[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40893-40895]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-16891]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2012-N108: FXRS12650400000S3-123-FF04R02000]
Desecheo National Wildlife Refuge, PR; 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 the Desecheo National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in the municipality of Mayag[uuml]ez, Puerto
Rico, for public review and comment. In this Draft CCP/EA, we describe
the alternative we propose to
[[Page 40894]]
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 August 10, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Ms.
Susan Silander, via U.S. mail at P.O. Box 510, Boquer[oacute]n, PR
00622. Alternatively, you may download the document from our Internet
Site at http://southeast.fws.gov/planning under ``Draft Documents.''
Comments on the Draft CCP/EA may be submitted to the above postal
address or by email to susan_silander@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Susan Silander at 787/851-7258
(telephone).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
Desecheo NWR is a 360-acre island located in the Mona Passage,
approximately 12 miles west of Rinc[oacute]n, Puerto Rico. With this
notice, we continue the CCP process for Desecheo NWR. We started the
process through a notice in the Federal Register on December 19, 2008
(73 FR 77828). 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) (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.
Issues
During the development of the Draft CCP/EA, we identified issues
that we felt were most significant to the refuge and the public. These
issues included: (1) Control of introduced species (e.g., monkeys,
goats, rats, and plants); (2) illegal activities (e.g., smuggling of
aliens and drugs and poaching); (3) cleanup of military ordnance; (4)
restoration of habitat; (5) potential for opening the refuge to limited
public uses and development of ecotourism projects; (6) providing boat
access; (7) coordinating activities with Marine Reserve planning
efforts; (8) permitting periodic access for ham radio operators; and
(9) camping.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative
We developed three alternatives for managing the refuge
(Alternatives A, B, and C), with Alternative C as our 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)
We would continue with periodic surveys and management of seabirds
and endemic reptiles, sea turtles, migratory landbirds, and the
federally threatened Higo Chumbo cactus.
Removal of invasive animal species would also continue, and we
would begin the monitoring of 10 established vegetation plots to
evaluate success of forest restoration. There would be no active
monitoring of climate change.
We would continue cooperation with partnering agencies to provide
surveillance and enforcement that protects refuge resources from
illegal activities, such as poaching and drug trafficking.
Environmental education and interpretation would continue through
the refuge Web site and factsheets, and staff would continue to give
presentations to mainland communities and local schools.
We would continue to work with cooperating agencies and partners to
clean up unexploded ordnance to increase safety on the refuge. For the
foreseeable future, the refuge would continue to be closed to protect
the public from this hazard. No staff would be specifically assigned to
the refuge, and it would continue to be managed from Complex
headquarters in Boquer[oacute]n, Puerto Rico.
Alternative B: Public Use Emphasis
We would continue periodic efforts to survey and manage seabirds
and endemic reptiles. We would also continue opportunistic surveys for
hawksbill turtles, migratory landbirds, and the federally threatened
Higo Chumbo cactus.
We would continue our efforts to remove invasive animal species and
would implement efforts to avoid introduction of new invasive species
from increased public visitation. We would begin to monitor 10
established vegetation plots across the island to determine the success
of restoration efforts. As with Alternative A, there would be no active
monitoring of climate change.
We would continue cooperating with partnering agencies to provide
surveillance and enforcement to protect refuge resources from illegal
activities, such as poaching and drug trafficking.
Under this alternative, we would increase the level of off-site
environmental education and outreach opportunities to mainland
communities and schools. We would provide additional interpretive
materials, such as brochures and fact sheets. Subject to safety
concerns, we would provide on-site interpretive materials and
opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. We would also
allow for appropriate and compatible non-wildlife-dependent uses on the
refuge by means of special use permits.
As portions of the refuge are cleared of unexploded ordnance and as
other safety issues are addressed, appropriate sites might be opened to
the public. We would acquire an open-water boat capable of reaching the
island to provide for extended visits. This alternative would add a
half-time public use or park ranger position to the refuge.
Alternative C: Habitat and Wildlife Restoration and Limited Public Use
(Proposed Alternative)
Over the 15-year life of the CCP, we would provide the conditions
for reestablishment of nesting seabird colonies. Routine monitoring and
life-history studies of terrestrial reptiles would be conducted and
habitat improvements would be made. We would continue periodic surveys
of turtles and implement seasonal surveys of migratory landbirds. We
would pursue opportunities for propagation, reintroduction, and removal
of threats to the Higo Chumbo cactus.
We would increase monitoring and, if necessary, efforts to remove
invasive species. The number of vegetation plots and frequency of
monitoring would be increased to improve restoration efforts. Over the
15-year life of the CCP, we would complete the removal of all invasive
animal species. We would also develop and implement a plan for
monitoring and mitigating the effects of climate change on the refuge.
[[Page 40895]]
Under this alternative, the levels of surveillance and enforcement
with partners would be increased, and we would also provide additional
equipment to improve enforcement capabilities on the refuge.
We would increase off-site environmental education and outreach to
mainland communities and schools, and we would increase the
availability of interpretive materials, such as brochures and fact
sheets. Subject to safety concerns being met, we would increase on-site
interpretation through signage and brochures and provide limited
opportunities for refuge-guided wildlife observation and photography.
We would continue to respond to special requests for non-wildlife-
dependent uses that are appropriate and compatible.
We would continue to work with cooperating agencies and partners to
increase safety on the refuge through the removal of unexploded
ordnance. Safety would be ensured by only permitting controlled,
refuge-guided activities in cleared areas. We would acquire an open-
water boat capable of reaching the island to provide for extended
visits.
This alternative would add a half-time public use or park ranger
position and a half-time manager position to be shared with the Complex
headquarters.
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, email 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 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et
seq.).
Dated: May 16, 2012.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-16891 Filed 7-10-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P