Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 26979 

agencies, including whether the 

information will have practical utility; 

(b) the accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden (hours and cost) of the collection 

of information, including the validity of 

the methodology and assumptions used; 

(c) ways we could enhance the quality, 

utility and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and (d) ways we could 

minimize the burden of the collection of 

the information on the respondents, 

such as through the use of automated 

collection techniques or other forms of 

information technology. 

Please note that an agency may not 

sponsor or conduct, and an individual 

need not respond to, a collection of 

information unless it has a valid OMB 

Control Number. 

It is our policy to make all comments 

available to the public for review at the 

location listed in the ADDRESSES section 

during the hours of 9 a.m.–5 p.m., 

Eastern Time, Monday through Friday 

except for legal holidays. Before 

including your address, phone number, 

e-mail address or other personally 

identifiable information, be advised that 

your entire comment—including your 

personally identifiable information— 

may be made public at any time. While 

you may request that we withhold your 

personally identifiable information, we 

cannot guarantee that we will be able to 

do so. 

III. Data 

OMB Control Number: 1076–0135. 

Title: Reporting System for Public 

Law 102–477 Demonstration Project. 

Brief Description of Collection: Public 

Law 102–477 authorizes tribal 

governments to integrate federally 

funded employment, training and 

related services programs into a single, 

coordinated, comprehensive delivery 

plan. Interior has made available a 

single universal format for Statistical 

Reports for tribal governments to report 

on integrated activities undertaken 

within their projects, and a single 

universal format for Financial Reports 

for tribal governments to report on all 

project expenditures. Respondents that 

participate in Temporary Assistance for 

Needy Families (TANF) must provide 

additional information on these forms. 

Type of Review: Extension without 

change of a currently approved 

collection. 

Respondents: Indian tribes 

participating in Public Law 102–477. 

Number of Respondents: 67 grantees 

representing 265 Indian tribes. 

Total Number of Responses: 265 

Frequency of Response: Each 

respondent must supply the information 

for the Financial Status Report and 

Public Law 102–477 Demonstration 

Project Statistical Report once. 

Approximately 30 of the respondents 

participate in TANF and must also 

provide information associated with 

that program. 

Estimated Time per Response: Ranges 

from 2 to 56 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 

3,018 hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Non-Hour 

Cost Burden: $255. 

Dated: May 5, 2010. 

Alvin Foster, 

Acting Chief Information Officer—Indian 

Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11367 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–4J–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2010–N053; 40136–1265–0000– 

S3] 

Piedmont National Wildlife Refuge, 

Jones and Jasper Counties, GA 

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 Piedmont 

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 

June 14, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of 

the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Ms. 

Laura Housh, via U.S. mail at 

Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge, 

2700 Suwannee Canal Road, Folkston, 

GA 31537, or via e-mail at 

laura_housh@fws.gov. You may also 

download the document from our 

Internet Site as follows: http:// 

southeast.fws.gov/planning under ‘‘Draft 

Documents.’’ Submit comments on the 

Draft CCP/EA to the above postal 

address or e-mail address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Laura Housh, Refuge Planner, 

telephone: 912–496–7366, ext. 244; fax: 

912–496–3322. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for Piedmont NWR. We started 

the process through a notice in the 

Federal Register on April 4, 2008 (73 FR 

18552). 

For more about the refuge and our 

CCP process, please see that notice. 

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 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 

Administration Act. 

Significant issues addressed in the 

Draft CCP/EA include: (1) Management 

for threatened and endangered species; 

(2) refuge boundary and future land 

acquisition; (3) forest and fire 

management and education; (4) cane 

break restoration; (5) invasive species 

control; (6) climate change; (7) 

partnerships; (8) air and water quality; 

(9) protection of cultural resources; (10) 

urban development; (11) law 

enforcement; (12) public access; (13) 

wildlife-dependent recreation; (14) 

camping; and (15) facilities, staffing, 

and funding needs. 

CCP Alternatives, Including Our 

Proposed Alternative 

We developed four 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—No Action Alternative 

Under Alternative A, we would 

continue to monitor and manage the 

red-cockaded woodpecker population to 

achieve our goal for this endangered 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
26980 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 

species. We would conduct limited 

surveys for other wildlife species. No 

active management would occur for 

waterfowl, wetland-dependent birds, 

raptors, fish, reptiles, amphibians, and 

other resident birds and mammals. We 

would continue current forest 

management practices by actively 

managing 22,500 acres of upland pine 

with timber harvesting and prescribed 

burning. The current fire management 

program would be maintained to 

achieve viable wildlife and plant 

communities. We would reduce fuels by 

burning on a 3-year rotation and by 

participating in a fuels’ monitoring 

program. Wildlife openings and 

roadsides would be maintained through 

mowing and prescribed burning. We 

would opportunistically treat invasive 

plants with herbicides and prescribed 

burning, enhance cane areas, and 

manage bottomland and upland 

hardwoods. For aquatic species, we 

would continue to implement Georgia’s 

Best Management Practices for Forestry 

and manage the impoundments as a 

demonstration area for waterfowl by 

performing periodic drawdown and 

limited planting. 

We would continue to welcome and 

orient visitors and maintain current 

opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography. The level of 

environmental education opportunities 

would continue to be limited due to 

lack of resources, and outreach activities 

would continue to be limited to one 

event per year. We would maintain 

existing hunting and fishing programs 

as well as current facilities. We would 

continue to enforce all State and Federal 

laws applicable to the refuge, provide 

visitor safety, protect wildlife and 

cultural resources, and ensure public 

compliance by enforcing current refuge 

regulations. 

The staff would continue to support 

both Piedmont and Bond Swamp NWRs. 

We would work with private 

landowners and partners to promote our 

goals and objectives. Land could be 

acquired from willing sellers within the 

current acquisition boundary and in 

accordance with Service policy. The 

current volunteer program would be 

maintained. 

Alternative B—Wildlife and Habitat 

Diversity (Proposed Action) 

We selected Alternative B as the 

alternative that best signifies the vision, 

goals, and purposes of Piedmont NWR. 

This alternative was selected based on 

public input and the best professional 

judgment of the planning team. Under 

Alternative B, the emphasis would be 

on restoring and improving refuge 

resources needed for wildlife and 

habitat management and providing 

enhanced appropriate and compatible 

wildlife-dependent public use 

opportunities. 

We would continue to monitor and 

manage the red-cockaded woodpecker 

population, but would increase the 

population goal by 3 to 5 percent. We 

would increase wildlife surveys 

conducted under Alternative A to 

include surveying for breeding birds, 

bald eagles, furbearers, resident birds, 

raptors, reptiles and amphibians. We 

would initiate basic inventories for fish 

species and invertebrates, including 

dragonflies, crayfish, and mussels. We 

would continue to collect quail, turkey, 

and deer data through managed hunts 

and surveys, and reinstate turkey brood 

counts. We would increase efforts to 

maintain a deer population of 30 to 35 

deer per-square-mile, with a balanced 

sex ratio. 

We would expand habitat 

management by modifying forest 

management strategies to benefit 

wildlife and habitat diversity. We would 

continue to maintain current fire 

management programs but intensify 

management of a 5,000-acre Piedmont 

savanna focus area with smaller burn 

units on a 2-year rotation. We would 

prioritize the need for removal of 

invasive plants and animals and would 

enhance wildlife openings and 

roadsides for early successional habitat 

diversity. For aquatic species, we would 

continue to implement Georgia’s Best 

Management Practices for Forestry, but 

would also survey streams to identify 

species. We would continue to manage 

the impoundments as a demonstration 

area for waterfowl and implement a 

water management program to enhance 

habitat and wildlife diversity. We would 

identify unique and rare habitat types 

and modify management activities as 

needed to protect and restore priority 

areas. Cane areas would continue to be 

strategically managed. 

We would revise the current visitor 

services plan and update signs, 

brochures, exhibits, and websites. 

Kiosks and an automated phone system 

would be added. We would expand 

current opportunities for wildlife 

observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental education and 

interpretation, and outreach. We would 

continue to maintain, and where 

possible, expand existing hunting and 

fishing opportunities. We would 

maintain our current law enforcement 

program and, in addition, revise the law 

enforcement plan and reinstate the law 

enforcement outreach program. We 

would document additional historic 

sites and update current GIS data to 

provide for better resource protection. 

We would develop an integrated 

cultural resources plan. Under this 

alternative, we would evaluate the 

potential of expanding the refuge 

acquisition boundary to meet our goals 

and objectives in accordance with 

current Service policy. 

We would seek partnerships to 

monitor the impacts of climate change 

on refuge resources and adapt 

management as needed to conserve the 

native wildlife and habitats. 

Administration plans would identify 

increased maintenance of existing 

infrastructure and construction of new 

facilities. We would acquire and 

maintain equipment, facilities, and 

infrastructure to support refuge 

programs. 

Additional staff would be required to 

accomplish the goals of Alternative B 

and support both Piedmont and Bond 

Swamp NWRs. This would include 

reinstating an assistant forester and an 

interpretive park ranger and adding a 

biologist, a forestry technician, a park 

ranger (law enforcement), a refuge 

operations specialist, a prescribed fire/ 

fuels technician, an engineering 

equipment operator, and two seasonal 

forestry technicians (firefighters). We 

would continue to promote partnerships 

and work with adjacent private 

landowners to support our goals and 

objectives. We would expand our 

volunteer program to include more 

resident interns. 

Alternative C—Migratory Birds 

Under Alternative C, we would focus 

on migratory birds. The majority of our 

efforts would deal with enhancing 

habitat for and increasing the 

population of migratory birds. We 

would continue to monitor and manage 

the red-cockaded woodpecker 

population in accordance with recovery 

plan guidelines. We would conduct 

current surveys for wildlife as identified 

under Alternative B. We would initiate 

annual woodcock surveys, a kestrel 

nesting box program, and identify and 

manage for the habitat needs of 

neotropical and migratory birds. We 

would reestablish the wood duck 

banding program, work with partners to 

manage impoundments to benefit 

waterfowl, increase acres in 

impoundments to benefit wetlanddependent birds, and identify the 

nesting, breeding, roosting, and foraging 

habitat needs of raptors. As under 

Alternative B, we would initiate a 

streams survey and would restore and 

manage fisheries resources, but would 

also retain at least 30 percent of 

submergent vegetation in ponds. To 

support healthy migratory bird 

populations, we would initiate predator 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 92 / Thursday, May 13, 2010 / Notices 26981 

control. As under Alternative B, we 

would establish a Piedmont savanna 

focus area, but would replace summer 

quail call counts with fall covey counts. 

Resident wildlife monitoring and 

management would be the same as 

under Alternative A unless stated 

otherwise. We would expand habitat 

management, but would also identify 

areas to focus on cane habitat 

management and increase structural 

diversity of bottomland hardwood areas. 

The fire management program would be 

maintained, but would increase the 

acreage of the Piedmont savanna focus 

area to greater than 5,000 acres and 

change the fire intervals to maximize 

the benefits to migratory birds outside of 

the focus area. We would expand 

invasive plant species control from 

uplands to include other habitat types to 

reduce adverse impacts to migratory 

birds. We would continue to manage the 

impoundments, implement a water 

management program, and manage 

unique and rare habitats as under 

Alternative B, but the emphasis would 

be on migratory birds. We would target 

management in open lands for priority 

migratory bird species. 

We would revise the visitor services 

plan and would expand current 

opportunities for wildlife observation, 

wildlife photography, and 

environmental education and 

interpretation, but with the emphasis on 

migratory birds. Facilities to enhance 

these visitor services would be added, 

but observation constraints would be 

implemented to avoid disturbance to 

migratory birds. We would host one 

annual festival focusing on migratory 

birds. We would continue to maintain, 

and where possible, expand hunting 

programs, but would evaluate limiting 

or closing fishing on ponds to reduce 

impacts to wintering and nesting 

waterfowl. 

We would implement a law 

enforcement program as stated under 

Alternative B, but focus on migratory 

birds. We would seek partnerships to 

evaluate and adapt to the impacts of 

climate change and work with private 

landowners to promote migratory bird 

resources. The volunteer program would 

focus on migratory bird projects. 

Alternative D—Rare, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species 

The focus of Alternative D would be 

on management of rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. We would 

intensively manage for red-cockaded 

woodpeckers on the maximum potential 

acres in upland forest by removing 

hardwoods, promoting pine, increasing 

prescribed burning, and initiating an 

intra-population translocation program. 

As under Alternative B, we would 

continue to conduct current wildlife 

surveys, establish but intensively 

manage a Piedmont savanna focus area, 

and initiate surveys for wetlanddependent birds and raptors. We would 

conduct comprehensive surveys focused 

on rare, threatened, and endangered 

species of invertebrates, reptiles, 

amphibians, and bats. The invasive 

species control program would 

emphasize reducing adverse impacts to 

rare, threatened, and endangered 

species and their habitats. We would 

increase acres in impoundments and 

manage them to benefit wood stork 

foraging habitat and other species of 

concern. Open lands would be managed 

for rare, threatened, and endangered 

species. 

We would revise the visitor services 

plan and expand current opportunities 

for wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education. We would implement 

observation constraints to avoid 

disturbance to rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. One annual festival 

focusing on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species would be held 

annually on the refuge. We would 

continue to maintain, and where 

possible, expand existing hunting 

programs, but would evaluate limiting 

or closing fishing on ponds to reduce 

impacts to rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. 

We would continue to maintain an 

active law enforcement program, protect 

cultural resources, pursue land 

acquisition, establish partnerships, and 

manage volunteers as under Alternative 

B, and where applicable, focus on rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. 

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. 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 19, 2010. 

Mark J. Musaus, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–11417 Filed 5–12–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLCACO8000 L16100000 DX0000] 

Notice of Establishment of Interim 

Final Supplementary Rules for Public 

Lands Managed by the Mother Lode 

Field Office, California 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Establishment of 

Interim Final Supplementary Rules. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with the 

Record of Decision for the Sierra 

Resource Management Plan (RMP), the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 

Mother Lode Field Office, is issuing 

interim final supplementary rules and 

requesting comments. These interim 

final supplementary rules will apply to 

public lands managed by the Mother 

Lode Field Office and will be effective 

upon publication and remain in effect 

until the publication of final 

supplementary rules. The BLM has 

determined that these interim final 

supplementary rules are necessary to 

enhance the safety of visitors, protect 

natural and cultural resources, improve 

recreational opportunities, and protect 

public health. All of these interim final 

supplementary rules implement 

management decisions contained in the 

Sierra RMP. These rules do not propose 

or implement any land use limitations 

or restrictions other than those included 

within the BLM’s decisions in the RMP 

or allowed under existing law or 

regulation. 

DATES: The interim final supplementary 

rules are effective on May 13, 2010. We 

invite comments until July 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver all 

comments concerning the interim final 

supplementary rules to the BLM, 

Mother Lode Field Office, 5152 

Hillsdale Circle, El Dorado Hills, 

California 95762. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Barnes, Bureau of Land 

Management, Mother Lode Field Office, 

5152 Hillsdale Circle, El Dorado Hills, 

California 95762 or e-mail 

jjbarnes@blm.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with NOTICES