[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 195 (Friday, October 8, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62415-62417]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25393]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R5-R-2010-N115; BAC-4311-K9-S3]
Nomans Land Island National Wildlife Refuge, Town of Chilmark,
Martha's Vineyard, MA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of final comprehensive conservation plan
and finding of no significant impact for environmental assessment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of our final comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) and
finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for the environmental
assessment (EA) for Nomans Land Island National Wildlife Refuge (NWR).
In this final CCP, we describe how we will manage this refuge for the
next 15 years.
ADDRESSES: You may view or obtain copies of the final CCP and FONSI by
any of the following methods. You may request a hard copy or CD-ROM.
Agency Web site: Download a copy of the document(s) at http://www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/NomansLand/ccphome.html.
Electronic mail: [email protected]. Include ``Nomans Land
Island final CCP'' in the subject line of the message.
U.S. Postal Service: Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex, 73 Weir
Hill Road, Sudbury, MA 01776.
In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Call 978-443-4661 to make an
appointment during regular business hours at the above address.
Facsimile: 978-443-2898.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Libby Herland, Project Leader, Eastern
Massachusetts NWR Complex, 73 Weir Hill Road, Sudbury, MA 01776; phone:
413-443-4661, or Carl Melberg, Planning Team Leader, phone: 978-443-
4661; electronic mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we finalize the CCP process for Nomans Land
Island NWR, which we started with the notice of intent we published in
the Federal Register (69 FR 72210) on December 13, 2008. We prepared
the EA/draft CCP in compliance with the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and the National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (Administration Act) (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act). We released the EA/draft CCP
to the public, announcing and requesting comments in a notice of
availability in the Federal Register (75 FR 30052) on May 28, 2010.
Nomans Land Island is a 628-acre roadless island located
approximately 3 miles south of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts. The
refuge was established in 1998 for the conservation and management of
migratory birds. We first began managing a portion of the eastern side
of the island in 1970 as an ``overlay'' refuge under a joint management
agreement between the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S.
Department of the Navy (Navy), while it was still under Navy
management. In 1998, management of the island was transferred to the
Service, and all 628 acres became Nomans Land Island NWR.
This island has a unique history, from its use by Native Americans
as a summer camp, to sheep grazing when the island was privately owned
in the 1800s, to use as a bombing range by the Navy during World War
II. Because Nomans Land Island provides diverse habitats including
intertidal, freshwater wetland, grassland, and shrubland habitats, it
serves an important role for nesting landbirds and colonial waterbirds,
and is a stopover for migratory birds and raptors, including the
peregrine falcon.
We announce our decision and the availability of the FONSI for the
final CCP for Nomans Land Island NWR in accordance with NEPA
requirements. The FONSI is included as Appendix K in the final CCP. We
completed a thorough analysis of impacts on the human environment,
which we included in the EA/draft CCP.
Alternative C, as we described in the EA/draft CCP, is the
foundation for the final CCP.
Background
The Administration Act, as amended by the Improvement Act, requires
us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose for
developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-year plan for
achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the
[[Page 62416]]
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), consistent 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
wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public,
including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and
photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will
review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with
the Administration Act.
CCP Alternatives, Including Selected Alternative
Our EA/draft CCP addressed several key issues, including the amount
of shrubland to manage, other priority habitat types to conserve, land
protection and conservation priorities, improving the visibility of the
Service and refuge, and ways to improve opportunities for off-site
public use while ensuring the restoration and protection of priority
ecological and cultural resources.
To address these issues and develop a plan based on the purposes
for establishing the refuge, and the vision and goals we identified, we
identified three alternatives in the EA. The alternatives have some
actions in common, such as protecting and monitoring federally listed
species and the regionally significant coastal shrubland, controlling
invasive plants and wildlife diseases, monitoring programs that benefit
our resource decisions, protecting cultural resources, and distributing
refuge revenue-sharing payments to counties.
Other actions distinguish the alternatives. Alternative A, or the
``No Action Alternative,'' consists of our current management
activities. It serves as the baseline against which to compare the
other two alternatives. Our habitat management and visitor services
programs would not change under this alternative. We would continue to
use the same tools and techniques, and not expand existing facilities.
Under Alternative A, we would continue to passively manage refuge
lands, and the Service would have minimal presence. Habitat management
would be limited to continuing to passively oversee the current 400
acres of shrub habitat, up to 150 acres of freshwater wetland
communities, 100 acres of marine intertidal beach and rocky shore
habitat, and 15 acres of herbaceous upland dune vegetation. We would
continue minimal monitoring of focal species as current staffing
allows. We would provide oversight and coordination to Navy contaminant
and unexploded ordnance (UXO) cleanup.
The refuge would continue to be closed to the public.
Administration of off-site visitor services, land protection, and
biological and law enforcement activities would be handled by existing
staff from the Eastern Massachusetts NWR Complex based in Sudbury,
Massachusetts, as funds and staffing permit.
Under Alternative B, we would emphasize more active monitoring and
management of all refuge habitats to support focal species whose
habitat needs also benefit other species of conservation concern in the
region. In particular, the alternative emphasizes active habitat
management for breeding and migrating priority bird species of
conservation concern identified by national, regional, and State
conservation plans.
With the addition of seasonal biological and law enforcement staff,
under Alternative B, we would also implement a more active prescribed
burning regime, invasive species and predator control programs, and
better enforcement of the no-public-access policy. We would actively
monitor and manage beach/nesting species such as terns, plovers, and
rare plants, and consider the introduction of the New England
cottontail. We would improve our visitor services through partnerships
and working with them to develop programs and facilities on their lands
that help increase awareness of the refuge's biological and cultural
resources. Finally, our biological program would be enhanced through
partnerships that would increase our ability to conduct surveys and
long-term monitoring.
Alternative C was identified as the Service-preferred alternative
in the EA/draft CCP. It allows the 400 acres of critical migration
stopover shrub habitat to be influenced by natural processes such as
succession over the next 15 years, with minimal management. It allows
coastal processes of wind and wave action to shape the current 15 acres
of herbaceous upland dune vegetation, 100 acres of marine intertidal
beach and rocky shore habitats, and almost 150 acres of freshwater
wetlands. Under this alternative, we also would continue to study the
feasibility of introducing New England cottontail on the refuge.
The alternative recognizes the island as one of the few
opportunities in the Northeast region of the United States for
wilderness designation and proposes pursuing formal designation as a
unit of the National Wilderness Preservation System. It also recognizes
the need to coordinate with the Navy annually to promote communication,
exchange information on Navy operations and management planning, and
facilitate cleanup of contaminants and UXO on the refuge. We would also
closely coordinate with the Navy and the Massachusetts State Historic
Preservation Office for any proposed ground-disturbing activity. We
would monitor vegetation changes every 3 years through aerial
photography and/or site visitation. We would establish a fire regime to
manage shrub habitat as needed, and we would monitor invasive plant
species annually and control those that threaten healthy ecosystems.
Existing refuge complex staff would enhance the visitor services
program through a broader array of off-site programming and outreach
through partnership opportunities as they arise, similar to, but to a
lesser extent than would take place under the other alternatives.
Comments
We invited comments on the EA/draft CCP during a public review and
comment period, from May 28 through July 3, 2010, and held a public
meeting on June 23, 2010, in the Town of Chilmark, Massachusetts.
We received 24 unique letters and oral comments representing
individuals, organizations, and State agencies. We made modifications
to the draft that are outlined in Appendix J, ``Summary of Public
Comments and Service's Response on the Environmental Assessment and
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan for Nomans Land Island National
Wildlife Refuge'' in the final CCP. Highlights of some of the changes
are listed below:
1. We were made aware of additional partnership opportunities on
Martha's Vineyard and have modified the final CCP to reflect these
opportunities (pages 4-7 through 4-8). We also inserted language in the
Rationale to Objective 2.2 (page 4-30) that these partnerships would
potentially provide additional resources to increase our visitor
services capacity from what we originally proposed.
2. We added language to Chapter 4 in the final CCP (page 4-11)
stating that although it would not be possible to clean up the island
to pre-bombing conditions, we would continue to work with the Navy and
Federal and State regulators for the 5-year site reviews as required by
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act. If, at some point in the future, there is a
[[Page 62417]]
major advance in technology that would allow the extraction of UXOs
without massive ground disturbance or impact to wildlife, then
additional cleanup might warrant further consideration at that time.
3. We included language in our Habitat Management and Protection
summary in Chapter 4 of the final CCP (page 4-14) and biological
rationales [Objectives 1.1 (page 4-19) and 1.2 (page 4-24)] to work
with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program
to evaluate the appropriateness of altering the frequency of
prescription burns to incorporate rare plant management, and for tern
restoration efforts.
4. We added language to several sections in Chapter 3 and Chapter 4
in the final CCP to incorporate more life history information and to
refine our biological objectives and management actions for piping
plover (pages 3-33, 3-35, 4-21, 4-23, and 4-24). This is due to the
presence of a breeding pair on the island for the first time in 30
years.
5. We corrected typographical and grammatical errors identified by
reviewers.
Selected Alternative
After considering the comments we received on our EA/draft CCP, we
have selected Alternative C for implementation, for several reasons.
Alternative C comprises the mix of actions that, in our professional
judgment, works best toward achieving refuge purposes, our vision and
goals, and the goals of other State and regional conservation plans,
and it is most consistent with the principles of sound fish and
wildlife management. We also believe it most effectively addresses the
key issues raised during the planning process. The basis of our
decision is detailed in Appendix K, Finding of No Significant Impact,
in the final CCP.
Public Availability of Documents
You can view or obtain documents as indicated under ADDRESSES.
Dated: September 9, 2010.
James G. Geiger,
Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Hadley, MA 01035.
[FR Doc. 2010-25393 Filed 10-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P