60808 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 

procedures and adopted mitigation 

measures for the use of herbicides, 

provides additional detailed analysis 

regarding the potential for human and 

environmental risks generated in 

support of the Programmatic EIS, and 

addresses the concerns raised by the 

District Court in its 1984 Order. 

A June 2009 stipulated agreement 

says the 1984 injunction, as modified in 

1987, shall cease to be in force and 

effect regarding BLM applying 

herbicides to treat invasive species upon 

the completion of the protest and 

appeals period following issuance of 

this ROD. Preparation of the Oregon EIS 

began with a Notice of Intent to Prepare 

an Environmental Impact Statement in 

the Federal Register on June 23, 2008 

(73 FR 35408). The scoping period 

included the mailing of 17,000 

postcards to potentially interested 

persons or groups, statewide radio and 

newspaper news releases, and 12 public 

scoping meetings held throughout 

Oregon. A Draft EIS was released on 

October 2, 2009 (74 FR 50986). Over 

1,000 comment letters received through 

January 6, 2010, on the Draft EIS and the 

ideas presented in those comments were 

used to improve the analysis presented 

in the Final EIS. Comment responses 

and resultant changes are documented 

in the Final EIS, Appendix 10. 

The Final EIS addressed all 15.7 

million acres of BLM lands in Oregon 

and all 18 herbicides approved for use 

by the 2007 ROD for the Programmatic 

EIS, which are being used in the other 

16 western states. The Final EIS 

analyzed a ‘‘no action’’ and three action 

alternatives, which were shaped in part 

by the comments received during 12 

public scoping meetings held 

throughout Oregon in July 2008. A ‘‘no 

herbicides’’ reference analysis was also 

included. The alternatives addressed 

eight ‘‘purposes’’ or issues also 

identified during scoping. 

The Final EIS analysis indicated that 

by using standard operating procedures 

identified in applicable BLM manuals 

and policy direction, along with 

Programmatic EIS-adopted mitigation 

measures, human and environmental 

risk from the use of herbicides is both 

minimized and reduced from current 

levels. The analysis indicates the 

selected alternative will also slow the 

spread of noxious weeds on BLM lands 

by approximately 50 percent and result 

in an estimated 2.2 million fewer 

infested acres in 15 years than under 

current program capabilities, will 

reduce rights-of-way maintenance costs 

by about $1 million per year, and will 

make possible an additional 3,700 acres 

of habitat improvement for federally 

listed and other special status species 

each year. The ROD does not authorize 

any specific herbicide treatment 

projects. No site-specific projects (i.e. 

application of herbicides beyond 

current authorized uses) will proceed 

until completion of additional, sitespecific NEPA analysis and decisionmaking. 

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service was conducted 

to ensure continued applicability of 

informal consultation and the Biological 

Opinion issued on the Programmatic 

EIS by those two agencies respectively. 

The signing official for the ROD is the 

BLM Oregon and Washington State 

Director. 

Administrative Appeals: The decision 

may be appealed to the Interior Board of 

Land Appeals (IBLA), Office of the 

Secretary, in accordance with 

regulations contained in 43 CFR part 4 

and Form 1842–1. If you file an appeal, 

your notice of appeal must be mailed to 

the Oregon/Washington BLM State 

Director, P.O. Box 2965, Portland, 

Oregon 97208–2965, and be postmarked 

by November 1, 2010. The appellant has 

the burden of showing the decision 

appealed is in error. 

A copy of the appeal, statement of 

reasons, and all other supporting 

documents must also be sent to the 

Regional Solicitor, Pacific Northwest 

Region, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

805 SW. Broadway #600, Portland, 

Oregon 97205–3346. If the notice of 

appeal does not include a statement of 

reasons for the appeal, it must be sent 

to the Interior Board of Land Appeals, 

Office of Hearings and Appeals, 801 

North Quincy Street, Arlington, Virginia 

22203 within 30 days of filing the notice 

of appeal (43 CFR 4.412). It is suggested 

that appeals be sent certified mail, 

return receipt requested. 

Requests for Stay: Should you wish to 

file a motion for stay pending the 

outcome of an appeal of this decision, 

you must show sufficient justification 

based on the following standards under 

43 CFR 4.21: 

• The relative harm to the parties if 

the stay is granted or denied; 

• The likelihood of the appellant’s 

success on the merits; 

• The likelihood of immediate and 

irreparable harm if the stay is not 

granted; and 

• Whether or not the public interest 

favors granting the stay. 

As noted above, the motion for stay 

must be filed in the office of the 

authorized officer and the Regional 

Solicitor. 

Edward W. Shepard, 

State Director, Oregon/Washington. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24641 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R4–R–2010–N134; 40136–1265–0000– 

S3] 

Carolina Sandhills National Wildlife 

Refuge, Chesterfield County, SC 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability: Final 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

finding of no significant impact. 

SUMMARY: We, the Fish and Wildlife 

Service (Service), announce the 

availability of our final comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and finding of 

no significant impact (FONSI) for the 

environmental assessment for Carolina 

Sandhills National Wildlife Refuge 

(NWR). In the final CCP, we describe 

how we will manage this refuge for the 

next 15 years. 

ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of 

the CCP by writing to: Ms. Allyne 

Askins, Refuge Manager, Carolina 

Sandhills NWR, 23734 U.S. Highway 1, 

McBee, SC 29101. The CCP may also be 

accessed and downloaded from the 

Service’s Web site: http:// 

southeast.fws.gov/planning/ under 

‘‘Final Documents.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Allyne Askins; telephone: 843–335– 

8350; fax: 843–335–8406; e-mail: 

allyne_askins@fws.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we finalize the CCP 

process for Carolina Sandhills NWR. We 

started this process through a notice in 

the Federal Register on August 22, 2007 

(72 FR 47062). 

Carolina Sandhills NWR was 

established by Executive Order 8067, 

dated March 17, 1939. This Executive 

Order authorized the Federal 

Government to purchase lands from 

willing sellers to restore habitats and 

wildlife species. Today, the 45,348-acre 

refuge is managed to restore the longleaf 

pine/wiregrass ecosystem for the benefit 

of the red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) 

and other endangered species; to 

provide habitat for migratory and 

upland game birds; to provide 

opportunities for environmental 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 60809 

education, interpretation and wildlifedependent recreational opportunities; 

and to demonstrate sound land 

management practices that enhance 

natural resource conservation. The 

refuge is a land management 

demonstration refuge for the longleaf 

pine/wiregrass ecosystem. The refuge 

supports an estimated 150 active 

clusters of the endangered RCW, the 

largest population in the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge’s 

primary public use is hunting; although 

wildlife observation, hiking, and fishing 

also are popular. 

We announce our decision and the 

availability of the final CCP and FONSI 

for Carolina Sandhills NWR in 

accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) [40 

CFR 1506.6(b)] requirements. We 

completed a thorough analysis of 

impacts on the human environment, 

which we included in the Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and 

Environmental Assessment (Draft CCP/ 

EA). The CCP will guide us in managing 

and administering Carolina Sandhills 

NWR for the next 15 years. Alternative 

C is the foundation for the CCP. 

The compatibility determinations for 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation 

and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation, 

cooperative farming, commercial timber 

harvest, boating, public safety and 

military training, natural resource 

collection for personal use, cemetery 

upkeep, scientific research and 

collections, off-road vehicle use for 

mobility-impaired persons, outdoor 

recreation (e.g., bicycling, hiking, 

jogging, walking, mountain biking, and 

picnicking), camping, and horseback 

riding are available in the CCP. 

Background 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

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

668dd–668ee) (Administration Act), 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 in 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. 

Comments 

We made copies of the Draft CCP/EA 

available for a 30-day public review and 

comment period via a Federal Register 

notice on January 21, 2010 (75 FR 3484). 

We received five comments on the Draft 

CCP/EA. 

Selected Alternative 

The Draft CCP/EA identified and 

evaluated three alternatives for 

managing the refuge. After considering 

the comments we received and based on 

the professional judgment of the 

planning team, we selected Alternative 

C for implementation. 

Under Alternative C, we will optimize 

management of native wildlife and 

habitat diversity (e.g., floristic 

communities, longleaf-wiregrass, and 

native grasslands) and appropriate 

wildlife-dependent public uses and 

visitor services. We will continue our 

focus on RCW monitoring and recovery, 

while managing for a suite of species. 

We will enhance habitat required for 

RCWs by (1) accelerating the transition 

to multi-aged management; (2) 

improving forest structure and 

composition, focusing on diversifying 

plantation structure to create multipleaged classes and densities of overstory 

pines, while improving ground layer 

structure and composition; (3) using all 

available tools to control midstory (e.g., 

chemical, mechanical, and precommercial); (4) increasing growing 

season burning; and (5) considering use 

of fall burning for hazardous fuel 

reduction and seed bed preparation. 

We will increase partnership 

activities with the South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources, 

Cheraw State Park, and Sandhills State 

Forest to manage RCWs as one recovery 

population. We will enhance our 

management of the unique floristic 

communities on the refuge, including 

seepage bogs, Atlantic white cedar and 

cane bottoms, and old field species at 

Oxpen Farm. We will develop and 

implement habitat management 

response surveys to identify species 

response to treatments in longleaf pine 

and restoration in pocosin habitat sites. 

We will manage 1,200 acres of 

grasslands for birds of conservation 

concern, conduct baseline population 

surveys of grassland birds, and survey to 

assess effects of habitat management. As 

part of grassland management and 

restoration, we will restore longleafwiregrass and native grasslands, 

establish native warm season grass 

demonstration areas, and eradicate nonnative plants (e.g., fescue, love grass, 

and bamboo). We will also establish a 

seed nursery/orchard for native warm 

season grass and native ground cover 

and engage in native plant botanical 

research. 

We will balance habitat restoration 

and fish and wildlife population 

management with enhanced visitor 

services. We will improve our wayside 

exhibits and update our Web site, 

encouraging families to use the refuge to 

pursue outdoor recreational 

opportunities. We will host an annual 

public lands and private landowner 

demonstration day to showcase 

restoration and management practices. 

We will work with our volunteers, 

partners, and friends group, to further 

information and technology exchange. 

We will target land acquisitions that 

will maximize ecosystem management 

objectives and opportunities for public 

use and environmental education. We 

will identify and evaluate important 

gaps and corridors to ensure landscapelevel conservation and connectivity. We 

will search for opportunities to enter 

into cooperative wildlife management 

agreements with private landowners in 

the Partners for Fish and Wildlife 

Program focus areas. We will increase 

protection of visitors to the refuge. 

Alternative C directs the development 

of programs to best achieve the refuge 

purpose and goals; emphasizes adaptive 

management; collects habitat and 

wildlife data; and ensures long-term 

achievement of refuge and Service 

objectives. At the same time, these 

management actions provide balanced 

levels of compatible public use 

opportunities consistent with existing 

laws, Service policies, and sound 

biological principles. It provides the 

best mix of program elements to achieve 

desired long-term conditions. Under 

this alternative, all lands under our 

management and direction will be 

protected, maintained, and enhanced to 

best achieve national, ecosystem, and 

refuge specific goals and objectives 

within anticipated funding and staffing 

levels. In addition, the action positively 

addresses significant issues and 

concerns expressed by the public. 

Authority 

This notice is published under the 

authority of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997, Public Law 105–57. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
60810 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 190 / Friday, October 1, 2010 / Notices 

Dated: August 5, 2010. 

Mark J. Musaus, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24668 Filed 9–30–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible 

To Receive Services From the United 

States Bureau of Indian Affairs 

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: This notice publishes the 

current list of 564 tribal entities 

recognized and eligible for funding and 

services from the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs by virtue of their status as Indian 

tribes. The list is updated from the 

notice published on August 11, 2009 (74 

FR 40218). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Colliflower, Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, Division of Tribal Government 

Services, Mail Stop 4513–MIB, 1849 C 

Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240. 

Telephone number: (202) 513–7641. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is published pursuant to Section 

104 of the Act of November 2, 1994 

(Pub. L. 103–454; 108 Stat. 4791, 4792), 

and in exercise of authority delegated to 

the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs 

under 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9 and 209 DM 8. 

Published below is a list of federally 

acknowledged tribes in the contiguous 

48 states and in Alaska. 

Amendments to the list include name 

changes and name corrections. To aid in 

identifying tribal name changes, the 

tribe’s former name is included with the 

new tribal name. To aid in identifying 

corrections, the tribe’s previously listed 

name is included with the tribal name. 

We will continue to list the tribe’s 

former or previously listed name for 

several years before dropping the former 

or previously listed name from the list. 

The listed entities are acknowledged 

to have the immunities and privileges 

available to other federally 

acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of 

their government-to-government 

relationship with the United States as 

well as the responsibilities, powers, 

limitations and obligations of such 

tribes. We have continued the practice 

of listing the Alaska Native entities 

separately solely for the purpose of 

facilitating identification of them and 

reference to them given the large 

number of complex Native names. 

Dated: September 22, 2010. 

Larry Echo Hawk, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

Indian Tribal Entities Within the 

Contiguous 48 States Recognized and 

Eligible To Receive Services From the 

United States Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Absentee-Shawnee Tribe of Indians of 

Oklahoma 

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 

of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation, California 

Ak Chin Indian Community of the 

Maricopa (Ak Chin) Indian 

Reservation, Arizona 

Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas 

Alabama-Quassarte Tribal Town, 

Oklahoma 

Alturas Indian Rancheria, California 

Apache Tribe of Oklahoma 

Arapahoe Tribe of the Wind River 

Reservation, Wyoming 

Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians of 

Maine 

Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort 

Peck Indian Reservation, Montana 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians, 

California (formerly the Augustine 

Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians of 

the Augustine Reservation) 

Bad River Band of the Lake Superior 

Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad 

River Reservation, Wisconsin 

Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan 

Bear River Band of the Rohnerville 

Rancheria, California 

Berry Creek Rancheria of Maidu Indians 

of California 

Big Lagoon Rancheria, California 

Big Pine Band of Owens Valley Paiute 

Shoshone Indians of the Big Pine 

Reservation, California 

Big Sandy Rancheria of Mono Indians of 

California 

Big Valley Band of Pomo Indians of the 

Big Valley Rancheria, California 

Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian 

Reservation of Montana 

Blue Lake Rancheria, California 

Bridgeport Paiute Indian Colony of 

California 

Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk 

Indians of California 

Burns Paiute Tribe of the Burns Paiute 

Indian Colony of Oregon 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 

California 

Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of 

the Colusa Indian Community of the 

Colusa Rancheria, California 

Caddo Nation of Oklahoma 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians of the 

Cahuilla Reservation, California 

Cahto Indian Tribe of the Laytonville 

Rancheria, California 

California Valley Miwok Tribe, 

California 

Campo Band of Diegueno Mission 

Indians of the Campo Indian 

Reservation, California 

Capitan Grande Band of Diegueno 

Mission Indians of California: 

Barona Group of Capitan Grande Band 

of Mission Indians of the Barona 

Reservation, California 

Viejas (Baron Long) Group of Capitan 

Grande Band of Mission Indians of 

the Viejas Reservation, California 

Catawba Indian Nation (aka Catawba 

Tribe of South Carolina) 

Cayuga Nation of New York 

Cedarville Rancheria, California 

Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the 

Chemehuevi Reservation, California 

Cher-Ae Heights Indian Community of 

the Trinidad Rancheria, California 

Cherokee Nation, Oklahoma 

Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes, 

Oklahoma (formerly the CheyenneArapaho Tribes of Oklahoma) 

Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the 

Cheyenne River Reservation, South 

Dakota 

Chickasaw Nation, Oklahoma 

Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk 

Indians of California 

Chippewa-Cree Indians of the Rocky 

Boy’s Reservation, Montana 

Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana 

Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma 

Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma 

Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians 

of California 

Cocopah Tribe of Arizona 

Coeur D’Alene Tribe of the Coeur 

D’Alene Reservation, Idaho 

Cold Springs Rancheria of Mono Indians 

of California 

Colorado River Indian Tribes of the 

Colorado River Indian Reservation, 

Arizona and California 

Comanche Nation, Oklahoma 

Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes 

of the Flathead Reservation, Montana 

Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis 

Reservation, Washington 

Confederated Tribes of the Colville 

Reservation, Washington 

Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower 

Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of 

Oregon 

Confederated Tribes of the Goshute 

Reservation, Nevada and Utah 

Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde 

Community of Oregon 

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of 

Oregon (previously listed as the 

Confederated Tribes of the Siletz 

Reservation) 

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 

Reservation, Oregon 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs Reservation of Oregon 

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the 

Yakama Nation, Washington 

Coquille Tribe of Oregon 

Cortina Indian Rancheria of Wintun 

Indians of California 

Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES