[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