Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves in the Northern Rocky Mountains; Lethal Take of Wolves in the West Fork Elk Management Unit of Montana; Draft Environmental Assessment, 17439-17442 [2011-6935]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Notices
this fact alone is not fatal to the
proposal, the applicant’s reliance on the
FIA data does not justify the reduced
buffer size proposed under the draft
HCP by sufficiently differentiating the
late-seral forest conditions on proposed
covered lands in Lewis County from
late-seral conditions on covered lands in
these other HCPs. While the volume of
information provided by the Applicant
to support its assertions is substantial,
the type and quality of the information
is insufficient to allow analysts to
clearly and fully understand how the
conclusions reached in the draft Lewis
County HCP are supported.
The base mitigation strategy, or initial
minimization and mitigation measures
that are implemented in any HCP,
should be sufficiently vigorous so that
the Services may reasonably determine
they will be successful. The adaptive
management program should address
uncertainties associated with that
determination and improve knowledge
over time. In this instance, and as
described above, the Services question
whether the proposed conservation
regime in the Lewis County HCP meets
statutory criteria for issuance of an ITP.
As currently written, the conservation
regime contains substantial biological
risk that is not addressed adequately
through the adaptive management
provisions in the draft HCP. By contrast,
the Washington Forest Practices HCP
contains an initial mitigation strategy
that the Services determined was
sufficient, and an extensive adaptive
management program.
Typically, HCPs include an IA that,
among other things, provides for
enforcement of the measures in the
HCP, and also for remedies, should any
party fail to perform its obligations. A
draft IA was among the documents in
the applicant’s submission; each page of
the draft IA contains a statement that
the provisions are ‘‘subject to change
based on the Services’ review.’’ The
Services believe they have previously
and clearly indicated to the applicant
that some provisions in the draft IA are
inconsistent with the criteria for
issuance of an ITP. For example, the
Services have advised the Applicant
that the draft IA lacks a provision for
potential mitigation upon early
termination of the ITP (the draft IA
suggests, in fact, that the Services make
a finding that such mitigation would
never be required), lacks compliance
details including for enforcement, and
omits provisions that establish the
accountability of Lewis County for
performance of its responsibilities as
ITP holder. The draft IA submitted to
the Services by the Applicant does not
address these concerns.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Mar 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
The Services also believe the
preliminary draft EIS provided by Lewis
County with the submission is
inadequate for the Services’
environmental review required under
the NEPA for an ITP application
submission. The analysis was prepared
by the Applicant and does not
accurately reflect the views of the
Services regarding the effects of the
proposal on the human environment.
While it is customary for an applicant
to prepare the preliminary draft NEPA
document for the Services, the Services
are responsible for ensuring that the
published draft EIS discloses the
environmental impacts as determined
by the Services. The preliminary draft
EIS currently stands only as the
Applicant’s analysis, and is not a
Federal environmental review meeting
the statutory and regulatory
requirements in NEPA. Typically, the
Services work with an applicant to
address our concerns; in this case, the
Applicant has chosen not to modify the
draft EIS in response to the Services’
concerns.
On February 12, 2008, the Services
met with the Family Forest Foundation,
policy representatives from the
Washington Department of Ecology,
Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife, and the Washington DNR. At
that meeting, the State of Washington
verbally indicated it did not support the
science in the draft HCP and it did not
believe that the Lewis County HCP
would qualify as an ‘‘alternate plan’’
under the existing Washington State
forest practices regulations by providing
equivalent or better ecological function
than existing forest practices
regulations.
Availability of Documents
The ITP application submission—
which includes a draft HCP, preliminary
draft EIS provided by the Applicant,
and a draft IA—is available for public
inspection, by appointment, between
the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. at the
FWS’s Washington Fish and Wildlife
Office (see ADDRESSES above). You may
also request copies of the documents by
contacting the FWS’s Washington Fish
and Wildlife Office (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT above). The public
is invited to submit comments and any
other relevant information regarding:
The adequacy of the mitigation,
minimization, and monitoring measures
proposed under the draft Lewis County
HCP, particularly with respect to
proposed riparian forest buffers in
relation to those required under
Washington State forest practices
regulations; and the adequacy of the
draft IA provisions.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17439
All comments received will become
part of the public record for this
proposed action. Our practice is to make
comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for
public review during regular business
hours. Before including your address,
phone number, email address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, this
cannot be guaranteed.
Dated: March 21, 2011.
Richard Hannan,
Deputy Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
Dated: March 22, 2011.
Therese Conant,
Acting Chief, Endangered Species Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2011–7238 Filed 3–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS–R6–ES–2011–0022;
92220–1113–0000–C3]
Nonessential Experimental
Populations of Gray Wolves in the
Northern Rocky Mountains; Lethal
Take of Wolves in the West Fork Elk
Management Unit of Montana; 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 Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks
(MFWP) proposal to lethally take
wolves in the West Fork Elk
Management Unit (EMU) in western
Montana in response to impacts on elk
populations. The MFWP’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
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM
29MRN1
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
17440
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Notices
MFWP proposal to reduce the wolf
population in the West Fork EMU to a
minimum of 12 wolves in 2 to 3 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 West Fork EMU.
Under the no-action alternative, wolves
in the West Fork EMU 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 April 12,
2011. Please note that if you are using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES section), 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.regulations.gov under Docket
Number FWS–R6–ES–2011–0022.
Alternatively, you may request the
document by writing to: Ed Bangs, Attn:
West Fork EMU Wolf 10(j) proposal,
USFWS Montana Field Office, 585
Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601.
Comments: You may submit
comments by one of the following
methods:
• Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the ‘‘Select
Document Type’’ pull-down list, select
‘‘Search All.’’ In the ‘‘Enter Keyword or
ID’’ field, type FWS–R6–S–2011–0022,
which is the docket number for this
action. Then click the ‘‘Search’’ button.
Once you have found the document,
you may submit a comment by clicking
on ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’
• By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail
or hand deliver to: Public Comments
Processing, Attn: FWS–R6–ES–2011–
0022; Division of Policy and Directives
Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, MS
2042–PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on
https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any
personal information you provide us
(see Public Comment Procedures and
Public Availability of Comments under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more
information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed
Bangs, NRM Wolf Coordinator, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS
Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSES),
at 406–449–5225; or ed_bangs@fws.gov
(e-mail). Individuals who are hearing
impaired or speech impaired may call
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Mar 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 West
Fork EMU in the State of Montana. The
West Fork EMU is 1 of 35 elk
management units in Montana. The
proposed action is in response to a
proposal from MFWP to reduce gray
wolf predation on the wild elk
population in the West Fork EMU 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 listing was changed from listing
subspecies to a species-level listing in
the contiguous U.S., with wolves in
Minnesota listed as threatened and
wolves in the rest of the contiguous U.S.
listed as endangered (March 9, 1978; 43
FR 9607).
The 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
Service was authorized 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 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 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 (November 22, 1994; 59
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
FR 60252) and the Central Idaho
Experimental Population Area
(November 22, 1994; 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
that were in the act of killing,
wounding, or biting livestock, and
allowed the Service to lethally remove
problem wolves. The 1994 designation
did not contemplate lethally removing
wolves to protect wild game species.
After being reintroduced to central
Idaho and the GYA in 1995 and 1996 as
nonessential experimental populations
under section 10(j), wolves achieved
biological recovery objectives in 2002 in
Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.
Following biological recovery, the 1994
section 10(j) rule was amended in 2005
to give State and Tribal governments
with Service-approved post-delisting
management plans a role in gray wolf
management and to allow such States
and Tribes to lethally take wolves in
response to ‘‘unacceptable impacts’’ to
wild ungulate populations (January 6,
2005; 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 with Serviceapproved post-delisting management
plans requests an exception from the
take prohibitions of the ESA in response
to wolf impacts on wild ungulate
populations (January 28, 2008; 73 FR
4720).
Under the 2008 10(j) rule, States or
Tribes with Service-approved postdelisting management plans may
lethally take wolves within the
experimental population areas 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
E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM
29MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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 authorization of
the proposal. 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 (January 28,
2008; 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 such lethal
removal of wolves proposed by a State
or Tribe, 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.
Draft Environmental Assessment
We are announcing the availability of
a draft EA that was prepared to evaluate
potential environmental effects
associated with our authorization or
denial of MFWP’s proposal to lethally
take wolves in the West Fork EMU in an
effort to reduce wolf populations to a
minimum of 12 wolves in 2 to 3 packs
and reduce predation pressure on the
elk population in that zone. We describe
a no-action alternative and a preferred
action, and analyze the environmental
consequences of each alternative.
No-Action Alternative (Deny
Requested Authorization). Under the
no-action alternative, the Service would
deny MFWP’s 10(j) proposal to remove
wolves in the West Fork EMU, and
current management direction for
wolves would continue. In the West
Fork EMU, wolves would be managed
by the Service or their designated agent
and could be removed when livestock,
stock animals, or dogs are killed by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Mar 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
wolves as currently provided for in the
2008 10(j) rule (73 FR 4720, January 28,
2008). The management strategy for the
no-action alternative would not include
lethal removal of wolves in response to
predation on wild ungulate populations.
Under the no-action alternative State
and Tribal governments would continue
to use their management activities 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 MFWP 10(j) proposal to
remove wolves in the West Fork EMU
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 12 wolves
in 2 to 3 packs. Based on the 2009 yearend wolf population estimate of 24
wolves residing in the West Fork EMU,
the initial removal is estimated to be a
minimum of 12 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 West EMU 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 MFWP personnel and other approved
agents of the State of Montana. Wolves
that inhabit the West Fork EMU 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 would occur through
fair chase hunting or trapping by the
public, control actions by agency
personnel or designees, or any
combination of these. The MFWP 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
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
17441
winter months. Most wolf control would
occur on U.S. Forest Service lands
outside of designated wilderness. The
MFWP 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 West Fork EMU under section
10(j) of the ESA in response to wolf
impacts on elk populations, (2)
reconsider our preferred alternative and
deny MFWP’s proposal, or (3) determine
that an Environmental Impact Statement
should be prepared prior to authorizing
or denying MFWP’s proposal.
Public Comment Procedures
To ensure that any final action on the
proposal will be as accurate and as
effective as possible, we request that
you send relevant information for our
consideration. The comments that will
be most useful and likely to influence
our decisions are those that you support
by quantitative information or studies
and those that include citations to, and
analyses of, the applicable laws and
regulations. Please make your comments
as specific as possible and explain the
bases for them. In addition, please
include sufficient information with your
comments to allow us to authenticate
any scientific or commercial data you
include.
You must submit your comments and
materials concerning the proposed
action by one of the methods listed in
the ADDRESSES section. We will not
accept comments sent by e-mail or fax
or to an address not listed in ADDRESSES.
If you submit a comment via https://
www.regulations.gov, your entire
comment—including any personal
identifying information, such as your
address, telephone number, or e-mail
address—will be posted on the Web site.
Please note that comments submitted to
this Web site are not immediately
viewable. When you submit a comment,
the system receives it immediately.
However, the comment will not be
publicly viewable until we post it,
which might not occur until several
days after submission.
If you mail or hand-carry a hardcopy
comment directly to us that includes
personal information, you may request
at the top of your document that we
E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM
29MRN1
17442
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Notices
withhold this information from public
review. However, we cannot guarantee
that we will be able to do so. To ensure
that the electronic docket for this
rulemaking is complete and all
comments we receive are publicly
available, we will post all hardcopy
comments on https://
www.regulations.gov.
In addition, comments and materials
we receive, as well as supporting
documentation used in preparing this
proposed rule, will be available for
public inspection in two ways:
(1) You can view them on https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Enter
Keyword or ID box, enter FWS–R6–ES–
2011–0022, which is the docket number
for this action. Then, in the Search
panel at the top of the screen, select the
type of documents you want to view
under the Document Type heading.
(2) You can make an appointment,
during normal business hours, to view
the comments and materials in person at
the location in the ADDRESSES section.
Public Availability of Comments
As stated above in more detail, 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
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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); Department of the Interior
NEPA regulations (43 CFR part 46);
other appropriate Federal laws and
regulations; Executive Order 12996; and
Service policies and procedures for
compliance with those laws and
regulations.
Dated: March 3, 2011.
Richard A. Coleman,
Acting Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.
[FR Doc. 2011–6935 Filed 3–28–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:37 Mar 28, 2011
Jkt 223001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R9–EA–2011–N065]
Wildlife and Hunting Heritage
Conservation Council Teleconference
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of teleconference.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
public teleconference of the Wildlife
and Hunting Heritage Conservation
Council (Council).
DATES: We will hold the teleconference
on Tuesday, April 12, 2011, 12 p.m. to
3 p.m. (Eastern Daylight Time). If you
wish to listen to or participate in the
teleconference proceedings, or submit
written material for the Council to
consider during the teleconference,
notify Joshua Winchell by Thursday,
April 7, 2011. See instructions under
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joshua Winchell, Council Coordinator,
4401 N. Fairfax Dr., Mailstop 3103–
AEA, Arlington, VA 22203; (703) 358–
2639 (phone); (703) 358–2548 (fax); or
joshua_winchell@fws.gov (e-mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In
accordance with the requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5
U.S.C. App., we give notice that the
Council will hold a teleconference (see
DATES).
SUMMARY:
Background
Formed in February 2010, the Council
provides advice about wildlife and
habitat conservation endeavors that:
(a) Benefit recreational hunting;
(b) Benefit wildlife resources; and
(c) Encourage partnership among the
public, the sporting conservation
community, the shooting and hunting
sports industry, wildlife conservation
organizations, the States, Native
American Tribes, and the Federal
Government.
The Council advises the Secretary of
the Interior (DOI) and the Secretary of
Agriculture (USDA), reporting through
the Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), in consultation with
the Director, Bureau of Land
Management (BLM); Chief, Forest
Service (USFS); Chief, Natural
Resources Service (NRCS); and
Administrator, Farm Services Agency
(FSA). The Council’s duties are strictly
advisory and consist of, but are not
limited to, providing recommendations
for:
(a) Implementing the Recreational
Hunting and Wildlife Resource
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Conservation Plan—A Ten-Year Plan for
Implementation;
(b) Increasing public awareness of and
support for the Sport Wildlife Trust
Fund;
(c) Fostering wildlife and habitat
conservation and ethics in hunting and
shooting sports recreation;
(d) Stimulating sportsmen and
women’s participation in conservation
and management of wildlife and habitat
resources through outreach and
education;
(e) Fostering communication and
coordination among State, Tribal, and
Federal Government; industry; hunting
and shooting sportsmen and women;
wildlife and habitat conservation and
management organizations; and the
public;
(f) Providing appropriate access to
Federal lands for recreational shooting
and hunting;
(g) Providing recommendation to
improve implementation of Federal
conservation programs that benefit
wildlife, hunting, and outdoor
recreation on private lands; and
(h) When requested by the agencies’
designated ex officio members, or the
Designated Federal Officer in
consultation with the Council
Chairman, performing a variety of
assessments or reviews of policies,
programs, and efforts, through the
Council’s designated subcommittees or
workgroups.
Background information on the
Council is available at https://
www.fws.gov/whhcc.
Meeting Agenda
The Council will convene to: (1)
Discuss DOI and USDA’s 2012 proposed
budgets as they relate to programs
relevant to the Council’s charge, and (2)
discuss the National Wildlife Refuge
System Vision document. We will post
the final agenda on the Internet at
https://www.fws.gov/whhcc.
Procedures for Public Input
Interested members of the public may
listen to or present relevant oral
information, or submit a relevant
written statement for the Council to
consider during the public meeting.
Questions from the public will not be
considered during this period. Speakers
who wish to expand upon their oral
statements or those who had wished to
speak but could not be accommodated
on the agenda are invited to submit
written statements to the Council.
Individuals or groups can listen to or
make an oral presentation at the public
Council teleconference. Oral
presentations will be limited to 2
minutes per speaker, with no more than
E:\FR\FM\29MRN1.SGM
29MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17439-17442]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6935]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[Docket No. FWS-R6-ES-2011-0022; 92220-1113-0000-C3]
Nonessential Experimental Populations of Gray Wolves in the
Northern Rocky Mountains; Lethal Take of Wolves in the West Fork Elk
Management Unit of Montana; 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 Montana
Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (MFWP) proposal to lethally
take wolves in the West Fork Elk Management Unit (EMU) in western
Montana in response to impacts on elk populations. The MFWP'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
[[Page 17440]]
MFWP proposal to reduce the wolf population in the West Fork EMU to a
minimum of 12 wolves in 2 to 3 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 West Fork EMU. Under the no-action alternative,
wolves in the West Fork EMU 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 April 12, 2011. Please note that if you
are using the Federal eRulemaking Portal (see ADDRESSES section), 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.regulations.gov under Docket Number FWS-R6-ES-2011-0022.
Alternatively, you may request the document by writing to: Ed Bangs,
Attn: West Fork EMU Wolf 10(j) proposal, USFWS Montana Field Office,
585 Shepard Way, Helena, MT 59601.
Comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:
Electronically: Go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
https://www.regulations.gov. In the ``Select Document Type'' pull-down
list, select ``Search All.'' In the ``Enter Keyword or ID'' field, type
FWS-R6-S-2011-0022, which is the docket number for this action. Then
click the ``Search'' button. Once you have found the document, you may
submit a comment by clicking on ``Submit a Comment.''
By hard copy: Submit by U.S. mail or hand deliver to:
Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R6-ES-2011-0022; Division of
Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401
N. Fairfax Drive, MS 2042-PDM; Arlington, VA 22203.
We will post all comments on https://www.regulations.gov. This
generally means that we will post any personal information you provide
us (see Public Comment Procedures and Public Availability of Comments
under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for more information).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Bangs, NRM Wolf Coordinator, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, USFWS Montana Field Office (see ADDRESSES),
at 406-449-5225; or ed_bangs@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 West
Fork EMU in the State of Montana. The West Fork EMU is 1 of 35 elk
management units in Montana. The proposed action is in response to a
proposal from MFWP to reduce gray wolf predation on the wild elk
population in the West Fork EMU 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
listing was changed from listing subspecies to a species-level listing
in the contiguous U.S., with wolves in Minnesota listed as threatened
and wolves in the rest of the contiguous U.S. listed as endangered
(March 9, 1978; 43 FR 9607).
The 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 Service was
authorized 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 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 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 (November 22, 1994; 59 FR 60252) and the Central Idaho
Experimental Population Area (November 22, 1994; 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 that were in the
act of killing, wounding, or biting livestock, and allowed the Service
to lethally remove problem wolves. The 1994 designation did not
contemplate lethally removing wolves to protect wild game species.
After being reintroduced to central Idaho and the GYA in 1995 and
1996 as nonessential experimental populations under section 10(j),
wolves achieved biological recovery objectives in 2002 in Idaho,
Montana, and Wyoming. Following biological recovery, the 1994 section
10(j) rule was amended in 2005 to give State and Tribal governments
with Service-approved post-delisting management plans a role in gray
wolf management and to allow such States and Tribes to lethally take
wolves in response to ``unacceptable impacts'' to wild ungulate
populations (January 6, 2005; 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 with
Service-approved post-delisting management plans requests an exception
from the take prohibitions of the ESA in response to wolf impacts on
wild ungulate populations (January 28, 2008; 73 FR 4720).
Under the 2008 10(j) rule, States or Tribes with Service-approved
post-delisting management plans may lethally take wolves within the
experimental population areas 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
[[Page 17441]]
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 authorization of the proposal. 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 (January 28, 2008; 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 such lethal removal of wolves proposed by a
State or Tribe, 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.
Draft Environmental Assessment
We are announcing the availability of a draft EA that was prepared
to evaluate potential environmental effects associated with our
authorization or denial of MFWP's proposal to lethally take wolves in
the West Fork EMU in an effort to reduce wolf populations to a minimum
of 12 wolves in 2 to 3 packs and reduce predation pressure on the elk
population in that zone. We describe a no-action alternative and a
preferred action, and analyze the environmental consequences of each
alternative.
No-Action Alternative (Deny Requested Authorization). Under the no-
action alternative, the Service would deny MFWP's 10(j) proposal to
remove wolves in the West Fork EMU, and current management direction
for wolves would continue. In the West Fork EMU, 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 management strategy for the no-action alternative would not
include lethal removal of wolves in response to predation on wild
ungulate populations.
Under the no-action alternative State and Tribal governments would
continue to use their management activities 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 MFWP 10(j)
proposal to remove wolves in the West Fork EMU 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 12 wolves in 2 to 3 packs.
Based on the 2009 year-end wolf population estimate of 24 wolves
residing in the West Fork EMU, the initial removal is estimated to be a
minimum of 12 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 West EMU 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 MFWP personnel and other
approved agents of the State of Montana. Wolves that inhabit the West
Fork EMU 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 would occur through fair chase
hunting or trapping by the public, control actions by agency personnel
or designees, or any combination of these. The MFWP 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. The MFWP 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 West Fork EMU
under section 10(j) of the ESA in response to wolf impacts on elk
populations, (2) reconsider our preferred alternative and deny MFWP's
proposal, or (3) determine that an Environmental Impact Statement
should be prepared prior to authorizing or denying MFWP's proposal.
Public Comment Procedures
To ensure that any final action on the proposal will be as accurate
and as effective as possible, we request that you send relevant
information for our consideration. The comments that will be most
useful and likely to influence our decisions are those that you support
by quantitative information or studies and those that include citations
to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations. Please make
your comments as specific as possible and explain the bases for them.
In addition, please include sufficient information with your comments
to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you
include.
You must submit your comments and materials concerning the proposed
action by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will
not accept comments sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed
in ADDRESSES. If you submit a comment via https://www.regulations.gov,
your entire comment--including any personal identifying information,
such as your address, telephone number, or e-mail address--will be
posted on the Web site. Please note that comments submitted to this Web
site are not immediately viewable. When you submit a comment, the
system receives it immediately. However, the comment will not be
publicly viewable until we post it, which might not occur until several
days after submission.
If you mail or hand-carry a hardcopy comment directly to us that
includes personal information, you may request at the top of your
document that we
[[Page 17442]]
withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so. To ensure that the electronic
docket for this rulemaking is complete and all comments we receive are
publicly available, we will post all hardcopy comments on https://www.regulations.gov.
In addition, comments and materials we receive, as well as
supporting documentation used in preparing this proposed rule, will be
available for public inspection in two ways:
(1) You can view them on https://www.regulations.gov. In the Enter
Keyword or ID box, enter FWS-R6-ES-2011-0022, which is the docket
number for this action. Then, in the Search panel at the top of the
screen, select the type of documents you want to view under the
Document Type heading.
(2) You can make an appointment, during normal business hours, to
view the comments and materials in person at the location in the
ADDRESSES section.
Public Availability of Comments
As stated above in more detail, 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); Department of the Interior NEPA
regulations (43 CFR part 46); other appropriate Federal laws and
regulations; Executive Order 12996; and Service policies and procedures
for compliance with those laws and regulations.
Dated: March 3, 2011.
Richard A. Coleman,
Acting Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.
[FR Doc. 2011-6935 Filed 3-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
