Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, City of Virginia Beach, VA, 15721-15723 [2010-7058]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Notices
respond, including the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other forms of
information technology.
Please send comments to the
addresses listed under ADDRESSES.
Please refer to OMB control number
1004–0001 in your correspondence.
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.
Jean Sonneman,
Acting Information Collection Clearance
Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010–6987 Filed 3–29–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–84–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
on our regional planning Web site,
https://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/
back bay/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 Back Bay NWR, 4005 Sandpiper
Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
U.S. Postal Service: Thomas Bonetti,
Natural Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center
Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035.
Facsimile: Attention: Thomas Bonetti,
413–253–8307.
Electronic mail:
northeastplanning@fws.gov. Include
‘‘Back Bay NWR CCP’’ in the subject line
of your e-mail.
Agency Web site: View or download
the draft document at https://
www.fws.gov/backbay/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jared Brandwein, Project Leader, Back
Bay NWR, 4005 Sandpiper Road,
Virginia Beach, VA 23456–4325; 757–
721–2412 (phone); 757–721–6141
(facsimile).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R5–R–2008–N0242; BAC–4311–K9–
S3]
Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, City
of Virginia Beach, VA
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of draft
comprehensive conservation plan and
environmental assessment; request for
comments.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) announces the
availability of the draft comprehensive
conservation plan (CCP) and draft
environmental assessment (EA) for Back
Bay 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 A in the draft CCP/EA.
DATES: To ensure our consideration of
your written comments, we must
receive them by April 29, 2010. We will
also hold public meetings in Virginia
Beach, 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:22 Mar 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP
process for Back Bay NWR. We started
the CCP process by publishing a notice
in the Federal Register (67 FR 30950) on
May 8, 2002, and then updating that
notice (72 FR 8196) on February 23,
2007. We prepared the draft CCP in
compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321–4347, as amended) (NEPA)
and the National Wildlife Refuge
System Administration Act of 1966, as
amended by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997 (Improvement Act).
Back Bay NWR, currently 9,035 acres,
was established in 1938 by Executive
Order #7907 ‘‘* * * as a Refuge and
breeding ground for migratory birds and
other wildlife.’’ Another of the refuge’s
primary purposes (for lands acquired
under the Migratory Bird Conservation
Act) is ‘‘* * * use as an inviolate
sanctuary, or for any other management
purpose, for migratory birds.’’ The
Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of
1986 also authorizes purchase of
wetlands for the purpose of ‘‘* * * the
conservation of the wetlands of the
Nation in order to maintain the public
benefits they provide and to help fulfill
international obligations contained in
various migratory bird treaties and
conventions * * *,’’ using money from
the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
In 1939, 4,600 acres of open bay waters
within the refuge boundary were closed
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
15721
to the taking of migratory birds by
Presidential proclamation.
The refuge includes five miles of
oceanfront beach, a 900-acre freshwater
impoundment complex, numerous bay
islands, bottomland mixed forests, old
fields, and freshwater wetlands adjacent
to Back Bay and its tributary shorelines.
The Back Bay NWR Station
Management Plan in 1993 expanded the
role of the refuge to include
management emphases on other
migratory bird groups, including
threatened and endangered species,
shorebirds, wading birds, marsh birds
and songbirds/land birds.
Although wildlife and habitat
conservation come first on the refuge,
the public can enjoy excellent
opportunities to observe and
photograph wildlife, fish, hunt, or
participate in environmental education
and interpretation. Current visitor
facilities are primarily located in the
eastern, barrier island portion of the
refuge, where annual visitation is
greater than 100,000. Back Bay NWR
provides scenic trails, a visitor contact
station, and, with advance scheduling,
group educational opportunities.
Outdoor facilities are open daily dawn
to dusk.
Background
The CCP Process
The Improvement Act 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
(NWRS), 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.
Public Outreach
In conjunction with our Federal
Register notice announcing our intent to
begin the CCP process, open houses and
public information meetings were held
throughout the Virginia Beach area at
three different locations during January
2002. Meetings were advertised locally
through news releases, paid
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
15722
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Notices
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
advertisements, and our mailing list.
Participants were encouraged to actively
express their opinions and suggestions.
The public meetings allowed us to
gather information and ideas from local
residents, adjacent landowners, and
various organizations and agencies.
