Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge, Chesterfield and Marlboro Counties, SC, 3484-3486 [2010-1049]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3484-3486]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1049]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R4-R-2009-N229; 40136-1265-0000-S3]


Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge, Chesterfield and 
Marlboro Counties, SC

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability: draft comprehensive conservation plan 
and environmental assessment; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 
availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and 
environmental assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Carolina Sandhills National 
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) for public review and comment. In this Draft CCP/
EA, we describe the alternative we propose to use to manage this refuge 
for the 15 years following approval of the final CCP.

DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments 
by February 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, and requests for information to: 
Ms. Allyne Askins, Refuge Manager, Carolina Sandhills NWR, 23734 U.S. 
Highway 1, McBee, SC 29101, or to the following e-mail address: 
allyne_askins@fws.gov. The Draft CCP/EA is available on compact disk 
or in hard copy. The Draft CCP/EA may also be accessed and downloaded 
from the Service's Internet Site: https://southeast.fws.gov/planning.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Allyne Askins; telephone: 843/335-
6023; fax: 843/335-8406.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Carolina 
Sandhills NWR. We started the process through a notice in the Federal 
Register on August 22, 2007 (72 FR 47062).
    Carolina Sandhills NWR is in rural northeast South Carolina. The 
refuge is comprised of 47,850 acres, including fee ownership of 45,348 
acres, and 9 conservation easements totaling 2,502 acres. The majority 
of the refuge lies in Chesterfield County, with one fee title tract 
totaling 210 acres in Marlboro County. The refuge is managed to restore 
the longleaf pine/wiregrass ecosystem for the benefit of the red-
cockaded woodpecker (RCW) and other endangered species, provide habitat 
for migratory and upland game birds, provide opportunities for 
environmental education and interpretation and wildlife-dependent 
recreational opportunities, and demonstrate sound land management 
practices that enhance natural resource conservation. The refuge's 
primary wildlife-dependent recreational use is hunting, although 
wildlife observation, hiking, and fishing are also popular.
    The refuge contains 30 small man-made impoundments, 1,200 acres of 
fields and forest openings, and more than 42,000 acres of forested 
woodland--habitats which contribute to the refuge's diversity of flora 
and fauna. Management of the refuge's unique blend of pinelands, 
pocosin bottoms, freshwater ponds and lakes, fields, and wildlife 
openings provide habitat for nearly 200 species of birds, 42 species of 
mammals, 41 species of reptiles, 25 species of amphibians, and more 
than 750 species of plants. The largest population of RCWs within the 
National Wildlife Refuge System is found on the refuge. Also, rare 
plants, including several species of carnivorous pitcher plants and the 
unusual Pine Barrens tree frog are found in the refuge.

Background

The CCP Process

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System 
Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national 
wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge 
managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and 
contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, 
consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management, 
conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to 
outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their 
habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities 
available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing,

[[Page 3485]]

wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education 
and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15 
years in accordance with the Administration Act.

CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative

    We developed three alternatives for managing the refuge and chose 
Alternative C as the proposed alternative. A full description of each 
alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative 
below.

Alternative A--Current Management (No Action)

    Alternative A would continue existing levels of management 
activities on the refuge. We would maintain RCW monitoring and 
recovery. We would maintain and improve habitat required for RCWs by 
conducting even-aged silviculture and transitioning to uneven-aged 
management. We would use prescribed fire during the early growing 
season and mechanical and chemical treatments to confine turkey oaks to 
understory stratum.
    We would monitor eagles, waterfowl, neotropical migratory birds, 
game species, and other wildlife. We would maintain the wood duck nest 
box program. We would manage the annual drawdown of ponds to encourage 
growth of desirable vegetation and restoration of wetland communities. 
There would be no actions focused specifically on marsh and water 
birds, raptors, or Pine Barrens tree frogs. We would manage for the 
restoration of native plants and manage non-native species on an ``as 
needed'' basis.
    Visitors would be welcomed and oriented with existing visitor 
center displays, kiosks, and brochure racks. The existing hunting and 
fishing programs would continue. The hunting program would include 
deer, quail, rabbit, raccoon, and turkey. Fishing would be permitted in 
most ponds and some would be occasionally stocked. Wildlife observation 
and photography would be supported with existing facilities. We would 
provide quality environmental education and interpretation programs as 
requested and as time would permit.
    We would maintain refuge boundaries, consider acquisition of 
inholdings from willing sellers, and protect archaeological and 
historical resources on the refuge. We would work with private 
landowners near the refuge to promote refuge goals and objectives. We 
would maintain facilities and equipment and manage operations with 
existing staff.

Alternative B--Maximize Native Wildlife and Habitat Diversity

    Alternative B includes many of the actions under Alternative A, 
with additional focus on managing native wildlife and habitat 
diversity, and maintaining the existing visitor services program. We 
would enhance RCW habitat by accelerating the transition to uneven-aged 
forest management to improve forest structure and composition, 
increasing growing season burning, and considering use of fall burning 
for hazardous fuel reduction and seed bed preparation.
    We would enhance management of the floristic communities on the 
refuge, including seepage bogs, Atlantic white cedar and cane bottoms, 
and old field species at Oxpen Farm. We would develop and implement 
habitat management surveys to identify species' responses to treatments 
in longleaf pine and pocosin habitat sites.
    We would enhance management of the impoundments and wetlands, 
implement moist-soil management, restore natural stream drainage at 
selected sites, and establish and expand rare and sensitive plant 
communities. We would conduct a baseline population survey of Pine 
Barrens tree frogs in seeps, monitor populations of concern to discern 
population trends and effects of habitat management, coordinate with 
the South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) to conduct 
surveys and assess effects of habitat management, and participate in 
amphibian and reptile conservation initiatives.
    We would manage grasslands for birds of conservation concern, 
conduct baseline population surveys of grassland birds, and survey to 
assess effects of habitat management. We would restore longleaf pine/
wiregrass and native grasslands, establish native warm season grass 
demonstration areas, and eradicate non-native plants (e.g., fescue, 
love grass, lespedeza, and bamboo). We would also establish a native 
seed nursery/orchard for native warm season grasses and native 
groundcover and engage in native plant botanical research.
    Visitor services activities, except for hunting and fishing, would 
be the same as under Alternative A. We would eliminate fisheries 
enhancement and reduce hunting days by 30 percent. This reduction would 
be necessary to implement the proposed biological and habitat 
initiatives.
    We would target land acquisitions to those that would maximize 
opportunities for management of trust species and connectivity of gaps 
and corridors to protect important habitats. We would increase easement 
inspections and develop management plans for each easement to meet 
wildlife diversity goals. We would increase our efforts to protect 
archaeological and historical resources on the refuge.
    We would increase cooperation with State and Federal agencies to 
institute a structured monitoring program, determine sources, and 
investigate means to reduce impacts from any contaminants. We would add 
additional wells and monitoring stations to key locations throughout 
the refuge in an effort to determine effects of water withdrawals on 
refuge resources. We would expand monitoring to include a water quality 
study.
    We would minimize heavy equipment use to prevent soil disturbance 
and discontinue use of roller choppers. We would increase staffing in 
wildlife and habitat management programs; however, staffing in visitor 
services would be the same as under Alternative A.

Alternative C--Proposed Alternative

    Alternative C would optimize refuge operations by balancing habitat 
and wildlife population management with enhanced visitor services. This 
alternative would include implementation of a majority of actions under 
Alternative B, while improving visitor experiences and providing 
educational and recreational opportunities for the surrounding 
communities.
    We would enhance RCW habitat by improving forest structure and 
composition, by increasing growing season burning, and by using fall 
burning for hazardous fuel reduction and seed bed preparation. We would 
use all available tools to control midstory growth.
    RCW monitoring would be reduced to a core population in line with 
management practices of other large RCW populations. The refuge would 
participate on the Southern Range Translocation Team and would provide 
juvenile RCWs as donors to populations in Georgia, South Carolina, and 
North Carolina. As under Alternative B, we would increase partnership 
activities with SCDNR, Cheraw State Park, and Sand Hills State Forest 
to manage area RCWs as one recovery unit. We would upgrade our mapping 
systems to GIS and integrate spatial components of programs and plans 
into GIS.
    We would enhance management of the unique floristic communities on 
the refuge and develop and implement habitat management surveys to 
identify response to treatments in longleaf pine and pocosin habitat 
sites.

[[Page 3486]]

    We would continue wildlife and habitat management activities as 
under Alternative A, while establishing and expanding rare and 
sensitive plant community surveys and management of seepage slopes. As 
under Alternative B, we would conduct a baseline population survey of 
Pine Barrens tree frogs. We would monitor populations of concern to 
discern population trends and effects of habitat management, coordinate 
with SCDNR to conduct surveys and assess effects of habitat management, 
and participate in amphibian and reptile conservation initiatives.
    We would survey and manage for birds of conservation concern, 
assessing effects of habitat management. We would restore longleaf 
pine/wiregrass and native grasslands, establish native warm season 
grass demonstration areas, and eradicate non-native plants. We would 
also establish a native seed nursery/orchard for native warm season 
grasses and native groundcover and engage in native plant botanical 
research. We would manage dove fields and plant annual cool season 
crops. We would also work with cooperative farmers to establish native 
warm season grasses as a seed source or for biofuel production.
    Most visitor services activities would be improved. We would 
enhance interpretation with additional wayside exhibits and an updated, 
interactive Web site. Hunting and fishing opportunities would be 
increased. Wildlife observation and photography opportunities would be 
improved by providing additional trails with better interpretation, an 
observation tower, and a photo blind. A portable viewing blind would be 
established in active RCW clusters along the wildlife drive during the 
nesting season. The environmental education program would be enhanced 
by developing a comprehensive program to be operated by volunteers and 
funded by grants. We would enhance appropriate recreational uses (e.g., 
biking and picnicking) to encourage families to use the refuge and 
pursue outdoor recreational activities. Communication about key issues 
would be enhanced by hosting an annual public lands and private 
landowner demonstration day to showcase restoration and management 
practices. We would target land acquisitions that would maximize 
ecosystem management objectives, provide opportunities for public use 
and environmental education, and identify and evaluate important gaps 
and corridors to ensure landscape-level conservation and connectivity. 
We would search for opportunities to enter into cooperative wildlife 
management agreements with private landowners. We would increase 
protection of refuge visitors and the protection of archaeological and 
natural resources on the refuge. We would add visitor services 
facilities to provide more recreation and education programs and 
opportunities. We would add equipment to the fleet for producing and 
harvesting native warm season grass seed. In addition to increasing 
staff, we would utilize a cadre of career seasonal, temporary, and 
student employees.

Next Step

    After the comment period ends, we will analyze the comments and 
address them.

Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

    Authority: This notice is published under the authority of the 
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law 
105-57.

    Dated: January 15, 2010.
Jeffrey M. Fleming,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-1049 Filed 1-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P