Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Stafford, KS; Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, 23778-23780 [2013-09348]
Download as PDF
23778
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2013 / Notices
[FR Doc. 2013–09385 Filed 4–19–13; 8:45 am]
identified by Congress and generally fall
into two categories: Economic
Development Initiative—Special Project
(EDI—SP) grantees and Neighborhood
Initiative (NI) grantees. The agency has
used the application, semi-annual
reports and close-out reports to track
grantee performance in the
implementation of approved projects.
DATES: Comments Due Date: May 22,
2013.
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
ADDRESSES:
Total Estimated Burden Hours: 160.
Status: Reinstatement without change
of a previously approved collection.
Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as
amended.
Dated: April 17, 2013.
Colette Pollard,
Department Reports Management Officer,
Office of the Chief Information Officer.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT
[Docket No. FR–5683–N–31]
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection: Comment Request:
Congressional Earmark Grants
Office of the Chief Information
Officer, HUD.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The proposed information
collection requirement described below
has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act. HUD is soliciting public
comments on the subject proposal.
HUD’s Congressional Grants Division
and its Environmental Officers in the
field use this information to make funds
available to entities directed to receive
funds appropriated by Congress. This
information is used to collect, receive,
review and monitor program activities
through applications, semi-annual and
close-out reports. The information that
is collected is used to assess
performance. Grantees are units of state
and local government, nonprofits and
Indian tribes. Respondents are initially
SUMMARY:
Interested persons are
invited to submit comments regarding
this proposal. Comments should refer to
the proposal by name and/or OMB
approval Number (2506–0179) and
should be sent to: HUD Desk Officer,
Office of Management and Budget, New
Executive Office Building, Washington,
DC 20503; fax: 202–395–5806. Email:
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov; fax:
202–395–5806.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Colette Pollard, Reports Management
Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing
and Urban Development, 451 Seventh
Street SW., Washington, DC 20410;
email Colette Pollard at
Colette.Pollard@hud.gov. or telephone
(202) 402–3400. This is not a toll-free
number. Copies of available documents
submitted to OMB may be obtained
from Ms. Pollard.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice informs the public that the HUD
has submitted to OMB a request for
approval of the Information collection
described below. This notice is
soliciting comments from members of
the public and affecting agencies
concerning the proposed collection of
information to: (1) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including
Number of
respondents
777
Reporting Burden .................................................................
Annual
responses
1
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as
amended.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Total Estimated Burden Hours: 1,554.
Status: Reinstatement with change of
a previously approved collection.
[FWS–R6–R–2012–N235; FF06R06000 134
FXRS1265066CCP0]
Dated: April 17, 2013.
Colette Pollard,
Department Reports Management Officer,
Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013–09386 Filed 4–19–13; 8:45 am]
17:03 Apr 19, 2013
Quivira National Wildlife Refuge,
Stafford, KS; Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
Notice of availability; request
for comments.
ACTION:
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Fish and Wildlife Service
AGENCY:
Jkt 229001
PO 00000
Frm 00044
whether the information will have
practical utility; (2) Evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information; (3) Enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and (4) Minimize the
burden of the collection of information
on those who are to respond; including
through the use of appropriate
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology,
e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
This notice also lists the following
information:
Title of Proposed: Congressional
Earmark Grants.
OMB Approval Number: 2506–0179.
Form Numbers: HUD 27056, HUD
27054, SF 424, SF 425, SF LLL, SF 1199,
HUD–27053.
Description of the need for the
information and proposed use: HUD’s
Congressional Grants Division and its
Environmental Officers in the field use
this information to make funds available
to entities directed to receive funds
appropriated by Congress. This
information is used to collect, receive,
review and monitor program activities
through applications, semi-annual and
close-out reports. The information that
is collected is used to assess
performance. Grantees are units of state
and local government, nonprofits and
Indian tribes. Respondents are initially
identified by Congress and generally fall
into two categories: Economic
Development Initiative—Special Project
(EDI—SP) grantees and Neighborhood
Initiative (NI) grantees. The agency has
used the application, semi-annual
reports and close-out reports to track
grantee performance in the
implementation of approved projects.
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Hours per
response
Burden
hours
2
×
1,554
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce
that our draft comprehensive
conservation plan (CCP) and
environmental assessment (EA) for
Quivira National Wildlife Refuge is
available. This draft CCP/EA describes
how the Service intends to manage this
refuge for the next 15 years.
SUMMARY:
To ensure consideration, we
must receive your written comments on
the draft CCP/EA by May 20, 2013.
Submit comments by one of the
methods under ADDRESSES.
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\22APN1.SGM
22APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2013 / Notices
Send your comments or
requests for more information by any of
the following methods.
Email: toni_griffin@fws.gov. Include
‘‘Quivira NWR’’ in the subject line of
the message.
Fax: Attn: Toni Griffin, Planning
Team Leader, 303–236–4792.
U.S. Mail: Toni Griffin, Planning
Team Leader, Suite 300, 134 Union
Boulevard, Lakewood, CO 80228.
Document Request: A copy of the
CCP/EA may be obtained by writing to
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division
of Refuge Planning, 134 Union
Boulevard, Suite 300, Lakewood,
Colorado 80228; or by download from
https://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/
planning.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni
Griffin, 303–236–4378 (phone); 303–
236–4792 (fax); or toni_griffin@fws.gov
(email); or David C. Lucas, 303–236–
4366 (phone); 303–236–4792 (fax); or
david_c_lucas@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP
process for the Quivira National
Wildlife Refuge. We started this process
through a notice in the Federal Register
(75 FR 8394, February 24, 2010).
The 22,135-acre Quivira National
Wildlife Refuge is part of the National
Wildlife Refuge System and is located in
Reno, Rice, and Stafford Counties in
south-central Kansas. The Quivira
National Wildlife Refuge was
established in 1955 to provide wintering
and migration stopover habitat for
migratory birds along the Central
Flyway of North America. Wetlands
large and small are present throughout
the refuge, with approximately 7,000
acres of wetlands with slightly to
moderately saline water. Thousands of
Canada geese, ducks, and other
migratory birds such as sandhill cranes
and shorebirds use these wetlands as
they pass through the refuge on their
annual migrations. The refuge provides
critical habitat for the federally listed
whooping crane and State-listed
western snowy plover. Bald eagles
winter and nest on the refuge, and
Interior least terns nest on the refuge.
The refuge also provides numerous
opportunities for the public, including
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation
and photography, interpretation and
environmental education for students
and visitors. The Quivira Refuge
manages the Great Plains Nature Center
located in Wichita, which compliments
and supports the purpose of the refuge.
The refuge has many special
designations, including the following: It
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:03 Apr 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
is a Ramsar Site (Wetlands of
International Importance), it is in the
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve
Network (WHSRN), and it is an
Important Bird Area (IBA, National
Audubon Society) and Research Natural
Area.
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
668dd–668ee) (Administration Act), as
amended by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997, requires us to develop a CCP for
each national wildlife 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. In
addition to outlining broad management
direction on conserving wildlife and
their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent 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 the CCP at least every 15 years
in accordance with the Administration
Act.
Public Outreach
We started the CCP for Quivira Refuge
in February 2010. At that time and
throughout the process, we requested
public comments and considered and
incorporated them in the planning
process. Public outreach has included a
news release, planning update, and
three scoping meetings. Comments we
received cover topics such as habitat
management, threatened and
endangered species, and public use. We
have considered and evaluated all of
these comments, with many
incorporated into the various
alternatives addressed in the draft CCP
and the EA.
CCP Alternatives We Are Considering
Alternative A—Current Management
(No Action)
Funding, staff levels, and
management activities at the refuge
would not change. Habitats would be
managed to increase and maintain
resilience through conservation of
native communities. Baseline
monitoring of habitat conditions that
could potentially be related to the
effects of climate change would
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
23779
continue. Staff would continue to seek
information and maintain
communications with others regarding
current and potential future
conservation issues impacting the
refuge, while periodically assessing the
role of the refuge at different landscape
scales. The hydrology of the Big Salt
Marsh would be allowed to fluctuate
with natural climate variations, and use
of Rattlesnake Creek water would be
limited. The Little Salt Marsh would
continue to be used to serve the dual
roles of providing waterbird habitat and
storing water from Rattlesnake Creek to
facilitate management of other refuge
wetlands.
Migratory birds would continue to be
the focus of refuge management, with a
primary focus of wetland management
to provide migration, resting, and
nesting habitat for a diversity of
waterbirds, especially waterfowl,
cranes, shorebirds, and rails. Upland
habitats would continue to be managed
to provide migratory and nesting
habitat, primarily favoring native
wildlife communities characteristic of
open sand prairie. Quivira Refuge
would continue to manage habitats in
support of Federal and State threatened
and endangered species, Federal
candidate species, and State species in
need of conservation, especially those
species with designated critical habitat
on Quivira Refuge lands and those that
most commonly depend on refuge
resources. Staffing would consist of nine
full-time permanent refuge funded
employees, one permanent part-time
employee and two fire-funded staff. In
addition, one permanent employee
would be stationed at the GPNC. The
Service would continue to support the
GPNC through its partnership with the
City of Wichita Department of Park and
Recreation and the Kansas Department
of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism. Level of
Service staffing at the GPNC would
remain the same.
Alternative B—Proposed Action
Management would focus on restoring
native communities that benefit focal
resources, or focal species and their
respective habitats, and increasing
public use opportunities for hunting.
Increased attention would be given to
understanding and minimizing effects of
management among habitat types, such
as habitat changes in meadow and
adjacent uplands resulting from water
management in created wetlands. This
should enhance awareness of the
connectedness of habitats and areas
throughout the refuge. To achieve this
alternative, relatively minor changes in
the refuge’s operations; inventory,
E:\FR\FM\22APN1.SGM
22APN1
23780
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 77 / Monday, April 22, 2013 / Notices
monitoring, and research; staffing; and
infrastructure would likely be required.
Alternative C
The intent of alternative C would be
to promote self-sustaining natural
processes to the extent possible. Key
values of restoring natural ecological
processes are achieving long-term
sustainability of native communities
and lowering maintenance costs on
some aspects of management.
Management efforts, such as prescribed
fire, grazing, and invasive species
control, would be focused on
maintaining native plant community
composition and diversity, with the
assumption that native wildlife would
benefit from these activities. Relative to
other alternatives, habitat conditions
would be allowed to fluctuate more
with climatically driven wet and dry
cycles; however, some management
would still be required to mitigate the
effects of past land use on the refuge
and in the watershed that have
permanently altered some ecological
processes.
Initially, considerable time would be
required to assess current ecological
functions, identify key elements that
should be restored, and evaluate
potential restoration options that could
be implemented within the constraints
imposed by biological, economic, social,
political, and legal considerations.
Implementation of this alternative
would occur in stages over many years,
and changes in refuge research and
monitoring, staffing, operations, and
infrastructure would be required. In
addition, the success of actions
implemented under this alternative
would be influenced greatly by the
ability of management to develop new
and expanded partnerships with a
diversity of stakeholders in the
Rattlesnake Creek watershed.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Public Meetings
Opportunity for public input will be
provided at public meetings. The
specific dates and times for the public
meetings are yet to be determined, but
will be announced via local media and
a planning update.
Next Steps
After the public reviews and provides
comments on the draft CCP and EA, the
planning team will present this
document along with a summary of all
substantive public comments to the
Regional Director. The Regional Director
will consider the environmental effects
of each alternative, including
information gathered during public
review, and will select a preferred
alternative for the draft CCP and EA. If
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:03 Apr 19, 2013
Jkt 229001
the Regional Director finds that no
significant impacts would occur, the
Regional Director’s decision will be
disclosed in a finding of no significant
impact included in the final CCP. If the
Regional Director finds a significant
impact would occur, an environmental
impact statement will be prepared. If
approved, the action in the preferred
alternative will compose the final CCP.
Public Availability of Comments
All public comment information
provided voluntarily by mail, by phone,
or at meetings (e.g., names, addresses,
letters of comment, input recorded
during meetings) becomes part of the
official public record. If requested under
the Freedom of Information Act by a
private citizen or organization, the
Service may provide copies of such
information.
Authority
The environmental review of this
project will be conducted in accordance
with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.); NEPA Regulations (40 CFR parts
1500–1508, 43 CFR part 46); other
appropriate Federal laws and
regulations; Executive Order 12996; the
National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997; and Service
policies and procedures for compliance
with those laws and regulations.
Dated: October 29, 2012.
Noreen E. Walsh,
Acting Regional Director, Mountain Prairie
Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013–09348 Filed 4–19–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R2–ES–2013–0061;
FXES11120200000F2–112–FF02ENEH00]
Draft Environmental Assessment and
Proposed Renewal and Amendment to
the Barton Springs Pool Habitat
Conservation Plan, City of Austin,
Travis County, Texas
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability and
request for comments.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of the draft environmental
assessment and the draft amendment to
the Barton Springs Pool Habitat
Conservation Plan (BSPHCP), under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
1969. The City of Austin (applicant) has
applied for a renewal of their existing
Endangered Species Act incidental take
permit, with a major amendment to add
the Austin blind salamander, which is
proposed as endangered, as an
additional covered species; to increase
the amount of take for Barton Springs
salamander; and to extend the permit
term for an additional 20 years.
DATES: Comments: We will accept
comments received or postmarked on or
before June 21, 2013. Comments
submitted electronically using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal (see
ADDRESSES section, below) must be
received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on
the closing date. Any comments that we
receive after the closing date may not be
considered in the final decisions on
these actions.
ADDRESSES: Obtaining Documents:
• Internet: You may obtain copies of
the all of documents on the Internet at
https://www.regulations.gov (Docket
Number FWS–R2–ES–2013–0061), or on
the Service’s Web site at https://
www.fws.gov/southwest/es/
AustinTexas/. The draft BSHCP is
available on the City of Austin’s ftp site
at ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/wre/BSHCP/.
• U.S. Mail: A limited number of CD–
ROM and printed copies of the draft EA
and draft HCP are available, by request,
from Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Austin
Ecological Services Field Office, 10711
Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX
78758–4460; telephone 512–490–0057;
fax 512–490–0974. Please note that your
request is in reference to the BSPHCP
(TE–839031).
The ITP application is available by
mail from the Regional Director, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, P.O. Box
1306, Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM
87103.
• In-Person: Copies of the draft EA
and draft BSHCP are also available for
public inspection and review at the
following locations, by appointment and
written request only, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.:
Æ Department of the Interior, Natural
Resources Library, 1849 C. St. NW.,
Washington, DC 20240.
Æ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 500
Gold Avenue SW., Room 6034,
Albuquerque, NM 87102.
Æ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
10711 Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin,
TX 78758.
Comment submission: You may
submit written comments by one of the
following methods:
• Electronically: Go to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. In the Search box,
enter FWS–R2–ES–2013–0061, which is
the docket number for this notice. Then,
E:\FR\FM\22APN1.SGM
22APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 77 (Monday, April 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23778-23780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-09348]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R6-R-2012-N235; FF06R06000 134 FXRS1265066CCP0]
Quivira National Wildlife Refuge, Stafford, KS; Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce
that our draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and environmental
assessment (EA) for Quivira National Wildlife Refuge is available. This
draft CCP/EA describes how the Service intends to manage this refuge
for the next 15 years.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments
on the draft CCP/EA by May 20, 2013.
Submit comments by one of the methods under ADDRESSES.
[[Page 23779]]
ADDRESSES: Send your comments or requests for more information by any
of the following methods.
Email: toni_griffin@fws.gov. Include ``Quivira NWR'' in the
subject line of the message.
Fax: Attn: Toni Griffin, Planning Team Leader, 303-236-4792.
U.S. Mail: Toni Griffin, Planning Team Leader, Suite 300, 134 Union
Boulevard, Lakewood, CO 80228.
Document Request: A copy of the CCP/EA may be obtained by writing
to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuge Planning, 134
Union Boulevard, Suite 300, Lakewood, Colorado 80228; or by download
from https://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Toni Griffin, 303-236-4378 (phone);
303-236-4792 (fax); or toni_griffin@fws.gov (email); or David C.
Lucas, 303-236-4366 (phone); 303-236-4792 (fax); or david_c_lucas@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for the Quivira
National Wildlife Refuge. We started this process through a notice in
the Federal Register (75 FR 8394, February 24, 2010).
The 22,135-acre Quivira National Wildlife Refuge is part of the
National Wildlife Refuge System and is located in Reno, Rice, and
Stafford Counties in south-central Kansas. The Quivira National
Wildlife Refuge was established in 1955 to provide wintering and
migration stopover habitat for migratory birds along the Central Flyway
of North America. Wetlands large and small are present throughout the
refuge, with approximately 7,000 acres of wetlands with slightly to
moderately saline water. Thousands of Canada geese, ducks, and other
migratory birds such as sandhill cranes and shorebirds use these
wetlands as they pass through the refuge on their annual migrations.
The refuge provides critical habitat for the federally listed whooping
crane and State-listed western snowy plover. Bald eagles winter and
nest on the refuge, and Interior least terns nest on the refuge. The
refuge also provides numerous opportunities for the public, including
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, interpretation
and environmental education for students and visitors. The Quivira
Refuge manages the Great Plains Nature Center located in Wichita, which
compliments and supports the purpose of the refuge. The refuge has many
special designations, including the following: It is a Ramsar Site
(Wetlands of International Importance), it is in the Western Hemisphere
Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN), and it is an Important Bird Area
(IBA, National Audubon Society) and Research Natural Area.
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), as amended by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop
a CCP for each national wildlife 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. In
addition to outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife
and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational
opportunities available to the public, including opportunities for
hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, and
environmental education and interpretation. We will review and update
the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with the Administration
Act.
Public Outreach
We started the CCP for Quivira Refuge in February 2010. At that
time and throughout the process, we requested public comments and
considered and incorporated them in the planning process. Public
outreach has included a news release, planning update, and three
scoping meetings. Comments we received cover topics such as habitat
management, threatened and endangered species, and public use. We have
considered and evaluated all of these comments, with many incorporated
into the various alternatives addressed in the draft CCP and the EA.
CCP Alternatives We Are Considering
Alternative A--Current Management (No Action)
Funding, staff levels, and management activities at the refuge
would not change. Habitats would be managed to increase and maintain
resilience through conservation of native communities. Baseline
monitoring of habitat conditions that could potentially be related to
the effects of climate change would continue. Staff would continue to
seek information and maintain communications with others regarding
current and potential future conservation issues impacting the refuge,
while periodically assessing the role of the refuge at different
landscape scales. The hydrology of the Big Salt Marsh would be allowed
to fluctuate with natural climate variations, and use of Rattlesnake
Creek water would be limited. The Little Salt Marsh would continue to
be used to serve the dual roles of providing waterbird habitat and
storing water from Rattlesnake Creek to facilitate management of other
refuge wetlands.
Migratory birds would continue to be the focus of refuge
management, with a primary focus of wetland management to provide
migration, resting, and nesting habitat for a diversity of waterbirds,
especially waterfowl, cranes, shorebirds, and rails. Upland habitats
would continue to be managed to provide migratory and nesting habitat,
primarily favoring native wildlife communities characteristic of open
sand prairie. Quivira Refuge would continue to manage habitats in
support of Federal and State threatened and endangered species, Federal
candidate species, and State species in need of conservation,
especially those species with designated critical habitat on Quivira
Refuge lands and those that most commonly depend on refuge resources.
Staffing would consist of nine full-time permanent refuge funded
employees, one permanent part-time employee and two fire-funded staff.
In addition, one permanent employee would be stationed at the GPNC. The
Service would continue to support the GPNC through its partnership with
the City of Wichita Department of Park and Recreation and the Kansas
Department of Wildlife, Parks and Tourism. Level of Service staffing at
the GPNC would remain the same.
Alternative B--Proposed Action
Management would focus on restoring native communities that benefit
focal resources, or focal species and their respective habitats, and
increasing public use opportunities for hunting. Increased attention
would be given to understanding and minimizing effects of management
among habitat types, such as habitat changes in meadow and adjacent
uplands resulting from water management in created wetlands. This
should enhance awareness of the connectedness of habitats and areas
throughout the refuge. To achieve this alternative, relatively minor
changes in the refuge's operations; inventory,
[[Page 23780]]
monitoring, and research; staffing; and infrastructure would likely be
required.
Alternative C
The intent of alternative C would be to promote self-sustaining
natural processes to the extent possible. Key values of restoring
natural ecological processes are achieving long-term sustainability of
native communities and lowering maintenance costs on some aspects of
management. Management efforts, such as prescribed fire, grazing, and
invasive species control, would be focused on maintaining native plant
community composition and diversity, with the assumption that native
wildlife would benefit from these activities. Relative to other
alternatives, habitat conditions would be allowed to fluctuate more
with climatically driven wet and dry cycles; however, some management
would still be required to mitigate the effects of past land use on the
refuge and in the watershed that have permanently altered some
ecological processes.
Initially, considerable time would be required to assess current
ecological functions, identify key elements that should be restored,
and evaluate potential restoration options that could be implemented
within the constraints imposed by biological, economic, social,
political, and legal considerations. Implementation of this alternative
would occur in stages over many years, and changes in refuge research
and monitoring, staffing, operations, and infrastructure would be
required. In addition, the success of actions implemented under this
alternative would be influenced greatly by the ability of management to
develop new and expanded partnerships with a diversity of stakeholders
in the Rattlesnake Creek watershed.
Public Meetings
Opportunity for public input will be provided at public meetings.
The specific dates and times for the public meetings are yet to be
determined, but will be announced via local media and a planning
update.
Next Steps
After the public reviews and provides comments on the draft CCP and
EA, the planning team will present this document along with a summary
of all substantive public comments to the Regional Director. The
Regional Director will consider the environmental effects of each
alternative, including information gathered during public review, and
will select a preferred alternative for the draft CCP and EA. If the
Regional Director finds that no significant impacts would occur, the
Regional Director's decision will be disclosed in a finding of no
significant impact included in the final CCP. If the Regional Director
finds a significant impact would occur, an environmental impact
statement will be prepared. If approved, the action in the preferred
alternative will compose the final CCP.
Public Availability of Comments
All public comment information provided voluntarily by mail, by
phone, or at meetings (e.g., names, addresses, letters of comment,
input recorded during meetings) becomes part of the official public
record. If requested under the Freedom of Information Act by a private
citizen or organization, the Service may provide copies of such
information.
Authority
The environmental review of this project will be conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); NEPA
Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508, 43 CFR part 46); other appropriate
Federal laws and regulations; Executive Order 12996; the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997; and Service policies
and procedures for compliance with those laws and regulations.
Dated: October 29, 2012.
Noreen E. Walsh,
Acting Regional Director, Mountain Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2013-09348 Filed 4-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P