43716 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Notices 

at Sunset Elementary School— 

Gymnasium, 12824 West 12th Avenue, 

Airway Heights, Washington 99001. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

B.J. Howerton, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

(503) 231–6749. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BIA 

as Lead Agency, in cooperation with the 

Tribe, intends to prepare an EIS for a 

proposed mixed-use development and 

corresponding master plan for a 145- 

acre parcel of trust land adjacent to the 

City of Airway Heights, Spokane 

County, Washington. The project site 

may include, but is not limited to, a 

variety of proposed land uses such as a 

casino resort and hotel, commercial 

retail uses, offices, medical facilities, 

recreational, cultural, and entertainment 

facilities, and related parking. The 

purpose of the proposed action is to 

improve the economy of the Tribe and 

help their members attain economic self 

sufficiency. This notice also announces 

a public scoping meeting to identify 

potential issues and content for 

inclusion in the EIS. 

The EIS will assess the environmental 

consequences of BIA approval of a 

proposed master plan for the 

development of a mixed-use 

development—which may include a 

casino resort and hotel, commercial 

retail uses, offices, medical facilities, 

recreational, cultural, and entertainment 

facilities, and related parking—on an 

approximate 145-acre parcel of trust 

land adjacent to the western city limits 

of Airway Heights, Spokane County, 

Washington. The project site is near the 

northwest corner of U.S. Highway 2 

(US–2) and Craig Road, and 

approximately 10 miles west of 

Spokane. It is located in the southwest 

quarter of 22–25–41, excluding US–2, 

and the north half of the southeast 

quarter of the southeast quarter, 

excluding the east 830 feet of the south 

491.5 feet of 22–25–41, excluding roads. 

The ‘‘Intergovernmental Agreement 

between the Spokane Tribe of Indians 

and the City of Airway Heights’’ and the 

‘‘Memorandum of Agreement Between 

the City of Airway Heights and the 

Spokane Tribe of Indians Regarding 

Services and Impacts of Tribal Gaming 

on Indian Lands Located Adjacent to the 

City of Airway Heights (April 10, 2007)’’ 

provide details concerning shared 

responsibilities related to law 

enforcement and security services, 

public health and safety, road 

maintenance and repair, and other 

matters between the Tribe and the City. 

The project site would also include 

internal access roads, parking areas, and 

associated landscaping. Conceptual 

traffic analyses suggest possible 

roadway and/or intersection 

improvements along Craig Road and 

US–2 adjacent to the proposed project 

site. 

Significant issues to be covered 

during the scoping process may include, 

but are not limited to, air quality, 

transportation, surface and groundwater 

resources, biological resources, cultural 

resources, socioeconomic conditions, 

public services, infrastructure, land use, 

aesthetics, and Environmental Justice. 

Directions for Submitting Public 

Comments 

If you choose to submit your 

comments to the BIA directly, your 

comments must be in writing and must 

be submitted in person or by mail. 

Please include your name, return 

address, and the caption, ‘‘DEIS Scoping 

Comments, Spokane Tribe of Indians 

West Plains Mixed-Use Development 

Project,’’ on the first page of your 

comments. 

Public Comment Availability 

Comments, including names and 

addresses of respondents, will be 

available for public review at the BIA 

address shown above, during regular 

business hours, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. 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. 

Authority 

This notice is published in 

accordance with section 1503.1 of the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500 through 

1508) implementing the procedural 

requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.), and 

related Department of the Interior 

requirements in the Department of the 

Interior Manual (516 DM 2), and is in 

the exercise of authority delegated to the 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary— 

Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.1. 

Dated: August 21, 2009. 

George T. Skibine, 

Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary— 

Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. E9–20701 Filed 8–25–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2009–N124; 40136–1265–0000– 

S3] 

Central Arkansas National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability: draft 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), announce the 

availability of a draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental 

assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for the 

Central Arkansas National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex (Complex), consisting 

of Bald Knob, Big Lake, Cache River, 

and Wapanocca National Wildlife 

Refuges, for public review and 

comment. In this Draft CCP/EA, we 

describe the alternative we propose to 

use to manage this complex for the 15 

years following approval of the final 

CCP. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your written comments by 

September 28, 2009. 

A meeting will be held to present the 

Draft CCP/EA to the public; mailings, 

newspaper articles, and posters will be 

the avenues to inform the public of the 

date and time for the meeting. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, 

and requests for information to: Mr. 

William R. Smith, Central Arkansas 

National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

26320 Highway 33 South, Augusta, AR 

72006. The Draft CCP/EA is available on 

compact disk or in hard copy. The Draft 

CCP/EA may also be accessed and 

downloaded from the Service’s Internet 

Site: http://southeast.fws.gov/planning. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

William R. Smith; telephone: 870/347– 

2074; e-mail: william_r_smith@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for Bald Knob, Big Lake, Cache 

River, and Wapanocca National Wildlife 

Refuges. We started this process through 

a notice in the Federal Register on 

January 3, 2007 (72 FR 142). 

Background 

The CCP Process 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd-668ee) (Improvement Act), which 

amended the National Wildlife Refuge 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Notices 43717 

System Administration Act of 1966, 

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 strategy 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, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. We will 

review and update the CCP at least 

every 15 years in accordance with the 

Improvement Act. 

Bald Knob National Wildlife Refuge 

(Bald Knob NWR) is near the town of 

Bald Knob in White County, Arkansas, 

and was established in 1993 to protect 

and provide feeding and resting areas 

for migrating waterfowl. Bald Knob 

NWR, totaling 16,100 acres of forested 

wetlands, moist-soil impoundments, 

and croplands, hosts one of the largest 

populations of wintering pintails in the 

State. The refuge is a crucial staging area 

for pintails migrating to the coastal areas 

of Louisiana and eastern Texas. 

Big Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

(Big Lake NWR) is near the town of 

Manila in Mississippi County, Arkansas, 

and was established in 1915 by 

Executive Order of President Woodrow 

Wilson, to serve as a reserve and 

breeding ground for native birds. Big 

Lake NWR encompasses 11,038 acres of 

lake and swamp habitats, including 

2,144 acres designated as Wilderness. 

Big Lake NWR provides important 

migratory bird habitat and is designated 

as a ‘‘National Natural Landmark Area.’’ 

The American Bird Conservancy also 

has listed the refuge as a ‘‘Globally 

Important Bird Area.’’ 

Cache River National Wildlife Refuge 

(Cache River NWR) is near the towns of 

Augusta and Brinkley, Arkansas, and 

was established in 1986 to provide 

critical wintering habitat for waterfowl 

and other migratory and resident 

wildlife species. Although the land 

acquisition boundary is approved for 

185,574 acres, Cache River NWR 

presently encompasses 66,350 acres 

situated within Jackson, Monroe, 

Prairie, and Woodruff Counties. Cache 

River NWR is noted as part of the most 

important wintering habitat for mallards 

in North America. 

Wapanocca National Wildlife Refuge 

(Wapanocca NWR) is 20 miles 

northwest of Memphis, Tennessee, and 

near the town of Turrell in Crittendon 

County, Arkansas. Wapanocca NWR 

was established in 1961 to provide a 

wintering area for migratory waterfowl, 

and presently encompasses 5,620 acres 

of agricultural land, grassland, 

bottomland hardwood forest, and 

flooded cypress/willow swamp. 

Wapanocca NWR is important as a 

nesting area for resident wood ducks 

and provides significant habitat along 

the Mississippi River that is heavily 

used by migrating and wintering 

waterfowl. The American Bird 

Conservancy has listed the refuge as a 

‘‘Continentally Important Bird Area.’’ 

Significant issues identified in the 

Draft CCP/EA include: (1) Management 

of waterfowl, other migratory birds, and 

other native wildlife species; (2) 

bottomland hardwood reforestation and 

management; (3) management of moistsoil impoundments and croplands; (4) 

water quality; (5) invasive species 

management; (6) land acquisition; and 

(7) visitor services (e.g., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental education 

and interpretation, access, and 

facilities). 

CCP Alternatives, Including our 

Proposed Alternative 

We developed three alternatives for 

managing the refuges within the 

Complex and chose Alternative C as our 

proposed alternative. A full description 

is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize 

each below. 

Alternative A—Maintain Current 

Management (No Action) 

Under Alternative A, we would 

continue current management of each 

refuge within the Complex. We would 

continue to restore, protect, and manage 

bottomland hardwood forests, wetlands, 

cropland units, moist-soil units, openwater areas, grassland/scrub-shrub 

areas, and the Big Lake NWR 

Wilderness. Management activities 

would continue to focus on afforestation 

and reforestation, restoration of 

wetlands, invasive plant and nuisance 

animal management, cooperative 

farming, inventorying and monitoring, 

and priority public uses (e.g., hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation). We 

would seek to acquire land from willing 

sellers within the approved acquisition 

boundaries. 

Alternative B—Minimal Management 

Alternative 

Under Alternative B, we would 

undertake minimal wildlife, habitat, and 

infrastructure management. Under this 

‘‘let nature take its course’’ alternative, 

there would be no more active 

reforestation efforts; no moist-soil 

impoundments and croplands; and no 

more road, beaver dam, or invasive 

species management and maintenance 

programs. We would let natural 

succession proceed unchecked, and 

provide for development of early stage 

or successional forest habitat on 

abandoned lands, with no silvicultural 

treatments in existing forest stands 

being conducted. We would implement 

a custodial or passive stewardship 

approach to management and would 

monitor natural succession and wildlife 

populations over time. Both quality and 

quantity of habitats for wildlife would 

be expected to decline, along with 

wildlife use of these habitats. There 

would likely be reduced associated 

public use, because roadways and 

facilities would not be maintained and 

the quality of visitor services would 

diminish. There would be no change in 

the acreage or amount of waterfowl 

sanctuaries. We would seek to acquire 

land from willing sellers within the 

approved acquisition boundaries. 

Alternative C—Enhanced Habitat 

Management and Public Use Programs 

(Proposed Alternative) 

By implementing the proposed 

alternative, we would actively expand 

and improve habitat management and 

public use programs. We would 

intensify and enhance forest, moist-soil, 

scrub-shrub, grassland, and aquatic 

management programs in order to 

increase benefits for waterfowl, 

shorebirds, water birds, other migratory 

birds, and other species of native 

wildlife. We would expand wetlands 

and forest restoration projects. We 

would increase invasive plant and 

animal control projects. A full range of 

inventorying, monitoring, and research 

programs would be developed and 

implemented to enable adaptive 

management. We would continue 

habitat conservation and restoration 

projects. We would expand our land 

acquisition projects by working with 

willing sellers. We would also pursue 

boundary expansions. As part of a 

comprehensive visitor services program, 

we would improve environmental 

education and interpretation programs. 

Opportunities for hunting, fishing, and 

wildlife observation would be 

expanded, and law enforcement 

coverage would be increased for more 

effective protection of resources and 

visitors. We would recruit additional 

staff, acquire additional equipment, and 

improve facilities to enable 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

43718 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 165 / Thursday, August 27, 2009 / Notices 

implementation of these projects and 

programs. 

Next Step 

After the comment period ends, we 

will analyze the comments and address 

them. 

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. 

Authority 

This notice is published under the 

authority of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997, Public Law 105–57. 

Dated: June 25, 2009. 

Cynthia K. Dohner, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–20665 Filed 8–26–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R7–R–2009–N0106; 70133–1265– 

0000–S3] 

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, 

Soldotna, AK 

AGENCY: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of the 

revised comprehensive conservation 

plan and final environmental impact 

statement. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service, USFWS), 

announce that the revised 

comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) 

and final environmental impact 

statement (EIS) for the Kenai National 

Wildlife Refuge is available for public 

review and comment. The CCP/EIS was 

prepared pursuant to the Alaska 

National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act of 1980 (ANILCA), the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966 (Refuge Administration Act) 

as amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997 (Refuge Improvement Act), and the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (NEPA). It describes five 

alternatives for managing the Kenai 

Refuge for the next 15 years, including 

continuing current management. 

DATES: We will accept comments on the 

CCP/EIS until September 28, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: To provide written 

comments or to request a paper copy or 

a compact disk of the CCP/EIS, contact 

Peter Wikoff, Planning Team Leader, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional 

Office, 1011 East Tudor Rd., MS–231, 

Anchorage, AK 99503; telephone: (907) 

786–3357; fax: (907) 786–3965; e-mail: 

fw7_kenai_planning@fws.gov. You may 

also view or download a copy of the 

CCP/EIS at: http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/ 

planning/kenpol.htm. Copies of the 

CCP/EIS may be viewed at the Kenai 

Refuge Office in Soldotna, AK, and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional 

Office in Anchorage, AK (address 

above). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Peter Wikoff at the address or phone 

number provided above. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Alaska National Interests Land 

Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 

410hh et seq., 43 U.S.C. 1602 et seq.) 

requires development of comprehensive 

conservation plans for all national 

wildlife refuges in Alaska. The CCP/EIS 

for the Kenai Refuge was developed 

consistent with Section 304(g) of 

ANILCA and the Refuge Administration 

Act as amended by the Refuge 

Improvement Act (16 U.S.C. 668dd et 

seq.). The purpose of developing a 

comprehensive conservation plan is to 

provide refuge managers with a 15-year 

management strategy for achieving 

refuge purposes and contributing 

toward the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with 

sound principles of fish, wildlife, and 

habitat management and conservation; 

legal mandates; and Service policies. 

Comprehensive conservation plans 

define long-term goals and objectives 

toward which refuge management 

activities are directed. Comprehensive 

conservation plans are reviewed and 

updated every 15 years in accordance 

with direction in Section 304(g) of 

ANILCA, the Refuge Improvement Act, 

and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). 

Background 

In 1941, President Franklin D. 

Roosevelt signed Executive Order 8979 

creating the 1,730,000-acre Kenai 

National Moose Range. In 1980, 

ANILCA changed the name of the Range 

to the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge 

and substantially increased the size of 

the Refuge. Kenai Refuge encompasses 

approximately 1,988,000 acres. Section 

303(4)(B) of ANILCA states that the 

purposes for which Kenai Refuge was 

established include (i) to conserve fish 

and wildlife populations and habitats in 

their natural diversity; (ii) to fulfill 

international treaty obligations of the 

United States with respect to fish and 

wildlife and their habitats; (iii) to ensure 

water quality and necessary water 

quantity within the refuge; (iv) to 

provide opportunities for scientific 

research, interpretation, environmental 

education, and land management 

training; and (v) to provide 

opportunities for fish and wildlifeoriented recreation. A CCP/EIS was 

completed for the Kenai Refuge in 1985 

(50 FR 31777, Aug. 6, 1985) following 

direction in Section 304(g) of ANILCA. 

The ANILCA requires the Service to 

designate areas according to their 

respective resources and values and to 

specify programs and uses within the 

areas designated. To meet these 

requirements, the Alaska Region 

established management categories. A 

management category is a set of refuge 

management directions applied to an 

area to accomplish refuge purposes and 

goals. Appropriate public uses, 

commercial uses, facilities, and human 

activities are identified for each 

management category. Five management 

categories currently apply to the Kenai 

Refuge, including (1) Intensive, (2) 

Moderate, (3) Traditional, (4) Minimal, 

and (5) Wilderness. 

The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act 

includes additional direction for 

conservation planning throughout the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. This 

direction has been incorporated into 

national planning policy for the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, 

including refuges in Alaska. The CCP/ 

EIS for the Kenai Refuge meets the 

requirements of both ANILCA and the 

Refuge Administration Act as amended 

by the Refuge Improvement Act. 

An Overview of Management 

Alternatives 

The CCP/EIS describes and evaluates 

five alternatives (A–E) for managing the 

Kenai Refuge for the next 15 years. 

Alternatives A through E are each 

consistent with the purposes of the 

Kenai Refuge as mandated by ANILCA. 

Alternative A (the No-Action 

Alternative) is required under NEPA 

and describes continuation of current 

management. Alternative A serves as a 

baseline against which to compare the 

other four alternatives, including 

Alternative E—the Service’s Preferred 

Alternative. Under Alternative A, 

management of the Kenai Refuge would 

continue to follow direction described 

in the 1985 CCP/EIS and record of 

decision and subsequent step-down 

management plans. Under Alternative 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES