Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge, 3878-3882 [06-616]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
3878
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 / Notices
documents (This is not a toll-free
number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Department will submit the proposed
information collection to OMB for
review, as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended).
This Notice is soliciting comments
from members of the public and affected
agencies concerning the proposed
collection of information to: (1) Evaluate
whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the
agency, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection of information; (3) enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (4)
minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
appropriate automated collection
techniques or other forms of information
technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses.
This Notice also lists the following
information:
Title of Proposal: Screening and
Eviction for Drug Abuse and Other
Criminal Activity—Final Rule.
OMB Control Number: 2577–0232.
Description of the need for the
information and proposed use: The
collection of information implements
statute and gives Public Housing
Agencies (PHAs) and assisted housing
owners the tools for adopting and
implementing fair, effective and
comprehensive policies for screening
out program applicants who engage in
illegal drug use or other criminal
activity and for evicting or terminating
assistance of persons who engage in
such activity. PHAs that administer a
Section 8 or public housing program
under an Annual Contributions Contract
(ACC) with HUD may request criminal
history records from any law
enforcement agency concerning an adult
member of a household applying for
admission to a public housing or
Section 8 program.
Agency form numbers, if applicable:
None.
Members of affected public: State or
Local Government; Public Housing
Agencies (PHAs).
Estimation of the total number of
hours needed to prepare the information
collection including number of
respondents, frequency of response, and
hours of response: 3,300 PHAs
(respondents); estimated average
number of respondents 15,200; total
annual burden hours 73,550.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Jan 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
Status of the proposed information
collection: Extension.
Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35,
as amended.
Dated: January 18, 2006.
Bessy Kong,
Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy,
Program and Legislative Initiatives.
[FR Doc. E6–819 Filed 1–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–33–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment for
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge in
Choctaw County, Alabama.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service
announces that a Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment for Choctaw National
Wildlife Refuge are available for review
and comment. The National Wildlife
Refuge System Administration Act of
1966, as amended by the National
Wildlife Refuge System Improvement
Act of 1997, requires the Service to
develop a comprehensive conservation
plan for each national wildlife refuge.
The purpose in developing a
comprehensive conservation plan is to
provide refuge manages 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 Service policies, In
addition to outlining broad management
direction on conserving wildlife and
their habitats, plans identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities
available to the public, including
opportunities for hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental
education and interpretation.
Significant issues addressed in the
draft plan include: threatened and
endangered species, waterfowl
management, neotropical migratory
birds, bottomland hardwood restoration,
fisheries management, visitor services,
funding and staffing, cultural resources,
and land protection.
DATES: A meeting will be held to present
the plan to the public. Mailings,
newspaper articles, and posters will be
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
the avenues to inform the public of the
date and time for the meeting.
Individuals wishing to comment on the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment for
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
should do so no later than March 10,
2006.
Requests for copies of the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment should
be addressed to Choctaw National
Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 808, Jackson,
Alabama 36545; Telephone 251/246–
3583. The plan and environmental
assessment may also be accessed and
downloaded from the Service’s Internet
Web site https://southeast.fws.gov/
planning/. Comments on the draft plan
may be submitted to the above address
or via electronic mail to
mike_dawson@fws.gov. Please include
your name and return address in your
Internet message. Our practice is to
make comments, including names and
home addresses of respondents,
available for public review during
regular business hours. Individual
respondents may request that we
withhold their home addresses from the
record, which we will honor to the
extent allowed by law.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Service developed four alternatives for
managing the refuge and chose
Alternative D as the preferred
alternative.
ADDRESSES:
Alternatives
The draft comprehensive conservation
plan and environmental assessment
evaluates the four alternatives for
managing the refuge over the next 15
years. These alternatives are briefly
described as follows:
Alternative A: No Action (Current
Management Direction)
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge’s
most important terrestrial vegetation
community is its bottomland hardwood
forests, which provide habitat for
migratory birds, including both
waterfowl and neotropical migratory
forest-dependent birds, and other
species. The refuge has a current Forest
Management Plan, but it has not been
fully implemented; some stand
treatments have been applied, but
secondary treatments, such as thinnings,
have not. Regeneration is occurring on
the forest floor, but not stand
recruitment; saplings are not maturing
due to being eaten by deer and feral
hogs, frequent flooding, and shady
conditions. There is a dense canopy at
present that inhibits regeneration of all
but the most shade-tolerant trees. While
E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM
24JAN1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 / Notices
mast production is a good at present, it
will probably decrease over the long
term as oaks become over-mature and
are not replaced by younger, more
vigorous and productive oaks.
Backwaters, sloughs, and wetlands on
the refuge are gradually filling in with
sediments, a natural process of
ecological succession that has been
accelerated by human activity, namely
the Coffeeville Dam and Reservoir
standing water, in which sediments
drop out and accumulate. This longterm process will continue under the
Current Management Direction
Alternative.
The main aquatic invasive species on
the refuge at present are hydrilla,
alligator weed, and water hyacinth; the
potential exists for additional species to
become problematic, as is giant salvinia.
Major infestation by aquatic invasives of
virtually all water bodies at present are
displacing native aquatic/wetland
plants and can exacerbate siltation.
This, in turn, degrades fish habitat,
including raising water temperature and
reducing dissolved oxygen. There are
also significant effects on water-based
recreation and waterfowl habitat. At
present, 75 acres of backwater slough
emergents per year are treated with
herbicides and this will continue under
this alternative. To a lesser extent,
biological controls will also continue to
be used.
Invasive terrestrial plants and animals
on the refuge include cogongrass and
feral hogs. Cogongrass is sprayed
annually. Feral hogs are in incidental
species, which can be taken during
other refuge hunts. The staff conducts
limited trapping of these animals on the
refuge. A recent reduction in the
refuge’s population of feral hogs appears
to be due to off-refuge trapping by one
or more neighboring landowners. Under
the Current Management Direction
Alternative, there will continue to be
limited trapping and incidental hunting
of feral hogs on the refuge.
As mentioned above, the refuge’s
bottomland hardwood forests provide
important habitat for waterfowl and
neotropical migratory birds, as well as
resident wildlife. In addition, the refuge
actively manages habitat for migratory
birds by means of force-account farming
(35 acres) and moist-soil management
(15 acres at present). Under the Current
Management Direction Alternative,
these acreages will not change. The
refuge also assists in the reproduction of
the wood duck by providing 400 nest
boxes; these are cleaned once annually.
Staff members monitor them and collect
nesting data.
Two federally listed species—the bald
eagle and the wood stork—are
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Jan 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
documented as occurring on the refuge.
Two active bald eagle nests are located
on the refuge; these are protected by
sanctuaries that involve some restriction
of public access by boaters, anglers,
hunters, and other refuge users. Wood
storks are observed occasionally during
the summer. This is a population that
nests in Florida and migrates north after
the nesting season.
With regard to resource protection,
the Corps of Engineers has limited funds
for dredging areas of the refuge that
have been filling in with sediments. The
Service’s Daphne, Alabama, Ecological
Services Office has contaminants
specialists who, in the past, have
conducted contaminants surveys but
these are now dated and no complete
surveys have ever been conducted. Oil
and gas rights on the refuge are
outstanding, and production
necessitates communication and
cooperation with oil/gas companies to
reduce above-ground impacts and
disturbance, as well as to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate spills and
contamination.
The principal public use on the refuge
is fishing, which is regulated by the
State of Alabama. Both bank fishing and
boat fishing are available. Concerns
have been expressed by the public about
declining quality of the fishing
experience, mainly because of degraded
aquatic habitat from invasives and
reduced access to potential fishing areas
that have been rendered impenetrable
due to emergent weedy vegetation. The
Alabama Division of Wildlife and
Freshwater Fisheries conducts periodic
creel and angler surveys.
Secondary public uses on the refuge
are hunting and wildlife observation.
There is one wildlife observation
platform, next to the moist-soil units.
There is a 0.5-mile loop interpretive
trail near the platform. Other forest
roads permit foot travel, but access is
difficult (only by boat). Current refuge
hunts include an archery hunt for deer,
and a small game season for squirrels,
rabbits, and raccoons. There is no
waterfowl hunting. The same public
access and use under this alternative
would continue; to gain access to many
areas is by boat only from the reservoir.
The staff works with private land
owners of approximately eight Farm
Service Agency tracts to restore
bottomland hardwood forests (i.e.,
planting oak trees) on easement areas.
Isolation of the refuge itself from the
refuge headquarters—45 minutes to 1
hour away by road—inhibits hands-on
refuge management; for example, there
is no law enforcement, biological,
forestry, or management presence on the
refuge half of the time. The refuge itself
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3879
is remote, and frequent flooding makes
much of it inaccessible for much of year.
This isolation and seasonal
inaccessibility will continue under the
Current Management Direction
Alternative.
The current number of staff at the
refuge is four: The refuge manager and
an office assistant are located at the
headquarters in Jackson, Alabama, and
two maintenance workers are located on
the refuge itself. As a result of staffing
and budgetary limitations, there are
limited data on wildlife and habitat
distributions and trends, which inhibits
the quantification of management
objectives.
Alternative B. Enhanced Wildlife/
Fisheries and Habitat Management
Under Alternative B, the refuge would
update and fully implement its Forest
Management Plan. Some tree harvest
removal would be necessary to achieve
understory and midstory conditions,
with an emphasis on regeneration of
bottomland hardwood oaks and other
mast-bearing trees. As feasible, the
Service would work with the Corps of
Engineers to help adjust hydrological
periods so that summer flooding occurs
at fewer intervals and for shorter
periods. The reason is to not kill oak
trees and stymie oak regeneration.
With regard to backwaters, sloughs,
and wetlands filling in with sediments,
this alternative would use aerial and
GPS/GIS techniques to document
current colonization by plants and
sedimentation trends over time. Aquatic
invasive species would be kept under
control via cooperative agreements with
the Corps of Engineers and the State of
Alabama. The refuge would initiate
discussions with the Corps to reduce
impacts of too-frequent inundation by
the Coffeeville Dam and Reservoir and
with the State to utilize approved
methods of controlling invasive aquatic
plants, which help trap sediments and
worsen the problem. The result would
be more effective control and reduced
severity of infestations and slower
sedimentation of refuge waters.
Cogongrass would be sprayed
annually with the objective being to
eradicate this exotic invasive species.
The refuge would investigate replacing
cogongrass on one bank it now infests,
which provides ground cover to avoid
erosion, with a native plant species.
Programs like the State Landowner
Incentive Program may offer funding or
technical support that could be used in
private lands habitat and wildlife
management, including control of
problem species, such as feral hogs.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife is another
E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM
24JAN1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
3880
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 / Notices
program that might offer support to the
refuge.
Alternative B would provide habitat
for migratory birds, including waterfowl
and neotropical, by using force-account
farming (e.g., millet and grain sorghum)
and intensified moist-soil management.
Staff would level and regrade moist-soil
units to facilitate water management; in
addition, the area of moist soil would be
increased to 25–35 acres by converting
existing crop fields. Over the 15-year
life of the plan, all crop fields would be
phased out and transitioned to moistsoil units.
Under this alternative, staff would
maintain the existing stock of 400 wood
duck nest boxes, but more intensively
monitor and collect nesting data from
them. Each nest box would be cleaned
at least twice annually, from once
annually at present.
Two active bald eagle nests are on the
refuge and would remain active under
Alternative B. They would continue to
be protected by sanctuaries that involve
some restriction of public access by
boaters, anglers, hunters, and other
refuge visitors. It is assumed that wood
storks would continue to be observed
occasionally during the summer, as in
the Current Management Direction
Alternative. Under the Enhanced
Wildlife/Fisheries and Habitat
Management Alternative, the Service
would investigate the movements of
these wood storks via a radio telemetry
study.
The refuge would obtain the
assistance of contaminants specialists at
the Service’s Daphne, Alabama,
Ecological Services Office to conduct
contaminants surveys on the refuge to
update information on key toxic
contaminants, such as mercury and
other heavy metals, pesticides, and salt
water. Oil and gas production on the
refuge would continue under
Alternative B, necessitating
communication and cooperation with
oil companies to reduce above-ground
impacts and disturbance, as well as to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate spills and
contamination.
The principal wildlife-dependent
recreation under the Enhanced Wildlife/
Fisheries and Habitat Management
Alternative would continue to be
fishing, regulated by the State of
Alabama. Both bank and boat fishing
would be available. The State would
conduct periodic creel and angler
surveys, as it does at present. Improved
aquatic habitat management would aim
to increase fish populations and angler
access. This alternative would explore
stump removal to improve both fisheries
habitat and boat access.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Jan 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
Secondary public uses would
continue to be hunting and wildlife
observation. There would be one
wildlife observation platform, next to
the moist-soil units, as at present, and
a 0.5-mile loop interpretive trail near
the platform. Other forest roads would
permit foot travel, but overall access
would remain difficult (only by boat).
Under Alternative B, the Service would
look to build a bridge across the mouth
of Okatuppa Creek to facilitate
management access; this bridge would
also be accessible to public foot travel.
Refuge hunts would include those held
currently: an archery hunt for deer, and
a small game season for squirrels,
rabbits, and raccoons. No waterfowl
hunting would be permitted. Feral hogs
would be considered incidental species
and could be taken during all refuge
hunts. The same public access and use
under this alternative would continue;
to gain access to many areas would
remain only by boat from the reservoir.
The staff would continue to monitor
habitat restoration of approximately
eight Farm Service Agency tracts
planted in bottomland hardwood
forests.
Under the Enhanced Wildlife/
Fisheries and Habitat Management
Alternative, isolation of the refuge itself
from refuge headquarters would
continue to inhibit hands-on
management. The remoteness of the
refuge would not change, and frequent
flooding would continue to render
much of it inaccessible for much of the
year.
One assistant refuge manager with
law enforcement collateral duty would
be added, as well as one wildlife
biologist. The refuge would investigate
sharing a forester with other refuges.
Recommended staffing would consist of
a refuge manager, assistant refuge
manager, and office assistant at the
refuge headquarters, and a biologist and
two maintenance workers on the refuge
itself.
Alternative C. Enhanced WildlifeDependent Recreation
Under Alternative C, the refuge’s
existing Forest Management Plan, which
has not been fully implemented, would
continue in effect, but again would not
be fully implemented. Some stand
treatments would be applied, but
secondary treatments (thinnings) would
not. Regeneration would occur on the
forest floor, but stand recruitment
would continue to lag. Most saplings
would not mature because of heavy
foraging pressure by white-tailed deer
and feral hogs, frequent flooding, and
shady conditions. A dense canopy
would continue to inhibit regeneration
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
of all but the most shade-tolerant trees.
At first, mast production would remain
high, but would probably decrease over
the long term (i.e., beyond the 15-year
life of the comprehensive conservation
plan) as oaks become over-mature and
are not replaced by younger, more
vigorous and productive oaks.
Backwaters, sloughs, and wetlands on
the refuge would continue gradually
filling in with sediments, a natural
process of ecological succession that has
been accelerated by human activity,
namely the Coffeeville Dam and
Reservoir’s standing water, in which
sediments drop out and accumulate.
This long-term process would continue
under the Enhanced Wildlife-Dependent
Recreation Alternative.
Although the main aquatic invasive
species on the refuge are hydrilla,
alligator weed, and water hyacinth at
present, the potential exists for
additional species to become
problematic, such as giant salvinia.
Major infestation by aquatic invasives of
virtually all waterbodies at present are
displacing native aquatic/wetland
plants like giant bulrush and can
exacerbate siltation. This, in turn,
degrades fish habitat, including raiding
water temperature and reducing
dissolved oxygen. There are also
significant effects on water-based
recreation and waterfowl habitat. At
present, 75 acres of backwater slough
emergents per year are treated with
herbicides and this would continue
under this alternative. To a lesser
extent, biological controls would also
continue to be used.
There would be no change in the
management of invasive terrestrial
plants and animals on the refuge under
this alternative from the Current
Management Direction Alternative.
The refuge would continue to actively
manage habitat for migratory birds by
means of force-account farming and
moist-soil management. Under this
alternative, the acreages would not
change from the acreages being farmed
under the Current Management
Direction Alternative.
The refuge would continue to assist in
the reproduction of the wood duck by
providing 400 nest boxes and managing
as is currently being done.
Management of two federally listed
species—bald eagle and wood stork—
would remain the same as under the
Current Management Direction
Alternative.
With regard to resource protection,
the Corps of Engineers has limited funds
for dredging areas of the refuge that
have been filling in with sediments. The
Service’s Daphne, Alabama, Ecological
Services Office has contaminants
E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM
24JAN1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 / Notices
specialists who, in the past, have
conducted contaminants surveys but
these are now dated and no complete
surveys have ever been conducted. Oil
and gas rights on the refuge are
outstanding, and production
necessitates communication and
cooperation with oil/gas companies to
reduce above-ground impacts and
disturbance, as well as to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate spills and
contamination.
Refuge staff would continue to work
with private landowners on
approximately eight Farm Service tracts
to restore bottomland hardwood forests
on easement areas.
Under Alternative C, the principal
wildlife-dependent recreation would
remain fishing, regulated by the State.
Both bank and boat fishing would be
available. The State would continue to
conduct periodic creel and angler
surveys. Within five years of the
comprehensive conservation plan’s
approval, the refuge would build new
fishing facilities, such as a handicapped
accessible fishing pier. It would also
provide additional woody structure
within the reservoir, and open boating
access via stump removal and increased
aquatic vegetation control.
Secondary public uses would
continue to be hunting and wildlife
observation in the Enhanced WildlifeDependent Recreation Alternative. This
alternative would also offer an
improved wildlife observation platform,
next to the moist-soil units. The Service
would seek to build a pedestrian bridge
over the mouth of Okatuppa Creek to
facilitate and improve access to Middle
Swamp. Refuge hunts would include an
archery hunt for deer, and small game
season for squirrels, rabbits, and
raccoons. A waterfowl hunt for youths
would be added, contingent upon
having staffing resources to manage the
hunt. Feral hogs would be considered
an incidental species and could be taken
during all refuge hunts. The same public
access and use would continue under
this alternative; to gain access to many
areas would remain by boat only from
the reservoir. More environmental
education opportunities both on and off
the refuge would be pursued.
Isolation of the refuge from its
headquarters would continue to inhibit
hands-on management. Alternative C
would add one assistant refuge manager
with law enforcement collateral duty, as
well as one park ranger. Recommended
staffing would then be six: Refuge
manager, assistant refuge manager, and
office assistant at refuge headquarters,
and a park ranger and two maintenance
workers on the refuge.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Jan 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
Alternative D. Enhanced Wildlife/
Fisheries, Habitat, and Public Use
(Preferred Alternative)
Under Alternative D, the refuge would
update and fully implement its Forest
Management Plan. Some tree harvest
removal would be necessary to achieve
understory and midstory conditions,
with an emphasis on regeneration of
bottomland hardwood oaks and other
mast-bearing trees. As feasible, the
Service would work with the Corps of
Engineers to adjust hydrological periods
so that summer flooding occurs at fewer
intervals and for shorter periods. This
would avoid oak seedling mortality that
now thwarts oak regeneration.
With regard to the refuge backwaters,
sloughs, and wetlands now filling in
with sediments, Alternative D would
utilize aerial and GPS/GIS techniques to
document current colonization by
plants and sedimentation trends over
time. Aquatic invasive species would be
kept under control via cooperative
agreements with the Corps of Engineers
and the State of Alabama. The refuge
would initiate discussions with the
Corps to reduce impacts of too-frequent
inundation by the Coffeeville Dam and
Reservoir, and with the State to utilize
approved methods of controlling
invasive aquatic plants, which help trap
sediments and worsen the problem. The
result would be more effective control
and reduced severity of infestations and
slower sedimentation of refuge waters.
Cogongrass would be sprayed
annually with the objective being to
eradicate this exotic invasive species.
The refuge would investigate replacing
cogongrass on one bank it now infests,
which provides ground cover to avoid
erosion, with a native plant species.
Programs like the State Landowner
Incentive Program may offer funding or
technical support that could be used in
private lands habitat and wildlife
management, including control of
problem species like feral hogs. Another
possibility that the refuge would explore
using is the Partners for Fish and
Wildlife program.
Alternative D would provide habitat
for migratory birds, including waterfowl
and neotropical migratory birds, by
using force-account farming (e.g., millet
and grain sorghum) and intensified
moist-soil management. Staff would
level and regrade moist-soil units to
facilitate water management; in
addition, the area of moist soil would be
increased to 25–35 acres by converting
existing crop fields. Over the 15-year
life of the comprehensive conservation
plan, all crop fields would be phased
out and transitioned to moist-soil units.
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3881
Under this alternative, staff would
maintain the existing stock of 400 wood
duck nest boxes, but more intensively
monitor and collect nesting data from
them. Each nest box would be cleaned
at least twice annually (from once
annually at present).
Two active bald eagle nests are on the
refuge and would remain active under
Alternative D. They would continue to
be protected by sanctuaries that involve
some restriction of public access by
boaters, anglers, hunters and other
refuge visitors. It is assumed that wood
storks would continue to be observed
occasionally during the summer, as in
the Current Management Direction
Alternative. Under Alternative D, the
Service would investigate the
movements of these wood storks via a
radio telemetry study.
Under the preferred alternative only,
the refuge would request the assistance
of contaminants specialists form the
Service’s Daphane, Alabama, Ecological
Services Office to conduct complete
contaminants surveys on the refuge to
update information on the status of key
toxic contaminants, such as mercury
and other heavy metals, pesticides, and
salt water. Oil and gas production on
the refuge would continue, necessitating
communication and cooperation with
oil companies to reduce above-ground
impacts and disturbance, as well as to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate spills and
contamination.
Under Alternative D, the principal
wildlife-dependent recreation would
remain fishing, regulated by the State of
Alabama. Both bank and boat fishing
would be available. The State would
continue to conduct periodic creel and
angler surveys. Within 5 years of
approval of the comprehensive
conservation plan, the refuge would
build new fishing facilities, such as a
handicapped accessible fishing pier. It
would also provide additional woody
structure within the reservoir, and open
boating access via stump removal and
increased aquatic vegetation control.
Secondary public uses would
continue to be hunting and wildlife
observation as in the Enhanced
Wildlife-Dependent Recreation
Alternative. This alternative would also
offer an improved wildlife observation
platform, next to the moist-soil units.
The Service would seek to build a
pedestrian bridge over the mouth of
Okatuppa Creek to facilitate and
improve access to Middle Swamp.
Refuge hunts would include an archery
hunt for deer, and a small game season
for squirrels, rabbits and raccoons. A
waterfowl hunt for youths would be
added, contingent on having staffing
resources to manage the hunt. The same
E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM
24JAN1
3882
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 / Notices
public access and use under this
alternative would continue; to gain
access to many areas would remain by
boat only from the reservoir. Many more
environmental education opportunities
both on and off the refuge would be
pursued.
Even under Alternative D, isolation of
the refuge from its headquarters would
continue to hamper hands-on refuge
management. The alternative would add
one assistant refuge manager with law
enforcement collateral duty, and one
wildlife biologist with visitor services
collateral duty; and would also
investigate sharing a forester with other
refuges. Recommended staffing would
be six: Refuge manager, assistant refuge
manager, and office assistant at refuge
headquarters, and a biologist and two
maintenance workers on the refuge.
Authority: This notice is published under
the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, Public
Law 105–57.
Dated: July 25, 2005.
Linda H. Kelsey,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 06–616 Filed 1–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Proposed Programmatic Statewide
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Safe
Harbor Agreement, Florida
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of permit application.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FFWC or
Applicant) has applied to the Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for an
enhancement of survival permit (ESP)
pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The ESP application includes a
proposed Safe Harbor Agreement
(Agreement) for the endangered redcockaded woodpecker, (Picoides
borealis) (RCW), for a period of 99 years.
If approved, the Agreement would allow
the Applicant to issue Certificates of
Inclusion (CI) throughout the State of
Florida to eligible non-Federal
landowners that complete an approved
Safe Harbor Management Agreement
(SHMA).
We announce the opening of a 30-day
comment period and request comments
from the public on the Applicant’s ESP
application; the accompanying
proposed Agreement, and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Jan 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
supporting Environmental Action
Statement (EAS) Screening Form. All
comments received, including names
and addresses, will become part of the
official administrative record and may
be made available to the public, subject
to the requirements of the Privacy Act
and Freedom of Information Act. For
further information and instructions on
reviewing and commenting on this
application, see the ADDRESSES section,
below.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before February 23, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of
the information available by contacting
the Service’s Regional Safe Harbor
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite
200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345, or Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services Field
Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama
City, Florida 32405. Alternatively, you
may set up an appointment to view
these documents at either location
during normal business hours. Written
data or comments should be submitted
to the Atlanta, Georgia, Regional Office.
Requests for the documentation must be
in writing to be processed, and
comments must be in writing to be
considered. When you are requesting or
reviewing the information provided in
this notice, please reference ‘‘Proposed
Programmatic Statewide Red-cockaded
Woodpecker Safe Harbor Agreement,
Florida’’ in any correspondence.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Richard Gooch, Regional Safe Harbor
Program Coordinator at the Service’s
Southeast Regional Office (see
ADDRESSES above), telephone (404) 679–
7124; or Mr. Stan Simpkins, Ecologist,
Panama City Ecological Services Field
Office (see ADDRESSES above), telephone
(850) 769–0552.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Primary
threats to the RCW throughout its range
all have the same basic cause: lack of
suitable habitat. To help address this
threat, the Service has previously
entered into programmatic Safe Harbor
Agreements in Georgia, Louisiana, and
South Carolina. These previous
agreements are similar to the Agreement
that is being proposed by FFWC.
Under a Safe Harbor Agreement,
participating property owners
voluntarily undertake management
activities on their property to enhance,
restore, or maintain habitat benefiting
species listed under the Act. Safe
Harbor Agreements encourage private
and other non-Federal property owners
to implement conservation efforts for
listed species by assuring property
owners they will not be subjected to
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
increased property use restrictions if
their efforts attract listed species to their
property or increase the numbers or
distribution of listed species already on
their property. Application
requirements and issuance criteria for
ESPs through Safe Harbor Agreements
are found in 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32.
The FFWCs proposed state-wide
Agreement is designed to encourage
voluntary RCW habitat restoration or
enhancement activities by relieving a
landowner who enters into a
landowner-specific agreement (the
SHMA) from any additional
responsibility under the Act beyond that
which exists at the time he or she enters
into the program. The SHMA will
identify any existing RCWs and any
associated habitat (the baseline) and
will describe the actions that the
landowner commits to take (e.g.,
hardwood midstory removal, cavity
provisioning, prescribed burning, etc.)
or will allow to be taken to improve
RCW habitat on the property, and the
time period within which those actions
are to be taken and maintained. A
participating landowner must maintain
the baseline on his/her property (i.e.,
any existing RCW groups and/or
associated habitat), but may be allowed
the opportunity to incidentally take
RCWs at some point in the future if
above baseline RCWs are attracted to
that site by the proactive management
measures undertaken by the landowner.
It is important to note that the
Agreement does not envision, nor will
it authorize, incidental take of any preSHMA existing RCW group with one
exception. This exception is incidental
take related to a baseline shift; in this
circumstance the baseline will be
maintained but redrawn or shifted on
that landowner’s property. Among the
minimization measures proposed by the
Applicant are no incidental take of
RCWs during the breeding season,
consolidation of small, isolated RCW
populations at sites capable of
supporting a viable RCW population,
and measures to improve current and
potential habitat for the species. Further
details on the topics described above are
found in the aforementioned documents
available for review under this notice.
The geographic scope of the
Applicant’s Agreement is the entire
State of Florida, but the Agreement
would only authorize the future
incidental take of above-baseline RCW
groups on lands for which a CI has been
issued. Lands potentially eligible for
inclusion include all privately owned
lands and public lands owned by cities,
counties, and municipalities, with
potentially suitable RCW habitat in
Florida.
E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM
24JAN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3878-3882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-616]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment for Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
in Choctaw County, Alabama.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service announces that a Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge are available for review and comment.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as
amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,
requires the Service to develop a comprehensive conservation plan for
each national wildlife refuge. The purpose in developing a
comprehensive conservation plan is to provide refuge manages 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 Service policies, In addition to outlining broad
management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, plans
identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the
public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation.
Significant issues addressed in the draft plan include: threatened
and endangered species, waterfowl management, neotropical migratory
birds, bottomland hardwood restoration, fisheries management, visitor
services, funding and staffing, cultural resources, and land
protection.
DATES: A meeting will be held to present the plan to the public.
Mailings, newspaper articles, and posters will be the avenues to inform
the public of the date and time for the meeting. Individuals wishing to
comment on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment for Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge should do so no later
than March 10, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment should be addressed to Choctaw
National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 808, Jackson, Alabama 36545;
Telephone 251/246-3583. The plan and environmental assessment may also
be accessed and downloaded from the Service's Internet Web site https://
southeast.fws.gov/planning/. Comments on the draft plan may be
submitted to the above address or via electronic mail to mike_
dawson@fws.gov. Please include your name and return address in your
Internet message. Our practice is to make comments, including names and
home addresses of respondents, available for public review during
regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that we
withhold their home addresses from the record, which we will honor to
the extent allowed by law.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Service developed four alternatives for
managing the refuge and chose Alternative D as the preferred
alternative.
Alternatives
The draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental
assessment evaluates the four alternatives for managing the refuge over
the next 15 years. These alternatives are briefly described as follows:
Alternative A: No Action (Current Management Direction)
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge's most important terrestrial
vegetation community is its bottomland hardwood forests, which provide
habitat for migratory birds, including both waterfowl and neotropical
migratory forest-dependent birds, and other species. The refuge has a
current Forest Management Plan, but it has not been fully implemented;
some stand treatments have been applied, but secondary treatments, such
as thinnings, have not. Regeneration is occurring on the forest floor,
but not stand recruitment; saplings are not maturing due to being eaten
by deer and feral hogs, frequent flooding, and shady conditions. There
is a dense canopy at present that inhibits regeneration of all but the
most shade-tolerant trees. While
[[Page 3879]]
mast production is a good at present, it will probably decrease over
the long term as oaks become over-mature and are not replaced by
younger, more vigorous and productive oaks.
Backwaters, sloughs, and wetlands on the refuge are gradually
filling in with sediments, a natural process of ecological succession
that has been accelerated by human activity, namely the Coffeeville Dam
and Reservoir standing water, in which sediments drop out and
accumulate. This long-term process will continue under the Current
Management Direction Alternative.
The main aquatic invasive species on the refuge at present are
hydrilla, alligator weed, and water hyacinth; the potential exists for
additional species to become problematic, as is giant salvinia. Major
infestation by aquatic invasives of virtually all water bodies at
present are displacing native aquatic/wetland plants and can exacerbate
siltation. This, in turn, degrades fish habitat, including raising
water temperature and reducing dissolved oxygen. There are also
significant effects on water-based recreation and waterfowl habitat. At
present, 75 acres of backwater slough emergents per year are treated
with herbicides and this will continue under this alternative. To a
lesser extent, biological controls will also continue to be used.
Invasive terrestrial plants and animals on the refuge include
cogongrass and feral hogs. Cogongrass is sprayed annually. Feral hogs
are in incidental species, which can be taken during other refuge
hunts. The staff conducts limited trapping of these animals on the
refuge. A recent reduction in the refuge's population of feral hogs
appears to be due to off-refuge trapping by one or more neighboring
landowners. Under the Current Management Direction Alternative, there
will continue to be limited trapping and incidental hunting of feral
hogs on the refuge.
As mentioned above, the refuge's bottomland hardwood forests
provide important habitat for waterfowl and neotropical migratory
birds, as well as resident wildlife. In addition, the refuge actively
manages habitat for migratory birds by means of force-account farming
(35 acres) and moist-soil management (15 acres at present). Under the
Current Management Direction Alternative, these acreages will not
change. The refuge also assists in the reproduction of the wood duck by
providing 400 nest boxes; these are cleaned once annually. Staff
members monitor them and collect nesting data.
Two federally listed species--the bald eagle and the wood stork--
are documented as occurring on the refuge. Two active bald eagle nests
are located on the refuge; these are protected by sanctuaries that
involve some restriction of public access by boaters, anglers, hunters,
and other refuge users. Wood storks are observed occasionally during
the summer. This is a population that nests in Florida and migrates
north after the nesting season.
With regard to resource protection, the Corps of Engineers has
limited funds for dredging areas of the refuge that have been filling
in with sediments. The Service's Daphne, Alabama, Ecological Services
Office has contaminants specialists who, in the past, have conducted
contaminants surveys but these are now dated and no complete surveys
have ever been conducted. Oil and gas rights on the refuge are
outstanding, and production necessitates communication and cooperation
with oil/gas companies to reduce above-ground impacts and disturbance,
as well as to avoid, minimize, and mitigate spills and contamination.
The principal public use on the refuge is fishing, which is
regulated by the State of Alabama. Both bank fishing and boat fishing
are available. Concerns have been expressed by the public about
declining quality of the fishing experience, mainly because of degraded
aquatic habitat from invasives and reduced access to potential fishing
areas that have been rendered impenetrable due to emergent weedy
vegetation. The Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries
conducts periodic creel and angler surveys.
Secondary public uses on the refuge are hunting and wildlife
observation. There is one wildlife observation platform, next to the
moist-soil units. There is a 0.5-mile loop interpretive trail near the
platform. Other forest roads permit foot travel, but access is
difficult (only by boat). Current refuge hunts include an archery hunt
for deer, and a small game season for squirrels, rabbits, and raccoons.
There is no waterfowl hunting. The same public access and use under
this alternative would continue; to gain access to many areas is by
boat only from the reservoir.
The staff works with private land owners of approximately eight
Farm Service Agency tracts to restore bottomland hardwood forests
(i.e., planting oak trees) on easement areas.
Isolation of the refuge itself from the refuge headquarters--45
minutes to 1 hour away by road--inhibits hands-on refuge management;
for example, there is no law enforcement, biological, forestry, or
management presence on the refuge half of the time. The refuge itself
is remote, and frequent flooding makes much of it inaccessible for much
of year. This isolation and seasonal inaccessibility will continue
under the Current Management Direction Alternative.
The current number of staff at the refuge is four: The refuge
manager and an office assistant are located at the headquarters in
Jackson, Alabama, and two maintenance workers are located on the refuge
itself. As a result of staffing and budgetary limitations, there are
limited data on wildlife and habitat distributions and trends, which
inhibits the quantification of management objectives.
Alternative B. Enhanced Wildlife/Fisheries and Habitat Management
Under Alternative B, the refuge would update and fully implement
its Forest Management Plan. Some tree harvest removal would be
necessary to achieve understory and midstory conditions, with an
emphasis on regeneration of bottomland hardwood oaks and other mast-
bearing trees. As feasible, the Service would work with the Corps of
Engineers to help adjust hydrological periods so that summer flooding
occurs at fewer intervals and for shorter periods. The reason is to not
kill oak trees and stymie oak regeneration.
With regard to backwaters, sloughs, and wetlands filling in with
sediments, this alternative would use aerial and GPS/GIS techniques to
document current colonization by plants and sedimentation trends over
time. Aquatic invasive species would be kept under control via
cooperative agreements with the Corps of Engineers and the State of
Alabama. The refuge would initiate discussions with the Corps to reduce
impacts of too-frequent inundation by the Coffeeville Dam and Reservoir
and with the State to utilize approved methods of controlling invasive
aquatic plants, which help trap sediments and worsen the problem. The
result would be more effective control and reduced severity of
infestations and slower sedimentation of refuge waters.
Cogongrass would be sprayed annually with the objective being to
eradicate this exotic invasive species. The refuge would investigate
replacing cogongrass on one bank it now infests, which provides ground
cover to avoid erosion, with a native plant species. Programs like the
State Landowner Incentive Program may offer funding or technical
support that could be used in private lands habitat and wildlife
management, including control of problem species, such as feral hogs.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife is another
[[Page 3880]]
program that might offer support to the refuge.
Alternative B would provide habitat for migratory birds, including
waterfowl and neotropical, by using force-account farming (e.g., millet
and grain sorghum) and intensified moist-soil management. Staff would
level and regrade moist-soil units to facilitate water management; in
addition, the area of moist soil would be increased to 25-35 acres by
converting existing crop fields. Over the 15-year life of the plan, all
crop fields would be phased out and transitioned to moist-soil units.
Under this alternative, staff would maintain the existing stock of
400 wood duck nest boxes, but more intensively monitor and collect
nesting data from them. Each nest box would be cleaned at least twice
annually, from once annually at present.
Two active bald eagle nests are on the refuge and would remain
active under Alternative B. They would continue to be protected by
sanctuaries that involve some restriction of public access by boaters,
anglers, hunters, and other refuge visitors. It is assumed that wood
storks would continue to be observed occasionally during the summer, as
in the Current Management Direction Alternative. Under the Enhanced
Wildlife/Fisheries and Habitat Management Alternative, the Service
would investigate the movements of these wood storks via a radio
telemetry study.
The refuge would obtain the assistance of contaminants specialists
at the Service's Daphne, Alabama, Ecological Services Office to conduct
contaminants surveys on the refuge to update information on key toxic
contaminants, such as mercury and other heavy metals, pesticides, and
salt water. Oil and gas production on the refuge would continue under
Alternative B, necessitating communication and cooperation with oil
companies to reduce above-ground impacts and disturbance, as well as to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate spills and contamination.
The principal wildlife-dependent recreation under the Enhanced
Wildlife/Fisheries and Habitat Management Alternative would continue to
be fishing, regulated by the State of Alabama. Both bank and boat
fishing would be available. The State would conduct periodic creel and
angler surveys, as it does at present. Improved aquatic habitat
management would aim to increase fish populations and angler access.
This alternative would explore stump removal to improve both fisheries
habitat and boat access.
Secondary public uses would continue to be hunting and wildlife
observation. There would be one wildlife observation platform, next to
the moist-soil units, as at present, and a 0.5-mile loop interpretive
trail near the platform. Other forest roads would permit foot travel,
but overall access would remain difficult (only by boat). Under
Alternative B, the Service would look to build a bridge across the
mouth of Okatuppa Creek to facilitate management access; this bridge
would also be accessible to public foot travel. Refuge hunts would
include those held currently: an archery hunt for deer, and a small
game season for squirrels, rabbits, and raccoons. No waterfowl hunting
would be permitted. Feral hogs would be considered incidental species
and could be taken during all refuge hunts. The same public access and
use under this alternative would continue; to gain access to many areas
would remain only by boat from the reservoir.
The staff would continue to monitor habitat restoration of
approximately eight Farm Service Agency tracts planted in bottomland
hardwood forests.
Under the Enhanced Wildlife/Fisheries and Habitat Management
Alternative, isolation of the refuge itself from refuge headquarters
would continue to inhibit hands-on management. The remoteness of the
refuge would not change, and frequent flooding would continue to render
much of it inaccessible for much of the year.
One assistant refuge manager with law enforcement collateral duty
would be added, as well as one wildlife biologist. The refuge would
investigate sharing a forester with other refuges. Recommended staffing
would consist of a refuge manager, assistant refuge manager, and office
assistant at the refuge headquarters, and a biologist and two
maintenance workers on the refuge itself.
Alternative C. Enhanced Wildlife-Dependent Recreation
Under Alternative C, the refuge's existing Forest Management Plan,
which has not been fully implemented, would continue in effect, but
again would not be fully implemented. Some stand treatments would be
applied, but secondary treatments (thinnings) would not. Regeneration
would occur on the forest floor, but stand recruitment would continue
to lag. Most saplings would not mature because of heavy foraging
pressure by white-tailed deer and feral hogs, frequent flooding, and
shady conditions. A dense canopy would continue to inhibit regeneration
of all but the most shade-tolerant trees. At first, mast production
would remain high, but would probably decrease over the long term
(i.e., beyond the 15-year life of the comprehensive conservation plan)
as oaks become over-mature and are not replaced by younger, more
vigorous and productive oaks.
Backwaters, sloughs, and wetlands on the refuge would continue
gradually filling in with sediments, a natural process of ecological
succession that has been accelerated by human activity, namely the
Coffeeville Dam and Reservoir's standing water, in which sediments drop
out and accumulate. This long-term process would continue under the
Enhanced Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Alternative.
Although the main aquatic invasive species on the refuge are
hydrilla, alligator weed, and water hyacinth at present, the potential
exists for additional species to become problematic, such as giant
salvinia. Major infestation by aquatic invasives of virtually all
waterbodies at present are displacing native aquatic/wetland plants
like giant bulrush and can exacerbate siltation. This, in turn,
degrades fish habitat, including raiding water temperature and reducing
dissolved oxygen. There are also significant effects on water-based
recreation and waterfowl habitat. At present, 75 acres of backwater
slough emergents per year are treated with herbicides and this would
continue under this alternative. To a lesser extent, biological
controls would also continue to be used.
There would be no change in the management of invasive terrestrial
plants and animals on the refuge under this alternative from the
Current Management Direction Alternative.
The refuge would continue to actively manage habitat for migratory
birds by means of force-account farming and moist-soil management.
Under this alternative, the acreages would not change from the acreages
being farmed under the Current Management Direction Alternative.
The refuge would continue to assist in the reproduction of the wood
duck by providing 400 nest boxes and managing as is currently being
done.
Management of two federally listed species--bald eagle and wood
stork--would remain the same as under the Current Management Direction
Alternative.
With regard to resource protection, the Corps of Engineers has
limited funds for dredging areas of the refuge that have been filling
in with sediments. The Service's Daphne, Alabama, Ecological Services
Office has contaminants
[[Page 3881]]
specialists who, in the past, have conducted contaminants surveys but
these are now dated and no complete surveys have ever been conducted.
Oil and gas rights on the refuge are outstanding, and production
necessitates communication and cooperation with oil/gas companies to
reduce above-ground impacts and disturbance, as well as to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate spills and contamination.
Refuge staff would continue to work with private landowners on
approximately eight Farm Service tracts to restore bottomland hardwood
forests on easement areas.
Under Alternative C, the principal wildlife-dependent recreation
would remain fishing, regulated by the State. Both bank and boat
fishing would be available. The State would continue to conduct
periodic creel and angler surveys. Within five years of the
comprehensive conservation plan's approval, the refuge would build new
fishing facilities, such as a handicapped accessible fishing pier. It
would also provide additional woody structure within the reservoir, and
open boating access via stump removal and increased aquatic vegetation
control.
Secondary public uses would continue to be hunting and wildlife
observation in the Enhanced Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Alternative.
This alternative would also offer an improved wildlife observation
platform, next to the moist-soil units. The Service would seek to build
a pedestrian bridge over the mouth of Okatuppa Creek to facilitate and
improve access to Middle Swamp. Refuge hunts would include an archery
hunt for deer, and small game season for squirrels, rabbits, and
raccoons. A waterfowl hunt for youths would be added, contingent upon
having staffing resources to manage the hunt. Feral hogs would be
considered an incidental species and could be taken during all refuge
hunts. The same public access and use would continue under this
alternative; to gain access to many areas would remain by boat only
from the reservoir. More environmental education opportunities both on
and off the refuge would be pursued.
Isolation of the refuge from its headquarters would continue to
inhibit hands-on management. Alternative C would add one assistant
refuge manager with law enforcement collateral duty, as well as one
park ranger. Recommended staffing would then be six: Refuge manager,
assistant refuge manager, and office assistant at refuge headquarters,
and a park ranger and two maintenance workers on the refuge.
Alternative D. Enhanced Wildlife/Fisheries, Habitat, and Public Use
(Preferred Alternative)
Under Alternative D, the refuge would update and fully implement
its Forest Management Plan. Some tree harvest removal would be
necessary to achieve understory and midstory conditions, with an
emphasis on regeneration of bottomland hardwood oaks and other mast-
bearing trees. As feasible, the Service would work with the Corps of
Engineers to adjust hydrological periods so that summer flooding occurs
at fewer intervals and for shorter periods. This would avoid oak
seedling mortality that now thwarts oak regeneration.
With regard to the refuge backwaters, sloughs, and wetlands now
filling in with sediments, Alternative D would utilize aerial and GPS/
GIS techniques to document current colonization by plants and
sedimentation trends over time. Aquatic invasive species would be kept
under control via cooperative agreements with the Corps of Engineers
and the State of Alabama. The refuge would initiate discussions with
the Corps to reduce impacts of too-frequent inundation by the
Coffeeville Dam and Reservoir, and with the State to utilize approved
methods of controlling invasive aquatic plants, which help trap
sediments and worsen the problem. The result would be more effective
control and reduced severity of infestations and slower sedimentation
of refuge waters.
Cogongrass would be sprayed annually with the objective being to
eradicate this exotic invasive species. The refuge would investigate
replacing cogongrass on one bank it now infests, which provides ground
cover to avoid erosion, with a native plant species. Programs like the
State Landowner Incentive Program may offer funding or technical
support that could be used in private lands habitat and wildlife
management, including control of problem species like feral hogs.
Another possibility that the refuge would explore using is the Partners
for Fish and Wildlife program.
Alternative D would provide habitat for migratory birds, including
waterfowl and neotropical migratory birds, by using force-account
farming (e.g., millet and grain sorghum) and intensified moist-soil
management. Staff would level and regrade moist-soil units to
facilitate water management; in addition, the area of moist soil would
be increased to 25-35 acres by converting existing crop fields. Over
the 15-year life of the comprehensive conservation plan, all crop
fields would be phased out and transitioned to moist-soil units.
Under this alternative, staff would maintain the existing stock of
400 wood duck nest boxes, but more intensively monitor and collect
nesting data from them. Each nest box would be cleaned at least twice
annually (from once annually at present).
Two active bald eagle nests are on the refuge and would remain
active under Alternative D. They would continue to be protected by
sanctuaries that involve some restriction of public access by boaters,
anglers, hunters and other refuge visitors. It is assumed that wood
storks would continue to be observed occasionally during the summer, as
in the Current Management Direction Alternative. Under Alternative D,
the Service would investigate the movements of these wood storks via a
radio telemetry study.
Under the preferred alternative only, the refuge would request the
assistance of contaminants specialists form the Service's Daphane,
Alabama, Ecological Services Office to conduct complete contaminants
surveys on the refuge to update information on the status of key toxic
contaminants, such as mercury and other heavy metals, pesticides, and
salt water. Oil and gas production on the refuge would continue,
necessitating communication and cooperation with oil companies to
reduce above-ground impacts and disturbance, as well as to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate spills and contamination.
Under Alternative D, the principal wildlife-dependent recreation
would remain fishing, regulated by the State of Alabama. Both bank and
boat fishing would be available. The State would continue to conduct
periodic creel and angler surveys. Within 5 years of approval of the
comprehensive conservation plan, the refuge would build new fishing
facilities, such as a handicapped accessible fishing pier. It would
also provide additional woody structure within the reservoir, and open
boating access via stump removal and increased aquatic vegetation
control.
Secondary public uses would continue to be hunting and wildlife
observation as in the Enhanced Wildlife-Dependent Recreation
Alternative. This alternative would also offer an improved wildlife
observation platform, next to the moist-soil units. The Service would
seek to build a pedestrian bridge over the mouth of Okatuppa Creek to
facilitate and improve access to Middle Swamp. Refuge hunts would
include an archery hunt for deer, and a small game season for
squirrels, rabbits and raccoons. A waterfowl hunt for youths would be
added, contingent on having staffing resources to manage the hunt. The
same
[[Page 3882]]
public access and use under this alternative would continue; to gain
access to many areas would remain by boat only from the reservoir. Many
more environmental education opportunities both on and off the refuge
would be pursued.
Even under Alternative D, isolation of the refuge from its
headquarters would continue to hamper hands-on refuge management. The
alternative would add one assistant refuge manager with law enforcement
collateral duty, and one wildlife biologist with visitor services
collateral duty; and would also investigate sharing a forester with
other refuges. Recommended staffing would be six: Refuge manager,
assistant refuge manager, and office assistant at refuge headquarters,
and a biologist and two maintenance workers on the refuge.
Authority: This notice is published under the authority of the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law
105-57.
Dated: July 25, 2005.
Linda H. Kelsey,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 06-616 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M
