Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Jackson County, MS, and Mobile County, AL, 20704-20706 [E8-8109]
Download as PDF
20704
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 16, 2008 / Notices
species. See ‘‘What information is
considered in the review?’’ heading for
specific criteria. Information submitted
should be supported by documentation
such as maps, bibliographic references,
methods used to gather and analyze the
data, and/or copies of any pertinent
publications, reports, or letters by
knowledgeable sources. 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, etc., but
if you wish us to withhold this
information, you must state this
prominently at the beginning of your
comments. In addition, you must
present a rationale for withholding this
information. This rationale must
demonstrate that disclosure would
constitute a clearly unwarranted
invasion of privacy. Unsupported
assertions will not meet this burden. In
the absence of exceptional, documental
circumstances, this information will be
released. We will always make
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.
Authority: This document is published
under the authority of the Endangered
Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: February 19, 2008.
Cynthia K. Dohner,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. E8–8124 Filed 4–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R4–R–2008–N0009; 40136–1265–
0000–S3]
Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge,
Jackson County, MS, and Mobile
County, AL
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability: draft
comprehensive conservation plan and
environmental assessment; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
We, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, announce the availability of a
draft comprehensive conservation plan
and environmental assessment (Draft
CCP/EA) for Grand Bay National
Wildlife Refuge for public review and
comment. In this Draft CCP/EA, we
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Apr 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
describe the alternative we propose to
use to manage this refuge for the 15
years following approval of the Final
CCP.
To ensure consideration, we
must receive comments by May 16,
2008.
DATES:
Requests for copies of the
Draft CCP/EA should be addressed to:
Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge,
6005 Bayou Heron Road, Moss Point,
MS 39562; Telephone: 601/475–0765.
The Draft CCP/EA may also be accessed
and downloaded from the Service’s
Internet Web site https://
southeast.fws.gov/planning. Comments
on the Draft CCP/EA may be submitted
to the above address or via electronic
mail to: mike_dawson@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mike Dawson, Refuge Planner, Jackson,
MS; Telephone: 601/965–4903, Ext. 20.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ADDRESSES:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP
process for Grand Bay National Wildlife
Refuge. We started the process through
a notice in the Federal Register on
December 29, 2005 (70 FR 77176).
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, as amended
by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to
develop a CCP for each national wildlife
refuge. The purpose in developing a
CCP is to provide refuge managers with
a 15-year plan for achieving refuge
purposes and contributing toward the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge
System, consistent with sound
principles of fish and wildlife
management, conservation, legal
mandates, and our policies. In addition
to outlining broad management
direction on conserving wildlife and
their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities
available to the public, including
opportunities for hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental
education and interpretation. We will
review and update the CCP at least
every 15 years in accordance with the
Improvement Act and NEPA.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our
Proposed Alternative
We developed four alternatives for
managing the refuge and chose
Alternative C as the proposed action.
Each alternative would pursue the same
four broad refuge goals. These goals are
PO 00000
Frm 00097
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(1) Wildlife; (2) habitat; (3) public use;
and (4) refuge administration.
Alternatives
A full description of each alternative
is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize
each alternative below.
Alternative A: Current Management (No
Action)
Alternative A would maintain the
current management direction, that is,
the refuge’s habitats and wildlife
populations would continue to be
managed as they have in recent years.
Public use patterns would remain
relatively unchanged from those that
exist at present.
We would support national and
regional plans to promote management
actions that would provide for viable
populations of native fish and wildlife
species and habitats, with special
emphasis on wet pine savanna.
There would be no active, direct
management of waterfowl or other
migratory bird populations. All
sightings and the presence of threatened
and endangered species would be
documented on the refuge. However, no
active efforts would be undertaken to
inventory other wildlife.
We would maintain approximately
1,000 acres of pine savanna, which is
the existing acreage. No active
management would be undertaken to
improve the habitat condition of
forested wetlands. We would continue
to utilize prescribed fire to manage
habitats and reduce hazardous fuels on
approximately 1,000 acres; furthermore,
we would attempt to set prescribed fires
on a 2- to 3-year rotation and to
suppress wildfires. In partnership with
the National Estuarine Research Reserve
(NERR), we would annually control 20–
30 acres of cogongrass and Chinese
tallow.
We would identify and protect natural
and cultural resources of the refuge. We
would seek to acquire 90 percent of all
lands within the approved acquisition
boundary within 15 years of CCP
approval. Through a partnership with
NERR, we would protect shell middens
on the refuge. In order to pursue these
and other objectives, we would provide
one full-time law enforcement officer.
We would provide opportunities for
quality, wildlife-dependent public uses,
leading to greater understanding and
enjoyment of fish, wildlife, and the Gulf
Coast ecosystems contained within the
refuge.
We would continue to serve the
public without a Visitor Services’ Plan.
In partnership with NERR, we would
operate a joint research, office, and
education facility/visitor center to
E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM
16APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 16, 2008 / Notices
provide benefits to refuge visitors. We
would continue to allow fishing and
provide hunting for deer, squirrel, and
waterfowl in keeping with State
regulations and seasons.
With our limited support, NERR
would continue environmental
education and interpretation at current
levels. This would include participation
in community events, on- and off-site
environmental education, guided tours,
and interpretive trails. Also in
partnership with NERR, we would
maintain current wildlife observation
and photography programs and
facilities.
We would cooperate with NERR to
provide for sufficient staffing, facilities,
and infrastructure to implement a
comprehensive refuge management
program. We would maintain Grand Bay
Refuge’s current staff of two—the refuge
manager and one law enforcement
officer.
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
Alternative B: Custodial or Passive
Management
Alternative B would emphasize
custodial management, also called
passive management, which, in general,
means that we would not actively
intervene in the process of natural
succession. There would be no active
habitat management, including no use
of prescribed fire or selective logging to
open up dense forest understories.
We would support national and
regional plans to promote management
actions that would provide for viable
populations of native fish and wildlife
species and habitats, with special
emphasis on wet pine savanna. We
would work toward achieving a number
of objectives in pursuit of the wildlife
goal.
There would be no active, direct
management of waterfowl or other
migratory bird populations. Sightings
and presence of threatened and
endangered species would be
documented on the refuge; however,
this would be a more constrained effort
than in Alternative A. Moreover, no
active efforts would be undertaken to
inventory other wildlife.
Alternative B does not have a wet
pine savanna objective. This habitat
type would neither be encouraged nor
discouraged at Grand Bay Refuge under
this alternative. Likewise, there would
be no active management to improve the
habitat condition of forested wetlands.
In addition, we would not utilize
prescribed fire to set back succession or
manipulate habitats and plant
communities. However, we would
suppress all wildfires, in keeping with
our policy.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Apr 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
Control of invasive plant species
would continue on a limited basis under
this alternative. In partnership with
NERR, we would annually control 5–10
acres of cogongrass and Chinese tallow
on the refuge.
We would identify and protect natural
and cultural resources of the refuge. We
would pursue land protection programs
and would provide law enforcement.
We would seek to acquire 90 percent of
all lands within the approved
acquisition boundary within 15 years of
CCP approval. Through a partnership
with NERR, we would continue to
protect shell middens on the refuge. We
would not undertake any additional
efforts on behalf of discovering,
protecting, and interpreting cultural
resources, such as preparation and
implementation of a Cultural Resources’
Management Plan.
There would be no Service-provided
law enforcement on the refuge under the
custodial or passive management
alternative. As a result, no public
hunting would be permitted, because
the presence of hunters on the refuge
necessitates a law enforcement presence
to ensure public safety and enforce
compliance with State hunting
regulations and refuge rules.
We would continue to serve the
public without the overall guidance and
direction of a Visitor Services’ Plan.
NERR would operate the joint research,
office, and education facility/visitor
center. We would continue to allow
fishing in State waters on the refuge.
NERR would continue environmental
education and interpretation at current
levels, including participation in
community events, on- and off-site
environmental education, guided tours,
and interpretive trails. NERR would also
maintain current wildlife observation
and photography programs and
facilities.
Due to scaled-back direct management
responsibilities for habitat, wildlife
populations, and visitor services, under
this alternative there would be no staff
present on Grand Bay Refuge. The
nearest Service personnel would be
located at Mississippi Sandhill Crane
National Wildlife Refuge.
Alternative C: Optimize Wildlife and
Habitat Management (Proposed Action)
Alternative C would optimize wildlife
and habitat management on Grand Bay
National Wildlife Refuge. We would
support national and regional plans to
promote management actions that
would provide for viable populations of
native fish and wildlife species and
habitats, with special emphasis on wet
pine savanna.
PO 00000
Frm 00098
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20705
Within 15 years of CCP approval, we
would support the annual population
objective of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan by
contributing 20 percent (3,600 ducks) of
a midwinter population of
approximately 18,000 ducks in the
Coastal Mississippi Wetlands Initiative
Area. For all other migratory birds,
within 15 years of CCP approval, we
would provide habitats sufficient to
meet population goals of regional and
national bird conservation plans.
We would create and enhance
favorable conditions for gopher tortoises
(200 acres) and for the possible
reintroduction of 12–15 Mississippi
sandhill cranes (5–7 nesting pairs) and
the gopher frog (creating two ponds).
Over the same timeframe, we would
develop and maintain inventories for
small mammals, butterflies, reptiles,
amphibians, and possibly other taxa.
Within 15 years of CCP approval, we
would restore 2,500 acres of wet pine
savanna habitat, supporting primarily
grassy-herbaceous dominated
conditions to benefit grassland birds.
We would also aim to restore forest
structure to promote super-emergent
trees, cavities, and understory structure
on approximately 2,000 acres to benefit
migratory land birds. We would utilize
prescribed fire to manage habitat and
reduce hazardous fuels on
approximately 5,000 acres; we would
aim to set prescribed fires on a 2- to 3year rotation with 50 percent of burns
during the growing season. We would
suppress wildfires.
In partnership with NERR, we would
annually control 50 acres of cogongrass
and Chinese tallow, while controlling
other invasive flora opportunistically.
We would identify and protect natural
and cultural resources of the refuge. We
would seek to acquire 100 percent of the
lands with the approved acquisition
boundary within 15 years of CCP
approval. We would develop and begin
to implement a Cultural Resources’
Management Plan that would be used to
provide overall management direction
for cultural resources at Grand Bay
Refuge. In order to protect these
resources, we would provide one
additional law enforcement officer.
In partnership with NERR, we would
operate a new joint research, office, and
education facility/visitor center to
provide benefits to refuge visitors. We
would also continue to allow fishing
and provide hunting for deer, squirrel,
and waterfowl consistent with State
regulations and seasons. With limited
refuge support, NERR would continue
environmental education and
interpretation at current levels,
including participation in community
E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM
16APN1
20706
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 74 / Wednesday, April 16, 2008 / Notices
jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES
events, on- and off-site environmental
education, guided tours, and
interpretive trails. In partnership with
NERR, we would maintain current
wildlife observation and photography
programs and facilities.
We would have the same staff as
under Alternative A, plus one biologist,
one park ranger, one biological
technician, one equipment operator, and
one law enforcement officer, for a total
of seven employees.
Alternative D—Optimize Visitor
Services
Alternative D would optimize visitor
services on Grand Bay National Wildlife
Refuge. This alternative would attempt
to substantially expand opportunities
for public use on the refuge.
We would support national and
regional plans to promote management
actions that would provide for viable
populations of native fish and wildlife
species and habitats, with special
emphasis on wet pine savanna.
There would be no active, direct
management of waterfowl or other
migratory bird populations. All
sightings and the presence of threatened
and endangered species would be
documented on the refuge. Also, within
15 years of CCP approval, we would
develop and maintain inventories for
small mammals, butterflies, reptiles,
amphibians, and possibly other taxa. We
would maintain approximately 1,000
acres of pine savanna, which is the
existing acreage. No active management
would be undertaken to improve the
habitat condition of forested wetlands.
We would continue to utilize prescribed
fire to manage habitat and reduce
hazardous fuels on approximately 1,000
acres; furthermore, we would attempt to
set prescribed fires on a 2- to 3-year
rotation. We would suppress wildfires.
In partnership with NERR, we would
annually control 20–30 acres of
cogongrass and Chinese tallow.
We would aim to acquire 100 percent
of lands within the approved
acquisition boundary within 15 years of
CCP approval. Through an ongoing
partnership with NERR, we would
protect the refuge’s shell middens. In
order to protect resources and the public
at Grand Bay, we would provide two
law enforcement officers.
Within three years of CCP completion
and approval, we would develop a
Visitor Services’ Plan to be used in
expanding public use facilities and
opportunities on the refuge. As in
Alternative A, under Alternative D, in
partnership with NERR, we would
operate a new joint research, office, and
education facility/visitor center to
provide benefits to refuge visitors. In
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:19 Apr 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
addition, we would develop a new
welcome center along Interstate 10 near
the interchange with Franklin Creek
Road (Exit 75).
Within five years of CCP approval, we
would develop a Hunt Plan that
coordinates hunting with other
increased public uses, such as wildlife
observation and photography.
We would also implement our own
program of expanded environmental
education and interpretation to
complement NERR’s efforts, in keeping
with the new Visitor Services’ Plan. In
partnership with NERR, we would
implement expanded opportunities for
wildlife observation and photography,
such as a canoe/kayak trail, photo
blind(s), and an elevated marsh
observation platform at the ‘‘Goat
Farm.’’
In order to provide for expanded
visitor services under Alternative D, we
would increase the size of the staff from
the current two employees. The new
positions Alternative D calls for include:
One assistant manager, one park ranger,
one equipment operator, and two law
enforcement officers for a total of seven
employees.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment, including your
personal identifying information, may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Next Step
After the comment period ends for the
Draft CCP/EA, we will analyze the
comments and address them in the form
of a Final CCP and Finding of No
Significant Impact.
Authority: This notice is published under
the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, Public
Law 105–57.
Dated: February 8, 2008.
Cynthia K. Dohner,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. E8–8109 Filed 4–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
PO 00000
Frm 00099
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
U.S. Geological Survey
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Comment Request
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of an extension of an
information collection (1028–0053).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: To comply with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), we are notifying the public that
we will submit to OMB an information
collection request (ICR) to renew
approval of the paperwork requirements
for ‘‘Nonferrous Metals Surveys (31
USGS forms).’’ This notice provides the
public an opportunity to comment on
the paperwork burden of these forms.
DATES: Submit written comments by
June 16, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this information collection to the
Department of the Interior, USGS, via:
• E-mail: atravnic@usgs.gov. Use
Information Collection Number 1028–
0053 in the subject line.
• Fax: (703) 648–7069. Use
Information Collection Number 1028–
0053 in the subject line.
• Mail or hand-carry comments to the
Department of the Interior; USGS
Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological
Survey, 807 National Center, Reston, VA
20192. Please reference Information
Collection 1028–0053 in your
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE
CONTACT: Scott F. Sibley at (703) 648–
4976. Copies of the forms can be
obtained at no cost by contacting the
USGS clearance officer at the phone
number listed below.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: Nonferrous Metals Surveys.
OMB Control Number: 1028–0053.
Form Number: Various (31 forms).
Abstract: Respondents supply the
U.S. Geological Survey with domestic
production and consumption data on
nonferrous and related nonfuel mineral
commodities, some of which are
considered strategic and critical. This
information will be published as
chapters in Minerals Yearbooks,
monthly Mineral Industry Surveys,
annual Mineral Commodity Summaries,
and special publications, for use by
Government agencies, industry,
education programs, and the general
public.
We will protect information
considered proprietary under the
Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C.
552) and its implementing regulations
E:\FR\FM\16APN1.SGM
16APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20704-20706]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-8109]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2008-N0009; 40136-1265-0000-S3]
Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge, Jackson County, MS, and
Mobile County, AL
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability: draft comprehensive conservation plan
and environmental assessment; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the availability
of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental assessment
(Draft CCP/EA) for Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge for public review
and comment. In this Draft CCP/EA, we describe the alternative we
propose to use to manage this refuge for the 15 years following
approval of the Final CCP.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive comments by May 16,
2008.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Draft CCP/EA should be addressed
to: Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge, 6005 Bayou Heron Road, Moss
Point, MS 39562; Telephone: 601/475-0765. The Draft CCP/EA may also be
accessed and downloaded from the Service's Internet Web site https://
southeast.fws.gov/planning. Comments on the Draft CCP/EA may be
submitted to the above address or via electronic mail to: mike_
dawson@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Dawson, Refuge Planner, Jackson,
MS; Telephone: 601/965-4903, Ext. 20.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Grand Bay
National Wildlife Refuge. We started the process through a notice in
the Federal Register on December 29, 2005 (70 FR 77176).
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as
amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997,
requires us to develop a CCP for each national wildlife refuge. The
purpose in developing a CCP is to provide refuge managers with a 15-
year plan for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward the
mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with sound
principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal
mandates, and our policies. In addition to outlining broad management
direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, CCPs identify
wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the public,
including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation,
wildlife photography, and environmental education and interpretation.
We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 years in accordance
with the Improvement Act and NEPA.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative
We developed four alternatives for managing the refuge and chose
Alternative C as the proposed action. Each alternative would pursue the
same four broad refuge goals. These goals are (1) Wildlife; (2)
habitat; (3) public use; and (4) refuge administration.
Alternatives
A full description of each alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We
summarize each alternative below.
Alternative A: Current Management (No Action)
Alternative A would maintain the current management direction, that
is, the refuge's habitats and wildlife populations would continue to be
managed as they have in recent years. Public use patterns would remain
relatively unchanged from those that exist at present.
We would support national and regional plans to promote management
actions that would provide for viable populations of native fish and
wildlife species and habitats, with special emphasis on wet pine
savanna.
There would be no active, direct management of waterfowl or other
migratory bird populations. All sightings and the presence of
threatened and endangered species would be documented on the refuge.
However, no active efforts would be undertaken to inventory other
wildlife.
We would maintain approximately 1,000 acres of pine savanna, which
is the existing acreage. No active management would be undertaken to
improve the habitat condition of forested wetlands. We would continue
to utilize prescribed fire to manage habitats and reduce hazardous
fuels on approximately 1,000 acres; furthermore, we would attempt to
set prescribed fires on a 2- to 3-year rotation and to suppress
wildfires. In partnership with the National Estuarine Research Reserve
(NERR), we would annually control 20-30 acres of cogongrass and Chinese
tallow.
We would identify and protect natural and cultural resources of the
refuge. We would seek to acquire 90 percent of all lands within the
approved acquisition boundary within 15 years of CCP approval. Through
a partnership with NERR, we would protect shell middens on the refuge.
In order to pursue these and other objectives, we would provide one
full-time law enforcement officer.
We would provide opportunities for quality, wildlife-dependent
public uses, leading to greater understanding and enjoyment of fish,
wildlife, and the Gulf Coast ecosystems contained within the refuge.
We would continue to serve the public without a Visitor Services'
Plan. In partnership with NERR, we would operate a joint research,
office, and education facility/visitor center to
[[Page 20705]]
provide benefits to refuge visitors. We would continue to allow fishing
and provide hunting for deer, squirrel, and waterfowl in keeping with
State regulations and seasons.
With our limited support, NERR would continue environmental
education and interpretation at current levels. This would include
participation in community events, on- and off-site environmental
education, guided tours, and interpretive trails. Also in partnership
with NERR, we would maintain current wildlife observation and
photography programs and facilities.
We would cooperate with NERR to provide for sufficient staffing,
facilities, and infrastructure to implement a comprehensive refuge
management program. We would maintain Grand Bay Refuge's current staff
of two--the refuge manager and one law enforcement officer.
Alternative B: Custodial or Passive Management
Alternative B would emphasize custodial management, also called
passive management, which, in general, means that we would not actively
intervene in the process of natural succession. There would be no
active habitat management, including no use of prescribed fire or
selective logging to open up dense forest understories.
We would support national and regional plans to promote management
actions that would provide for viable populations of native fish and
wildlife species and habitats, with special emphasis on wet pine
savanna. We would work toward achieving a number of objectives in
pursuit of the wildlife goal.
There would be no active, direct management of waterfowl or other
migratory bird populations. Sightings and presence of threatened and
endangered species would be documented on the refuge; however, this
would be a more constrained effort than in Alternative A. Moreover, no
active efforts would be undertaken to inventory other wildlife.
Alternative B does not have a wet pine savanna objective. This
habitat type would neither be encouraged nor discouraged at Grand Bay
Refuge under this alternative. Likewise, there would be no active
management to improve the habitat condition of forested wetlands. In
addition, we would not utilize prescribed fire to set back succession
or manipulate habitats and plant communities. However, we would
suppress all wildfires, in keeping with our policy.
Control of invasive plant species would continue on a limited basis
under this alternative. In partnership with NERR, we would annually
control 5-10 acres of cogongrass and Chinese tallow on the refuge.
We would identify and protect natural and cultural resources of the
refuge. We would pursue land protection programs and would provide law
enforcement. We would seek to acquire 90 percent of all lands within
the approved acquisition boundary within 15 years of CCP approval.
Through a partnership with NERR, we would continue to protect shell
middens on the refuge. We would not undertake any additional efforts on
behalf of discovering, protecting, and interpreting cultural resources,
such as preparation and implementation of a Cultural Resources'
Management Plan.
There would be no Service-provided law enforcement on the refuge
under the custodial or passive management alternative. As a result, no
public hunting would be permitted, because the presence of hunters on
the refuge necessitates a law enforcement presence to ensure public
safety and enforce compliance with State hunting regulations and refuge
rules.
We would continue to serve the public without the overall guidance
and direction of a Visitor Services' Plan. NERR would operate the joint
research, office, and education facility/visitor center. We would
continue to allow fishing in State waters on the refuge.
NERR would continue environmental education and interpretation at
current levels, including participation in community events, on- and
off-site environmental education, guided tours, and interpretive
trails. NERR would also maintain current wildlife observation and
photography programs and facilities.
Due to scaled-back direct management responsibilities for habitat,
wildlife populations, and visitor services, under this alternative
there would be no staff present on Grand Bay Refuge. The nearest
Service personnel would be located at Mississippi Sandhill Crane
National Wildlife Refuge.
Alternative C: Optimize Wildlife and Habitat Management (Proposed
Action)
Alternative C would optimize wildlife and habitat management on
Grand Bay National Wildlife Refuge. We would support national and
regional plans to promote management actions that would provide for
viable populations of native fish and wildlife species and habitats,
with special emphasis on wet pine savanna.
Within 15 years of CCP approval, we would support the annual
population objective of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan by
contributing 20 percent (3,600 ducks) of a midwinter population of
approximately 18,000 ducks in the Coastal Mississippi Wetlands
Initiative Area. For all other migratory birds, within 15 years of CCP
approval, we would provide habitats sufficient to meet population goals
of regional and national bird conservation plans.
We would create and enhance favorable conditions for gopher
tortoises (200 acres) and for the possible reintroduction of 12-15
Mississippi sandhill cranes (5-7 nesting pairs) and the gopher frog
(creating two ponds). Over the same timeframe, we would develop and
maintain inventories for small mammals, butterflies, reptiles,
amphibians, and possibly other taxa.
Within 15 years of CCP approval, we would restore 2,500 acres of
wet pine savanna habitat, supporting primarily grassy-herbaceous
dominated conditions to benefit grassland birds. We would also aim to
restore forest structure to promote super-emergent trees, cavities, and
understory structure on approximately 2,000 acres to benefit migratory
land birds. We would utilize prescribed fire to manage habitat and
reduce hazardous fuels on approximately 5,000 acres; we would aim to
set prescribed fires on a 2- to 3-year rotation with 50 percent of
burns during the growing season. We would suppress wildfires.
In partnership with NERR, we would annually control 50 acres of
cogongrass and Chinese tallow, while controlling other invasive flora
opportunistically.
We would identify and protect natural and cultural resources of the
refuge. We would seek to acquire 100 percent of the lands with the
approved acquisition boundary within 15 years of CCP approval. We would
develop and begin to implement a Cultural Resources' Management Plan
that would be used to provide overall management direction for cultural
resources at Grand Bay Refuge. In order to protect these resources, we
would provide one additional law enforcement officer.
In partnership with NERR, we would operate a new joint research,
office, and education facility/visitor center to provide benefits to
refuge visitors. We would also continue to allow fishing and provide
hunting for deer, squirrel, and waterfowl consistent with State
regulations and seasons. With limited refuge support, NERR would
continue environmental education and interpretation at current levels,
including participation in community
[[Page 20706]]
events, on- and off-site environmental education, guided tours, and
interpretive trails. In partnership with NERR, we would maintain
current wildlife observation and photography programs and facilities.
We would have the same staff as under Alternative A, plus one
biologist, one park ranger, one biological technician, one equipment
operator, and one law enforcement officer, for a total of seven
employees.
Alternative D--Optimize Visitor Services
Alternative D would optimize visitor services on Grand Bay National
Wildlife Refuge. This alternative would attempt to substantially expand
opportunities for public use on the refuge.
We would support national and regional plans to promote management
actions that would provide for viable populations of native fish and
wildlife species and habitats, with special emphasis on wet pine
savanna.
There would be no active, direct management of waterfowl or other
migratory bird populations. All sightings and the presence of
threatened and endangered species would be documented on the refuge.
Also, within 15 years of CCP approval, we would develop and maintain
inventories for small mammals, butterflies, reptiles, amphibians, and
possibly other taxa. We would maintain approximately 1,000 acres of
pine savanna, which is the existing acreage. No active management would
be undertaken to improve the habitat condition of forested wetlands. We
would continue to utilize prescribed fire to manage habitat and reduce
hazardous fuels on approximately 1,000 acres; furthermore, we would
attempt to set prescribed fires on a 2- to 3-year rotation. We would
suppress wildfires. In partnership with NERR, we would annually control
20-30 acres of cogongrass and Chinese tallow.
We would aim to acquire 100 percent of lands within the approved
acquisition boundary within 15 years of CCP approval. Through an
ongoing partnership with NERR, we would protect the refuge's shell
middens. In order to protect resources and the public at Grand Bay, we
would provide two law enforcement officers.
Within three years of CCP completion and approval, we would develop
a Visitor Services' Plan to be used in expanding public use facilities
and opportunities on the refuge. As in Alternative A, under Alternative
D, in partnership with NERR, we would operate a new joint research,
office, and education facility/visitor center to provide benefits to
refuge visitors. In addition, we would develop a new welcome center
along Interstate 10 near the interchange with Franklin Creek Road (Exit
75).
Within five years of CCP approval, we would develop a Hunt Plan
that coordinates hunting with other increased public uses, such as
wildlife observation and photography.
We would also implement our own program of expanded environmental
education and interpretation to complement NERR's efforts, in keeping
with the new Visitor Services' Plan. In partnership with NERR, we would
implement expanded opportunities for wildlife observation and
photography, such as a canoe/kayak trail, photo blind(s), and an
elevated marsh observation platform at the ``Goat Farm.''
In order to provide for expanded visitor services under Alternative
D, we would increase the size of the staff from the current two
employees. The new positions Alternative D calls for include: One
assistant manager, one park ranger, one equipment operator, and two law
enforcement officers for a total of seven employees.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be
aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying
information, may be made publicly available at any time. While you can
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be
able to do so.
Next Step
After the comment period ends for the Draft CCP/EA, we will analyze
the comments and address them in the form of a Final CCP and Finding of
No Significant Impact.
Authority: This notice is published under the authority of the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law
105-57.
Dated: February 8, 2008.
Cynthia K. Dohner,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. E8-8109 Filed 4-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P