Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 7287 

668dd–668ee) (Administration Act), as 

amended by the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997, requires us to develop a CCP for 

each national wildlife refuge. The 

purpose for developing a CCP is to 

provide refuge managers with a 15-year 

plan for achieving refuge purposes and 

contributing toward the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS), consistent with sound 

principles of fish and wildlife 

management, conservation, legal 

mandates, and our policies. In addition 

to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and 

interpretation. We will review and 

update the CCP at least every 15 years 

in accordance with the Administration 

Act. 

CCP Alternatives, Including Selected 

Alternative 

Our draft CCP/EA (74 FR 36500) 

addressed several key issues, including 

the amount of grasslands to manage, 

other priority habitat types to conserve, 

land protection and conservation 

priorities, improving the visibility of the 

Service and refuge, providing desired 

facilities and activities, and ways to 

improve opportunities for public use 

while ensuring the restoration and 

protection of priority resources. 

To address these issues and develop 

a plan based on the purposes for 

establishing the refuge, and the vision 

and goals we identified, three 

alternatives were evaluated in the EA. 

The alternatives have some actions in 

common, such as protecting and 

monitoring federally listed species and 

the regionally significant bald eagle 

population, controlling invasive plants 

and wildlife diseases, encouraging 

research that benefits our resource 

decisions, protecting cultural resources, 

continuing to acquire land from willing 

sellers within our approved refuge 

boundary, and distributing refuge 

revenue-sharing payments to counties. 

Other actions distinguish the 

alternatives. Alternative A, or the ‘‘No 

Action Alternative,’’ is defined by our 

current management activities. It serves 

as the baseline against which to 

compare the other two alternatives. Our 

habitat management and visitor services 

programs would not change under this 

alternative. We would continue to use 

the same tools and techniques, and not 

expand existing facilities. 

Alternative B, the ‘‘Service-Preferred 

Alternative,’’ reflects a management 

emphasis on enhancing habitat 

diversity. Priorities under this 

alternative are protecting and restoring 

riparian and wetlands habitat, slightly 

expanding our grasslands management 

program on up to 1,200 acres, and 

improving the habitat quality in planted 

pine stands. Our public-use programs 

would improve and expand as a result 

of engaging partners to help us 

implement them. New trails would be 

constructed, fishing access would 

increase, and we would evaluate new 

opportunities for hunting waterfowl and 

wild turkey. A new refuge headquarters 

and visitor contact facility would also 

be constructed on refuge lands. 

Alternative C resembles Alternative B 

in its proposal for facilities and publicuse programs, but differs in its upland 

habitat management. Under Alternative 

C, we would allow the existing 700 

acres of grasslands and old fields to 

revert to shrub and forest. Tree 

plantings, applying herbicides, and 

cutting or brush-hogging (mowing) 

would occur as necessary to achieve the 

desired results. Riparian and wetlands 

protection and restoration would be 

similar to Alternative B. 

Comments 

We solicited comments on the draft 

CCP/EA for Rappahannock River Valley 

NWR from July 23, 2009, to August 24, 

2009 (74 FR 36500). We received 

comments from 47 individuals, 

organizations, and State and Federal 

agencies on our draft plan via electronic 

mail, phone, and letters. All comments 

we received were evaluated. A summary 

of those comments and our responses to 

them is included as Appendix G in the 

CCP. 

Selected Alternative 

After considering the comments we 

received on our draft CCP/EA, we have 

selected Alternative B for 

implementation for several reasons. 

Alternative B comprises the mix of 

actions that, in our professional 

judgment, works best towards achieving 

refuge purposes, our vision and goals, 

and the goals of other State and regional 

conservation plans. We also believe it 

most effectively addresses the key issues 

raised during the planning process. The 

basis of our decision is detailed in 

Appendix H of the CCP. 

Public Availability of Documents 

You can view or obtain documents as 

indicated under ADDRESSES. 

Dated: December 30, 2009. 

Dawn Comish, 

Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA 

01035. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3051 Filed 2–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R5–R–2009–N183; BAC–4311–K9–S3] 

John Hay National Wildlife Refuge, 

Merrimack County, NH 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability: Draft 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service) announces the 

availability of the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and draft 

environmental assessment (EA) for John 

Hay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) for 

a 30-day public review and comment 

period. In this draft CCP/EA, we 

describe three alternatives, including 

our Service-preferred Alternative B, for 

managing this refuge for the next 15 

years. 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 March 22, 2010. We will also 

hold at least one public meeting in 

Newbury, New Hampshire, during the 

30-day review period to receive 

comments and provide information on 

the draft plan. We will announce and 

post details about the public meeting in 

local news media via our project 

mailing list, and on our regional 

planning Web site, http://www.fws.gov/ 

northeast/planning/johnhay/ 

ccphome.html. 

ADDRESSES: Send your comments or 

requests for more information by one of 

the following methods. 

Electronic mail: 

northeastplanning@fws.gov. Include 

‘‘John Hay NWR CCP/EA’’ in the subject 

line of the message. 

U.S. Postal Service: 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 

appointment during regular business 

hours at the above address. 

Facsimile: Attn: Carl Melberg, 978– 

443–2898. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

7288 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barry Parrish, Deputy Refuge Manager, 

Silvio O. Conte NFWR, 103 East 

Plumtree Road, Sunderland, MA 01375; 

phone: 413–548–8002 extension 113; or 

Carl Melberg, Planning Team Leader, at 

978–443–4661, extension 32. 

Agency Web site: View or download 

the draft document at http:// 

www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/ 

JohnHay/ccphome.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Barry Parrish, Deputy Refuge Manager, 

Silvio O. Conte NFWR, 103 East 

Plumtree Road, Sunderland, MA 01375; 

phone: 413–548–8002, extension 113; 

facsimile: 413–548–9725. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for John Hay NWR in 

Merrimack County, New Hampshire, 

which we started with the notice of 

intent we published in the Federal 

Register (73 FR 76376) on December 16, 

2008. We prepared the draft CCP in 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), and the National Wildlife Refuge 

System Administration Act of 1966 

(Administration Act), as amended by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement 

Act), which requires us to develop a 

CCP for each national wildlife refuge. 

This refuge is a satellite station of the 

Silvio O. Conte National Fish and 

Wildlife Refuge. 

John Hay NWR was the former 

summer estate of historic figure John 

Hay. It was donated to the Service in 

1972 by Alice Hay to be used as a 

migratory bird and wildlife reservation. 

Currently, the refuge consists of 

approximately 80 acres on the shores of 

Lake Sunapee in Newbury, New 

Hampshire, and consists of upland 

northern forest, small meadows, and 

several wetland habitats, including a 

long, undeveloped lake shoreline, 

brook, fens, and vernal pools. The area 

serves the habitat needs of migrating 

birds as well as a diversity of other 

wildlife. No listed species are known to 

occur on the refuge. Although small in 

area, the refuge contains some of the 

largest-diameter white pine (and other 

northern forest tree species) in the 

regional landscape and provides habitat 

for Canada warbler and other priority 

forest birds and wildlife. 

Although wildlife and habitat 

conservation is the refuge’s first priority, 

the public can observe and photograph 

wildlife and participate in 

environmental education and 

interpretation on the refuge. Adjacent 

partner lands also accommodate these 

uses with a connected network of 

accessible nature trails. Some adjacent 

partner lands also allow hunting. 

Background 

The CCP Process 

The Improvement Act requires us to 

develop a CCP for each national wildlife 

refuge. The purpose for developing 

CCPs is to provide refuge managers with 

15-year plans for achieving refuge 

purposes and the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, in 

conformance 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 priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities available to 

the public, including opportunities for 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. We will 

review and update each CCP at least 

every 15 years, in accordance with the 

Administration Act. 

Public Outreach 

In October 2008, we initiated intraagency, State agency, stakeholder, and 

public scoping to obtain input on 

current and future management of the 

refuge. We held a morning and an 

afternoon public and partner meeting on 

October 9, 2008, at the Newbury Town 

Hall. During these meetings, we asked 

attendees specific questions about their 

views on the refuge’s wildlife and 

habitat values, how they use and access 

the refuge, their preferences for future 

wildlife-dependent recreation, and 

whether they knew about other refuge 

opportunities. Our scoping process 

lasted until November 7, 2008. 

Some of the key issues we identified 

include forest management, other 

priority habitat types to conserve, 

wetlands protection, improving the 

visibility of the Service and refuge, 

providing desired facilities and visitor 

activities, and ways to improve 

opportunities for public use while 

ensuring the restoration and protection 

of priority resources. 

CCP Actions We Are Considering 

We developed three management 

alternatives based on the purposes for 

establishing the refuge, its vision and 

goals, and the issues and concerns the 

public, State agencies, and the Service 

identified during the planning process. 

The alternatives have some actions in 

common, such as protecting and 

monitoring fish and wildlife species and 

the unique large white pines, 

controlling invasive plants and wildlife 

diseases, encouraging research that 

benefits our resource decisions, 

protecting cultural resources like the 

Hay Estate house and the view to the 

lake, updating the memorandum of 

understanding with our neighboring 

partner, The Fells, and distributing 

refuge revenue sharing payments to the 

Town of Newbury. 

Other actions distinguish the 

alternatives. The draft CCP/EA describes 

the alternatives in detail, and relates 

them to the issues and concerns 

identified. Highlights are as follows: 

Alternative A (Current Management) 

This alternative is the ‘‘No Action’’ 

alternative required by the NEPA Act of 

1969. Alternative A defines our current 

management activities, and serves as the 

baseline against which to compare the 

other alternatives. Our habitat 

management focuses on allowing 

natural processes to shape the almost 80 

acres of mature upland forest to 

maintain the cultural legacy, encourage 

natural regeneration, and diversify the 

forest structure that supports migratory 

and nesting birds of conservation 

concern in Bird Conservation Region 14 

and the New Hampshire Wildlife Action 

Plan (NHWAP) (including the Canada 

warbler and wood thrush). Natural 

processes would also shape the fens, 

vernal pools, and other wetland habitats 

on the refuge that provide important 

breeding habitat for amphibian and 

reptile species of conservation concern 

identified in the NHWAP. 

We would continue to maintain the 

instream habitat and riparian corridor 

along the approximately 1,750 feet of 

Beech Brook on the refuge for species 

identified as conservation priorities by 

the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture 

and NHWAP plans, and we would 

continue to protect the 3,100 feet of 

undeveloped refuge shoreline and 0.1- 

acre Minute Island by preventing public 

use activities that may pose risks to the 

biological integrity of these habitats. 

We would continue to work with our 

partners to monitor our forests and 

wetlands for invasive plants and 

disease, and we would treat the forests 

to fight invasive species and diseases if 

we have available funding and staffing. 

Our biological monitoring and inventory 

program and habitat and trail 

management would continue at its 

current minimal level, and would focus 

on safety and hazard tree removal only 

when necessary. 

Our visitor services programs would 

not change, as most activities are 

conducted by The Fells. Wildlife 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 32 / Thursday, February 18, 2010 / Notices 7289 

observation and photography are the 

most popular activities. Our staffing and 

facilities would remain the same. Seven 

staff positions for the refuge complex 

would remain in place, and the 

headquarters would remain at the 

Sunderland Office. 

Alternative B (Enhanced Visitor Services 

and Habitat Diversity—the ServicePreferred Alternative) 

This alternative is the one we propose 

as the best way to manage this refuge 

over the next 15 years. It includes an 

array of management actions that, in our 

professional judgment, works best 

toward achieving the refuge purposes, 

our vision and goals, and the goals of 

other State and regional conservation 

plans. We also believe it most 

effectively addresses the key issues that 

arose during the planning process. 

Similar to alternative A, under 

alternative B we would primarily allow 

natural processes to shape the refuge’s 

forest habitat and would continue to 

work with partners to complement the 

larger landscape for priority species 

through partnerships. We would 

conduct forest inventories every 10 to 

15 years to determine silvicultural 

prescriptions to encourage early 

successional forest habitat and pine 

regeneration, and to maintain the 

existing unique character of largediameter trees. A habitat management 

plan would be completed within 1 year 

of CCP approval. The current meadow 

would be expanded up to approximately 

3 acres, but not at the expense of mature 

forest habitat. A treatment schedule for 

maintaining the view to the lake from 

the Hay Estate house would be 

developed in partnership with The Fells 

and incorporate both scenic and wildlife 

habitat aspects that meet biological and 

cultural objectives for the area. 

We would continue to monitor refuge 

forests and wetlands for invasive plants 

and disease, and to treat them to the 

extent our funding allows. Protecting 

and enhancing riparian and wetlands 

habitat would be a priority, including 

the undeveloped Lake Sunapee 

shoreline, Beech Brook, fens, and vernal 

pools. We would also continue our 

monitoring and inventory program, but 

regularly evaluate the results to help us 

better understand the implications of 

our management actions and identify 

ways to improve their effectiveness. 

In addition to enhancing our existing 

programs in wildlife observation, 

photography, environmental education, 

and interpretation, we would open the 

refuge to fishing. We would also work 

with partners to accommodate hunting 

on their lands as part of a regional 

recreational program offering a diversity 

of wildlife-dependent public use 

opportunities. We would seek 

partnerships to help us achieve our 

enhanced and new programs, including 

assistance on interpretive trail 

construction and enhancements, and 

environmental education programs 

using the refuge as a living laboratory. 

The refuge would remain closed to 

hunting due to its small size and staffing 

constraints. We would also improve and 

expand access to the lake for freshwater 

fishing and enhance trails for 

environmentally sensitive stream 

crossings and access to additional 

habitats. If we can secure permanent 

funding, we would fill one new visitor 

services staff position to provide depth 

to our programs and achieve our goals 

and objectives. We also propose to 

collaborate with neighboring partner, 

The Fells, at their visitor contact 

facilities at the adjacent Fells gatehouse 

and parking lot to increase our visibility 

and improve public access to refuge 

land. 

Alternative C (Forest Management 

Emphasis) 

This alternative resembles Alternative 

B in its refuge administration and 

facilities, but differs in its habitat 

management intensity and visitor 

services programs. 

Under Alternative C, we would 

actively manage for mature upland 

forest, including silvicultural 

prescriptions such as thinning or soil 

scarification to promote regeneration 

success. Additional early successional 

forest habitat would be provided by 

expanding the existing meadow and 

creating new meadows, but not at the 

expense of mature forest habitat. The 

width of The Fells view to the lake 

would be expanded to provide 

additional habitat for wildlife 

dependent upon early successional 

habitat, and increase the view from the 

estate house. 

As in Alternative B, we would protect 

and enhance riparian and wetlands 

habitats as a priority. As in Alternative 

B, we would monitor and inventory our 

forests and wetlands for invasive plants 

and disease and treat them to the extent 

funding allows. Protecting and 

enhancing riparian and wetland habitats 

would also be a priority. Compared to 

Alternative B, we would conduct a more 

intensive, focused monitoring and 

inventory program designed to address 

more-specific questions about habitat 

quality and the response of wildlife 

populations. In the near-term, inventory 

and monitoring would be aimed 

specifically at documenting the species 

and habitat baseline conditions. 

Under Alternative C, our public use 

programs would accommodate 

additional access with enhanced trail 

conditions to allow people of all 

abilities to access and view the lake. 

This Alternative explores the possibility 

of accommodating hunting by 

determining the feasibility of a very 

limited hunt program in collaboration 

with our State partners. 

Public Meetings 

The public will have the opportunity 

to provide input at one public meeting 

in Newbury, New Hampshire. We will 

release mailings, news releases, and 

announcements electronically and 

provide information about opportunities 

for public review and comment on our 

Web site and in local newspapers, along 

with the contact information below. You 

can obtain the schedule from the 

planning team leader or project leader 

(see ADDRESSES). 

You may also submit comments 

anytime during the planning process by 

mail, electronic mail, or facsimile (see 

ADDRESSES). For specific information, 

including dates, times, and locations, 

contact the project leader (see 

ADDRESSES) or visit our Web site at 

http://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/ 

johnhay/ccphome.html. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-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 available to the public 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: January 8, 2010. 

Wendi Weber, 

Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadley, 

Massachusetts. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3053 Filed 2–17–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R3–R–2009–N243; 30136–1265–0000– 

S3] 

Boyer Chute National Wildlife Refuge, 

NE; Hamden Slough National Wildlife 

Refuge, MN; and Iowa Wetland 

Management District, IA 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES