Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge, Ashley, Bradley, and Union Counties, AR; Overflow National Wildlife Refuge, Ashley County, AR, 32205-32208 [2010-13511]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices
achieve refuge conservation goals and
objectives.
Alternative D would expand or
intensify existing habitat management
programs, practices, and actions. We
would improve the moist-soil
management program on about 1,600
acres by expanding the invasive exotic
plant control program, water
management capabilities, and the use of
management techniques that set back
plant succession. In cooperation with
partners, we would reactivate the forest
management program on the refuge for
the benefit of priority forest interior
migratory birds and resident game
species. Alternative D would
incorporate a comprehensive fire
management program into upland forest
habitat.
Over the life of the CCP, Alternative
D would redirect management actions to
increase the acreage of unharvested
cropland to meet foraging needs of
waterfowl and habitat for other native
species. It would also increase acreage
of hard mast producing bottomland
hardwood forest species.
We would increase water
management capabilities by subdividing
existing impoundments, creating new
impoundments, and increasing water
supply (i.e., pumps, wells, and
structures) for migratory birds. While
doing this, we would also make a
concerted effort to accommodate sport
fishing opportunities where and when
circumstances allow.
Working with partners, we would
continue to provide mudflats during
August–September for shorebird and
early migratory waterfowl, scrub-shrub
habitat, and desirable aquatic plants, as
under Alternatives A and C. As under
Alternative B, we would also provide
additional education and interpretation
of importance of early drawdowns of
Kentucky Lake.
We would expand control efforts of
invasive species through active methods
of removal. These methods would work
towards reducing infestations and
eliminating populations whenever
feasible. Additional education and
interpretation of invasive species would
be provided.
In response to possible adverse
impacts from climate change, we would
monitor wildlife and habitats and utilize
adaptive management. We would also
relate climate change to the Service’s
wildlife mission in environmental
education programs and pursue
opportunities for carbon sequestration
with native trees.
Alternative D would continue to
manage cultural resources consistent
with Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act. Alternatives
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Jun 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
A, B, and C would also do so, but only
Alternative D would begin to implement
a cultural resources management plan
within 5 years of CCP approval.
Alternative D would pursue and
prioritize minor boundary expansions
to: (1) Reduce adjacent threats to the
refuge; (2) expand habitat management
opportunities; and (3) accommodate
refuge visitors.
Under Alternative D, within 5 years of
CCP approval, we would draft, approve,
and begin to implement a new visitor
services plan. Hunting opportunities
would be increased for deer, and we
would continue to allow managed,
limited hunting for turkey, squirrel,
raccoon, and resident Canada goose. No
youth waterfowl hunt or rabbit and
quail hunting would be considered. We
would provide opportunities for fishing
by furnishing adequate launching
facilities, bank fishing areas, and over
the life of the CCP, would provide
additional piers to accommodate anglers
of all abilities.
We would aim to increase wildlife
observation/photography opportunities
with blinds and a boardwalk, and
within 2 years of CCP approval, open a
seasonal wildlife drive in the Duck
River Bottoms. We would continue to
provide environmental education
services to the public, including limited
visits to schools, workshops, and on-site
and off-site programs, as well as work
with partners to expand environmental
education facilities and opportunities
on and near the refuge. The existing
interpretive program would be
expanded.
Under Alternative D, within 5 years of
CCP approval, we would work with
partners to construct a combined
headquarters and visitor center,
incorporating ‘‘green’’ technology, on the
Big Sandy Unit. Within 15 years of CCP
approval, we would build a visitor
contact station at the Duck River Unit.
Alternative D would maintain the
storage and maintenance facilities at the
Duck River Unit, and the existing
inventory of heavy equipment, tractors,
refuge roads, levees, water control
structures, and pumps. The bunkhouse
would also be replaced. Lastly, this
alternative would add one open and one
enclosed equipment storage facility, one
no-till grain drill, one self-propelled
spray rig, low ground pressure dozer,
one aquatic excavator, and one 24-inch
centrifugal pump and engine.
Under Alternative D, we would
expand our current staff by 12,
including forester, forestry technician,
two engineering equipment operators, a
tractor operator, two refuge rangers, a
law enforcement officer, an assistant
manager, two biological technicians,
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32205
and an office assistant. Under
Alternative D, as in Alternative B, we
would strengthen our volunteer
programs, friend’s group, and
partnerships by investing an increased
portion of staff time into nurturing these
promising relationships.
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: April 22, 2010.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2010–13520 Filed 6–4–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R4–R–2010–N061; 40136–1265–0000–
S3]
Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge,
Ashley, Bradley, and Union Counties,
AR; Overflow National Wildlife Refuge,
Ashley County, AR
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 (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive
conservation plan and environmental
assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for
Felsenthal and Overflow National
Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) for public
review and comment. Felsenthal,
Overflow, and Pond Creek NWRs are
managed as a Complex. A separate CCP
was prepared for Pond Creek NWR. In
this Draft CCP/EA, we describe the
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
32206
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices
alternative we propose to use to manage
these refuges for the 15 years following
approval of the final CCP.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we
must receive your written comments by
July 7, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of
the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Mr.
Bernie Peterson, via U.S. mail at
Felsenthal NWR, P.O. Box 1157,
Crossett, AR 71635, or via e-mail at
bernie_peterson@fws.gov. Alternatively
you may download the document from
our Internet Site at https://
southeast.fws.gov/planning under ‘‘Draft
Documents.’’ Submit comments on the
Draft CCP/EA to the above postal
address or e-mail address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Mike Dawson, Refuge Planner,
telephone: 601/965–4903, Ext. 20.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP
process for Felsenthal and Overflow
NWRs. We started the process through
a notice in the Federal Register on April
2, 2008 (73 FR 17992). For more about
the refuges, their purposes, and our CCP
process, please see that notice.
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
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 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
Administration Act.
Key issues addressed in the Draft
CCP/EA include water management,
forestry management, greentree
reservoir management, threatened and
endangered species management,
migratory bird and waterfowl nesting
habitats, hunting and fishing program
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Jun 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
management, invasive species of plants
and animals, refuge access, law
enforcement, and environmental
education and interpretation programs.
Felsenthal NWR was established in
1975, as a result of the Corps of
Engineers’ Ouachita and Black Rivers
Navigation Project. Geographically, the
65,000-acre refuge is located in what is
known as the Felsenthal Basin, an
extensive natural depression that is
laced with a vast complex of sloughs,
bayous, and lakes. Overflow NWR was
established in 1980, to protect one of the
remaining bottomland hardwood forests
considered vital for maintaining
mallard, wood duck, and other
waterfowl populations in the
Mississippi Flyway. This 13,000-acre
plus refuge is a wetland complex within
the watershed of Overflow Creek, which
flows southerly along the length of the
refuge.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our
Proposed Alternative
We developed three separate
alternatives for managing the refuges
and chose Alternative B, Enhanced
Biological and Visitor Services
Management, as the proposed
alternative for each. A full description
of the alternatives is in the Draft CCP/
EA. We summarize each alternative
below.
Felsenthal NWR
Alternative A (Current Management, No
Action)
Alternative A would continue current
management strategies, with little or no
change in resources. We would protect,
maintain, and enhance 65,000 acres of
refuge lands, primarily focusing on the
needs of threatened and endangered
species, with additional emphasis on
the needs of migratory birds, resident
wildlife, and migratory non-game birds.
We would continue mandated activities
for protection of Federally listed
species. Control of nuisance wildlife
populations and invasive plant species
would be undertaken on an
opportunistic basis. Habitat
management efforts would be
concentrated on forests; water,
including greentree reservoirs; and open
lands. We would continue the fire
management program.
The Complex, made up of Felsenthal,
Overflow, and Pond Creek NWRs, with
the support of volunteers and friends,
manages an extensive visitor services
program that includes recreation,
education, and outreach programs. We
would maintain the current levels of
wildlife-dependent recreation activities
(e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and
interpretation). Felsenthal NWR has an
extensive network of public use
facilities including 65 miles of allterrain vehicle (ATV) trails, 8 boat
ramps, and 10 primitive campgrounds.
Except for two archaeological sites, all
of the refuge is open to visitors. These
facilities do not interfere substantially
with or detract from the achievement of
wildlife conservation.
The hunting program would continue
to be managed via quota hunts for
white-tailed deer and turkey. Special
conditions of the hunt program would
continue to include the use of ATVs
along designated trails. Hunters with
disabilities would still be allowed to
extend their use of ATVs approximately
200 yards off of designated trails. The
use of dogs would continue during
waterfowl, squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, and
opossum hunts.
About 60 percent of total consumptive
public use on the refuge is fishing.
There are eight boat launching facilities
with parking areas on the refuge and
three boat launching facilities with
parking areas off the refuge that provide
lake and river access. Adequate bank
fishing opportunities would continue to
be made available.
We would maintain the refuge as
resources allow. We would continue to
manage with the following staff for the
Complex: Project leader, deputy project
leader, biologist, forester, park ranger
(public use), fire management specialist,
three forestry technicians (fire), two law
enforcement officers, administrative
officer, administrative support assistant,
equipment operator, and heavy
equipment mechanic.
Alternative B (Enhanced Biological
Management and Visitor Services—
Proposed Alternative)
The proposed action was selected by
the Service as the alternative that best
signifies the vision, goals, and purposes
of the refuge. Emphasis would be on
restoring and improving resources
needed for wildlife and habitat
management, while providing
additional public use opportunities.
This alternative would also allow us to
provide law enforcement protection that
adequately meets the needs of the
refuge.
This alternative would focus on
augmenting wildlife and habitat
management to identify, conserve, and
restore populations of native fish and
wildlife species, with an emphasis on
migratory birds and threatened and
endangered species. This would
partially be accomplished by increased
monitoring of waterfowl, other
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices
migratory birds, and endemic species in
order to assess and adapt management
strategies and actions. The restoration of
the Felsenthal South Pool would be a
vital part of this proposed action and
would be crucial to ensuring healthy
and viable ecological communities in
the greentree reservoir. This restoration
would require increased water
management control, invasive aquatic
vegetation control, reestablishing water
quality standards, and possibly
reestablishing populations of game fish
species. The control of nuisance wildlife
populations and invasive plant species
would be more aggressively managed by
implementing a control plan and
systematic removal.
Alternative B would enhance the
visitor services opportunities by:
(1) Improving the quality of fishing
opportunities; (2) creating additional
hunting opportunities for youth and
hunters with disabilities where feasible;
(3) implementing an environmental
education program component for the
Complex that utilizes volunteers and
local schools as partners; (4) enhancing
wildlife viewing and photography
opportunities by implementing food
plots in observational areas and
evaluating the possibility of
implementing an auto tour;
(5) developing and implementing a
visitor services management plan; and
(6) enhancing personal interpretive and
outreach opportunities. Volunteer
programs and friends groups also would
be expanded to enhance all aspects of
refuge management and to increase
resource availability.
In addition to the enforcement of all
Federal and State laws applicable to the
refuge to protect archaeological and
historical sites, we would identify and
develop a plan to protect all known
sites. The allocation of an additional
law enforcement officer to the refuge
would not only provide security for
these resources, but would also ensure
visitor safety and public compliance
with refuge regulations.
Under this alternative, additional staff
needed would include: Park ranger (law
enforcement), biological technician,
park ranger (visitor services,
environmental educator/volunteer
coordinator), heavy equipment operator,
and the conversion of two seasonal fire
technicians to full-time employment.
These positions are needed to
accomplish objectives for establishing
baseline data on refuge resources, for
managing habitats, and for adequate
protection of wildlife and visitors.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Jun 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
Alternative C (Enhanced Biological
Management)
Alternative C would provide for the
enhancement and restoration of native
wildlife, fish, and plant communities
and the health of those communities.
This would be accomplished by
maximizing wildlife and habitat
management, while maintaining a
portion of the current compatible public
use opportunities. Threatened and
endangered species would be of primary
concern, but the needs of other resident
and migratory wildlife would also be
considered. As under Alternative B,
focus would be centralized on
augmenting wildlife and habitat
management to identify, conserve, and
restore populations of native fish and
wildlife species by increased monitoring
of waterfowl, other migratory birds, and
endemic species in order to assess and
adapt management strategies and
actions. Extensive wildlife, plant, and
habitat inventories would be initiated to
obtain the biological information
needed to implement and monitor
management programs.
Habitat management would be
increased to provide additional
sanctuary for waterfowl, to provide
additional active clusters of redcockaded woodpeckers, to promote
additional edge as a transition between
habitat types for resident wildlife, and
to provide additional openings for
native grasslands. A minor expansion
plan would be evaluated to expand the
current acquisition boundary. This
would allow us to expand critical or
viable habitat. We would inventory and
more aggressively monitor, control, and,
where possible, eliminate invasive
plants and nuisance wildlife through
the use of staff and contracted labor.
Wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental
education and interpretation
opportunities would continue as
currently managed, but only when and
where they would not conflict with
wildlife management activities and
objectives. The use of ATVs and
campgrounds would be reduced or
would require a special use permit to
better control use. Night fishing and
fishing tournaments would be phased
out. Harvest counts for waterfowl
hunting would be monitored annually
to determine the species hunted.
Outreach would additionally focus on
providing information to the public on
flooding cycles within the greentree
reservoir and the importance of periodic
drying cycles.
Administration plans would stress the
need for increased maintenance of
existing infrastructure and facilities
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
32207
benefitting wildlife conservation.
Additional staff under this alternative
would include: Park ranger (law
enforcement), biological technician,
biologist, heavy equipment operator,
and the conversion of two seasonal fire
technicians to full-time employment to
accomplish objectives for establishing
baseline data on refuge resources, for
managing habitats, and for adequate
protection of wildlife and visitors.
Overflow NWR
Alternative A (Current Management, No
Action)
Alternative A would continue current
management strategies, with little or no
change in resources. Under this
alternative, we would protect, maintain,
restore, and enhance 13,973 acres of
refuge lands and 2,263 additional acres
included in the Oakwood Unit. We
would primarily focus on the needs of
migratory waterfowl, with additional
emphasis on the needs of resident
wildlife, migratory non-game birds, and
threatened and endangered species.
Control of nuisance wildlife populations
and invasive plant species would be
undertaken on an opportunistic basis.
Habitat management efforts would be
concentrated on moist-soil management,
waterfowl impoundments, forest
management, and crop production. We
would continue cooperative farming of
400 acres.
Currently, active habitat management
targeting waterfowl includes
impoundments for moist-soil and crop
food resource generation in open
habitats, as well as greentree reservoir
management in forested areas to
produce complimentary food and
behavioral resources. Approximately
600 acres would continue to be
managed in rotation fashion in moistsoil and crops. A stop-log structure on
Overflow Creek would continue to be
used to manage a single 4,000-acre
greentree reservoir impoundment
during winter months.
Public use opportunities would
continue to include hunting (e.g.,
waterfowl, deer, turkey, small game,
woodcock, and quail), wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and
limited environmental education
activities. A total of 3,000 acres would
continue to be protected from public
intrusion during the wintering
waterfowl season in areas designated as
waterfowl sanctuaries.
Standard management activities at the
Oakwood Unit would continue to
include: (1) Disking of moist-soil units
on a rotational basis; (2) monitoring
seedling survival and mortality; (3) bird
surveys; and (4) levee and boundary line
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
32208
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices
WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
maintenance. There are no visitor
service opportunities on this unit. As
compared to Overflow NWR, the
Oakwood Unit is passively managed
due to its location 80 miles from the
refuge office.
We would maintain the refuge as
resources allow, and would continue
with four staff members: Refuge
manager, private lands biologist,
biological science technician,
engineering equipment operator, and
part-time biological technician. In
addition, individual volunteers would
continue to provide many valuable
services on the refuge (e.g., monitoring
the migration of Monarch butterflies,
beaver trapping, trail maintenance, and
waterfowl counts).
Alternative B (Enhanced Biological
Management and Visitor Services—
Proposed Alternative)
The proposed alternative was selected
by the Service as the alternative that
best signifies the vision, goals, and
purposes of the refuge. Under
Alternative B, the emphasis would be
on restoring and improving resources
needed for wildlife and habitat
management, while providing
additional public use opportunities.
This alternative would also allow us to
provide the level of law enforcement
protection to adequately meet the needs
of the refuge.
This alternative would focus on
augmenting wildlife and habitat
management to identify, conserve, and
restore populations of wildlife species,
with an emphasis on waterfowl,
migratory birds, and resident wildlife.
This would partially be accomplished
by increased monitoring in order to
assess and adapt management strategies
and actions. Habitat management would
be increased to extend the moist-soil
rotation to at least four or more years to
reach a condition preferred by
marshbirds, to adapt flooding and water
management regimes in the greentree
reservoir and moist-soil units, and to
implement a more intensive moist-soil
management program at the Oakwood
Unit (300 acres/year). Land acquisition
within the approved acquisition
boundary would be based on
importance of the habitat for target
management species and public use
value. The control of nuisance wildlife
populations and invasive plant species
would be more aggressively managed by
implementing a control plan and
systematic removal.
Alternative B would enhance the
refuge’s visitor service opportunities by:
(1) Making hunting opportunities more
accessible for hunters with disabilities;
(2) implementing an environmental
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:27 Jun 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
education program component for the
Complex that utilizes volunteers and
local schools as partners; (3) enhancing
wildlife viewing and photography
opportunities by implementing food
plots in observational areas and
promoting ATV trails as birding trails;
(4) welcoming visitors by establishing a
visitor center or contact station on the
refuge; (5) developing and
implementing a visitor services
management plan; and (6) enhancing
personal interpretive and outreach
opportunities. Volunteer programs and
friends groups also would be expanded
to enhance all aspects of refuge
management and to increase resource
availability.
In addition to the enforcement of all
Federal and State laws applicable to the
refuge to protect archaeological and
historical sites, we would identify and
develop a plan to protect all known
sites. An additional law enforcement
officer would not only provide security
for these resources, but would also
ensure visitor safety and public
compliance with refuge regulations.
In order to accomplish the objectives
for establishing baseline data on refuge
resources, for managing habitats, and for
adequate protection of wildlife and
visitors, additional staff would include:
Park ranger (law enforcement),
biological technician, park ranger
(environmental educator/volunteer
coordinator), and heavy equipment
operator.
and more aggressively monitor, control,
and, where possible, eliminate invasive
plants and nuisance wildlife through
the use of staff and contracted labor.
Land acquisitions within the approved
acquisition boundary would be based on
importance of the habitat for target
management species. Additionally, the
expansion of the Oakwood Unit to
provide a right-of-way to the public
would be evaluated.
Wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental
education and interpretation
opportunities would continue as
currently managed, but only when and
where they would not conflict with
wildlife management activities and
objectives. Additionally, the opening of
the Oakwood Unit to deer hunting
would be evaluated and the staff offices
on the refuge would be updated in lieu
of a new visitor center.
Administration plans would stress the
need for increased maintenance of
existing infrastructure and facilities
benefitting wildlife conservation.
Additional staff would include: Park
ranger (law enforcement), biological
technician, biologist, and heavy
equipment operator. These positions are
needed to accomplish the objectives for
establishing baseline data on resources,
for managing habitats, and for adequate
protection of wildlife and visitors.
Alternative C, Enhanced Biological
Management
Alternative C would provide for the
enhancement and restoration of native
wildlife and plant communities and the
health of those communities. This
would be accomplished by maximizing
wildlife and habitat management, while
maintaining a portion of the current
compatible public use opportunities.
We would continue and enhance
mandated activities for protecting
threatened and endangered species. As
under Alternative B, our focus would be
centralized on augmenting wildlife and
habitat management to identify,
conserve, and restore populations of
wildlife species by increased monitoring
of waterfowl, other migratory birds, and
endemic species in order to assess and
adapt management strategies and
actions. Extensive wildlife, plant, and
habitat inventories would be initiated to
obtain the biological information
needed to implement and monitor
management programs.
Habitat management would be
maximized to provide additional moistsoil management and more intensive
forest management. We would inventory
Next Step
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
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: April 14, 2010.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2010–13511 Filed 6–4–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\07JNN1.SGM
07JNN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 108 (Monday, June 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32205-32208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13511]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2010-N061; 40136-1265-0000-S3]
Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge, Ashley, Bradley, and Union
Counties, AR; Overflow National Wildlife Refuge, Ashley County, AR
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 (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and
environmental assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Felsenthal and Overflow
National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) for public review and comment.
Felsenthal, Overflow, and Pond Creek NWRs are managed as a Complex. A
separate CCP was prepared for Pond Creek NWR. In this Draft CCP/EA, we
describe the
[[Page 32206]]
alternative we propose to use to manage these refuges for the 15 years
following approval of the final CCP.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments
by July 7, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Mr.
Bernie Peterson, via U.S. mail at Felsenthal NWR, P.O. Box 1157,
Crossett, AR 71635, or via e-mail at bernie_peterson@fws.gov.
Alternatively you may download the document from our Internet Site at
https://southeast.fws.gov/planning under ``Draft Documents.'' Submit
comments on the Draft CCP/EA to the above postal address or e-mail
address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mike Dawson, Refuge Planner,
telephone: 601/965-4903, Ext. 20.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Felsenthal and
Overflow NWRs. We started the process through a notice in the Federal
Register on April 2, 2008 (73 FR 17992). For more about the refuges,
their purposes, and our CCP process, please see that notice.
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System
Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to develop a CCP for each national
wildlife refuge. The purpose for developing a CCP is to provide refuge
managers with a 15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and
contributing toward the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System,
consistent with sound principles of fish and wildlife management,
conservation, legal mandates, and our policies. In addition to
outlining broad management direction on conserving wildlife and their
habitats, CCPs identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities
available to the public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education
and interpretation. We will review and update the CCP at least every 15
years in accordance with the Administration Act.
Key issues addressed in the Draft CCP/EA include water management,
forestry management, greentree reservoir management, threatened and
endangered species management, migratory bird and waterfowl nesting
habitats, hunting and fishing program management, invasive species of
plants and animals, refuge access, law enforcement, and environmental
education and interpretation programs.
Felsenthal NWR was established in 1975, as a result of the Corps of
Engineers' Ouachita and Black Rivers Navigation Project.
Geographically, the 65,000-acre refuge is located in what is known as
the Felsenthal Basin, an extensive natural depression that is laced
with a vast complex of sloughs, bayous, and lakes. Overflow NWR was
established in 1980, to protect one of the remaining bottomland
hardwood forests considered vital for maintaining mallard, wood duck,
and other waterfowl populations in the Mississippi Flyway. This 13,000-
acre plus refuge is a wetland complex within the watershed of Overflow
Creek, which flows southerly along the length of the refuge.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative
We developed three separate alternatives for managing the refuges
and chose Alternative B, Enhanced Biological and Visitor Services
Management, as the proposed alternative for each. A full description of
the alternatives is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative
below.
Felsenthal NWR
Alternative A (Current Management, No Action)
Alternative A would continue current management strategies, with
little or no change in resources. We would protect, maintain, and
enhance 65,000 acres of refuge lands, primarily focusing on the needs
of threatened and endangered species, with additional emphasis on the
needs of migratory birds, resident wildlife, and migratory non-game
birds. We would continue mandated activities for protection of
Federally listed species. Control of nuisance wildlife populations and
invasive plant species would be undertaken on an opportunistic basis.
Habitat management efforts would be concentrated on forests; water,
including greentree reservoirs; and open lands. We would continue the
fire management program.
The Complex, made up of Felsenthal, Overflow, and Pond Creek NWRs,
with the support of volunteers and friends, manages an extensive
visitor services program that includes recreation, education, and
outreach programs. We would maintain the current levels of wildlife-
dependent recreation activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation). Felsenthal NWR has an extensive network of public use
facilities including 65 miles of all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails, 8
boat ramps, and 10 primitive campgrounds. Except for two archaeological
sites, all of the refuge is open to visitors. These facilities do not
interfere substantially with or detract from the achievement of
wildlife conservation.
The hunting program would continue to be managed via quota hunts
for white-tailed deer and turkey. Special conditions of the hunt
program would continue to include the use of ATVs along designated
trails. Hunters with disabilities would still be allowed to extend
their use of ATVs approximately 200 yards off of designated trails. The
use of dogs would continue during waterfowl, squirrel, rabbit, raccoon,
and opossum hunts.
About 60 percent of total consumptive public use on the refuge is
fishing. There are eight boat launching facilities with parking areas
on the refuge and three boat launching facilities with parking areas
off the refuge that provide lake and river access. Adequate bank
fishing opportunities would continue to be made available.
We would maintain the refuge as resources allow. We would continue
to manage with the following staff for the Complex: Project leader,
deputy project leader, biologist, forester, park ranger (public use),
fire management specialist, three forestry technicians (fire), two law
enforcement officers, administrative officer, administrative support
assistant, equipment operator, and heavy equipment mechanic.
Alternative B (Enhanced Biological Management and Visitor Services--
Proposed Alternative)
The proposed action was selected by the Service as the alternative
that best signifies the vision, goals, and purposes of the refuge.
Emphasis would be on restoring and improving resources needed for
wildlife and habitat management, while providing additional public use
opportunities. This alternative would also allow us to provide law
enforcement protection that adequately meets the needs of the refuge.
This alternative would focus on augmenting wildlife and habitat
management to identify, conserve, and restore populations of native
fish and wildlife species, with an emphasis on migratory birds and
threatened and endangered species. This would partially be accomplished
by increased monitoring of waterfowl, other
[[Page 32207]]
migratory birds, and endemic species in order to assess and adapt
management strategies and actions. The restoration of the Felsenthal
South Pool would be a vital part of this proposed action and would be
crucial to ensuring healthy and viable ecological communities in the
greentree reservoir. This restoration would require increased water
management control, invasive aquatic vegetation control, reestablishing
water quality standards, and possibly reestablishing populations of
game fish species. The control of nuisance wildlife populations and
invasive plant species would be more aggressively managed by
implementing a control plan and systematic removal.
Alternative B would enhance the visitor services opportunities by:
(1) Improving the quality of fishing opportunities; (2) creating
additional hunting opportunities for youth and hunters with
disabilities where feasible; (3) implementing an environmental
education program component for the Complex that utilizes volunteers
and local schools as partners; (4) enhancing wildlife viewing and
photography opportunities by implementing food plots in observational
areas and evaluating the possibility of implementing an auto tour; (5)
developing and implementing a visitor services management plan; and (6)
enhancing personal interpretive and outreach opportunities. Volunteer
programs and friends groups also would be expanded to enhance all
aspects of refuge management and to increase resource availability.
In addition to the enforcement of all Federal and State laws
applicable to the refuge to protect archaeological and historical
sites, we would identify and develop a plan to protect all known sites.
The allocation of an additional law enforcement officer to the refuge
would not only provide security for these resources, but would also
ensure visitor safety and public compliance with refuge regulations.
Under this alternative, additional staff needed would include: Park
ranger (law enforcement), biological technician, park ranger (visitor
services, environmental educator/volunteer coordinator), heavy
equipment operator, and the conversion of two seasonal fire technicians
to full-time employment. These positions are needed to accomplish
objectives for establishing baseline data on refuge resources, for
managing habitats, and for adequate protection of wildlife and
visitors.
Alternative C (Enhanced Biological Management)
Alternative C would provide for the enhancement and restoration of
native wildlife, fish, and plant communities and the health of those
communities. This would be accomplished by maximizing wildlife and
habitat management, while maintaining a portion of the current
compatible public use opportunities. Threatened and endangered species
would be of primary concern, but the needs of other resident and
migratory wildlife would also be considered. As under Alternative B,
focus would be centralized on augmenting wildlife and habitat
management to identify, conserve, and restore populations of native
fish and wildlife species by increased monitoring of waterfowl, other
migratory birds, and endemic species in order to assess and adapt
management strategies and actions. Extensive wildlife, plant, and
habitat inventories would be initiated to obtain the biological
information needed to implement and monitor management programs.
Habitat management would be increased to provide additional
sanctuary for waterfowl, to provide additional active clusters of red-
cockaded woodpeckers, to promote additional edge as a transition
between habitat types for resident wildlife, and to provide additional
openings for native grasslands. A minor expansion plan would be
evaluated to expand the current acquisition boundary. This would allow
us to expand critical or viable habitat. We would inventory and more
aggressively monitor, control, and, where possible, eliminate invasive
plants and nuisance wildlife through the use of staff and contracted
labor.
Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental
education and interpretation opportunities would continue as currently
managed, but only when and where they would not conflict with wildlife
management activities and objectives. The use of ATVs and campgrounds
would be reduced or would require a special use permit to better
control use. Night fishing and fishing tournaments would be phased out.
Harvest counts for waterfowl hunting would be monitored annually to
determine the species hunted. Outreach would additionally focus on
providing information to the public on flooding cycles within the
greentree reservoir and the importance of periodic drying cycles.
Administration plans would stress the need for increased
maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities benefitting
wildlife conservation. Additional staff under this alternative would
include: Park ranger (law enforcement), biological technician,
biologist, heavy equipment operator, and the conversion of two seasonal
fire technicians to full-time employment to accomplish objectives for
establishing baseline data on refuge resources, for managing habitats,
and for adequate protection of wildlife and visitors.
Overflow NWR
Alternative A (Current Management, No Action)
Alternative A would continue current management strategies, with
little or no change in resources. Under this alternative, we would
protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 13,973 acres of refuge lands
and 2,263 additional acres included in the Oakwood Unit. We would
primarily focus on the needs of migratory waterfowl, with additional
emphasis on the needs of resident wildlife, migratory non-game birds,
and threatened and endangered species. Control of nuisance wildlife
populations and invasive plant species would be undertaken on an
opportunistic basis. Habitat management efforts would be concentrated
on moist-soil management, waterfowl impoundments, forest management,
and crop production. We would continue cooperative farming of 400
acres.
Currently, active habitat management targeting waterfowl includes
impoundments for moist-soil and crop food resource generation in open
habitats, as well as greentree reservoir management in forested areas
to produce complimentary food and behavioral resources. Approximately
600 acres would continue to be managed in rotation fashion in moist-
soil and crops. A stop-log structure on Overflow Creek would continue
to be used to manage a single 4,000-acre greentree reservoir
impoundment during winter months.
Public use opportunities would continue to include hunting (e.g.,
waterfowl, deer, turkey, small game, woodcock, and quail), wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and limited environmental education
activities. A total of 3,000 acres would continue to be protected from
public intrusion during the wintering waterfowl season in areas
designated as waterfowl sanctuaries.
Standard management activities at the Oakwood Unit would continue
to include: (1) Disking of moist-soil units on a rotational basis; (2)
monitoring seedling survival and mortality; (3) bird surveys; and (4)
levee and boundary line
[[Page 32208]]
maintenance. There are no visitor service opportunities on this unit.
As compared to Overflow NWR, the Oakwood Unit is passively managed due
to its location 80 miles from the refuge office.
We would maintain the refuge as resources allow, and would continue
with four staff members: Refuge manager, private lands biologist,
biological science technician, engineering equipment operator, and
part-time biological technician. In addition, individual volunteers
would continue to provide many valuable services on the refuge (e.g.,
monitoring the migration of Monarch butterflies, beaver trapping, trail
maintenance, and waterfowl counts).
Alternative B (Enhanced Biological Management and Visitor Services--
Proposed Alternative)
The proposed alternative was selected by the Service as the
alternative that best signifies the vision, goals, and purposes of the
refuge. Under Alternative B, the emphasis would be on restoring and
improving resources needed for wildlife and habitat management, while
providing additional public use opportunities. This alternative would
also allow us to provide the level of law enforcement protection to
adequately meet the needs of the refuge.
This alternative would focus on augmenting wildlife and habitat
management to identify, conserve, and restore populations of wildlife
species, with an emphasis on waterfowl, migratory birds, and resident
wildlife. This would partially be accomplished by increased monitoring
in order to assess and adapt management strategies and actions. Habitat
management would be increased to extend the moist-soil rotation to at
least four or more years to reach a condition preferred by marshbirds,
to adapt flooding and water management regimes in the greentree
reservoir and moist-soil units, and to implement a more intensive
moist-soil management program at the Oakwood Unit (300 acres/year).
Land acquisition within the approved acquisition boundary would be
based on importance of the habitat for target management species and
public use value. The control of nuisance wildlife populations and
invasive plant species would be more aggressively managed by
implementing a control plan and systematic removal.
Alternative B would enhance the refuge's visitor service
opportunities by: (1) Making hunting opportunities more accessible for
hunters with disabilities; (2) implementing an environmental education
program component for the Complex that utilizes volunteers and local
schools as partners; (3) enhancing wildlife viewing and photography
opportunities by implementing food plots in observational areas and
promoting ATV trails as birding trails; (4) welcoming visitors by
establishing a visitor center or contact station on the refuge; (5)
developing and implementing a visitor services management plan; and (6)
enhancing personal interpretive and outreach opportunities. Volunteer
programs and friends groups also would be expanded to enhance all
aspects of refuge management and to increase resource availability.
In addition to the enforcement of all Federal and State laws
applicable to the refuge to protect archaeological and historical
sites, we would identify and develop a plan to protect all known sites.
An additional law enforcement officer would not only provide security
for these resources, but would also ensure visitor safety and public
compliance with refuge regulations.
In order to accomplish the objectives for establishing baseline
data on refuge resources, for managing habitats, and for adequate
protection of wildlife and visitors, additional staff would include:
Park ranger (law enforcement), biological technician, park ranger
(environmental educator/volunteer coordinator), and heavy equipment
operator.
Alternative C, Enhanced Biological Management
Alternative C would provide for the enhancement and restoration of
native wildlife and plant communities and the health of those
communities. This would be accomplished by maximizing wildlife and
habitat management, while maintaining a portion of the current
compatible public use opportunities. We would continue and enhance
mandated activities for protecting threatened and endangered species.
As under Alternative B, our focus would be centralized on augmenting
wildlife and habitat management to identify, conserve, and restore
populations of wildlife species by increased monitoring of waterfowl,
other migratory birds, and endemic species in order to assess and adapt
management strategies and actions. Extensive wildlife, plant, and
habitat inventories would be initiated to obtain the biological
information needed to implement and monitor management programs.
Habitat management would be maximized to provide additional moist-
soil management and more intensive forest management. We would
inventory and more aggressively monitor, control, and, where possible,
eliminate invasive plants and nuisance wildlife through the use of
staff and contracted labor. Land acquisitions within the approved
acquisition boundary would be based on importance of the habitat for
target management species. Additionally, the expansion of the Oakwood
Unit to provide a right-of-way to the public would be evaluated.
Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental
education and interpretation opportunities would continue as currently
managed, but only when and where they would not conflict with wildlife
management activities and objectives. Additionally, the opening of the
Oakwood Unit to deer hunting would be evaluated and the staff offices
on the refuge would be updated in lieu of a new visitor center.
Administration plans would stress the need for increased
maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities benefitting
wildlife conservation. Additional staff would include: Park ranger (law
enforcement), biological technician, biologist, and heavy equipment
operator. These positions are needed to accomplish the objectives for
establishing baseline data on resources, for managing habitats, and for
adequate protection of wildlife and visitors.
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: April 14, 2010.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-13511 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
