Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Notices 52547 

Federal Register on February 25, 2009 

(74 FR 8564). 

The Hakalau Forest Refuge is located 

on the Island of Hawai’i. It encompasses 

two refuge units, the Hakalau Forest 

Unit and the Kona Forest Unit. The 

Hakalau Forest Unit was established in 

1985 to protect endangered forest birds 

and their rainforest habitat. The Hakalau 

Forest Unit encompasses 32,733 acres of 

land, located on the eastern or 

windward slope of Mauna Kea, which 

supports a diversity of native birds and 

plants. The refuge’s Kona Forest Unit 

was established in 1997, on the 

southwestern or leeward slope of Mauna 

Loa, to protect native forest birds and 

the ‘alala, an endangered Hawaiian 

crow. The Kona Forest Unit supports 

diverse native bird and plant species, as 

well as rare habitats found in lava tubes 

and lava tube skylights. 

Background 

The CCP Process 

The CCP/EA was prepared under the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

668dd–668ee), as amended (Refuge 

Administration Act), and the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA). The Refuge 

Administration Act requires us to 

develop a CCP for each national wildlife 

refuge. The purpose of developing a 

CCP is to provide refuge managers 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 conservation, management, 

legal mandates, and our policies. In 

addition to outlining broad management 

direction for conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. We will 

review and update the CCPs at least 

every 15 years in accordance with the 

Refuge Administration Act. 

Public Outreach 

We began the public scoping phase of 

the CCP planning process by publishing 

a notice of intent in the Federal Register 

on February 25, 2009 (74 FR 8564), 

announcing our intention to complete a 

CCP/EA for the refuge, inviting the 

public to two open house meetings, and 

requesting public comments. 

Simultaneously, we distributed 

Planning Update 1 to our mailing list 

announcing the beginning of the CCP 

planning process, requesting comments 

on refuge management issues, and 

inviting the public to attend two open 

house meetings. The meetings were held 

March 3 and 4, 2009, in Hilo, HI, and 

Captain Cook, HI, respectively. 

In October 2009 we distributed 

Planning Update 2. In Planning Update 

2 we provided a summary of the 

comments we received and draft vision 

statements. The public comments we 

received throughout the planning 

process were considered during 

development of the Draft CCP/EA. 

Draft Alternatives We Are Considering 

We drafted three alternatives for 

managing the refuge. All of the 

alternatives will include actions to 

control invasive species, develop or 

improve partnerships, continue 

coordination with Hawai’i’s Department 

of Forestry and Wildlife, develop 

volunteer opportunities, and construct a 

fence around the Kona Forest Unit. Brief 

descriptions of the alternatives follow. 

Alternative A 

Alternative A is the no-action 

alternative. We would continue existing 

refuge management activities under 

Alternative A, including fencing 

projects currently under way at the 

Kona Forest Unit. Staff would conduct 

limited additional restoration of various 

koa forest habitats. Volunteer 

opportunities to assist refuge staff with 

planting native plants would continue. 

Refuge staff would provide limited 

outreach regarding management 

activities. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B is the preferred 

alternative. We would increase 

reforestation, restoration, and ungulate 

removal efforts under Alternative B. 

Additional areas in both units would be 

protected through fencing and ungulate 

removal. Refuge staff, with the 

assistance of volunteers, would increase 

efforts to restore understory species in 

reforested areas. Staff would provide 

additional opportunities for outreach 

and environmental education and 

interpretation. We would work with 

partners and neighboring landowners to 

explore habitat protection and 

restoration opportunities, including the 

potential for refuge boundary 

expansion. Opportunities for additional 

land acquisition would focus on 

protection of forest birds and their 

habitats in response to climate change 

concerns. 

Alternative C 

Under Alternative C, we would focus 

on maintaining existing koa forest and 

allowing natural regeneration of the 

understory on the Kona Forest Unit. We 

would place less emphasis on ungulate 

removal and maintenance. Additional 

grassland areas would be maintained for 

foraging and nesting ne ̄ne ̄. We would 

open additional areas of the Hakalau 

Forest Unit to the public. Fewer 

volunteer opportunities would be 

provided. As in Alternative B, we would 

explore habitat protection opportunities. 

Public Availability of Documents 

We encourage you to stay involved in 

the CCP planning process by reviewing 

and commenting on the proposals we 

have developed in the Draft CCP/EA. 

Copies of the Draft CCP/EA are available 

by request from Jim Kraus or via the 

internet (see ADDRESSES). 

Next Steps 

After this comment period ends, we 

will analyze the comments and address 

them in the final CCP. 

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. 

Dated: August 10, 2010. 

Theresa E. Rabot, 

Acting Regional Director, Region 1, Portland, 

Oregon. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21289 Filed 8–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R2–ES–2010–N167; 20124–1113– 

0000–C2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Draft Ocelot (LEOPARDUS

PARDALIS) Recovery Plan, First Revision 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of document availability 

for public review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of the Draft Ocelot 

(Leopardus pardalis) Recovery Plan, 

First Revision. We request review and 

comment from the public on this draft 

revised recovery plan. We will also 

accept any new information on the 

status of the ocelot throughout its range 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

52548 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Notices 

to assist in finalizing the revised 

recovery plan. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive any comments no later 

than October 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: An electronic copy of the 

recovery plan can be obtained from our 

Web site at http://www.fws.gov/ 

southwest/es/Library/. Copies of the 

recovery plan are also available by 

request. To obtain a copy, contact Jody 

Mays by U.S. mail at Laguna Atascosa 

National Wildlife Refuge, 22817 Ocelot 

Road, Los Fresnos, TX 78566; by phone 

at (956) 748–3607; or by e-mail at 

Jody_Mays@fws.gov. Written comments 

and materials on the draft revised 

recovery plan may be mailed to Jody 

Mays at the address above. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody 

Mays (see ADDRESSES). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), requires the development of 

recovery plans for listed species unless 

such a plan would not promote the 

conservation of a particular species. 

Recovery plans help guide the recovery 

effort by describing actions considered 

necessary for the conservation of the 

species, and estimating time and costs 

for implementing the measures needed 

for recovery. A recovery plan was 

originally completed for the ocelot in 

1990 (The Listed Cats of Texas and 

Arizona Recovery Plan), but the 

recommendations contained in that plan 

are outdated given the species’ current 

status. 

Section 4(f) of the Act requires that 

we provide public notice and an 

opportunity for public review and 

comment during recovery plan 

development. We will consider all 

information presented during a public 

comment period prior to approval of 

each new or revised recovery plan. We 

will also take these comments into 

account in the course of implementing 

recovery actions. In fulfillment of this 

requirement, we are making this draft 

first revision of the recovery plan for the 

ocelot available for a 60-day public 

comment period. 

The ocelot was listed as an 

endangered foreign species in 1972 

under the authority of the Endangered 

Species Conservation Act of 1969 (37 FR 

6476; March 30, 1972). Following 

passage of the Endangered Species Act 

in 1973, the ocelot was included on the 

January 4, 1974 (39 FR 1158; January 4, 

1974), list of ‘‘Endangered Foreign 

Wildlife’’ that ‘‘grandfathered’’ species 

from the lists under the 1969 

Endangered Species Conservation Act 

into a new list under the ESA. 

Endangered status was extended to 

ocelots in the U.S. portion of the 

species’ range for the first time, with a 

final rule published July 21, 1982 (47 FR 

31670). In that rule, we made a 

determination that designation of 

critical habitat was not prudent, because 

such a designation would not be in the 

best interests of conservation of the 

species. Currently, the ocelot is listed as 

endangered throughout its range, from 

southern Texas and southern Arizona 

through Central and South America into 

northern Argentina and Uruguay. 

The ocelot requires dense vegetation 

(more than 75 percent canopy cover), 

with 95 percent cover preferred in 

Texas. Habitats used by the ocelot 

throughout its range vary from tropical 

rainforest, pine forest, gallery forest, 

riparian forest, semideciduous forest, 

and dry tropical forest, to savanna, 

shrublands, and marshlands. 

Contiguous areas of vegetation are 

necessary for ocelot dispersal. In south 

Texas, 2 remaining ocelot populations 

of less than 25 total known individuals 

inhabit dense thornscrub communities 

on the Lower Rio Grande Valley and 

Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife 

Refuges, as well as on private lands. Its 

prey consists primarily of rabbits, 

rodents, birds, and lizards. 

In November 2009, an ocelot was 

documented in Arizona with the use of 

camera traps for the first time since 

1964, when the last known ocelot in 

Arizona was legally shot. However, a 

number of ocelots have been recently 

documented 30–35 miles south of the 

Arizona border in Sonora, Mexico. 

Habitat conversion, fragmentation, 

and loss, comprise the primary threats 

to the ocelot today. In Texas, over 95 

percent of the dense thornscrub habitat 

in the Lower Rio Grande Valley has 

been converted to agriculture, 

rangelands, or urban land uses. Small 

population sizes in Texas and isolation 

from conspecifics in Mexico endanger 

the ocelot in Texas with genetic 

impoverishment and increased 

susceptibility to stochastic (random) 

events. Connectivity among ocelot 

populations or colonization of new 

habitats is discouraged by the 

proliferation of highways and increased 

road mortality among dispersing 

ocelots. Issues associated with 

developing and patrolling the boundary 

between the United States and Mexico 

further exacerbate the isolation of Texas 

ocelots from those in Mexico. 

While the draft ocelot recovery plan 

considers the ocelot throughout its 

range, its major focus is on two crossborder management units, the Texas/ 

Tamaulipas Management Unit and the 

Arizona/Sonora Management Unit. The 

draft ocelot recovery plan includes 

scientific information about the species 

and provides objectives and actions 

needed for recovery and to ultimately 

remove it from the list of threatened and 

endangered species. Recovery actions 

include: 

• Assessment, protection, 

reconnection, and restoration of 

sufficient habitat to support viable 

populations of the ocelot in the 

borderlands of the United States and 

Mexico; 

• Reduction of effects of human 

population growth and development to 

ocelot survival and mortality; 

• Maintenance or improvement of 

genetic fitness, demographic conditions, 

and health of the ocelot; 

• Assurance of long-term viability of 

ocelot conservation through 

partnerships, the development and 

application of incentives for 

landowners, application of existing 

regulations, and public education and 

outreach; 

• Use of adaptive management, in 

which recovery is monitored and 

recovery tasks are revised by the Service 

in coordination with the Ocelot 

Recovery Team as new information 

becomes available; and 

• Support of international efforts to 

ascertain the status of and conserve the 

ocelot south of Tamaulipas and Sonora. 

Public Comments 

We are accepting written comments 

and information during this comment 

period on the revised draft recovery 

plan. All comments received by the date 

specified above will be considered prior 

to approval of the final recovery plan. 

Comments and materials we receive will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Laguna Atascosa National 

Wildlife Refuge (see ADDRESSES). 

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 publically 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: The authority for this action is 

section 4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 

16 U.S.C. 1533(f). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 165 / Thursday, August 26, 2010 / Notices 52549 

Dated: August 4, 2010. 

Joy E. Nicholopoulos, 

Regional Director, Region 2. 

[FR Doc. 2010–21249 Filed 8–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–ES–2010–N166; 40120–1112– 

0000–F2] 

Environmental Impact Statement; 

Alabama Beach Mouse Draft General 

Conservation Plan; Fort Morgan 

Peninsula, Baldwin County, AL 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of intent; announcement 

of public meetings. 

SUMMARY: Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we, 

the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), 

advise the public that we intend to 

gather information necessary to prepare 

an environmental impact statement 

(EIS) on the draft Alabama Beach Mouse 

General Conservation Plan (ABM GCP) 

Project. We are preparing the ABM GCP 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). We provide this 

notice to (1) Describe the proposed 

action and possible alternatives; (2) 

advise other Federal and State agencies, 

affected Tribes, and the public of our 

intent to prepare an EIS; (3) announce 

the initiation of a public scoping period; 

and (4) obtain suggestions and 

information on the scope of issues to be 

included in the EIS. 

DATES: Comments: We must receive any 

written comments at our Field Office 

(see ADDRESSES) on or before September 

27, 2010. 

Public Meetings: Two public scoping 

meetings will be held on September 29, 

2010: The first from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., 

and the second from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. 

ADDRESSES: Public Meetings: Gulf 

Shores Adult Activities Center, 260 

Club House Drive, Gulf Shores, AL 

36542. 

Document Availability: Documents 

will be available for public inspection 

by appointment during normal business 

hours at the Fish and Wildlife Service 

Field Office, 1208–B Main Street, 

Daphne, AL 36526. 

Comments: For how and where to 

submit comments, see Public Comments 

below. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Darren LeBlanc, Project Manager, at the 

Alabama Field Office (see ADDRESSES), 

telephone: 251/441–5868. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), we 

announce that we intend to gather 

information necessary to prepare an EIS 

on the draft ABM GCP Project under the 

Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

Background 

Section 9 of the Act and Federal 

regulations prohibit the ‘‘take’’ of 

wildlife species listed as endangered or 

threatened (16 U.S.C. 1538). The Act 

defines the term ‘‘take’’ as to harass, 

harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 

trap, capture, or collect listed species, or 

to attempt to engage in such conduct (16 

U.S.C. 1532). Harm includes significant 

habitat modification or degradation that 

actually kills or injures listed wildlife 

by significantly impairing essential 

behavioral patterns, including breeding, 

feeding, and sheltering [50 CFR 17.3(c)]. 

Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, the 

Service may issue permits to authorize 

‘‘incidental take’’ of listed species. 

‘‘Incidental Take’’ is defined by the Act 

as take that is incidental to, and not the 

purpose of, carrying out an otherwise 

lawful activity. Regulations governing 

permits for threatened species and 

endangered species, respectively, are in 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 

50 CFR 17.32 and 50 CFR 17.22. All 

species included on an incidental take 

permit would receive assurances under 

the Service’s ‘‘No Surprises’’ regulations 

[50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)]. 

Proposed ABM GCP 

Species we propose for coverage in 

the ABM GCP are species that are 

currently listed as federally threatened 

or endangered and have some likelihood 

to occur within the project area. Three 

protected species covered by the ABM 

GCP are known to occur within the area. 

Currently the following listed animal 

species are included in the plan: 

Alabama beach mouse (ABM) 

(Peromyscus polionotus ammobates), 

Loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), 

and Kemp’s ridley sea turtle 

(Lepidochelys kempii). 

The proposed ABM GCP utilizes a 

conservation strategy that would 

provide for preservation of a large 

portion of the developable habitat for 

the ABM while still allowing economic 

growth to occur in the area. The ABM 

GCP coverage area extends along the 

Gulf of Mexico for about 17 miles, 

encompassing approximately 2,400 

acres of open beach and associated 

nearshore coastal dune environments on 

the Fort Morgan Peninsula, Baldwin 

County, AL. The coverage area begins at 

Little Lagoon Pass, on State Hwy 182 in 

Gulf Shores, and extends westward to 

the tip of the Fort Morgan State Historic 

site at the western terminus of the Fort 

Morgan Peninsula. The area is defined 

biologically as that area where an ABM 

population and/or subpopulations (i.e., 

metapopulations) could be affected by 

the proposed actions. The coverage area 

is based on what the Service currently 

knows about ABM movement and 

dispersal, locations of separate yet 

connected populations, and where 

future development could occur within 

these areas. It is important that suitable 

habitat be maintained within these areas 

so that barriers to dispersal do not 

develop, to allow for expansion of 

subpopulations, and for maintaining or 

increasing genetic diversity. 

The ABM GCP would result in take 

authorization for otherwise lawful 

actions, such as private development 

that may incidentally take or harm 

animal species or their habitats within 

the ABM GCP area, in exchange for the 

assembly and management of a 

coordinated ABM GCP area. 

Specifically, these activities would 

include residential development and 

infrastructure improvement, as well as 

response activities related to impacts 

from tropical weather systems. The 

ABM GCP would develop a program of 

take avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation, with an emphasis on 

preservation of remaining natural lands 

that will support viable populations and 

the continued existence of federally 

listed threatened or endangered species, 

including an in-lieu-fee proposal. The 

ABM GCP creates a framework for 

complying with federally listed 

threatened or endangered species 

regulations for specified species while 

accommodating future growth in the 

ABM GCP area. The framework 

established by the ABM GCP in-lieu-fee 

plan will allow for the purchase of 

select parcels of high-priority habitat, 

preserve movement corridors within 

viable habitat, conduct post-storm 

habitat restoration on public lands and 

assist the public with the same on 

private property, and assist in the 

conservation of species through 

research. 

If the ABM GCP is established, 

property owners who wish to develop 

low-density residences on the Fort 

Morgan peninsula in Alabama, and who 

meet the qualifying conditions of the 

ABM GCP, may apply for a 50-year 

Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the 

Service. The ITP is needed to authorize 

the incidental take of threatened and 

endangered species that would occur as 

a result of private residential 

development. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES