[Federal Register: September 15, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 178)]
[Notices]
[Page 56133-56135]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15se10-107]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2010-N035; 40136-1265-0000-S3]
Savannah Coastal Refuges' Complex, GA and 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 the Savannah Coastal
Refuges' Complex (Complex) for public review and comment. In this Draft
CCP/EA, we describe the alternative we propose to use to manage this
Complex for the 15 years following approval of the final CCP. The
Complex consists of the following refuges: Pinckney Island; Savannah;
Tybee; Wassaw; Harris Neck; Blackbeard Island; and Wolf Island. A
separate CCP was prepared for the Wolf Island National Wildlife Refuge.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments
by October 15, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Ms.
Laura Housh, via U.S. mail at Okefenokee NWR, 2700 Suwannee Canal Road,
Folkston, GA 31537, or via e-mail at laura_housh@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: 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 the Savannah
Coastal Refuges' Complex. We started the process through a notice in
the Federal Register on May 19, 2008 (73 FR 28838). For more about the
Complex and this 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.
CCP Alternatives, Including our Proposed Alternative
We developed three alternatives for managing the Complex 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
This alternative is the ``no-action'' or ``status quo'' alternative
in which no major management changes would be initiated by the Service.
Management emphasis would continue to focus on maintaining biological
integrity of habitats found on each refuge. Under this alternative, we
would protect and maintain all refuge lands, primarily focusing on the
needs of threatened and endangered species, with additional emphasis on
the needs of migratory birds and resident wildlife.
We would continue mandated activities for protection of federally
[[Page 56134]]
listed species through current habitat management and monitoring
programs accomplished primarily through established partnership and
research projects.
Current management of migratory birds would continue to provide
suitable habitat for waterfowl, contributing to the objective of the
North American Waterfowl Management Plan. Surveying, monitoring, and
managing colonial waterbirds, shorebirds, neotropical migratory birds,
wading birds, marsh birds, and other resident birds would continue. The
management of the Complex that would provide for the basic needs of
these species varies. Management measures at some refuges include
planting vegetation used for food, nest, and cover, including moist-
soil management.
Mostly opportunistic monitoring and managing of resident wildlife
would occur under this alternative. The main objective for game species
management would be to sustain healthy populations through hunting
programs and current habitat management. Only current wildlife
management programs would continue to be maintained.
We would continue habitat management of existing beaches, wetlands,
open waters, forested habitats, scrub/shrub habitats, grasslands, and
open lands. All ponds, levees, moist-soil water management units, and
water control structures and pumps would continue to be maintained to
provide critical habitat for threatened and endangered species,
waterfowl, and wetland-dependent birds. Current water quality
information would be addressed on an as-needed basis and would continue
to be limited. All other habitat management programs would remain
unchanged.
We would continue to control invasive and exotic plant species on
an opportunistic basis as resources allow. This limited control would
be performed by chemical and/or mechanical means, but would remain
intermittent. Control would continue to be implemented by the take of
exotic or invasive animals as part of hunting programs offered on some
of the refuges, and opportunistically by Complex staff.
We would maintain the current levels of wildlife-dependent
recreation activities. An extensive network of public use facilities
would continue to be maintained.
Land would be acquired from willing sellers within each refuge's
current acquisition boundary and in accordance with current Service
policy. Law enforcement on each refuge would continue at the current
level, with emphasis on resource protection and public safety. We would
maintain the Complex as resources allow. The Complex would continue to
include a combined staff of 30 full-time employees.
Alternative B--Increased Management (Proposed Alternative)
The proposed action (Alternative B) was selected by the Service as
the alternative that best signifies the vision, goals, and purposes of
the Complex. Additionally, this alternative was developed based on
public input and the best professional judgment of the planning team.
Under Alternative B, the emphasis would be on restoring and improving
Complex resources needed for wildlife and habitat management and
providing enhanced appropriate and compatible wildlife-dependent public
use opportunities, while addressing key issues and individual refuge
mandates.
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 migratory and resident
birds, and endemic species in order to assess and adapt management
strategies and actions. Additionally, information gaps would be
addressed by the initiation of baseline surveying, periodic monitoring,
and ultimately the addition of adaptive habitat management.
Habitat management programs for impoundments, beaches, wetlands,
open waters, forested habitats, scrub/shrub habitats, grasslands, and
open lands would be re-evaluated and we would develop step-down
management plans to meet the foraging, resting, and breeding
requirements of priority species. Additionally, monitoring and adaptive
habitat management would be implemented to potentially counteract the
impacts associated with long-term climate change and sea level rise.
The control of invasive and exotic plant species would be more
aggressively managed by implementing a management plan, completing a
baseline inventory, supporting research, and through strategic
mechanical and chemical means. Additionally, we would utilize this
management plan and monitoring to enhance efforts to control/remove
invasive, exotic, and nuisance animals on the refuges.
Alternative B enhances each refuges' visitor services opportunities
(except for Tybee NWR, which would remain closed to the public) by: (1)
Improving the quality of fishing opportunities; (2) streamlining quota
hunt process and where possible evaluating the options of allowing the
use of crossbows and creating additional hunting opportunities; and (3)
maintaining and where possible expanding environmental education
opportunities. Volunteer programs and friends groups would be expanded
to enhance all aspects of refuge management and to increase resource
availability. We would evaluate the possibility of utilizing a
concessionaire at Pinckney NWR to implement a tram tour that would
provide a means for access and participation by patrons with mobility
issues.
Under this alternative, the priority of land acquisition at Harris
Neck NWR would be to acquire lands from willing sellers that could
provide resource and public use values. These lands could be acquired
by fee title purchase, donation, mitigation purchase and transfer, or
other viable means. This would include an investigation into expanding
the current acquisition boundary. At Savannah NWR, the focus would
increase on acquiring lands from willing sellers by any viable means
that could provide resource and public use values.
Law enforcement activities to protect archaeological and historical
sites and provide visitor safety would be intensified. The allocation
of an additional law enforcement officer for the Complex would provide
security for cultural resources, but would also ensure visitor safety
and public compliance with refuge regulations.
Administration plans would stress the need for increased
maintenance of existing infrastructure and construction of new
facilities. Funding for new construction projects would be balanced
between habitat management and public use needs. An additional staff
position would be required to accomplish the goals of this alternative.
Personnel priorities would include employing an environmental education
coordinator, law enforcement officers/park rangers, a volunteer
coordinator, biological technicians, maintenance workers, refuge
managers, refuge assistant managers, and a geographic information
systems specialist. The increased budget and staffing levels would
better enable the Complex to meet the obligations of wildlife
stewardship, habitat management, and public use.
Alternative C--Minimal Intervention
Under Alternative C, the management of Complex resources would be
employed to allow natural succession to take place, while maintaining
the
[[Page 56135]]
current slate of public use opportunities. All purposes of the refuges
and mandated monitoring of Federal trust species and archaeological
resources would be continued, but other wildlife management would be
mostly performed on an incidental basis.
This alternative would utilize a custodial habitat management
strategy. Impoundments, beaches, wetlands, open waters, forested
habitats, scrub/shrub habitats, grasslands, and open lands would not be
actively managed and would allow natural disturbance to maintain
succession, unless the habitat primarily focuses on the needs of
threatened and endangered species or the needs of priority species,
such as migratory birds. Fire management would be reduced to include
wildfire response only.
We would continue mandated activities for protection of federally
listed species. Conservation of federally listed threatened and
endangered species would be continued primarily through established
partnership and research projects.
Current management of migratory birds would continue to provide
suitable habitat for waterfowl. Climate control changes and sea level
rise would continue to be monitored on an opportunistic basis, with
very little or no adaptive habitat management. We would control
invasive and exotic plant and animal species on an opportunistic basis
as resources allow. This limited control would be performed by chemical
and/or mechanical means, but would remain intermittent. We would
maintain the current levels of wildlife-dependent recreation
activities. Public use facilities would continue to be maintained, as
would the current visitor services program.
Law enforcement officers would be added to the staff to increase
emphasis on resource protection and public safety. This includes being
designated to uphold current regulations and for protection of
wildlife, visitors, and cultural and historical resources. We would
maintain the Complex as resources allow. No additional land acquisition
would be pursued under this alternative.
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: March 19, 2010.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-22965 Filed 9-14-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P