Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Fairbanks, AK, 50490-50492 [2011-20448]
Download as PDF
50490
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2011 / Notices
CBP uses the information collected on
CBP Forms 349 and 350 to verify that
the fee collected is timely and
accurately submitted. These forms are
authorized by the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986 (26 U.S.C.
4461, et seq.) and provided for by 19
CFR 24.24, which also includes the list
of designated ports. CBP Forms 349 and
350 are accessible at https://www.cbp.
gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/forms/ or they may
be completed and filed electronically at
https://www.pay.gov.
Current Actions: This submission is
being made to extend the expiration
date of this information collection with
a change to the burden hours resulting
from revised estimates of the number of
responses. CBP also proposes to add the
respondent’s email address and fax
number to Form 349. There are no
proposed changes to CBP 350.
Type of Review: Extension (with
change).
Affected Public: Businesses.
Estimated Number of Respondents:
575.
Estimated Number of Responses:
2,300.
Estimated Time per Respondent: 130
minutes.
Estimated Total Annual Burden
Hours: 1,246.
Dated: August 9, 2011.
Tracey Denning,
Agency Clearance Officer, U.S. Customs and
Border Protection.
[FR Doc. 2011–20624 Filed 8–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111–14–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R7–2010–N290; 70133–1265–0000–
S3]
Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Draft Environmental Impact
Statement, Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, Fairbanks, AK
AGENCY:
Introduction
Interior.
Notice of availability and
request for comments; announcement of
public meetings.
ACTION:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive
conservation plan (CCP) and draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS)
for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
(Refuge) for public review and
comment. In this document, we describe
goals and objectives, management
direction, and alternatives to manage
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Aug 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
To ensure consideration, please
send your written comments by
November 14, 2011. We will hold public
meetings in communities within and
near the Refuge, and also in the cities of
Anchorage and Fairbanks, in Alaska. We
will announce these upcoming public
meetings in local news media.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
or requests for copies or more
information by any of the following
methods. You may request a 20-page
summary of the CCP; a 1,200-page hard
copy of the full CCP; or a CD–ROM of
the summary and full document.
Agency Web Site: Download a copy of
the summary or full CCP document at
https://arctic.fws.gov/ccp.htm.
E-mail: ArcticRefugeCCP@fws.gov.
Include ‘‘Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge draft CCP and draft EIS’’ in the
subject line of the message.
Fax: Attn: Sharon Seim, Planning
Team Leader, (907) 456–0428.
U.S. Mail: Sharon Seim, Planning
Team Leader, Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, 101 12th Ave., Rm. 236,
Fairbanks, AK 99701.
In-Person Pickup or Drop-off: You
may pick up a copy or drop off
comments during regular business hours
at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sharon Seim, Planning Team Leader, at
the address listed above, by phone at
(907) 456–0501, or by e-mail at
ArcticRefugeCCP@fws.gov.
DATES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
SUMMARY:
the Refuge for the 15 years following
approval of the final CCP. Also available
for review in the document are draft
compatibility determinations, a draft
wilderness review, and a draft wild and
scenic river review prepared in
association with the CCP, as well as
supporting documents required by the
National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
With this notice, we continue the CCP
process for the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. We started this process through
a notice of intent in the Federal Register
(75 FR 17763; April 7, 2010).
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
includes nearly 19.3 million acres, three
wild rivers, and one of the largest areas
of designated Wilderness in the United
States. The rugged Brooks Range, with
peaks and glaciers to 9,000 feet, extends
east to west in a band 75 miles wide,
rising abruptly from a tundra-covered
plain. This treeless plain is cut by
numerous braided rivers and streams.
South of the continental divide, rivers
wind serpentine courses through broad
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
spruce-covered valleys dotted with
lakes and sloughs. Nearly 180 species of
birds, 45 species of mammals, and 36
species of fish have been documented
on Arctic Refuge. Vast mountains,
diverse wildlife, and a wealth of
habitats give this unspoiled wildlife
refuge high cultural-heritage, scenic,
scientific, and wilderness values.
Background
The CCP Process
The Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act of 1980 (94 Stat. 2371;
ANILCA) requires us to develop a CCP
for each refuge. The purpose for
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. We
will review and update the CCP at least
every 20 years in accordance with
ANILCA.
Public Outreach
We started the CCP for Arctic Refuge
in April 2010. At that time and
throughout the planning process, we
requested public comments and
considered and incorporated them in
numerous ways. In April 2010, we
mailed a planning newsletter to more
than 2,000 individuals, agencies, and
organizations describing the planning
process for the CCP revision and telling
the public how they could be informed
or involved. It informed the public
about the Refuge vision and draft goals
identified by the planning team and
Refuge staff. The newsletter contained a
comment form that provided an
opportunity for people to identify issues
they thought should be addressed in the
CCP or to provide suggestions on how
best to accomplish Arctic Refuge
purposes. The newsletter and comment
form were also made available over the
Internet.
To gather additional input from the
public, members of the planning team
and Refuge staff held eight public open
house meetings—five in communities
adjacent to or within the boundaries of
the Arctic Refuge; one in Washington,
DC; one in Anchorage, Alaska; and one
in Fairbanks, Alaska.
Individuals and organizations
provided 94,061 comments during the
scoping process. The responses came in
e-mails, Web forms, postcards, faxes,
letters, and public hearing transcripts.
Approximately 300 people spoke at
meetings in 8 communities. The
responses were reviewed, coded, and
E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM
15AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2011 / Notices
analyzed. Comments were sorted into
six categories:
(1) General comments expressing
support for, or opposition to, wilderness
designation and development within the
Refuge;
(2) Analysis—These comments spoke
to the scope and content of the draft
CCP/EIS, with the major theme being
the need to update studies and to
employ effective monitoring and
inventories. A minor theme was the
adequacy of the studies—the data
concerns related to climate change,
wildlife, invasive plants, recreation, oil
and gas, water, and air;
(3) Process—Commenters provided
input on process considerations for CCP
preparation, including comments on
decisionmaking philosophy, outreach,
public involvement process, public
meetings, and the influence of politics
and special interests in the process;
(4) Activities and Uses—The
comments received covered four major
areas of activities and uses:
• Commercial activities, either
support or opposition—e.g., concern
about potential impacts to Refuge
resources, or impact of permitted users
on Native groups;
• Government Activities—e.g.,
scientific research, species management,
structures within the Refuge, and
alternative energy;
• Private Activities; and
• Native/Tribal activities on the
Refuge, including support or opposition
to recreational activities, large groups
and growing crowds, with comments
focused on potential impacts of Refuge
regulations and policies to Native
Alaskans;
(5) Land and Resource Management—
The focus of these comments included
discussions about Refuge purposes and
mandates (asking the Service to avoid
changing or manipulating the natural
environment in the Refuge); support for,
and opposition to, further Wilderness
and Wild and Scenic River designations;
opposition to naming of features; and
both ensuring compliance with Refuge
Alternatives
Issue 1: Should additional
Wilderness Study Areas
be recommended for inclusion
in the National Wilderness
Preservation System, and
if so, which areas?
Issue 2: Should additional Wild
and Scenic Rivers
be recommended for inclusion
in the Wild and Scenic River System, and if so, which rivers?
A (No Action) ....
No new Wilderness recommended
No new Wild and Scenic Rivers
recommended.
B .......................
Recommend the Brooks Range
Wilderness Study Area.
Recommend
the
Kongakut,
Hulahula, and Marsh Fork of the
Canning Rivers.
C .......................
Recommend the Coastal Plain
Wilderness Study Area.
Recommend the Brooks Range
and Porcupine Plateau Wilderness Study Areas.
Recommend the Atigun River .......
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
D .......................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:05 Aug 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Recommend the Kongakut, Marsh
Fork of the Canning, and Atigun
Rivers, and those portions of
the Hulahula River that are on
Refuge lands.
Frm 00041
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
50491
treaties and agreements and concern
from Alaska Natives that treaties have
been used to manipulate their lifestyles;
(6) Legal Consistency—This category
included comments about the legal
consistency of various laws, treaties,
and policies that affect the Refuge—e.g.,
asking for clarification of the roles of the
Service and Congress related to
Wilderness designation and
management within the ‘‘1002’’ area of
the Refuge, and the role of Refuge
planning to ensure that planning efforts
for the CCP are consistent with laws,
regulations, and policies.
We have considered and evaluated
these issues and public concerns, and
we have used them to develop various
aspects of the draft CCP/EIS, such as
management objectives, management
guidelines, and alternatives.
CCP Alternatives We Are Considering
We developed and evaluated the
following alternatives, summarized in
the table below. A full description of
each alternative is in the draft EIS.
Issue 3: How will the Refuge manage
Kongakut River visitor use to protect
natural resources and visitor experience?
Group size limits exist for commercially guided
groups (7 hikers, 10 floaters). There are no group
size limits for non-guided visitors.
Commercial service providers have permits, with
occasional compliance checks.
In the Kongakut Valley, air taxi permits are granted
under condition that the holders limit landing to
non-vegetated surfaces only; subject to safety
and weather, they must maintain minimum 2,000
feet above ground level flight operations, with no
intentional low flights over camps or people; aircraft operations must not harass wildlife or interfere with refuge users.
Visitor-use monitoring occurs every other year or
less often. Campsite conditions are monitored
periodically.
Same as Alternative A, with the following additional
actions:
Develop and initiate monitoring physical and social
conditions to evaluate management effectiveness.
Develop targeted public education materials explaining preferred practices to minimize impacts,
such as proper waste disposal, avoiding wildlife
impacts, and alleviating crowding among groups.
Same as Alternative B.
Same as Alternative B, except:
Increase efforts to enforce compliance with permit
conditions and regulations.
Reduce the number of groups on the river during
heavy use periods (late June and mid-August) by
working with commercial guides to modify their
use of the river throughout the season.
Work with commercial air taxi operators to disperse
flight paths over the river.
E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM
15AUN1
50492
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 157 / Monday, August 15, 2011 / Notices
Issue 1: Should additional
Wilderness Study Areas
be recommended for inclusion
in the National Wilderness
Preservation System, and
if so, which areas?
Issue 2: Should additional Wild
and Scenic Rivers
be recommended for inclusion
in the Wild and Scenic River System, and if so, which rivers?
E .......................
Recommend the Brooks Range,
Porcupine Plateau, and Coastal
Plain Wilderness Study Areas.
Recommend the Kongakut, Marsh
Fork of the Canning, Hulahula,
and Atigun Rivers.
F ........................
Same as Alternative A ..................
Same as Alternative A ..................
Alternatives
Public Availability of Documents
Public Meetings
We will involve the public through
open houses, hearings, meetings, and
written comments. We will mail
documents to our national and local
Refuge mailing lists. Public open house
meetings will be held in the
communities of Arctic Village, Fort
Yukon, Kaktovik, and Venetie, Alaska,
and public hearings in will be held in
Anchorage and Fairbanks, Alaska.
Dates, times, and locations of each
meeting or open house will be
announced in advance in local media.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Submitting Comments/Issues for
Comment
We particularly seek comments on the
following issues:
• Issue 1—Should one or more areas
of the Arctic Refuge be recommended
for Wilderness designation?
• Issue 2—Should additional Wild
and Scenic Rivers be recommended for
inclusion in the National Wild and
Scenic River System?
• Issue 3—How will the Refuge
manage Kongakut River visitor use to
protect resources and visitor
experience?
We consider comments substantive if
they:
• Question, with reasonable basis, the
accuracy of the information in the
document;
• Question, with reasonable basis, the
adequacy of the environmental
assessment;
• Present reasonable alternatives
other than those presented in the draft
CCP and the EIS; and/or
• Provide new or additional
information relevant to the assessment.
16:05 Aug 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
Same as Alternative D, except:
Detailed step-down planning would start within 2
years of completing the Record of Decision for
the CCP.
Same as Alternative B, except:
A detailed step-down plan would decide how to enforce compliance with permit conditions and regulations.
Step-down planning would start within 2 years after
completing the Record of Decision for the CCP.
