[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 29, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17434-17439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-7238]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
RIN 0648-XA020
Receipt of Application for an Endangered Species Act Incidental
Take Permit
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior; National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of receipt of submissions of applications for incidental
take permits; availability of a draft habitat conservation plan, a
preliminary draft environmental impact statement prepared by the
Applicant, and a draft implementation agreement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Lewis County, Washington, Board of Commissioners
(Applicant) has submitted applications to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
(together, the Services) for incidental take permits (ITPs) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). The Applicant
requests ITPs to cover the take of 7 listed and 70 other covered
species under the Services' jurisdictions in conjunction with forest
management activities on a class of private lands in Lewis County,
Washington. The ITP
[[Page 17435]]
application submission includes: A draft Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) describing the Applicant's proposed actions and the proposed
measures the Applicant would implement to minimize, mitigate, and
monitor take of listed and other covered species; a preliminary draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); and a draft Implementation
Agreement (IA). The Services are making the ITP submission package
available for public review and comment consistent with a request from
the Applicant. 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 measures and buffers required under Washington
State forest practices regulations; and the adequacy of the draft IA
provisions.
DATES: All comments from interested parties must be received on or
before May 31, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Please address written comments to Ken Berg, Project Leader,
by U.S. mail to the Washington Fish and Wildlife Office, FWS, 510
Desmond Drive SE., Suite 102, Lacey, WA 98503-1273; by facsimile at
(360) 753-9405; or by electronic mail (e-mail) at
LewisCountyHCP@fws.gov. Alternatively, you may send comments to Steve
Landino, Washington State Director, Habitat Division, NMFS, 510 Desmond
Drive SE., Suite 103, Lacey, WA 98503-1273.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Michaels, at the FWS address above
or by telephone at (360) 753-9440, or Dan Guy, at the NMFS address
above or by telephone at (360) 534-9342.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory Authority
Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) and implementing regulations
prohibit the taking of animal species listed as endangered or
threatened. The term ``take'' is defined under the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1532(19)) to mean to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.
``Harm'' is defined by FWS regulation to include significant habitat
modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife
by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including
breeding, feeding, and sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). NMFS' definition of
``harm'' includes significant habitat modification or degradation where
it actually kills or injures fish or wildlife by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding,
spawning, migrating, rearing, and sheltering (64 FR 60727; November 8,
1999).
Section 10 of the ESA and implementing regulations specify
requirements for the issuance of ITPs to non-Federal landowners for the
take of endangered and threatened species caused by actions these
landowners propose to implement. Any anticipated take must be
incidental to otherwise lawful activities, and it must not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in
the wild; also, ITP holders must minimize and mitigate the impacts of
such take to the maximum extent practicable. The applicant must prepare
a HCP describing the impact that will likely result from such taking,
the strategy for minimizing and mitigating the take, the funding
available to implement such steps, alternatives to such taking, and the
reasons such alternatives are not being implemented.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) requires that Federal agencies conduct an environmental analysis
of their proposed actions to determine if the actions may significantly
affect the human environment. Under NEPA, a reasonable range of
alternatives to the proposed Federal action is developed and considered
in the Services' environmental review. Alternatives considered for
analysis in an EIS may include: variations in the scope of covered
activities; variations in the location, amount, and type of
conservation activities; variations in ITP duration; or a combination
of these elements. In addition, an EIS will identify potentially
significant direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on biological
resources, land use, air quality, water quality, water resources,
socioeconomics, and other environmental issues that could occur with
implementation of the proposed Federal actions and alternatives. For
potentially significant impacts, an EIS may identify avoidance,
minimization, or mitigation measures to reduce these impacts, where
feasible, to a level below significance. In this instance, the
Applicant has provided a preliminary draft EIS to the Services. The
Applicant's preliminary draft EIS is being made available to the
public. You may request a copy of the preliminary draft EIS by
contacting the FWS's Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).
For reasons stated in detail below, the preliminary draft EIS was
not prepared under the Services' oversight or involvement and does not
represent the Services' analysis or environmental review of the
proposed submission.
This notice is provided under section 10(c) of the ESA. This notice
does not initiate a public comment period under NEPA. The Services will
provide an opportunity for public comment under NEPA, based on a
Services-endorsed draft NEPA document, if we determine it is
appropriate to continue processing the ITP application.
Background
On July 25, 2005, the Services published a notice (70 FR 42533) of
the intent to conduct scoping meetings and to gather information to
prepare an EIS related to Lewis County seeking ITPs from the Services
that would provide increased regulatory certainty for small forest
landowners making long-term commitments to forest resource protection.
The notice stated that Lewis County believed the assurances embodied in
such regulatory certainty might encourage family forest landowners in
Lewis County to maintain their property in forest management instead of
converting lands to non-forest uses. The notice affirmed that Lewis
County was seeking ITPs under which it would in turn provide
certificates of inclusion to certain forest landowners, after verifying
they meet eligibility criteria and agree to comply with the Lewis
County HCP. Eligible landowners would be those that hold lands below
the elevation of 1,250 feet within the Chehalis and Cowlitz River
watersheds in Lewis County, and harvest less than 2 million board feet
of timber per calendar year. As of 2004, approximately 133,000 acres
were owned by small forest landowners who met these criteria in Lewis
County.
If issued, the ITPs would provide incidental take coverage for
activities on a maximum of 200,000 acres in Lewis County. Should Lewis
County seek to exceed that acreage, it would need to obtain an ITP
amendment, which could be subject to additional analysis, including
additional NEPA review. The notice stated that the Washington
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would verify compliance with the
Lewis County HCP concurrent with harvest activities, and Lewis County
and the Services would conduct additional compliance monitoring at
other times. Annual implementation reports would be provided by Lewis
County to the Services.
Forestry activities that Lewis County is now proposing for ITP
coverage, and for which minimization and mitigation
[[Page 17436]]
measures were developed, include the following:
All activities involved in timber management and harvest,
including: mechanical site preparation, prescribed burning,
reforestation, vegetation management (other than with herbicides),
precommercial thinning, commercial thinning, timber salvage, other
commercial harvest (felling, bucking, limbing, yarding, skidding,
processing, loading, and hauling) of timber, fire prevention, fire
suppression (including mop-up activities), and nonchemical pest
control;
Construction, reconstruction, improvement, maintenance,
abandonment, closure, and use of logging roads, spurs, landings, and
decking areas;
Quarrying, processing, and transporting of stone, gravel,
and/or dirt for use in roads;
Administrative activities, such as land surveying, timber
cruising, and other resource inventorying;
All activities required by the HCP or ITP; and
Entering into and administering access rights, utility
rights of way, and recreational and hunting leases.
Species for which Lewis County seeks coverage include 33 species of
fish and up to 44 species of wildlife. Seven of the species are
currently listed as threatened under the ESA: the Lower Columbia River
Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Lower Columbia River coho
salmon (O. kisutch), Columbia River chum salmon (O. keta), Lower
Columbia River steelhead (O. mykiss), marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus
marmoratus), northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and the
gray wolf (Canis lupus). Fourteen species proposed for coverage are
unlisted species for which take authorization would become effective
concurrent with their listing, should the species be listed under the
ESA during the permit term.
The draft Lewis County HCP provided with the submission includes a
description of the impacts of take on proposed covered species, and
proposes a conservation strategy that Lewis County asserts will
minimize and mitigate those impacts on each covered species to the
maximum extent practicable. In the submission, Lewis County asserts
that streams would be protected by a combination of no-harvest and
partial-harvest buffers; roads would be designed, constructed, and
maintained to minimize erosion and mass wasting; specified numbers of
snags, logs, and residual live trees would be retained in uplands; and
timber harvest unit size would be restricted to a maximum of 60 acres
to minimize potential cumulative effects. Protection of steep and
unstable slopes, road construction, and road maintenance would follow
Washington State Forest Practices Rules, including any changes made to
those rules through the adaptive management process associated with the
Washington State Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan, which is
currently applicable to all lands subject to this submission.
The conservation strategy in the draft HCP provided with the Lewis
County submission deviates from the strategies for habitat
conservation, including riparian area protection, employed in current
Washington State Forest Practices regulations and five other forestry
HCPs already approved and operating in Washington State (West Fork
Timber Co., Port Blakely Tree Farms, Plum Creek Timber, Washington
State Lands DNR, and Green Diamond Timber Co.). Proposed riparian
buffers on streams vary by stream width, but are smaller than those in
any previously approved forestry HCP in Washington State and those in
the current Washington State Forest Practices regulations (which also
are the subject of an ITP) as displayed in Table 1.
Riparian buffers are essential landscape features needed to provide
important ecological functions integral to the survival and recovery of
salmon and other aquatic species. Appropriately sized riparian buffers
facilitate the delivery of adequate amounts of large woody debris to
the channel, provide shade to moderate stream temperature, and maintain
bank stability by providing root strength. For the buffers proposed in
the Lewis County HCP to be found adequate, persuasive evidence would be
required to ensure that they would provide a functional supply of
recruitable large wood over time, that the wood in the buffer actually
does recruit over time to streams in a manner similar to recruitment in
a late-seral forest (late-successional, mature or old-growth forest),
and that the riparian tree stands moderate stream temperature on the
covered lands.
The existing Washington State Forest Practices regulations for
riparian buffering provide context for comparison with and analysis of
those buffers proposed in the draft Lewis County HCP, because the
provisions of the State's regulations and the Washington State Forest
Practices Habitat Conservation Plan associated with them are the
substance of another ITP, that already is applicable to the proposed
covered lands for the Lewis County HCP. In contrast to the riparian
buffers proposed in the draft Lewis County HCP provided with the
submission, the buffer widths for the Washington State Forest Practices
regulations are based on a combination of factors, including water
type, fish presence, and the types of practices (such as thinning) that
might be employed, depending on a variety of site-determined factors.
[[Page 17437]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29MR11.000
As required by the ESA, the Services are responsible for
determining whether a sufficient application for an ITP under section
10 of the ESA meets permit issuance criteria. The conservation strategy
and measures in the draft Lewis County HCP provided with the submission
have been the subject of extensive consultation and discussion between
Lewis County and the Services. Throughout the HCP discussions, the
Services have expressed concerns about the adequacy of the riparian
prescriptions and the sufficiency of the scientific rationale provided
in the applicant's plan, a rationale that now is used in the draft
Lewis County HCP. Among measures taken in an effort to remove these
concerns, the Services analyzed the results of three separate peer
reviews, two of which were independent and one of which NMFS conducted.
The general focus of the inquiry was to validate that the applicant was
properly modeling the attributes of a late-seral forest for the covered
lands and, as a result, properly mimicking those attributes in its
proposal for a riparian buffer regime. All of the reviews addressed the
metrics, methodology, assumptions, and models that went into the
preparation of the draft Lewis County HCP that the applicant provided
with this submission. The first review was provided to the Family
Forest Foundation on December 2, 2004, and the second was provided in
the fall 2006. The third review was provided on October 5, 2007. These
reviews are discussed below and are available upon request by
contacting the FWS's Washington Fish and Wildlife Office (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT above).
The first two peer reviews were conducted by the Sustainable
Ecosystems Institute (SEI) in Portland, Oregon, on behalf of the
applicant. In the first of the SEI reviews, four reviewers responded to
a series of questions relative to natural (unmanaged) forest conditions
in Lewis County and the use of Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) data
plots as inputs to model these conditions. The objective of the
modeling was to inform the development of forest management
prescriptions in the Lewis County HCP that result in managed, mature
riparian forest stands that closely mimic natural, mature riparian
forest stand conditions in Lewis County. While SEI summarized the
reviewers as ``unequivocal'' in their support of using FIA data to
model natural, mature riparian forest stand conditions in Lewis County,
the Services perceived considerable uncertainty associated within their
individual responses. For example, two of the four SEI reviewers could
not agree that Lewis County had used the appropriate forest stand
parameters to describe the FIA integrated database. The Applicant used
the FIA database to identify mature, natural forest stands of
approximately 120 years of age that could be used as reference stands.
The purpose of these reference stands was to develop target stand
conditions to be achieved under the proposed HCP. After further
discussion between NMFS and the SEI reviewers about their responses,
significant concerns remained that the data used were inappropriate to
model unmanaged, natural, mature riparian forest stand conditions.
The second SEI review asked a series of questions of three
respected forest ecologists from Oregon about the model being used to
predict available large woody debris. SEI summarized their reviews as
``somewhat critical,'' adding that ``The panel felt the model used an
inappropriate definition of functional wood.'' The synopsis of panel
responses was that the model was combined with unrealistic assumptions
relative to the timing of tree fall.
One of the three reviewers cautioned against ``developing sweeping
conclusions about regional management
[[Page 17438]]
based on an untested model.'' The reviewer also noted that ``the model
does not consider several fundamental characteristics of streams and
riparian areas.'' The reviewer also noted that ``another aspect of the
report that is misleading is the assertion that this model reduces or
eliminates uncertainties that are associated with other models. * * *
In many ways, uncertainty is increased by more simple and narrow
representations.'' This reviewer ended by saying, ``The conclusions are
overly simplistic, place enormous weight on the evidence from this
single model, and fail to provide context for the possible
uncertainties associated with this assessment.''
Another reviewer noted: ``The output of this model is number and
volume of trees that would intersect the nearest bank assuming all the
trees within the riparian zone fell at the same time. This is an
unrealistic assumption.'' The reviewer found that the model ``produced
un-interpretable results.'' This reviewer found that ``[t]his model has
limited usefulness in evaluating the relative performance of various
riparian management strategies on wood recruitment to the stream, which
requires a dynamic model framework.'' The final reviewer found the
model to be very detailed and sophisticated mathematically, but
ecologically naive, and noted that the model appeared to ignore current
science about the delivery of wood into fish habitat.
The NMFS conducted the third review through its Northwest Fisheries
Science Center (Science Center) in Seattle, Washington. The Science
Center review found fault with a variety of issues concerning estimates
of recruitable large wood that Lewis County asserted would be available
following the provisions of the draft Lewis County HCP. Specifically,
the Science Center review acknowledged that the Available Functional
Large Woody Debris (AFLWD) model relied on in the draft Lewis County
HCP does not produce output data that could be translated into
estimates of instream wood loads, and pointed out that the model's
effectiveness therefore relied upon assumptions that wood recruitment
would occur on the riparian tree stands addressed by the draft HCP as
it did in a late-seral stand (i.e., reference conditions), or, in the
alternative, that differences in anticipated recruitment would be
explained. The Science Center review also concluded it could not be
verified that the FIA stand data used to provide input to the AFLWD
model are representative of late-seral forest conditions (i.e.,
reference conditions) for the covered lands. For example, it was
determined that several FIA plots selected for intensive review by the
Science Center were not an accurate representation of unmanaged, late-
seral forest conditions and probably had been managed for timber
harvest. Many of the ``reference'' stands the applicant selected
consisted of stands much less than 120 years of age. To illustrate the
problem, the Science Center reviewed data from 17 of the subplots
comprising 4 of the 179 data plots used. Some of the subplots had stand
ages as young as 20 years. The mean age of all 17 subplots was 72
years, much younger than the targeted 120-year-old natural stand age.
Following this finding, the Applicant removed these and other stand
data it found to be inappropriate and asserted that there was no change
of significance in the model outputs as a result. Unfortunately, the
Services are unable to verify that the remaining plot data used in the
model overcome the above concerns and are appropriate, because the
locations of the FIA plots are confidential and, as a result, it is not
possible to determine what forest attributes (for example, late-seral
or managed) are reflected in the data.
In addition, the model used by the Applicant included an assumption
of 472 existing conifers per acre on average in the proposed ``no-cut''
portion of riparian areas on covered lands. Non-random visits in
October 2008 to dozens of accessible riparian sites on covered lands by
Science Center staff found that most had few conifers within the
proposed no-cut buffer and many had no conifers at all. Many of the no-
cut buffers observed were dominated by alders, with an understory of
grasses, often reed canary grass, with little indication of conifer
regeneration. In addition to the three reviews, the Services received
another outside review of the conservation strategy contained in the
draft Lewis County HCP that was critical of the strategy. On June 2,
2008, the Quinault Indian Nation, through its consultant ARC
Consultants, presented NMFS with ``A Critical Review of the Family
Forest Habitat Conservation Plan'' (Quinault review). The Quinault
review supported the Services' continuing concerns that the draft Lewis
County HCP is not based on the best available science and that it
develops riparian targets that are not representative of unmanaged
riparian forests. The Quinault review refers to Washington's
Cooperative Monitoring, Evaluation, and Research Committee ``Desired
Future Condition (DFC) Validation Study'' (DFC Study) (Schuett-Hames et
al., 2005). This report is available at http://www.dnr.wa.gov/Publications/fp_cmer_05_507.pdf. It was prepared under a process
supporting the implementation of the Washington State Forest Practices
HCP. The peer-reviewed DFC Study focuses on data from fully stocked
riparian stand plots and establishes an appropriate standard by which
to measure mature riparian stand conditions (in which at least 30
percent of the sites are occupied by crowns of dominant and co-dominant
conifers between 80 and 200 years of age and show no past harvest
activity).
Finally, many of the proposed covered lands are within the Chehalis
River Basin, which currently is ``water quality impaired'' for
temperature under the Clean Water Act. The Washington State Department
of Ecology, based on a review of the draft Lewis County HCP
prescriptions related to water quality, submitted a memo to the
Services on August 4, 2010, that includes the following findings: The
draft Lewis County HCP (1) is based on a combination of selective weak
outdated statistical models with optimistic assumptions on riparian
input conditions that do not match the riparian conditions that will be
encountered on the ground or that are permitted during the life of the
HCP; (2) is not based on attributes that are unique to Lewis County or
small landowners, but only on the interpretation of models and
assumptions that are neither calibrated nor validated for that purpose;
(3) lacks robust adaptive management and effectiveness monitoring
components and feedback processes to ensure that the requirements of
the HCP are tested and changed to meet protective assumptions; and (4)
allows extensive tree removal adjacent to narrow, no-harvest zones
immediately adjacent to streams that will decrease shade and degrade
riparian microclimate for the stream.
These reviews and discussions with the peer reviewers and other
commenters have highlighted the Services' concerns about the adequacy
of the draft Lewis County HCP to appropriately conserve the habitat
requirements of covered species, particularly the covered aquatic
species. The Services continue to be concerned about the information in
the draft HCP relating to the amount of large woody debris produced in
the covered riparian areas over time. Under the draft HCP, the amount
of large woody debris produced in these areas would not be adequate and
would not meet requirements for wood produced by the riparian buffers
in any of the other six approved HCPs in Washington. While
[[Page 17439]]
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.
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.
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