Overview
Title
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Grizzly Bear Listing on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife With a Revised Section 4(d) Rule
Agencies
ELI5 AI
The government wants to make sure grizzly bears in some parts of the U.S. are taken care of and safe, so they've made a plan to watch over them closely and protect the places they live. They're asking people to share their thoughts on this plan before they make any big decisions.
Summary AI
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing changes to the listing and management of grizzly bears in the lower 48 states. They intend to redefine the grizzly bear's geographic boundaries as a distinct population segment (DPS) and retain its threatened status under the Endangered Species Act. The proposal aims to promote conservation by clarifying areas suitable for grizzly bears, including revisions to protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act. Public comments on the proposed changes will be accepted until March 17, 2025, along with multiple public informational meetings and hearings scheduled in early 2025.
Abstract
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or FWS), propose to revise the listing of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) in the lower-48 States under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act or ESA). After a review of the best scientific and commercial data available, we affirm that the currently listed grizzly bear population meets our requirements for consideration as a distinct population segment (DPS) under the Act and that the population remains likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future. However, we find that clarification of the geographic areas included within the DPS is warranted. Therefore, we propose to revise the listing by defining the boundaries of the contiguous U.S. grizzly bear DPS. The revised entity would include all geographic portions of the currently listed lower-48 entity that contain suitable habitat and where grizzly bears are currently found or are likely to be found in the future as populations recover. This area includes all of Washington and portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. The contiguous U.S. grizzly bear DPS would retain threatened species status. This proposed rule would promote conservation of the grizzly bear by ensuring that the listing under the Act explicitly reflects the areas where grizzly bears currently occur and are likely to occur in the future. Clarifying that the listing does not include areas outside of the grizzly bear's historical range will assist as recovery proceeds. We are also proposing to revise protective regulations for the grizzly bear issued under section 4(d) of the Act.
Keywords AI
Sources
AnalysisAI
The proposed changes to the listing and management of grizzly bears in the contiguous United States come from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). The document lays out a plan to redefine grizzly bears as a distinct population segment (DPS) under the Endangered Species Act while maintaining their threatened status. To achieve this, the FWS proposes setting clearer geographic boundaries for where grizzly bears are found and likely to be found in the future as populations recover. These changes are supported by revised protective regulations under section 4(d) of the Act, which dictates specific protections and management interventions for the species.
Summary
The primary aim of this proposed rule is to enhance the conservation efforts for grizzly bears in the lower 48 states by ensuring that their listing as a threatened species explicitly covers appropriate habitats where they currently or potentially reside. It intends to offer clear guidance on areas suitable for them, which include regions within Washington, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Additionally, the proposal calls for revised protective regulations to more accurately reflect the current and expected distribution of grizzly bears. Public input is being sought, with the deadline for comments set for March 2025, accompanied by multiple informational meetings and hearings to foster public engagement.
Significant Issues and Concerns
The document is technical and complex, making it potentially challenging for a general audience to fully grasp without specialized knowledge. Terms like "serious injury" and "threat to human safety" require precise definitions to avoid ambiguous interpretation. Certain aspects, such as obtaining prior authorization from the Service for conflict removals, might lead to bureaucratic delays, impacting the timeliness of necessary management actions.
Further, there is a lack of clear criteria for important terms like “excessive unsecured attractants” and “demonstrable and ongoing threat,” which could lead to inconsistent enforcement. Additionally, the segments defining "areas important for recovery or connectivity" are reliant on additional planning documents, which may not be easily accessible or understandable to the public.
Broad Public Impact
For the general public, the document highlights the government's ongoing efforts to aid in the recovery of a species iconic to American wildlife. Those who live in areas near grizzly habitats may perceive both increased protections and potential increases in population as beneficial for environmental health but may also harbor concern over increased human-bear interactions. Public participation in the process, via the detailed instructions for submitting comments, is encouraged but could be made simpler to enhance broader involvement.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Specific stakeholders, including government agencies, landowners, conservation groups, and tribal authorities, might feel a stronger impact from these proposals. Government agencies involved in wildlife management will need to navigate the complexities of the proposed regulations, which could demand additional coordination and administrative efforts.
Private landowners and ranchers in affected areas might face tighter controls and conditions regarding their interactions with grizzly bears, with potential implications for livestock management. Conservation organizations may see this as a positive step toward ensuring long-term viability of grizzly populations, while tribal authorities could find the proposed "collaboration with Tribes" clause lacking in clarity, considering historical contexts and existing tribal laws.
Conclusion
The proposed rule intends to bolster conservation efforts for grizzly bears by refining their protection status and clarifying rules about where and how they should be protected. While aiming to enhance the ecological health of habitats these animals occupy, the proposal involves complex regulatory details that could refine interactions among agencies, the public, and conservation groups. Though well-intentioned, these steps may require considerable adjustments from all stakeholders as they work together to manage and protect this important species.
Issues
• The language used in the proposed 4(d) rule and the regulatory framework is technical and complex, which may be difficult for the general public to understand without specialized knowledge.
• Definitions section in the protective regulations (e.g., 'serious injury', 'threat to human safety') could use more precise language to avoid ambiguity and ensure consistent enforcement.
• The provision that agencies must obtain prior authorization from the Service for conflict removals may create bureaucratic delays that could impact timely management responses.
• Lack of clear criteria for determining what constitutes 'excessive unsecured attractants' or 'demonstrable and ongoing threat,' which might lead to inconsistent interpretation and enforcement.
• Potential ambiguity in terms such as 'areas important for recovery or connectivity,' as this terminology relies on further specification in planning documents, which may not be well-publicized or understandable to the public.
• The provisions excluding certain deterrence methods as 'unacceptable' are specific but can be confusing for non-experts without guidance on enforcement or available resources for further clarification.
• The complexity of the exceptions to the take prohibitions, particularly regarding conditions under which authorized agencies may act, may make it difficult for stakeholders to navigate compliance requirements.
• The need for proposed rule revisions and extensive cross-referencing throughout the document might hinder accessibility and understanding for readers not familiar with related documents or processes.
• Public meetings and comment submission instructions are detailed but could benefit from simplification to enhance public engagement and participation, particularly concerning electronic submissions.
• The use of terms such as 'collaboration with Tribes' needs clarity on what constitutes effective and consistent collaboration, considering the historical context and sensitivity around Tribal law compliance.