Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 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 

§ 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 reexamined 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 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
51618 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 7, 2009 / Notices 

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 

SEKI_planning@nps.gov (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 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLWYD01000–2009–LL13100000–NB0000– 

LXSI016K0000] 

Notice of the Meeting Schedule for the 

Pinedale Anticline Working Group 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act (1976), the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act (1972), and the Record 

of Decision (ROD) for the Pinedale 

Anticline Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (2008), 

the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Pinedale Anticline Working Group 

(PAWG) will meet in Pinedale, 

Wyoming. Meetings are open to the 

public and public comment will be 

taken. 

DATES: Beginning at 1 p.m. MST: 

November 5, 2009; January 28, 2010; 

February 25, 2010; March 25, 2010; 

April 22, 2010; May 27, 2010; June 24, 

2010; July 22, 2010; August 26, 2010; 

September 23, 2010; and October 28, 

2010. 

ADDRESSES: The PAWG meetings will be 

held at the BLM Pinedale Field Office, 

1625 West Pine Street in Pinedale, 

Wyoming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Shelley Gregory, PAWG Designated 

Federal Officer, Bureau of Land 

Management, Pinedale Field Office, 

1625 West Pine Street, P.O. Box 768, 

Pinedale, WY 82941; 307–367–5328; 

shelley_gregory@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Pinedale Anticline Working Group 

(PAWG) was authorized and established 

with release of the Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement of the Pinedale 

Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and 

Development Project Area (PAPA) on 

July 27, 2000 and carried forward with 

the release of the ROD for the Final 

Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (FSEIS) of the PAPA on 

September 12, 2008. The PAWG advises 

the BLM on the development and 

implementation of monitoring plans and 

adaptive management decisions as 

PAPA development proceeds. Meeting 

agendas will include discussions 

concerning the implementation of the 

PAPA FSEIS ROD, the development of 

the Pinedale Anticline Project Office 

(PAPO), any modifications the PAWG or 

task groups wish to make to their 

recommendations, and overall adaptive 

management implementation as it 

applies to the PAWG. Additional 

information about the PAWG can be 

found at: http://www.blm.gov/wy/st/en/ 

field_offices/Pinedale/pawg.html. 

Dated: September 28, 2009. 

Chuck Otto, 

Field Office Manager. 

[FR Doc. E9–24216 Filed 10–6–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R9–FHC–2009–N215; 94300–1122– 

0000–Z2] 

Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory 

Committee; Announcement of Public 

Teleconference and Webcast 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of public teleconference 

and Webcast. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), will host a 

Wind Turbine Guidelines Advisory 

Committee (Committee) meeting via 

Webcast and teleconference, on October 

14, 2009. This meeting is open to the 

public but will be limited to 75 public 

participants. The meeting agenda will 

include a briefing and discussion of the 

current draft Recommendations to the 

Secretary of the Interior. The Service is 

hosting this meeting with less than 15 

days’ notice under exceptional 

circumstances. The Committee will 

terminate on October 26, 2009, unless it 

is renewed prior to that date. The 

Committee will therefore need this 

meeting to finalize its draft 

Recommendations in the case that the 

Committee is not renewed. 

DATES: Meeting: The meeting will take 

place on October 14, 2009, from 11 a.m. 

to 3 p.m. Eastern Time. 

Pre-meeting Public Registration: If you 

are a member of the public wishing to 

participate in the October 14, 2009, 

meeting, you must register online by 

October 13, 2009 (see ‘‘Meeting 

Participation Information’’ in 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rachel London, Division of Habitat and 

Resource Conservation, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Department of the 

Interior, (703) 358–2161. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES