Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan; John Hay National Wildlife Refuge, Merrimack County, NH, 50777-50779 [2010-20305]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Notices
Bureau of Reclamation
results presented in the Draft EIS.
However, if monitoring under the
adaptive management approach shows
different impacts than are documented
in this FEIS, and changes to proposed
operations (as discussed in this FEIS)
are made as a result of monitoring,
additional NEPA compliance will be
conducted to document those changes
and/or impacts.
DATES: Reclamation will not make a
decision on the proposed action until at
least 30 days after filing of the FEIS with
the Environmental Protection Agency.
After the 30-day waiting period,
Reclamation will complete a Record of
Decision. The Record of Decision will
identify the selected action for
implementation and will discuss factors
and rationale used in making the
decision.
[INT–FES 10–43]
delivery, power generation and
Reclamation’s commitments to deliver
flow augmentation water under the Nez
Perce Settlement Agreement and the
Endangered Species Act.
Public Review Locations:
The FEIS is available for public
inspection at the following locations:
• Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific
Northwest Regional Office, 1150 N
Curtis Road, Boise, ID.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Snake River
Area Office, 230 Collins Road, Boise, ID.
• Bureau of Reclamation, Upper
Snake Field Office, 1359 Hansen
Avenue, Burley, ID.
ADDRESSES:
Total Annual Fees from Respondents:
BIA collects fees for processing
submitted documents, as set forth in
section 162.241 or section 162.616. The
minimum administrative fee is $10.00
and the maximum administrative fee is
$500.00. The average total
administrative fees collected is $250.00
of which is collected approximately
7,252 times, totaling $1,813,000.
Dated: August 10, 2010.
Alvin Foster,
Acting Chief Information Officer—Indian
Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2010–20294 Filed 8–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minidoka Dam Spillway Replacement,
Minidoka County, ID
AGENCY:
Bureau of Reclamation,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of the
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS).
Pursuant to section 102(2)(C)
of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, the
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is
notifying the public that it has prepared
a FEIS on the proposed Minidoka Dam
Spillway Replacement. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (Department of
Interior) and Rural Development
(Department of Agriculture) are
cooperating agencies under NEPA.
Alternatives considered in the FEIS are
the No Action, as required under NEPA;
total replacement of the spillway and
headgate structures; and replacement of
just the spillway. Total replacement of
the spillway and headgate structures is
the preferred alternative. Proposed
changes in operations following
construction are also evaluated, as is
designation of special use areas.
Reclamation published a Draft EIS in
the Federal Register on December 11,
2009 (74 FR 65783) with a public
comment period ending on February 5,
2010. The Final EIS includes written
responses to all public comments on the
Draft EIS. Revisions were made in the
FEIS to incorporate responses to
comments. In response to comments an
adaptive management approach, which
includes monitoring of effects resulting
from changes in operations, has been
added and proposed changes to
operations will be made over a 4-year
period. These revisions do not
significantly change the analysis or
SUMMARY:
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
50777
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 Aug 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
Bureau of Reclamation,
Snake River Area Office, Attention:
Allyn Meuleman, Activity Manager, 230
Collins Road, Boise, ID 83702–4520.
Comments may also be submitted
electronically to
minidoka_dam_eis@usbr.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Allyn Meuleman, (208) 383–2258, fax:
(208) 383–2237 or at the above address.
The FEIS and other information on this
project can be found at: https://
www.usbr.gov/pn/programs/eis/
minidokadam/.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Minidoka
Dam impounds Lake Walcott and is a
feature of Reclamation’s Minidoka
Project. They are located on the main
stem Snake River about 18 miles
northeast from the city of Burley, ID
within the Minidoka Wildlife Refuge.
After over 103 years of continued use,
the over 2000-foot long concrete
spillway at the Minidoka Dam has
reached the end of its functional
lifespan. The concrete that forms the
spillway crest and the piers of the pierand-stoplog structure shows extensive
visible deterioration at numerous
locations. In addition, the potential for
ice damage to the stoplog piers requires
that reservoir water levels be dropped
each winter. The headgate structures at
the North Side Canal and South Side
Canal also show serious concrete
deterioration similar to that seen along
the spillway. The current conditions of
the Minidoka Dam spillway and
headgate structures present increasingly
difficult reliability and maintenance
problems. If structural problems are not
corrected there is potential of partial or
complete failure of the spillway and
headgates. If these failures occur,
Reclamation may not be able to meet
contractual obligations for water
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Timothy L. Personius,
Acting Regional Director, Pacific Northwest
Region.
[FR Doc. 2010–20284 Filed 8–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R5–R–2010–N116; BAC–4311–K9–S3]
Final Comprehensive Conservation
Plan; John Hay National Wildlife
Refuge, Merrimack County, NH
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of the final comprehensive
conservation plan (CCP) and finding of
no significant impact (FONSI) for the
environmental assessment (EA) for John
Hay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). In
this final CCP, we describe how we will
manage this refuge for the next 15 years.
ADDRESSES: You may view or obtain
copies of the final CCP and FONSI by
any of the following methods. You may
request a hard copy or CD–ROM.
Agency Web Site: Download a copy of
the document(s) at https://www.fws.gov/
northeast/planning/JohnHay/
ccphome.html.
Electronic mail:
northeastplanning@fws.gov. Include
‘‘John Hay final CCP’’ in the subject line
of the message.
U.S. Postal Service: Silvio O. Conte
National Fish and Wildlife Refuge
Complex, 103 East Plumtree Road,
Sunderland, MA 01375.
In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Call
413–548–8002 to make an appointment
during regular business hours at 103
East Plumtree Road, Sunderland,
Massachusetts.
Facsimile: 413–548–9725.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew French, Project Leader, Silvio
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
50778
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Notices
O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife
Refuge, 103 East Plumtree Road,
Sunderland, MA 01375; phone: 413–
548–8002; facsimile: 413–548–9725;
electronic mail:
andrew_french@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we finalize the CCP
process for John Hay NWR. We started
this plan’s development through a
notice in the Federal Register (73 FR
76376) on December 16, 2008. We
released the draft CCP/EA to the public,
announcing and requesting comments
in a notice of availability in the Federal
Register (75 FR 7287) on February 18,
2010.
John Hay NWR was established as a
migratory bird and wildlife reservation
in 1972. Alice Hay donated the 164-acre
summer estate of John Hay to the
Service. From 1987 to 2008, the refuge
was cooperatively managed by several
partners, including the New Hampshire
State Parks, and then The Fells, a nonprofit organization dedicated to
maintaining the John Hay estate. In
2008, the refuge transferred 84 acres
containing the estate buildings and
grounds to The Fells and retained
approximately 80 forested acres on the
shores of Lake Sunapee in Newbury,
New Hampshire, as John Hay NWR. In
exchange for this land transfer,
727 (+/-) acres were appended to
Umbagog NWR. Refuge property
extends to the normal high-water line.
Therefore, when we refer to Service
ownership or describe shoreline refuge
management actions, we generally mean
those areas above the normal high-water
line.
We announce our decision and the
availability of the FONSI for the final
CCP for John Hay NWR in accordance
with National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6(b))
requirements. We completed a thorough
analysis of impacts on the human
environment, which we included in the
draft CCP/EA.
The CCP will guide us in managing
and administering John Hay NWR for
the next 15 years. Alternative B, as we
described in the draft CCP/EA, is the
foundation for the final CCP.
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Background
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
668dd–668ee) (Administration Act), as
amended by the National Wildlife
Refuge System Improvement Act of
1997, requires us to develop a CCP for
each national wildlife refuge. The
purpose for developing a CCP is to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 Aug 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
provide refuge managers with a 15-year
plan for achieving refuge purposes and
contributing toward the mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System
(NWRS), consistent with sound
principles of fish and wildlife
management, conservation, legal
mandates, and our policies. In addition
to outlining broad management
direction on conserving wildlife and
their habitats, CCPs identify 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 the CCP at least every 15 years
in accordance with the Administration
Act.
