8736 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 

configuration that would encourage the 

continued use and expansion of 

volunteer trails, thus continuing and 

expanding impacts to coastal scrub and 

salt marsh habitats. The third alternative 

would involve the relocation of the 

project site within the Morro Bay State 

Park. However, the proposed Marina 

Peninsula Trail project offers an 

opportunity to use a long stretch of 

existing disturbed ground, former 

maintenance road, and existing trails, 

all of which could be improved to meet 

accessible guidelines, limit the removal 

of existing habitat, and provide 

substantial protection and improvement 

of habitat for sensitive species. 

We are requesting comments on our 

preliminary determination that the 

applicant’s proposal will have a minor 

or negligible effect on the species 

covered in the plan, and that the plan 

qualifies as a ‘‘low-effect’’ habitat 

conservation plan as defined by our 

Habitat Conservation Planning 

Handbook (November 1996). We base 

our determination that the plan qualifies 

as a low-effect plan on the following 

three criteria: (1) Implementation of the 

plan would result in minor or negligible 

effects on Federally listed, proposed, 

and candidate species and their 

habitats; (2) implementation of the plan 

would result in minor or negligible 

effects on other environmental values or 

resources; and (3) impacts of the plan, 

considered together with the impacts of 

other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable similarly situated projects, 

would not result, over time, in 

cumulative effects to environmental 

values or resources that would be 

considered significant. As more fully 

explained in our Environmental Action 

Statement and associated Low Effect 

Screening Form, the applicant’s 

proposed plan qualifies as a ‘‘low-effect’’ 

plan for the following reasons: 

(1) Approval of the HCP would result 

in minor or negligible effects on the 

Morro shoulderband snail and 

California seablite and their habitat. The 

Service does not anticipate significant 

direct or cumulative effects to the Morro 

shoulderband snail or California seablite 

resulting from the proposed Project. 

(2) Approval of the HCP would not 

have adverse effects on unique 

geographic, historic, or cultural sites, or 

involve unique or unknown 

environmental risks. 

(3) Approval of the HCP would not 

result in any cumulative or growthinducing impacts and would not result 

in significant adverse effects on public 

health or safety. 

(4) The project does not require 

compliance with Executive Order 11988 

(Floodplain Management), Executive 

Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), or 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 

nor does it threaten to violate a Federal, 

State, local, or Tribal law or requirement 

imposed for the protection of the 

environment. 

(5) Approval of the HCP would not 

establish a precedent for future actions 

or represent a decision in principle 

about future actions with potentially 

significant environmental effects. 

We, therefore, have made a 

preliminary determination that the 

approval of the HCP and incidental take 

permit application qualifies for a 

categorical exclusion under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), as provided by the 

Department of the Interior Manual (516 

DM 2 Appendix 1 and 516 DM 8). Based 

on our review of public comments that 

we receive in response to this notice, we 

may revise this preliminary 

determination. 

Next Steps 

We will evaluate the plan and 

comments we receive to determine 

whether the permit application meets 

the requirements of section 10(a) of the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). If we 

determine that the application meets 

these requirements, we will issue the 

permit for incidental take of the Morro 

shoulderband snail. We will also 

evaluate whether issuance of a section 

10(a)(1)(B) permit would comply with 

section 7 of the Act by conducting an 

intra-Service section 7 consultation. We 

will use the results of this consultation, 

in combination with the above findings, 

in our final analysis to determine 

whether or not to issue a permit. If the 

requirements are met, we will issue the 

permit to the applicant. 

Public Comments 

If you wish to comment on the permit 

application, plan, and associated 

documents, you may submit comments 

by any one of the methods in 

ADDRESSES. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comments, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

If you wish us to consider withholding 

this information you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comments. In addition, you must 

provide a rationale demonstrating and 

documenting that disclosure would 

constitute a clearly unwarranted 

invasion of privacy. 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. All 

submissions from organizations or 

businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, are 

available for public inspection in their 

entirety. 

Authority 

We provide this notice under section 

10(c) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) 

and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). 

Dated: February 19, 2010. 

Diane K. Noda, 

Field Supervisor, Ventura Fish and Wildlife 

Office. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3850 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R7–ES–2009–N244; 70120–1113– 

0000–C3] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Request for Scoping 

Comments and Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Assessment for the 

Proposed Designation of a NonEssential Experimental Population of 

Wood Bison in Alaska 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), plan to prepare a draft 

environmental assessment, under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA), in 

conjunction with a potential proposed 

rule to establish an experimental 

population of wood bison (Bison bison 

athabascae) in Alaska, pursuant to the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. We are seeking comments or 

suggestions concerning the scope of our 

environmental analysis for this action. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, please 

send your written comments by March 

29, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send information, 

comments, or questions by any one of 

the following methods. 

U.S. Mail or hand delivery: Fisheries 

and Ecological Services Office, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor 

Road, Anchorage, AK 99503. 

Fax: 907–786–3575. 

E-mail: woodbison-ak@fws.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Judy 

Jacobs, (907) 786–3472. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 8737 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

A subspecies of North American 

bison, wood bison (Bison bison 

athabascae) are larger than plains bison 

(Bison bison bison) and well adapted to 

northern meadow and forest habitats. 

Skeletal remains and historical accounts 

show that wood bison persisted in a 

large part of their original range in 

Alaska and Canada during the last 

10,000 years (Stephenson et al. 2001; 

Gardner and DeGange 2003). Soper 

(1941) estimated that 168,000 wood 

bison existed in North America (Alaska 

and western Canada) in 1800. By the 

end of the 19th century, however, wood 

bison had declined to an estimated low 

of 250 animals (Soper 1941). The 

specific causes of this precipitous 

decline are not known with certainty, 

but unregulated hunting following the 

fur trade, westward expansion of 

European settlement, and severe winters 

likely played a role (Fuller 1962; Gates 

et al. 1992). The extirpation of wood 

bison in Alaska was likely due to the 

combined effects of hunting by humans 

and changes in habitat distribution 

during the Holocene (Stephenson et al. 

2001; Gardner and DeGange 2003). 

Conservation efforts in Canada have 

substantially improved the status of 

wood bison. Today, there are over 

10,000 free-ranging wood bison in 

Canada, including over 4,000 bison in 7 

free-ranging, disease-free herds; over 

6,000 in 4 free-ranging herds that are not 

disease-free but are increasing; and over 

1,000 wood bison in captive 

conservation and research herds. 

(Canadian Wildlife Service, 

unpublished data 2009). 

We have been coordinating with the 

State of Alaska (State) to pursue the goal 

of reintroducing wood bison to Alaska. 

The State and other conservation 

interests believe that wood bison 

reintroduction to Alaska can play an 

important role in ecosystem restoration 

and is a significant opportunity for 

international cooperation in improving 

the status of a historically important 

native species. The recovery of wood 

bison overall, however, is not 

dependent on restoration in Alaska. 

The Alaska Department of Fish and 

Game (ADF&G) has worked for over 15 

years to evaluate reintroducing wood 

bison into portions of the species’ 

historic range in interior Alaska. Three 

prospective release sites with the best 

potential habitat include: Yukon Flats, 

Minto Flats, and the lower Innoko/ 

Yukon River area (Berger et al. 1995; 

Gardner 2007). Numerous public 

meetings have been held over the years 

in communities located in these areas. 

All of the involved local State fish and 

game advisory committees and Federal 

regional subsistence advisory councils 

have discussed and supported wood 

bison reintroduction. In 2005, the State 

established a citizen’s advisory group, 

the Wood Bison Restoration Advisory 

Group (WBRAG), to review information 

on the proposal to restore wood bison, 

discuss the relevant issues, and provide 

recommendations to ADF&G. Following 

4 days of public meetings, the WBRAG 

recommended moving forward with 

wood bison restoration in Alaska. 

ADF&G produces a project newsletter, 

Wood Bison News, to inform the public 

of current developments with this 

project, and also maintains a web page 

on wood bison restoration in Alaska: 

http://www.wc.adfg.state.ak.us/ 

index.cfm?adfg=game.restoration. In 

2005 and 2007, ADF&G invited written 

public comment on wood bison 

restoration in Alaska. In both review 

periods, public comment strongly 

favored proceeding with this action. 

The proposed reintroduction program 

would use wood bison stock imported 

from Canada, primarily from Elk Island 

National Park (EINP), Alberta, where a 

disease-free herd of 300–400 wood 

bison is maintained for the primary 

purpose of reestablishing additional 

healthy, free-ranging wood bison herds 

in additional parts of the species’ 

original range. In June 2008, ADF&G 

imported wood bison from EINP, and is 

presently maintaining a captive herd at 

the Alaska Wildlife Conservation Center 

(AWCC) in Portage, Alaska. These 

animals and their progeny are intended 

to be used as founding stock for 

reintroductions to interior Alaska. Wood 

bison will be held for a minimum of 2 

years at the AWCC for additional 

disease testing while plans for their 

release are finalized. 

The goal of the Alaska wood bison 

restoration project is to reestablish 1–3 

free-ranging populations, each including 

at least 400 adults within 12–15 years of 

release, at one or more of the three sites 

with the best potential habitat, Yukon 

Flats, Minto Flats, and/or the lower 

Innoko/Yukon River area. ADF&G will 

work with the Service, other agencies, 

landowners and other stakeholders to 

develop management plans for each area 

where they plan to reestablish the 

species (ADF&G 2007). Some of the key 

management objectives include 

restoring an indigenous grazing animal 

and habitat diversity to northern 

ecosystems, providing benefits to 

Alaska’s people and economy, and 

reestablishing wood bison populations 

that can be harvested on a sustained 

yield basis. 

Regulatory Considerations 

Endangered Species Act Protections 

Under the U.S. Endangered Species 

Act (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), wood 

bison are listed as endangered, although 

they presently occur in the wild only in 

Canada. If wood bison were to be 

introduced to Alaska with the 

endangered designation, they would be 

subject to the protections and 

prohibitions of sections 7 and 9 of the 

Act. Section 7 requires Federal agencies 

to ensure that any action they authorize, 

fund, or carry out is not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of a 

listed species or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of 

designated critical habitat. Section 9 

prohibits the take of endangered and 

threatened wildlife. ‘‘Take’’ is defined 

as: to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 

wound, trap, capture, or collect, or to 

attempt to engage in any such conduct. 

Experimental Populations 

In 1982, Congress amended the Act by 

adding section 10(j), to provide for 

designation of ‘‘experimental 

populations.’’ Prior to 1982, local 

citizens often opposed reintroductions 

of listed species into unoccupied 

portions of their historical range 

because they were concerned about 

potential restrictions to Federal, State, 

and private activities. Under section 

10(j), and our regulations at 50 CFR 

17.81, the Service can designate 

reintroduced populations established 

outside the species’ current range, but 

within its historical range, as 

‘‘experimental.’’ Our regulations at 50 

CFR 17.80(b) state that a reintroduced 

population can be considered a 

‘‘nonessential experimental population’’ 

(NEP) if the loss of that population 

would not appreciably reduce the 

likelihood of survival of the species in 

the wild. Regulatory requirements of 

sections 7 and 9 of the Act are 

considerably reduced under a NEP 

designation. The Act further prohibits 

designating critical habitat for any NEP, 

and through section 4(d) of the Act, the 

Service may develop regulations and 

management options specific to the 

species’ needs that are necessary to 

promote the species’ conservation. In 

order to establish a NEP, we must first 

issue a proposed regulation pursuant to 

section 10(j) of the Act and consider 

public comments prior to publishing a 

final regulation. Our regulations at 50 

CFR 17.81 (d) require that, to the extent 

practicable, a regulation issued under 

section 10(j) of the Act represents an 

agreement between the Service, the 

affected State and Federal agencies, and 

persons holding any interest in land that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
8738 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 37 / Thursday, February 25, 2010 / Notices 

may be affected by the establishment of 

the NEP. 

Wood Bison Status in Canada and ESA 

Petition 

In 1988, the Committee on the Status 

of Endangered Wildlife in Canada 

reclassified the wood bison from 

‘‘endangered’’ to ‘‘threatened’’ status 

under Canada’s Species at Risk Act 

because Canadian populations of wood 

bison were recovering. In 2007, 

Canada’s Wood Bison Recovery Team 

petitioned the Service to reclassify 

wood bison from endangered to 

threatened status under the Act. On 

February 3, 2009, we published a 

finding that the petition presented 

substantial information indicating that 

this action may be warranted and 

initiated a status review for wood bison 

(74 FR 5908). Following our review of 

the wood bison’s status, we will issue a 

finding on the petition, in which we 

will determine whether it is appropriate 

to retain the species’ endangered status, 

reclassify it as threatened, or even to 

remove the wood bison from listed 

status under the Act. 

Regulatory Status of Wood Bison in 

Alaska 

The State will not consider 

reintroducing wood bison to Alaska in 

the absence of Federal regulatory 

assurance to landowners and land 

managers that such action would not 

adversely affect resource development 

activities important to Alaska’s 

economy. Such assurance could be 

accomplished through a change in the 

species’ listing status throughout its 

range or through the establishment of a 

NEP pursuant to section 10(j) of the Act. 

A reclassification of the wood bison to 

‘‘threatened’’ status, without the 

establishment of a NEP pursuant to ESA 

section 10(j), would not provide 

sufficient regulatory assurance. 

Scoping Process 

To ensure compliance with NEPA and 

the Act, the Service and ADF&G are 

cooperating to prepare a draft 

environmental assessment (EA) and 

proposed rule to establish, under 

section 10(j) of the Act, a non-essential 

experimental population of wood bison 

in Alaska. The purpose of this scoping 

process is to aid the development of the 

EA by collecting comments on this 

action as a way to support wood bison 

conservation. We also seek comments 

on the environmental effects of 

reintroducing wood bison to Alaska. 

In addition to the ‘‘no action’’ 

alternative, our draft EA will consider: 

(1) The environmental effects of 

issuing 10(j) and 4(d) rules for wood 

bison in Alaska; 

(2) the environmental effects of 

reintroducing wood bison to one or 

more of the potential release sites Minto 

Flats, Yukon Flats, and the lower 

Innoko/Yukon River area; 

(3) the environmental effects of 

reintroducing wood bison to Alaska in 

the absence of 10(j) and 4(d) rules. 

We will incorporate the relevant 

public comments we receive in response 

to this scoping notice into our analysis 

of impacts of the proposed action and 

project alternatives in the draft EA. This 

document will include maps of the 

proposed reintroduction area or areas, 

based on public input and current 

knowledge of wood bison habitat in 

Alaska. We will make the draft EA 

available for a minimum 30-day public 

review period. The final environmental 

document, which will address the 

comments we receive during the draft 

EA public comment period, will be 

available on the internet. 

Request for Public Comments 

We wish to ensure that any 10(j) rule 

and associated environmental 

documents we issue relating to the 

wood bison in Alaska effectively 

evaluate all potential issues associated 

with wood bison reintroduction to 

Alaska. Therefore, we request comments 

or recommendations concerning any of 

the considerations we have listed above; 

and also concerning: The biological and 

habitat requirements of the species; 

information on the distribution and 

quality of habitat for the wood bison in 

Alaska; the overall approach to the 

conservation of wood bison in Canada 

and Alaska; reasons why any specific 

areas might require special management 

or should be excluded from, or added 

to, the proposed reintroduction site or 

sites; and any other pertinent issues of 

concern. We seek comments from the 

public; Tribal, local, State, and Federal 

government agencies; the scientific 

community; industry; or any other 

affected or interested party. To 

determine whether to prepare a Finding 

of No Significant Impact or an 

Environmental Impact Statement, we 

will take into consideration all 

comments and any additional 

information we receive. 

References 

A complete list of all references in 

this notice is available upon request 

from the Fish and Wildlife Service (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Author(s) 

The primary author of this package is 

the Fisheries and Ecological Services 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Anchorage, AK. 

Dated: February 12, 2010. 

Gary Edwards, 

Deputy Regional Director, Region 7, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3889 Filed 2–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

LLNM915000L14200000.BJ0000] 

Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey, NM 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of filing of Plats of 

Survey. 

SUMMARY: The plats of survey described 

below are scheduled to be officially 

filed in the New Mexico State Office, 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

Santa Fe, New Mexico, thirty (30) 

calendar days from the date of this 

publication. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

New Mexico Principal Meridian, New 

Mexico (NM) 

The plat representing the dependent 

resurvey and survey in Township 14 

North, Range 10 West, of the New 

Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted 

September 4, 2009, for Group 1093 NM. 

The plat, in two sheets, representing 

the dependent resurvey and survey, in 

Township 16 North, Range 19 West, of 

the New Mexico Principal Meridian, 

accepted September 30, 2009, for Group 

1073 NM. 

The plat representing the dependent 

resurvey and survey, of the Canon De 

San Diego Grant, accepted November 

19, 2009, for Group 1100 NM. 

The plat representing the dependent 

resurvey and survey, in Township 17 

North, Range 24 East, of the New 

Mexico Principal Meridian, accepted 

December 2, 2009, for Group 1102 NM. 

Indian Meridian, Oklahoma (OK) 

The plat, in two sheets, representing 

the dependent resurvey and survey in 

Township 15 North, Range 11 West, of 

the Indian Meridian, accepted October 

16, 2009, for Group 180 OK. 

The plat, in four sheets, representing 

the dependent resurvey and survey in 

Township 20 North, Range 16 West, of 

the Indian Meridian, accepted October 

14, 2009, for Group 162 OK. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES