWS 2022, pp. 
321-324; McLellan et al. 2017, entire). Therefore, dispersal of grizzly 
bears from the Stein-Nahatlatch GBPU to the NEP is unlikely.
    As discussed above, restoring a grizzly bear population in the 
Canadian portion of the NCE through augmentation by the Canadian 
Government is under consideration. Should those augmentation efforts 
occur in British Columbia, some grizzly bears reintroduced into the 
Canadian portion of the ecosystem may likely move into the NEP area in 
the United States, either as a transient that returns to Canada or that 
ultimately remains in the United States. A restored population of 
grizzly bears in British Columbia would not affect the designation of a 
section 10(j) experimental population of grizzly bear listed in the 
United States because the ``wholly geographic'' separation requirement 
does not apply to populations that are not a part of the listed 
species. After our initial release of one or more grizzly bears into 
the NEP, any bears entering the NEP area from Canada will be managed 
under this final 10(j) rule.

Is the experimental population essential to the continued existence of 
the species in the wild?

    When we establish experimental populations under section 10(j) of 
the Act, we must determine whether such a population is essential to 
the continued existence of the species in the wild. This determination 
is based solely on the best scientific and commercial data available. 
Our regulations state that an experimental population is considered 
essential if its loss would be likely to appreciably reduce the 
likelihood of survival of that species in the wild (50 CFR 17.80(b)). 
All other populations are considered nonessential. Although the 
experimental population in the U.S. portion of the NCE will contribute 
to the recovery of the grizzly bear in the United States, several 
factors suggest the restored population is not essential to the grizzly 
bear's continued existence in the wild:
    (1) Approximately 2,200 grizzly bears exist in other ecosystems in 
the contiguous United States that are intensively monitored and managed 
(USFWS 2022, p. 61, see Historical and Current Range and Grizzly Bear 
Ecosystems and Recovery Zones;
    (2) We are proposing to capture and translocate a relatively small 
number of grizzly bears (up to three to seven per year) from 
populations that are demographically healthy and therefore will not be 
measurably affected by this removal (see Effects on Wild Populations);
    (3) The experimental population is not expected to provide 
demographic support to the existing grizzly bear populations in the 
lower 48 United States due to geographic distance and existing barriers 
to dispersal (see Status of Grizzly Bears in the North Cascades 
Ecosystem); and
    (4) The experimental population will be established from extant 
grizzly bear

[[Page 37010]]

populations (see Effects on Wild Populations) and therefore will not 
possess any unique genetic or adaptive traits that are critical to the 
survival of the species.
    For these reasons, the loss of the experimental population would 
not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of that species in 
the wild. Therefore, as required by 50 CFR 17.81(c)(2), we find that 
the experimental population is not essential to the continued existence 
of the species in the wild, and we designate the experimental 
population in the U.S. portion of the NCE as an NEP.

Management Restrictions, Protective Measures, and Other Special 
Management

    Authorized Federal, State, and (as desired) Tribal agencies will 
manage the reintroduced grizzly bears in the NEP. These entities will 
collaborate on monitoring, coordination with landowners and land 
managers, public awareness, and other tasks necessary to ensure 
successful management of the NEP consistent with a Service-partner 
agency MOU specific to implementing this 10(j) rule. Specific 
management considerations related to the experimental population, 
including prohibitions and exceptions involving the taking of 
individual animals, are addressed below. Unless otherwise agreed to by 
the Service in the provision of the applicable MOU, management actions 
involving capturing, relocating, or lethally taking a grizzly bear must 
be approved by the Service with limited exceptions as described in the 
rule.
    Section 9 of the Act prohibits various actions regarding species 
listed as endangered, which may be applied as part of protective 
regulations for experimental populations. Section 9 prohibitions 
include among other things prohibition against the import or export of 
species, restrictions on possession, sale, and transport (whether 
commercial or otherwise), and the prohibition against ``take'' of any 
such species. Section 3(19) of the Act defines ``take'' as ``to harass, 
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or 
to attempt to engage in any such conduct.'' Experimental population 
rules may contain specific prohibitions and exceptions, including 
regarding take; these rules help the reintroduction and management of 
an experimental population to be compatible with most routine human 
activities in the expected reestablishment area. This section 10(j) 
rule generally prohibits the take of any grizzly bear in the NEP area, 
with exceptions as follows:
    Defense of life--A grizzly bear in the NEP may be taken in self-
defense or in defense of others, based on a good-faith belief that the 
actions are necessary to protect any individual from bodily harm.
    Deterrence--``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. 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. Any person who 
deters a grizzly bear must use discretion and act safely and 
responsibly in confronting grizzly bears. Acceptable deterrence 
techniques may include non-projectile auditory deterrents, visual 
stimuli/deterrents, vehicle threat pressure, and noise-making 
projectiles. Unacceptable deterrence methods include screamers/
whistlers, rubber bullets/batons, and bean bag and aero sock rounds. 
For more information about appropriate nonlethal deterrents, 
individuals can contact the Service for the most current Service-
approved guidelines. Anyone is allowed to deter a grizzly bear in the 
case of self-defense (e.g., using bear spray or loud noises). Bear 
spray is an effective deterrent that has a higher success rate at 
stopping dangerous bear behavior and preventing human injury compared 
to firearms (Smith et al. 2008, p. 645; Smith et al. 2012, p. 12). An 
individual may not bait, stalk, or pursue a grizzly bear for the 
purposes of deterrence. Pursuit is defined as deterrence carried out 
beyond 200 yards (183 m) of a human-occupied area or lawfully present 
livestock.
    Incidental take--``Incidental take'' is take that is incidental to, 
and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful 
activity; it must be unintentional and not due to negligent conduct. 
Individuals will not be in violation of the Act for taking a grizzly 
bear of the NEP, provided that: (1) the take is incidental to, and not 
the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity; (2) they promptly report 
the take to the Service; and (3) if the take occurs due to USFS actions 
within National Forest System lands in Management Area A, that the USFS 
has maintained its `no net loss' agreement and implemented food storage 
restrictions throughout USFS-managed lands in Management Area A. The 
`no net loss' agreement is described above under Threats. Given the 
importance of maintaining core habitats and restricting human 
disturbance in these habitats for grizzly bear population establishment 
and persistence, we are tailoring the exception to the prohibition 
against incidental take by USFS actions on lands managed by the USFS as 
National Forest System lands under this 10(j) rule to be contingent 
upon maintenance and implementation of that longstanding approach 
within the NCE Recovery Zone. This exception would apply only to 
actions authorized, funded, or implemented by the USFS on lands managed 
by the USFS as National Forest System lands in Management Area A. We 
are currently coordinating with the USFS to memorialize the `no net 
loss' agreement for Management Area A in an updated MOU.
    Research and recovery actions--Any employee or agent of the 
Service, or any employee or agent of another Federal, State, or Tribal 
entity 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 and with prior 
authorization from the Service, take a grizzly bear in the NEP area 
consistent with this rule and the applicable MOU if such action is 
necessary for: scientific purposes; to aid a sick or injured grizzly 
bear, including euthanasia if it is unlikely to survive or poses an 
immediate threat to human safety; to salvage a dead specimen that may 
be useful for scientific study; to dispose of a dead specimen; or to 
aid in law enforcement investigations involving the grizzly bear.
    Relocation and management actions--As detailed more specifically in 
the regulation that follows, any employee or agent of the Service, or 
any employee or agent of another Federal, State, or Tribal entity 
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 a grizzly bear in 
the wild in the NEP area with prior authorization from the Service 
consistent with this rule and the applicable MOU if such action is 
necessary to accomplish the following:
     Avoid conflict with human activities;
     Prevent a grizzly bear from becoming habituated to humans;
     Improve grizzly bear survival;

[[Page 37011]]

