[Federal Register: August 19, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 159)]
[Notices]
[Page 41928-41930]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19au09-84]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R8-R-2008-N0322; 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: Final comprehensive conservation plan/
environmental impact statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement (CCP/EIS) for the Desert National Wildlife Refuge
Complex. The Desert National Wildlife 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 final 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,
[[Page 41929]]
describes how the Service will manage the Refuges for the next 15
years.
DATES: We will sign a record of decision no sooner than 30 days after
publication of this notice.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the final 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 final 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 final CCP/EIS will also be available for viewing
and downloading online at http://www.fws.gov/desertcomplex/
publicreview.htm.
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 included a Federal Register (67 FR
54229, August 21, 2002) notice of intent, agency and Tribal scoping
meetings, five public scoping meetings, a Federal Register (73 FR
39979, July 11, 2008) notice of availability, six public comment
workshops, several planning updates, and a CCP Web page. We received
over 230 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 in 1979 under the authority
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, 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 final 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 was modified following the completion of the
public comment period based on comments received from other agencies,
Tribal governments, non-governmental organizations, or individuals.
Appendix M of the final CCP/EIS contains a list of the comments we
received and our responses to comments.
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 41930]]
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
where appropriate 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 1,765 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. 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 new interpretive kiosk would be developed. The campground
would also be maintained but fees would be charged and the maximum
length of stay would be reduced from 14 to 7 days.
Under Alternative C, management would be similar to Alternative B,
with the following exceptions. Under this alternative, we would 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 native upland habitat adjacent to
Lower Pahranagat Lake and expand the surveying and monitoring programs
under this alternative. Visitor services would be similar to
Alternative C except we would close existing boat ramps and offer
alternative car-top boat launches.
Decision Process
The final CCP/EIS contains our responses to all comments received
on the draft document. We will make a decision no sooner than 30 days
after the publication of the final CCP/EIS. We anticipate that a Record
of Decision will be issued by the Service in early 2009.
We provide this notice under regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR
1506.6).
Dated: August 13, 2009.
Ren Lohoefener,
Regional Director, California and Nevada Region, Sacramento,
California.
[FR Doc. E9-19843 Filed 8-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P