[Federal Register: June 30, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 126)]
[Notices]
[Page 36888-36890]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30jn08-100]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2008-N0032; 40136-1265-0000-S3]
Santee National Wildlife Refuge, Clarendon County, 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, announce the availability
of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment
(Draft CCP/EA) for Santee National Wildlife Refuge for public review
and comment. In this Draft CCP/EA, we describe alternatives, including
our proposed alternative 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 July 30, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Draft CCP/EA should be addressed
to: Van Fischer, Natural Resource Planner, South Carolina Lowcountry
Refuge Complex, 5801 Highway 17 North, Awendaw, South Carolina 29429. A
copy of the Draft CCP/EA is available on both compact disc and hard
copy. You may also access and download a copy of the Draft CCP/EA at
the Service's Internet Site: http://southeast.fws.gov/planning.
Comments on the Draft CCP/EA may be submitted to the above address or
via electronic mail to: van_fischer@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Van Fischer at 843/928-3264.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Santee National
Wildlife Refuge. We started the process through a notice in the Federal
Register on January 3, 2007 (72 FR 143).
The primary purpose of this 15,000-acre refuge, which was
established in 1942, is to alleviate the loss of natural waterfowl and
other wildlife habitat caused by the construction of hydro-electric
power and navigational projects on the Santee and Cooper Rivers. The
refuge lies within the Atlantic Coastal Plain and consists of mixed
hardwoods, mixed pine hardwoods, pine plantations, marsh, croplands,
old fields, ponds, impoundments, and open water.
[[Page 36889]]
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), which amended the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, requires us to develop a CCP for each
national wildlife refuge. The purpose in 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 Improvement Act and NEPA.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative
We developed three alternatives for managing the refuge and chose
Alternative C as the proposed alternative.
Alternatives
A full description of each alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We
summarize each alternative below.
Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)
There would be no change from current management of the refuge.
Management emphasis would continue to focus on maintaining existing
managed wetlands for wintering waterfowl. Primary management activities
would include managing wetland impoundments, basic species monitoring,
wood duck banding, and planting corn for waterfowl. Alternative A would
represent the anticipated conditions of the refuge for the next 15
years, assuming current resources, policies, programs, and activities
continue. The other two alternatives are compared to this alternative
in order to evaluate differences in future conditions compared to
baseline management.
This alternative would reflect actions that include managing
habitat for resident and wintering waterfowl and nesting bald eagles,
maintaining upland and wetland forests, and repairing wetland
impoundment control structures. Habitat management actions would
benefit waterfowl; however, there would be limited active management of
other species and habitats.
Management coordination would occur between the refuge and the
State. Coordination would remain focused on waterfowl management,
hunting, and fishing. Hunting and fishing would continue to follow
State regulations. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses would be
allowed with all areas opened to the public, with some areas only
seasonally opened.
The refuge would remain staffed at current levels. Researchers
would be accommodated when projects benefit the refuge.
Alternative B: Targeted Habitat Management Primarily for Waterfowl
This alternative would expand on Alternative A with a greater
amount of active habitat management on the refuge. The focus of this
alternative would be to enhance and expand suitable habitat under
species-specific management, targeted to attract greater numbers of
wintering waterfowl and breeding areas for resident wood ducks. The
acreage of managed wetlands and agricultural fields would be increased
to accommodate larger waterfowl numbers. Some open fields and scrub-
shrub areas would be converted to wetlands or crops. Management of
habitats for neotropical migratory and breeding songbirds would be
greater than under Alternative A, but limited to maintaining existing
areas suitable for these migratory species. There would be an increased
effort to control invasive exotic plants.
This alternative would propose to increase monitoring efforts to
focus primarily on waterfowl, with less effort to address other
species. Monitoring efforts would only occur based on available
resources and academic research.
Wildlife-dependent recreational uses of the refuge would continue.
Hunting and fishing would continue to be allowed and environmental
education and interpretation would be enhanced. Interpretive signage
would be increased or added to existing nature trails. There would be
restricted access to some areas of the refuge that have waterfowl and
threatened or endangered species sensitive to disturbance.
Interpretation efforts would focus mostly on the primary objective of
waterfowl management.
The refuge would be staffed at current levels plus the addition of
three biological technicians to carry out the increased habitat
management and monitoring needs. Researchers would be accommodated when
projects benefit the refuge and focus mostly towards waterfowl habitat
and management.
Alternative C: Wildlife and Habitat Diversity (Proposed Alternative)
This alternative would expand on Alternative A, with a greater
amount of effort to increase overall wildlife and habitat diversity.
Although waterfowl would remain a focus of management, wetland habitat
manipulations would also consider the needs of multiple species, such
as marsh and wading birds. Under this alternative, upland forests and
fields would be more actively managed for neotropical migratory
songbirds than under Alternative B. Landscape level consideration of
habitat management would include a diversity of open fields, upland and
wetland forests, and additional managed wetlands. Multiple species
consideration would include species and habitats identified by the
South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative and the State's Strategic
Conservation Plan.
This alternative would expand the monitoring efforts of Alternative
A to provide additional monitoring of neotropical migratory and
breeding songbirds, as well as resident species. Monitoring efforts
would be increased with the assistance of additional staff, trained
volunteers, and academic researchers. Greater effort would be made to
recruit academic researchers to the refuge to study and monitor refuge
resources.
Wildlife-dependent recreational uses of the refuge would continue.
Hunting and fishing would continue to be allowed. However, hunting
would be managed with a greater focus on achieving the biological needs
of the refuge, such as controlling the deer population. Education and
interpretation would be the same as Alternative A, but with additional
education and outreach efforts aimed at the importance of landscape and
diversity. A much broader effort would be made with outreach to nearby
developing urban communities.
The refuge would be staffed at current levels plus an additional
three to four staff members to carry out the increased habitat
management and monitoring needs. Greater emphasis would be placed on
recruiting and training volunteers. Refuge biological programs would
actively seek funding for studies dealing primarily with management-
orientated research needs. Refuge staff would place greater emphasis on
developing and maintaining active partnerships, including seeking
grants
[[Page 36890]]
to assist the refuge in reaching primary objectives.
Next Step
After this comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and
address them in the form of a Final CCP and Finding of No Significant
Impact.
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.
Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the
Federal Register on June 25, 2008.
Dated: February 8, 2008.
Cynthia K. Dohner,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. E8-14745 Filed 6-27-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P