     Release or relocate nontarget grizzly bears that have been 
incidentally trapped;
     Aid a law enforcement investigation;
     Salvage a dead bear; or
     Euthanize a grizzly bear that has been wounded severely 
enough such that it is unlikely to survive or poses an immediate threat 
to human safety.
    Relocation sites will be identified in remote areas away from 
homes, developed areas, and concentrated human use. When a grizzly bear 
is captured, the employee or agent will consult with the appropriate 
land management agency to determine a relocation site that is most 
suitable for the bear, considering age/sex of the bear, conflict 
history, and current human use at available relocation sites. Such 
taking must be coordinated with the Service. Non-Service or other non-
authorized personnel must acquire a permit from the Service for these 
activities.
    Removal of grizzly bears involved in conflict--Grizzly bears can 
cause substantial property damage, including depredation, or pose a 
threat to human safety if they become food conditioned, i.e., if they 
have learned to associate human presence with anthropogenic food 
because of repeatedly being rewarded with food without consequence 
(Beausoleil et al. 2022, p. 96). When it is not reasonably possible to 
eliminate such threat by securing attractants, nonlethal deterrence, or 
relocation, we may allow lethal removal of a grizzly bear involved in 
conflict under certain conditions. Lethal removal of grizzly bears 
involved in conflict in Management Area A may be conducted by 
authorized Federal, State, or Tribal authorities with prior approval by 
the Service in accordance with the provisions of this rule and the 
applicable MOU. Decisions on lethal removal will be based on many 
factors, including the ability to identify a particular bear (e.g., 
markings, collars, track size, canine spacing), the individual bear 
involved (e.g., sex, age, presence of dependent young, conflict 
history), relevant conflict history in the immediate area, and number 
of bears in the area.
    To become an ``authorized'' Federal, State, or Tribal authority, we 
must have a written agreement, i.e., an MOU, addressing grizzly bear 
management roles and responsibilities consistent with this 10(j) rule 
between the Service and the other Federal, State, or Tribal agency. 
While we may provide for grizzly bear management in the NEP area via 
other regulatory processes (such as a conference opinion issued by the 
Service to a Federal agency pursuant to section 7(a)(4) of the Act, an 
agreement under section 6 of the Act as described in 50 CFR 17.31 for 
State game and fish agencies with authority to manage grizzly bears, or 
a valid permit issued by the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 17.32), a prior 
written agreement is required to be considered an ``authorized'' 
Federal, State, or Tribal authority under this 10(j) rule.
    In Management Areas B and C, the Service may authorize conditioned 
lethal take for individuals after a livestock depredation has been 
confirmed by the Service or authorized agency and if it is not 
reasonably possible to otherwise eliminate the threat through nonlethal 
deterrence or live-capturing and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed. 
In Management Area C, the Service may authorize conditioned lethal take 
to individuals if the Service or an authorized agency determines both 
of the following: grizzly bears present a demonstrable and ongoing 
threat to human safety or to lawfully present livestock, domestic 
animals, crops, beehives, or other property and it is not reasonably 
possible to otherwise eliminate the threat through nonlethal deterrence 
or live-capturing and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed. Also in 
Management Area C, any individual may take (injure or kill) a grizzly 
bear in the act of attacking livestock, including working dogs, on 
private land under certain conditions.
Management Area Management Actions
    Management Area A (see Management Areas above) management actions 
include:
     Take of bears in self-defense or defense of others;
     Take resulting from otherwise lawful activities (e.g., 
timber harvest, road construction, recreation), with the proviso that 
take resulting from otherwise lawful USFS activities on National Forest 
System lands in Management Area A are contingent on the USFS having 
maintained its `no net loss' agreement and implemented food storage 
restrictions throughout Management Area A;
     Deterrence of bears;
     Take associated with research and recovery actions;
     Relocation or deterrence of bears by Federal, State, or 
Tribal authorities for recovery purposes, including as a preemptive 
action to prevent conflict; and
     Lethal removal by authorized Federal, State, or Tribal 
authorities of grizzly bears involved in conflict as defined in this 
10(j) rule, including that it is not reasonably possible to eliminate 
the threat through nonlethal deterrence or live-capturing and releasing 
the grizzly bear unharmed.
    Management Area B (see Management Areas above) management actions 
include all actions authorized for Management Area A, plus the ability 
for the Service to issue written time-limited conditioned lethal take 
authorization to an individual if all the following conditions exist: a 
depredation of livestock has been confirmed by the Service or 
authorized agency, the Service or authorized agency determine a bear is 
a demonstrable and ongoing threat, and it is not reasonably possible to 
eliminate the threat through nonlethal deterrence or live-capturing and 
releasing the grizzly bear unharmed.
    Management Area C (see Management Areas above) management actions 
include all actions authorized for Management Areas A and B, plus the 
ability for the Service to issue written time-limited conditioned 
lethal take authorization to an individual to kill a bear under the 
following conditions: the Service or an authorized agency identifies 
the bear as an ongoing threat to human safety, livestock, or other 
property (e.g., compost, chickens, beehives); and it is not reasonably 
possible to eliminate the threat through nonlethal deterrence or live-
capturing and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed. Also in Management 
Area C, any individual may take (injure or kill) a grizzly bear in the 
act of attacking livestock on private lands under specified conditions, 
including the absence of excessive unsecured attractants (e.g., 
carcasses or bone piles), no intentional feeding or baiting of the 
grizzly bear or wildlife, prompt reporting of the take, and no 
disturbance of the area to allow for review.
Prohibited Activities
    This rule prohibits all take of grizzly bear unless expressly 
excepted, as well as the possession, sale, delivery, carrying, 
transporting, shipping, or exporting, by any means whatsoever, any 
grizzly bear or part thereof from the experimental population taken in 
violation of the rule or in violation of applicable Tribal or State 
laws or regulations or the Act. This rule also makes it unlawful for 
individuals to attempt to commit, solicit another to commit, or cause 
to be committed, any take of the grizzly bear, except as expressly 
allowed in the rule.
    To avoid illegally shooting a grizzly bear, persons lawfully 
engaged in hunting and shooting activities must correctly identify 
their target before shooting. The act of taking a grizzly bear that is 
wrongfully identified as another

[[Page 37012]]

species is not considered incidental take and may be referred to 
appropriate authorities for prosecution.
Public Awareness and Cooperation
    Coinciding with the November 14, 2022, publication in the Federal 
Register of the notice of intent to prepare an EIS (87 FR 68190), we 
issued a joint news release with the NPS announcing the EIS process and 
proposed section 10(j) rulemaking and sought comments as part of the 
EIS scoping phase. The news release was shared directly with counties 
and municipalities in the NCE, nongovernmental organizations, and other 
stakeholders. During the 30-day scoping phase, four informational 
virtual public meetings were held, inviting the public to ask questions 
about the EIS process, section 10(j) experimental populations, and 
grizzly bear recovery. Representatives from the Service and NPS also 
participated in numerous news media interviews to raise awareness about 
the EIS process, section 10(j) rulemaking, and associated public 
comment period.
    Similar outreach techniques were used during the 45-day comment 
period for the proposed 10(j) rule and draft EIS to increase awareness 
and engage the public. These techniques included the distribution of a 
news release, participation in media features, and the direct sharing 
of information. One informational virtual meeting took place on October 
17, 2023, and four in-person public meetings were held, on October 30, 
2023, in Okanogan, WA, November 1, 2023, in Newhalem, WA, November 2, 
2023, in Darrington, WA, and November 3, 2023, in Winthrop, WA. Video 
of an informational presentation was also posted online for the public 
to review.
    Further public outreach and education will occur, both in the media 
and in the community, as grizzly bears are moved into and establish in 
the ecosystem. Education and outreach about how to minimize conflict, 
for the safety of both humans and bears, will be an important part of 
implementation. The Service will work with partners to increase 
outreach to people who live, work, and recreate in the NCE and 
surrounding areas. Outreach and education efforts will be modeled after 
similar efforts and practices developed in other grizzly bear 
ecosystems over multiple decades. Direct outreach and briefings to 
local governments and community organizations are also anticipated. 
Many different Federal, State, Tribal, and local government agencies 
and organizations in the State of Washington have wildlife education 
programs that can be partnered with and supported.
Interagency Consultation
    As stated above under Statutory and Regulatory Framework, for 
purposes of section 7(a)(2) of the Act, our section 10(j) regulations 
(50 CFR 17.83) provide that NEPs are treated as species proposed for 
listing under the Act except when on NPS and NWRS lands, where they are 
treated as a threatened species for the purposes of section 7(a)(2) 
consultations. Therefore, Federal agency actions not affecting NPS 
lands or NWRS lands would be required to confer with the Service under 
the terms of section 7(a)(4) of the Act. On the other hand, Federal 
agency actions affecting grizzly bears within the experimental 
population area on NPS lands or NWRS lands would be required to consult 
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. The provisions of 
section 7(a)(1) of the Act would still apply within the NEP area.

Review and Evaluation of the Success or Failure of the NEP

Monitoring and Evaluation
    All translocated grizzly bears will be fitted with global 
positioning system (GPS) collars and ear tags prior to release to aid 
in monitoring habitat use and spatial distribution, and tissue samples 
will be collected to establish baseline information for genetic 
monitoring purposes. Monitoring of the releases and subsequent 
population monitoring will follow radio collaring and genetic 
monitoring techniques used in the Cabinet Mountains grizzly bear 
augmentation effort (Kasworm et al. 2022b, pp. 9-16). Periodic 
recaptures will be conducted to maintain a GPS-collared sample of the 
population. Other monitoring will include habitat and resource 
selection, survival metrics, reproductive success, rate of population 
growth, genetic composition of the population, and instances of 
conflicts between humans and grizzly bears. Radio collars that 
communicate locations from satellites to biologists via periodic 
downloads will limit the need for aircraft monitoring. However, 
periodic use of fixed-wing aircraft will be necessary to determine 
reproductive status. Camera stations and hair-snagging corrals will 
also be established in remote locations to monitor grizzly bear 
presence and gather genetic information that could also be used to 
assess reproductive contributions and monitor genetic diversity.
    The Service and authorized agencies will monitor the status of 
grizzly bears in the NEP annually. The Service will evaluate the status 
of grizzly bears in the NEP in conjunction with our species status 
assessments and status reviews of the grizzly bear. Evaluations in our 
status reviews will include, but not be limited to: a review of 
management issues; grizzly bear movements; demographic rates; causes of 
mortality; project costs; and progress toward establishing a 
population. The recovery plan calls for maintaining human-caused 
mortality below 4 percent of the population for all recovery zones 
(USFWS 1993, p. 20). Because we anticipate the NCE population to remain 
low for the near future, we will attempt to keep human-caused mortality 
to zero. However, zero mortalities may not be practical given the need 
to protect human safety and property and due to accidental mortalities 
(e.g., vehicle collisions).
Adaptive Management
    We anticipate that our management of grizzly bears of the NEP will 
be adaptive, meaning we will apply management interventions, monitor 
outcomes, and incorporate learning from these interventions and 
outcomes (Williams and Brown 2012, entire) to achieve grizzly bear 
restoration objectives while maximizing social acceptance. If 
modifications to grizzly bear monitoring and management are needed, we 
will coordinate closely with NPS, WDFW, USFS, Tribal Governments, and 
others to ensure progress toward achieving recovery goals while 
concurrently minimizing human-grizzly bear conflicts in the NEP area.
Exit Strategy
    In light of the Service's positive 90-day finding on two petitions 
to delist grizzly bears in the NCDE and the GYE (see ``Previous Federal 
Actions,'' above), we acknowledge that the boundaries of the listed 
entity of the grizzly bear in the United States may change in the 
future. We anticipate leaving this experimental population designation 
in place until all grizzly bears have been delisted due to recovery, 
regardless of whether the boundaries of the listed entity change. 
However, if grizzly bears of the NEP experience unexpectedly high 
natural mortality, if donor bears are not available, or if we conclude 
that we and our partners have insufficient funding for an extended 
period to support management of the NEP, we may consider ending the 
releases and removing the NEP designation. This would be done only 
after coordination with partners and a new public process where we 
would evaluate the NEP designation before making any decisions

[[Page 37013]]

to exit the restoration program and remove or revise the 10(j) rule as 
appropriate.

Consultation With State, Local, Tribal, Federal, and Affected Private 
Landowners

    In April 2018, the Service reached out to more than 90 agencies and 
organizations to discuss a potential section 10(j) experimental 
population rulemaking and a zoned management approach for possible 
grizzly bear restoration efforts in the NCE. These included Federal, 
State, and local elected officials; federally recognized Tribes in 
Washington and Montana; natural resource and land management agencies; 
interest groups (including those representing timber, ranching or 
farming, and recreation interests); and environmental and conservation 
organizations. Between May and July 2018, the Service held more than 30 
meetings with representatives from 49 different agencies and 
organizations for receiving feedback on the management framework and 
the zoned management approach.
    Since the start of the public scoping period in November 2022, 
agency representatives have held 28 different meetings with local 
governments, State agencies, Tribes (including federally recognized 
Tribes in Washington and Tribal governments near potential source 
populations in the NCDE and GYE, including in the States of Colorado, 
Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and 
Wyoming), nongovernmental organizations, and congressional staff to 
present information and answer questions.
    Nine public meetings were also held, both virtually and in-person. 
During the comment period for the proposed rule, four in-person 
meetings were held in communities on both the east (two) and west (two) 
sides of the NCE Recovery Zone. Meeting attendees were able to provide 
comments in writing or verbally to a stenographer, with options to do 
so privately and/or in front of other meeting attendees. Speakers were 
also encouraged to provide written comments by postal mail or online if 
2 minutes was not sufficient for their verbal comment. At all four of 
these in-person meetings, everyone who requested to provide verbal 
comment was provided an opportunity to do so, and at all four meetings 
the list of speakers was exhausted, with additional time remaining. 
Before the public comment portion of each in-person meeting, attendees 
had the opportunity to review informational banners and ask agency 
staff questions. Throughout the public comment period, written comments 
on the draft EIS and proposed 10(j) rule were accepted online, by 
postal mail or hand-delivery, and at the in-person meetings.
    Feedback from the dozens of outreach meetings dating back to 2018 
were also used in the development of this final rule.

Findings and Regulatory Revisions

    Based on the best scientific information available, as described 
above and in accordance with 50 CFR 17.81, we find that releasing 
grizzly bears into the NCE with the regulatory provisions in this 
rulemaking will further the conservation of the species. The NEP status 
is appropriate for the introduced population; the potential loss of the 
experimental population would not appreciably reduce the likelihood of 
the survival of the species.
    Therefore, as a result of the findings just described, we are 
amending the entry for the grizzly bear on the List of Endangered and 
Threatened Wildlife at 50 CFR 17.11(h) to add an entry for the North 
Cascades NEP. We are also correcting the entry for the Bitterroot NEP 
of the grizzly bear. In the ``Listing citations and applicable rules'' 
column, the information for the Bitterroot NEP of the grizzly bear 
included an error. We are replacing the incorrect Federal Register 
citation, 70 FR 69854, 11/17/2005, with the correct citation for the 
final rule that established the Bitterroot NEP: 65 FR 69624, 11/17/
2000.
    As set forth in the rule portion of this document, we are revising 
50 CFR 17.84 to add a new paragraph (y) to establish the North Cascades 
NEP of the grizzly bear. For the purpose of clarity, we are also 
revising the opening text of the regulations that set forth the 
Bitterroot NEP of the grizzly bear at 50 CFR 17.84(l). Currently, the 
regulations for the Bitterroot NEP begin with ``Grizzly bear (Ursus 
arctos horribilis).'' However, as stated above, through this rule we 
are adding another grizzly bear NEP to the regulations at Sec.  17.84. 
To differentiate the regulations for the two grizzly bear NEPs in that 
section, we are revising the heading for the Bitterroot NEP at 
paragraph (l) to read: ``Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)--
Bitterroot nonessential experimental population,'' and the heading for 
the North Cascades NEP at paragraph (y) will read: ``Grizzly bear 
(Ursus arctos horribilis)--North Cascades nonessential experimental 
population.''

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review--Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 
14094

    Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and 
E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency 
efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance 
statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 
13563. Regulatory analysis, as practicable and appropriate, shall 
recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the extent permitted by 
law. We have developed this final rule in a manner consistent with 
these requirements.
    E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, provides 
that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant 
rules. OIRA has determined that this rulemaking action is not 
significant.
    The North Cascades Ecosystem Grizzly Bear Restoration Plan/final 
EIS (NPS and USFWS 2024) analyzed the potential impacts of restoration 
of grizzly bears to the North Cascades including potential impacts to 
visitor use and recreational experience (NPS and USFWS 2024, pp. 115-
130), human safety (NPS and USFWS 2024, pp. 130-139), and socioeconomic 
effects of the restoration of grizzly bear on various sectors in a 
seven-county area (including gateway communities) (NPS and USFWS 2024, 
pp. 139-156). The final EIS evaluation included the impacts of 
restoration of grizzly bear as managed under this final section 10(j) 
rule, which was the agencies' preferred alternative (NPS and USFWS 
2024, pp. 37-50).
    The final EIS evaluated impacts to visitor use and recreational use 
experience qualitatively. Recreational use of Federal land in the NCE 
is estimated to be more than 8 million recreation visitor-days per 
year, most of which is associated with dispersed recreation rather than 
developed campgrounds or wilderness areas (NPS and USFWS 2024, p. 117). 
Potential beneficial and adverse impacts on visitor use and experience 
could result from the initial restoration of grizzly bears in the NCE, 
and visitation could increase or decrease depending on visitor interest 
in or aversion to them (NPS and USFWS 2024, p. 125). Benefits would be 
derived from the restoration of the grizzly bear population and the 
opportunity provided to visitors to see grizzly bears in their natural 
setting. Adverse impacts

[[Page 37014]]

would include the potential for temporary closures lasting from a few 
hours to a few days, requiring some visitors to adjust their stay to 
avoid closed areas, and noise associated with helicopter operations. 
Compared to current conditions, these impacts, in addition to past, 
present, and reasonably foreseeable planned actions, would be 
beneficial. Restoration under this final rule would allow for greater 
wildlife management flexibility that would provide an additional 
increment of benefit to the visitor use and recreational experience by 
minimizing negative human-bear conflicts (NPS and USFWS 2024, p. 130).
    For potential impacts to public and employee safety, the final EIS 
qualitatively addressed risks associated with human-grizzly bear 
encounters related to employees working to restore and manage bears, as 
well as risks to visitors and residents in and around the NCE (NPS and 
USFWS 2024, p. 130). Overall, restoration of grizzly bears would have 
adverse impacts on public and employee safety in terms of potential 
conflicts with grizzly bears. However, the probability of adverse 
impacts occurring would be low for a variety of reasons. Restoration 
would begin in remote areas and occur in low density, and even as 
density increases as the restoration population is achieved, existing 
safety and related protocols would be implemented, such as food storage 
restrictions, general bear safety education, temporary public closures, 
and management protocols for the capture and release of bears. These 
tools have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing impacts to 
public safety, even in areas with a much higher density of grizzly 
bears than projected for the ultimate population targeted in this 
proposal (NPS and USFWS 2024, pp. 136-137). With the implementation of 
this final section 10(j) rule, additional management measures will be 
available to authorized agencies to use lethal and nonlethal measures 
to reduce impacts from grizzly bears that move outside the ecosystem, 
or to mitigate human-bear conflicts, including those associated with 
public safety. These management actions could further reduce the 
potential for human-bear conflicts and would contribute a reduced 
potential for adverse impacts on visitor and employee safety (NPS and 
USFWS 2024, p. 139).
    The final EIS evaluated the socioeconomic impacts of the proposed 
restoration considering a seven-county region of influence (Chelan, 
King, Kittitas, Okanogan, Skagit, Snohomish, and Whatcom Counties) (NPS 
and USFWS 2024, p. 139), qualitatively assessing potential impacts to 
tourism, agricultural and livestock grazing, and timber harvest and 
mining, as well as the effects to employment in each of these 
categories. For tourism, occasional localized wilderness closures for 
public safety during release activities could occur, but these closures 
would be site-specific and short (hours to days). These closures are 
not expected to substantially affect tour operators or recreational 
visitors, including hunters or horseback riders. Any area closures are 
anticipated to be infrequent and small in scope; therefore, revenue and 
employment associated with tourism, including hunting, horseback 
riding, hiking, sightseeing, and tour operations, would not be 
noticeably affected as a result of implementing restoration under this 
final section 10(j) rule. Collaboration with potential user groups and 
public outreach and education would likely mitigate many potential 
tourism-related concerns as wilderness users become accustomed to 
backcountry practices that reduce chances for human-bear conflict. 
Therefore, potential adverse tourism-related impacts would be mitigated 
to the extent that no adverse impacts on tourism are expected (NPS and 
USFWS 2024, p. 155).
    Agriculture and livestock grazing operations could experience 
reduced employment or increased costs of operating cattle ranching 
operations. Direct impacts may occur through grizzly bear depredation 
of cattle or sheep. Impacts are somewhat less likely to occur given 
that no staging or release areas would be near active grazing 
allotments; in addition, we provided in the final rule that individuals 
such as livestock producers on private lands in Management Area C could 
take grizzly bear in the act of attacking livestock under certain 
conditions. Specific descriptions of the effects of potential livestock 
depredation are described in the final EIS on pages 143-146 and further 
analyzed in Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), below. 
Impacts on timber harvesting and mining from restoration of grizzly 
bears are anticipated to be intermittent and short term, lasting 
minutes to hours, as workers become aware of grizzly bear presence in 
the area, and grizzly bears avoid areas of active timber harvest and 
mining (NPS and USFWS 2024, p. 156).
    As to employment, restoration of bears could result in impacts on 
employment related to tourism (both positive and negative), 
agriculture, livestock grazing, mining, timber harvest, wildlife 
management, or Federal land management. Wildlife management and Federal 
land management may experience increases in employment resulting from 
implementation of this final section 10(j) rule as wildlife and Federal 
land managers capture and release grizzly bears and educate the public.
    As displayed in the final EIS, implementation of a final section 
10(j) designation is expected to reduce the potential for any adverse 
socioeconomic impacts as compared with other final restoration 
alternatives. The final section 10(j) designation allows for additional 
management measures for lethal and nonlethal actions to minimize and 
prevent human-bear conflicts. Additionally, the section 10(j) 
designation eliminates the requirement for Federal agencies to consult 
with the Service under section 7(a)(2) of the Act for grizzly bears in 
the NEP (except on NPS or NWRS lands). Except for USFS actions on 
National Forest System lands in Management Zone A, all take of grizzly 
bears that is incidental to otherwise lawful activity is allowed. For 
USFS actions on National Forest System lands in Management Zone A, this 
final rule excepts all incidental take as long as the U.S. Forest 
Service has maintained its `no net loss' agreement and implemented food 
storage restrictions throughout National Forest System lands in 
Management Area A. As a result, implementation of the final section 
10(j) designation for grizzly bears would reduce the potential costs 
and operational constraints that may have temporarily affected regular 
business operations from the presence of grizzly bear.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996; 5 U.S.C. 
601 et seq.), whenever a Federal agency is required to publish a notice 
of rulemaking for any final rule, it must prepare, and make available 
for public comment, a regulatory flexibility analysis that describes 
the effect of the rule on small entities (i.e., small businesses, small 
organizations, and small government jurisdictions). However, no 
regulatory flexibility analysis is required if the head of an agency 
certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on 
a substantial number of small entities. SBREFA amended the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act to require Federal agencies to provide a statement of 
the factual basis for certifying that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
We certify that this final rule would not have a

[[Page 37015]]

significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. 
The following discussion explains our rationale.
    According to the Small Business Administration, small entities 
include small organizations such as independent nonprofit 
organizations; small governmental jurisdictions, including school 
boards and city and town governments that serve fewer than 50,000 
residents; and small businesses (13 CFR 121.201). Small businesses 
include such businesses as manufacturing and mining concerns with fewer 
than 500 employees, wholesale trade entities with fewer than 100 
employees, retail and service businesses with less than $5 million in 
annual sales, general and heavy construction businesses with less than 
$27.5 million in annual business, special trade contractors doing less 
than $11.5 million in annual business, and forestry and logging 
operations with fewer than 500 employees and annual business less than 
$7 million. To determine whether small entities may be affected, we 
considered the types of activities that might trigger regulatory 
impacts under this designation as well as types of project 
modifications that may result. In general, the term ``significant 
economic impact'' is meant to apply to a typical small business firm's 
business operations.
    Importantly, the impacts of a rule must be both significant and 
substantial to prevent certification of the rule under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and to require the preparation of an initial regulatory 
flexibility analysis. If a substantial number of small entities are 
affected by the final rule, but the per-entity economic impact is not 
significant, the Service may certify. Likewise, if the per-entity 
economic impact is likely to be significant, but the number of affected 
entities is not substantial, the Service may also certify.
    Because of the regulatory flexibility provided by designating an 
NEP in the NCE, we do not expect this rule to have significant effects 
on any activities within Federal lands within the experimental 
population area. In regard to section 7(a)(2) of the Act, except on NPS 
and NWRS lands, the population is treated as proposed for listing; 
therefore, Federal action agencies are not required to consult on their 
activities. Section 7(a)(4) of the Act requires Federal agencies to 
confer (rather than consult) with the Service on actions that are 
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species. 
However, because a nonessential experimental population is, by 
definition, not essential to the survival of the species, conferencing 
is unlikely to be required within the NEP. The USFS will not be 
required to consult under section 7(a)(2) about impacts to the NEP when 
authorizing activities under USFS permits, such as for grazing, mining, 
and timber harvest activities, including permits for road hauling that 
may include travel on non-Federal lands. In addition, section 7(a)(1) 
of the Act requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry 
out programs to further the conservation of listed species, which would 
apply on any lands within the experimental population area. As a 
result, and in accordance with these regulations and this final rule, 
some modifications to the Federal actions within the experimental 
population area may occur to benefit the grizzly bear, but we do not 
expect projects on Federal lands to be precluded or likely to be 
substantially modified as a result of these regulations.
    However, this final rule authorizes and governs the management of 
reintroduced grizzly bears in the NCE. The presence of reintroduced 
grizzly bears has the potential to affect small entities involved in 
ranching and livestock production, particularly beef cattle ranching 
(business activity code North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) 112111) and sheep farming (business activity code NAICS 
112410). Small businesses involved in ranching and livestock production 
may be affected by grizzly bears depredating on domestic animals, 
particularly beef cattle and sheep. Direct effects to small businesses 
could include forgone calf or cow sales at auctions due to 
depredations. Indirect effects could include impacts such as increased 
ranch operation costs for surveillance and oversight of the herd. 
However, as detailed further below, we do not foresee a significant 
economic impact to a substantial number of small entities in the 
ranching and livestock production sector; in addition, the final rule 
designating the grizzly bears as experimental with this special 
management rule under section 10(j) is in part designed to help 
minimize the potential for conflicts that could increase costs to 
ranching and livestock production.
    The small size standard for beef cattle farming entities and sheep 
farms as defined by the Small Business Administration are those 
entities with less than $2.5 million for beef cattle ranching and $3.5 
million for sheep farming in average annual receipts (https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards). As of 2017, there 
were approximately 9,088 cattle and calf farms and approximately 1,930 
sheep farms in Washington (USDA 2019, p. 181). Of these, 13 beef cattle 
farms and zero sheep farms had average annual receipts above the Small 
Business Administration thresholds for small entities (USDA 2019, p 
181). Therefore, we find the vast majority of cattle ranches and sheep 
farms in the State of Washington potentially affected by the 
reintroduction and management of grizzly bears to be small entities.
    Because the reintroduction of grizzly bears will occur only on 
Federal lands within Management Area A, the NPS and FWS evaluated 
socioeconomic impacts in a seven-county region of influence (ROI), 
including Chelan, King, Kittitas, Okanogan, Skagit, Snohomish, and 
Whatcom Counties, centered on Management Area A (the focal point for 
grizzly bear recovery in the NCE). While these counties contain several 
larger cities, including Bellingham, Everett, Seattle, and Wenatchee, 
the NCE is located in a predominantly rural area away from large urban 
areas. The NCE is approximately 52 percent of the total land area of 
the ROI (NPS and USFWS 2024, p. 139). Approximately 25 percent of farms 
in the State of Washington occur in the ROI (NPS and USFWS 2024, p. 
145). Therefore, we estimate approximately 2,272 cattle and calf farms 
and 483 sheep farms in the ROI. The actual number of farms that may be 
affected is far less than 25 percent because the grizzly bear release 
areas occur on Federal lands and do not overlap with active grazing 
allotments, the ROI includes several counties that extend beyond the 
borders of the NCE Recovery Zone, and the farms occur in areas where we 
do not expect grizzly bear occupancy due to low habitat suitability 
(NPS and USFWS 2024, p. 146).
    As of 2015, 773,788 acres (313,141 hectares) of land were actively 
under permit for cattle and sheep grazing on Okanogan-Wenatchee NF, 
with 320,044 acres (129,517 hectares) occurring within the NCE Recovery 
Zone. Most of the acreage permitted on Okanogan-Wenatchee NF was for 
cattle grazing. There are no grazing permits on Mount Baker Snoqualmie 
NF. The 2015 Okanogan-Wenatchee Allotment Information Sheet reports 
that there were 4,151 animal unit months (AUMs) of permitted sheep and 
47,686 AUMS of permitted cattle grazing on National Forest System lands 
within the NCE Recovery Zone. In 2015, 4,100 ewe/lamb pairs were 
grazing, and 4,552 cow/calf pairs were authorized to graze during the 
summer on USFS allotments within the NCE Recovery Zone. No livestock 
were present within the North Cascades

[[Page 37016]]

NPS complex as of 2015 (NPS and USFWS 2024, p. 145).
    We assessed whether this final rule would have a significant 
economic impact by estimating the annual number of depredations we 
expect to occur when the grizzly bear population will be at the 
restoration population of 200 (which is not expected for several 
decades). Grizzly bear depredation is highly variable between and among 
years. Estimates of potential grizzly bear depredation were generated 
using grizzly bear population estimates for the NCDE and livestock 
losses of cattle and sheep, generating an estimated annual rate of 
livestock loss per grizzly bear of 0.093 cattle and 0.019 sheep. When 
these rates were applied to an NCE grizzly bear population of 25, 
annual livestock loss estimates were two to three cattle and up to one 
sheep. When these rates were applied to an NCE grizzly bear restoration 
population of 200, annual livestock loss estimates were 18 to 19 cattle 
and 3 to 4 sheep. Rates developed with these data may represent 
overestimates of expected livestock loss in restored populations of 
grizzly bears in the NCE if grizzly bears do not occupy private lands 
where more livestock may be present.
    It is probable that the actual number of cattle and sheep killed 
per year would fall within the range of the 2 estimates (1 to 19 cattle 
per year, and 1 to 4 sheep per year). The number would likely fall on 
the lower end of the range because of a number of factors, including 
juxtaposition of grizzly bear habitat and grazing; type of grazing 
operation; distribution and abundance of other predators; and abundance 
and distribution of prey. Even with this uncertainty, the total number 
of cattle and sheep depredated within the NCE would result in minimal, 
adverse impacts on agriculture and the livestock grazing industry, 
contributing to less than 0.01 percent of the total number of cattle 
and sheep in the ROI.
    To the extent that some cattle farms will most likely not be 
impacted by grizzly bear recovery because they are not located in 
suitable habitat but are included in the total estimate of potentially 
affected farms, this estimate could understate the percentage of 
livestock potentially affected. However, for other reasons, this 
estimate could very well overstate the percentage of farms affected as 
we recognize that annual depredation events have not been, and may not 
be, uniformly distributed across the farms operating in occupied 
grizzly bear range. Rather, grizzly bears seem to concentrate in 
particular areas where concentrated attractants occur within productive 
grizzly bear habitat (Lamb et al. 2023, pp. 6-12; Wilson et al. 2005, 
entire; Wilson et al. 2006, entire). The extent of depredation would be 
most influenced by the extent that livestock overlap with grizzly 
bears, the size of the grazing operation, and the presence of 
attractants. Additionally, these impacts are somewhat less likely to 
occur given that no staging or release areas would overlap active 
grazing allotments.
    As of 2017, 4,100 ewe/lamb pairs and 4,552 cow/calf pairs are 
authorized to graze during the summer on USFS allotments within the NCE 
Recovery Zone. Few livestock are present within the central portion of 
the NCE Recovery Zone because it is a national park. Because only 
approximately three to seven bears per year would initially be released 
into the NCE, we anticipate depredation events to be rare during the 
primary phase; however, depredation is likely to increase in frequency 
as the population grows over time during the adaptive management phase. 
Based on a weighted average market value for a depredated cow/calf of 
$1,021.33 ($2022) and for a depredated sheep of $311.96 ($2022), a 
total estimated depredation of 1 to 19 cattle per year and 1 to 4 sheep 
per year could result in a loss of revenue at auction ranging from 
$1,021.33 to $19,405.29 for cattle and $311.96 to $1,247.84 for sheep.
    This final rule is assessed as alternative C in our final EIS, the 
preferred alternative for restoring grizzly bears to the NCE. Under 
this alternative, the designation of an experimental population with 
the special regulations of this final rule would allow several forms of 
take of grizzly bears on Federal and non-Federal land to address 
conflict situations between grizzly bears and livestock. These forms of 
take would generally not be allowed if reintroduced grizzly bears were 
not designated as an experimental population (another alternative that 
was considered in our final EIS). Additionally, reintroduced grizzly 
bears would be released only into Federal lands in Management Area A. 
While we anticipate that bears will move into areas within Management 
Areas B and C, any grizzly bear in these areas posing a demonstrable 
threat to human safety, livestock, or property may be relocated or 
removed by the Service or authorized Federal, State, or Tribal 
authorities with prior approval by the Service and in accordance with 
the process for ``removal of grizzly bears involved in conflict'' as 
defined in this10(j) rule. Individuals may also nonlethally take 
grizzly bears for the purpose of deterrence to prevent conflict, 
provided the deterrence does not cause lasting bodily injury (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. In addition, with the final rule 
we authorize individuals to take a grizzly bear in the act of attacking 
livestock under certain conditions. These flexibilities further reduce 
the impacts to small businesses.
    Agriculture and grazing operations located closest to release areas 
or high-quality grizzly bear habitat would be the most likely to be 
affected. However, adverse impacts on agriculture and livestock grazing 
would be limited compared to the total number of livestock present in 
or adjacent to the NCE. The potential for impacts would be further 
reduced by the implementation of this final rule, including associated 
conflict-prevention efforts such as the public outreach on minimizing 
unsecured attractants (e.g., Western Wildlife Outreach 2023; Braaten et 
al. 2013, pp. 7-8).
    Based on the preceding information, we find that the impact of 
direct effects of grizzly bear depredations on livestock would not be 
significant. That is, less than 0.01 percent of the total number of 
cattle and sheep in the ROI could be affected, and the high end of the 
annual potential loss of revenue across all farms is estimated at 
approximately $22,000. We do not consider either the number of 
potential livestock affected nor the potential loss of revenue to be a 
significant economic impact. Considering that less than 25 percent of 
the total farms in Washington occur within the ROI and no farms occur 
within final grizzly bear release areas, far fewer than 25 percent of 
farms in Washington would be likely to experience economic impacts. 
While we are not able to quantify this number, we do find that there 
would not be a substantial number of small entities impacted.
    For the above reasons and based on currently available information, 
we certify that the final nonessential experimental population 
designation of grizzly bears would not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small business entities. Therefore, 
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.)

    In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501 
et seq.):
    (1) This rule would not ``significantly or uniquely'' affect small 
governments. We have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded 
Mandates

[[Page 37017]]

Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that, if adopted, this rulemaking 
would not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on 
local or State governments or private entities. A small government 
agency plan is not required. Small governments would not be affected 
because the final NEP designation would not place additional 
requirements on any city, county, or other local municipalities.
    (2) This rule would not produce a Federal mandate of $100 million 
or greater in any year (i.e., it is not a ``significant regulatory 
action'' under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act). This final NEP 
designation of the grizzly bear in the NCE would not impose any 
additional management or protection requirements on the States or other 
entities.

Takings (E.O. 12630)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12630, the final rule does not 
have significant takings implications. When reintroduced populations of 
federally listed species are designated as NEPs, the Act's regulatory 
requirements regarding the reintroduced population are significantly 
reduced.
    A takings implication assessment is not required because this final 
rule (1) would not effectively compel a property owner to suffer a 
physical invasion of property, and (2) would not deny all economically 
beneficial or productive use of the land or aquatic resources. This 
final rule would substantially advance a legitimate government interest 
(conservation and recovery of a listed species) and would not present a 
barrier to all reasonable and expected beneficial use of private 
property.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

    In accordance with Executive Order 13132, we have considered 
whether this final rule has significant federalism effects and have 
determined that a federalism assessment is not required. This final 
rule would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the Federal Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. In keeping with Department of the Interior policy, we 
requested information from and coordinated development of this final 
rule with the affected resource agencies in Washington. Establishing an 
experimental population of grizzly bears in the NCE Recovery Zone would 
contribute positively toward the status of the species, which in turn 
would be factored into future assessments of the status of grizzly 
bears in the lower 48 States.
    We acknowledge a Washington State law that addresses grizzly bear 
reintroduction in the State. Revised Code of Washington 77.12.035, 
Protection of grizzly bears--Limitation on transplantation or 
introduction--Negotiations with Federal and State agencies, provides as 
follows: ``The commission shall protect grizzly bears and develop 
management programs on publicly owned lands that will encourage the 
natural regeneration of grizzly bears in areas with suitable habitat. 
Grizzly bears shall not be transplanted or introduced into the state. 
Only grizzly bears that are native to Washington State may be utilized 
by the department for management programs. The department is directed 
to fully participate in all discussions and negotiations with Federal 
and State agencies relating to grizzly bear management and shall fully 
communicate, support, and implement the policies of this section.''
    This State law provision governs only the activities of the 
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and prohibits WDFW 
from transplanting or introducing grizzly bears into the State (see 
Washington State Office of the Attorney General memorandum to the WDFW 
(WA AG in litt. 2017)). Further, the State provision is interpreted to 
require WDFW to protect grizzly bears and develop programs that will 
encourage their natural regeneration on public lands with suitable bear 
habitat, and to allow for WDFW's engagement in monitoring, habitat 
enhancement, and response to grizzly bears that are endangering public 
safety or damaging private property.
    We developed this final rule in cooperation with WDFW, and in 
consideration of this Washington State law, grizzly bear reintroduction 
would occur on Federal lands administered by the NPS or the USFS, and 
efforts from WDFW to transplant or introduce grizzly bears would not be 
required. In response to comments from WDFW on the proposed rule, in 
this final rule we confirm that we will prioritize reintroduction 
releases on NPS lands as encouraged by WDFW and will work with WDFW to 
avoid any administrative complications. The final rule provides for the 
State's participation in the management of bears introduced by Federal 
agencies on Federal lands within the State. For these reasons, no 
intrusion on State policy or administration is expected, roles or 
responsibilities of Federal or State governments would not change, and 
fiscal capacity would not be substantially directly affected. The final 
rule would operate to maintain the existing relationship between the 
State and the Federal Government and is being undertaken in 
coordination with the State of Washington. Therefore, this final rule 
does not have significant federalism effects or implications to warrant 
the preparation of a federalism assessment pursuant to the provisions 
of E.O. 13132.

Civil Justice Reform (E.O. 12988)

    In accordance with Executive Order 12988 (February 7, 1996; 61 FR 
4729), the Office of the Solicitor has determined that this final rule 
would not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the requirements 
of sections (3)(a) and (3)(b)(2) of the Order.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    This final rule contains existing and new collections of 
information that require approval by the OMB under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). An agency may not 
conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a 
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB 
control number. The OMB has reviewed and approved the information 
collection requirements associated with the establishment of an NEP of 
the grizzly bear in the State of Washington, under section 10(j) of the 
Act, and assigned the OMB Control Number 1018-0199.
    Experimental populations established under section 10(j) of the 
Act, as amended, require information collection and reporting to the 
Service. The Service would collect information on the grizzly bear NEP 
to help further the recovery of the species and to assess the success 
of the reintroduced populations. There are no forms associated with 
this information collection. The respondents would notify the Service 
when an incident occurs, so there would be no set frequency for 
collecting the information. Federal, State, and participating Tribal 
agencies would provide the Service with the vast majority of the 
information on grizzly bears within the NEP. However, the public also 
would provide some information to the Service. The final new 
information collection requirements identified below require approval 
by OMB:
    1. Reporting requirements--The respondents would notify the Service 
when an incident occurs and annually report the number of grizzly bears 
relocated and removed. The State and other Federal agencies would 
provide the Service with the vast majority of the information on 
experimental

[[Page 37018]]

populations under interagency agreements for the conduct of the 
recovery programs. However, the public also would provide some 
information to the Service. Reporting parties would include, but would 
not be limited to, individuals or households, businesses, farms, 
nonprofit organizations, and State/Tribal governments. The Service 
would collect the information by means of telephone calls from the 
public. Standard information collected would include:
    a. Name, address, and phone number of reporting party.
    b. Species involved.
    c. Type of incident.
    d. Take (quantity).
    e. Location and time of reported incident.
    f. Description of the circumstances related to the incident.
    Some of these contacts would be necessary followup reports under 
where the Service has authorized lethal take of experimental animals 
(e.g., livestock depredation). The Service would collect information in 
three categories:
    i. Lethal take must be reported by individuals within 24 hours to 
the Service's Ecological Services point of contact in this rule. Lethal 
take must be reported by a Federal, State, or Tribal authority of an 
authorized agency within 24 hours by following the reporting 
instructions as described in the authorized agency's MOU and included 
in an annual report to the Service.
    ii. Nonlethal take that results in injury by an individual must be 
reported within 5 days to the Service's Ecological Services point of 
contact in this rule. Nonlethal take that results in injury by a 
Federal, State, or Tribal authority of an authorized agency must be 
reported within 5 days by following the reporting instructions as 
described in the authorized agency's MOU and included in an annual 
report to the Service. Incidental take that results from indirect 
activities such as incidental take in the form of harm resulting from 
habitat modification does not need to be reported.
    iii. Recovery or reporting of dead individuals and specimen 
collection from experimental populations. This type of information is 
for the purpose of documenting incidental or authorized scientific 
collection. Most of the contacts with the public would deal primarily 
with the reporting of sightings of experimental population animals, or 
the inadvertent discovery of an injured or dead individual.
    2. Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs)--The Service would enter 
into MOUs with Federal, State, or Tribal agencies to authorize grizzly 
bear management consistent with this 10(j) rule. The Service does not 
expect to enter into MOUs with local governments or authorities. We are 
not reporting burden for Federal agencies as they are exempt from the 
requirements of the PRA. The Service would collect information in two 
general categories from the relevant agencies in relation to these 
MOUs:
    a. Relocation of bears. With prior approval from the Service, a 
Federal, State, or Tribal authority may live-capture any grizzly bear 
occurring in the NEP area and transport and release it in a remote 
location agreed to by the Service, the Washington Department of Fish 
and Wildlife, and the applicable land-managing agency.
    b. Removal of grizzly bears involved in conflict. Authorized 
Service, Federal, State, or Tribal authorities may lethally take a 
grizzly bear in the NEP area with prior approval from the Service if 
the Service or an authorized agency determines it is not reasonably 
possible to otherwise eliminate the threat by nonlethal deterrence or 
live-capturing and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed, and if the 
taking is done in a humane manner. Grizzly bears may be taken in self-
defense or in defense of other persons, based on a good-faith belief 
that the actions taken were to protect the person from bodily harm.
    3. Written Authorization--conditioned lethal take--With prior 
written agreement from the Service, individuals may lethally take a 
grizzly bear within 200 yards (183 m) of legally present livestock in 
Management Areas B and C if a depredation has been confirmed by the 
Service or an authorized agency and it has been determined that it is 
not reasonably possible to eliminate the threat through nonlethal 
deterrence or live-capturing and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed. 
Additionally, the Service may issue written authorization to an 
individual to kill a grizzly bear in Management Area C if the Service 
or an authorized agency identifies the grizzly bear as an ongoing 
threat to human safety, livestock, or other property (e.g., compost, 
chickens, beehives), and it is not reasonably possible to eliminate the 
threat through nonlethal deterrence or live-capturing and releasing the 
grizzly bear unharmed.
    This information collection was incorrectly listed as part of the 
MOU information collection in the proposed rule submission to OMB. It 
is a stand-alone information collection, not related to the MOUs.
    4. Recovery or reporting of dead individuals and specimen 
collection from experimental populations--This type of information 
would be for the purpose of documenting incidental or authorized 
scientific collection and surrender of grizzly bear carcasses as the 
result of lethal take. Most of the contacts with the public primarily 
would be with the reporting of sightings of experimental population 
animals, or the inadvertent discovery of an injured or dead individual.
    5. Obtaining Landowner/Land Management Entity Authorization--
Individuals requesting the written authorizations mentioned above must 
also obtain or confirm authorization from the landowner or land 
management entity, where appropriate.
    The Service would use the information described above to document 
the locations of reintroduced animals, determine causes of mortality 
and conflict with human activities so that Service managers could 
minimize conflicts with people, and improve management techniques for 
reintroduction. The information would help the Service assess the 
effectiveness of management activities and develop means to reduce 
problems with livestock for those species where depredation is a 
problem. Service recovery specialists would use the information to 
determine the success of reintroductions in relation to established 
recovery plan goals for the threatened and endangered species involved.

Changes Since Submission at the Proposed Rule Stage

    We initially proposed the following information collection at the 
proposed rule stage. However, we are no longer seeking approval of them 
for the reasons stated below:

1. Appointment of Designated Agent--

    A designated agent is an employee of a Federal, State, or Tribal 
agency that is authorized by the Service to conduct grizzly bear 
management. A prospective designated agent would submit a letter to the 
Service requesting designated agent status. The letter would include a 
proposal for the work to be completed and resume of qualifications for 
the work they wish to perform. The Service would then respond to the 
requester with a letter authorizing them to complete the work.
    Reason for Discontinuance: We removed this information collection 
because it is redundant with the information collections for MOUs. 
Authorized individuals of an authorized agency would be reporting the 
information specified above under their agency-specific MOU.

[[Page 37019]]

2. Memorandums of Understanding--Relocation of Bears (Individual and 
Private Sector Respondents)

    Reason for Discontinuance: We removed this information collection 
for individual and private sector respondent categories as they will 
not be authorized to relocate bears. This information collection 
applies only to State/Tribal governments.

3. Memorandums of Understanding--Conditioned Lethal Take (State/Local/
Tribal Govt and Private Sector)

    Reason for Discontinuance: We removed this information collection 
because it is already addressed for State/Tribal government respondents 
under the Memorandum of Understanding--Removal of Grizzly Bears 
collection, and conditioned lethal take is not authorized for the 
private sector. We have also revised the title for information 
collection from individuals for conditioned lethal take accordingly.

4. Memorandums of Understanding--Removal of Grizzly Bears (Individuals 
and Private Sector)

    Reason for Discontinuance: We removed the information collections 
for individual and private sector respondent categories as they will 
not be authorized to remove bears pursuant to Memorandums of 
Understanding. This information collection applies only to State/Tribal 
governments.
    Title of Collection: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife, 
Experimental Populations--Grizzly Bear (50 CFR 17.84).
    OMB Control Number: 1018-0199.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Type of Review: New.
    Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals; private sector; and 
State/Tribal governments.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain a benefit.
    Frequency of Collection: Annually for annual report and on occasion 
for other requirements.
    Total Estimated Annual Nonhour Burden Cost: None.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Number of                                          Total
                                       Number of       annual       Total       Average completion      annual
            Requirement                 annual       responses      annual             time             burden
                                      respondents       each      responses                             hours
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notification--Lethal Take:
    Individuals...................               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
    Private Sector................               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
    State/Tribal Gov't............               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
Notification--Nonlethal Take:
    Individuals...................               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
    Private Sector................               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
    State/Tribal Gov't............               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
Notification--Recovery or
 Reporting of Dead Specimen and
 Specimen Collection:
    Individuals...................               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
    Private Sector................               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
    State/Tribal Gov't............               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
Memorandums of Understanding--
 Relocation of Grizzly Bears
    State/Tribal Gov't............               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
Memorandums of Understanding--
 Removal of Grizzly Bears:
    State/Tribal Gov't............               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
Written Authorization-Conditioned
 Lethal Take:
    Individuals...................               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
Obtaining Landowner/Land
 Management Entity Authorization:
    Individuals...................               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
    Private Sector................               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
    State/Tribal Gov't............               1            1            1  30 min (reporting);              1
                                                                               30 min
                                                                               (recordkeeping).
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Totals....................              15  ...........           15  .....................           15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 37020]]

    On September 29, 2023, we published in the Federal Register (88 FR 
67193) a proposed rule (RIN 1018-BG89) to establish a nonessential 
experimental population (NEP) of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 
horribilis) in the NCE, under section 10(j) of the ESA. In that 
proposed rule, we solicited comments for 60 days on the information 
collections in this submission, ending on November 28, 2023. In 
response to that proposed rule, we received the following three 
comments that addressed the information collection requirements:
    Comment 1: Electronic comment submitted via Regulations.gov (FWS-
R1-ES-2023-0074-7310) on November 10, 2023, from the Sierra Club. The 
commenter expressed concern regarding the timeframe for reporting 
injuries (i.e., nonlethal take) compared to lethal take. The proposed 
rule required 24 hours for reporting lethal take and 5 days for 
reporting nonlethal take. The commenter recommended that nonlethal take 
also have a 24-hour reporting requirement in case the injury ultimately 
results in the death of the bear.
    Agency Response to Comment 1: The 5-day reporting window is 
consistent with our practices under the existing 4(d) rule for the 
grizzly bear outside the NEP, and we retain that reporting window for 
this NEP. In other grizzly bear ecosystems with this same 5-day 
reporting requirement, partners report this type of injury immediately. 
We would anticipate the same response in the NCE but include a 5-day 
reporting window in recognition that reporting an injury within 24 
hours is not always feasible, especially because the areas where bears 
are being reintroduced are very remote, and individuals may be in the 
backcountry without access to telephones or internet.
    Comment 2: Electronic comment submitted via Regulations.gov (FWS-
R1-ES-2023-0074-12199) on November 12, 2023, from the American Forest 
Resource Council. The commenter indicated that the nonlethal incidental 
take reporting requirements due to `habitat modification resulting from 
otherwise lawful activities' are impractical and should be exempted 
from reporting.
    Agency Response to Comment 2: We did not intend for the general 
reporting requirements for nonlethal take to apply to incidental take 
in the form of harm via habitat modification; rather, we are requiring 
reporting when lethal or nonlethal take occurs as a result of direct 
interactions with the grizzly bear (e.g., through self-defense, 
deterrence, conflict management, or vehicle collision, etc.) and have 
clarified that nonlethal incidental take reporting is not required.
    Comment 3: Electronic comment submitted via Regulations.gov (FWS-
R1-ES-2023-0074-12015) on November 12, 2023, from the Washington Forest 
Protection Association. The commenter indicated that the nonlethal 
incidental take reporting requirements due to `habitat modification 
resulting from otherwise lawful activities' are impractical and should 
be exempted from reporting.
    Agency Response to Comment 3: We did not intend for the general 
reporting requirements for nonlethal take to apply to incidental take 
in the form of harm via habitat modification; rather, we are requiring 
reporting when lethal or nonlethal take occurs as a result of direct 
interactions with the grizzly bear (e.g., through self-defense, 
deterrence, conflict management, or vehicle collision, etc.) and have 
clarified that nonlethal incidental take reporting is not required.
    As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on 
any aspect of this information collection, including:
    (1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for 
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including 
whether or not the information will have practical utility;
    (2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection 
of information, including the validity of the methodology and 
assumptions used;
    (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the 
information to be collected; and
    (4) How the agency might minimize the burden of the collection of 
information on those who are to respond, including through the use of 
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological 
collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., 
permitting electronic submission of response.
    Comments that you submit in response to this rulemaking are a 
matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, 
email address, or other personal identifying information in your 
comment, you should be aware that your entire comment--including your 
personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any 
time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal 
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we 
will be able to do so.
    Send your written comments and suggestions on this information 
collection by the date indicated in DATES to the Service Information 
Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, MS: PRB/
PERMA (JAO), 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803 (mail); or 
by email to [email protected]. Please reference OMB Control Number 
1018-0199 in the subject line of your comments.

National Environmental Policy Act

    In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(NEPA), we have prepared, jointly with NPS, a final EIS to describe the 
impacts of restoring grizzly bears to the NCE and establishment of the 
restored population as experimental and managed in accordance with this 
final rule, see 89 FR 20469 (March 23, 2024). The final EIS evaluated 
options for a regulatory framework, including a rule consistent with 
section 10(j) of the Act, for the reintroduction and management of 
grizzly bears in part of the species' historical range in Washington. 
The final EIS analyzed potential environmental impacts that may result 
from two action alternatives and the no-action alternative and includes 
relevant and reasonable measures that could avoid or mitigate potential 
impacts.

Government-to-Government Relationship With Tribes

    In accordance with the President's memorandum of April 29, 1994 
(Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal 
Governments; 59 FR 22951), E.O. 13175 (Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments), and the Department of the Interior's 
manual at 512 DM 2, we readily acknowledge our responsibility to 
communicate meaningfully with federally recognized Tribes on a 
government-to-government basis. In accordance with Secretary's Order 
3206 of June 5, 1997 (American Indian Tribal Rights, Federal-Tribal 
Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered Species Act), we readily 
acknowledge our responsibilities to work directly with Tribes in 
developing programs for healthy ecosystems, to acknowledge that Tribal 
lands are not subject to the same controls as Federal public lands, to 
remain sensitive to Indian culture, and to make information available 
to Tribes.
    Throughout the development of this final rule, we sought the input 
of Tribal governments near the final release sites as well as Tribal 
governments near the potential source populations in the NCDE and GYE. 
In collaboration with

[[Page 37021]]

the NPS, we extended an invitation for government-to-government 
consultation to all federally recognized Tribes in the NEP area and 
formally met with Tribes that requested government-to-government 
consultation. Corresponding with the start of the EIS process in 
November 2022, all federally recognized Tribes in Washington and the 
Nez Perce Tribe in Idaho were invited to consult on grizzly bear 
recovery and the draft EIS assessing options to restore grizzly bears 
to the NCE. An invitation to consult specifically on the development of 
the 10(j) rule was sent to all federally recognized Tribes in 
Washington in February 2023. Invitations to consult were also sent in 
March 2023 to Tribal governments near potential source populations in 
the NCDE and GYE, including in the States of Colorado, Kansas, Montana, 
Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.
    Corresponding with the release of the proposed rule and draft EIS 
in September 2023, notification of the publication of the documents and 
invitations to consult were sent to all federally recognized Tribes in 
Washington, as well as Tribal governments near potential source 
populations in the NCDE and GYE, including in the States of Colorado, 
Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and 
Wyoming. We remain available to meet with other Tribes that request 
government-to-government or informal consultation and will fully 
consider information received through the consultation process as we 
implement this final rule.

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use (E.O. 13211)

    Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of 
energy effects when undertaking certain actions. This final rule is not 
expected to significantly affect energy supplies, distribution, and 
use. Therefore, this action is not a significant energy action, and no 
statement of energy effects is required.

References Cited

    A complete list of all references cited in this final rule is 
available upon request from our Washington Fish and Wildlife Office 
(see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) or online at https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2023-0074.

Authors

    The primary authors of this final rule are staff of the Service's 
Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, along with staff of the Service's 
Grizzly Bear Recovery Program (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

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

Final Regulation Promulgation

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

PART 17--ENDANGERED AND THREATENED WILDLIFE AND PLANTS

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

    Authority:  16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 1531-1544; and 4201-4245, 
unless otherwise noted.


0
2. Amend Sec.  17.11 paragraph (h) by revising the entry for ``Bear, 
grizzly'' under MAMMALS in the List of Endangered and Threatened 
Wildlife to read as follows:


Sec.  17.11  Endangered and threatened wildlife.

* * * * *
    (h) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Listing citations
           Common name              Scientific name        Where listed          Status         and applicable
                                                                                                     rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Mammals
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Bear, grizzly...................  Ursus arctos         U.S.A.,              T                 32 FR 4001, 3/11/
                                   horribilis.          conterminous                           1967;
                                                        (lower 48) States,                    35 FR 16047, 10/13/
                                                        except where                           1970;
                                                        listed as an                          40 FR 31734, 7/28/
                                                        experimental                           1975;
                                                        population.                           72 FR 14866, 3/29/
                                                                                               2007;
                                                                                              75 FR 14496, 3/26/
                                                                                               2010;
                                                                                              82 FR 30502, 6/30/
                                                                                               2017;
                                                                                              84 FR 37144, 7/31/
                                                                                               2019;
                                                                                              50 CFR 17.40(b)
                                                                                               \4d\.
Bear, grizzly [Bitterroot XN]...  Ursus arctos         U.S.A. (portions of  XN                65 FR 69624, 11/17/
                                   horribilis.          ID and MT; see                         2000; 50 CFR
                                                        Sec.   17.84(l)).                      17.84(l)\10j\.
Bear, grizzly [North Cascades     Ursus arctos         U.S.A. (WA, except   XN                89 FR [INSERT
 XN].                              horribilis.          the portion of                         Federal Register
                                                        northeastern                           PAGE WHERE THE
                                                        Washington defined                     DOCUMENT BEGINS],
                                                        by the Kettle                          5/3/2024;
                                                        River from the                        50 CFR
                                                        international                          17.84(y)\10j\.
                                                        border with
                                                        Canada, downstream
                                                        to the Columbia
                                                        River to its
                                                        confluence with
                                                        the Spokane River,
                                                        then upstream on
                                                        the Spokane River
                                                        to the WA-ID
                                                        border; see Sec.
                                                        17.84(y)).
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


0
3. Amend Sec.  17.84 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (l) introductory text and paragraph (l)(1); and
0
b. Adding paragraph (y).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  17.84  Species-specific rules--vertebrates.

* * * * *
    (l) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)--Bitterroot nonessential 
experimental population.
    (1) Where does this rule apply? (i) The rule in this paragraph (l) 
applies to the designated Bitterroot Grizzly Bear Experimental 
Population Area (Experimental Population Area), which is found within 
the species' historic range and is defined in paragraph (l)(1)(ii) of 
this section.

[[Page 37022]]

    (ii) The boundaries of the Experimental Population Area are 
delineated by U.S. 93 from its junction with the Bitterroot River near 
Missoula, Montana, to Challis, Idaho; Idaho 75 from Challis to Stanley, 
Idaho; Idaho 21 from Stanley to Lowman, Idaho; State Highway 17 from 
Lowman to Banks, Idaho; Idaho 55 from Banks to New Meadows, Idaho; U.S. 
95 from New Meadows to Coeur d'Alene, Idaho; Interstate 90 from Coeur 
d'Alene, Idaho, to its junction with the Clark Fork River near St. 
Regis, Montana; the Clark Fork River from its junction with Interstate 
90 near St. Regis to its confluence with the Bitterroot River near 
Missoula, Montana; and the Bitterroot River from its confluence with 
the Clark Fork River to its junction with U.S. Highway 93, near 
Missoula, Montana (See map at the end of this paragraph (l)).
* * * * *
    (y) Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis)--North Cascades 
nonessential experimental population.
    (1) Purpose. The regulations in this paragraph (y) set forth the 
provisions of a rule to establish an experimental population of grizzly 
bears. The Service finds that establishment of an experimental 
population of grizzly bears as described in this paragraph (y) will 
further the conservation of the species.
    (2) Determinations. The grizzly bears identified in this paragraph 
(y) constitute a nonessential experimental population (NEP) under Sec.  
17.81(c)(2). These grizzly bears will be managed in accordance with the 
provisions of this rule within the boundaries of the NEP area as 
identified in paragraph (y)(4) of this section. After our initial 
release of one or more grizzly bears into the NEP area, any grizzly 
bears found within the NEP area will be considered a member of the NEP.
    (3) Definitions. Key terms used in this paragraph (y) have the 
following definitions:
    Authorized agency means a Federal, State, or Tribal agency 
designated by the Service in a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to 
assist in implementing all or part of the specified actions in this 
paragraph (y).
    Demonstrable and ongoing threat refers to a grizzly bear actively 
chasing or attacking livestock or lingering in close proximity to 
livestock following a depredation.
    Depredation means the confirmed killing or wounding of lawfully 
present livestock by one or more grizzly bears. The Service or an 
authorized agency must confirm grizzly bear depredation on lawfully 
present livestock. Livestock trespassing on Federal, State, or private 
lands are not considered lawfully present.
    Deterrence means an intentional action to haze, disrupt, or annoy a 
grizzly bear to move out of close proximity to people or property to 
promote human safety, prevent conflict, or protect property and that 
does not cause death or lasting bodily injury to the grizzly bear.
    Domestic animal means an individual of an animal species that has 
been selectively bred over many generations to enhance specific traits 
for their use by humans, including for use as a pet or livestock.
    Federal, State, or Tribal authority means an employee of a State, 
Federal, or federally recognized Indian Tribal government who, as part 
of their official duties, normally handles large carnivores and is 
trained and/or experienced in immobilizing, marking, and handling 
grizzly bears.
    Grizzly bear involved in conflict means a grizzly bear that has 
caused 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 substantial human injury or loss 
of human life.
    Human-occupied areas means any structures or areas currently used 
or inhabited by humans (e.g., homes, residential areas, occupied 
campgrounds or trailheads, job sites).
    In the act of attacking means the actual biting, wounding, 
grasping, or killing of livestock (including working dogs) by a grizzly 
bear.
    Lasting bodily injury refers to 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.
    Livestock means cattle, sheep, pigs, horses, mules, goats, domestic 
bison, alpacas, llamas, donkeys, and working dogs but not poultry, 
feral dogs, or domestic dogs (working or otherwise) that are not in 
close proximity to human-occupied areas or to lawfully present 
livestock.
    Threat to human safety means a grizzly bear that exhibits 
aggressive (i.e., nondefensive) behavior towards humans.
    (A) Grizzly bear presence alone does not constitute a threat to 
human safety.
    (B) Grizzly bears less than 2 years of age with no history of food-
conditioning are not considered a threat to human safety.
    Working dog means a herding or guard dog that is actively herding 
or guarding in close proximity to human-occupied areas or to lawfully 
present livestock.
    (4) Where is the grizzly bear North Cascades NEP? (i) The grizzly 
bear NEP area includes Washington State except the portion of 
northeastern Washington defined by the Kettle River from the 
international border with Canada, downstream to the Columbia River, to 
its confluence with the Spokane River, then upstream on the Spokane 
River to the Washington-Idaho border. The area shown in figure 1 to 
paragraph (y)(4) of this section will remain designated as the 
experimental population area unless the Service determines in a future 
rulemaking that:
    (A) The reintroduction has not been successful, in which case the 
NEP boundaries might be altered or the regulations in this paragraph 
(y) might be removed; or
    (B) The grizzly bear is recovered and delisted in accordance with 
the Act.
    (ii) Management Area A of the grizzly bear North Cascades NEP 
includes the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, Okanogan-Wenatchee 
National Forest, and Colville National Forest north of Interstate 90 
and west of Washington State Route 97, as well as the North Cascades 
National Park Service complex. Management Area A will be the primary 
area for restoration of grizzly bears and will serve as core habitat 
for survival, reproduction, and dispersal of the NEP.
    (iii) Management Area B of the grizzly bear North Cascades NEP 
includes the Mount Baker Snoqualmie National Forest and Okanogan-
Wenatchee National Forest south of Interstate 90, Gifford Pinchot 
National Forest, and Mount Rainier National Park. Management Area B 
also includes the Colville National Forest and Okanogan-Wenatchee 
National Forest lands east of Washington State Route 97 within the 
experimental population boundary. Management Area B includes areas that 
may be used for natural movement and/or dispersal by grizzly bears and 
that have a lower potential for human-bear conflicts.
    (iv) Management Area C of the grizzly bear North Cascades NEP 
comprises all non-Federal lands within the North Cascades Ecosystem 
Recovery Zone and

[[Page 37023]]

all other lands outside of or not otherwise included in Management 
Areas A and B within the NEP boundary. Management Area C contains large 
areas that may be incompatible with grizzly bear presence due to high 
levels of private land ownership and associated development and/or 
potential for bears to become involved in conflicts with resultant bear 
mortality, although some areas within this management area are capable 
of supporting grizzly bears and grizzly bears may occur there.
    (v) Map of the NEP area and associated management areas for the 
grizzly bear in the North Cascades Ecosystem follows:

Figure 1 to Paragraph (y)(4)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03MY24.003

    (5) What take of the grizzly bear is allowed in Management Area A 
of the North Cascades NEP area? The exceptions to take prohibitions 
described in paragraphs (y)(5)(i) through (viii) of this section apply 
in Management Area A:
    (i) Defense of life. Any person may take a grizzly bear in self-
defense or in defense of other persons, based on a good-faith belief 
that the actions taken were to protect the person from bodily harm. 
Such taking must be reported as described in paragraph (y)(8) of this 
section.
    (ii) Deterrence. Any person may take a grizzly bear for the purpose 
of deterrence (see definition in paragraph (y)(3)) of this section, 
under the provisions set forth in this paragraph (y)(5)(ii):
    (A) Once a grizzly bear has moved out of close proximity, 
deterrence is unlikely to be effective and must cease.
    (B) Any deterrence action must not cause lasting bodily injury or 
death to the grizzly bear.
    (C) Deterrence must be by acceptable techniques, which include non-
projectile auditory deterrents, visual stimuli/deterrents, vehicle 
threat pressure, and noise-making projectiles. Unacceptable deterrence 
methods include screamers/whistlers, rubber bullets/batons, and bean 
bag and aero sock rounds. For more information about appropriate 
nonlethal deterrents, contact the Service for the most current Service-
approved guidelines.
    (D) A person may not bait, stalk, or pursue a grizzly bear for the 
purposes of deterrence. Pursuit is defined as deterrence carried out 
beyond 200 yards (183 m) of a human-occupied area or lawfully present 
livestock.
    (E) Any person who deters a grizzly bear must use discretion and 
act safely and responsibly.
    (iii) Incidental take. (A) Except as provided in paragraph 
(y)(5)(iii)(B) of this section, take of a grizzly bear is allowed if it 
is incidental to (i.e., unintentional and not the purpose of) an 
otherwise lawful activity and is not due to negligent conduct.
    (B) Take of a grizzly bear resulting from U.S. Forest Service 
actions on National Forest System lands in Management Area A that is 
incidental to otherwise lawful activity is allowed if the U.S. Forest 
Service has maintained its `no net loss' agreement and implemented food 
storage restrictions throughout National Forest System lands in 
Management Area A.
    (iv) Take under permits. Any person with a valid permit issued 
under Sec.  17.32 by the Service may take a grizzly bear pursuant to 
the terms of the permit.
    (v) Take under section 6 of the Act. Any State conservation agency 
may take a grizzly bear under section 6(c) of the Act as described in 
Sec.  17.31.

[[Page 37024]]

    (vi) Research and recovery actions. With prior approval of the 
Service, an authorized agency as defined in paragraph (y)(3) of this 
section may take a grizzly bear if such action is necessary:
    (A) For scientific purposes;
    (B) To aid a sick or injured grizzly bear, including euthanasia if 
the grizzly bear is unlikely to survive or poses an immediate threat to 
human safety;
    (C) To salvage a dead specimen that may be useful for scientific 
study;
    (D) To dispose of a dead specimen; or
    (E) To aid in law enforcement investigations involving the grizzly 
bear.
    (vii) Removal of grizzly bears involved in conflict. With prior 
approval of the Service, a grizzly bear involved in conflict in the NEP 
area may be taken by an authorized agency, including by lethal removal, 
but only if:
    (A) It is not reasonably possible to otherwise eliminate the threat 
by nonlethal deterrence or live-capturing and releasing the grizzly 
bear unharmed in a remote area agreed to by the Service, the Washington 
Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the applicable land management 
agency; and
    (B) The taking is done in a humane manner (with compassion and 
consideration for the bear and minimizing pain and distress) by a 
Federal, State, or Tribal authority of an authorized agency.
    (viii) Relocation of a grizzly bear. With prior approval from the 
Service, an authorized agency may live-capture one or more grizzly 
bears and transport and release them in a remote location agreed to by 
the Service, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the 
applicable land managing agency:
    (A) For a grizzly bear involved in conflict;
    (B) To prevent unnatural use of food materials that have been 
reasonably secured from the bear or unnatural use of anthropogenic 
foods;
    (C) After aggressive (i.e., not defensive) behavior toward humans 
results in injury to a human or constitutes a demonstrable immediate or 
potential threat to human safety;
    (D) As a preemptive action to prevent a conflict that appears 
imminent or in an attempt to prevent habituation of bears; or
    (E) For any other conservation purpose for the grizzly bear as 
determined by the Service.
    (ix) Reporting requirements. Any take pursuant to this paragraph 
(y)(5) resulting in lasting injury or death of a grizzly bear must be 
reported as indicated in paragraph (y)(8) of this section.
    (6) What take of the grizzly bear is allowed in Management Area B 
of the North Cascades NEP area? Grizzly bears in Management Area B will 
be accommodated through take exceptions described in paragraph 
(y)(6)(i) of this section, in addition to those take exceptions allowed 
in Management Area A as set forth in paragraph (y)(5) of this section. 
``Accommodated'' means a grizzly bear in Management Area B will not be 
disturbed unless it demonstrates a threat to human safety or to protect 
property.
    (i) Conditioned lethal take. The Service may issue prior written 
authorization allowing an individual to kill a depredating grizzly bear 
within 200 yards (183 m) of legally present livestock. Such 
authorizations will be valid for 5 days, but the Service may extend the 
authorization of lethal take an additional 5 days if additional grizzly 
bear depredations or injuries to livestock occur and circumstances 
indicate that the offending bear can be identified. Such authorizations 
will be issued only if:
    (A) A depredation has been confirmed by the Service or authorized 
agency;
    (B) The Service or an authorized agency determines it is not 
reasonably possible to otherwise eliminate the threat by deterrence or 
live-capturing and releasing the grizzly bear unharmed;
    (C) The taking is done in a humane manner (i.e., showing compassion 
and consideration for the bear and minimizing pain and distress);
    (D) The taking is reported as indicated in paragraph (y)(8) of this 
section; and
    (E) The grizzly bear carcass and any associated collars or ear tags 
are surrendered to the Service.
    (7) What take of the grizzly bear is allowed in Management Area C 
of the North Cascades NEP area? In addition to the take exceptions 
described in paragraph (y)(7)(i) of this section, all take exceptions 
allowed in Management Areas A and B as set forth in paragraphs (y)(5) 
and (6) of this section are also allowed in Management Area C of the 
NEP.
    (i) Conditioned lethal take. (A) The Service may issue prior 
written authorization allowing an individual to kill a grizzly bear in 
Management Area C when deemed necessary for human safety or to protect 
property. Such authorizations will be valid for 5 days, may be reissued 
by the Service if deemed warranted, and will be issued only if:
    (1) The Service or authorized agency determines that a grizzly bear 
presents a demonstrable and ongoing threat to human safety or to 
lawfully present livestock, domestic animals, crops, beehives, or other 
property and that it is not reasonably possible to otherwise eliminate 
the threat by nonlethal deterrence or live-capturing and releasing the 
grizzly bear unharmed;
    (2) The individual requesting the written authorization is the 
landowner, livestock producer, or designee (e.g., an employee or 
lessee);
    (3) The taking is done in a humane manner;
    (4) The taking is reported as indicated in paragraph (y)(8) of this 
section; and
    (5) The carcass and any associated collars or ear tags are 
surrendered to the Service.
    (B) Any individual may take (injure or kill) a grizzly bear in the 
act of attacking livestock on private lands (i.e., nonpublic lands) 
under the provisions set forth in this paragraph (y)(7)(i)(B):
    (1) The individual is the landowner or livestock producer or a 
designee (e.g., an employee or lessee).
    (2) Any grizzly bear taken is reported to the Service or authorized 
agency within 24 hours.
    (3) The carcass of any grizzly bear and the surrounding area is not 
disturbed to preserve physical evidence of the attack.
    (4) 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.
    (5) There is no evidence of excessive unsecured attractants (e.g., 
carcass piles or bone yards) or of intentional feeding or baiting of 
grizzly bears or wildlife.
    (8) What are the reporting requirements for take of grizzly bears 
in the North Cascades NEP? (i) Lethal take. Any grizzly bear that is 
killed by an individual under the provisions of this paragraph (y) must 
be reported within 24 hours to the Service's Washington Fish and 
Wildlife Office special reporting hotline: (360) 800-7960. Any grizzly 
bear that is killed by a Federal, State, or Tribal authority of an 
authorized agency under the provisions of this paragraph (y) must be 
reported within 24 hours by following the reporting instructions as 
described in the authorized agency's MOU and included in an annual 
report to the Service.
    (ii) Nonlethal take resulting in injury. Any direct take of a 
grizzly bear by an individual under the provisions of this paragraph 
(y) that does not result in death of a grizzly bear but causes lasting 
bodily injury must be reported within 5 calendar days of occurrence to 
the Service's Washington Fish and Wildlife Office special reporting 
hotline: (360) 800-7960. Any direct take of a grizzly bear by a 
Federal, State, or Tribal

[[Page 37025]]

authority of an authorized agency under the provisions of this 
paragraph (y) that does not result in death of a grizzly bear but 
causes lasting bodily injury must be reported within 5 calendar days of 
occurrence by following the reporting instructions as described in the 
authorized agency's MOU and included in an annual report to the 
Service. Indirect incidental take, such as harm to a grizzly bear 
resulting from habitat modification, does not need to be reported under 
this provision.
    (9) What take of the grizzly bear is not allowed in the North 
Cascades NEP area? (i) Other than expressly provided by the regulations 
in this paragraph (y), all take is prohibited and considered a 
violation of section 9 of the Act. Take of a grizzly bear within the 
NEP area must be reported as set forth in paragraph (y)(8) of this 
section.
    (ii) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, 
ship, import, or export, by any means whatsoever, any grizzly bear or 
part thereof from the NEP taken in violation of this paragraph (y) or 
in violation of applicable Tribal or State laws or regulations or the 
Act.
    (iii) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit 
another to commit, or cause to be committed, any take of the grizzly 
bear, except as expressly allowed in paragraphs (y)(5) through (7) of 
this section.
    (iv) To avoid illegally shooting a grizzly bear, persons lawfully 
engaged in hunting and shooting activities must correctly identify 
their target before shooting. The act of taking a grizzly bear that is 
wrongfully identified as another species is not considered incidental 
take and is not allowed under this rule and may be referred to 
appropriate authorities for prosecution.
    (v) Any grizzly bear or grizzly bear part taken legally in 
accordance with the regulations in this paragraph (y) must be turned 
over to the Service unless otherwise authorized by the Service in 
writing.
    (10) How will the effectiveness of the grizzly bear restoration 
effort be monitored? The Service will monitor grizzly bears in the 
North Cascades NEP annually and will evaluate the status of grizzly 
bears in the NEP in conjunction with the Service's species status 
assessments and status reviews of the grizzly bear. Evaluations in the 
Service's status reviews will include, but not be limited to, a review 
of management issues, grizzly bear movements, demographic rates, causes 
of mortality, project costs, and progress toward establishing a 
population.

Stephen Guertin,
Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-09136 Filed 5-2-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P