[Federal Register: April 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 22838-22840]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr30ap10-116]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2010-N025; 40136-1265-0000-S3]
Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge, Charleston 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and
environmental assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Cape Romain National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) 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 1, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, and requests for information to:
Ms. Raye Nilus, Project Leader, Cape Romain NWR, 5801 Highway 17 North,
Awendaw, SC 29429; e-mail: caperomainccp@fws.gov. The Draft CCP/EA is
available on compact disc or in hard copy. You may also access and
download a copy of the Draft CCP/EA from the Service's Internet site:
http://southeast.fws.gov/planning/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Laura Housh; telephone: 912/496-
7366, Extension 244.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Cape Romain NWR.
We started this process through a notice in the Federal Register on
January 3, 2007 (72 FR 141).
[[Page 22839]]
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.
CCP Alternatives, Including our Proposed Alternative
We developed three alternatives for managing the refuge and chose
Alternative C as the proposed alternative. A full description is in the
Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative below.
Alternative A: Continuation of Current Refuge Management (No Action)
This alternative represents no change from current management of
the refuge. Management emphasis would continue to focus on loggerhead
sea turtle recovery and maintaining existing wetland impoundments for
wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds. Primary management
activities would include managing wetland impoundments, managing
maritime forests for neotropical migratory birds, monitoring basic
species, and relocating sea turtle nests. Alternative A represents the
anticipated conditions of the refuge for the next 15 years, assuming
current funding, staffing, policies, programs, and activities continue.
This alternative would include actions to manage habitat for
resident and wintering shorebirds, waterfowl, foraging wood storks, and
over-wintering piping plovers. It also would provide opportunities for
wildlife-dependent recreation; however, some areas would only be
seasonally opened. Hunting and fishing would be allowed and would
follow State regulations. Environmental education and interpretation
programs would continue. Species monitoring would be limited due to
staffing constraints, lack of volunteer assistance, and limited
research interest. Habitat management actions would primarily benefit
sea turtles, wading birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl; however, there is
limited active management of other species and habitats.
The refuge would remain staffed at current levels, with the use of
periodic interns. Researchers would be accommodated when projects
benefit the refuge.
Alternative B
This alternative expands on Alternative A with an increase of
habitat and species management efforts. The focus of this alternative
is to enhance suitable habitat under species-specific management and to
increase monitoring efforts. We would control invasive exotic plant
species to help increase populations of neotropical migratory birds and
breeding songbirds to higher levels than under Alternative A. We would
increase efforts to monitor populations of secretive marsh birds, and
we would conduct nesting surveys of shorebirds, sea birds, and wading
birds. Alternative B would continue waterfowl and shorebird monitoring,
with additional effort placed on monitoring marsh birds and wading
birds by conducting nesting surveys. Monitoring efforts would occur
based on available staffing, additional volunteers, and academic
research.
Wildlife-dependent recreation would continue. Hunting and fishing
would continue to be allowed and environmental education and
interpretation enhanced with messages regarding climate change and sea
level rise. Interpretive signage would be increased or added to
existing nature trails. There would be restricted access to some areas
of the refuge that have birds or threatened and endangered species
sensitive to disturbance. Interpretation efforts would focus mostly on
the primary objectives of migratory birds and threatened and endangered
species.
The refuge would be staffed at current levels plus the addition of
a wildlife refuge specialist and a biologist to carry out the increased
habitat management and monitoring needs. Researchers would be
accommodated when projects benefit the refuge and focus mostly on
shorebirds and habitat management.
Alternative C: (Proposed Alternative)
This alternative expands on Alternative A with a greater amount of
effort to increase overall wildlife and habitat quality. Although
management of sea turtles, waterfowl, threatened and endangered
species, and migratory birds would remain a focus of the refuge,
wetland habitat manipulations would also consider the needs of multiple
species, such as marsh and wading birds. Maritime forests and fields
for neotropical migratory birds would be more actively managed.
Landscape-level consideration of habitat management would include
identifying areas of important habitat that would become critical to
wildlife as sea level rises and reduces habitat currently on the
refuge. 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 under
Alternative A to provide additional, active efforts to monitor and
survey migratory neotropical and breeding songbirds, secretive marsh
birds, and plants. Monitoring efforts would be increased with the
assistance of additional staff, trained volunteers, and academic
research. Greater effort would be made to recruit academic researchers
to the refuge to study and monitor 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 to achieve biological needs of
the refuge such as deer population management. Environmental education
and interpretation would be the same as under Alternative A, but with
additional education and outreach efforts aimed at the importance of
climate change, sea level rise, and wilderness. A significantly greater
effort would be made with outreach to nearby developing urban
communities and a growing human population. Existing environmental
education programs, such as the Earth Stewards Program, conducted in
concert with the SEWEE Association, the refuge friends group, would be
expanded to include additional elementary schools, students, and
teachers.
The refuge would be staffed at current levels plus the addition of
a wildlife refuge specialist and two biologists to carry out the
increased habitat management and monitoring needs. An additional park
ranger would be hired to enhance visitor services and environmental
education programs. Greater emphasis would be placed on recruiting and
training volunteers, and worker-camper opportunities would be expanded
to facilitate the
[[Page 22840]]
accomplishment of refuge maintenance programs and other refuge goals
and objectives. The refuge's biological programs would actively seek
funding and researchers to study primarily management-oriented needs.
Refuge staff would place greater emphasis on developing and maintaining
active partnerships, including seeking grants to assist the refuge in
reaching primary objectives.
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: February 24, 2010.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-10089 Filed 4-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P