28642 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Notices 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF 96 SPECIES IN CALIFORNIA AND NEVADA FOR WHICH 5-YEAR REVIEWS WERE COMPLETED IN FY 

2009 AND EARLY FY 2010—Continued 

Common name Scientific name Recommendation Lead fish and wildlife office Contact 

White sedge ....................................... Carex albida ....................................... No status change .. Sacramento ........... Al Donner; 

(916) 414–6600. 

Yadon’s piperia .................................. Piperia yadonii ................................... No status change ... Ventura .................. Lois Grunwald; 

(805) 644–1766. 

Authority: This document is published 

under the authority of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 

1531 et seq.). 

Dated: May 14, 2010. 

Alexandra Pitts, 

Regional Director, Region 8, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12170 Filed 5–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS-R2-R-2009-N274] 

[22570-1261-0000-K2] 

Limiting Mountain Lion Predation on 

Desert Bighorn Sheep on Kofa 

National Wildlife Refuge, Yuma and La 

Paz Counties, AZ 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of the final 

environmental assessment and a finding 

of no significant impact. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 

availability of our finding of no 

significant impact (FONSI) for the 

environmental assessment (EA) for 

limiting mountain lion (Puma concolor) 

predation on desert bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis mexicana) on the Kofa 

National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in 

southwest Arizona. In the final EA and 

FONSI, we describe how we will 

manage mountain lion predation to help 

achieve bighorn sheep population 

objectives on the Refuge. 

ADDRESSES: You may view or obtain 

copies of the FONSI and final EA by the 

following methods. You may request a 

hard copy or CD-ROM by U.S. mail from 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 9300 

East 28th Street, Yuma, AZ 85365; via 

facsimile at 928-783-8611; or 

electronically to 

KofaLionComments@fws.gov. You may 

also download a copy of the documents 

at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/ 

refuges/arizona/kofa. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mitch Ellis, 928-783-7861 (phone); 928- 

783-8611 (fax); or Mitch_Ellis@fws.gov 

(e-mail). If you use a 

telecommunications device for the deaf 

(TDD), you may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1- 

800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a 

week. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we announce our 

decision and the availability of the 

FONSI and final EA. We completed a 

thorough analysis of impacts on the 

human environment, which we include 

in the final EA that accompanies the 

FONSI. We solicited comments on a 

draft EA from August 4, 2009, to 

October 2, 2009, through a notice of 

availability in the Federal Register (74 

FR 38667; August 4, 2009). We received 

220 responses during the comment 

period, from 7 government agencies, 19 

nongovernmental organizations, and 

194 individuals. During preparation of 

the final EA, we considered all of the 

comments provided. Appendix C of the 

final EA contains a more detailed 

description of the substantive comments 

received and how we incorporated 

changes to the draft EA in response to 

comments we received. 

Background 

The Refuge contains a major portion 

of the largest contiguous habitat for 

desert bighorn sheep in southwestern 

Arizona and historically has been home 

to a population averaging 760 bighorns. 

The Refuge has served as the primary 

source of bighorn sheep for 

translocations to reestablish and 

supplement extirpated or declining 

populations throughout southern 

Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and 

Colorado. Population estimates from 

systematic aerial surveys indicate that a 

50-percent decline in the Refuge sheep 

population occurred between the years 

2000 and 2006. 

In response to this decline, the Refuge 

and the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department (AGFD) have conducted an 

analysis of its probable causes and are 

currently implementing a strategic 

management program intended to lead 

to the recovery of this important 

wildlife resource. Several studies and 

monitoring projects have been initiated 

or enhanced. Some of the more 

important aspects of this broad program 

include more frequent bighorn 

population surveys, monitoring and 

maintaining water availability, assessing 

body condition and disease in the 

bighorn population, monitoring 

disturbance attributable to human 

recreation, and monitoring the extent of 

predation and its impacts on the 

population. Many of the elements in 

this management program have been 

addressed through prior planning 

documents and require little additional 

review. Others, such as the proposed 

lethal control of mountain lions, have 

not been previously addressed and 

therefore require analysis under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 

4321 et seq.), as well as public review. 

Final Environmental Assessment— 

Selected Alternative 

The final EA identifies and evaluates 

three alternatives for managing 

mountain lion predation on desert 

bighorn sheep on the Refuge. After a 

thorough analysis, we have selected 

Alternative B for implementation. 

Under this alternative, we will allow the 

removal of specific, individually 

identified offending mountain lions, 

through translocation or lethal removal, 

from the Refuge under certain 

circumstances, in order to recover and 

maintain an optimal population of 

desert bighorn sheep. This program has 

several components. We will trap 

mountain lions and fit them with 

tracking devices to monitor their 

activities. When the Refuge bighorn 

sheep population estimate is below 600 

animals, active mountain lion control 

will occur. Active mountain lion control 

is the removal (through lethal means or 

translocation) of each individual 

mountain lion found to kill two or more 

bighorn sheep within a 6–month period. 

The Service, or its agents, will carry out 

the lethal removal or translocation. 

However, when the Refuge bighorn 

sheep population estimate is between 

600 and 800 animals, active mountain 

lion control may or may not be 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
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