[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-279454-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-279454-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","montana-natural-resource-coalition-of-counties-letter-recission-of-final-us-fish-and-wildlife-service-experimental-populations-historical-range-rule","Montana Natural Resource Coalition of Counties Letter - Recission of Final US Fish and Wildlife Service Experimental Populations (Historical Range) Rule","","Letter from the Montana Natural Resource Coalition of Counties (MtNRC) to the U.S. Department of the Interior requesting rescission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Final Designation of Experimental Populations (Historical Range) Rule adopted at 88 Fed. Reg. 42642. The coalition argues the rule imposes an unnecessary regulatory burden, that DOI dismissed MtNRC’s technical, economic, and procedural inputs, and that EO 14148 negates the regulatory rationale supporting the historical range approach. The correspondence outlines background and chronology and cites related executive orders and rulemaking record actions.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/montana-natural-resource-coalition-of-counties-letter-recission-of-final-us-fish-and-wildlife-service-experimental-populations-historical-range-rule/279454/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/montana-natural-resource-coalition-of-counties-letter-recission-of-final-us-fish-and-wildlife-service-experimental-populations-historical-range-rule/279454.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Asher","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-18","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What does MtNRC request in this letter?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"MtNRC requests that DOI rescind the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Final Designation of Experimental Populations (Historical Range) Rule adopted at 88 Fed. Reg. 42642.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Why does MtNRC say the rescission is necessary?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"MtNRC argues the rule adds an unnecessary regulatory burden because local FWS offices already can issue experimental permits under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, and it contends MtNRC’s substantive inputs were dismissed during rulemaking.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"How does EO 14148 factor into MtNRC’s rationale?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"MtNRC states that EO 14148 nullified prior executive authorities used to justify the Final Historical Range Rule, and therefore the regulatory impetus for the rule no longer applies.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},279454,1790295234,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,114,118,123],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":126},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":128},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":129,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":22,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":33,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":26},687197207639,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_a8503ba1806abce46bf441b54a3ca4cd","Montana Natural Resource Coalition of Counties, Inc.  \nP.O. Box 468 • Lewistown, MT 59457 @[co.fergus.mt.us](co.fergus.mt.us)  \nBoard of Directors  \nRoss Butcher, President & Treasurer  \nFergus County  \nMiles Hutton, Secretary Blaine County  \nShane Gorder, Vice President Richland County  \nWilliam Wallace Sweet Grass County  \nJohn Ostlund Yellowstone County  \nJuly 21, 2025  \nMr. Gregory Zerzan Acting Solicitor Office of the Solicitor  \nU.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, NW-Rm 6362 Washington, DC 20240  \nMr. Jacob Tyner  \nDeputy Solicitor  \nEnergy and Mineral Resources U.S. Department of the Interior 1849 C Street, NW-Rm 6362 Washington, DC 20240  \nRe: Recission of Final US Fish and Wildlife Service Designation of Experimental  \nPopulations (Historical Range) Rule adopted at 88 Fed. Reg. 42642. Via: [regulations.gov/commenton/DOI-2025-0005-0001](regulations.gov/commenton/DOI-2025-0005-0001) and hand delivery.  \nDear Deputy Solicitor Tyner:  \nThrough this letter, the Montana Natural Resource Coalition of Counties (MtNRC) is responding to DOI’s Regulatory Initiative by requesting recission of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Final Designation of Experimental Populations Rule adopted at 88 Fed. Reg. 42642.  \nAbout MtNRC  \nMtNRC is a coalition of twenty-two (22) Montana County governments owned, funded, and governed exclusively by the sitting county commissioners of Montana member counties. The coalition was organized to engage federal and state governments on administrative actions on behalf of our individual county members.  \nCurrent MtNRC member counties are Beaverhead, Blaine, Carter, Fallon, Fergus, Garfield, Liberty, Madison, McCone, Musselshell, Petroleum, Phillips, Pondera, Powder River, Prairie, Richland, Roosevelt, Rosebud, Sweet Grass, Valley, Wibaux, and Yellowstone Counties.  \nMtNRC has been actively engaged with FWS throughout the Historical Range Rulemaking process, including a county-to-agency coordination meeting, filing of substantive comments in the record, and direct interactions with FWS agency staff.1  \n1  Survey of The Proposed Fish and Wildlife Service Section 10(j) Historical Range Rule. Stillwater Technical Solutions. August 10, 2022.  \nNo Artificial Intelligence was used to produce this document.  \nThe recission is necessary because FWS dismissed all of MtNRC’s substantive technical, economic, and procedural input from the coordination meeting and throughout the entire rulemaking process, rendering this Rule eligible for consideration under the Criteria of Executive Order 14219, sections 2(iv), 2(v), and 2(vii) .  \nBackground  \nThe Historical Range Rule lowers the regulatory burden on the FWS Director and local offices by reducing the formal administrative actions required prior to the introduction of threatened and endangered species outside of their historical range.  \nLocal FWS offices already possess the regulatory authority to issue experimental permits under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, rendering the Historical Range Rule an additional and unnecessary burden. Agency staff simply wish to reduce the administrative and the notification requirements prior to the launching critters into public lands and waters where they could propagate on, in, and across county and private lands. MtNRC notes that those protective administrative requirements are in place for a reason.  \nWith the issuance of Trump Executive Order 14148, the regulatory impetus for the Historical Range Rule is negated. Because the higher documentation and regulatory standards that existed before were lowered by the final Historical Range Rule, unscrutinized introductions of threatened and endangered species by biological activistson lands, in streams, or near private properties across the nation is a foreseeable possibility.  \nRecission of the Historical Range Rule will restore the statutory and administrative requirements to previous levels.  \nChronology and Rationale for Recission-  \n1. On January 20, 2025 Pr","cbCaiuFXmfYDB93G","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiuFXmfYDB93G","pdf",95685,"English","# Background\n## Chronology and Rationale for Recission","[{\"question\":\"What does MtNRC request in this letter?\",\"answer\":\"MtNRC requests that DOI rescind the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Final Designation of Experimental Populations (Historical Range) Rule adopted at 88 Fed. Reg. 42642.\"},{\"question\":\"Why does MtNRC say the rescission is necessary?\",\"answer\":\"MtNRC argues the rule adds an unnecessary regulatory burden because local FWS offices already can issue experimental permits under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, and it contends MtNRC’s substantive inputs were dismissed during rulemaking.\"},{\"question\":\"How does EO 14148 factor into MtNRC’s rationale?\",\"answer\":\"MtNRC states that EO 14148 nullified prior executive authorities used to justify the Final Historical Range Rule, and therefore the regulatory impetus for the rule no longer applies.\"}]","Montana Natural Resource Coalition of Counties Letter - Recission of Final US Fish and Wildlife Service Experimental Populations (Historical Range) Rule | PDF",1789520990]