[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 83 (Monday, May 2, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-10361]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 2, 1994]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[MT-930-4320-01]

 

Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment, Decision 
Record, and Finding of No Significant Impact for Predator Management in 
the Lewistown District Office; MT

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: An Environmental Assessment (EA), Decision Record (DR), and 
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) have been reissued for 
predator management in the Lewistown District. The EA, DR, and FONSIs 
were vacated from IBLA. The analysis was clarified and revised, and the 
analysis and decision have been reissued (April 1994).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandy Brooks, Project Lead, Montana 
State Office, P.O. Box 36800, Billings, Montana 59107, 406-255-2929.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The EA for Predator Management in Montana 
addresses four alternatives which affect predator management to varying 
degrees:
    Alternative I--Integrated Pest Management (APHIS-ADC, DOL, and BLM 
Proposed Action): This alternative emphasizes an Integrated Pest 
Management (IPM) approach to reduce animal damage. The IPM approach 
incorporates a variety of practical, lethal, and nonlethal methods for 
prevention and control to minimize animal damage to livestock or human 
health. The use of M-44s would be permitted after authorization is 
obtained for specific areas. Preventive control would be allowed in 
areas where historical livestock losses have been documented.
    Alternative II--No M-44s: This alternative would be similar to 
Alternative I, except the use of M-44s would not be authorized. All 
other approved methods for control would be permitted. Preventive 
control would be allowed in areas where historical livestock losses had 
been documented.
    Alternative III--No Action (Emergency Control Only): Preventive 
control measures would not be authorized, and corrective control would 
be applied only where APHIS-ADC have confirmed recent loss of livestock 
to predation. Emergency predator management would be requested by a 
livestock producer when losses are occurring. The BLM would review and 
approve or disapprove these requests on a case-by-case basis. The 
requests would be handled using the emergency control procedures.
    Alternative IV--No APHIS-ADC or DOL Predator Management on BLM 
Lands: Under this alternative, APHIS-ADC predator management activities 
would not be authorized on BLM land in Montana. However, private 
landowners could continue to conduct predator management on BLM lands 
and could continue to enter into agreements with APHIS-ADC to carry out 
predator management on private, state, and other non-BLM lands.
    The Predator Management EA for Montana was available for public 
review from September 15 to October 15, 1993. An EA, DR, and FONSI were 
issued in November 1993. Since that time, the BLM decided to vacate the 
EA and decisions from IBLA to clarify and revise the analysis. The 
revised EA, DR, and FONSI have been reissued (April 1994) and are 
available upon request.
    Based upon careful consideration of the analysis of alternatives 
within the Predator Management EA, including consideration of 
applicable laws, regulations, public and agency comments, I have 
decided to implement Alternative I--Integrated Pest Management (APHIS-
ADC, DOL, and BLM Proposed Action). Management actions will be directed 
towards localized populations and/or individual offending predators. 
Requests for control will come directly from the permittees to APHIS-
ADC. In response to public concern regarding the use of lethal methods, 
the following mitigating measure has been adopted as part of my 
decision: Livestock producers will be provided information on nonlethal 
methods. When services are requested by permittees, APHIS-ADC will 
provide a factsheet to the producer on nonlethal methods. In addition, 
information on nonlethal methods will also be mailed out in the annual 
grazing applications by BLM. This will ensure that permittees are aware 
of the variety of nonlethal methods available to them; such as animal 
husbandry practices, guard dogs, scare devices, etc.
    Implementation of Alternative I will require strict adherence to 
reasonable and prudent measures, provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service (USFWS), and the mitigation and stipulations incorporated in 
the EA, and my decision for the protection of threatened and endangered 
species. The USFWS has concurred with the BLM finding that the proposed 
predator management strategy is not likely to adversely affect 
threatened and endangered species. Restrictions will be placed on 
predator management activities within four outstanding natural areas 
located west of Choteau because of the presence of threatened and 
endangered species. The other special areas in the Lewistown District 
closed to predator management are Azure Cave and Square Butte 
Outstanding Natural Area. These areas are closed to predator management 
because of the high recreational values. The human safety zones 
identified on Map No. 1 in the EA will be closed to predator 
management. These areas also include appropriate buffer zones. Bird-
hunting areas, as identified on Map No. 2 in the EA, will have timing 
restrictions placed on some predator management activities.
    It is my conclusion that the proposed action will not result in 
significant environmental impacts, and that no species will be 
substantially or permanently reduced in numbers as a result of my 
decision. In addition, the predator population is not substantially 
impacted. Statewide, 7,847 coyotes were taken by APHIS-ADC and DOL on 
lands of all ownership, or 1.5 to 13.7 percent of the population 
statewide (based on the scientific model) or 2.6 percent of the 
population statewide (based on the coyote density indices sampling). In 
the Lewistown District, approximately 171 coyotes and 10 red foxes were 
taken on BLM lands by APHIS-ADC. Based on the analysis in the EA, the 
implementation of Alternative I will result in the smallest amount of 
livestock lost, and provides the most flexibility in correcting or 
preventing damaged based on the circumstances and the surrounding 
environment. My decision ensures that predator management will be 
carried out in a systematic manner which responds to resource 
protection, human health, and livestock protection needs while 
protecting public safety, domestic animals, and nontarget wildlife. 
This decision is compatible with resource objectives identified in the 
Lewistown District land use plans. The Secretary of Interior will put 
the decision in full force and effect for the 30-day appeal period. To 
appeal this decision, please follow the appeal procedures. To obtain a 
copy of the appeal procedures, contact Sandy Brooks, Project Lead, 
Montana State Office, 406-255-2929.

    Dated: April 25, 1994.
Wayne Zinne,
Acting State Director.
[FR Doc. 94-10361 Filed 4-29-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P