[Federal Register: May 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 92)]
[Notices]
[Page 26979-26981]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr13my10-73]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2010-N053; 40136-1265-0000-S3]
Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge, Jones and Jasper Counties, GA
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 Piedmont 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 June 14, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Ms.
Laura Housh, via U.S. mail at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, 2700
Suwannee Canal Road, Folkston, GA 31537, or via e-mail at laura_
housh@fws.gov. You may also download the document from our Internet
Site as follows: http://southeast.fws.gov/planning under ``Draft
Documents.'' Submit comments on the Draft CCP/EA to the above postal
address or e-mail address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Laura Housh, Refuge Planner,
telephone: 912-496-7366, ext. 244; fax: 912-496-3322.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Piedmont NWR. We
started the process through a notice in the Federal Register on April
4, 2008 (73 FR 18552).
For more about the refuge and our CCP process, please see that
notice.
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 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 Administration Act.
Significant issues addressed in the Draft CCP/EA include: (1)
Management for threatened and endangered species; (2) refuge boundary
and future land acquisition; (3) forest and fire management and
education; (4) cane break restoration; (5) invasive species control;
(6) climate change; (7) partnerships; (8) air and water quality; (9)
protection of cultural resources; (10) urban development; (11) law
enforcement; (12) public access; (13) wildlife-dependent recreation;
(14) camping; and (15) facilities, staffing, and funding needs.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative
We developed four alternatives for managing the refuge and chose
Alternative B as the proposed alternative. A full description of each
alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative
below.
Alternative A--No Action Alternative
Under Alternative A, we would continue to monitor and manage the
red-cockaded woodpecker population to achieve our goal for this
endangered
[[Page 26980]]
species. We would conduct limited surveys for other wildlife species.
No active management would occur for waterfowl, wetland-dependent
birds, raptors, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and other resident birds
and mammals. We would continue current forest management practices by
actively managing 22,500 acres of upland pine with timber harvesting
and prescribed burning. The current fire management program would be
maintained to achieve viable wildlife and plant communities. We would
reduce fuels by burning on a 3-year rotation and by participating in a
fuels' monitoring program. Wildlife openings and roadsides would be
maintained through mowing and prescribed burning. We would
opportunistically treat invasive plants with herbicides and prescribed
burning, enhance cane areas, and manage bottomland and upland
hardwoods. For aquatic species, we would continue to implement
Georgia's Best Management Practices for Forestry and manage the
impoundments as a demonstration area for waterfowl by performing
periodic drawdown and limited planting.
We would continue to welcome and orient visitors and maintain
current opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. The
level of environmental education opportunities would continue to be
limited due to lack of resources, and outreach activities would
continue to be limited to one event per year. We would maintain
existing hunting and fishing programs as well as current facilities. We
would continue to enforce all State and Federal laws applicable to the
refuge, provide visitor safety, protect wildlife and cultural
resources, and ensure public compliance by enforcing current refuge
regulations.
The staff would continue to support both Piedmont and Bond Swamp
NWRs. We would work with private landowners and partners to promote our
goals and objectives. Land could be acquired from willing sellers
within the current acquisition boundary and in accordance with Service
policy. The current volunteer program would be maintained.
Alternative B--Wildlife and Habitat Diversity (Proposed Action)
We selected Alternative B as the alternative that best signifies
the vision, goals, and purposes of Piedmont NWR. This alternative was
selected based on public input and the best professional judgment of
the planning team. Under Alternative B, the emphasis would be on
restoring and improving refuge resources needed for wildlife and
habitat management and providing enhanced appropriate and compatible
wildlife-dependent public use opportunities.
We would continue to monitor and manage the red-cockaded woodpecker
population, but would increase the population goal by 3 to 5 percent.
We would increase wildlife surveys conducted under Alternative A to
include surveying for breeding birds, bald eagles, furbearers, resident
birds, raptors, reptiles and amphibians. We would initiate basic
inventories for fish species and invertebrates, including dragonflies,
crayfish, and mussels. We would continue to collect quail, turkey, and
deer data through managed hunts and surveys, and reinstate turkey brood
counts. We would increase efforts to maintain a deer population of 30
to 35 deer per-square-mile, with a balanced sex ratio.
We would expand habitat management by modifying forest management
strategies to benefit wildlife and habitat diversity. We would continue
to maintain current fire management programs but intensify management
of a 5,000-acre Piedmont savanna focus area with smaller burn units on
a 2-year rotation. We would prioritize the need for removal of invasive
plants and animals and would enhance wildlife openings and roadsides
for early successional habitat diversity. For aquatic species, we would
continue to implement Georgia's Best Management Practices for Forestry,
but would also survey streams to identify species. We would continue to
manage the impoundments as a demonstration area for waterfowl and
implement a water management program to enhance habitat and wildlife
diversity. We would identify unique and rare habitat types and modify
management activities as needed to protect and restore priority areas.
Cane areas would continue to be strategically managed.
We would revise the current visitor services plan and update signs,
brochures, exhibits, and websites. Kiosks and an automated phone system
would be added. We would expand current opportunities for wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and
interpretation, and outreach. We would continue to maintain, and where
possible, expand existing hunting and fishing opportunities. We would
maintain our current law enforcement program and, in addition, revise
the law enforcement plan and reinstate the law enforcement outreach
program. We would document additional historic sites and update current
GIS data to provide for better resource protection. We would develop an
integrated cultural resources plan. Under this alternative, we would
evaluate the potential of expanding the refuge acquisition boundary to
meet our goals and objectives in accordance with current Service
policy.
We would seek partnerships to monitor the impacts of climate change
on refuge resources and adapt management as needed to conserve the
native wildlife and habitats. Administration plans would identify
increased maintenance of existing infrastructure and construction of
new facilities. We would acquire and maintain equipment, facilities,
and infrastructure to support refuge programs.
Additional staff would be required to accomplish the goals of
Alternative B and support both Piedmont and Bond Swamp NWRs. This would
include reinstating an assistant forester and an interpretive park
ranger and adding a biologist, a forestry technician, a park ranger
(law enforcement), a refuge operations specialist, a prescribed fire/
fuels technician, an engineering equipment operator, and two seasonal
forestry technicians (firefighters). We would continue to promote
partnerships and work with adjacent private landowners to support our
goals and objectives. We would expand our volunteer program to include
more resident interns.
Alternative C--Migratory Birds
Under Alternative C, we would focus on migratory birds. The
majority of our efforts would deal with enhancing habitat for and
increasing the population of migratory birds. We would continue to
monitor and manage the red-cockaded woodpecker population in accordance
with recovery plan guidelines. We would conduct current surveys for
wildlife as identified under Alternative B. We would initiate annual
woodcock surveys, a kestrel nesting box program, and identify and
manage for the habitat needs of neotropical and migratory birds. We
would reestablish the wood duck banding program, work with partners to
manage impoundments to benefit waterfowl, increase acres in
impoundments to benefit wetland-dependent birds, and identify the
nesting, breeding, roosting, and foraging habitat needs of raptors. As
under Alternative B, we would initiate a streams survey and would
restore and manage fisheries resources, but would also retain at least
30 percent of submergent vegetation in ponds. To support healthy
migratory bird populations, we would initiate predator
[[Page 26981]]
control. As under Alternative B, we would establish a Piedmont savanna
focus area, but would replace summer quail call counts with fall covey
counts. Resident wildlife monitoring and management would be the same
as under Alternative A unless stated otherwise. We would expand habitat
management, but would also identify areas to focus on cane habitat
management and increase structural diversity of bottomland hardwood
areas. The fire management program would be maintained, but would
increase the acreage of the Piedmont savanna focus area to greater than
5,000 acres and change the fire intervals to maximize the benefits to
migratory birds outside of the focus area. We would expand invasive
plant species control from uplands to include other habitat types to
reduce adverse impacts to migratory birds. We would continue to manage
the impoundments, implement a water management program, and manage
unique and rare habitats as under Alternative B, but the emphasis would
be on migratory birds. We would target management in open lands for
priority migratory bird species.
We would revise the visitor services plan and would expand current
opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation, but with the emphasis on
migratory birds. Facilities to enhance these visitor services would be
added, but observation constraints would be implemented to avoid
disturbance to migratory birds. We would host one annual festival
focusing on migratory birds. We would continue to maintain, and where
possible, expand hunting programs, but would evaluate limiting or
closing fishing on ponds to reduce impacts to wintering and nesting
waterfowl.
We would implement a law enforcement program as stated under
Alternative B, but focus on migratory birds. We would seek partnerships
to evaluate and adapt to the impacts of climate change and work with
private landowners to promote migratory bird resources. The volunteer
program would focus on migratory bird projects.
Alternative D--Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species
The focus of Alternative D would be on management of rare,
threatened, and endangered species. We would intensively manage for
red-cockaded woodpeckers on the maximum potential acres in upland
forest by removing hardwoods, promoting pine, increasing prescribed
burning, and initiating an intra-population translocation program. As
under Alternative B, we would continue to conduct current wildlife
surveys, establish but intensively manage a Piedmont savanna focus
area, and initiate surveys for wetland-dependent birds and raptors. We
would conduct comprehensive surveys focused on rare, threatened, and
endangered species of invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, and bats.
The invasive species control program would emphasize reducing adverse
impacts to rare, threatened, and endangered species and their habitats.
We would increase acres in impoundments and manage them to benefit wood
stork foraging habitat and other species of concern. Open lands would
be managed for rare, threatened, and endangered species.
We would revise the visitor services plan and expand current
opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education. We would implement observation constraints to
avoid disturbance to rare, threatened, and endangered species. One
annual festival focusing on rare, threatened, and endangered species
would be held annually on the refuge. We would continue to maintain,
and where possible, expand existing hunting programs, but would
evaluate limiting or closing fishing on ponds to reduce impacts to
rare, threatened, and endangered species.
We would continue to maintain an active law enforcement program,
protect cultural resources, pursue land acquisition, establish
partnerships, and manage volunteers as under Alternative B, and where
applicable, focus on rare, threatened, and endangered species.
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. 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: March 19, 2010.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-11417 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P