Q&As: Grizzly bear lower 48 revision and 4(d) rule

These Questions and Answers are in reference to the January 8, 2025 Proposed Updates to Grizzly Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and Management announcement. Additional details available on the project webpage.

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

What is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposing? 

• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing to revise the Endangered Species Act listing for grizzly bears in the lower 48 states by designating a single distinct population segment (DPS) and the 4(d) rule for management flexibility. Under this proposal, grizzly bears within the DPS geographic boundary will remain listed as a threatened species under the ESA.

Why is the Service revising the grizzly bear listing?

• The 1993 recovery plan identified six recovery zones for grizzly bears, and the goal was to delist each zone individually as it achieved recovery. Since then, grizzly bear distribution has expanded significantly, leading the Service to conclude that recovery zones are no longer discrete. For example, grizzly bears in the Northern Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE) and the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem (GYE) are now within dispersal distance, with documented occurrences between the two areas. Bears have also moved from the NCDE into the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE), although none are known to have established residency. Additionally, there have been instances of individual bears moving between the NCDE and the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (CYE) — including one documented case of reproduction—and between the CYE and the Selkirk Ecosystem (SE).
  
  As bears continue to expand, populations are becoming less separate and distinct, requiring a more comprehensive approach to recovery. This increased movement between recovery areas and into connectivity areas demonstrates the remarkable success of conservation and management efforts. These achievements are largely attributed to the commitments of federal, state, and Tribal agencies, which have played key roles in grizzly bear monitoring and management for over 40 years, and private landowners, who support coexistence with grizzly bears. However, these developments also emphasize the need to implement and maintain conservation measures to encourage continued grizzly bear movement across these regions. 
  
  The recovery of smaller populations, such as those in the CYE and SE, and extirpated populations, like the BE, depends on the contributions of larger, more resilient populations, such as those in the NCDE and GYE. Maintaining all recovery zones within a single distinct population segment will accelerate recovery in remaining ecosystems and enhance the overall viability of grizzly bears.
  
  For the first time since listing, the Service has documented successful reproduction by a male grizzly bear that migrated from the NCDE to the CYE. This milestone reflects the progress achieved under the ESA and highlights the potential for continued connectivity to enhance the resiliency of the CYE and strengthen the viability of a single DPS. Similarly, multiple grizzly bears have been observed moving between the NCDE and BE in recent years, suggesting that recolonization of the BE may occur. This approach would further bolster the viability of the species and support the eventual delisting of a unified DPS.
  
  Courts have urged the Service to consider the interconnectedness of grizzly bear populations. This revision incorporates lessons learned from prior litigation while balancing the need for management flexibility with implementing conservation measures. The goal is to achieve the species' long-term, durable recovery and eventual delisting.
  

What is a distinct population segment? 

• The ESA allows for the listing or delisting of a species, a subspecies, or a distinct population segment of vertebrate species (i.e., mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians). A DPS is a vertebrate population or group of populations that is discrete from other populations of the species and significant to the species as a whole. Learn more about the Service’s Distinct Population Segment policy here.

What is the boundary of the proposed DPS?

• The proposed grizzly bear DPS includes all of Washington and portions of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. It encompasses all six grizzly bear recovery zones in the U.S., connectivity areas between the recovery zones, designated experimental population boundaries in Washington and around the BE, and areas where dispersing bears may likely be found in the foreseeable future. The shapefile is available on the project webpage.

How will the proposed changes affect protections for grizzly bears?

• The proposed rule maintains protections for grizzly bears in the lower 48 as a threatened species under the ESA within the designated DPS. It removes ESA protections outside the newly proposed DPS, where grizzly bears do not occur and are not expected to inhabit in the future. The proposed 4(d) rule provides additional management flexibility for agencies and private landowners. 

What is a section 4(d) rule of the ESA, and why is it being revised for grizzly bears in the lower 48?

• A section 4(d) rule is a tool available to species listed as threatened. It is one of many tools in the ESA for tailoring protections to the most critical issues affecting threatened species. The proposed 4(d) rule recognizes the need for added flexibility and responsiveness on private lands and areas where grizzly bear populations are impacting private landowners and livestock producers while continuing efforts to promote conservation and tolerance in those areas crucial to delisting grizzly bears in the lower 48 as a whole.
  

How does the Service plan to balance providing additional management tools with maintaining critical safeguards for grizzly bear connectivity and resiliency?

• The Service is committed to a collaborative approach and helping partner agencies, private landowners, and livestock producers by providing additional management tools through the proposed revised 4(d) rule. The Service does not view increased management tools and maintaining critical safeguards for connectivity and resiliency—both essential for delisting—as mutually exclusive.
  

What prior actions has the Service taken regarding changes to grizzly bear status?

• Previously, the Service considered the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem population of grizzly bears to be recovered and attempted to delist this population in 2007 and again in 2017. Federal courts overturned both attempts. This updated proposal to revise the listing for grizzly bears builds on the latest science and seeks to address the prior court rulings to move towards sustainable long-term recovery and eventual delisting.

What role will state, federal, and Tribal agencies play in grizzly bear management under the proposed rule?

• State, federal, and Tribal agencies have played a key role in on-the-ground management of grizzly bears for over 40 years, dedicating significant resources towards monitoring and management. Due to these efforts, grizzly bear populations in the U.S. have increased significantly, from a few hundred when listed to over 2,000. Under this proposed rule, state, federal, and Tribal agencies will continue to play a key role in grizzly bear management, with expanded management flexibilities in many areas. 
  

How are existing 10(j) population designations, such as in the North Cascades, impacted by this proposal?

• This proposal does not affect the two nonessential experimental populations of grizzly bears in the North Cascades and BE. Any changes to those population-specific regulations would require separate rulemaking processes with opportunities for public review and comment. Information regarding the North Cascades and Bitterroot EIS projects can be found on their respective web pages.

What are the next steps after the proposed rule is published?

• The Service will open a 60-day public comment period, beginning when the proposed rule is published in the Federal Register in the coming days. The public, stakeholders, and partners can provide feedback during this time. The Service will also hold a series of virtual and in-person public information sessions and hearings for feedback. The Service will then review all input before finalizing the rule, with a final decision by January 2026, as required by a court-ordered settlement agreement.

How can the public participate in the decision-making process for this proposal?

• The public can participate by submitting comments during the 60-day public comment period, which will open upon publication in the Federal Register in the coming days. The Service will host public information sessions in Idaho, Montana, Wyoming and a virtual session to gather feedback. The Service will post updates, documentation, and details for public comment on the project webpage at: https://fws.gov/grizzlyrulemaking.