[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3411-3414]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-00873]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0203; FXES11130600000-223-FF06E00000]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Establishment of
an Experimental Population of the Grizzly Bear in the Bitterroot
Ecosystem of the States of Idaho and Montana; Environmental Impact
Statement
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notification of intent, announcement of public meetings, and
request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), intend to
prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, to evaluate the potential
environmental impacts of restoring the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos
horribilis) to the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE), a portion of the species'
historical range, in Montana and Idaho. We previously issued a final
EIS, record of decision, and final rule under section 10(j) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, to reintroduce grizzly
bears to the BE as a nonessential experimental population. However,
conditions have changed, so we intend to reevaluate a range of options
to restore the grizzly bear to the BE during the development of a new
EIS. We invite input from other Federal and State agencies, Tribes,
nongovernmental organizations, private-sector businesses, and members
of the public on the scope of the EIS, alternatives to our proposed
approaches for assisting in the restoration of the grizzly bear in the
BE, and the pertinent issues that we should address in the EIS. We also
invite the public and interested parties to attend virtual public
scoping meetings.
DATES:
Comment submission: We will accept comments received or postmarked
on or before March 18, 2024. Comments submitted electronically using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES, below) must be received
by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on the closing date.
Public scoping meetings: We will host at least two virtual public
scoping meetings to share information regarding the development of the
draft EIS and allow the public to ask questions regarding the scope of
issues and the proposed alternatives. We will announce the dates,
times, and details of these virtual public scoping meetings
[[Page 3412]]
through local and regional media, press releases, emails, social media,
and on our website at https://www.fws.gov/bitterrooteis.
ADDRESSES:
Comment submission: You may submit comments by one of the following
methods:
(1) Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the Search box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2023-0203,
which is the docket number for this action. Then, click on the Search
button. You may submit a comment by clicking on ``Comment.''
(2) By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2023-0203, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
MS: PRB/3W, 5275 Leesburg Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-3803.
We request that you send comments only by the methods described
above. We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Information Requested, below, for more information).
Availability of supporting materials: Supporting materials, such as
the previous final EIS (Service 2000a, entire), the previous record of
decision (ROD) (Service 2000b, entire), and the species status
assessment report (Service 2023, entire), are available on the
Service's website at https://www.fws.gov/bitterrooteis and at https://www.regulations.gov at Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0203.
Public scoping meetings: We will host at least two virtual public
scoping meetings to share information regarding the development of the
draft EIS and allow the public to ask questions regarding the scope of
issues and the proposed alternatives. Although we will not solicit oral
comments at these virtual public meetings, written comments may be
submitted at any time during the scoping process. See Comment
submission, above, for information on how to submit comments. We will
announce the details regarding how to participate in these virtual
public scoping meetings through local and regional media, press
releases, emails, social media, and on our website at https://www.fws.gov/bitterrooteis.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hilary Cooley, Grizzly Bear Recovery
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Grizzly Bear Recovery
Office, University Hall, Room #309, University of Montana, Missoula, MT
59812; telephone 406-243-4903. 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: We announce our intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) to evaluate a range of
alternatives to restore the grizzly bear to the Bitterroot Ecosystem
(BE) in Montana and Idaho. Alternatives that may be considered include
implementing the existing nonessential experimental population (NEP)
regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50
CFR 17.84(l) (see 65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000), removing the BE NEP
regulations from the CFR with or without additional management to aid
natural recolonization, or designating a new experimental population
for the BE under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). This notification of intent
initiates the scoping process, which informs the development of the
EIS.
Information Requested
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
as amended (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), we are conducting a public
scoping process to invite input on the range of alternatives and issues
to be addressed during the preparation of the EIS. Scoping is an early
and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed
and identifying issues that should be considered in selecting an
alternative for implementation. Therefore, we request comments or
information from other government agencies, Native American Tribes, the
scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties
concerning this action. We particularly seek comments concerning:
(1) The alternatives that we should consider for restoring grizzly
bears to the BE;
(2) Other possible action alternatives that we should consider that
meet our purpose and need and are technically and economically
feasible;
(3) Potential effects that the preliminary action alternatives
could have on other aspects of the human environment, including
ecological, aesthetic, historic, cultural, economic, social,
environmental justice, or health effects;
(4) Approaches for managing grizzly bears in the BE, particularly
regarding potential conflicts with human activities;
(5) Considerations for grizzly bear connectivity to the BE; and
(6) Other information relevant to grizzly bear restoration in the
BE and its impacts on the human environment.
We will consider the comments that we receive during the
development of the draft EIS. Please include sufficient information
with your submission (such as scientific journal articles or other
publications) to allow us to verify any scientific or commercial
information you include. Submissions merely stating support for, or
opposition to, the action under consideration without providing
supporting information do not provide substantial information necessary
to support a determination. You may submit your comments and materials
by one of the methods listed in ADDRESSES, above. We request that you
send comments only by the methods described in ADDRESSES.
If you submit information via https://www.regulations.gov, your
entire submission--including any personal identifying information--will
be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy
that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the
top of your document that we withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. We
will post all hardcopy submissions on https://www.regulations.gov.
Comments and materials we receive, as well as supporting
documentation, will be available for public inspection on https://www.regulations.gov.
Background
The grizzly bear is currently listed as a threatened species in the
lower-48 States under the ESA. The BE is one of six recovery zones
identified in the 1993 Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan (USFWS 1993, entire).
A recovery zone is an area large enough and of sufficient habitat
quality to support a recovered grizzly bear population. The goal of the
recovery plan is to reduce threats to the grizzly bear in each
ecosystem so that the species can be considered for delisting due to
recovery (USFWS 1993, p. 33). The grizzly bear is functionally
extirpated in the BE, although there have been recent instances of
individual grizzly bears dispersing into the ecosystem. Restoring a
viable grizzly bear population to the BE would support the overall
recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States.
Grizzly bears once ranged throughout most of the Western United
States.
[[Page 3413]]
However, grizzly bear abundance and distribution were greatly
diminished by excessive human-caused mortality and loss of habitat.
Since 1975, grizzly bear populations have increased, and the species'
range has expanded, in the Northern Continental Divide, Greater
Yellowstone, Cabinet-Yaak, and Selkirk ecosystems. Expansion of the
abundance and distribution of the species increases the redundancy,
representation, and resiliency of grizzly bears within the lower-48
States and furthers conservation of the species. Our species status
assessment provides a full account of the life history, ecology, range,
and historical and current distribution of grizzly bears in the lower-
48 States (Service 2023, entire).
The BE is one of the largest contiguous blocks of federally managed
land in the lower-48 States. The BE contains multiple wilderness areas,
which make up the largest block of wilderness habitat in the Rocky
Mountains south of Canada. Grizzly bear recovery requires large blocks
of relatively undisturbed land and remote areas away from human
disturbance. Due to its large wilderness areas, the BE offers favorable
conditions to restore a healthy population of grizzly bears and to
improve the long-term survival and recovery of grizzly bears in the
lower-48 States.
In November 2000, we released a final EIS (Service 2000a, entire),
a record of decision (ROD) (Service 2000b, entire), and a final rule
under section 10(j) of the ESA (65 FR 69624, November 17, 2000) to
reintroduce grizzly bears into the BE as an NEP. The ROD described that
grizzly bears would be restored to the BE and that their management
would be guided by recommendations from a citizen management committee
(Service 2000b, entire). In 2001, we published a notice of intent
proposing to reevaluate our ROD and select the ``no action''
alternative as the preferred alternative (66 FR 33623, June 22, 2001)
and a proposed rule to remove the section 10(j) designation for the BE
and the accompanying regulations in 50 CFR 17.84(l) (66 FR 33620, June
22, 2001). However, we never finalized these proposals, and the NEP
designation for the BE and the associated regulations remain in place.
Additionally, we did not take any action to implement the ROD
associated with the NEP designation; specifically, we did not
reintroduce grizzly bears to the BE, and we did not establish a citizen
management committee.
In November 2021, the Alliance for the Wild Rockies and Native
Ecosystems Council filed a lawsuit alleging that we failed to comply
with our 2000 final rule and ROD to designate an NEP in the BE and
unreasonably delayed completing our 2001 proposed rulemaking to rescind
the experimental population designation, in violation of NEPA and the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.). AWR et al. v.
Cooley et al., No. 9:21-cv-00136-DWM (D. Mont.). On March 15, 2023, the
district court ruled that the Service unreasonably delayed implementing
nondiscretionary actions in our ROD (Service 2000b, entire), in
violation of NEPA and the APA. The court ordered the Service to prepare
a supplemental EIS and, if warranted, a new ROD and final rule under
section 10(j) of the ESA. On April 26, 2023, the court issued an order
approving the Service's proposal to complete a new final EIS and ROD
within 43 months from the court's order (November 26, 2026).
Given the change in circumstances since our 2000 ROD (i.e., more
observations of grizzly bears naturally dispersing into the BE), and in
response to the court's order, we are now taking a fresh look at a
strategy for supporting restoration of grizzly bears in the BE.
NEPA Analysis of Section 10 Actions
NEPA requires Federal agencies to undertake an assessment of
environmental effects of any proposed action prior to making a final
decision and implementing the decision. NEPA also established the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which issued regulations
implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-
1508). The Service has regulatory authority under the ESA to manage the
conservation and recovery of federally listed species, including
creating rules and regulations and permitting legitimate activities
that would otherwise be prohibited by the ESA. Development of a section
10(j) rule under the ESA is a Federal action requiring review under
NEPA.
Consistent with CEQ guidance for implementing NEPA, we intend to
complete an EIS to consider approaches to restore the grizzly bear to
the BE. The EIS will address the potential environmental impacts of a
range of reasonable alternatives (including rulemaking actions) under
section 10 of the ESA. The potential environmental impacts assessed in
the EIS could include the effects on grizzly bears from management
measures; effects on other environmental resources such as other
federally listed species and cultural and Tribal resources; potential
socioeconomic effects, including impacts on economic activities such as
tourism and agriculture; and effects on a range of other resources
identified through internal and external scoping. We will address our
compliance with other applicable authorities in our NEPA review.
Purpose and Need for Agency Action
The purpose of our action is to restore a grizzly bear population
to the BE that: is demographically viable; is well distributed
throughout the BE; can increase and sustain itself at a recovered
level; is protected by regulations, policies, or guidelines that (a)
ensure grizzly bears and their habitats maintain long-term viability
and connectivity and (b) provide management flexibilities to foster
human social tolerance; and contributes to rangewide recovery of
grizzly bears in the lower-48 States.
This action is needed to comply with the April 26, 2023, order in
AWR et al. v. Cooley et al., No. 9:21-cv-00136-DWM (D. Mont.). This
action is also needed because the BE, one of six ecosystems identified
for the recovery of the grizzly bear in the lower-48 States (USFWS
1993, entire), is functionally extirpated. Although we previously
decided to reintroduce grizzly bears into the BE (Service 2000b,
entire), we have not implemented that decision. Since designating the
NEP in 2000, we have observed individual bears from other ecosystems
dispersing through the BE and adjacent areas with greater regularity,
particularly in the past several years. We now anticipate that a
population of grizzly bears (defined as two or more breeding females or
one female with two consecutive litters) may become established in the
BE through natural recolonization in the next 15 to 20 years.
Preliminary Alternatives
During the development of the draft EIS, we will consider a range
of reasonable alternatives, including a no action, a proposed action,
and preliminary alternatives. Our proposed action is to restore grizzly
bears in the BE. Potential preliminary alternatives will include the
following approaches: active reintroduction with or without designating
a new experimental population in the BE, actions to support natural
recolonization, actions to facilitate connectivity, or repealing or
revising the existing NEP designation. These approaches may be
considered separately or in any combination in the EIS.
Under our preliminary no action alternative, the status quo of
current grizzly bear management would continue as currently
implemented. We would not pursue reintroduction or changes to current
management practices.
[[Page 3414]]
Summary of Potential Expected Impacts
We expect that the alternatives could potentially restore a grizzly
bear population to the BE with varying success and in varying
timeframes. Potential impacts from implementing the alternatives may
include environmental impacts on fish and wildlife (including grizzly
bears), wilderness areas, visitor use and recreational experience,
public and employee safety, socioeconomics, and Tribal cultural and
related resources. We intend to explore these and other potential
expected impacts during the development of the draft EIS.
Anticipated Permits and Authorizations
We will comply with the ESA to evaluate potential impacts to
threatened and endangered species. We will fulfill the public
involvement requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act
(54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3). Information about
historic and cultural resources within the area potentially affected by
the alternatives will assist us in identifying and evaluating impacts
to such resources and consulting with affected Indian Tribes and the
State Historic Preservation Officer(s) on the potential for adverse
effects.
Anticipated Schedule for the EIS
We expect to make the draft EIS available for public review and
comment before the end of 2025. After public review and comment of the
draft, we expect to make the final EIS available to the public in the
fall of 2026. We then expect to issue a ROD by November 2026, pursuant
to a court-ordered timeline, and if applicable, would issue a
subsequent rulemaking under section 10(j) of the ESA soon after.
Responsibilities to Tribes
The Service has unique responsibilities to Tribes, including under
the National Historic Preservation Act (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.),
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 U.S.C. 1996), Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 U.S.C. 3001), and Religious
Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.); Executive
Order 13007, Indian Sacred Sites (61 FR 26771, May 29, 1996); Joint
Secretarial Order 3403, Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Indian
Tribes in the Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters (November 15,
2021) and Secretarial Order 3206, American Indian Tribal Rights,
Federal Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the ESA (June 5, 1997);
Director's Order 227, Fulfilling the Trust Responsibility to Tribes and
the Native Hawaiian Community, and Other Obligations to Alaska Native
Corporations and Alaska Native Organizations, in the Stewardship of
Federal Lands and Waters; and the Service's Native American Policy (510
FW 1).
We apply the term ``Tribal'' or ``Tribe(s)'' generally to federally
recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Tribal entities. The Service will
separately consult with Tribes on the proposals set forth in this
document. We will also ensure that those Tribes wishing to engage
directly in the NEPA process will have the opportunity to do so. As
part of this process, we will protect the confidential nature of any
consultations and other communications we have with Tribes, to the
extent permitted by the Freedom of Information Act and other laws.
References
A list of the references cited in this document is available at
https://www.regulations.gov in Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2023-0203.
Authors
The primary authors of this document are the staff members of the
Grizzly Bear Recovery Office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Authority
The authorities for this action are the Endangered Species Act of
1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Anna Mu[ntilde]oz,
Deputy Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2024-00873 Filed 1-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4333-15-P