Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, Adams County, CO; Environmental Impact Statement, 52056-52058 [2015-21234]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 166 (Thursday, August 27, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52056-52058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21234]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R6-R-2015-N128; FXRS1265066CCP0-156-FF06R06000]


Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, Adams County, 
CO; Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability; final environmental impact statement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the 
availability of a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the 
comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the Rocky Mountain Arsenal 
National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) in Adams County, Colorado. In the 
final environmental impact Statement we describe alternatives, 
including our preferred alternative, to manage the refuge for the 15 
years following approval of the final CCP.

ADDRESSES: You may request copies or more information by one of the 
following methods. You may request hard copies or a CD-ROM of the 
documents.
    Email: rockymountainarsenal@fws.gov. Include ``Rocky Mountain 
Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge final EIS'' in the subject line of the 
message.
    U.S. Mail: Bernardo Garza, Planning Team Leader, Branch of Refuge 
Planning, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225-0486.
    Fax: Attn: Bernardo Garza, Planning Team Leader, 303-236-4792.
    To view comments on the final CCP-EIS from the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA), or for information on EPA's role in the EIS 
process, see EPA's Role in the EIS Process under SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bernardo Garza, Planning Team Leader, 
303-236-4377 (phone) or bernardo_garza@fws.gov (email).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    With this notice, we announce the availability of the final EIS for 
the refuge. We started this process through a notice in the Federal 
Register (78 FR 48183; August 7, 2013). Following a lengthy scoping and 
alternatives development period, we published a second notice in the 
Federal Register (80 FR 26084; May 6, 2015) announcing the availability 
of the draft CCP and draft EIS and our intention to hold public 
meetings, and requested comments. In addition, EPA published a notice 
announcing the draft CCP and EIS (80 FR 27950; May 15, 2015), as 
required under section 309 of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et 
seq.). We now announce the final EIS. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA also 
will announce the final EIS via the Federal Register. This notice 
complies with our CCP policy to advise other Federal and State 
agencies, Tribes, and the public of the availability of the final EIS 
for this refuge.

EPA's Role in the EIS Process

    The EPA is charged under section 309 of the Clean Air Act to review 
all Federal agencies' EISs and to comment on the adequacy and the 
acceptability of the environmental impacts of proposed actions in the 
EISs.
    EPA also serves as the repository (EIS database) for EISs prepared 
by Federal agencies and provides notice of their availability in the 
Federal Register. The EIS database provides information about EISs 
prepared by Federal agencies, as well as EPA's comments concerning the 
EISs. All EISs are filed with EPA, which publishes a notice of 
availability on Fridays in the Federal Register.
    The notice of availability is the start of the 45-day public 
comment period for draft EISs, and the start of the 30-day ``wait 
period'' for final EISs, during which agencies are generally required 
to wait 30 days before making a decision on a proposed action. For more

[[Page 52057]]

information, see https://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html. You 
may search for EPA comments on EISs, along with EISs themselves, at 
https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

About the Refuge

    In 1992 Congress passed the act that established the refuge to (1) 
conserve and enhance populations of fish, wildlife, and plants within 
the refuge, including populations of waterfowl, raptors, passerines, 
and marsh and water birds; (2) conserve species listed as threatened or 
endangered under the Endangered Species Act and species that are 
candidates for such listing; (3) provide maximum fish and wildlife-
oriented public uses at levels compatible with the conservation and 
enhancement of wildlife and wildlife habitat; (4) provide opportunities 
for compatible scientific research; (5) provide opportunities for 
compatible environmental and land use education; (6) conserve and 
enhance the land and water of the refuge in a manner that will conserve 
and enhance the natural diversity of fish, wildlife, plants, and their 
habitats; (7) protect and enhance the quality of aquatic habitat within 
the refuge; and (8) fulfill international treaty obligations of the 
United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats. The 
refuge is surrounded by the cities of Commerce City and Denver, along 
the Colorado Front Range. It encompasses nearly 16,000 acres and is 
home to more than 468 plant species and 350 wildlife species, including 
bison, deer, a wide variety of resident and migratory birds and 
raptors, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, and insects. The refuge's 
habitats include short and mixed grass prairie, interspersed with 
native shrubs, riparian corridors, lacustrine habitats on the refuge 
reservoirs, and woodlands planted by settlers around historic 
homesteads.

Background

The CCP Process

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act) 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 (NWRS), 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, where appropriate, 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 as necessary in accordance with the Administration Act.

Public Outreach

    We started the public outreach process in June 2013. At that time 
and throughout the process, we requested public comments and considered 
them in numerous ways. Public outreach has included holding eight 
public meetings, mailing planning updates, maintaining a project Web 
site, and publishing press releases. We have considered and evaluated 
all the comments we have received throughout this process.

CCP Alternatives We Considered

    During the public scoping process with which we started work on the 
draft CCP and draft EIS, we, our Federal and State partners, and the 
public identified several issues. Our final EIS addresses both the 
scoping comments and the comments we received on the draft CCP and 
draft EIS. A full description of each alternative is in the final EIS. 
Alternative C, Urban Refuge, was selected as the preferred alternative. 
To address these issues, we developed and evaluated the following 
alternatives, summarized below.

Alternative A: No Action

    Alternative A is the no-action alternative, which represents the 
current management of the refuge. This alternative provides the 
baseline against which to compare the other alternatives. Under this 
alternative, management activity conducted by the Service would remain 
the same. The Service would not develop any new management, 
restoration, or education programs at the refuge. Current habitat and 
wildlife practices would not be expanded or changed. Funding and staff 
levels would remain the same, with little change in overall trends. 
Programs would follow the same direction, emphasis, and intensity as 
they do now. We would continue implementing the habitat restoration and 
management objectives set in the refuge's habitat management plan and 
other approved plans to provide for a wide variety of resident and 
migratory species.

Alternative B: Traditional Refuge

    This alternative focuses on providing traditional refuge visitor 
uses and conveying the importance of conservation, wildlife protection, 
and the purposes of the Refuge System. Access to the refuge would 
remain more limited than in alternatives C and D. Wildlife-dependent 
recreation and community outreach would be minimally expanded. We would 
continue to manage the refuge's habitat and wildlife as in Alternative 
A, and would reintroduce to the refuge black-footed ferrets, and self-
sustaining populations of greater prairie-chicken and sharp-tailed 
grouse. We would maintain the same levels of access and transportation 
as under Alternative A, but would enhance the main refuge entrance, 
improve visitor services facilities, and seek to improve trail 
accessibility.

Alternative C: Urban Refuge (Preferred Alternative)

    The emphasis of this alternative is to increase the visibility of 
the refuge within the Denver metropolitan area and to welcome many more 
nontraditional visitors to the refuge. Through an expanded visitor 
services program, an abundance of instructional programming, and 
widespread outreach, we would endeavor to connect more people with 
nature and wildlife. In this alternative, the refuge would be made more 
accessible to outlying communities with the opening of additional 
access points and the development of enhanced transportation system. We 
would work with nontraditional users' trusted avenues of communication 
to increase outreach success. We would expand our conservation 
education in surrounding communities and schools, develop youth-
specific outreach, and employ social marketing to broaden our agency's 
reach. We would manage the refuge's habitat and wildlife as in 
Alternative B, but the reintroduction of greater prairie-chicken and 
sharp-tailed grouse would be attempted regardless of whether these 
species' populations are likely to become self-sustaining.

Alternative D: Gateway Refuge

    The emphasis of this alternative is to work with partners to 
increase the visibility of the refuge, the Refuge System, and other 
public lands in the area. There will be less visitor services 
programming at the refuge and efforts to engage with the public will be 
extended to off-site locations. We would work with Denver International 
Airport to improve physical connections between

[[Page 52058]]

the refuge and the airport. The trail system within the refuge would be 
more extensive than under Alternative C. Working with our partners, we 
would manage access to the perimeter trail and promote trail linkages 
to the Rocky Mountain Greenway Trail and other regional trails. We 
would manage the refuge's habitat and wildlife as in Alternative B and 
we would work with neighboring landowners and state agencies to extend 
the range of native species.

Comments

    We solicited comments on the draft CCP and draft EIS from May 6, 
2015, through July 6, 2015. During the comment period, we thoroughly 
evaluated and considered all the comments we received verbally or via 
letters, email, and electronic forms from the public. Our responses to 
comments are included in the final EIS.

Changes to the Final EIS

    We made the following changes in the final EIS from the draft CCP 
and draft EIS:
     Several comments pointed out the need to increase the 
number of law enforcement officers in the refuge to better cope with 
the increased visitation and new access to the refuge. Thus the Final 
EIS reflects our desire to seek more than one full-time law enforcement 
officer for the refuge under Alternatives C and D.
     As necessary, we updated maps, corrected errors, and 
provided additional clarification throughout the final EIS.

Public Availability of Documents

    In addition to any one method in ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain 
documents at the following locations:
     Our Web site: https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/planning/ccp/co/rkm/rkm.html.
     Public libraries:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Library                    Address            Phone number
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Central Public Library.  14949 E Alameda          (303) 739-6600.
                                 Parkway, Aurora, CO
                                 80012.
Commerce City Public Library..  7185 Monaco Street,      (303) 287-0063.
                                 Commerce City, CO
                                 80022.
Denver Central Library........  10 W Fourteenth          (720) 865-1111.
                                 Avenue, Denver, CO
                                 80204.
Montbello Public Library......  12955 Albrook Drive,     (720) 865-0200.
                                 Denver, CO 80239.
Rangeview Library District....  327 E Bridge Street,     (303) 405-3230.
                                 Brighton, CO 80601.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Next Steps

    We will document the final decision in a record of decision, which 
will be published in the Federal Register after a 30-day ``wait 
period'' that begins when EPA announces this final EIS. For more 
information, see EPA's Role in the EIS Process.

    Dated: August 3, 2015.
 Matt Hogan,
 Acting Regional Director, Mountain-Prairie Region, U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-21234 Filed 8-26-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4310-55-P