[Federal Register: January 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 13)]
[Notices]
[Page 3484-3486]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21ja10-74]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2009-N229; 40136-1265-0000-S3]
Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge, Chesterfield and
Marlboro 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and
environmental assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Carolina Sandhills 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 February 22, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, and requests for information to:
Ms. Allyne Askins, Refuge Manager, Carolina Sandhills NWR, 23734 U.S.
Highway 1, McBee, SC 29101, or to the following e-mail address:
allyne_askins@fws.gov. 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. Allyne Askins; telephone: 843/335-
6023; fax: 843/335-8406.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Carolina
Sandhills NWR. We started the process through a notice in the Federal
Register on August 22, 2007 (72 FR 47062).
Carolina Sandhills NWR is in rural northeast South Carolina. The
refuge is comprised of 47,850 acres, including fee ownership of 45,348
acres, and 9 conservation easements totaling 2,502 acres. The majority
of the refuge lies in Chesterfield County, with one fee title tract
totaling 210 acres in Marlboro County. The refuge is managed to restore
the longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem for the benefit of the red-
cockaded woodpecker (RCW) and other endangered species, provide habitat
for migratory and upland game birds, provide opportunities for
environmental education and interpretation and wildlife-dependent
recreational opportunities, and demonstrate sound land management
practices that enhance natural resource conservation. The refuge's
primary wildlife-dependent recreational use is hunting, although
wildlife observation, hiking, and fishing are also popular.
The refuge contains 30 small man-made impoundments, 1,200 acres of
fields and forest openings, and more than 42,000 acres of forested
woodland--habitats which contribute to the refuge's diversity of flora
and fauna. Management of the refuge's unique blend of pinelands,
pocosin bottoms, freshwater ponds and lakes, fields, and wildlife
openings provide habitat for nearly 200 species of birds, 42 species of
mammals, 41 species of reptiles, 25 species of amphibians, and more
than 750 species of plants. The largest population of RCWs within the
National Wildlife Refuge System is found on the refuge. Also, rare
plants, including several species of carnivorous pitcher plants and the
unusual Pine Barrens tree frog are found in the refuge.
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, 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,
[[Page 3485]]
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 Administration Act.
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 of each
alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative
below.
Alternative A--Current Management (No Action)
Alternative A would continue existing levels of management
activities on the refuge. We would maintain RCW monitoring and
recovery. We would maintain and improve habitat required for RCWs by
conducting even-aged silviculture and transitioning to uneven-aged
management. We would use prescribed fire during the early growing
season and mechanical and chemical treatments to confine turkey oaks to
understory stratum.
We would monitor eagles, waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds,
game species, and other wildlife. We would maintain the wood duck nest
box program. We would manage the annual drawdown of ponds to encourage
growth of desirable vegetation and restoration of wetland communities.
There would be no actions focused specifically on marsh and water
birds, raptors, or Pine Barrens tree frogs. We would manage for the
restoration of native plants and manage non-native species on an ``as
needed'' basis.
Visitors would be welcomed and oriented with existing visitor
center displays, kiosks, and brochure racks. The existing hunting and
fishing programs would continue. The hunting program would include
deer, quail, rabbit, raccoon, and turkey. Fishing would be permitted in
most ponds and some would be occasionally stocked. Wildlife observation
and photography would be supported with existing facilities. We would
provide quality environmental education and interpretation programs as
requested and as time would permit.
We would maintain refuge boundaries, consider acquisition of
inholdings from willing sellers, and protect archaeological and
historical resources on the refuge. We would work with private
landowners near the refuge to promote refuge goals and objectives. We
would maintain facilities and equipment and manage operations with
existing staff.
Alternative B--Maximize Native Wildlife and Habitat Diversity
Alternative B includes many of the actions under Alternative A,
with additional focus on managing native wildlife and habitat
diversity, and maintaining the existing visitor services program. We
would enhance RCW habitat by accelerating the transition to uneven-aged
forest management to improve forest structure and composition,
increasing growing season burning, and considering use of fall burning
for hazardous fuel reduction and seed bed preparation.
We would enhance management of the floristic communities on the
refuge, including seepage bogs, Atlantic white cedar and cane bottoms,
and old field species at Oxpen Farm. We would develop and implement
habitat management surveys to identify species' responses to treatments
in longleaf pine and pocosin habitat sites.
We would enhance management of the impoundments and wetlands,
implement moist-soil management, restore natural stream drainage at
selected sites, and establish and expand rare and sensitive plant
communities. We would conduct a baseline population survey of Pine
Barrens tree frogs in seeps, monitor populations of concern to discern
population trends and effects of habitat management, coordinate with
the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) to conduct
surveys and assess effects of habitat management, and participate in
amphibian and reptile conservation initiatives.
We would manage grasslands for birds of conservation concern,
conduct baseline population surveys of grassland birds, and survey to
assess effects of habitat management. We would restore longleaf pine/
wiregrass and native grasslands, establish native warm season grass
demonstration areas, and eradicate non-native plants (e.g., fescue,
love grass, lespedeza, and bamboo). We would also establish a native
seed nursery/orchard for native warm season grasses and native
groundcover and engage in native plant botanical research.
Visitor services activities, except for hunting and fishing, would
be the same as under Alternative A. We would eliminate fisheries
enhancement and reduce hunting days by 30 percent. This reduction would
be necessary to implement the proposed biological and habitat
initiatives.
We would target land acquisitions to those that would maximize
opportunities for management of trust species and connectivity of gaps
and corridors to protect important habitats. We would increase easement
inspections and develop management plans for each easement to meet
wildlife diversity goals. We would increase our efforts to protect
archaeological and historical resources on the refuge.
We would increase cooperation with State and Federal agencies to
institute a structured monitoring program, determine sources, and
investigate means to reduce impacts from any contaminants. We would add
additional wells and monitoring stations to key locations throughout
the refuge in an effort to determine effects of water withdrawals on
refuge resources. We would expand monitoring to include a water quality
study.
We would minimize heavy equipment use to prevent soil disturbance
and discontinue use of roller choppers. We would increase staffing in
wildlife and habitat management programs; however, staffing in visitor
services would be the same as under Alternative A.
Alternative C--Proposed Alternative
Alternative C would optimize refuge operations by balancing habitat
and wildlife population management with enhanced visitor services. This
alternative would include implementation of a majority of actions under
Alternative B, while improving visitor experiences and providing
educational and recreational opportunities for the surrounding
communities.
We would enhance RCW habitat by improving forest structure and
composition, by increasing growing season burning, and by using fall
burning for hazardous fuel reduction and seed bed preparation. We would
use all available tools to control midstory growth.
RCW monitoring would be reduced to a core population in line with
management practices of other large RCW populations. The refuge would
participate on the Southern Range Translocation Team and would provide
juvenile RCWs as donors to populations in Georgia, South Carolina, and
North Carolina. As under Alternative B, we would increase partnership
activities with SCDNR, Cheraw State Park, and Sand Hills State Forest
to manage area RCWs as one recovery unit. We would upgrade our mapping
systems to GIS and integrate spatial components of programs and plans
into GIS.
We would enhance management of the unique floristic communities on
the refuge and develop and implement habitat management surveys to
identify response to treatments in longleaf pine and pocosin habitat
sites.
[[Page 3486]]
We would continue wildlife and habitat management activities as
under Alternative A, while establishing and expanding rare and
sensitive plant community surveys and management of seepage slopes. As
under Alternative B, we would conduct a baseline population survey of
Pine Barrens tree frogs. We would monitor populations of concern to
discern population trends and effects of habitat management, coordinate
with SCDNR to conduct surveys and assess effects of habitat management,
and participate in amphibian and reptile conservation initiatives.
We would survey and manage for birds of conservation concern,
assessing effects of habitat management. We would restore longleaf
pine/wiregrass and native grasslands, establish native warm season
grass demonstration areas, and eradicate non-native plants. We would
also establish a native seed nursery/orchard for native warm season
grasses and native groundcover and engage in native plant botanical
research. We would manage dove fields and plant annual cool season
crops. We would also work with cooperative farmers to establish native
warm season grasses as a seed source or for biofuel production.
Most visitor services activities would be improved. We would
enhance interpretation with additional wayside exhibits and an updated,
interactive Web site. Hunting and fishing opportunities would be
increased. Wildlife observation and photography opportunities would be
improved by providing additional trails with better interpretation, an
observation tower, and a photo blind. A portable viewing blind would be
established in active RCW clusters along the wildlife drive during the
nesting season. The environmental education program would be enhanced
by developing a comprehensive program to be operated by volunteers and
funded by grants. We would enhance appropriate recreational uses (e.g.,
biking and picnicking) to encourage families to use the refuge and
pursue outdoor recreational activities. Communication about key issues
would be enhanced by hosting an annual public lands and private
landowner demonstration day to showcase restoration and management
practices. We would target land acquisitions that would maximize
ecosystem management objectives, provide opportunities for public use
and environmental education, and identify and evaluate important gaps
and corridors to ensure landscape-level conservation and connectivity.
We would search for opportunities to enter into cooperative wildlife
management agreements with private landowners. We would increase
protection of refuge visitors and the protection of archaeological and
natural resources on the refuge. We would add visitor services
facilities to provide more recreation and education programs and
opportunities. We would add equipment to the fleet for producing and
harvesting native warm season grass seed. In addition to increasing
staff, we would utilize a cadre of career seasonal, temporary, and
student employees.
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: January 15, 2010.
Jeffrey M. Fleming,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-1049 Filed 1-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P