Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Notices 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 

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 


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 http:// 

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: http:// 

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 

http://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 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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 29, 2011 / Notices 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 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 

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 http:// 

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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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 http:// 

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 http:// 

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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R9–EA–2011–N065] 

Wildlife and Hunting Heritage 

Conservation Council Teleconference 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of teleconference. 

SUMMARY: 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). 

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 

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 http:// 

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 

http://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 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES