White River National Wildlife Refuge, AR; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, 63945-63949 [2011-26650]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 199 / Friday, October 14, 2011 / Notices
vehicle or construction equipment, ash
placement, waste disposal, and
harassment due to the presence of
people and equipment.
Duke proposes to continue to manage
its property to protect least terns. In
addition, Duke has committed to
monitor the result of its activities and
the effect on the population of least
terns at Gibson Generating Station and
the surrounding state and Federal lands.
Environmental Review
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
In compliance with National
Environmental Protection Act (NEPA)
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the Service has
made an initial determination that the
HCP meets the criteria for a Low Effect
HCP and categorical exclusion under
NEPA. As such, activities in this HCP
and Permit are categorically excluded
from the requirement to prepare an
environmental assessment or
environmental impact statement (516
DM 6 Appendix 1, 1.4C(1)). The NEPA
determination is available for review by
all interested parties.
Dated: September 28, 2011.
Lynn Lewis,
Assistant Regional Director, Ecological
Services, Region 3.
[FR Doc. 2011–26593 Filed 10–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R4–R–2011–N138; 40136–1265–0000–
S3]
White River National Wildlife Refuge,
AR; Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
Notice of availability; request
for comments.
ACTION:
We, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive
Public Comments
conservation plan and environmental
We seek public review and comments assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for White
River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
on this permit application. Please refer
in Desha, Monroe, Phillips, and
to permit number TE016724 when you
Arkansas Counties, Arkansas, for public
submit comments. The Habitat
review and comment. In this Draft CCP/
Conservation Plan, Incidental Take
EA, we describe the alternative we
Permit renewal application, and NEPA
propose to use to manage this refuge for
determination are available for public
the 15 years following approval of the
inspection on the Midwest Region
website at: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/ final CCP.
endangered/permits/hcp/r3hcps.html.
DATES: To ensure consideration, we
In addition, the documents are available must receive your written comments by
for public inspection by appointment
November 14, 2011.
during normal business hours (8 a.m.–
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of
4:30 p.m.) at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Mr.
Service, Midwest Regional Office, 5600
Dennis Sharp, via U.S. mail at White
American Blvd., West, 10th Floor,
River NWR, P.O. Box 205, St. Charles,
Bloomington, MN 55437–1458, (612/
AR 72140, or via e-mail at
713–5350) and at the U.S. Fish and
dennis_sharp@fws.gov. Alternatively,
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services
you may download the document from
Field Office, 620 South Walker Street,
Bloomington, IN 47403 (812/334–4261). our Internet Site at https://www.fws.gov/
southeast/planning/under ‘‘Draft
Comments and materials we receive
Documents.’’ Submit comments on the
are available for public inspection, by
Draft CCP/EA to the above postal
appointment, during normal business
address or e-mail address.
hours at the address shown in the
ADDRESSES section. Before including
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
your address, phone number, e-mail
Mike Dawson, at (601) 955–1518
address, or other personal identifying
(telephone).
information in your comment, you
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
should be aware that your entire
comment—including your personal
Introduction
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
With this notice, we continue the CCP
you can ask us in your comment to
process for White River NWR. We
withhold your personal identifying
started the process through a Federal
information from public review, we
Register notice on January 21, 2009 (74
cannot guarantee that we will be able to FR 3628). Please see that notice for more
do so.
about the refuge and its purposes.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Oct 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63945
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C.
668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), 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
Administration Act.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our
Proposed Alternative
We developed three alternatives (A, B,
and C) 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)
Under Alternative A, current
management direction would continue
at present levels. We would continue to
support existing migratory waterfowl
numbers and habitat acreage in an
attempt to meet or exceed the foraging
habitat objectives of the Lower
Mississippi Valley Joint Venture and the
North American Waterfowl Management
Plan. We would continue to provide
functional waterfowl refuge/sanctuary
areas throughout the refuge, comprising
at least 60 percent of its area. We would
continue to provide quality wood duck
nesting and brood-rearing habitat in
bottomland hardwoods, cypress
swamps, and scrub/shrub habitats. If
time permits, we would conduct
banding to support objectives of the
Mississippi Flyway Council.
We would provide incidental benefits
for shorebirds, but with no active
management on their behalf. Likewise,
there would be no active habitat
management for marsh birds, but we
would continue to provide habitat for
them in shallow-water areas and moist-
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
63946
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 199 / Friday, October 14, 2011 / Notices
soil units. There would be no active
habitat management for wading birds,
but we would continue to provide
habitat for breeding and wintering
colonial waterbirds in shallow-water
areas and forested wetlands.
We would continue to provide both
managed and unmanaged forest habitat,
to provide a diversity of forest
conditions that support forest-breeding
birds designated as high priority in the
Mississippi Alluvial Valley’s Bird
Conservation Region 26, through forest
restoration on newly acquired parcels
and silvicultural management of some
existing forested tracts. We would
continue to provide protection for
threatened and endangered species
through research, survey, recovery,
conservation, and management
programs.
There would be no specific
management of white-tailed deer, but
active management of forested habitats
would continue, as would management
of early succession open lands and
croplands that benefit deer. Our aim
would be to maintain a healthy deer
herd consistent with long-term habitat
capability. We would collect and
analyze deer harvest data, conduct
periodic herd health checks, and
provide quality recreational
opportunities for deer hunters.
There would be no specific
management of turkeys; however, active
habitat management would continue
that incidentally results in enhanced
habitat for turkeys and provides quality
recreational opportunities. This
alternative would maintain, restore, and
enhance a variety of habitats suitable for
use by black bears. There would be no
active management for furbearers, other
than controlling nuisance animals when
necessary.
We would continue active habitat
management to provide diverse habitats
(e.g., early succession openland,
agriculture, and bottomland forest) that
supports healthy populations of resident
small game, thus providing quality
recreational activities for hunters of
small game. We would continue active
habitat management that provides a
diversity of habitats and supports a
healthy, diverse, and viable resident bat
population. There would continue to be
no active management for non-game
mammals or their habitats, although
non-game mammals and their habitats
occur throughout the refuge. We would
continue to manage and enhance habitat
for a diverse assemblage of reptile and
amphibian species. We would maintain
aquatic habitat for a diverse assemblage
of fish species, particularly those
recognized as species of special concern
by State and/or Federal agencies. We
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Oct 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
would also provide quality fishing
opportunities on the refuge.
We would continue to provide a
complex of habitat conditions through
integrated open land rotation
management, to meet the needs of
migratory birds, including migratory
waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds,
and secretive marsh birds. Through
active forest management, we would
aim to achieve desired forest conditions
on 17 percent of the refuge, to protect,
manage, and restore the values and
functions of forestland to sustain the
biological needs of native wildlife and
migratory birds.
Hydrology would continue to be
altered by both off-refuge (i.e., upstream
within the White River watershed) and
on-refuge manipulations that result in
an unnatural hydrograph. We would
continue to operate functioning water
control structures and keep nonfunctioning water control structures
inactive. We would continue limited
efforts through the use of Best
Management Practices recommended by
the Arkansas Forestry Commission in
refuge management and operations, to
reduce levels of stream impairment from
turbidity, siltation, and pollution.
We would continue to conduct
incidental inventorying, monitoring,
and researching, but without the
guidance and priorities of an
Inventorying and Monitoring Plan.
Similarly, there would be no active,
systematic efforts to monitor or mitigate
global climate change.
We would continue to work with
partners to minimize impacts of threats
to natural and cultural resources. We
would follow standard Service protocol
and procedures according to Section
106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
We would continue opportunistic
control of nuisance and exotic terrestrial
animal species, such as feral hogs,
nutria, and beaver; exotic and invasive
terrestrial and aquatic plant species; and
nuisance and exotic aquatic animal
species, such as Asian carp, northern
snakeheads, zebra mussels, and Asian
clams.
We would continue to provide a
permit to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), allowing the
deposition of nonbeneficial dredge
material at two sites in the lower White
River. We would work cooperatively
with the COE to develop a long-term
dredge spoil disposal alternative that is
compatible with refuge purposes.
Grazing would continue to be allowed
along the White River Drainage
District’s right-of-way over Service
properties. Haying would be allowed
after July 1 each year on the drainage
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
district’s right-of-way over Service
properties. We would continue to
acquire key parcels within the approved
acquisition boundary. We would
continue to promote communication,
cooperation, and partnerships between
other agencies, land managers, and
private citizens to minimize impacts
from external threats to the functions
and values of the refuge’s wetland
ecosystems.
We would conduct maintenance on
roads, trails, boat ramps, and other
public use infrastructure. We would
continue to provide existing hunting
opportunities that allow for quality
public recreation and that are
compatible with the purposes for which
the refuge was established. We would
continue to provide existing fishing,
wildlife observation, and environmental
education and outreach programs.
Existing interpretive facilities, materials,
and programs would continue,
including the summer campfire
programs.
We would continue to provide and
maintain approximately 90 miles of
graveled roads for public access and 400
miles of dirt roads/trails for forest
management and all-terrain vehicle use.
We would continue to allow primitive
camping associated with wildlifedependent activities on about 44,000
acres and 24 maintained campgrounds.
We would also continue to allow small
boats to be left along the small isolated
lakes year-round. Existing permitted
houseboats would continue being
gradually eliminated, according to the
Houseboat Management Plan. We would
also document non-permitted
houseboats.
We would maintain the existing staff
of 14 full-time employees. We would
maintain existing facilities,
infrastructure, and equipment necessary
to perform habitat management,
restoration, and improvement on the
refuge. We would maintain essential
infrastructure, such as roads, levees, and
water control structures. Furthermore,
we would maintain the volunteer
program and continue to support the
friends group and other cooperative
partnerships.
Alternative B—Minimal Resource and
Public Use Management
The thrust of Alternative B is reduced
management of resources and public
use. This alternative would still pursue
the refuge goals, but it would approach
them from the perspective of custodial
stewardship, or minimal active
management. The Service would be a
good custodian of the landscape and the
White River ecosystem without
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 199 / Friday, October 14, 2011 / Notices
attempting to intervene extensively in
existing ecosystem processes.
With regard to migratory bird
populations, Alternative B would
eliminate all active management and
habitat manipulation, allowing open
lands and forested habitats to function
and progress through habitat succession.
Concerning migratory bird sanctuary,
however, Alternative B would be the
same as Alternative A. Functional
waterfowl refuge/sanctuary areas would
continue to be provided, comprising at
least 60 percent of the refuge.
We would eliminate wood duck
banding activities and cease active
habitat management for wood ducks.
With respect to shorebirds, we would
also eliminate active management of
moist-soil units and agricultural fields,
allowing natural succession to occur.
Active management of shallow-water
areas, impoundments, and forested
wetlands on behalf of marsh birds,
colonial nesting waterbirds, and wading
birds would cease, and natural
succession would occur on those
habitats. We would eliminate active
management of forest stands for the
benefit of forest breeding birds and
allow natural succession to proceed on
all abandoned croplands, moist-soil
units, and scrub/shrub habitats. We
would eliminate active management of
endangered and other listed species and
operate the refuge without knowing the
extent or number of these species
occurring on the refuge.
Hunting of game animals, such as
deer, wild turkey, and bear, would
continue on the refuge, but Alternative
B would halt active habitat management
to provide enhanced habitat. All active
forest and open land management and
collection of biological data about
white-tailed deer would cease, but we
would continue to use deer hunting to
regulate population levels in support of
a healthy herd consistent with long-term
habitat capability. This alternative
would still aim to provide quality
recreational opportunities for deer
hunters. With regard to wild turkey, we
would stop all active habitat
management and allow forest
succession to occur on all lands, which
would initially increase nesting habitat.
Eventually, however, nesting habitat
would be lost due to forest succession.
Stopping all active habitat management
and allowing forest succession to occur
uninterrupted would incidentally
support black bears.
Without control of nuisance animals,
furbearer populations would be allowed
to fluctuate naturally. Small game and
non-game mammals would benefit if all
active habitat management stopped and
forest succession was allowed to occur.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Oct 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
Natural succession would form wooded
and wetland habitats that would
support sustainable populations of most
bat species. Stopping all active habitat
management and allowing forest
succession would be the preferred
approach to supporting a diverse
assemblage of reptiles and amphibians.
Additionally, riverine and floodplain
aquatic habitat would function without
intervention under this alternative.
We would phase out active refuge
management and habitat manipulation
of open lands, gradually allowing them
to undergo natural succession, except
for levees and rights-of-way, which
must be kept open per interagency
agreements. We would also eliminate
active forest management, allowing
natural succession and processes to
achieve desired forest conditions on 5
percent of the refuge, to protect and
restore the values and functions of the
refuge’s forestland. This would help
sustain the biological needs of native
wildlife and migratory birds.
We would allow aquatic habitats to
function without management practices.
Hydrology under Alternative B would
be the same as under Alternative A. The
hydrology of the White River and its
tributaries, sloughs, and lakes would
continue to be altered both by off-refuge
and on-refuge manipulations that result
in an unnatural hydrograph. Nuisance
beaver control and associated habitat
impacts would be eliminated, resulting
in a continual lose of forested habitat.
All active water management would be
eliminated, and we would allow habitat
succession to occur on areas with water
control capabilities.
We would eliminate all active open
land and forested habitat management
on the refuge. This may reduce erosion
from adjacent lands through an increase
in the acreage of undisturbed forested
riparian habitat. All inventorying and
monitoring on the refuge would cease.
Under Alternative B, our approach to
climate change would be the same as
under Alternative A—there would be no
active, systematic efforts to monitor or
mitigate global climate change.
We would continue to work with
partners to minimize impacts to the
refuge’s natural and cultural resources.
Alternative B would pursue this goal
through a variety of means and
measures. Cultural resources would be
protected through minimal
implementation of standard Service
protocol and procedures according to
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
We would identify and track
occurrences of invasive terrestrial and
aquatic animals and plants, but would
make no efforts to control them.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
63947
Treatment of dredge spoil sites would
be the same as under Alternative A.
Grazing and haying would also be dealt
with the same as under Alternative A.
With regard to refuge land
acquisition, we would continue to
acquire key parcels within the approved
acquisition boundary. We would also
continue to promote communication,
cooperation, and partnerships between
other agencies, land managers, and
private citizens, to minimize impacts
from external threats to the refuge’s
wetland ecosystems.
With regard to visitor services and
public use management, Alternative B is
the same as Alternative A, except that
it would discontinue maintenance of
roads, trails, boat ramps, and other
public use infrastructure that
accommodates priority public uses.
Public uses and visitation would still be
allowed, but we would no longer
provide support and maintain facilities.
Hunting would be permitted and
encouraged, but we would cease
maintenance of the facilities and
infrastructure that support hunting.
Commercial duck guiding on the refuge
would be eliminated. The other priority
public uses—fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and
interpretation—would all be allowed
under Alternative B, except that
maintenance of facilities and
infrastructure that support these
activities would be discontinued.
Existing access roads and trails would
not be maintained. Small boats would
no longer be allowed to remain
overnight along the refuge’s isolated
lakes. We would also cease maintenance
of 24 primitive campgrounds and
eliminate camping. We would continue
to gradually eliminate existing
permitted houseboats according to the
Houseboat Management Plan. We would
also document non-permitted
houseboats, the same as under
Alternative A.
We would reduce the staff to eight by
eliminating the following positions: one
assistant refuge manager, two foresters,
one forestry technician, and one
equipment operator. The remaining
eight employees should be sufficient to
manage the refuge on a custodial basis.
We would maintain a minimal
inventory of facilities, infrastructure,
and equipment needed for basic
resource management and only tasks
required by law, regulation, or policy,
which include human safety,
endangered species management, and
law enforcement, would be conducted.
We would reduce involvement with
volunteers to a seasonal basis as needed.
A reduction in staff could diminish
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
63948
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 199 / Friday, October 14, 2011 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
support for the friends group and other
cooperative partnerships.
Alternative C—Enhanced Resource and
Public Use Management (Proposed
Alternative)
Alternative C, our proposed
alternative, would continue to support
migratory waterfowl populations, with a
focus on providing wetland habitat to
wintering ducks and breeding wood
ducks. It would also maintain the
waterfowl sanctuary and explore
opportunities to improve the spatial
distribution of the refuge’s waterfowl
sanctuaries to help meet its waterfowl
objectives. We would increase wood
duck nesting and brood-rearing habitat,
through land acquisition and conduct
banding activities, in an attempt to band
63 wood ducks annually. Doing this
would support the objectives of the
Mississippi Flyway Council. To
improve banding efficiency, we would
provide and maintain a limited number
of strategically placed wood duck boxes
in areas where banding is to occur.
Through managing the timing of lake
draw-downs, we would provide fall
migration habitat for shorebirds from
July through October, to contribute to
the objectives set forth in the U.S.
Shorebird Conservation Plan and the
Lower Mississippi Valley/West Gulf
Coastal Plain Shorebird Management
Plan. We would also provide highquality habitat for breeding and
migrating marsh birds, in conjunction
with meeting waterfowl habitat
requirements where possible, and
monitor results of management actions.
Alternative C would provide critical
habitats for long-legged wading birds
and protect all rookery sites from
disturbance from March to August (i.e.,
their breeding season) to contribute to
objectives set forth in the North
American Waterbird Conservation Plan.
Forest breeding birds are also a
priority of Alternative C. With the aid of
additional biological and forestry
specialists to assist with planning,
implementing, and monitoring, we
would improve, intensify, and expand
forest management for the enhanced
benefit of high-priority forest breeding
birds.
With regard to conserving threatened
and endangered species and species of
concern, Alternative C would be the
same as Alternative A—the refuge
would continue to support their
protection and enhancement.
Additionally, this alternative would
attempt to restore habitats for listed
species.
White-tailed deer would be managed
the same as under Alternative A, except
that we would use harvest and health
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Oct 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
check data to adjust hunting seasons if
and when necessary. Likewise with
wild turkey management, Alternative C
would be identical to Alternative A,
except that we would monitor turkey
population status with the aid of
additional staff. Also with the aid of
additional staff, we propose to intensify
management programs to provide
enhanced habitat conditions that would
support a healthy and sustainable black
bear population and monitor bear
occurrence. Once again we would apply
adaptive management, and results
would be used to adjust future
management decisions. Furbearer
management would be the same as
under Alternative A, except that
additional opportunities would be
identified to expand programs for
controlling nuisance animals.
Small game management would also
be identical to Alternative A in that we
would continue active habitat
management to provide diverse habitats,
such as early succession openland,
agriculture, and bottomland forest that
support healthy populations of resident
small game, and provide quality
recreational activities. Bat management
would also be the same as under
Alternative A, except that with the aid
of additional staff we could perform
periodic bat surveys to document
occurrence and habitat use.
Under Alternative C, resident nongame mammals and a diverse
assemblage of reptiles and amphibians
would benefit from enhanced habitat
management; those animals and natural
communities designated as Elements of
Special Concern by the Arkansas
Natural Heritage Commission would
receive particular emphasis in
management. Likewise, we would
maintain and enhance aquatic habitat
for a rich diversity of fishes, particularly
those recognized as species of special
concern by State and/or Federal
agencies.
With regard to open lands under
passive management (e.g., levees, fallow
fields, and rights-of-way), Alternative C
would maintain these to provide a
complex of habitat types primarily
suited to benefit migratory birds and
resident wildlife. We would also
explore opportunities to increase the
efficiency of current open lands and
maintain or increase the acreage of
habitat to be included in integrated
open land management. We would
monitor vegetation and wildlife
responses to treatment and we would
implement adaptive management.
We would work with the White River
Drainage District to eliminate grazing
activities on the levee based on the
compatibility considerations (i.e.,
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
providing habitat that negatively
impacts neotropical bird species), and
instead mow or hay outside of the
March to August breeding dates. This
would assure that woody encroachment
on the levees is minimized. Optimal
management would establish conditions
in which grass and herbaceous growth
are not inhibited or removed between
March and August annually. To avoid
disruption of the nesting season of
neotropical migratory songbirds in the
adjacent refuge forest and to prevent
creating suitable brown-headed cowbird
habitat during the nesting season,
mowing/haying will not be allowed
until August 15.
With respect to actively managed
open lands, Alternative C would expand
and intensify management to provide a
complex of habitat types primarily
suited to benefit migratory birds. We
would explore opportunities to increase
efficiency of current open lands and
maintain or increase the acreage of
habitat to be included in integrated
open land management. In addition, we
would monitor vegetation and wildlife
responses to treatment and implement
adaptive management.
Through active forest management,
we would aim to achieve desired forest
conditions on 40 percent of the refuge,
to protect, manage, and restore the
values and functions of the forestland in
order to sustain the biological needs of
native wildlife and migratory birds.
Alternative C would improve and
restore the aquatic habitats of lakes,
sloughs, and bayous. We would restore
and/or mimic hydrologic patterns (i.e.,
the timing, frequency, duration, and
extent of flooding) and the habitats
associated with particular hydrologic
characteristics on the refuge, and
cooperate in interagency efforts to
restore and/or mimic a more natural
hydrograph on the White River. We
would also endeavor to improve the
functionality of water control structures
and create more natural water regimes,
while providing important resources for
wetland-dependent wildlife.
We would establish and implement
management actions to protect and
improve water quality, while not
interfering with activities associated
with habitat management. We would
prepare, maintain, and start to
implement an inventorying and
monitoring plan and use the results to
implement adaptive management.
Unlike alternatives A and B, Alternative
C would address climate change by
designing and beginning to implement
long-term monitoring, with the potential
to track and assess changes due to global
climate change. As possible, we would
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 199 / Friday, October 14, 2011 / Notices
coordinate these efforts with larger
regional monitoring efforts.
Under Alternative C, we would
develop and begin to implement a
Cultural Resources Management Plan.
Until such time as the plan is complete,
we would follow standard Service
protocol and procedures according to
Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
With regard to invasive terrestrial
animals, we would intensify and
expand prevention and control
programs, including development of a
database to track occurrences and
control measures. We would develop
and implement a Nuisance Animal
Management Plan, to detail objectives
and methods for nuisance animal
control. We would also develop a Rapid
Response and Prevention Plan for
invasive aquatic animals. Similarly, for
invasive plant species, we would
develop and implement an Invasive
Plants Plan for coordinated control
efforts when infestations are
encountered, along with a database to
systematically track invasive plant
occurrences and treatments.
Concerning dredge disposal sites, we
would complete the Partnering
Agreement with the COE that seeks a
long-term dredge spoil disposal
alternative. We would also complete a
compatibility determination for the
proposed disposal alternative. Should
the proposed alternative be found not
compatible, the dredge spoil deposition
on refuge sites would be eliminated as
expeditiously as practicable.
Working with partners, we would
acquire priority lands within or adjacent
to the approved acquisition boundary
from willing sellers that would enhance
the conservation values of the refuge;
over the long term, we would consider
acquisition boundary expansion to
ensure the protection of bottomland
hardwood habitats and to enhance
landscape conservation.
Alternative C would promote,
manage, and improve appropriate and
compatible public uses with the
recruitment of additional visitor service
staff, preparation of a Visitor Services
Plan, and better access and improved
facilities. We would develop a new
Hunt Plan to improve hunting
opportunities, while ensuring safe,
compatible, and quality experiences.
Efforts would be made to develop more
consistent hunting seasons and
regulations on the north and south units
of the refuge. Public use impacts would
be monitored and adjustments would be
made, as needed, to protect resources.
Under Alternative C, we would
modify the guide program to provide
fair and equitable hunting opportunities
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 Oct 13, 2011
Jkt 226001
that foster a safe, ethical hunting
experience, reduce the commercial
guide’s ability to monopolize the most
easily accessible quality hunting sites,
and minimize conflicts between nonguided hunters and hunting guides. We
would reduce the number of
commercial duck guiding permits from
17 to 5, and eliminate the availability of
10 additional guiding permits during
specified flood conditions.
We would develop a new Fishing
Plan to improve fishing opportunities,
while ensuring safe, compatible, and
quality experiences. We would strive to
improve and expand wildlife
observation and photography
opportunities and environmental
education, outreach, and interpretive
opportunities, while ensuring safe,
compatible, and quality experiences. We
would recruit additional visitor services
staff to develop a series of standard
environmental education programs for
visiting school groups and training for
teacher-led discovery field trips. For
interpretation purposes, we would
develop and install a display that
explains the forest management program
and desired forest conditions. We would
develop forest demonstration plots and
interpretive panels at wildlife drive
pullouts.
We would maintain existing public
access in a safe and environmentally
appropriate manner, to support wildlifedependent priority public uses. We
would reduce the number of miles of
tertiary all-terrain vehicle trails by 25
percent and would develop an Access
Plan. In addition, we would utilize
seasonal closures, as necessary, to
minimize resource impacts and to
ensure the quantity and quality of
access.
We would reduce the camping
program and encourage the use of
nearby private campgrounds. The
number of campgrounds would be
reduced and some campgrounds would
only be open to accommodate peak-use
periods associated with quota deer
hunts. Camping would be restricted to
designated areas and the minimal area
necessary to meet priority public use
needs. We would promote the use of
surrounding private campgrounds by
refuge users and encourage the
development of additional private
campground sites.
We would continue to gradually
eliminate existing permitted houseboats
according to the Houseboat Management
Plan and prohibit the attachment of
non-permitted houseboats to refuge
property. We would work with other
State and Federal agencies to ensure all
remaining houseboats are in compliance
with marine sanitation regulations.
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
63949
As budgetary resources become
available, we would strategically add 14
staff positions that would improve the
capacity and capability of the refuge to
achieve its legislated purposes and
accomplish management goals and
objectives. Like Alternative A,
Alternative C would maintain existing
facilities, infrastructure, and equipment
necessary to perform habitat
management, restoration, and
improvements on the refuge, in addition
to maintaining essential infrastructure,
such as roads, levees, and water control
structures. In addition to this,
Alternative C, with the aid of additional
staff and equipment, would improve
facilities and infrastructure that
facilitate management programs for trust
species and visitor services, and
maintain or improve access for
management purposes and visitor use.
We would also expand the volunteer
program and cooperate with the friends
group and other cooperative
partnerships.
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: August 3, 2011.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2011–26650 Filed 10–13–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
E:\FR\FM\14OCN1.SGM
14OCN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63945-63949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26650]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2011-N138; 40136-1265-0000-S3]
White River National Wildlife Refuge, AR; Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; 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 White River National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Desha, Monroe, Phillips, and Arkansas
Counties, Arkansas, 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 November 14, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Mr.
Dennis Sharp, via U.S. mail at White River NWR, P.O. Box 205, St.
Charles, AR 72140, or via e-mail at dennis_sharp@fws.gov.
Alternatively, you may download the document from our Internet Site at
https://www.fws.gov/southeast/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, at (601) 955-1518
(telephone).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for White River NWR.
We started the process through a Federal Register notice on January 21,
2009 (74 FR 3628). Please see that notice for more about the refuge and
its purposes.
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), 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 Administration
Act.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative
We developed three alternatives (A, B, and C) 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)
Under Alternative A, current management direction would continue at
present levels. We would continue to support existing migratory
waterfowl numbers and habitat acreage in an attempt to meet or exceed
the foraging habitat objectives of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint
Venture and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. We would
continue to provide functional waterfowl refuge/sanctuary areas
throughout the refuge, comprising at least 60 percent of its area. We
would continue to provide quality wood duck nesting and brood-rearing
habitat in bottomland hardwoods, cypress swamps, and scrub/shrub
habitats. If time permits, we would conduct banding to support
objectives of the Mississippi Flyway Council.
We would provide incidental benefits for shorebirds, but with no
active management on their behalf. Likewise, there would be no active
habitat management for marsh birds, but we would continue to provide
habitat for them in shallow-water areas and moist-
[[Page 63946]]
soil units. There would be no active habitat management for wading
birds, but we would continue to provide habitat for breeding and
wintering colonial waterbirds in shallow-water areas and forested
wetlands.
We would continue to provide both managed and unmanaged forest
habitat, to provide a diversity of forest conditions that support
forest-breeding birds designated as high priority in the Mississippi
Alluvial Valley's Bird Conservation Region 26, through forest
restoration on newly acquired parcels and silvicultural management of
some existing forested tracts. We would continue to provide protection
for threatened and endangered species through research, survey,
recovery, conservation, and management programs.
There would be no specific management of white-tailed deer, but
active management of forested habitats would continue, as would
management of early succession open lands and croplands that benefit
deer. Our aim would be to maintain a healthy deer herd consistent with
long-term habitat capability. We would collect and analyze deer harvest
data, conduct periodic herd health checks, and provide quality
recreational opportunities for deer hunters.
There would be no specific management of turkeys; however, active
habitat management would continue that incidentally results in enhanced
habitat for turkeys and provides quality recreational opportunities.
This alternative would maintain, restore, and enhance a variety of
habitats suitable for use by black bears. There would be no active
management for furbearers, other than controlling nuisance animals when
necessary.
We would continue active habitat management to provide diverse
habitats (e.g., early succession openland, agriculture, and bottomland
forest) that supports healthy populations of resident small game, thus
providing quality recreational activities for hunters of small game. We
would continue active habitat management that provides a diversity of
habitats and supports a healthy, diverse, and viable resident bat
population. There would continue to be no active management for non-
game mammals or their habitats, although non-game mammals and their
habitats occur throughout the refuge. We would continue to manage and
enhance habitat for a diverse assemblage of reptile and amphibian
species. We would maintain aquatic habitat for a diverse assemblage of
fish species, particularly those recognized as species of special
concern by State and/or Federal agencies. We would also provide quality
fishing opportunities on the refuge.
We would continue to provide a complex of habitat conditions
through integrated open land rotation management, to meet the needs of
migratory birds, including migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading
birds, and secretive marsh birds. Through active forest management, we
would aim to achieve desired forest conditions on 17 percent of the
refuge, to protect, manage, and restore the values and functions of
forestland to sustain the biological needs of native wildlife and
migratory birds.
Hydrology would continue to be altered by both off-refuge (i.e.,
upstream within the White River watershed) and on-refuge manipulations
that result in an unnatural hydrograph. We would continue to operate
functioning water control structures and keep non-functioning water
control structures inactive. We would continue limited efforts through
the use of Best Management Practices recommended by the Arkansas
Forestry Commission in refuge management and operations, to reduce
levels of stream impairment from turbidity, siltation, and pollution.
We would continue to conduct incidental inventorying, monitoring,
and researching, but without the guidance and priorities of an
Inventorying and Monitoring Plan. Similarly, there would be no active,
systematic efforts to monitor or mitigate global climate change.
We would continue to work with partners to minimize impacts of
threats to natural and cultural resources. We would follow standard
Service protocol and procedures according to Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act.
We would continue opportunistic control of nuisance and exotic
terrestrial animal species, such as feral hogs, nutria, and beaver;
exotic and invasive terrestrial and aquatic plant species; and nuisance
and exotic aquatic animal species, such as Asian carp, northern
snakeheads, zebra mussels, and Asian clams.
We would continue to provide a permit to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), allowing the deposition of nonbeneficial dredge
material at two sites in the lower White River. We would work
cooperatively with the COE to develop a long-term dredge spoil disposal
alternative that is compatible with refuge purposes. Grazing would
continue to be allowed along the White River Drainage District's right-
of-way over Service properties. Haying would be allowed after July 1
each year on the drainage district's right-of-way over Service
properties. We would continue to acquire key parcels within the
approved acquisition boundary. We would continue to promote
communication, cooperation, and partnerships between other agencies,
land managers, and private citizens to minimize impacts from external
threats to the functions and values of the refuge's wetland ecosystems.
We would conduct maintenance on roads, trails, boat ramps, and
other public use infrastructure. We would continue to provide existing
hunting opportunities that allow for quality public recreation and that
are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established.
We would continue to provide existing fishing, wildlife observation,
and environmental education and outreach programs. Existing
interpretive facilities, materials, and programs would continue,
including the summer campfire programs.
We would continue to provide and maintain approximately 90 miles of
graveled roads for public access and 400 miles of dirt roads/trails for
forest management and all-terrain vehicle use. We would continue to
allow primitive camping associated with wildlife-dependent activities
on about 44,000 acres and 24 maintained campgrounds. We would also
continue to allow small boats to be left along the small isolated lakes
year-round. Existing permitted houseboats would continue being
gradually eliminated, according to the Houseboat Management Plan. We
would also document non-permitted houseboats.
We would maintain the existing staff of 14 full-time employees. We
would maintain existing facilities, infrastructure, and equipment
necessary to perform habitat management, restoration, and improvement
on the refuge. We would maintain essential infrastructure, such as
roads, levees, and water control structures. Furthermore, we would
maintain the volunteer program and continue to support the friends
group and other cooperative partnerships.
Alternative B--Minimal Resource and Public Use Management
The thrust of Alternative B is reduced management of resources and
public use. This alternative would still pursue the refuge goals, but
it would approach them from the perspective of custodial stewardship,
or minimal active management. The Service would be a good custodian of
the landscape and the White River ecosystem without
[[Page 63947]]
attempting to intervene extensively in existing ecosystem processes.
With regard to migratory bird populations, Alternative B would
eliminate all active management and habitat manipulation, allowing open
lands and forested habitats to function and progress through habitat
succession. Concerning migratory bird sanctuary, however, Alternative B
would be the same as Alternative A. Functional waterfowl refuge/
sanctuary areas would continue to be provided, comprising at least 60
percent of the refuge.
We would eliminate wood duck banding activities and cease active
habitat management for wood ducks. With respect to shorebirds, we would
also eliminate active management of moist-soil units and agricultural
fields, allowing natural succession to occur. Active management of
shallow-water areas, impoundments, and forested wetlands on behalf of
marsh birds, colonial nesting waterbirds, and wading birds would cease,
and natural succession would occur on those habitats. We would
eliminate active management of forest stands for the benefit of forest
breeding birds and allow natural succession to proceed on all abandoned
croplands, moist-soil units, and scrub/shrub habitats. We would
eliminate active management of endangered and other listed species and
operate the refuge without knowing the extent or number of these
species occurring on the refuge.
Hunting of game animals, such as deer, wild turkey, and bear, would
continue on the refuge, but Alternative B would halt active habitat
management to provide enhanced habitat. All active forest and open land
management and collection of biological data about white-tailed deer
would cease, but we would continue to use deer hunting to regulate
population levels in support of a healthy herd consistent with long-
term habitat capability. This alternative would still aim to provide
quality recreational opportunities for deer hunters. With regard to
wild turkey, we would stop all active habitat management and allow
forest succession to occur on all lands, which would initially increase
nesting habitat. Eventually, however, nesting habitat would be lost due
to forest succession. Stopping all active habitat management and
allowing forest succession to occur uninterrupted would incidentally
support black bears.
Without control of nuisance animals, furbearer populations would be
allowed to fluctuate naturally. Small game and non-game mammals would
benefit if all active habitat management stopped and forest succession
was allowed to occur. Natural succession would form wooded and wetland
habitats that would support sustainable populations of most bat
species. Stopping all active habitat management and allowing forest
succession would be the preferred approach to supporting a diverse
assemblage of reptiles and amphibians. Additionally, riverine and
floodplain aquatic habitat would function without intervention under
this alternative.
We would phase out active refuge management and habitat
manipulation of open lands, gradually allowing them to undergo natural
succession, except for levees and rights-of-way, which must be kept
open per interagency agreements. We would also eliminate active forest
management, allowing natural succession and processes to achieve
desired forest conditions on 5 percent of the refuge, to protect and
restore the values and functions of the refuge's forestland. This would
help sustain the biological needs of native wildlife and migratory
birds.
We would allow aquatic habitats to function without management
practices. Hydrology under Alternative B would be the same as under
Alternative A. The hydrology of the White River and its tributaries,
sloughs, and lakes would continue to be altered both by off-refuge and
on-refuge manipulations that result in an unnatural hydrograph.
Nuisance beaver control and associated habitat impacts would be
eliminated, resulting in a continual lose of forested habitat. All
active water management would be eliminated, and we would allow habitat
succession to occur on areas with water control capabilities.
We would eliminate all active open land and forested habitat
management on the refuge. This may reduce erosion from adjacent lands
through an increase in the acreage of undisturbed forested riparian
habitat. All inventorying and monitoring on the refuge would cease.
Under Alternative B, our approach to climate change would be the same
as under Alternative A--there would be no active, systematic efforts to
monitor or mitigate global climate change.
We would continue to work with partners to minimize impacts to the
refuge's natural and cultural resources. Alternative B would pursue
this goal through a variety of means and measures. Cultural resources
would be protected through minimal implementation of standard Service
protocol and procedures according to Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act.
We would identify and track occurrences of invasive terrestrial and
aquatic animals and plants, but would make no efforts to control them.
Treatment of dredge spoil sites would be the same as under
Alternative A. Grazing and haying would also be dealt with the same as
under Alternative A.
With regard to refuge land acquisition, we would continue to
acquire key parcels within the approved acquisition boundary. We would
also continue to promote communication, cooperation, and partnerships
between other agencies, land managers, and private citizens, to
minimize impacts from external threats to the refuge's wetland
ecosystems.
With regard to visitor services and public use management,
Alternative B is the same as Alternative A, except that it would
discontinue maintenance of roads, trails, boat ramps, and other public
use infrastructure that accommodates priority public uses. Public uses
and visitation would still be allowed, but we would no longer provide
support and maintain facilities. Hunting would be permitted and
encouraged, but we would cease maintenance of the facilities and
infrastructure that support hunting. Commercial duck guiding on the
refuge would be eliminated. The other priority public uses--fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education
and interpretation--would all be allowed under Alternative B, except
that maintenance of facilities and infrastructure that support these
activities would be discontinued. Existing access roads and trails
would not be maintained. Small boats would no longer be allowed to
remain overnight along the refuge's isolated lakes. We would also cease
maintenance of 24 primitive campgrounds and eliminate camping. We would
continue to gradually eliminate existing permitted houseboats according
to the Houseboat Management Plan. We would also document non-permitted
houseboats, the same as under Alternative A.
We would reduce the staff to eight by eliminating the following
positions: one assistant refuge manager, two foresters, one forestry
technician, and one equipment operator. The remaining eight employees
should be sufficient to manage the refuge on a custodial basis.
We would maintain a minimal inventory of facilities,
infrastructure, and equipment needed for basic resource management and
only tasks required by law, regulation, or policy, which include human
safety, endangered species management, and law enforcement, would be
conducted. We would reduce involvement with volunteers to a seasonal
basis as needed. A reduction in staff could diminish
[[Page 63948]]
support for the friends group and other cooperative partnerships.
Alternative C--Enhanced Resource and Public Use Management (Proposed
Alternative)
Alternative C, our proposed alternative, would continue to support
migratory waterfowl populations, with a focus on providing wetland
habitat to wintering ducks and breeding wood ducks. It would also
maintain the waterfowl sanctuary and explore opportunities to improve
the spatial distribution of the refuge's waterfowl sanctuaries to help
meet its waterfowl objectives. We would increase wood duck nesting and
brood-rearing habitat, through land acquisition and conduct banding
activities, in an attempt to band 63 wood ducks annually. Doing this
would support the objectives of the Mississippi Flyway Council. To
improve banding efficiency, we would provide and maintain a limited
number of strategically placed wood duck boxes in areas where banding
is to occur.
Through managing the timing of lake draw-downs, we would provide
fall migration habitat for shorebirds from July through October, to
contribute to the objectives set forth in the U.S. Shorebird
Conservation Plan and the Lower Mississippi Valley/West Gulf Coastal
Plain Shorebird Management Plan. We would also provide high-quality
habitat for breeding and migrating marsh birds, in conjunction with
meeting waterfowl habitat requirements where possible, and monitor
results of management actions. Alternative C would provide critical
habitats for long-legged wading birds and protect all rookery sites
from disturbance from March to August (i.e., their breeding season) to
contribute to objectives set forth in the North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan.
Forest breeding birds are also a priority of Alternative C. With
the aid of additional biological and forestry specialists to assist
with planning, implementing, and monitoring, we would improve,
intensify, and expand forest management for the enhanced benefit of
high-priority forest breeding birds.
With regard to conserving threatened and endangered species and
species of concern, Alternative C would be the same as Alternative A--
the refuge would continue to support their protection and enhancement.
Additionally, this alternative would attempt to restore habitats for
listed species.
White-tailed deer would be managed the same as under Alternative A,
except that we would use harvest and health check data to adjust
hunting seasons if and when necessary. Likewise with wild turkey
management, Alternative C would be identical to Alternative A, except
that we would monitor turkey population status with the aid of
additional staff. Also with the aid of additional staff, we propose to
intensify management programs to provide enhanced habitat conditions
that would support a healthy and sustainable black bear population and
monitor bear occurrence. Once again we would apply adaptive management,
and results would be used to adjust future management decisions.
Furbearer management would be the same as under Alternative A, except
that additional opportunities would be identified to expand programs
for controlling nuisance animals.
Small game management would also be identical to Alternative A in
that we would continue active habitat management to provide diverse
habitats, such as early succession openland, agriculture, and
bottomland forest that support healthy populations of resident small
game, and provide quality recreational activities. Bat management would
also be the same as under Alternative A, except that with the aid of
additional staff we could perform periodic bat surveys to document
occurrence and habitat use.
Under Alternative C, resident non-game mammals and a diverse
assemblage of reptiles and amphibians would benefit from enhanced
habitat management; those animals and natural communities designated as
Elements of Special Concern by the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission
would receive particular emphasis in management. Likewise, we would
maintain and enhance aquatic habitat for a rich diversity of fishes,
particularly those recognized as species of special concern by State
and/or Federal agencies.
With regard to open lands under passive management (e.g., levees,
fallow fields, and rights-of-way), Alternative C would maintain these
to provide a complex of habitat types primarily suited to benefit
migratory birds and resident wildlife. We would also explore
opportunities to increase the efficiency of current open lands and
maintain or increase the acreage of habitat to be included in
integrated open land management. We would monitor vegetation and
wildlife responses to treatment and we would implement adaptive
management.
We would work with the White River Drainage District to eliminate
grazing activities on the levee based on the compatibility
considerations (i.e., providing habitat that negatively impacts
neotropical bird species), and instead mow or hay outside of the March
to August breeding dates. This would assure that woody encroachment on
the levees is minimized. Optimal management would establish conditions
in which grass and herbaceous growth are not inhibited or removed
between March and August annually. To avoid disruption of the nesting
season of neotropical migratory songbirds in the adjacent refuge forest
and to prevent creating suitable brown-headed cowbird habitat during
the nesting season, mowing/haying will not be allowed until August 15.
With respect to actively managed open lands, Alternative C would
expand and intensify management to provide a complex of habitat types
primarily suited to benefit migratory birds. We would explore
opportunities to increase efficiency of current open lands and maintain
or increase the acreage of habitat to be included in integrated open
land management. In addition, we would monitor vegetation and wildlife
responses to treatment and implement adaptive management.
Through active forest management, we would aim to achieve desired
forest conditions on 40 percent of the refuge, to protect, manage, and
restore the values and functions of the forestland in order to sustain
the biological needs of native wildlife and migratory birds.
Alternative C would improve and restore the aquatic habitats of
lakes, sloughs, and bayous. We would restore and/or mimic hydrologic
patterns (i.e., the timing, frequency, duration, and extent of
flooding) and the habitats associated with particular hydrologic
characteristics on the refuge, and cooperate in interagency efforts to
restore and/or mimic a more natural hydrograph on the White River. We
would also endeavor to improve the functionality of water control
structures and create more natural water regimes, while providing
important resources for wetland-dependent wildlife.
We would establish and implement management actions to protect and
improve water quality, while not interfering with activities associated
with habitat management. We would prepare, maintain, and start to
implement an inventorying and monitoring plan and use the results to
implement adaptive management. Unlike alternatives A and B, Alternative
C would address climate change by designing and beginning to implement
long-term monitoring, with the potential to track and assess changes
due to global climate change. As possible, we would
[[Page 63949]]
coordinate these efforts with larger regional monitoring efforts.
Under Alternative C, we would develop and begin to implement a
Cultural Resources Management Plan. Until such time as the plan is
complete, we would follow standard Service protocol and procedures
according to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
With regard to invasive terrestrial animals, we would intensify and
expand prevention and control programs, including development of a
database to track occurrences and control measures. We would develop
and implement a Nuisance Animal Management Plan, to detail objectives
and methods for nuisance animal control. We would also develop a Rapid
Response and Prevention Plan for invasive aquatic animals. Similarly,
for invasive plant species, we would develop and implement an Invasive
Plants Plan for coordinated control efforts when infestations are
encountered, along with a database to systematically track invasive
plant occurrences and treatments.
Concerning dredge disposal sites, we would complete the Partnering
Agreement with the COE that seeks a long-term dredge spoil disposal
alternative. We would also complete a compatibility determination for
the proposed disposal alternative. Should the proposed alternative be
found not compatible, the dredge spoil deposition on refuge sites would
be eliminated as expeditiously as practicable.
Working with partners, we would acquire priority lands within or
adjacent to the approved acquisition boundary from willing sellers that
would enhance the conservation values of the refuge; over the long
term, we would consider acquisition boundary expansion to ensure the
protection of bottomland hardwood habitats and to enhance landscape
conservation.
Alternative C would promote, manage, and improve appropriate and
compatible public uses with the recruitment of additional visitor
service staff, preparation of a Visitor Services Plan, and better
access and improved facilities. We would develop a new Hunt Plan to
improve hunting opportunities, while ensuring safe, compatible, and
quality experiences. Efforts would be made to develop more consistent
hunting seasons and regulations on the north and south units of the
refuge. Public use impacts would be monitored and adjustments would be
made, as needed, to protect resources.
Under Alternative C, we would modify the guide program to provide
fair and equitable hunting opportunities that foster a safe, ethical
hunting experience, reduce the commercial guide's ability to monopolize
the most easily accessible quality hunting sites, and minimize
conflicts between non-guided hunters and hunting guides. We would
reduce the number of commercial duck guiding permits from 17 to 5, and
eliminate the availability of 10 additional guiding permits during
specified flood conditions.
We would develop a new Fishing Plan to improve fishing
opportunities, while ensuring safe, compatible, and quality
experiences. We would strive to improve and expand wildlife observation
and photography opportunities and environmental education, outreach,
and interpretive opportunities, while ensuring safe, compatible, and
quality experiences. We would recruit additional visitor services staff
to develop a series of standard environmental education programs for
visiting school groups and training for teacher-led discovery field
trips. For interpretation purposes, we would develop and install a
display that explains the forest management program and desired forest
conditions. We would develop forest demonstration plots and
interpretive panels at wildlife drive pullouts.
We would maintain existing public access in a safe and
environmentally appropriate manner, to support wildlife-dependent
priority public uses. We would reduce the number of miles of tertiary
all-terrain vehicle trails by 25 percent and would develop an Access
Plan. In addition, we would utilize seasonal closures, as necessary, to
minimize resource impacts and to ensure the quantity and quality of
access.
We would reduce the camping program and encourage the use of nearby
private campgrounds. The number of campgrounds would be reduced and
some campgrounds would only be open to accommodate peak-use periods
associated with quota deer hunts. Camping would be restricted to
designated areas and the minimal area necessary to meet priority public
use needs. We would promote the use of surrounding private campgrounds
by refuge users and encourage the development of additional private
campground sites.
We would continue to gradually eliminate existing permitted
houseboats according to the Houseboat Management Plan and prohibit the
attachment of non-permitted houseboats to refuge property. We would
work with other State and Federal agencies to ensure all remaining
houseboats are in compliance with marine sanitation regulations.
As budgetary resources become available, we would strategically add
14 staff positions that would improve the capacity and capability of
the refuge to achieve its legislated purposes and accomplish management
goals and objectives. Like Alternative A, Alternative C would maintain
existing facilities, infrastructure, and equipment necessary to perform
habitat management, restoration, and improvements on the refuge, in
addition to maintaining essential infrastructure, such as roads,
levees, and water control structures. In addition to this, Alternative
C, with the aid of additional staff and equipment, would improve
facilities and infrastructure that facilitate management programs for
trust species and visitor services, and maintain or improve access for
management purposes and visitor use. We would also expand the volunteer
program and cooperate with the friends group and other cooperative
partnerships.
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: August 3, 2011.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2011-26650 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P