Record of Decision for the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin, 30442-30443 [E6-8124]
Download as PDF
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
30442
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Notices
describe how the agency intends to
manage the refuge over the next 15
years.
DATES: Comments on the Draft CCP/EA
must be received on or before July 10,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Draft CCP are
available on compact disk or hard copy;
you may obtain a copy by writing to:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division
of Conservation Planning, Bishop Henry
Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal
Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111
or you may access and download a copy
via the planning Web site at https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/mingo/
index.html.
All comments should be addressed to
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge,
Attention: CCP Comment, 24279 State
Highway 51, Puxico, MO 63960, or
direct e-mail to r3planning@fws.gov.
Comments may also be submitted
through the Service’s regional Web site
at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/
planning/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathleen Burchett at (573) 222–3589.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Established in 1944 under authority of
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, the
21,592-acre Mingo NWR serves as a
resting and wintering area for migratory
waterfowl. A shallow basin, the Refuge
lies in an abandoned channel of the
Mississippi River bordered on the west
by the Ozark Plateau and on the east by
Crowley’s Ridge. The Refuge contains
approximately 15,000 acres of
bottomland hardwood forest, 5,000
acres of marsh and water, 1,100 acres of
cropland and moist soil units, and
nearly 500 acres of grassy openings.
During fall and spring migration, the
Refuge wetlands support thousands of
waterfowl.
The EA evaluates four different
approaches, or alternatives, to the future
management of Mingo NWR, and two
alternatives for Pilot Knob and Ozark
Cavefish NWRs. The plan also identifies
wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities available to the public.
The preferred alternative for Mingo
includes increased opportunities for
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, environmental
education and interpretation. It would
continue with improvements to the
drainage system, slightly increase the
amount of bottomland forest, and
maintain a variety of open habitats.
The preferred alternative for Pilot
Knob includes increased community
outreach to improve communication
with local residents, guided public
access to the summit of Pilot Knob, and
increased law enforcement.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:12 May 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
The preferred alternative for Ozark
Cavefish includes opening the Refuge to
compatible wildlife dependent public
uses, working with surrounding land
owners to improve water quality, and
developing a formal agreement with the
Missouri Department of Conservation
for the cooperative management of this
remote site and their adjacent property.
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, as amended
by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C.
668dd–668ee et seq.), requires the
Service to develop a CCP for each
National Wildlife Refuge. The purpose
in developing a CCP is to provide refuge
managers with a 15-year strategy 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 Service policies. In
addition to outlining broad management
direction for conserving wildlife and
their habitats, the CCP identifies
wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities available to the public,
including opportunities for hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental
education and interpretation. We will
review and update these CCPs at least
every 15 years in accordance with the
National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, as amended
by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, and the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370d).
Dated: April 5, 2006.
Charles M. Wooley,
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. E6–8119 Filed 5–25–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Record of Decision for the Final
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Impact Statement for
Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge
in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of record
of decision.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service announces the decision and
availability of the Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan (CCP) and
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for Driftless Area National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR) in accordance with 40
CFR 1506.6(b). A thorough analysis of
the environmental, social, and economic
considerations was completed and
included in the Final CCP/EIS. The
Final CCP/EIS was released to the
public and a Notice of Availability was
published in the Federal Register, 71 FR
5874, February 3, 2006. The ROD
documents the selection of Alternative
C, the Preferred Alternative in the Final
CCP/EIS. The ROD was signed by the
Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Midwest Region, on
April 18, 2006.
ADDRESSES: The ROD and Final CCP/EIS
may be viewed at Driftless Area
National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters.
You may obtain a copy of the ROD at
the planning Web site at https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/
DriftlessArea or by writing to the
following address: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of
Conservation Planning, Bishop Henry
Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal
Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota 55111.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cathy Henry at (563) 873–3423.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCP/
EIS for the Driftless Area National
Wildlife Refuge will provide
management guidance for conservation
of Refuge resources and public use
activities during the next 15 years.
Three alternatives and their
consequences were described in detail
in the Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Statement. Under all alternatives
recovery plans for the Iowa Pleistocene
snail and the Northern monkshood
would be updated, cultural resources
would be protected, and the Refuge’s
Fire Management Plan would guide
prescribed fire and wildfire
suppression.
Alternative A—No Action. Present
management practices would continue
under this Alternative. The No Action
alternative is a status quo alternative
where current conditions and trends
continue. The alternative served as the
baseline to compare and contrast with
the other alternatives.
Acquisition efforts would not occur
under this alternative because there
would be no approved expanded
acquisition boundary.
Alternative B—Habitat Protection
Emphasis. Under this alternative the
primary focus of Refuge activities would
be on the permanent protection of
endangered species habitat through land
acquisition and minimal physical
disturbance of endangered species
habitat. The expanded acquisition area
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 102 / Friday, May 26, 2006 / Notices
for the Refuge would include a total of
6,000 acres in 22 counties in four states
as described in a Land Protection Plan
(Appendix J of the Final EIS). The 3,400
acres specified in this alternative is the
estimated acreage that would be
protected within the 15-year life of the
CCP given anticipated levels of willing
sellers, funding, and Refuge personnel.
Alternative C—Habitat Protection,
Increased Management, and Integrated
Wildlife-dependent Recreation
(Preferred Alternative). Under this
alternative the focus would be on the
permanent protection of endangered
species habitat and additional algific
slopes through land acquisition and
active management of endangered
species habitat. New information and
threats increase the need for active
management. Fewer acres acquired in
this alternative would allow limited
Refuge resources to address all impacts
to the habitat. The total expanded
acquisition area for the Refuge would
include 6,000 acres in 22 counties in
four states as described in a Land
Protection Plan (Appendix J of the Final
EIS). The 2,275 acres specified in this
alternative is a realistic estimate of the
acreage that would be protected within
the 15-year life of the CCP given
anticipated levels of willing sellers,
funding, and the need to accomplish
other Refuge objectives in this
alternative. The Service has selected
Alternative C, the Preferred Alternative,
for the Refuge. Alternative C addresses
the key issues identified during the
planning process and will best achieve
the purposes and goals of the Refuge as
well as the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System. This decision
includes adoption of Comprehensive
Conservation Plan Chapters (Appendix
A), and the Land Protection Plan
(Appendix J of the Final CCP/EIS).
Implementation of the CCP will occur
over the next 15 years and will depend
on future staffing levels, funding, and
willing sellers.
The Service’s Basis for the Decision:
Alternative C is the most
environmentally preferable alternative.
Alternative C is likely to lead to the
delisting of the Iowa Pleistocene snail
and significant progress in the recovery
of Northern monkshood and Leedy’s
roseroot, as well as beneficial effects for
other trust species. Algific talus slopes
are more likely to benefit under the
management proposed in Alternative C
than the other alternatives. Alternative
C is also expected to lead to more public
support and more public opportunities
than the other alternatives. Alternative
A was not selected because it would not
lead to reaching recovery goals or
delisting of species. Alternative B was
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:12 May 25, 2006
Jkt 208001
not selected because minimal
management would likely lead to
negative effects on algific talus slopes
and delisting of species might not occur.
The rationale for choosing the selected
alternative as the best alternative for the
CCP/EIS is based on the impact of this
alternative on the issues and concerns
that surfaced during the planning
process. The environmental impacts of
the three alternatives were analyzed as
to how they would impact: (1) Habitat
management; (2) visitor services; (3)
refuge expansion; and (4) species
assessments. Because all practicable
means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm have been
incorporated into the preferred
alternative, no mitigation measures have
been identified.
Dated: May 1, 2006.
Charles M. Wooley,
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. E6–8124 Filed 5–25–06; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Submission of Information Collection
to the Office of Management and
Budget for Review Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this
notice announces that the Bureau of
Indian Affairs is submitting the
information collections titled Tribal
Colleges and Universities Annual
Report Form, 25 CFR 41.9, OMB Control
No. 1076–0105, and the Tribal Colleges
and Universities Grant Application
Form, 25 CFR 41.8, OMB Control No.
1076–0018, to the Office of Management
and Budget for review and approval.
DATES: Submit written comments on or
before June 26, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be sent directly to the Desk Officer for
the Department of the Interior, Office of
Management and Budget, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, by
e-mail to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov
or by facsimile to (202) 395–6566.
Please send a copy of your comments
to Kevin Skenandore, Acting Director,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of
Indian Education Programs, 1849 C
Street, NW., Mail Stop 3609–MIB,
Washington, DC 20240–0001. You may
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
also send comments via facsimile to
202–208–3271.
You
may request further information or
obtain copies of the information
collections request submission from
Keith Neves, (202) 208–3601 or Chris
Redman, (202) 208–4397, Education
Planning Specialists.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Each tribal
college and university receiving
financial assistance under the Tribally
Controlled College or University
Assistance Act of 1978 (Act) is required
by the Act, and by 25 CFR Part 41, to
provide an accounting of amounts and
purposes for which financial assistance
was expended for the preceding
academic year. A request for comments
on this information collection request
was published in the Federal Register
on January 3, 2006 (71 FR 126). No
comments were received regarding these
information collection forms.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Request for Comments
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
PO 00000
30443
Sfmt 4703
You are invited to comment on the
following items to the Desk Officer at
OMB at the citation in the ADDRESSES
section:
(a) The necessity of this information
collection for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden (hours and cost)
of the collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Ways we could enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(d) Ways we could minimize the
burden of the collection of the
information on the respondents, such as
through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology.
Please note that an agency may not
sponsor or request, and an individual
need not respond to, a collection of
information unless it has a valid OMB
Control Number.
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning this information collection
request between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register. Therefore, a comment
will receive the best consideration by
OMB if it is submitted early during this
comment period.
In this notice, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs is soliciting comments to the
following information collection:
E:\FR\FM\26MYN1.SGM
26MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 102 (Friday, May 26, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30442-30443]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-8124]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Record of Decision for the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Impact Statement for Driftless Area National Wildlife
Refuge in Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announces the decision and
availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) for Driftless Area National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in
accordance with 40 CFR 1506.6(b). A thorough analysis of the
environmental, social, and economic considerations was completed and
included in the Final CCP/EIS. The Final CCP/EIS was released to the
public and a Notice of Availability was published in the Federal
Register, 71 FR 5874, February 3, 2006. The ROD documents the selection
of Alternative C, the Preferred Alternative in the Final CCP/EIS. The
ROD was signed by the Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Midwest Region, on April 18, 2006.
ADDRESSES: The ROD and Final CCP/EIS may be viewed at Driftless Area
National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters. You may obtain a copy of the ROD
at the planning Web site at https://www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/
DriftlessArea or by writing to the following address: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Division of Conservation Planning, Bishop Henry
Whipple Federal Building, 1 Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota
55111.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Henry at (563) 873-3423.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The CCP/EIS for the Driftless Area National
Wildlife Refuge will provide management guidance for conservation of
Refuge resources and public use activities during the next 15 years.
Three alternatives and their consequences were described in detail in
the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement. Under all
alternatives recovery plans for the Iowa Pleistocene snail and the
Northern monkshood would be updated, cultural resources would be
protected, and the Refuge's Fire Management Plan would guide prescribed
fire and wildfire suppression.
Alternative A--No Action. Present management practices would
continue under this Alternative. The No Action alternative is a status
quo alternative where current conditions and trends continue. The
alternative served as the baseline to compare and contrast with the
other alternatives.
Acquisition efforts would not occur under this alternative because
there would be no approved expanded acquisition boundary.
Alternative B--Habitat Protection Emphasis. Under this alternative
the primary focus of Refuge activities would be on the permanent
protection of endangered species habitat through land acquisition and
minimal physical disturbance of endangered species habitat. The
expanded acquisition area
[[Page 30443]]
for the Refuge would include a total of 6,000 acres in 22 counties in
four states as described in a Land Protection Plan (Appendix J of the
Final EIS). The 3,400 acres specified in this alternative is the
estimated acreage that would be protected within the 15-year life of
the CCP given anticipated levels of willing sellers, funding, and
Refuge personnel.
Alternative C--Habitat Protection, Increased Management, and
Integrated Wildlife-dependent Recreation (Preferred Alternative). Under
this alternative the focus would be on the permanent protection of
endangered species habitat and additional algific slopes through land
acquisition and active management of endangered species habitat. New
information and threats increase the need for active management. Fewer
acres acquired in this alternative would allow limited Refuge resources
to address all impacts to the habitat. The total expanded acquisition
area for the Refuge would include 6,000 acres in 22 counties in four
states as described in a Land Protection Plan (Appendix J of the Final
EIS). The 2,275 acres specified in this alternative is a realistic
estimate of the acreage that would be protected within the 15-year life
of the CCP given anticipated levels of willing sellers, funding, and
the need to accomplish other Refuge objectives in this alternative. The
Service has selected Alternative C, the Preferred Alternative, for the
Refuge. Alternative C addresses the key issues identified during the
planning process and will best achieve the purposes and goals of the
Refuge as well as the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
This decision includes adoption of Comprehensive Conservation Plan
Chapters (Appendix A), and the Land Protection Plan (Appendix J of the
Final CCP/EIS). Implementation of the CCP will occur over the next 15
years and will depend on future staffing levels, funding, and willing
sellers.
The Service's Basis for the Decision: Alternative C is the most
environmentally preferable alternative. Alternative C is likely to lead
to the delisting of the Iowa Pleistocene snail and significant progress
in the recovery of Northern monkshood and Leedy's roseroot, as well as
beneficial effects for other trust species. Algific talus slopes are
more likely to benefit under the management proposed in Alternative C
than the other alternatives. Alternative C is also expected to lead to
more public support and more public opportunities than the other
alternatives. Alternative A was not selected because it would not lead
to reaching recovery goals or delisting of species. Alternative B was
not selected because minimal management would likely lead to negative
effects on algific talus slopes and delisting of species might not
occur. The rationale for choosing the selected alternative as the best
alternative for the CCP/EIS is based on the impact of this alternative
on the issues and concerns that surfaced during the planning process.
The environmental impacts of the three alternatives were analyzed as to
how they would impact: (1) Habitat management; (2) visitor services;
(3) refuge expansion; and (4) species assessments. Because all
practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been
incorporated into the preferred alternative, no mitigation measures
have been identified.
Dated: May 1, 2006.
Charles M. Wooley,
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort
Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. E6-8124 Filed 5-25-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P