[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 193 (Wednesday, October 7, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51617-51618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-24148]



[[Page 51617]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Restoring Native Species to High Elevation Aquatic Ecosystems; 
Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, Tulare and Fresno Counties, 
CA; Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

SUMMARY: In accordance with Sec.  102(2)(C) of the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the National Park 
Service is initiating the conservation planning and environmental 
impact analysis process for a plan to restore high elevation aquatic 
ecosystems and mountain yellow-legged frogs within their historic range 
in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. In addition to satisfying 
the requirements and intent of the NEPA, the Environmental Impact 
Statement which will be prepared will comply with the California 
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and thus will result in an integrated 
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) 
document.
    The purpose of the plan is to provide for restoration of native 
species in lakes, ponds, and associated streams within Sequoia and 
Kings Canyon National Parks. There are approximately 560 lakes and 
ponds within the Parks that contained introduced trout, and removal of 
these non-native species from up to 14% of these sites will be 
considered. This proposed plan would create clusters of fishless 
habitat in headwater basins comprising the historic distribution of the 
frogs. This project is needed to preserve and restore aquatic 
ecosystems and populations of mountain yellow-legged frogs and other 
native animals in high elevation lakes and streams, while also creating 
new opportunities for visitors to experience the wildlife of pristine 
wilderness lakes and streams yet maintaining recreational fishing 
opportunities.
    Introduced trout occur in most lakes and ponds in Sequoia and Kings 
Canyon National Parks. The presence of introduced trout eliminates 
large aquatic invertebrates and zooplankton, reduces the food available 
to other wildlife, and compromises reproduction by mountain yellow-
legged frogs. The mountain yellow-legged frog is a species that only 
occurs in the high Sierra Nevada and the mountains of southern 
California. It is a keystone species whose presence or absence affects 
the natural ecology of Sierra Nevada lakes and associated shoreline 
environments. The frog has disappeared from about 94% of its historic 
sites in the Sierra Nevada and is a candidate for federal listing as 
``endangered'' under the Endangered Species Act. The frog's existence 
is threatened by impacts from trout populations that were introduced to 
naturally fishless habitats, and a new pathogen, chytrid fungus. The 
mountain yellow-legged frog is declining rapidly and could become 
extinct within a decade.
    Preliminary Range of Alternatives: The EIS/EIR will examine a range 
of feasible alternatives and evaluate all potential impacts on natural 
resources, cultural resources, and the human environment. Since 2001, 
biologists in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks have been 
removing nonnative trout using gill netting and electroshocking from 
selected naturally fishless high lakes and streams (limited trial under 
a plan approved in 2001 following public review of an Environmental 
Assessment); approximately 23,000 trout have been removed from 11 
lakes. Mountain yellow-legged frog tadpole and frog densities measured 
in 2001 and 2007 in six of the restored lakes showed an average 
increase of 19-fold and 16-fold, with one lake showing a 60-fold 
increase in frog populations. The biomass recovery in these lakes has 
attracted native species such as snakes, birds, and mammals, which have 
been observed preying on now-abundant frogs, tadpoles, and aquatic 
invertebrates.
    The current methodology of physically removing fish using gill nets 
and electrofishers takes one crew about five seasons to fully remove 
trout from three lakes. This works out to an average of less than one 
lake restored per crew per year. Stream habitat is even slower to 
restore. While nearly completed, the park staff is on its ninth year of 
attempting to remove fish from about a mile of stream. To restore more 
aquatic habitat and improve protection for the mountain yellow-legged 
frogs, the NPS is proposing to expand the current program, both in 
number of lakes and streams to be considered, and the types of 
treatment methods to be utilized.
    In addition to a ``no action'' alternative which will provide for a 
comparative environmental baseline, alternatives that could be 
considered in the EIS/EIR include: (a) Treating 32 to 80 additional 
lakes and 18 to 56 miles of stream using current methods (physical 
treatment only with gill netting and electrofishers); (b) using 
chemical methods (only use of piscicides); and (c) deploying a 
combination of these methods. Common to all alternatives would be 
reintroducing mountain yellow-legged frogs to sites where they have 
been extirpated using the closest genetic forms available, and 
continuing to encourage research on the frogs, chytrid fungus and its 
management, and the ecological functioning of high mountain lakes and 
streams. Under the new alternatives, some entire headwater basins would 
be restored to achieve optimal benefit to both aquatic and terrestrial 
organisms. Piscicides are being considered because the hydrology of 
entire basins is too complex and extensive to be restored using only 
gill nets and electrofishers. These basins contain too many miles of 
stream, marshes, or exceptionally large lakes to effectively accomplish 
fish removal. Because the effort is directed at restoring entire 
aquatic ecosystems, long-term protection and restoration of stream and 
lake invertebrates and other life is as important as restoring the frog 
populations. Although chytrid fungus could impact these populations, 
there is some evidence of chytrid resistance emerging in sites that had 
large frog populations prior to infection.
    Scoping Process: Initially public scoping was conducted from 
January 17 to February 6, 2007, and it was anticipated another 
Environmental Assessment (EA) might be prepared. During that time, the 
parks received comments from over 30 different sources, including the 
High Sierra Hikers Association, Wilderness Watch, California Trout, 
Californians for Western Wilderness, National Parks and Conservation 
Association, and Californians for Alternatives to Toxics. In late 2007, 
a newsletter providing an update on the environmental analysis status 
was sent to individuals, agencies, interest groups, and tribes on the 
parks' mailing list including all those who previously provided scoping 
comments. As a result of the newsletter, four additional comment 
letters were received between May 2007 and November 2008 (including 
Western Environmental Law Center and another High Sierra Hikers 
Association response). In total, 37 different individuals, groups, 
businesses, or agencies have submitted comments on the proposed plan.
    In late 2007 park staff began working on the EA and refining 
preliminary alternatives--as staff began the environmental analysis and 
re-examined information provided by the public, it became clear that 
the project had the potential for significant impacts on the human 
environment. There was a level of controversy associated with the 
proposal, potential for uncertainty and both adverse and beneficial

[[Page 51618]]

consequences, and unique and unforeseeable environmental impacts. For 
these reasons, in early 2009 the Superintendent determined that an EIS 
would be prepared.
    All scoping comments received to date are included in the official 
administrative record; the Scoping Summary Report includes all comments 
and information obtained to date and is available on-line at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/seki. It is not necessary for previous letters to 
be resubmitted; however if prior respondents have new issues or 
information they wish to bring forward then new letters should be 
submitted. For further information contact Nancy Hendricks at (559) 
565-3102 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a293f3133250a161b141413141d3a140a09541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4b180e0002143b272a252522252c0b253b38652c243d">[email protected]</span></a> (address as noted below).

DATES: All written comments must be postmarked or transmitted not later 
than November 21, 2009. Letters may be mailed or hand delivered to 
Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park, 47050 Generals 
Highway, Three Rivers, CA 93271 (Attn: Aquatic Restoration EIS), or may 
be sent electronically to http://parkplanning.nps.gov/seki. 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. As a 
delegated EIS the official responsible for approval of the High 
Elevation Aquatic Ecosystems and Native Species Restoration Plan is the 
Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service. 
Subsequently the official responsible for implementing the approved 
plan would be the Superintendent, Sequoia and Kings Canyon National 
Parks.

    Dated: August 11, 2009.
Jonathan B. Jarvis,
Regional Director, Pacific West Region, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. E9-24148 Filed 10-6-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-X2-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>