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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.