65FR38294A Notice of Decision and Availability of the Record of Decision Document for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge, Stevens County, Washington.
robop...@us.govnews.org
Posting-number: Volume 65, Issue 119, Page 38294A
[Federal Register: June 20, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 119)]
[Notices]
[Page 38294-38297]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20jn00-85]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Notice of Decision and Availability of the Record of Decision
Document for the Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact
Statement for the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge, Stevens
County, Washington.
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Decision and Availability of the Record of Decision
Document for the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge
Comprehensive Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice makes available to the public the Record of
Decision (ROD) for the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (Final CCP/EIS) for Little Pend Oreille
National Wildlife Refuge, Stevens County, Washington. Pursuant to
Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1505.2), and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) Comprehensive Conservation Plan policy, the
Service issues this ROD upon consideration of the Final CCP/EIS
prepared for the Proposed Action to Develop and Implement a
Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Little Pend Oreille National
Wildlife Refuge. The Final CCP/EIS was released to the public on April
21, 2000. A notice of Availability of the Final CCP/EIS was published
in the Federal Register on April 25, 2000 (65 FR 24221). The ROD which
documents the selection of the Preferred Alternative as presented in
the Final CCP/EIS, was signed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Acting
Regional Director Dan Diggs, on May 31, 2000. The determination was
based on a thorough analysis of the environmental, social, and economic
considerations presented in the FEIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquiries regarding the Record of
Decision or the Final CCP/EIS should be submitted to the Refuge
Manager, Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge, 1310 Bear Creek
Road, Colville, Washington 99114, phone (509) 684-8384. Copies of the
CCP/EIS and this ROD may be obtained from the above address; or
downloaded from http://www.r1.fws.gov/planning/plnhome.html.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the Record of Decision follows.
Record of Decision for the Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan/
Environmental Impact Statement for Little Pend Oreille National
Wildlife Refuge
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) began the process of
developing a management plan for the 40,198-acre Little Pend Oreille
National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in 1995. The National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-57) now requires that
each national wildlife refuge be managed under a Comprehensive
Conservation Plan. The
[[Page 38295]]
purpose of this Plan is to develop a vision for the Refuge and provide
management guidance for protection, maintenance, restoration, and
public use of Refuge resources during the next 15 years.
This Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Comprehensive
Conservation Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Little Pend
Oreille National Wildlife Refuge (final CCP/EIS) is a statement of the
decision made, including, how the decision responds to primary issues,
other alternatives considered, public involvement in the decision
making process, and the basis for the decision.
Decision (Selected Alternative E)
The Refuge will implement Alternative E, which was identified as
the alternative that best satisfies Refuge System and Service missions,
as well as long-term management objectives in the final CCP/EIS.
Alternative E recognizes both the need to protect natural and cultural
resources and to provide opportunities for compatible recreational
uses. Some guidelines and actions in Alternative E remain consistent
with those presented in the draft CCP/EIS. Others were modified in the
final CCP/EIS to respond to public comments and concerns.
The Service plans to manage the Refuge for the next 15 years
through implementation of Alternative E. Key Refuge management
components of Alternative E follow.
Forest Management. Restore natural forest structure and composition
creating a mosaic of stands which approximate the Historic Range of
Variability within each forest type. For the long-term, promote large
tree size and stand development into mature and old stages over
approximately 50 percent of the Refuge. Use precommercial and
commercial thinning, selective harvest techniques, and prescribed fire.
Suppress all wildfires outside of prescription. Promote protection of
wildlife corridors and buffer zones with neighboring landowners and
managers.
Riparian and Stream Management. Repair and improve roads that limit
fish passage or cause excessive sedimentation, and plant and stabilize
streambanks. In-stream flows take priority over diversion flows.
Protect riparian areas, water bodies and fish bearing streams by
enacting a 300-foot slope distance setback (600 feet, including both
sides of a stream channel) or to the extent of the outer edges of the
100-year floodplain, whichever is greatest for dispersed camping,
commercial thinning, and road construction.
Roadless Area. Manage the 5,520-acre roadless area in the southeast
corner of the Refuge to protect the primitive roadless character and
associated values. The roadless area will be studied further concurrent
with development of the step-down Habitat Management Plan and the
Public Use Management Plan to determine its suitability as a Wilderness
Study Area.
Use of Old Fields. Plant up to 200 upland acres with crops to
provide wildlife forage and wildlife viewing opportunities. Allow about
135 acres to revert to native vegetation, using prescribed fire and
thinning to enhance natural succession. Maintain remaining upland
openings with mowing, prescribed fire, and other methods.
Noxious Weed Management. Develop an integrated weed management plan
to treat existing weeds, minimize new weed introduction, and prevent
conditions that favor weed establishment and spread.
Entrances and Roads. Provide nine entrances and close minor entry
points. Close or remove numerous selected roads as outlined in the road
management criteria. The density of open roads in 14 subwatersheds is
not to exceed 1.5 miles per square mile from April 15 to December 31
and 0.5 miles per square mile from January 1 to April 14. Close all
roads except the County-maintained roads from January 1 to April 14.
Hunting. Expand quality hunting opportunities (spring turkey,
grouse, and deer/elk bow hunts). A Refuge-wide hunting closure is
retained from January 1 through August 31, with the exception of
allowing hunting during the spring turkey season. The use of bait to
hunt any wildlife on the Refuge as well as hound hunting for cougar,
black bear, coyote, fox or bobcat, is prohibited. Specialized hunter
education programs will be offered.
Wildlife Observation, Interpretation, and Photography. Increase
available wildlife viewing, information, and opportunities and offer
programs and events such as a summer youth program. Interpretation will
focus on the natural and cultural history of the area.
Fishing. Continue current April through October fishing season and
emphasize catch and release fishing in the Little Pend Oreille River.
Increase opportunities for natural spawning in lakes. Continue stocking
program in lakes with emphasis on native sources.
Camping. Allow camping in designated campgrounds from April 15 to
December 31 and in designated dispersed sites only between October 1
and December 31. Close undesignated campsites located in riparian
areas.
Horseback Riding. Develop an equestrian plan, specifically
addressing overnight use, trails, feed, and maintenance.
Off-road Vehicles and Snowmobiling. Control illegal use with law
enforcement patrols. Discontinue snowmobiling on all Refuge roads and
lands except for passage through the Refuge on four miles of Olson
Creek Road to Calispell Peak. Seek off-Refuge locations for the
snowpark and trail to Calispell Peak.
Livestock Grazing. Eliminate the annual grazing program in five
years and thereafter use grazing only as habitat management tool to
achieve wildlife objectives.
Air Force Survival School. Phase out the use of the Refuge by the
Air Force Survival School within five years.
Other Alternatives Considered
The draft and final CCP/EIS evaluated four other alternatives for
the management of the Refuge, a brief summary of each follows.
Alternative A, the no action alternative. Make no changes to the
prevailing practices and uses at the refuge.
Alternative B, restore wildlife habitat while managing existing
public uses. This alternative combines an active forest and riparian
restoration program with minimal change to existing public uses.
Alternative C, restore wildlife habitat while emphasizing priority
public uses. This alternative adopts a greater emphasis on priority
uses identified under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997 and eliminates or reduces non-priority uses. This
alternative also incorporates a strong forest and riparian restoration
program.
Alternative D, manage the Refuge as an ecological reserve and
reduce human disturbances. This alternative minimizes human access and
use of the refuge while conducting a moderate restoration program, with
a greater emphasis on hydrologic restoration than other alternatives.
Actions common to all alternatives include the maintenance and
protection of the Refuge's two Research Natural Areas; protection of
the roadless area; management of other fee and easement parcels;
continuation of annual payments to counties; continuation of timber
salvage and firewood harvest; and cultural resource protection.
[[Page 38296]]
Public Involvement and Comments Received
Public comment has been requested, considered, and incorporated
throughout the planning process in numerous ways. Public outreach
included open houses, public meetings, plan work group meetings, a
camping evaluation, planning update mailings, and Federal Register
notices. Five previous notices were published in the Federal Register
concerning this CCP/EIS (61 FR 65591, December 13, 1996; 63 FR 39884,
July 24, 1998; 64 FR 24168, May 5, 1999; 64 FR 36712, July 7, 1999; 64
FR 46404, August 25, 1999 and 65 FR 24221 April 25, 2000).
Persons and organizations involved in the review process included:
U.S. Forest Service; U.S. Natural Resource Conservation Service; U.S.
Air Force; Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; members of
national, state and local conservation organizations; timber industry
representatives; grazing permittees; inholders and neighboring
landowners; and other interested citizens. Comments and concerns
received early in the planning process were used to identify issues and
draft preliminary alternatives. Preliminary alternatives were developed
and public input sought through open houses and mailings. These
alternatives generated 141 comments. During the Draft CCP/EIS comment
period that occurred from May 5 to August 31, 1999, the Service
received a total of 300 communications (letters, faxes, postcards,
email messages, visits, or telephone calls) representing 327 persons.
These comments were received from the following locations: Stevens
County (42%), Spokane area (24%), other parts of Washington (22%), out
of state (6%), and location unknown (5%). The Service also received
three petitions signed by a total of 318 people.
All substantive issues raised in the comments have been addressed
through revisions incorporated into the Final CCP/EIS text or responses
contained in Appendix J of the Final CCP/EIS. These responses are
incorporated by reference into the ROD.
Responses to Comments Received on the Final CCP/EIS
U.S. Congressman George R. Nethercutt, Jr. requested that the
Service complete a risk takings analysis pursuant to Executive Order
12630, ``Government Actions and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.'' This request was made specifically in the
relation to the CCP/EIS proposal to eliminate the annual grazing
program and cited several recent court cases. The Service researched
property rights associated with water rights and found no valid claims
associated with stock water rights or ditched rights of way. The
Service concluded that eliminating an annual grazing program does not
result in a constitutional taking and that Executive Order 12630 does
not apply to federally owned lands within the Little Pend Oreille
National Wildlife Refuge.
U.S. Senator Slade Gorton's Eastern Washington Director, Catherine
O'Connell, called to question the science referenced in the evaluation
of effects of Air Force training. The Service referenced the best
available science in the CCP/EIS. While reactions to disturbance can
and do vary by wildlife species, the weight of evidence indicates that
aircraft disturbance can (under the right conditions) cause a variety
of stress reactions to large mammals and raptors. Ms. O'Connell
requested that the Air Force be allowed to continue using the Refuge if
they desired, since their mission and stability is a national priority.
The Service concludes that their use is not compatible with the purpose
of the Refuge and that five years is a reasonable length of time for
the Air Force to relocate in other suitable training locations.
Individuals representing the Kettle Range Conservation Group and
the Pacific Biodiversity Institute requested that the Service
reconsider its selection of a preferred alternative and encouraged more
stringent measures to protect wildlife. These organizations questioned
the preferred alternative's treatment of cattle grazing, Air Force
training, snowmobiling, commercial logging, riparian buffers and
riparian camping, open road density, and cumulative effects analysis.
The commentators stated they thought the Service should be more
aggressive in closing some of these activities. The Service's
preference was to eliminate the existing annual cattle grazing program
and Air Force training immediately. However, providing five years to
phase out these long-term uses is determined to be a practical and
reasonable approach to reduce impacts to affected parties. Stipulations
to prevent further degradation from these uses will be incorporated in
special use permits.
Regarding snowmobiling and protection of Canada lynx, the Service
intends to work with neighboring land owners to seek an alternate
snowmobile route off-refuge for access to Calispell Peak. Since the
Service does not have sole jurisdiction and ownership of Olson Creek/
Tacoma Creek Road, traditional ingress and egress will be allowed to
continue. The lynx, a wide ranging species, requires landscape scale
management and cooperation between landowners and land managing
agencies. The Service will seek a landscape-scale solution to lynx
protection.
Regarding the extent of riparian conservation buffers, the Service
has reviewed the standards for riparian protection and agreed to
increase the 200-foot distance recommended in the Final EIS, to 300
feet slope distance (600 feet, including both sides of the channel) for
fish-bearing streams and lakes.
Regarding open road densities, the Kettle Range Conservation Group
would like the Service to adopt a stricter road density standard for
summer range (one mile per square mile). After reviewing this comment,
it is decided that the CCP recommended road density standard will
remain at 1.5 miles per square mile, consistent with State of
Washington recommendation for white-tailed deer summer range. This will
allow the Service flexibility in habitat restoration, forest management
and fire management which are high priorities in the next 15 years.
Over time, as forest habitat is restored to more stable and natural
conditions, additional roads may be closed thus reducing summer road
densities in future years.
Environmentally Preferable Alternative
The alternative which causes the least damage to the biological and
physical environment and best protects, preserves, and enhances
historic, cultural, and natural resources is Alternative D. The focus
of Alternative D was to manage the Refuge as an ecological reserve. The
key components of the alternative were to promote habitat restoration,
to restore aquatic conditions to natural states, and to effectively
enlarge roadless areas in the eastern Refuge by reducing human
intrusions. The alternative supported the priority uses established
under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,
however, access for these uses was very restrictive. Only no-trace
camping would be allowed. Other uses such as horseback riding,
livestock grazing, and the Air Force survival training would be
eliminated from the Refuge. Only four access points to the Refuge would
be maintained. Many of the recommendations contained in Alternative D
were opposed by a large number of public commentators.
[[Page 38297]]
Findings and Basis for Decision
Based upon review and careful consideration of--the impacts
identified in the Final CCP/EIS; results of the various studies and
surveys conducted in conjunction with the Draft and Final CCP/EIS;
public comments received throughout the process including comments on
the Draft and Final CCP/EIS; and other relevant factors including the
purposes for which the Refuge was established by Executive Order and
statutory and regulatory guidance--the Service finds that selecting
Alternative E for implementation is appropriate for the following
reasons.
Alternative E consists of the programs and facilities mentioned
above;
Alternative E, as it is described in the Final CCP/EIS for the
Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge, best accomplishes the
establishing purposes of the Refuge and balances the statutory mission
of the Service to provide long-term protection of the Refuge's
resources, while allowing for appropriate levels of visitor use and
appropriate means of visitor enjoyment. Alternative E also best
accomplishes identified management goals and desired future conditions.
Alternative E represents the best balance between provision of
habitat restoration, public access and recreation, and other programs,
and public and agency concerns identified during the public
participation process.
Based on an Intra-Service Section 7 evaluation, no state or
federally listed endangered or threatened or endangered species or
their critical habitats are known to be effected by the plan.
Implementation of the decision would avoid any adverse impacts on
wetlands and is not likely to adversely affect any endangered or
threatened species, or result in destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat of such species. The determinations are: No effect to
peregrine falcon; No effect to Utes ladies' tresses; and Not likely to
adversely affect any of the following: bald eagle, gray wolf, grizzly
bear, and Canada lynx.
No historic properties listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places are known to be affected by the
plan.
The requirements of NEPA and the implementing regulations (40 CFR
parts 1500-1508) have been satisfied.
Measures To Minimize Environmental Harm
Public concerns, potential impacts, and methods or stipulations to
mitigate those impacts are addressed in the Final CCP/EIS. All
practicable measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts that
could result from implementation of the selected action have been
identified and incorporated into the selected action. Implementation of
the selected action would avoid any adverse impacts on wetlands and any
endangered or threatened species, or that would result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat of such
species. Mitigation measures called stipulations will be followed. They
are documented in Appendix F, Compatibility Determinations for the
Final CCP/EIS and are incorporated here by reference. These
stipulations make public and other uses compatible with the purpose for
which the Refuge was established. The referenced compatibility
stipulations ensure that all practical means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm from the Selected Alternative have been adopted.
The Service has considered the environmental and relevant concerns
presented by agencies, organizations and individuals on the proposed
action to develop and implement a Comprehensive Conservation Plan for
the Little Pend Oreille National Wildlife Refuge. I have decided to
implement Alternative E, the Service's preferred alternative. The ROD
serves as the written facts and conclusions relied upon in reaching
this decision.
Dated: May 31, 2000.
Daniel H. Diggs,
Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
[FR Doc. 00-15466 Filed 6-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P