Next Steps
After this comment period ends, we
will analyze the comments and address
them in the form of a final CCP and
decision document.
In addition to any methods in
ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain
documents at our Web site: https://
arctic.fws.gov/ccp.htm.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Issue 3: How will the Refuge manage
Kongakut River visitor use to protect
natural resources and visitor experience?
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Dated: July 15, 2011.
Geoffrey L. Haskett,
Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2011–20448 Filed 8–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
described below in the BLM Idaho State
Office, Boise, Idaho, on September 14,
2011. This survey was executed at the
request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to meet certain administrative
and management purposes.
The lands surveyed are:
The plat constituting the entire survey
record of the survey of certain islands in the
Snake River, Tps 1 and 2 N., R. 3 West, T.
2 N., R. 4 W., T. 3 N., R. 4 W., T. 3 N., R.
5 W., and T. 4 N., R. 5 W., Boise Meridian,
Idaho, was accepted July 29, 2011.
The Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) will file the plat of survey of the
lands described below in the BLM Idaho
State Office, Boise, Idaho, 30 days from
the date of publication in the Federal
Register. This survey was executed at
the request of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service to meet certain administrative
and management purposes.
Dated: August 2, 2011.
Stanley G. French,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Idaho.
[FR Doc. 2011–20668 Filed 8–12–11; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
BILLING CODE 4310–GG–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[LLID9570000.LL14200000.BJ0000]
Bureau of Land Management
Idaho: Filing of Plats of Survey
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of filing of plats of
surveys.
[LLCA930000.L58790000.EU0000; CACA
50168 13]
The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) has officially
accepted the plat of survey of the lands
described below in the BLM Idaho State
Office, Boise, Idaho, effective 9 a.m., on
the date specified.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bureau of Land Management, 1387
South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho 83709–
1657.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM
will file the plat of survey of the lands
AGENCY:
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Notice of Realty Action: Direct Sale of
Public Land in San Benito County, CA
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Realty Action.
The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), Hollister Field
Office, proposes to sell a parcel of
public land consisting of approximately
15.61 acres in San Benito County,
California. The public land would be
sold to Windfield Ranch, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15AUN1.SGM
15AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 157 (Monday, August 15, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50490-50492]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20448]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R7-2010-N290; 70133-1265-0000-S3]
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Fairbanks, AK
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments; announcement
of public meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (Refuge) for public review and comment. In this document, we
describe goals and objectives, management direction, and alternatives
to manage the Refuge for the 15 years following approval of the final
CCP. Also available for review in the document are draft compatibility
determinations, a draft wilderness review, and a draft wild and scenic
river review prepared in association with the CCP, as well as
supporting documents required by the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA).
DATES: To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by
November 14, 2011. We will hold public meetings in communities within
and near the Refuge, and also in the cities of Anchorage and Fairbanks,
in Alaska. We will announce these upcoming public meetings in local
news media.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments or requests for copies or more
information by any of the following methods. You may request a 20-page
summary of the CCP; a 1,200-page hard copy of the full CCP; or a CD-ROM
of the summary and full document.
Agency Web Site: Download a copy of the summary or full CCP
document at https://arctic.fws.gov/ccp.htm.
E-mail: ArcticRefugeCCP@fws.gov. Include ``Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge draft CCP and draft EIS'' in the subject line of the message.
Fax: Attn: Sharon Seim, Planning Team Leader, (907) 456-0428.
U.S. Mail: Sharon Seim, Planning Team Leader, Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, 101 12th Ave., Rm. 236, Fairbanks, AK 99701.
In-Person Pickup or Drop-off: You may pick up a copy or drop off
comments during regular business hours at the address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Seim, Planning Team Leader, at
the address listed above, by phone at (907) 456-0501, or by e-mail at
ArcticRefugeCCP@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. We started this process through a notice of
intent in the Federal Register (75 FR 17763; April 7, 2010).
