[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 108 (Monday, June 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32205-32208]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13511]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R4-R-2010-N061; 40136-1265-0000-S3]


Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge, Ashley, Bradley, and Union 
Counties, AR; Overflow National Wildlife Refuge, Ashley County, AR

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 Felsenthal and Overflow 
National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) for public review and comment. 
Felsenthal, Overflow, and Pond Creek NWRs are managed as a Complex. A 
separate CCP was prepared for Pond Creek NWR. In this Draft CCP/EA, we 
describe the

[[Page 32206]]

alternative we propose to use to manage these refuges for the 15 years 
following approval of the final CCP.

DATES: To ensure consideration, we must receive your written comments 
by July 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Mr. 
Bernie Peterson, via U.S. mail at Felsenthal NWR, P.O. Box 1157, 
Crossett, AR 71635, or via e-mail at [email protected]. 
Alternatively you may download the document from our Internet Site at 
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: Mr. Mike Dawson, Refuge Planner, 
telephone: 601/965-4903, Ext. 20.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    With this notice, we continue the CCP process for Felsenthal and 
Overflow NWRs. We started the process through a notice in the Federal 
Register on April 2, 2008 (73 FR 17992). For more about the refuges, 
their purposes, 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 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 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.
    Key issues addressed in the Draft CCP/EA include water management, 
forestry management, greentree reservoir management, threatened and 
endangered species management, migratory bird and waterfowl nesting 
habitats, hunting and fishing program management, invasive species of 
plants and animals, refuge access, law enforcement, and environmental 
education and interpretation programs.
    Felsenthal NWR was established in 1975, as a result of the Corps of 
Engineers' Ouachita and Black Rivers Navigation Project. 
Geographically, the 65,000-acre refuge is located in what is known as 
the Felsenthal Basin, an extensive natural depression that is laced 
with a vast complex of sloughs, bayous, and lakes. Overflow NWR was 
established in 1980, to protect one of the remaining bottomland 
hardwood forests considered vital for maintaining mallard, wood duck, 
and other waterfowl populations in the Mississippi Flyway. This 13,000-
acre plus refuge is a wetland complex within the watershed of Overflow 
Creek, which flows southerly along the length of the refuge.

CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative

    We developed three separate alternatives for managing the refuges 
and chose Alternative B, Enhanced Biological and Visitor Services 
Management, as the proposed alternative for each. A full description of 
the alternatives is in the Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each alternative 
below.

Felsenthal NWR

Alternative A (Current Management, No Action)
    Alternative A would continue current management strategies, with 
little or no change in resources. We would protect, maintain, and 
enhance 65,000 acres of refuge lands, primarily focusing on the needs 
of threatened and endangered species, with additional emphasis on the 
needs of migratory birds, resident wildlife, and migratory non-game 
birds. We would continue mandated activities for protection of 
Federally listed species. Control of nuisance wildlife populations and 
invasive plant species would be undertaken on an opportunistic basis. 
Habitat management efforts would be concentrated on forests; water, 
including greentree reservoirs; and open lands. We would continue the 
fire management program.
    The Complex, made up of Felsenthal, Overflow, and Pond Creek NWRs, 
with the support of volunteers and friends, manages an extensive 
visitor services program that includes recreation, education, and 
outreach programs. We would maintain the current levels of wildlife-
dependent recreation activities (e.g., hunting, fishing, wildlife 
observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education and 
interpretation). Felsenthal NWR has an extensive network of public use 
facilities including 65 miles of all-terrain vehicle (ATV) trails, 8 
boat ramps, and 10 primitive campgrounds. Except for two archaeological 
sites, all of the refuge is open to visitors. These facilities do not 
interfere substantially with or detract from the achievement of 
wildlife conservation.
    The hunting program would continue to be managed via quota hunts 
for white-tailed deer and turkey. Special conditions of the hunt 
program would continue to include the use of ATVs along designated 
trails. Hunters with disabilities would still be allowed to extend 
their use of ATVs approximately 200 yards off of designated trails. The 
use of dogs would continue during waterfowl, squirrel, rabbit, raccoon, 
and opossum hunts.
    About 60 percent of total consumptive public use on the refuge is 
fishing. There are eight boat launching facilities with parking areas 
on the refuge and three boat launching facilities with parking areas 
off the refuge that provide lake and river access. Adequate bank 
fishing opportunities would continue to be made available.
    We would maintain the refuge as resources allow. We would continue 
to manage with the following staff for the Complex: Project leader, 
deputy project leader, biologist, forester, park ranger (public use), 
fire management specialist, three forestry technicians (fire), two law 
enforcement officers, administrative officer, administrative support 
assistant, equipment operator, and heavy equipment mechanic.
 Alternative B (Enhanced Biological Management and Visitor Services--
Proposed Alternative)
    The proposed action was selected by the Service as the alternative 
that best signifies the vision, goals, and purposes of the refuge. 
Emphasis would be on restoring and improving resources needed for 
wildlife and habitat management, while providing additional public use 
opportunities. This alternative would also allow us to provide law 
enforcement protection that adequately meets the needs of the refuge.
    This alternative would focus on augmenting wildlife and habitat 
management to identify, conserve, and restore populations of native 
fish and wildlife species, with an emphasis on migratory birds and 
threatened and endangered species. This would partially be accomplished 
by increased monitoring of waterfowl, other

[[Page 32207]]

migratory birds, and endemic species in order to assess and adapt 
management strategies and actions. The restoration of the Felsenthal 
South Pool would be a vital part of this proposed action and would be 
crucial to ensuring healthy and viable ecological communities in the 
greentree reservoir. This restoration would require increased water 
management control, invasive aquatic vegetation control, reestablishing 
water quality standards, and possibly reestablishing populations of 
game fish species. The control of nuisance wildlife populations and 
invasive plant species would be more aggressively managed by 
implementing a control plan and systematic removal.
    Alternative B would enhance the visitor services opportunities by: 
(1) Improving the quality of fishing opportunities; (2) creating 
additional hunting opportunities for youth and hunters with 
disabilities where feasible; (3) implementing an environmental 
education program component for the Complex that utilizes volunteers 
and local schools as partners; (4) enhancing wildlife viewing and 
photography opportunities by implementing food plots in observational 
areas and evaluating the possibility of implementing an auto tour; (5) 
developing and implementing a visitor services management plan; and (6) 
enhancing personal interpretive and outreach opportunities. Volunteer 
programs and friends groups also would be expanded to enhance all 
aspects of refuge management and to increase resource availability.
    In addition to the enforcement of all Federal and State laws 
applicable to the refuge to protect archaeological and historical 
sites, we would identify and develop a plan to protect all known sites. 
The allocation of an additional law enforcement officer to the refuge 
would not only provide security for these resources, but would also 
ensure visitor safety and public compliance with refuge regulations.
    Under this alternative, additional staff needed would include: Park 
ranger (law enforcement), biological technician, park ranger (visitor 
services, environmental educator/volunteer coordinator), heavy 
equipment operator, and the conversion of two seasonal fire technicians 
to full-time employment. These positions are needed to accomplish 
objectives for establishing baseline data on refuge resources, for 
managing habitats, and for adequate protection of wildlife and 
visitors.
Alternative C (Enhanced Biological Management)
    Alternative C would provide for the enhancement and restoration of 
native wildlife, fish, and plant communities and the health of those 
communities. This would be accomplished by maximizing wildlife and 
habitat management, while maintaining a portion of the current 
compatible public use opportunities. Threatened and endangered species 
would be of primary concern, but the needs of other resident and 
migratory wildlife would also be considered. As under Alternative B, 
focus would be centralized on augmenting wildlife and habitat 
management to identify, conserve, and restore populations of native 
fish and wildlife species by increased monitoring of waterfowl, other 
migratory birds, and endemic species in order to assess and adapt 
management strategies and actions. Extensive wildlife, plant, and 
habitat inventories would be initiated to obtain the biological 
information needed to implement and monitor management programs.
    Habitat management would be increased to provide additional 
sanctuary for waterfowl, to provide additional active clusters of red-
cockaded woodpeckers, to promote additional edge as a transition 
between habitat types for resident wildlife, and to provide additional 
openings for native grasslands. A minor expansion plan would be 
evaluated to expand the current acquisition boundary. This would allow 
us to expand critical or viable habitat. We would inventory and more 
aggressively monitor, control, and, where possible, eliminate invasive 
plants and nuisance wildlife through the use of staff and contracted 
labor.
    Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 
education and interpretation opportunities would continue as currently 
managed, but only when and where they would not conflict with wildlife 
management activities and objectives. The use of ATVs and campgrounds 
would be reduced or would require a special use permit to better 
control use. Night fishing and fishing tournaments would be phased out. 
Harvest counts for waterfowl hunting would be monitored annually to 
determine the species hunted. Outreach would additionally focus on 
providing information to the public on flooding cycles within the 
greentree reservoir and the importance of periodic drying cycles.
    Administration plans would stress the need for increased 
maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities benefitting 
wildlife conservation. Additional staff under this alternative would 
include: Park ranger (law enforcement), biological technician, 
biologist, heavy equipment operator, and the conversion of two seasonal 
fire technicians to full-time employment to accomplish objectives for 
establishing baseline data on refuge resources, for managing habitats, 
and for adequate protection of wildlife and visitors.

Overflow NWR

Alternative A (Current Management, No Action)
    Alternative A would continue current management strategies, with 
little or no change in resources. Under this alternative, we would 
protect, maintain, restore, and enhance 13,973 acres of refuge lands 
and 2,263 additional acres included in the Oakwood Unit. We would 
primarily focus on the needs of migratory waterfowl, with additional 
emphasis on the needs of resident wildlife, migratory non-game birds, 
and threatened and endangered species. Control of nuisance wildlife 
populations and invasive plant species would be undertaken on an 
opportunistic basis. Habitat management efforts would be concentrated 
on moist-soil management, waterfowl impoundments, forest management, 
and crop production. We would continue cooperative farming of 400 
acres.
    Currently, active habitat management targeting waterfowl includes 
impoundments for moist-soil and crop food resource generation in open 
habitats, as well as greentree reservoir management in forested areas 
to produce complimentary food and behavioral resources. Approximately 
600 acres would continue to be managed in rotation fashion in moist-
soil and crops. A stop-log structure on Overflow Creek would continue 
to be used to manage a single 4,000-acre greentree reservoir 
impoundment during winter months.
    Public use opportunities would continue to include hunting (e.g., 
waterfowl, deer, turkey, small game, woodcock, and quail), wildlife 
observation, wildlife photography, and limited environmental education 
activities. A total of 3,000 acres would continue to be protected from 
public intrusion during the wintering waterfowl season in areas 
designated as waterfowl sanctuaries.
    Standard management activities at the Oakwood Unit would continue 
to include: (1) Disking of moist-soil units on a rotational basis; (2) 
monitoring seedling survival and mortality; (3) bird surveys; and (4) 
levee and boundary line

[[Page 32208]]

maintenance. There are no visitor service opportunities on this unit. 
As compared to Overflow NWR, the Oakwood Unit is passively managed due 
to its location 80 miles from the refuge office.
    We would maintain the refuge as resources allow, and would continue 
with four staff members: Refuge manager, private lands biologist, 
biological science technician, engineering equipment operator, and 
part-time biological technician. In addition, individual volunteers 
would continue to provide many valuable services on the refuge (e.g., 
monitoring the migration of Monarch butterflies, beaver trapping, trail 
maintenance, and waterfowl counts).
Alternative B (Enhanced Biological Management and Visitor Services--
Proposed Alternative)
    The proposed alternative was selected by the Service as the 
alternative that best signifies the vision, goals, and purposes of the 
refuge. Under Alternative B, the emphasis would be on restoring and 
improving resources needed for wildlife and habitat management, while 
providing additional public use opportunities. This alternative would 
also allow us to provide the level of law enforcement protection to 
adequately meet the needs of the refuge.
    This alternative would focus on augmenting wildlife and habitat 
management to identify, conserve, and restore populations of wildlife 
species, with an emphasis on waterfowl, migratory birds, and resident 
wildlife. This would partially be accomplished by increased monitoring 
in order to assess and adapt management strategies and actions. Habitat 
management would be increased to extend the moist-soil rotation to at 
least four or more years to reach a condition preferred by marshbirds, 
to adapt flooding and water management regimes in the greentree 
reservoir and moist-soil units, and to implement a more intensive 
moist-soil management program at the Oakwood Unit (300 acres/year). 
Land acquisition within the approved acquisition boundary would be 
based on importance of the habitat for target management species and 
public use value. The control of nuisance wildlife populations and 
invasive plant species would be more aggressively managed by 
implementing a control plan and systematic removal.
    Alternative B would enhance the refuge's visitor service 
opportunities by: (1) Making hunting opportunities more accessible for 
hunters with disabilities; (2) implementing an environmental education 
program component for the Complex that utilizes volunteers and local 
schools as partners; (3) enhancing wildlife viewing and photography 
opportunities by implementing food plots in observational areas and 
promoting ATV trails as birding trails; (4) welcoming visitors by 
establishing a visitor center or contact station on the refuge; (5) 
developing and implementing a visitor services management plan; and (6) 
enhancing personal interpretive and outreach opportunities. Volunteer 
programs and friends groups also would be expanded to enhance all 
aspects of refuge management and to increase resource availability.
    In addition to the enforcement of all Federal and State laws 
applicable to the refuge to protect archaeological and historical 
sites, we would identify and develop a plan to protect all known sites. 
An additional law enforcement officer would not only provide security 
for these resources, but would also ensure visitor safety and public 
compliance with refuge regulations.
    In order to accomplish the objectives for establishing baseline 
data on refuge resources, for managing habitats, and for adequate 
protection of wildlife and visitors, additional staff would include: 
Park ranger (law enforcement), biological technician, park ranger 
(environmental educator/volunteer coordinator), and heavy equipment 
operator.
Alternative C, Enhanced Biological Management
    Alternative C would provide for the enhancement and restoration of 
native wildlife and plant communities and the health of those 
communities. This would be accomplished by maximizing wildlife and 
habitat management, while maintaining a portion of the current 
compatible public use opportunities. We would continue and enhance 
mandated activities for protecting threatened and endangered species. 
As under Alternative B, our focus would be centralized on augmenting 
wildlife and habitat management to identify, conserve, and restore 
populations of wildlife species by increased monitoring of waterfowl, 
other migratory birds, and endemic species in order to assess and adapt 
management strategies and actions. Extensive wildlife, plant, and 
habitat inventories would be initiated to obtain the biological 
information needed to implement and monitor management programs.
    Habitat management would be maximized to provide additional moist-
soil management and more intensive forest management. We would 
inventory and more aggressively monitor, control, and, where possible, 
eliminate invasive plants and nuisance wildlife through the use of 
staff and contracted labor. Land acquisitions within the approved 
acquisition boundary would be based on importance of the habitat for 
target management species. Additionally, the expansion of the Oakwood 
Unit to provide a right-of-way to the public would be evaluated.
    Wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental 
education and interpretation opportunities would continue as currently 
managed, but only when and where they would not conflict with wildlife 
management activities and objectives. Additionally, the opening of the 
Oakwood Unit to deer hunting would be evaluated and the staff offices 
on the refuge would be updated in lieu of a new visitor center.
    Administration plans would stress the need for increased 
maintenance of existing infrastructure and facilities benefitting 
wildlife conservation. Additional staff would include: Park ranger (law 
enforcement), biological technician, biologist, and heavy equipment 
operator. These positions are needed to accomplish the objectives for 
establishing baseline data on resources, for managing habitats, and for 
adequate protection of wildlife and visitors.

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: April 14, 2010.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-13511 Filed 6-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P