[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 199 (Friday, October 14, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63945-63949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26650]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R4-R-2011-N138; 40136-1265-0000-S3]


White River National Wildlife Refuge, AR; Draft Comprehensive 
Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability; 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 White River National 
Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Desha, Monroe, Phillips, and Arkansas 
Counties, Arkansas, 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 November 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Mr. 
Dennis Sharp, via U.S. mail at White River NWR, P.O. Box 205, St. 
Charles, AR 72140, or via e-mail at [email protected]. 
Alternatively, you may download the document from our Internet Site at 
http://www.fws.gov/southeast/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, at (601) 955-1518 
(telephone).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction

    With this notice, we continue the CCP process for White River NWR. 
We started the process through a Federal Register notice on January 21, 
2009 (74 FR 3628). Please see that notice for more about the refuge and 
its purposes.

Background

The CCP Process

    The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 
U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) (Administration Act), 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 in 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.

CCP Alternatives, Including Our Proposed Alternative

    We developed three alternatives (A, B, and C) for managing the 
refuge and chose Alternative C 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)

    Under Alternative A, current management direction would continue at 
present levels. We would continue to support existing migratory 
waterfowl numbers and habitat acreage in an attempt to meet or exceed 
the foraging habitat objectives of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint 
Venture and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. We would 
continue to provide functional waterfowl refuge/sanctuary areas 
throughout the refuge, comprising at least 60 percent of its area. We 
would continue to provide quality wood duck nesting and brood-rearing 
habitat in bottomland hardwoods, cypress swamps, and scrub/shrub 
habitats. If time permits, we would conduct banding to support 
objectives of the Mississippi Flyway Council.
    We would provide incidental benefits for shorebirds, but with no 
active management on their behalf. Likewise, there would be no active 
habitat management for marsh birds, but we would continue to provide 
habitat for them in shallow-water areas and moist-

[[Page 63946]]

soil units. There would be no active habitat management for wading 
birds, but we would continue to provide habitat for breeding and 
wintering colonial waterbirds in shallow-water areas and forested 
wetlands.
    We would continue to provide both managed and unmanaged forest 
habitat, to provide a diversity of forest conditions that support 
forest-breeding birds designated as high priority in the Mississippi 
Alluvial Valley's Bird Conservation Region 26, through forest 
restoration on newly acquired parcels and silvicultural management of 
some existing forested tracts. We would continue to provide protection 
for threatened and endangered species through research, survey, 
recovery, conservation, and management programs.
    There would be no specific management of white-tailed deer, but 
active management of forested habitats would continue, as would 
management of early succession open lands and croplands that benefit 
deer. Our aim would be to maintain a healthy deer herd consistent with 
long-term habitat capability. We would collect and analyze deer harvest 
data, conduct periodic herd health checks, and provide quality 
recreational opportunities for deer hunters.
    There would be no specific management of turkeys; however, active 
habitat management would continue that incidentally results in enhanced 
habitat for turkeys and provides quality recreational opportunities. 
This alternative would maintain, restore, and enhance a variety of 
habitats suitable for use by black bears. There would be no active 
management for furbearers, other than controlling nuisance animals when 
necessary.
    We would continue active habitat management to provide diverse 
habitats (e.g., early succession openland, agriculture, and bottomland 
forest) that supports healthy populations of resident small game, thus 
providing quality recreational activities for hunters of small game. We 
would continue active habitat management that provides a diversity of 
habitats and supports a healthy, diverse, and viable resident bat 
population. There would continue to be no active management for non-
game mammals or their habitats, although non-game mammals and their 
habitats occur throughout the refuge. We would continue to manage and 
enhance habitat for a diverse assemblage of reptile and amphibian 
species. We would maintain aquatic habitat for a diverse assemblage of 
fish species, particularly those recognized as species of special 
concern by State and/or Federal agencies. We would also provide quality 
fishing opportunities on the refuge.
    We would continue to provide a complex of habitat conditions 
through integrated open land rotation management, to meet the needs of 
migratory birds, including migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, wading 
birds, and secretive marsh birds. Through active forest management, we 
would aim to achieve desired forest conditions on 17 percent of the 
refuge, to protect, manage, and restore the values and functions of 
forestland to sustain the biological needs of native wildlife and 
migratory birds.
    Hydrology would continue to be altered by both off-refuge (i.e., 
upstream within the White River watershed) and on-refuge manipulations 
that result in an unnatural hydrograph. We would continue to operate 
functioning water control structures and keep non-functioning water 
control structures inactive. We would continue limited efforts through 
the use of Best Management Practices recommended by the Arkansas 
Forestry Commission in refuge management and operations, to reduce 
levels of stream impairment from turbidity, siltation, and pollution.
    We would continue to conduct incidental inventorying, monitoring, 
and researching, but without the guidance and priorities of an 
Inventorying and Monitoring Plan. Similarly, there would be no active, 
systematic efforts to monitor or mitigate global climate change.
    We would continue to work with partners to minimize impacts of 
threats to natural and cultural resources. We would follow standard 
Service protocol and procedures according to Section 106 of the 
National Historic Preservation Act.
    We would continue opportunistic control of nuisance and exotic 
terrestrial animal species, such as feral hogs, nutria, and beaver; 
exotic and invasive terrestrial and aquatic plant species; and nuisance 
and exotic aquatic animal species, such as Asian carp, northern 
snakeheads, zebra mussels, and Asian clams.
    We would continue to provide a permit to the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers (COE), allowing the deposition of nonbeneficial dredge 
material at two sites in the lower White River. We would work 
cooperatively with the COE to develop a long-term dredge spoil disposal 
alternative that is compatible with refuge purposes. Grazing would 
continue to be allowed along the White River Drainage District's right-
of-way over Service properties. Haying would be allowed after July 1 
each year on the drainage district's right-of-way over Service 
properties. We would continue to acquire key parcels within the 
approved acquisition boundary. We would continue to promote 
communication, cooperation, and partnerships between other agencies, 
land managers, and private citizens to minimize impacts from external 
threats to the functions and values of the refuge's wetland ecosystems.
    We would conduct maintenance on roads, trails, boat ramps, and 
other public use infrastructure. We would continue to provide existing 
hunting opportunities that allow for quality public recreation and that 
are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established. 
We would continue to provide existing fishing, wildlife observation, 
and environmental education and outreach programs. Existing 
interpretive facilities, materials, and programs would continue, 
including the summer campfire programs.
    We would continue to provide and maintain approximately 90 miles of 
graveled roads for public access and 400 miles of dirt roads/trails for 
forest management and all-terrain vehicle use. We would continue to 
allow primitive camping associated with wildlife-dependent activities 
on about 44,000 acres and 24 maintained campgrounds. We would also 
continue to allow small boats to be left along the small isolated lakes 
year-round. Existing permitted houseboats would continue being 
gradually eliminated, according to the Houseboat Management Plan. We 
would also document non-permitted houseboats.
    We would maintain the existing staff of 14 full-time employees. We 
would maintain existing facilities, infrastructure, and equipment 
necessary to perform habitat management, restoration, and improvement 
on the refuge. We would maintain essential infrastructure, such as 
roads, levees, and water control structures. Furthermore, we would 
maintain the volunteer program and continue to support the friends 
group and other cooperative partnerships.

Alternative B--Minimal Resource and Public Use Management

    The thrust of Alternative B is reduced management of resources and 
public use. This alternative would still pursue the refuge goals, but 
it would approach them from the perspective of custodial stewardship, 
or minimal active management. The Service would be a good custodian of 
the landscape and the White River ecosystem without

[[Page 63947]]

attempting to intervene extensively in existing ecosystem processes.
    With regard to migratory bird populations, Alternative B would 
eliminate all active management and habitat manipulation, allowing open 
lands and forested habitats to function and progress through habitat 
succession. Concerning migratory bird sanctuary, however, Alternative B 
would be the same as Alternative A. Functional waterfowl refuge/
sanctuary areas would continue to be provided, comprising at least 60 
percent of the refuge.
    We would eliminate wood duck banding activities and cease active 
habitat management for wood ducks. With respect to shorebirds, we would 
also eliminate active management of moist-soil units and agricultural 
fields, allowing natural succession to occur. Active management of 
shallow-water areas, impoundments, and forested wetlands on behalf of 
marsh birds, colonial nesting waterbirds, and wading birds would cease, 
and natural succession would occur on those habitats. We would 
eliminate active management of forest stands for the benefit of forest 
breeding birds and allow natural succession to proceed on all abandoned 
croplands, moist-soil units, and scrub/shrub habitats. We would 
eliminate active management of endangered and other listed species and 
operate the refuge without knowing the extent or number of these 
species occurring on the refuge.
    Hunting of game animals, such as deer, wild turkey, and bear, would 
continue on the refuge, but Alternative B would halt active habitat 
management to provide enhanced habitat. All active forest and open land 
management and collection of biological data about white-tailed deer 
would cease, but we would continue to use deer hunting to regulate 
population levels in support of a healthy herd consistent with long-
term habitat capability. This alternative would still aim to provide 
quality recreational opportunities for deer hunters. With regard to 
wild turkey, we would stop all active habitat management and allow 
forest succession to occur on all lands, which would initially increase 
nesting habitat. Eventually, however, nesting habitat would be lost due 
to forest succession. Stopping all active habitat management and 
allowing forest succession to occur uninterrupted would incidentally 
support black bears.
    Without control of nuisance animals, furbearer populations would be 
allowed to fluctuate naturally. Small game and non-game mammals would 
benefit if all active habitat management stopped and forest succession 
was allowed to occur. Natural succession would form wooded and wetland 
habitats that would support sustainable populations of most bat 
species. Stopping all active habitat management and allowing forest 
succession would be the preferred approach to supporting a diverse 
assemblage of reptiles and amphibians. Additionally, riverine and 
floodplain aquatic habitat would function without intervention under 
this alternative.
    We would phase out active refuge management and habitat 
manipulation of open lands, gradually allowing them to undergo natural 
succession, except for levees and rights-of-way, which must be kept 
open per interagency agreements. We would also eliminate active forest 
management, allowing natural succession and processes to achieve 
desired forest conditions on 5 percent of the refuge, to protect and 
restore the values and functions of the refuge's forestland. This would 
help sustain the biological needs of native wildlife and migratory 
birds.
    We would allow aquatic habitats to function without management 
practices. Hydrology under Alternative B would be the same as under 
Alternative A. The hydrology of the White River and its tributaries, 
sloughs, and lakes would continue to be altered both by off-refuge and 
on-refuge manipulations that result in an unnatural hydrograph. 
Nuisance beaver control and associated habitat impacts would be 
eliminated, resulting in a continual lose of forested habitat. All 
active water management would be eliminated, and we would allow habitat 
succession to occur on areas with water control capabilities.
    We would eliminate all active open land and forested habitat 
management on the refuge. This may reduce erosion from adjacent lands 
through an increase in the acreage of undisturbed forested riparian 
habitat. All inventorying and monitoring on the refuge would cease. 
Under Alternative B, our approach to climate change would be the same 
as under Alternative A--there would be no active, systematic efforts to 
monitor or mitigate global climate change.
    We would continue to work with partners to minimize impacts to the 
refuge's natural and cultural resources. Alternative B would pursue 
this goal through a variety of means and measures. Cultural resources 
would be protected through minimal implementation of standard Service 
protocol and procedures according to Section 106 of the National 
Historic Preservation Act.
    We would identify and track occurrences of invasive terrestrial and 
aquatic animals and plants, but would make no efforts to control them.
    Treatment of dredge spoil sites would be the same as under 
Alternative A. Grazing and haying would also be dealt with the same as 
under Alternative A.
    With regard to refuge land acquisition, we would continue to 
acquire key parcels within the approved acquisition boundary. We would 
also continue to promote communication, cooperation, and partnerships 
between other agencies, land managers, and private citizens, to 
minimize impacts from external threats to the refuge's wetland 
ecosystems.
    With regard to visitor services and public use management, 
Alternative B is the same as Alternative A, except that it would 
discontinue maintenance of roads, trails, boat ramps, and other public 
use infrastructure that accommodates priority public uses. Public uses 
and visitation would still be allowed, but we would no longer provide 
support and maintain facilities. Hunting would be permitted and 
encouraged, but we would cease maintenance of the facilities and 
infrastructure that support hunting. Commercial duck guiding on the 
refuge would be eliminated. The other priority public uses--fishing, 
wildlife observation, wildlife photography, and environmental education 
and interpretation--would all be allowed under Alternative B, except 
that maintenance of facilities and infrastructure that support these 
activities would be discontinued. Existing access roads and trails 
would not be maintained. Small boats would no longer be allowed to 
remain overnight along the refuge's isolated lakes. We would also cease 
maintenance of 24 primitive campgrounds and eliminate camping. We would 
continue to gradually eliminate existing permitted houseboats according 
to the Houseboat Management Plan. We would also document non-permitted 
houseboats, the same as under Alternative A.
    We would reduce the staff to eight by eliminating the following 
positions: one assistant refuge manager, two foresters, one forestry 
technician, and one equipment operator. The remaining eight employees 
should be sufficient to manage the refuge on a custodial basis.
    We would maintain a minimal inventory of facilities, 
infrastructure, and equipment needed for basic resource management and 
only tasks required by law, regulation, or policy, which include human 
safety, endangered species management, and law enforcement, would be 
conducted. We would reduce involvement with volunteers to a seasonal 
basis as needed. A reduction in staff could diminish

[[Page 63948]]

support for the friends group and other cooperative partnerships.

Alternative C--Enhanced Resource and Public Use Management (Proposed 
Alternative)

    Alternative C, our proposed alternative, would continue to support 
migratory waterfowl populations, with a focus on providing wetland 
habitat to wintering ducks and breeding wood ducks. It would also 
maintain the waterfowl sanctuary and explore opportunities to improve 
the spatial distribution of the refuge's waterfowl sanctuaries to help 
meet its waterfowl objectives. We would increase wood duck nesting and 
brood-rearing habitat, through land acquisition and conduct banding 
activities, in an attempt to band 63 wood ducks annually. Doing this 
would support the objectives of the Mississippi Flyway Council. To 
improve banding efficiency, we would provide and maintain a limited 
number of strategically placed wood duck boxes in areas where banding 
is to occur.
    Through managing the timing of lake draw-downs, we would provide 
fall migration habitat for shorebirds from July through October, to 
contribute to the objectives set forth in the U.S. Shorebird 
Conservation Plan and the Lower Mississippi Valley/West Gulf Coastal 
Plain Shorebird Management Plan. We would also provide high-quality 
habitat for breeding and migrating marsh birds, in conjunction with 
meeting waterfowl habitat requirements where possible, and monitor 
results of management actions. Alternative C would provide critical 
habitats for long-legged wading birds and protect all rookery sites 
from disturbance from March to August (i.e., their breeding season) to 
contribute to objectives set forth in the North American Waterbird 
Conservation Plan.
    Forest breeding birds are also a priority of Alternative C. With 
the aid of additional biological and forestry specialists to assist 
with planning, implementing, and monitoring, we would improve, 
intensify, and expand forest management for the enhanced benefit of 
high-priority forest breeding birds.
    With regard to conserving threatened and endangered species and 
species of concern, Alternative C would be the same as Alternative A--
the refuge would continue to support their protection and enhancement. 
Additionally, this alternative would attempt to restore habitats for 
listed species.
    White-tailed deer would be managed the same as under Alternative A, 
except that we would use harvest and health check data to adjust 
hunting seasons if and when necessary. Likewise with wild turkey 
management, Alternative C would be identical to Alternative A, except 
that we would monitor turkey population status with the aid of 
additional staff. Also with the aid of additional staff, we propose to 
intensify management programs to provide enhanced habitat conditions 
that would support a healthy and sustainable black bear population and 
monitor bear occurrence. Once again we would apply adaptive management, 
and results would be used to adjust future management decisions. 
Furbearer management would be the same as under Alternative A, except 
that additional opportunities would be identified to expand programs 
for controlling nuisance animals.
    Small game management would also be identical to Alternative A in 
that we would continue active habitat management to provide diverse 
habitats, such as early succession openland, agriculture, and 
bottomland forest that support healthy populations of resident small 
game, and provide quality recreational activities. Bat management would 
also be the same as under Alternative A, except that with the aid of 
additional staff we could perform periodic bat surveys to document 
occurrence and habitat use.
    Under Alternative C, resident non-game mammals and a diverse 
assemblage of reptiles and amphibians would benefit from enhanced 
habitat management; those animals and natural communities designated as 
Elements of Special Concern by the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission 
would receive particular emphasis in management. Likewise, we would 
maintain and enhance aquatic habitat for a rich diversity of fishes, 
particularly those recognized as species of special concern by State 
and/or Federal agencies.
    With regard to open lands under passive management (e.g., levees, 
fallow fields, and rights-of-way), Alternative C would maintain these 
to provide a complex of habitat types primarily suited to benefit 
migratory birds and resident wildlife. We would also explore 
opportunities to increase the efficiency of current open lands and 
maintain or increase the acreage of habitat to be included in 
integrated open land management. We would monitor vegetation and 
wildlife responses to treatment and we would implement adaptive 
management.
    We would work with the White River Drainage District to eliminate 
grazing activities on the levee based on the compatibility 
considerations (i.e., providing habitat that negatively impacts 
neotropical bird species), and instead mow or hay outside of the March 
to August breeding dates. This would assure that woody encroachment on 
the levees is minimized. Optimal management would establish conditions 
in which grass and herbaceous growth are not inhibited or removed 
between March and August annually. To avoid disruption of the nesting 
season of neotropical migratory songbirds in the adjacent refuge forest 
and to prevent creating suitable brown-headed cowbird habitat during 
the nesting season, mowing/haying will not be allowed until August 15.
    With respect to actively managed open lands, Alternative C would 
expand and intensify management to provide a complex of habitat types 
primarily suited to benefit migratory birds. We would explore 
opportunities to increase efficiency of current open lands and maintain 
or increase the acreage of habitat to be included in integrated open 
land management. In addition, we would monitor vegetation and wildlife 
responses to treatment and implement adaptive management.
    Through active forest management, we would aim to achieve desired 
forest conditions on 40 percent of the refuge, to protect, manage, and 
restore the values and functions of the forestland in order to sustain 
the biological needs of native wildlife and migratory birds.
    Alternative C would improve and restore the aquatic habitats of 
lakes, sloughs, and bayous. We would restore and/or mimic hydrologic 
patterns (i.e., the timing, frequency, duration, and extent of 
flooding) and the habitats associated with particular hydrologic 
characteristics on the refuge, and cooperate in interagency efforts to 
restore and/or mimic a more natural hydrograph on the White River. We 
would also endeavor to improve the functionality of water control 
structures and create more natural water regimes, while providing 
important resources for wetland-dependent wildlife.
    We would establish and implement management actions to protect and 
improve water quality, while not interfering with activities associated 
with habitat management. We would prepare, maintain, and start to 
implement an inventorying and monitoring plan and use the results to 
implement adaptive management. Unlike alternatives A and B, Alternative 
C would address climate change by designing and beginning to implement 
long-term monitoring, with the potential to track and assess changes 
due to global climate change. As possible, we would

[[Page 63949]]

coordinate these efforts with larger regional monitoring efforts.
    Under Alternative C, we would develop and begin to implement a 
Cultural Resources Management Plan. Until such time as the plan is 
complete, we would follow standard Service protocol and procedures 
according to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
    With regard to invasive terrestrial animals, we would intensify and 
expand prevention and control programs, including development of a 
database to track occurrences and control measures. We would develop 
and implement a Nuisance Animal Management Plan, to detail objectives 
and methods for nuisance animal control. We would also develop a Rapid 
Response and Prevention Plan for invasive aquatic animals. Similarly, 
for invasive plant species, we would develop and implement an Invasive 
Plants Plan for coordinated control efforts when infestations are 
encountered, along with a database to systematically track invasive 
plant occurrences and treatments.
    Concerning dredge disposal sites, we would complete the Partnering 
Agreement with the COE that seeks a long-term dredge spoil disposal 
alternative. We would also complete a compatibility determination for 
the proposed disposal alternative. Should the proposed alternative be 
found not compatible, the dredge spoil deposition on refuge sites would 
be eliminated as expeditiously as practicable.
    Working with partners, we would acquire priority lands within or 
adjacent to the approved acquisition boundary from willing sellers that 
would enhance the conservation values of the refuge; over the long 
term, we would consider acquisition boundary expansion to ensure the 
protection of bottomland hardwood habitats and to enhance landscape 
conservation.
    Alternative C would promote, manage, and improve appropriate and 
compatible public uses with the recruitment of additional visitor 
service staff, preparation of a Visitor Services Plan, and better 
access and improved facilities. We would develop a new Hunt Plan to 
improve hunting opportunities, while ensuring safe, compatible, and 
quality experiences. Efforts would be made to develop more consistent 
hunting seasons and regulations on the north and south units of the 
refuge. Public use impacts would be monitored and adjustments would be 
made, as needed, to protect resources.
    Under Alternative C, we would modify the guide program to provide 
fair and equitable hunting opportunities that foster a safe, ethical 
hunting experience, reduce the commercial guide's ability to monopolize 
the most easily accessible quality hunting sites, and minimize 
conflicts between non-guided hunters and hunting guides. We would 
reduce the number of commercial duck guiding permits from 17 to 5, and 
eliminate the availability of 10 additional guiding permits during 
specified flood conditions.
    We would develop a new Fishing Plan to improve fishing 
opportunities, while ensuring safe, compatible, and quality 
experiences. We would strive to improve and expand wildlife observation 
and photography opportunities and environmental education, outreach, 
and interpretive opportunities, while ensuring safe, compatible, and 
quality experiences. We would recruit additional visitor services staff 
to develop a series of standard environmental education programs for 
visiting school groups and training for teacher-led discovery field 
trips. For interpretation purposes, we would develop and install a 
display that explains the forest management program and desired forest 
conditions. We would develop forest demonstration plots and 
interpretive panels at wildlife drive pullouts.
    We would maintain existing public access in a safe and 
environmentally appropriate manner, to support wildlife-dependent 
priority public uses. We would reduce the number of miles of tertiary 
all-terrain vehicle trails by 25 percent and would develop an Access 
Plan. In addition, we would utilize seasonal closures, as necessary, to 
minimize resource impacts and to ensure the quantity and quality of 
access.
    We would reduce the camping program and encourage the use of nearby 
private campgrounds. The number of campgrounds would be reduced and 
some campgrounds would only be open to accommodate peak-use periods 
associated with quota deer hunts. Camping would be restricted to 
designated areas and the minimal area necessary to meet priority public 
use needs. We would promote the use of surrounding private campgrounds 
by refuge users and encourage the development of additional private 
campground sites.
    We would continue to gradually eliminate existing permitted 
houseboats according to the Houseboat Management Plan and prohibit the 
attachment of non-permitted houseboats to refuge property. We would 
work with other State and Federal agencies to ensure all remaining 
houseboats are in compliance with marine sanitation regulations.
    As budgetary resources become available, we would strategically add 
14 staff positions that would improve the capacity and capability of 
the refuge to achieve its legislated purposes and accomplish management 
goals and objectives. Like Alternative A, Alternative C would maintain 
existing facilities, infrastructure, and equipment necessary to perform 
habitat management, restoration, and improvements on the refuge, in 
addition to maintaining essential infrastructure, such as roads, 
levees, and water control structures. In addition to this, Alternative 
C, with the aid of additional staff and equipment, would improve 
facilities and infrastructure that facilitate management programs for 
trust species and visitor services, and maintain or improve access for 
management purposes and visitor use. We would also expand the volunteer 
program and cooperate with the friends group and other cooperative 
partnerships.

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: August 3, 2011.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2011-26650 Filed 10-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P