Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules 4097 

adopt a regional HCP, numerous 

individual permit applications have 

been reviewed by the Service. The 

petition does not provide substantial 

information to support their claim that 

take is occurring as a result of local 

governments that are not requiring 

Federal permits. Further, the petition 

does not identify a clear link between 

the claim and the need to reclassify the 

species to endangered status. 

The 2003 petition cites the Ocala 

National Forest as an example of the 

inadequacies of regulatory programs, 

citing a 31 percent drop in the number 

of scrub-jays from the early 1980s to the 

early 2000s. (Cox 1987; USFS 2002). We 

contend, however, that the survey 

methodologies cited in these two 

studies were different from one another 

and cannot be compared to demonstrate 

a drop in scrub-jay numbers. Further, no 

substantial information was presented 

by the petitioner that population 

declines on Federal lands in Florida are 

placing the scrub-jay in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Finally, both the 2002 and 2003 

petitions contend that the scrub-jay 

recovery plan is in need of revision. 

Recovery plans are not regulatory 

documents; therefore, this claim is not 

relevant to this factor. Further, the 

petitions do not provide substantial 

information that as a result of the lack 

of revision to the scrub-jay recovery 

plan, the scrub-jay is now in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. We note, however, 

that the recovery plan is being revised. 

State Regulatory Process 

The 2003 petition’s contention that 

Florida law does not protect scrub-jays 

from habitat destruction is not different 

from that addressed in the 1987 final 

rule. In addition, while the information 

that a new process has been adopted by 

FWC for classifying species as 

endangered, threatened, or species of 

special concern is factual, according to 

the most recent list of imperiled species 

for the State of Florida (FWC 2004), the 

scrub-jay is still listed as threatened. 

The petition provides no substantial 

information that indicates as a result of 

the existing State laws, the scrub-jay is 

now in danger of extinction throughout 

all or a significant portion of its range. 

E. Other Natural or Manmade Factors 

Affecting the Species Continued 

Existence 

Information Provided in the Petitions 

Both the 2002 and 2003 petitions 

claim that the fire regime in scrub 

habitat has been altered, which has 

negatively affected scrub-jays (TNC 

2001). Scrub-jay habitat, if not 

continuously managed, can quickly 

become population sinks for scrub-jays, 

creating difficulties for land managers 

and negatively impacting scrub-jays 

(Breininger and Carter 2003; Breininger 

and Oddy 2004). Throughout the 

northern portion of the species’ range, 

the petitioners attribute population 

declines of scrub-jays to scrub 

fragmentation and degradation, due 

primarily to widespread fire 

suppression (Cox et al. 1994). In 

addition, the 2003 petition claims that 

a previous model for the scrub-jay (Root 

1998) may have been too optimistic, 

because the possibility that certain 

kinds of impacts of environmental noise 

(such as loud sounds) on scrub-jays was 

ignored (Heino and Sabadell 2003). 

Evaluation of Information in the 

Petitions 

We share opinions provided in both 

the 2002 and 2003 petitions regarding 

the negative effects to scrub-jays from 

fire suppression (Breininger and Carter 

2003; Breininger and Oddy 2004). 

However, fire suppression was 

considered a threat to the scrub-jay 

when the species was first listed as 

threatened in 1987 (52 FR 20715). The 

petitions provided no substantial 

information that indicates as a result of 

fire suppression, the scrub-jay is now in 

danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range. 

The work presented by Heino and 

Sabadell (2003) indicates that ignoring 

the effects of environmental noise on 

scrub-jays in population viability 

analysis can result in serious biases to 

a model. However, the petitioner did 

not provide substantial information that 

by not considering environmental noise, 

the scrub-jay is now in danger of 

extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range. 

Finding 

We have reviewed the petitions and 

literature cited in the petitions, and we 

have evaluated that information in 

relation to other pertinent literature. 

After this review and evaluation, we 

find the petitions do not present 

substantial scientific information to 

indicate that reclassification of the 

Florida scrub-jay from threatened to 

endangered may be warranted at this 

time. Although we will not be 

commencing a status review in response 

to these petitions, we will continue to 

monitor the species’ population status 

and trends, potential threats, and 

ongoing management actions that might 

be important with regard to the 

conservation of the scrub-jay across its 

range. 

We encourage interested parties to 

continue to gather data that will assist 

with the conservation of the species. If 

you wish to provide information 

regarding scrub-jays, you may submit 

your information or materials to the 

Field Supervisor, Jacksonville Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES section). 

References Cited 

A complete list of all references cited 

herein is available, upon request, from 

the Jacksonville Fish and Wildlife Office 

(see ADDRESSES section). 

Author 

The primary author of this notice is 

Dawn Zattau, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Jacksonville Field Office (see 

ADDRESSES section). 

Authority 

The authority for this action is section 

4 of the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: January 13, 2006. 

Matt Hogan, 

Acting Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–551 Filed 1–24–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

RIN 1018–AT38 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Designating the Greater 

Yellowstone Ecosystem Population of 

Grizzly Bears as a Distinct Population 

Segment; Removing the Yellowstone 

Distinct Population Segment of Grizzly 

Bears From the Federal List of 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; Notice of public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

location and time of a public hearing to 

receive public comments on the 

proposal to establish a distinct 

population segment (DPS) of the grizzly 

bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) for the 

greater Yellowstone Ecosystem and 

surrounding area and to remove the 

Yellowstone DPS from the List of 

Threatened and Endangered Wildlife. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS
4098 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 16 / Wednesday, January 25, 2006 / Proposed Rules 

DATES: We will consider comments on 

this proposed rule received until the 

close of business on February 15, 2006. 

A public hearing will be held February 

9, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: If you wish to comment on 

the proposal, you may submit your 

comments and materials concerning this 

proposal by any one of several 

methods—

1. You may submit written comments 

to the Grizzly Bear Recovery 

Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, University Hall 309, University 

of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812. 

2. You may hand deliver written 

comments to our office at the address 

given above. 

3. You may send comments by 

electronic mail (e-mail) to 

FW6_grizzly_yellowstone@fws.gov. See 

the ‘‘Public Comments Solicited’’

section below for file format and other 

information about electronic filing. 

Comments and materials received, as 

well as supporting documentation used 

in preparation of this proposed action, 

will be available for inspection after the 

close of the public comment period, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours, at the above address. 

We will hold an additional public 

hearing from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. on 

February 9, 2006, at Hilton Garden Inn, 

2023 Commerce Way, Bozeman, 

Montana 59715. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Christopher Servheen, Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Coordinator, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (see ADDRESSES), 

telephone (406) 243–4903. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On November 17, 2005, the Service 

published a proposal to establish a DPS 

of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos 

horribilis) for the greater Yellowstone 

Ecosystem and surrounding area and to 

remove the Yellowstone DPS from the 

List of Threatened and Endangered 

Wildlife (70 FR 69854). This proposal 

announced four open houses and one 

public hearing in early-to mid-January. 

We are scheduling an additional public 

hearing in Bozeman, Montana, before 

the close of the public comment period 

(see ADDRESSES). 

The purpose of the public hearing is 

to provide additional opportunity for 

the public to comment on this complex 

proposal. Public hearings are the only 

method for comments and data to be 

presented verbally for entry into the 

public record of this rulemaking and for 

our consideration during our final 

decision. Comments and data also can 

be submitted in writing or 

electronically, as described in our 

November 17, 2005, proposal (70 FR 

69854, November 17, 2005) and in the 

ADDRESSES section above. 

Public Comments Solicited 

We intend that any final action 

resulting from this proposed rule will be 

as accurate and as effective as possible. 

Therefore, we solicit comments or 

suggestions from the public, other 

concerned governmental agencies, the 

scientific community, industry, or any 

other interested party concerning this 

proposed rule. Generally, we seek 

information, data, and comments 

concerning the status of grizzly bears in 

the Yellowstone Ecosystem. 

Specifically, we seek documented, 

biological data on the status of the 

Yellowstone Ecosystem grizzly bears 

and their habitat, and the management 

of these bears and their habitat. 

Submit comments as indicated under 

ADDRESSES. If you wish to submit 

comments by e-mail, please avoid the 

use of special characters and any form 

of encryption. Please also include your 

name and return address in your e-mail 

message. 

Our practice is to make comments, 

including names and home addresses of 

respondents, available for public review 

during regular business hours. 

Individual respondents may request that 

we withhold their home address from 

the rulemaking record, which we will 

honor to the extent allowable by law. 

There also may be circumstances in 

which we would withhold from the 

rulemaking record a respondent’s 

identity, as allowable by law. If you 

wish us to withhold your name or 

address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comment. However, we will not 

consider anonymous comments. We 

will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Comments and other information 

received, as well as supporting 

information used to write this rule, will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the above address. In making a 

final decision on this proposed rule, we 

will take into consideration the 

comments and any additional 

information we receive. Such 

communications may lead to a final rule 

that differs from this proposal. 

Authority 

The authority for this action is the 

Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.). 

Dated: January 19, 2006. 

Thomas O. Melius, 

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 06–741 Filed 1–23–06; 12:26 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with PROPOSALS