[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3878-3882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-616]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Choctaw 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 Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge
in Choctaw County, Alabama.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service announces that a Draft
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment for
Choctaw 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 manages 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 photography, and environmental education and
interpretation.
Significant issues addressed in the draft plan include: threatened
and endangered species, waterfowl management, neotropical migratory
birds, bottomland hardwood restoration, fisheries management, visitor
services, funding and staffing, cultural resources, and land
protection.
DATES: A meeting will be held to present the plan to the public.
Mailings, newspaper articles, and posters will be the avenues to inform
the public of the date and time for the meeting. Individuals wishing to
comment on the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental
Assessment for Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge should do so no later
than March 10, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the Draft Comprehensive Conservation
Plan and Environmental Assessment should be addressed to Choctaw
National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 808, Jackson, Alabama 36545;
Telephone 251/246-3583. 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
home 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 we will honor to
the extent allowed by law.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Service developed four alternatives for
managing the refuge and chose Alternative D as the preferred
alternative.
Alternatives
The draft comprehensive conservation plan and environmental
assessment evaluates the four alternatives for managing the refuge over
the next 15 years. These alternatives are briefly described as follows:
Alternative A: No Action (Current Management Direction)
Choctaw National Wildlife Refuge's most important terrestrial
vegetation community is its bottomland hardwood forests, which provide
habitat for migratory birds, including both waterfowl and neotropical
migratory forest-dependent birds, and other species. The refuge has a
current Forest Management Plan, but it has not been fully implemented;
some stand treatments have been applied, but secondary treatments, such
as thinnings, have not. Regeneration is occurring on the forest floor,
but not stand recruitment; saplings are not maturing due to being eaten
by deer and feral hogs, frequent flooding, and shady conditions. There
is a dense canopy at present that inhibits regeneration of all but the
most shade-tolerant trees. While
[[Page 3879]]
mast production is a good at present, it will probably decrease over
the long term as oaks become over-mature and are not replaced by
younger, more vigorous and productive oaks.
Backwaters, sloughs, and wetlands on the refuge are gradually
filling in with sediments, a natural process of ecological succession
that has been accelerated by human activity, namely the Coffeeville Dam
and Reservoir standing water, in which sediments drop out and
accumulate. This long-term process will continue under the Current
Management Direction Alternative.
The main aquatic invasive species on the refuge at present are
hydrilla, alligator weed, and water hyacinth; the potential exists for
additional species to become problematic, as is giant salvinia. Major
infestation by aquatic invasives of virtually all water bodies at
present are displacing native aquatic/wetland plants and can exacerbate
siltation. This, in turn, degrades fish habitat, including raising
water temperature and reducing dissolved oxygen. There are also
significant effects on water-based recreation and waterfowl habitat. At
present, 75 acres of backwater slough emergents per year are treated
with herbicides and this will continue under this alternative. To a
lesser extent, biological controls will also continue to be used.
Invasive terrestrial plants and animals on the refuge include
cogongrass and feral hogs. Cogongrass is sprayed annually. Feral hogs
are in incidental species, which can be taken during other refuge
hunts. The staff conducts limited trapping of these animals on the
refuge. A recent reduction in the refuge's population of feral hogs
appears to be due to off-refuge trapping by one or more neighboring
landowners. Under the Current Management Direction Alternative, there
will continue to be limited trapping and incidental hunting of feral
hogs on the refuge.
As mentioned above, the refuge's bottomland hardwood forests
provide important habitat for waterfowl and neotropical migratory
birds, as well as resident wildlife. In addition, the refuge actively
manages habitat for migratory birds by means of force-account farming
(35 acres) and moist-soil management (15 acres at present). Under the
Current Management Direction Alternative, these acreages will not
change. The refuge also assists in the reproduction of the wood duck by
providing 400 nest boxes; these are cleaned once annually. Staff
members monitor them and collect nesting data.
Two federally listed species--the bald eagle and the wood stork--
are documented as occurring on the refuge. Two active bald eagle nests
are located on the refuge; these are protected by sanctuaries that
involve some restriction of public access by boaters, anglers, hunters,
and other refuge users. Wood storks are observed occasionally during
the summer. This is a population that nests in Florida and migrates
north after the nesting season.
With regard to resource protection, the Corps of Engineers has
limited funds for dredging areas of the refuge that have been filling
in with sediments. The Service's Daphne, Alabama, Ecological Services
Office has contaminants specialists who, in the past, have conducted
contaminants surveys but these are now dated and no complete surveys
have ever been conducted. Oil and gas rights on the refuge are
outstanding, and production necessitates communication and cooperation
with oil/gas companies to reduce above-ground impacts and disturbance,
as well as to avoid, minimize, and mitigate spills and contamination.
The principal public use on the refuge is fishing, which is
regulated by the State of Alabama. Both bank fishing and boat fishing
are available. Concerns have been expressed by the public about
declining quality of the fishing experience, mainly because of degraded
aquatic habitat from invasives and reduced access to potential fishing
areas that have been rendered impenetrable due to emergent weedy
vegetation. The Alabama Division of Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries
conducts periodic creel and angler surveys.
Secondary public uses on the refuge are hunting and wildlife
observation. There is one wildlife observation platform, next to the
moist-soil units. There is a 0.5-mile loop interpretive trail near the
platform. Other forest roads permit foot travel, but access is
difficult (only by boat). Current refuge hunts include an archery hunt
for deer, and a small game season for squirrels, rabbits, and raccoons.
There is no waterfowl hunting. The same public access and use under
this alternative would continue; to gain access to many areas is by
boat only from the reservoir.
The staff works with private land owners of approximately eight
Farm Service Agency tracts to restore bottomland hardwood forests
(i.e., planting oak trees) on easement areas.
Isolation of the refuge itself from the refuge headquarters--45
minutes to 1 hour away by road--inhibits hands-on refuge management;
for example, there is no law enforcement, biological, forestry, or
management presence on the refuge half of the time. The refuge itself
is remote, and frequent flooding makes much of it inaccessible for much
of year. This isolation and seasonal inaccessibility will continue
under the Current Management Direction Alternative.
The current number of staff at the refuge is four: The refuge
manager and an office assistant are located at the headquarters in
Jackson, Alabama, and two maintenance workers are located on the refuge
itself. As a result of staffing and budgetary limitations, there are
limited data on wildlife and habitat distributions and trends, which
inhibits the quantification of management objectives.
Alternative B. Enhanced Wildlife/Fisheries and Habitat Management
Under Alternative B, the refuge would update and fully implement
its Forest Management Plan. Some tree harvest removal would be
necessary to achieve understory and midstory conditions, with an
emphasis on regeneration of bottomland hardwood oaks and other mast-
bearing trees. As feasible, the Service would work with the Corps of
Engineers to help adjust hydrological periods so that summer flooding
occurs at fewer intervals and for shorter periods. The reason is to not
kill oak trees and stymie oak regeneration.
With regard to backwaters, sloughs, and wetlands filling in with
sediments, this alternative would use aerial and GPS/GIS techniques to
document current colonization by plants and sedimentation trends over
time. Aquatic invasive species would be kept under control via
cooperative agreements with the Corps of Engineers and the State of
Alabama. The refuge would initiate discussions with the Corps to reduce
impacts of too-frequent inundation by the Coffeeville Dam and Reservoir
and with the State to utilize approved methods of controlling invasive
aquatic plants, which help trap sediments and worsen the problem. The
result would be more effective control and reduced severity of
infestations and slower sedimentation of refuge waters.
Cogongrass would be sprayed annually with the objective being to
eradicate this exotic invasive species. The refuge would investigate
replacing cogongrass on one bank it now infests, which provides ground
cover to avoid erosion, with a native plant species. Programs like the
State Landowner Incentive Program may offer funding or technical
support that could be used in private lands habitat and wildlife
management, including control of problem species, such as feral hogs.
Partners for Fish and Wildlife is another
[[Page 3880]]
program that might offer support to the refuge.
Alternative B would provide habitat for migratory birds, including
waterfowl and neotropical, by using force-account farming (e.g., millet
and grain sorghum) and intensified moist-soil management. Staff would
level and regrade moist-soil units to facilitate water management; in
addition, the area of moist soil would be increased to 25-35 acres by
converting existing crop fields. Over the 15-year life of the plan, all
crop fields would be phased out and transitioned to moist-soil units.
Under this alternative, staff would maintain the existing stock of
400 wood duck nest boxes, but more intensively monitor and collect
nesting data from them. Each nest box would be cleaned at least twice
annually, from once annually at present.
Two active bald eagle nests are on the refuge and would remain
active under Alternative B. They would continue to be protected by
sanctuaries that involve some restriction of public access by boaters,
anglers, hunters, and other refuge visitors. It is assumed that wood
storks would continue to be observed occasionally during the summer, as
in the Current Management Direction Alternative. Under the Enhanced
Wildlife/Fisheries and Habitat Management Alternative, the Service
would investigate the movements of these wood storks via a radio
telemetry study.
The refuge would obtain the assistance of contaminants specialists
at the Service's Daphne, Alabama, Ecological Services Office to conduct
contaminants surveys on the refuge to update information on key toxic
contaminants, such as mercury and other heavy metals, pesticides, and
salt water. Oil and gas production on the refuge would continue under
Alternative B, necessitating communication and cooperation with oil
companies to reduce above-ground impacts and disturbance, as well as to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate spills and contamination.
The principal wildlife-dependent recreation under the Enhanced
Wildlife/Fisheries and Habitat Management Alternative would continue to
be fishing, regulated by the State of Alabama. Both bank and boat
fishing would be available. The State would conduct periodic creel and
angler surveys, as it does at present. Improved aquatic habitat
management would aim to increase fish populations and angler access.
This alternative would explore stump removal to improve both fisheries
habitat and boat access.
Secondary public uses would continue to be hunting and wildlife
observation. There would be one wildlife observation platform, next to
the moist-soil units, as at present, and a 0.5-mile loop interpretive
trail near the platform. Other forest roads would permit foot travel,
but overall access would remain difficult (only by boat). Under
Alternative B, the Service would look to build a bridge across the
mouth of Okatuppa Creek to facilitate management access; this bridge
would also be accessible to public foot travel. Refuge hunts would
include those held currently: an archery hunt for deer, and a small
game season for squirrels, rabbits, and raccoons. No waterfowl hunting
would be permitted. Feral hogs would be considered incidental species
and could be taken during all refuge hunts. The same public access and
use under this alternative would continue; to gain access to many areas
would remain only by boat from the reservoir.
The staff would continue to monitor habitat restoration of
approximately eight Farm Service Agency tracts planted in bottomland
hardwood forests.
Under the Enhanced Wildlife/Fisheries and Habitat Management
Alternative, isolation of the refuge itself from refuge headquarters
would continue to inhibit hands-on management. The remoteness of the
refuge would not change, and frequent flooding would continue to render
much of it inaccessible for much of the year.
One assistant refuge manager with law enforcement collateral duty
would be added, as well as one wildlife biologist. The refuge would
investigate sharing a forester with other refuges. Recommended staffing
would consist of a refuge manager, assistant refuge manager, and office
assistant at the refuge headquarters, and a biologist and two
maintenance workers on the refuge itself.
Alternative C. Enhanced Wildlife-Dependent Recreation
Under Alternative C, the refuge's existing Forest Management Plan,
which has not been fully implemented, would continue in effect, but
again would not be fully implemented. Some stand treatments would be
applied, but secondary treatments (thinnings) would not. Regeneration
would occur on the forest floor, but stand recruitment would continue
to lag. Most saplings would not mature because of heavy foraging
pressure by white-tailed deer and feral hogs, frequent flooding, and
shady conditions. A dense canopy would continue to inhibit regeneration
of all but the most shade-tolerant trees. At first, mast production
would remain high, but would probably decrease over the long term
(i.e., beyond the 15-year life of the comprehensive conservation plan)
as oaks become over-mature and are not replaced by younger, more
vigorous and productive oaks.
Backwaters, sloughs, and wetlands on the refuge would continue
gradually filling in with sediments, a natural process of ecological
succession that has been accelerated by human activity, namely the
Coffeeville Dam and Reservoir's standing water, in which sediments drop
out and accumulate. This long-term process would continue under the
Enhanced Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Alternative.
Although the main aquatic invasive species on the refuge are
hydrilla, alligator weed, and water hyacinth at present, the potential
exists for additional species to become problematic, such as giant
salvinia. Major infestation by aquatic invasives of virtually all
waterbodies at present are displacing native aquatic/wetland plants
like giant bulrush and can exacerbate siltation. This, in turn,
degrades fish habitat, including raiding water temperature and reducing
dissolved oxygen. There are also significant effects on water-based
recreation and waterfowl habitat. At present, 75 acres of backwater
slough emergents per year are treated with herbicides and this would
continue under this alternative. To a lesser extent, biological
controls would also continue to be used.
There would be no change in the management of invasive terrestrial
plants and animals on the refuge under this alternative from the
Current Management Direction Alternative.
The refuge would continue to actively manage habitat for migratory
birds by means of force-account farming and moist-soil management.
Under this alternative, the acreages would not change from the acreages
being farmed under the Current Management Direction Alternative.
The refuge would continue to assist in the reproduction of the wood
duck by providing 400 nest boxes and managing as is currently being
done.
Management of two federally listed species--bald eagle and wood
stork--would remain the same as under the Current Management Direction
Alternative.
With regard to resource protection, the Corps of Engineers has
limited funds for dredging areas of the refuge that have been filling
in with sediments. The Service's Daphne, Alabama, Ecological Services
Office has contaminants
[[Page 3881]]
specialists who, in the past, have conducted contaminants surveys but
these are now dated and no complete surveys have ever been conducted.
Oil and gas rights on the refuge are outstanding, and production
necessitates communication and cooperation with oil/gas companies to
reduce above-ground impacts and disturbance, as well as to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate spills and contamination.
Refuge staff would continue to work with private landowners on
approximately eight Farm Service tracts to restore bottomland hardwood
forests on easement areas.
Under Alternative C, the principal wildlife-dependent recreation
would remain fishing, regulated by the State. Both bank and boat
fishing would be available. The State would continue to conduct
periodic creel and angler surveys. Within five years of the
comprehensive conservation plan's approval, the refuge would build new
fishing facilities, such as a handicapped accessible fishing pier. It
would also provide additional woody structure within the reservoir, and
open boating access via stump removal and increased aquatic vegetation
control.
Secondary public uses would continue to be hunting and wildlife
observation in the Enhanced Wildlife-Dependent Recreation Alternative.
This alternative would also offer an improved wildlife observation
platform, next to the moist-soil units. The Service would seek to build
a pedestrian bridge over the mouth of Okatuppa Creek to facilitate and
improve access to Middle Swamp. Refuge hunts would include an archery
hunt for deer, and small game season for squirrels, rabbits, and
raccoons. A waterfowl hunt for youths would be added, contingent upon
having staffing resources to manage the hunt. Feral hogs would be
considered an incidental species and could be taken during all refuge
hunts. The same public access and use would continue under this
alternative; to gain access to many areas would remain by boat only
from the reservoir. More environmental education opportunities both on
and off the refuge would be pursued.
Isolation of the refuge from its headquarters would continue to
inhibit hands-on management. Alternative C would add one assistant
refuge manager with law enforcement collateral duty, as well as one
park ranger. Recommended staffing would then be six: Refuge manager,
assistant refuge manager, and office assistant at refuge headquarters,
and a park ranger and two maintenance workers on the refuge.
Alternative D. Enhanced Wildlife/Fisheries, Habitat, and Public Use
(Preferred Alternative)
Under Alternative D, the refuge would update and fully implement
its Forest Management Plan. Some tree harvest removal would be
necessary to achieve understory and midstory conditions, with an
emphasis on regeneration of bottomland hardwood oaks and other mast-
bearing trees. As feasible, the Service would work with the Corps of
Engineers to adjust hydrological periods so that summer flooding occurs
at fewer intervals and for shorter periods. This would avoid oak
seedling mortality that now thwarts oak regeneration.
With regard to the refuge backwaters, sloughs, and wetlands now
filling in with sediments, Alternative D would utilize aerial and GPS/
GIS techniques to document current colonization by plants and
sedimentation trends over time. Aquatic invasive species would be kept
under control via cooperative agreements with the Corps of Engineers
and the State of Alabama. The refuge would initiate discussions with
the Corps to reduce impacts of too-frequent inundation by the
Coffeeville Dam and Reservoir, and with the State to utilize approved
methods of controlling invasive aquatic plants, which help trap
sediments and worsen the problem. The result would be more effective
control and reduced severity of infestations and slower sedimentation
of refuge waters.
Cogongrass would be sprayed annually with the objective being to
eradicate this exotic invasive species. The refuge would investigate
replacing cogongrass on one bank it now infests, which provides ground
cover to avoid erosion, with a native plant species. Programs like the
State Landowner Incentive Program may offer funding or technical
support that could be used in private lands habitat and wildlife
management, including control of problem species like feral hogs.
Another possibility that the refuge would explore using is the Partners
for Fish and Wildlife program.
Alternative D would provide habitat for migratory birds, including
waterfowl and neotropical migratory birds, by using force-account
farming (e.g., millet and grain sorghum) and intensified moist-soil
management. Staff would level and regrade moist-soil units to
facilitate water management; in addition, the area of moist soil would
be increased to 25-35 acres by converting existing crop fields. Over
the 15-year life of the comprehensive conservation plan, all crop
fields would be phased out and transitioned to moist-soil units.
Under this alternative, staff would maintain the existing stock of
400 wood duck nest boxes, but more intensively monitor and collect
nesting data from them. Each nest box would be cleaned at least twice
annually (from once annually at present).
Two active bald eagle nests are on the refuge and would remain
active under Alternative D. They would continue to be protected by
sanctuaries that involve some restriction of public access by boaters,
anglers, hunters and other refuge visitors. It is assumed that wood
storks would continue to be observed occasionally during the summer, as
in the Current Management Direction Alternative. Under Alternative D,
the Service would investigate the movements of these wood storks via a
radio telemetry study.
Under the preferred alternative only, the refuge would request the
assistance of contaminants specialists form the Service's Daphane,
Alabama, Ecological Services Office to conduct complete contaminants
surveys on the refuge to update information on the status of key toxic
contaminants, such as mercury and other heavy metals, pesticides, and
salt water. Oil and gas production on the refuge would continue,
necessitating communication and cooperation with oil companies to
reduce above-ground impacts and disturbance, as well as to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate spills and contamination.
Under Alternative D, the principal wildlife-dependent recreation
would remain fishing, regulated by the State of Alabama. Both bank and
boat fishing would be available. The State would continue to conduct
periodic creel and angler surveys. Within 5 years of approval of the
comprehensive conservation plan, the refuge would build new fishing
facilities, such as a handicapped accessible fishing pier. It would
also provide additional woody structure within the reservoir, and open
boating access via stump removal and increased aquatic vegetation
control.
Secondary public uses would continue to be hunting and wildlife
observation as in the Enhanced Wildlife-Dependent Recreation
Alternative. This alternative would also offer an improved wildlife
observation platform, next to the moist-soil units. The Service would
seek to build a pedestrian bridge over the mouth of Okatuppa Creek to
facilitate and improve access to Middle Swamp. Refuge hunts would
include an archery hunt for deer, and a small game season for
squirrels, rabbits and raccoons. A waterfowl hunt for youths would be
added, contingent on having staffing resources to manage the hunt. The
same
[[Page 3882]]
public access and use under this alternative would continue; to gain
access to many areas would remain by boat only from the reservoir. Many
more environmental education opportunities both on and off the refuge
would be pursued.
Even under Alternative D, isolation of the refuge from its
headquarters would continue to hamper hands-on refuge management. The
alternative would add one assistant refuge manager with law enforcement
collateral duty, and one wildlife biologist with visitor services
collateral duty; and would also investigate sharing a forester with
other refuges. Recommended staffing would be six: Refuge manager,
assistant refuge manager, and office assistant at refuge headquarters,
and a biologist and two maintenance workers on the refuge.
Authority: This notice is published under the authority of the
National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Public Law
105-57.
Dated: July 25, 2005.
Linda H. Kelsey,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 06-616 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-M