[Federal Register: July 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 134)]
[Notices]
[Page 39979-39981]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11jy08-63]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R8-R-2008-N0064; 80230-1265-0000-S3]
Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Clark, Lincoln, and Nye
Counties, NV
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments: draft
comprehensive conservation plan/environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement (CCP/EIS) for the Desert National Wildlife Refuge
Complex for public review and comment. The Desert National Wildlife
[[Page 39980]]
Refuge Complex is composed of Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge,
Desert National Wildlife Refuge, Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge
and Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge. The CCP/EIS, prepared pursuant
to the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, and in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969,
describes how the Service will manage the Refuges for the next 15
years. Draft compatibility determinations for several existing and
proposed public uses are also available for review and public comment
with the Draft CCP/EIS.
DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or
before September 9, 2008.
ADDRESSES: For more information on obtaining documents and submitting
comments, see ``Review and Comment'' under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
For public meeting location see ``Public Meetings.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Martinez, Project Leader, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 4701 North Torrey Pines, Las Vegas, NV
89130, phone (702) 515-5450 or Mark Pelz, Chief, Refuge Planning, 2800
Cottage Way, W-1832, Sacramento, CA 95825, phone (916) 414-6504.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), which amended the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, requires us to develop a CCP for each
national wildlife refuge. The purpose in 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. In addition to
outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their
habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities
available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation and photography, environmental education and
interpretation.
We initiated the CCP/EIS for the Desert National Wildlife Refuge
Complex in August 2002. At that time and throughout the process, we
requested, considered, and incorporated public scoping comments in
numerous ways. Our public outreach has included a Federal Register
notice of intent published on August 21, 2002, agency and Tribal
scoping meetings, five public workshops, planning updates, and a CCP
Web page. We received over 400 scoping comments during the 60-day
public comment period.
Background
Ash Meadows Refuge was established in 1984 under the authority of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. It comprises 23,000
acres of spring-fed wetlands, mesquite bosques, and desert uplands that
provide habitat for at least 24 plants and animal species found nowhere
else in the world. The Refuge is located 90 miles northwest of Las
Vegas and 30 miles west of Pahrump.
Desert Refuge was originally established in 1936 by Executive Order
No. 7373 and subsequently modified by Public Land Order 4079, for the
protection, enhancement and maintenance of wildlife resources including
bighorn sheep. Located just north of Las Vegas, Nevada, the 1.6 million
acre refuge is the largest National Wildlife Refuge in the lower 48
states.
The Moapa Valley Refuge was established September 10, 1979, under
the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1969, as amended, to
secure habitat for the endangered Moapa dace. The Refuge is located on
116 acres in northeastern Clark County. Due to its small size, fragile
habitats, on-going habitat restoration work, and unsafe structures, the
Refuge is currently closed to the general public.
The Pahranagat Refuge was established in 1963, under the authority
of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, as amended, to protect habitat
for migrating birds in the Pahranagat Valley. The 5,382-acre refuge
consists of marshes, meadows, lakes, and upland desert habitat. It
provides nesting, resting, and feeding areas for waterfowl, shorebirds,
wading birds, and song birds including the endangered southwestern
willow flycatcher.
Alternatives
The Draft CCP/EIS identifies and evaluates three alternatives for
managing Ash Meadows and Moapa Valley Refuges and four alternatives for
managing Desert and Pahranagat Refuges for the next 15 years. The
alternative for each Refuge that appears to best meet the refuge
purposes is identified as the preferred alternative. The preferred
alternatives were identified based on the analysis presented in the
Draft CCP/EIS, which may be modified following the completion of the
public comment period based on comments received from other agencies,
Tribal governments, non-governmental organizations, or individuals.
Alternatives for Ash Meadows National Wildlife Refuge
Under Alternative A, the no action alternative, we would continue
to manage the Refuge as we have in the past. We would implement habitat
restoration plans that have already been completed. No major changes in
habitat management would occur. The existing wildlife observation,
photography, environmental education, and interpretation programs would
remain unchanged.
Under Alternative B, we would plan and implement springhead,
channel, and landscape restoration on about two thirds of the Refuge.
Surveys and monitoring for special status species would be expanded as
would efforts to control invasive plants and animals. Environmental
education, interpretation and wildlife observation opportunities would
be improved and expanded and a new visitor contact station and
headquarters facility would be constructed.
Under the preferred alternative, Alternative C, we would seek to
restore springheads, channels and floodplains throughout the Refuge.
Surveys and monitoring, habitat protection, pest management, and
research would also be substantially expanded. Environmental education,
interpretation, and wildlife observation programs would be similar to
but slightly less than Alternative B.
Alternatives for the Desert National Wildlife Refuge
Under Alternative A, the no action alternative, we would continue
current management for bighorn sheep and other species. We would also
continue to offer limited opportunities for wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education, and interpretation at Corn Creek.
Existing backcountry recreation opportunities would continue to be
offered including bighorn sheep hunting, hiking, camping, horseback
riding, and backpacking. In addition, under this and all other
alternatives, we would design and construct a visitor center and
administrative offices at Corn Creek and continue to protect the
wilderness character of the 1.4 million acre proposed Desert
Wilderness.
Under Alternative B, wildlife management programs would be similar
to Alternative A, with minor improvements, including expanded surveys
for bighorn sheep and installation of post and cable fencing along the
southern boundary. This
[[Page 39981]]
alternative would also include a substantial expansion in visitor
services over Alternative A, including a new environmental education
program, improved roads, a new auto tour route, and new wildlife
viewing trails.
Under the preferred alternative, Alternative C, we would expand
inventory and monitoring for bighorn sheep, special status species, and
vegetation and wildlife communities throughout the Refuge. Under this
alternative, we would also use prescribed fire and naturally ignited
fires in Refuge plant communities where appropriate to restore
vegetation characteristics representative of a natural fire regime.
Alternative C would also include fencing along the eastern boundary as
well as the permanent closure of illegal roads and rehabilitation of
damaged habitat along the southern and eastern boundaries. Visitor
services under this alternative would be the same as under Alternative
B except no auto tour route or wildlife viewing trails would be
developed.
Under Alternative D, the wildlife management and inventory and
monitoring programs would be similar to Alternative C. However, under
this alternative, visitor services would be scaled back from the other
alternatives. For example, the visitor center would only be staffed on
weekends during the off-peak seasons and there would be no road
improvements on the Refuge.
Alternatives for Moapa Valley National Wildlife Refuge
Under Alternative A, the no action alternative, we would continue
to manage the Refuge as we have in the recent past. Springhead and
channel restoration work and visitor facilities on the Plummer Unit
would be completed. The limited inventory and monitoring program would
also continue. However, the Refuge would remain closed to the public,
except by special arrangement.
Under Alternative B, wildlife management programs would be similar
to Alternative A, with minor improvements, including expanded surveys
for sensitive species and their habitats, and strategies for removing
nonnative aquatic species. We would also restore native vegetation
along the springheads and channels on the Pederson Unit. This
alternative would also include a substantial expansion in visitor
services over Alternative A, including opening the Refuge on weekends
and improved visitor facilities.
Under the preferred alternative, Alternative C, wildlife management
would be similar to Alternative B but would include increased
monitoring and the development of a long term inventory and monitoring
plan for sensitive species. In addition, we would restore the
springheads and channels and associated native vegetation on the Apcar
unit. Under Alternative C, we would expand the Refuge acquisition
boundary by 1,503 acres and pursue acquisition of the lands within the
boundary to protect habitat for Moapa dace and other sensitive species.
Under this alternative, the Refuge would be open to visitors every day,
the environmental education program would be expanded, and additional
trails would be constructed.
Alternatives for Pahranagat National Wildlife Refuge
Under Alternative A, the no action alternative, we would continue
to manage Pahranagat Refuge as we have in the recent past. The in-
progress hydrology studies would be completed and a wetland habitat
management plan would be developed and implemented. Riparian habitat
would be maintained for the southwestern willow flycatcher and other
migratory birds. Under this alternative, we would maintain the fishing,
hunting, wildlife observation, and environmental education and
interpretation opportunities on the Refuge. The campground would be
maintained in its current state.
Under Alternative B, we would expand wildlife management and
visitor services on the Refuge. We would develop 40 acres of foraging
habitat for sandhill cranes and waterfowl. Wildlife surveys and efforts
to control invasive plants would be expanded and a new refugium for the
Pahranagat roundtail chub would be developed. The visitor contact
station would be expanded and a new interpretive kiosk would be
developed. In addition, we would make a small reduction in the hunt
area to reduce potential conflicts with other refuge uses. The
campground would also be maintained, but fees would be charged and the
maximum length of stay would be reduced from fourteen to seven days.
Under Alternative C, management would be similar to Alternative B,
with the following exceptions. We would restore 200 acres of riparian
habitat between Upper Pahranagat Lake and Middle Marsh and develop and
implement restoration plans for degraded springs on the Refuge. In
addition, a new visitor contact station, interpretive walking trail,
and photo blind would also be developed. Under this alternative, we
would convert the campground to a day use area.
Under the preferred alternative, Alternative D, management would be
similar to Alternative C, except we would seek to acquire additional
water rights for the Refuge to provide more flexibility in wetland
management. Also, we would restore an additional 5-10 acres of riparian
habitat and expand the surveying and monitoring programs under this
alternative. Visitor services would be similar to Alternative C except
we would convert the campground to a walk-in day use area.
Public Meetings
The locations, dates, and times of public meetings will be listed
in a planning update distributed to the project mailing list and posted
on the Refuge Complex Web site at http://www.fws.gov/desertcomplex/.
Review and Comment
Copies of the Draft CCP/EIS may be obtained by writing to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Attn: Mark Pelz, CA/NV Refuge Planning
Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-1832, Sacramento, CA 95825-1846. Copies of
the Draft CCP/EIS may be viewed at this address or at the Desert
National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 4701 North Torrey Pines, Las Vegas,
NV 89130. The Draft CCP/EIS will also be available for viewing and
downloading online at http://www.fws.gov/desertcomplex/
publicreview.htm.
Comments on the Draft CCP/EIS should be addressed to: Mark Pelz,
Chief, Refuge Planning, 2800 Cottage Way, W-1832, Sacramento, CA 95825-
1846. Comments may also be faxed to (916) 414-6497 or if you choose to
submit comments via electronic mail, visit http://
www.desertcomplex.fws.gov and use the ``Guest Mailbox'' provided at
that site.
At the end of the review and comment period for this Draft CCP/EIS,
comments will be analyzed by the Service and addressed in the Final
CCP/EIS. 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 2, 2008.
Ken McDermond,
Acting Regional Director, California and Nevada Region, Sacramento,
California.
[FR Doc. E8-15631 Filed 7-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P