Nantucket National Wildlife Refuge, Nantucket, MA; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Land Protection Plan, and Environmental Assessment, 46317-46320 [2011-19503]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 2, 2011 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
substantially transform the boards into
products of Singapore. Consequently,
we find that the country of origin of the
phones in this scenario is Singapore.
Scenario V:
This scenario is the inverse of
Scenario IV. Here, the application board
is assembled in Malaysia and
programmed in Singapore. The
transceiver board is assembled and
programmed in Malaysia. The phones
are assembled in Singapore, as
described in Scenario I.
Similar to Scenario IV, we find that
the programming and assembly
operations in Singapore substantially
transform the boards into products of
Singapore. Consequently, we find that
the country of origin of the phones in
this scenario is Singapore.
Scenario VI:
In this scenario, the ICs for the
transceiver boards that store the phones’
U.K.-origin firmware are programmed in
Singapore, prior to being incorporated
into the transceiver boards assembled in
Malaysia. The application board is
assembled and programmed in
Malaysia. The phones are then
assembled in Singapore, as described in
Scenario I.
As in Scenario I, we find that the
country where the last substantial
transformation takes place is Malaysia,
which is the country of origin of the
phones.
Marking
Section 304 of the Tariff Act of 1930,
as amended (19 U.S.C. § 1304), provides
that unless excepted, every article of
foreign origin imported into the United
States shall be marked in a conspicuous
place as legibly, indelibly, and
permanently as the nature of the article
(or its container) will permit, in such a
manner as to indicate to the ultimate
purchaser in the United States, the
English name of the country of origin of
the article. Congressional intent in
enacting 19 U.S.C. § 1304 was ‘‘that the
ultimate purchaser should be able to
know by an inspection of the marking
on the imported goods the country of
which the goods is the product. The
evident purpose is to mark the goods so
that at the time of purchase the ultimate
purchaser may, by knowing where the
goods were produced, be able to buy or
refuse to buy them, if such marking
should influence his will.’’ United
States v. Friedlander & Co., 27 C.C.P.A.
297 at 302; C.A.D. 104 (1940).
Part 134, CBP Regulations (19 C.F.R.
§ 134) implements the country of origin
marking requirements and exceptions of
19 U.S.C. § 1304. Section 134.1(b), CBP
Regulations (19 C.F.R. § 134.1(b)),
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Aug 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
defines ‘‘country of origin’’ as ‘‘the
country of manufacture, production, or
growth of any article of foreign origin
entering the United States. Further work
or material added to an article in
another country must effect a
substantial transformation in order to
render such other country the ‘country
of origin’ within the meaning of [the
marking laws and regulations].’’ For
country of origin marking purposes, a
substantial transformation of an article
occurs when it is used in manufacture,
which results in an article having a
name, character, or use differing from
that of the article before the processing.
However, if the manufacturing or
combining process is merely a minor
one that leaves the identity of the article
intact, a substantial transformation has
not occurred. See Uniroyal, Inc. v.
United States, 3 Ct. Int’l Trade 220, 543
F. Supp. 1026, 1029 (1982), aff’d, 702
F.2d 1022 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In Scenarios I, II, and VI, the country
where the last substantial
transformation occurs is Malaysia.
Accordingly, in these scenarios the
country of origin for marking purposes
is Malaysia, and the phones may be
marked ‘‘Made in Malaysia’’. In
Scenarios III through V, the country
where the last substantial
transformation takes place is Singapore.
Therefore, in these scenarios the
country of origin for marking purposes
is Singapore, and the phones may be
marked ‘‘Made in Singapore’’. Your
suggested marking, ‘‘Substantially
Transformed in [country]’’, would be
confusing to the ultimate purchaser.
HOLDING:
Based on the facts of this case, we
find that in Scenarios I, II and VI, the
country where the last substantial
transformation takes place is Malaysia.
The country of origin of the Iridium
9555 satellite phones is Malaysia for
purposes of U.S. Government
procurement and country of origin
marking.
In Scenarios III through V, the country
where the last substantial
transformation takes place is Singapore.
The country of origin of the Iridium
9555 satellite phones is Singapore for
purposes of U.S. Government
procurement and country of origin
marking.
