19016 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Notices 

occupy roost sites under exfoliating bark 

of dead trees that retain large, thick 

slabs of peeling bark. These trees are 

typically within canopy gaps in a forest, 

in a fenceline, or along a wooded edge. 

Habitats in which maternity roosts 

occur include riparian zones, 

bottomland and floodplain habitats, 

wooded wetlands, and upland 

communities. Indiana bats typically 

forage in semi-open to closed forested 

habitats, forest edges, and riparian areas. 

Threats to the Indiana bat vary during 

its annual cycle. At the hibernacula, 

threats include modifications to caves, 

mines, and surrounding areas that 

change airflow and alter microclimate in 

the hibernacula. Human disturbance 

and vandalism pose significant threats 

during hibernation through direct 

mortality and by inducing arousal and 

consequent depletion of fat reserves. 

Natural catastrophes can also have a 

significant effect during winter because 

of the concentration of individuals in a 

relatively few sites. During summer 

months, possible threats relate to the 

loss and degradation of forested habitat. 

Migration pathways and swarming sites 

may also be affected by habitat loss and 

degradation. In addition to these threats, 

significant information gaps remain 

regarding the species’ ecology that 

hinder sound decision-making on how 

best to manage and protect the species. 

The objective of the recovery plan is 

to provide a framework for the recovery 

of Indiana bat so that protection by the 

Act is no longer necessary. We may 

consider Indiana bat for classification 

from Endangered to Threatened status 

when the likelihood of the species 

becoming extinct in the foreseeable 

future has been precluded by 

achievement of the following criteria: 

(1) Permanent protection of a minimum 

of 80 percent of Priority-1 hibernacula 

in each of four Recovery Units (OzarkCentral, Midwest, Appalachian 

Mountains, and Northeast), with a 

minimum of one Priority-1 

hibernaculum protected in each unit; (2) 

A minimum overall population estimate 

equal to the 2005 population estimate of 

457,000; and (3) Documentation that 

shows important hibernacula within 

each Recovery Unit have a positive 

annual population growth rate over the 

next 10-year period (i.e., five survey 

periods). 

We will consider Indiana bat for 

delisting when the likelihood of the 

species becoming threatened in the 

foreseeable future has been reduced by 

the achievement of the following 

criteria: (1) Permanent protection of a 

minimum of 50 percent of Priority-2 

hibernacula in each Recovery Unit: (2) 

A minimum overall population estimate 

equal to the 2005 population estimate of 

457,000; and (3) Documentation that 

shows a positive population growth rate 

within each Recovery Unit over an 

additional five sequential survey 

periods (i.e., 10 years). If research on 

summer habitat requirements indicates 

the quality or quantity of maternity 

habitat is threatening recovery of the 

species, the Service will amend these 

criteria. Additional details on 

reclassification and delisting criteria are 

available in the recovery plan. 

We will meet these criteria through 

the following actions: (1) Conserving 

and managing hibernacula and their 

winter populations, (2) Conserving and 

managing summer habitat to maximize 

survival and fecundity, (3) Planning and 

conducting research essential for 

recovery, and (4) Developing and 

implementing a public information and 

outreach program. 

In addition to seeking comments on 

the content of the entire recovery plan, 

we request any information on the 

appropriate scope and breadth of this 

recovery plan as it relates to the 

inclusion of available science for 

summer habitat. Furthermore, we are 

seeking any information related to 

hybridization that may be occurring 

with other bats within the range of 

Indiana bat. We are interested to know 

about this, the extent of such 

hybridization and its potential to affect 

the Indiana bat as a species. We also 

request information about the use of 

records of captured individuals to 

describe the summer, winter and 

maternity distribution of the species. In 

addition to soliciting comment on the 

recovery plan, we are seeking comment 

on a draft survey protocol for 

determining presence or probable 

absence of Indiana bats at cave portals 

or abandoned mines that could serve as 

hibernacula. Our goal is to incorporate 

comments and finalize the draft survey 

protocol in time to be included in the 

approved Indiana Bat Recovery Plan. 

The draft survey protocol, with 

instructions for commenting, is 

available on the Internet (see 

ADDRESSES). 

Public Comments Solicited 

The Service solicits written comments 

on the recovery plan and the draft 

survey protocol. All comments received 

by the date specified will be considered 

prior to approval of the plan. Written 

comments and materials regarding the 

draft recovery plan should be addressed 

to the Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES). 

Comments and materials received about 

the draft recovery plan will be available 

by appointment for public inspection 

during normal business hours at the 

above address. For information on 

commenting on the draft survey 

protocol, see ADDRESSES. 

Authority: The authority for this action is 

section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 

16 U.S.C. 1533(f). 

Dated: April 4, 2007. 

Lynn Lewis, 

Deputy Assistant Regional Director, 

Ecological Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling, 

Minnesota. 

[FR Doc. 07–1866 Filed 4–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge, 

Seal Beach, Orange County, CA 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment; 

announcement of public open house 

meetings; request for comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service, we), intend to 

gather information necessary to prepare 

a comprehensive conservation plan 

(CCP) and associated environmental 

documents for the Seal Beach National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR). We furnish this 

notice in compliance with our CCP 

policy to advise other agencies and the 

public of our intentions, and to obtain 

suggestions and information on the 

scope of issues to be considered in the 

planning process. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your written comments by 

May 18, 2007. Two public open house 

meetings will be held during the 

scoping phase of the comprehensive 

conservation plan development process. 

Special mailings, newspaper articles, 

and other media announcements will be 

used to inform the public and Tribe, 

state, and local governments of the dates 

and opportunities for input throughout 

the planning process. 

ADDRESSES: Send your comments or 

requests for more information to 

Victoria Touchstone, Refuge Planner, 

San Diego National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, 6010 Hidden Valley Road, 

Carlsbad, CA 92011; telephone: 760–

431–9440 ex. 349; fax: 760–930–0256; or 

electronic mail: 

Victoria_Touchstone@fws.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Victoria Touchstone, Refuge Planner, 

San Diego NWR Complex, 760–431–

9440 extension 349. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Notices 19017 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: With this 

notice, we initiate the CCP for the Seal 

Beach NWR with headquarters in 

Carlsbad, CA. Additional information is 

available by visiting the Refuge 

Planning section of the San Diego NWR 

Complex Web site at http:// 

sandiegorefuges.fws.gov. 

Background 

The CCP Process 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

668dd–668ee), requires the Service to 

develop a comprehensive conservation 

plan for each national wildlife refuge. 

The purpose of developing a 

comprehensive conservation plan 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 Service policies. In 

addition to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, plans identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, which may 

include opportunities for hunting, 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. 

We establish each unit of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System, including the 

Seal Beach NWR, with specific 

purposes. We use these purposes to 

develop and prioritize management 

goals and objectives within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System mission, and to 

guide which public uses will occur on 

these Refuges. The planning process is 

a way for us and the public to evaluate 

management goals and objectives for the 

best possible conservation efforts of this 

important wildlife habitat, while 

providing for wildlife-dependent 

recreation opportunities that are 

compatible with the Refuge’s 

establishing purposes and the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

We will conduct a comprehensive 

conservation planning process that will 

provide opportunities for Tribal, State, 

and local governments; agencies; 

organizations; and the public to 

participate in issue scoping and 

comment. You are encouraged to 

provide your input on issues, concerns, 

ideas, and suggestions for the future 

management of the Seal Beach NWR in 

Seal Beach, CA. The input provided 

during the scoping process will help us 

answer questions such as: 

1. What problems or issues should be 

addressed in the CCP? 

2. What changes or additions would 

improve conditions on the Seal Beach 

NWR? 

Our Planning Team will take into 

consideration all of the comments it 

receives as part of the scoping process; 

however, we will not reference 

individual comments in our reports. 

We will also give the public an 

opportunity to provide input at the open 

houses we have scheduled to scope 

issues and concerns. You may also 

submit written comments anytime 

during the planning process by mailing 

or e-mailing them to the above address. 

We will conduct the environmental 

review of this project in accordance 

with the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as 

amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.); NEPA 

Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508); 

other appropriate Federal laws and 

regulations; and our policies and 

procedures for compliance with those 

regulations. All comments we receive 

from individuals on our environmental 

assessments and environmental impact 

statements become part of the official 

public record. 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, be advised 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 from public review your 

personal identifying information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

All information provided voluntarily 

by mail, phone, or at public meetings 

becomes part of our official public 

record (i.e., names, addresses, letters of 

comment, input recorded during 

meetings). If a private citizen or 

organization requests this information 

under the Freedom of Information Act, 

we may provide informational copies. 

Seal Beach NWR 

Seal Beach NWR is located about 25 

miles south of downtown Los Angeles 

in northwestern Orange County, 

California. The approximately 965-acre 

Refuge overlays a portion of Naval 

Weapons Station Seal Beach (NWSSB) 

and is situated between the City of Seal 

Beach to the north and west and the 

City of Huntington Beach to the south 

and east. 

Congress authorized the Secretary of 

the Interior to establish the Seal Beach 

NWR in Public Law 92–408 on August 

29, 1972. The Secretary of the Interior, 

with the advice and consent of the 

Secretary of the Navy, established the 

Refuge on July 11, 1974. The Refuge was 

established to provide for the 

conservation, protection, and 

propagation of native species of fish and 

wildlife, including migratory birds that 

are threatened with extinction. 

Protected within the Refuge is one of 

the largest remaining salt marshes along 

the southern California coast. These 

coastal wetlands support three federally 

listed species including the endangered 

California brown pelican, light-footed 

clapper rail, and California least tern. 

The state listed endangered Belding’s 

savannah sparrows, along with the lightfooted clapper rail and California least 

tern, nest and raise their young within 

the boundaries of the Refuge. 

As a refuge that overlays a Naval 

Weapons Station, Seal Beach NWR must 

be managed in a manner that considers 

both the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System and the mission 

of the Naval Weapons Station. To that 

end, we will be coordinating with the 

Navy in the development of the CCP for 

Seal Beach NWR. The Navy has also 

been coordinating with us in the 

development of its Integrated Natural 

Resources Management Plan for 

NWSSB. 

Preliminary Issues, Concerns, and 

Opportunities 

During the initial pre-planning phase 

of the CCP process, we identified a 

number of issues, concerns, and 

opportunities that may be addressed in 

the CCP. We have briefly summarized 

these issues below. We will likely 

identify additional issues as a result of 

the public scoping process. 

Habitat Management: Measures 

necessary to preserve or improve the 

quality of the Refuge’s coastal salt marsh 

habitat, which is influenced by such 

factors as subsidence, limited freshwater 

flows, and sea level rise, should be 

evaluated during the planning process. 

Endangered Species Recovery: Listed 

species that nest on Seal Beach NWR 

could benefit from an evaluation of the 

management actions currently 

implemented to improve reproductive 

success for these species. 

Erosion: Appropriate measures for 

remediating ongoing erosion problems 

along the banks and tidal channels of 

restored salt marsh habitat on the 

Refuge should be evaluated as part of 

the CCP process. 

Public Use: Understanding that as an 

overlay refuge, public uses cannot 

compromise the mission of the Naval 

Weapons Station, are there 

opportunities for improving the current 

public use program on the Refuge? 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
19018 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 72 / Monday, April 16, 2007 / Notices 

Dated: April 10, 2007. 

Ken McDermond, 

Acting Manager, California/Nevada 

Operations, Sacramento, CA. 

[FR Doc. E7–7117 Filed 4–13–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[NM–120–06–1610-AL] 

Notice of Availability (NOA) of the 

Socorro Draft Resource Management 

Plan Revision and Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (DRMPR/DEIS), New 

Mexico 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability. 

SUMMARY: In compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 

Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976 (FLPMA) (43 U.S.C. 1701 et 

seq.), and Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM) planning regulations, the BLM 

hereby gives notice that the Socorro 

DRMPR/DEIS is available for public 

review and comment. 

DATES: To ensure that they will be 

considered, BLM must receive written 

comments on the DRMPR/DEIS within 

90 days following the date the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

publishes its NOA in the Federal 

Register. The BLM will announce future 

meetings or hearings and any other 

public involvement activities at least 15 

days in advance through public notices, 

local media, and/or mailings. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

mailed to Socorro Field Office, 

Attention: Brian Bellew, 901 S. Highway 

85, Socorro, New Mexico 87801. You 

may also comment via e-mail at: 

Brian_Bellew@nm.blm.gov; or by fax at 

(505) 835–0223. Comments that are emailed or faxed must include 

‘‘Comments on Draft RMPR/DEIS’’ in 

the subject line. You may also hand 

deliver comments to the address listed 

above. A minimum of two public 

meetings will be held during the 90-day 

public review and comment period 

during which oral comments will be 

accepted and recorded. Exact dates, 

places, and times of public meetings 

will be posted on the New Mexico BLM 

web page (http://www.nm.blm.gov) and 

advertised in local media. 

Individual respondents may request 

confidentiality. Before including your 

address, phone number, e-mail address, 

or other personal identifying 

information in your comment, be 

advised 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 from 

public review your personal identifying 

information, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. All 

submissions from organizations and 

businesses, and from individuals 

identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, will be 

available for public inspection in their 

entirety. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Brian Bellew, Planning Team Leader, at 

the Socorro Field Office (see address 

above), telephone (505) 838–1273. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

planning area encompasses all lands, 

regardless of jurisdiction, within 

Socorro and Catron counties, New 

Mexico totaling 8.7 million acres. A 

map of the planning area is available on 

the Web site (http://www.nm.blm.gov). 

The decision area for the DRMPR/DEIS 

includes 1.5 million acres of BLMadministered public lands and 6.1 

million acres of Federal mineral estate 

located in both counties. 

The DRMPR/DEIS describes the 

physical, cultural, historic, and 

socioeconomic resources in and around 

the planning area and documents the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts of four 

alternatives for BLM-administered lands 

and resources within the planning area. 

The impact analysis focuses on resource 

issues and concerns identified during 

scoping and public involvement 

activities. Issues identified during 

scoping (not in priority order) include 

areas of special designation, soil and 

vegetation conditions, energy 

development, transportation and access, 

land use, and recreation and heritage 

tourism opportunities. 

Four alternatives were analyzed in 

detail. The No-Action Alternative, 

Alternative A represents the 

continuation of existing management, 

which is defined by the 1989 Socorro 

RMP and subsequent amendments. 

Alternative B, BLM’s preferred 

alternative, proposes managing the 

public lands for multiple uses and 

sustaining the health, diversity, and 

productivity of the lands for present and 

future generations. Alternative C 

emphasizes resource protection, while 

Alternative D emphasizes commodity 

production and use while still 

complying with applicable law, 

regulation, and BLM policy. Within all 

alternatives, Areas of Critical 

Environmental Concern (ACECs) have 

been identified to protect resources. 

These ACECs and associated acreages 

are listed in the table below. More 

detailed management prescriptions in 

these areas are provided in Table 2–2 of 

the DRMPR/DEIS. 

ACRES OF BLM-MANAGED SURFACE ESTATE PROPOSED TO BE MANAGED AS ACECS UNDER THE ALTERNATIVES IN THE

DRMPR/DEIS 

ACEC use limitations Alternative A 

Preferred 

alternative 

(Alternative B) 

Alternative C Alternative D 

Agua Fria .......................................................................................... 9,571 .................. Incorporate into 

Cerro Pomo 

ACEC.

Incorporate into 

Zuni Salt Lake 

ACEC.

Eliminate. 

Cerro Pomo: Limit motor vehicle travel to designated routes. Exclude ROW. Apply fluid mineral leasing stip. S–VRM–11............................. 26,284 ................. Incorporate into 

Zuni Salt Lake 

ACEC.

449. 

Horse Mountain: Limit motor vehicle travel to designated routes. 

Exclude ROW. Apply fluid mineral leasing stip. S–NSO–W. Exclude vegetative material sales. Exclude grazing on unalloted 

lands.

7,490 .................. 5388 .................... 5388 ................... 2596. 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES