[Federal Register: August 15, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 47964-47966]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15au08-82]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R1-R-2008-N0145; 1265-0000-10137-S3]
Hanford Reach National Monument, Adams, Benton, Franklin and
Grant Counties, WA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of the final comprehensive conservation
plan and environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Hanford Reach National
Monument (Monument). In this final CCP/EIS, we describe how the
Monument will be managed for the next 15 years.
DATES: We will sign a Record of Decision no sooner than 30 days after
publication of this notice.
ADDRESSES: You may view or obtain copies of the final CCP/EIS by any of
the following methods:
Agency Web Site: Download a copy of the CCP/EIS at http://
www.hanfordreach.fws.gov.
E-mail: E-mail your request to daniel_haas@fws.gov. Unless
otherwise specified, copies of the final CCP/EIS will be provided on a
compact disk.
Mail: Mail your request to Dan Haas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 3250 Port of Benton Boulevard, Richland, WA 99354.
In-Person Viewing or Pickup: The final CCP/EIS can be obtained at
the address above, Monday thru Thursday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., and
Friday 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
Local Libraries: The final CCP/EIS is available at public libraries
in Kennewick, Pasco, and Richland, Washington (see http://
www.hanfordreach.fws.gov for details).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Hughes or Dan Haas, at (509) 371-
1801 or daniel_haas@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we announce the availability of the final CCP/EIS
for the Monument in accordance with National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements. The Service completed a
thorough analysis of impacts on the human environment, which are
included in the final EIS for the CCP. The CCP identifies Alternative
C-1 as the Service's preferred alternative. We released the Draft CCP/
EIS to the public, announcing and requesting comments in a notice of
availability in the Federal Register (71 FR 239 74929-74931; December
13, 2006).
The Monument was established in 2000 by Presidential Proclamation
7319 (Proclamation) under the authority of the American Antiquities Act
of 1906 (16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 431-33, 34 Stat. 225). The Monument's
lands forms a horseshoe shape around the Department of Energy's (DOE)
Hanford Nuclear Reservation, comprising 196,000 acres of the 375,000-
acre site. The Monument is managed by both the Service and DOE, with
the Service-managed areas administered under a permit from the DOE.
Natural and Cultural Resources
The Monument was established to protect a wide variety of natural
and cultural resources. It contains one of
[[Page 47965]]
two remaining large expanses of shrub-steppe habitat in Washington,
supporting shrub-steppe obligate bird and reptile species, healthy
populations of mule deer and coyotes, game birds including gray
partridge and chukars, and a large elk herd. Forty-seven miles of the
last free-flowing stretch of the Columbia River flows through the
Monument, maintaining commercially viable populations of fall Chinook
salmon, healthy waterfowl populations, game fish such as largemouth
bass and walleye, many of the last remaining big sturgeon in the
Columbia River system, and large populations of waterbirds such as
white pelicans, black-crowned night herons, and overwintering bald
eagles. The Monument also supports several endangered, threatened, or
sensitive species, including spring Chinook salmon, Columbia River
steelhead, ferruginous hawks, persistentsepal yellowcress, Umtanum
desert buckwheat, and White Bluffs bladderpod. The Monument also may
provide viable habitat for northern wormwood, western sage grouse, and
pygmy rabbits.
The abundance of wildlife has led to a millennia of use by American
Indians, resulting in a rich base of cultural resources, including
prehistoric and traditional activities still in practice. The Monument
also contains many of the modern cultural artifacts related to
operation of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation.
Background
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 the Service to develop a CCP for
each national wildlife refuge. The purpose in developing a CCP is to
provide refuge managers a 15-year plan for achieving refuge purposes
and contributing toward the National Wildlife Refuge System mission,
consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management,
conservation, legal mandates, and Service policies. In addition to
outlining broad management direction for conserving wildlife and
habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities
including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation. Each CCP is reviewed
periodically and updated at least once every 15 years in accordance
with the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and NEPA.
CCP Alternatives
The Draft CCP/EIS addressed priority issues raised by the Service,
other governmental partners, American Indian tribes, special interest
groups, and the public. To address these priority issues, we developed
and evaluated eight alternatives--A, B, B-1, C, C-1, D, E, and F--
during the planning process. We solicited comments on the Draft CCP/EIS
from December 6, 2006, to March 10, 2007. We received 308 comment
communications. When possible and appropriate, comments were
incorporated into the final CCP/EIS. In Appendix B of the final CCP/EIS
responses to all substantive comments are provided. All the
alternatives address all significant issues.
Alternative A: No Action. Alternative A assumes no change from
existing management and thus provides a baseline for evaluating impacts
of the other alternatives. Current management practices would be
continued in accordance with Proclamation mandates and agreements, to
conserve and protect biological, geological, paleontological and
cultural resources. Conservation activities would involve inventory and
monitoring, habitat restoration, invasive species control, fire
protection, fire rehabilitation, and maintenance of existing
facilities. Land use designations in place at the time of Monument
establishment would be maintained. Public access for recreational,
interpretive and educational purposes would continue year-round in
designated areas and would be restricted from sensitive resource areas.
Limited interpretive and educational programs would be presented on
request, dependent upon staff availability.
Alternative B. Alternative B emphasizes restoration of native
plants and animals in upland, riparian and aquatic habitats. Compared
to the other alternatives, Alternative B would provide the greatest
emphasis on conservation, protection and monitoring of the biological,
geological, paleontological and cultural resources described in the
Proclamation. Increased opportunities for restoration-based research of
the native landscape and habitats for species of concern would be
promoted, and information sharing between partners and researchers
would be encouraged. Public access for day-use recreation,
interpretation, and education would continue year-round in designated
areas, with a greater degree of management controls and use
restrictions in place to ensure resource protection, when compared to
other alternatives. Visitor facilities would be developed only in the
Monument's least sensitive areas and only after a comprehensive
inventory of resources is conducted and sensitive resources are
identified in the area under consideration. Interpretation and
education programs would be provided; however, fewer people would be
served than in Alternatives C, C-1, D, E and F.
Alternative B-1. Alternative B-1 is identical to Alternative B,
except that hunting would not be allowed anywhere on the Monument.
Alternative C. Alternative C would protect and conserve biological,
geological, paleontological and cultural resources described in the
Proclamation, by creating and maintaining extensive areas within the
Monument that are free of facility development. This would serve
conservation, restoration, protection, and recreation purposes by
maintaining large natural landscapes, protecting sensitive resources,
and providing opportunities for solitude. The facilities and access
points that would be provided would be concentrated to minimize overall
impacts to the Monument and to provide economies of scale in management
and maintenance. Public access points and recreational facilities would
be planned and developed along highways and in perimeter areas of the
Monument. Certain existing facilities and infrastructure currently
present within the Monument would be relocated. Vehicle access into the
interior of the Monument would be limited; however, much of the
Monument would be open to foot and other non-motorized access.
Facilities, such as the boat-in campsites along the Hanford Reach
provided for in this alternative, would be developed after inventories
of resources are conducted and sensitive resources are identified in
the areas under consideration. Interpretation and education programs
would serve greater numbers of people than Alternatives A, B, C-1 and
F, but fewer than Alternatives D and E.
Alternative C-1. Alternative C-1 was developed in response to
comments received on the draft CCP from tribes, cooperating agencies,
local governments, and the general public. Like Alternative C,
Alternative C-1 would protect and conserve the biological, geological,
paleontological and cultural resources described in the Proclamation,
by creating and maintaining extensive areas free of facility
development. This would serve conservation, restoration, protection,
and recreation purposes by maintaining large natural landscapes,
protecting sensitive resources, and providing
[[Page 47966]]
opportunities for solitude. The facilities and access points that would
be provided would be concentrated together to minimize overall impacts
to the Monument and to provide economies of scale in management and
maintenance. Public access points and recreational facilities would be
planned and developed along highways and in perimeter areas. Unlike
Alternative C, existing facilities and infrastructure currently present
would not be relocated or closed, such as the White Bluffs Boat Launch.
Vehicle access into the Monument's interior would be less limited,
although like Alternative C, much of the Monument would be open to foot
and other non-motorized access. Facilities, such as the boat-in
campsites along Hanford Reach provided for in this alternative, would
be developed after inventories of resources are conducted and sensitive
resources are identified in the area under consideration.
Interpretation and education programs would serve greater numbers of
people than Alternatives A, B, B-1 and F, but fewer than Alternatives
C, D and E.
Alternative D. Alternative D provides the greatest degree of public
access, recreational opportunities, and facilities development. The
conservation, protection and monitoring of the biological, geological,
paleontological and cultural resources described in the Proclamation
would still be the primary priorities; however, more time, effort and
resources would be devoted to public use than in the other
alternatives, likely decreasing the resources and attention available
to restoration activities. Resource inventories, identification of
sensitive areas, and restoration activities would be concentrated in
the areas of highest public use. Resource protection, restoration
research, and monitoring would focus on the impacts created from
recreational activities. Public access sites and facilities would be
developed throughout the Monument and to a greater extent than
Alternatives A, B, B-1, C, C-1 and F; access would be restricted from
the most sensitive areas. Visitor facilities would include improved
boat launches, auto tour routes, and campgrounds. Interpretation and
education programs would serve the highest number of people of all the
alternatives.
Alternative E. Alternative E was formulated by the Monument's
Federal Advisory Committee during a workshop held June 16-17, 2004. It
provides an alternate public use emphasis to that of Alternative D.
Alternative E provides a high degree of public access and facilities
development. It does this through the combination of elements from
Alternatives C and D. The underlying open space concept of Alternative
C is maintained through the concentration of facilities in perimeter
areas; however, access and areas open to the public more closely
resemble Alternative D. Again, the conservation, protection and
monitoring of the biological, geological, paleontological, and cultural
resources described in the Proclamation is the top priority, but as in
Alternative D, substantial effort and resources would be devoted to
public use, likely decreasing the resources available for restoration
activities. Resource inventories, identification of sensitive areas and
restoration activities would be concentrated in areas of highest public
use. Resource protection, restoration research, and monitoring would
focus on impacts created from recreational activities. Public access
points and facilities would be developed in perimeter areas and to a
greater extent than Alternatives A, B and F; access would be restricted
from the most sensitive areas. Visitor facilities would include
improved boat launches and campgrounds. Interpretation and education
programs would serve a high number of people, although not as many as
Alternative D.
Alternative F. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation (CTUIR) developed this alternative using Alternative B as
its basis for management emphasis and public access. While similar to
Alternative B, Alternative F would provide a slight increase in the
areas open to public access. The one significant difference is the
proposed addition of a public access permit system, with the possible
establishment of fee areas. Interpretation and education programs would
be provided; however, fewer people would be served than in Alternatives
C, C-1, D and E.
Preferred Alternative. We have identified Alternative C-1, as
described above, as our preferred alternative, pending a final
selection to be documented in a Record of Decision.
Dated: May 23, 2008.
Renne R. Lohoefener,
Regional Director, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. E8-18445 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P