[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
http://www.fws.gov/idaho/ or http://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: http://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 http://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