2400 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 1995 / Notices

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public

that the Fish and Wildlife Service

(Service) intends to gather information

for the preparation of an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) for the

reintroduction of grizzly bears to the

Bitterroot ecosystem of central Idaho

and western Montana. A series of public

scoping sessions pertaining to

development of the EIS will be held.

Notices of the dates, times, and

locations of these public opportunities

will be advertised in local publications

prior to the event. This notice is being

furnished as required by the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Regulations (40 CFR 1501.7) to obtain

input from other agencies and the

public on the scope of issues to be

addressed in the EIS. Comments and

participation in this scoping process

will be solicited.

DATES: Written comments should be

received by February 23, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to the Grizzly Bear Recovery

Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, P.O. Box 5127, Missoula,

Montana 59806.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

For further information contact Dr.

Chris Servheen, (See ADDRESSES section)

telephone 406/329–3223.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A chapter

has been prepared and appended to the

Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan that outlines

reintroduction as the proposed method

for recovery. Public involvement in the

drafting of the chapter identified issues

that include livestock depredation,

effects on big game species/hunting,

human health and safety, land use

policy/restrictions, the role of the

grizzly bear in the ecosystem

(naturalness), economics, State and

Federal authorities, private property

rights, illegal killing/poaching, effects of

grizzly bears on other species (such as

listed salmon), and the size of the

recovery area.

Preliminary alternatives suggested to

date by the public include no action

(natural recolonization from other

populations), restriction of grizzly

recovery to wilderness areas, grizzly

recovery should include a very broad

area, reintroduction of grizzly bears as

an experimental population, and

reintroduction of grizzly bears as a

threatened species.

A scoping brochure is being prepared

that details the EIS process, background

information, issues identified to date,

and how to become involved. Persons

who previously requested grizzly

recovery information will receive

copies. Other interested people can

obtain copies by writing to Bitterroot

Ecosystem Grizzly Bear EIS, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 5127,

Missoula, Montana 59806.

The Service, in cooperation with the

Idaho Fish and Game Department, U.S.

Forest Service, and the Montana

Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks,

is proposing to recover grizzly bears

(Ursus arctos horribilis) in east-central

Idaho and extreme western Montana by

reintroducing them to the bitterroot

Mountains area of Idaho. Introduced

grizzly bears and their resultant

offspring would be classified as

nonessential experimental under section

10(j) of the Endangered Species Act

(Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.

1531 et seq.) Proposed is the release of

four to six bears per year for 5 years. All

bears would be released within

established wilderness boundaries in

Idaho and would be comprised

primarily of younger-aged animals.

Bears with no previous known conflict

with humans would be captured and

moved to the area from either

southeastern British Columbia or

northwestern Montana. All released

bears would be ear-tagged for individual

identification and fitted with radio

collars so their movements could be

monitored. Bears would be located

twice weekly (weather permitting) for

the life of the radio collars

(approximately 3 years). The current

status and location of transplanted bears

would be relayed weekly to the public

through various media contacts. Any

bear coming into conflict with people

would be dealt with under protocol

established by the Interagency Grizzly

Bear Committee or under guidelines

identified and included as special rules

as stated in section 10(j) of the Act for

experimental populations. Public

participation in the writing of special

rules that will govern both the grizzly

bear and habitat management would be

conducted and encouraged following

NEPA guidelines. If approved, the

relocation of grizzly bears should begin

as early as 1996.

The grizzly bear was once a

widespread inhabitant of the Bitterroot

Ecosystem in central Idaho and western

Montana. Grizzly bears were removed

from the Bitterroot area by humans as

they settled the West, primarily for the

protection of livestock. The last

documented grizzly bear was killed in

the 1930’s, although occasional,

unverified reports persist. In 1975, the

grizzly bear was listed as threatened in

the 48 contiguous States under the Act,

which directs Federal agencies to take

necessary actions to recover threatened

or endangered species. The recovery of

grizzly bears in the Bitterroot ecosystem

could potentially increase the number of

grizzly bears south of Canada by 30–35

percent. In addition, it could potentially

provide an important genetic link for

grizzly bears between the Cabinet/Yaak,

Northern Continental Divide, and

Yellowstone ecosystems.

The decision to be made includes

whether to implement the proposed

action as described above, whether to

vary the method or number of bears to

be relocated, determining the status

under which grizzly bears will be

recovered, determine the area in which

recovery will be pursued or allowed to

occur, and determine which special

rules will be adopted as identified

through the public participation

process.

The Service estimates that the draft

EIS will be available for public review

and comment by December 1995.

Dated: December 29, 1994.

Ralph O. Morgenweck,

Regional Director, Region 6.

[FR Doc. 95–400 Filed 1–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

Availability of an Environmental

Assessment and Receipt of an

Application for an Incidental Take

Permit from Mr. D. Gregory Luce, in

Baldwin County, AL

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Mr. D. Gregory Luce

(Applicant), has applied to the Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service) for an

incidental take permit pursuant to

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered

Species Act (Act). The proposed permit

would authorize for a period of 20 years

the incidental take of an endangered

species, the Alabama beach mouse

(Peromyscus polionotus ammobates),

known to occupy lands owned by the

Applicant in Gulf Shores, Baldwin

County, Alabama. The Application

proposed to construct and use a single

family residence on a 1.21-acre privately

owned lot within the Bon Secour

National Wildlife Refuge. The lot is

located approximately 7.5 miles west of

Gulf Shores, Alabama, at Pine Beach,

near the western end of Little Lagoon,

between the lagoon and the Gulf

shoreline.

The Service also announces the

availability of an environmental

assessment (EA) and habitat

conservation plan (HCP) for the

incidental take application. Copies of

the EA or HCP may be obtained by

making requests to the addresses below.

The Service is soliciting data on

Peromyscus polionotus ammobates in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 5 / Monday, January 9, 1995 / Notices 2401

order to assist in the requirement of the

intra-Service consultation. This notice

also advises the public that the Service

has made a preliminary determination

that issuing the incidental take permit is

not a major Federal action significantly

affecting the quality of the human

environment within the meaning of

Section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended. The Finding of No Significant

Impact is based on information

contained in the EA and HCP. The final

determination will be made no sooner

than 30 days from the date of this

notice. This notice is provided pursuant

to Section 10(c) of the Act and National

Environmental Policy Act Regulations

(40 CFR 1506.6).

DATES: Written comments on the permit

application, EA and HCP should be

received on or before February 8, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review

the application may obtain a copy by

writing the Service’s Southeast Regional

Office, Atlanta, Georgia. Persons

wishing to review the EA or HCP may

obtain a copy by writing the Regional

Office or the Jackson, Mississippi, Field

Office. Documents will also be available

for public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

Regional Office, or the Field Office.

Written data or comments concerning

the application, EA, or HCP should be

submitted to the Regional Office. Please

reference permit under PRT–797979 in

such comments.

Regional Permit Coordinator (TE),

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875

Century Boulevard, suite 210, Atlanta,

Georgia 30345, (telephone 404/679–

7110, FAX 404/679–7081).

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 6578 Dogwood View

Parkway, suite A, Jackson, Mississippi

39213 (telephone 601/965–4900, FAX

601/965–4340).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will

McDearman at the above Jackson,

Mississippi, Field Office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Alabama beach mouse (ABM),

Peromyscus polionotus ammobates, is a

subspecies of the common old-field

mouse Peromyscus polionotus and is

restricted to the dune systems of the

Gulf Coast of Alabama. The know

current range of ABM extends from Fort

Morgan eastward to the western

terminus of Alabama Highway 182,

including the Perdue Unit on the Bon

Secour National Wildlife Refuge. The

sand dune systems inhabited by this

species are not uniform; several habitat

types are distinguishable. The species

inhabits primary dunes, interdune areas,

secondary dunes, and scrub dunes. The

depth and area of these habitats from

the beach inland varies. Population

surveys indicate that this subspecies is

usually more abundant in primary

dunes than in secondary dunes, and

usually more abundant in secondary

dunes than in scrub dunes. Optimal

habitat consists of dune systems with all

dune types. Though fewer ABM inhabit

scrub dunes, these high dunes can serve

as refugia during devastating hurricanes

that overwash, flood, and destroy or

alter secondary and frontal dunes. ABM

surveys have not been conducted on the

Applicant’s property. The ABM

occupied adjacent and nearby dunes of

the Bon Secour National Wildlife

Refuge. Suitable habitat in the form of

secondary and scrub dunes exist on the

Applicant’s property. These habitats are

likely to be occupied by ABM. None of

the Applicant’s property resides in

designated critical habitat for the ABM.

Construction of the single family

residence on about 0.1–0.2 acres of the

Applicant’s property may result in the

death of, or injury to, ABM. Habitat

alterations due to house placement and

its subsequent use may reduce available

habitat for food, shelter, and

reproduction.

The EA considers the environmental

consequences of three alternatives. The

proposed action alternative is the

issuance of the incidental take permit.

This provided for restrictions that

include house placement landward of

the frontal crest of the scrub dune line,

establishment of a walkover structure

across that scrub dune, a prohibition

against housing or keeping pet cats,

scavenger-proof garbage containers, no

landscaping, and the minimization and

control of outdoor lighting. The HCP

provides a funding source for these

mitigation measures.

Dated: December 30, 1994.

John T. Brown,

Acting Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 95–422 Filed 1–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION

[Finance Docket No. 32419]

Consolidated Rail Corporation—

Acquisition of Control and Merger—

Pittsburgh, Chartiers & Youghiogheny

Railway Company

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of exemption.

SUMMARY: The Commission, under 49

U.S.C. 10505, exempts from the prior

approval requirements of 49 U.S.C.

11343, et seq., the acquisition by

Consolidated Rail Corporation (Conrail),

of control of the Pittsburgh, Chartiers &

Youghiogheny Railway Company

(PC&Y) and PC&Y’s merger into Conrail,

subject to standard employee protective

conditions.

DATES: This exemption is effective on

February 8, 1995. Petitions to stay must

be filed by January 24, 1995 and

petitions to reopen must be filed by

February 3, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Send pleadings referring to

Finance Docket No. 32419 to: (1) Office

of the Secretary, Case Control Branch,

Interstate Commerce Commission, 1201

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20423; and (2) Anne E.

Treadway, 2001 Market Street, 16–A,

Two Commerce Square, Philadelphia,

PA 19101–1416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon, (202) 927–5610. [TDD for

the hearing impaired: (202) 927–5721].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Additional information is contained in

the Commission’s decision. To purchase

a copy of the full decision, write to, call,

or pick up in person from: Dynamic

Concepts, Inc., Room 2229, Interstate

Commerce Commission Building, 1201

Constitution Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20423. Telephone:

(202) 289–4357/4359. [Assistance for

the hearing impaired is available

through TDD services (202) 927–5721.]

Decided: December 21, 1994.

By the Commission, Chairman McDonald,

Vice Chairman Morgan, and Commissioners

Simmons and Owen.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–415 Filed 1–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

[Finance Docket No. 32651]

Eastern Maine Railway Company, J.D.

Irving, Limited and New Brunswick

Railway Company—Petition for

Disclaimer of Jurisdiction or,

Alternatively, for an Exemption From

49 U.S.C. 11343(a)(5)

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of Exemption.

SUMMARY: The Commission, finds

jurisdiction and, under 49 U.S.C. 10505,

exempts from the prior approval

requirements of 49 U.S.C. 11343–11345,

the continuance in control by

petitioners of Eastern Maine Railway

Company (Eastern Maine) upon Eastern

Maine becoming a rail common carrier.