Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Notices 71729 

TABLE 1—SPECIES FOR WHICH WE ARE INITIATING A STATUS REVIEW TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE APPROPRIATELY

LISTED UNDER THE U.S. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Status Where listed Final listing rule 

No common name ................. Stenogyne kanehoana ..................... Endangered ...... U.S.A. (HI) ............................. 57 FR 20592; 5/13/ 

1992. 

Wire-lettuce, Malheur ............. Stephanomeria malheurensis .......... Endangered ...... U.S.A. (OR) ............................ 47 FR 50881; 11/10/ 

1982. 

No common name ................. Tetramolopium filiforme ................... Endangered ...... U.S.A. (HI) ............................. 56 FR 55770; 10/29/ 

1991. 

No common name ................. Tetramolopium lepidotum ssp. 

lepidotum.

Endangered ...... U.S.A. (HI) ............................. 56 FR 55770; 10/29/ 

1991. 

No common name ................. Trematolobelia singularis ................. Endangered ...... U.S.A. (HI) ............................. 61 FR 53089; 10/10/ 

1996. 

Pamakani ............................... Viola chamissoniana ssp. 

chamissoniana.

Endangered ...... U.S.A. (HI) ............................. 56 FR 55770; 10/29/ 

1991. 

III. What information do we consider in 

the review? 

A 5-year review considers all new 

information available at the time of the 

review. In conducting these reviews, we 

consider the best scientific and 

commercial data that has become 

available since the listing determination 

or most recent status review, such as: 

(A) Species biology including, but not 

limited to, population trends, 

distribution, abundance, demographics, 

and genetics; 

(B) Habitat conditions including, but 

not limited to, amount, distribution, and 

suitability; 

(C) Conservation measures that have 

been implemented that benefit the 

species; 

(D) Threat status and trends (see five 

factors under heading ‘‘How Do We 

Determine Whether a Species is 

Endangered or Threatened?’’); and 

(E) Other new information, data, or 

corrections including, but not limited 

to, taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, 

identification of erroneous information 

contained in the List, and improved 

analytical methods. 

IV. How do we determine whether a 

species is endangered or threatened? 

Section 4(a)(1) of the Act requires that 

we determine whether a species is 

endangered or threatened based on one 

or more of the five following factors: 

(A) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(B) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(C) Disease or predation; 

(D) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(E) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

Under section 4(b)(1) of the Act, we 

must base our assessment of these 

factors solely on the best scientific and 

commercial data available. 

V. What could happen as a result of this 

review? 

For each species under review, if we 

find new information that indicates a 

change in classification may be 

warranted, we may propose, through 

formal rulemaking, to: 

(A) Reclassify the species from 

threatened to endangered (uplist); 

(B) Reclassify the species from 

endangered to threatened (downlist); or 

(C) Remove the species from the List 

(delist). 

If we determine that a change in 

classification is not warranted, then no 

formal rulemaking is required; the 

species remains on the List under its 

current status. 

VI. Request for New Information 

To ensure that a 5-year review is 

complete and based on the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we request new 

information from all sources. See ‘‘What 

Information Do We Consider in Our 

Review?’’ for specific criteria. If you 

submit information, please support it 

with documentation such as maps, 

bibliographic references, methods used 

to gather and analyze the data, and/or 

copies of any pertinent publications, 

reports, or letters by knowledgeable 

sources. 

If you wish to provide information for 

any species listed above, please submit 

your comments and materials to the 

Field Supervisor of the appropriate Fish 

and Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES

section). 

VII. 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. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the offices where the comments 

are submitted. 

VIII. Completed and Active Reviews 

A list of all completed and currently 

active 5-year reviews addressing species 

for which the Pacific Region of the 

Service has lead responsibility is 

available at: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/ 

ecoservices/endangered/recovery/ 

5year.html. 

IX. Authority 

This document is published under the 

authority of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.). 

Dated: November 2, 2010. 

David Patte, 

Acting Regional Director, Region 1 Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29584 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Notice of Availability of the Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Tuskegee 

Airmen National Historic Site General 

Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

(GMP/FEIS) 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 

National Park Service (NPS) policy in 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

71730 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 226 / Wednesday, November 24, 2010 / Notices 

Director’s Order Number 2 (Park 

Planning) and Director’s Order Number 

12 (Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision-making) the NPS announces 

the availability of the ROD for the GMP/ 

FEIS for the Tuskegee Airmen National 

Historic Site, Tuskegee, Alabama. On 

August 11, 2010, the Regional Director, 

NPS, Southeast Region, approved the 

ROD for the project. The ROD includes 

a description of the project’s 

background, a decision statement, 

synopses of other alternatives 

considered, the basis for the final 

decision, findings on impairment of the 

site’s resources and values, a 

description of the environmentally 

preferable alternative, and an overview 

of public and agency involvement in the 

planning process. 

DATES: The ROD was signed by the 

Regional Director, NPS, Southeast 

Region, on August 11, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the ROD are 

available by contacting the Park 

Superintendent at the Tuskegee Airmen 

National Historic Site (NHS), 1616 

Chappie James Avenue, Tuskegee, 

Alabama 36083; telephone: 334–727– 

6390. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Five 

alternatives were evaluated in the EIS. 

Alternative A, the no-action alternative, 

described current management of the 

site and served as a basis for comparison 

in evaluating the other alternatives. 

Alternative B emphasized the natural 

environment by keeping Tuskegee 

Airmen NHS largely undeveloped and 

natural in character outside of the core 

historic area. Alternative C aims to 

restore much of the Park to its historic 

1945 appearance. Alternative D is the 

selected alternative. It preserves and 

protects cultural resources and the core 

historic area while offering the most 

diversity of visitor interpretive 

programs, natural areas, and 

recreational opportunities. Alternative E 

preserved the core historic area and 

offered the most recreational 

opportunities. 

Among the five alternatives 

considered, the selected alternative best 

protects the diversity of Park resources 

while also maintaining a range of 

quality visitor experiences, meets NPS 

purposes and goals for the Tuskegee 

Airmen NHS, and meets National 

Environmental Policy Act goals. The 

selected alternative will not result in the 

impairment of Park resources and will 

allow the NPS to conserve Park 

resources and provide for their 

enjoyment by visitors. 

Authority : The authority for publishing 

this notice is 40 CFR. 1506.6. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Contact the Superintendent, Tuskegee 

Airmen NHS, at the address and 

telephone number shown above. An 

electronic copy of the ROD is available 

on the Internet at http:// 

parkplanning.nps.gov. 

The responsible official for this ROD 

is the Regional Director, Southeast 

Region, NPS, 100 Alabama Street, SW., 

1924 Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. 

Dated: September 20, 2010. 

David Vela, 

Regional Director, Southeast Region. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29539 Filed 11–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–KB–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

[2031–A046–409] 

General Management Plan/Wilderness 

Study/Off-Road Vehicle Management 

Plan, Final Environmental Impact 

Statement, Big Cypress National 

Preserve Addition, Florida 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of the 

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the General Management Plan/ 

Wilderness Study/Off-Road Vehicle 

Management Plan (FEIS/GMP/WS/ORV 

Plan), Big Cypress National Preserve 

(Preserve) Addition. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

4332(2)(C) of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 

National Park Service (NPS) policy in 

Director’s Order Number 2 (Park 

Planning) and Director’s Order Number 

12 (Conservation Planning, 

Environmental Impact Analysis, and 

Decision-making), the NPS announces 

the availability of a Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for the GMP/WS/ORV 

Plan for the Big Cypress National 

Preserve Addition, Florida. 

The 1991 GMP for the original 

Preserve contains no guidance for the 

approximately 147,000 acres added to 

the Preserve in 1988 by Public Law 100– 

301 (the Addition). A GMP is needed to 

clearly define resource conditions and 

visitor experiences to be achieved in the 

Addition. 

DATES: The National Park Service will 

execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no 

sooner than 30 days following 

publication by the Environmental 

Protection Agency of the Notice of 

Availability of the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. 

ADDRESSES: The document will be 

available for public review online at 

http://www.parkplanning.nps.gov/bicy. 

In addition, a limited number of CDs 

and hard copies will be made available 

at Preserve headquarters. You may also 

request a hard copy or CD by contacting 

Big Cypress National Preserve, 33100 

Tamiami Trail East, Ochopee, Florida 

34141–1000; telephone 239–695–1103. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Public 

scoping was initiated in the summer of 

2001. Public meetings and seven 

newsletters were used to keep the 

public informed and involved 

throughout the planning process for the 

Addition. The Draft GMP/WS/ORV 

Plan/EIS was distributed to other 

agencies, interested organizations, and 

individuals for their review and 

comment during the summer of 2009. 

Four public meetings and wilderness 

hearings were held. 

The draft document was revised as a 

result of public and agency feedback 

received during the public comment 

period. The Final GMP/WS/ORV Plan/ 

EIS provides a framework for 

management, use, and development 

options for the Addition by the NPS for 

the next 15 to 20 years. It describes four 

management alternatives for 

consideration, including a no-action 

alternative that continues the current 

management framework. The three 

action alternatives present a range of 

ORV opportunities, proposed 

wilderness, and visitor facilities. The 

document analyzes the environmental 

impacts of the alternatives. 

The four alternatives (with names as 

they appear in the document) are as 

follows: 

Alternative A: No-Action 

Alternative—the continuation of current 

management practices and trends. The 

enabling legislation would be the longterm document to guide management 

and development of the Preserve. 

Alternative B: The concept for 

management under alternative B would 

be to enable visitor participation in a 

wide variety of outdoor recreational 

experiences. It would nearly maximize 

motorized access to sustainable trails 

(up to 132 miles of motorized trails), 

provide the least amount of proposed 

wilderness (about 37,567 acres), and 

develop limited new hiking-only trails. 

The entire off-road vehicle (ORV) trail 

system would be implemented without 

phased establishment and the 

assessment of monitoring results. New 

visitor and operations facilities along 

the I–75 corridor would also be 

provided. 

Preferred Alternative: The preferred 

alternative would provide diverse 

frontcountry and backcountry 

recreational opportunities, enhance day 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES