Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Morris County, New Jersey; Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Finding of No Significant Impact, 69519-69521 [2014-27590]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Notices
asbestos; lead-based paint; mold possible;
contact GSA for more information.
Maryland
Carroll County Memorial USA RC
404 Malcolm Drive
Westminster MD 21157
Landholding Agency: GSA
Property Number: 54201430003
Status: Excess
GSA Number: 4–DMD–1130AA
Directions: Landholding agency; Army;
Disposal Agency; GSA
Comments: 3 Building totaling 15,719 sq. ft.,
storage/maintenance good conditions;
asbestos/lead-based paint/polychlorinated
biphenyl; remediation required; contact
GSA for more information.
Michigan
Nat’l Weather Svc Ofc
214 West 14th Ave.
Sault Ste. Marie MI
Landholding Agency: GSA
Property Number: 54200120010
Status: Excess
GSA Number: 1–C–MI–802
Comments: 2230 sq. ft., presence of asbestos,
most recent use—office.
Texas
2 Buildings; Natural Resource Conservation
Service Waco Facility
200 South Price Street
Waco TX 76501
Landholding Agency: GSA
Property Number: 54201430007
Status: Surplus
GSA Number: 7–A–TX–0556
Directions: Landholding agency; Agriculture;
Disposal Agency; GSA.
Comments: 18,460 sq. ft.; storage; 60+
months vacant; very poor condition; within
a security fence; contact GSA for more
information.
Virginia
Johnson House and Shed
12503 Cavalry Court
Spotsylvania VA 22553
Landholding Agency: GSA
Property Number: 54201430005
Status: Excess
GSA Number: 4–I–VA–1145AA
Directions: Landholding Agency; Interior;
Disposal Agency; GSA
Comments: Off-site removal only; 1,357 +/¥
sq. ft.; repairs needed; contact GSA for
more information.
Washington
Old Colville Border Patrol
209 E. Juniper Ave.
Colville WA 99114
Landholding Agency: GSA
Property Number: 54201420009
Status: Excess
GSA Number: 9–Z–WA–1272
Directions: Landholding Agency: Dept. of
Homeland Security; Disposal Agency: GSA
Comments: 5,500 sq. ft.; office; 18+ months
vacant; good to moderate conditions;
contact GSA for more info.
Old Oroville Border Patrol Station
1105 Main St.
Oroville WA 98844
Landholding Agency: GSA
Property Number: 54201420010
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:36 Nov 20, 2014
Jkt 235001
Status: Excess
GSA Number: 9–Z–WA–1272–AB
Directions: Landholding Agency: Dept. of
Homeland Security; Disposal Agency: GSA
Comments: 5,500 sq. ft.; office; 18+ months
vacant; good to moderate conditions;
contact GSA for more info.
Wisconsin
St. Croix National Scenic Riverway
Residential Structures
401 N. Hamilton St.
St. Croix Falls WI 54204
Landholding Agency: GSA
Property Number: 54201430001
Status: Excess
GSA Number: 1–I–WI–541B
Directions: Landholding Agency: Interior;
Disposal Agency: GSA
Comments: House #1: 1,048 sq. ft.; House #2:
2,376 sq. ft.; House #3: 2,936 sq. ft.; good
to fair conditions; LBP; contact GSA for
more information.
Land
Missouri
Former Nike Battery Site
Kansas City 30
15616 S KK Highway
Pleasant Hill MO 64080
Landholding Agency: GSA
Property Number: 54201430002
Status: Surplus
GSA Number: 7–D–MO–0522
Comments: 19.52 acres +/¥ and 4.02
easement acres +/¥; education use; contact
GCA for more information.
South Carolina
Former FAA Outer Marker Facility—Greer
Brookfield Parkway
Greer SC 29651
Landholding Agency: GSA
Property Number: 54201410011
Status: Excess
GSA Number: 1–U–SC–0631
Comments: 0.99 acres; contact GSA for more
information.
Tennessee
Former FAA Outer Marker Facility—
Nashville
W End of Kinhawk Drive
Nashville TN 37211
Landholding Agency: GSA
Property Number: 54201410012
Status: Excess
GSA Number: 1–U–TN–0672
Comments: 12.20 acres; contact GSA for more
information.
[FR Doc. 2014–27321 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–67–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R5–R–2014–N199; BAC–4311–K9–S3]
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge,
Morris County, New Jersey; Final
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Finding of No Significant Impact
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ACTION:
69519
Notice of availability.
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 Great
Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR), located in Morris County, New
Jersey, for public review and comment.
In this final CCP, we describe how we
will manage the 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 a CD–ROM.
Agency Web site: Download a copy of
the document at https://www.fws.gov/
refuge/Great_Swamp/what_we_do/
conservation.html.
Email: Send requests to
northeastplanning@fws.gov. Include
‘‘Great Swamp CCP’’ in the subject line
of your email.
Mail: Bill Perry, Natural Resource
Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA
01035.
Fax: Attention: Bill Perry, 413–253–
8468.
In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Call
973–425–1222 to make an appointment
(necessary for view/pickup only) during
regular business hours at Great Swamp
NWR, 241 Pleasant Plains Road, Basking
Ridge, NJ 07920. For more information
on locations for viewing or obtaining
documents, see ‘‘Public Availability of
Documents’’ under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Steven Henry, Acting Refuge Manager,
973–425–1222 (phone), or Bill Perry,
Planning Team Leader, 413–253–8688
(phone); northeastplanning@fws.gov
(email).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we finalize the CCP
process for Great Swamp NWR. We
started this process through a notice in
the Federal Register (75 FR 41879) on
July 19, 2010.
Great Swamp NWR was established
by an act of Congress on November 3,
1960, and formally dedicated in 1964,
primarily under the authorities of the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16
U.S.C. 703–711) and the Migratory Bird
Conservation Act of 1929 (U.S.C. 715–
715s, 45 Stat. 1222) as amended, ‘‘for
use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any
other management purpose, for
migratory birds.’’ The refuge currently
encompasses 7,768 acres and has an
approved acquisition boundary that
E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM
21NON1
69520
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
would allow for refuge expansion to a
maximum of 9,429 acres. Great Swamp
NWR is located approximately 26 miles
from New York City and is an area that
is heavily suburbanized. The refuge
provides vital brooding, nesting,
feeding, and resting habitat for a variety
of migratory bird species, including
waterfowl. Although established
primarily for migratory birds, the
refuge’s mosaic of forested wetlands,
emergent wetlands, and various
successional stages of upland vegetation
provides habitats for a diversity of
wildlife species.
We announce our decision and the
availability of the FONSI for the final
CCP for Great Swamp NWR in
accordance with National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requirements. We
completed a thorough analysis of
impacts on the human environment,
which we included in the draft CCP/
environmental assessment (EA).
The CCP will guide us in managing
and administering Great Swamp NWR
for the next 15 years. Alternative B, as
described for the refuge in the draft
CCP/EA, and with minor modifications
described below, is the foundation for
the final CCP.
Background
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 refuge. The purpose for
developing a CCP is to provide refuge
managers with a 15-year plan for
achieving refuge purposes and
contributing to 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.
CCP Alternatives, Including the
Selected Alternative
Our draft CCP/EA (79 FR 27634)
addressed several key issues, including:
• Evaluation of consolidating
managed habitats of the refuge.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Nov 20, 2014
Jkt 235001
• Better understanding the
implications and trade-offs of habitat
management on refuge wildlife.
• Identifying and addressing climate
change concerns impacting the refuge.
• Providing more public use
opportunities on the refuge and linking
to nearby urban populations.
• Providing additional hunting
opportunities, including fall archery
deer hunting and spring turkey hunting.
• Expanding and strengthening
partnerships.
To address these issues and develop
a plan based on the refuge’s establishing
purposes, vision, and goals, we
evaluated four management alternatives
for Great Swamp NWR in the draft CCP/
EA. The alternatives have several
actions in common. All alternatives
include measures to control invasive
species, monitor and abate diseases
affecting wildlife and plant health,
protect cultural resources, continue
existing projects managed by outside
programs, and manage threatened and
endangered species populations on the
refuge. There are other actions that
differ among the alternatives. The draft
CCP/EA provides a full description of
each alternative and relates each to the
issues and concerns that arose during
the planning process. Below, we
provide summaries of the four
alternatives.
Management Alternatives
Alternative A (Current Management)
Alternative A (current management)
satisfies the NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6(b))
requirement of a ‘‘no action’’ alternative,
which we define as ‘‘continuing current
management.’’ It describes our existing
management priorities and activities,
and serves as a baseline for comparing
and contrasting alternatives B, C, and D.
It would maintain our present levels of
approved refuge staffing and the
biological and visitor programs now in
place. We would continue to manage for
and maintain a diversity of habitats,
including freshwater wetlands,
impoundments, scrub-shrub, grasslands,
wet meadows, and forests on the refuge.
The refuge would continue to provide
an active visitor use program that
supports environmental education and
interpretation, hunting, fishing, and
wildlife observation and photography.
Alternative B (Enhance Biological
Diversity and Public Use Opportunities)
This alternative is the Servicepreferred alternative. It combines the
actions we believe would most
effectively achieve the refuge’s
purposes, vision, and goals, and
respond to the issues raised during the
PO 00000
Frm 00100
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
scoping period. This alternative
emphasizes management of specific
refuge habitats to support viable
populations of focal species whose
habitat needs benefit other species,
especially those of conservation
concern. We would continue to
maintain a diversity of forest, nonforested, open water, grassland, and
scrub-shrub habitats. However, habitats
would be reconfigured and maintained
to create large (greater than 50 acres)
contiguous patches to promote wildlife
use, increase connectivity, decrease
fragmentation, and increase
maintenance efficiency and reduce
associated costs. This alternative
emphasizes habitat for priority bird
species and federally listed species,
including the bog turtle and Indiana bat.
This alternative would also enhance
the refuge’s public use opportunities,
and place more emphasis on connecting
with communities in nearby urban
areas. It would expand the hunt
program by pursuing the processes for
permitting archery for deer and opening
the refuge to turkey hunting. It would
also improve wildlife viewing and
photography opportunities in a variety
of habitats, expand visitor center hours,
and increase the number of
environmental education and
interpretation programs on- and offrefuge. It attempts to balance public use
with resource protection.
Alternative C (Emphasis on Maximizing
Natural Regeneration)
Alternative C emphasizes allowing
natural succession or regeneration to
occur to the maximum extent practical.
We would maximize core forest habitats
while maintaining large (i.e., greater
than 50 acres) contiguous patches of
actively managed grasslands and scrubshrub habitats. This alternative would
guide management to restore, where
practical, the distribution of natural
communities of the Great Swamp that
would have resulted from natural
processes without the influence of
human settlement or management
intervention. This alternative recognizes
that refuge habitats and wildlife
populations are not ecologically
independent from the surrounding
landscape, and that by taking a longterm regional perspective, the refuge can
best contribute to higher conservation
priorities at greater scales. This
alternative continues to provide actively
managed habitats in select areas to
maintain wildlife viewing and
photography opportunities for refuge
visitors, as well as vital habitat for the
refuge’s species of conservation
concern. Although some open water
habitat would be eliminated, the refuge
E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM
21NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 225 / Friday, November 21, 2014 / Notices
would continue to maintain open water
habitat for waterfowl use. Under this
alternative, the public use program
would be similar to alternative A;
however, under this alternative, we
would eliminate less used or dead-end
trails in the wilderness area.
Alternative D (Focus on Expansion of
Priority Public Uses)
Alternative D emphasizes expanding
wildlife-dependent priority public uses
on the refuge. Public use and access
would be maximized to the greatest
extent practical, while minimizing
impacts to wildlife. We would expand
refuge infrastructure, including
construction of new trails, observation
towers, signage, and parking lots;
expand hunting; and allow fishing in
select areas of the refuge. This
alternative would maximize public
outreach, enhance and develop new
environmental interpretation and
education programs, aggressively
expand partnerships, and increase staff
presence at programs and events. In
general, refuge habitats would be
managed similarly to alternative B;
however, this alternative would increase
open water habitat to improve public
viewing opportunities.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Comments
We solicited comments on the draft
CCP/EA from May 14 to June 30, 2014
(79 FR 27634). During the comment
period, we received 80 written
responses. We evaluated all of the
substantive comments we received, and
include a summary of those comments,
and our responses to them, as appendix
G in the final CCP.
Selected Alternative
After considering the comments we
received on our draft CCP/EA, we made
minor changes to alternative B,
including not moving forward on the
proposed parking area and wildlife
observation opportunity on White
Bridge Road, and correcting minor
editorial, formatting, and typographical
errors. These changes are described in
the FONSI (appendix E in the final CCP)
and in our response to public comments
(appendix G in the final CCP).
We have selected alternative B to
implement for Great Swamp NWR, with
these minor changes, for several
reasons. Alternative B comprises a mix
of actions that, in our professional
judgment, work best towards achieving
the refuge’s purposes, vision, and goals,
NWRS policies, and the goals of other
State and Regional conservation plans.
We also believe that alternative B most
effectively addresses key issues raised
during the planning process. The basis
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:00 Nov 20, 2014
Jkt 235001
of our decision is detailed in the FONSI
(appendix E in the final CCP).
Public Availability of Documents
You can view or obtain the final CCP,
including the FONSI, as indicated under
ADDRESSES.
Dated: October 6, 2014.
Deborah Rocque,
Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region.
[FR Doc. 2014–27590 Filed 11–20–14; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
[AAK6006201 134A2100DD
AOR3B30.999900]
Intent To Prepare a Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement for
the Proposed Integrated Resource
Management Plan for the Colville
Reservation in Okanogan and Ferry
Counties, WA
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
This notice advises the public
that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA),
in cooperation with the Confederated
Tribes of the Colville Reservation
(Tribes), intends to gather information
necessary to prepare a programmatic
environmental impact statement
(Programmatic EIS) for the proposed
Integrated Resource Management Plan
(IRMP) for the Colville Reservation in
Okanogan and Ferry Counties,
Washington. This notice also announces
public scoping meetings to identify
potential issues and content for
inclusion in the Programmatic EIS.
DATES: The dates and locations of public
scoping meetings will be published in
the Omak-Okanogan County Chronicle,
the Statesman Examiner, the Star, and
the Tribal Tribune. Additional
information will also be posted at the
Tribes’ Web site:
www.colvilletribes.com. Written
comments must arrive within 30 days
following the public scoping meetings.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted by mail, email, hand carry or
fax to: Dr. BJ Howerton, Environmental
Services Manager, BIA Northwest
Regional Office, 911 NE 11th Avenue,
Portland, OR 97232–4169, Phone: (503)
231–6749, Fax: (503) 231–2275, Email:
bj.howerton@bia.gov; or Debra Wulff,
BIA Superintendent, Colville Agency,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, P.O. Box 111,
Nespelem, WA 99155–0111, Phone:
(509) 634–2316, Fax: (509) 634–2355,
Email: debra.wulff@bia.gov.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69521
Dr.
BJ Howerton at (503) 231–6749 or
bj.howerton@bia.gov or Debra Wulff at
(509) 634–2316 or debra.wulff@bia.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
The
proposed action is the preparation of an
IRMP for the Colville Reservation and
the BIA approval of long-term natural
resource planning goals and objectives
for the Colville Reservation. The Tribes
may use the Programmatic EIS for
tiered, project-specific environmental
assessments to cover specific actions as
the IRMP is implemented.
The Tribes have managed their
natural resources under the goals and
objectives of an IRMP from 2000 to
2014. The new IRMP will replace the
expiring plan. The Programmatic EIS
will consider a proposed strategy in the
IRMP that enhances the existing plan,
where timber harvesting and livestock
grazing levels remain at the existing
levels with improved scheduling based
on more accurate mapping data, open
ground modeling and current forest
inventory data. The strategy would
include improved management
practices to reduce erosion from forest
roads, increase enforcement of livestock
rotation requirements, and provide a
formal project review process to ensure
compliance with the IRMP and tribal
resource codes.
Other alternative forest management
strategies to be considered include: (1)
A forest restoration strategy to
emphasize thinning through the forest
to return to historic conditions with a
reduced harvest level, (2) an accelerated
harvest strategy intended to maximize
revenue to the Tribes, and (3) a No
Forest Management strategy that would
end timber harvesting.
Rangeland management alternatives
include: (1) A strategy to rest and rotate
range units on a yearly basis, (2) a
strategy to increase livestock grazing by
allowing additional grazing by offreservation cattle ranchers, and (3) a
strategy to eliminate livestock grazing
altogether.
No Action or continuation of the
current IRMP goals and objectives will
also be considered along with any
additional strategies or alternatives that
may be developed as a result of public
scoping.
Significant issues to be covered
during the scoping process may include,
but will not be limited to air quality,
geology and soils, surface and
groundwater resources, wildlife habitat,
threatened and endangered species,
cultural resources, socioeconomic
conditions, land use, aesthetics, and
Indian trust resources.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\21NON1.SGM
21NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 225 (Friday, November 21, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69519-69521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-27590]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R5-R-2014-N199; BAC-4311-K9-S3]
Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Morris County, New Jersey;
Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Finding of No Significant
Impact
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 Great Swamp National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR), located in Morris County, New Jersey, for public
review and comment. In this final CCP, we describe how we will manage
the 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 a CD-ROM.
Agency Web site: Download a copy of the document at https://www.fws.gov/refuge/Great_Swamp/what_we_do/conservation.html.
Email: Send requests to northeastplanning@fws.gov. Include ``Great
Swamp CCP'' in the subject line of your email.
Mail: Bill Perry, Natural Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035.
Fax: Attention: Bill Perry, 413-253-8468.
In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Call 973-425-1222 to make an
appointment (necessary for view/pickup only) during regular business
hours at Great Swamp NWR, 241 Pleasant Plains Road, Basking Ridge, NJ
07920. For more information on locations for viewing or obtaining
documents, see ``Public Availability of Documents'' under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven Henry, Acting Refuge Manager,
973-425-1222 (phone), or Bill Perry, Planning Team Leader, 413-253-8688
(phone); northeastplanning@fws.gov (email).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for Great Swamp NWR.
We started this process through a notice in the Federal Register (75 FR
41879) on July 19, 2010.
Great Swamp NWR was established by an act of Congress on November
3, 1960, and formally dedicated in 1964, primarily under the
authorities of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-
711) and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (U.S.C. 715-715s,
45 Stat. 1222) as amended, ``for use as an inviolate sanctuary, or for
any other management purpose, for migratory birds.'' The refuge
currently encompasses 7,768 acres and has an approved acquisition
boundary that
[[Page 69520]]
would allow for refuge expansion to a maximum of 9,429 acres. Great
Swamp NWR is located approximately 26 miles from New York City and is
an area that is heavily suburbanized. The refuge provides vital
brooding, nesting, feeding, and resting habitat for a variety of
migratory bird species, including waterfowl. Although established
primarily for migratory birds, the refuge's mosaic of forested
wetlands, emergent wetlands, and various successional stages of upland
vegetation provides habitats for a diversity of wildlife species.
We announce our decision and the availability of the FONSI for the
final CCP for Great Swamp NWR in accordance with National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requirements. We completed a
thorough analysis of impacts on the human environment, which we
included in the draft CCP/environmental assessment (EA).
The CCP will guide us in managing and administering Great Swamp NWR
for the next 15 years. Alternative B, as described for the refuge in
the draft CCP/EA, and with minor modifications described below, is the
foundation for the final CCP.
Background
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 refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to
provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for achieving refuge
purposes and contributing to 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.
CCP Alternatives, Including the Selected Alternative
Our draft CCP/EA (79 FR 27634) addressed several key issues,
including:
Evaluation of consolidating managed habitats of the
refuge.
Better understanding the implications and trade-offs of
habitat management on refuge wildlife.
Identifying and addressing climate change concerns
impacting the refuge.
Providing more public use opportunities on the refuge and
linking to nearby urban populations.
Providing additional hunting opportunities, including fall
archery deer hunting and spring turkey hunting.
Expanding and strengthening partnerships.
To address these issues and develop a plan based on the refuge's
establishing purposes, vision, and goals, we evaluated four management
alternatives for Great Swamp NWR in the draft CCP/EA. The alternatives
have several actions in common. All alternatives include measures to
control invasive species, monitor and abate diseases affecting wildlife
and plant health, protect cultural resources, continue existing
projects managed by outside programs, and manage threatened and
endangered species populations on the refuge. There are other actions
that differ among the alternatives. The draft CCP/EA provides a full
description of each alternative and relates each to the issues and
concerns that arose during the planning process. Below, we provide
summaries of the four alternatives.
Management Alternatives
Alternative A (Current Management)
Alternative A (current management) satisfies the NEPA (40 CFR
1506.6(b)) requirement of a ``no action'' alternative, which we define
as ``continuing current management.'' It describes our existing
management priorities and activities, and serves as a baseline for
comparing and contrasting alternatives B, C, and D. It would maintain
our present levels of approved refuge staffing and the biological and
visitor programs now in place. We would continue to manage for and
maintain a diversity of habitats, including freshwater wetlands,
impoundments, scrub-shrub, grasslands, wet meadows, and forests on the
refuge. The refuge would continue to provide an active visitor use
program that supports environmental education and interpretation,
hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation and photography.
Alternative B (Enhance Biological Diversity and Public Use
Opportunities)
This alternative is the Service-preferred alternative. It combines
the actions we believe would most effectively achieve the refuge's
purposes, vision, and goals, and respond to the issues raised during
the scoping period. This alternative emphasizes management of specific
refuge habitats to support viable populations of focal species whose
habitat needs benefit other species, especially those of conservation
concern. We would continue to maintain a diversity of forest, non-
forested, open water, grassland, and scrub-shrub habitats. However,
habitats would be reconfigured and maintained to create large (greater
than 50 acres) contiguous patches to promote wildlife use, increase
connectivity, decrease fragmentation, and increase maintenance
efficiency and reduce associated costs. This alternative emphasizes
habitat for priority bird species and federally listed species,
including the bog turtle and Indiana bat.
This alternative would also enhance the refuge's public use
opportunities, and place more emphasis on connecting with communities
in nearby urban areas. It would expand the hunt program by pursuing the
processes for permitting archery for deer and opening the refuge to
turkey hunting. It would also improve wildlife viewing and photography
opportunities in a variety of habitats, expand visitor center hours,
and increase the number of environmental education and interpretation
programs on- and off-refuge. It attempts to balance public use with
resource protection.
Alternative C (Emphasis on Maximizing Natural Regeneration)
Alternative C emphasizes allowing natural succession or
regeneration to occur to the maximum extent practical. We would
maximize core forest habitats while maintaining large (i.e., greater
than 50 acres) contiguous patches of actively managed grasslands and
scrub-shrub habitats. This alternative would guide management to
restore, where practical, the distribution of natural communities of
the Great Swamp that would have resulted from natural processes without
the influence of human settlement or management intervention. This
alternative recognizes that refuge habitats and wildlife populations
are not ecologically independent from the surrounding landscape, and
that by taking a long-term regional perspective, the refuge can best
contribute to higher conservation priorities at greater scales. This
alternative continues to provide actively managed habitats in select
areas to maintain wildlife viewing and photography opportunities for
refuge visitors, as well as vital habitat for the refuge's species of
conservation concern. Although some open water habitat would be
eliminated, the refuge
[[Page 69521]]
would continue to maintain open water habitat for waterfowl use. Under
this alternative, the public use program would be similar to
alternative A; however, under this alternative, we would eliminate less
used or dead-end trails in the wilderness area.
Alternative D (Focus on Expansion of Priority Public Uses)
Alternative D emphasizes expanding wildlife-dependent priority
public uses on the refuge. Public use and access would be maximized to
the greatest extent practical, while minimizing impacts to wildlife. We
would expand refuge infrastructure, including construction of new
trails, observation towers, signage, and parking lots; expand hunting;
and allow fishing in select areas of the refuge. This alternative would
maximize public outreach, enhance and develop new environmental
interpretation and education programs, aggressively expand
partnerships, and increase staff presence at programs and events. In
general, refuge habitats would be managed similarly to alternative B;
however, this alternative would increase open water habitat to improve
public viewing opportunities.
Comments
We solicited comments on the draft CCP/EA from May 14 to June 30,
2014 (79 FR 27634). During the comment period, we received 80 written
responses. We evaluated all of the substantive comments we received,
and include a summary of those comments, and our responses to them, as
appendix G in the final CCP.
Selected Alternative
After considering the comments we received on our draft CCP/EA, we
made minor changes to alternative B, including not moving forward on
the proposed parking area and wildlife observation opportunity on White
Bridge Road, and correcting minor editorial, formatting, and
typographical errors. These changes are described in the FONSI
(appendix E in the final CCP) and in our response to public comments
(appendix G in the final CCP).
We have selected alternative B to implement for Great Swamp NWR,
with these minor changes, for several reasons. Alternative B comprises
a mix of actions that, in our professional judgment, work best towards
achieving the refuge's purposes, vision, and goals, NWRS policies, and
the goals of other State and Regional conservation plans. We also
believe that alternative B most effectively addresses key issues raised
during the planning process. The basis of our decision is detailed in
the FONSI (appendix E in the final CCP).
Public Availability of Documents
You can view or obtain the final CCP, including the FONSI, as
indicated under ADDRESSES.
Dated: October 6, 2014.
Deborah Rocque,
Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region.
[FR Doc. 2014-27590 Filed 11-20-14; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P