Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Notices 28643 

employed based on the totality of the 

circumstances at the time. In order to 

meet the bighorn sheep population 

objectives while minimizing the 

necessary impacts to mountain lions, we 

desire some flexibility. We will base 

decisions regarding whether active 

mountain lion control is necessary on 

an adaptive management approach and 

on the following factors: The current 

sheep population estimate; the current 

sheep population trend; bighorn sheep 

lamb survival and recruitment; the 

estimate of the number of mountain 

lions currently using the Refuge and 

their predation rate on bighorn sheep; 

current and forecasted habitat 

conditions; available funding and 

manpower; and criticality of bighorn 

translocation needs. When the Refuge 

bighorn sheep population estimate is at 

or above 800 animals, active mountain 

lion control will not occur, although 

mountain lions on the Refuge will 

continue to be captured and fitted with 

tracking devices to aid in continuing 

research. 

Additional Refuge Information 

Additional information on the history 

of the Refuge and its purpose, goals, 

objectives, and management strategies 

can be found in the Kofa National 

Wildlife Refuge & Wilderness and New 

Water Mountains Wilderness 

Interagency Management Plan and 

Environmental Assessment: EA-AZ-055- 

95-1 05, October 1997. Pertinent 

information can also be found in the 

April 2007 report titled Investigative 

Report and Recommendations for the 

Kofa Bighorn Sheep Herd, prepared 

jointly by the Service and the AGFD. 

Both documents, along with other 

detailed information, are available at the 

following web site: http://www.fws.gov/ 

southwest/refuges/arizona/kofa. 

Authorities 

Environmental review of this project 

has been conducted in accordance with 

the requirements of NEPA, NEPA 

Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), 

other appropriate Federal laws and 

regulations, Executive Order 12996, the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, and Service 

policies and procedures for compliance 

with those laws and regulations. 

Dated: December 18, 2009 

Benjamin N. Tuggle, 

Regional Director, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12247 Filed 5–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2010–N051; 40136–1265–0000– 

S3] 

Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, 

and Caloosahatchee National Wildlife 

Refuges, Lee and Charlotte Counties, 

FL 

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 Pine 

Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, and 

Caloosahatchee National Wildlife 

Refuges (NWRs) for public review and 

comment. In the Draft CCP/EA, we 

describe the alternative we propose to 

use to manage these four refuges for the 

15 years following approval of the final 

CCP. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your written comments by 

June 21, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of 

the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Ms. 

Cheri M. Ehrhardt, via U.S. mail at J.N. 

‘‘Ding’’ Darling National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, 1 Wildlife Drive, Sanibel, FL 

33957, or via e-mail at 

DingDarlingCCP@fws.gov. Alternatively, 

you may download the document from 

our Internet Site at 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. 

Cheri M. Ehrhardt, Natural Resource 

Planner, telephone: 321/861–2368; or 

Mr. Paul Tritaik, Refuge Manager, 

telephone: 239/472–1100. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, 

Island Bay, and Caloosahatchee NWRs. 

We started the process through a notice 

in the Federal Register on June 27, 2007 

(72 FR 35254), and extended the 

comment period in a notice in the 

Federal Register on April 2, 2008 (73 FR 

17991). For more about the refuges, their 

purposes, and our CCP process, please 

see those notices. 

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, 

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. 

Totaling approximately 1,201 acres, 

the four refuges were established ‘‘as a 

preserve and breeding ground for native 

birds’’ and are managed as part of the 

J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling NWR Complex 

(Complex). Predominantly mangrove 

swamp, these four refuges provide for 

native wildlife and habitat diversity 

through a mix of habitats, including 

mangrove islands and shorelines, 

saltwater marshes and ponds, tidal flats, 

and upland hardwood forests. They also 

provide protection for 12 Federal-listed 

and 25 State-listed species, as well as 

for wading birds, waterbirds, raptors 

and birds of prey, neotropical migratory 

birds, shorebirds, and seabirds. 

Although all four refuges are closed to 

public access to protect their sensitive 

resources, they exist in an estuarine 

system and are all viewable from the 

water. 

The priority management issues 

facing these four refuges are addressed 

in the Draft CCP/EA, including: (1) 

Increasing and changing human 

population, development of the 

landscape, recreational uses and 

demands, and associated impacts; (2) 

issues and impacts associated with 

water quality, water quantity, and 

timing; (3) invasion and spread of 

exotic, invasive, and nuisance species; 

(4) climate change impacts; (5) need for 

long-term protection of important 

resources; (6) declines in and threats to 

rare, threatened, and endangered 

species; (7) insufficient baseline wildlife 

and habitat data and lack of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
28644 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Notices 

comprehensive habitat management 

plan; and (8) insufficient resources to 

address refuge needs. 

CCP Alternatives, Including Our 

Proposed Alternative 

We developed four alternatives for 

managing the Complex 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 

management activities and programs at 

levels similar to past management, 

providing a baseline for the comparison 

of the action alternatives. 

Under Alternative A, wildlife and 

habitat management activities for the 

Complex would continue to be limited. 

The rare, threatened, and endangered 

species of management concern would 

continue to be wood storks, roseate 

spoonbills, roseate terns, black 

skimmers, American oystercatchers, 

snowy and piping plovers, and bald 

eagles. We would continue to 

coordinate with the partners to survey 

rookeries, monitor black skimmer 

nesting, survey for snowy plovers, and 

restore mangroves on four islands, as 

well as address exotic, invasive, and 

nuisance species through the Southwest 

Florida Cooperative Invasive Species 

Management Area (SWFL CISMA). 

Since wintering critical habitat for the 

piping plover has been designated on 

the Terrapin Creek Tract at Matlacha 

Pass NWR, we would continue to 

protect this area and limit human 

disturbances. We would continue to 

work with the partners to address water 

quality, quantity, and timing concerns 

associated with the refuges’ watersheds, 

including Lake Okeechobee regulatory 

releases, the Caloosahatchee Basin and 

Cape Coral drainages, and local runoff 

issues. Several climate change models 

have included these refuges, helping us 

to begin to develop an understanding of 

the impacts of climate change on these 

resources. 

Under Alternative A, resource 

protection management activities for 

Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, 

and Caloosahatchee NWRs would 

continue to be very minimal. Law 

enforcement staff would continue to 

patrol known cultural resource sites. 

The full extent of cultural resources on 

the refuges would continue to remain 

unknown. Boundaries would be 

reposted as possible. Violations of the 

closed areas would continue to occur. 

Boundary discrepancies would likely 

continue to exist (e.g., at Caloosahatchee 

NWR and Givney Key at Matlacha Pass 

NWR). Caloosahatchee NWR would 

develop a Minor Expansion Proposal 

(MEP) to include Manatee Island under 

refuge management, since Florida Power 

and Light donated the island to the 

‘‘Ding’’ Darling Wildlife Society for 

future inclusion in the refuge. The 

Island Bay NWR Wilderness Area would 

continue to remain closed with no 

active management. 

Under Alternative A, the four refuges 

would remain closed to visitors, 

resulting in limited visitor service 

activities and programs. However, since 

the area around the refuges receives 

high use and since the refuges are part 

of the Great Calusa Blueway, the refuges 

would continue to be identified on 

maps distributed by partners, providing 

limited visitor welcome and orientation. 

Various activities, including fishing, 

canoeing, kayaking, motor boating, 

parasailing, windsurfing, ski tubing, 

using personal watercraft, and 

participating in wildlife observation and 

photography, would continue to occur 

in the State waters adjacent to the 

refuges. Environmental education and 

interpretation activities would continue 

to be conducted at the ‘‘Ding’’ Darling 

Education Center on Sanibel Island and 

at off-site locations. 

J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling NWR staff would 

continue to conduct minimal 

management and periodic patrols of 

Pine Island, Matlacha Pass, Island Bay, 

and Caloosahatchee NWRs. 

Alternative B (Native Wildlife and 

Habitat Diversity) 

Alternative B would increase refuge 

management actions, with a focus on 

native wildlife and habitat diversity. 

The rare, threatened, and endangered 

species of management concern to the 

refuges would be expanded to include 

the wood stork, roseate spoonbill, 

roseate tern, black skimmer, American 

oystercatcher, snowy plover, Wilson’s 

plover, red knot, piping plover, bald 

eagle, mangrove cuckoo, blackwhiskered vireo, gray kingbird, Florida 

prairie warbler, West Indian manatee, 

ornate diamondback terrapin, 

loggerhead sea turtle, green sea turtle, 

Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, gopher tortoise, 

American alligator, American crocodile, 

eastern indigo snake, Sanibel Island rice 

rat, Gulf sturgeon, and smalltooth 

sawfish. Increased surveying and 

monitoring activities, minimized 

disturbances to wildlife and habitats, 

increased habitat management, 

increased intergovernmental 

coordination, and increased information 

would enhance decision-making, 

benefitting a variety of resources. The 

establishment of buffer zones around 

known rookery locations and key 

foraging and resting areas would benefit 

a variety of birds. In relation to the 

proposed widening of I–75, we would 

work with the partners to identify and 

address wildlife and habitat impacts 

associated with the proposed project, 

with an emphasis on minimizing 

impacts to wildlife and habitat 

diversity. Focusing on native diversity, 

we would expand exotic, invasive, and 

nuisance species plant control activities 

with updated priority plant lists and 

identification and location of new plant 

infestations, with initial efforts focused 

on elimination. Further, we would work 

with the partners to control and 

eradicate exotic, invasive, and nuisance 

animal species and would coordinate 

with the partners to increase the 

public’s awareness of the negative 

impacts of these species. The refuges 

would adapt management as necessary 

to eradicate new invasive species and 

increase active participation in the 

SWFL CISMA. We would increase 

management activities related to water 

quality, quantity, and timing concerns. 

We would evaluate the need to expand 

the existing water quality monitoring 

stations to cover all four refuges. We 

would work with the partners to foster 

and conduct research to better 

understand the impacts of climate 

change on wildlife and habitat diversity 

and to refine and run appropriate 

climate change models to better predict 

sea level change impacts on resources of 

the refuges. Further, we would work 

with the partners to establish 

benchmarks to record sea level rise and 

beach profiles and shoreline changes, 

which could potentially impact a 

variety of species. 

A complete archaeological and 

historical survey of the satellite refuges 

would be conducted, allowing for the 

protection of any newly identified sites. 

To resolve boundary and ownership 

discrepancies, we would conduct legal 

boundary surveys and historical 

research. To serve the purposes of the 

refuges and wildlife and habitat 

management goals and objectives, we 

would work with the partners to 

develop agreements to establish closed 

area buffers to protect key resources. We 

would prioritize acquisition efforts for 

those sites with high native wildlife and 

habitat values and would pursue 

completion of the approved acquisition 

boundaries from willing sellers. We 

would pursue Western Hemisphere 

Shorebird Reserve Network designation. 

To improve management of the Island 

Bay NWR Wilderness Area, Alternative 

B would initiate coordination with the 

Charlotte County Mosquito Control 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Notices 28645 

District to eliminate the use of larvicides 

in the Wilderness Area during mosquito 

control activities. To increase 

understanding and awareness regarding 

the Wilderness Area, we would 

incorporate Island Bay NWR Wilderness 

Area into programs and materials 

delivered at the ‘‘Ding’’ Darling 

Education Center and at the proposed 

annual event for the satellite refuges. 

Although the refuges would likely 

remain closed throughout the life of the 

CCP, we would expand the Visitor 

Services program of the refuges with a 

focus on native diversity through 

coordination with the partners, 

expanded environmental education and 

interpretation opportunities, and 

increased outreach efforts and activities. 

Since numerous area visitors also visit 

the nearby J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling NWR, we 

would update the exhibits and activities 

at the ‘‘Ding’’ Darling Education Center 

to highlight the satellite refuges and 

provide wilderness stewardship 

principles. Since numerous uses occur 

adjacent to these refuges, we would 

work with the partners to minimize the 

impacts to resources of the refuges from 

these adjacent activities (e.g., impacts 

from disturbance and from abandoned 

monofilament fishing line, cast nets, 

and crab traps on birds, manatees, sea 

turtles, and terrapins) and to improve 

the ethical outdoor behavior of area 

users. We would incorporate messages 

that focus on native wildlife and habitat 

diversity, the role and importance of 

these refuges in the landscape, and the 

importance of minimizing the impacts 

of human activities into on-site (at the 

‘‘Ding’’ Darling Education Center) and 

off-site curriculum-based environmental 

education programs, as well as into 

interpretive and outreach materials 

developed for all refuges in the 

Complex. We would train volunteers, 

teachers, and staff to conduct 

educational and interpretive programs; 

increase outreach efforts and activities 

to the local communities; and work with 

partners to develop an annual satellite 

refuges event in one of the local 

communities. 

Alternative B would create five staff 

positions specific to these refuges: 

Biological science technician, law 

enforcement officer, wildlife refuge 

specialist (assistant refuge manager), 

hydrologist, and park ranger 

(Environmental Education). The lead 

biologist at the J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling NWR 

would continue to design and oversee 

the biological program and activities at 

the satellite refuges. We would work 

with the partners to evaluate and install 

interpretive signage at partner sites. A 

key refuge administration activity 

would be to work to improve the 

visibility and image of the Service in 

communities around these refuges to 

build support for refuge management, 

including through the development of 

an annual event in one of the local 

communities to highlight the satellite 

refuges. 

Alternative C (Migratory Birds, Proposed 

Action) 

Alternative C would propose actions 

and activities that focus management on 

the needs of migratory birds. This 

alternative addresses the management 

needs of all birds covered under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, including 

resident species of native birds that are 

found using the refuge year-round. 

The needs of migratory birds would 

be prioritized in all management and 

restoration plans. The rare, threatened, 

and endangered species of management 

concern to the refuges would be 

expanded to include the wood stork, 

roseate spoonbill, roseate tern, black 

skimmer, American oystercatcher, 

snowy plover, Wilson’s plover, red knot, 

piping plover, bald eagle, mangrove 

cuckoo, black-whiskered vireo, gray 

kingbird, Florida prairie warbler, West 

Indian manatee, ornate diamondback 

terrapin, loggerhead sea turtle, green sea 

turtle, Kemp’s ridley sea turtle, gopher 

tortoise, American alligator, American 

crocodile, eastern indigo snake, Gulf 

sturgeon, and smalltooth sawfish. 

Increased and improved surveying and 

monitoring activities, minimized 

disturbances to wildlife and habitats, 

increased habitat creation and 

management, increased 

intergovernmental coordination, and 

increased information would enhance 

decisionmaking, benefitting a variety of 

resources. We would work with the 

partners to evaluate the Turtle Bay area 

of Island Bay NWR for designation as a 

Manatee Sanctuary, since it is an 

important manatee natality area within 

Charlotte Harbor. The establishment of 

buffer zones around known rookery 

locations and key foraging and resting 

areas would benefit a variety of birds. In 

relation to the proposed widening of I– 

75, we would work with the partners to 

identify and address wildlife and 

habitat impacts associated with the 

proposed project, with an emphasis on 

minimizing impacts to migratory birds. 

Focusing on the needs of migratory 

birds, we would expand exotic, 

invasive, and nuisance plant species 

control activities with a focus on 

migratory birds with updated lists of 

priorities and identification and 

location of new plant infestations with 

initial efforts focused on elimination. 

Further, we would work with the 

partners to control and eradicate exotic, 

invasive, and nuisance animals and 

would coordinate with the partners to 

increase the public’s awareness of the 

negative impacts of these species. In all 

these efforts, we would adapt 

management as necessary to eradicate 

new invasive species and increase 

active participation in the SWFL 

CISMA. We would increase 

management activities related to water 

quality, quantity, and timing concerns 

with a focus on migratory birds. We 

would evaluate the need to expand the 

existing water quality monitoring 

stations to cover all four refuges. We 

would work with the partners to foster 

and conduct research to better 

understand the impacts of climate 

change on migratory birds and to refine 

and run appropriate climate change 

models to better predict sea level change 

impacts on resources of the refuges. 

Further, we would work with the 

partners to establish benchmarks to 

record sea level rise and beach profiles 

and shoreline changes, which could 

potentially impact a variety of species. 

A complete archaeological and 

historical survey of the satellite refuges 

would be conducted, allowing for the 

protection of any newly identified sites. 

To resolve boundary and ownership 

discrepancies, we would conduct legal 

boundary surveys and historical 

research. To serve the purposes of the 

refuges and wildlife and habitat 

management goals and objectives, we 

would work with the partners to 

develop agreements to establish closed 

area buffers to protect key resources. We 

would prioritize acquisition efforts for 

those sites with high values for 

migratory birds and would pursue 

completion of the approved acquisition 

boundaries from willing sellers. We 

would pursue the designation of lands 

and waters within the current 

management boundaries of Pine Island 

and Matlacha Pass NWRs for inclusion 

in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird 

Reserve Network and of all four refuges 

as RAMSAR Wetlands of International 

Importance, as part of the application 

for J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling NWR. To 

improve management of the Island Bay 

NWR Wilderness Area, we would 

initiate coordination with the Charlotte 

County Mosquito Control District to 

eliminate the use of larvicides in the 

Wilderness Area during mosquito 

control activities. To increase 

understanding and awareness regarding 

the Wilderness Area, we would 

incorporate Island Bay NWR Wilderness 

Area into programs and materials 

delivered at the ‘‘Ding’’ Darling 

Education Center and at the proposed 

annual event for the satellite refuges. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
28646 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Notices 

Although the refuges would likely 

remain closed throughout the life of the 

CCP, we would expand the Visitor 

Services program of the refuges with a 

focus on migratory birds through 

coordination with the partners, 

expanded environmental education and 

interpretation opportunities, and 

increased outreach efforts and activities. 

Since numerous area visitors also visit 

the nearby J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling NWR, we 

would update the exhibits and activities 

at the ‘‘Ding’’ Darling Education Center 

to highlight the satellite refuges and 

provide wilderness stewardship 

principles. Since numerous uses occur 

adjacent to these refuges, we would 

work with the partners to minimize the 

impacts to resources of the refuges from 

these adjacent activities (e.g., impacts 

from disturbance and from abandoned 

monofilament fishing line, cast nets, 

and crab traps on birds, manatees, sea 

turtles, and terrapins) and to improve 

the ethical outdoor behavior of area 

users. We would incorporate messages 

that focus on migratory birds, the role 

and importance of these refuges in the 

landscape, and the importance of 

minimizing the impacts of human 

activities into on-site (at the ‘‘Ding’’ 

Darling Education Center) and off-site 

curriculum-based environmental 

education programs, as well as into 

interpretive and outreach materials 

developed for all refuges in the 

Complex. The Complex would train 

volunteers, teachers, and staff to 

conduct educational and interpretive 

programs; increase outreach efforts and 

activities to the local communities; and 

work with partners to develop an 

annual satellite refuge event in one of 

the local communities. 

Alternative C would create five staff 

positions specific to these refuges: 

Biological science technician, law 

enforcement officer, wildlife refuge 

specialist (assistant refuge manager), 

hydrologist, and park ranger 

(environmental education). The lead 

biologist at the J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling NWR 

would continue to design and oversee 

the biological program and activities at 

the satellite refuges. We would work 

with the partners to evaluate and install 

interpretive signage at partner sites. 

And, we would expand existing 

partnerships and develop new 

partnerships. A key refuge 

administration activity would be to 

work to improve the visibility and 

image of the Service in communities 

around these refuges to build support 

for refuge management, including 

through the development of an annual 

event in one of the local communities to 

highlight the satellite refuges. 

Alternative D (Rare, Threatened, and 

Endangered Species) 

Alternative D would focus on 

increasing refuge management actions 

that promote the recovery of rare, 

threatened, and endangered species 

occurring within the four refuges. 

The rare, threatened, and endangered 

species of management concern to the 

refuges would be expanded to include 

the wood stork, roseate spoonbill, 

roseate tern, black skimmer, American 

oystercatcher, snowy plover, Wilson’s 

plover, red knot, piping plover, bald 

eagle, mangrove cuckoo, blackwhiskered vireo, gray kingbird, Florida 

prairie warbler, West Indian manatee, 

Sanibel Island rice rat, ornate 

diamondback terrapin, loggerhead sea 

turtle, green sea turtle, Kemp’s ridley 

sea turtle, gopher tortoise, American 

alligator, American crocodile, eastern 

indigo snake, Gulf sturgeon, and 

smalltooth sawfish. Increased and 

improved survey and monitoring 

activities, minimized disturbances to 

wildlife and habitats, increased habitat 

creation and management, increased 

intergovernmental coordination, and 

increased information would enhance 

decision-making, benefitting a variety of 

resources and helping serve recovery 

goals. We would work with the partners 

to evaluate the Turtle Bay area of Island 

Bay NWR for designation as a Manatee 

Sanctuary, since it is an important 

manatee natality area within Charlotte 

Harbor. The establishment of buffer 

zones around known rookery locations 

and key foraging and resting areas 

would benefit a variety of rare, 

threatened, and endangered species. In 

relation to the proposed widening of I– 

75, we would work with the partners to 

identify and address wildlife and 

habitat impacts associated with the 

proposed project with an emphasis on 

minimizing impacts to rare, threatened, 

and endangered species. The refuges 

would expand exotic, invasive, and 

nuisance plant species control activities 

with a focus on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species, with updated lists 

of priorities and identification and 

location of new plant infestations with 

initial efforts focused on elimination. 

Further, we would work with the 

partners to control and eradicate exotic, 

invasive, and nuisance animals and 

would coordinate with the partners to 

increase the public’s awareness of the 

negative impacts of these species. In all 

these efforts, we would adapt 

management as necessary to eradicate 

new invasive species and increase 

active participation in the SWFL 

CISMA. We would increase 

management activities related to water 

quality, quantity, and timing concerns 

with a focus on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species. We would evaluate 

the need to expand the existing water 

quality monitoring stations to cover all 

four refuges. We would work with the 

partners to foster and conduct research 

to better understand the impacts of 

climate change on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species and to refine and 

run appropriate climate change models 

to better predict sea level change 

impacts on resources of the refuges. 

Further, we would work with the 

partners to establish benchmarks to 

record sea level rise and beach profiles 

and shoreline changes, which could 

potentially impact a variety of species. 

A complete archaeological and 

historical survey of the satellite refuges 

would be conducted, allowing for the 

protection of any newly identified sites. 

To resolve boundary and ownership 

discrepancies, we would conduct legal 

boundary surveys and historical 

research. To serve the purposes of the 

refuges and wildlife and habitat 

management goals and objectives, we 

would work with the partners to 

develop agreements to establish closed 

area buffers to protect key resources. We 

would prioritize acquisition efforts for 

those sites with high values for rare, 

threatened, and endangered species and 

would pursue completion of the 

approved acquisition boundaries from 

willing sellers. We would pursue 

Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network designation. To improve 

management of the Island Bay NWR 

Wilderness Area, we would initiate 

coordination with the Charlotte County 

Mosquito Control District to eliminate 

the use of larvicides in the Wilderness 

Area during mosquito control activities. 

To increase understanding and 

awareness regarding the Wilderness 

Area, we would incorporate Island Bay 

NWR Wilderness Area into programs 

and materials delivered at the ‘‘Ding’’ 

Darling Education Center and at the 

proposed annual event for the satellite 

refuges. 

Although the refuges would likely 

remain closed throughout the life of the 

CCP, we would expand the Visitor 

Services program of the refuges through 

coordination with the partners, 

expanded environmental education and 

interpretation opportunities, and 

increased outreach efforts and activities. 

Visitor services programs and activities 

would be focused on rare, threatened, 

and endangered species. Since 

numerous area visitors also visit the 

nearby J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling NWR, we 

would update the exhibits and activities 

at the ‘‘Ding’’ Darling Education Center 

to highlight the satellite refuges and 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Notices 28647 

provide wilderness stewardship 

principles. Since numerous uses occur 

adjacent to these refuges, we would 

work with the partners to minimize the 

impacts to resources of the refuges from 

these adjacent activities (e.g., impacts 

from disturbance and from abandoned 

monofilament fishing line, cast nets, 

and crab traps on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species) and to improve the 

ethical outdoor behavior of area users. 

We would incorporate messages that 

focus on rare, threatened, and 

endangered species, the role and 

importance of these refuges in the 

landscape, and the importance of 

minimizing the impacts of human 

activities into on-site (at the ‘‘Ding’’ 

Darling Education Center) and off-site 

curriculum-based environmental 

education programs, as well as into 

interpretive and outreach materials 

developed for all refuges in the 

Complex. We would train volunteers, 

teachers, and staff to conduct 

educational and interpretive programs; 

increase outreach efforts and activities 

to the local communities; and work with 

partners to develop an annual satellite 

refuge event in one of the local 

communities. 

Alternative D would create five staff 

positions specific to these refuges: 

Biological science technician, law 

enforcement officer, wildlife refuge 

specialist (assistant refuge manager), 

hydrologist, and park ranger 

(Environmental Education). The lead 

biologist at the J.N. ‘‘Ding’’ Darling NWR 

would continue to design and oversee 

the biological program and activities at 

the satellite refuges. We would work 

with the partners to evaluate and install 

interpretive signage at partner sites. We 

would expand existing partnerships and 

develop new partnerships. A key refuge 

administration activity would be to 

work to improve the visibility and 

image of the Service in communities 

around these refuges to build support 

for refuge management, including 

through the development of an annual 

event in one of the local communities to 

highlight the satellite refuges. 

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, Pub. L. 

105–57. 

Dated: April 14, 2010. 

Mark J. Musaus, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12213 Filed 5–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLOROR957000–L62510000–PM000: 

HAG10–0255] 

Filing of Plats of Survey: Oregon/ 

Washington 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The plats of survey of the 

following described lands are scheduled 

to be officially filed in the Bureau of 

Land Management Oregon/Washington 

State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 days 

from the date of this publication. 

Willamette Meridian 

Oregon 

T. 7 S., R. 9 W., accepted April 12, 2010 

T. 39 S., R. 2 E., accepted April 26, 2010 

T. 33 S., R. 7 W., accepted April 26, 2010 

T. 33 S., R. 2 E., accepted April 26, 2010 

T. 19 S., R. 7 W., May 3, 2010 

T. 14 S., R. 2 W., May 3, 2010 

T. 31 S., R. 6 W., May 4, 2010 

T. 31 S., R. 6 W., May 4, 2010 

T. 30 S., R. 7 W., May 4, 2010 

T. 30 S., R. 8 W., May 4, 2010 

T. 22 S., R. 8 W., May 4, 2010 

Washington 

T. 39 N., R. 43 E., accepted April 26, 2010 

T. 17 N., R. 9 W., accepted April 29, 2010 

T. 38 N., R. 2 E., accepted May 3, 2010 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the plats may be 

obtained from the Land Office at the 

Oregon/Washington State Office, Bureau 

of Land Management, 333 SW. 1st 

Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon 

required payment. A person or party 

who wishes to protest against a survey 

must file a notice that they wish to 

protest (at the above address) with the 

Oregon/Washington State Director, 

Bureau of Land Management, Portland, 

Oregon. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Chief, Branch of Geographic Sciences, 

Bureau of Land Management, 333 SW. 

1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204. 

Cathie Jensen, 

Branch of Land, Mineral, and Energy 

Resources. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12164 Filed 5–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Notice of Inventory Completion: 

University of Colorado Museum, 

Boulder, CO 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Notice is here given in accordance 

with the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the 

completion of an inventory of human 

remains in the possession of the 

University of Colorado Museum, 

Boulder, CO. The human remains were 

removed from Meagher County, MT. 

This notice is published as part of the 

National Park Service’s administrative 

responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 

U.S.C. 3003(d)(3). The determinations in 

this notice are the sole responsibility of 

the museum, institution, or Federal 

agency that has control of the Native 

American human remains. The National 

Park Service is not responsible for the 

determinations in this notice. 

A detailed assessment of the human 

remains was made by University of 

Colorado Museum professional staff in 

consultation with representatives of the 

Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian 

Reservation of Montana; Crow Tribe of 

Montana; Fort Belknap Indian 

Community of the Fort Belknap 

Reservation of Montana; and Three 

Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold 

Reservation, North Dakota. 

Possibly in 1905, human remains 

representing a minimum of two 

individuals were removed from 

Musselshell River, Meagher County, 

MT, possibly by Ralph Hubbard. One of 

the individuals appears to have 

sustained three gun-shot wounds. No 

known individuals were identified. No 

associated funerary objects are present. 

Previously, human remains 

representing seven individuals from 

Meagher County, MT, were identified in 

the museum’s Culturally Unidentifiable 

Human Remains Inventory (dated May 

16, 1996). After consultation, human 

remains representing five individuals 

with two associated funerary objects 

from ‘‘in a butte (‘‘Sentinal [sic] Rock’’), 

Meagher County, MT,’’ were determined 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES