Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 21797 

previously approved forms have been 

separated into new forms that will be 

completed by different classes of PHAs. 

These changes also reflect 

recommendations made by the public in 

a previous information collection. 

Specifically, this information collection 

revises previously approved OMB forms 

HUD–50077–SL and HUD–50077–CR; 

adds Certifications of Compliance with 

PHA Plans and Related Regulations 

(form HUD–50077–SM–HP and HUD– 

50077–ST–HCV) formerly appearing on 

form HUD 50077 as separate documents; 

deletes approved OMB form HUD– 

50075, and replaces that form with five 

new forms (form HUD–50075–5Y, 

HUD–50075–ST, HUD–50075–SM–HP, 

HUD–50075–HCV, and HUD–50075– 

QA). Qualified PHAs no longer submit 

information on discretionary programs 

(demolition or disposition, HOPE VI, 

Project-based vouchers, required or 

voluntary conversion, homeownership, 

or capital improvements, etc.) as part of 

an Annual PHA Plan submission. 

However, Qualified PHAs that intend to 

implement these activities are still 

subject to the full application and 

approval processes that exist for 

demolition or disposition, designated 

housing, conversion, homeownership, 

and other special application processes 

that will no longer be tied to prior 

authorization in an Annual PHA Plan 

for a Qualified PHA. All PHAs, 

including the PHAs identified as 

Qualified PHAs under HERA, must 

continue to submit any demolition or 

disposition, public housing conversion, 

homeownership, or other special 

applications as applicable to HUD’s 

Special Applications Center (SAC) in 

Chicago for review and approval or to 

HUD Headquarters for CFFP proposals. 

It is expected that Qualified PHAs, as 

a matter of good business practice, 

continue to keep their residents, the 

general public, and the local HUD office 

apprised of any plans to initiate these 

types of programs and activities. 

Number of 

respondents 

Annual 

responses × Hours per response 

Burden 

hours 

Reporting Burden ..................................................................................... 4,053 1 5.006 20,290 

Status: Reinstatement with change of 

a previously approved collection. 

Authority: Section 3507 of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 35, as 

amended. 

Dated: April 5, 2012. 

Colette Pollard, 

Department Reports Management Officer, 

Office of the Chief Information Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8760 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–67–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R8–R–2011–N253: 

FXRS12650800000S3–112–FF08R00000] 

Hopper Mountain, Bitter Creek, and 

Blue Ridge National Wildlife Refuges, 

Ventura, Kern, San Luis Obispo, and 

Tulare Counties, CA 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability; request 

for comments: draft comprehensive 

conservation plan/environmental 

assessment. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) announce the 

availability of a Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (CCP) and 

Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 

Hopper Mountain, Bitter Creek, and 

Blue Ridge National Wildlife Refuges for 

public review and comment. The CCP/ 

EA, prepared under the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997, and in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, describes how the Service 

proposes to manage the three refuges for 

the next 15 years. Draft compatibility 

determinations for several existing and 

proposed public uses are also available 

for review and public comment with the 

Draft CCP/EA. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your written comments by 

June 11, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Send your comments, 

requests for more information, or 

requests to be added to the mailing list 

by any of the following methods. 

Email: fw8plancomments@fws.gov. 

Include ‘‘Hopper CCP’’ in the subject 

line of the message. 

Fax: Attn: Sandy Osborn, (916) 414– 

6497. 

U.S. Mail: Pacific Southwest Region, 

Refuge Planning, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2800 Cottage Way, W–1832, 

Sacramento, CA 95825–1846. 

In-Person Drop-off: You may drop off 

comments during regular business hours 

at the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sandy Osborn, Planning Team Leader, 

at (916) 414–6503, or Michael Brady, 

Project Leader, at (805) 644–5185 or 

fw8plancomments@fws.gov. Further 

information may also be found at http:// 

www.fws.gov/hoppermountain/. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

668dd-668ee), which amended the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, requires the 

Service to develop a CCP for each 

national wildlife refuge. The purpose in 

developing a CCP is to provide refuge 

managers with a 15-year plan for 

achieving refuge purposes and 

contributing toward the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, 

consistent with sound principles of fish 

and wildlife management, conservation, 

legal mandates, and our policies. In 

addition to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, 

environmental education and 

interpretation. 

We initiated the CCP/EA for the 

Hopper Mountain, Bitter Creek, and 

Blue Ridge National Wildlife Refuges in 

April 2010. At that time and throughout 

the process, we requested, considered, 

and incorporated public scoping 

comments in numerous ways. Our 

public outreach included a Federal 

Register notice of intent published on 

April 6, 2010 (75 FR 17430), two 

planning updates, a CCP Web page 

(http://www.fws.gov/hoppermountain/), 

and three public scoping meetings. The 

scoping comment period ended on May 

21, 2010. Verbal comments were 

recorded at the public meetings, and 

written comments were received via 

letters, emails, completed issues 

workbooks, comment cards, meeting 

evaluations, and a petition letter with 

276 signatures. 

Background 

Hopper Mountain NWR was 

established in 1974 and includes 2,471 

contiguous acres in Ventura County, 

California. Bitter Creek NWR was 

established in 1985 and includes 14,097 

acres, primarily in Kern County and 

extending into San Luis Obispo and 

Ventura Counties. Blue Ridge NWR was 

established in 1982 and includes 897 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
21798 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 70 / Wednesday, April 11, 2012 / Notices 

acres in Tulare County in the foothills 

of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. These 

three refuges in the Hopper Mountain 

NWR Complex (Complex) in southern 

California were created under the 

authority of the Federal Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), primarily to restore 

the endangered California condor 

population to its native range. Due to 

the sensitivity of the California condor 

recovery activities, the Refuges are 

currently closed to the public except for 

Service-led tours and volunteer 

activities. Through this CCP process, we 

will determine whether any areas of the 

refuges can be made available to the 

public for wildlife-dependent 

recreational opportunities. 

Alternatives 

The Draft CCP/EA identifies and 

evaluates three alternatives for 

managing Hopper Mountain, Bitter 

Creek, and Blue Ridge National Wildlife 

Refuges for the next 15 years. The 

alternative that appears to best meet the 

Refuges’ purposes is identified as the 

preferred alternative. The preferred 

alternative is identified based on the 

analysis presented in the Draft CCP/EA, 

which may be modified following the 

completion of the public comment 

period based on comments received 

from other agencies, Tribal 

governments, nongovernmental 

organizations, or individuals. 

Under Alternative A (no action 

alternative) for each of the three refuges, 

the Service would continue to manage 

the Refuges as we have in the recent 

past. There would be continued 

maintenance of facilities and support of 

the California Condor Recovery Program 

(Recovery Program) activities. The three 

Refuges would remain closed to the 

public. 

Alternatives for Hopper Mountain 

NWR 

Under Alternative B (preferred 

alternative), the Service would increase 

condor management and support 

actions; collect baseline data for Refuge 

resources with emphasis on special 

status species; improve management of 

all habitat types on the Refuge; and 

increase outreach, and Service-guided 

visitor and volunteer opportunities. The 

Refuge would remain closed to the 

public. 

Under Alternative C for Hopper 

Mountain NWR, the Service would 

increase some condor management and 

support actions, expand baseline data 

collection, manage invasive plants 

without using pesticides, increase 

habitat protection and enhancement of 

select black walnut and oak woodlands, 

increase some visitor services, and 

consider the feasibility of providing 

wildlife-dependent recreation on the 

Refuge. The Refuge would remain 

closed to the public. 

Alternatives for Bitter Creek NWR 

Under Alternative B (preferred 

alternative), the Service would increase 

condor management and support 

actions, install a 1,000-square-foot 

condor treatment facility, and collect 

baseline data on Refuge resources with 

emphasis on special status species. The 

Service would also use grazing and 

other methods to improve habitat 

quality to support special status San 

Joaquin Valley wildlife, and restore 

some springs and drainages. We would 

also expand visitor services by opening 

a new interpretive trail, and developing 

a new Refuge administrative office, 

visitor station, and condor observation 

point. 

Under Alternative C for Bitter Creek 

NWR the Service would improve and 

expand current management by 

increasing some condor management 

and support actions; restoring more 

habitat to support special status species; 

managing invasive plants without using 

pesticides; restoring more springs and 

drainages; and expanding outreach, 

interpretation, and visitor and volunteer 

opportunities. 

Alternatives for Blue Ridge NWR 

Under Alternative B (preferred 

alternative) the Service would improve 

current management by increasing 

condor management activities, 

collecting baseline data for special 

status species, and adding volunteer 

opportunities. Portions of the Refuge 

would be opened to the public. 

Under Alternative C for Blue Ridge 

NWR the Service would increase some 

condor management actions, but to a 

lesser extent than Alternative B, and 

work with partners to increase some 

guided visitor and volunteer 

opportunities. The Refuge would remain 

closed to the public. 

Public Meetings 

The locations, dates, and times of 

public meetings will be listed in a 

planning update distributed to the 

project mailing list and posted on the 

refuge planning Web site at http://www.

fws.gov/hoppermountain/. 

Review and Comment 

Copies of the Draft CCP/EA may be 

obtained by writing to Sandy Osborn 

(see ADDRESSES). Copies of the Draft 

CCP/EA may be viewed at the same 

address and local libraries. The Draft 

CCP/EA will also be available for 

viewing and downloading online at: 

http://www.fws.gov/hoppermountain/. 

Comments on the Draft CCP/EA 

should be addressed to Sandy Osborn 

(see ADDRESSES). 

At the end of the review and comment 

period for this Draft CCP/EA, comments 

will be analyzed by the Service and 

addressed in the Final CCP/EA. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

email 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. 

Alexandra Pitts, 

Acting Regional Director, Pacific Southwest 

Region, Sacramento, California. 

[FR Doc. 2012–8659 Filed 4–10–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R9–IA–2011–0087; 96300–1671–0000 

FY12–R4] 

Conference of the Parties to the 

Convention on International Trade in 

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna 

and Flora (CITES); Sixteenth Regular 

Meeting: Taxa Being Considered for 

Amendments to the CITES Appendices 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The United States, as a Party 

to the Convention on International 

Trade in Endangered Species of Wild 

Fauna and Flora (CITES), may propose 

amendments to the CITES Appendices 

for consideration at meetings of the 

Conference of the Parties. The sixteenth 

regular meeting of the Conference of the 

Parties to CITES (CoP16) is tentatively 

scheduled to be held in Thailand, 

March 3–15, 2013. With this notice, we 

describe proposed amendments to the 

CITES Appendices (species proposals) 

that the United States might submit for 

consideration at CoP16 and invite your 

comments and information on these 

proposals. 

DATES: We will consider written 

information and comments we receive 

by June 11, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

pertaining to species proposals for 


wreier-aviles on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES