33620 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AI03

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Establishment of a

Nonessential Experimental Population

of Grizzly Bears in the Bitterroot Area

of Idaho and Montana; Removal of

Regulations

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service) are

reevaluating our decision with respect

to grizzly bear recovery in the Bitterroot

Ecosystem (BE), published November

17, 2000 (65 FR 69644). The Record of

Decision (ROD) for a Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)

published in March 2000, selected the

Preferred Alternative. This alternative

established a nonessential experimental

population of grizzly bears in the BE in

east-central Idaho and a portion of

western Montana pursuant to section

10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of

1973, as amended. A final rule to

implement the preferred alternative was

published in the Federal Register on

November 17, 2000. In light of our

current recovery needs for grizzly bears

in other areas and our available

resources, as well as the objections of

the States that would be affected by the

reintroduction of grizzly bears in the BE,

we are reevaluating our prior decision.

We are now proposing to select the No

Action Alternative as our Preferred

Alternative (see Notice of Intent

elsewhere in this edition of the Federal

Register) and are currently requesting

public comments on this action. After

receipt and review of all comments, the

Service will make a final decision with

regard to this proposal. If we select the

No Action Alternative, we will remove

the pertinent regulations.

DATES: A 60-day comment period has

been announced on the reconsideration

of the Final EIS (see Notice of Intent to

reevaluate the Record of Decision for the

Final Environmental Impact Statement

for Grizzly Bear Recovery in the

Bitterroot Ecosystem published in this

issue of the Federal Register). Written

public comments are solicited

independently on this action or along

with comments on the Notice of Intent.

Written comments must be received by

August 21, 2001.

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

(FEIS), Record of Decision (ROD), 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 Final Environmental Impact

Statement (FEIS), published in March

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

evaluated a proposal to establish an

experimental population and

reintroduce grizzly bears into the

Bitterroot Ecosystem (BE) in east-central

Idaho and western Montana. Six

alternatives were discussed. The

Preferred Alternative, selected in the

Record of Decision (ROD), was to

establish a nonessential experimental

population of grizzlies in the BE under

section 10(j) of the Endangered Species

Act (50 CFR Section 17.84) (see 65 FR

69644, November 17, 2000). A final rule

to implement the Preferred Alternative

was published in the Federal Register

on November 17, 2000 (65 FR 69624),

and is codified at 50 CFR 17.84(l). See

FEIS and final rule for a more detailed

discussion.

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. While the ESA requires us to

identify 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.

There are approximately 1,000 to

1,100 grizzly bears in the western

United States, scattered over Montana,

Idaho, Washington, and Wyoming. We

estimate there are between 400–600

bears in the Yellowstone ecosystem;

400–500 bears in the Northern

Continental Divide ecosystem; 40–50

bears in the Selkirk ecosystem; 30–40

bears in the Cabinet-Yak ecosystem; and

fewer than 15 bears in the Northern

Cascade ecosystem. Although grizzly

bears inhabited the BE at one time, they

were killed to eliminate threats to

humans and domestic livestock, for

their fur, and for sport. The last verified

death of a grizzly in the Bitterroot was

in 1932; the last tracks were observed in

1946.

We are currently conducting a variety

of activities relating to the recovery of

the grizzly bear. We produce habitatbased recovery criteria; conduct and

analyze population surveys; develop

and test better population estimation

methodologies; trap bears to mark for

population studies and monitoring;

work with States to address problem

bears that endanger livestock or

humans; assess food and other habitat

resources; provide secure habitat for

females to raise their young; educate the

public and local governments about

living with bears and how to avoid

conflicts with them; and work with

companies and government agencies on

how to manage and develop resources

in bear country. Each of these activities

is crucial in ensuring the recovery of the

grizzly in existing ecosystems. We will

spend $494,000 in FY 2001 to carry out

grizzly recovery efforts.

Our highest priority for recovery of

the grizzly bear is to continue to carry

out these recovery activities in

ecosystems where the grizzly bear

populations currently exist. Rather than

diverting resources towards a

reintroduction of grizzlies, it is more

important at this time to ensure the

continued viability of our ongoing

recovery efforts in the existing

ecosystems.

Apart from higher priority uses of

limited recovery funds, reintroduction

of grizzlies is strongly opposed by some

citizens potentially adversely affected

by this action. We propose to reexamine

the concerns raised about the safety of

human inhabitants in or near the

Bitterroot ecosystem to ensure that the

potential safety risks to humans are

adequately considered. We must be

cognizant of the possibility that humans

may be killed or injured as grizzly bears

are introduced.

Accordingly, we believe that it is

neither prudent nor consistent with our

recovery priorities to expend our

limited recovery funds and staff effort

on establishment of a nonessential,

experimental grizzly bear population in

the BE at this time. Moreover, we

believe that further consideration of the

legitimate safety concerns of the current

residents of BE against reintroduction is

warranted.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules 33621

Proposed Action

We are proposing to select the No

Action Alternative analyzed in the

Bitterroot FEIS as our Preferred

Alternative. The No Action Alternative

described in the FEIS is entitled Natural

Recovery. This alternative assumes that

current management activities will

continue over the next 50 + years. The

overall environmental effects of taking

no action likely would result in

continued recovery in the other

ecosystems (because bears will not be

removed and resources will not be

diverted), but no recovery of grizzly

bears in the BE in the near future.

Although grizzly bears may start to

move into the BE within 50 years from

the Yellowstone Ecosystem, complete

recovery of the grizzly bear population

in the BE would require at least 100–160

years. If grizzly bears naturally

dispersed to the BE they would be

protected as a threatened species under

the ESA. (See FEIS for a thorough

evaluation of this alternative.)

Should the No Action alternative be

selected as the new Preferred

Alternative, there will be no action

taken by the Service to reintroduce

grizzly bears into the Bitterroot area and

the Service will concentrate its efforts to

recover grizzly bears in existing areas.

Therefore, if we select the No Action

Alternative, there will be no need for

the rule on establishment of an

experimental population, and the rule

will be removed from 50 CFR 17.84.

Public Comments Solicited

We intend for any rule that is finally

adopted to be as effective as possible.

Therefore, we invite the public,

concerned government agencies, the

scientific community, industry, and

other interested parties to submit

comments or recommendations

concerning any aspect of this proposed

rule (see ADDRESSES section).

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. In

some circumstances, we would

withhold from the rulemaking record a

respondent’s identity, as allowable by

law. If you wish for us to withhold your

name and/or address, you must state

this request prominently at the

beginning of your comment. However,

we will not consider anonymous

comments. We will make all

submissions from organizations or

businesses available for public

inspection in their entirety.

Required Determinations

Regulatory Planning and Review

The area affected by this rule consists

of a limited area of mostly designated

wilderness and surrounding lands in

east central Idaho and western Montana,

recognized as the Bitterroot ecosystem.

The Bitterroot ecosystem, as

characterized by data from 10 counties

in central Idaho and 4 counties in

western Montana, has an area of

approximately 44,419 square miles

(17,976 ha) and is about 76% Federal

land. As of 1996, the area had a human

population of about 241,000 people; a

$4.6 billion/year local economy;

440,570 head of livestock (cattle and

sheep); approximately 274,360 deer and

elk; a yearly harvest of 28,023 deer and

elk; and, received approximately $13.2

million/year from recreational visits to

national forests.

This proposed rule is a significant

rule and is subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.)

We certify that this rule will not have

a significant economic effect on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Small entities most

likely to be affected by this rule are

producers of domestic livestock.

Although highly unlikely in the near

future, grizzly bears may re-colonize

this area from other ecosystems. It is

estimated that at least 50 years will pass

before grizzly bears might reach this

area. If breeding populations became

established, it would conservatively

require an additional 50–110 years for a

recovery of grizzly bears in the BE.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2))

This rule is not a major rule under 5

U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act.

This rule does not have an annual effect

on the economy of $100 million or more

on local or State governments or private

entities. This rule will not cause a major

increase in costs or prices for

consumers, individual industries,

Federal, State, or local government

agencies, or geographic regions. This

rule does not have significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to

compete with foreign-based enterprises.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)

This rule does not impose an

unfunded mandate on State, local, or

tribal governments or the private sector

of more than $100 million per year. The

rule does not have a significant or

unique effect on State, local or tribal

governments or the private sector.

Primary grizzly bear management

responsibility would reside with the

Service. A statement containing the

information required by the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531 et

seq.) is not required.

Takings

In accordance with Executive Order

12630, this rule does not have

significant takings implications, and a

takings implication assessment is not

required. This designation will not

‘‘take’’ private property and will not

alter the value of private property.

Federalism (E.O. 13132)

In accordance with Executive Order

13132, the rule does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

This rule will not have substantial

direct effects on the States, in the

relationship between the Federal

Government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government.

Civil Justice Reform

In accordance with Executive Order

12988, we have determined that this

regulation does not unduly burden the

judicial system and meets the applicable

standards provided in sections 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. We

have made every effort to ensure that

this final determination contains no

drafting errors, provides clear standards,

simplifies procedures, reduces burden,

and is clearly written such that

litigation risk is minimized.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

This rule contains no information

collection. An agency may not conduct

or sponsor, and a person is not required

to respond to, a collection of

information unless it displays a current

valid OMB control number.

National Environmental Policy Act

A Final EIS on the reintroduction of

the grizzly bear in the Bitterroot

ecosystem has been prepared and is

available to the public (see ADDRESSES).

The Final EIS should be referred to for

analysis of the No-Action alternative.

33622 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Government-to-Government

Relationship with Tribes

In accordance with the President’s

memorandum of April 29, 1994,

‘‘Government-to-Government Relations

with Native American Tribal

Governments’’ (59 FR 22951), Executive

Order 13175 and 512 DM 2, we have

evaluated possible effects on Federally

recognized Indian tribes and have

determined that there are no effects.

Executive Order 13211

On May 18, 2001, the President issued

an Executive Order (E.O. 13211) on

regulations that significantly affect

energy supply, distribution, and use.

Executive Order 13211 requires agencies

to prepare Statements of Energy Effects

when undertaking certain actions. As

this proposed rule is not expected to

significantly affect energy supplies,

distribution, or use, this action is not a

significant energy action and no

Statement of Energy Effects is required.

Clarity of This Regulation

Executive Order 12866 requires each

agency to write regulations that are easy

to understand. We invite your

comments on how to make this rule

easier to understand, including answers

to questions such as the following: (1)

Are the requirements in the rule clearly

stated? (2) Does the rule contain

technical language or jargon that

interferes with its clarity? (3) Does the

format of the rule (grouping and order

of sections, use of headings,

paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce its

clarity? (4) Would the rule be easier to

understand if it were divided into more

(but shorter) sections? (5) Is the

description of the rule in the

‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of

the preamble helpful in understanding

the rule? (6) What else could we do to

make the rule easier to understand?

Send your comments concerning how

we could make this rule easier to

understand to: Office of Regulatory

Affairs, Department of the Interior,

Room 7229, 1849 C Street, NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20240 (e-mail:

Exsec@ios.doi.gov). 

Author

The principal author of this proposed

rule is Susan Baker (see Addresses

section).

List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17

Endangered and threatened species,

Exports, Imports, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Proposed Regulation Removal

Accordingly, under the authority of

16 U.S.C. 1531–1544, the Service hereby

proposes to amend 50 CFR Part 17 as

follows:

PART 17—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 17

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361–1407; 16 U.S.C.

1531–1544; 16 U.S.C. 4201–4245; Pub. L. 99–

625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.

§ 17.84 [AMENDED]

2. Remove § 17.84 (l)

June 8, 2001.

Joseph E. Doddridge,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Fish and

Wildlife and Parks.

[FR Doc. 01–15908 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U