[Federal Register: October 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 208)]
[Notices]
[Page 63721-63723]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr27oc08-77]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R2-R-2008-N0149; 20131-1265-2LPP]
Texas Chenier Plain National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Chambers,
Jefferson, and Galveston Counties, TX
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability: Record of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
decision and availability of the record of decision (ROD) for the final
environmental impact statement (EIS), comprehensive conservation plan
(CCP), and land protection plan (LPP) for the Texas Chenier Plain
National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge Complex). We completed a
thorough analysis of the environmental, social, and economic
considerations and presented it in our final EIS, which we released to
the public through a Federal Register notice on June 30, 2008. The ROD
documents our decision to adopt and implement Refuge Management
Alternative D and Refuge Boundary Expansion Alternative C. Refuge
Management Alternative D is adopted as the CCP for the Refuge Complex
and will direct the management activities on the Refuge Complex for the
next 15 years. Refuge Boundary Expansion Alternative C is adopted as
the LPP for the Refuge Complex and authorizes land acquisition from
willing sellers within a designated 64,260-acre expansion area.
DATES: The Acting Regional Director, Region 2, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, signed the ROD on September 16, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may view or obtain copies of the ROD by any of the
following methods:
Agency Web Site: Download a copy of the document at http://
www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/Plan/docs/LINKS.pdf.
E-mail: doug_stpierre@fws.gov. Include ``TX Chenier Plain NWR
Complex ROD'' in the subject line of the message.
[[Page 63722]]
Mail: Doug St. Pierre, Division of Planning, P.O. Box 1306,
Albuquerque, NM 87103.
In-Person Viewing or Pickup: Call 409-267-3337 to make an
appointment during regular business hours at Texas Chenier Plain NWR
Complex Headquarters, 509 Washington Street, Anahuac, TX.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug St. Pierre, 505-248-6636.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we finalize the CCP and LPP process for Moody,
Anahuac, McFaddin, and Texas Point National Wildlife Refuges. We
started this process in a Federal Register notice (64 FR 56800, October
21, 1999). We released the draft EIS/CCP/LPP to the public, announcing
and requesting comments in a notice of availability in the Federal
Register (71 FR 61063; October 17, 2006). We announced the availability
of the final EIS/CCP/LPP in the Federal Register (73 FR 36890) on June
30, 2008.
The Refuge Complex is located along the upper Texas Gulf Coast
between Houston, Texas, and the Louisiana border. This coastal
ecosystem includes important freshwater, estuarine marshes, tallgrass
prairie with small depressional wetlands, and coastal woodlots. These
habitats are an important part of the primary wintering area for
Central Flyway ducks and geese, and, additionally, are critical staging
areas for neotropical landbirds migrating to and from Central and South
America.
In accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR
1506.6(b)) requirements, this notice announces our decision and the
availability of the ROD for the final EIS/CCP/LPP for the Refuge
Complex. We completed a thorough analysis of the environmental, social,
and economic considerations, which we included in the final EIS/CCP/
LPP. The ROD documents our selection of Refuge Management Alternative
D, the Preferred Alternative, for the CCP; and, our selection of Refuge
Boundary Alternative C, the Preferred Alternative, for the LPP.
The CCP will guide us in managing and administering Moody, Anahuac,
McFaddin, and Texas Point National Wildlife Refuges for the next 15
years. Refuge Management Alternative D, as we described in the final
EIS/CCP/LPP, is the foundation for the CCP. The LPP authorizes
acquisition of land or interests in land from willing sellers within
the expanded boundaries of Moody, Anahuac, McFaddin, and Texas Point
National Wildlife Refuges. Refuge Boundary Expansion Alternative C, as
we described in the final EIS/CCP/LPP, is the foundation for the LPP,
which outlines the expanded boundaries and lists the tracts/ownerships
within these boundaries.
Background
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Improvement Act), which amended the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 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 mission of the
National Wildlife Refuge System, 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 Improvement Act.
CCP/LPP Alternatives and the Two Selected Alternatives
Our draft EIS/CCP/LPP (71 FR 200) addressed several issues. To
address these, we developed and evaluated the two following sets of
alternatives:
Refuge Management Alternatives
Alternative A: (NEPA no action alternative) Continuation of current
management.
Alternative B: Emphasis on intensifying management of wetland
habitats for waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and other wetland-
dependent migratory birds.
Alternative C: Emphasis on native habitat restoration and
addressing major threats to the ecosystem.
Alternative D: Emphasis on an integrated management approach
combining (1) Expanded habitat management and restoration programs, (2)
new research and wildlife population monitoring, and (3) increased
efforts to address major threats to the ecosystem.
Alternative E: Emphasis on a passive management approach.
Refuge Boundary Expansion Alternatives
Alternative A: (NEPA no action alternative) No expansion, current
status.
Alternative B: Total 33,590-acre expansion.
Alternative C: Total 64,260-acre expansion.
Alternative D: Total 104,120-acre expansion.
After considering the comments we received, we have selected Refuge
Management Alternative D for the CCP. It documents our decision, based
on the information contained in the final EIS and the entire
administrative record. The Service believes that Refuge Management
Alternative D (Preferred Alternative) represents the most desirable
approach to meet the establishment purposes of the refuges in the
Refuge Complex, the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, and
the conservation of Trust fish and wildlife species including migratory
birds and Threatened and Endangered species, while recognizing the need
to address emerging threats to biological integrity, biological
diversity, and ecosystem health. This alternative focuses on protecting
and enhancing existing wetland and upland habitats on the Refuge
Complex through active management, continues and expands efforts to
enhance and restore native tallgrass coastal prairie and woodland
habitat on suitable sites, continues and expands efforts to address
major ecosystem threats, uses additional scientific monitoring and
studies to guide an adaptive management approach with increased
emphasis on declining or sensitive species, and expands wildlife-
dependent recreational uses with an emphasis on enhancing the quality
of the refuge visitor experience.
Also, after considering the comments we received, we have selected
Refuge Boundary Expansion Alternative C for the LPP. It documents our
decision, based on the information contained in the final EIS and the
entire administrative record. In selecting its Refuge Boundary
Expansion Alternative, the Service considered ecological values,
benefits to management of existing refuges, levels of threat, and
feasibility as affected by land ownership patterns and projected
availability of funding. The newly approved refuge boundaries would
contain the largest remaining tracts of native coastal prairie on the
upper Texas coast, in addition to important areas of coastal marsh
adjacent to existing refuges.
[[Page 63723]]
Public Availability of Documents
In addition to the methods in ADDRESSES, you can view or obtain
documents at the following location:
Our Web site: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/refuges/Plan/
docs/LINKS.pdf.
Dated: October 20, 2008.
Brian Millsap,
Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Albuquerque,
New Mexico.
[FR Doc. E8-25496 Filed 10-24-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P