Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Caroline, Essex, King George, Lancaster, Middlesex, Richmond, and Westmoreland Counties, VA, 36500-36502 [E9-17546]
Download as PDF
36500
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Notices
Burden
estimate
per form
(in minutes)
Form No.
Annual
number of
respondents
Annual burden
on
respondents
(in hours)
30
30
167
115
84
58
Total burden hours ...............................................................................................................
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
7–2534 (Part I, Managing Partners) ............................................................................................
7–2535 (Part II, Concessionaires) ...............................................................................................
........................
........................
142
Comments:
Reclamation invites your comments
on:
(a) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of our functions, including
whether the information will have
practical use;
(b) the accuracy of our burden
estimate for the proposed collection of
information;
(c) ways to enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and
(d) ways to minimize the burden of
the information collection on
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. Reclamation will
display a valid OMB control number on
Forms 7–2534 and 7–2535, OMB
Control Number: 1006–0002.
A Federal Register notice with a 60day comment period soliciting
comments on this collection of
information was published in the
Federal Register (74 FR 9634, March 5,
2009). No public comments were
received.
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or
disapprove this information collection,
but may respond after 30 days;
therefore, public comment should be
submitted to OMB within 30 days in
order to assure maximum consideration.
Before including your address,
telephone 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.
Roseann Gonzales,
Director, Policy and Program Services, Denver
Office.
[FR Doc. E9–17563 Filed 7–22–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Jul 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R5–R–2008–N0189; BAC–4311–K9–
S3]
Rappahannock River Valley National
Wildlife Refuge, Caroline, Essex, King
George, Lancaster, Middlesex,
Richmond, and Westmoreland
Counties, VA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of draft
comprehensive conservation plan and
environmental assessment; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of the draft comprehensive
conservation plan (CCP) and draft
environmental assessment (EA) for
Rappahannock River Valley National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) for a 30-day
public review and comment period. In
this draft CCP/EA, we describe three
alternatives, including our Servicepreferred Alternative B, for managing
this refuge for the next 15 years. Also
available for public review and
comment are the draft compatibility
determinations, which are included as
Appendix B in the draft CCP/EA.
DATES: To ensure our consideration of
your written comments, we must
receive them by August 24, 2009. We
will also hold public meetings in
Warsaw and Richmond, Virginia, during
the 30-day review period to receive
comments and provide information on
the draft plan. We will announce and
post details about public meetings in
local news media, via our project
mailing list, and on our regional
planning Web site, https://www.fws.gov/
northeast/planning/rappahannock/
ccphome.html.
Send your comments or
requests for copies of the draft CCP/EA
by any of the following methods. You
may also drop off comments in person
at Rappahannock River Valley NWR
headquarters, located at 336 Wilna Road
in Warsaw, Virginia.
U.S. Mail: Nancy McGarigal, Natural
Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center
Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035.
Fax: Attention: Nancy McGarigal,
413–253–8468.
E-mail: northeastplanning@fws.gov.
Include ‘‘Rappahannock NWR CCP’’ in
the subject line of your e-mail.
Agency Web site: View or download
the draft document at https://
www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/
Rappahannock.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Joseph McCauley, Project Leader,
Eastern Virginia Rivers NWR Complex,
336 Wilna Road, P.O. Box 1030,
Warsaw, VA 22572–1030; (804) 333–
1470 (phone); 804–333–3396 (fax);
fw5rw_evrnwr@fws.gov (e-mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP
process for Rappahannock River Valley
NWR, which was started with the notice
of intent we published in the Federal
Register (70 FR 65931) on November 1,
2005. We prepared the draft CCP in
compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and
the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, as amended
by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997. This refuge is
the newest of the four refuges that
comprise the Eastern Virginia Rivers
NWR Complex. The other three are the
James River, Plum Tree Island, and
Presquile NWRs.
Rappahannock River Valley NWR,
currently 7,711 acres, was established in
1996 to conserve and protect fish and
wildlife resources, including
endangered and threatened species, and
wetlands. Refuge habitats include
freshwater tidal marsh, forested swamp,
upland deciduous forest, mixed pine
forest, and managed grassland. Two
Federally listed species are found on the
refuge, the endangered shortnose
sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and
threatened Sensitive joint-vetch
(Aeschynomene virginica). The State of
Virginia’s largest wintering population
of bald eagles is located within the
refuge boundary. Neotropical migratory
songbirds, shorebirds, raptors, and
marsh birds also rely on the
Rappahannock River corridor during
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Notices
their spring and fall migrations. With
help from partners and volunteers, we
are restoring native grasslands and
riparian forests along the river and its
tributary streams to provide additional
habitat for these important species.
Although wildlife and habitat
conservation is the refuge’s first priority,
the public can observe and photograph
wildlife, fish, hunt, or participate in
environmental education and
interpretation on several units of the
refuge. The refuge contains three sites
on the Virginia Birding and Wildlife
Trail. The Wilna Unit, located in
Richmond County, offers accessible
fishing, excellent wildlife observation
opportunities, and accessible nature
trails. Other units of the refuge are open
for visits by reservation.
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 System Administration Act of
1966, requires us to develop a CCP for
each national wildlife refuge. The
purpose for developing CCPs is to
provide refuge managers with 15-year
plans for achieving refuge purposes and
the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, in conformance 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 each CCP at least every 15 years,
in accordance with the Improvement
Act.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Public Outreach
In conjunction with our November
2005, Federal Register notice
announcing our intent to begin the CCP
process, we distributed a newsletter to
more than 300 State agencies,
organizations, and individuals on our
project mailing list, asking about their
interest in the refuge and whether they
had issues or concerns they would like
us to address. We distributed another
newsletter in December 2005, providing
more detailed information on the refuge
and the planning process. In that
newsletter, we also asked people to
share their vision for the future of the
refuge and provide us with feedback or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Jul 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
comments on its management. Also in
December 2005, we held three public
scoping meetings, in Richmond, Port
Royal, and Warsaw, Virginia. We asked
those who attended to identify issues
and concerns they would like us to
address and to comment on the draft
vision, goals and objectives we had at
that time. Forty-five people attended
those meetings. In 2006, we sponsored
a survey of 1,200 local residents,
randomly selected, asking specific
questions about their recreation on the
Rappahannock River, their preferences
for future wildlife-dependent recreation
on the refuge, and whether they knew
about refuge opportunities. Throughout
the process, we have conducted
additional outreach via newsletters and
participation in meetings, community
events and other public forums, and
continued to request public input on
refuge management and programs.
Some of the key issues identified
include the amount of grassland to
manage, other priority habitat types to
conserve, land protection and
conservation priorities, improving the
visibility of the Service and refuge,
providing desired facilities and
activities, and ways to improve
opportunities for public use while
ensuring the restoration and protection
of priority resources.
CCP Actions We Are Considering,
Including the Service-Preferred
Alternative
We developed three management
alternatives based on the purposes for
establishing the refuge, its vision and
goals, and the issues and concerns the
public, State agencies, and the Service
identified during the planning process.
The alternatives have some actions in
common, such as protecting and
monitoring Federally listed species and
the regionally significant bald eagle
population, controlling invasive plants
and wildlife diseases, encouraging
research that benefits our resource
decisions, protecting cultural resources,
continuing to acquire land from willing
sellers within our approved refuge
boundary, and distributing refuge
revenue sharing payments to counties.
Other actions distinguish the
alternatives. The draft CCP/EA describes
the alternatives in detail, and relates
them to the issues and concerns we
identified. Highlights follow.
Alternative A (Current Management)
This alternative is the ‘‘No Action’’
alternative required by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4347, as amended).
Alternative A defines our current
management activities, and serves as the
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
36501
baseline against which to compare the
other alternatives. Our habitat
management focus on the 700 acres of
grasslands and old fields would
continue, and we would continue to use
tools such as prescribed fire, mowing,
herbicides and disking to keep them in
an early stage of succession and increase
plant diversity. We intend to phase out
our cooperative farming program on
another 200 acres over the next 5 years
and convert to grasslands. We would
continue to monitor our forests and
wetlands for invasive plants and
disease, and treat them if we have
available funding and staffing. Our
biological monitoring and inventory
program would continue at its current
levels, focusing on surveys of breeding
and wintering birds.
Our visitor services programs would
not change; we would conduct most of
the activities on the Wilna Unit. The
Wilna Unit is the only refuge unit open
7 days a week, from sunrise to sunset.
The other units are open by reservation
only. Wildlife observation and
photography, white-tailed deer hunting,
and fishing are the most popular
activities. Our staffing and facilities
would remain the same. Seven staff
positions for the refuge complex would
remain in place, and the headquarters
would remain at the historic Wilna
House.
Alternative B (Enhanced Habitat
Diversity and the Service-Preferred
Alternative)
This alternative is the one we propose
as the best way to manage this refuge
over the next 15 years. It includes an
array of management actions that, in our
professional judgment, works best
toward achieving the refuge purposes,
our vision and goals, and the goals of
other State and regional conservation
plans. We also believe it most
effectively addresses the key issues
raised during the planning process.
Our habitat management program
would expand to include up to 1,200
acres of managed grasslands and old
fields, primarily through new
acquisitions from willing sellers within
our approved refuge boundary. We
would use all the tools identified under
Alternative A. We would also phase out
our cooperative farming program within
5 years and convert it to grasslands,
although we may maintain a minimal
number of acres if we determine it
would be useful in our interpretation
program, or would provide benefits for
other programs. We would manage our
existing planted pine stands through
thinning, to facilitate their growth into
a healthy, mature, mixed forest. As in
Alternative A, we would continue to
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
36502
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
monitor our forests and wetlands for
invasive plants and disease, and treat
them to the extent our funding allows.
Protecting and enhancing riparian and
wetlands habitat would be a priority.
We would also continue our monitoring
and inventory program, but regularly
evaluate the results to help us better
understand the implications of our
management actions and identify ways
to improve their effectiveness.
We would expand opportunities for
all six priority public uses. We would
seek partnerships to help us achieve any
new or expanded programs, including
interpretive trails construction, adding a
self-guided canoe trail, and leading
environmental education programs
using the refuge as a living laboratory.
We plan to further evaluate
opportunities for waterfowl and turkey
hunting. We would also improve and
expand access for freshwater fishing. If
we can secure permanent funding, we
would fill up to four new staff positions
to provide depth to our programs and
achieve our goals and objectives. We
also propose to construct a new,
Service-standard small refuge
headquarters and visitor contact facility
on the Hutchinson tract to increase our
visibility and improve public access to
refuge land.
Alternative C (Forest Management
Emphasis)
This alternative resembles Alternative
B in its refuge administration, facilities,
and visitor services programs, but
differs in its habitat management.
Under Alternative C, we would allow
grasslands, old fields, and croplands to
revert to shrub and forest,
supplementing that process with such
activities as plantings, applying
herbicides, and cutting or brush-hogging
(mowing) as necessary to achieve the
desired results. As in Alternative B, we
would protect and enhance riparian and
wetlands habitats as a priority. We also
propose to manage our existing planted
pine stands as in Alternative B, and
continue to monitor our forests and
wetlands for invasive plants and disease
and treat them to the extent funding
allows. Protecting and enhancing
riparian and wetland habitats would
also be a priority. Compared to
Alternative B, we would conduct a more
intensive, focused monitoring and
inventory program designed to address
more specific questions about habitat
quality and the response of wildlife
populations. In the near term,
monitoring would be aimed specifically
at documenting the transition from
grasslands, old fields, and croplands to
shrub and young forest. Under
Alternative C, our public use programs
VerDate Nov<24>2008
15:01 Jul 22, 2009
Jkt 217001
would be similar to those proposed
under Alternative B, including our
plans to pursue a new headquarters and
visitor contact facility.
Public Meetings
We will give the public opportunities
to provide input at two public meetings
in Warsaw and Richmond, Virginia. You
can obtain the schedule from the project
leader or natural resource planner (see
ADDRESSES or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above). You may also submit
comments at any time during the
planning process by any means shown
in the ADDRESSES section.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comments, 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: May 8, 2009.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA 01035.
[FR Doc. E9–17546 Filed 7–22–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R1–ES–2009–N123; 14420–1115–
1SGR–A2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Permit Application; Greater
Sage-Grouse; Washington, Adams,
Gem, and Payette Counties, Idaho
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Receipt of application for
enhancement of survival permit; notice
of availability of programmatic
candidate conservation agreement with
assurances and draft environmental
assessment.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce
receipt of an application for an
enhancement of survival permit (permit)
under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA). The permit application
includes a proposed programmatic
candidate conservation agreement with
assurances (CCAA) for the Greater sage
grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus;
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
hereafter, sage-grouse) between us and
the Idaho Department of Fish and Game
(IDFG). The term of the proposed CCAA
is 30 years, and the requested term of
the permit is 30 years. Consistent with
the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), we have prepared a draft
environmental assessment (EA) of the
impacts of the proposed CCAA and
permit application. We are accepting
comments on the application, the
proposed CCAA, and the draft EA.
DATES: We will consider comments we
receive on or before August 24, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Address any written
comments concerning this notice to
Kendra Womack, Idaho Fish and
Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1387 S Vinnell Way, Room 368,
Boise, ID 83709. Alternatively, fax
written comments to 208–378–5262, or
e-mail comments to
fw1srbocomment@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kendra Womack, 208–378–5243. If you
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Document Availability
Copies of the permit application, the
draft CCAA, and the draft EA are
available for public inspection, by
appointment, at the Idaho Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), or you
may view them on the Internet at
https://www.fws.gov/idaho. We furnish
this notice to provide the public, other
State and Federal agencies, and
interested Tribes an opportunity to
review and comment on the draft
CCAA, permit application, and draft EA.
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.
Background
Candidate Conservation Agreements
with Assurances encourage non-Federal
property owners to implement
conservation efforts for candidate or atrisk species by assuring property owners
they will not be subjected to increased
property use restrictions if the covered
E:\FR\FM\23JYN1.SGM
23JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 140 (Thursday, July 23, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36500-36502]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17546]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R5-R-2008-N0189; BAC-4311-K9-S3]
Rappahannock River Valley National Wildlife Refuge, Caroline,
Essex, King George, Lancaster, Middlesex, Richmond, and Westmoreland
Counties, VA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of draft comprehensive conservation plan
and environmental assessment; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of the draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and
draft environmental assessment (EA) for Rappahannock River Valley
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) for a 30-day public review and comment
period. In this draft CCP/EA, we describe three alternatives, including
our Service-preferred Alternative B, for managing this refuge for the
next 15 years. Also available for public review and comment are the
draft compatibility determinations, which are included as Appendix B in
the draft CCP/EA.
DATES: To ensure our consideration of your written comments, we must
receive them by August 24, 2009. We will also hold public meetings in
Warsaw and Richmond, Virginia, during the 30-day review period to
receive comments and provide information on the draft plan. We will
announce and post details about public meetings in local news media,
via our project mailing list, and on our regional planning Web site,
https://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/rappahannock/ccphome.html.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments or requests for copies of the draft CCP/
EA by any of the following methods. You may also drop off comments in
person at Rappahannock River Valley NWR headquarters, located at 336
Wilna Road in Warsaw, Virginia.
U.S. Mail: Nancy McGarigal, Natural Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts
01035.
Fax: Attention: Nancy McGarigal, 413-253-8468.
E-mail: northeastplanning@fws.gov. Include ``Rappahannock NWR CCP''
in the subject line of your e-mail.
Agency Web site: View or download the draft document at https://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/Rappahannock.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph McCauley, Project Leader,
Eastern Virginia Rivers NWR Complex, 336 Wilna Road, P.O. Box 1030,
Warsaw, VA 22572-1030; (804) 333-1470 (phone); 804-333-3396 (fax);
fw5rw_evrnwr@fws.gov (e-mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Rappahannock
River Valley NWR, which was started with the notice of intent we
published in the Federal Register (70 FR 65931) on November 1, 2005. We
prepared the draft CCP in compliance with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 and the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997. This refuge is the newest of the four
refuges that comprise the Eastern Virginia Rivers NWR Complex. The
other three are the James River, Plum Tree Island, and Presquile NWRs.
Rappahannock River Valley NWR, currently 7,711 acres, was
established in 1996 to conserve and protect fish and wildlife
resources, including endangered and threatened species, and wetlands.
Refuge habitats include freshwater tidal marsh, forested swamp, upland
deciduous forest, mixed pine forest, and managed grassland. Two
Federally listed species are found on the refuge, the endangered
shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and threatened Sensitive
joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica). The State of Virginia's largest
wintering population of bald eagles is located within the refuge
boundary. Neotropical migratory songbirds, shorebirds, raptors, and
marsh birds also rely on the Rappahannock River corridor during
[[Page 36501]]
their spring and fall migrations. With help from partners and
volunteers, we are restoring native grasslands and riparian forests
along the river and its tributary streams to provide additional habitat
for these important species.
Although wildlife and habitat conservation is the refuge's first
priority, the public can observe and photograph wildlife, fish, hunt,
or participate in environmental education and interpretation on several
units of the refuge. The refuge contains three sites on the Virginia
Birding and Wildlife Trail. The Wilna Unit, located in Richmond County,
offers accessible fishing, excellent wildlife observation
opportunities, and accessible nature trails. Other units of the refuge
are open for visits by reservation.
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 System Administration Act of 1966, requires us to
develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for
developing CCPs is to provide refuge managers with 15-year plans for
achieving refuge purposes and the mission of the National Wildlife
Refuge System, in conformance 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
each CCP at least every 15 years, in accordance with the Improvement
Act.
Public Outreach
In conjunction with our November 2005, Federal Register notice
announcing our intent to begin the CCP process, we distributed a
newsletter to more than 300 State agencies, organizations, and
individuals on our project mailing list, asking about their interest in
the refuge and whether they had issues or concerns they would like us
to address. We distributed another newsletter in December 2005,
providing more detailed information on the refuge and the planning
process. In that newsletter, we also asked people to share their vision
for the future of the refuge and provide us with feedback or comments
on its management. Also in December 2005, we held three public scoping
meetings, in Richmond, Port Royal, and Warsaw, Virginia. We asked those
who attended to identify issues and concerns they would like us to
address and to comment on the draft vision, goals and objectives we had
at that time. Forty-five people attended those meetings. In 2006, we
sponsored a survey of 1,200 local residents, randomly selected, asking
specific questions about their recreation on the Rappahannock River,
their preferences for future wildlife-dependent recreation on the
refuge, and whether they knew about refuge opportunities. Throughout
the process, we have conducted additional outreach via newsletters and
participation in meetings, community events and other public forums,
and continued to request public input on refuge management and
programs.
Some of the key issues identified include the amount of grassland
to manage, other priority habitat types to conserve, land protection
and conservation priorities, improving the visibility of the Service
and refuge, providing desired facilities and activities, and ways to
improve opportunities for public use while ensuring the restoration and
protection of priority resources.
CCP Actions We Are Considering, Including the Service-Preferred
Alternative
We developed three management alternatives based on the purposes
for establishing the refuge, its vision and goals, and the issues and
concerns the public, State agencies, and the Service identified during
the planning process. The alternatives have some actions in common,
such as protecting and monitoring Federally listed species and the
regionally significant bald eagle population, controlling invasive
plants and wildlife diseases, encouraging research that benefits our
resource decisions, protecting cultural resources, continuing to
acquire land from willing sellers within our approved refuge boundary,
and distributing refuge revenue sharing payments to counties.
Other actions distinguish the alternatives. The draft CCP/EA
describes the alternatives in detail, and relates them to the issues
and concerns we identified. Highlights follow.
Alternative A (Current Management)
This alternative is the ``No Action'' alternative required by the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, as
amended). Alternative A defines our current management activities, and
serves as the baseline against which to compare the other alternatives.
Our habitat management focus on the 700 acres of grasslands and old
fields would continue, and we would continue to use tools such as
prescribed fire, mowing, herbicides and disking to keep them in an
early stage of succession and increase plant diversity. We intend to
phase out our cooperative farming program on another 200 acres over the
next 5 years and convert to grasslands. We would continue to monitor
our forests and wetlands for invasive plants and disease, and treat
them if we have available funding and staffing. Our biological
monitoring and inventory program would continue at its current levels,
focusing on surveys of breeding and wintering birds.
Our visitor services programs would not change; we would conduct
most of the activities on the Wilna Unit. The Wilna Unit is the only
refuge unit open 7 days a week, from sunrise to sunset. The other units
are open by reservation only. Wildlife observation and photography,
white-tailed deer hunting, and fishing are the most popular activities.
Our staffing and facilities would remain the same. Seven staff
positions for the refuge complex would remain in place, and the
headquarters would remain at the historic Wilna House.
Alternative B (Enhanced Habitat Diversity and the Service-Preferred
Alternative)
This alternative is the one we propose as the best way to manage
this refuge over the next 15 years. It includes an array of management
actions that, in our professional judgment, works best toward achieving
the refuge purposes, our vision and goals, and the goals of other State
and regional conservation plans. We also believe it most effectively
addresses the key issues raised during the planning process.
Our habitat management program would expand to include up to 1,200
acres of managed grasslands and old fields, primarily through new
acquisitions from willing sellers within our approved refuge boundary.
We would use all the tools identified under Alternative A. We would
also phase out our cooperative farming program within 5 years and
convert it to grasslands, although we may maintain a minimal number of
acres if we determine it would be useful in our interpretation program,
or would provide benefits for other programs. We would manage our
existing planted pine stands through thinning, to facilitate their
growth into a healthy, mature, mixed forest. As in Alternative A, we
would continue to
[[Page 36502]]
monitor our forests and wetlands for invasive plants and disease, and
treat them to the extent our funding allows. Protecting and enhancing
riparian and wetlands habitat would be a priority. We would also
continue our monitoring and inventory program, but regularly evaluate
the results to help us better understand the implications of our
management actions and identify ways to improve their effectiveness.
We would expand opportunities for all six priority public uses. We
would seek partnerships to help us achieve any new or expanded
programs, including interpretive trails construction, adding a self-
guided canoe trail, and leading environmental education programs using
the refuge as a living laboratory. We plan to further evaluate
opportunities for waterfowl and turkey hunting. We would also improve
and expand access for freshwater fishing. If we can secure permanent
funding, we would fill up to four new staff positions to provide depth
to our programs and achieve our goals and objectives. We also propose
to construct a new, Service-standard small refuge headquarters and
visitor contact facility on the Hutchinson tract to increase our
visibility and improve public access to refuge land.
Alternative C (Forest Management Emphasis)
This alternative resembles Alternative B in its refuge
administration, facilities, and visitor services programs, but differs
in its habitat management.
Under Alternative C, we would allow grasslands, old fields, and
croplands to revert to shrub and forest, supplementing that process
with such activities as plantings, applying herbicides, and cutting or
brush-hogging (mowing) as necessary to achieve the desired results. As
in Alternative B, we would protect and enhance riparian and wetlands
habitats as a priority. We also propose to manage our existing planted
pine stands as in Alternative B, and continue to monitor our forests
and wetlands for invasive plants and disease and treat them to the
extent funding allows. Protecting and enhancing riparian and wetland
habitats would also be a priority. Compared to Alternative B, we would
conduct a more intensive, focused monitoring and inventory program
designed to address more specific questions about habitat quality and
the response of wildlife populations. In the near term, monitoring
would be aimed specifically at documenting the transition from
grasslands, old fields, and croplands to shrub and young forest. Under
Alternative C, our public use programs would be similar to those
proposed under Alternative B, including our plans to pursue a new
headquarters and visitor contact facility.
Public Meetings
We will give the public opportunities to provide input at two
public meetings in Warsaw and Richmond, Virginia. You can obtain the
schedule from the project leader or natural resource planner (see
addresses or FOr Further Information CONTACT, above). You may also
submit comments at any time during the planning process by any means
shown in the ADDRESSES section.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comments, 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: May 8, 2009.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA
01035.
[FR Doc. E9-17546 Filed 7-22-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P