Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower-48 States, 3763-3765 [2025-00325]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules
There are no known significant alternative
approaches to the proposed rule that would
accomplish the stated objectives of the rule
and further minimize any significant
economic impact of this proposed rule on
small entities, as the economic impact is not
anticipated to be significant.
The Regulatory Secretariat Division
has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration. A copy of the
IRFA may be obtained from the
Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD,
GSA, and NASA invite comments from
small business concerns and other
interested parties on the expected
impact of this proposed rule on small
entities.
DoD, GSA, and NASA will also
consider comments from small entities
concerning the existing regulations in
subparts affected by the rule in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested
parties must submit such comments
separately and should cite 5 U.S.C. 610
(FAR Case 2024–007), in
correspondence.
VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain any
information collection requirements that
require the approval of the Office of
Management and Budget under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501–3521).
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Part 16
Government procurement.
William F. Clark,
Director, Office of Government-wide
Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition
Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.
Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA
propose amending 48 CFR part 16 as set
forth below:
PART 16—TYPES OF CONTRACTS
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR
part 16 continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C.
chapter 4 and 10 U.S.C. chapter 137 legacy
provisions (see 10 U.S.C. 3016); and 51
U.S.C. 20113.
2. Amend section 16.505 by adding
paragraph (a)(10)(iv) to read as follows:
■
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
16.505
Ordering.
(a) * * *
(10) * * *
(iv) In accordance with 15 U.S.C.
644(r), a contracting officer’s decision to
set aside or not set aside an order for
small business concerns is an exercise
of discretion granted to agencies and not
a basis for protest. However, this does
not preclude the filing of a protest of
such an order if such a protest would
otherwise be authorized on a separate
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
3763
basis recognized in accordance with
paragraph (a)(10)(i) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
international calls to the point-ofcontact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. 2025–00616 Filed 1–14–25; 8:45 am]
Previous Federal Actions
Under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.; hereafter, ‘‘Act’’), the grizzly bear
(Ursus arctos horribilis) is currently
listed as threatened species in the
lower-48 States (40 FR 31734, July 28,
1975). We detail the original rulemaking
and our subsequent actions for the
species in our species status assessment
(SSA) report (Service 2024, pp. 74–76)
and summarize the relevant actions for
this finding below.
On June 30, 2017, we finalized a rule
to establish the Greater Yellowstone
Ecosystem (GYE) distinct population
segment (DPS) of the grizzly bear and
remove it from the Federal List of
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
(List) due to recovery (82 FR 30502).
However, in 2018, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Montana
vacated and remanded the 2017
delisting rule, putting the GYE grizzly
bear population back on the List (as
threatened) as part of the lower-48
States listed entity. As a result, the List
does not currently include an entry for
a GYE DPS. On March 30, 2021, we
completed a 5-year status review for the
grizzly bear in the lower-48 States in
which we concluded that the listed
entity should retain its status as a
threatened species under the Act
(Service 2021, entire).
On January 21, 2022, we received a
petition from the State of Wyoming
(petitioner) to revise the listed entity of
grizzly bear under the Act. The petition
requested that we: (1) establish a GYE
DPS; and (2) remove it from the List
(‘‘delist’’), asserting that the GYE DPS
did not meet the definition of an
endangered or threatened species. On
February 6, 2023, we published a 90-day
finding (88 FR 7658) that the petition
contained substantial information
indicating that establishing and
delisting a GYE DPS may be warranted.
This document and our supporting
species assessment form constitutes our
12-month finding on the January 21,
2022, petition to establish and delist a
GYE DPS of grizzly bear under the Act.
BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2022–0150;
FF09E21000–256–FXES11130900000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 12-Month Finding for the
Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem of the
Grizzly Bear in the Lower-48 States
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notification of finding.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to
establish and delist a Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) distinct
population segment (DPS) of the grizzly
bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the
lower-48 States. After a thorough review
of the best scientific and commercial
data available, we find that grizzly bears
in the petitioned DPS do not, on their
own, represent a valid DPS. Thus, we
find that the petitioned action to
establish and delist a GYE DPS is not
warranted at this time.
DATES: The finding in this document
was made on January 15, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The finding and the
supporting information that we
developed for this finding, including the
species status assessment report and
species assessment form, are available
on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R6–ES–2022–0150. Please submit
any new information, materials,
comments, or questions concerning this
finding to the appropriate person, as
specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery
Coordinator, Grizzly Bear Recovery
Office, telephone: 406–243–4903, email:
hilary_cooley@fws.gov. Individuals in
the United States who are deaf,
deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a
speech disability may dial 711 (TTY,
TDD, or TeleBraille) to access
telecommunications relay services.
Individuals outside the United States
should use the relay services offered
within their country to make
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we are required to
make a finding, within 12 months after
receiving any petition that we have
determined contains substantial
scientific or commercial information
indicating that the petitioned action
may be warranted, as to whether the
petitioned action is warranted, not
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
3764
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules
warranted, or warranted but precluded
by other pending proposals (known as a
‘‘12-month finding’’). We must publish
a notification of this 12-month finding
in the Federal Register.
This document announces the notwarranted finding on the petition for the
GYE grizzly bear population in
accordance with the regulations at 50
CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i). In this document,
we have also elected to include a
summary of the analysis on which this
finding is based. This supporting
information can be found on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2022–
0150 (see ADDRESSES, above). We
provide the full analysis, including our
rationale and the data on which the
finding is based, in the decisional file
for the petition and our subsequent
findings. The species assessment form
contains an explanation of why we
determined that grizzly bears in the
petitioned DPS do not, on their own,
represent a valid listable entity such
that the petitioned actions are not
warranted at this time. The following is
a summary of the documents containing
this full analysis.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Listable Entity Requirements
Under the Act, the term ‘‘species’’
includes any subspecies of fish or
wildlife or plants, and any distinct
population segment of any vertebrate
fish or wildlife which interbreeds when
mature (16 U.S.C. 1532(16)). To
interpret and implement the distinct
population segment (DPS) provisions of
the Act, the Service and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration published in the
Federal Register the Policy Regarding
the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate
Population Segments Under the
Endangered Species Act on February 7,
1996 (61 FR 4722) (DPS Policy). Under
the DPS Policy, we consider three
elements to determine whether to
classify a population of a vertebrate
species as a DPS: (1) the discreteness of
the population segment in relation to
the remainder of the species to which it
belongs; (2) the significance of the
population segment to the species to
which it belongs; and (3) the population
segment’s conservation status in relation
to the Act’s standard for listing,
delisting, or reclassification. The Policy
requires that a population segment meet
both the discreteness and significance
elements to be considered a valid DPS
(i.e., a valid listable entity) and only
then may we consider whether the DPS
warrants listing under the Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
Summary of Biological Information
The grizzly bear is a large, long-lived
mammal that occurs in a variety of
habitat types in portions of Idaho,
Montana, Washington, and Wyoming.
Grizzly bears are light brown to nearly
black and are so named for their
‘‘grizzled’’ coats with silver or golden
tips. Grizzly bears in the GYE
population and the lower-48 States need
access to large, intact blocks of land
with limited human influence that
provide cover, high-caloric foods, dens,
and areas for dispersal. The specific
quality and quantity of these resources
influence the ability of individual
grizzly bears to reproduce, grow, and
survive at different life stages and for
the GYE population to be resilient or to
withstand stochastic events (Service
2024, pp. 99–101). Our SSA report
provides our full account of the life
history, ecology, range, and historical
and current distribution for the grizzly
bear in the GYE population and the
lower-48 States (Service 2024, pp. 39–
73).
Summary of Information From the
Petition
The petitioner requests that we
establish a DPS for the GYE grizzly bear
population (GYE DPS). Specifically, the
petitioner requests that we establish a
GYE DPS within the same geographic
boundary that we established as a DPS
in our June 30, 2017, final rule (82 FR
30502), which was subsequently
vacated. The petitioner did not provide
a new geographic delineation for the
petitioned GYE DPS and instead
referenced the boundary for the GYE
DPS that we described in 2017
(hereafter, 2017 GYE DPS). In their
arguments to support delisting, the
petitioner indicates that the GYE grizzly
bear population’s range has expanded,
including a four-fold increase in the
occupied range since the time of listing
in 1975. The species assessment form
provides additional summary of the
information presented in the petition,
including a map of the petitioned 2017
GYE DPS.
Summary of Finding
In determining whether to recognize
the petitioned DPS as a valid listable
entity under the Act, we must base our
decision on the best scientific and
commercial data available. Since 2017,
the abundance, distribution, and
dispersal of grizzly bears within and
surrounding the GYE has increased.
New information supports the
petitioner’s claim that the GYE
population has increased in size and
distribution, so much so that grizzly
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
bears have dispersed and expanded
beyond the western boundary of the
2017 GYE DPS. The occupied range of
the grizzly bear in both the GYE and the
Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem
(NCDE) located to the north of the GYE,
has steadily expanded over time. From
2016 to 2022, occupied range in the
GYE increased by 4 percent (Dellinger et
al. 2023, pp. 22–23) and the NCDE
increased by 19 percent (Costello et al.
2023, p. 13). As a result, the distance
between these occupied ranges has
decreased and continues to shrink.
Models indicate that the GYE and NCDE
are currently only 98 kilometers (61
miles) apart, within grizzly bear
dispersal distance (Service 2024, p. 54).
In the June 30, 2017, final rule, we
stated that the DPS Policy does not
require absolute separation of one
population from another and that
occasional interchange does not
undermine the discreteness of potential
DPSs (82 FR 30502 at 30518). While we
still agree with this statement, the 2022
estimated occupied range of the GYE
population now extends beyond the
2017 GYE DPS western boundary. We
expect this trend to increase over time.
Additionally, as the populations
expand, individual grizzly bears are
dispersing into new areas outside the
estimated occupied range. Since 2017,
there have been 190 verified
observations of grizzly bears outside of
the current estimated occupied range of
grizzly bear populations in the lower-48
States. Currently, genetic studies have
confirmed that at least two grizzly bears
originating from the GYE population
have dispersed beyond the 2017 GYE
DPS border (IGBST, unpublished data).
We have also verified 86 observations of
grizzly bears outside of the 2017 GYE
DPS boundaries and within potential
connectivity pathways to the NCDE
(NCDE Management Zone 2 (NCDE
Subcommittee 2020, entire)) and to the
Bitterroot Ecosystem (Sells et al. 2023,
p. 6).
These occurrences outside of areas
considered occupied range are
becoming increasingly common,
particularly in areas immediately to the
north and west of the 2017 GYE DPS.
While in most cases the source
population of such grizzly bears is
unknown, a number of them likely
originated from the GYE population,
given their close proximity to the GYE.
The locations of these verified
observations reveal the leading edges of
grizzly bear expansion within and
between ecosystems (see Service 2024,
Fig. 1) (Dellinger et al. 2023, pp. 22–23).
With the increasing trends of population
growth and expansion over the last 7
years, we anticipate range expansion
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 15, 2025 / Proposed Rules
and dispersal events to continue under
current management, including the
protections of the Act, such that natural
connectivity between the NCDE
population and GYE population will
likely occur in the near future (Service
2024, p. 54).
To summarize, information provided
by the petitioner and the best scientific
and commercial data available indicate
that grizzly bear abundance,
distribution, and dispersal have
increased, and grizzly bears have
expanded beyond the 2017 GYE DPS
boundary. As a result, the petitioned
DPS identified in 2017 is no longer
based on the best scientific and
commercial data available and is
obsolete. As populations have grown
and expanded, grizzly bears have
dispersed beyond the 2017 GYE DPS
boundary, often into areas considered to
be previously unoccupied.
Under our DPS Policy, a population
segment of a vertebrate species may be
considered discrete if it satisfies either
of the following two conditions: (1) it is
markedly separated from other
populations of the same taxon as a
consequence of physical, physiological,
ecological, or behavioral factors
(quantitative measures of genetic or
morphological discontinuity may
provide evidence of this separation); or
(2) it is delimited by international
governmental boundaries within which
significant differences in control of
exploitation, management of habitat,
conservation status, or regulatory
mechanisms exist that are significant in
light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. In
determining whether the test for
discreteness has been met under the
DPS policy, we allow but do not require
genetic evidence to be used.
Although the DPS Policy does not
require absolute separation of one
population from another, (82 FR 30502,
June 30, 2017, p. 30518), the standard
for discreteness must allow us to
distinguish between the DPS and other
members of the species for purposes of
administering and enforcing the Act (61
FR 4722, February 7, 1996, p. 4724). As
summarized above, the best scientific
and commercial data available indicate
that the estimated occupied range of the
grizzly bear population in the GYE has
expanded since 2017. The NCDE
population has also expanded its range,
and the two populations are
increasingly closer in proximity. Due to
this expansion, which is expected to
continue in the future under current
management, including the protections
of the Act, we no longer consider the
2017 GYE DPS to be discrete, as grizzly
bears have dispersed and expanded to
such an extent that it is not markedly
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:26 Jan 14, 2025
Jkt 265001
separate from other members of the
taxon. Because grizzly bears within the
boundaries of the 2017 GYE DPS
described by the petitioner are not
markedly separated from other
populations of the taxon, it does not
meet the discreteness element in the
DPS Policy as a consequence of
physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors (61 FR 4722, February
7, 1996). Therefore, we find that grizzly
bears in the 2017 GYE DPS do not, on
their own, represent a valid DPS and we
therefore do not consider the status of
grizzly bears in this petitioned entity as
a separately listable entity under the
Act. Accordingly, we find that the
petitioned action to establish and delist
the GYE DPS is not warranted.
We are in the process of fully
evaluating the latest information
regarding the status of the grizzly bear
in the lower-48 States in a rulemaking
expected by January 31, 2026. This
rulemaking is pursuant to a settlement
agreement associated with the State of
Idaho’s petition to delist the grizzly bear
in the lower-48 States. That rulemaking,
to either remove or revise the currently
listed entity of the grizzly bear in the
lower-48 States, will fully evaluate the
best scientific and commercial data
available, which could include potential
DPSs, while considering potential
population segment’s conservation
status and Congress’s direction to
exercise DPSs sparingly and only when
the biological evidence indicates that
such action is warranted. The trends of
increasing distribution and dispersal
point to the need for a broader, holistic
evaluation at the rangewide level, which
will be completed as part of the
rulemaking already underway.
Consistent with the DPS Policy, that
analysis will require careful
consideration of the extent to which
formerly isolated populations are
connected, or likely to be connected,
and the need for connectivity to small
or isolated populations and unoccupied
recovery zones, given the best and most
recent biological data available that
support a durable recovered grizzly bear
in the lower-48 States.
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994,
peer review policy (59 FR 34270; July 1,
1994) and the Service’s August 22, 2016,
Director’s Memo on the Peer Review
Process, we solicited independent
scientific reviews of the information
contained in the SSA report for the
grizzly bear in the lower-48 States.
Results of this structured peer review
process can be found at https://
www.regulations.gov. We incorporated
the results of these reviews, as
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3765
appropriate, into the SSA report, which
is the scientific foundation for this
finding.
References Cited
A list of the references cited in this
petition finding is available in the
species assessment form, which is
available on the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov under Docket No.
FWS–R6–ES–2022–0150 (see
ADDRESSES, above).
Authors
The primary authors of this document
are staff members of the Grizzly Bear
Recovery Office, Ecological Services
Program.
Authority
The authority for this action is the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025–00325 Filed 1–14–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2024–0131;
FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000]
RIN 1018–BH71
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Designation of Critical
Habitat for the San Francisco BayDelta Distinct Population Segment of
the Longfin Smelt
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), propose to
designate critical habitat for the San
Francisco Bay-Delta distinct population
segment (DPS) of the longfin smelt
(Spirinchus thaleichthys), a fish species
from the San Francisco Bay estuary in
California, under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).
In total, approximately 91,630 acres
(37,082 hectares) in California fall
within the boundaries of the proposed
critical habitat designation. We also
announce the availability of an
economic analysis of the proposed
designation of critical habitat for the
species.
DATES: We will accept comments
received or postmarked on or before
March 17, 2025. Comments submitted
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15JAP1.SGM
15JAP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 9 (Wednesday, January 15, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3763-3765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-00325]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0150; FF09E21000-256-FXES11130900000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 12-Month Finding
for the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem of the Grizzly Bear in the Lower-
48 States
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of finding.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
12-month finding on a petition to establish and delist a Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) distinct population segment (DPS) of the
grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the lower-48 States. After a
thorough review of the best scientific and commercial data available,
we find that grizzly bears in the petitioned DPS do not, on their own,
represent a valid DPS. Thus, we find that the petitioned action to
establish and delist a GYE DPS is not warranted at this time.
DATES: The finding in this document was made on January 15, 2025.
ADDRESSES: The finding and the supporting information that we developed
for this finding, including the species status assessment report and
species assessment form, are available on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0150. Please submit
any new information, materials, comments, or questions concerning this
finding to the appropriate person, as specified under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery
Coordinator, Grizzly Bear Recovery Office, telephone: 406-243-4903,
email: [email protected]. Individuals in the United States who are
deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial
711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay
services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay
services offered within their country to make international calls to
the point-of-contact in the United States.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Previous Federal Actions
Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.; hereafter, ``Act''), the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos
horribilis) is currently listed as threatened species in the lower-48
States (40 FR 31734, July 28, 1975). We detail the original rulemaking
and our subsequent actions for the species in our species status
assessment (SSA) report (Service 2024, pp. 74-76) and summarize the
relevant actions for this finding below.
On June 30, 2017, we finalized a rule to establish the Greater
Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) distinct population segment (DPS) of the
grizzly bear and remove it from the Federal List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife (List) due to recovery (82 FR 30502). However, in
2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana vacated and
remanded the 2017 delisting rule, putting the GYE grizzly bear
population back on the List (as threatened) as part of the lower-48
States listed entity. As a result, the List does not currently include
an entry for a GYE DPS. On March 30, 2021, we completed a 5-year status
review for the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States in which we
concluded that the listed entity should retain its status as a
threatened species under the Act (Service 2021, entire).
On January 21, 2022, we received a petition from the State of
Wyoming (petitioner) to revise the listed entity of grizzly bear under
the Act. The petition requested that we: (1) establish a GYE DPS; and
(2) remove it from the List (``delist''), asserting that the GYE DPS
did not meet the definition of an endangered or threatened species. On
February 6, 2023, we published a 90-day finding (88 FR 7658) that the
petition contained substantial information indicating that establishing
and delisting a GYE DPS may be warranted. This document and our
supporting species assessment form constitutes our 12-month finding on
the January 21, 2022, petition to establish and delist a GYE DPS of
grizzly bear under the Act.
Background
Under section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we
are required to make a finding, within 12 months after receiving any
petition that we have determined contains substantial scientific or
commercial information indicating that the petitioned action may be
warranted, as to whether the petitioned action is warranted, not
[[Page 3764]]
warranted, or warranted but precluded by other pending proposals (known
as a ``12-month finding''). We must publish a notification of this 12-
month finding in the Federal Register.
This document announces the not-warranted finding on the petition
for the GYE grizzly bear population in accordance with the regulations
at 50 CFR 424.14(h)(2)(i). In this document, we have also elected to
include a summary of the analysis on which this finding is based. This
supporting information can be found on the internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-0150 (see
ADDRESSES, above). We provide the full analysis, including our
rationale and the data on which the finding is based, in the decisional
file for the petition and our subsequent findings. The species
assessment form contains an explanation of why we determined that
grizzly bears in the petitioned DPS do not, on their own, represent a
valid listable entity such that the petitioned actions are not
warranted at this time. The following is a summary of the documents
containing this full analysis.
Listable Entity Requirements
Under the Act, the term ``species'' includes any subspecies of fish
or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any
vertebrate fish or wildlife which interbreeds when mature (16 U.S.C.
1532(16)). To interpret and implement the distinct population segment
(DPS) provisions of the Act, the Service and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration published in the Federal Register the Policy
Regarding the Recognition of Distinct Vertebrate Population Segments
Under the Endangered Species Act on February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4722) (DPS
Policy). Under the DPS Policy, we consider three elements to determine
whether to classify a population of a vertebrate species as a DPS: (1)
the discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder
of the species to which it belongs; (2) the significance of the
population segment to the species to which it belongs; and (3) the
population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's
standard for listing, delisting, or reclassification. The Policy
requires that a population segment meet both the discreteness and
significance elements to be considered a valid DPS (i.e., a valid
listable entity) and only then may we consider whether the DPS warrants
listing under the Act.
Summary of Biological Information
The grizzly bear is a large, long-lived mammal that occurs in a
variety of habitat types in portions of Idaho, Montana, Washington, and
Wyoming. Grizzly bears are light brown to nearly black and are so named
for their ``grizzled'' coats with silver or golden tips. Grizzly bears
in the GYE population and the lower-48 States need access to large,
intact blocks of land with limited human influence that provide cover,
high-caloric foods, dens, and areas for dispersal. The specific quality
and quantity of these resources influence the ability of individual
grizzly bears to reproduce, grow, and survive at different life stages
and for the GYE population to be resilient or to withstand stochastic
events (Service 2024, pp. 99-101). Our SSA report provides our full
account of the life history, ecology, range, and historical and current
distribution for the grizzly bear in the GYE population and the lower-
48 States (Service 2024, pp. 39-73).
Summary of Information From the Petition
The petitioner requests that we establish a DPS for the GYE grizzly
bear population (GYE DPS). Specifically, the petitioner requests that
we establish a GYE DPS within the same geographic boundary that we
established as a DPS in our June 30, 2017, final rule (82 FR 30502),
which was subsequently vacated. The petitioner did not provide a new
geographic delineation for the petitioned GYE DPS and instead
referenced the boundary for the GYE DPS that we described in 2017
(hereafter, 2017 GYE DPS). In their arguments to support delisting, the
petitioner indicates that the GYE grizzly bear population's range has
expanded, including a four-fold increase in the occupied range since
the time of listing in 1975. The species assessment form provides
additional summary of the information presented in the petition,
including a map of the petitioned 2017 GYE DPS.
Summary of Finding
In determining whether to recognize the petitioned DPS as a valid
listable entity under the Act, we must base our decision on the best
scientific and commercial data available. Since 2017, the abundance,
distribution, and dispersal of grizzly bears within and surrounding the
GYE has increased. New information supports the petitioner's claim that
the GYE population has increased in size and distribution, so much so
that grizzly bears have dispersed and expanded beyond the western
boundary of the 2017 GYE DPS. The occupied range of the grizzly bear in
both the GYE and the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE)
located to the north of the GYE, has steadily expanded over time. From
2016 to 2022, occupied range in the GYE increased by 4 percent
(Dellinger et al. 2023, pp. 22-23) and the NCDE increased by 19 percent
(Costello et al. 2023, p. 13). As a result, the distance between these
occupied ranges has decreased and continues to shrink. Models indicate
that the GYE and NCDE are currently only 98 kilometers (61 miles)
apart, within grizzly bear dispersal distance (Service 2024, p. 54).
In the June 30, 2017, final rule, we stated that the DPS Policy
does not require absolute separation of one population from another and
that occasional interchange does not undermine the discreteness of
potential DPSs (82 FR 30502 at 30518). While we still agree with this
statement, the 2022 estimated occupied range of the GYE population now
extends beyond the 2017 GYE DPS western boundary. We expect this trend
to increase over time.
Additionally, as the populations expand, individual grizzly bears
are dispersing into new areas outside the estimated occupied range.
Since 2017, there have been 190 verified observations of grizzly bears
outside of the current estimated occupied range of grizzly bear
populations in the lower-48 States. Currently, genetic studies have
confirmed that at least two grizzly bears originating from the GYE
population have dispersed beyond the 2017 GYE DPS border (IGBST,
unpublished data). We have also verified 86 observations of grizzly
bears outside of the 2017 GYE DPS boundaries and within potential
connectivity pathways to the NCDE (NCDE Management Zone 2 (NCDE
Subcommittee 2020, entire)) and to the Bitterroot Ecosystem (Sells et
al. 2023, p. 6).
These occurrences outside of areas considered occupied range are
becoming increasingly common, particularly in areas immediately to the
north and west of the 2017 GYE DPS. While in most cases the source
population of such grizzly bears is unknown, a number of them likely
originated from the GYE population, given their close proximity to the
GYE. The locations of these verified observations reveal the leading
edges of grizzly bear expansion within and between ecosystems (see
Service 2024, Fig. 1) (Dellinger et al. 2023, pp. 22-23). With the
increasing trends of population growth and expansion over the last 7
years, we anticipate range expansion
[[Page 3765]]
and dispersal events to continue under current management, including
the protections of the Act, such that natural connectivity between the
NCDE population and GYE population will likely occur in the near future
(Service 2024, p. 54).
To summarize, information provided by the petitioner and the best
scientific and commercial data available indicate that grizzly bear
abundance, distribution, and dispersal have increased, and grizzly
bears have expanded beyond the 2017 GYE DPS boundary. As a result, the
petitioned DPS identified in 2017 is no longer based on the best
scientific and commercial data available and is obsolete. As
populations have grown and expanded, grizzly bears have dispersed
beyond the 2017 GYE DPS boundary, often into areas considered to be
previously unoccupied.
Under our DPS Policy, a population segment of a vertebrate species
may be considered discrete if it satisfies either of the following two
conditions: (1) it is markedly separated from other populations of the
same taxon as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological, or
behavioral factors (quantitative measures of genetic or morphological
discontinuity may provide evidence of this separation); or (2) it is
delimited by international governmental boundaries within which
significant differences in control of exploitation, management of
habitat, conservation status, or regulatory mechanisms exist that are
significant in light of section 4(a)(1)(D) of the Act. In determining
whether the test for discreteness has been met under the DPS policy, we
allow but do not require genetic evidence to be used.
Although the DPS Policy does not require absolute separation of one
population from another, (82 FR 30502, June 30, 2017, p. 30518), the
standard for discreteness must allow us to distinguish between the DPS
and other members of the species for purposes of administering and
enforcing the Act (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996, p. 4724). As
summarized above, the best scientific and commercial data available
indicate that the estimated occupied range of the grizzly bear
population in the GYE has expanded since 2017. The NCDE population has
also expanded its range, and the two populations are increasingly
closer in proximity. Due to this expansion, which is expected to
continue in the future under current management, including the
protections of the Act, we no longer consider the 2017 GYE DPS to be
discrete, as grizzly bears have dispersed and expanded to such an
extent that it is not markedly separate from other members of the
taxon. Because grizzly bears within the boundaries of the 2017 GYE DPS
described by the petitioner are not markedly separated from other
populations of the taxon, it does not meet the discreteness element in
the DPS Policy as a consequence of physical, physiological, ecological,
or behavioral factors (61 FR 4722, February 7, 1996). Therefore, we
find that grizzly bears in the 2017 GYE DPS do not, on their own,
represent a valid DPS and we therefore do not consider the status of
grizzly bears in this petitioned entity as a separately listable entity
under the Act. Accordingly, we find that the petitioned action to
establish and delist the GYE DPS is not warranted.
We are in the process of fully evaluating the latest information
regarding the status of the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States in a
rulemaking expected by January 31, 2026. This rulemaking is pursuant to
a settlement agreement associated with the State of Idaho's petition to
delist the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States. That rulemaking, to
either remove or revise the currently listed entity of the grizzly bear
in the lower-48 States, will fully evaluate the best scientific and
commercial data available, which could include potential DPSs, while
considering potential population segment's conservation status and
Congress's direction to exercise DPSs sparingly and only when the
biological evidence indicates that such action is warranted. The trends
of increasing distribution and dispersal point to the need for a
broader, holistic evaluation at the rangewide level, which will be
completed as part of the rulemaking already underway. Consistent with
the DPS Policy, that analysis will require careful consideration of the
extent to which formerly isolated populations are connected, or likely
to be connected, and the need for connectivity to small or isolated
populations and unoccupied recovery zones, given the best and most
recent biological data available that support a durable recovered
grizzly bear in the lower-48 States.
Peer Review
In accordance with our July 1, 1994, peer review policy (59 FR
34270; July 1, 1994) and the Service's August 22, 2016, Director's Memo
on the Peer Review Process, we solicited independent scientific reviews
of the information contained in the SSA report for the grizzly bear in
the lower-48 States. Results of this structured peer review process can
be found at https://www.regulations.gov. We incorporated the results of
these reviews, as appropriate, into the SSA report, which is the
scientific foundation for this finding.
References Cited
A list of the references cited in this petition finding is
available in the species assessment form, which is available on the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov under Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2022-
0150 (see ADDRESSES, above).
Authors
The primary authors of this document are staff members of the
Grizzly Bear Recovery Office, Ecological Services Program.
Authority
The authority for this action is the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Martha Williams,
Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2025-00325 Filed 1-14-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P
