18742 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices 

visitor facilities and services in areas of 

the National Park System. Concession 

authorizations may be assigned, sold, 

transferred, or encumbered by the 

concessioner subject to prior written 

approval of the NPS. The NPS requires 

that certain information be submitted 

for review prior to the consummation of 

any sale, transfer, assignment, or 

encumbrance. 

The information requested is used to 

determine whether or not the proposed 

transaction will result in an adverse 

impact on the protection, conservation, 

or preservation of the resources of the 

unit of the National Park System; 

decreased services to the public; the 

lack of a reasonable opportunity for 

profit over the remaining term of the 

authorization; or rates in excess of 

approved rates to the public. In 

addition, pursuant to the regulations at 

36 CFR Part 51, the value of rights for 

intangible assets such as the concession 

contract, right of preference in renewal, 

user days, or low fees, belongs to the 

Government. If any portion of the 

purchase price is attributable either 

directly or indirectly to such assets, the 

transaction may not be approved. The 

amount and type of information to be 

submitted varies with the type and 

complexity of the proposed transaction. 

Without such information, the NPS 

would be unable to determine whether 

approval of the proposed transaction 

would be adequate. 

Affected public: Businesses, 

individuals, and nonprofit 

organizations. 

Obligation to respond: Required to 

obtain or retain a benefit. 

Frequency of response: On occasion. 

Estimated total annual responses: 20. 

Estimated average completion time 

per response: 80 hours. 

Estimated annual reporting burden: 

1,600 hours. 

Estimated annual nonhour cost 

burden: $5,000. 

Comments are invited on: (1) The 

practical utility of the information being 

gathered; (2) the accuracy of the burden 

hour estimate; (3) ways to enhance the 

quality, utility, and clarity of the 

information to be collected; and (4) 

ways to minimize the burden to 

respondents, including use of 

automated information collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 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 OMB will be able 

to do so. 

Dated: April 17, 2009. 

Cartina Miller, 

NPS Information Collection Clearance 

Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–9413 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–53–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2009–N0057; 40136–1265– 

0000–S3] 

Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife 

Refuge, Orleans 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 (Draft CCP/EA) for 

Bayou Sauvage National Wildlife Refuge 

(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 

May 26, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, 

and requests for information to: Mr. Pon 

Dixson, Deputy Project Leader, 

Southeast Louisiana National Wildlife 

Refuge Complex, 61389 Highway 434, 

Lacombe, LA 70445. A copy of the Draft 

CCP/EA is available on both compact 

disc and hard copy, and it may be 

accessed and downloaded from the 

Service’s Internet Site: http:// 

southeast.fws.gov/planning/. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Pon Dixson; telephone: 985/882–2014; 

fax: 985/882–9133; e-mail: 

pon_dixson@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice we continue the CCP 

process for Bayou Sauvage NWR. We 

started the process through a notice in 

the Federal Register on May 16, 2008 

(72 FR 27585). 

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 

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, 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. 

Bayou Sauvage NWR is in eastern 

Orleans Parish, Louisiana, and is 

entirely situated within the corporate 

limits of the city of New Orleans. It is 

the largest national wildlife refuge in an 

urban area of the United States, and is 

one of the last remaining marsh areas 

adjacent to the south shores of Lakes 

Pontchartrain and Borgne. The refuge 

consists of 24,000 acres of wetlands and 

is bordered on three sides by water: 

Lake Pontchartrain on the north, Chef 

Menteur Pass on the east, and Lake 

Borgne on the south. The western side 

of the refuge is bordered by the Maxent 

Canal and lands that consist of 

bottomland hardwood habitat and 

exotic species, such as Chinese tallow 

and china berry. Un-leveed portions of 

the refuge consist of estuarine tidal 

marshes and shallow water. The 

Hurricane Protection Levee System, 

along with roadbeds, created freshwater 

impoundments, which altered the plant 

communities as well as the fish 

communities within these 

impoundments. Small forested areas 

exist on the low, natural ridges formed 

along natural drainages and along 

manmade canals. 

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 is in the 

Draft CCP/EA. We summarize each 

alternative below. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices 18743 

Alternative A: Continuation of Current 

Refuge Management (No Action) 

This alternative represents no change 

from current management of the refuge 

and provides a baseline. Management 

emphasis would continue to be directed 

towards accomplishing the refuge’s 

primary purposes. Refuge staff would 

continue to restore and maintain 

emergent marsh—both tidally 

influenced and impounded, natural 

levee ridges, bottomland hardwood 

forests, spoil banks, and shallow open 

water bodies, all of which constitute a 

wide range of habitats within the refuge 

boundaries. 

Current refuge management would 

continue to provide wintering and 

nesting habitats for migratory and 

resident waterfowl, wading birds, and 

migrating songbirds. The operation and 

management of the refuge would 

provide for the basic needs of these 

species, including feeding, resting, and 

breeding. The planting of vegetation 

used for food, nesting and cover, and 

moist-soil management in eight different 

water management units that cater to a 

variety of different species would 

continue to be priorities. At least two 

aerial waterfowl surveys would 

continue to be conducted. 

Alternative B: Restoring and Improving 

Refuge Resources (Proposed Alternative) 

This action was selected by the 

Service as the alternative that best 

signifies the vision, goals, and purposes 

of the refuge. Under Alternative B, the 

emphasis would be on restoring and 

improving refuge resources needed for 

wildlife and habitat management, while 

providing additional public use 

opportunities. This alternative would 

also allow the refuge to provide law 

enforcement protection that adequately 

meets the demands of an urban 

environment. 

This alternative would focus on 

augmenting wildlife and habitat 

management to identify, conserve, and 

restore populations of native fish and 

wildlife species, with an emphasis on 

migratory birds and threatened and 

endangered species. This would 

partially be accomplished by increased 

monitoring of waterfowl, other 

migratory birds, and endemic species in 

order to assess and adapt management 

strategies and actions. The restoration of 

fresh and brackish marsh systems and 

hardwood forests would be a vital part 

of this proposed action and would be 

crucial to ensuring healthy and viable 

ecological communities following 

Hurricane Katrina. This restoration 

would require increased wetland 

vegetation and tree plantings, and the 

use of beneficial dredge, breakwater 

structures, and organic materials to 

promote reestablishment of emergent 

marsh and to reduce wave energy 

erosion along Lakes Pontchartrain and 

Borgne. Improving and monitoring 

water quality and active moist-soil 

management would assist in 

reestablishing freshwater marsh habitat. 

The refuge would more aggressively 

control and, where possible, eliminate 

invasive plant species by seeking 

funding through the Service’s invasive 

species control program. The control of 

Chinese tallow trees and cogon grass 

along the hardwood ridge would be a 

focal point. The control of nuisance 

wildlife would increase to include 

yearly population evaluations and more 

aggressive trapping programs for feral 

hogs and nutria. 

Alternative B enhances the refuge’s 

visitor services opportunities by: 

Improving and providing additional 

fishing opportunities; considering 

providing limited hunting opportunities 

on the refuge; providing environmental 

education that emphasizes refuge 

restoration activities, coastal 

conservation issues, and the diversity of 

water management regimes in the 

aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; 

establishing a visitor center or contact 

station on the refuge; developing and 

implementing a visitor services 

management plan; and enhancing 

personal interpretive opportunities. 

Volunteer programs and friends groups 

also would be expanded to enhance all 

aspects of refuge management and to 

increase resource availability. 

Land acquisitions within the 

approved acquisition boundary would 

be based on importance of the habitats 

for target management species and for 

their public use value. The refuge 

headquarters would not only house 

administrative offices, but would offer 

interpretation of refuge wildlife and 

habitats, and would demonstrate habitat 

improvements for individual 

landowners. The headquarters facilities 

would be developed as an urban public 

use area with trails; buildings presently 

not being used and landscaping would 

be refurbished for visitor and 

community outreach. 

In addition to the enforcement of all 

Federal and State laws applicable to the 

refuge to protect archaeological and 

historical sites, the staff would identify 

and develop a cultural resources plan to 

protect all known sites. The allocation 

of one law enforcement officer to the 

refuge would not only provide security 

for these resources, but would also 

ensure visitor safety and public 

compliance with refuge regulations. 

Alternative C: Optimize Public Use 

Opportunities 

Active management of refuge 

resources would be employed to 

optimize public use opportunities. 

Resources would be dedicated to 

increasing the public use activities of 

fishing, wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation, and a 

limited hunting program would be 

considered. All purposes of the refuge 

and mandated monitoring of Federal 

trust species and archaeological 

resources would be continued, but other 

wildlife management would be 

dependent on public interests. 

This alternative would utilize a 

custodial habitat management strategy. 

Moist-soil units would not be actively 

managed and would be allowed to 

revert back to brackish tidal marsh. 

These units would also be maintained 

near full pool level to facilitate public 

use opportunities, such as fishing and 

canoeing. Hardwood forest habitat in 

high public use areas would be restored 

and all other areas would recover 

naturally with no management 

intervention. 

Increased wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and interpretation 

opportunities would result from the 

construction of an on-site visitor’s 

center, canoe and birding tours, kiosks, 

and trail signs. Additionally, waterfowl 

and wildlife monitoring would be 

conducted periodically to identify high 

use areas for the visiting public to 

observe. Environmental education 

would be expanded by addressing a 

wide range of local and global 

environmental concerns and would be 

offered to a broader range of student 

groups and schools. New information 

brochures and tear sheets would be 

published to increase public outreach 

and to promote public use and 

recreational opportunities. 

Land acquisitions within the 

approved acquisition boundary would 

be based on the importance of the 

habitat for public use. Administration 

plans would stress the need for 

increased maintenance of existing 

infrastructure and construction of new 

facilities that would benefit public use 

activities. The refuge would operate 

with the current level of staff. Law 

enforcement of refuge regulations and 

protection of wildlife and visitors would 

continue at current levels. 

Next Step 

After the comment period ends, we 

will analyze the comments and address 

them. 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES

18744 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 78 / Friday, April 24, 2009 / Notices 

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. 

Dated: March 16, 2009. 

Cynthia K. Dohner, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. E9–9411 Filed 4–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2009–N0045; 40136–1265– 

0000–S3] 

Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge, 

Hillsborough County, FL; Pinellas 

National Wildlife Refuge, Pinellas 

County, FL; and Passage Key National 

Wildlife Refuge, Manatee County, FL 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability: draft 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of a draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental 

assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for Egmont 

Key, Pinellas, and Passage Key National 

Wildlife Refuges for public review and 

comment. These three refuges, known as 

the Tampa Bay Refuges, are managed as 

part of the Chassahowitzka National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Complex. In this 

Draft CCP/EA, we describe the 

alternative we propose to use to manage 

these refuges for the 15 years following 

approval of the final CCP. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your written comments by 

May 26, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Requests for copies of the 

Draft CCP/EA should be addressed to: 

Mr. Richard J. Meyers, Assistant Refuge 

Manager, Chassahowitzka NWR 

Complex, 9500 Koger Boulevard North, 

Suite 102, St. Petersburg, FL 33702. 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: Mr. 

Richard J. Meyers, telephone: 727/570– 

5417; e-mail: richard_meyers@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for Egmont Key, Pinellas, and 

Passage Key National Wildlife Refuges. 

We started the process through a notice 

in the Federal Register on December 3, 

2004 (69 FR 70276). 

Background 

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 

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, 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 and the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

Significant issues addressed in the 

Draft CCP/EA include: erosion; 

predatory/exotic/invasive species; 

human disturbance of wildlife, 

particularly with respect to illegal 

access to closed areas; fishing line and 

trash disposal; threatened and 

endangered species; bird and other 

wildlife surveys; environmental 

education and interpretation issues; and 

staffing, equipment, and facility needs. 

Egmont Key National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) includes 392 acres and was 

established in 1974 to protect its 

significant natural, historical, and 

cultural resources from the impending 

threats of development. Egmont Key 

NWR is the only refuge island open to 

the public and has been traditionally 

visited for many years as a primary 

recreation destination. Egmont Key 

NWR seeks to provide nesting habitat 

for brown pelicans and other 

waterbirds, as well as to conserve and 

protect barrier island habitat and to 

preserve historical structures of national 

significance (i.e., historic lighthouse, 

guard house, gun batteries, and brick 

roads). Presently, the island’s 

approximately 244 acres of beach and 

coastal berm support more than 110 

species of nesting, migrating, and 

wintering birds. The island is listed as 

critical habitat for endangered piping 

plovers and provides habitat and 

protection for endangered manatees and 

sea turtles. Egmont Key NWR has an 

unusually high population of gopher 

tortoises and box turtles. Two wildlife 

sanctuaries, one on the east side of the 

island and one at the south end of the 

island, comprise about 97 acres and are 

closed to public use. Cooperative 

management agreements between the 

Service, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), 

and the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection entrust daily 

management activities of Egmont Key 

NWR to the Florida Park Service (FPS), 

which manages the island to protect and 

restore the historic structures and for 

swimming, sunbathing, shelling, and 

picnicking. 

Pinellas National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) was established in 1951 as a 

breeding ground for colonial bird 

species. It contains seven mangrove 

islands encompassing about 394 acres. 

The refuge is comprised of Little Bird, 

Mule, Jackass, Listen, and Whale Island 

Keys and leases Tarpon and Indian Keys 

from Pinellas County. A Pinellas County 

seagrass sanctuary is located around 

Tarpon and Indian Keys and the use of 

internal combustion engines within this 

zone is prohibited to protect seagrass 

beds. Hundreds of brown pelicans and 

double-crested cormorants and dozens 

of herons, egrets, and roseate spoonbills 

nest within Tarpon and Little Bird Keys. 

Pinellas NWR provides important 

mangrove habitat for most long-legged 

wading species, especially for reddish 

egrets. All of the mangrove islands of 

Pinellas NWR are closed to public use 

year-round to protect migratory birds. 

Passage Key National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR) was originally designated as a 

Federal bird reservation by President 

Roosevelt in 1905, which then consisted 

of a 60-acre island with a freshwater 

lake and lush vegetation. However, 

erosion and hurricanes have virtually 

destroyed the key, and it is now a 

meandering sand bar varying in size 

from 0.5 to 10 acres, depending on 

weather. In 1970, Passage Key NWR was 

designated a Wilderness Area. The 

refuge’s objective is to provide habitat 

for colonial waterbirds. Hundreds of 

brown pelicans, laughing gulls, black 

skimmer, and royal terns, and small 

numbers of herons and egrets, nested 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES