[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50490-50492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20448]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R7-2010-N290; 70133-1265-0000-S3]
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Fairbanks, AK
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments; announcement
of public meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (Refuge) for public review and comment. In this document, we
describe goals and objectives, management direction, and alternatives
to manage the Refuge for the 15 years following approval of the final
CCP. Also available for review in the document are draft compatibility
determinations, a draft wilderness review, and a draft wild and scenic
river review prepared in association with the CCP, as well as
supporting documents required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
DATES: To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by
November 14, 2011. We will hold public meetings in communities within
and near the Refuge, and also in the cities of Anchorage and Fairbanks,
in Alaska. We will announce these upcoming public meetings in local
news media.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments or requests for copies or more
information by any of the following methods. You may request a 20-page
summary of the CCP; a 1,200-page hard copy of the full CCP; or a CD-ROM
of the summary and full document.
Agency Web Site: Download a copy of the summary or full CCP
document at http://arctic.fws.gov/ccp.htm.
E-mail: ArcticRefugeCCP@fws.gov. Include ``Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge draft CCP and draft EIS'' in the subject line of the message.
Fax: Attn: Sharon Seim, Planning Team Leader, (907) 456-0428.
U.S. Mail: Sharon Seim, Planning Team Leader, Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, 101 12th Ave., Rm. 236, Fairbanks, AK 99701.
In-Person Pickup or Drop-off: You may pick up a copy or drop off
comments during regular business hours at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Seim, Planning Team Leader, at
the address listed above, by phone at (907) 456-0501, or by e-mail at
ArcticRefugeCCP@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. We started this process through a notice of
intent in the Federal Register (75 FR 17763; April 7, 2010).
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge includes nearly 19.3 million
acres, three wild rivers, and one of the largest areas of designated
Wilderness in the United States. The rugged Brooks Range, with peaks
and glaciers to 9,000 feet, extends east to west in a band 75 miles
wide, rising abruptly from a tundra-covered plain. This treeless plain
is cut by numerous braided rivers and streams. South of the continental
divide, rivers wind serpentine courses through broad spruce-covered
valleys dotted with lakes and sloughs. Nearly 180 species of birds, 45
species of mammals, and 36 species of fish have been documented on
Arctic Refuge. Vast mountains, diverse wildlife, and a wealth of
habitats give this unspoiled wildlife refuge high cultural-heritage,
scenic, scientific, and wilderness values.
Background
The CCP Process
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (94
Stat. 2371; ANILCA) requires us to develop a CCP for each refuge. The
purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-
year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound
principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal
mandates, and our policies. We will review and update the CCP at least
every 20 years in accordance with ANILCA.
Public Outreach
We started the CCP for Arctic Refuge in April 2010. At that time
and throughout the planning process, we requested public comments and
considered and incorporated them in numerous ways. In April 2010, we
mailed a planning newsletter to more than 2,000 individuals, agencies,
and organizations describing the planning process for the CCP revision
and telling the public how they could be informed or involved. It
informed the public about the Refuge vision and draft goals identified
by the planning team and Refuge staff. The newsletter contained a
comment form that provided an opportunity for people to identify issues
they thought should be addressed in the CCP or to provide suggestions
on how best to accomplish Arctic Refuge purposes. The newsletter and
comment form were also made available over the Internet.
To gather additional input from the public, members of the planning
team and Refuge staff held eight public open house meetings--five in
communities adjacent to or within the boundaries of the Arctic Refuge;
one in Washington, DC; one in Anchorage, Alaska; and one in Fairbanks,
Alaska.
Individuals and organizations provided 94,061 comments during the
scoping process. The responses came in e-mails, Web forms, postcards,
faxes, letters, and public hearing transcripts. Approximately 300
people spoke at meetings in 8 communities. The responses were reviewed,
coded, and
[[Page 50491]]
analyzed. Comments were sorted into six categories:
(1) General comments expressing support for, or opposition to,
wilderness designation and development within the Refuge;
(2) Analysis--These comments spoke to the scope and content of the
draft CCP/EIS, with the major theme being the need to update studies
and to employ effective monitoring and inventories. A minor theme was
the adequacy of the studies--the data concerns related to climate
change, wildlife, invasive plants, recreation, oil and gas, water, and
air;
(3) Process--Commenters provided input on process considerations
for CCP preparation, including comments on decisionmaking philosophy,
outreach, public involvement process, public meetings, and the
influence of politics and special interests in the process;
(4) Activities and Uses--The comments received covered four major
areas of activities and uses:
Commercial activities, either support or opposition--e.g.,
concern about potential impacts to Refuge resources, or impact of
permitted users on Native groups;
Government Activities--e.g., scientific research, species
management, structures within the Refuge, and alternative energy;
Private Activities; and
Native/Tribal activities on the Refuge, including support
or opposition to recreational activities, large groups and growing
crowds, with comments focused on potential impacts of Refuge
regulations and policies to Native Alaskans;
(5) Land and Resource Management--The focus of these comments
included discussions about Refuge purposes and mandates (asking the
Service to avoid changing or manipulating the natural environment in
the Refuge); support for, and opposition to, further Wilderness and
Wild and Scenic River designations; opposition to naming of features;
and both ensuring compliance with Refuge treaties and agreements and
concern from Alaska Natives that treaties have been used to manipulate
their lifestyles;
(6) Legal Consistency--This category included comments about the
legal consistency of various laws, treaties, and policies that affect
the Refuge--e.g., asking for clarification of the roles of the Service
and Congress related to Wilderness designation and management within
the ``1002'' area of the Refuge, and the role of Refuge planning to
ensure that planning efforts for the CCP are consistent with laws,
regulations, and policies.
We have considered and evaluated these issues and public concerns,
and we have used them to develop various aspects of the draft CCP/EIS,
such as management objectives, management guidelines, and alternatives.
CCP Alternatives We Are Considering
We developed and evaluated the following alternatives, summarized
in the table below. A full description of each alternative is in the
draft EIS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 1: Should
additional Wilderness Issue 2: Should
Study Areas be additional Wild and Issue 3: How will the Refuge
recommended for Scenic Rivers be manage Kongakut River visitor use
Alternatives inclusion in the recommended for to protect natural resources and
National Wilderness inclusion in the Wild visitor experience?
Preservation System, and and Scenic River System,
if so, which areas? and if so, which rivers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A (No Action)........... No new Wilderness No new Wild and Scenic Group size limits exist for
recommended. Rivers recommended. commercially guided groups (7
hikers, 10 floaters). There are
no group size limits for non-
guided visitors.
Commercial service providers have
permits, with occasional
compliance checks.
In the Kongakut Valley, air taxi
permits are granted under
condition that the holders limit
landing to non-vegetated surfaces
only; subject to safety and
weather, they must maintain
minimum 2,000 feet above ground
level flight operations, with no
intentional low flights over
camps or people; aircraft
operations must not harass
wildlife or interfere with refuge
users.
Visitor-use monitoring occurs
every other year or less often.
Campsite conditions are monitored
periodically.
B....................... Recommend the Brooks Recommend the Kongakut, Same as Alternative A, with the
Range Wilderness Study Hulahula, and Marsh following additional actions:
Area. Fork of the Canning Develop and initiate monitoring
Rivers. physical and social conditions to
evaluate management
effectiveness.
Develop targeted public education
materials explaining preferred
practices to minimize impacts,
such as proper waste disposal,
avoiding wildlife impacts, and
alleviating crowding among
groups.
C....................... Recommend the Coastal Recommend the Atigun Same as Alternative B.
Plain Wilderness Study River.
Area.
D....................... Recommend the Brooks Recommend the Kongakut, Same as Alternative B, except:
Range and Porcupine Marsh Fork of the Increase efforts to enforce
Plateau Wilderness Canning, and Atigun compliance with permit conditions
Study Areas. Rivers, and those and regulations.
portions of the Reduce the number of groups on the
Hulahula River that are river during heavy use periods
on Refuge lands. (late June and mid-August) by
working with commercial guides to
modify their use of the river
throughout the season.
Work with commercial air taxi
operators to disperse flight
paths over the river.
[[Page 50492]]
E....................... Recommend the Brooks Recommend the Kongakut, Same as Alternative D, except:
Range, Porcupine Marsh Fork of the Detailed step-down planning would
Plateau, and Coastal Canning, Hulahula, and start within 2 years of
Plain Wilderness Study Atigun Rivers. completing the Record of Decision
Areas. for the CCP.
F....................... Same as Alternative A... Same as Alternative A... Same as Alternative B, except:
A detailed step-down plan would
decide how to enforce compliance
with permit conditions and
regulations.
Step-down planning would start
within 2 years after completing
the Record of Decision for the
CCP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Availability of Documents
In addition to any methods in ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain
documents at our Web site: http://arctic.fws.gov/ccp.htm.
Public Meetings
We will involve the public through open houses, hearings, meetings,
and written comments. We will mail documents to our national and local
Refuge mailing lists. Public open house meetings will be held in the
communities of Arctic Village, Fort Yukon, Kaktovik, and Venetie,
Alaska, and public hearings in will be held in Anchorage and Fairbanks,
Alaska. Dates, times, and locations of each meeting or open house will
be announced in advance in local media.
Submitting Comments/Issues for Comment
We particularly seek comments on the following issues:
Issue 1--Should one or more areas of the Arctic Refuge be
recommended for Wilderness designation?
Issue 2--Should additional Wild and Scenic Rivers be
recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System?
Issue 3--How will the Refuge manage Kongakut River visitor
use to protect resources and visitor experience?
We consider comments substantive if they:
Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of the
information in the document;
Question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the
environmental assessment;
Present reasonable alternatives other than those presented
in the draft
CCP and the EIS; and/or
Provide new or additional information relevant to the
assessment.
Next Steps
After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and
address them in the form of a final CCP and decision document.
Public Availability of Comments
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.
Dated: July 15, 2011.
Geoffrey L. Haskett,
Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2011-20448 Filed 8-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P