[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 103 (Friday, May 27, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30959-30961]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13214]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2011-N055; 40136-1265-0000-S3]
Bogue Chitto National Wildlife Refuge, LA and MS; Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; 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 Bogue Chitto National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in St. Tammany and Washington Parishes,
Louisiana, and Pearl River County, Mississippi, 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 27, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Ms.
Tina Chouinard, via U.S. mail at Fish and Wildlife Service, 3006
Dinkins Lane, Paris, TN 38242. Alternatively, you may download the
document from our Internet site: http://southeast.fws.gov/planning
under ``Draft Documents.''
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Tina Chouinard, at 731/432-0981
(telephone).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Bogue Chitto NWR.
We started the process through a notice of intent in the Federal
Register on February 20, 2009 (74 FR 7913). For more about the refuge
and our CCP process, please see that notice.
Established in 1980, Bogue Chitto NWR is one of eight refuges
managed as part of the Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife Refuge
Complex. The refuge headquarters is approximately 9 miles northeast of
the city of Slidell, Louisiana. The 36,502-acre refuge is bisected by
the Pearl River in Louisiana and Mississippi. On the Mississippi side
of the river, the refuge is bounded by Old River Wildlife Management
Area (15,400 acres) to the north and by the State of Louisiana's Pearl
River Wildlife Management Area (35,031) to the south, thereby forming
an 87,000-acre block of protected forested wetlands and adjacent
uplands within the Pearl River Basin.
White-tailed deer, squirrel, turkey, waterfowl, and hog hunting, as
well as fishing, are offered to the public. The threatened and
endangered species found on the refuge are ringed map turtle, gopher
tortoise, inflated heelsplitter mussel, and gulf sturgeon.
Access is primarily by boat on the refuge's Louisiana side and road
access is available on the refuge's Mississippi side. In 2002, the new
Holmes Bayou walking trail was unveiled on the Louisiana side of the
refuge. This 3/4-mile walking trail offers a unique journey into the
interior of Bogue Chitto NWR's majestic habitat. The Pearl River
Turnaround area is being developed as a site for education and
interpretation, as well as a site for the annual youth fishing rodeo.
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), 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 this Draft CCP/EA include: (1)
Managing for invasive species and species of special concern, such as
the gopher tortoise and ringed map turtle; (2) managing mixed pine
upland and bottomland hardwood forests; (3) managing for land
protection; (4) examining for a wilderness study area; (5) enhancing
wildlife-dependent public use: And (6) increasing permanent staff.
[[Page 30960]]
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 of
each alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative
below.
Alternative A--Current Management (No Action)
The no action alternative would maintain the status quo and was
developed using anticipated conditions in the area of Bogue Chitto NWR
over the next 15 years. It assumes that current conservation management
and land protection programs and activities by the Service and its
stakeholders would continue to follow past trends. This alternative is
included for the purpose of comparison to baseline conditions and is
not considered to be the most effective management strategy for
achieving the vision and goals of the refuge.
Under this alternative, wildlife population monitoring/surveying
would be limited to current, primarily mandated species, without the
benefit of additional focus on species of concern and species chosen as
indicators of a healthy ecosystem. Forest management efforts for
wildlife benefit would occur opportunistically. Public use programs
would not change or increase with demand and would not be adapted based
on their effects on refuge resources. Forestry and fire management
programs would not be evaluated for efficiency and effectiveness.
The wilderness character of Holmes Island would probably not be
altered appreciably under this alternative. No facilities' development
would take place on the island; however, the island could still be
subjected to habitat improvement projects, such as forest thinning and
prescribed fire. If the island were to be thinned, depending on the
logging method(s) used, this could necessitate temporary skid roads and
pads for timber harvesting equipment, which could potentially, at least
temporarily, compromise Holmes Island's wilderness character.
Under Alternative A, negative effects to soils, water, air, and
other physical parameters would be mitigated to some extent, but not as
well as benefits that could be provided with the use of strategic
habitat management. The biological environment would remain protected,
but certain systems could suffer if not systematically monitored using
focused species as indicators. Management under Alternative A would not
adversely affect socioeconomic values of the area, but the refuge would
not achieve its potential for providing needed educational and
wildlife-dependent recreational activities.
Alternative B--Resource-Focused Management (Proposed Alternative)
Implementing Alternative B would be the most effective management
action for meeting the purposes of Bogue Chitto NWR. Monitoring and
surveying would be conducted systematically, after assessing which
species should be targeted based on their population status and ability
to indicate health of important habitat. Restoration efforts, the fire
program, and forest management would reflect best management practices
determined after examination of historical regimes, soil types and
elevation, and the current hydrological system. Management actions
would be monitored for effectiveness and adapted to changing
conditions, knowledge, and technology. A Habitat Management Plan would
be developed for future habitat projects and to evaluate previous
actions.
The wilderness character of Holmes Island would be ensured under
this alternative, pending a final decision by the Service, the
President, and the Congress on whether to adopt the refuge's
recommendation that it be designated a unit of the National Wilderness
Preservation System. While this would be a benefit of Alternative B,
one adverse effect of including Holmes Island as a Wilderness Study
Area would be to restrict management options, such as conducting forest
thinning and prescribed fire on the island for the sake of wildlife
habitat improvement.
Public use programs would be updated to educate visitors about the
reasons for specific refuge management actions, and to provide quality
experiences for refuge visitors. The refuge complex headquarters in
Lacombe, Louisiana, would be equipped to provide additional information
about Bogue Chitto NWR. Options and opportunities would be explored to
expand visitor contact areas on the refuge. In an increasingly
developing region, Alternative B would strive to achieve a balanced
program of wildlife-dependent recreational activities and protection of
wildlife resources.
This alternative proposes to add six new positions to current
staffing dedicated primarily to Bogue Chitto NWR in order to continue
to protect refuge resources, provide visitor services, and attain
facilities and equipment maintenance goals.
Alternative C--User-Focused Management
Alternative C emphasizes managing the refuge for wildlife-dependent
recreational uses. The majority of staff time and efforts would support
public use activities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation. In general, the focus of refuge management would be on
expanding public use activities to the fullest extent possible, while
conducting only mandated resource protection such as conservation of
threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, and archaeological
resources.
All management programs for conservation of wildlife and habitat,
such as monitoring, surveying, and marsh management, would support
species and resources of importance for public use. Emphasis would be
placed more on interpreting and demonstrating these programs than
actual implementation. Providing access with trails would be maximized,
as would public use facilities throughout the refuge. Federal trust
species and archaeological resources would be monitored as mandated.
Any negative impacts to soil, water, air, and other physical parameters
would be observed only when highly visible effects manifested, because
monitoring would not be based on indicator species or species of
concern. With the majority of staff time and funds supporting a public
use program, wildlife-dependent recreation and environmental education
and interpretation could be more successful than in the other
alternatives. Refuge resources would be protected from over-use so that
quality public-use experiences would not be reduced. The socioeconomic
value of the refuge to the surrounding area would be the highest under
this alternative.
Land acquisitions within the approved acquisition boundary would be
based on importance of the habitat for public use. The refuge
headquarters and visitor center would be developed for public use
activities.
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
[[Page 30961]]
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 22, 2011.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2011-13214 Filed 5-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P