Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 32201 

Dated: May 28, 2010. 

Tammi Hines, 

Acting Director, Records Management 

Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Department 

of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13616 Filed 6–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9111–23–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

[Docket ID: FEMA–2010–0011] 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Submission for OMB 

Review; Comment Request, OMB No. 

1660–0033; Residential Basement 

Floodproofing Certification 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice; 30-day notice and 

request for comments; revision of a 

currently approved information 

collection; OMB No. 1660–0033; FEMA 

Form 086–0–24, Residential Basement 

Floodproofing Certificate. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) has 

submitted the information collection 

abstracted below to the Office of 

Management and Budget for review and 

clearance in accordance with the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. The submission 

describes the nature of the information 

collection, the categories of 

respondents, the estimated burden (i.e., 

the time, effort and resources used by 

respondents to respond) and cost, and 

the actual data collection instruments 

FEMA will use. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before July 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments 

on the proposed information collection 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, Office of 

Management and Budget. Comments 

should be addressed to the Desk Officer 

for the Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, and sent via 

electronic mail to oira.submission@

omb.eop.gov or faxed to (202) 395–5806. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Requests for additional information or 

copies of the information collection 

should be made to Director, Records 

Management Division, 1800 South Bell 

Street, Arlington, VA 20598–3005, 

facsimile number (202) 646–3347, or email address FEMA–InformationCollections-Management@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Collection of Information 

Title: Residential Basement 

Floodproofing Certification. 

Type of information collection: 

Revision of a currently approved 

information collection. 

OMB Number: 1660–0033. 

Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA 

Form 086–0–24, Residential Basement 

Floodproofing Certificate. 

Abstract: The Residential Basement 

Floodproofing Certification is 

completed by an engineer or architect 

and certifies that the basement 

floodproofing meets the minimum 

floodproofing specifications of FEMA. 

This certification is for residential 

structures located in non-coastal Special 

Flood Hazard Areas in communities that 

have received an exception to the 

requirement that structures be built at or 

above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE). 

Residential structures with certification 

showing the building is flood proofed to 

at least 1 foot above the BFE are eligible 

for lower rates on flood insurance. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit. 

Estimated Number of Respondents: 

100. 

Frequency of Response: On occasion. 

Estimated Average Hour Burden per 

Respondent: 3.25 Hours. 

Estimated Total Annual Burden 

Hours: 325 Hours. 

Estimated Cost: The annual 

operations and maintenance cost for the 

services of the engineer or contractor is 

$35,000. There are no annual capital or 

start-up costs associated with this 

collection. 

Dated: June 2, 2010. 

Tammi Hines, 

Acting Director, Records Management 

Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, Department 

of Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13608 Filed 6–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–11–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2010–N050; 40136–1265–0000– 

S3] 

Tennessee National Wildlife Refuge, 

Henry, Benton, Decatur, and 

Humphreys Counties, TN 

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 

Tennessee 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 

July 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments, questions, 

and requests for information to: Ms. 

Tina Chouinard, Refuge Planner, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 6772 Highway 76 

South, Stanton, TN 38069. The Draft 

CCP/EA is available on compact disk or 

in hard copy. You may also access and 

download a copy of the Draft CCP/EA 

from the Service’s Internet Web Site: 

http://southeast.fws.gov/planning/ 

under ‘‘Draft Documents.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Tina Chouinard; telephone: 731/432– 

0981. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for Tennessee NWR. We started 

the process through a notice in the 

Federal Register on April 2, 2008 (73 FR 

17994). 

On December 28, 1945, President 

Harry S. Truman signed Executive 

Order No. 9670 establishing the 

Tennessee NWR. The following day, the 

Department of the Interior and the 

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) 

entered an agreement that the lands 

would henceforth be reserved for use as 

a wildlife refuge. Tennessee NWR runs 

along 65 miles of the Tennessee River in 

Henry, Benton, Decatur, and 

Humphreys Counties, Tennessee. The 

refuge is comprised of three units: Duck 

River Unit (26,738 acres), Big Sandy 

Unit (21,348 acres), and Busseltown 

Unit (3,272 acres), for a total acreage of 

51,358 acres. 

Big Sandy is the northern-most unit, 

located at the junction of the Big Sandy 

and Tennessee Rivers, about 12 miles 

north of the town of Big Sandy. Most of 

the lands on this unit are upland and 

forested with little wetland management 

capabilities. Waterfowl management 

activities primarily consist of providing 

sanctuary on the waters and mudflats of 

Kentucky Lake and agriculture crops for 

foraging habitats. 

The Duck River Unit is located at the 

junction of the Duck and Tennessee 

Rivers in Humphreys and Benton 

Counties. A wide variety of habitats is 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

32202 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 

available for waterfowl and other 

waterbirds, including agriculture, moistsoil, mudflats, forested wetlands, and 

scrub-shrub. 

The Busseltown Unit is located along 

the western bank of the Tennessee 

River, in Decatur County roughly 5 

miles northeast of Parsons, Tennessee. It 

is primarily managed for waterfowl by 

providing agriculture foraging habitats. 

Some moist-soil and scrub-shrub 

habitats are also available. 

All three units were used extensively 

for agriculture in the 1800s and early 

1900s. The two northern units were 

named for the rivers which run through 

them, while the much smaller 

Busseltown Unit was named after 

Johnse Bussel, an earlier settler to the 

area who established a store and home 

in the area that later became known as 

Busseltown. The mixture of open water, 

wetlands, woodlands, croplands, and 

grasslands creates a mosaic of wildliferich habitats. The refuge provides 

valuable wintering habitat for migrating 

waterfowl. It also provides habitat and 

protection for threatened and 

endangered species. 

The establishing and acquisition 

authorities for Tennessee NWR include 

the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 

U.S.C. 715–715r) and Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661–667). 

In addition, Public Land Order 4560 

identified the purposes of the refuge to 

be ‘‘to build, operate and maintain subimpoundment structures; produce food 

crops or cover for wildlife; to regulate 

and restrict hunting, trapping and 

fishing and to otherwise manage said 

lands and impoundment areas for the 

protection and production of wildlife 

and fish populations’’ (Public Land 

Order 1962). 

The refuge also supports an 

abundance of wildlife, including over 

650 species of plants, 303 species of 

birds, and 280 species of mammals, fish, 

reptiles, and amphibians. 

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 this 

Draft CCP/EA include: (1) Managing for 

invasive species, migratory birds, and 

species of special concern; (2) managing 

mixed pine upland and bottomland 

hardwood forests; (3) enhancing 

wildlife-dependent public uses, 

especially environmental education and 

interpretation programs; (4) addressing 

climate change; and (5) increasing 

permanent staff. 

CCP Alternatives, Including Our 

Proposed Alternative 

We developed four alternatives for 

managing the refuge and chose 

Alternative D as the proposed 

alternative. A full description of each 

alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We 

summarize each below: 

Alternative A—Current Management 

(No Action) 

In general, Alternative A would 

maintain current management direction. 

Public use patterns would remain 

relatively unchanged from those that 

exist at present. 

The refuge would continue to 

contribute to healthy and viable native 

wildlife and fish populations 

representative of the Lower TennesseeCumberland River Ecosystem, with 

special emphasis on waterfowl and 

other migratory birds. 

We would continue the moist-soil 

management program on about 1,600 

acres. There would be no active forest 

management, but we would continue 

evaluation of past forest treatments for 

increasing habitat for priority species on 

the Big Sandy peninsula. The 

cooperative farming and refuge staff 

(force account) program would continue 

cultivating crops on about 3,000 acres 

for the benefit of waterfowl and resident 

game species. Bottomland hardwood 

forest habitat would not be actively 

managed, but we would continue 

current water management of about 

5,160 acres of impounded water 

management units. 

Working with partners, we would 

continue to provide mudflats during 

August–September for shorebird and 

early migratory waterfowl, scrub-shrub 

habitat, and desirable aquatic plants. We 

would also continue annual spraying 

and biological control of alligatorweed, 

privet species, sesbania, purple 

loosestrife, encroaching woody 

vegetation, spatterdock, and parrot 

feather. Mechanical control (i.e., 

mowing and disking) of certain upland 

plants would be conducted as needed. 

There would be no active monitoring, 

management, or education related to 

climate change. 

We would continue to manage 

cultural resources consistent with 

Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The refuge’s size and 

boundaries would not change. 

Under Alternative A, we would 

continue to provide visitor services 

under the existing public use review 

and development plan approved in 

1986. We would continue to allow 

managed, limited hunting for deer, 

turkey, squirrel, raccoon, and resident 

Canada goose, as well as to provide 

opportunities for fishing. We would 

continue to offer opportunities for 

wildlife observation and photography 

throughout the refuge, and to provide 

environmental education services to the 

public, including limited visits to 

schools, environmental education 

workshops, and on-site and off-site 

environmental education programs. 

Under Alternative A, we would 

maintain the current staff of 13, 

including the refuge manager, deputy 

refuge manager, two refuge biologists, 

refuge ranger, refuge planner, two law 

enforcement officers, three heavy 

equipment operators, administrative 

officer, and assistant refuge manager. 

The current office, bunkhouse, storage, 

and maintenance shop at the Duck River 

Unit and the existing inventory of heavy 

equipment, tractors, refuge roads, 

levees, water control structures, and 

pumps would be maintained. We would 

maintain our existing partnerships. 

Alternative B—Public Use Emphasis 

In general, Alternative B would 

emphasize enhanced public use on the 

refuge. With regard to native fish and 

wildlife, this alternative would be quite 

similar to Alternative A in many 

respects. Alternative B would differ 

from Alternative A by developing 

partnerships with non-governmental 

organizations and the public in efforts to 

inventory non-game and aquatic species 

and possibly in certain habitat 

management activities. 

Alternative B would be very similar to 

the actions described under Alternative 

A in aiming to maintain existing habitat 

management programs, practices, and 

actions. 

Under Alternative B, we would 

increase water management efforts 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 32203 

toward increasing sport fishing 

opportunities within the 5,160 acres of 

impoundments. We would also offer 

additional education and interpretation 

of importance of early drawdowns of 

Kentucky Lake to shorebirds and other 

migratory birds. 

Under Alternative B, we would 

provide additional education and 

interpretation of invasive species for the 

public. With regard to climate change, 

under Alternative B the refuge would 

relate climate change to the Service’s 

wildlife mission in environmental 

education programs. However, there 

would still be no active monitoring or 

management related to climate change. 

Under Alternative B, we would 

manage cultural resources consistent 

with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. We would 

prioritize areas for possible minor 

boundary expansions to accommodate 

and better serve refuge visitors. 

Alternative B would emphasize 

wildlife-dependent public use more 

than any other alternative. Under 

Alternative B, within 5 years of CCP 

approval, we would draft, approve, and 

begin to implement a new visitor 

services plan using the current format 

for such documents. Hunting 

opportunities would be increased for 

deer and maintained for turkey, squirrel, 

raccoon, and resident Canada goose, and 

new hunts would be considered. 

We would provide opportunities for 

fishing by furnishing adequate 

launching facilities, bank fishing areas, 

and over the life of the CCP, provide 

additional ADA-compliant piers to 

accommodate anglers of all abilities. 

We would continue to offer 

opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography throughout the refuge. 

We would also aim to increase wildlife 

observation/photography opportunities 

with blinds and a boardwalk, and 

within 2 years of CCP approval, open a 

seasonal wildlife drive in the Duck 

River Bottoms. We would continue to 

provide environmental education 

services to the public, including limited 

visits to schools, workshops, and on-site 

and off-site programs, as well as work 

with partners to expand environmental 

education facilities and opportunities 

on and near the refuge. The existing 

interpretive program would be 

expanded. 

Under Alternative B, within 5 years of 

CCP approval, we would work with 

partners to construct a combined 

headquarters and visitor center, 

incorporating ‘‘green’’ technology, on the 

Big Sandy Unit. Within 15 years of CCP 

approval, we would build a visitor 

contact station at the Duck River Unit. 

Alternative B would maintain the office, 

storage, and maintenance facilities at 

Duck River Unit, and the existing 

inventory of heavy equipment, tractors, 

refuge roads, levees, water control 

structures, and pumps. The bunkhouse 

would also be replaced. 

Under Alternative B, we would 

maintain our current staff of 13. Four 

new staff members would be added, 

including two refuge rangers, one law 

enforcement officer, and one office 

assistant. Under Alternative B, we 

would strengthen our volunteer 

programs, friend’s group, and 

partnerships by investing an increased 

portion of staff time into nurturing these 

promising relationships. 

Alternative C—Wildlife Management 

Emphasis 

Alternative C aims to intensify and 

expand wildlife and habitat 

management on the refuge. This would 

increase benefits for wildlife species, 

which fulfills the refuge purpose and 

goals. Public use opportunities and our 

efforts to provide visitor services would 

remain approximately as they are now. 

Concerning waterfowl, under 

Alternative C, we would provide 

adequate habitats to meet the foraging 

needs of 182,000 ducks for 110 days and 

other habitats that are needed for 

loafing, roosting, molting, etc. This is a 

50 percent increase in the number of 

ducks under Alternatives A and B. 

Alternative C would also maintain 

seasonally closed waters, roads, and 

land areas to provide sanctuary for 

waterfowl. In addition, Alternative C 

would increase seasonally closed areas, 

including the closure of Busseltown and 

Honey Point Ferry roads. 

Alternative C would provide adequate 

corn and wheat browse to meet the 

needs of about 16,000 migratory Canada 

geese for 90 days, the same as 

Alternatives A and B. In contrast with 

these two alternatives, however, 

Alternative C would also readjust 

population levels as suggested by future 

needs; that is, it would follow adaptive 

management principles. 

To promote wood duck reproduction, 

Alternative C would maintain 200–250 

nesting boxes (compared to 175 boxes in 

Alternatives A and B), expanding the 

program to the Big Sandy and 

Busseltown Units. It would also 

continue to meet the banding goals of 

the Mississippi Flyway Council. 

Under this alternative, we would 

create and enhance existing habitat for 

secretive marshbirds, sufficient to 

support 25 nesting territories for king 

rail pairs. Within 10 years of CCP 

approval, we would provide at least 

200–300 acres of foraging sites in 

multiple impoundments for both 

northbound and southbound shorebirds 

during migration, and we would 

conduct population and habitat surveys 

to evaluate shorebird use and 

invertebrate densities within managed 

and unmanaged habitat. To benefit longlegged wading birds, as under 

Alternative A, we would continue to 

provide for both secure nesting sites and 

ample foraging habitat. 

While neither Alternative A nor B 

would conduct active management for 

grassland birds, Alternative C would 

consider providing 50–100 acres in 1–3 

tracts for Henslow’s sparrow and other 

grassland species in the Big Sandy Unit. 

We would strive to increase the quality 

of forest habitat to provide for a 

sustainable increase in the populations 

of priority forest interior migratory 

birds. We would also continue to 

monitor and protect bald eagle nesting 

sites and count wintering bald eagles on 

the refuge. 

We would continue to manage 

populations of resident game species 

such as deer, turkey, squirrel, raccoon, 

and resident Canada goose, as under 

Alternatives A and B. 

Within 10 years of CCP approval, we 

would develop and implement more 

baseline inventories for non-game 

mammals, reptiles, amphibians and 

invertebrates. Similarly, within 15 years 

of CCP approval, we would aim to 

determine species composition, 

distribution, and relative abundance of 

fishes and invertebrates occurring on 

the refuge. 

Alternative C would continue to 

protect all Federal listed species, in 

particular the Indiana and gray bats and 

listed mussels, under the Endangered 

Species Act. In addition, it would 

endeavor to determine the distribution 

and abundance of Indiana and gray bats 

and listed mussels on the refuge and 

protect and enhance, if possible, the 

habitat needed by these species. 

As necessary, we would continue and 

expand nuisance animal species control 

using approved techniques to help 

achieve refuge conservation goals and 

objectives. 

Alternative C would expand or 

intensify existing habitat management 

programs, practices, and actions. We 

would improve the moist-soil 

management program on about 1,600 

acres by expanding the invasive exotic 

plant control program, water 

management capabilities, and the use of 

management techniques that set back 

plant succession. In cooperation with 

partners, we would reactivate the forest 

management program for the benefit of 

priority forest interior migratory birds 

and resident game species. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

32204 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 

Over the life of the CCP, Alternative 

C would eliminate cooperative farming 

and reduce total farmed acreage, while 

increasing the acreage of unharvested 

cropland through force account or 

contract farming to meet foraging needs 

of waterfowl and habitat for other native 

species. It would also increase acreage 

of hard mast producing bottomland 

hardwood forest species. 

We would increase water 

management capabilities by subdividing 

existing impoundments, creating new 

impoundments, and increasing water 

supply (i.e., pumps, wells, and 

structures) for migratory birds. Working 

with partners, we would continue to 

provide mudflats during AugustSeptember for shorebird and early 

migratory waterfowl, scrub-shrub 

habitat, and desirable aquatic plants, as 

in Alternative A. 

We would expand control efforts of 

invasive species through active methods 

of removal. These methods would work 

towards reducing infestations and 

eliminating populations whenever 

feasible. In response to possible adverse 

impacts from climate change, we would 

monitor wildlife and habitats and utilize 

adaptive management. 

Under Alternative C, we would 

continue to manage cultural resources 

consistent with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act. We 

would also target minor boundary 

expansions to reduce adjacent threats to 

the refuge and to expand habitat 

management opportunities. 

We would continue to provide visitor 

services under the existing public use 

review and development plan approved 

in 1986. For the duration of the CCP, we 

would manage game populations to 

maintain quality hunting opportunities 

while maintaining habitat for federal 

trust species. We would also continue to 

provide fishing opportunities, but find 

partners to help maintain boat ramps 

and associated facilities. 

We would also continue to offer 

opportunities for wildlife observation 

and photography throughout the refuge, 

and to provide environmental education 

services to the public, including limited 

visits to schools, environmental 

education workshops, and on-site and 

off-site environmental education 

programs. 

Within 5 years of CCP approval, we 

would work with partners to construct 

a combined headquarters and visitor 

center, incorporating ‘‘green’’ 

technology, on the Big Sandy Unit, and 

within 15 years of CCP approval, would 

build a visitor contact station at the 

Duck River Unit. Alternative C would 

maintain the storage and maintenance 

facilities at Duck River Unit, and the 

existing inventory of heavy equipment, 

tractors, refuge roads, levees, water 

control structures, and pumps. The 

bunkhouse would also be replaced. 

Lastly, this alternative would add one 

open and one enclosed equipment 

storage facility, one no-till grain drill, 

one self-propelled spray rig, low ground 

pressure dozer, one aquatic excavator, 

and one 24-inch centrifugal pump and 

engine. 

Under Alternative C, we would 

maintain our current staff of 13. We 

would also add five staff positions, 

including one forester, one forestry 

technician, two heavy equipment 

operators, and one tractor operator. We 

would maintain our existing 

partnerships. 

Alternative—Enhanced Wildlife 

Management and Public Use Program 

(Proposed Alternative) 

Alternative D, our proposed 

alternative, would enhance both our 

wildlife management and public use 

programs. In general, Alternative D is 

very similar to Alternative C on the 

wildlife and habitat goals and 

objectives, and very similar to 

Alternative B on the public use goal and 

objectives. 

Concerning waterfowl, under 

Alternative D, we would provide 

adequate habitats to meet the foraging 

needs of 121,000–182,000 ducks (or a 

range specified by the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan) for 110 

days and other habitats that are needed 

for loafing, roosting, molting, etc. This 

objective includes a range that matches 

Alternative A at the low end and 

Alternative C at the high end. As in the 

three previous alternatives, Alternative 

D would also maintain seasonally 

closed waters, roads, and lands to 

provide sanctuary for waterfowl. In 

addition, Alternative D would increase 

seasonally closed areas, including 

closure of Busseltown and Honey Point 

Ferry Roads. 

Alternative D would provide adequate 

corn and wheat browse to meet the 

needs of about 16,000 migratory Canada 

geese for 90 days, the same as 

Alternatives A and B. In contrast with 

these two alternatives however (but like 

Alternative C), Alternative D would also 

readjust population levels as suggested 

by future needs; that is, it would follow 

adaptive management principles. 

To promote wood duck reproduction, 

Alternative D would maintain 200–250 

nesting boxes (compared to 175 boxes in 

Alternatives A and B), expanding the 

program to the Big Sandy and 

Busseltown Units. It would also 

continue to meet the banding goals of 

the Mississippi Flyway Council. 

Under this alternative, we would 

create and enhance existing habitat for 

secretive marshbirds, sufficient to 

support 15–25 nesting territories for 

king rail pairs, which is more than 

Alternatives A and B, but somewhat less 

than Alternative C. Within 10 years of 

CCP approval, the refuge would provide 

at least 100 acres of foraging sites in 

multiple impoundments for both 

northbound and southbound shorebirds 

during migration, and would conduct 

population and habitat surveys to 

evaluate shorebird use and invertebrate 

densities within managed and 

unmanaged habitat. To benefit longlegged wading birds, as in each of the 

alternatives, we would continue to 

provide for both secure nesting sites and 

ample foraging habitat. 

Alternative D, like Alternative C, 

would consider providing 50–100 acres 

in 1–3 tracts for Henslow’s sparrow and 

other grassland species in the Big Sandy 

Unit. We would strive to increase the 

quality of forest habitat to provide for a 

sustainable increase in the populations 

of priority forest interior migratory 

birds. We would also continue to 

monitor and protect bald eagle nesting 

sites and count wintering bald eagles on 

the refuge. 

As in each of the alternatives, we 

would continue to manage populations 

of resident game species such as deer, 

turkey, squirrel, raccoon, and resident 

Canada goose. 

To learn more about all wildlife 

species at the refuge, within 10 years of 

CCP approval, we would develop and 

implement more baseline inventories for 

non-game mammals, reptiles, 

amphibians and invertebrates. 

Similarly, within 15 years of CCP 

approval, we would aim to determine 

species composition, distribution and 

relative abundance of fishes and 

invertebrates occurring on the refuge. 

We would try to develop partnerships 

with other agencies, non-governmental 

organizations, and the public in efforts 

to inventory non-game and aquatic 

species and participate in the 

implementation of appropriate 

management activities. 

Alternative D would continue to 

protect all Federal listed species, in 

particular the Indiana and gray bats and 

listed mussels, under the Endangered 

Species Act. In addition, it would 

endeavor to determine the distribution 

and abundance of Indiana and gray bats 

and listed mussels on the refuge and 

protect and enhance, if possible, the 

habitat needed by these species. 

As necessary, and as under 

Alternative C, we would continue and 

expand nuisance animal species control 

using approved techniques to help 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 108 / Monday, June 7, 2010 / Notices 32205 

achieve refuge conservation goals and 

objectives. 

Alternative D would expand or 

intensify existing habitat management 

programs, practices, and actions. We 

would improve the moist-soil 

management program on about 1,600 

acres by expanding the invasive exotic 

plant control program, water 

management capabilities, and the use of 

management techniques that set back 

plant succession. In cooperation with 

partners, we would reactivate the forest 

management program on the refuge for 

the benefit of priority forest interior 

migratory birds and resident game 

species. Alternative D would 

incorporate a comprehensive fire 

management program into upland forest 

habitat. 

Over the life of the CCP, Alternative 

D would redirect management actions to 

increase the acreage of unharvested 

cropland to meet foraging needs of 

waterfowl and habitat for other native 

species. It would also increase acreage 

of hard mast producing bottomland 

hardwood forest species. 

We would increase water 

management capabilities by subdividing 

existing impoundments, creating new 

impoundments, and increasing water 

supply (i.e., pumps, wells, and 

structures) for migratory birds. While 

doing this, we would also make a 

concerted effort to accommodate sport 

fishing opportunities where and when 

circumstances allow. 

Working with partners, we would 

continue to provide mudflats during 

August–September for shorebird and 

early migratory waterfowl, scrub-shrub 

habitat, and desirable aquatic plants, as 

under Alternatives A and C. As under 

Alternative B, we would also provide 

additional education and interpretation 

of importance of early drawdowns of 

Kentucky Lake. 

We would expand control efforts of 

invasive species through active methods 

of removal. These methods would work 

towards reducing infestations and 

eliminating populations whenever 

feasible. Additional education and 

interpretation of invasive species would 

be provided. 

In response to possible adverse 

impacts from climate change, we would 

monitor wildlife and habitats and utilize 

adaptive management. We would also 

relate climate change to the Service’s 

wildlife mission in environmental 

education programs and pursue 

opportunities for carbon sequestration 

with native trees. 

Alternative D would continue to 

manage cultural resources consistent 

with Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Alternatives 

A, B, and C would also do so, but only 

Alternative D would begin to implement 

a cultural resources management plan 

within 5 years of CCP approval. 

Alternative D would pursue and 

prioritize minor boundary expansions 

to: (1) Reduce adjacent threats to the 

refuge; (2) expand habitat management 

opportunities; and (3) accommodate 

refuge visitors. 

Under Alternative D, within 5 years of 

CCP approval, we would draft, approve, 

and begin to implement a new visitor 

services plan. Hunting opportunities 

would be increased for deer, and we 

would continue to allow managed, 

limited hunting for turkey, squirrel, 

raccoon, and resident Canada goose. No 

youth waterfowl hunt or rabbit and 

quail hunting would be considered. We 

would provide opportunities for fishing 

by furnishing adequate launching 

facilities, bank fishing areas, and over 

the life of the CCP, would provide 

additional piers to accommodate anglers 

of all abilities. 

We would aim to increase wildlife 

observation/photography opportunities 

with blinds and a boardwalk, and 

within 2 years of CCP approval, open a 

seasonal wildlife drive in the Duck 

River Bottoms. We would continue to 

provide environmental education 

services to the public, including limited 

visits to schools, workshops, and on-site 

and off-site programs, as well as work 

with partners to expand environmental 

education facilities and opportunities 

on and near the refuge. The existing 

interpretive program would be 

expanded. 

Under Alternative D, within 5 years of 

CCP approval, we would work with 

partners to construct a combined 

headquarters and visitor center, 

incorporating ‘‘green’’ technology, on the 

Big Sandy Unit. Within 15 years of CCP 

approval, we would build a visitor 

contact station at the Duck River Unit. 

Alternative D would maintain the 

storage and maintenance facilities at the 

Duck River Unit, and the existing 

inventory of heavy equipment, tractors, 

refuge roads, levees, water control 

structures, and pumps. The bunkhouse 

would also be replaced. Lastly, this 

alternative would add one open and one 

enclosed equipment storage facility, one 

no-till grain drill, one self-propelled 

spray rig, low ground pressure dozer, 

one aquatic excavator, and one 24-inch 

centrifugal pump and engine. 

Under Alternative D, we would 

expand our current staff by 12, 

including forester, forestry technician, 

two engineering equipment operators, a 

tractor operator, two refuge rangers, a 

law enforcement officer, an assistant 

manager, two biological technicians, 

and an office assistant. Under 

Alternative D, as in Alternative B, we 

would strengthen our volunteer 

programs, friend’s group, and 

partnerships by investing an increased 

portion of staff time into nurturing these 

promising relationships. 

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: April 22, 2010. 

Mark J. Musaus, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13520 Filed 6–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2010–N061; 40136–1265–0000– 

S3] 

Felsenthal National Wildlife Refuge, 

Ashley, Bradley, and Union Counties, 

AR; Overflow National Wildlife Refuge, 

Ashley County, AR 

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 

Felsenthal and Overflow National 

Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) for public 

review and comment. Felsenthal, 

Overflow, and Pond Creek NWRs are 

managed as a Complex. A separate CCP 

was prepared for Pond Creek NWR. In 

this Draft CCP/EA, we describe the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with NOTICES