An ‘‘Issues Workbook’’ was developed
to encourage written comments on
topics such as wildlife habitats,
nuisance species, and public access to
the refuge. These workbooks were
mailed to a diverse group of over 1,500
people on our mailing list, given to
people who attended a public meeting,
and distributed to anyone who
requested one. More than 100 people
returned completed workbooks.
Throughout the process, we have
conducted additional outreach via
newsletters and participation in
meetings, and continued to request
public input on refuge management and
programs. Some of the comments we
received pertained to issues that
included managing various invasive and
pest species, providing access to and
through the refuge, providing desired
facilities and activities, and searching
for ways to improve opportunities for
public use while ensuring the
restoration and protection of priority
resources. We considered and evaluated
all of those comments, and incorporated
many of them into the varied
alternatives in the draft CCP/EA.
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 cultural
resources, developing step-down
management plans, encouraging
research that benefits our resource
decisions, maintaining a proactive law
enforcement program, continuing to
acquire land from willing sellers within
our approved refuge boundary, and
distributing refuge revenue sharing
payments to Virginia Beach.
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, as required by NEPA.
Alternative A defines our current
management activities, and serves as the
baseline against which to compare the
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:22 Mar 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
other alternatives. A selection of this
alternative would maintain the status
quo in managing the refuge for the next
15 years. No major changes would be
made to current management practices.
This alternative provides a basis for
comparing the other two alternatives.
Under current management, we
manage a series of wetland and moistsoil impoundments, forested and shrubscrub habitats, and coastal beach and
dune habitats. Under Alternative A, we
would continue to conduct land bird,
marsh bird, and migratory waterfowl
surveys, continue to conduct nesting
and stranded sea turtle patrols, and
continue current methods of nuisance
and non-native species control. We
would maintain existing opportunities
for visitors to engage in wildlife
observation, photography, and
environmental education and
interpretation, as well as maintain
existing hunting and fishing
opportunities on the refuge. We would
maintain existing infrastructure and
buildings, and maintain current staffing
levels.
Alternative B (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.
This alternative focuses on enhancing
the conservation of wildlife through
habitat management, as well as
providing additional visitor
opportunities on the refuge. Alternative
B incorporates existing management
activities and/or provides new
initiatives or actions, aimed at
improving efficiency and progress
towards refuge goals and objectives.
Some of the major strategies proposed
include: Opening up forest canopy by
selectively removing loblolly pine,
sweetgum, and red maple; withdrawing
the 1974 wilderness designation
proposal for Long Island, Green Hills,
and Landing Cove (2,165 acres);
developing a canoe/kayak trail on the
west side of Back Bay NWR; expanding
the deer hunt and developing new
hiking trails; and developing and
designing a new headquarters/visitor
contact station. We would also expand
opportunities for the six priority public
uses of the NWRS, and emphasize
wildlife observation and photography,
and interpretation.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The expansion of visitor facilities and
services, as well as the projected
increase in visitation, would require
additional staffing support to meet
public expectations, and provide for
public safety, convenience, and a high
quality experience for refuge visitors.
Partnering, interagency agreements,
service contracting, internships, and
volunteer opportunities would increase
in order to help provide this staffing
support.
We would also continue our
monitoring and inventory program, and
regularly evaluate the results to help us
better understand the implications of
our management actions and identify
ways to improve their effectiveness.
Alternative C (Improved Biological
Integrity)
Alternative C prominently features
additional management that aims to
restore (or mimic) natural ecosystem
processes or functions to achieve refuge
purposes.
Alternative C focuses on using
management techniques that would
encourage forest growth and includes an
increased focus toward the previously
proposed wilderness areas. Some of the
major strategies proposed include:
Developing an interagency agreement
that would allow the 1974 proposed
wilderness areas at Long Island, Green
Hills, and Landing Cove (2,165 acres) to
again meet minimum criteria, and then
manage accordingly; and, creating
conditions that allow us to shift more
resources from intensive management of
the refuge impoundment system to the
restoration of Back Bay-Currituck
Sound. In addition, we propose to
continue enhancing visitor services by:
Developing a hiking trail along
Nanney’s Creek; initiating actions to
open the Colchester impoundment for
fishing opportunities; considering
additional waterfowl hunting areas;
developing and designing a new
headquarters/visitor contact station that
provides more office space than
proposed for Alternative B; and working
with partners to provide a shuttle (for a
fee) service from the new headquarters
site to the barrier spit.
Public Meetings
We will give the public opportunities
to provide input at two public meetings
in Virginia Beach, 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.
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 60 / Tuesday, March 30, 2010 / Notices
Public Availability of Comments
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 comments
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Background
Recovery of endangered or threatened
animals and plants is a primary goal of
the Endangered Species Act (Act) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and our endangered
species program. Recovery means
improvement of the status of listed
species to the point at which listing is
no longer required under the criteria in
section 4(a)(1) of the Act.
The Act requires the development of
recovery plans for endangered or
threatened species unless such a plan
would not promote the conservation of
the species. Recovery plans help guide
the recovery effort by describing actions
considered necessary for the
conservation of the species, establishing
criteria for downlisting or delisting
listed species, and estimating time and
cost for implementing the measures
needed for recovery. This draft revised
recovery plan was developed with the
input and assistance of a Recovery Team
appointed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
Section 4(f) of the Act requires that
public notice, and an opportunity for
public review and comment, be
provided during recovery plan
development. We will consider all
information presented during the public
comment period, and substantive
comments may result in changes to the
recovery plan. Substantive comments
regarding recovery plan implementation
may not necessarily result in changes to
the recovery plan, but will be forwarded
to the appropriate Federal agency or
other entities so that they can take these
comments into account during the
course of implementing recovery
actions. Individual responses to
comments will not be provided.
This subspecies of the Mariana fruit
bat or fanihi (Pteropus mariannus
mariannus) is endemic to the Mariana
archipelago (the Territory of Guam and
the Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands [CNMI]), where it is
known from most of the 15 major
islands. The subspecies was federally
listed as endangered on the island of
Guam in 1984, and was reclassified as
threatened throughout its range in 2005
(70 FR 1190). Surveys on most or all
islands in the archipelago were
conducted in 1983, 2000, and 2001. A
conservative interpretation of these data
indicates a steep decline in fruit bat
numbers has taken place since 1983.
Available information indicates the
chief threats to the fanihi are hunting,
chronic habitat degradation by
ungulates, predation by brown
treesnakes, and risk factors associated
with small population size (bats are
Dated: March 2, 2010.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–7058 Filed 3–29–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R1–ES–2009–N207; 10120–1113–
0000–C2]
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Draft Revised Recovery
Plan for the Mariana Fruit Bat or Fanihi
(Pteropus mariannus mariannus)
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of document availability
for review and comment; draft revised
recovery plan.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce the
availability of the Draft Revised
Recovery Plan for the Mariana Fruit Bat
or Fanihi (Pteropus mariannus
mariannus), for public review and
comment.
DATES: Comments on the recovery plan
must be received on or before June 28,
2010.
ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the
recovery plan is available at https://
endangered.fws.gov/recovery/
index.html#plans. The recovery plan is
also available by request from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific
Islands Fish and Wildlife Office, 300
Ala Moana Boulevard, Room 3–122, Box
50088, Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 (phone:
808/792–9400). Requests for copies of
the recovery plan and written comments
and materials regarding this plan should
be addressed to the Field Supervisor,
Ecological Services, at the above
Honolulu address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Holly Freifeld, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, at the above Honolulu
address.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:22 Mar 29, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
15723
highly vulnerable to extirpation on
islands where they persist in
chronically low numbers). Therefore,
the recovery strategy in this plan
focuses on the following actions: (1)
Reduction or elimination of hunting to
allow increase in fanihi numbers
throughout the archipelago; (2)
protection of the best existing habitat
and enhancement of additional suitable
habitat; (3) effective control and
interdiction of the brown treesnake; and
(4) population monitoring and modeling
to (a) assess the fanihi’s sensitivity to
specific threats and management actions
and (b) forecast the species’ persistence.
Implementing these actions requires
building long-term support for and
participation in the recovery effort
through outreach and education;
enhancing existing survey
methodologies; developing research and
monitoring projects to address gaps in
our scientific knowledge of fanihi and
provide new information for effective
conservation and recovery; and
application of this research and
monitoring through adaptive
management. The recovery strategy will
be implemented as a collaborative effort
among technical experts, agencies, the
governments of the CNMI and Guam,
and other participants and stakeholders.
Owing to the limitations in our current
knowledge of fanihi life history and
ecology, this recovery plan focuses on
the first 10 years of the recovery
process. As additional information is
gained about the fanihi through
management, monitoring, and research,
recovery strategies and measures should
be reassessed to determine the
appropriate steps toward recovery and
delisting.
Request for Public Comments
We solicit written comments on the
recovery plan described. All comments
received by the date specified above
will be considered prior to approval of
this plan.
Authority: The authority for this action is
section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act,
16 U.S.C. 1533(f).
Dated: November 2, 2009.
David J. Wesley,
Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–6991 Filed 3–29–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\30MRN1.SGM
30MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 60 (Tuesday, March 30, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15721-15723]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-7058]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R5-R-2008-N0242; BAC-4311-K9-S3]
Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge, City of Virginia Beach, VA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of draft comprehensive conservation plan
and environmental assessment; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) announces the
availability of the draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and
draft environmental assessment (EA) for Back Bay 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 A in the
draft CCP/EA.
DATES: To ensure our consideration of your written comments, we must
receive them by April 29, 2010. We will also hold public meetings in
Virginia Beach, 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/back bay/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 Back Bay NWR, 4005 Sandpiper Road, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
U.S. Postal Service: Thomas Bonetti, Natural Resource Planner, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley,
Massachusetts 01035.
Facsimile: Attention: Thomas Bonetti, 413-253-8307.
Electronic mail: northeastplanning@fws.gov. Include ``Back Bay NWR
CCP'' in the subject line of your e-mail.
Agency Web site: View or download the draft document at https://www.fws.gov/backbay/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jared Brandwein, Project Leader, Back
Bay NWR, 4005 Sandpiper Road, Virginia Beach, VA 23456-4325; 757-721-
2412 (phone); 757-721-6141 (facsimile).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Back Bay NWR. We
started the CCP process by publishing a notice in the Federal Register
(67 FR 30950) on May 8, 2002, and then updating that notice (72 FR
8196) on February 23, 2007. We prepared the draft CCP in compliance
with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-
4347, as amended) (NEPA) and the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act).
Back Bay NWR, currently 9,035 acres, was established in 1938 by
Executive Order 7907 ``* * * as a Refuge and breeding ground
for migratory birds and other wildlife.'' Another of the refuge's
primary purposes (for lands acquired under the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act) is ``* * * use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose, for migratory birds.'' The Emergency Wetlands
Resources Act of 1986 also authorizes purchase of wetlands for the
purpose of ``* * * the conservation of the wetlands of the Nation in
order to maintain the public benefits they provide and to help fulfill
international obligations contained in various migratory bird treaties
and conventions * * *,'' using money from the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. In 1939, 4,600 acres of open bay waters within the
refuge boundary were closed to the taking of migratory birds by
Presidential proclamation.
The refuge includes five miles of oceanfront beach, a 900-acre
freshwater impoundment complex, numerous bay islands, bottomland mixed
forests, old fields, and freshwater wetlands adjacent to Back Bay and
its tributary shorelines. The Back Bay NWR Station Management Plan in
1993 expanded the role of the refuge to include management emphases on
other migratory bird groups, including threatened and endangered
species, shorebirds, wading birds, marsh birds and songbirds/land
birds.
Although wildlife and habitat conservation come first on the
refuge, the public can enjoy excellent opportunities to observe and
photograph wildlife, fish, hunt, or participate in environmental
education and interpretation. Current visitor facilities are primarily
located in the eastern, barrier island portion of the refuge, where
annual visitation is greater than 100,000. Back Bay NWR provides scenic
trails, a visitor contact station, and, with advance scheduling, group
educational opportunities. Outdoor facilities are open daily dawn to
dusk.
Background
The CCP Process
The Improvement Act 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 (NWRS), 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 Federal Register notice announcing our
intent to begin the CCP process, open houses and public information
meetings were held throughout the Virginia Beach area at three
different locations during January 2002. Meetings were advertised
locally through news releases, paid
[[Page 15722]]
advertisements, and our mailing list. Participants were encouraged to
actively express their opinions and suggestions. The public meetings
allowed us to gather information and ideas from local residents,
adjacent landowners, and various organizations and agencies.
An ``Issues Workbook'' was developed to encourage written comments
on topics such as wildlife habitats, nuisance species, and public
access to the refuge. These workbooks were mailed to a diverse group of
over 1,500 people on our mailing list, given to people who attended a
public meeting, and distributed to anyone who requested one. More than
100 people returned completed workbooks.
Throughout the process, we have conducted additional outreach via
newsletters and participation in meetings, and continued to request
public input on refuge management and programs. Some of the comments we
received pertained to issues that included managing various invasive
and pest species, providing access to and through the refuge, providing
desired facilities and activities, and searching for ways to improve
opportunities for public use while ensuring the restoration and
protection of priority resources. We considered and evaluated all of
those comments, and incorporated many of them into the varied
alternatives in the draft CCP/EA.
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 cultural resources, developing step-down management
plans, encouraging research that benefits our resource decisions,
maintaining a proactive law enforcement program, continuing to acquire
land from willing sellers within our approved refuge boundary, and
distributing refuge revenue sharing payments to Virginia Beach.
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, as required by
NEPA. Alternative A defines our current management activities, and
serves as the baseline against which to compare the other alternatives.
A selection of this alternative would maintain the status quo in
managing the refuge for the next 15 years. No major changes would be
made to current management practices. This alternative provides a basis
for comparing the other two alternatives.
Under current management, we manage a series of wetland and moist-
soil impoundments, forested and shrub-scrub habitats, and coastal beach
and dune habitats. Under Alternative A, we would continue to conduct
land bird, marsh bird, and migratory waterfowl surveys, continue to
conduct nesting and stranded sea turtle patrols, and continue current
methods of nuisance and non-native species control. We would maintain
existing opportunities for visitors to engage in wildlife observation,
photography, and environmental education and interpretation, as well as
maintain existing hunting and fishing opportunities on the refuge. We
would maintain existing infrastructure and buildings, and maintain
current staffing levels.
Alternative B (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.
This alternative focuses on enhancing the conservation of wildlife
through habitat management, as well as providing additional visitor
opportunities on the refuge. Alternative B incorporates existing
management activities and/or provides new initiatives or actions, aimed
at improving efficiency and progress towards refuge goals and
objectives. Some of the major strategies proposed include: Opening up
forest canopy by selectively removing loblolly pine, sweetgum, and red
maple; withdrawing the 1974 wilderness designation proposal for Long
Island, Green Hills, and Landing Cove (2,165 acres); developing a
canoe/kayak trail on the west side of Back Bay NWR; expanding the deer
hunt and developing new hiking trails; and developing and designing a
new headquarters/visitor contact station. We would also expand
opportunities for the six priority public uses of the NWRS, and
emphasize wildlife observation and photography, and interpretation.
The expansion of visitor facilities and services, as well as the
projected increase in visitation, would require additional staffing
support to meet public expectations, and provide for public safety,
convenience, and a high quality experience for refuge visitors.
Partnering, interagency agreements, service contracting, internships,
and volunteer opportunities would increase in order to help provide
this staffing support.
We would also continue our monitoring and inventory program, and
regularly evaluate the results to help us better understand the
implications of our management actions and identify ways to improve
their effectiveness.
Alternative C (Improved Biological Integrity)
Alternative C prominently features additional management that aims
to restore (or mimic) natural ecosystem processes or functions to
achieve refuge purposes.
Alternative C focuses on using management techniques that would
encourage forest growth and includes an increased focus toward the
previously proposed wilderness areas. Some of the major strategies
proposed include: Developing an interagency agreement that would allow
the 1974 proposed wilderness areas at Long Island, Green Hills, and
Landing Cove (2,165 acres) to again meet minimum criteria, and then
manage accordingly; and, creating conditions that allow us to shift
more resources from intensive management of the refuge impoundment
system to the restoration of Back Bay-Currituck Sound. In addition, we
propose to continue enhancing visitor services by: Developing a hiking
trail along Nanney's Creek; initiating actions to open the Colchester
impoundment for fishing opportunities; considering additional waterfowl
hunting areas; developing and designing a new headquarters/visitor
contact station that provides more office space than proposed for
Alternative B; and working with partners to provide a shuttle (for a
fee) service from the new headquarters site to the barrier spit.
Public Meetings
We will give the public opportunities to provide input at two
public meetings in Virginia Beach, 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.
[[Page 15723]]
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 comments to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Dated: March 2, 2010.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-7058 Filed 3-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P