46456 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 2009 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E9–21670 Filed 9–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R5–R–2008–N198; 50133–1265– 

XENP–S3] 

Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge, 

Kent County, MD 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability: draft 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

draft 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 

Eastern Neck National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR), located in Kent County, 

Maryland, with its office in Rock Hall, 

Maryland. The draft CCP/EA describes 

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 October 9, 2009. We will also 

hold a public meeting in Rock Hall, 

Maryland. We will announce and post 

details of 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/ 

eastern%20neck/ccphome.html. 

ADDRESSES: Send your comments or 

requests for copies of the draft CCP/EA 

by one of the following methods. 

U.S. Mail: Nancy McGarigal, Natural 

Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center 

Drive, Hadley, MA 01035. 

Fax: Attention: Nancy McGarigal, 

413–253–8468. 

E-mail: northeastplanning@fws.gov. 

Please put the words ‘‘Eastern Neck 

NWR CCP’’ in the subject line of your 

e-mail. 

Agency Web site: View or download 

the draft document on the Web at 

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

eastern%20neck/ccphome.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suzanne Baird, Project Leader, 

Chesapeake Marshlands National 

Wildlife Refuge Complex, 2145 Key 

Wallace Drive, Cambridge, MD 21613; 

phone 410–228–2692, extension 101; 

fax 410–228–3261; or e-mail at 

fw5rw_bwnwr@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

This notice continues the CCP process 

for Eastern Neck NWR, which is one of 

the four refuges that comprise the 

Chesapeake Marshlands NWR Complex. 

The other three are Blackwater, Martin, 

and Susquehanna NWRs. We prepared 

the draft CCP in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA) (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. 

We published our original notice of 

intent to prepare a CCP in the Federal 

Register on June 11, 2002 (67 FR 40002). 

Due to changes in budget and staffing 

priorities, the project was put on hold 

in 2003. We subsequently announced 

we were restarting the process by 

publishing another notice in the Federal 

Register on January 22, 2007 (72 FR 

2709). 

Eastern Neck NWR is a 2,285-acre 

island that lies at the confluence of the 

Chester River and the Chesapeake Bay 

in Kent County, Maryland. Established 

in 1962 to protect migratory birds, the 

refuge is recognized regionally as a 

major feeding and resting place for a 

wide variety of migrating and wintering 

waterfowl. Its habitats are highly 

diverse, and include tidal marsh, open 

water, and woodland. Its managed 

croplands also contribute to the quality 

of its habitats by providing a ready 

source of high-energy food for wintering 

waterfowl when their reserves are low. 

The moist soil units and green tree 

reservoirs on the refuge also are 

managed to enhance habitats for 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICESEN09SE09.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 2009 / Notices 46457 

migratory birds. Thousands of Atlantic 

population Canada geese and black 

ducks winter here, as do large rafts of 

ruddy ducks, canvasbacks, and greater 

and lesser scaups. Of particular note are 

the wintering tundra swans that use the 

adjacent shallow waters. A small 

number of the federally listed 

endangered Delmarva fox squirrel 

(Sciurus niger cinereus) occur on the 

refuge, as do breeding bald eagles and 

more than 60 migratory bird species of 

conservation concern. 

Although conserving wildlife and 

habitat is the refuge’s first priority, the 

public can observe and photograph 

wildlife, fish, hunt, or participate in 

environmental education and 

interpretation programs. To facilitate 

those activities, we maintain selfguiding trails, fishing and observation 

platforms, and photography blinds. 

School groups come throughout the year 

for our educational and interpretive 

programs. An annual deer hunt and 

youth turkey hunt are also very popular 

activities on the refuge. All programs 

benefit from the active involvement of 

the Friends of Eastern Neck and refuge 

volunteers. 

Background 

The CCP Process 

The Improvement Act requires us to 

develop a CCP for each national wildlife 

refuge. The purpose for developing 

those CCPs is to provide refuge 

managers with 15-year plans for 

achieving refuge purposes and the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System (NWRS), in conformance with 

sound principles of fish and wildlife 

management and conservation, legal 

mandates, and Service policies. In 

addition to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify 

opportunities for wildlife-dependent 

recreation available to the public, which 

includes opportunities for hunting, 

fishing, observing and photographing 

wildlife, and participating in 

environmental education and 

interpretation programs. We will review 

and update each CCP at least every 15 

years, in accordance with the 

Improvement Act. 

Public Outreach 

In conjunction with our first Federal 

Register notice in June 2002, we 

distributed a newsletter to more than 

600 State agencies, organizations, and 

individuals on our project mailing list, 

asking about their interest in the refuge 

and whether they had issues or 

concerns they would like us to address. 

At that time, we also held public 

scoping meetings. In January 2007, 

along with the release of the newsletter 

announcing that we were restarting the 

planning process, we held a public 

meeting in Rock Hall, Maryland. The 

purpose of that meeting was to share 

updated information on the planning 

process, review the 2002 scoping 

results, and solicit new management 

issues and concerns. Throughout the 

process, we have conducted additional 

outreach via participation in community 

meetings, events, and other public 

forums, and requested public input on 

managing the refuge and its programs. 

Some of the key issues in the public 

comments include: 

• The need to identify the most 

effective strategies for enhancing 

habitats for migrating and wintering 

waterfowl, 

• Determining what other species and 

habitats should be management 

priorities, 

• Deciding how we can best control 

invasive plants, and 

• How to work best with partners to 

minimize shoreline erosion and the 

degradation of shallow water habitats. 

We considered all of these comments, 

and incorporated many of them into the 

varied alternatives in the draft CCP/EA. 

CCP Actions We Are Considering, 

Including the Service-Preferred 

Alternative 

We developed three management 

alternatives based on the purposes for 

establishing the refuge; its vision and 

goals; and the issues and concerns of the 

public, State agencies, and the Service 

that arose during the planning process. 

The alternatives share some actions in 

common, such as protecting and 

restoring the refuge shoreline and tidal 

marsh habitats, protecting nesting bald 

eagles and the federally listed Delmarva 

fox squirrel, controlling invasive plants, 

encouraging research that benefits our 

resource decisions, protecting cultural 

resources, distributing refuge revenue 

sharing payments to Kent County, 

supporting the Friends of Eastern Neck, 

and promoting the refuge volunteer 

program. 

Other actions distinguish the 

alternatives. The draft CCP/EA describes 

the alternatives in detail, and relates 

them to the issues and concerns. 

Highlights follow. 

Alternative A (Current Management) 

This alternative is the ‘‘No Action’’ 

alternative required by NEPA. 

Alternative A defines our current 

management activities, and serves as the 

baseline for comparing the other 

alternatives. We would continue to 

focus our habitat management on 

protecting the refuge shoreline and 

restoring tidal marsh habitats in 

partnership with others. We would also 

manage cropland on 557 acres, moist 

soil units on 28 acres, and green tree 

reservoirs on 38 acres. We would 

continue to protect 708 acres of mature 

mixed forest and treat invasive plants as 

our funding and staffing allow. Our 

biological monitoring and inventory 

program would continue at its current 

levels, focusing on surveys of breeding 

and wintering birds. 

Our visitor services programs would 

not change; we would continue to 

facilitate opportunities for fishing, 

hunting, observing and photographing 

wildlife, and participating in 

environmental education and 

interpretation programs. We would 

maintain, but not expand, the facilities 

to support those activities. The seasonal 

closures in some areas would continue 

to protect nesting or wintering birds. We 

would continue to station three 

permanent staff at Eastern Neck NWR, 

and access to all refuge complex staff 

would continue to be available as 

needed. 

Alternative B (Emphasis on Tidal 

Wetlands and Waterfowl; the ServicePreferred Alternative) 

This alternative is the one we propose 

as the best way to manage Eastern Neck 

NWR 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 

raised during the planning process. 

The highest priority of the biological 

program in alternative B would be to 

protect the refuge shoreline and tidal 

marsh. We plan to work with partners 

to create additional breakwaters and 

restore 108 acres of native tidal marsh. 

We would consolidate our cropland 

management program into 372 acres in 

fewer, larger fields to increase their use 

by waterfowl. We would also improve 

migratory habitat for waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and marsh birds by creating 

up to four new moist soil units on 21 

acres. As in alternative A, we would 

continue to monitor refuge forests and 

wetlands for invasive plants, and make 

treating them a priority. We would 

expand our biological monitoring and 

inventory program, and regularly 

evaluate its results to help us better 

understand the implications of our 

management actions and identify ways 

to improve their effectiveness. We 

would expand our support of 

compatible research programs, and 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
46458 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 173 / Wednesday, September 9, 2009 / Notices 

would encourage the use of the refuge 

to demonstrate restoration and best 

adaptive management practices. 

We would enhance opportunities for 

all six priority public uses, and 

emphasize two of them—wildlife 

observation and photography. We 

would seek new partnerships, such as 

those with environmental educators, to 

encourage their use of the refuge as a 

living laboratory and help us improve 

our programs. The seasonal closures in 

some areas would continue to protect 

nesting or wintering birds. Outreach and 

Service visibility on the refuge and in 

the local community would improve. 

We would station two additional staff at 

Eastern Neck NWR, but, as in alternative 

A, access to all refuge complex staff 

would continue to be available as 

needed. 

Alternative C (Emphasis on Tidal 

Wetlands and Forest Habitat) 

As in alternatives A and B, the highest 

priority in alternative C is to protect and 

restore the refuge shoreline and tidal 

marsh. However, its emphasis on 

managing forest habitat in the refuge 

uplands to benefit forest-dependent 

species distinguishes it from 

alternatives A and B. We would 

eliminate the cropland program, and 

would not construct new moist soil 

units. Instead, we would allow those 

lands to revert through natural 

succession to forest, and intervene with 

treatments when necessary to ensure 

that a native, healthy, diverse forest 

results. 

We would not begin any other 

significant new inventorying or 

monitoring, except established protocols 

when required by mandates on Federal 

trust species or when recommended by 

the Regional biologist. We would permit 

compatible research programs requested 

by our partners on refuge lands, but 

would limit our involvement. As in 

alternative B, we would encourage the 

use of the refuge to demonstrate 

restoration and best adaptive 

management practices. 

Under alternative C, we would offer 

more visitor services programs and 

build more infrastructure than in 

alternatives A or B. We would open for 

public access the areas previously 

closed to protect wintering waterfowl. 

The suitability of those areas for 

waterfowl would diminish greatly as 

they revert to forest. We would improve 

our programs for environmental 

education, interpretation, and wildlife 

observation and photography. We 

would hold teacher workshops, become 

actively involved in developing local 

school programs using the refuge, and 

promote senior education programs. We 

would consider a new trail and boat 

launch at the south end of the island, 

and would expand the turkey hunt by 

opening it to adult hunters for a limited 

time. As in alternative B, we would 

improve Service outreach and visibility, 

and station two new staff at the refuge. 

Public Meetings 

We will give the public opportunities 

to provide input at one public meeting 

in Rock Hall, Maryland. You can obtain 

the schedule from the project leader or 

natural resource planner (see ADDRESSES

or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, 

above). You may also submit comments 

at any time during the planning process, 

by any means shown in the ADDRESSES

section. 

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 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: August 7, 2009. 

Salvatore M. Amato, 

Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA 01035. 

[FR Doc. E9–21737 Filed 9–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLUTG01100–09–L13100000–EJ0000] 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Greater Chapita Wells Natural Gas 

Infill Project, Uintah County, UT 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM), Vernal Field Office, 

Vernal, Utah, intends to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the proposed Greater Chapita Wells 

Natural Gas Infill Project, and by this 

notice is announcing the beginning of 

the scoping process and soliciting input 

on the identification of issues. 

DATES: A public scoping period will end 

on October 9, 2009. The BLM will 

announce public scoping meetings to 

identify relevant issues through local 

news media, newsletters, and the BLM 

Web site http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/ 

info/newsroom.2.html at least 15 days 

prior to each meeting. We will provide 

additional opportunities for public 

participation upon publication of the 

Draft EIS, including a 45-day public 

comment period. 

ADDRESSES: Comments on issues related 

to the Greater Chapita Wells EIS may be 

submitted through any of the following 

methods: 

• E-mail: 

UT_Vernal_Comments@blm.gov. 

• Fax: (435) 781–4410. 

• Mail: 170 South 500 East, Vernal, 

Utah 84078. 

Documents pertinent to this proposal 

may be examined at the Vernal Field 

Office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

further information and/or to have your 

name added to the mailing list, contact 

Stephanie Howard by telephone: (435) 

781–4469; or e-mail: 

Stephanie_Howard@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

document provides notice that the BLM 

Field Office, Vernal, Utah intends to 

prepare an EIS for the Greater Chapita 

Wells project and announces the 

beginning of the scoping process and 

seeks public input on issues and 

planning criteria. The Greater Chapita 

Wells Natural Gas Infill Project Area 

(GCWPA) consists of 42,027 acres in a 

developed gas-producing area, located 

approximately 30 miles southeast of 

Vernal and 12 miles east of Ouray, Utah. 

The GCWPA is located in the Uinta 

Basin in Uintah County. The GCWPA 

includes 32,823 acres (78 percent) of 

Federal lands administered by the BLM; 

1,914 acres (five percent) of State lands 

administered by the State of Utah 

School and Institutional Trust Lands 

Administration; 6,727 acres (16 percent) 

of Northern Ute Tribal and allotted 

lands administered by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs; and 563 acres (one 

percent) of privately owned lands. 

EOG Resources, Inc. (EOG) plans to 

drill up to 7,028 new infill natural gas 

wells to fully develop all currently 

known productive formations beneath 

EOG’s leased acreage. EOG proposes to 

drill wells at an average rate of 

approximately 469 wells per year over 

a period of 15 years, or until the 

resource base is fully developed. The 

productive life of each well would be 

approximately 40 years, and EOG 

expects all wells to be productive. EOG 

would use the existing infrastructure to 

the greatest possible extent by drilling 

vertical and directional wells. Well pads 

within the GCWPA would contain from 

one to six wells, with most well pads 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES