582 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R5–R–2010–N137; BAC–4311–K9–S3] 

Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck 

National Wildlife Refuge, Fairfax 

County, VA, and Featherstone National 

Wildlife Refuge, Prince William County, 

VA; Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan and Environmental 

Assessment 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and the 

environmental assessment (CCP/EA) for 

Elizabeth Hartwell Mason Neck (Mason 

Neck) National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 

and Featherstone NWR for a 45-day 

public review and comment period. The 

draft CCP/EA describes three 

alternatives for managing Mason Neck 

NWR and two alternatives for managing 

Featherstone NWR for the next 15 years. 

Alternative B is identified for both 

refuges as the Service-preferred 

alternative. Also available for public 

review and comment are the draft 

compatibility determinations, which are 

included as appendix B in the draft 

CCP/EA. 

DATES: To ensure our consideration of 

your written comments, please send 

them by February 22, 2011. We will also 

hold public meetings. We will announce 

upcoming public meetings in local news 

media, via our project mailing list, and 

on our regional planning Web site, 

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

MasonNeck_Featherstone/ 

ccphome.html 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

or requests for copies or more 

information by any of the following 

methods. You may request hard copies 

or a CD–ROM of the documents. 

Electronic mail: 

northeastplanning@fws.gov. Please 

include ‘‘Mason Neck and Featherstone 

NWRs CCP’’ in the subject line of your 

e-mail. 

U.S. Postal Service: Nancy McGarigal, 

Natural Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center 

Drive, Hadley, MA 01035. 

Facsimile: Attention: Nancy 

McGarigal, 413–253–8468. 

In-Person Drop-off, Viewing, or 

Pickup: Call 703–490–4979 to make an 

appointment during regular business 

hours at the Potomac River NWR 

Complex headquarters office, 14344 

Jefferson Davis Highway, Woodbridge, 

VA 22191–2716. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Weiler, Refuge Manager, Potomac River 

NWR Complex, 14344 Jefferson Davis 

Highway, Woodbridge, VA 22191–2716; 

phone: 703–490–4979; facsimile: 703– 

490–5631; electronic mail: 

fw5rw_msnnwr@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for Mason Neck and 

Featherstone NWRs. We published our 

original notice of intent to prepare a 

CCP in the Federal Register on May 18, 

2007 (72 FR 28066). 

Mason Neck and Featherstone NWRs, 

together with Occoquan Bay NWR, 

comprise the Potomac River NWR 

Complex headquartered in Woodbridge, 

Virginia. Mason Neck NWR was 

established in 1969 as the first national 

wildlife refuge specifically created to 

protect a federally listed species. The 

refuge was created under the authority 

of the Endangered Species Preservation 

Act of 1966, the precursor to the 

current-day Endangered Species Act of 

1973. The bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus), which was federally 

listed as threatened in 1969 was, and 

continues to be, the focal species of 

concern on the refuge. Due to successful 

recovery efforts throughout its range, the 

bald eagle was officially removed from 

the Federal list in 2007. It continues to 

be protected, however, under other 

Federal laws and by the Commonwealth 

of Virginia. Mason Neck NWR 

encompasses 2,277 acres of forest, 

marsh, and riverine habitat along 

Occoquan Bay and the mainstem of the 

tidal Potomac River. Refuge visitors 

engage in wildlife observation and 

photography, environmental education 

and interpretation, and fall deer 

hunting. 

Featherstone NWR was established in 

1979 with land acquired from the 

District of Columbia. It was further 

expanded in 1992 with lands donated 

by Prince William County. It presently 

encompasses 325 acres of marsh and 

forested riverine habitat along the 

southwest edge of Occoquan Bay. Its 

wetlands are important habitat for bald 

eagles, wading birds, waterbirds, and 

waterfowl, as well as other native 

species of conservation concern. The 

refuge is presently closed to public use 

and access for public safety reasons; 

there is currently no public parking 

available or safe access across the 

railroad tracks, which lie along the 

length of the refuge’s western boundary. 

Background 

The CCP Process 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd–668ee) (Refuge Administration 

Act), as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997, requires us to develop a 

CCP for each national wildlife refuge. 

The purpose for developing a CCP is to 

provide refuge managers with a 15-year 

plan for achieving refuge purposes and 

contributing toward the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS), consistent with sound 

principles of fish and wildlife 

management, conservation, legal 

mandates, and our policies. In addition 

to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, 

and environmental education and 

interpretation. We will review and 

update each CCP at least every 15 years, 

in accordance with the Refuge 

Administration Act. 

Public Outreach 

In March 2007, we distributed two 

issues of a workbook/planning 

newsletter, one for each refuge, to 

several hundred people on our project 

mailing list. We asked the recipients 

about their interest in the refuges and 

whether they had issues or concerns 

they would like us to address. We also 

posted the newsletters online for people 

to access electronically. In addition, we 

notified the general public of our 

planning kick-off and our interest in 

hearing about issues and concerns by 

publishing news releases in several 

local and regional newspapers. We also 

held two public scoping meetings in 

March 2007 in the cities of Woodbridge 

and Lorton, Virginia. The purpose of 

those meetings was to share information 

on the planning process, and to solicit 

management issues and concerns. 

Throughout the process, refuge staff 

have conducted additional outreach via 

participation in community meetings, 

events, and other public forums. 

Key issues common to both refuges 

identified by the public and our 

partners included: 

• Developing a biological program 

with enough depth to address concerns 

about the biological diversity, health, 

and integrity of the refuges’ forests and 

wetlands, and with capability to 

monitor for climate change impacts; 

• Improving water quality; 

• Protecting both refuges’ shorelines; 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Notices 583 

• Controlling invasive plants and 

forest pests; 

• Controlling an over-abundant deer 

population; 

• Creating trail connections on and 

off the refuges; 

• Increasing opportunities for 

compatible public uses; and 

• Providing more opportunities for 

hunting. 

Issues specific to Mason Neck NWR 

include management of the great blue 

heron rookery at Great Marsh and 

management of refuge impoundments. 

Issues specific to Featherstone NWR 

include the lack of safe public access to 

the refuge and the proposal for a 

Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail 

segment to run through the refuge. We 

have considered and evaluated all of 

these comments in the various 

alternatives addressed in the draft CCP/ 

EA. 

CCP Alternatives We Are Considering 

We developed three management 

alternatives for Mason Neck NWR and 

two alternatives for Featherstone NWR 

based on their respective establishment 

purposes, the vision and goals we 

developed, and the issues and concerns 

that the public, State, and Federal 

agencies, and the Service raised during 

the planning process. A full description 

of each alternative is in the EA. The 

alternatives identify several actions in 

common. On both Mason Neck and 

Featherstone NWRs, all alternatives 

include measures to protect wetlands 

and refuge shorelines, control invasive 

plant species, protect cultural resources, 

establish baseline conditions and 

monitor for climate change impacts, 

distribute refuge revenue sharing 

payments, and continue participation in 

conservation and education 

partnerships. 

There are other actions that differ 

among the alternatives. The draft CCP/ 

EA describes each alternative in detail 

and relates them to the issues and 

concerns that arose during the planning 

process. Below, we provide summaries 

for the three Mason Neck NWR 

alternatives, followed by summaries for 

the two Featherstone NWR alternatives. 

Mason Neck NWR Alternatives 

Alternative A (Current Management) 

This alternative is the ‘‘No Action’’ 

alternative required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Alternative A defines our current 

management activities, including those 

planned, funded, or underway, and 

serves as the baseline against which to 

compare Alternatives B and C. 

Alternative A would maintain our 

present refuge staffing level and our 

visitor services facilities, including 

existing trails and viewing platforms. 

We would continue to emphasize 

wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities, and provide a fall deer 

hunt. Our biological program priorities 

would continue to be protecting the 

refuge’s wetlands and upland forest for 

migratory birds, with particular 

emphasis on protecting nesting bald 

eagles and the great blue heron rookery. 

Controlling invasive plants would also 

continue to be an important part of our 

program. 

Alternative B (Improved Management 

for Trust Resources) 

This is the Service-preferred 

alternative. It combines the actions we 

believe would best achieve the refuge’s 

purposes, vision and goals, and the 

NWRS policy on Biological Integrity, 

Diversity, and Environmental Health 

(601 FW 3). This alternative would also 

be best in responding to the issues that 

arose during the planning process. 

Alternative B would improve our 

management of refuge habitats to 

support Federal trust resources and 

species of conservation concern. In 

particular, our priority would be to 

enhance our management of the refuge’s 

upland forests to benefit bald eagles, 

great blue heron, and other forestdependent migratory birds through 

measures such as prescribed fire, forest 

thinning, and planting of trees, to 

improve forest health. We would also 

pursue actions to improve habitat 

quality in the refuge’s marsh habitat to 

benefit bald eagles, waterfowl, 

waterbirds, and interjurisdictional fish. 

These actions include working with 

partners to improve water quality and 

clean up debris in Great Marsh, 

upgrading the water-control structure 

and altering the water-level regime in 

Little Marsh to promote better foraging 

opportunities, and improving fish 

passage. 

Both the improvement of our current 

trails and addition of new trails and 

observation platforms would offer 

increased opportunities for wildlife 

observation, photography, and 

interpretation. We would also expand 

our interpretive programs and outreach 

efforts to inform and involve more 

people in working towards refuge goals. 

Alternative C (Enhanced Public Use 

Management) 

Alternative C would manage habitat 

similar to Alternative A, but would 

expand wildlife-dependent public use 

programs beyond that which is 

proposed under either Alternatives A or 

B. We would devote more staff time and 

resources to offering new or improved 

compatible priority public programs. 

For example, we would offer a new 

muzzleloader deer hunting season, 

construct additional photography 

blinds, and offer more guided and selfguided wildlife observation tours and 

environmental education programs. 

Featherstone NWR Alternatives 

Alternative A (Current Management) 

Similar to Alternative A for Mason 

Neck NWR, this alternative satisfies the 

NEPA requirement for a ‘‘No Action’’ 

alternative. It describes our current 

management priorities and activities, 

and serves as a baseline for comparing 

and contrasting Alternative B. Under 

Alternative A, Featherstone NWR would 

continue to be closed to all public use 

and access. Our priorities would be to 

protect the refuge from vandalism and 

trespassing, control invasive plants, and 

monitor for threats to wildlife and 

habitats. 

Alternative B (Enhanced Management) 

This is the Service-preferred 

alternative. Habitat and species 

management would focus on protecting 

sensitive nesting areas from human 

disturbance, and monitoring for and 

treating invasive plants, pests, and 

pathogens to avoid catastrophic loss or 

degradation of habitat. Under 

Alternative B, we would also continue 

to work with Prince William County to 

secure public parking and legal and safe 

pedestrian access to the refuge, which 

has been an issue since refuge 

establishment. Once that access is 

secured and we have the additional staff 

to manage those activities, we would 

provide opportunities for wildlife 

observation and nature photography on 

designated trails, and fishing at 

designated sites. 

Under Alternative B, within 5 years, 

we would evaluate a proposal to 

provide opportunities for hunting. Other 

alternatives, including no action, would 

be considered in that hunt program 

evaluation, and there would be public 

involvement before making a final 

decision on the types of hunting 

opportunities offered. 

Public Availability of Documents 

In addition to any methods in 

ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain 

documents from the agency Web site, 

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

MasonNeck_Featherstone/ 

ccphome.html. 

Next Steps 

After this comment period ends, we 

will analyze the comments and address 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
584 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 3 / Wednesday, January 5, 2011 / Notices 

them in the form of a final CCP and 

finding of no significant impact. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, electronic mail address, or 

other personal identifying information 

in your comments, you should be aware 

that your entire comment—including 

your personal identifying information— 

may be made publicly available at any 

time. While you can ask us in your 

comment to withhold your personal 

identifying information from public 

review, we cannot guarantee that we 

will be able to do so. 

Dated: November 29, 2010. 

Wendi Weber, 

Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA 01035. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33340 Filed 1–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLAZ910000.L12100000.

XP0000LXSS150A00006100.241A] 

State of Arizona Resource Advisory 

Council Meeting 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Arizona Resource 

Advisory Council Meeting. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory 

Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), Arizona 

Resource Advisory Council (RAC), will 

meet on February 3, 2011, at the BLM 

National Training Center located at 9828 

North 31st Avenue in Phoenix from 

8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m. Agenda items 

include: BLM State Director’s update on 

statewide programs and issues; 

presentation on water; updates on the 

Renewable Energy Strategy, Restoration 

Design Energy Project Programmatic 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 

and Northern Arizona Proposed Mineral 

Withdrawal Draft EIS; RAC questions on 

BLM District Managers’ Reports; and 

reports by the RAC working groups. A 

public comment period will be provided 

at 11:30 a.m. on February 3, 2011, for 

any interested members of the public 

who wish to address the Council on 

BLM programs and business. 

Under the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act, the RAC has been 

designated as the Recreation Resource 

Advisory Council (RRAC), and has the 

authority to review all BLM and Forest 

Service (FS) recreation fee proposals in 

Arizona. The RRAC will not review any 

recreation fee proposals at this meeting. 

DATES: Effective Date: February 3, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dorothea Boothe, Bureau of Land 

Management, Arizona State Office, One 

North Central Avenue, Suite 800, 

Phoenix, Arizona 85004–4427, 602– 

417–9504. 

Dated: December 28, 2010. 

James G. Kenna, 

Arizona State Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33339 Filed 1–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–32–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive 

Management Program Work Group 

(AMWG) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The Glen Canyon Dam 

Adaptive Management Program (AMP) 

was implemented as a result of the 

Record of Decision on the Operation of 

Glen Canyon Dam Final Environmental 

Impact Statement to comply with 

consultation requirements of the Grand 

Canyon Protection Act (Pub. L. 102– 

575) of 1992. The AMP includes a 

Federal advisory committee, the 

Adaptive Management Work Group 

(AMWG), a technical work group 

(TWG), a Grand Canyon Monitoring and 

Research Center, and independent 

review panels. The AMWG makes 

recommendations to the Secretary of the 

Interior concerning Glen Canyon Dam 

operations and other management 

actions to protect resources downstream 

of Glen Canyon Dam consistent with the 

Grand Canyon Protection Act. The TWG 

is a subcommittee of the AMWG and 

provides technical advice and 

recommendations to the AMWG. 

DATES: The AMWG will conduct the 

meeting on Wednesday and Thursday, 

February 9–10, 2011. The meeting will 

begin at 9:30 a.m. and end at 5 p.m. the 

first day and will begin at 8 a.m. and 

conclude at approximately 3 p.m. on the 

second day. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 

the Fiesta Resort Conference Center, 

Encantada Ballroom, 2100 S. Priest 

Drive, Tempe, Arizona. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Glen 

Knowles, Bureau of Reclamation, 

telephone (801) 524–3781; facsimile 

(801) 524–3858; e-mail at 

gknowles@usbr.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

Agenda: The primary purpose of the 

meeting will be for the AMWG to 

discuss the High Flow Experiment 

Synthesis reports, status of sediment 

inputs, and concerns about the Fiscal 

Year 2011 workplan in light of reduced 

agency budgets. Other issues to be 

addressed will be: (1) Final report of 

Fiscal Year 2010 expenditures, (2) 

updates on High Flow Experimental 

Protocol and the Non-native Fish 

Control environmental assessments, (3) 

Colorado River Basin hydrology, (4) and 

the Long-Term Experimental and 

Management Plan. In addition, there 

will be updates from the Charter Ad Hoc 

Group and a follow up report on the 

work done by the Desired Future 

Conditions Ad Hoc Group. The AMWG 

will also address other administrative 

and resource issues pertaining to the 

AMP. To view a copy of the agenda and 

documents related to the above meeting, 

please visit Reclamation’s Web site at 

http://www.usbr.gov/uc/rm/amp/amwg/ 

mtgs/11feb09/index.html. Time will be 

allowed at the meeting for any 

individual or organization wishing to 

make formal oral comments. To allow 

for full consideration of information by 

the AMWG members, written notice 

must be provided to Glen Knowles, 

Bureau of Reclamation, Upper Colorado 

Regional Office, 125 South State Street, 

Room 6107, Salt Lake City, Utah 84138; 

telephone 801–524–3781; facsimile 

801–524–3858; e-mail at 

gknowles@usbr.gov at least five (5) days 

prior to the meeting. Any written 

comments received will be provided to 

the AMWG members. 

Public Disclosure of Comments 

Before including your name, address, 

phone number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comment 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Dated: December 15, 2010. 

Glen Knowles, 

Chief, Adaptive Management Work Group, 

Environmental Resources Division, Upper 

Colorado Regional Office, Salt Lake City, 

Utah. 

[FR Doc. 2010–33338 Filed 1–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES