[Federal Register: June 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 104)]
[Notices]
[Page 30423-30425]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01jn10-105]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
hardwood-conifer 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 wildlife-dependent 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
[[Page 30424]]
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 off-refuge;
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 east-west through
the northern part of the valley, and we would allow limited off-trail
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
[[Page 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 already-disturbed 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