[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 92 (Thursday, May 13, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26979-26981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11417]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R4-R-2010-N053; 40136-1265-0000-S3]


Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge, Jones and Jasper Counties, GA

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 Piedmont 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.

DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments 
by June 14, 2010.

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, or via e-mail at [email protected]. You may also download the document from our Internet 
Site as follows: http://southeast.fws.gov/planning under ``Draft 
Documents.'' Submit comments on the Draft CCP/EA to the above postal 
address or e-mail address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Laura Housh, Refuge Planner, 
telephone: 912-496-7366, ext. 244; fax: 912-496-3322.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction

    With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Piedmont NWR. We 
started the process through a notice in the Federal Register on April 
4, 2008 (73 FR 18552).
    For more about the refuge and our CCP process, please see that 
notice.

Background

The CCP Process

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee), 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) 
Management for threatened and endangered species; (2) refuge boundary 
and future land acquisition; (3) forest and fire management and 
education; (4) cane break restoration; (5) invasive species control; 
(6) climate change; (7) partnerships; (8) air and water quality; (9) 
protection of cultural resources; (10) urban development; (11) law 
enforcement; (12) public access; (13) wildlife-dependent recreation; 
(14) camping; and (15) facilities, staffing, and funding needs.

CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative

    We developed four alternatives for managing the refuge and chose 
Alternative B as the proposed alternative. A full description of each 
alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative 
below.

Alternative A--No Action Alternative

    Under Alternative A, we would continue to monitor and manage the 
red-cockaded woodpecker population to achieve our goal for this 
endangered

[[Page 26980]]

species. We would conduct limited surveys for other wildlife species. 
No active management would occur for waterfowl, wetland-dependent 
birds, raptors, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and other resident birds 
and mammals. We would continue current forest management practices by 
actively managing 22,500 acres of upland pine with timber harvesting 
and prescribed burning. The current fire management program would be 
maintained to achieve viable wildlife and plant communities. We would 
reduce fuels by burning on a 3-year rotation and by participating in a 
fuels' monitoring program. Wildlife openings and roadsides would be 
maintained through mowing and prescribed burning. We would 
opportunistically treat invasive plants with herbicides and prescribed 
burning, enhance cane areas, and manage bottomland and upland 
hardwoods. For aquatic species, we would continue to implement 
Georgia's Best Management Practices for Forestry and manage the 
impoundments as a demonstration area for waterfowl by performing 
periodic drawdown and limited planting.
    We would continue to welcome and orient visitors and maintain 
current opportunities for wildlife observation and photography. The 
level of environmental education opportunities would continue to be 
limited due to lack of resources, and outreach activities would 
continue to be limited to one event per year. We would maintain 
existing hunting and fishing programs as well as current facilities. We 
would continue to enforce all State and Federal laws applicable to the 
refuge, provide visitor safety, protect wildlife and cultural 
resources, and ensure public compliance by enforcing current refuge 
regulations.
    The staff would continue to support both Piedmont and Bond Swamp 
NWRs. We would work with private landowners and partners to promote our 
goals and objectives. Land could be acquired from willing sellers 
within the current acquisition boundary and in accordance with Service 
policy. The current volunteer program would be maintained.

Alternative B--Wildlife and Habitat Diversity (Proposed Action)

    We selected Alternative B as the alternative that best signifies 
the vision, goals, and purposes of Piedmont NWR. This alternative was 
selected based on public input and the best professional judgment of 
the planning team. Under Alternative B, the emphasis would be on 
restoring and improving refuge resources needed for wildlife and 
habitat management and providing enhanced appropriate and compatible 
wildlife-dependent public use opportunities.
    We would continue to monitor and manage the red-cockaded woodpecker 
population, but would increase the population goal by 3 to 5 percent. 
We would increase wildlife surveys conducted under Alternative A to 
include surveying for breeding birds, bald eagles, furbearers, resident 
birds, raptors, reptiles and amphibians. We would initiate basic 
inventories for fish species and invertebrates, including dragonflies, 
crayfish, and mussels. We would continue to collect quail, turkey, and 
deer data through managed hunts and surveys, and reinstate turkey brood 
counts. We would increase efforts to maintain a deer population of 30 
to 35 deer per-square-mile, with a balanced sex ratio.
    We would expand habitat management by modifying forest management 
strategies to benefit wildlife and habitat diversity. We would continue 
to maintain current fire management programs but intensify management 
of a 5,000-acre Piedmont savanna focus area with smaller burn units on 
a 2-year rotation. We would prioritize the need for removal of invasive 
plants and animals and would enhance wildlife openings and roadsides 
for early successional habitat diversity. For aquatic species, we would 
continue to implement Georgia's Best Management Practices for Forestry, 
but would also survey streams to identify species. We would continue to 
manage the impoundments as a demonstration area for waterfowl and 
implement a water management program to enhance habitat and wildlife 
diversity. We would identify unique and rare habitat types and modify 
management activities as needed to protect and restore priority areas. 
Cane areas would continue to be strategically managed.
    We would revise the current visitor services plan and update signs, 
brochures, exhibits, and websites. Kiosks and an automated phone system 
would be added. We would expand current opportunities for wildlife 
observation, wildlife photography, environmental education and 
interpretation, and outreach. We would continue to maintain, and where 
possible, expand existing hunting and fishing opportunities. We would 
maintain our current law enforcement program and, in addition, revise 
the law enforcement plan and reinstate the law enforcement outreach 
program. We would document additional historic sites and update current 
GIS data to provide for better resource protection. We would develop an 
integrated cultural resources plan. Under this alternative, we would 
evaluate the potential of expanding the refuge acquisition boundary to 
meet our goals and objectives in accordance with current Service 
policy.
    We would seek partnerships to monitor the impacts of climate change 
on refuge resources and adapt management as needed to conserve the 
native wildlife and habitats. Administration plans would identify 
increased maintenance of existing infrastructure and construction of 
new facilities. We would acquire and maintain equipment, facilities, 
and infrastructure to support refuge programs.
    Additional staff would be required to accomplish the goals of 
Alternative B and support both Piedmont and Bond Swamp NWRs. This would 
include reinstating an assistant forester and an interpretive park 
ranger and adding a biologist, a forestry technician, a park ranger 
(law enforcement), a refuge operations specialist, a prescribed fire/
fuels technician, an engineering equipment operator, and two seasonal 
forestry technicians (firefighters). We would continue to promote 
partnerships and work with adjacent private landowners to support our 
goals and objectives. We would expand our volunteer program to include 
more resident interns.

Alternative C--Migratory Birds

    Under Alternative C, we would focus on migratory birds. The 
majority of our efforts would deal with enhancing habitat for and 
increasing the population of migratory birds. We would continue to 
monitor and manage the red-cockaded woodpecker population in accordance 
with recovery plan guidelines. We would conduct current surveys for 
wildlife as identified under Alternative B. We would initiate annual 
woodcock surveys, a kestrel nesting box program, and identify and 
manage for the habitat needs of neotropical and migratory birds. We 
would reestablish the wood duck banding program, work with partners to 
manage impoundments to benefit waterfowl, increase acres in 
impoundments to benefit wetland-dependent birds, and identify the 
nesting, breeding, roosting, and foraging habitat needs of raptors. As 
under Alternative B, we would initiate a streams survey and would 
restore and manage fisheries resources, but would also retain at least 
30 percent of submergent vegetation in ponds. To support healthy 
migratory bird populations, we would initiate predator

[[Page 26981]]

control. As under Alternative B, we would establish a Piedmont savanna 
focus area, but would replace summer quail call counts with fall covey 
counts. Resident wildlife monitoring and management would be the same 
as under Alternative A unless stated otherwise. We would expand habitat 
management, but would also identify areas to focus on cane habitat 
management and increase structural diversity of bottomland hardwood 
areas. The fire management program would be maintained, but would 
increase the acreage of the Piedmont savanna focus area to greater than 
5,000 acres and change the fire intervals to maximize the benefits to 
migratory birds outside of the focus area. We would expand invasive 
plant species control from uplands to include other habitat types to 
reduce adverse impacts to migratory birds. We would continue to manage 
the impoundments, implement a water management program, and manage 
unique and rare habitats as under Alternative B, but the emphasis would 
be on migratory birds. We would target management in open lands for 
priority migratory bird species.
    We would revise the visitor services plan and would expand current 
opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 
environmental education and interpretation, but with the emphasis on 
migratory birds. Facilities to enhance these visitor services would be 
added, but observation constraints would be implemented to avoid 
disturbance to migratory birds. We would host one annual festival 
focusing on migratory birds. We would continue to maintain, and where 
possible, expand hunting programs, but would evaluate limiting or 
closing fishing on ponds to reduce impacts to wintering and nesting 
waterfowl.
    We would implement a law enforcement program as stated under 
Alternative B, but focus on migratory birds. We would seek partnerships 
to evaluate and adapt to the impacts of climate change and work with 
private landowners to promote migratory bird resources. The volunteer 
program would focus on migratory bird projects.

Alternative D--Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species

    The focus of Alternative D would be on management of rare, 
threatened, and endangered species. We would intensively manage for 
red-cockaded woodpeckers on the maximum potential acres in upland 
forest by removing hardwoods, promoting pine, increasing prescribed 
burning, and initiating an intra-population translocation program. As 
under Alternative B, we would continue to conduct current wildlife 
surveys, establish but intensively manage a Piedmont savanna focus 
area, and initiate surveys for wetland-dependent birds and raptors. We 
would conduct comprehensive surveys focused on rare, threatened, and 
endangered species of invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, and bats. 
The invasive species control program would emphasize reducing adverse 
impacts to rare, threatened, and endangered species and their habitats. 
We would increase acres in impoundments and manage them to benefit wood 
stork foraging habitat and other species of concern. Open lands would 
be managed for rare, threatened, and endangered species.
    We would revise the visitor services plan and expand current 
opportunities for wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and 
environmental education. We would implement observation constraints to 
avoid disturbance to rare, threatened, and endangered species. One 
annual festival focusing on rare, threatened, and endangered species 
would be held annually on the refuge. We would continue to maintain, 
and where possible, expand existing hunting programs, but would 
evaluate limiting or closing fishing on ponds to reduce impacts to 
rare, threatened, and endangered species.
    We would continue to maintain an active law enforcement program, 
protect cultural resources, pursue land acquisition, establish 
partnerships, and manage volunteers as under Alternative B, and where 
applicable, focus on rare, threatened, and endangered species.

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. 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 19, 2010.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-11417 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P