[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 157 (Tuesday, August 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48187-48189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16171]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment for Crocodile Lake Naitonal Wildlife
Refuge in Monroe County, Florida.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service announces that a Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge are available for review and
comment. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of
1966, as amended by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
of 1997, requires the Service to develop a comprehensive conservation
plan for each national wildlife refuge. The purpose in developing a
comprehensive conservation plan is to provide refuge managers with a
15-year strategy for achieving refuge purposes and contributing toward
the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System, consistent with
sound principles of fish and wildlife management, conservation, legal
mandates, and Service policies. In addition to outlining broad
management direction on conserving wildlife and their habitats, plans
identify wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities available to the
public, including opportunities for hunting, fishing, wildlife
observation, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and
environmental education and interpretation.
Significant issues address in the draft plan include: threatened
and endangered species; migratory birds, habitat restoration; invasive
exotic species control; funding and staffing; and land acquisition.
DATES: Individuals wishing to comment on the Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for Crocodile Lake
National Wildlife Refuge should do so no later than October 17, 2005.
Public comments were requested, considered, and incorporated throughout
the planning process. Public outreach has included public scoping
meetings, planning updates, and a Federal Register notice.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment should be addressed to the Florida
Keys National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 28950 Watson Boulevard, Big Pine
Key, Florida 33043; Telephone 305/872-2239. The plan and environmental
assessment may also be accessed and downloaded from the Service's
Internet Web site http://southeast.fws.gov/planning/. Comments on the
draft plan may be submitted to the above address or via electronic mail
to [email protected]. Please include your name and return address in
your Internet message. Our practice is to make comments, including
names and mailing addresses of respondents, available for public review
during regular business hours. Individual respondents may request that
we withhold their home addresses from the record, which will honor to
the extent allowable by law.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Service developed three alternatives for
managing the refuge and chose Alternative 2 as the preferred
alternative.
Alternatives
Serving as a basis for each alternative, goals and sets of
objectives and
[[Page 48188]]
strategies were developed to help fulfill the purposes of the refuge
and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Objectives are
desired conditions or outcomes that are grouped into sets, and for this
planning effort, consolidated into three alternatives. These
alternatives represent different approaches to managing the refuge
while still meeting purposes and goals. Plans will be revised at least
every 15 years, or earlier, if monitoring indicates management changes
are warranted. Goals are common for each of the alternatives with
objectives and strategies differing. A comparison of each alternative
follows the general descriptions.
Alternative 1: (No Action) Continuation of current refuge
management that includes basic habitat management, such as control of
exotics and fundamental monitoring. This alternative represents no
change from current management of the refuge and is considered a
baseline. Management emphasis would continue to focus on maintaining
biological integrity of habitats found on the refuge. Primary
management activities include invasive exotic plan control, pest
management, habitat restoration, and basic monitoring of threatened and
endangered species. Alternative 1 represents the anticipated conditions
of the refuge for the next 15 years assuming current policies,
programs, and activities continue. The other two alternatives are
compared to this alternative in order to evaluate differences in future
conditions compared to baseline management.
This alternative reflects actions that include supporting recovery
efforts for federally listed species, restoring hammocks, restoring
wetlands, and acquiring lands from willing sellers within the
acquisition boundary. Monitoring of plants and animals would be limited
due to staffing constraints and limited research interest. Habitat
management actions are intended to benefit all wildlife by maintaining
habitat integrity.
Management coordination would occur between the refuge and the
adjacent state botanical preserve. Coordination would be limited
because of staffing constraints and remain focused on invasive exotics
control, habitat restoration, and threatened and endangered species.
Since the refuge is closed to the public, visitors would continue to be
directed to the state botanical preserve. The preserve has
infrastructure to accommodate visitors who want to experience being in
a hardwood hammock or mangrove forest.
The refuge would remain staffed with a refuge manager and periodic
interns. Researchers would be accommodated when projects benefit the
refuge. The refuge would remain closed to public and commercial access.
Alternative 2: (Preferred Alternative) Increase management actions
that focus greater attention on actively managing habitats to provide
increased habitat value.
This alternative is the preferred alternative for managing the
refuge. Under this alternative, existing management activities would
continue, and some activities would be expanded. This alternative
proposes to add an additional full-time biological technician to allow
for expansion of activities such as monitoring, exotics control, and
restoration.
The staff member would help support the additional activities
proposed under this alternative.
Increasing efforts related to exotics control, pest management, and
monitoring are characteristic of this alternative. This increased
management actions would help to achieve the long-term goals and
objectives in a timelier manner than under the ``no action''
alternative. This alternative would result in a more ecosystem-based
management approach that views the refuge as a single system rather
than separate habitat types. Federally listed species would still be of
primary concern, but needs of other resident and migratory wildlife
would also be considered.
A more proactive approach to land acquisition would be taken in
order to purchase remaining inholdings. The refuge would actively
contact owners of inholdings and seek to acquire the parcels. There are
roughly 400 acres of inholdings that the refuge wants to acquire in
order to restore distributed habitats on those parcels. Acquiring
inholdings would also ensure that connectivity of refuge habitats is
maintained.
Alternative 3: (Limited Public Access) Open refuge to limited
public use and access while increasing management actions that focus
greater attention on actively managing habitats to provide increased
habitat value.
This alternative is an expanded version of Alternative 2 that
allows for opening the refuge to limited public use. The refuge was
established as a closed refuge and the possibility of allowing public
use was considered for this alternative. Restoration of habitats may
provide an opportunity to incorporate nature trails that provide access
to the refuge.
These potential nature trails would need to be located in areas
that would result in no disturbance to wildlife since they would be
located in areas that were disturbed. The trails would also provide
interpretive signs to educate visitors about refuge resources.
In addition to the nature trails, there would be a strengthening of
the refuge friends group in order to provide guided tours of the
refuge. Refuge staff would train volunteers to conduct tours of areas
that are only accessible with a guide. This approach would open the
refuge and allow visitors to experience the refuge while minimizing
disturbance to sensitive wildlife areas.
Alternatives Considered, but Rejected
Opening the entire refuge to general public use and access was
rejected since it would create too much disturbance to sensitive
wildlife. Additionally, a full-time refuge ranger and law enforcement
officer would need to be added to the staff to handle the influx of
visitors. The Florida Keys receive approximately 4 million visitors per
year and even a fraction of a percent of those visitors stopping at the
refuge would cause impacts of unacceptable levels.
Active habitat manipulation to emulate natural disturbances (e.g.,
hurricane micro-bursts) was discussed at length during the biological
review as a possible approach to increase preferred habitat for
federally listed species. This alternative centered on clearing one to
five acres of mature hardwood hammock to create disturbed areas. The
planning team unanimously agreed that destroying intact hardwood
hammock was too controversial to undertake. However, restoring existing
disturbed areas (e.g., NIKE site) to a younger-aged hammock was agreed
upon and incorporated into the preferred alternative.
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge is in north Key Largo
approximately 40-miles south of Miami, Florida, on County Road 905. The
refuge headquarters is 1.8 miles north of the U.S. Highway 1 and County
Road 905 split in Key Largo, Florida. The refuge was established as a
closed refuge and is not open to the general public.
Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1980 to
protect critical breeding and nesting habitat for the endangered
American crocodile and other wildlife. The refuge is currently
comprised of 6,700 acres including 650 acres of open water. It contains
a mosaic of habitat types, including tropical hardwood hammock,
mangrove forest, and salt marsh. These habitats are critical for
hundreds of plants and animals including six federally listed species.
The refuge is unusual in that not all of the critical habitat areas are
in a pristine,
[[Page 48189]]
undisturbed condition. A large portion of the refuge was going to be a
residential development complete with canals for boating access. The
dredge-spoil from the canal system was piled up in berms on the banks
of the canals and became an important nesting area for the federally
listed American crocodile. American crocodiles are fairly wide-spread
throughout the tropics, however, in the United States, crocodiles are
only found in south Florida and the Keys.
The refuge protects one of the largest remaining tracts of tropical
hardwood hammock, which is a globally threatened habitat type. These
diverse forests are home to hundreds of plants and animals including
the federally listed Key Largo woodrat, Key Largo cotton mouse, Schaus
swallowtail butterfly, Stock Island tree snail, and eastern indigo
snake. These species require hammocks in order to survive.
Unfortunately, most of the hammocks in Key Largo have been eliminated
by development, which has lead to considerable population declines in
these already imperiled species.
Authority: This notice is published under the authority of the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1977, Public Law
105-57.
Dated: June 17, 2005.
Cynthia K. Dohner,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 05-16171 Filed 8-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M