[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4303-4306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01514]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R7-R-2012-N207; FXRS1265070000S3-134-FF07R06000]
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska; Revised Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Final Environmental Impact Statement
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a revised comprehensive conservation plan (plan/CCP)
and final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (refuge, NWR) for a 30-day public review. In this
revised plan and final EIS, we describe how we propose to manage the
refuge for the next 15 years.
DATES: The review period will end February 26, 2015. We are not
soliciting comments on the plan during this review period.
ADDRESSES: You may submit questions or requests for more information by
any one of the following methods:
Email: ArcticRefugeCCP@fws.gov. Include ``Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge Revised CCP and Final EIS'' in the subject line of the
message.
Fax: Attention: Arctic CCP, Planning Team Leader, Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, (907) 456-0428.
U.S. Mail: Attention: Stephanie Brady, Arctic CCP, Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, 101 12th Ave., Rm. 236, Fairbanks, AK 99701.
In-Person Drop Off: You may drop off questions during
regular business hours at the above addresses.
You will find the plan and EIS, as well as information about the
planning process and a summary of the revised plan, on the planning Web
site: http://arctic.fws.gov/ccp.htm.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie Brady, (907) 306-7448.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the comprehensive conservation
planning process for Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which we began by
publishing a notice of intent in the Federal Register (75 FR 17763) on
April 7, 2010. For more about the initial process and the history of
this refuge, see that notice.
Background
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)
requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge in
Alaska. The purpose of developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers
with a strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward
the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), 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 their habitats, CCPs
identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the
public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation and photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. In general, we review and update CCPs in Alaska every
15 to 20 years.
ANILCA lists specific purposes for each refuge in Alaska. These
purposes provide the foundation for developing and prioritizing the
management goals and objectives for each Alaskan refuge. The planning
process is a way for us and the public to evaluate management goals and
objectives that will ensure the best possible approach to wildlife,
plant, and habitat conservation while providing for wildlife-dependent
recreation opportunities that are compatible with each refuge's
establishing purposes and the mission of the NWRS.
Additional Information
The revised plan may be found at http://arctic.fws.gov/ccp.htm. The
document incorporates an EIS, prepared in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (43 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.).
Alternatives Considered
The revised plan and final EIS includes detailed information about
the refuge, planning process, issues, and management alternatives
considered. The final EIS includes discussions of six alternatives for
refuge management. All six alternatives address three significant
issues: Wilderness recommendations, Wild and Scenic River
recommendations, and Kongakut River visitor use management. The
Service's preferred alternative is described in the revised Plan and
final EIS.
Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)
This alternative reflects the current management direction of
Arctic NWR. It provides the baseline against which to compare other
alternatives. Under Alternative A, the refuge would continue to be
managed according to the direction included in the 1988 plan. Current
goals and objectives would not be changed.
Wilderness--No new areas would be recommended for
Wilderness designation.
Wild and Scenic Rivers--No new rivers would be recommended
for inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Kongakut River Visitor Use Management--Managers would
continue to manage visitors using the following practices: Group size
limits for guided groups (7 hikers, 10 floaters); and No group size
limits for non-guided groups, although we recommend using commercial
limits; Information on low-impact camping and other best practices
would continue to be available on the Refuge Web site. Commercial
service providers would continue to have special use permits with
occasional compliance checks by the Service.
Monitoring of physical and social conditions and visitor impacts
would continue to occur occasionally. Air operator permit holders would
be required to land on non-vegetated surfaces and asked to follow all
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advisories during flight
operations. The Service would prepare a Public Use Management Plan (as
required by the 1988 plan).
Alternative B
Wilderness--Recommend the Brooks Range Wilderness Study
Area to Congress for Wilderness designation.
Wild and Scenic Rivers--Recommend the Hulahula, Kongakut,
and Marsh Fork Canning Rivers to Congress for inclusion into the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Kongakut River Visitor Use Management--Under this
alternative, and immediately upon plan approval, we would proceed with
two concurrent step-down plans: A Visitor Use Management Plan (VUMP)
and a Wilderness Stewardship Plan (WSP). In addition to the practices
identified under Alternative A, we would implement interim measures.
The refuge would expand monitoring of degraded sites, work with guides
to reduce visitor volume, work with air operators to disperse flights
over high-use areas, publish a schedule of when guides will
[[Page 4304]]
be launching trips, step up enforcement of permit conditions and Refuge
regulations, and set an interim cap on commercial recreation guides
from 2013 through 2016 or through completion of the VUMP/WSP, whichever
comes first.
Alternative C
Wilderness--Recommend the Coastal Plain Wilderness Study
Area to Congress for Wilderness designation.
Wild and Scenic Rivers--Recommend the Atigun River to
Congress for inclusion into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Kongakut River Visitor Use Management--Under this
alternative, management would be the same as under Alternative B.
Alternative D
Wilderness--Recommend the Brooks Range and Porcupine
Plateau Wilderness Study Areas to Congress for Wilderness designation.
Wild and Scenic Rivers--Recommend the Atigun, Kongakut,
and Marsh Fork Canning Rivers, and those portions of the Hulahula River
managed by the Refuge, to Congress for inclusion into the National Wild
and Scenic Rivers System.
Kongakut River Visitor Use Management--Under this
alternative, management would be the same as Alternative B, except
there would be no interim cap on commercial recreation guides.
Alternative E
Wilderness--Recommend the Brooks Range, Porcupine Plateau,
and Coastal Plain Wilderness Study Areas to Congress for Wilderness
designation.
Wild and Scenic Rivers--Recommend the Atigun, Hulahula,
Kongakut, and Marsh Fork Canning Rivers to Congress for inclusion into
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Kongakut River Visitor Use--Under this alternative,
management would be the same as under Alternative D.
Alternative F
Under Alternative F much of the management direction outlined in
Alternative A would continue. The goals and objectives and management
policies and guidelines described in the plan would be adopted.
Wilderness--No new areas would be recommended for
Wilderness designation.
Wild and Scenic River--No new rivers would be recommended
for inclusion into the Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Kongakut River Visitor Use--Under this alternative,
management would be the same as under Alternative D.
Preferred Alternative
The Service selected Alternative E as the Preferred Alternative for
the revised plan for Arctic Refuge. Alternative E addresses the key
issues and concerns identified during the planning process and will
best achieve the purposes of the refuge, the mission of the NWRS, and
maintain the refuge's special values.
Wilderness: Alternative E recommends the qualified and suitable
lands and waters in three Wilderness Study Areas (nearly 12.28 million
acres) for inclusion in the National Wilderness Preservation System. If
Congress were to designate these acres as Wilderness, nearly the entire
refuge would be managed to preserve Wilderness character while
providing for the public purposes of recreational, scenic, scientific,
educational, conservation, and historical use. Wilderness Act purposes
would be within and supplemental to the purposes of the refuge.
Wilderness designation would provide statutory protection for resources
in the refuge and represents a more permanent commitment to
perpetuating the refuge's natural conditions, ecological processes, and
wilderness-associated recreational opportunities. Until Congress makes
a decision regarding this recommendation, the Wilderness Study Areas
will continue to be managed under Minimal Management.
Wild and Scenic Rivers: Four rivers are recommended for inclusion
in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System: The Atigun, Marsh Fork
Canning, Hulahula, and Kongakut rivers. The Refuge will implement the
interim management prescriptions described in the revised plan
(Appendix I) to maintain the outstandingly remarkable and other values
of these rivers until Congress makes a decision regarding the
recommendation. If Congress were to designate these four rivers, the
refuge would prepare a Comprehensive River Management Plan specific to
each of the four rivers. These plans would: Describe the existing
resource conditions in the river corridor; define the goals and desired
conditions for protecting river values; address the types and amounts
of public use the river area can sustain (i.e., user capacities);
address water quality issues and instream flow requirements; and
include a monitoring strategy to maintain desired conditions.
Kongakut River Visitor Management: The refuge will implement
interim management measures (not including a cap on commercial
recreation guides) to better manage visitor use of the Kongakut River
pending completion of a refuge-wide Visitor Use Management Plan. These
interim measures include: Working with guides to reduce visitor volume
and to disperse flights; publishing a launch schedule; developing new
outreach materials with targeted messages; increasing enforcement of
permit conditions and refuge regulations; and identifying and repairing
degraded sites.
Summary: Arctic Refuge serves a distinctive function in the NWRS as
a landscape that is essentially unaltered and free-functioning,
contains outstanding natural diversity, and provides a benchmark for
wilderness qualities and for perpetuating biological integrity,
diversity, and environmental health. Alternative E provides assurance
that the refuge's special values and distinctive function will be
protected and perpetuated for future generations. This alternative
adopts the management goals and objectives and revised management
policies and guidelines (Chapter 2). Our implementation of Alternative
E will occur over the next 15 to 20 years, depending on future staffing
levels and funding.
Factors Considered in Making the Decision
The decision was based on a thorough analysis of the environmental,
social, and economic considerations presented in the revised plan and
final EIS. The Service reviewed and considered the impacts identified
in Chapter 5 of the draft plan/EIS; relevant issues, concerns, and
opportunities; input received throughout the planning process,
including advice from technical experts and public comments on the
draft plan/EIS; and other factors, including refuge purposes and
relevant laws, regulations, and policies. The revised plan and final
EIS addresses a variety of needs, including protection of fish and
wildlife populations and their habitats and providing opportunities for
fish and wildlife-dependent recreation, subsistence, and other public
uses. Alternative E contributes significantly to achieving refuge
purposes and goals. Alternative E also strengthens the monitoring of
fish, wildlife, habitat, and public uses on the refuge to provide means
to better respond to changing conditions in the surrounding landscape.
Public Involvement
We are releasing the revised plan and final EIS for a 30-day public
review period. We are not soliciting public comments at this time. The
Service has
[[Page 4305]]
afforded government agencies, tribes, and the public extensive
opportunity to participate in the preparation of this EIS.
We began the planning process with formal notification to nine
federally recognized tribes, two Native village councils, the State of
Alaska, four Federal agencies, two Regional Native corporations, one
village corporation, and the North Slope Borough. We prepared the
revised Plan/final EIS in coordination with the Alaska Department of
Natural Resources, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the Arctic
Slope Regional Corporation, and the Native Village of Kaktovik, all of
which had one or more representatives on the planning team. The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) joined the
planning team as a cooperating agency during preparation of the final
EIS. We informally consulted with the Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal
Government, the Native Village of Kaktovik, the Native Village of
Venetie Tribal Government, the Arctic Village Council, and the Venetie
Village Council on several occasions throughout the planning process,
encouraging their participation in the revised plan. We formally
consulted with the Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal Government, the Native
Village of Kaktovik, and the Native Village of Venetie Tribal
Government in June 2012. We formally consulted with Regional Native
Corporation Doyon Limited in September 2012.
The Service published a notice of intent to prepare the plan/EIS in
the Federal Register on April 7, 2010 (75 FR 17763). Scoping comments
were accepted for 60 days. Open-house style meetings were held in
Anchorage, Arctic Village, Barrow, Fairbanks, Fort Yukon, Kaktovik, and
Venetie, Alaska. Public hearings were held in all these locations, as
well as in Washington, DC The Service received 94,061 written and oral
comments during the scoping process.
A notice of availability for the draft plan/EIS was published in
the Federal Register on August 15, 2011 (76 FR 50490). The draft EIS
was available for public comment from August 15 to November 15, 2011--a
90-day public comment period. The Service held open-house style
meetings in Anchorage (September 20, 2011), Arctic Village (November
14, 2011), Fairbanks (August 24, 2011), Fort Yukon (October 28, 2011),
Kaktovik (October 25, 2011), and Venetie, Alaska (November 15, 2011).
In addition, we held six public hearings on the draft in Anchorage
(September 21, 2011), Arctic Village (November 14, 2011), Fairbanks
(October 19, 2011), Fort Yukon (October 28, 2011), Kaktovik (November
3, 2011), and Venetie (November 15, 2011).
The Service received 612,285 communications (an example of a
communication could be an individual piece of mail, Web site
submission, form letter, statement at a public hearing, etc.) during
the public review period on the draft plan/EIS. We have considered all
public comments throughout the process and have incorporated them in
various ways, such as in identifying the significant planning issues
and the different alternatives addressed in the revised plan/final EIS.
Changes to the Revised Plan and Final EIS
We made the following changes in the revised plan and final EIS
from the draft plan/EIS:
Wilderness Terminology--We added a ``Note about Wilderness
Terminology'' to the front pages of Volumes 1, 2, and 3 to explain how
we use wilderness-related terms throughout the revised plan.
``Wilderness'' (with a capital ``W'') refers to designated Wilderness
lands, and ``wilderness'' (not capitalized) is used as an adjective to
describe wilderness-related qualities across the Refuge, including in
Minimal Management areas.
Acreages--Many of the acreages listed in the revised plan/final EIS
differ from those published elsewhere, including the draft plan. The
revised acreages reflect our ability to more accurately measure land
areas using such technologies as Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
We added a ``Note about Acreages'' to the front pages of Volumes 1, 2,
and 3 to explain our approach.
ANILCA--ANLICA Section 1004 does not apply to Arctic Refuge, and
all references to it were removed from the revised plan/final EIS.
Cooperating Agencies--Since the draft plan was released, we
welcomed the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) as a
cooperating agency.
Refuge Purposes--We recently received clarification on how Refuge
purposes guide management. Established in 1960, the Arctic National
Wildlife Range (Range) was created ``for the purpose of preserving
unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational values.'' In 1980, ANILCA
re-designated the Range as part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
and provided four purposes that guide management of the entire Refuge.
Under the provisions of Section 305 of ANILCA, the Range purposes from
1960 remain in force and effect on the lands and waters in the original
Range only to the extent they are consistent with ANILCA and the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). ANILCA purposes apply to the
entire Refuge. The revised plan was edited to fully reflect this
interpretation of Refuge purposes.
Goals and Objectives--The goals and objectives included in the
draft plan were revised based on public comment and Service review.
Changes range from minor clarifications to major rewrites of goals and
objectives. In some cases, multiple objectives in the draft plan were
combined into one. Additionally, several new objectives were added to
the revised plan. These objectives discuss restoration and
rehabilitation of degraded and/or impaired sites; management of the
Refuge's Marine Protected Area; modifications to the Refuge's
management approach to climate change providing more flexibility in the
range of available responses to climate change; assessment and
inventory of water resources; and formal consultation with tribes and
Alaska Native Regional Corporations on a wide range of environmental,
biological, cultural, and subsistence issues and concerns.
Management Policies and Guidelines--We made several changes to the
Refuge's management policies and guidelines, including rewriting the
introduction to better explain how the guidelines were developed to
meet the needs of Arctic Refuge, clarifying the authorities of the
State of Alaska and the Service, expanding the discussion on U.S.
government relations with tribal governments, and clarifying our intent
to refrain from activities intended to resist the effects of climate
change. We expanded the section on human safety and management
emergencies to include threats to refuge resources; restriction of
domestic animals such as sheep, goats, and camelids (llamas and
alpacas) to prevent the spread of disease to wildlife; prohibition of
the use of straw and hay for bedding for dogs; and prohibition of all
except pelletized weed-free feed for pack animals, to reduce the
potential introduction and spread of invasive plants. Finally, we
removed the proposed permit and fees for temporary facilities related
to the taking of fish and wildlife left in designated Wilderness from
one season to the next.
Alternatives--The projected budget to implement each of the
alternatives was revised and is now lower than what was published in
the draft plan. The options considered for management of visitor use on
the Kongakut River were revised. A Public Use or Visitor Use Management
Plan would be completed under all the alternatives, including
[[Page 4306]]
Alternative A (No Action), and two of the alternatives now include an
interim cap on commercial recreation guides from 2013 to 2016, or until
step-down plans are completed. Step-down planning would begin
immediately upon approval of the revised plan/final EIS, rather than 2
years after approval, and all management prescriptions put in place
pending the step-down plans would be considered interim.
Other Chapters and Appendices--Various chapters and appendices were
revised and reworked since the draft plan and draft EIS. Chapter 1,
Introduction, was updated with details about the public comment period
on the draft plan and contains a new section entitled ``Concerns
Regarding Fish, Wildlife, and Habitats,'' as required by ANILCA.
Chapter 4, Affected Environment, has a new section on soundscape and a
new section on cabins; in addition, subsections on climate change were
added to the descriptions of water resources, vegetation, fish, birds,
and mammals. Socioeconomic data were updated with 2010 Census data,
where available, and a new section on the Poker Flat Research Range and
NASA's Sounding Rockets Program was added. Chapter 5, Environmental
Consequences, was reworked to provide more consistency, and to identify
reasonably foreseeable future actions. Additionally, the chapter
considers the effects of each proposed action on the Poker Flat
Research Range. Step-down plans were reprioritized in Chapter 6, and
the compatibility determinations were finalized and signed (Appendix
G). The eligibility and suitability studies for the wild and scenic
river review (Appendix I) were combined into a single report, and we
added information about the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and its
management implications.
Two New Volumes--A major change made since the draft plan is the
addition of Volumes 3 and 4. Volume 3 summarizes all the public
comments received on the draft plan/EIS, presents the substantive
comments we received, and includes the Service's responses to each
substantive comment. Volume 4 contains indices to help the reader
navigate through Volume 3 and contains full text samples of
communications received on the draft plan.
Comments
We are not soliciting comments at this time. This release is
intended to allow the public a period of review. Appendix J in Volume 2
of the plan includes a summary report of public comments received
during the scoping period. Volume 3 of the revised plan contains a
summary of public comments received on the draft plan/EIS and the
Service's responses to substantive comments. Volume 4 of the revised
plan includes samples of public comments received on the draft plan/
EIS.
Next Steps
Following conclusion of the 30-day public review period, a Record
of Decision (ROD) will be signed in which we disclose the Service's
final decision and any conditions of approval. Availability of the ROD
will be announced through the Federal Register, a press release, the
Refuge's Web site, and communications with those on the CCP mailing
list.
Geoffrey L. Haskett,
Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2015-01514 Filed 1-26-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P