Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices 33623

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Reevaluation of the Record of Decision

for the Final Environmental Impact

Statement and Selection of Alternative

for Grizzly Bear Recovery in the

Bitterroot Ecosystem

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

SUMMARY: A Final Environmental

Impact Statement (FEIS), published in

March 2000, evaluated a proposal to

establish an experimental population

rule and reintroduce grizzly bears into

the Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE) in eastcentral Idaho and western Montana. The

Preferred Alternative, selected in the

Record of Decision (ROD) published

November 17, 2000 (65 FR 69644), was

to establish a nonessential experimental

population of grizzlies in the BE under

section 10(j) of the Endangered Species

Act. A final rule to implement the

Preferred Alternative was published in

the Federal Register on November 17,

2000 (65 FR 69623), and is codified at

50 CFR 17.84(l). We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service), have

reevaluated our decision with respect to

grizzly bear recovery in the BE. This

change is based on the Service’s need to

prioritize its recovery activities for

grizzly bears, and the objections of

affected States to the reintroduction of

grizzly bears. We are now proposing to

select the No Action Alternative as our

Preferred Alternative. We are opening a

public comment period and, after

receipt and review of all comments, the

Service will make a final decision with

regard to this proposal.

DATES: Public comments will be

accepted in writing on or before August

21, 2001. We particularly request

written comments on (1) new

information on the impacts of the No

Action Alternative and (2) this proposal

to select the No Action alternative.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Assistant Regional

Director, Ecological Services, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Box 25486 DFC,

Denver, Colorado 80225. Comments also

may be mailed electronically to

FW6_grizzly@fws.gov. The Final EIS,

Record of Decision, and final rule are

available for viewing and downloading

at http://www.r6.fws.gov/endspp/

grizzly/. Comments and materials

received are available on request for

public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan Baker, Assistant Regional

Director, Ecological Services (see

ADDRESSES above) at telephone 303–

236–7400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

A Recovery Plan for the Grizzly Bear

was finalized in 1982. This plan called

for the evaluation of the SelwayBitterroot ecosystem as a potential

recovery area. It identified the Bitterroot

Ecosystem (BE) as a recovery area for

bears and states that bears are not

currently known to be present in that

ecosystem. We revised the Grizzly Bear

Recovery Plan in 1993 and in 1996

produced the Bitterroot Ecosystem

Recovery Plan Chapter as an appendix.

This Chapter called for the

reintroduction of a small number of

grizzly bears into the BE as an

experimental, nonessential population

under section 10(j) of the Act and the

preparation of a special rule and an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

on this proposal. In general, establishing

a nonessential experimental population

may result in more flexible management

practices to address potential negative

impacts or concerns during a species’

recovery. The Chapter identified a

tentative long-term recovery objective of

approximately 280 grizzly bears for the

BE.

A Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS), published in March

2000 (see 65 FR 12570, March 9, 2000),

evaluated a proposal to establish an

experimental population rule and

reintroduce grizzly bears into the BE in

east-central Idaho and western Montana.

Six alternatives were discussed: (1)

Restoration of Grizzly Bears as a

Nonessential Experimental Population

with Citizen Management (Preferred

Alternative); (1A) Restoration of Grizzly

Bears as a Nonessential Experimental

Population with Service Management;

(2) Natural Recovery—The No Action

Alternative; (3) No Grizzly Bear

Alternative; (4) Restoration of Grizzly

Bears as a Threatened Population with

Full Protection of the Act and Habitat

Restoration; and (4A) Restoration of

Grizzly Bears as a Threatened

Population with Full Protection of the

Act and Service Management.

On November 13, 2000, the Service

signed the Record of Decision (ROD) on

the Final EIS, and selected the Preferred

Alternative (Alternative 1 in the Final

EIS) for implementation. This

alternative was the Restoration of

Grizzly Bears as a Nonessential

Experimental Population with Citizen

Management. Reintroduction could

result in grizzly bear recovery in the BE

in a minimum of 50 years. (See FEIS for

more detailed information). In order to

implement the Proposed Action

Alternative in the FEIS, the Service was

required to publish a regulation to

establish a nonessential experimental

population of grizzly bears under

section 10(j) of the Act. Section 10(j) of

the ESA says that the Secretary may

authorize the release of a population if

it will further recovery. Thus,

establishment of an experimental

population is a discretionary action.

The ROD identified the Proposed

Alternative as the best balance between

Service recovery goals and public needs

at that time. Failure to reestablish

grizzly bears in the BE does not

appreciably diminish the survival

probabilities of bears in the other

occupied ecosystems. However,

recovery of grizzly bears in the BE

would have added an additional

measure of security for the species over

the long term. In the ROD we said that

implementation of the Preferred

Alternative was contingent upon

adequate funding, so that the current

level of Service activities in other

grizzly bear recovery areas would not be

compromised. We also stated that bears

would be reintroduced in 2002 at the

earliest, again contingent upon available

funding.

Recovery Priorities

The Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan

identifies six ecosystems in the United

States as recovery areas for bears. Of

those, only two—the Northern

Continental Divide Ecosystem (NCDE)

and Yellowstone Ecosystem (YGBE)—

are believed to have stable or increasing

populations of grizzlies. Many people

believe that the population in

Yellowstone has met all of its recovery

criteria. We have not yet statistically

quantified the size and growth rates of

the NCDE population. Three other

ecosystems, the Cabinet-Yaak, Selkirk,

and North Cascades, have smaller bear

populations and a higher level of threats

than the NCDE and YGBE recovery

areas. In fact, there may not be a

permanent population of bears in the

section of the North Cascades Ecosystem

in the United States; however, bears

may occasionally move back and forth

from the adjacent Canadian section of

the Ecosystem. The status of bears in all

three of these ecosystems has been

evaluated recently and bears in all three

areas were found to warrant listing as

endangered, rather than their current

designation as threatened (66 FR 1295,

January 8, 2001). To date, no action to

change their status has occurred, due to

other higher priority actions in the

listing program. In the 1993 Grizzly Bear

33624 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Notices

Recovery Plan, we state that funds will

only be expended contingent upon

appropriations, priorities, and other

budgetary constraints.

While the ESA requires us to carry out

recovery actions for listed species, we

have the discretion and flexibility to

identify the highest priority recovery

activities and to determine if

experimental populations should be

established. The Service believes that

addressing identified recovery needs in

the ecosystems that already contain

grizzly bears is a high priority.

Examples of recovery activities in these

ecosystems that should be given priority

may include: ongoing mark-recapture

population estimation studies in the

YGBE; ongoing genetic studies for

population size estimation in the NCDE;

or finalization and printing of the

interagency Conservation Strategy for

management of bears inside the YGBE

recovery area after delisting occurs.

Accordingly, we have determined that it

is not prudent or consistent with our

recovery priorities to establish a new

grizzly population in the Bitterroot

Ecosystem at this time. To the extent

that funding is available, the Service

intends to apply it to the activities

identified above, as well as to other

priority actions to recover grizzly bears

in those ecosystems where grizzlies are

currently found.

We remain firmly committed to the

recovery of grizzly bears in the lower 48

States. However, we strongly believe

that the only way to effectively recover

grizzly bears is with the help and

support of affected States. In order to

achieve this, we will continue to work

in close cooperation and consultation

with States and local governments. As

we look toward future recovery efforts,

we also plan to explore our full range

of options for recovery, including

focusing increased efforts such as

relocation, augmentation, or

reintroduction of grizzly bears in some

or all of the six identified recovery areas

for grizzly bears as priorities, need, and

resources dictate.

Proposed Action

We are proposing to select the No

Action Alternative in the Bitterroot FEIS

at this time as our Preferred Alternative.

This alternative assumes that current

management activities will continue for

at least the next 50 years. The overall

environmental effects of taking no

action would likely result in no

recovery of grizzly bears in the BE in the

near future, although grizzly bears may

begin to repopulate the area in 50 or

more years. If grizzly bears did naturally

disperse to the BE, they would be

protected as threatened under the ESA.

(See FEIS for a thorough evaluation of

this alternative.) If we select the No

Action Alternative, we will remove

section 17.84(l) from title 50 of the Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR). (See

related proposed rule elsewhere in this

edition of the Federal Register). This

does not mean that we are permanently

precluding a reintroduced population of

grizzly bears in the Bitterroot

Ecosystem.

Authority

The authority for this action is the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, U.S.C.

1533.

Dated: June 18, 2001.

Joseph E. Doddridge,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 01–15909 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U