CCP Alternatives, Including Selected
Alternative
Our draft CCP/EA (75 FR 7287)
addressed several key issues, including
the amount of grasslands 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.
To address these issues and develop
a plan based on the purposes for
establishing the refuge and the vision
and goals we identified, three
alternatives were evaluated in the EA.
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,
and distributing refuge revenue-sharing
payments to counties.
Other actions distinguish the
alternatives. Alternative A, or the ‘‘No
Action Alternative,’’ is defined by our
current management activities. It serves
as the baseline against which to
compare the other two alternatives. Our
habitat management and visitor services
programs would not change under this
alternative. We would continue to use
the same tools and techniques, and not
expand existing facilities. Under
Alternative A, we would continue to
passively manage refuge lands through
collaboration with partners and the
Service would have minimal presence.
Habitat management would be limited
to promoting visitor safety and
responding to invasive plants or animals
that can impact habitat integrity or
priority wildlife. No other active
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
wildlife or habitat management would
occur except the existing mowing of the
meadow and viewing corridor, which
provides early successional forest
habitat. Minimal coordination with The
Fells, Forest Society, Lake Sunapee
Protective Association, and New
Hampshire Audubon for wildlife, water
quality, and habitat protection would
continue on an as-needed basis. The
current level and types of visitor
services would continue on the refuge.
Administration of visitor services, land
protection, and biological and law
enforcement activities would be
handled by existing staff from Silvio O.
Conte National Fish and Wildlife
Refuge. We would maintain our current
minimal visitor services, biological and
law enforcement activities, and
administration through the Sunderland
office as funds and staffing permit.
Alternative B (the Service-preferred
alternative) includes an array of
management actions that, in our
professional judgment, work best
toward achieving the purposes of the
refuge, our vision and goals for those
lands, the NWRS mission, and the goals
in State and regional conservation
plans. Under Alternative B, we would
emphasize the management of specific
refuge habitats to support focal species
whose habitat needs benefit other
species of conservation concern in the
Lake Sunapee region. In particular, we
would emphasize habitat for priority
bird species of conservation concern in
the Bird Conservation Region 14 and
Partners in Flight Physiographic Area 27
plans, New Hampshire Wildlife Action
Plan, Birds of Conservation Concern
2008, and other conservation plans at
State and national scales. We would
strive to integrate the habitat
management objectives for species of
concern with maintaining the cultural
heritage of the former John Hay estate.
In addition, we would focus on making
improvements to our visitor services
through the addition of seasonal on-site
staff, fishing as an approved public use,
and a minor expansion of our trail
system on the refuge. We would
construct an alternate route for the John
Hay II Forest Ecology Trail to allow
visitors to return to the trailhead
without entering The Fells’ property,
post explanatory signage at the trailhead
and at the point of entry to The Fells,
install a kiosk at the trailhead and
interpretive and informational signs
throughout the refuge to incrementally
increase visitor awareness of refuge
resources, add a spur trail to the fen and
back with informational signage on the
ecology of fens, and install a
footbridge(s) where stream crossing of
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Notices
Beech Brook is a concern for public
safety and stream health. Finally, our
biological program would be enhanced
through partnerships that would
increase our ability to conduct surveys
and long-term monitoring.
Alternative C is similar in many
respects to Alternative B, but proposes
more intensive forest management and
wildlife dependent recreation, with a
philosophy of maintaining the character
and history of the forest, to the extent
that it does not compromise the refuge
purposes and goals. Generally, white
pine (Pinus strobus) and other native
species would be encouraged to
regenerate. The addition of permanent
staff would enhance the visitor services
program through a much broader array
of programming and outreach. In
addition to the trail and signage
improvements proposed with
Alternative B, under Alternative C we
would improve the Ecology Trail to be
compliant with the Americans with
Disabilities Act and lead to a viewing
platform at the lakeshore. Both fishing
and hunting would be added as new
public uses at the refuge. Biological
programs would incorporate more
surveys and the ability to conduct
habitat improvements.
Comments
We solicited comments on the draft
CCP/EA for a 30-day period of public
review and comment from February 18
to March 22, 2010, and held a public
meeting on March 11, 2010, in
Newbury, New Hampshire. We received
18 unique letters and oral comments
representing individuals, organizations,
and State agencies. Appendix F in the
final CCP includes a summary of those
comments and our responses to them.
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with NOTICES
Selected Alternative
After considering the comments we
received on our draft CCP/EA, we have
selected Alternative B for
implementation for several reasons.
Alternative B comprises the mix of
actions that, in our professional
judgment, works best towards achieving
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. The
basis of our decision is detailed in
Appendix G of the CCP.
Public Availability of Documents
You can view or obtain documents as
indicated under ADDRESSES.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:16 Aug 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
Dated: June 24, 2010.
Sherry W. Morgan,
Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–20305 Filed 8–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
50779
Oregon 97754, (541) 416–6889 or e-mail:
christina_lilienthal@blm.gov.
Deborah Henderson-Norton,
District Manager, BLM Prineville District
Office.
[FR Doc. 2010–20231 Filed 8–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–33–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[LLORP00000.L10200000.PI0000; HAG10–
0350]
Bureau of Land Management
Notice of Public Meeting, John Day/
Snake Resource Advisory Council
AGENCY:
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
Meeting Notice for the John
Day/Snake Resource Advisory Council.
ACTION:
Pursuant to the Federal Land
Policy and Management Act and the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, the
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau
of Land Management (BLM) John DaySnake Resource Advisory Council
(JDSRAC) will meet as indicated below.
DATES: The JDSRAC meeting will begin
at 8 a.m. (Pacific daylight time) on
September 10, 2010.
ADDRESSES: The JDSRAC will meet at
the La Grande Ranger Station, WallowaWhitman National Forest, located at
3502 Highway 30, La Grande, Oregon
97850. For a copy of material to be
discussed or the conference call
number, please contact the BLM,
Prineville District; information below.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
JDSRAC will conduct a public meeting
to discuss several topics, including the
Malheur National Forest’s travel
management alternatives, the Blue
Mountain Forest Plan Revision
alternatives, and updates on the
Boardman to Hemingway Transmission
Project and Baker Resource Management
Plan. An informational presentation will
be given titled ‘Endangered Species Act
101.’ Prior to the Council meeting, a
fieldtrip will occur on September 9,
2010, to follow-up on previous
discussions regarding the North End
Umatilla Sheep Plan. Public comment is
scheduled from 1 p.m. to 1:15 p.m.
(Pacific daylight time) September 10,
2010, during the Council Meeting. For a
copy of information distributed to
JDSRAC members, please contact the
BLM Prineville District Office by
telephone at (541) 416–6700 or at the
address listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christina Lilienthal, Public Affairs
Specialist, BLM Prineville District
Office, 3050 NE Third, Prineville,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
[LLCAC01000 L10200000 XZ0000
LXSIOVHD0000]
Public Meeting of the Central California
Resource Advisory Council
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act of 1972, the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Central
California Resource Advisory Council
(RAC) will meet as indicated below.
DATES: The meeting will be held Friday,
Sept. 17, 2010, at the Harris Ranch,
24505 West Dorris Avenue, Coalinga,
CA, beginning at 9 a.m. Time for public
comment is reserved from 11 a.m. to
noon.
On Sept. 18, RAC members will tour
lands managed by BLM’s Hollister Field
Office west of Interstate 5.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
BLM Central California District Manager
Kathy Hardy, (916) 978–4626; or BLM
Public Affairs Officer David Christy,
(916) 941–3146.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 12member council advises the Secretary of
the Interior, through the BLM, on a
variety of planning and management
issues associated with public land
management in Central California. At
this meeting, agenda topics will include
an update on Resource Management
Plans and other resource management
issues. Additional ongoing business will
be discussed by the council. All
meetings are open to the public.
Members of the public may present
written comments to the council. Each
formal council meeting will have time
allocated for public comments.
Depending on the number of persons
wishing to speak, and the time
available, the time for individual
comments may be limited. The meeting
and tour are open to the public, but
individuals who wish to attend the tour
must provide their own vehicles, food
and water. High-clearance vehicles are
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\17AUN1.SGM
17AUN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50777-50779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-20305]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R5-R-2010-N116; BAC-4311-K9-S3]
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan; John Hay National Wildlife
Refuge, Merrimack County, NH
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of the final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and
finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the environmental
assessment (EA) for John Hay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). In this
final CCP, we describe how we will manage this refuge for the next 15
years.
ADDRESSES: You may view or obtain copies of the final CCP and FONSI by
any of the following methods. You may request a hard copy or CD-ROM.
Agency Web Site: Download a copy of the document(s) at https://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/JohnHay/ccphome.html.
Electronic mail: northeastplanning@fws.gov. Include ``John Hay
final CCP'' in the subject line of the message.
U.S. Postal Service: Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife
Refuge Complex, 103 East Plumtree Road, Sunderland, MA 01375.
In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Call 413-548-8002 to make an
appointment during regular business hours at 103 East Plumtree Road,
Sunderland, Massachusetts.
Facsimile: 413-548-9725.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew French, Project Leader, Silvio
[[Page 50778]]
O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge, 103 East Plumtree Road,
Sunderland, MA 01375; phone: 413-548-8002; facsimile: 413-548-9725;
electronic mail: andrew_french@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for John Hay NWR. We
started this plan's development through a notice in the Federal
Register (73 FR 76376) on December 16, 2008. We released the draft CCP/
EA to the public, announcing and requesting comments in a notice of
availability in the Federal Register (75 FR 7287) on February 18, 2010.
John Hay NWR was established as a migratory bird and wildlife
reservation in 1972. Alice Hay donated the 164-acre summer estate of
John Hay to the Service. From 1987 to 2008, the refuge was
cooperatively managed by several partners, including the New Hampshire
State Parks, and then The Fells, a non-profit organization dedicated to
maintaining the John Hay estate. In 2008, the refuge transferred 84
acres containing the estate buildings and grounds to The Fells and
retained approximately 80 forested acres on the shores of Lake Sunapee
in Newbury, New Hampshire, as John Hay NWR. In exchange for this land
transfer, 727 (+/-) acres were appended to Umbagog NWR. Refuge property
extends to the normal high-water line. Therefore, when we refer to
Service ownership or describe shoreline refuge management actions, we
generally mean those areas above the normal high-water line.
We announce our decision and the availability of the FONSI for the
final CCP for John Hay NWR in accordance with National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1506.6(b)) requirements. We completed a
thorough analysis of impacts on the human environment, which we
included in the draft CCP/EA.
The CCP will guide us in managing and administering John Hay NWR
for the next 15 years. Alternative B, as we described in the draft CCP/
EA, is the foundation for the final CCP.
Background
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), as amended by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop
a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a
CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving
refuge purposes and contributing toward the mission of the National
Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), consistent with sound principles of fish
and wildlife management, conservation, legal mandates, and our
policies. In addition to outlining broad management direction on
conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-
dependent recreational opportunities available to the public, including
opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will
review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with
the Administration Act.
CCP Alternatives, Including Selected Alternative
Our draft CCP/EA (75 FR 7287) addressed several key issues,
including the amount of grasslands 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.
To address these issues and develop a plan based on the purposes
for establishing the refuge and the vision and goals we identified,
three alternatives were evaluated in the EA. 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,
and distributing refuge revenue-sharing payments to counties.
Other actions distinguish the alternatives. Alternative A, or the
``No Action Alternative,'' is defined by our current management
activities. It serves as the baseline against which to compare the
other two alternatives. Our habitat management and visitor services
programs would not change under this alternative. We would continue to
use the same tools and techniques, and not expand existing facilities.
Under Alternative A, we would continue to passively manage refuge lands
through collaboration with partners and the Service would have minimal
presence. Habitat management would be limited to promoting visitor
safety and responding to invasive plants or animals that can impact
habitat integrity or priority wildlife. No other active wildlife or
habitat management would occur except the existing mowing of the meadow
and viewing corridor, which provides early successional forest habitat.
Minimal coordination with The Fells, Forest Society, Lake Sunapee
Protective Association, and New Hampshire Audubon for wildlife, water
quality, and habitat protection would continue on an as-needed basis.
The current level and types of visitor services would continue on the
refuge. Administration of visitor services, land protection, and
biological and law enforcement activities would be handled by existing
staff from Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife Refuge. We would
maintain our current minimal visitor services, biological and law
enforcement activities, and administration through the Sunderland
office as funds and staffing permit.
Alternative B (the Service-preferred alternative) includes an array
of management actions that, in our professional judgment, work best
toward achieving the purposes of the refuge, our vision and goals for
those lands, the NWRS mission, and the goals in State and regional
conservation plans. Under Alternative B, we would emphasize the
management of specific refuge habitats to support focal species whose
habitat needs benefit other species of conservation concern in the Lake
Sunapee region. In particular, we would emphasize habitat for priority
bird species of conservation concern in the Bird Conservation Region 14
and Partners in Flight Physiographic Area 27 plans, New Hampshire
Wildlife Action Plan, Birds of Conservation Concern 2008, and other
conservation plans at State and national scales. We would strive to
integrate the habitat management objectives for species of concern with
maintaining the cultural heritage of the former John Hay estate. In
addition, we would focus on making improvements to our visitor services
through the addition of seasonal on-site staff, fishing as an approved
public use, and a minor expansion of our trail system on the refuge. We
would construct an alternate route for the John Hay II Forest Ecology
Trail to allow visitors to return to the trailhead without entering The
Fells' property, post explanatory signage at the trailhead and at the
point of entry to The Fells, install a kiosk at the trailhead and
interpretive and informational signs throughout the refuge to
incrementally increase visitor awareness of refuge resources, add a
spur trail to the fen and back with informational signage on the
ecology of fens, and install a footbridge(s) where stream crossing of
[[Page 50779]]
Beech Brook is a concern for public safety and stream health. Finally,
our biological program would be enhanced through partnerships that
would increase our ability to conduct surveys and long-term monitoring.
Alternative C is similar in many respects to Alternative B, but
proposes more intensive forest management and wildlife dependent
recreation, with a philosophy of maintaining the character and history
of the forest, to the extent that it does not compromise the refuge
purposes and goals. Generally, white pine (Pinus strobus) and other
native species would be encouraged to regenerate. The addition of
permanent staff would enhance the visitor services program through a
much broader array of programming and outreach. In addition to the
trail and signage improvements proposed with Alternative B, under
Alternative C we would improve the Ecology Trail to be compliant with
the Americans with Disabilities Act and lead to a viewing platform at
the lakeshore. Both fishing and hunting would be added as new public
uses at the refuge. Biological programs would incorporate more surveys
and the ability to conduct habitat improvements.
Comments
We solicited comments on the draft CCP/EA for a 30-day period of
public review and comment from February 18 to March 22, 2010, and held
a public meeting on March 11, 2010, in Newbury, New Hampshire. We
received 18 unique letters and oral comments representing individuals,
organizations, and State agencies. Appendix F in the final CCP includes
a summary of those comments and our responses to them.
Selected Alternative
After considering the comments we received on our draft CCP/EA, we
have selected Alternative B for implementation for several reasons.
Alternative B comprises the mix of actions that, in our professional
judgment, works best towards achieving 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. The basis of our decision is detailed in Appendix
G of the CCP.
Public Availability of Documents
You can view or obtain documents as indicated under ADDRESSES.
Dated: June 24, 2010.
Sherry W. Morgan,
Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-20305 Filed 8-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P