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge includes nearly 19.3 million
acres, three wild rivers, and one of the largest areas of designated
Wilderness in the United States. The rugged Brooks Range, with peaks
and glaciers to 9,000 feet, extends east to west in a band 75 miles
wide, rising abruptly from a tundra-covered plain. This treeless plain
is cut by numerous braided rivers and streams. South of the continental
divide, rivers wind serpentine courses through broad spruce-covered
valleys dotted with lakes and sloughs. Nearly 180 species of birds, 45
species of mammals, and 36 species of fish have been documented on
Arctic Refuge. Vast mountains, diverse wildlife, and a wealth of
habitats give this unspoiled wildlife refuge high cultural-heritage,
scenic, scientific, and wilderness values.
Background
The CCP Process
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (94
Stat. 2371; ANILCA) requires us to develop a CCP for each refuge. The
purpose for 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. We will review and update the CCP at least
every 20 years in accordance with ANILCA.
Public Outreach
We started the CCP for Arctic Refuge in April 2010. At that time
and throughout the planning process, we requested public comments and
considered and incorporated them in numerous ways. In April 2010, we
mailed a planning newsletter to more than 2,000 individuals, agencies,
and organizations describing the planning process for the CCP revision
and telling the public how they could be informed or involved. It
informed the public about the Refuge vision and draft goals identified
by the planning team and Refuge staff. The newsletter contained a
comment form that provided an opportunity for people to identify issues
they thought should be addressed in the CCP or to provide suggestions
on how best to accomplish Arctic Refuge purposes. The newsletter and
comment form were also made available over the Internet.
To gather additional input from the public, members of the planning
team and Refuge staff held eight public open house meetings--five in
communities adjacent to or within the boundaries of the Arctic Refuge;
one in Washington, DC; one in Anchorage, Alaska; and one in Fairbanks,
Alaska.
Individuals and organizations provided 94,061 comments during the
scoping process. The responses came in e-mails, Web forms, postcards,
faxes, letters, and public hearing transcripts. Approximately 300
people spoke at meetings in 8 communities. The responses were reviewed,
coded, and
[[Page 50491]]
analyzed. Comments were sorted into six categories:
(1) General comments expressing support for, or opposition to,
wilderness designation and development within the Refuge;
(2) Analysis--These comments spoke to the scope and content of the
draft CCP/EIS, with the major theme being the need to update studies
and to employ effective monitoring and inventories. A minor theme was
the adequacy of the studies--the data concerns related to climate
change, wildlife, invasive plants, recreation, oil and gas, water, and
air;
(3) Process--Commenters provided input on process considerations
for CCP preparation, including comments on decisionmaking philosophy,
outreach, public involvement process, public meetings, and the
influence of politics and special interests in the process;
(4) Activities and Uses--The comments received covered four major
areas of activities and uses:
Commercial activities, either support or opposition--e.g.,
concern about potential impacts to Refuge resources, or impact of
permitted users on Native groups;
Government Activities--e.g., scientific research, species
management, structures within the Refuge, and alternative energy;
Private Activities; and
Native/Tribal activities on the Refuge, including support
or opposition to recreational activities, large groups and growing
crowds, with comments focused on potential impacts of Refuge
regulations and policies to Native Alaskans;
(5) Land and Resource Management--The focus of these comments
included discussions about Refuge purposes and mandates (asking the
Service to avoid changing or manipulating the natural environment in
the Refuge); support for, and opposition to, further Wilderness and
Wild and Scenic River designations; opposition to naming of features;
and both ensuring compliance with Refuge treaties and agreements and
concern from Alaska Natives that treaties have been used to manipulate
their lifestyles;
(6) Legal Consistency--This category included comments about the
legal consistency of various laws, treaties, and policies that affect
the Refuge--e.g., asking for clarification of the roles of the Service
and Congress related to Wilderness designation and management within
the ``1002'' area of the Refuge, and the role of Refuge planning to
ensure that planning efforts for the CCP are consistent with laws,
regulations, and policies.
We have considered and evaluated these issues and public concerns,
and we have used them to develop various aspects of the draft CCP/EIS,
such as management objectives, management guidelines, and alternatives.
CCP Alternatives We Are Considering
We developed and evaluated the following alternatives, summarized
in the table below. A full description of each alternative is in the
draft EIS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 1: Should
additional Wilderness Issue 2: Should
Study Areas be additional Wild and Issue 3: How will the Refuge
recommended for Scenic Rivers be manage Kongakut River visitor use
Alternatives inclusion in the recommended for to protect natural resources and
National Wilderness inclusion in the Wild visitor experience?
Preservation System, and and Scenic River System,
if so, which areas? and if so, which rivers?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A (No Action)........... No new Wilderness No new Wild and Scenic Group size limits exist for
recommended. Rivers recommended. commercially guided groups (7
hikers, 10 floaters). There are
no group size limits for non-
guided visitors.
Commercial service providers have
permits, with occasional
compliance checks.
In the Kongakut Valley, air taxi
permits are granted under
condition that the holders limit
landing to non-vegetated surfaces
only; subject to safety and
weather, they must maintain
minimum 2,000 feet above ground
level flight operations, with no
intentional low flights over
camps or people; aircraft
operations must not harass
wildlife or interfere with refuge
users.
Visitor-use monitoring occurs
every other year or less often.
Campsite conditions are monitored
periodically.
B....................... Recommend the Brooks Recommend the Kongakut, Same as Alternative A, with the
Range Wilderness Study Hulahula, and Marsh following additional actions:
Area. Fork of the Canning Develop and initiate monitoring
Rivers. physical and social conditions to
evaluate management
effectiveness.
Develop targeted public education
materials explaining preferred
practices to minimize impacts,
such as proper waste disposal,
avoiding wildlife impacts, and
alleviating crowding among
groups.
C....................... Recommend the Coastal Recommend the Atigun Same as Alternative B.
Plain Wilderness Study River.
Area.
D....................... Recommend the Brooks Recommend the Kongakut, Same as Alternative B, except:
Range and Porcupine Marsh Fork of the Increase efforts to enforce
Plateau Wilderness Canning, and Atigun compliance with permit conditions
Study Areas. Rivers, and those and regulations.
portions of the Reduce the number of groups on the
Hulahula River that are river during heavy use periods
on Refuge lands. (late June and mid-August) by
working with commercial guides to
modify their use of the river
throughout the season.
Work with commercial air taxi
operators to disperse flight
paths over the river.
[[Page 50492]]
E....................... Recommend the Brooks Recommend the Kongakut, Same as Alternative D, except:
Range, Porcupine Marsh Fork of the Detailed step-down planning would
Plateau, and Coastal Canning, Hulahula, and start within 2 years of
Plain Wilderness Study Atigun Rivers. completing the Record of Decision
Areas. for the CCP.
F....................... Same as Alternative A... Same as Alternative A... Same as Alternative B, except:
A detailed step-down plan would
decide how to enforce compliance
with permit conditions and
regulations.
Step-down planning would start
within 2 years after completing
the Record of Decision for the
CCP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Availability of Documents
In addition to any methods in ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain
documents at our Web site: https://arctic.fws.gov/ccp.htm.
Public Meetings
We will involve the public through open houses, hearings, meetings,
and written comments. We will mail documents to our national and local
Refuge mailing lists. Public open house meetings will be held in the
communities of Arctic Village, Fort Yukon, Kaktovik, and Venetie,
Alaska, and public hearings in will be held in Anchorage and Fairbanks,
Alaska. Dates, times, and locations of each meeting or open house will
be announced in advance in local media.
Submitting Comments/Issues for Comment
We particularly seek comments on the following issues:
Issue 1--Should one or more areas of the Arctic Refuge be
recommended for Wilderness designation?
Issue 2--Should additional Wild and Scenic Rivers be
recommended for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic River System?
Issue 3--How will the Refuge manage Kongakut River visitor
use to protect resources and visitor experience?
We consider comments substantive if they:
Question, with reasonable basis, the accuracy of the
information in the document;
Question, with reasonable basis, the adequacy of the
environmental assessment;
Present reasonable alternatives other than those presented
in the draft
CCP and the EIS; and/or
Provide new or additional information relevant to the
assessment.
Next Steps
After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and
address them in the form of a final CCP and decision document.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Dated: July 15, 2011.
Geoffrey L. Haskett,
Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2011-20448 Filed 8-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P