[Federal Register: May 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 84)]
[Notices]
[Page 20495-20497]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04my09-78]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2009-N0042; 40136-1265-0000-S3]
Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge,
Charleston, Beaufort, Colleton, and Hampton Counties, SC
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability: draft comprehensive conservation plan
and environmental assessment; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and
environmental assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Ernest F. Hollings ACE
Basin National Wildlife Refuge (ACE Basin NWR) for public review and
comment. In this Draft CCP/EA, we describe the alternative we propose
to use to manage this refuge for the 15 years following approval of the
Final CCP.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments
by June 3, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, and requests for information to:
Mr. Van Fischer, Natural Resource Planner, South Carolina Lowcountry
Refuge Complex, 5801 Highway 17 North, Awendaw, SC 29429. A copy of the
Draft CCP/EA is available on both compact disc and hard copy, and it
may be accessed and downloaded from the Service's Internet site: http:/
/southeast.fws.gov/planning.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Van Fischer, Natural Resource
Planner; telephone: 843/928-3264; e-mail: van_fischer@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for ACE Basin NWR. We
started the process through a notice in the Federal Register on January
3, 2007 (72 FR 141).
Background
The CCP Process
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, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation. We will
review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance with
the Improvement Act.
ACE Basin NWR was established on September 20, 1990, and was
renamed the Ernest F. Hollings ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge on
May 16, 2005. The refuge is a partner in the ACE Basin Task Force, a
coalition consisting of the Service, South Carolina Department of
Natural Resources, Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, The Low
Country Open Land Trust, Mead Westvaco, and private landowners. The
refuge's two separate units (Edisto Unit and Combahee Unit) are further
broken down into sub-units, with the Edisto Unit containing the
Barrelville, Grove, and Jehossee sub-units, and the Combahee Unit
containing the Bonny Hall, Combahee Fields, and Yemassee sub-units. The
refuge is divided into nine management units or compartments, ranging
in size from 350 to 3,355 acres. Compartment boundaries are established
along geographic features that can be easily identified on the ground
(i.e., rivers, roads, and trails).
Serving as a basis for each alternative, goals and sets of
objectives were developed to help fulfill the purposes of the refuge
and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. These
alternatives represent different approaches to managing the refuge,
while still meeting purposes and goals. Plans will be revised at least
every 15 years, or earlier, if monitoring indicates management changes
are warranted.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative
We developed three alternatives for managing the refuge and chose
Alternative C as the proposed alternative. A full description is in the
Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative below.
Alternative A: Continuation of Current Refuge Management (No Action)
This alternative represents no change from current management of
the refuge and provides a baseline. Management emphasis would continue
to focus on maintaining existing managed wetlands for wintering
waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. Primary activities include
managing wetland impoundments (primarily historically created ``rice
fields''), managing old farm fields in a grassland/scrub/shrub mosaic
for neotropical migratory birds, basic species monitoring, wood duck
banding, and managing moist soil for waterfowl. Alternative A
represents the anticipated conditions of the refuge for the next 15
years, assuming current funding, staffing, policies, programs, and
activities continue. The other two alternatives are compared to this
alternative in order to evaluate differences in future conditions
compared to baseline management.
This alternative reflects actions that include managing habitat for
resident and wintering waterfowl, nesting bald eagles, foraging wood
storks, and over-wintering whooping cranes (experimental flock).
Further, it reflects actions for maintaining upland and wetland
forests; for repairing wetland impoundment control structures (aluminum
flash board risers and wooden ``rice trunks''), dikes, and internal
drainage ditches and canals; for managing habitat for neotropical
migratory birds; and for providing wildlife-dependent recreation
opportunities. Species monitoring would be limited due to staffing
constraints, volunteer assistance, and
[[Page 20496]]
limited research interest. Habitat management actions would primarily
benefit waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, and grassland-associated
passerine birds; however, there is limited active management of other
species and habitats.
Management coordination would occur between the refuge and the
state. Coordination would be limited because of staffing constraints
and remain focused on waterfowl management and grassland habitat
management, hunting, and fishing. Hunting and fishing would be allowed
on the refuge provided that state regulations were followed. Wildlife-
dependent uses are allowed on the refuge with all areas open to the
public, although some areas are only seasonally open.
The refuge would remain staffed at current levels with periodic
interns. Researchers would be accommodated when projects benefit the
refuge.
Alternative B: Protection of Trust Resources and State-Listed Species
Alternative B places refuge management emphasis on the protection
of trust resources (migratory birds and threatened and endangered
species), as well as several state-listed species.
This alternative expands on Alternative A, with a greater amount of
active habitat management on the refuge. The focus of this alternative
is to enhance and expand suitable habitat under species-specific
management, targeted to attract greater numbers of wintering waterfowl
and breeding areas for resident wood ducks. The acreage of managed
wetlands (enhanced moist-soil management practices) and greentree
reservoirs would be increased to accommodate larger waterfowl numbers.
Some open fields and scrub/shrub areas on the refuge would be more
intensively managed to increase populations of neotropical migratory
and breeding songbirds to higher levels than under Alternative A, but
limited to maintaining existing areas suitable for these migratory
species. There would be an increased effort to control invasive exotic
plants.
This alternative proposes to increase monitoring efforts to focus
primarily on threatened and endangered species (e.g., wood storks),
waterfowl, and other migratory birds, with less effort to address other
non-migratory resident species. Under Alternative A, monitoring would
focus almost entirely on waterfowl, but does include other species as
resources permit. This alternative would provide extensive waterfowl
and endangered species monitoring with little additional effort for
monitoring other species. Monitoring efforts would only occur based on
available staffing, additional volunteers, and academic research.
Wildlife-dependent uses of the refuge would continue. Hunting and
fishing would continue to be allowed and environmental education and
interpretation would be enhanced. Interpretive signage would be
increased or added to existing nature trails. There would be restricted
access to some areas of the refuge that have waterfowl and threatened
or endangered species sensitive to disturbance. Interpretation efforts
would focus mostly on the primary objectives of waterfowl and other
migratory bird management.
The refuge would be staffed at current levels, plus the addition of
one forester to increase components of the Forest Management Plan and
one public use park ranger. Researchers (enhancement of the existing
research partnership with the Nemours Wildlife Foundation) would be
accommodated when projects benefit the refuge and focus mostly towards
waterfowl habitat and management (old rice fields/moist-soil management
units).
Alternative C: Wildlife and Habitat Diversity (Proposed Alternative)
This alternative expands on Alternative A, with a greater amount of
effort to manage the refuge to increase overall wildlife and habitat
diversity. Although waterfowl, threatened and endangered species, and
other migratory birds would remain a focus of management, wetland
habitat manipulations would also consider the needs of multiple
species, such as marsh and wading birds. Management of upland forests
and fields for neotropical migratory birds would be more actively
managed than under Alternative B. Landscape level consideration of
habitat management would include a diversity of open fields, upland and
wetland forests, and additional managed wetlands. Upland loblolly pine
plantations (relic industrial forest) would be heavily thinned to
encourage multi-strata vegetation composition and hardwood
interspersion. More xeric loblolly pine plantations would be converted
to longleaf pine savannas and subjected to frequent growing season
prescribed fires to favor warm season grasses and forbs, and the
potential reintroduction of red cockaded woodpeckers in the ACE Basin
Project Area. Multiple species consideration would include species and
habitats identified by the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative and
the state's Strategic Conservation Plan.
This alternative would expand on the monitoring efforts of
Alternative A to provide additional monitoring of migratory neotropical
and breeding songbirds, and other resident species. Monitoring efforts
would be increased with the assistance of additional staff, trained
volunteers, and academic research. Greater effort would be made to
recruit academic researchers to the refuge to study and monitor refuge
resources.
Wildlife-dependent uses of the refuge would continue. Hunting and
fishing would continue to be allowed. However, hunting would be managed
with a greater focus to achieve biological needs of the refuge, such as
deer population management and feral hog control. Education and
interpretation would be the same as Alternative A, but with additional
education and outreach efforts aimed at the importance of landscape and
diversity. A significantly greater effort would be made with outreach
to nearby developing urban communities and a growing human population.
Existing environmental education programs, such as Earth Stewards,
conducted in concert with the SEWEE Association (refuge friends group)
would be expanded to include additional elementary schools, students,
and teachers.
The refuge would be staffed at the 2008 staffing level to enhance
all refuge services and management programs. Greater emphasis would be
placed on recruiting and training volunteers to facilitate the
accomplishment of maintenance programs and other refuge objectives.
Refuge biological programs would actively seek funding and researchers
to study primarily management-oriented needs. The staff would place
greater emphasis on developing and maintaining active partnerships,
including seeking grants to assist the refuge in reaching primary
objectives.
Next Step
After the comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and
address them.
Public Availability of Comments
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.
Authority: This notice is published under the authority of the
National Wildlife Refuge
[[Page 20497]]
System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 105-57.
Dated: March 6, 2009.
Cynthia K. Dohner,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. E9-10153 Filed 5-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P