Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30423 

Alternative 2 

Under Alternative 2, we will focus on 

restoring Refuge streams as free flowing 

streams with fluctuating water levels 

and increasing the amount of native 

habitats. Many of the constructed 

management areas (moist soil units, 

open waters, and agricultural areas) are 

restored to more natural or historic 

landscape conditions. Duck and small 

game hunting are introduced as well as 

increased seasonal access for wildlife 

observation. 

Alternative 3: (Preferred Alternative) 

Under Alternative 3, we will mimic 

components of historic hydrologic 

function within Refuge streams by 

allowing seasonal and annual variations 

in water levels. Manage up to 1,300 

acres of emergent wetland habitat using 

moist soil techniques. Increase the 

amount of wet meadow and native 

prairie and reduce the amount of 

cropland. We will increase 

opportunities for hunting and wildlife 

observation as in Alternative 2, but also 

increase emphasis on interpretation and 

education and develop additional 

volunteer opportunities. 

Public Meeting 

We will give the public an 

opportunity to provide input at a public 

meeting. You can obtain the schedule 

from the address or Web site listed in 

this notice (see ADDRESSES). You may 

also submit comments anytime during 

the comment period. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

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: April 6, 2010. 

Christopher P. Jensen, 

Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13009 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R5–R–2009–N208; BAC–4311–K9–S3] 

Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment; 

Canaan Valley National Wildlife 

Refuge, Tucker County, WV 

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 (CCP) and draft 

environmental assessment (EA) for 

Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) for a 45-day public review and 

comment period. The draft CCP/EA 

describes four 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 July 16, 2010. We will also hold 

public meetings. We will announce and 

post details of the public meetings in 

local news media, via our project 

mailing list, and on our regional 

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

northeast/planning/Canaan%20Valley/ 

ccphome.html. 

ADDRESSES: Send your comments or 

requests for copies of the draft CCP/EA 

by one of the following methods. You 

may also drop off comments in person 

at Canaan Valley NWR, located off 

Route 32 in Davis, West Virginia. 

U.S. Mail: Beth Goldstein, Natural 

Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center 

Drive, Hadley, MA 01035. 

Facsmile: Attention: Beth Goldstein, 

413–253–8468. 

Electronic Mail: 

northeastplanning@fws.gov. Include 

‘‘Canaan Valley 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/Canaan%20Valley/ 

ccphome.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jonathan Schafler, Refuge Manager, 

Canaan Valley NWR, HC 70, P.O. Box 

200, Davis, WV 26260; phone: 304–866– 

3858; facsimile: 304–866–3852; 

electronic mail: fw5rw_cvnwr@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

This notice continues the CCP process 

for Canaan Valley NWR. 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 January 22, 2007 (72 FR 

2709). 

The 16,183-acre Canaan Valley NWR 

was established in 1994 to conserve and 

protect fish and wildlife resources and 

the unique wetland and upland habitats 

of this high elevation valley. The refuge 

is located in Tucker County, West 

Virginia, and has an approved 

acquisition boundary of 24,000 acres. It 

includes the largest wetland complex in 

the State, and encompasses the 

headwaters of the Blackwater and Little 

Blackwater rivers. The refuge supports 

species of concern at both the Federal 

and State levels, including the West 

Virginia northern flying squirrel, bald 

eagle, and the Federal listed Cheat 

Mountain salamander and Indiana bat. 

Its dominant habitats include wet 

meadows, peatlands, shrub and forested 

swamps, beaver ponds and streams, 

northern hardwood forest, old fields and 

shrubland, and managed grassland. 

Refuge visitors engage in wildlife 

observation and photography, 

environmental education, 

interpretation, hunting, and fishing. 

Management activities include 

maintaining and perpetuating the 

ecological integrity of the Canaan Valley 

wetland complex; perpetuating the 

ecological integrity of upland northern 

hardwood and northern hardwoodconifer forests to sustain wildlife and 

plant communities; providing a 

diversity of successional habitats in 

upland and wetland-edge shrublands, 

grasslands, old fields, and hardwood 

communities; and supporting wildlifedependent recreation and education. 

Background 

The CCP Process 

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 and conservation, legal 

mandates, and Service policies. In 

addition to outlining broad management 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
30424 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 

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 

Administration Act. 

Public Outreach 

In September 2006, we distributed an 

issues workbook/planning newsletter to 

more than 2,000 names on our mailing 

list, asking people about their interest in 

the refuge and whether they had issues 

or concerns they would like us to 

address. We also posted the newsletter 

and workbook online for people to 

complete electronically, and we 

electronically mailed it to our 

stakeholder’s mailing list, which was 

developed with help from the U.S. 

Geological Survey. In October 2006 and 

January 2007, we held public scoping 

meetings in Elkins, Parsons, Thomas, 

and Davis, West Virginia. The purposes 

of those meetings was to share 

information on the planning process, 

review the workbook 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 key issues expressed by the 

public included: 

• Create trail connections on- and offrefuge; 

• Allow multiple recreational uses on 

refuge trails while minimizing user 

conflicts; 

• Increase opportunities for 

interpretation and education by 

providing more guided walks, programs, 

and brochures; 

• Re-route existing trails to decrease 

erosion; 

• Evaluate the refuge for wilderness 

designation; 

• Improve woodcock habitat by 

cutting alder and aspen, and by grazing 

shrublands; 

• Provide more opportunities for 

hunting; 

• Reduce or eliminate hunting on the 

refuge; and 

• Allow more vehicle access for deer 

hunting. 

CCP Actions We Are Considering, 

Including the Service-Preferred 

Alternative 

We developed four 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 wetlands 

and rare plant communities, controlling 

invasive plant species, addressing 

climate change, protecting cultural 

resources, distributing refuge revenue 

sharing payments, and continuing our 

role in land conservation partnerships. 

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, including those 

planned, funded, or underway, and 

serves as the baseline against which to 

compare the other three action 

alternatives. It would maintain our 

present level of approved refuge staffing 

and the biological and visitor services 

programs now in place. It would 

continue the following priorities of the 

biological program: Shrubland and 

grassland management for migratory 

birds; protection and monitoring of 

threatened and endangered species; red 

spruce and balsam fir community 

restoration; upland and wetland habitat 

restoration; invasive plant monitoring 

and eradication; and rare plant and 

animal conservation. We would 

continue efforts to protect the federally 

threatened Cheat Mountain salamander, 

the federally endangered Indiana bat, 

and the recently delisted West Virginia 

northern flying squirrel by monitoring 

known populations, inventorying 

suitable habitat for new populations, 

and researching habitat limitations. We 

would continue to offer a hunt program 

that is in accordance with State seasons. 

We would maintain current access sites 

for fishing and boating, and current 

trails for wildlife observation and 

photography. We would continue to 

offer our current level of environmental 

education and interpretation programs 

as staffing and funding allows. Finally, 

we would continue to collaborate with 

partners to promote the natural 

resources of Canaan Valley through 

outreach and public awareness. 

Alternative B (Emphasis on Focal 

Species) 

This alternative represents the 

combination of actions we believe most 

effectively achieves the purposes and 

goals of the refuge and would make an 

important contribution to conserving 

Federal trust resources in West Virginia 

and the central Appalachians. It is the 

alternative that would most effectively 

provide low-impact wildlife-dependent 

recreation and would address the 

significant issues in Chapter 1 of the 

draft CCP/EA. It builds on the programs 

identified under current management. It 

is designed to balance the conservation 

of a mixed-forest matrix landscape with 

the management of early successional 

habitats and the protection of wetlands. 

The habitat-type objectives in the plan 

identify focal species whose life and 

growth requirements would guide 

management activities in each 

respective habitat. Alternative B 

addresses the refuge’s mandate to 

consider managing refuge habitat under 

the Biological Integrity, Diversity and 

Environmental Health Policy (601 FW 

3). Also in this alternative, we would 

designate 754 acres of the refuge’s 

central wetland complex as a Research 

Natural Area. 

The hunt program would remain the 

same as alternative A, except we would 

facilitate the removal of more deer from 

the refuge by providing more access into 

the interior of the refuge and by opening 

more land to rifle hunting. We would 

officially open the refuge to fishing by 

amending 50 CFR 32.68 and would 

promote fishing opportunities. For 

increased wildlife observation and 

photography, the refuge would create 

more trail connections. We would also 

expand visitor center hours, build a new 

environmental education pavilion, and 

increase the number of environmental 

education and interpretation programs. 

We expect a 15 percent increase in 

visitation under this alternative. To 

fully implement alternative B, we would 

add 3.5 positions to the Canaan Valley 

NWR staff, for a total of 12.5 positions. 

Alternative C (Emphasis on Expanding 

Priority Public Uses) 

In alternative C, we would increase 

access and infrastructure to support 

more priority public uses than any of 

the other alternatives. We would create 

a cross-valley trail that would run eastwest through the northern part of the 

valley, and we would allow limited offtrail use in a designated area. With these 

improvements in the public use 

programs, we expect refuge visitation to 

increase by 20 percent. With an increase 

in public access and infrastructure 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 104 / Tuesday, June 1, 2010 / Notices 30425 

development, we anticipate a greater 

need for monitoring and control of 

invasive plants. We would also 

encourage additional research that 

would assess whether increased public 

use affects wildlife behavior, including 

nesting, feeding, and resting. We 

therefore propose in this alternative to 

have a staff of 13.5, compared to a staff 

of 12.5 in alternative B. 

Within the biological objectives, 

differences are more subtle and 

emphasize early successional habitat 

management over forest stand 

improvement. Although the Biological 

Integrity and Diversity Policy would 

still guide some management of the 

forested and unique wetland plant 

communities, this management would 

mostly be in the form of protection and 

conservation rather than restoration. 

The Research Natural Area in this 

alternative would be 593 acres, 

compared with 754 acres in alternative 

B. 

Alternative D (Emphasis on Managing 

for Historic Habitats) 

This alternative strives to establish 

and maintain the ecological integrity of 

natural communities within the refuge. 

Management would range from passive, 

or ‘‘letting nature takes its course,’’ to 

actively manipulating vegetation to 

create or hasten the development of 

mature forest structural conditions 

shaped by natural disturbances such as 

infrequent fires, ice storms, and small 

patch blow-downs. Under this 

alternative, no particular wildlife 

species would be a management focus. 

We would pursue wetland restoration 

projects where past land uses have 

altered historical plant communities or 

have hindered natural hydrological 

flow. We would also promote research 

and development of applied 

management practices to sustain and 

enhance the natural composition, 

patterns, and processes within their 

natural range in the Central 

Appalachian Forest. As in the other 

alternatives, we would ensure 

protection of current or future 

threatened and endangered species, and 

we would control the establishment and 

spread of non-native, invasive species. 

We would create the same 754-acre 

Research Natural Area as we would in 

alternative B. 

In alternative D, we would limit new 

visitor services infrastructure to alreadydisturbed areas, such as around the 

refuge headquarters and visitor center 

facility, the Freeland tract, and roadside 

pullouts along A-frame Road. We would 

enhance hunting and fishing 

opportunities in ways similar to 

alternatives B and C. Under this 

alternative, we would expect a 10 

percent increase in visitor use, which is 

the same as alternative A. To fully 

implement this alternative, we would 

add 2.5 positions to the Canaan Valley 

staff for a total of 11.5 positions. One of 

these would be a law enforcement 

officer to help enforce stricter 

limitations on visitor use. 

Public Meetings 

We will give the public opportunities 

to provide input at public comment 

meetings. 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: April 26, 2010. 

James G. Geiger, 

Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12998 Filed 5–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R2–ES–2010–N100; 20124–1113– 

0000–F5] 

Endangered and Threatened Species 

Permit Applications 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of receipt of applications; 

request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: The following applicants have 

applied for scientific research permits to 

conduct certain activities with 

endangered species under the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). The Act requires that we 

invite public comment on these permit 

applications. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, written 

comments must be received on or before 

July 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments should 

be submitted to the Chief, Endangered 

Species Division, Ecological Services, 

P.O. Box 1306, Room 6034, 

Albuquerque, NM 87103. Documents 

and other information submitted with 

these applications are available for 

review, subject to the requirements of 

the Privacy Act and Freedom of 

Information Act. Documents will be 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment only, during normal 

business hours at the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 500 Gold Ave., SW., 

Room 6034, Albuquerque, NM. Please 

refer to the respective permit number for 

each application when submitting 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Jacobsen, Chief, Endangered 

Species Division, P.O. Box 1306, 

Albuquerque, NM 87103; (505) 248– 

6920. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

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. 

Permit TE–02368A 

Applicant: Andrea Chavez, 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 

Applicant requests a new permit for 

research and recovery purposes to 

conduct presence/absence surveys for 

southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax taillii extimus) within New 

Mexico. 

Permit TE–172278 

Applicant: John Abbott, Austin, Texas. 

Applicant requests an amendment to 

a current permit for research and 

recovery purposes to conduct presence/ 

absence surveys and genetic sampling 

for American burying beetle 

(Nicrophorus americanus) within 

Oklahoma. 

Permit TE–10794A 

Applicant: Robert Steidl, Tucson, 

Arizona. 

Applicant requests a new permit for 

research and recovery purposes to 

conduct presence/absence surveys for 

lesser long-nosed bat (Leptonycteris 

yerbabuenae) within Arizona. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES