Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Notices 47815 

Permit Applications 

Permit Application Number: TE224720 

Applicant: ABR, Inc., Environmental 

Research & Services, Forest Grove, 

Oregon. 

The applicant requests a permit to 

take (harass through capture and 

release; collection of hair and tissue 

samples) Indiana bats (Myotis sodalis) 

and gray bats (Myotis grisescens) 

throughout the States of Indiana, Iowa, 

Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin. Proposed activities under 

this permit application include surveys 

to document species’ presence or 

absence in areas proposed for windenergy development, studies to 

document habitat use, collection of 

echolocation data and hair/tissue 

sampling for scientific research. The 

applicant’s proposed activities are 

aimed at enhancement of the survival of 

the species in the wild. 

Permit Application Number: TE224719 

Applicant: Richard B. King, DeKalb, 

Illinois. 

The applicant requests renewal of a 

permit to take the Lake Erie water snake 

(Nerodia sipedon insularum) in the 

State of Ohio. Proposed activities 

include capture and release of snakes, 

insertion of PIT tags or radio 

transmitters, blood sampling, stomach 

sampling, and temporarily holding 

snakes for scientific study or public 

exhibition. These proposed activities are 

for enhancement of the survival of the 

species in the wild. 

Permit Application Number: TE226335 

Applicant: Michael C. Quist, Ames, 

Iowa. 

The applicant requests a permit to 

take the Topeka shiner (Notropis 

topeka) in the State of Iowa. Proposed 

activities include capture and release to 

determine presence or absence of the 

species and to study species’ 

distribution. The applicant also 

proposes to take voucher specimens to 

document presence of the species in 

formerly undocumented sites or in sites 

where documentation is over 20 years 

old. These proposed activities are for 

the enhancement of survival of the 

species in the wild. 

Permit Application Number: TE195082– 

1 

Applicant: Thomas E. Tomasi, 

Springfield, Missouri. 

The applicant requests an amendment 

to his permit to add Virginia big-eared 

bats (Corynorhinus townsendii 

virginianus) to the list of species 

covered by the permit. In addition, this 

amendment request seeks authorization 

to capture and temporarily hold Virginia 

big-eared bats and gray bats at Missouri 

State University for a period of five 

months during hibernation. Bats are 

proposed to be captured from caves in 

Missouri and Kentucky and will be 

returned unharmed to point of capture 

at the end of the hibernation period. The 

proposed research activity is aimed at 

enhancement of survival of the species 

in the wild. 

Public Comments 

We seek public review and comments 

on these permit applications. Please 

refer to the permit number when you 

submit comments. Comments and 

materials we receive are available for 

public inspection, by appointment, 

during normal business hours at the 

address shown in the ADDRESSES

section. 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. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) 

In compliance with NEPA (42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), we have made an initial 

determination that the proposed 

activities in these permits are 

categorically excluded from the 

requirement to prepare an 

environmental assessment or 

environmental impact statement (516 

DM 6 Appendix 1, 1.4C(1)). 

Dated: September 11, 2009. 

Lynn M. Lewis, 

Assistant Regional Director, Ecological 

Services, Region 3. 

[FR Doc. E9–22375 Filed 9–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2009–N104; 40136–1265–0000– 

S3] 

Buck Island, Green Cay, and Sandy 

Point National Wildlife Refuges, U.S. VI 

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 Buck 

Island, Green Cay, and Sandy Point 

National Wildlife Refuges for public 

review and comment. In this Draft CCP/ 

EA, we describe the alternative we 

propose to use to manage these three 

refuges for the 15 years following 

approval of the final CCP. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your written comments by 

October 19, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, 

and requests for information to: Mr. 

Michael Evans, Refuge Manager, Sandy 

Point National Wildlife Refuge, 3013 

Estate Golden Rock, Christiansted, VI 

00820; telephone: 340/773–4554. The 

Draft CCP/EA is also available at the 

Service’s Internet Site: http:// 

southeast.fws.gov/planning/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Michael Evans; telephone: 340/773– 

4554; e-mail: michael_evans@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for Buck Island, Green Cay, and 

Sandy Point National Wildlife Refuges. 

We started the process through a notice 

in the Federal Register on March 12, 

2007 (72 FR 11046). 

Background 

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 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 wildlifedependent 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. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
47816 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Notices 

All three refuges are located in the 

U.S. Virgin Islands. Buck Island NWR is 

situated several miles south of the 

island of St. Thomas and the city of 

Charlotte Amalie. Green Cay NWR is a 

small island located several hundred 

yards north of the island of St. Croix 

and east of the city of Christiansted. 

Sandy Point NWR is situated on the 

southwestern tip of the island of St. 

Croix. These three refuges are part of the 

larger Caribbean Islands NWR Complex. 

Buck Island NWR was established in 

1969. The refuge consists of the entire 

45-acre island. The refuge extends to sea 

level and does not include submerged or 

marine habitat. In 1969, we obtained 

approximately 35 acres of the island 

from the U.S. Navy. In 1981, we 

obtained an additional 9 acres from the 

U.S. Coast Guard. In 2004, the final 

parcel, 0.92-acre, which included the 

historic iron lighthouse, was obtained 

from the U.S. Coast Guard. The purpose 

for establishment of the refuge was its 

particular value in carrying out the 

national migratory bird management 

program. 

The off-shore islands around St. 

Thomas support a number of critical 

seabird and migratory bird roosting, 

breeding, and nesting sites. Some of 

these off-shore islands have been 

impacted by varying degrees of 

development and habitat alteration, 

making remaining islands even more 

critical for use by migratory birds. 

Although Buck Island NWR’s natural 

plant and wildlife communities have 

been severely impacted by human 

activity, the island has major potential 

for habitat restoration, enhancement and 

support of migratory bird populations, 

and maintenance of existing wildlife 

populations, both endemic and 

migratory. The refuge is home to two 

rare reptiles endemic to the ‘‘Puerto 

Rican Bank,’’ the geological area 

containing Puerto Rico, Culebra, St. 

Thomas, and the British Virgin 

Islands—the Antillean skink and Puerto 

Rican racer. The island also provides 

nesting habitat for the magnificent 

frigatebird, the red-billed tropicbird, 

and the laughing gull. 

Green Cay NWR, in St. Croix, was 

established in 1977 to protect the 

federally endangered St. Croix ground 

lizard. The refuge consists of the entire 

14-acre island of Green Cay. The 

establishing purpose was to conserve 

fish or wildlife listed as threatened or 

endangered species. The refuge extends 

only to sea level and does not include 

any of the submerged marine habitat, 

including coral reefs. Outcrops of lava, 

tuffs, and breccias are prominent 

terrestrial geological features. 

Archaeological conch shell middens 

(e.g., discarded conch shells) once 

occurred on the shoreline. Estimated to 

contain as many as 33,000 shells, these 

middens demonstrated 1,000 years of 

human use or occupancy, dating back to 

as early as 1020 A.D. 

Green Cay NWR provides critical 

habitat for the largest remaining natural 

population of the St. Croix ground 

lizard. Its extirpation from the main 

island of St. Croix, just several hundred 

yards away, is generally attributed to the 

modification and loss of shoreline 

habitat, resulting from human activities 

and the introduction of predators, such 

as rats, cats, and dogs. The introduction 

of the exotic Indian mongoose likely 

completed the elimination of the species 

from St. Croix. As a result, this species 

is one of the rarest reptiles in the world 

and is unique to St. Croix island 

ecosystems. 

Sandy Point NWR, in St. Croix, 

includes 383 acres, with no inholdings. 

The refuge’s establishing purpose was to 

conserve fish or wildlife (including 

plants) listed as threatened or 

endangered species. The refuge was 

established in 1984 when 340 acres 

were purchased from the West Indies 

Investment Company. The land was 

purchased specifically to protect the 

nesting habitat of endangered 

leatherback sea turtles. An additional 43 

acres have been acquired since that time 

to protect the Aklis archaeological site 

and a stand of the endangered Vahl’s 

boxwood tree. 

Sandy Point NWR provides critical 

nesting habitat for three species of 

federally threatened and endangered sea 

turtles. The leatherback and hawksbill 

sea turtles are federally listed as 

endangered species, and the green sea 

turtle is federally listed as a threatened 

species. These same sea turtle species 

are also protected under Territory of the 

U.S. Virgin Islands regulations. 

The leatherback is the largest sea 

turtle species in the world, and the 

largest nesting population within U.S. 

jurisdiction occurs on Sandy Point 

NWR. The leatherback sea turtle 

recovery program began on Sandy Point 

NWR, with tagging efforts in 1977, and 

has since developed into one of the 

most unique, long-term sea turtle 

research and recovery efforts in the 

world. The program is a cooperative 

effort between partnering agencies, 

researchers, non-governmental 

organizations, and volunteers. This 

work has resulted in a leatherback sea 

turtle population that has grown 

consistently over the last 27 years, and 

a scientific database that has 

documented this population growth. 

This unique database is critical for 

leatherback sea turtle population 

recovery world-wide. 

Significant issues addressed in the 

Draft CCP/EA include: (1) Protection 

and recovery of threatened and 

endangered species; (2) habitat 

management and restoration; (3) 

appropriate and compatible levels of 

public use; (4) protection of cultural and 

historic resources, including 

archaeological sites (Sandy Point and 

Green Cay NWRs); (5) historic structures 

(Buck Island NWR); (6) invasive species 

management; and (7) funding and 

staffing. 

CCP Alternatives, Including Our 

Proposed Alternatives 

We developed four alternatives for 

managing Sandy Point NWR, and two 

alternatives each for managing Green 

Cay and Buck Island NWRs. For Sandy 

Point NWR, we chose Alternative D as 

the proposed alternative. For both Green 

Cay and Buck Island NWRs, we chose 

Alternative B as the proposed 

alternative. A full description of each 

alternative is found in the Draft CCP/ 

EA. We summarize each alternative 

below. 

Sandy Point NWR 

Alternative A—Current Management 

(No Action Alternative) 

Under Alternative A, Sandy Point 

NWR would continue to be managed as 

it is today. Wildlife management, 

habitat management, public use, and 

visitor services would remain 

unchanged. The overall management 

emphasis of the refuge would continue 

to be the recovery of populations of 

threatened and endangered animals. 

With regard to recovery efforts on 

behalf of the endangered leatherback sea 

turtle, we would maintain the seasonal 

beach closure now in effect, as well as 

saturation tagging and nest 

management. Nighttime beach closures 

to protect adult leatherback turtles and 

nests and monitoring of nesting turtles 

would also continue. We would 

maintain current nest management 

efforts and the flexible seasonal closure 

on the entire beach during prime turtle 

nesting season to optimize hatchling 

production on the beach. 

Existing hawksbill and green sea 

turtle recovery programs would be 

continued. We would maintain both 

tagging of hawksbill and green sea 

turtles during the leatherback sea turtle 

nesting season, as well as regular 

daytime track surveys of both species. 

Brown pelican recovery efforts would 

continue by protecting roosting sites 

and minimizing potential for 

disturbance by visitors. We would 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Notices 47817 

continue to monitor, manage, protect, 

and enhance least tern nesting sites on 

the refuge. 

We would continue to conserve, 

enhance, and restore habitats for various 

landbirds, shorebirds, and waterbirds. 

However, due to staffing limitations and 

the need for management priorities, 

there would not be active management 

for, or surveys of, reptiles, amphibians, 

bats, or invertebrates. In order to control 

invasive animal species, we would 

continue with selective trapping of nonnative mammals, such as dogs, cats, 

mongoose, and rats, as needed to protect 

indigenous fauna. 

We would continue to manage 

habitats. Existing dry forest habitats 

would continue to be protected. We 

would continue to protect the small 

population of Vahl’s boxwood (Buxus 

vahlii) on the refuge. However, there 

would be no active management of other 

endangered plants and no active 

monitoring of sea level rise and its 

effects on beach and lagoon habitats. 

Invasive plants would continue to be 

controlled periodically. 

We would continue to manage 

cultural resources, particularly the 

significant Aklis archaeological site, 

consistent with section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. No 

excavation associated with construction 

would be permitted at or near the site; 

however, no additional efforts would be 

undertaken to prevent further natural 

beach erosion from affecting the site. 

Public uses and visitor services on the 

refuge would not change. Shoreline 

fishing would be permitted on the 

refuge during its open hours. Existing 

opportunities would continue for 

controlled observation of nesting 

leatherback turtles and hatchlings, as 

well as limited opportunities for bird 

watching. Environmental education and 

interpretation would be maintained, 

including the turtle watch education 

program. 

We would complete and open the 

new refuge headquarters to the public as 

a visitor contact station. Beach access 

would continue from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. 

on weekends, outside of the seasonal 

closure for leatherback sea turtle 

nesting. We would continue the existing 

education and outreach programs, such 

as the sea turtle watch program, Youth 

Conservation Corps program, periodic 

news releases, news media interviews, 

Web site content, school visits, and 

informal face-to-face contact with refuge 

visitors. 

We would maintain the current 

permanent staff of two (refuge manager 

and refuge biologist) and a fluctuating 

number of temporary employees. 

Existing facilities and equipment would 

be maintained and replaced when 

necessary, but there would be no 

expanded facilities, infrastructure, and 

equipment. 

Alternative B—Expanded Visitor 

Opportunities 

Alternative B would emphasize 

expanded visitor opportunities and 

public use. The refuge would eliminate 

its seasonal beach closure (and allow 

the public to frequent the beach yearround on weekends during daylight 

hours), but continue saturation tagging 

of leatherback turtles, though with 

reduced nest management. We would 

continue nighttime beach closures to 

protect turtles and nests from poaching 

and predation, and we would also 

continue to monitor nesting turtles. 

The refuge would continue with 

nighttime closures to protect sea turtles 

and nests and to monitor nesting turtles. 

To protect hawksbill and green sea 

turtles, we would continue tagging 

during the leatherback sea turtle nesting 

and monitoring season and we would 

also continue regular daytime track 

surveys. 

Some visitor access to the vicinity of 

brown pelican roosting sites would be 

permitted, such as watercraft in the Salt 

Pond. Similarly, some visitor access to 

the vicinity of least tern nesting sites 

would also be permitted, but the refuge 

biologist would continue to monitor and 

manage tern nests. 

Under Alternative B, as under 

Alternative A, we would continue to 

conserve, enhance, and restore habitats 

for landbirds, shorebirds, and 

waterbirds. Unlike Alternative A, some 

visitor access to the vicinity of feeding 

and nesting habitats would be 

permitted. 

There would be no active 

management for, or surveys of, reptiles, 

amphibians, bats, or invertebrates on the 

refuge under Alternative B, just as under 

Alternative A. We would, however, 

continue with selective trapping of nonnative mammals as needed to protect 

indigenous fauna. 

With regard to habitat management, 

Alternative B is almost identical to 

Alternative A. The refuge would 

implement custodial management of its 

dry forest habitat, that is, there would be 

no effort to restore native forest 

biodiversity. Concerning wetlands, 

watercraft would be allowed in a 

portion of the Salt Pond. We would 

continue to protect Vahl’s boxwood 

specimens, but there would be no active 

management of other endangered plants 

and no active monitoring of sea level 

rise associated with climate change and 

global warming. Nonetheless, we would 

continue to periodically control 

invasive vegetation. 

We would continue to manage 

cultural resources, particularly the Aklis 

archaeological site, consistent with 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The refuge manager 

and at least one other staff person would 

continue to provide law enforcement as 

a collateral duty. 

We would adopt and begin to 

implement a Visitor Services Plan. This 

plan would provide more specific 

direction on increasing visitor services 

and facilities to accommodate expanded 

public use. Shoreline fishing 

opportunities would be expanded. 

Likewise, there would be expanded 

opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography by constructing one or 

more trails, observation deck(s), and 

camera blind(s). Environmental 

education and interpretation 

opportunities would also increase. 

Within the 15-year life of the CCP, we 

would expand the headquarters and 

visitor contact station or a nearby site 

into a full-fledged visitor center, 

including exhibits and a theatre. 

Concerning beach access, we would 

allow pedestrian access to the beach 

from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. on weekends 

during the entire year; the beach would 

continue to be closed weekdays because 

of our inability to patrol it during that 

time. 

Adding a park ranger position would 

allow us to increase education and 

outreach efforts. We would collaborate 

with the Virgin Islands Network of 

Environmental Educators in these 

efforts. We would also expand the 

Youth Conservation Corps (YCC) 

program to include more participants. In 

addition, we would expand our 

partnerships and encourage 

development of a Friends of Sandy 

Point NWR organization—a volunteer 

organization that could assist the refuge 

in a number of ways. 

Under Alternative B, we would add a 

park ranger to address expanded 

outreach and environmental education 

and interpretation programs. 

Alternative C—Exclusive Biological 

Program Emphasis 

Under Alternative C, we would 

exclusively emphasize the biological 

program. Visitor services would be 

downplayed and public use reduced in 

order to focus on the refuge’s primary 

purpose of restoring local populations of 

threatened and endangered species. The 

most salient feature of this alternative is 

a year-round refuge closure. Except for 

the headquarters and visitor contact 

station near the refuge entrance, the 

refuge would be closed to the public all 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
47818 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Notices 

year, as is the case at Green Cay NWR, 

in order to protect highly sensitive 

species of fauna. 

With regard to recovery efforts on 

behalf of the endangered leatherback sea 

turtle, this alternative would be 

identical to current management 

direction (Alternative A). We would 

maintain and extend the beach closure 

now in effect, as well as saturation 

tagging nest management. Nighttime 

beach closures to protect adult 

leatherback sea turtles and nests and 

monitoring of nesting turtles would also 

continue. We would maintain current 

nest management efforts, as well as the 

beach closure to optimize leatherback 

hatchling production. 

To encourage recovery of the 

hawksbill and green sea turtles, we 

would begin saturation tagging and nest 

management, in addition to the yearround closure. 

Efforts on behalf of brown pelican 

recovery would be the same as under 

Alternative A. In addition, we would 

implement a year-round refuge closure 

to increase least tern nesting by greatly 

reducing the potential for disturbance. 

The year-round refuge closure would 

also reduce the potential for disturbance 

of landbirds, shorebirds, and waterbirds. 

In addition, we would upgrade the 

quality and increase native biodiversity 

of upland forests and wetlands to 

benefit landbirds, shorebirds, and 

waterbirds. 

We would begin to conduct status 

surveys for reptile and amphibian 

species of special concern, including 

bats and invertebrates. Bats would 

further benefit from habitat 

enhancement and installation of 

artificial nest structures. We would 

implement refuge-wide control of nonnative animals to protect indigenous 

fauna. 

Alternative C would accelerate efforts 

to restore the structure, function, and 

diversity of dry forest habitat. We would 

begin to actively monitor status and 

trends on Salt Pond as they affect 

mangroves, wetlands, and wildlife 

habitat. We would not only protect 

existing stands and specimens of Vahl’s 

boxwood, but would also conduct 

recovery activities, such as nursery 

germination and planting. With respect 

to other endangered plants, we would 

investigate the potential for establishing 

a Catesbaea melanocarpa population on 

the refuge. 

We would actively cooperate with the 

U.S. Geological Survey and other 

agencies to develop and implement 

protocols for monitoring sea level rise 

and its impacts on habitats. Also, we 

would develop and begin to implement 

a step-down management plan on 

invasive plant control. 

Alternative C would continue to 

protect cultural resources, particularly 

the Aklis archaeological site, consistent 

with section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

Visitor services would be sharply 

reduced. Except for the headquarters 

and visitor contact station, the refuge 

would be closed to all public uses, 

including the priority public uses of the 

Refuge System (e.g., hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation). 

Environmental education and 

interpretation, while eliminated on the 

refuge proper, would continue off-refuge 

(e.g., schools and other facilities) or in 

the visitor contact station. 

No visitor center would be necessary 

under Alternative C, and we would 

implement and enforce a year-round 

beach closure. However, we would 

increase education and outreach efforts, 

and in part reorient them to explain the 

value of a complete refuge closure. We 

would also collaborate with the Virgin 

Islands Network of Environmental 

Educators. The YCC program would be 

continued, but operations would be 

restricted to biological programs related 

to habitat enhancement and wildlife 

population recovery. 

Under Alternative C, developing 

partnerships and volunteers would be 

the same as under Alternative B. We 

would expand existing partnerships and 

encourage development of a Friends of 

Sandy Point NWR organization. Staffing 

would be the same as under Alternative 

A. We would maintain a permanent, 

full-time staff of two and fluctuating 

temporary staff. In terms of facilities and 

equipment, Alternative C would add a 

maintenance facility. 

Alternative D—Enhanced Biological and 

Visitor Service Programs (Proposed 

Alternative) 

Alternative D would endeavor to 

enhance both the biological and visitor 

service programs at Sandy Point NWR. 

This alternative is our proposed 

alternative. 

Recovery efforts for the endangered 

leatherback sea turtle would be the same 

as under Alternative A. We would 

maintain the seasonal beach closure 

now in effect, as well as saturation 

tagging and nest management. 

Nighttime beach closures to protect 

adult leatherback sea turtles and nests 

and monitoring of nesting sea turtles 

would also continue. We would 

maintain current nest management 

efforts and the flexible seasonal closure 

on the entire beach, during the prime 

sea turtle nesting season, to optimize 

leatherback hatchling production on the 

beach. 

Alternative D would pursue both 

hawksbill and green sea turtle recovery 

by implementing saturation tagging and 

nest management. Unlike Alternative C, 

Alternative D would not entail yearround beach closure, but would 

maintain the current schedule. 

We would continue to protect pelican 

roosting sites by minimizing the 

potential for disturbance by visitors. 

Alternative D would manage least terns 

by continuing to monitor, manage, 

protect, and enhance least tern nesting 

sites on the refuge; the aim would be to 

increase the number of least terns 

nesting here through various steps. 

Alternative D would benefit 

landbirds, shorebirds, and waterbirds by 

upgrading the quality and increasing the 

native biodiversity of upland forests and 

wetlands to benefit landbirds. 

Alternative D would not implement a 

year-round refuge closure to reduce 

potential for disturbance of these 

species. 

We would begin to conduct status 

surveys for reptile and amphibian 

species of special concern. The presence 

or absence of bats would also be 

surveyed, and we would undertake 

habitat enhancement and installation of 

artificial nest structures for bats. We 

would begin to conduct status surveys 

for invertebrates. Refuge-wide control of 

non-native animals to protect 

indigenous fauna would be carried out 

as needed. 

We would accelerate efforts to restore 

the structure, function, and diversity of 

dry forest habitat. We would begin to 

actively monitor status and trends on 

the Salt Pond as they affect mangroves, 

wetlands, and wildlife habitat. We 

would not only protect existing stands 

and specimens of Vahl’s boxwood, but 

would also conduct recovery activities, 

such as nursery germination and 

planting. With respect to other 

endangered plants, we would 

investigate the potential for establishing 

a Catesbaea melanocarpa population on 

the refuge. 

We would actively cooperate with the 

U.S. Geological Survey and other 

agencies to develop and implement 

protocols for monitoring sea level rise 

and its impacts on habitats. Also, we 

would develop and begin to implement 

a step-down management plan on 

invasive plant control. 

We would continue to manage 

cultural resources, particularly the Aklis 

archaeological site, consistent with 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. In addition, under this 

alternative and within 15 years of CCP 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Notices 47819 

approval, we would develop and begin 

to implement a Cultural Resources 

Management Plan. 

The refuge manager and at least one 

other staff person would continue to 

provide law enforcement as a collateral 

duty in Alternative D. Public use and 

visitor services would expand 

somewhat, though not as much as under 

Alternative B, with its visitor emphasis. 

A Visitor Services Plan would be 

prepared. Shoreline fishing 

opportunities would expand. Two other 

priority public uses of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System (e.g., wildlife 

observation and wildlife photography) 

would also expand. The refuge would 

develop an accessible trail and 

observation deck, with expansive views 

of the Salt Pond. 

Both environmental education and 

interpretation would increase. We 

would aim to develop environmental 

education and interpretation 

opportunities around the new refuge 

headquarters and visitor center, which 

would be constructed in the vicinity. 

We would also establish an interpretive 

trail near the visitor contact station and 

visitor center and would expand the 

information and educational 

opportunities available at both facilities. 

Alternative D would continue to 

allow access to the beach from 10 a.m. 

to 4 p.m. on weekends, outside of 

seasonal closure for leatherback sea 

turtle nesting. If staffing permits, this 

alternative would also provide 

pedestrian access to the beach during 

the week from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., outside 

of the seasonal closure for turtle nesting. 

We would continue the existing 

education and outreach program, such 

as the turtle watch program, YCC 

program, periodic news releases, news 

media interviews, Web site content, 

school visits, informal face-to-face 

contact with refuge visitors, and 

continuing development of the visitor 

contact station. Education and outreach 

efforts would increase. We would 

collaborate with the Virgin Islands 

Network of Environmental Educators to 

augment and extend our efforts related 

to the resources of the refuge and the 

issues it faces. 

The YCC program would be 

maintained for two months during the 

summer. We would aim to expand the 

YCC program to include more 

participants than the 4 to 5 at present. 

Existing partnerships would continue, 

and we would attempt to expand on 

existing partnerships and encourage 

development of a Friends of Sandy 

Point NWR organization. 

Alternative D would maintain the 

permanent, full-time staff of two and 

fluctuating temporary staff and add a 

total of four permanent, full-time 

positions to include an assistant refuge 

manager, a park ranger, a maintenance 

worker, and an administrative assistant. 

We would maintain the new 

headquarters, greenhouse, road, storage 

facilities, three vehicles, farm tractor, 

one zodiac, and one Navy johnboat. 

Within 15 years of CCP approval, Sandy 

Point NWR would add a visitor center 

distinct from, but close to, the refuge 

headquarters and maintenance facility. 

Green Cay NWR 

Alternative A—Continue Current 

Management (No Action Alternative) 

Under Alternative A, current 

management direction would be 

maintained at Green Cay NWR. To 

promote recovery of the endangered St. 

Croix ground lizard, we would continue 

existing programs of reforestation and 

rat and invasive plant control and 

population monitoring. We would also 

maintain closure of the island to public 

access to avoid the accidental direct 

mortality and habitat degradation this 

might cause. 

With regard to brown pelicans and 

white-crowned pigeons, we would 

continue to monitor, protect, and 

minimize disturbance to rookery and 

nesting sites. 

Habitat recovery efforts would 

proceed as at present. As resources 

permit, we would continue to reforest 

the island, using native tree species. An 

important part of habitat recovery 

would involve control of invasive 

species of plants and animals that 

damage habitat. 

Under Alternative A, we would 

continue to manage Green Cay NWR’s 

cultural resources consistent with 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

To conduct outreach and education, 

we would continue to maintain the 

refuge Web site, distribute information, 

maintain limited signage on the island 

identifying it as a national wildlife 

refuge closed to the public, and conduct 

periodic presentations off-refuge. 

Alternative B—Proposed Alternative 

In general, Alternative B would 

maintain all programs of Alternative A 

and build on or expand them. This is 

the Service’s proposed alternative for 

managing Green Cay NWR. 

To promote recovery of the 

endangered St. Croix ground lizard, as 

under Alternative A, Alternative B 

would continue existing programs of 

reforestation and rat and invasive plant 

control and population monitoring. We 

would also maintain closure of the 

island to public access to avoid the 

accidental direct mortality and habitat 

degradation this might cause. In 

addition, Alternative B would develop a 

habitat restoration plan within 3 years 

of CCP approval, with the aim of 

improving habitat for the ground lizard. 

With regard to brown pelicans and 

white-crowned pigeons, we would 

continue to monitor, protect, and 

minimize disturbance to rookery and 

nesting sites. On behalf of both of these 

bird species, we would accelerate 

reforestation efforts to increase optimal 

nest sites. 

Habitat recovery efforts would 

proceed, but at an accelerated rate from 

the present one. We would also aim to 

increase the rate of reforestation so as to 

complete 100 percent of the area 

intended for reforestation by the end of 

the 15-year planning period. An 

important part of accelerating habitat 

recovery would be to increase the 

control of invasive plants and animals. 

We would also evaluate the 

effectiveness of different methods of 

control to ensure that what we are doing 

works and to make modifications in the 

approach as indicated. 

Under Alternative B, we would 

continue to manage Green Cay NWR’s 

cultural resources consistent with 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Also, we would 

develop and begin to implement a 

Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

To conduct outreach and education, 

we would continue to maintain the 

refuge Web site, distribute information, 

maintain signage on the island 

identifying it as a national wildlife 

refuge closed to the public, and conduct 

periodic presentations off-refuge. Under 

Alternative B, these efforts would be 

augmented by installing larger signs that 

could be seen and read from a greater 

distance, expanding outreach efforts to 

nearby hotels, and considering 

alternatives to visitation within the 

refuge itself, such as offering or 

promoting boat and kayak tours around 

the island. 

Buck Island NWR 

Alternative A—Continue Current 

Management (No Action Alternative) 

Under Alternative A, current 

management direction would be 

maintained at Buck Island NWR. Staff 

for the refuge would continue to be 

based out of Sandy Point NWR on St. 

Croix. 

There would continue to be no active 

management of the Antillean skink, 

Puerto Rican racer, or other herptiles. 

Nor would there be active management 

of the magnificent frigatebird and the 

red-billed tropicbird. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
47820 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 179 / Thursday, September 17, 2009 / Notices 

We would continue to monitor for rat 

reinvasions, after having eliminated rats 

from the island several years ago in an 

active trapping program. Other than 

controlling invasive species such as rats, 

we would not conduct any active 

habitat restoration on the island. There 

would be no active control program for 

invasive plant species. 

We would continue to manage 

cultural resources, particularly the 

historic lighthouse, consistent with 

section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. 

We would continue to maintain the 

refuge Web site, distribute information, 

maintain limited signage on the island, 

and make periodic presentations offrefuge, primarily on St. Thomas. 

Partnerships and volunteers would 

remain important to the refuge. We 

would continue to cooperate with the 

Virgin Islands Department of Planning 

and Natural Resources on joint wildlife 

and habitat management efforts for Buck 

Island and adjacent Capella Island. 

Alternative B—Proposed Alternative 

In general, Alternative B would 

maintain all programs of Alternative A 

and build or expand upon them. This is 

our proposed alternative for managing 

Buck Island NWR. 

Under Alternative B, we would strive 

to provide more active management of 

the island’s indigenous wildlife, 

particularly species of concern. Within 

5 years of CCP approval, we would draft 

and begin to implement an inventorying 

and monitoring plan for the Antillean 

skink, Puerto Rican racer, magnificent 

frigatebird, and red-billed tropicbird. 

We would continue to monitor for rat 

reinvasions. To pursue and promote 

habitat recovery on Buck Island, we 

would develop and begin to implement 

a habitat restoration plan within 5 years 

of CCP approval. We would aim to 

increase control of invasive plants and 

animals and evaluate the effectiveness 

of different methods of control. 

Under this alternative, we would 

continue to manage cultural resources, 

particularly the historic lighthouse, 

consistent with section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. 

However, within 5 years of CCP 

approval, we would also evaluate the 

condition and safety of the historic 

lighthouse and decide on the feasibility 

of preservation or restoration. In 

addition, we would develop and begin 

to implement a Cultural Resources 

Management Plan. 

With regard to conducting outreach 

and education, we would continue to 

maintain the refuge Web site, distribute 

information, maintain limited signage 

on the island, and make periodic 

presentations off-refuge. 

Partnerships and volunteers would 

remain important to the refuge. We 

would continue to cooperate with the 

Virgin Islands Department of Planning 

and Natural Resources on joint wildlife 

and habitat management efforts for Buck 

Island and adjacent Capella Island. 

Also, Alternative B would expand 

cooperative education and interpretive 

efforts with the city of Charlotte Amalie 

and ecotourism companies, which bring 

visitors to offshore waters to explore 

coral reefs. We would also explore 

development of a Friends Group to 

provide a more active management 

presence on the island. 

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. 

June 22, 2009. 

Cynthia K. Dohner, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–22379 Filed 9–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLNVS0100.L51010000.ER0000. 

LVRWF09F8770; NVN–085077 and NVN– 

085801; 09–08807; TAS: 14X5017] 

Notice of Reopening of Public 

Comment Period To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Proposed NextLight Renewable 

Power, LLC, Silver State North and 

Silver State South Solar Projects, 

Primm, NV 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) is reopening the 

public comment period to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the Proposed NextLight Renewable 

Power, LLC, Silver State North Solar 

Project and Silver State South Solar 

Project, to be located in Clark County, 

Nevada. A notice published in the 

Federal Register on June 30, 2009 [74 

FR 31306] provided for a public 

comment period ending on July 30, 

2009. 

DATES: On publication of this notice an 

additional 30-day scoping period will 

open for comments through October 19, 

2009. Comments received during the 

interim time between scoping periods 

will be accepted. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments related to 

the project by any of the following 

methods: 

• E-mail: 

Nextlight_Primm_NV_SEP@blm.gov. 

• Fax: (702) 515–5010, Attn: Gregory 

Helseth. 

• Mail: BLM, Las Vegas Field Office, 

Attn: Gregory Helseth, 4701 North 

Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 

89130–2301. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gregory Helseth, Renewable Energy 

Project Manager, (702) 515–5173; or email 

Nextlight_Primm_NV_SEP@blm.gov. 

(Authority: 43 CFR Part 2800) 

Ron Wenker, 

State Director, Nevada. 

[FR Doc. E9–22434 Filed 9–16–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLNVS03000.L51010000.ER0000.F09F8590; 

NVN–84359; 9–08807: TAS:14X5017] 

Notice of Reopening of Public 

Comment Period To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Proposed Solar Millennium, LLC, 

Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy 

Project, Nye County, Nevada 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) is reopening the 

public comment period to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the Proposed Solar Millennium, 

LLC, Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy 

Project. A notice published in the 

Federal Register on Monday, July 13, 

2009 [74 FR 33458] provided for a 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES