Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains; Lethal Take of Wolves in the Lolo Elk Management Zone of Idaho; Draft Environmental Assessment, 7875-7877 [2011-3064]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2011 / Notices
door chimes at the Leisure Manor
Apartments I & II, and to the Housing
Authority of the City of Columbia,
Columbia, SC, for the purchase and
installation of door stops, GFCI
receptacles, telephone wall
communication plates, range outlets,
telephone/CATV combo communication
wall plates, three-way switches, single
pole switches, dryer outlets, door
chimes and door viewers at the DorrahRandall Phase VI Modernization Project.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald J. LaVoy, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Office of Field Operations,
Office of Public and Indian Housing,
Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 7th Street, SW.,
Room 4112, Washington, DC 20410–
4000, telephone number 202–402–8500
(this is not a toll-free number); or
Dominique G. Blom, Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Public Housing
Investments, Office of Public Housing
Investments, Office of Public and Indian
Housing, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 7th Street,
SW., Room 4130, Washington, DC
20410–4000, telephone number 202–
402–8500 (this is not a toll-free
number). Persons with hearing- or
speech-impairments may access this
number through TTY by calling the tollfree Federal Information Relay Service
at 800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
1605(a) of the Recovery Act provides
that none of the funds appropriated or
made available by the Recovery Act may
be used for a project for the
construction, alteration, maintenance, or
repair of a public building or public
work unless all of the iron, steel, and
manufactured goods used in the project
are produced in the United States.
Section 1605(b) provides that the Buy
American requirement shall not apply
in any case or category in which the
head of a Federal department or agency
finds that: (1) Applying the Buy
American requirement would be
inconsistent with the public interest;
(2) iron, steel, and the relevant
manufactured goods are not produced in
the U.S. in sufficient and reasonably
available quantities or of satisfactory
quality, or (3) inclusion of iron, steel,
and manufactured goods will increase
the cost of the overall project by more
than 25 percent. Section 1605(c)
provides that if the head of a Federal
department or agency makes a
determination pursuant to section
1605(b), the head of the department or
agency shall publish a detailed written
justification in the Federal Register.
In accordance with section 1605(c) of
the Recovery Act and OMB’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:55 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
implementing guidance published on
April 23, 2009 (74 FR 18449), this notice
advises the public that, on January 19,
2011, the following exceptions were
granted:
1. St. Clair Shores Housing
Commission. Upon request of the St.
Clair Shores Housing Commission, HUD
granted an exception to applicability of
the Buy American requirements with
respect to work, using CFRFC grant
funds, in connection with the Leisure
Manor Apartments I & II. The exception
was granted by HUD on the basis that
the relevant manufactured goods (GFCI
outlets and multi-tone electronic
chimes) are not produced in the U.S. in
sufficient and reasonably available
quantities or of satisfactory quality.
2. Housing Authority of the City of
Columbia. Upon request of the Housing
Authority of the City of Columbia, HUD
granted an exception to applicability of
the Buy American requirements with
respect to work, using CFRFC grant
funds, in connection with the DorrahRandall Phase VI Modernization Project.
The exception was granted by HUD on
the basis that the relevant manufactured
goods (door stops, GFCI receptacles,
telephone wall communication plates,
range outlets, telephone/CATV combo
communication wall plates, three-way
switches, single pole switches, dryer
outlets, door chimes and door viewers)
are not produced in the U.S. in
sufficient and reasonably available
quantities or of satisfactory quality.
Dated: January 27, 2011.
Deborah Hernandez,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public
and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 2011–3149 Filed 2–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS–R1–ES–2011–0009;
10120–1113–0000–C3]
Nonessential Experimental
Populations of Gray Wolves in the
Northern Rocky Mountains; Lethal
Take of Wolves in the Lolo Elk
Management Zone of Idaho; Draft
Environmental Assessment
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft environmental
assessment (EA) of the Idaho
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7875
Department of Fish and Game’s (IDFG)
proposal to lethally take wolves in the
Lolo Elk Management Zone of northcentral Idaho in response to impacts on
elk populations. IDFG’s proposal was
submitted under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) and our special
regulations under the ESA for the
central Idaho and Yellowstone area
nonessential experimental populations
of gray wolves in the Northern Rocky
Mountains. The draft EA describes the
environmental effects of two
alternatives: (1) The preferred
alternative, which would approve the
IDFG proposal to reduce the wolf
population in the Lolo Elk Management
Zone to a minimum of 20 to 30 wolves,
in 3 to 5 packs, for a period of 5 years,
in response to impacts on elk
populations; and (2) a no-action
alternative, which would deny the
proposal to reduce the wolf population
in the Lolo Elk Management Zone.
Under the no-action alternative, wolves
in the Lolo Elk Management Zone
would continue to be managed as a
nonessential experimental population
and could be removed by the Service or
its designated agents when livestock,
stock animals, or dogs are killed by
wolves.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we
must receive your written comments on
the draft EA no later than March 14,
2011. Please note that if you are using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES section, below), the deadline
for submitting an electronic comment is
11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on this date.
ADDRESSES: Documents: The draft EA is
available electronically at https://
www.fws.gov/idaho/ or https://
www.regulations.gov (under Docket
number FWS–R1–ES–2011–0009).
Alternatively, you may request the
document by writing to: Idaho State
Supervisor, Attn: Lolo Wolf 10(j)
proposal, Idaho Fish and Wildlife
Office, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Suite
368, Boise, ID 83709–1657.
Comments: Before submitting
comments, see the Public Availability of
Comments section, below, for important
information regarding privacy and
personal identifying information in your
comments. Comments and materials
received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during
normal business hours at the Idaho Fish
and Wildlife Office address. You may
submit information by one of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the box that
reads ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the
Docket number for this finding, which
is FWS–R1–ES–2011–0009. Check the
E:\FR\FM\11FEN1.SGM
11FEN1
7876
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2011 / Notices
box that reads ‘‘Open for Comment/
Submission,’’ and then click the Search
button. You should then see an icon that
reads ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ Please
ensure that you have found the correct
document before submitting your
comment.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public
Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R1–
ES–2011–0009; Division of Policy and
Directives Management; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive,
Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all information we
receive on https://www.regulations.gov.
This generally means that we will post
any personal information you provide
us (see the Public Availability of
Comments section below for more
details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Brian Kelly, Idaho State Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho
Fish and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES
above), at 208–378–5243; or
brian_t_kelly@fws.gov (e-mail).
Individuals who are hearing impaired or
speech impaired may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Background
We are evaluating whether or not to
authorize lethal take of wolves in an
ESA-designated nonessential
experimental population in the Lolo Elk
Management Zone (Lolo Zone) in the
State of Idaho. The Lolo Zone is 1 of 29
elk-management zones in Idaho. The
proposed action is in response to a
proposal from the Idaho Department of
Fish and Game (IDFG) to reduce gray
wolf predation on the wild elk
population in the Lolo Zone for a period
of 5 years.
In 1974, Northern Rocky Mountain
gray wolves (Canis lupus irremotus), as
well as three other gray wolf subspecies,
were listed as endangered under the
authority of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973 (ESA; U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
(January 4, 1974; 39 FR 1171). In 1978,
the List was updated to reflect new
taxonomic information related to gray
wolf subspecies, and also the fact that
all gray wolf subspecies in the
coterminous United States and Mexico
were threatened or endangered (43 FR
9607).
ESA Amendments of 1982 (Pub. L.
97–304) made significant changes to the
ESA, including the creation of section
10(j), which provides for the designation
of specific populations of listed species
as ‘‘experimental.’’ Under previous
authorities in the ESA, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) was permitted
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:55 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
to reintroduce a listed species into
unoccupied portions of its historical
range for conservation and recovery
purposes. However, in some cases, local
opposition to reintroduction efforts from
parties concerned about potential
restrictions under sections 7 and 9 of
the ESA, made reintroductions
contentious or even socially
unacceptable.
Under ESA section 10(j), a listed
species reintroduced outside of its
current range—but within its historical
range—may be designated, at the
discretion of the Secretary of the
Interior, as ‘‘experimental.’’ This
designation increases the Service’s
flexibility and discretion in managing
reintroduced endangered species,
because the Service treats experimental
populations as threatened species (with
a few exceptions) and may promulgate
special regulations for threatened
species that provide exceptions to the
take prohibitions under section 9 of the
ESA.
On November 22, 1994, we designated
portions of Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming as two nonessential
experimental population areas for the
gray wolf under section 10(j) of the ESA:
The Yellowstone Experimental
Population Area (59 FR 60252) and the
Central Idaho Experimental Population
Area (59 FR 60266). These designations,
which are found in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.40(i),
assisted us in initiating gray wolf
reintroduction projects in central Idaho
and in the Greater Yellowstone Area
(GYA). At that time, special regulations
under section 10(j) allowed, among
other things, livestock producers to
lethally remove wolves in the act of
killing, wounding, or biting livestock,
and allowed the Service to lethally
remove problem wolves. The 1994
designation did not contemplate
removing wolves to protect wild game
species.
After being reintroduced to central
Idaho in 1995 and 1996 as a
nonessential experimental population
under section 10(j) of the ESA, wolves
achieved biological recovery objectives
in 2002. Following biological recovery,
the 1994 ESA 10(j) rule was amended in
2005 to give State and Tribal
governments a role in gray wolf
management under Service-approved
wolf management plans and to allow
lethal take of wolves in response to
‘‘unacceptable impacts’’ to wild ungulate
populations (70 FR 1286). The 10(j) rule
was amended again in 2008 to clarify
the definition of ‘‘unacceptable impact’’
and the factors the Service must
consider when a State or Tribe requests
an exception from the take prohibitions
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of the ESA in response to wolf impacts
on wild ungulate populations (73 FR
4720).
Under the 2008 10(j) rule, States or
Tribes may lethally take wolves within
the experimental population if wolf
predation is having an unacceptable
impact on wild ungulate populations
(deer, elk, moose, bighorn sheep,
mountain goats, antelope, or bison) as
determined by the respective State or
Tribe, provided that the State or Tribe
prepares a science-based document that:
(1) Describes the basis of ungulate
population or herd management
objectives, which data indicate that the
ungulate population or herd is below
management objectives, which data
indicate that wolves are a major cause
of the unacceptable impact to the
ungulate population or herd, why wolf
removal is a warranted solution to help
restore the ungulate population or herd
to State or Tribal management
objectives, the level and duration of
wolf removal being proposed, and how
ungulate population or herd response to
wolf removal will be measured and
control actions adjusted for
effectiveness; (2) demonstrates that
attempts were and are being made to
address other identified major causes of
ungulate herd or population declines, or
the State or Tribe commits to implement
possible remedies or conservation
measures in addition to wolf removal;
and (3) provides for an opportunity for
peer review and public comment on
their proposal prior to submitting it to
the Service for written concurrence. In
conducting peer review, the State or
Tribe must: (i) Conduct the peer review
process in conformance with the Office
of Management and Budget’s Final
Information Quality Bulletin for Peer
Review (70 FR 2664), and include in
their proposal an explanation of how
the Bulletin’s standards were
considered and satisfied; and (ii) obtain
at least five independent peer reviews
from individuals with relevant
expertise; these individuals must not be
staff employed by the State, Tribal, or
Federal agency directly or indirectly
involved with predator control or
ungulate management in Idaho,
Montana, or Wyoming.
Before authorizing lethal removal of
wolves in response to ‘‘unacceptable’’
wild ungulate impacts, the Service must
determine whether an unacceptable
impact to wild ungulate populations or
herds has occurred. We also must
determine that the proposed lethal
removal is science based, will not
contribute to reducing the wolf
population in the State below 20
breeding pairs and 200 wolves, and will
not impede wolf recovery.
E:\FR\FM\11FEN1.SGM
11FEN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2011 / Notices
Draft Environmental Assessment
We are announcing the availability of
a draft Environmental Assessment (EA)
that was prepared to evaluate potential
environmental effects associated with
our authorization or denial of IDFG’s
proposal to lethally take wolves in the
Lolo Zone in an effort to reduce wolf
populations to a minimum of 20 to 30
wolves in 3 to 5 packs and reduce
predation pressure on the elk
population in that zone. A No Action
and Preferred Action are described, and
the environmental consequences of each
alternative are analyzed.
No-Action Alternative (Deny
Requested Authorization). Under the
No-Action Alternative, the Service
would deny IDFG’s 10(j) proposal to
remove wolves in the Lolo Elk
Management Zone, and current
management direction for wolves would
continue. In the Lolo Elk Management
Zone, wolves would be managed by the
Service or their designated agent and
could be removed when livestock, stock
animals, or dogs are killed by wolves as
currently provided for in the 2008 10(j)
rule (73 FR 4720, January 28, 2008). The
No-Action Alternative management
strategy would not include lethal
removal of wolves in response to
predation on wild ungulate populations.
The No-Action Alternative would
continue to allow management activities
by State and Tribal governments to
address major causes of elk declines
other than wolf predation. Past
management activities have included
changes in elk hunting seasons and
harvest strategies, changes in black bear
and mountain lion seasons to address
low calf survival, and efforts to improve
elk habitat. These management activities
would not be affected under the NoAction Alternative.
Preferred Alternative (Approve
Requested Authorization). Under the
preferred alternative, the Service would
approve the IDFG 10(j) proposal to
remove wolves in the Lolo Elk
Management Zone to reduce wolf
predation on elk populations over a 5year period. This alternative would
provide an adaptive management
strategy to reduce the wolf population.
Wolves would be removed to manage
for a minimum of 20 to 30 wolves in 3
to 5 packs. Based on the 2009 year-end
wolf population estimate of 76 wolves
residing in the Lolo Elk Management
Zone, the initial removal is estimated to
be a minimum of 40 to 50 wolves.
Levels of wolf removal in subsequent
years are expected to be lower, and
would be based on wolf population
monitoring. Management activities
would be intended to protect the elk
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:55 Feb 10, 2011
Jkt 223001
population in the Lolo Elk Management
Zone while maintaining wolf
populations that meet recovery
objectives. This alternative includes
monitoring both wolf and elk
populations yearly to determine elk
response to the implementation of
management activities and whether
adaptive changes in wolf removal are
needed based on yearly monitoring
results.
Wolf removal would be accomplished
by IDFG personnel and other approved
agents of the State of Idaho. Wolves that
inhabit the Lolo Elk Management Zone
would be targeted for removal. Removal
would be accomplished using legal
means approved by the Service under
provisions of the Service’s 2008 10(j)
rule. Wolf control will occur through
shooting from aircraft or from the
ground, or by capture with foothold
traps or snares followed by euthanasia.
IDFG is not proposing to use poison or
other chemical means to control wolves.
The goal of the removal would be to
reduce pack sizes and, when
appropriate, to remove entire packs. The
primary removal effort would occur
during the winter months. Most wolf
control would occur on U.S. Forest
Service lands outside of designated
wilderness. IDFG is not proposing to use
aircraft to remove wolves from within
designated wilderness. Wolf carcasses
would be recovered from the field,
when possible, and processed for
collection of biological data. Hides and
skulls would be used for educational
purposes.
Next Steps
After the comment period ends, we
will analyze comments received and
determine whether to: (1) Prepare a final
EA and Finding of No Significant
Impact and authorize lethal take of
wolves in the Lolo Zone under section
10(j) of the ESA in response to wolf
impacts on elk populations, (2)
reconsider our preferred alternative and
deny IDFG’s proposal, or (3) determine
that an Environmental Impact Statement
should be prepared prior to authorizing
or denying IDFG’s proposal.
Public Availability of Comments
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7877
Authorities
The Environmental Review of this
project will be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.): NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts
1500–1508); other appropriate Federal
laws and regulations; Executive Order
12996; and Service policies and
procedures for compliance with those
laws and regulations.
Dated: February 4, 2011.
Theresa E. Rabot,
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 2011–3064 Filed 2–10–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLWYD03000. L51100000. GN0000.
LVEMK10CW580]
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Proposed Lost Creek In Situ
Uranium Recovery Project in
Sweetwater County, WY
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent.
AGENCY:
In compliance with the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Rawlins Field
Office, Rawlins, Wyoming, intends to
prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and by this notice is
announcing the beginning of the
scoping process to solicit public
comments and identify issues.
DATES: This notice initiates the public
scoping process for the EIS. Comments
on issues may be submitted in writing
until March 14, 2011. The date(s) and
location(s) of any scoping meetings will
be announced at least 15 days in
advance through local media,
newspapers and the BLM Web site at:
https://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/info/
NEPA/rfodocs/lostcreek.html.
In order to be included in the Draft
EIS, all comments must be received
prior to the close of the scoping period
or 15 days after the last public meeting,
whichever is later. We will provide
additional opportunities for public
participation upon publication of the
Draft EIS.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
related to the Lost Creek In Situ
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11FEN1.SGM
11FEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7875-7877]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3064]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R1-ES-2011-0009; 10120-1113-0000-C3]
Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves in the
Northern Rocky Mountains; Lethal Take of Wolves in the Lolo Elk
Management Zone of Idaho; Draft Environmental Assessment
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft environmental assessment (EA) of the Idaho
Department of Fish and Game's (IDFG) proposal to lethally take wolves
in the Lolo Elk Management Zone of north-central Idaho in response to
impacts on elk populations. IDFG's proposal was submitted under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) and our special regulations under the ESA
for the central Idaho and Yellowstone area nonessential experimental
populations of gray wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains. The draft
EA describes the environmental effects of two alternatives: (1) The
preferred alternative, which would approve the IDFG proposal to reduce
the wolf population in the Lolo Elk Management Zone to a minimum of 20
to 30 wolves, in 3 to 5 packs, for a period of 5 years, in response to
impacts on elk populations; and (2) a no-action alternative, which
would deny the proposal to reduce the wolf population in the Lolo Elk
Management Zone. Under the no-action alternative, wolves in the Lolo
Elk Management Zone would continue to be managed as a nonessential
experimental population and could be removed by the Service or its
designated agents when livestock, stock animals, or dogs are killed by
wolves.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments
on the draft EA no later than March 14, 2011. Please note that if you
are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section,
below), the deadline for submitting an electronic comment is 11:59 p.m.
Eastern Time on this date.
ADDRESSES: Documents: The draft EA is available electronically at
https://www.fws.gov/idaho/ or https://www.regulations.gov (under Docket
number FWS-R1-ES-2011-0009). Alternatively, you may request the
document by writing to: Idaho State Supervisor, Attn: Lolo Wolf 10(j)
proposal, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office, 1387 South Vinnell Way, Suite
368, Boise, ID 83709-1657.
Comments: Before submitting comments, see the Public Availability
of Comments section, below, for important information regarding privacy
and personal identifying information in your comments. Comments and
materials received will be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business hours at the Idaho Fish and
Wildlife Office address. You may submit information by one of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. In the box
that reads ``Enter Keyword or ID,'' enter the Docket number for this
finding, which is FWS-R1-ES-2011-0009. Check the
[[Page 7876]]
box that reads ``Open for Comment/Submission,'' and then click the
Search button. You should then see an icon that reads ``Submit a
Comment.'' Please ensure that you have found the correct document
before submitting your comment.
U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-
R1-ES-2011-0009; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington,
VA 22203.
We will post all information we receive on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us (see the Public Availability of
Comments section below for more details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Kelly, Idaho State Supervisor,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho Fish and Wildlife Office (see
ADDRESSES above), at 208-378-5243; or brian_t_kelly@fws.gov (e-mail).
Individuals who are hearing impaired or speech impaired may call the
Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
We are evaluating whether or not to authorize lethal take of wolves
in an ESA-designated nonessential experimental population in the Lolo
Elk Management Zone (Lolo Zone) in the State of Idaho. The Lolo Zone is
1 of 29 elk-management zones in Idaho. The proposed action is in
response to a proposal from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game
(IDFG) to reduce gray wolf predation on the wild elk population in the
Lolo Zone for a period of 5 years.
In 1974, Northern Rocky Mountain gray wolves (Canis lupus
irremotus), as well as three other gray wolf subspecies, were listed as
endangered under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(ESA; U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (January 4, 1974; 39 FR 1171). In 1978, the
List was updated to reflect new taxonomic information related to gray
wolf subspecies, and also the fact that all gray wolf subspecies in the
coterminous United States and Mexico were threatened or endangered (43
FR 9607).
ESA Amendments of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-304) made significant changes to
the ESA, including the creation of section 10(j), which provides for
the designation of specific populations of listed species as
``experimental.'' Under previous authorities in the ESA, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Service) was permitted to reintroduce a listed
species into unoccupied portions of its historical range for
conservation and recovery purposes. However, in some cases, local
opposition to reintroduction efforts from parties concerned about
potential restrictions under sections 7 and 9 of the ESA, made
reintroductions contentious or even socially unacceptable.
Under ESA section 10(j), a listed species reintroduced outside of
its current range--but within its historical range--may be designated,
at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, as
``experimental.'' This designation increases the Service's flexibility
and discretion in managing reintroduced endangered species, because the
Service treats experimental populations as threatened species (with a
few exceptions) and may promulgate special regulations for threatened
species that provide exceptions to the take prohibitions under section
9 of the ESA.
On November 22, 1994, we designated portions of Idaho, Montana, and
Wyoming as two nonessential experimental population areas for the gray
wolf under section 10(j) of the ESA: The Yellowstone Experimental
Population Area (59 FR 60252) and the Central Idaho Experimental
Population Area (59 FR 60266). These designations, which are found in
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.40(i), assisted us
in initiating gray wolf reintroduction projects in central Idaho and in
the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA). At that time, special regulations
under section 10(j) allowed, among other things, livestock producers to
lethally remove wolves in the act of killing, wounding, or biting
livestock, and allowed the Service to lethally remove problem wolves.
The 1994 designation did not contemplate removing wolves to protect
wild game species.
After being reintroduced to central Idaho in 1995 and 1996 as a
nonessential experimental population under section 10(j) of the ESA,
wolves achieved biological recovery objectives in 2002. Following
biological recovery, the 1994 ESA 10(j) rule was amended in 2005 to
give State and Tribal governments a role in gray wolf management under
Service-approved wolf management plans and to allow lethal take of
wolves in response to ``unacceptable impacts'' to wild ungulate
populations (70 FR 1286). The 10(j) rule was amended again in 2008 to
clarify the definition of ``unacceptable impact'' and the factors the
Service must consider when a State or Tribe requests an exception from
the take prohibitions of the ESA in response to wolf impacts on wild
ungulate populations (73 FR 4720).
Under the 2008 10(j) rule, States or Tribes may lethally take
wolves within the experimental population if wolf predation is having
an unacceptable impact on wild ungulate populations (deer, elk, moose,
bighorn sheep, mountain goats, antelope, or bison) as determined by the
respective State or Tribe, provided that the State or Tribe prepares a
science-based document that: (1) Describes the basis of ungulate
population or herd management objectives, which data indicate that the
ungulate population or herd is below management objectives, which data
indicate that wolves are a major cause of the unacceptable impact to
the ungulate population or herd, why wolf removal is a warranted
solution to help restore the ungulate population or herd to State or
Tribal management objectives, the level and duration of wolf removal
being proposed, and how ungulate population or herd response to wolf
removal will be measured and control actions adjusted for
effectiveness; (2) demonstrates that attempts were and are being made
to address other identified major causes of ungulate herd or population
declines, or the State or Tribe commits to implement possible remedies
or conservation measures in addition to wolf removal; and (3) provides
for an opportunity for peer review and public comment on their proposal
prior to submitting it to the Service for written concurrence. In
conducting peer review, the State or Tribe must: (i) Conduct the peer
review process in conformance with the Office of Management and
Budget's Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (70 FR
2664), and include in their proposal an explanation of how the
Bulletin's standards were considered and satisfied; and (ii) obtain at
least five independent peer reviews from individuals with relevant
expertise; these individuals must not be staff employed by the State,
Tribal, or Federal agency directly or indirectly involved with predator
control or ungulate management in Idaho, Montana, or Wyoming.
Before authorizing lethal removal of wolves in response to
``unacceptable'' wild ungulate impacts, the Service must determine
whether an unacceptable impact to wild ungulate populations or herds
has occurred. We also must determine that the proposed lethal removal
is science based, will not contribute to reducing the wolf population
in the State below 20 breeding pairs and 200 wolves, and will not
impede wolf recovery.
[[Page 7877]]
Draft Environmental Assessment
We are announcing the availability of a draft Environmental
Assessment (EA) that was prepared to evaluate potential environmental
effects associated with our authorization or denial of IDFG's proposal
to lethally take wolves in the Lolo Zone in an effort to reduce wolf
populations to a minimum of 20 to 30 wolves in 3 to 5 packs and reduce
predation pressure on the elk population in that zone. A No Action and
Preferred Action are described, and the environmental consequences of
each alternative are analyzed.
No-Action Alternative (Deny Requested Authorization). Under the No-
Action Alternative, the Service would deny IDFG's 10(j) proposal to
remove wolves in the Lolo Elk Management Zone, and current management
direction for wolves would continue. In the Lolo Elk Management Zone,
wolves would be managed by the Service or their designated agent and
could be removed when livestock, stock animals, or dogs are killed by
wolves as currently provided for in the 2008 10(j) rule (73 FR 4720,
January 28, 2008). The No-Action Alternative management strategy would
not include lethal removal of wolves in response to predation on wild
ungulate populations.
The No-Action Alternative would continue to allow management
activities by State and Tribal governments to address major causes of
elk declines other than wolf predation. Past management activities have
included changes in elk hunting seasons and harvest strategies, changes
in black bear and mountain lion seasons to address low calf survival,
and efforts to improve elk habitat. These management activities would
not be affected under the No-Action Alternative.
Preferred Alternative (Approve Requested Authorization). Under the
preferred alternative, the Service would approve the IDFG 10(j)
proposal to remove wolves in the Lolo Elk Management Zone to reduce
wolf predation on elk populations over a 5-year period. This
alternative would provide an adaptive management strategy to reduce the
wolf population. Wolves would be removed to manage for a minimum of 20
to 30 wolves in 3 to 5 packs. Based on the 2009 year-end wolf
population estimate of 76 wolves residing in the Lolo Elk Management
Zone, the initial removal is estimated to be a minimum of 40 to 50
wolves. Levels of wolf removal in subsequent years are expected to be
lower, and would be based on wolf population monitoring. Management
activities would be intended to protect the elk population in the Lolo
Elk Management Zone while maintaining wolf populations that meet
recovery objectives. This alternative includes monitoring both wolf and
elk populations yearly to determine elk response to the implementation
of management activities and whether adaptive changes in wolf removal
are needed based on yearly monitoring results.
Wolf removal would be accomplished by IDFG personnel and other
approved agents of the State of Idaho. Wolves that inhabit the Lolo Elk
Management Zone would be targeted for removal. Removal would be
accomplished using legal means approved by the Service under provisions
of the Service's 2008 10(j) rule. Wolf control will occur through
shooting from aircraft or from the ground, or by capture with foothold
traps or snares followed by euthanasia. IDFG is not proposing to use
poison or other chemical means to control wolves. The goal of the
removal would be to reduce pack sizes and, when appropriate, to remove
entire packs. The primary removal effort would occur during the winter
months. Most wolf control would occur on U.S. Forest Service lands
outside of designated wilderness. IDFG is not proposing to use aircraft
to remove wolves from within designated wilderness. Wolf carcasses
would be recovered from the field, when possible, and processed for
collection of biological data. Hides and skulls would be used for
educational purposes.
Next Steps
After the comment period ends, we will analyze comments received
and determine whether to: (1) Prepare a final EA and Finding of No
Significant Impact and authorize lethal take of wolves in the Lolo Zone
under section 10(j) of the ESA in response to wolf impacts on elk
populations, (2) reconsider our preferred alternative and deny IDFG's
proposal, or (3) determine that an Environmental Impact Statement
should be prepared prior to authorizing or denying IDFG's proposal.
Public Availability of Comments
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.
Authorities
The Environmental Review of this project will be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.): NEPA
Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508); other appropriate Federal laws
and regulations; Executive Order 12996; and Service policies and
procedures for compliance with those laws and regulations.
Dated: February 4, 2011.
Theresa E. Rabot,
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland,
Oregon.
[FR Doc. 2011-3064 Filed 2-10-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
