[Federal Register: June 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 108)]
[Notices]
[Page 32205-32208]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr07jn10-54]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2010-N061; 40136-1265-0000-S3]
Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge, Ashley, Bradley, and Union
Counties, AR; Overflow National Wildlife Refuge, Ashley County, AR
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 Felsenthal and Overflow
National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) for public review and comment.
Felsenthal, Overflow, and Pond Creek NWRs are managed as a Complex. A
separate CCP was prepared for Pond Creek NWR. In this Draft CCP/EA, we
describe the
[[Page 32206]]
alternative we propose to use to manage these refuges for the 15 years
following approval of the final CCP.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments
by July 7, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Mr.
Bernie Peterson, via U.S. mail at Felsenthal NWR, P.O. Box 1157,
Crossett, AR 71635, or via e-mail at bernie_peterson@fws.gov.
Alternatively you may download the document from our Internet Site at
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: Mr. Mike Dawson, Refuge Planner,
telephone: 601/965-4903, Ext. 20.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Felsenthal and
Overflow NWRs. We started the process through a notice in the Federal
Register on April 2, 2008 (73 FR 17992). For more about the refuges,
their purposes, 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 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 Administration Act.
Key issues addressed in the Draft CCP/EA include water management,
forestry management, greentree reservoir management, threatened and
endangered species management, migratory bird and waterfowl nesting
habitats, hunting and fishing program management, invasive species of
plants and animals, refuge access, law enforcement, and environmental
education and interpretation programs.
Felsenthal NWR was established in 1975, as a result of the Corps of
Engineers' Ouachita and Black Rivers Navigation Project.
Geographically, the 65,000-acre refuge is located in what is known as
the Felsenthal Basin, an extensive natural depression that is laced
with a vast complex of sloughs, bayous, and lakes. Overflow NWR was
established in 1980, to protect one of the remaining bottomland
hardwood forests considered vital for maintaining mallard, wood duck,
and other waterfowl populations in the Mississippi Flyway. This 13,000-
acre plus refuge is a wetland complex within the watershed of Overflow
Creek, which flows southerly along the length of the refuge.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative
We developed three separate alternatives for managing the refuges
and chose Alternative B, Enhanced Biological and Visitor Services
Management, as the proposed alternative for each. A full description of
the alternatives is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative
below.
Felsenthal NWR
Alternative A (Current Management, No Action)
Alternative A would continue current management strategies, with
little or no change in resources. We would protect, maintain, and
enhance 65,000 acres of refuge lands, primarily focusing on the needs
of threatened and endangered species, with additional emphasis on the
needs of migratory birds, resident wildlife, and migratory non-game
birds. We would continue mandated activities for protection of
Federally listed species. Control of nuisance wildlife populations and
invasive plant species would be undertaken on an opportunistic basis.
Habitat management efforts would be concentrated on forests; water,
including greentree reservoirs; and open lands. We would continue the
fire management program.
The Complex, made up of Felsenthal, Overflow, and Pond Creek NWRs,
with the support of volunteers and friends, manages an extensive
visitor services program that includes recreation, education, and
outreach programs. We would maintain the current levels of wildlife-
dependent recreation activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation). Felsenthal NWR has an extensive network of public use
facilities including 65 miles of all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails, 8
boat ramps, and 10 primitive campgrounds. Except for two archaeological
sites, all of the refuge is open to visitors. These facilities do not
interfere substantially with or detract from the achievement of
wildlife conservation.
The hunting program would continue to be managed via quota hunts
for white-tailed deer and turkey. Special conditions of the hunt
program would continue to include the use of ATVs along designated
trails. Hunters with disabilities would still be allowed to extend
their use of ATVs approximately 200 yards off of designated trails. The
use of dogs would continue during waterfowl, squirrel, rabbit, raccoon,
and opossum hunts.
About 60 percent of total consumptive public use on the refuge is
fishing. There are eight boat launching facilities with parking areas
on the refuge and three boat launching facilities with parking areas
off the refuge that provide lake and river access. Adequate bank
fishing opportunities would continue to be made available.
We would maintain the refuge as resources allow. We would continue
to manage with the following staff for the Complex: Project leader,
deputy project leader, biologist, forester, park ranger (public use),
fire management specialist, three forestry technicians (fire), two law
enforcement officers, administrative officer, administrative support
assistant, equipment operator, and heavy equipment mechanic.
Alternative B (Enhanced Biological Management and Visitor Services--
Proposed Alternative)
The proposed action was selected by the Service as the alternative
that best signifies the vision, goals, and purposes of the refuge.
Emphasis would be on restoring and improving resources needed for
wildlife and habitat management, while providing additional public use
opportunities. This alternative would also allow us to provide law
enforcement protection that adequately meets the needs of the refuge.
This alternative would focus on augmenting wildlife and habitat
management to identify, conserve, and restore populations of native
fish and wildlife species, with an emphasis on migratory birds and
threatened and endangered species. This would partially be accomplished
by increased monitoring of waterfowl, other
[[Page 32207]]
migratory birds, and endemic species in order to assess and adapt
management strategies and actions. The restoration of the Felsenthal
South Pool would be a vital part of this proposed action and would be
crucial to ensuring healthy and viable ecological communities in the
greentree reservoir. This restoration would require increased water
management control, invasive aquatic vegetation control, reestablishing
water quality standards, and possibly reestablishing populations of
game fish species. The control of nuisance wildlife populations and
invasive plant species would be more aggressively managed by
implementing a control plan and systematic removal.
Alternative B would enhance the visitor services opportunities by:
(1) Improving the quality of fishing opportunities; (2) creating
additional hunting opportunities for youth and hunters with
disabilities where feasible; (3) implementing an environmental
education program component for the Complex that utilizes volunteers
and local schools as partners; (4) enhancing wildlife viewing and
photography opportunities by implementing food plots in observational
areas and evaluating the possibility of implementing an auto tour; (5)
developing and implementing a visitor services management plan; and (6)
enhancing personal interpretive and outreach opportunities. Volunteer
programs and friends groups also would be expanded to enhance all
aspects of refuge management and to increase resource availability.
In addition to the enforcement of all Federal and State laws
applicable to the refuge to protect archaeological and historical
sites, we would identify and develop a plan to protect all known sites.
The allocation of an additional law enforcement officer to the refuge
would not only provide security for these resources, but would also
ensure visitor safety and public compliance with refuge regulations.
Under this alternative, additional staff needed would include: Park
ranger (law enforcement), biological technician, park ranger (visitor
services, environmental educator/volunteer coordinator), heavy
equipment operator, and the conversion of two seasonal fire technicians
to full-time employment. These positions are needed to accomplish
objectives for establishing baseline data on refuge resources, for
managing habitats, and for adequate protection of wildlife and
visitors.
Alternative C (Enhanced Biological Management)
Alternative C would provide for the enhancement and restoration of
native wildlife, fish, and plant communities and the health of those
communities. This would be accomplished by maximizing wildlife and
habitat management, while maintaining a portion of the current
compatible public use opportunities. Threatened and endangered species
would be of primary concern, but the needs of other resident and
migratory wildlife would also be considered. As under Alternative B,
focus would be centralized on augmenting wildlife and habitat
management to identify, conserve, and restore populations of native
fish and wildlife species by increased monitoring of waterfowl, other
migratory birds, and endemic species in order to assess and adapt
management strategies and actions. Extensive wildlife, plant, and
habitat inventories would be initiated to obtain the biological
information needed to implement and monitor management programs.
Habitat management would be increased to provide additional
sanctuary for waterfowl, to provide additional active clusters of red-
cockaded woodpeckers, to promote additional edge as a transition
between habitat types for resident wildlife, and to provide additional
openings for native grasslands. A minor expansion plan would be
evaluated to expand the current acquisition boundary. This would allow
us to expand critical or viable habitat. We would inventory and more
aggressively monitor, control, and, where possible, eliminate invasive
plants and nuisance wildlife through the use of staff and contracted
labor.
Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental
education and interpretation opportunities would continue as currently
managed, but only when and where they would not conflict with wildlife
management activities and objectives. The use of ATVs and campgrounds
would be reduced or would require a special use permit to better
control use. Night fishing and fishing tournaments would be phased out.
Harvest counts for waterfowl hunting would be monitored annually to
determine the species hunted. Outreach would additionally focus on
providing information to the public on flooding cycles within the
greentree reservoir and the importance of periodic drying cycles.
Administration plans would stress the need for increased
maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities benefitting
wildlife conservation. Additional staff under this alternative would
include: Park ranger (law enforcement), biological technician,
biologist, heavy equipment operator, and the conversion of two seasonal
fire technicians to full-time employment to accomplish objectives for
establishing baseline data on refuge resources, for managing habitats,
and for adequate protection of wildlife and visitors.
Overflow NWR
Alternative A (Current Management, No Action)
Alternative A would continue current management strategies, with
little or no change in resources. Under this alternative, we would
protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 13,973 acres of refuge lands
and 2,263 additional acres included in the Oakwood Unit. We would
primarily focus on the needs of migratory waterfowl, with additional
emphasis on the needs of resident wildlife, migratory non-game birds,
and threatened and endangered species. Control of nuisance wildlife
populations and invasive plant species would be undertaken on an
opportunistic basis. Habitat management efforts would be concentrated
on moist-soil management, waterfowl impoundments, forest management,
and crop production. We would continue cooperative farming of 400
acres.
Currently, active habitat management targeting waterfowl includes
impoundments for moist-soil and crop food resource generation in open
habitats, as well as greentree reservoir management in forested areas
to produce complimentary food and behavioral resources. Approximately
600 acres would continue to be managed in rotation fashion in moist-
soil and crops. A stop-log structure on Overflow Creek would continue
to be used to manage a single 4,000-acre greentree reservoir
impoundment during winter months.
Public use opportunities would continue to include hunting (e.g.,
waterfowl, deer, turkey, small game, woodcock, and quail), wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and limited environmental education
activities. A total of 3,000 acres would continue to be protected from
public intrusion during the wintering waterfowl season in areas
designated as waterfowl sanctuaries.
Standard management activities at the Oakwood Unit would continue
to include: (1) Disking of moist-soil units on a rotational basis; (2)
monitoring seedling survival and mortality; (3) bird surveys; and (4)
levee and boundary line
[[Page 32208]]
maintenance. There are no visitor service opportunities on this unit.
As compared to Overflow NWR, the Oakwood Unit is passively managed due
to its location 80 miles from the refuge office.
We would maintain the refuge as resources allow, and would continue
with four staff members: Refuge manager, private lands biologist,
biological science technician, engineering equipment operator, and
part-time biological technician. In addition, individual volunteers
would continue to provide many valuable services on the refuge (e.g.,
monitoring the migration of Monarch butterflies, beaver trapping, trail
maintenance, and waterfowl counts).
Alternative B (Enhanced Biological Management and Visitor Services--
Proposed Alternative)
The proposed alternative was selected by the Service as the
alternative that best signifies the vision, goals, and purposes of the
refuge. Under Alternative B, the emphasis would be on restoring and
improving resources needed for wildlife and habitat management, while
providing additional public use opportunities. This alternative would
also allow us to provide the level of law enforcement protection to
adequately meet the needs of the refuge.
This alternative would focus on augmenting wildlife and habitat
management to identify, conserve, and restore populations of wildlife
species, with an emphasis on waterfowl, migratory birds, and resident
wildlife. This would partially be accomplished by increased monitoring
in order to assess and adapt management strategies and actions. Habitat
management would be increased to extend the moist-soil rotation to at
least four or more years to reach a condition preferred by marshbirds,
to adapt flooding and water management regimes in the greentree
reservoir and moist-soil units, and to implement a more intensive
moist-soil management program at the Oakwood Unit (300 acres/year).
Land acquisition within the approved acquisition boundary would be
based on importance of the habitat for target management species and
public use value. The control of nuisance wildlife populations and
invasive plant species would be more aggressively managed by
implementing a control plan and systematic removal.
Alternative B would enhance the refuge's visitor service
opportunities by: (1) Making hunting opportunities more accessible for
hunters with disabilities; (2) implementing an environmental education
program component for the Complex that utilizes volunteers and local
schools as partners; (3) enhancing wildlife viewing and photography
opportunities by implementing food plots in observational areas and
promoting ATV trails as birding trails; (4) welcoming visitors by
establishing a visitor center or contact station on the refuge; (5)
developing and implementing a visitor services management plan; and (6)
enhancing personal interpretive and outreach opportunities. Volunteer
programs and friends groups also would be expanded to enhance all
aspects of refuge management and to increase resource availability.
In addition to the enforcement of all Federal and State laws
applicable to the refuge to protect archaeological and historical
sites, we would identify and develop a plan to protect all known sites.
An additional law enforcement officer would not only provide security
for these resources, but would also ensure visitor safety and public
compliance with refuge regulations.
In order to accomplish the objectives for establishing baseline
data on refuge resources, for managing habitats, and for adequate
protection of wildlife and visitors, additional staff would include:
Park ranger (law enforcement), biological technician, park ranger
(environmental educator/volunteer coordinator), and heavy equipment
operator.
Alternative C, Enhanced Biological Management
Alternative C would provide for the enhancement and restoration of
native wildlife and plant communities and the health of those
communities. This would be accomplished by maximizing wildlife and
habitat management, while maintaining a portion of the current
compatible public use opportunities. We would continue and enhance
mandated activities for protecting threatened and endangered species.
As under Alternative B, our focus would be centralized on augmenting
wildlife and habitat management to identify, conserve, and restore
populations of wildlife species by increased monitoring of waterfowl,
other migratory birds, and endemic species in order to assess and adapt
management strategies and actions. Extensive wildlife, plant, and
habitat inventories would be initiated to obtain the biological
information needed to implement and monitor management programs.
Habitat management would be maximized to provide additional moist-
soil management and more intensive forest management. We would
inventory and more aggressively monitor, control, and, where possible,
eliminate invasive plants and nuisance wildlife through the use of
staff and contracted labor. Land acquisitions within the approved
acquisition boundary would be based on importance of the habitat for
target management species. Additionally, the expansion of the Oakwood
Unit to provide a right-of-way to the public would be evaluated.
Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental
education and interpretation opportunities would continue as currently
managed, but only when and where they would not conflict with wildlife
management activities and objectives. Additionally, the opening of the
Oakwood Unit to deer hunting would be evaluated and the staff offices
on the refuge would be updated in lieu of a new visitor center.
Administration plans would stress the need for increased
maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities benefitting
wildlife conservation. Additional staff would include: Park ranger (law
enforcement), biological technician, biologist, and heavy equipment
operator. These positions are needed to accomplish the objectives for
establishing baseline data on resources, for managing habitats, and for
adequate protection of wildlife and visitors.
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 14, 2010.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-13511 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P