[Federal Register: June 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 106)]
[Notices]
[Page 26883-26886]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04jn09-94]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2009-N0061; 40136-1265-0000-S3]
Banks Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Lanier County, GA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability: draft comprehensive conservation plan
and environmental assessment; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and
environmental assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Banks Lake National
Wildlife Refuge (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 July 6, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, and requests for information to:
Ms. Laura Housh, Refuge Planner, Okefenokee NWR, Route 2, Box 3330,
Folkston, GA 31537. The Draft CCP/EA is available on compact disk or in
hard copy. The Draft CCP/EA may also be accessed and downloaded from
the Service's Internet Site: http://southeast.fws.gov/planning.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Laura Housh; telephone: 912/496-
7366, ext. 244; fax: 912/496-3322; e-mail: laura_housh@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Banks Lake NWR.
We started this process through a notice in the Federal Register on
December 6, 2007 (72 FR 68892).
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 strategy
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.
Banks Lake NWR is managed by staff of the Okefenokee NWR. The
refuge, which is part of a larger blackwater system, was established in
1985 for the protection and conservation of this unique environment, as
well as for migratory and resident wildlife. It totals approximately
3,559 acres.
Development of the CCP began in October 2007, with preplanning
activities such as gathering data and information, meeting with
Okefenokee NWR staff, and preparing for the public scoping phase of the
planning process. A public scoping meeting was held on January 24,
2008, in Lakeland, Georgia. The following issues were identified by the
public, intergovernmental partners, and the Service: (1) Threats to
biodiversity, listed species, and migratory birds; (2) need for data
and comprehensive habitat management; (3) impacts to water quantity and
quality; (4) need for an updated acquisition boundary; (5) future land
acquisition needs; (6) drainage easement protection; (7) lack of
information on refuge cultural resources; (8) need for increased law
enforcement; (9) need for increased public use opportunities; and (10)
need for adequate resources.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative
We developed three alternatives for managing the refuge and chose
Alternative B as the proposed alternative. A full description is in the
Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative below.
Alternative A--No Action Alternative
Federal- and State-listed species, incidental sightings of wood
storks, and
[[Page 26884]]
round-tailed muskrats would continue to be recorded. The refuge would
respond to nuisance alligators, and bald eagle nests would be
protected. There would be no management for listed plants.
Management for migratory birds would remain minimal, with
incidental sightings recorded. Aerial surveys would continue to be
conducted by partners over refuge and adjacent lands with regard to the
bird-aircraft strike program at Moody Air Force Base (MAFB).
With regard to nonnative and nuisance species, the refuge would
continue to control water hyacinths through herbicidal applications,
while submerged aquatic vegetation would be managed via periodic lake
drawdowns. For aquatic wildlife, the refuge would organize apple snail
surveys. There would be no management for terrestrial nonnative
species.
Apart from aerial mapping conducted as part of The Nature
Conservancy's 2003 Grand Bay-Banks Lake Ecosystem Plan, there would be
no habitat management for the refuge's marshes, scrub/shrub, Carolina
bays, or pine flatwoods. Management of native fishes would include
surveys every other year and periodic mercury and lead surveys
conducted by the State. Management for reptiles and amphibians would be
minimal, consisting of incidental sightings reporting and occasional
frog malformation surveys.
Management of water resources on the refuge would include water-
quality monitoring during fish surveys. The refuge would continue to
work with county governments and landowners to connect private systems
to the city sewage utility, minimizing water quality degradation. The
refuge would continue collaborative efforts with the city of Lakeland
to facilitate running drawdown waters through Lake Irma. In addition,
the refuge would protect, as necessary, its water rights from
unauthorized private diversions.
Under this alternative, the refuge would not collect data to
monitor the potential effects of climate change on its resources.
Approximately one-third of the refuge boundary (north and portion
of east side) has been surveyed and signed. The lack of a complete
boundary survey has prevented any potential land acquisition
opportunities. The refuge would manage potential encroachment issues by
working with adjacent landowners to remove any unauthorized structures
or water diversion equipment. The refuge has a flowage easement to
drain water via a creek through Lake Irma to the Alapaha River. The
Georgia Department of Transportation has a 1,100-acre wetland
mitigation area that lies adjacent to the refuge. No cooperative
management agreement would be developed for that land. Archaeological
and historical resources management would be minimal under the current
alternative, with surveys having been conducted at the old mill and dam
sites. Law enforcement would consist of an intermittent presence of
refuge staff, as well as county and city officers.
The refuge currently does not collect an entrance fee. Visitor
welcome and orientation information is provided by an onsite kiosk,
while the concession operation also provides information to visitors.
State directional signs are in place. The refuge has onsite volunteers
for a majority of the year. Outreach efforts consist of periodic
articles submitted to the local media and public notices issued for
proposed actions.
Hunting is currently not permitted on the refuge, and under this
alternative this activity would not be evaluated for potential
authorization. The refuge is open year-round, both day and night, for
fishing. There is an access area and well-established fishing pier at
the entrance area. In addition, an annual kids' fishing day is held in
collaboration with partners. Periodic drawdowns are conducted to
enhance fisheries. Under this alternative, fishing opportunities would
likely remain unchanged. Wildlife observation and photography
opportunities are relatively limited and would not increase appreciably
under this alternative. The concession offers canoe and kayak rentals,
while a boat ramp allows the launching of private watercraft. The
fishing pier offers limited wildlife observation and photography
opportunities. The refuge does not offer any other recreational
opportunities, and camping is not permitted.
In the absence of a friends group, the Okefenokee Wildlife League
provides assistance at Banks Lake NWR. Generally, a volunteer is
stationed at the refuge year-round, with travel trailer and hook-up
provided.
Since no staff is permanently assigned to the refuge, volunteers
and Okefenokee NWR staff provide the majority of the management. Some
duties are also contracted out to the concessionaire. Staffing is not
expected to change under this alternative. Refuge infrastructure (e.g.,
concession, access area, water control structure, restrooms, sewage
system, city water, piers, walkways, boat ramp, hiking trail, volunteer
housing and recreational vehicle pad, parking lot, boat storage area,
and entrance sign) would be repaired as needed under this alternative.
With regard to intergovernmental coordination, the refuge would
continue to meet periodically with a number of Federal, State, and
local entities to update them on refuge programs and planned
activities.
Alternative B--Expanded Management by the Service (Proposed
Alternative)
Management would include monitoring efforts to determine trends
(relative numbers and use patterns) for wood storks and round-tailed
muskrats. Management for bald eagles would remain at current levels.
The refuge would continue to ban alligator hunting until population
data are available. It would increase public awareness of the dangers
of feeding alligators. In addition, the refuge would work with the
State to respond appropriately to nuisance alligator complaints and to
monitor alligator populations. The refuge would coordinate surveys for
listed plant species.
For migratory birds, the refuge would determine trends in relative
numbers and use patterns through monitoring of waterfowl, wading birds,
marshbirds, and raptors. The refuge would conduct breeding bird surveys
for neotropical migratory birds. With regard to bird-aircraft collision
minimization efforts carried out by MAFB, the refuge would increase
surveys and data-sharing regarding wildlife services.
Management of nonnative and nuisance species would increase. The
refuge would establish boat and trailer cleaning stations. An annual
weed control program would be developed, with a goal of keeping area
coverage of water hyacinths to less than 20 percent. It would expand
survey efforts for nonnative aquatic wildlife species of regional
concern and increase public awareness to promote early detection. The
refuge would survey lands for nonnative species on a 3-year cycle, and
work with partners to identify, locate, control, and eliminate (where
possible) exotic species.
Under this alternative, habitat management would be expanded. For
Banks Lake NWR, the refuge would identify benchmarks for initiating
drawdowns. In addition, the refuge would map and classify vegetation
communities sufficient to manage habitat to achieve the refuge mission
and the goals recommended in the Grand Bay-Banks Lake Habitat Site
Conservation Plan.
For native fishes, the refuge would expand Alternative A with a
creel survey. It would also work with the State to develop a trophy
largemouth bass sports fishery. With respect to
[[Page 26885]]
reptiles and amphibians, the refuge would obtain baseline information
and determine population trends through increased monitoring.
The management of refuge water resources would increase under this
alternative. The refuge would establish a permanent water quality
monitoring system. In addition, a contaminants monitoring regime for
septic, non-point source pollution, and urban/agricultural runoff would
be established. Water quantity would be managed the same as under
Alternative A. Furthermore, the refuge would establish water budgets,
fill drain curves, and other important hydrological parameters for
Banks Lake. It would also collaborate with downstream landowners to
maximize drawdown capabilities.
The refuge would institute management activities to address the
impacts of climate change on refuge resources. The refuge would
coordinate with researchers and partners to identify climate change
research needs for the refuge, investigating the impacts of climate
change on fish and wildlife, listed species, vegetative communities,
water quality and quantity, and other important resources.
Management of the refuge would focus on the lands and waters where
the Service is confident that it has jurisdiction. Additional title
work and a complete survey of the boundary would be required to settle
any issue regarding the refuge boundary. The refuge would establish an
acquisition boundary and purchase land from willing sellers as funding
becomes available. It would identify potential threats early in the
planning process and work cooperatively with local planning departments
and elected officials to protect the refuge from the impacts of
urbanization. The refuge would establish formal cooperative agreements
with adjacent landowners to maintain the Banks Lake flowage easement.
It would also negotiate a long-term management agreement with the State
to manage the wetland mitigation area as part of the refuge. The refuge
would conduct a cultural resource survey of remaining uplands. The law
enforcement presence on the refuge would be increased as the public use
program expanded.
Under this alternative, the refuge would evaluate the potential for
an entrance fee program. The refuge would create a refuge brochure with
map. Regular information would be provided to the public, with updates
on refuge activities and wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities.
A compatibility determination for hunting would be carried out, and
hunting could be authorized under this alternative if adequate
opportunities and resources are determined to be available. The refuge
would also develop trophy warm-water fishing opportunities through the
use of slot and bag limits.
For wildlife viewing and photography opportunities, the refuge
would develop a bird list and provide programs that help the public
develop wildlife viewing and photography skills. In addition, marked
boat trail(s) would be established in the deeper water channels of the
lake to provide access to fishing and wildlife viewing areas. The
refuge would also evaluate a new canoe trail.
To expand environmental education and interpretation, the refuge
would establish a formal program with local schools and Grand Bay
Environmental Center to facilitate these programs on the refuge. It
would also add infrastructure to assist in these efforts.
Other recreational opportunities would be the same as under
Alternative A. In addition to Alternative A, the refuge would encourage
commercial visitor services appropriate with the priority public uses
as defined in the Improvement Act.
The refuge would also develop a friends group. It would expand
Alternative A by developing an active local volunteer group.
Under Alternative B, the following permanent, full-time staff would
be assigned to the refuge: Refuge Operations Specialist, Wildlife
Biologist, Maintenance worker, and Park Ranger. In addition, a shared
Fisheries Biologist would work at the refuge on a part-time basis. With
regard to infrastructure, the refuge would add an office and workspace
in the visitor contact area to accommodate any staff permanently
assigned to the refuge. It would work with State and local authorities
to place refuge information signs on Interstate 75. Intergovernmental
coordination and partnerships would remain the same as under
Alternative A.
Alternative C--Cooperative Administration With State Natural Resource
Agencies
Under this alternative, management of woodstorks and bald eagles
would include obtaining population trend data. Additionally, nesting
platforms would be constructed to increase breeding opportunities on
the refuge, with the added benefit of increasing photography and
observation opportunities if these efforts were successful. For
alligators, the refuge would work with the State to determine
population trends. In addition, educational programs would be developed
to help minimize alligator-human conflicts. Management of round-tailed
muskrats and State-listed plants would be the same as under Alternative
B. Management of migratory birds would be similar to that under
Alternative B, with the exception that photo blinds would be
constructed to provide more birding opportunities. Management of native
fishes would be increased by working with the State to develop a
stocking program, as warranted. For herpetological and nonnative
species, habitats, water resources, and climate change management would
be the same as under Alternative B.
Management of the refuge boundary and cultural resources would be
the same as under Alternative B. The refuge would support land
acquisition by partners to develop public State lands adjacent to the
refuge. It would also develop a long-term management agreement with
State natural resource agencies to manage current refuge access and the
concession area. Under this alternative, these State entities would
provide additional law enforcement on the refuge, and the State lands
would provide additional access points to the public. Law enforcement
would be shared between the State and the Service.
Under this alternative, the refuge would coordinate the potential
for an entrance fee program with the State. The State would also be the
primary information provider to the public. Hunting and fishing
opportunities would be the same as under Alternative B.
The State would be responsible for developing wildlife observation
and photography opportunities on the refuge, including adding new
trails (e.g., land or boat). The State would also be responsible for
all environmental education and interpretation opportunities on the
refuge.
The State entities would develop nearby camping and other
recreational opportunities on their land. Meanwhile, the refuge would
continue to issue special use permits for commercial visitor services
on refuge lands and waters.
The State entities and refuge would seek to establish a friends
group and volunteer program to support both units.
Under this alternative, the refuge would establish the following
permanent, full-time positions: Refuge Operations Specialist and
Wildlife Biologist. A shared Fisheries Biologist would work part-time
on the refuge. Any other positions would be provided
[[Page 26886]]
by the State. The operation and maintenance of the current facilities
would become the responsibility of the State entities. In addition to
the intergovernmental coordination required under Alternative A, a
long-term management agreement with the State natural resource agencies
would be needed for them to administer the current recreation area and
facility. Partnerships would remain as under Alternative A.
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 System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law
105-57.
Dated: April 21, 2009.
Jacquelyn B. Parrish,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. E9-13036 Filed 6-3-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P