Restoring Native Species to High Elevation Aquatic Ecosystems; Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Tulare and Fresno Counties, CA; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, 51617-51618 [E9-24148]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Restoring Native Species to High
Elevation Aquatic Ecosystems;
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Parks, Tulare and Fresno Counties,
CA; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement
SUMMARY: In accordance with
§ 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA), the National Park
Service is initiating the conservation
planning and environmental impact
analysis process for a plan to restore
high elevation aquatic ecosystems and
mountain yellow-legged frogs within
their historic range in Sequoia and
Kings Canyon National Parks. In
addition to satisfying the requirements
and intent of the NEPA, the
Environmental Impact Statement which
will be prepared will comply with the
California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and thus will result in an
integrated Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(EIS/EIR) document.
The purpose of the plan is to provide
for restoration of native species in lakes,
ponds, and associated streams within
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Parks. There are approximately 560
lakes and ponds within the Parks that
contained introduced trout, and removal
of these non-native species from up to
14% of these sites will be considered.
This proposed plan would create
clusters of fishless habitat in headwater
basins comprising the historic
distribution of the frogs. This project is
needed to preserve and restore aquatic
ecosystems and populations of
mountain yellow-legged frogs and other
native animals in high elevation lakes
and streams, while also creating new
opportunities for visitors to experience
the wildlife of pristine wilderness lakes
and streams yet maintaining
recreational fishing opportunities.
Introduced trout occur in most lakes
and ponds in Sequoia and Kings Canyon
National Parks. The presence of
introduced trout eliminates large
aquatic invertebrates and zooplankton,
reduces the food available to other
wildlife, and compromises reproduction
by mountain yellow-legged frogs. The
mountain yellow-legged frog is a species
that only occurs in the high Sierra
Nevada and the mountains of southern
California. It is a keystone species
whose presence or absence affects the
natural ecology of Sierra Nevada lakes
and associated shoreline environments.
The frog has disappeared from about
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:25 Oct 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
94% of its historic sites in the Sierra
Nevada and is a candidate for federal
listing as ‘‘endangered’’ under the
Endangered Species Act. The frog’s
existence is threatened by impacts from
trout populations that were introduced
to naturally fishless habitats, and a new
pathogen, chytrid fungus. The mountain
yellow-legged frog is declining rapidly
and could become extinct within a
decade.
Preliminary Range of Alternatives:
The EIS/EIR will examine a range of
feasible alternatives and evaluate all
potential impacts on natural resources,
cultural resources, and the human
environment. Since 2001, biologists in
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Parks have been removing nonnative
trout using gill netting and
electroshocking from selected naturally
fishless high lakes and streams (limited
trial under a plan approved in 2001
following public review of an
Environmental Assessment);
approximately 23,000 trout have been
removed from 11 lakes. Mountain
yellow-legged frog tadpole and frog
densities measured in 2001 and 2007 in
six of the restored lakes showed an
average increase of 19-fold and 16-fold,
with one lake showing a 60-fold
increase in frog populations. The
biomass recovery in these lakes has
attracted native species such as snakes,
birds, and mammals, which have been
observed preying on now-abundant
frogs, tadpoles, and aquatic
invertebrates.
The current methodology of
physically removing fish using gill nets
and electrofishers takes one crew about
five seasons to fully remove trout from
three lakes. This works out to an average
of less than one lake restored per crew
per year. Stream habitat is even slower
to restore. While nearly completed, the
park staff is on its ninth year of
attempting to remove fish from about a
mile of stream. To restore more aquatic
habitat and improve protection for the
mountain yellow-legged frogs, the NPS
is proposing to expand the current
program, both in number of lakes and
streams to be considered, and the types
of treatment methods to be utilized.
In addition to a ‘‘no action’’
alternative which will provide for a
comparative environmental baseline,
alternatives that could be considered in
the EIS/EIR include: (a) Treating 32 to
80 additional lakes and 18 to 56 miles
of stream using current methods
(physical treatment only with gill
netting and electrofishers); (b) using
chemical methods (only use of
piscicides); and (c) deploying a
combination of these methods. Common
to all alternatives would be
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51617
reintroducing mountain yellow-legged
frogs to sites where they have been
extirpated using the closest genetic
forms available, and continuing to
encourage research on the frogs, chytrid
fungus and its management, and the
ecological functioning of high mountain
lakes and streams. Under the new
alternatives, some entire headwater
basins would be restored to achieve
optimal benefit to both aquatic and
terrestrial organisms. Piscicides are
being considered because the hydrology
of entire basins is too complex and
extensive to be restored using only gill
nets and electrofishers. These basins
contain too many miles of stream,
marshes, or exceptionally large lakes to
effectively accomplish fish removal.
Because the effort is directed at
restoring entire aquatic ecosystems,
long-term protection and restoration of
stream and lake invertebrates and other
life is as important as restoring the frog
populations. Although chytrid fungus
could impact these populations, there is
some evidence of chytrid resistance
emerging in sites that had large frog
populations prior to infection.
Scoping Process: Initially public
scoping was conducted from January 17
to February 6, 2007, and it was
anticipated another Environmental
Assessment (EA) might be prepared.
During that time, the parks received
comments from over 30 different
sources, including the High Sierra
Hikers Association, Wilderness Watch,
California Trout, Californians for
Western Wilderness, National Parks and
Conservation Association, and
Californians for Alternatives to Toxics.
In late 2007, a newsletter providing an
update on the environmental analysis
status was sent to individuals, agencies,
interest groups, and tribes on the parks’
mailing list including all those who
previously provided scoping comments.
As a result of the newsletter, four
additional comment letters were
received between May 2007 and
November 2008 (including Western
Environmental Law Center and another
High Sierra Hikers Association
response). In total, 37 different
individuals, groups, businesses, or
agencies have submitted comments on
the proposed plan.
In late 2007 park staff began working
on the EA and refining preliminary
alternatives—as staff began the
environmental analysis and reexamined information provided by the
public, it became clear that the project
had the potential for significant impacts
on the human environment. There was
a level of controversy associated with
the proposal, potential for uncertainty
and both adverse and beneficial
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
51618
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices
consequences, and unique and
unforeseeable environmental impacts.
For these reasons, in early 2009 the
Superintendent determined that an EIS
would be prepared.
All scoping comments received to
date are included in the official
administrative record; the Scoping
Summary Report includes all comments
and information obtained to date and is
available on-line at https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/seki. It is not
necessary for previous letters to be
resubmitted; however if prior
respondents have new issues or
information they wish to bring forward
then new letters should be submitted.
For further information contact Nancy
Hendricks at (559) 565–3102 or
SEKI_planning@nps.gov (address as
noted below).
DATES: All written comments must be
postmarked or transmitted not later than
November 21, 2009. Letters may be
mailed or hand delivered to
Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings
Canyon National Park, 47050 Generals
Highway, Three Rivers, CA 93271 (Attn:
Aquatic Restoration EIS), or may be sent
electronically to https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/seki. Before
including your address, phone number,
e-mail address, or other personal
identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so. As a delegated EIS the official
responsible for approval of the High
Elevation Aquatic Ecosystems and
Native Species Restoration Plan is the
Regional Director, Pacific West Region,
National Park Service. Subsequently the
official responsible for implementing
the approved plan would be the
Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings
Canyon National Parks.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Dated: August 11, 2009.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region,
National Park Service.
[FR Doc. E9–24148 Filed 10–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–X2–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:25 Oct 06, 2009
Jkt 220001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLWYD01000–2009–LL13100000–NB0000–
LXSI016K0000]
Notice of the Meeting Schedule for the
Pinedale Anticline Working Group
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of public meetings.
task groups wish to make to their
recommendations, and overall adaptive
management implementation as it
applies to the PAWG. Additional
information about the PAWG can be
found at: https://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/
field_offices/Pinedale/pawg.html.
Dated: September 28, 2009.
Chuck Otto,
Field Office Manager.
[FR Doc. E9–24216 Filed 10–6–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–22–P
In accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (1976), the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (1972), and the Record
of Decision (ROD) for the Pinedale
Anticline Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement (2008),
the U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
Pinedale Anticline Working Group
(PAWG) will meet in Pinedale,
Wyoming. Meetings are open to the
public and public comment will be
taken.
SUMMARY:
DATES: Beginning at 1 p.m. MST:
November 5, 2009; January 28, 2010;
February 25, 2010; March 25, 2010;
April 22, 2010; May 27, 2010; June 24,
2010; July 22, 2010; August 26, 2010;
September 23, 2010; and October 28,
2010.
The PAWG meetings will be
held at the BLM Pinedale Field Office,
1625 West Pine Street in Pinedale,
Wyoming.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Shelley Gregory, PAWG Designated
Federal Officer, Bureau of Land
Management, Pinedale Field Office,
1625 West Pine Street, P.O. Box 768,
Pinedale, WY 82941; 307–367–5328;
shelley_gregory@blm.gov.
The
Pinedale Anticline Working Group
(PAWG) was authorized and established
with release of the Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Final Environmental
Impact Statement of the Pinedale
Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and
Development Project Area (PAPA) on
July 27, 2000 and carried forward with
the release of the ROD for the Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (FSEIS) of the PAPA on
September 12, 2008. The PAWG advises
the BLM on the development and
implementation of monitoring plans and
adaptive management decisions as
PAPA development proceeds. Meeting
agendas will include discussions
concerning the implementation of the
PAPA FSEIS ROD, the development of
the Pinedale Anticline Project Office
(PAPO), any modifications the PAWG or
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R9–FHC–2009–N215; 94300–1122–
0000–Z2]
Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory
Committee; Announcement of Public
Teleconference and Webcast
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of public teleconference
and Webcast.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), will host a
Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory
Committee (Committee) meeting via
Webcast and teleconference, on October
14, 2009. This meeting is open to the
public but will be limited to 75 public
participants. The meeting agenda will
include a briefing and discussion of the
current draft Recommendations to the
Secretary of the Interior. The Service is
hosting this meeting with less than 15
days’ notice under exceptional
circumstances. The Committee will
terminate on October 26, 2009, unless it
is renewed prior to that date. The
Committee will therefore need this
meeting to finalize its draft
Recommendations in the case that the
Committee is not renewed.
DATES: Meeting: The meeting will take
place on October 14, 2009, from 11 a.m.
to 3 p.m. Eastern Time.
Pre-meeting Public Registration: If you
are a member of the public wishing to
participate in the October 14, 2009,
meeting, you must register online by
October 13, 2009 (see ‘‘Meeting
Participation Information’’ in
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rachel London, Division of Habitat and
Resource Conservation, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Department of the
Interior, (703) 358–2161.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\07OCN1.SGM
07OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51617-51618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24148]
[[Page 51617]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Restoring Native Species to High Elevation Aquatic Ecosystems;
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Tulare and Fresno Counties,
CA; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement
SUMMARY: In accordance with Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the National Park
Service is initiating the conservation planning and environmental
impact analysis process for a plan to restore high elevation aquatic
ecosystems and mountain yellow-legged frogs within their historic range
in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. In addition to satisfying
the requirements and intent of the NEPA, the Environmental Impact
Statement which will be prepared will comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and thus will result in an integrated
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
document.
The purpose of the plan is to provide for restoration of native
species in lakes, ponds, and associated streams within Sequoia and
Kings Canyon National Parks. There are approximately 560 lakes and
ponds within the Parks that contained introduced trout, and removal of
these non-native species from up to 14% of these sites will be
considered. This proposed plan would create clusters of fishless
habitat in headwater basins comprising the historic distribution of the
frogs. This project is needed to preserve and restore aquatic
ecosystems and populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs and other
native animals in high elevation lakes and streams, while also creating
new opportunities for visitors to experience the wildlife of pristine
wilderness lakes and streams yet maintaining recreational fishing
opportunities.
Introduced trout occur in most lakes and ponds in Sequoia and Kings
Canyon National Parks. The presence of introduced trout eliminates
large aquatic invertebrates and zooplankton, reduces the food available
to other wildlife, and compromises reproduction by mountain yellow-
legged frogs. The mountain yellow-legged frog is a species that only
occurs in the high Sierra Nevada and the mountains of southern
California. It is a keystone species whose presence or absence affects
the natural ecology of Sierra Nevada lakes and associated shoreline
environments. The frog has disappeared from about 94% of its historic
sites in the Sierra Nevada and is a candidate for federal listing as
``endangered'' under the Endangered Species Act. The frog's existence
is threatened by impacts from trout populations that were introduced to
naturally fishless habitats, and a new pathogen, chytrid fungus. The
mountain yellow-legged frog is declining rapidly and could become
extinct within a decade.
Preliminary Range of Alternatives: The EIS/EIR will examine a range
of feasible alternatives and evaluate all potential impacts on natural
resources, cultural resources, and the human environment. Since 2001,
biologists in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks have been
removing nonnative trout using gill netting and electroshocking from
selected naturally fishless high lakes and streams (limited trial under
a plan approved in 2001 following public review of an Environmental
Assessment); approximately 23,000 trout have been removed from 11
lakes. Mountain yellow-legged frog tadpole and frog densities measured
in 2001 and 2007 in six of the restored lakes showed an average
increase of 19-fold and 16-fold, with one lake showing a 60-fold
increase in frog populations. The biomass recovery in these lakes has
attracted native species such as snakes, birds, and mammals, which have
been observed preying on now-abundant frogs, tadpoles, and aquatic
invertebrates.
The current methodology of physically removing fish using gill nets
and electrofishers takes one crew about five seasons to fully remove
trout from three lakes. This works out to an average of less than one
lake restored per crew per year. Stream habitat is even slower to
restore. While nearly completed, the park staff is on its ninth year of
attempting to remove fish from about a mile of stream. To restore more
aquatic habitat and improve protection for the mountain yellow-legged
frogs, the NPS is proposing to expand the current program, both in
number of lakes and streams to be considered, and the types of
treatment methods to be utilized.
In addition to a ``no action'' alternative which will provide for a
comparative environmental baseline, alternatives that could be
considered in the EIS/EIR include: (a) Treating 32 to 80 additional
lakes and 18 to 56 miles of stream using current methods (physical
treatment only with gill netting and electrofishers); (b) using
chemical methods (only use of piscicides); and (c) deploying a
combination of these methods. Common to all alternatives would be
reintroducing mountain yellow-legged frogs to sites where they have
been extirpated using the closest genetic forms available, and
continuing to encourage research on the frogs, chytrid fungus and its
management, and the ecological functioning of high mountain lakes and
streams. Under the new alternatives, some entire headwater basins would
be restored to achieve optimal benefit to both aquatic and terrestrial
organisms. Piscicides are being considered because the hydrology of
entire basins is too complex and extensive to be restored using only
gill nets and electrofishers. These basins contain too many miles of
stream, marshes, or exceptionally large lakes to effectively accomplish
fish removal. Because the effort is directed at restoring entire
aquatic ecosystems, long-term protection and restoration of stream and
lake invertebrates and other life is as important as restoring the frog
populations. Although chytrid fungus could impact these populations,
there is some evidence of chytrid resistance emerging in sites that had
large frog populations prior to infection.
Scoping Process: Initially public scoping was conducted from
January 17 to February 6, 2007, and it was anticipated another
Environmental Assessment (EA) might be prepared. During that time, the
parks received comments from over 30 different sources, including the
High Sierra Hikers Association, Wilderness Watch, California Trout,
Californians for Western Wilderness, National Parks and Conservation
Association, and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics. In late 2007,
a newsletter providing an update on the environmental analysis status
was sent to individuals, agencies, interest groups, and tribes on the
parks' mailing list including all those who previously provided scoping
comments. As a result of the newsletter, four additional comment
letters were received between May 2007 and November 2008 (including
Western Environmental Law Center and another High Sierra Hikers
Association response). In total, 37 different individuals, groups,
businesses, or agencies have submitted comments on the proposed plan.
In late 2007 park staff began working on the EA and refining
preliminary alternatives--as staff began the environmental analysis and
re-examined information provided by the public, it became clear that
the project had the potential for significant impacts on the human
environment. There was a level of controversy associated with the
proposal, potential for uncertainty and both adverse and beneficial
[[Page 51618]]
consequences, and unique and unforeseeable environmental impacts. For
these reasons, in early 2009 the Superintendent determined that an EIS
would be prepared.
All scoping comments received to date are included in the official
administrative record; the Scoping Summary Report includes all comments
and information obtained to date and is available on-line at https://parkplanning.nps.gov/seki. It is not necessary for previous letters to
be resubmitted; however if prior respondents have new issues or
information they wish to bring forward then new letters should be
submitted. For further information contact Nancy Hendricks at (559)
565-3102 or SEKI_planning@nps.gov (address as noted below).
DATES: All written comments must be postmarked or transmitted not later
than November 21, 2009. Letters may be mailed or hand delivered to
Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, 47050 Generals
Highway, Three Rivers, CA 93271 (Attn: Aquatic Restoration EIS), or may
be sent electronically to https://parkplanning.nps.gov/seki. Before
including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal
identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--may be
made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your
comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. As a
delegated EIS the official responsible for approval of the High
Elevation Aquatic Ecosystems and Native Species Restoration Plan is the
Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service.
Subsequently the official responsible for implementing the approved
plan would be the Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National
Parks.
Dated: August 11, 2009.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. E9-24148 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-X2-P
