Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 56133 

long-term recovery of the species. The 

peer-review comments, however, were 

critical of this network for several 

reasons, including that we did not use 

updated modeling techniques to design 

the network and assess its efficacy. 

The draft revised recovery plan 

focuses on six main topics: (1) 

Adequacy of spotted owl habitat 

reserves on the west side of the Cascade 

Mountains, (2) lack of habitat reserves 

on the east side of the Cascade 

Mountains, (3) the role of non-Federal 

lands in spotted owl recovery, (4) 

adequacy of the existing strategy for 

conservation of dispersal habitat, (5) 

protection of high-quality habitat, and 

(6) protection of occupied spotted owl 

sites. 

The draft revised recovery plan is 

different from the 2008 Recovery Plan in 

several respects. We are conducting a 

scientifically rigorous, multi-step, rangewide modeling effort to design a habitat 

conservation network and assess its 

ability to provide for long-term recovery 

of the spotted owl. Consequently, we are 

not proposing to rely on the MOCA 

network recommended in the 2008 

Recovery Plan and will instead use the 

model results to help evaluate several 

habitat conservation network scenarios. 

Until the barred owl threat is reduced, 

the draft revised plan recommends 

maintaining all occupied sites and 

unoccupied high-quality spotted owl 

habitat on all lands within the range of 

the spotted owl. The draft revised plan 

also recognizes the possibility of 

needing additional conservation 

contributions from non-Federal lands. 

Finally, the draft revised plan affirms 

our support for forest restoration 

management actions that are neutral or 

beneficial to spotted owl recovery. 

Request for Public Comments 

We invite written comments on the 

draft revised recovery plan. While all 

comments we receive by the date 

specified above will be considered in 

developing a final revised recovery 

plan, we encourage commenters to focus 

on those portions of the recovery plan 

that have been revised, particularly 

those topics noted above. Comments 

and materials we receive will be 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the Oregon Fish and Wildlife 

Office in Portland (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 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 

The authority for this action is section 

4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16 

U.S.C. 1533 (f). 

Dated: September 2, 2010. 

David Patte, 

Acting Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22861 Filed 9–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2010–N035; 40136–1265–0000– 

S3] 

Savannah Coastal Refuges’ Complex, 

GA and SC 

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 the 

Savannah Coastal Refuges’ Complex 

(Complex) for public review and 

comment. In this Draft CCP/EA, we 

describe the alternative we propose to 

use to manage this Complex for the 15 

years following approval of the final 

CCP. The Complex consists of the 

following refuges: Pinckney Island; 

Savannah; Tybee; Wassaw; Harris Neck; 

Blackbeard Island; and Wolf Island. A 

separate CCP was prepared for the Wolf 

Island National Wildlife Refuge. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

must receive your written comments by 

October 15, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of 

the Draft CCP/EA by contacting Ms. 

Laura Housh, via U.S. mail at 

Okefenokee NWR, 2700 Suwannee 

Canal Road, Folkston, GA 31537, or via 

e-mail at laura_housh@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. 

Laura Housh, Refuge Planner, 

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

912/496–3322. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for the Savannah Coastal 

Refuges’ Complex. We started the 

process through a notice in the Federal 

Register on May 19, 2008 (73 FR 28838). 

For more about the Complex and this 

process, please see that notice. 

Background 

The CCP Process 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

668dd–668ee), as amended by the 

National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997, requires us to 

develop a CCP for each national wildlife 

refuge. The purpose for developing a 

CCP is to provide refuge managers with 

a 15-year plan for achieving refuge 

purposes and contributing toward the 

mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, consistent with sound 

principles of fish and wildlife 

management, conservation, legal 

mandates, and our policies. In addition 

to outlining broad management 

direction on conserving wildlife and 

their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities 

available to the public, including 

opportunities for hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, and environmental 

education and interpretation. We will 

review and update the CCP at least 

every 15 years in accordance with the 

Administration Act. 

CCP Alternatives, Including our 

Proposed Alternative 

We developed three alternatives for 

managing the Complex and chose 

Alternative B as the proposed 

alternative. A full description of each 

alternative is in the Draft CCP/EA. We 

summarize each alternative below. 

Alternative A—No Action Alternative 

This alternative is the ‘‘no-action’’ or 

‘‘status quo’’ alternative in which no 

major management changes would be 

initiated by the Service. Management 

emphasis would continue to focus on 

maintaining biological integrity of 

habitats found on each refuge. Under 

this alternative, we would protect and 

maintain all refuge lands, primarily 

focusing on the needs of threatened and 

endangered species, with additional 

emphasis on the needs of migratory 

birds and resident wildlife. 

We would continue mandated 

activities for protection of federally 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
56134 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 

listed species through current habitat 

management and monitoring programs 

accomplished primarily through 

established partnership and research 

projects. 

Current management of migratory 

birds would continue to provide 

suitable habitat for waterfowl, 

contributing to the objective of the 

North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan. Surveying, monitoring, and 

managing colonial waterbirds, 

shorebirds, neotropical migratory birds, 

wading birds, marsh birds, and other 

resident birds would continue. The 

management of the Complex that would 

provide for the basic needs of these 

species varies. Management measures at 

some refuges include planting 

vegetation used for food, nest, and 

cover, including moist-soil 

management. 

Mostly opportunistic monitoring and 

managing of resident wildlife would 

occur under this alternative. The main 

objective for game species management 

would be to sustain healthy populations 

through hunting programs and current 

habitat management. Only current 

wildlife management programs would 

continue to be maintained. 

We would continue habitat 

management of existing beaches, 

wetlands, open waters, forested habitats, 

scrub/shrub habitats, grasslands, and 

open lands. All ponds, levees, moist-soil 

water management units, and water 

control structures and pumps would 

continue to be maintained to provide 

critical habitat for threatened and 

endangered species, waterfowl, and 

wetland-dependent birds. Current water 

quality information would be addressed 

on an as-needed basis and would 

continue to be limited. All other habitat 

management programs would remain 

unchanged. 

We would continue to control 

invasive and exotic plant species on an 

opportunistic basis as resources allow. 

This limited control would be 

performed by chemical and/or 

mechanical means, but would remain 

intermittent. Control would continue to 

be implemented by the take of exotic or 

invasive animals as part of hunting 

programs offered on some of the refuges, 

and opportunistically by Complex staff. 

We would maintain the current levels 

of wildlife-dependent recreation 

activities. An extensive network of 

public use facilities would continue to 

be maintained. 

Land would be acquired from willing 

sellers within each refuge’s current 

acquisition boundary and in accordance 

with current Service policy. Law 

enforcement on each refuge would 

continue at the current level, with 

emphasis on resource protection and 

public safety. We would maintain the 

Complex as resources allow. The 

Complex would continue to include a 

combined staff of 30 full-time 

employees. 

Alternative B—Increased Management 

(Proposed Alternative) 

The proposed action (Alternative B) 

was selected by the Service as the 

alternative that best signifies the vision, 

goals, and purposes of the Complex. 

Additionally, this alternative was 

developed based on public input and 

the best professional judgment of the 

planning team. Under Alternative B, the 

emphasis would be on restoring and 

improving Complex resources needed 

for wildlife and habitat management 

and providing enhanced appropriate 

and compatible wildlife-dependent 

public use opportunities, while 

addressing key issues and individual 

refuge mandates. 

This alternative would focus on 

augmenting wildlife and habitat 

management to identify, conserve, and 

restore populations of native fish and 

wildlife species, with an emphasis on 

migratory birds and threatened and 

endangered species. This would 

partially be accomplished by increased 

monitoring of waterfowl, other 

migratory and resident birds, and 

endemic species in order to assess and 

adapt management strategies and 

actions. Additionally, information gaps 

would be addressed by the initiation of 

baseline surveying, periodic monitoring, 

and ultimately the addition of adaptive 

habitat management. 

Habitat management programs for 

impoundments, beaches, wetlands, 

open waters, forested habitats, scrub/ 

shrub habitats, grasslands, and open 

lands would be re-evaluated and we 

would develop step-down management 

plans to meet the foraging, resting, and 

breeding requirements of priority 

species. Additionally, monitoring and 

adaptive habitat management would be 

implemented to potentially counteract 

the impacts associated with long-term 

climate change and sea level rise. 

The control of invasive and exotic 

plant species would be more 

aggressively managed by implementing 

a management plan, completing a 

baseline inventory, supporting research, 

and through strategic mechanical and 

chemical means. Additionally, we 

would utilize this management plan and 

monitoring to enhance efforts to control/ 

remove invasive, exotic, and nuisance 

animals on the refuges. 

Alternative B enhances each refuges’ 

visitor services opportunities (except for 

Tybee NWR, which would remain 

closed to the public) by: (1) Improving 

the quality of fishing opportunities; (2) 

streamlining quota hunt process and 

where possible evaluating the options of 

allowing the use of crossbows and 

creating additional hunting 

opportunities; and (3) maintaining and 

where possible expanding 

environmental education opportunities. 

Volunteer programs and friends groups 

would be expanded to enhance all 

aspects of refuge management and to 

increase resource availability. We would 

evaluate the possibility of utilizing a 

concessionaire at Pinckney NWR to 

implement a tram tour that would 

provide a means for access and 

participation by patrons with mobility 

issues. 

Under this alternative, the priority of 

land acquisition at Harris Neck NWR 

would be to acquire lands from willing 

sellers that could provide resource and 

public use values. These lands could be 

acquired by fee title purchase, donation, 

mitigation purchase and transfer, or 

other viable means. This would include 

an investigation into expanding the 

current acquisition boundary. At 

Savannah NWR, the focus would 

increase on acquiring lands from willing 

sellers by any viable means that could 

provide resource and public use values. 

Law enforcement activities to protect 

archaeological and historical sites and 

provide visitor safety would be 

intensified. The allocation of an 

additional law enforcement officer for 

the Complex would provide security for 

cultural resources, but would also 

ensure visitor safety and public 

compliance with refuge regulations. 

Administration plans would stress the 

need for increased maintenance of 

existing infrastructure and construction 

of new facilities. Funding for new 

construction projects would be balanced 

between habitat management and public 

use needs. An additional staff position 

would be required to accomplish the 

goals of this alternative. Personnel 

priorities would include employing an 

environmental education coordinator, 

law enforcement officers/park rangers, a 

volunteer coordinator, biological 

technicians, maintenance workers, 

refuge managers, refuge assistant 

managers, and a geographic information 

systems specialist. The increased budget 

and staffing levels would better enable 

the Complex to meet the obligations of 

wildlife stewardship, habitat 

management, and public use. 

Alternative C—Minimal Intervention 

Under Alternative C, the management 

of Complex resources would be 

employed to allow natural succession to 

take place, while maintaining the 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 15, 2010 / Notices 56135 

current slate of public use 

opportunities. All purposes of the 

refuges and mandated monitoring of 

Federal trust species and archaeological 

resources would be continued, but other 

wildlife management would be mostly 

performed on an incidental basis. 

This alternative would utilize a 

custodial habitat management strategy. 

Impoundments, beaches, wetlands, 

open waters, forested habitats, scrub/ 

shrub habitats, grasslands, and open 

lands would not be actively managed 

and would allow natural disturbance to 

maintain succession, unless the habitat 

primarily focuses on the needs of 

threatened and endangered species or 

the needs of priority species, such as 

migratory birds. Fire management 

would be reduced to include wildfire 

response only. 

We would continue mandated 

activities for protection of federally 

listed species. Conservation of federally 

listed threatened and endangered 

species would be continued primarily 

through established partnership and 

research projects. 

Current management of migratory 

birds would continue to provide 

suitable habitat for waterfowl. Climate 

control changes and sea level rise would 

continue to be monitored on an 

opportunistic basis, with very little or 

no adaptive habitat management. We 

would control invasive and exotic plant 

and animal species on an opportunistic 

basis as resources allow. This limited 

control would be performed by 

chemical and/or mechanical means, but 

would remain intermittent. We would 

maintain the current levels of wildlifedependent recreation activities. Public 

use facilities would continue to be 

maintained, as would the current visitor 

services program. 

Law enforcement officers would be 

added to the staff to increase emphasis 

on resource protection and public 

safety. This includes being designated to 

uphold current regulations and for 

protection of wildlife, visitors, and 

cultural and historical resources. We 

would maintain the Complex as 

resources allow. No additional land 

acquisition would be pursued under 

this alternative. 

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: March 19, 2010. 

Mark J. Musaus, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22965 Filed 9–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[LLNM920000 L13100000 FI0000; OKNM 

121969] 

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of 

Terminated Oil and Gas Lease OKNM 

121969, Oklahoma 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Reinstatement of 

Terminated Oil and Gas Lease. 

SUMMARY: Under the Class II provisions 

of Title IV of the Federal Oil and Gas 

Royalty Management Act of 1982, the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

received a petition for reinstatement of 

oil and gas lease OKNM 121969 from 

the lessee(s), Brower Oil & Gas, Inc., for 

lands in Garvin County, Oklahoma. The 

petition was filed on time and was 

accompanied by all the rentals due 

since the date the lease terminated 

under the law. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Margie Dupre, Bureau of Land 

Management, New Mexico State Office, 

P.O. Box 27115, Santa Fe, New Mexico 

87502–0115 or at (505) 954–2142. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: No valid 

lease has been issued that affects the 

lands. The lessee agrees to new lease 

terms for rentals and royalties of $10 per 

acre or a fraction thereof, per year, and 

16 2⁄3 percent, respectively. The lessee 

paid the required $500 administrative 

fee for the reinstatement of the lease and 

the $166 cost for publishing this Notice 

in the Federal Register. The lessee met 

all the requirements for reinstatement of 

the lease as set out in Section 31(d) and 

(e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 

(30 U.S.C. 188). We are proposing to 

reinstate lease OKNM 121969, effective 

the date of termination, May 1, 2010, 

under the original terms and conditions 

of the lease and the increased rental and 

royalty rates cited above. 

Margie Dupre, 

Land Law Examiner, Fluids Adjudication 

Team. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22963 Filed 9–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–FB–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Land Management 

[WY–923–1310–FI; WYW149955] 

Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of 

Terminated Oil and Gas Lease 

WYW149955, Wyoming 

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as 

amended, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) received a petition 

for reinstatement from Chesapeake 

Exploration LLC and Khody Land & 

Minerals Company for competitive oil 

and gas lease WYW149955 for land in 

Converse County, Wyoming. The 

petition was filed on time and was 

accompanied by all the rentals due 

since the date the lease terminated 

under the law. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. 

Weaver, Chief, Fluid Minerals 

Adjudication, at (307) 775–6176. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

lessees have agreed to the amended 

lease terms for rentals and royalties at 

rates of $10 per acre or fraction thereof, 

per year and 162⁄3 percent, respectively. 

The lessees have paid the required $500 

administrative fee and $163 to 

reimburse the Department for the cost of 

this Federal Register notice. The lessees 

have met all the requirements for 

reinstatement of the lease as set out in 

Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral 

Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 

188), and the BLM is proposing to 

reinstate lease WYW149955 effective 

April 1, 2010, under the original terms 

and conditions of the lease and the 

increased rental and royalty rates cited 

above. The BLM has not issued a valid 

lease to any other interest affecting the 

lands. 

Julie L. Weaver, 

Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22961 Filed 9–14–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–22–P 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES