Notice of Availability of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge in Carteret County, NC, 7794-7796 [06-1347]
Download as PDF
7794
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2006 / Notices
Number of
respondents
Total annual
responses
Hours per
response
Total hours
Semi-Annual Reports .......................................................................................
Final Reports ...................................................................................................
Recordkeeping .................................................................................................
25
25
25
50
25
25
6
8
5
300
200
125
Total ..........................................................................................................
........................
........................
59
6025
Status of the proposed information
collection: Pending OMB approval.
Authority: Section 3506 of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35,
as amended.
Dated: February 8, 2006.
Darlene F. Williams,
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development
and Research.
[FR Doc. 06–1358 Filed 2–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210–27–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Notice of Availability of the Final
Comprehensive Conservation Plan for
Lost Trail National Wildlife Refuge,
Marion, MT
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service announces that a Final
Comprehensive Conservation Plan
(CCP) for Lost Trail National Wildlife
Refuge is available. This CCP, prepared
pursuant to the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997 and
the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, describes how the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service intends to manage
this refuge for the next 15 years.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the Final CCP or
Summary may be obtained by writing to
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lost
Trail National Wildlife Refuge, 6295
Pleasant Valley Road, Marion, Montana
59925; or downloaded from https://
mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ray
Washtak, Refuge Manager, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Lost Trail National
Wildlife Refuge, 6295 Pleasant Valley
Road, Marion, Montana 59925;
telephone 406–858–2216; fax 406–858–
2218; or e-mail: ray_washtak@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Lost Trail
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR),
comprised of nearly 9,300 acres, is long
and narrow and is nearly bisected
throughout its length by the Pleasant
Valley Road in Flathead County, in
extreme northwestern Montana. This
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:46 Feb 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
breathtakingly beautiful refuge was
established in 1999 and is nestled in
Montana’s Pleasant Valley, within the
Fisher River watershed. Lost Trail NWR
can be described as a long valley
crossed by Pleasant Valley Creek and
encompassing the 182-acre Dahl Lake.
Lost Trail NWR is comprised of
wetlands, lush riparian corridors,
uplands dominated by prairie and tame
grasses, and temperate forests
dominated by lodgepole pine and
Douglas fir. Besides numerous migratory
waterfowl and neotropical bird species,
this refuge is home to federally listed
species such as the bald eagle, black
tern and Spalding’s catchfly. Canada
lynx and trumpeter swan occasionally
use refuge habitats, and the grizzly bear,
gray wolf, and bull trout occur in
Pleasant Valley. Lost Trail NWR was
established by Congress with the
following purposes: (1) ‘‘* * * for use
by migratory birds, with emphasis on
waterfowl and other water birds * * *’’
(Migratory Bird Conservation Act); (2)
‘‘* * * for the conservation of fish and
wildlife resources * * *’’ (Fish and
Wildlife Act); (3) ‘‘ * * * for fish and
wildlife-oriented recreation * * *’’ (The
Refuge Recreation Act); and (4) for the
conservation of endangered and
threatened species (Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended).
This Final CCP identifies goals,
objectives, and strategies for the
management of Lost Trail NWR that
emphasize restoration and maintenance
of Dahl Lake and other native habitats,
in vigorous condition, to promote
biological diversity. The CCP places
high importance on the control of
invasive plant species with partners and
integrated pest management. It seeks to
provide habitats in order to contribute
to conservation, enhancement and
recovery of federally listed species and
possible modification of public uses to
protect visitors and minimize harmful
interaction between users and listed
species.
The availability of the Draft CCP and
Environmental Assessment (EA) for a
30-day public review and comment
period was announced in the Federal
Register on July 20, 2005 (FO FR
41786). The Draft CCP/EA evaluated
four alternatives for managing Lost Trail
NWR. Alternative D, the No Action
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Alternative, proposed continuation of
current management of the refuge.
Alternative B emphasized manipulation
of habitat to promote wildlife
populations to provide the public with
abundant quality wildlife recreation, as
well as research, documentation, and
interpretation of cultural resources. It
also called for a contact station staffed
7 days a week. Alternative C called for
restoration of habitats to historic
conditions and allowance of natural
processes to manage habitats. It called
for increased protection of listed
species, and de-emphasizing public use
opportunities at the refuge (such as no
fishing and hunting, except by special
permit).
Based on this assessment and
comments received, Alternative A,
which is the proposed action, was
selected because it best meets the
purposes and goals of the refuge, as well
as the goals of the National Wildlife
Refuge System. The management
direction of this refuge is expected to
also benefit federally listed species,
large ungulates, shore birds, migrating
and nesting waterfowl, and neotropical
migrants, as well as improve water
quality from riparian habitat restoration.
It identifies increased environmental
education and partnerships that are
likely to result in improved wildlifedependent recreational opportunities.
Finally, the CCP places high importance
on the protection of cultural and
historical resources.
Dated: October 17, 2005.
Sharon R. Rose,
Acting Deputy Regional Director, Region 6,
Denver, CO.
[FR Doc. 06–1296 Filed 2–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Notice of Availability of the Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and
Environmental Assessment for the
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
in Carteret County, NC
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2006 / Notices
SUMMARY: This notice announces that a
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment for the
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge
are available for review and comment.
The National Wildlife 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
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 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.
DATES: Individuals wishing to comment
on the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment for Cedar Island National
Wildlife Refuge should do so no later
than March 16, 2006. Public comments
were requested, considered, and
incorporated throughout the planning
process in numerous ways. Public
outreach has included scoping
meetings, a review of the biological
program, an ecosystem planning
newsletter, and Federal Register
notices.
Requests for copies of the
Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan
and Environmental Assessment should
be addressed to Bruce Freske, Refuge
Manager, Mattamuskeet National
Wildlife Refuge, 38 Mattamuskeet Road,
Swan Quarter, North Carolina 27885;
Telephone: 252/926–4021; Fax: 252/
926–1743. Comments on the draft may
be submitted to the above address or via
electronic mail to:
bruce_freske@fws.gov. 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 analyzed three alternatives for
managing the refuge and chose
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:46 Feb 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Alternative 2 as the preferred
alternative.
Proposed goals for the refuge include:
Wildlife, Fish, and Plant Populations.
Conserve, protect, and maintain healthy
and viable populations of migratory
birds, wildlife, fish, and plants,
including Federal and State threatened,
endangered, and trust species.
Habitat. Protect and enhance diverse
habitats, rare plant assemblages, and
nursery areas associated with the
Pamlico-Core Sounds and the midAtlantic coastal plain.
Public use. Develop programs and
facilities to increase public use
opportunities, including hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental
education and interpretation.
Resource Protection. Protect refuge
resources by limiting impacts of human
development and activity on and
around Cedar Island National Wildlife
Refuge.
Administration. Provide adequate
funding and staffing to accomplish
refuge goals and objectives.
Also available for review are
compatibility determinations for
recreational hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and
interpretation.
Alternatives
Alternative 1 proposes to maintain the
status quo. The staff would manage
marshes and pine forests with
prescribed burns conducted by
employees from other refugees
according to the Fire Management Plan.
The refuge would employ a single
maintenance worker stationed on the
refuge to maintain the buildings and
grounds, clean up dumpsites, and pick
up litter. Staff from other refuges would
survey waterfowl from the air on a
routine basis. The refuge would conduct
no other surveys of wildlife or habitats.
The refuge would allow all six priority
public use activities: waterfowl hunting,
fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental
education and interpretation. The staff
would not conduct environmental
education and interpretation programs,
but would allow others to conduct
programs on the refuge. The Service
would manage the refuge from
Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge.
Alternative 2, the preferred
alternative, proposes minimum program
increases. The refuge would document
the presence of priority wildlife species,
but would not monitor habitat. Staff
would survey waterfowl from the air on
a routine basis. The refuge would
continue to allow the six priority public
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
7795
use activities, but would have the
capacity to increase the number of
opportunities. The staff would conduct
environmental education programs once
a month. An interpretive and
observation trail with a brochure and a
photo blind would be established. The
staff would also control dominant pest
plants and animals. There would be four
staff members stationed at the Cedar
Island National Wildlife Refuge.
Alternative 3 proposes moderate
program increases. The refuge would
document the presence of priority
wildlife species and mammals and
monitor fire-dependent habitats. The
staff would monitor vegetation in the
marshes and pine forests before and
after prescribed burns conducted by
staff from other refuges according to the
Fire Management Plan. Staff from the
refuge would survey waterfowl from the
air and the ground on a routine basis.
The refuge would continue to allow the
six priority public use activities, but
would have the capacity to increase the
number of opportunities. The staff
would conduct environmental
education and interpretation programs
once a month. An interpretive trail with
brochure and photo blind would be
established. The staff would also
monitor pest plants and animals and
control them according to an integrated
Pest Management Plan. There would be
eight staff members stationed at the
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge.
Actions Common to All Alternatives
All three alternatives share the
following concepts and techniques for
achieving the goals of the refuge:
• Cooperating with local, State, and
Federal agencies, and non-governmental
organizations to administer refuge
programs;
• Utilizing volunteers to execute the
public use, biological, and maintenance
programs on the refuge;
• Monitoring populations of
waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading
birds, and vegetation in the refuge
impoundments;
• Maintaining vegetation in the marsh
with prescribed fire; and
• Encouraging scientific research on
the refuge.
Cedar Island National Wildlife
Refuge, in east-central North Carolina,
consists of 14,480 acres in fee simple
ownership. On the refuge, 11,000 acres
are brackish marsh, 1,500 acres are
longleaf pine savanna, 150 acres are
brackish shrub, 125 acres are pond pine
woodland, 100 acres are bay forests, 100
acres are low pocosin, and 50 acres are
cypress-gum swamp. These habitats
support a variety of wildlife species,
including waterfowl, shorebirds, wading
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
7796
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 14, 2006 / Notices
birds, marsh birds, and neotropical
migratory songbirds.
The refuge hosts more than thirty
thousand visitors annually who
participate in hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and
interpretation.
Authority: This notice is published under
the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement act of 1997, Public Law
105–57.
Dated: September 7, 2005.
Cynthia K. Dohner,
Acting Regional Director.
Editorial Note: This document was
received at the Office of the Federal Register
on February 9, 2006.
[FR Doc. 06–1347 Filed 2–13–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Receipt of an Application and
Availability of Environmental
Assessment for an Incidental Take
Permit for Commercial Development in
Lake County, FL
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Richard E. Bosserman and
Charles E. Bosserman III (Applicants)
request an incidental take permit (ITP)
for a 10-year term, pursuant to section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The
Applicants anticipate taking sand skinks
(Neoseps reynoldsi) and bluetail mole
skinks (Eumeces egregious)
(cumulatively referred to as skinks)
resulting from land clearing and site
preparation for commercial construction
on about 75 acres near Clermont, Lake
County, Florida.
The Applicants’ HCP describes the
mitigation and minimization measures
proposed to address the effects
commercial construction on the skinks.
These measures are outlined in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
below. We announce the availability of
the ITP application, HCP, and an
Environmental Assessment (EA).
DATES: Written comments on the ITP
application, EA, and HCP should be
sent to the Service’s Regional Office (see
ADDRESSES) and should be received on
or before April 17, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review
the application, EA, and HCP may
obtain a copy by writing the Service’s
Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta,
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:46 Feb 13, 2006
Jkt 208001
Georgia. Please reference permit number
TE105732–0 in such requests.
Documents will also be available for
public inspection by appointment
during normal business hours at the
Regional Office, 1875 Century
Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia
30345 (Attn: Endangered Species
Permits), or Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 6620 Southpoint
Drive South, Suite 310, Jacksonville,
Florida 32216–0912.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
David Dell, Regional HCP Coordinator,
(see ADDRESSES above), telephone: 404/
679–7313, facsimile: 404/679–7081; or
Mr. Michael Jennings, Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, Jacksonville Field Office,
Jacksonville, Florida (see ADDRESSES
above), telephone: 904/232–2580, ext.
113.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you
wish to comment, you may submit
comments by any one of several
methods. Please reference permit
number TE105732–0 in such comments.
You may mail comments to the
Service’s Regional Office (see
ADDRESSES). You may also comment via
the internet to david_dell@fws.gov.
Please submit comments over the
internet as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form
of encryption. Please also include your
name and return address in your
internet message. If you do not receive
a confirmation from us that we have
received your internet message, contact
us directly at either telephone number
listed below (see FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). Finally, you may hand deliver
comments to either Service office listed
below (see ADDRESSES). 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 address from the
administrative record. We will honor
such requests to the extent allowable by
law. There may also be other
circumstances in which we would
withhold from the administrative record
a respondent’s identity, as allowable by
law. If you wish us to withhold your
name and address, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your
comments. We will not, however,
consider anonymous comments. We
will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from
individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of
organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
The blue-tailed mole skink is a small,
slender lizard that occupies xeric
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
upland habitats in central peninsular
Florida. It requires open, sandy patches
interspersed with vegetation. The bluetailed mole skink is highly adapted for
life in the sand; it spends the majority
of time below the surface where it
moves through loose sand in search of
food, shelter, and mates. Much of the
blue-tailed mole skink’s historic habitat
has been destroyed or degraded because
of fragmentation due to residential,
commercial, and agricultural
development. Habitat protection and
management are essential for the
survival of this species.
The sand skink is a small, semifossorial lizard that occurs on the sandy
ridges of interior central Florida from
Marion County south to Highlands
County. The species is vulnerable
because of habitat loss due to
conversion to residential, commercial,
and agricultural uses and from habitat
degradation due to fire exclusion. The
recovery of sand skinks will require
restoration of habitat and possible
reintroduction of individuals into
successfully restored habitat.
Xeric uplands within the Lake Wales
Ridge have declined in distribution and
ecological quality over the past 100
years. Urban and agricultural
development in this area has resulted in
substantial losses of habitat; by the early
1980’s habitat loss was estimated at 66
percent. Since then additional losses are
attributed to increasing urban growth,
particularly in the northern portions of
the action area. Severe freezes during
the mid-1980’s also resulted in a shift in
citrus production from north central
Florida to south Florida which resulted
in further loss of xeric uplands. Recent
estimates indicate that 70 to 80 percent
of the xeric uplands in Florida have
been lost or degraded. Within the Lake
Wales Ridge, about 85 percent of xeric
uplands have been lost.
In addition to the direct destruction of
xeric uplands within the Project area,
increasing fragmentation has resulted in
the degradation of many of the
remaining parcels of habitat. These xeric
communities require periodic fire to
maintain their ecological and biological
functions and values. Urban and
agricultural uses now interspersed
between xeric upland habitats do not
allow the natural periodicity or
magnitude of fires that once spread
across this xeric landscape. In most
instances, fire suppression is practiced
to protect human health and the safety
of property. Lacking fire, xeric uplands
tend towards more mesic conditions,
which include denser vegetative
canopies and more heterogeneous
vegetative structure. Under these
conditions, many of the species that
E:\FR\FM\14FEN1.SGM
14FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7794-7796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-1347]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Notice of Availability of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Cedar Island National
Wildlife Refuge in Carteret County, NC
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7795]]
SUMMARY: This notice announces that a Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment for the Cedar Island National
Wildlife Refuge are available for review and comment. The National
Wildlife 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 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 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.
DATES: Individuals wishing to comment on the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Cedar Island
National Wildlife Refuge should do so no later than March 16, 2006.
Public comments were requested, considered, and incorporated throughout
the planning process in numerous ways. Public outreach has included
scoping meetings, a review of the biological program, an ecosystem
planning newsletter, and Federal Register notices.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment should be addressed to Bruce Freske,
Refuge Manager, Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge, 38 Mattamuskeet
Road, Swan Quarter, North Carolina 27885; Telephone: 252/926-4021; Fax:
252/926-1743. Comments on the draft may be submitted to the above
address or via electronic mail to: bruce_freske@fws.gov. 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 analyzed three alternatives for
managing the refuge and chose Alternative 2 as the preferred
alternative.
Proposed goals for the refuge include:
Wildlife, Fish, and Plant Populations. Conserve, protect, and
maintain healthy and viable populations of migratory birds, wildlife,
fish, and plants, including Federal and State threatened, endangered,
and trust species.
Habitat. Protect and enhance diverse habitats, rare plant
assemblages, and nursery areas associated with the Pamlico-Core Sounds
and the mid-Atlantic coastal plain.
Public use. Develop programs and facilities to increase public use
opportunities, including hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
Resource Protection. Protect refuge resources by limiting impacts
of human development and activity on and around Cedar Island National
Wildlife Refuge.
Administration. Provide adequate funding and staffing to accomplish
refuge goals and objectives.
Also available for review are compatibility determinations for
recreational hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
Alternatives
Alternative 1 proposes to maintain the status quo. The staff would
manage marshes and pine forests with prescribed burns conducted by
employees from other refugees according to the Fire Management Plan.
The refuge would employ a single maintenance worker stationed on the
refuge to maintain the buildings and grounds, clean up dumpsites, and
pick up litter. Staff from other refuges would survey waterfowl from
the air on a routine basis. The refuge would conduct no other surveys
of wildlife or habitats. The refuge would allow all six priority public
use activities: waterfowl hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
The staff would not conduct environmental education and interpretation
programs, but would allow others to conduct programs on the refuge. The
Service would manage the refuge from Mattamuskeet National Wildlife
Refuge.
Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, proposes minimum program
increases. The refuge would document the presence of priority wildlife
species, but would not monitor habitat. Staff would survey waterfowl
from the air on a routine basis. The refuge would continue to allow the
six priority public use activities, but would have the capacity to
increase the number of opportunities. The staff would conduct
environmental education programs once a month. An interpretive and
observation trail with a brochure and a photo blind would be
established. The staff would also control dominant pest plants and
animals. There would be four staff members stationed at the Cedar
Island National Wildlife Refuge.
Alternative 3 proposes moderate program increases. The refuge would
document the presence of priority wildlife species and mammals and
monitor fire-dependent habitats. The staff would monitor vegetation in
the marshes and pine forests before and after prescribed burns
conducted by staff from other refuges according to the Fire Management
Plan. Staff from the refuge would survey waterfowl from the air and the
ground on a routine basis. The refuge would continue to allow the six
priority public use activities, but would have the capacity to increase
the number of opportunities. The staff would conduct environmental
education and interpretation programs once a month. An interpretive
trail with brochure and photo blind would be established. The staff
would also monitor pest plants and animals and control them according
to an integrated Pest Management Plan. There would be eight staff
members stationed at the Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge.
Actions Common to All Alternatives
All three alternatives share the following concepts and techniques
for achieving the goals of the refuge:
Cooperating with local, State, and Federal agencies, and
non-governmental organizations to administer refuge programs;
Utilizing volunteers to execute the public use,
biological, and maintenance programs on the refuge;
Monitoring populations of waterfowl, shorebirds, and
wading birds, and vegetation in the refuge impoundments;
Maintaining vegetation in the marsh with prescribed fire;
and
Encouraging scientific research on the refuge.
Cedar Island National Wildlife Refuge, in east-central North
Carolina, consists of 14,480 acres in fee simple ownership. On the
refuge, 11,000 acres are brackish marsh, 1,500 acres are longleaf pine
savanna, 150 acres are brackish shrub, 125 acres are pond pine
woodland, 100 acres are bay forests, 100 acres are low pocosin, and 50
acres are cypress-gum swamp. These habitats support a variety of
wildlife species, including waterfowl, shorebirds, wading
[[Page 7796]]
birds, marsh birds, and neotropical migratory songbirds.
The refuge hosts more than thirty thousand visitors annually who
participate in hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
Authority: This notice is published under the authority of the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement act of 1997, Public Law
105-57.
Dated: September 7, 2005.
Cynthia K. Dohner,
Acting Regional Director.
Editorial Note: This document was received at the Office of the
Federal Register on February 9, 2006.
[FR Doc. 06-1347 Filed 2-13-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M