[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 83 (Friday, May 1, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20333-20337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-10033]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: [email protected].

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