[Federal Register: February 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 32)]
[Notices]
[Page 7287-7289]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18fe10-52]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R5-R-2009-N183; BAC-4311-K9-S3]
John Hay National Wildlife Refuge, Merrimack County, NH
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability: Draft comprehensive conservation plan
and 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 John Hay National Wildlife
Refuge (NWR) for a 30-day public review and comment period. In this
draft CCP/EA, we describe 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 March 22, 2010. We will also hold at least one public
meeting in Newbury, New Hampshire, during the 30-day review period to
receive comments and provide information on the draft plan. We will
announce and post details about 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/johnhay/ccphome.html.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments or requests for more information by one
of the following methods.
Electronic mail: northeastplanning@fws.gov. Include ``John Hay NWR
CCP/EA'' in the subject line of the message.
U.S. Postal Service: Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex, 73 Weir
Hill Road, Sudbury, MA 01776.
In-person drop-off, viewing, or pickup: Call 978-443-4661 to make
an appointment during regular business hours at the above address.
Facsimile: Attn: Carl Melberg, 978-443-2898.
[[Page 7288]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Parrish, Deputy Refuge Manager,
Silvio O. Conte NFWR, 103 East Plumtree Road, Sunderland, MA 01375;
phone: 413-548-8002 extension 113; or Carl Melberg, Planning Team
Leader, at 978-443-4661, extension 32.
Agency Web site: View or download the draft document at http://
www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/JohnHay/ccphome.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barry Parrish, Deputy Refuge Manager,
Silvio O. Conte NFWR, 103 East Plumtree Road, Sunderland, MA 01375;
phone: 413-548-8002, extension 113; facsimile: 413-548-9725.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for John Hay NWR in
Merrimack County, New Hampshire, which we started with the notice of
intent we published in the Federal Register (73 FR 76376) on December
16, 2008. We prepared the draft CCP in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (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. This refuge is a
satellite station of the Silvio O. Conte National Fish and Wildlife
Refuge.
John Hay NWR was the former summer estate of historic figure John
Hay. It was donated to the Service in 1972 by Alice Hay to be used as a
migratory bird and wildlife reservation. Currently, the refuge consists
of approximately 80 acres on the shores of Lake Sunapee in Newbury, New
Hampshire, and consists of upland northern forest, small meadows, and
several wetland habitats, including a long, undeveloped lake shoreline,
brook, fens, and vernal pools. The area serves the habitat needs of
migrating birds as well as a diversity of other wildlife. No listed
species are known to occur on the refuge. Although small in area, the
refuge contains some of the largest-diameter white pine (and other
northern forest tree species) in the regional landscape and provides
habitat for Canada warbler and other priority forest birds and
wildlife.
Although wildlife and habitat conservation is the refuge's first
priority, the public can observe and photograph wildlife and
participate in environmental education and interpretation on the
refuge. Adjacent partner lands also accommodate these uses with a
connected network of accessible nature trails. Some adjacent partner
lands also allow hunting.
Background
The CCP Process
The Improvement Act requires us to develop a CCP for each national
wildlife refuge. 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, conservation, legal
mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management
direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify
priority wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the
public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. We will review and update each CCP at least every 15
years, in accordance with the Administration Act.
Public Outreach
In October 2008, we initiated intra-agency, State agency,
stakeholder, and public scoping to obtain input on current and future
management of the refuge. We held a morning and an afternoon public and
partner meeting on October 9, 2008, at the Newbury Town Hall. During
these meetings, we asked attendees specific questions about their views
on the refuge's wildlife and habitat values, how they use and access
the refuge, their preferences for future wildlife-dependent recreation,
and whether they knew about other refuge opportunities. Our scoping
process lasted until November 7, 2008.
Some of the key issues we identified include forest management,
other priority habitat types to conserve, wetlands protection,
improving the visibility of the Service and refuge, providing desired
facilities and visitor activities, and ways to improve opportunities
for public use while ensuring the restoration and protection of
priority resources.
CCP Actions We Are Considering
We developed three management alternatives based on the purposes
for establishing the refuge, its vision and goals, and the issues and
concerns the public, State agencies, and the Service identified during
the planning process. The alternatives have some actions in common,
such as protecting and monitoring fish and wildlife species and the
unique large white pines, controlling invasive plants and wildlife
diseases, encouraging research that benefits our resource decisions,
protecting cultural resources like the Hay Estate house and the view to
the lake, updating the memorandum of understanding with our neighboring
partner, The Fells, and distributing refuge revenue sharing payments to
the Town of Newbury.
Other actions distinguish the alternatives. The draft CCP/EA
describes the alternatives in detail, and relates them to the issues
and concerns identified. Highlights are as follows:
Alternative A (Current Management)
This alternative is the ``No Action'' alternative required by the
NEPA Act of 1969. Alternative A defines our current management
activities, and serves as the baseline against which to compare the
other alternatives. Our habitat management focuses on allowing natural
processes to shape the almost 80 acres of mature upland forest to
maintain the cultural legacy, encourage natural regeneration, and
diversify the forest structure that supports migratory and nesting
birds of conservation concern in Bird Conservation Region 14 and the
New Hampshire Wildlife Action Plan (NHWAP) (including the Canada
warbler and wood thrush). Natural processes would also shape the fens,
vernal pools, and other wetland habitats on the refuge that provide
important breeding habitat for amphibian and reptile species of
conservation concern identified in the NHWAP.
We would continue to maintain the instream habitat and riparian
corridor along the approximately 1,750 feet of Beech Brook on the
refuge for species identified as conservation priorities by the Eastern
Brook Trout Joint Venture and NHWAP plans, and we would continue to
protect the 3,100 feet of undeveloped refuge shoreline and 0.1-acre
Minute Island by preventing public use activities that may pose risks
to the biological integrity of these habitats.
We would continue to work with our partners to monitor our forests
and wetlands for invasive plants and disease, and we would treat the
forests to fight invasive species and diseases if we have available
funding and staffing. Our biological monitoring and inventory program
and habitat and trail management would continue at its current minimal
level, and would focus on safety and hazard tree removal only when
necessary.
Our visitor services programs would not change, as most activities
are conducted by The Fells. Wildlife
[[Page 7289]]
observation and photography are the most popular activities. Our
staffing and facilities would remain the same. Seven staff positions
for the refuge complex would remain in place, and the headquarters
would remain at the Sunderland Office.
Alternative B (Enhanced Visitor Services and Habitat Diversity--the
Service-Preferred Alternative)
This alternative is the one we propose as the best way to manage
this refuge 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 that arose during the planning process.
Similar to alternative A, under alternative B we would primarily
allow natural processes to shape the refuge's forest habitat and would
continue to work with partners to complement the larger landscape for
priority species through partnerships. We would conduct forest
inventories every 10 to 15 years to determine silvicultural
prescriptions to encourage early successional forest habitat and pine
regeneration, and to maintain the existing unique character of large-
diameter trees. A habitat management plan would be completed within 1
year of CCP approval. The current meadow would be expanded up to
approximately 3 acres, but not at the expense of mature forest habitat.
A treatment schedule for maintaining the view to the lake from the Hay
Estate house would be developed in partnership with The Fells and
incorporate both scenic and wildlife habitat aspects that meet
biological and cultural objectives for the area.
We would continue to monitor refuge forests and wetlands for
invasive plants and disease, and to treat them to the extent our
funding allows. Protecting and enhancing riparian and wetlands habitat
would be a priority, including the undeveloped Lake Sunapee shoreline,
Beech Brook, fens, and vernal pools. We would also continue our
monitoring and inventory program, but regularly evaluate the results to
help us better understand the implications of our management actions
and identify ways to improve their effectiveness.
In addition to enhancing our existing programs in wildlife
observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation,
we would open the refuge to fishing. We would also work with partners
to accommodate hunting on their lands as part of a regional
recreational program offering a diversity of wildlife-dependent public
use opportunities. We would seek partnerships to help us achieve our
enhanced and new programs, including assistance on interpretive trail
construction and enhancements, and environmental education programs
using the refuge as a living laboratory. The refuge would remain closed
to hunting due to its small size and staffing constraints. We would
also improve and expand access to the lake for freshwater fishing and
enhance trails for environmentally sensitive stream crossings and
access to additional habitats. If we can secure permanent funding, we
would fill one new visitor services staff position to provide depth to
our programs and achieve our goals and objectives. We also propose to
collaborate with neighboring partner, The Fells, at their visitor
contact facilities at the adjacent Fells gatehouse and parking lot to
increase our visibility and improve public access to refuge land.
Alternative C (Forest Management Emphasis)
This alternative resembles Alternative B in its refuge
administration and facilities, but differs in its habitat management
intensity and visitor services programs.
Under Alternative C, we would actively manage for mature upland
forest, including silvicultural prescriptions such as thinning or soil
scarification to promote regeneration success. Additional early
successional forest habitat would be provided by expanding the existing
meadow and creating new meadows, but not at the expense of mature
forest habitat. The width of The Fells view to the lake would be
expanded to provide additional habitat for wildlife dependent upon
early successional habitat, and increase the view from the estate
house.
As in Alternative B, we would protect and enhance riparian and
wetlands habitats as a priority. As in Alternative B, we would monitor
and inventory our forests and wetlands for invasive plants and disease
and treat them to the extent funding allows. Protecting and enhancing
riparian and wetland habitats would also be a priority. Compared to
Alternative B, we would conduct a more intensive, focused monitoring
and inventory program designed to address more-specific questions about
habitat quality and the response of wildlife populations. In the near-
term, inventory and monitoring would be aimed specifically at
documenting the species and habitat baseline conditions.
Under Alternative C, our public use programs would accommodate
additional access with enhanced trail conditions to allow people of all
abilities to access and view the lake. This Alternative explores the
possibility of accommodating hunting by determining the feasibility of
a very limited hunt program in collaboration with our State partners.
Public Meetings
The public will have the opportunity to provide input at one public
meeting in Newbury, New Hampshire. We will release mailings, news
releases, and announcements electronically and provide information
about opportunities for public review and comment on our Web site and
in local newspapers, along with the contact information below. You can
obtain the schedule from the planning team leader or project leader
(see ADDRESSES).
You may also submit comments anytime during the planning process by
mail, electronic mail, or facsimile (see ADDRESSES). For specific
information, including dates, times, and locations, contact the project
leader (see ADDRESSES) or visit our Web site at http://www.fws.gov/
northeast/planning/johnhay/ccphome.html.
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 available to the public 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: January 8, 2010.
Wendi Weber,
Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Hadley, Massachusetts.
[FR Doc. 2010-3053 Filed 2-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P