Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 59287 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R5–R2010–N147; BAC–4311–K9–S3] 

Supawna Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge, Salem County, NJ 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments: draft comprehensive 

conservation plan/environmental 

assessment. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and the 

environmental assessment (EA) for 

Supawna Meadows National Wildlife 

Refuge (NWR), located in Salem County, 

New Jersey. The refuge is administered 

by staff located at Cape May NWR in 

Cape May County, New Jersey. The draft 

CCP/EA describes three alternatives, 

including our Service-preferred 

alternative, for managing this refuge for 

the next 15 years. Also available for 

public review and comment are the 

draft compatibility determinations for 

uses to be allowed upon initial 

completion of the plan if Alternative B 

is selected. These are included as 

appendix B in the draft CCP/EA. 

DATES: To ensure our consideration of 

your written comments, please send 

them no later than October 27, 2010. We 

will also hold public meetings in 

Pennsville, New Jersey. 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/SupawnaMeadows/ 

ccphome.html. 

ADDRESSES: Send your comments or 

requests for copies of the draft CCP/EA 

by one of the following methods. 

U.S. Mail: Lia McLaughlin, Natural 

Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center 

Drive, Hadley, MA 01035. 

Facsimile: Attention: Lia McLaughlin, 

413–253–8468. 

Electronic mail: 

northeastplanning@fws.gov. Please put 

the words ‘‘Supawna Meadows NWR 

CCP’’ in the subject line of your 

electronic mail. 

Agency Web site: View or download 

the draft document on the Web at 

http://library.fws.gov/ 

RefugePlanningDocuments.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Howard Schlegel, Refuge Manager, Cape 

May NWR, 24 Kimbles Beach Road, 

Cape May Court House, NJ 08210; 

phone: 609–463–0994; facsimile: 609– 

463–1667; or electronic mail: 

capemaynwr@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

This notice continues the CCP process 

for Supawna Meadows NWR. This draft 

CCP/EA for Supawna NWR combines 

two documents required by Federal 

laws: A CCP, required by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Administrative 

Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668 dd–ee) 

(Administration Act), as amended by 

the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997; and an EA, 

required by the National Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 4321–4347). We published 

our original notice of intent to prepare 

a CCP in the Federal Register on 

September 24, 2007 (72 FR 54280). 

Supawna Meadows NWR currently 

includes 3,016 acres of marsh, 

grassland, shrubland, and forest 

habitats. The approved acquisition 

boundary encompasses 4,527 acres 

along the Upper Delaware Bay in Salem 

County. The refuge was originally 

established as the Goose Pond addition 

to the Killcohook NWR (currently 

termed Killcohook Dredge Spoil 

Disposal Area), which was established 

by Executive Order 6582 on February 3, 

1934, and was renamed as Supawna 

Meadows NWR in 1974. Supawna 

Meadows NWR was established to 

benefit migratory birds, breeding birds, 

wild animals, protect natural resources, 

and provide opportunities for suitable 

wildlife-oriented recreation. 

Refuge visitors engage in wildlife 

observation and photography, hunting, 

and fishing. Portions of the refuge are 

open to deer hunting, waterfowl 

hunting, and fishing and crabbing per 

State regulations. Finns Point Rear 

Range Light, listed on the National 

Register of Historic Places, draws a 

number of visitors as well. 

Background 

The CCP Process 

CCPs 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, legal mandates, and our 

policies. In addition to outlining broad 

management direction on conserving 

wildlife and their habitats, CCPs 

identify opportunities for wildlifedependent 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 August 2007, we published and 

distributed our first newsletter. In 

September 2007, we held two public 

scoping meetings in Pennsville, New 

Jersey. The purpose of those meetings 

was to solicit comments from the 

community and other interested parties 

on the scope of the CCP and the issues 

and impacts that should be evaluated in 

the CCP/EA. 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 and partners meetings included: 

• Identifying which key species 

should be focused on for management; 

• Managing invasive, exotic, and 

overabundant species; 

• Managing impoundments and 

forested wetlands; 

• Managing nonpriority public uses 

on the refuge, such as dog walking; 

• Conducting community outreach 

efforts for support of the Service 

mission and refuge-established 

purposes; 

• Expanding the refuge through land 

acquisition; 

• Staffing and funding necessary to 

complete priority projects; 

• Protecting cultural and historic 

resources; and, 

• Conducting scientific research. 

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 acquiring land within 

the current refuge acquisition boundary, 

protecting cultural resources, 

distributing refuge revenue sharing 

payments, and monitoring water 

quality. There are also some actions 

shared by Alternatives A and B only. 

These include assessing public use 

opportunities on the acquired lands, 

monitoring and abating wildlife 

diseases, and supporting biological and 

ecological research investigations. 

Other actions distinguish the 

alternatives. The draft CCP/EA describes 

the alternatives in detail, and relates 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
59288 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 186 / Monday, September 27, 2010 / Notices 

them to the issues and concerns. 

Highlights follow. 

Alternative A (Current Management) 

This alternative is the ‘‘No Action’’ 

alternative required by NEPA. 

Alternative A (current management) 

satisfies the NEPA 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 and C. It would maintain 

our present levels of approved refuge 

staffing and the biological and visitor 

programs now in place. We would 

continue to focus efforts on providing 

native tidal marsh habitat for Federal 

trust resources, in particular, for 

migrating and nesting wading birds, 

wintering habitats for marshbirds, 

waterfowl, shorebirds, and other 

wildlife. We would continue to actively 

manage tidal marsh and grassland 

habitats and would maintain dikes and 

water levels on impoundments that 

have water control structures. 

Alternative B (Focus on Species of 

Conservation Concern) 

This alternative is the Servicepreferred alternative. It combines the 

actions we believe would most 

effectively achieve refuge purposes, 

vision, and goals, and respond to public 

issues. This alternative emphasizes 

management of specific refuge habitats 

to support Federal trust resources and 

species of conservation concern in the 

area. In particular, the priority would be 

to protect and restore the refuge’s native 

tidal marsh habitat to benefit Pea Patch 

Island colonial-breeding wading birds, 

as well as secretive marshbirds, 

migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

other birds of conservation concern. A 

secondary consideration would be to 

manage a diversity of other refuge 

wetland and upland habitats to benefit 

breeding and migrating songbirds, 

waterfowl, and raptors, as well as 

amphibians, reptiles, and mammals of 

conservation concern. Our Visitor 

Services program would be enhanced to 

provide more opportunities for a wide 

variety of compatible wildlifedependent activities. In 2005, the 

Northeast Regional Visitor Services 

Review Team identified visitor 

programs of emphasis for each refuge. 

The programs identified for this refuge 

are interpretation and wildlife 

observation and photography. The 

determination of programs for Supawna 

Meadows NWR was based on careful 

consideration of our natural resources, 

existing staff, operational funds, existing 

and potential facilities, and which 

programs we would be most effective in 

providing ‘‘quality’’ opportunities for 

visitors. 

Alternative C (Cease Management and 

Close Refuge to Public Uses) 

Under this alternative, we would 

close Supawna Meadows NWR to all 

public uses and cease all habitat 

management activities. There would be 

no funding allocated for any projects at 

the refuge. This alternative would only 

partially achieve the refuge purposes, 

vision, and goals, and respond to public 

issues, however, budgetary constraints 

make it a reasonable alternative to 

consider. Under this alternative, the 

public would be notified of the closure, 

and appropriate signage would be 

placed on all buildings and along the 

refuge boundary. Cape May NWR staff 

would conduct semiannual site 

inspections requiring about 40 staff 

hours per year. We would continue to 

meet our trust obligations under the 

Endangered Species Act, which requires 

us to take measures to benefit the 

recovery of any federally listed species 

that might be found on the refuge in the 

future. We would also continue to 

comply with the National Historic 

Preservation Act by maintaining Finns 

Point Rear Range Light. 

Public Meetings 

We will give the public opportunities 

to provide input at public meetings in 

Pennsville, New Jersey, near the refuge. 

You can obtain the schedule from the 

refuge manager or natural resource 

planner, or visit the planning Web site 

(see ADDRESSES or FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT, above). You may 

also submit comments at any time 

during the public comment period, by 

any means shown in the ADDRESSES

section. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, electronic 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: August 20, 2010. 

Anthony D. Le ́ger, 

Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA 01035. 

[FR Doc. 2010–23871 Filed 9–24–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

National Register of Historic Places; 

Notification of Pending Nominations 

and Related Actions 

Nominations for the following 

properties being considered for listing 

or related actions in the National 

Register were received by the National 

Park Service before September 4, 2010. 

Pursuant to section 60.13 of 36 CFR Part 

60, written comments are being 

accepted concerning the significance of 

the nominated properties under the 

National Register criteria for evaluation. 

Comments may be forwarded by United 

States Postal Service, to the National 

Register of Historic Places, National 

Park Service, 1849 C St., NW., MS 2280, 

Washington, DC 20240; by all other 

carriers, National Register of Historic 

Places, National Park Service, 1201 Eye 

St., NW., 8th floor, Washington DC 

20005; or by fax, 202–371–6447. Written 

or faxed comments should be submitted 

by October 12, 2010. 

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. 

J. Paul Loether, 

Chief, National Register of Historic Places/ 

National Historic Landmarks Program. 

ARIZONA 

Maricopa County 

Phoenix Homesteads Historic District 

Boundary Increase, Roughly bounded by 

Pinchot and Flower Sts, 26th to 28th Sts, 

Phoenix, 10000844 

ARKANSAS 

Jefferson County 

Williams Building, 418–420 N University, 

Pine Bluff, 10000833 

Polk County 

Shady Lake CCC Bridge #1, (Facilities 

Constructed by the CCC in Arkansas MPS) 

Forest Service Road 38 over the South Fork 

of the Saline River, Athens, 10000841 

Shady Lake CCC Bridge #2, (Facilities 

Constructed by the CCC in Arkansas MPS) 

Shady Lake Campground loop road over 

the East Fork of the Saline River, Athens, 

10000842 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES