[Federal Register: May 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 20333-20337]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01my09-69]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R4-R-2009-N0030; 40136-1265-0000-S3]
Cross Creeks National Wildlife Refuge, Stewart County, TN
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability: draft comprehensive conservation plan
and environmental assessment; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce the
availability of a draft comprehensive conservation plan and
environmental assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Cross Creeks National
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) for public review and comment. In this Draft CCP/
EA, we describe the alternative we propose to use to manage this refuge
for the 15 years following approval of the Final CCP.
[[Page 20334]]
DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments
by June 1, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, and requests for information to:
John T. Taylor, Refuge Manager, Tennessee NWR, 3006 Dinkins Lane,
Paris, TN 38242. The Draft CCP/EA may be accessed and downloaded from
the Service's Internet Site: http://southeast.fws.gov/planning.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John T. Taylor; telephone: 731/642-
2091; fax: 731/644-3351; e-mail: john_taylor@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Cross Creeks NWR.
We started the process through a notice in the Federal Register on
January 3, 2007 (72 FR 143).
Background
The CCP Process
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (16
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Improvement Act), which amended the National
Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, 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 Improvement Act.
CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative
We developed four alternatives for managing the refuge and chose
Alternative D 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)
In general, Alternative A would maintain current management
direction, that is, the refuge's habitats and wildlife populations
would continue to be managed as they have in recent years. Public use
patterns would remain relatively unchanged from those that exist at
present.
We would continue to provide adequate foraging habitats to meet the
needs of 33,100 ducks for 110 days and other habitats that are needed
for loafing, resting, roosting, molting, and other needs. We would also
continue to provide adequate foraging habitats to meet the needs of
15,400 migratory Canada geese for 90 days, and continue to provide
sanctuary for wintering waterfowl and other migratory birds from
November 15 to March 15.
We would work with volunteers to provide a minimum of 20 nesting
boxes in accordance with the 2003 Regional Wood Duck Management
Guidelines. We would continue to work with partners to conduct the
Christmas bird count and the North American migration count (in
conjunction with International Migratory Bird Day).
We would continue to protect all Federally listed species under the
Endangered Species Act. Under this alternative, there would be no
active management of marsh birds, shorebirds, colonial nesting
waterbirds, and non-game species. The control of problem beavers would
continue under this alternative on a limited basis.
The staff, working with volunteers, would continue to passively
manage about 150 acres as moist soil, with limited water management and
control of invasive species. We would continue to provide other
habitats, such as mudflats, native submerged and emergent aquatic
vegetation, flooded woodlands, beaver ponds, and open water, that
provide food resources. We would continue cooperative farming of corn,
milo, millet, soybeans, and wheat on 1,200-1,300 acres to benefit
waterfowl and other species. We would also continue limited annual
spraying of aquatic plants (e.g., alligatorweed, spatterdock, and
parrot feather), as well as conduct mowing and disking as needed of
certain upland plants.
Under Alternative A, there would continue to be no active
management of the refuge's forests, scrub/shrub habitat, and warm
season grasses. There would be a reduced ability to manage water
because of clogged structures due to beavers or aquatic plants,
neglected units (restricted by probable sedimentation in channels), and
the timing of the operations' schedule for Lake Barkley.
We would continue to provide visitor services under the existing
Public Use Plan, which was approved in 1985. We would continue to allow
managed, limited hunting of deer, turkey, squirrel, and resident Canada
goose. We would also continue to provide quality fishing and compatible
water-related recreation programs on 3,260 acres. We would continue to
offer opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife photography
throughout the refuge, accessible along the refuge road system from
March 16 to November 14. This alternative would add a wildlife
observation deck next to the visitor center. We would continue to
provide environmental education services to the public, including
limited visits to schools, environmental education workshops, and on-
and off-refuge environmental education programs. We would continue to
maintain the kiosk outside the visitor center and exhibits in the
visitor center and on the Woodpecker Interpretive Trail.
We would maintain a staff size of four full-time positions,
including the refuge manager, office assistant, maintenance mechanic,
and equipment operator. We would maintain existing facilities,
including headquarters, visitor center, maintenance building and yard,
roads, gates, and equipment (e.g., road grader, tractors, dozers, and
backhoe).
Alternative B--Public Use Emphasis
Alternative B would emphasize enhanced public use on the refuge.
Additional efforts and expenditures would be made to expand the public
use program, visitor facilities, and overall level of public use
opportunities. Special emphasis would be placed on promoting the public
uses identified in the Improvement Act (e.g., hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education
and interpretation).
We would continue to provide adequate foraging habitats to meet the
needs of 33,100 ducks for 110 days, and other habitats that are needed
for loafing, resting, roosting, molting, and other needs. We would also
continue to provide adequate foraging habitats to meet the needs of
15,400 migratory Canada geese for 90 days. We would work with
volunteers to provide a minimum of 20 nesting boxes in accordance with
the 2003 Regional Wood Duck Management Guidelines.
Under this alternative, there would be no active management of
marsh birds. We would develop additional partnerships with non-
governmental organizations and the public in efforts to inventory in
certain habitats for shorebirds, colonial nesting waterbirds,
landbirds, and non-game species.
We would continue to protect all federally listed species under the
Endangered Species Act. We would use
[[Page 20335]]
partners and volunteers to help determine the distribution and
abundance of select listed species. The control of problem beavers
would continue on a limited basis. In addition, we would control feral
hogs and snakehead fish if these species appeared.
We would continue to provide other habitats, such as mudflats,
native submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation, flooded woodlands,
beaver ponds, and open water, that provide food resources, as well as
habitats for loafing, resting, roosting, and molting. Under Alternative
B, there would continue to be no active management of the refuge's
forests, scrub/shrub habitat, and warm season grasses. We would
continue cooperative farming of corn, milo, millet, soybeans, and wheat
on 1,200-1,300 acres to benefit waterfowl and other species.
We would manage water to focus on providing sport fishing
opportunities within the impoundments. Further, we would reduce moist-
soil management efforts on 150 acres of impoundments, allowing for
higher water levels to realize optimal fishing opportunities.
We would continue limited annual spraying of aquatic plants (e.g.,
alligatorweed, spatterdock, parrot feather, and Eurasian water
milfoil), as well as conduct mowing and disking as needed of certain
upland plants. We would develop additional partnerships with other
agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the public in control
efforts.
Within 5 years of CCP approval, we would draft, approve, and begin
to implement a Visitor Services Plan. Alternative B would open portions
of the refuge to additional hunting and/or increase quota limits for
deer, turkey, squirrel, and Canada goose. Additionally, hunts for dove,
rabbit, and raccoon would be added. We would provide quality fishing
and compatible water-related recreation programs on 3,260 acres. This
would be accomplished by adding adequate launching facilities and bank
fishing areas and based on available resources, at least one pier would
be added to accommodate anglers of all abilities.
We would continue to offer opportunities for wildlife observation
and wildlife photography throughout the refuge, accessible along the
refuge road system from March 16 to November 14. This alternative would
add a wildlife observation deck next to the visitor center. During
winter months, Alternative B would reopen the 1-mile auto tour route in
the vicinity of the visitor center. Under Alternative B, we would
continue to provide environmental education services to the public,
including Earth Camp, visits to schools, environmental education
workshops, and on- and off-site environmental education programs. We
would expand the refuge's role as an outdoor classroom for both
students and the general public. Within 5 years of CCP approval, the
number of wildlife signs along the Woodpecker Interpretive Trail would
be increased, and an interpretive kiosk would be developed for Elk
Reservoir.
We would maintain a staff of seven full-time positions, including
the refuge manager, refuge ranger, office assistant, maintenance
mechanic, law enforcement officer, tractor operator, and equipment
operator. Alternative B would replace the now separate visitor center
and headquarters with one common building. We would maintain the
existing equipment fleet and replace obsolete equipment as needed.
There would be three additional portable toilets positioned along the
road system.
Alternative C--Wildlife Management Emphasis
Alternative C would intensify and expand wildlife and habitat
management on the refuge. This would increase benefits for wildlife
species and fulfill the refuge purposes and goals. Public use
opportunities would remain approximately as they are now.
We would provide foraging habitats to meet the needs of 44,400
ducks (25 percent more than Alternative A) for 110 days and other
habitats that are needed for loafing, resting, roosting, molting, and
other needs. We would also continue to provide adequate foraging
habitats to meet the needs of 15,400 migratory Canada geese for 90
days, but would evaluate the need for foraging habitat every 5 years
and adjust accordingly. We would continue to provide sanctuary, as in
Alternative A, backed up by increased enforcement to reduce illegal
disturbance and trespass.
We would determine the status of priority marsh bird species on the
refuge. We would implement active shorebird management on at least one
impoundment during fall migration. We would develop a baseline colonial
waterbird inventory through systematic surveys. Similarly, we would
conduct a baseline inventory of relative abundance, species richness,
and distribution of landbirds. Within 10 years of CCP approval, we
would develop and implement baseline inventories for non-game mammals,
reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates. We would continue to protect
all Federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act, and
would determine the distribution and abundance of all listed species.
Over the 15-year life of the CCP, we would manage game populations
to maximize quality hunting opportunities, while maintaining habitat
for Federal trust species. Working with volunteers, we would provide 50
properly located and maintained nesting boxes, brood rearing habitat,
and feeding areas throughout the refuge. When necessary, control of
invasive animal species, using approved techniques to help achieve
refuge conservation goals and objectives, would occur.
Water management within the impoundments would be focused on
migratory birds by providing adequate and reliable flooded habitat
throughout the refuge, and assuring that water management capability
could distribute water in a timely manner. This alternative would call
for improving the moist-soil management program on at least 300 acres
by expanding the invasive plant control program, water management
capabilities, and the use of management techniques that set back plant
succession. Increasing the acreage of other habitats, such as mudflats,
native submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation, flooded woodlands,
beaver ponds, and open water that provide food resources, as well as
habitats for loafing, resting, roosting, and molting would occur under
this alternative. We would obtain control of invasive species through
active methods of removal, which would assist in reducing the
infestation and eliminating populations whenever feasible.
Within 5 years of CCP approval, we would develop and begin to
implement a Forest Management Plan that would aim to benefit nesting
and migrating birds. Over the 15-year life of the CCP, we would explore
the possibilities of managing for scrub/shrub habitat to benefit
certain birds in suitable locations on the refuge. We would explore the
potential benefits of planting and managing native warm season grasses
on formerly farmed fields (up to 75 percent of existing cultivated
acreage). Over the lifetime of the CCP, we would gradually phase out
cooperative farming in favor of force-account or contract farming of
wheat, corn, milo, and millet on 600 acres to meet wildlife foraging
objectives.
We would continue to provide visitor services under the existing
Public Use Plan, which was approved in 1985. Over the 15-year life of
the CCP, we would manage game populations to maximize quality hunting
opportunities, while maintaining habitat for Federal trust species. We
would continue to provide quality fishing and compatible water-
[[Page 20336]]
related recreation programs on 3,260 acres of the refuge. We would
continue to offer opportunities for wildlife observation and wildlife
photography throughout the refuge, accessible along the refuge road
system from March 16 to November 14, but with the addition of a
wildlife observation deck next to the visitor center. We would reduce
refuge-facilitated environmental education activities for the public,
both on- and off-refuge. We would continue to maintain the kiosk
outside the visitor center and exhibits in the visitor center and on
the Woodpecker Interpretive Trail.
We would maintain a staff of eight full-time positions, including
refuge manager, office assistant, maintenance mechanic, assistant
refuge manager, biologist, law enforcement officer, tractor operator,
and equipment operator. We would maintain existing facilities,
including headquarters, visitor center, maintenance building and yard,
roads, gates, and equipment (e.g., road grader, tractors, dozers, and
backhoe). We would install one pump and add farm and fire management
equipment, such as corn planter, all-terrain vehicles, and pumper
truck.
Alternative D--Enhanced Wildlife Management and Public Use Program
(Proposed Management Action)
Alternative D would balance an enhanced wildlife management program
with increased opportunities for public use. Wildlife and habitat
management, as well as public use activities, would increase under this
alternative.
We would provide foraging habitats to meet the needs of 33,100 to
44,400 ducks (25 percent more than Alternative A) for 110 days and
other habitats that are needed for loafing, resting, roosting, molting,
and other needs. We would also provide adequate foraging habitat to
meet the needs of 15,400 migratory Canada geese for 90 days, but
evaluate need for foraging habitat every 5 years and adjust
accordingly. We would continue to provide sanctuary, as in Alternative
A, backed up by increased enforcement to reduce illegal disturbance and
trespass. In addition, within 5 years of CCP approval, we would seek
opportunities for limited wildlife observation within the sanctuary.
Working with volunteers, we would provide 20 to 50 properly located and
maintained nesting boxes, brood rearing habitat, and feeding areas
throughout the refuge.
We would determine the status of priority marsh bird species on the
refuge. We would determine the status of shorebirds on the refuge and
would implement active shorebird management on at least one impoundment
during fall migration. We would also develop additional partnerships
with other agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the public in
an effort to inventory shorebirds in certain habitat management
activities.
We would develop a baseline colonial waterbird inventory through
systematic surveys. We would also develop additional partnerships as
stated above in efforts to inventory colonial nesting waterbirds,
landbirds, and non-game species.
Over the 15-year life of the CCP, we would manage game populations
to maximize quality hunting opportunities, while maintaining habitat
for Federal trust species. We would continue to protect all Federally
listed species under the Endangered Species Act and would use partners
and volunteers (when necessary) to determine the distribution and
abundance of all listed species. When necessary, control of invasive
animal species, using approved techniques to help achieve refuge
conservation goals and objectives, would occur.
Alternative D would focus water management within the impoundments
on migratory birds. This would be accomplished by providing adequate
and reliable flooded habitat throughout the refuge and by assuring that
water management capability could distribute water in a timely manner.
We would also make a concerted effort to accommodate sport fishing
opportunities where and when circumstances allow.
We would increase efforts to improve the moist-soil management
program on at least 300 acres by expanding the invasive plant control
program and water management capabilities. We would use management
techniques that set back plant succession, but would also make a
concerted effort to accommodate sport fishing opportunities. Increasing
the acreage of other habitats, such as mudflats, native submerged and
emergent aquatic vegetation, flooded woodlands, beaver ponds, and open
water that provide food resources, as well as habitats for loafing,
resting, roosting, and molting would occur.
Within 5 years of CCP approval, we would develop and begin to
implement a Forest Management Plan that would aim to benefit nesting
and migrating birds. Over the 15-year life of the CCP, we would explore
the possibilities of managing for scrub/shrub habitat to benefit
certain birds in suitable locations on the refuge. We would explore
potential benefits of planting and managing native warm season grasses
on formerly farmed fields (up to 75 percent of existing cultivated
acreage). We would gradually phase out cooperative farming in favor of
force-account or contract farming of wheat, corn, milo, and millet on
600 acres to meet wildlife foraging objectives.
We would obtain control of invasive species through active methods
of removal. These methods would work towards reducing the infestation
and eliminating populations whenever feasible. We would develop
partnerships with other agencies, non-governmental organizations, and
the public in efforts to control Eurasian water milfoil.
Within 5 years of CCP approval, we would draft, approve, and begin
to implement a new Visitor Services Plan. We would also provide quality
fishing and compatible water-related recreation programs on 3,260 acres
of the refuge by furnishing adequate launching facilities, bank fishing
areas, and contingent on funding, at least one pier to accommodate
anglers of all abilities.
We would manage game populations to maximize quality hunting
opportunities, while maintaining habitat for Federal trust species. We
would continue to provide environmental education services to the
public, including visits to schools, environmental education workshops,
and on- and off-refuge environmental education programs. We would also
expand the refuge's role as an outdoor classroom for students and the
general public.
We would continue to offer opportunities for wildlife observation
and wildlife photography throughout the refuge, accessible along the
refuge road system from March 16 to November 14, but with the addition
of a wildlife observation deck next to visitor center. Within 5 years
of CCP approval, we would explore the feasibility of building a
wildlife observation tower near Pool 1. Also within 5 years of CCP
approval, we would increase the number of wayside signs, and would add
wildlife signs along the Woodpecker Interpretive Trail, as well as
develop an interpretive kiosk for Elk Reservoir.
We would maintain a staff of nine full-time positions, including
the refuge manager, assistant refuge manager, refuge ranger (public
use), office assistant, maintenance mechanic, biologist, law
enforcement officer, tractor operator, and equipment operator. Under
Alternative D, we would replace the now separate visitor center and
headquarters with one common building. We would maintain
[[Page 20337]]
the existing equipment fleet, replacing obsolete equipment as needed.
There would be three additional portable toilets positioned along the
road system. Finally, we would install three pumps and would add farm
and fire management equipment, such as a corn planter, all-terrain
vehicles, and a pumper truck.
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: March 16, 2009.
Cynthia K. Dohner,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. E9-10033 Filed 4-30-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P