3484 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Notices 

United States Government, the National 

Park Service (NPS) announces the 

publication for comment of a Draft Site 

Progress Report to the World Heritage 

Committee for Yellowstone National 

Park, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. 

DATES: There will be a 30-day public 

review period for comments on this 

document. Comments must be received 

on or before February 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: The Draft Site Report is 

posted on the park’s Web site at: 

http://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/ 

world-heritage-committee-report.htm. 

Copies are also available by writing to 

Suzanne Lewis, Superintendent, 

Yellowstone National Park, P.O. Box 

168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 

82190–0168; by telephoning 307–344– 

2002; by sending an e-mail message to 

yell_world_heritage@nps.gov; or by 

picking up a copy in person at the 

park’s headquarters in Mammoth Hot 

Springs, Wyoming 82190. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Suzanne Lewis, Superintendent, 

Yellowstone National Park, P.O. Box 

168, Yellowstone National Park, WY 

82190–0168, or by calling 307–344– 

2002. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The draft 

report summarizes the status of several 

issues, including threats to bison, 

threats to cutthroat trout, water quality, 

and visitor use impacts, which raised 

the concerns of the World Heritage 

Committee in 1995 and led to the park’s 

inclusion on the List of World Heritage 

in Danger that year. The World Heritage 

Committee removed Yellowstone 

National Park from the In Danger List in 

2003, and at that time requested that the 

United States submit a report to the 

Committee on the status of these issues 

every two years. 

Persons wishing to comment may do 

so by any one of several methods. They 

may mail comments to Suzanne Lewis, 

Superintendent, Yellowstone National 

Park, P.O. Box 168, Yellowstone 

National Park, WY 82190–0168. They 

also may comment via e-mail to 

yell_world_heritage@nps.gov (include 

name and return address in the e-mail 

message). Finally, they may handdeliver comments to park headquarters 

in Mammoth Hot Springs, Wyoming 

82190. 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 view, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. We will make all submissions 

from organizations or businesses, and 

from individuals identifying themselves 

as representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

Mickey Fearn, 

Deputy Director, Communications and 

Community Assistance. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1095 Filed 1–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–CT–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2009–N229; 40136–1265–0000– 

S3] 

Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife 

Refuge, Chesterfield and Marlboro 

Counties, SC 

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 Carolina 

Sandhills 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 

February 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, 

and requests for information to: Ms. 

Allyne Askins, Refuge Manager, 

Carolina Sandhills NWR, 23734 U.S. 

Highway 1, McBee, SC 29101, or to the 

following e-mail address: 

allyne_askins@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. 

Allyne Askins; telephone: 843/335– 

6023; fax: 843/335–8406. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for Carolina Sandhills NWR. We 

started the process through a notice in 

the Federal Register on August 22, 2007 

(72 FR 47062). 

Carolina Sandhills NWR is in rural 

northeast South Carolina. The refuge is 

comprised of 47,850 acres, including fee 

ownership of 45,348 acres, and 9 

conservation easements totaling 2,502 

acres. The majority of the refuge lies in 

Chesterfield County, with one fee title 

tract totaling 210 acres in Marlboro 

County. The refuge is managed to 

restore the longleaf pine/wiregrass 

ecosystem for the benefit of the redcockaded woodpecker (RCW) and other 

endangered species, provide habitat for 

migratory and upland game birds, 

provide opportunities for environmental 

education and interpretation and 

wildlife-dependent recreational 

opportunities, and demonstrate sound 

land management practices that 

enhance natural resource conservation. 

The refuge’s primary wildlife-dependent 

recreational use is hunting, although 

wildlife observation, hiking, and fishing 

are also popular. 

The refuge contains 30 small manmade impoundments, 1,200 acres of 

fields and forest openings, and more 

than 42,000 acres of forested 

woodland—habitats which contribute to 

the refuge’s diversity of flora and fauna. 

Management of the refuge’s unique 

blend of pinelands, pocosin bottoms, 

freshwater ponds and lakes, fields, and 

wildlife openings provide habitat for 

nearly 200 species of birds, 42 species 

of mammals, 41 species of reptiles, 25 

species of amphibians, and more than 

750 species of plants. The largest 

population of RCWs within the National 

Wildlife Refuge System is found on the 

refuge. Also, rare plants, including 

several species of carnivorous pitcher 

plants and the unusual Pine Barrens tree 

frog are found in the refuge. 

Background 

The CCP Process 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd–668ee), 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, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Notices 3485 

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. 

CCP Alternatives, Including Our 

Proposed Alternative 

We developed three alternatives for 

managing the refuge and chose 

Alternative C 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 

(No Action) 

Alternative A would continue existing 

levels of management activities on the 

refuge. We would maintain RCW 

monitoring and recovery. We would 

maintain and improve habitat required 

for RCWs by conducting even-aged 

silviculture and transitioning to unevenaged management. We would use 

prescribed fire during the early growing 

season and mechanical and chemical 

treatments to confine turkey oaks to 

understory stratum. 

We would monitor eagles, waterfowl, 

neotropical migratory birds, game 

species, and other wildlife. We would 

maintain the wood duck nest box 

program. We would manage the annual 

drawdown of ponds to encourage 

growth of desirable vegetation and 

restoration of wetland communities. 

There would be no actions focused 

specifically on marsh and water birds, 

raptors, or Pine Barrens tree frogs. We 

would manage for the restoration of 

native plants and manage non-native 

species on an ‘‘as needed’’ basis. 

Visitors would be welcomed and 

oriented with existing visitor center 

displays, kiosks, and brochure racks. 

The existing hunting and fishing 

programs would continue. The hunting 

program would include deer, quail, 

rabbit, raccoon, and turkey. Fishing 

would be permitted in most ponds and 

some would be occasionally stocked. 

Wildlife observation and photography 

would be supported with existing 

facilities. We would provide quality 

environmental education and 

interpretation programs as requested 

and as time would permit. 

We would maintain refuge 

boundaries, consider acquisition of 

inholdings from willing sellers, and 

protect archaeological and historical 

resources on the refuge. We would work 

with private landowners near the refuge 

to promote refuge goals and objectives. 

We would maintain facilities and 

equipment and manage operations with 

existing staff. 

Alternative B—Maximize Native 

Wildlife and Habitat Diversity 

Alternative B includes many of the 

actions under Alternative A, with 

additional focus on managing native 

wildlife and habitat diversity, and 

maintaining the existing visitor services 

program. We would enhance RCW 

habitat by accelerating the transition to 

uneven-aged forest management to 

improve forest structure and 

composition, increasing growing season 

burning, and considering use of fall 

burning for hazardous fuel reduction 

and seed bed preparation. 

We would enhance management of 

the floristic communities on the refuge, 

including seepage bogs, Atlantic white 

cedar and cane bottoms, and old field 

species at Oxpen Farm. We would 

develop and implement habitat 

management surveys to identify species’ 

responses to treatments in longleaf pine 

and pocosin habitat sites. 

We would enhance management of 

the impoundments and wetlands, 

implement moist-soil management, 

restore natural stream drainage at 

selected sites, and establish and expand 

rare and sensitive plant communities. 

We would conduct a baseline 

population survey of Pine Barrens tree 

frogs in seeps, monitor populations of 

concern to discern population trends 

and effects of habitat management, 

coordinate with the South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources 

(SCDNR) to conduct surveys and assess 

effects of habitat management, and 

participate in amphibian and reptile 

conservation initiatives. 

We would manage grasslands for 

birds of conservation concern, conduct 

baseline population surveys of grassland 

birds, and survey to assess effects of 

habitat management. We would restore 

longleaf pine/wiregrass and native 

grasslands, establish native warm 

season grass demonstration areas, and 

eradicate non-native plants (e.g., fescue, 

love grass, lespedeza, and bamboo). We 

would also establish a native seed 

nursery/orchard for native warm season 

grasses and native groundcover and 

engage in native plant botanical 

research. 

Visitor services activities, except for 

hunting and fishing, would be the same 

as under Alternative A. We would 

eliminate fisheries enhancement and 

reduce hunting days by 30 percent. This 

reduction would be necessary to 

implement the proposed biological and 

habitat initiatives. 

We would target land acquisitions to 

those that would maximize 

opportunities for management of trust 

species and connectivity of gaps and 

corridors to protect important habitats. 

We would increase easement 

inspections and develop management 

plans for each easement to meet wildlife 

diversity goals. We would increase our 

efforts to protect archaeological and 

historical resources on the refuge. 

We would increase cooperation with 

State and Federal agencies to institute a 

structured monitoring program, 

determine sources, and investigate 

means to reduce impacts from any 

contaminants. We would add additional 

wells and monitoring stations to key 

locations throughout the refuge in an 

effort to determine effects of water 

withdrawals on refuge resources. We 

would expand monitoring to include a 

water quality study. 

We would minimize heavy equipment 

use to prevent soil disturbance and 

discontinue use of roller choppers. We 

would increase staffing in wildlife and 

habitat management programs; however, 

staffing in visitor services would be the 

same as under Alternative A. 

Alternative C—Proposed Alternative 

Alternative C would optimize refuge 

operations by balancing habitat and 

wildlife population management with 

enhanced visitor services. This 

alternative would include 

implementation of a majority of actions 

under Alternative B, while improving 

visitor experiences and providing 

educational and recreational 

opportunities for the surrounding 

communities. 

We would enhance RCW habitat by 

improving forest structure and 

composition, by increasing growing 

season burning, and by using fall 

burning for hazardous fuel reduction 

and seed bed preparation. We would 

use all available tools to control 

midstory growth. 

RCW monitoring would be reduced to 

a core population in line with 

management practices of other large 

RCW populations. The refuge would 

participate on the Southern Range 

Translocation Team and would provide 

juvenile RCWs as donors to populations 

in Georgia, South Carolina, and North 

Carolina. As under Alternative B, we 

would increase partnership activities 

with SCDNR, Cheraw State Park, and 

Sand Hills State Forest to manage area 

RCWs as one recovery unit. We would 

upgrade our mapping systems to GIS 

and integrate spatial components of 

programs and plans into GIS. 

We would enhance management of 

the unique floristic communities on the 

refuge and develop and implement 

habitat management surveys to identify 

response to treatments in longleaf pine 

and pocosin habitat sites. 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
3486 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Notices 

We would continue wildlife and 

habitat management activities as under 

Alternative A, while establishing and 

expanding rare and sensitive plant 

community surveys and management of 

seepage slopes. As under Alternative B, 

we would conduct a baseline 

population survey of Pine Barrens tree 

frogs. We would monitor populations of 

concern to discern population trends 

and effects of habitat management, 

coordinate with SCDNR to conduct 

surveys and assess effects of habitat 

management, and participate in 

amphibian and reptile conservation 

initiatives. 

We would survey and manage for 

birds of conservation concern, assessing 

effects of habitat management. We 

would restore longleaf pine/wiregrass 

and native grasslands, establish native 

warm season grass demonstration areas, 

and eradicate non-native plants. We 

would also establish a native seed 

nursery/orchard for native warm season 

grasses and native groundcover and 

engage in native plant botanical 

research. We would manage dove fields 

and plant annual cool season crops. We 

would also work with cooperative 

farmers to establish native warm season 

grasses as a seed source or for biofuel 

production. 

Most visitor services activities would 

be improved. We would enhance 

interpretation with additional wayside 

exhibits and an updated, interactive 

Web site. Hunting and fishing 

opportunities would be increased. 

Wildlife observation and photography 

opportunities would be improved by 

providing additional trails with better 

interpretation, an observation tower, 

and a photo blind. A portable viewing 

blind would be established in active 

RCW clusters along the wildlife drive 

during the nesting season. The 

environmental education program 

would be enhanced by developing a 

comprehensive program to be operated 

by volunteers and funded by grants. We 

would enhance appropriate recreational 

uses (e.g., biking and picnicking) to 

encourage families to use the refuge and 

pursue outdoor recreational activities. 

Communication about key issues would 

be enhanced by hosting an annual 

public lands and private landowner 

demonstration day to showcase 

restoration and management practices. 

We would target land acquisitions that 

would maximize ecosystem 

management objectives, provide 

opportunities for public use and 

environmental education, and identify 

and evaluate important gaps and 

corridors to ensure landscape-level 

conservation and connectivity. We 

would search for opportunities to enter 

into cooperative wildlife management 

agreements with private landowners. 

We would increase protection of refuge 

visitors and the protection of 

archaeological and natural resources on 

the refuge. We would add visitor 

services facilities to provide more 

recreation and education programs and 

opportunities. We would add 

equipment to the fleet for producing and 

harvesting native warm season grass 

seed. In addition to increasing staff, we 

would utilize a cadre of career seasonal, 

temporary, and student employees. 

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. 

Dated: January 15, 2010. 

Jeffrey M. Fleming, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1049 Filed 1–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Susquehanna to Roseland 500kV 

Transmission Line, Environmental 

Impact Statement, Delaware Water Gap 

National Recreation Area, Middle 

Delaware National Scenic and 

Recreational River, and Appalachian 

National Scenic Trail, Pennsylvania 

and New Jersey 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for a construction and right-of-way 

permit requested from Delaware Water 

Gap National Recreation Area, Middle 

Delaware National Scenic and 

Recreational River, and Appalachian 

National Scenic Trail, in connection 

with the Susquehanna to Roseland 

500kV Transmission Line. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park 

Service (NPS) is preparing an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

and conducting public scoping meetings 

for a construction and right-of-way 

permit requested from Delaware Water 

Gap National Recreation Area, Middle 

Delaware National Scenic and 

Recreational River, and Appalachian 

National Scenic Trail, in connection 

with the proposed Susquehanna 

(Berwick, Pennsylvania) to Roseland, 

New Jersey 500 kilovolt (kV) 

Transmission Line. The line is being 

proposed by Pennsylvania Power and 

Light Electric Utilities (PPL) and Public 

Service Electric and Gas Company 

(PSE&G), and would cross the Delaware 

Water Gap National Recreation Area 

(DEWA), Middle Delaware National 

Scenic and Recreational River, and 

Appalachian National Scenic Trail (AT), 

in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. This 

NPS EIS will examine a range of feasible 

alternatives and evaluate potential 

impacts on the natural resource and 

cultural resource values, and the human 

environment in the areas of these NPS 

units. 

PPL and PSE&G, applicants for an 

NPS permit, have proposed expansion 

of an existing electric transmission line 

right-of-way that crosses the three NPS 

units. The Applicants currently have a 

230 kV transmission line running 

through their existing right-of-way. 

They are proposing to replace the 

existing line with a double circuit 500 

kV transmission line with one circuit 

being operated at 500 kV and the second 

circuit being energized at 230 kV. The 

two circuits would be separate but 

carried on the same structures. The 

existing single 230 kV power line and 

towers currently on the right-of-way 

would be removed and replaced with 

larger towers. This would necessitate 

widening the cleared area, and the 

granting of additional rights to expand 

the width of the transmission line rightof-way beyond the Applicant’s current 

holdings. The Applicants are also 

proposing to build new roads and 

rehabilitate and widen existing roads in 

DEWA for accessing the transmission 

line corridor. The Applicant’s stated 

purpose for the project is to strengthen 

the grid at the direction of the Regional 

Transmission Operator, PJM 

Interconnection (PJM). PJM oversees the 

overall movement of wholesale 

electricity between many electric 

utilities throughout a 13 state region. 

PJM’s 2007 load forecast model 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES