St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, FL; Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, 26035-26037 [2012-10571]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Notices
in such documents be designed to meet
the standard in PECE. The PECE policy
is posted on our Candidate Conservation
Web site at https://www.fws.gov/
endangered/what-we-do/candidateconservation-process.html.
Comments: On November 15, 2011,
we published in the Federal Register
(76 FR 70748) a notice of our intent to
request that OMB renew approval for
this information collection. In that
notice, we solicited comments for 60
days, ending on January 17, 2012. We
received two comments in response to
this notice.
Commenter 1 agreed that the
collection of information is necessary.
The commenter recommends that the
PECE policy be vetted with
nongovernment organizations (NGOs),
States, and Federal agencies so that
when these groups are developing
conservation efforts for species that may
be petitioned to be listed under the ESA,
they understand the evaluation bar that
must be met in order for their
conservation efforts to be considered as
part of the Service’s listing
determination.
Response: On June 13, 2000, we
published a Federal Register notice (65
FR 37102) soliciting public comments
on the draft policy. We received
comments from 44 entities, primarily
States and NGOs. We evaluated these
comments and incorporated them into
the final policy, which includes a
section on the evaluation criteria that
conservation efforts must meet. The
final policy is posted on our Candidate
Conservation Web page (https://
www.fws.gov/endangered/what-we-do/
candidate-conservation-process.html)
and on our Laws and Policies Web page
(https://www.fws.gov/endangered/lawspolicies/regulations-and-policies.html).
Commenter 2 objected to paying for
the collection of information and said
that funding should be eliminated. The
commenter also said its purpose is not
explained very well.
Response: Evaluation of conservation
actions as part of our listing decision is
required by the ESA, and therefore
cannot be eliminated. An explanation of
the policy and the policy itself are
posted on our Candidate Conservation
Web page. The commenter did not
provide comments on the burden
estimate; ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of information; or on
the ways to minimize the burden.
Commenter 1 agreed that the PECE
policy will not have a $100 million
annual effect or adversely affect an
economic sector, productivity, jobs, the
environment, or other units of
government in the collection of data.
However, the commenter stated that the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:55 May 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
implementation of conservation efforts
measures associated with the listing
under the ESA will certainly meet both
the monetary bar and the adverse
impacts bar.
Response: The burden estimates for
implementing conservation actions
covered by this information collection
are limited to the amount of time
needed to prepare the conservation
agreements and to conduct the
monitoring and reporting. The burden
estimates do not cover the monetary
cost of implementing the conservation
measures themselves. The ESA specifies
that we must base listing determinations
solely on the basis of the best scientific
and commercial data available
(emphasis added) after conducting a
review of the status of the species and
after taking into account those
conservation practices, if any, being
made by any State or any political
subdivision of a State to protect such
species. In making a listing
determination, we also consider the
conservation efforts of entities other
than States and political subdivisions of
States. The PECE policy describes how
we will evaluate, as part of the listing
determination, the extent which these
conservation actions reduce the threats
facing a species. Under the requirements
of the ESA, we cannot use economic
impacts as part of our listing
determination.
Commenter 1 stated that the PECE
policy is not well distributed or
understood, and claimed that finding
the most recent PECE was difficult. The
commenter suggested that we provide a
link to the most recent version for future
review, and stated that better
dissemination and explanation of the
policy would bolster the quality, utility
and clarity of the information.
Response: See above for links to the
policy.
Commenter 1 stated that it is in the
State’s best interest to have conservation
programs be successful and to allow
activities that have and will occur
across the landscape to continue. The
commenter does not mind providing
this information, provided that the
Service will be acting in good faith to
advance the conservation program to an
approved State.
Response: We coordinate closely with
State wildlife management agencies in
the conservation and management of
endangered and threatened species
under the ESA. State wildlife agencies
are our primary conservation partners,
and we routinely share data with them.
In addition, under section 6 of the ESA,
we provide grants to States and
territories to participate in a wide array
of voluntary conservation projects for
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26035
candidate, proposed, and listed species.
The grant program provides funding to
States and territories for species and
habitat conservation actions on nonFederal lands. A State or territory must
currently have, or enter into, an
approved cooperative agreement with
the Secretary of the Interior to receive
grants. Most States and territories have
entered into these agreements for both
plant and animal species.
We have not made any changes to our
information collection requirements as a
result of these comments.
We again invite comments concerning
this information collection on:
• Whether or not the collection of
information is necessary, including
whether or not the information will
have practical utility;
• The accuracy of our estimate of the
burden for this collection of
information;
• Ways to enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and
• Ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on
respondents.
Comments that you submit in
response to this notice are a matter of
public record. Before including your
address, phone number, email 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 OMB in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that it will be done.
Dated: April 26, 2012.
Tina A. Campbell,
Chief, Division of Policy and Directives
Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 2012–10576 Filed 5–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R4–R–2012–N047;
FXRS12650400000S3–123–FF04R02000]
St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge,
FL; Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
We, the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
26036
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Notices
conservation plan and environmental
assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for St.
Vincent National Wildlife Refuge (NWR)
in Franklin and Gulf Counties, Florida,
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
June 1, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of
the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Ms.
Laura Housh, via U.S. mail at
Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge,
2700 Suwannee Canal Road, Folkston,
GA 31537. Alternatively, you may
download the document from our
Internet Site at https://southeast.fws.gov/
planning under ‘‘Draft Documents.’’
Comments on the Draft CCP/EA may be
submitted to the above postal address or
by email to stvincentccp@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Laura Housh at 912/496–7366,
extension 244 (telephone); 912/496–
3322 (fax); or via email at stvincentccp@
fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP
process for St. Vincent NWR. We started
the process through a notice in the
Federal Register on April 8, 2009 (74 FR
16002). For more about the refuge and
our CCP process, please see that notice.
St. Vincent NWR was established in
1968, to protect and conserve migratory
birds in accordance with the Migratory
Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16
U.S.C. 715D).
St. Vincent NWR is situated along the
gulf coast of northwest Florida, about 60
miles from Panama City and 80 miles
from Tallahassee. The approved
acquisition boundary for the refuge is
approximately 13,736 acres. The current
management boundary is approximately
12,490 acres. We oversee 21 Farm
Service Agency easements (1,625 acres)
in 6 counties. The 12,490-acre refuge
boundary includes two islands—St.
Vincent Island (12,358 acres) and Pig
Island (46 acres). It also includes a
mainland tract (86 acres).
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
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 for developing a CCP is to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:55 May 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
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.
Significant issues addressed in the
Draft CCP/EA include: (1) The control of
invasive exotic species combined with
education; (2) the need for more
education, outreach, and awareness of
the refuge; (3) the need to evaluate the
appropriate size and staff needed to
accomplish established purposes (i.e.,
consider biologist and wildlife officer
positions); (4) the need to broaden and
strengthen relationships and
partnerships internally and externally;
(5) the need to better understand the
potential impacts of climate change on
refuge resources; (6) the need to
evaluate accessibility issues; and (7) the
need to acquire additional funding to
support refuge needs.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our
Proposed Alternative
We developed three alternatives for
managing the refuge (Alternatives A, B,
and C), with Alternative C as our
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 this alternative, there would be
no action taken to improve or enhance
the refuge’s current habitats, or improve
wildlife and public use management
programs. Species of Federal
responsibility, such as threatened and
endangered species and migratory birds,
would continue to be monitored at
present levels. Additional species
monitoring would occur as
opportunistic events when contacts
outside our staff offer support. Current
habitat management, including
prescribed fire and hydrological
restoration, would continue as outside
resources become available to assist our
staff. Management of exotic, invasive,
and nuisance animal and plant species
would continue to be opportunistic. The
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
public use programs of hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife
photography, and environmental
education and interpretation would
continue at present levels. Acquisition
of lands into the refuge would occur
when funding is appropriated and as
willing sellers are interested in selling
land that is necessary for refuge
operations and/or critical habitats for
sensitive species. The staff would
consist of a manager, office assistant,
forestry technician, and biological
science technician, along with
supplementary support from the
remainder of the North Florida National
Wildlife Refuge Complex staff, when
available, as well as support from
volunteers and partners.
Alternative B: Focus on Natural and
Primitive Processes
The focus of Alternative B would be
to emphasize the natural and primitive
processes, while adhering to policy,
mandates, and the missions of the
Service and refuge. We would continue
to support actions necessary to protect
and manage for species of Federal
responsibility, such as threatened and
endangered species and migratory birds.
Additional key species would be
monitored as the refuge transitions into
a more natural and primitive
environment.
We would aggressively attempt to
restore the hydrology to natural
conditions with the removal of
additional roads on St. Vincent Island.
All water control structures, including
the impoundment system on St. Vincent
Island, would be opened to allow
natural flow of water to and from the
bay and the gulf. Under this alternative,
prescribed burning would be
discontinued, to allow natural fire
events to occur unless human life or
property is involved. Since the purchase
of the refuge, there has been minimal
emphasis on timber conditions, so a
forest habitat assessment would be
conducted on refuge lands. The
eradication of exotic species (e.g., feral
hogs and sambar deer) would be a key
component of this alternative.
Wildlife-dependent recreational uses
would continue, with some major
changes. The hunt program would
consist of a quality white-tailed deer
and raccoon hunt (sambar deer and feral
hog hunts would be phased out as
eradication of these species occurs). As
this alternative focuses on natural and
primitive processes, camping during
hunts would be discontinued and self
check-in stations would be installed.
Fishing opportunities would be based
on natural processes, since stocking of
freshwater fish would be discontinued.
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 85 / Wednesday, May 2, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Wildlife observation, photography, and
environmental education and
interpretation would continue to focus
on a natural and primitive process, with
a discontinuation of vehicle tours.
We would continue to maintain and
build relations with partners,
volunteers, and the friends group as
they relate to managing the resource,
supporting the strategic habitat
conservation (SHC) initiative, and the
landscape conservation cooperative
(LCC). There would continue to be a
need for research and studies on the
refuge to gain a better understanding of
the resource and the changes resulting
from environmental and human events.
We would staff the refuge at current
levels, plus add an assistant manager, a
wildlife biologist, a maintenance
worker, and a wildlife officer.
Alternative C: Focus on Native and
Imperiled Species (Proposed
Alternative)
This alternative expands on
Alternative A, with an increased effort
to manage and protect the refuge’s
native and imperiled species. Under this
alternative, we would continue to
survey and monitor species of Federal
responsibility, such as threatened and
endangered species and migratory birds,
and key native species. We would also
gain a better understanding of native
species. Additional efforts would be
made to protect and support nesting
opportunities for key species, as well as
gain a better understanding of
population dynamics of some species.
There would be evaluations to
determine if it is suitable to reestablish
populations of the eastern indigo snake,
gopher tortoise, and eastern wild turkey.
We would continue to manage lakes
1, 2, and 3 by seasonal draw-downs to
support the needs of shorebirds and
wading birds. Lakes 4 and 5 would
continue to support deep water for a
freshwater fisheries program, with
occasional draw-down to manage the
vegetation within the system. Since the
purchase of the refuge, there has been
minimal emphasis on timber conditions,
so a forest habitat assessment would be
conducted. The management of exotic,
invasive, and nuisance animals and
plants would be a focus, with emphasis
on aggressively eradicating feral hogs.
Wildlife-dependent recreational uses
would be expanded. The hunt program
would consist of white-tailed deer,
raccoon, and sambar deer. Fishing
would consist of saltwater and
freshwater opportunities. Wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and
interpretation would be enhanced to
focus on imperiled species and the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:55 May 01, 2012
Jkt 226001
unique barrier island history and
ecosystem as they relate to the coastal
environment. We would enhance the
environmental education program to
incorporate Florida Sunshine Standards,
while establishing guidelines for public
programs. Vehicle tours that meet
management objectives would continue
as long as we have sufficient staff to
support the program. The refuge would
be staffed at current levels, in addition
to an assistant manager, a wildlife
biologist, a maintenance worker, a
wildlife officer, a visitor services
specialist, and a boat operator. Under
this alternative, we would hire a
wildlife biologist student through the
Student Career Experience Program,
continue the Youth Conservation Corps
Program, and explore opportunities to
work with students through the Student
Conservation Association and
AmeriCorps programs. Even with the
increased staff, we would continue to
expand our volunteer program and
build stronger relations with the friends
group and partners to manage our
resources, supporting the SHC initiative
and the LCC. As climate change affects
the refuge, increased research and
studies would need to be conducted on
species and habitats, to support the best
management decisions through adaptive
management.
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, email 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 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et seq.).
Dated: March 29, 2012.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2012–10571 Filed 5–1–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26037
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[LL WO31000.L13100000.PB0000.24 1E]
Renewal of Approved Information
Collection
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: 30-Day Notice and Request for
Comments.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) has submitted an
information collection request to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to continue the collection of
information from those who wish to
assign record title or transfer operating
rights in a lease for oil and gas or
geothermal resources. The Office of
Management and Budget (OMB)
previously approved this information
collection activity, and assigned it
control number 1004–0034.
DATES: The OMB is required to respond
to this information collection request
within 60 days but may respond after
30 days. For maximum consideration,
written comments should be received
on or before June 1, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Please submit comments
directly to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior (OMB #1004–
0034), Office of Management and
Budget, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, fax 202–395–5806,
or by electronic mail at
oira_docket@omb.eop.gov. Please
provide a copy of your comments to the
BLM. You may do so via mail, fax, or
electronic mail.
Mail: U.S. Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C
Street NW., Room 2134LM, Attention:
Jean Sonneman, Washington, DC 20240.
Fax: to Jean Sonneman at 202–245–
0050.
Electronic mail:
Jean_Sonneman@blm.gov.
Please indicate ‘‘Attn: 1004–0034’’
regardless of the form of your
comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Barbara Gamble, Division of Fluid
Minerals, at 202–912–7148. Persons
who use a telecommunication device for
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
1–800–877–8339, to leave a message for
Ms. Gamble. You may also review the
information collection request online at
https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.
3501–3521) and OMB regulations at 5
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\02MYN1.SGM
02MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26035-26037]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10571]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2012-N047; FXRS12650400000S3-123-FF04R02000]
St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge, FL; 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
[[Page 26036]]
conservation plan and environmental assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for St.
Vincent National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Franklin and Gulf Counties,
Florida, 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 June 1, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Ms.
Laura Housh, via U.S. mail at Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, 2700
Suwannee Canal Road, Folkston, GA 31537. Alternatively, you may
download the document from our Internet Site at https://southeast.fws.gov/planning under ``Draft Documents.'' Comments on the
Draft CCP/EA may be submitted to the above postal address or by email
to stvincentccp@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Laura Housh at 912/496-7366,
extension 244 (telephone); 912/496-3322 (fax); or via email at
stvincentccp@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for St. Vincent NWR.
We started the process through a notice in the Federal Register on
April 8, 2009 (74 FR 16002). For more about the refuge and our CCP
process, please see that notice. St. Vincent NWR was established in
1968, to protect and conserve migratory birds in accordance with the
Migratory Bird Conservation Act of 1929 (16 U.S.C. 715D).
St. Vincent NWR is situated along the gulf coast of northwest
Florida, about 60 miles from Panama City and 80 miles from Tallahassee.
The approved acquisition boundary for the refuge is approximately
13,736 acres. The current management boundary is approximately 12,490
acres. We oversee 21 Farm Service Agency easements (1,625 acres) in 6
counties. The 12,490-acre refuge boundary includes two islands--St.
Vincent Island (12,358 acres) and Pig Island (46 acres). It also
includes a mainland tract (86 acres).
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 for 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.
Significant issues addressed in the Draft CCP/EA include: (1) The
control of invasive exotic species combined with education; (2) the
need for more education, outreach, and awareness of the refuge; (3) the
need to evaluate the appropriate size and staff needed to accomplish
established purposes (i.e., consider biologist and wildlife officer
positions); (4) the need to broaden and strengthen relationships and
partnerships internally and externally; (5) the need to better
understand the potential impacts of climate change on refuge resources;
(6) the need to evaluate accessibility issues; and (7) the need to
acquire additional funding to support refuge needs.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative
We developed three alternatives for managing the refuge
(Alternatives A, B, and C), with Alternative C as our 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 this alternative, there would be no action taken to improve
or enhance the refuge's current habitats, or improve wildlife and
public use management programs. Species of Federal responsibility, such
as threatened and endangered species and migratory birds, would
continue to be monitored at present levels. Additional species
monitoring would occur as opportunistic events when contacts outside
our staff offer support. Current habitat management, including
prescribed fire and hydrological restoration, would continue as outside
resources become available to assist our staff. Management of exotic,
invasive, and nuisance animal and plant species would continue to be
opportunistic. The public use programs of hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and
interpretation would continue at present levels. Acquisition of lands
into the refuge would occur when funding is appropriated and as willing
sellers are interested in selling land that is necessary for refuge
operations and/or critical habitats for sensitive species. The staff
would consist of a manager, office assistant, forestry technician, and
biological science technician, along with supplementary support from
the remainder of the North Florida National Wildlife Refuge Complex
staff, when available, as well as support from volunteers and partners.
Alternative B: Focus on Natural and Primitive Processes
The focus of Alternative B would be to emphasize the natural and
primitive processes, while adhering to policy, mandates, and the
missions of the Service and refuge. We would continue to support
actions necessary to protect and manage for species of Federal
responsibility, such as threatened and endangered species and migratory
birds. Additional key species would be monitored as the refuge
transitions into a more natural and primitive environment.
We would aggressively attempt to restore the hydrology to natural
conditions with the removal of additional roads on St. Vincent Island.
All water control structures, including the impoundment system on St.
Vincent Island, would be opened to allow natural flow of water to and
from the bay and the gulf. Under this alternative, prescribed burning
would be discontinued, to allow natural fire events to occur unless
human life or property is involved. Since the purchase of the refuge,
there has been minimal emphasis on timber conditions, so a forest
habitat assessment would be conducted on refuge lands. The eradication
of exotic species (e.g., feral hogs and sambar deer) would be a key
component of this alternative.
Wildlife-dependent recreational uses would continue, with some
major changes. The hunt program would consist of a quality white-tailed
deer and raccoon hunt (sambar deer and feral hog hunts would be phased
out as eradication of these species occurs). As this alternative
focuses on natural and primitive processes, camping during hunts would
be discontinued and self check-in stations would be installed. Fishing
opportunities would be based on natural processes, since stocking of
freshwater fish would be discontinued.
[[Page 26037]]
Wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education and
interpretation would continue to focus on a natural and primitive
process, with a discontinuation of vehicle tours.
We would continue to maintain and build relations with partners,
volunteers, and the friends group as they relate to managing the
resource, supporting the strategic habitat conservation (SHC)
initiative, and the landscape conservation cooperative (LCC). There
would continue to be a need for research and studies on the refuge to
gain a better understanding of the resource and the changes resulting
from environmental and human events.
We would staff the refuge at current levels, plus add an assistant
manager, a wildlife biologist, a maintenance worker, and a wildlife
officer.
Alternative C: Focus on Native and Imperiled Species (Proposed
Alternative)
This alternative expands on Alternative A, with an increased effort
to manage and protect the refuge's native and imperiled species. Under
this alternative, we would continue to survey and monitor species of
Federal responsibility, such as threatened and endangered species and
migratory birds, and key native species. We would also gain a better
understanding of native species. Additional efforts would be made to
protect and support nesting opportunities for key species, as well as
gain a better understanding of population dynamics of some species.
There would be evaluations to determine if it is suitable to
reestablish populations of the eastern indigo snake, gopher tortoise,
and eastern wild turkey.
We would continue to manage lakes 1, 2, and 3 by seasonal draw-
downs to support the needs of shorebirds and wading birds. Lakes 4 and
5 would continue to support deep water for a freshwater fisheries
program, with occasional draw-down to manage the vegetation within the
system. Since the purchase of the refuge, there has been minimal
emphasis on timber conditions, so a forest habitat assessment would be
conducted. The management of exotic, invasive, and nuisance animals and
plants would be a focus, with emphasis on aggressively eradicating
feral hogs.
Wildlife-dependent recreational uses would be expanded. The hunt
program would consist of white-tailed deer, raccoon, and sambar deer.
Fishing would consist of saltwater and freshwater opportunities.
Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education
and interpretation would be enhanced to focus on imperiled species and
the unique barrier island history and ecosystem as they relate to the
coastal environment. We would enhance the environmental education
program to incorporate Florida Sunshine Standards, while establishing
guidelines for public programs. Vehicle tours that meet management
objectives would continue as long as we have sufficient staff to
support the program. The refuge would be staffed at current levels, in
addition to an assistant manager, a wildlife biologist, a maintenance
worker, a wildlife officer, a visitor services specialist, and a boat
operator. Under this alternative, we would hire a wildlife biologist
student through the Student Career Experience Program, continue the
Youth Conservation Corps Program, and explore opportunities to work
with students through the Student Conservation Association and
AmeriCorps programs. Even with the increased staff, we would continue
to expand our volunteer program and build stronger relations with the
friends group and partners to manage our resources, supporting the SHC
initiative and the LCC. As climate change affects the refuge, increased
research and studies would need to be conducted on species and
habitats, to support the best management decisions through adaptive
management.
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, email 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 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et
seq.).
Dated: March 29, 2012.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-10571 Filed 5-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P