Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50237 

requirements outlined within the plan 

are accomplished. The draft PDM Plan 

proposes to conduct monitoring 

annually for at least 10 years. Postdelisting monitoring of the brown 

pelican will consist primarily of annual 

collection of information on colony 

occupancy and number of nesting pairs. 

Information on contaminants will also 

be collected at 5-year intervals 

beginning with the first year. 

Post-delisting monitoring of the 

brown pelican will be focused along the 

Gulf coast of Louisiana and Texas; the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and the 

U.S. Virgin Islands in the West Indies; 

the Pacific coast of southern California 

and Baja California, Mexico; and the 

Gulf of California. We will be 

monitoring these areas because: (1) 

Existing population data are available 

for these areas for comparison with data 

to be collected during post-delisting 

monitoring; (2) these populations were 

among some of the largest (outside of 

those in Peru) prior to listing (73 FR 

9408); and (3) these populations 

suffered the greatest declines in 

productivity and abundance that led to 

the listing of the species. Additionally, 

we have no evidence that brown 

pelicans outside these areas ever 

suffered declines in response to 

persistent organic pesticides. We are 

also interested in any information that 

may suggest a new or increasing threat 

that may impact the brown pelican in 

other parts of its range proposed for 

delisting under the Act but not covered 

by this Draft Monitoring Plan. 

Request for Public Comments 

We solicit written comments on the 

Draft Monitoring Plan described in this 

notice. All comments received by the 

date specified above will be considered 

in development of a final post-delisting 

monitoring plan for the brown pelican. 

We will take into consideration the 

relevant comments, suggestions, or 

objections that we receive by the 

comment due date indicated above in 

the DATES section. These comments, 

suggestions, or objections, and any 

additional information we receive, may 

lead us to adopt a final PDM Plan that 

differs from this draft PDM Plan. 

Comments merely stating support or 

opposition to the draft PDM Plan 

without providing supporting data are 

not as helpful. We particularly seek 

comments concerning: 

(1) Information and data on 

contaminants from brown pelicans or 

other seabirds near pelican nesting 

colonies throughout the range of the 

brown pelican that may affect our 

selection of the areas to be monitored; 

(2) The appropriateness of assaying 

contaminants in brown pelicans and/or 

their eggs every 5 years and reasons, if 

any, for increasing or decreasing the 

frequency of analysis; and 

(3) The appropriateness of the areas 

selected for monitoring and reasons, if 

any, for modifying the survey areas, 

including information related to the 

number of nesting pairs and population 

trends of brown pelicans outside the 

survey areas in the Draft Monitoring 

Plan. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, electronic mail address, or 

other personal identifying information 

in your comment, you should be aware 

that your entire document—including 

your personal identifying information— 

may be publicly available at any time. 

While you can ask us in your comments 

to withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Alexandra Pitts, 

Acting Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 

[FR Doc. E9–23557 Filed 9–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2009–N0117; 40136–1265– 

0000–S3] 

Black Bayou Lake National Wildlife 

Refuge, Ouachita Parish, LA 

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 Black 

Bayou Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

(Black Bayou Lake NWR) for public 

review and comment. In this Draft CCP/ 

EA, we describe the alternative we 

propose to use to manage this refuge for 

the 15 years following approval of the 

final CCP. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your written comments by 

October 30, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, 

and requests for information to: Ms. 

Tina Chouinard, Refuge Planner, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 6772 Highway 76 

South, Stanton, TN 38069, or by e-mail 

to: tina_chouinard@fws.gov. The Draft 

CCP/EA is available on compact disk or 

in hard copy. The Draft CCP/EA may 

also be accessed and downloaded from 

the Service’s Internet Site: http:// 

southeast.fws.gov/planning. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Tina Chouinard; telephone: 731–432– 

0981. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for Black Bayou Lake NWR. We 

started the process through a notice in 

the Federal Register on May 8, 2008 (73 

FR 26139). 

Background 

The CCP Process 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd–668ee) (Improvement Act), 

which amended the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966, 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 

Improvement Act. 

Black Bayou Lake NWR is a unit of 

the North Louisiana National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex. Other refuges in the 

Complex include: D’Arbonne, Upper 

Ouachita, Handy Brake, and Red River, 

and the Louisiana Wetlands 

Management District. Each refuge has 

unique issues and has had separate 

planning efforts and public 

involvement. 

Black Bayou Lake NWR, established 

in 1997, is 3 miles north of the city of 

Monroe, just east of Highway 165 in 

Ouachita Parish, Louisiana. It contains 

4,522 acres of wetland, bottomland 

hardwood, and upland mixed pine/ 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
50238 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 

hardwood habitats. Although the 

suburban sprawl of the city of Monroe 

abuts much of its boundary, the refuge 

itself represents many habitat types and 

is home to a diversity of plants and 

animals. Black Bayou Lake NWR is 

situated in the Mississippi Flyway, the 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley Bird 

Conservation Region, and the Lower 

Mississippi River Ecosystem. The refuge 

plays an important role regionally in 

fulfilling the goals of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. Its close 

proximity to the city of Monroe gives 

the public opportunities to participate 

in educational programs that promote 

wildlife stewardship. 

Black Bayou Lake NWR was 

established for ‘‘* * * the conservation 

of the wetlands of the Nation in order 

to maintain the public benefits they 

provide and to help fulfill international 

obligations contained in various 

migratory bird treaties and conventions 

* * *’’ (16 U.S.C. 3901 (b)) (Wetlands 

Resources Act). 

The central physical feature of the 

refuge is the lake itself. Black Bayou 

Lake, consisting of approximately 1,500 

acres, is studded with bald cypress and 

water tupelo trees. The western half of 

the lake is open and deeper, unlike the 

eastern side, which is thick with trees 

and emergent vegetation. The lake is 

owned by the city of Monroe, which 

manages the lake’s water level as a 

secondary source of municipal water. 

The Service has a 99-year free lease on 

the lake and some of its surrounding 

land, consisting of a total of 1,620 acres. 

The refuge owns the remaining 2,902 

acres, consisting of upland pine/ 

hardwood and bottomland hardwood 

forests. 

Significant issues addressed in this 

Draft CCP/EA include: (1) Managing for 

invasive species and species of special 

concern, such as the alligator snapping 

turtle; (2) managing mixed pine upland 

and bottomland hardwood forests; (3) 

land protection; (4) urban development 

and wildlife management; (5) 

maintaining the excellent 

environmental education and 

interpretation programs; and (6) 

increasing resources. 

CCP Alternatives, Including Our 

Proposed Alternative 

We developed three alternatives for 

managing the refuge and chose 

Alternative B as the proposed 

alternative. A full description of each 

alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We 

summarize each alternative below. 

Alternative A—Current Management 

Direction (No Action Alternative) 

Black Bayou Lake NWR is part of the 

Lower Mississippi River Ecosystem and 

is considered to be in the Mississippi 

Alluvial Valley Bird Conservation 

Region. As such, Black Bayou Lake 

NWR is a component of many regional 

and ecosystem conservation planning 

initiatives. Under Alternative A, we 

would continue management of the 

refuge at its current level of 

participation in these initiatives 

throughout the 15-year duration of the 

CCP. Current approaches to managing 

wildlife and habitats, protecting 

resources, and allowing for public use 

would remain unchanged. 

The mix of habitats on the refuge, 

including bottomland hardwood and 

upland pine hardwood forests, would be 

restored and managed appropriately. We 

would continue to work with partners to 

acquire lands within the current refuge 

boundary. We would continue to 

provide habitat for native wildlife 

species, wintering waterfowl, and yearround habitat for nesting wood ducks. 

We would also maintain the current 

habitat mix to benefit other migratory 

birds. We would continue existing 

surveys to monitor long-term population 

trends and health of migratory and 

resident species. 

We would work with volunteers to 

maintain the current public use and 

environmental education programs on 

the refuge. We would continue to serve 

the public and the Complex with a 

quality wildlife-dependent visitor 

services program. 

Alternative B—Optimize Biological 

Program and Visitor Services (Proposed 

Alternative) 

Under Alternative B, we would strive 

to optimize both our biological program 

and visitor services program. We would 

continue to provide habitat for resident 

wildlife species and would aim to 

increase our knowledge of migratory 

birds, reptiles, amphibians, 

invertebrates, and species of special 

concern, such as the alligator snapping 

turtle, by developing and implementing 

monitoring programs. We would use our 

resources to create and/or maintain a 

variety of habitats compatible with 

historic habitat types. Efforts to control 

invasive species would increase. 

Under Alternative B, land acquisition, 

bottomland hardwood forest 

management, and resource protection 

would be intensified. In the Private 

Lands Program, we would work with 

private landowners on adjacent tracts to 

manage and improve habitats. 

Under Alternative B, we would hire a 

fulltime law enforcement officer, a 

refuge operations specialist, a 

maintenance worker, and a park ranger 

(visitor services). With regard to cultural 

resources, including those of an 

archaeological or historical nature, 

within 15 years of CCP approval, we 

would develop and begin to implement 

a Cultural Resources Management Plan. 

Public use and environmental 

education programs would be enhanced 

with the addition of two park rangers 

(visitor services and law enforcement). 

Within 3 years of CCP completion, we 

would develop a Visitor Services Plan to 

guide us in maintaining quality public 

use facilities and opportunities on the 

refuge. 

Over the 15-year life of the CCP, we 

would increase environmental 

education and interpretation 

opportunities to emphasize the 

importance of the refuge’s habitats and 

resources. 

Alternative C—Minimize Management 

and Public Use Management 

This alternative would minimize 

wildlife and habitat management and 

the public use program. Baseline 

inventorying and monitoring programs 

would be eliminated; monitoring for 

changes in trends would not be 

necessary to achieve the purposes of the 

refuge. 

Public use would be maintained and 

monitored for impacts to wildlife. 

Fishing, environmental education, and 

wildlife observation and photography 

would be accommodated the same as 

under the No Action Alternative. 

Waterfowl hunting would be 

eliminated. Staffing would remain the 

same as under the No Action 

Alternative. 

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. 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 188 / Wednesday, September 30, 2009 / Notices 50239 

Dated: July 13, 2009. 

Cynthia K. Dohner, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–23559 Filed 9–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R8–ES–2009–N141; 80221–1112– 

0000–F2] 

Amendment of the Clark County 

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 

Plan and Issuance of an Amended 

Incidental Take Permit, Clark County, 

NV 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS); 

and notice of public scoping meetings. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), are advising 

the public that we intend to gather 

information necessary to prepare an EIS, 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA), on the proposed 

amendment of the Clark County 

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 

Plan (MSHCP) and Incidental Take 

Permit (ITP). The proposed amendment 

is being prepared under section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended. The 

Permittees are proposing to increase the 

amount of species habitat disturbance 

that is authorized under the existing 

MSHCP and ITP, expand the 

conservation program to minimize and 

mitigate for the increased disturbance, 

reduce the number of covered species, 

and revise the permit term of the 

MSHCP Amendment to 50 years. We 

provide this notice to obtain 

suggestions, comments, and useful 

information from other agencies and the 

public on the scope of the document, 

including the significant issues 

deserving of study, the range of 

alternatives, and the range of impacts to 

be considered. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 30, 2009. 

Four public scoping meetings will be 

held on: 

1. Monday, October 19, 2009, from 6 

p.m. to 8 p.m., Las Vegas, NV. 

2. Wednesday, October 21, 2009, from 

6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Searchlight, NV. 

3. Thursday, October 22, 2009, from 6 

p.m. to 8 p.m., Henderson, NV. 

4. Monday, October 26, 2009, from 6 

p.m. to 8 p.m., Overton, NV. 

ADDRESSES: Public meetings will be 

held at the following locations: 

1. Monday, October 19, 2009, at the 

Clark County Library, Jewel Box 

Theater, 1401 East Flamingo Road, Las 

Vegas, NV 89119. 

2. Wednesday, October 21, 2009, at 

the Searchlight Community Center, 200 

Michael Wendell Way, Searchlight, NV 

89046. 

3. Thursday, October 22, 2009, at the 

PBS&J, 2270 Corporate Circle, 

Henderson, NV 89074. 

4. Monday, October 26, 2009, at the 

Moapa Valley Community Center, 320 

North Moapa Valley Boulevard, 

Overton, NV 89040. 

Information, written comments, or 

questions related to the preparation of 

the EIS and the NEPA process should be 

submitted to Robert D. Williams, 

Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office, 4701 

North Torrey Pines Drive, Las Vegas, NV 

89130, facsimile: 702–515–5231. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeri 

Krueger, Habitat Conservation Planning 

Coordinator, Nevada Fish and Wildlife 

Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines Drive, 

Las Vegas, NV 89130; telephone: 702– 

515–5230. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice advises the public that the 

Service intends to gather information 

necessary to determine the scope of 

issues and impacts, and to formulate 

alternatives for the EIS related to the 

issuance of an amended ITP to Clark 

County, Nevada; the cities of Boulder 

City, Henderson, Las Vegas, Mesquite, 

and North Las Vegas, Nevada (Cities); 

and the Nevada Department of 

Transportation (NDOT). 

Background 

Section 9 of the Endangered Species 

Act, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.) and Federal regulations prohibit 

the ‘‘take’’ of a fish or wildlife species 

listed as endangered or threatened. 

Under the Act, the following activities 

are defined as take: To harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture or collect listed wildlife species, 

or attempt to engage in such conduct (16 

U.S.C. 1532). However, under section 

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we may issue 

permits to authorize ‘‘incidental take’’ of 

listed wildlife species. Incidental take is 

defined by the Act as take that is 

incidental to, and not the purpose of, 

carrying out an otherwise lawful 

activity. Regulations governing permits 

for endangered and threatened species 

are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32, 

respectively. 

Clark County, the Cities, and NDOT 

currently hold a permit for incidental 

take of 78 covered species (Permit # 

TE034927–0), including the Federally 

threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus 

agassizii) and the Federally endangered 

southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax traillii extimus), by the 

development of up to 145,000 acres in 

Clark County, Nevada. The Notice of 

Availability (65 FR 57366) for the Final 

HCP and EIS was published on 

September 22, 2000. The permit was 

effective as of February 1, 2001, and 

expires on January 31, 2031. Activities 

included in the MSHCP for the 

permitted projects include, but are not 

limited to, residential and commercial 

development, utility and transportation 

facilities and other capital 

improvements and operations activities, 

flood control, development of urban 

parks and recreation facilities. 

Multiple Species Habitat Conservation 

Plan Amendment 

Clark County, the Cities, and NDOT 

intend to request a permit amendment 

for the incidental take of covered 

species on up to 215,000 additional 

acres in Clark County, Nevada. 

Activities proposed to be covered by the 

MSHCP amendment are not likely to 

change from the existing MSHCP, and 

may include, but are not limited to, 

residential and commercial 

development, utility and transportation 

facilities and other capital 

improvements and operations activities, 

flood control, and development of urban 

parks and recreation facilities. 

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act provides 

for permitting non-Federal entities to 

incidentally take threatened and 

endangered species when the entity 

submits a conservation plan that 

specifies: 

(i) The impact which will likely result 

from such taking; 

(ii) What steps the applicant will take 

to minimize and mitigate such impacts, 

and the funding that will be available to 

implement such steps; 

(iii) What alternative actions to such 

taking the applicant considered and the 

reasons why such alternatives are being 

utilized; and 

(iv) Such other measures the Service 

may require as being necessary or 

appropriate for purposes of the plan. 

If the Service finds, after opportunity 

for public comment, with respect to a 

permit application and the related 

conservation plan that: 

(i) The taking will be incidental; 

(ii) The applicant will, to the 

maximum extent practicable, minimize 

and mitigate the impacts of such taking; 

(iii) The applicant will ensure that 

adequate funding for the plan will be 

provided; 

(iv) The taking will not appreciably 

reduce the likelihood of survival and 

recovery of the species in the wild; and 


CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES