Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge, Fairfax County, VA, and Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge, Prince William County, VA; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, 582-584 [2010-33340]
Download as PDF
582
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R5–R–2010–N137; BAC–4311–K9–S3]
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck
National Wildlife Refuge, Fairfax
County, VA, and Featherstone National
Wildlife Refuge, Prince William County,
VA; Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
Notice of availability; request
for comments.
ACTION:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of the draft comprehensive
conservation plan and the
environmental assessment (CCP/EA) for
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck (Mason
Neck) National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
and Featherstone NWR for a 45-day
public review and comment period. The
draft CCP/EA describes three
alternatives for managing Mason Neck
NWR and two alternatives for managing
Featherstone NWR for the next 15 years.
Alternative B is identified for both
refuges as the Service-preferred
alternative. Also available for public
review and comment are the draft
compatibility determinations, which are
included as appendix B in the draft
CCP/EA.
DATES: To ensure our consideration of
your written comments, please send
them by February 22, 2011. We will also
hold public meetings. We will announce
upcoming public meetings in local news
media, via our project mailing list, and
on our regional planning Web site,
https://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/
MasonNeck_Featherstone/
ccphome.html
SUMMARY:
You may submit comments
or requests for copies or more
information by any of the following
methods. You may request hard copies
or a CD–ROM of the documents.
Electronic mail:
northeastplanning@fws.gov. Please
include ‘‘Mason Neck and Featherstone
NWRs CCP’’ in the subject line of your
e-mail.
U.S. Postal Service: Nancy McGarigal,
Natural Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center
Drive, Hadley, MA 01035.
Facsimile: Attention: Nancy
McGarigal, 413–253–8468.
In-Person Drop-off, Viewing, or
Pickup: Call 703–490–4979 to make an
appointment during regular business
hours at the Potomac River NWR
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
Complex headquarters office, 14344
Jefferson Davis Highway, Woodbridge,
VA 22191–2716.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg
Weiler, Refuge Manager, Potomac River
NWR Complex, 14344 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Woodbridge, VA 22191–2716;
phone: 703–490–4979; facsimile: 703–
490–5631; electronic mail:
fw5rw_msnnwr@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP
process for Mason Neck and
Featherstone NWRs. We published our
original notice of intent to prepare a
CCP in the Federal Register on May 18,
2007 (72 FR 28066).
Mason Neck and Featherstone NWRs,
together with Occoquan Bay NWR,
comprise the Potomac River NWR
Complex headquartered in Woodbridge,
Virginia. Mason Neck NWR was
established in 1969 as the first national
wildlife refuge specifically created to
protect a federally listed species. The
refuge was created under the authority
of the Endangered Species Preservation
Act of 1966, the precursor to the
current-day Endangered Species Act of
1973. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), which was federally
listed as threatened in 1969 was, and
continues to be, the focal species of
concern on the refuge. Due to successful
recovery efforts throughout its range, the
bald eagle was officially removed from
the Federal list in 2007. It continues to
be protected, however, under other
Federal laws and by the Commonwealth
of Virginia. Mason Neck NWR
encompasses 2,277 acres of forest,
marsh, and riverine habitat along
Occoquan Bay and the mainstem of the
tidal Potomac River. Refuge visitors
engage in wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education
and interpretation, and fall deer
hunting.
Featherstone NWR was established in
1979 with land acquired from the
District of Columbia. It was further
expanded in 1992 with lands donated
by Prince William County. It presently
encompasses 325 acres of marsh and
forested riverine habitat along the
southwest edge of Occoquan Bay. Its
wetlands are important habitat for bald
eagles, wading birds, waterbirds, and
waterfowl, as well as other native
species of conservation concern. The
refuge is presently closed to public use
and access for public safety reasons;
there is currently no public parking
available or safe access across the
railroad tracks, which lie along the
length of the refuge’s western boundary.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
668dd–668ee) (Refuge 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 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 Refuge
Administration Act.
Public Outreach
In March 2007, we distributed two
issues of a workbook/planning
newsletter, one for each refuge, to
several hundred people on our project
mailing list. We asked the recipients
about their interest in the refuges and
whether they had issues or concerns
they would like us to address. We also
posted the newsletters online for people
to access electronically. In addition, we
notified the general public of our
planning kick-off and our interest in
hearing about issues and concerns by
publishing news releases in several
local and regional newspapers. We also
held two public scoping meetings in
March 2007 in the cities of Woodbridge
and Lorton, Virginia. The purpose of
those meetings was to share information
on the planning process, and to solicit
management issues and concerns.
