Final Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in Illinois, 78454-78455 [E6-22384]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
pwalker on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
78454
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 2006 / Notices
livestock and other domestic animals;
(3) assessment and control of feral
ungulates and introduced predators; (4)
control of invasive plants and
reestablishment of native plants that are
beneficial to the Covered Species; (5)
establishment of riparian buffers as well
as facilitation of the implementation of
other objectives recommended by the
recovery plans for the Covered Species.
The overall goal of Cooperative
Agreements entered into under the
proposed SHA is to produce
conservation measures that are mutually
beneficial to the Cooperators and the
long-term existence of the Covered
Species.
Based upon the probable species’
response time for the Covered Species to
reach a net conservation benefit, the
Service estimates it will take 5 years of
implementing the planned conservation
measures to fully reach a net
conservation benefit; some level of
benefit would likely occur within a
shorter time period. Cooperative
Agreements under the proposed SHA
would have at least 10 years’ duration.
After maintenance of the restored/
created/enhanced habitat for the
Covered Species on the property for the
agreed-upon term, Cooperators may
then conduct otherwise lawful activities
on their property that result in the
partial or total elimination of the habitat
improvements and the taking of the
Covered Species. However, the
restrictions on returning a property to
its original baseline condition include:
(1) The Cooperator must demonstrate
that baseline conditions were
maintained during the term of the
Cooperative Agreement and the
conservation measures necessary for
achieving a net conservation benefit
were carried out; (2) the Applicant and
the Service will be notified a minimum
of 60 days prior to the activity and given
the opportunity to capture, rescue, and/
or relocate any of the Covered Species;
and (3) return to baseline conditions
must be completed within the term of
the Certificate of Inclusion issued to the
Applicant. Cooperative Agreements
could be extended if the Applicant’s
permit is renewed and that renewal
allows for such an extension.
The Service believes that approval of
the proposed SHA may qualify for a
categorical exclusion under NEPA, as
provided by the Department of Interior
Manual (516 DM 2, Appendix 1 and 516
DM 6, Appendix 1) based on the
following criteria: (1) Implementation of
the SHA would result in minor or
negligible effects on federally listed,
proposed, and candidate species and
their habitats; (2) implementation of the
SHA would result in minor or negligible
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:15 Dec 28, 2006
Jkt 211001
effects on other environmental values or
resources; and (3) impacts of the SHA,
considered together with the impacts of
other past, present and reasonably
foreseeable similarly situated projects,
would not result, over time, in
cumulative effects to environmental
values or resources which would be
considered significant. This is more
fully explained in our draft
Environmental Action Statement. The
Service will consider public comments
in making its final determination on
whether to prepare such additional
NEPA documentation.
Decision
The Service provides this notice
pursuant to section 10(c) of the ESA and
pursuant to implementing regulations
for NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6).
We will evaluate the permit
application, the proposed SHA, and
comments submitted thereon to
determine whether the application
meets the requirements of section 10(a)
of the ESA and NEPA regulations. If the
requirements are met, we will sign the
proposed SHA and issue an
enhancement of survival permit under
section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA to the
Applicants for take of the Covered
Species incidental to otherwise lawful
activities of the project. We will not
make a final decision until after the end
of the 30 day comment period and will
fully consider all comments received
during the comment period.
Patrick Leonard,
Field Supervisor, Pacific Islands Fish and
Wildlife Office, Honolulu, Hawaii.
[FR Doc. E6–22385 Filed 12–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement
and Comprehensive Conservation Plan
for Crab Orchard National Wildlife
Refuge in Illinois
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of record
of decision.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce our decision
and the availability of the Record of
Decision (ROD) for the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
and Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) for Crab Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge in accordance with
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) requirements.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The ROD and Final EIS/CCP
may be viewed at Crab Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in Marion,
Illinois. You may obtain a copy of the
ROD on the planning Web site at https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/
craborchard or 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan
Frisk, (618) 997–3344.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
announce our decision and the
availability of the Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Final Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) for Crab Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge in accordance with
NEPA requirements (40 CFR 1506.6(b)).
We completed a thorough analysis of
the environmental, social, and economic
considerations, which we included in
the Final EIS/CCP. The Final EIS/CCP
was released to the public and a notice
of availability was published in the
Federal Register (71 FR 52138–52139,
September 1, 2006). The ROD was
signed by the Regional Director, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest
Region, on October 27, 2006, and
documents the selection of Alternative
E, the Preferred Alternative in the Final
EIS/CCP.
The CCP for Crab Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) will guide the
management and administration of the
Refuge for the next 15 years. Alternative
E, as described in the Final EIS, is the
foundation for the CCP.
Five alternatives and their
consequences were developed for the
Draft EIS and CCP, which was released
and a notice was published in the
Federal Register (70 FR 60364–60365,
October 17, 2005).
Alternative A—Current Management
(No Action). The current level of effort
on fish and wildlife and habitat
management would continue. The
current authorized recreation uses and
patterns would continue. Current
industrial leasing policies would remain
in place. The amount of agricultural
land would remain fairly constant.
Alternative B—Reduced Habitat
Fragmentation: Wildlife-dependent
Recreation Emphasis with Land
Exchange. The Refuge would emphasize
the reduction of habitat fragmentation
by making small changes in the current
habitat cover to gain larger,
unfragmented blocks of both forest and
grassland habitats. The alternative
would offer increased recreational
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
pwalker on PROD1PC69 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 250 / Friday, December 29, 2006 / Notices
opportunities by exchanging land in the
developed northwestern portion of the
Refuge for undeveloped land at another
location. The industrial use policy
would be updated. The amount of land
in row crops would decrease slightly,
and the Refuge would convert fescue
pastures to other cool- and warm-season
grasses over a period of 15 years.
Alternative C—Open Land
Management: Consolidate and Improve
Recreation. The Refuge would take
advantage of the lands that are already
open and consolidate existing large
blocks of open land for grassland
dependent species, especially birds. The
Refuge would satisfy the Refuge’s
recreation purpose as much as possible
within Service budget priorities through
consolidating and upgrading facilities. If
an industrial tenant left the Refuge, the
Refuge would not seek a new tenant for
the vacant facility. The amount of land
in row crops would increase slightly.
Alternative D—Forest Land
Management: Consolidate and Improve
Recreation. The Refuge would manage
two large forest blocks to benefit areasensitive forest birds and maintain some
early successional habitat. The Refuge
would satisfy the Refuge’s recreation
purpose as much as possible within
Service budget priorities through
consolidating and upgrading facilities. If
an industrial tenant left the Refuge, the
Refuge would not seek a new tenant for
the vacant facility. The amount of land
in row crops and hay fields would
decrease slightly.
Alternative E—Reduced Habitat
Fragmentation: Consolidate and
Improve Recreation (Preferred
Alternative). The Refuge would
emphasize the reduction of habitat
fragmentation by making small changes
in the current habitat cover to gain
larger, unfragmented blocks of both
forest and grassland habitats. The
Refuge would satisfy the Refuge’s
recreation purpose as much as possible
within Service budget priorities through
consolidating and upgrading facilities. If
an industrial tenant left the Refuge and
their facilities were suitable for
occupancy, the Refuge would make
them available for new tenants. The
amount of land in row crops would
decrease slightly.
Elements common to all alternatives
included: enough food for 6.4 million
goose-use-days for wintering Canada
Geese would be provided; federal and
state listed species would be protected;
resident fish and wildlife populations
would be maintained or enhanced;
communication between the Refuge and
the community would be improved;
cultural resources would be protected;
and the Refuge’s Fire Management Plan
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:15 Dec 28, 2006
Jkt 211001
would guide the fire program. In
addition the following policies would
apply under all alternatives: classifying
lands for various uses would be
dropped; the length of stay at
campgrounds would be limited to 14
consecutive nights; group camps would
be required to provide environmental
education; recreational fees would be
made consistent with the Federal Lands
Recreation Enhancement Act of 2005;
small competitive fishing events would
be limited to three events per year per
organization; and mowing of pastures
and fields would take place after August
1 to protect nesting birds.
The Service’s Basis for Decision: All
action alternatives (B through E) are
considered environmentally preferable
to Alternative A (No Action).
Alternative E is the alternative
considered to have the least adverse
effect on the physical and biological
environments. The rationale for
choosing Alternative E as the best
alternative for the CCP is based on the
impact of this alternative on the
purposes of the Refuge and the issues
and needs that surfaced during the
planning process. Other factors
considered in the decision were public
and resource benefits gained for the cost
incurred and the extensive public
comment. Alternative E is likely to lead
to improvements under the agricultural,
wildlife conservation, and recreation
purposes of the Refuge. Alternative E is
also expected to lead to wider and fairer
access to public recreational
opportunities. Alternative A was not
selected because it would inadequately
address the needs and issues that were
documented during planning.
Alternative B was not selected because
the land exchange, which was the heart
of the alternative, could not be
accomplished within the authorities of
the Department of the Interior.
Alternatives C and D served to contrast
an emphasis on grassland birds with an
emphasis on forest birds, and we
learned that only marginal benefits
would accrue to either group of birds
over the reduced habitat fragmentation
approach of Alternative B or E.
Public Comments on Final EIS:
During the 30-day waiting period, we
received 67 written comments. With one
exception, the comments did not raise
any issues not addressed in the Final
EIS, and the comments did not result in
changes to the analysis of
environmental consequences or affect
our response to similar comments in the
Final EIS. One comment pointed out an
inconsistency in the document, which
was introduced in the final editing,
related to the acres of new moist soil
impoundments in the preferred
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
78455
alternative. The Refuge’s intention is, as
indicated by the response on page 181
of the Final EIS, to develop 150–200
additional acres of moist soil
impoundments. The stand-alone CCP
will reflect that intention. A new topic
raised during the waiting period was an
advocacy for rock climbing on the
Refuge. The Access Fund requested that
we complete a Compatibility
Determination for rock climbing and
amend the Final EIS/CCP. Other citizens
and groups also expressed an interest in
allowing access for climbing. The
Record of Decision details Service
guidance for determining appropriate
and compatible uses and the finding by
the Refuge Manager that rock climbing
at Crab Orchard National Wildlife
Refuge is not appropriate. As a result of
this finding and according to Service
procedure, rock climbing on the Refuge
has been denied by the Refuge Manager
without determining compatibility, and
the Final EIS has not been amended. All
written comments received during the
waiting period are available for review
at the Refuge headquarters in Marion,
Illinois.
Measures to Minimize Environmental
Harm: Because all practicable means to
avoid or minimize environmental harm
have been incorporated into the
preferred alternative, no mitigation
measures have been identified. Means to
minimize environmental harm are
complemented by a Biological
Assessment that was prepared to
address any impacts to federally-listed
threatened or endangered species. This
assessment calls for a tiered approach,
whereby impacts and mitigation will be
handled on a project-specific basis
when project scope and design is
articulated. The Biological Assessment
concluded that implementation of
Alternative E is not likely to adversely
affect the Bald Eagle and not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
the Indiana bat. In addition,
compatibility determinations were
prepared for all uses identified in
Alternative E, and these determinations
contain stipulations to avoid, minimize,
or mitigate any environmental impacts
from these uses and associated facilities.
Dated: November 20, 2006.
Charles M. Wooley,
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. E6–22384 Filed 12–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\29DEN1.SGM
29DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 250 (Friday, December 29, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78454-78455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-22384]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Final Environmental Impact Statement and Comprehensive
Conservation Plan for Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in Illinois
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce our decision
and the availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and Comprehensive Conservation
Plan (CCP) for Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in accordance with
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements.
ADDRESSES: The ROD and Final EIS/CCP may be viewed at Crab Orchard
National Wildlife Refuge Headquarters in Marion, Illinois. You may
obtain a copy of the ROD on the planning Web site at https://
www.fws.gov/midwest/planning/craborchard or 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dan Frisk, (618) 997-3344.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
announce our decision and the availability of the Record of Decision
(ROD) for the Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and
Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for Crab Orchard National
Wildlife Refuge in accordance with NEPA requirements (40 CFR
1506.6(b)). We completed a thorough analysis of the environmental,
social, and economic considerations, which we included in the Final
EIS/CCP. The Final EIS/CCP was released to the public and a notice of
availability was published in the Federal Register (71 FR 52138-52139,
September 1, 2006). The ROD was signed by the Regional Director, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Midwest Region, on October 27, 2006, and
documents the selection of Alternative E, the Preferred Alternative in
the Final EIS/CCP.
The CCP for Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) will
guide the management and administration of the Refuge for the next 15
years. Alternative E, as described in the Final EIS, is the foundation
for the CCP.
Five alternatives and their consequences were developed for the
Draft EIS and CCP, which was released and a notice was published in the
Federal Register (70 FR 60364-60365, October 17, 2005).
Alternative A--Current Management (No Action). The current level of
effort on fish and wildlife and habitat management would continue. The
current authorized recreation uses and patterns would continue. Current
industrial leasing policies would remain in place. The amount of
agricultural land would remain fairly constant.
Alternative B--Reduced Habitat Fragmentation: Wildlife-dependent
Recreation Emphasis with Land Exchange. The Refuge would emphasize the
reduction of habitat fragmentation by making small changes in the
current habitat cover to gain larger, unfragmented blocks of both
forest and grassland habitats. The alternative would offer increased
recreational
[[Page 78455]]
opportunities by exchanging land in the developed northwestern portion
of the Refuge for undeveloped land at another location. The industrial
use policy would be updated. The amount of land in row crops would
decrease slightly, and the Refuge would convert fescue pastures to
other cool- and warm-season grasses over a period of 15 years.
Alternative C--Open Land Management: Consolidate and Improve
Recreation. The Refuge would take advantage of the lands that are
already open and consolidate existing large blocks of open land for
grassland dependent species, especially birds. The Refuge would satisfy
the Refuge's recreation purpose as much as possible within Service
budget priorities through consolidating and upgrading facilities. If an
industrial tenant left the Refuge, the Refuge would not seek a new
tenant for the vacant facility. The amount of land in row crops would
increase slightly.
Alternative D--Forest Land Management: Consolidate and Improve
Recreation. The Refuge would manage two large forest blocks to benefit
area-sensitive forest birds and maintain some early successional
habitat. The Refuge would satisfy the Refuge's recreation purpose as
much as possible within Service budget priorities through consolidating
and upgrading facilities. If an industrial tenant left the Refuge, the
Refuge would not seek a new tenant for the vacant facility. The amount
of land in row crops and hay fields would decrease slightly.
Alternative E--Reduced Habitat Fragmentation: Consolidate and
Improve Recreation (Preferred Alternative). The Refuge would emphasize
the reduction of habitat fragmentation by making small changes in the
current habitat cover to gain larger, unfragmented blocks of both
forest and grassland habitats. The Refuge would satisfy the Refuge's
recreation purpose as much as possible within Service budget priorities
through consolidating and upgrading facilities. If an industrial tenant
left the Refuge and their facilities were suitable for occupancy, the
Refuge would make them available for new tenants. The amount of land in
row crops would decrease slightly.
Elements common to all alternatives included: enough food for 6.4
million goose-use-days for wintering Canada Geese would be provided;
federal and state listed species would be protected; resident fish and
wildlife populations would be maintained or enhanced; communication
between the Refuge and the community would be improved; cultural
resources would be protected; and the Refuge's Fire Management Plan
would guide the fire program. In addition the following policies would
apply under all alternatives: classifying lands for various uses would
be dropped; the length of stay at campgrounds would be limited to 14
consecutive nights; group camps would be required to provide
environmental education; recreational fees would be made consistent
with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act of 2005; small
competitive fishing events would be limited to three events per year
per organization; and mowing of pastures and fields would take place
after August 1 to protect nesting birds.
The Service's Basis for Decision: All action alternatives (B
through E) are considered environmentally preferable to Alternative A
(No Action). Alternative E is the alternative considered to have the
least adverse effect on the physical and biological environments. The
rationale for choosing Alternative E as the best alternative for the
CCP is based on the impact of this alternative on the purposes of the
Refuge and the issues and needs that surfaced during the planning
process. Other factors considered in the decision were public and
resource benefits gained for the cost incurred and the extensive public
comment. Alternative E is likely to lead to improvements under the
agricultural, wildlife conservation, and recreation purposes of the
Refuge. Alternative E is also expected to lead to wider and fairer
access to public recreational opportunities. Alternative A was not
selected because it would inadequately address the needs and issues
that were documented during planning. Alternative B was not selected
because the land exchange, which was the heart of the alternative,
could not be accomplished within the authorities of the Department of
the Interior. Alternatives C and D served to contrast an emphasis on
grassland birds with an emphasis on forest birds, and we learned that
only marginal benefits would accrue to either group of birds over the
reduced habitat fragmentation approach of Alternative B or E.
Public Comments on Final EIS: During the 30-day waiting period, we
received 67 written comments. With one exception, the comments did not
raise any issues not addressed in the Final EIS, and the comments did
not result in changes to the analysis of environmental consequences or
affect our response to similar comments in the Final EIS. One comment
pointed out an inconsistency in the document, which was introduced in
the final editing, related to the acres of new moist soil impoundments
in the preferred alternative. The Refuge's intention is, as indicated
by the response on page 181 of the Final EIS, to develop 150-200
additional acres of moist soil impoundments. The stand-alone CCP will
reflect that intention. A new topic raised during the waiting period
was an advocacy for rock climbing on the Refuge. The Access Fund
requested that we complete a Compatibility Determination for rock
climbing and amend the Final EIS/CCP. Other citizens and groups also
expressed an interest in allowing access for climbing. The Record of
Decision details Service guidance for determining appropriate and
compatible uses and the finding by the Refuge Manager that rock
climbing at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge is not appropriate.
As a result of this finding and according to Service procedure, rock
climbing on the Refuge has been denied by the Refuge Manager without
determining compatibility, and the Final EIS has not been amended. All
written comments received during the waiting period are available for
review at the Refuge headquarters in Marion, Illinois.
Measures to Minimize Environmental Harm: Because all practicable
means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been incorporated
into the preferred alternative, no mitigation measures have been
identified. Means to minimize environmental harm are complemented by a
Biological Assessment that was prepared to address any impacts to
federally-listed threatened or endangered species. This assessment
calls for a tiered approach, whereby impacts and mitigation will be
handled on a project-specific basis when project scope and design is
articulated. The Biological Assessment concluded that implementation of
Alternative E is not likely to adversely affect the Bald Eagle and not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Indiana bat. In
addition, compatibility determinations were prepared for all uses
identified in Alternative E, and these determinations contain
stipulations to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any environmental impacts
from these uses and associated facilities.
Dated: November 20, 2006.
Charles M. Wooley,
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort
Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. E6-22384 Filed 12-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