Notice of this final determination will
be given in the Federal Register, as
required by 19 C.F.R. § 177.29. Any
party-at-interest other than the party
which requested this final
determination may request, pursuant to
19 C.F.R. § 177.31, that CBP reexamine
the matter anew and issue a new final
determination. Pursuant to 19 C.F.R.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46317
§ 177.30, any party-at-interest may,
within 30 days of publication of the
Federal Register Notice referenced
above, seek judicial review of this final
determination before the Court of
International Trade.
Sincerely,
Sandra L. Bell,
Executive Director, Regulations and
Rulings Office of International Trade.
[FR Doc. 2011–19559 Filed 8–1–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R5–R–2009–N184; BAC–4311–K9–S3]
Nantucket National Wildlife Refuge,
Nantucket, MA; Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan, Land Protection
Plan, and Environmental Assessment
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive
conservation plan (CCP), including a
land protection plan (LPP), and
environmental assessment (EA) for
Nantucket National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR) for public review and comment.
The draft CCP/EA describes our
proposal for managing the refuge for the
next 15 years.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please
send your written comments by
September 1, 2011. We will hold at least
one public meeting in Nantucket, MA,
during the public comment period to
receive comments and provide
information on the draft plan. We will
also announce opportunities for public
input in local news media, our project
mailing list, and on our regional
planning Web site: https://www.fws.gov/
northeast/planning/nantucket/
ccphome.html.
SUMMARY:
You may submit comments
or requests for copies or more
information by any one of the following
methods. You may request hard copies
or a CD–ROM of the documents.
E-mail: northeastplanning@fws.gov.
Include ‘‘Nantucket NWR draft CCP/
EA’’ in the subject line of the message.
Fax: Attention: Carl Melberg, 978–
443–2898.
U.S. Mail: Eastern Massachusetts
NWR Complex, 73 Weir Hill Road,
Sudbury, MA 01776.
In-Person Drop-off, Viewing, or
Pickup: Call 978–443–4661 to make an
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM
02AUN1
46318
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 2, 2011 / Notices
appointment (necessary for view/pickup
only) during regular business hours at
the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl
Melberg, Planning Team Leader, 978–
443–4661, extension 32 (phone);
northeastplanning@fws.gov (e-mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP
process for Nantucket NWR, on
Nantucket Island in the Town of
Nantucket, Massachusetts. We started
this process through a notice in the
Federal Register (73 FR 18806; April 7,
2008).
Nantucket NWR was established in
1973, under an Act Authorizing the
Transfer of Certain Real Property for
Wildlife, or other Purposes (16 U.S.C.
667b, Pub. L. 80–537), which authorized
the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to transfer
the property to the Service, because of
‘‘its particular value in carrying out the
Migratory Bird Act.’’ The USCG
currently maintains ownership of a 1acre inholding on the refuge that
contains the Great Point Lighthouse.
Nantucket NWR lies at the northern tip
of a narrow peninsula that forms the
northernmost point of Nantucket Island.
The tip is known locally as ‘‘Great
Point,’’ and the peninsula is known as
the ‘‘Coskata-Coatue Peninsula.’’ The
only way visitors can access the refuge
by land is via a road through The
Trustees of Reservations’ (TTOR)
Coskata-Coatue Refuge and Nantucket
Conservation Foundation (NCF)
properties, both of which lie due south
of the refuge on the peninsula.
The refuge erodes and accretes
constantly, but averages 20 acres in size.
The refuge is a barrier beach system,
where two longshore currents meet to
form a rip current and dynamically
erode and/or build the spit. The refuge
is composed of beach and dune habitat
that serves the needs of a wide diversity
of water and land birds of conservation
concern, including seabirds, colonial
nesting birds such as common and
roseate terns, shorebirds such as piping
plover and oystercatcher, and marine
mammals such as gray seals. Nantucket
NWR is one of eight refuges in the
Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Aug 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
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 the CCP at least every 15 years
in accordance with the Refuge
Administration Act.
Public Outreach
The extensive planning history for
this refuge began with the publication of
a notice in the Federal Register (64 FR
9166; February 24, 1999) announcing
we were preparing a CCP and
environmental impact statement (EIS)
for all eight refuges in what was then
known as the Great Meadows NWR
Complex. In 2001, we determined it was
not feasible to prepare a single CCP for
all eight refuges, and thus prepared
another notice in the Federal Register
(66 FR 10506; February 15, 2001), to
indicate that a CCP/EIS would be
prepared for Monomoy, Nantucket, and
Nomans Land Island NWRs. However,
no work was initiated on the plan at that
time. In 2008, because of the different
issues facing the refuges, the Service
determined it was more efficient to
proceed through the CCP process for
each refuge separately, and published a
notice in the Federal Register (73 FR
18806; April 7, 2008) to begin a separate
CCP/EA process for Nantucket NWR. At
that time, and throughout the process,
we requested public comments and
considered and incorporated them in
numerous ways.
The CCP planning team consisted of
Service staff from refuges, planning,
visitor services, migratory bird, and
endangered species, as well as
representatives from the Massachusetts
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, the
Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head
(Aquinnah) (WTOGHA), and the
Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (MWT).
Partner and public meetings were held
during October 2008. Attendees to the
partner and public meetings included
the Service, WTOGHA, MWT, TTOR,
NCF, Massachusetts Audubon,
Nantucket Anglers Club, Maria Mitchell
Association, Nantucket Civic League,
Nantucket Land Council, Nantucket
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Wetlands Board, and numerous
unaffiliated individuals.
Issues from the public comment
period focused on maintaining a balance
between resource protection and beach
access, increasing education and
interpretation of the resources,
increasing communications about
management decisions, and cooperating
in land management with adjacent land
managers. Other issues included
potential effects on public recreation by
the presence of seals, staffing and
enforcement needs, determining
compatibility for recreational uses,
creating a protocol for cultural resource
protection, and planning for future land
acquisition opportunities. We have
considered and evaluated all of these
comments, and have addressed many of
them by incorporating them into the
various alternatives in the draft CCP/EA.
CCP Alternatives We Are Considering
Our draft CCP/EA includes a full
description of each issue noted above.
To address these issues, we developed
and evaluated the following alternatives
in the draft CCP/EA, summarized below.
Alternative A (Current Management)
This alternative is the ‘‘No Action’’
alternative required by the National
Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.). Alternative A defines our
current management activities, and
serves as the baseline against which to
compare the other alternatives. This
alternative describes current refuge
programs on approximately 20 acres for
habitat management, fish and wildlife
inventories and monitoring,
administrative infrastructure and
staffing, and visitor services. Under this
alternative, TTOR would continue to
provide on-site management of
Nantucket NWR, and the Service would
continue its passive management role
and minimal presence on the refuge.
The remote location of the refuge, along
with limited staffing and funding
resources, restricts our ability to
maintain a consistent presence, or to
actively oversee and implement
management actions. Instead, we would
continue to coordinate with TTOR for
installing symbolic fencing and
implementing beach closures to protect
breeding and staging birds and seal
haulout sites on the refuge.
Under alternative A, the Service
would maintain oversight, but visitor
services programs would continue to be
implemented primarily by partners,
such as TTOR. The Service’s role has
not been visible, and many visitors are
unaware that the tip of Great Point is a
NWR. Priority public uses, such as
wildlife observation, photography,
E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM
02AUN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 2, 2011 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
environmental education,
interpretation, and fishing, are currently
allowed on the refuge and would
continue where beach access is
permitted. Hunting is the only priority
public use that is not allowed on the
refuge due to the refuge’s small size and
types of habitat.
In this alternative, refuge staffing
would remain at current levels stationed
at the Eastern Massachusetts NWR
Complex headquarters in Sudbury,
Massachusetts. We would continue
discussions to pursue a partnership
agreement with TTOR, which would
include resource management, visitor
use, and shared funding sources to help
contribute to refuge operations.
Alternative B (Enhanced Wildlife and
Visitor Services) (Service-Preferred
Alternative)
Alternative B is the alternative our
planning team proposes to recommend
to our Regional Director for
implementation. It includes an array of
management actions that, in our
professional judgment, work best
towards achieving the refuge’s purposes,
vision, and goals, and would make an
important contribution to conserving
Federal trust resources of concern. This
alternative provides the most
appropriate level and type of
management for Service staff managing
the eight refuges in the Eastern
Massachusetts NWR Complex. We
believe this is the most reasonable,
feasible, and practicable alternative.
This alternative describes increased
Service management and presence over
the next 15 years on the 20-acre refuge,
and on the additional 1,790 acres
proposed for Service acquisition from
willing sellers in fee or easement, as
funding and staffing levels permit.
Additionally, it strives to provide a
balance between habitat and species
conservation and public use and access.
We would increase our presence on the
refuge to both implement and monitor
habitat management actions, and
provide higher quality opportunities for
the five priority public uses currently
allowed. It would also enhance
partnerships with local conservation
organizations and civic groups.
Under this alternative, the Service
would take a more active role in habitat
and species management on the refuge,
targeting the protection of dynamic
coastal beach and dune systems and the
avian and mammalian species that rely
on them for critical nesting, resting,
foraging, and staging habitat. The
additional protection proposed would
likely result in access restrictions and/
or closures on the refuge during certain
seasons or in some years. Species
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Aug 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
management would follow Federal
piping plover recovery guidelines and
State plover and tern guidelines, and
would benefit other species such as
nesting American oystercatchers. In the
late summer/early fall, we would
provide additional habitat protection for
staging terns from vehicular and
pedestrian disturbance. We would also
continue to work closely with TTOR,
NCF, and our other partners to
accomplish these management actions
with an emphasis on landscape-level
conservation and more consistent
management between peninsula
partners.
The Service would pursue acquisition
of Federal (excess and surplus) land,
including the old USCG Long Range
Navigation and Federal Aviation
Administration facilities, as well as
easements and acquisitions from willing
sellers on key parcels on the CoskataCoatue Peninsula on or near Nantucket
Island, to further enhance landscapelevel conservation. A draft LPP, which
requires Director’s approval before it
can be implemented, is included as
Appendix G.
Under alternative B, we would also
increase priority public-use
opportunities, with an emphasis on
fishing, wildlife observation,
environmental education, and
interpretation, which would be
accomplished by working with partners.
Subject to funding availability, we
would conduct a study to evaluate
alternative means of transporting people
to the refuge without the use of
individual vehicles. A primitive foot
trail is proposed from the lighthouse to
the refuge’s eastern beach for pedestrian
and fishing access. We would also
explore the opportunity to install a
webcam on the lighthouse, and facilitate
outreach opportunities and activities for
visitors and residents of Nantucket
Island to highlight the Service’s role as
a steward of natural resources.
Under alternative B, we propose a
level of staffing that meets the minimum
requirements for a refuge of this
complexity by adding a part-time, yearround visitor services specialist and a
full-time biologist stationed on
Nantucket Island, and a new law
enforcement officer stationed at
Monomoy NWR in Chatham,
Massachusetts.
Alternative C (Wildlife Diversity and
Natural Processes Emphasis)
This alternative would focus on
managing for wildlife diversity and
natural coastal processes. It would
emphasize species and habitat
protection on the refuge through actions
such as not allowing over-sand vehicles
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
46319
(OSV) over most of the refuge during
April 1 through September 15. This
would be implemented to minimize
disturbance to nesting and migrating
birds, and to reduce the impacts on
macroinvertebrates, vegetative
communities, and dune structure and
function. Staff would monitor and
evaluate nesting success and
productivity for priority bird species of
conservation concern.
Alternative C includes expansion of
current management and staffing over
the next 15 years on the refuge. It would
also involve targeted fee and easement
acquisition of excess and surplus
Federal lands and other key
conservation properties on Nantucket
Island as opportunities arise.
Visitor services would be the same as
under alternative B, except for the
longer, more restrictive OSV closure
zones from April 1 through September
15 each year. Also, the Service would
collaborate with partners to disseminate
information on this seasonal OSV
restriction on the refuge.
Similar to alternative B, this
alternative proposes a joint visitor
facility with TTOR and NCF, a kiosk
and interpretive panels, and a trail
through the refuge with a viewing
platform and/or photo blind. Also
similar to alternative B, we would
explore the opportunity to install a
webcam on the lighthouse, and facilitate
outreach opportunities and activities for
visitors and residents of Nantucket
Island to highlight the Service’s role as
a steward of natural resources.
Public Availability of Documents
In addition to any methods in
ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain
documents on our regional planning
Web site: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/
planning/nantucket/ccphome.html.
Public Meetings
We will hold at least one public
meeting during the public comment
period. For more information on the
meeting schedule, contact the person
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Next Steps
After this comment period ends, we
will analyze the comments and address
them in the form of a final CCP and
finding of no significant impact.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM
02AUN1
46320
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 148 / Tuesday, August 2, 2011 / Notices
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Dated: May 20, 2011.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley,
Massachusetts.
[FR Doc. 2011–19503 Filed 8–1–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLMT926000–L19100000–BJ0000–
LRCME0R04762]
Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey;
Montana
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of filing of plats of
survey.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) will file the plat of
survey of the lands described below in
the BLM Montana State Office, Billings,
Montana, on September 1, 2011.
DATES: Protests of the survey must be
filed before September 1, 2011 to be
considered.
SUMMARY:
Protests of the survey
should be sent to the Branch of
Cadastral Survey, Bureau of Land
Management, 5001 Southgate Drive,
Billings, Montana 59101–4669.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Marvin Montoya, Cadastral Surveyor,
Branch of Cadastral Survey, Bureau of
Land Management, 5001 Southgate
Drive, Billings, Montana 59101–4669,
telephone (406) 896–5124 or (406) 896–
5009, Marvin_Montoya@blm.gov.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339 to contact the
above individual during normal
business hours. The FIRS is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a
message or question with the above
individual. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
survey was executed at the request of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Rocky
Mountain Region, Billings, Montana,
and was necessary to determine
individual and tribal trust lands.
The lands we surveyed are:
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:03 Aug 01, 2011
Jkt 223001
Principal Meridian, Montana
T. 27 N., R. 47 E.
The plat, in one sheet, representing
the dependent resurvey of a portion of
the subdivisional lines, a portion of the
subdivision of section 30, the adjusted
original meanders of the former left
bank of the Missouri River, downstream,
through section 30, the left bank of a
relicted channel of the Missouri River,
in front of section 30, and certain
division of accretion and partition lines,
the subdivision of section 30, and the
survey of the left bank and the medial
line of a relicted channel of the Missouri
River, in front of section 30, and a
certain partition line, Township 27
North, Range 47 East, Principal
Meridian, Montana, was accepted July
25, 2011.
We will place a copy of the plat, in
one sheet, and related field notes we
described in the open files. They will be
available to the public as a matter of
information. If the BLM receives a
protest against this survey, as shown on
this plat, in one sheet, prior to the date
of the official filing, we will stay the
filing pending our consideration of the
protest. We will not officially file this
plat, in one sheet, until the day after we
have accepted or dismissed all protests
and they have become final, including
decisions or appeals.
Authority: 43 U.S.C. Chap. 3.
James D. Claflin,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor, Division of
Resources.
[FR Doc. 2011–19455 Filed 8–1–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–DN–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LLORV00000.L10200000.DD0000; HAG 11–
0296]
Notice of Public Meeting, Southeast
Oregon Resource Advisory Council
AGENCY:
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION:
Notice of public meeting.
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) Southeast
Oregon Resource Advisory Council
(RAC) will meet as indicated below.
SUMMARY:
The meetings will be held on
September 7, 2011 and September 8,
2011.
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The meetings will take
place at the Sunridge Inn, 1 Sunridge
Lane, Baker City, Oregon 97814.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Wilkening, 100 Oregon Street,
Vale, Oregon 97918, (541) 473–6218 or
e-mail mwilkeni@blm.gov. Persons who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339 to contact the above
individual during normal business
hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week, to leave a message
or question with the above individual.
You will receive a reply during normal
business hours.
The
meetings will be held at the Sunridge
Inn Conference Room, 1 Sunridge Lane,
Baker City, Oregon. On September 7, the
meeting will be held from 8 a.m. to 5
p.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT). This
will be a joint meeting of the Southeast
Oregon and the John Day-Snake RACs.
Topics may include: Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife Sage-grouse Plan,
Blue Mountains Forest Plan revisions,
Wilderness Characteristics Inventories,
Power/Energy Transmission options,
BLM Vegetation EA step down to the
Districts and other matters as may
reasonably come before the RAC. On
September 8, the meeting will be held
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. PDT. Topics
may include: Vale District Cultural
Inventories; Federal manager reports on
litigation, energy projects, and other
issues affecting their districts/units; and
other matters as may reasonably come
before the RAC. The public is welcome
to attend all portions of the meetings
and may make oral comments to the
RAC at 1:15 p.m. on September 7, 2011
and/or at 1 p.m. on September 8, 2011.
Those who verbally address the RAC
are asked to provide a written statement
of their comments or presentation.
Unless otherwise approved by the RAC
Chair, the public comment period will
last no longer than 15 minutes, and each
speaker may address the RAC for a
maximum of five minutes. If reasonable
accommodation is required, please
contact the BLM Vale District Office at
(541) 473–6218 as soon as possible.
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\02AUN1.SGM
02AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 148 (Tuesday, August 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46317-46320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19503]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R5-R-2009-N184; BAC-4311-K9-S3]
Nantucket National Wildlife Refuge, Nantucket, MA; Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Land Protection 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 a draft comprehensive conservation plan (CCP),
including a land protection plan (LPP), and environmental assessment
(EA) for Nantucket National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) for public review and
comment. The draft CCP/EA describes our proposal for managing the
refuge for the next 15 years.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by
September 1, 2011. We will hold at least one public meeting in
Nantucket, MA, during the public comment period to receive comments and
provide information on the draft plan. We will also announce
opportunities for public input in local news media, our project mailing
list, and on our regional planning Web site: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/nantucket/ccphome.html.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments or requests for copies or more
information by any one of the following methods. You may request hard
copies or a CD-ROM of the documents.
E-mail: northeastplanning@fws.gov. Include ``Nantucket NWR draft
CCP/EA'' in the subject line of the message.
Fax: Attention: Carl Melberg, 978-443-2898.
U.S. Mail: Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex, 73 Weir Hill Road,
Sudbury, MA 01776.
In-Person Drop-off, Viewing, or Pickup: Call 978-443-4661 to make
an
[[Page 46318]]
appointment (necessary for view/pickup only) during regular business
hours at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Melberg, Planning Team Leader,
978-443-4661, extension 32 (phone); northeastplanning@fws.gov (e-mail).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Nantucket NWR, on
Nantucket Island in the Town of Nantucket, Massachusetts. We started
this process through a notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 18806;
April 7, 2008).
Nantucket NWR was established in 1973, under an Act Authorizing the
Transfer of Certain Real Property for Wildlife, or other Purposes (16
U.S.C. 667b, Pub. L. 80-537), which authorized the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) to transfer the property to the Service, because of ``its
particular value in carrying out the Migratory Bird Act.'' The USCG
currently maintains ownership of a 1-acre inholding on the refuge that
contains the Great Point Lighthouse. Nantucket NWR lies at the northern
tip of a narrow peninsula that forms the northernmost point of
Nantucket Island. The tip is known locally as ``Great Point,'' and the
peninsula is known as the ``Coskata-Coatue Peninsula.'' The only way
visitors can access the refuge by land is via a road through The
Trustees of Reservations' (TTOR) Coskata-Coatue Refuge and Nantucket
Conservation Foundation (NCF) properties, both of which lie due south
of the refuge on the peninsula.
The refuge erodes and accretes constantly, but averages 20 acres in
size. The refuge is a barrier beach system, where two longshore
currents meet to form a rip current and dynamically erode and/or build
the spit. The refuge is composed of beach and dune habitat that serves
the needs of a wide diversity of water and land birds of conservation
concern, including seabirds, colonial nesting birds such as common and
roseate terns, shorebirds such as piping plover and oystercatcher, and
marine mammals such as gray seals. Nantucket NWR is one of eight
refuges in the Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex.
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 the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with
the Refuge Administration Act.
Public Outreach
The extensive planning history for this refuge began with the
publication of a notice in the Federal Register (64 FR 9166; February
24, 1999) announcing we were preparing a CCP and environmental impact
statement (EIS) for all eight refuges in what was then known as the
Great Meadows NWR Complex. In 2001, we determined it was not feasible
to prepare a single CCP for all eight refuges, and thus prepared
another notice in the Federal Register (66 FR 10506; February 15,
2001), to indicate that a CCP/EIS would be prepared for Monomoy,
Nantucket, and Nomans Land Island NWRs. However, no work was initiated
on the plan at that time. In 2008, because of the different issues
facing the refuges, the Service determined it was more efficient to
proceed through the CCP process for each refuge separately, and
published a notice in the Federal Register (73 FR 18806; April 7, 2008)
to begin a separate CCP/EA process for Nantucket NWR. At that time, and
throughout the process, we requested public comments and considered and
incorporated them in numerous ways.
The CCP planning team consisted of Service staff from refuges,
planning, visitor services, migratory bird, and endangered species, as
well as representatives from the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries
and Wildlife, the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (WTOGHA), and
the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe (MWT). Partner and public meetings were
held during October 2008. Attendees to the partner and public meetings
included the Service, WTOGHA, MWT, TTOR, NCF, Massachusetts Audubon,
Nantucket Anglers Club, Maria Mitchell Association, Nantucket Civic
League, Nantucket Land Council, Nantucket Wetlands Board, and numerous
unaffiliated individuals.
Issues from the public comment period focused on maintaining a
balance between resource protection and beach access, increasing
education and interpretation of the resources, increasing
communications about management decisions, and cooperating in land
management with adjacent land managers. Other issues included potential
effects on public recreation by the presence of seals, staffing and
enforcement needs, determining compatibility for recreational uses,
creating a protocol for cultural resource protection, and planning for
future land acquisition opportunities. We have considered and evaluated
all of these comments, and have addressed many of them by incorporating
them into the various alternatives in the draft CCP/EA.
CCP Alternatives We Are Considering
Our draft CCP/EA includes a full description of each issue noted
above. To address these issues, we developed and evaluated the
following alternatives in the draft CCP/EA, summarized below.
Alternative A (Current Management)
This alternative is the ``No Action'' alternative required by the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Alternative
A defines our current management activities, and serves as the baseline
against which to compare the other alternatives. This alternative
describes current refuge programs on approximately 20 acres for habitat
management, fish and wildlife inventories and monitoring,
administrative infrastructure and staffing, and visitor services. Under
this alternative, TTOR would continue to provide on-site management of
Nantucket NWR, and the Service would continue its passive management
role and minimal presence on the refuge. The remote location of the
refuge, along with limited staffing and funding resources, restricts
our ability to maintain a consistent presence, or to actively oversee
and implement management actions. Instead, we would continue to
coordinate with TTOR for installing symbolic fencing and implementing
beach closures to protect breeding and staging birds and seal haulout
sites on the refuge.
Under alternative A, the Service would maintain oversight, but
visitor services programs would continue to be implemented primarily by
partners, such as TTOR. The Service's role has not been visible, and
many visitors are unaware that the tip of Great Point is a NWR.
Priority public uses, such as wildlife observation, photography,
[[Page 46319]]
environmental education, interpretation, and fishing, are currently
allowed on the refuge and would continue where beach access is
permitted. Hunting is the only priority public use that is not allowed
on the refuge due to the refuge's small size and types of habitat.
In this alternative, refuge staffing would remain at current levels
stationed at the Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex headquarters in
Sudbury, Massachusetts. We would continue discussions to pursue a
partnership agreement with TTOR, which would include resource
management, visitor use, and shared funding sources to help contribute
to refuge operations.
Alternative B (Enhanced Wildlife and Visitor Services) (Service-
Preferred Alternative)
Alternative B is the alternative our planning team proposes to
recommend to our Regional Director for implementation. It includes an
array of management actions that, in our professional judgment, work
best towards achieving the refuge's purposes, vision, and goals, and
would make an important contribution to conserving Federal trust
resources of concern. This alternative provides the most appropriate
level and type of management for Service staff managing the eight
refuges in the Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex. We believe this is
the most reasonable, feasible, and practicable alternative.
This alternative describes increased Service management and
presence over the next 15 years on the 20-acre refuge, and on the
additional 1,790 acres proposed for Service acquisition from willing
sellers in fee or easement, as funding and staffing levels permit.
Additionally, it strives to provide a balance between habitat and
species conservation and public use and access. We would increase our
presence on the refuge to both implement and monitor habitat management
actions, and provide higher quality opportunities for the five priority
public uses currently allowed. It would also enhance partnerships with
local conservation organizations and civic groups.
Under this alternative, the Service would take a more active role
in habitat and species management on the refuge, targeting the
protection of dynamic coastal beach and dune systems and the avian and
mammalian species that rely on them for critical nesting, resting,
foraging, and staging habitat. The additional protection proposed would
likely result in access restrictions and/or closures on the refuge
during certain seasons or in some years. Species management would
follow Federal piping plover recovery guidelines and State plover and
tern guidelines, and would benefit other species such as nesting
American oystercatchers. In the late summer/early fall, we would
provide additional habitat protection for staging terns from vehicular
and pedestrian disturbance. We would also continue to work closely with
TTOR, NCF, and our other partners to accomplish these management
actions with an emphasis on landscape-level conservation and more
consistent management between peninsula partners.
The Service would pursue acquisition of Federal (excess and
surplus) land, including the old USCG Long Range Navigation and Federal
Aviation Administration facilities, as well as easements and
acquisitions from willing sellers on key parcels on the Coskata-Coatue
Peninsula on or near Nantucket Island, to further enhance landscape-
level conservation. A draft LPP, which requires Director's approval
before it can be implemented, is included as Appendix G.
Under alternative B, we would also increase priority public-use
opportunities, with an emphasis on fishing, wildlife observation,
environmental education, and interpretation, which would be
accomplished by working with partners. Subject to funding availability,
we would conduct a study to evaluate alternative means of transporting
people to the refuge without the use of individual vehicles. A
primitive foot trail is proposed from the lighthouse to the refuge's
eastern beach for pedestrian and fishing access. We would also explore
the opportunity to install a webcam on the lighthouse, and facilitate
outreach opportunities and activities for visitors and residents of
Nantucket Island to highlight the Service's role as a steward of
natural resources.
Under alternative B, we propose a level of staffing that meets the
minimum requirements for a refuge of this complexity by adding a part-
time, year-round visitor services specialist and a full-time biologist
stationed on Nantucket Island, and a new law enforcement officer
stationed at Monomoy NWR in Chatham, Massachusetts.
Alternative C (Wildlife Diversity and Natural Processes Emphasis)
This alternative would focus on managing for wildlife diversity and
natural coastal processes. It would emphasize species and habitat
protection on the refuge through actions such as not allowing over-sand
vehicles (OSV) over most of the refuge during April 1 through September
15. This would be implemented to minimize disturbance to nesting and
migrating birds, and to reduce the impacts on macroinvertebrates,
vegetative communities, and dune structure and function. Staff would
monitor and evaluate nesting success and productivity for priority bird
species of conservation concern.
Alternative C includes expansion of current management and staffing
over the next 15 years on the refuge. It would also involve targeted
fee and easement acquisition of excess and surplus Federal lands and
other key conservation properties on Nantucket Island as opportunities
arise.
Visitor services would be the same as under alternative B, except
for the longer, more restrictive OSV closure zones from April 1 through
September 15 each year. Also, the Service would collaborate with
partners to disseminate information on this seasonal OSV restriction on
the refuge.
Similar to alternative B, this alternative proposes a joint visitor
facility with TTOR and NCF, a kiosk and interpretive panels, and a
trail through the refuge with a viewing platform and/or photo blind.
Also similar to alternative B, we would explore the opportunity to
install a webcam on the lighthouse, and facilitate outreach
opportunities and activities for visitors and residents of Nantucket
Island to highlight the Service's role as a steward of natural
resources.
Public Availability of Documents
In addition to any methods in ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain
documents on our regional planning Web site: https://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/nantucket/ccphome.html.
Public Meetings
We will hold at least one public meeting during the public comment
period. For more information on the meeting schedule, contact the
person under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Next Steps
After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and
address them in the form of a final CCP and finding of no significant
impact.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying
information--may
[[Page 46320]]
be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your
comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Dated: May 20, 2011.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Hadley, Massachusetts.
[FR Doc. 2011-19503 Filed 8-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