Throughout the process, refuge staff
have conducted additional outreach via
participation in community meetings,
events, and other public forums.
Key issues common to both refuges
identified by the public and our
partners included:
• Developing a biological program
with enough depth to address concerns
about the biological diversity, health,
and integrity of the refuges’ forests and
wetlands, and with capability to
monitor for climate change impacts;
• Improving water quality;
• Protecting both refuges’ shorelines;
E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM
05JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Notices
• Controlling invasive plants and
forest pests;
• Controlling an over-abundant deer
population;
• Creating trail connections on and
off the refuges;
• Increasing opportunities for
compatible public uses; and
• Providing more opportunities for
hunting.
Issues specific to Mason Neck NWR
include management of the great blue
heron rookery at Great Marsh and
management of refuge impoundments.
Issues specific to Featherstone NWR
include the lack of safe public access to
the refuge and the proposal for a
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail
segment to run through the refuge. We
have considered and evaluated all of
these comments in the various
alternatives addressed in the draft CCP/
EA.
CCP Alternatives We Are Considering
We developed three management
alternatives for Mason Neck NWR and
two alternatives for Featherstone NWR
based on their respective establishment
purposes, the vision and goals we
developed, and the issues and concerns
that the public, State, and Federal
agencies, and the Service raised during
the planning process. A full description
of each alternative is in the EA. The
alternatives identify several actions in
common. On both Mason Neck and
Featherstone NWRs, all alternatives
include measures to protect wetlands
and refuge shorelines, control invasive
plant species, protect cultural resources,
establish baseline conditions and
monitor for climate change impacts,
distribute refuge revenue sharing
payments, and continue participation in
conservation and education
partnerships.
There are other actions that differ
among the alternatives. The draft CCP/
EA describes each alternative in detail
and relates them to the issues and
concerns that arose during the planning
process. Below, we provide summaries
for the three Mason Neck NWR
alternatives, followed by summaries for
the two Featherstone NWR alternatives.
Mason Neck NWR Alternatives
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Alternative A (Current Management)
This alternative is the ‘‘No Action’’
alternative required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Alternative A defines our current
management activities, including those
planned, funded, or underway, and
serves as the baseline against which to
compare Alternatives B and C.
Alternative A would maintain our
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:26 Jan 04, 2011
Jkt 223001
present refuge staffing level and our
visitor services facilities, including
existing trails and viewing platforms.
We would continue to emphasize
wildlife observation and photography
opportunities, and provide a fall deer
hunt. Our biological program priorities
would continue to be protecting the
refuge’s wetlands and upland forest for
migratory birds, with particular
emphasis on protecting nesting bald
eagles and the great blue heron rookery.
Controlling invasive plants would also
continue to be an important part of our
program.
Alternative B (Improved Management
for Trust Resources)
This is the Service-preferred
alternative. It combines the actions we
believe would best achieve the refuge’s
purposes, vision and goals, and the
NWRS policy on Biological Integrity,
Diversity, and Environmental Health
(601 FW 3). This alternative would also
be best in responding to the issues that
arose during the planning process.
Alternative B would improve our
management of refuge habitats to
support Federal trust resources and
species of conservation concern. In
particular, our priority would be to
enhance our management of the refuge’s
upland forests to benefit bald eagles,
great blue heron, and other forestdependent migratory birds through
measures such as prescribed fire, forest
thinning, and planting of trees, to
improve forest health. We would also
pursue actions to improve habitat
quality in the refuge’s marsh habitat to
benefit bald eagles, waterfowl,
waterbirds, and interjurisdictional fish.
These actions include working with
partners to improve water quality and
clean up debris in Great Marsh,
upgrading the water-control structure
and altering the water-level regime in
Little Marsh to promote better foraging
opportunities, and improving fish
passage.
Both the improvement of our current
trails and addition of new trails and
observation platforms would offer
increased opportunities for wildlife
observation, photography, and
interpretation. We would also expand
our interpretive programs and outreach
efforts to inform and involve more
people in working towards refuge goals.
Alternative C (Enhanced Public Use
Management)
Alternative C would manage habitat
similar to Alternative A, but would
expand wildlife-dependent public use
programs beyond that which is
proposed under either Alternatives A or
B. We would devote more staff time and
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
583
resources to offering new or improved
compatible priority public programs.
For example, we would offer a new
muzzleloader deer hunting season,
construct additional photography
blinds, and offer more guided and selfguided wildlife observation tours and
environmental education programs.
Featherstone NWR Alternatives
Alternative A (Current Management)
Similar to Alternative A for Mason
Neck NWR, this alternative satisfies the
NEPA requirement for a ‘‘No Action’’
alternative. It describes our current
management priorities and activities,
and serves as a baseline for comparing
and contrasting Alternative B. Under
Alternative A, Featherstone NWR would
continue to be closed to all public use
and access. Our priorities would be to
protect the refuge from vandalism and
trespassing, control invasive plants, and
monitor for threats to wildlife and
habitats.
Alternative B (Enhanced Management)
This is the Service-preferred
alternative. Habitat and species
management would focus on protecting
sensitive nesting areas from human
disturbance, and monitoring for and
treating invasive plants, pests, and
pathogens to avoid catastrophic loss or
degradation of habitat. Under
Alternative B, we would also continue
to work with Prince William County to
secure public parking and legal and safe
pedestrian access to the refuge, which
has been an issue since refuge
establishment. Once that access is
secured and we have the additional staff
to manage those activities, we would
provide opportunities for wildlife
observation and nature photography on
designated trails, and fishing at
designated sites.
Under Alternative B, within 5 years,
we would evaluate a proposal to
provide opportunities for hunting. Other
alternatives, including no action, would
be considered in that hunt program
evaluation, and there would be public
involvement before making a final
decision on the types of hunting
opportunities offered.
Public Availability of Documents
In addition to any methods in
you can view or obtain
documents from the agency Web site,
https://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/
MasonNeck_Featherstone/
ccphome.html.
ADDRESSES,
Next Steps
After this comment period ends, we
will analyze the comments and address
E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM
05JAN1
584
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Notices
them in the form of a final CCP and
finding of no significant impact.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, electronic mail address, or
other personal identifying information
in your comments, you should be aware
that your entire comment—including
your personal identifying information—
may be made publicly available at any
time. While you can ask us in your
comment to withhold your personal
identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Dated: November 29, 2010.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA 01035.
Bureau of Reclamation,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
Bureau of Land Management
[LLAZ910000.L12100000.
XP0000LXSS150A00006100.241A]
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Arizona Resource
Advisory Council Meeting.
AGENCY:
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
The Glen Canyon Dam
Adaptive Management Program (AMP)
was implemented as a result of the
Record of Decision on the Operation of
Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental
Impact Statement to comply with
consultation requirements of the Grand
Canyon Protection Act (Pub. L. 102–
575) of 1992. The AMP includes a
Federal advisory committee, the
Adaptive Management Work Group
(AMWG), a technical work group
(TWG), a Grand Canyon Monitoring and
Research Center, and independent
review panels. The AMWG makes
recommendations to the Secretary of the
Interior concerning Glen Canyon Dam
operations and other management
actions to protect resources downstream
of Glen Canyon Dam consistent with the
Grand Canyon Protection Act. The TWG
is a subcommittee of the AMWG and
provides technical advice and
recommendations to the AMWG.
DATES: The AMWG will conduct the
meeting on Wednesday and Thursday,
February 9–10, 2011. The meeting will
begin at 9:30 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. the
first day and will begin at 8 a.m. and
conclude at approximately 3 p.m. on the
second day.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Fiesta Resort Conference Center,
Encantada Ballroom, 2100 S. Priest
Drive, Tempe, Arizona.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glen
Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation,
telephone (801) 524–3781; facsimile
SUMMARY:
State of Arizona Resource Advisory
Council Meeting
In accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act of 1972, the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), Arizona
Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will
meet on February 3, 2011, at the BLM
National Training Center located at 9828
North 31st Avenue in Phoenix from
8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Agenda items
include: BLM State Director’s update on
statewide programs and issues;
presentation on water; updates on the
Renewable Energy Strategy, Restoration
Design Energy Project Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
and Northern Arizona Proposed Mineral
Withdrawal Draft EIS; RAC questions on
BLM District Managers’ Reports; and
reports by the RAC working groups. A
public comment period will be provided
at 11:30 a.m. on February 3, 2011, for
any interested members of the public
who wish to address the Council on
BLM programs and business.
Under the Federal Lands Recreation
Enhancement Act, the RAC has been
designated as the Recreation Resource
Advisory Council (RRAC), and has the
authority to review all BLM and Forest
Jkt 223001
BILLING CODE 4310–32–P
Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive
Management Program Work Group
(AMWG)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
16:26 Jan 04, 2011
[FR Doc. 2010–33339 Filed 1–4–11; 8:45 am]
Bureau of Reclamation
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Dated: December 28, 2010.
James G. Kenna,
Arizona State Director.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[FR Doc. 2010–33340 Filed 1–4–11; 8:45 am]
SUMMARY:
Service (FS) recreation fee proposals in
Arizona. The RRAC will not review any
recreation fee proposals at this meeting.
DATES: Effective Date: February 3, 2011.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dorothea Boothe, Bureau of Land
Management, Arizona State Office, One
North Central Avenue, Suite 800,
Phoenix, Arizona 85004–4427, 602–
417–9504.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
(801) 524–3858; e-mail at
gknowles@usbr.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
Agenda: The primary purpose of the
meeting will be for the AMWG to
discuss the High Flow Experiment
Synthesis reports, status of sediment
inputs, and concerns about the Fiscal
Year 2011 workplan in light of reduced
agency budgets. Other issues to be
addressed will be: (1) Final report of
Fiscal Year 2010 expenditures, (2)
updates on High Flow Experimental
Protocol and the Non-native Fish
Control environmental assessments, (3)
Colorado River Basin hydrology, (4) and
the Long-Term Experimental and
Management Plan. In addition, there
will be updates from the Charter Ad Hoc
Group and a follow up report on the
work done by the Desired Future
Conditions Ad Hoc Group. The AMWG
will also address other administrative
and resource issues pertaining to the
AMP. To view a copy of the agenda and
documents related to the above meeting,
please visit Reclamation’s Web site at
https://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/
mtgs/11feb09/. Time will be
allowed at the meeting for any
individual or organization wishing to
make formal oral comments. To allow
for full consideration of information by
the AMWG members, written notice
must be provided to Glen Knowles,
Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado
Regional Office, 125 South State Street,
Room 6107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138;
telephone 801–524–3781; facsimile
801–524–3858; e-mail at
gknowles@usbr.gov at least five (5) days
prior to the meeting. Any written
comments received will be provided to
the AMWG members.
Public Disclosure of Comments
Before including your name, 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.
Dated: December 15, 2010.
Glen Knowles,
Chief, Adaptive Management Work Group,
Environmental Resources Division, Upper
Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City,
Utah.
[FR Doc. 2010–33338 Filed 1–4–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P
E:\FR\FM\05JAN1.SGM
05JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 582-584]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33340]
[[Page 582]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R5-R-2010-N137; BAC-4311-K9-S3]
Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck National Wildlife Refuge, Fairfax
County, VA, and Featherstone National Wildlife Refuge, Prince William
County, VA; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of the draft comprehensive conservation plan and the
environmental assessment (CCP/EA) for Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck
(Mason Neck) National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and Featherstone NWR for a
45-day public review and comment period. The draft CCP/EA describes
three alternatives for managing Mason Neck NWR and two alternatives for
managing Featherstone NWR for the next 15 years. Alternative B is
identified for both refuges as the Service-preferred alternative. Also
available for public review and comment are the draft compatibility
determinations, which are included as appendix B in the draft CCP/EA.
DATES: To ensure our consideration of your written comments, please
send them by February 22, 2011. We will also hold public meetings. We
will announce upcoming public meetings in local news media, via our
project mailing list, and on our regional planning Web site, https://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/MasonNeck_Featherstone/ccphome.html
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments or requests for copies or more
information by any of the following methods. You may request hard
copies or a CD-ROM of the documents.
Electronic mail: northeastplanning@fws.gov. Please include ``Mason
Neck and Featherstone NWRs CCP'' in the subject line of your e-mail.
U.S. Postal Service: Nancy McGarigal, Natural Resource Planner,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA
01035.
Facsimile: Attention: Nancy McGarigal, 413-253-8468.
In-Person Drop-off, Viewing, or Pickup: Call 703-490-4979 to make
an appointment during regular business hours at the Potomac River NWR
Complex headquarters office, 14344 Jefferson Davis Highway, Woodbridge,
VA 22191-2716.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg Weiler, Refuge Manager, Potomac
River NWR Complex, 14344 Jefferson Davis Highway, Woodbridge, VA 22191-
2716; phone: 703-490-4979; facsimile: 703-490-5631; electronic mail:
fw5rw_msnnwr@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Mason Neck and
Featherstone NWRs. We published our original notice of intent to
prepare a CCP in the Federal Register on May 18, 2007 (72 FR 28066).
Mason Neck and Featherstone NWRs, together with Occoquan Bay NWR,
comprise the Potomac River NWR Complex headquartered in Woodbridge,
Virginia. Mason Neck NWR was established in 1969 as the first national
wildlife refuge specifically created to protect a federally listed
species. The refuge was created under the authority of the Endangered
Species Preservation Act of 1966, the precursor to the current-day
Endangered Species Act of 1973. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), which was federally listed as threatened in 1969 was,
and continues to be, the focal species of concern on the refuge. Due to
successful recovery efforts throughout its range, the bald eagle was
officially removed from the Federal list in 2007. It continues to be
protected, however, under other Federal laws and by the Commonwealth of
Virginia. Mason Neck NWR encompasses 2,277 acres of forest, marsh, and
riverine habitat along Occoquan Bay and the mainstem of the tidal
Potomac River. Refuge visitors engage in wildlife observation and
photography, environmental education and interpretation, and fall deer
hunting.
Featherstone NWR was established in 1979 with land acquired from
the District of Columbia. It was further expanded in 1992 with lands
donated by Prince William County. It presently encompasses 325 acres of
marsh and forested riverine habitat along the southwest edge of
Occoquan Bay. Its wetlands are important habitat for bald eagles,
wading birds, waterbirds, and waterfowl, as well as other native
species of conservation concern. The refuge is presently closed to
public use and access for public safety reasons; there is currently no
public parking available or safe access across the railroad tracks,
which lie along the length of the refuge's western boundary.
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Refuge 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 each CCP at least every 15 years, in accordance with
the Refuge Administration Act.
Public Outreach
In March 2007, we distributed two issues of a workbook/planning
newsletter, one for each refuge, to several hundred people on our
project mailing list. We asked the recipients about their interest in
the refuges and whether they had issues or concerns they would like us
to address. We also posted the newsletters online for people to access
electronically. In addition, we notified the general public of our
planning kick-off and our interest in hearing about issues and concerns
by publishing news releases in several local and regional newspapers.
We also held two public scoping meetings in March 2007 in the cities of
Woodbridge and Lorton, Virginia. The purpose of those meetings was to
share information on the planning process, and to solicit management
issues and concerns. Throughout the process, refuge staff have
conducted additional outreach via participation in community meetings,
events, and other public forums.
Key issues common to both refuges identified by the public and our
partners included:
Developing a biological program with enough depth to
address concerns about the biological diversity, health, and integrity
of the refuges' forests and wetlands, and with capability to monitor
for climate change impacts;
Improving water quality;
Protecting both refuges' shorelines;
[[Page 583]]
Controlling invasive plants and forest pests;
Controlling an over-abundant deer population;
Creating trail connections on and off the refuges;
Increasing opportunities for compatible public uses; and
Providing more opportunities for hunting.
Issues specific to Mason Neck NWR include management of the great
blue heron rookery at Great Marsh and management of refuge
impoundments. Issues specific to Featherstone NWR include the lack of
safe public access to the refuge and the proposal for a Potomac
Heritage National Scenic Trail segment to run through the refuge. We
have considered and evaluated all of these comments in the various
alternatives addressed in the draft CCP/EA.
CCP Alternatives We Are Considering
We developed three management alternatives for Mason Neck NWR and
two alternatives for Featherstone NWR based on their respective
establishment purposes, the vision and goals we developed, and the
issues and concerns that the public, State, and Federal agencies, and
the Service raised during the planning process. A full description of
each alternative is in the EA. The alternatives identify several
actions in common. On both Mason Neck and Featherstone NWRs, all
alternatives include measures to protect wetlands and refuge
shorelines, control invasive plant species, protect cultural resources,
establish baseline conditions and monitor for climate change impacts,
distribute refuge revenue sharing payments, and continue participation
in conservation and education partnerships.
There are other actions that differ among the alternatives. The
draft CCP/EA describes each alternative in detail and relates them to
the issues and concerns that arose during the planning process. Below,
we provide summaries for the three Mason Neck NWR alternatives,
followed by summaries for the two Featherstone NWR alternatives.
Mason Neck NWR Alternatives
Alternative A (Current Management)
This alternative is the ``No Action'' alternative required by the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Alternative A defines our
current management activities, including those planned, funded, or
underway, and serves as the baseline against which to compare
Alternatives B and C. Alternative A would maintain our present refuge
staffing level and our visitor services facilities, including existing
trails and viewing platforms. We would continue to emphasize wildlife
observation and photography opportunities, and provide a fall deer
hunt. Our biological program priorities would continue to be protecting
the refuge's wetlands and upland forest for migratory birds, with
particular emphasis on protecting nesting bald eagles and the great
blue heron rookery. Controlling invasive plants would also continue to
be an important part of our program.
Alternative B (Improved Management for Trust Resources)
This is the Service-preferred alternative. It combines the actions
we believe would best achieve the refuge's purposes, vision and goals,
and the NWRS policy on Biological Integrity, Diversity, and
Environmental Health (601 FW 3). This alternative would also be best in
responding to the issues that arose during the planning process.
Alternative B would improve our management of refuge habitats to
support Federal trust resources and species of conservation concern. In
particular, our priority would be to enhance our management of the
refuge's upland forests to benefit bald eagles, great blue heron, and
other forest-dependent migratory birds through measures such as
prescribed fire, forest thinning, and planting of trees, to improve
forest health. We would also pursue actions to improve habitat quality
in the refuge's marsh habitat to benefit bald eagles, waterfowl,
waterbirds, and interjurisdictional fish. These actions include working
with partners to improve water quality and clean up debris in Great
Marsh, upgrading the water-control structure and altering the water-
level regime in Little Marsh to promote better foraging opportunities,
and improving fish passage.
Both the improvement of our current trails and addition of new
trails and observation platforms would offer increased opportunities
for wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation. We would
also expand our interpretive programs and outreach efforts to inform
and involve more people in working towards refuge goals.
Alternative C (Enhanced Public Use Management)
Alternative C would manage habitat similar to Alternative A, but
would expand wildlife-dependent public use programs beyond that which
is proposed under either Alternatives A or B. We would devote more
staff time and resources to offering new or improved compatible
priority public programs. For example, we would offer a new
muzzleloader deer hunting season, construct additional photography
blinds, and offer more guided and self-guided wildlife observation
tours and environmental education programs.
Featherstone NWR Alternatives
Alternative A (Current Management)
Similar to Alternative A for Mason Neck NWR, this alternative
satisfies the NEPA requirement for a ``No Action'' alternative. It
describes our current management priorities and activities, and serves
as a baseline for comparing and contrasting Alternative B. Under
Alternative A, Featherstone NWR would continue to be closed to all
public use and access. Our priorities would be to protect the refuge
from vandalism and trespassing, control invasive plants, and monitor
for threats to wildlife and habitats.
Alternative B (Enhanced Management)
This is the Service-preferred alternative. Habitat and species
management would focus on protecting sensitive nesting areas from human
disturbance, and monitoring for and treating invasive plants, pests,
and pathogens to avoid catastrophic loss or degradation of habitat.
Under Alternative B, we would also continue to work with Prince William
County to secure public parking and legal and safe pedestrian access to
the refuge, which has been an issue since refuge establishment. Once
that access is secured and we have the additional staff to manage those
activities, we would provide opportunities for wildlife observation and
nature photography on designated trails, and fishing at designated
sites.
Under Alternative B, within 5 years, we would evaluate a proposal
to provide opportunities for hunting. Other alternatives, including no
action, would be considered in that hunt program evaluation, and there
would be public involvement before making a final decision on the types
of hunting opportunities offered.
Public Availability of Documents
In addition to any methods in ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain
documents from the agency Web site, https://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/MasonNeck_Featherstone/ccphome.html.
Next Steps
After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and
address
[[Page 584]]
them in the form of a final CCP and finding of no significant impact.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, electronic mail
address, or other personal identifying information in your comments,
you should be aware that your entire comment--including your personal
identifying information--may be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal
identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Dated: November 29, 2010.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA
01035.
[FR Doc. 2010-33340 Filed 1-4-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P