22958 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Notices 

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. 

Permit TE–212451 

Applicant: Peter Ortiz, Houston, 

Texas. 

Applicant requests a new permit for 

research and recovery purposes to 

conduct presence/absence surveys for 

the following species: Houston toad 

(Bufo hustonensis), Monito gecko 

(Sphaerodactylus micropithecus), green 

sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill 

sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate), 

leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys 

coriacea), Puerto Rican boa (Epicrates 

inornatus), Virgin Island tree boa 

(Epicrates monensis granti), blackcapped vireo (Vireo atricapillus), 

golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica 

chrysoparia), brown pelican (Pelecanus 

occidentalis), interior least tern (Sterna 

antillarum), Roseate tern (sterna 

dougalii dougalii), whooping crane 

(Grus Americana), Mississippi sandhill 

crane (Grus canadensis pulla), redcockaded woodpecker (Picoides 

borealis), Puerto Rican sharp-shinned 

hawk (Accipiter striatus venator), Puerto 

Rican plain pigeon (Columbia inornata 

wetmorei), Puerto Rican nightjar 

(Caprimulgus noctitherus), yellowshouldered blackbird (Agelaius 

xanthomus xanthomus), Attwater’s 

greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus 

cupido attwateri), California condor 

(Gymnogyps californiananus), masked 

bobwhite (Colinus virgianus ridgwayi), 

northern aplomado falcon (Falco 

femoralis septentrionalis), southwestern 

willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii 

extimus), Yuma clapper rail (Rallus 

longirostris yumanensis), Cape Sable 

seaside sparrow (Ammodramus 

maritimus mirabilis), Everglade snail 

kite (Ammodramus svannarum 

floridanus), and wood stork (Mycteria 

Americana) throughout the entire range 

of these species within the jurisdiction 

of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

specifically the Southwest and 

Southeast Regions. 

Permit TE–212896 

Applicant: University of Florida, 

Gainesville, Florida. 

Applicant requests a new permit for 

research and recovery purposes to 

conduct presence/absence surveys for 

humpback chub (Gila cypha) within 

Arizona. 

Permit TE–213424 

Applicant: Jonah Evans, Boerne, Texas. 

Applicant requests a new permit for 

research and recovery purposes to 

conduct presence/absence surveys of 

black-capped vireo (Vireo atricapillus) 

and golden-cheeked warbler (Dendroica 

chrysoparia) within Texas. 

Permit TE–006655 

Applicant: Logan Simpson Design, 

Tempe, Arizona. 

Applicant requests an amendment to 

a current permit for research and 

recovery purposes to conduct presence/ 

absence surveys of southwestern willow 

flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) 

within Utah. 

Permit TE–144755 

Applicant: Reagan Smith Energy 

Solutions, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. 

Applicant requests an amendment to 

a current permit for research and 

recovery purposes to conduct presence/ 

absence surveys of red-cockaded 

woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) within 

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama, 

Mississippi, Kentucky, Florida, South 

Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma, Virginia, 

North Carolina, and Tennessee. 

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. 

Dated: May 6, 2009. 

Thomas L. Bauer, 

Acting Regional Director, Southwest Region, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–11372 Filed 5–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Notice of Availability of a Finding of No 

Significant Impact for the Wireless 

Telecommunication Plan/ 

Environmental Assessment; Rock 

Creek Park, Washington, DC 

AGENCY: Department of the Interior, 

National Park Service. 

ACTION: Notice of Availability of a 

Finding of No Significant Impact for the 

Wireless Telecommunication Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, Rock Creek 

Park, Washington, DC. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 

U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), and to 40 CFR 

1501.4(e), the National Park Service 

(NPS) has prepared, and hereby 

announces the availability of a Notice of 

Availability of a Finding of No 

Significant Impact (FONSI) for the 

Wireless Telecommunication Plan and 

Environmental Assessment, Rock Creek 

Park, Washington, DC. The plan will 

provide all administered units of Rock 

Creek Park with a consistent framework 

for protecting park resources during the 

consideration of ‘‘right-of-way permit’’ 

applications and other inquiries 

submitted to the park for the 

construction, operation, and 

maintenance of wireless 

telecommunication facilities (WTF). 

The FONSI includes a project 

background, a description of the 

relevant legal authorities impacting the 

Wireless Telecommunications Plan, a 

description of the selected alternative, a 

synopsis of other alternatives 

considered, a description of the 

environmentally preferable alternative, 

a discussion of why the selected 

alternative will not have a significant 

impact on the human environment, how 

it will not impair park resources or 

values, and a description of public 

involvement in the planning process. 

Pursuant to NPS policy, it also includes 

as attachments responses to public 

comments and errata sheets 

DATES: The FONSI is dated January 29, 

2009, and it is available on the Planning 

Environment and Public Comment 

(PEPC) Web site at http:// 

www.parkplanning.nps.gov/rocr. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the FONSI can be 

requested in person at Rock Creek Park, 

3545 Williamsburg Lane, NW., 

Washington, DC 20008, or by phone 

(202) 895–6000. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adrienne Applewhaite-Coleman, 

Superintendent, Rock Creek Park: 3545 

Williamsburg Lane, NW., Washington, 

DC 20008; (202) 895–6004; or by e-mail: 

Adrienne_ApplewhaiteColeman@nps.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

FONSI summarizes one selected 

alternative that meets the goals of both 

the preferred alternative and the 

preferred environmental alternative for 

siting WTF within Rock Creek Park. The 

document also describes the other 

alternatives, but does not provide an 

analysis. The alternatives analysis can 

be found in the Wireless 

Telecommunication Plan and 

Environmental Assessment. The 

selected alternative outlined in the 

FONSI will guide the future siting, 

building and permitting of WTF in Rock 

Creek Park. The NPS decided to develop 

this Plan in its 2003 FONSI on the 2003 

Environmental Assessment of the park’s 

existing WTF, which resulted from 

litigation about those WTF. 

Selected Alternative 

Under the selected alternative, the 

park has identified areas where coverage 

gaps for wireless telecommunication 

service exist and encourages applicants 

to site facilities in these areas provided 

no conflicts with the park mission and 

planned uses exist. In these areas, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 93 / Friday, May 15, 2009 / Notices 22959 

permit terms and conditions are 

included to ensure protection of 

sensitive resources. These areas are 

located mainly along Beach Drive in the 

main unit of Rock Creek Park. If 

applications for WTF right-of-way 

permits are received for outside the area 

identified as having a coverage gap, the 

selected alternative identifies zones or 

areas of the park where WTF may not 

be allowed, and identifies zones or areas 

where they may be considered an 

appropriate use. In the potential 

locations, applications to construct and 

operate WTF would also be subject to 

permit terms and conditions specific to 

that area or zone. Consideration of WTF 

and permit terms and conditions will be 

based on the General Management Plan 

or the individual management 

document for each park unit in Rock 

Creek Park, as applicable, and will 

include elements such as the design and 

location requirements for a proposed 

facility in a particular location. 

The selected alternative also includes 

elements identified in the Wireless 

Telecommunications Plan and 

Environmental Assessment as common 

to the action alternatives and in some 

instances to the no-action alternative as 

well. 

These are that: 

• All applications are subject to 

compliance with the applicable laws, 

regulations, policies, and guidelines 

outlined in ‘‘Chapter 1: Purpose of and 

Need for Action.’’ 

• Co-location on the two existing 

monopoles will be handled as in the 

current permit for WTF in Rock Creek 

Park. 

• Areas that lack in-car coverage are 

considered to have a coverage gap. 

• All associated cables for WTF 

(electrical, telephone, and fiber optic) 

cannot be above ground. 

• No fencing is permitted around 

WTF and their associated structures. 

• Applications must include an 

analysis of locations outside the park 

that could provide similar levels of 

service, if available. 

• Only WTF using the newest 

technology will be considered, 

following the intent of all applicable 

authorities to facilitate the build out of 

new WTF service, and conforming to 

the NPS Management Policies 2006 

direction to require the ‘‘best technology 

available.’’ 

• WTF will not be considered in 

certain areas of the park because of 

desired conditions stated in the park’s 

General Management Plan and other 

applicable management documents, 

which is provided for by the applicable 

authorities. 

• Applicants are required to conform 

to the physical requirements for WTF 

facilities, such as height and lighting, 

directed by applicable authorities. 

Finally, as a result of a recent 

suggestion by U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service for future study on the effects of 

WTF radiation on birds, a topic upon 

which there is no U.S. field data, the 

National Park Service will seek funding 

and work with U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service to develop such a study, the 

results of which will be considered 

when available. 

Other Alternatives Considered 

The Wireless Telecommunications 

Plan/Environmental Assessment 

evaluated two other alternatives: 

Alternative A—No-Action Alternative: 

Under the No-Action alternative, rightof-way permit applications for WTF 

within any unit of Rock Creek Park 

would continue to be evaluated by the 

National Park Service in accordance 

with applicable authorities and RM–53. 

Requests for WTF siting in all areas of 

the park would be reviewed in the 

context of the General Management Plan 

or the individual management 

document for each park unit within 

Rock Creek Park to determine if WTF 

siting would be acceptable in the 

requested area of the park. WTF 

applications would continue to be 

considered without a more structured 

process or plan for the evaluation of 

such requests than is currently in place. 

This alternative was not selected 

because it fails to provide a foundation 

for decision-making regarding the 

issuance of right-of-way permits, fails to 

establish criteria or identify areas where 

WTF would or would not be appropriate 

and fails to identify conditions under 

which WTF would be permitted. 

Alternative B—Zone Management: 

Under Alternative B applications would 

be reviewed and evaluated for WTF 

following RM–53, as described under 

the no-action alternative. Alternative B 

would add additional considerations to 

the process by identifying zones or areas 

of the park where WTF may not be 

allowed or where they would be 

considered an appropriate use based on 

the General Management Plan or the 

management documents for each park 

unit within Rock Creek Park. These 

permit terms and conditions are shown 

in Table 1, and are also included in the 

selected alternative, Alternative C. In 

areas where a WTF may be considered 

appropriate, applications for a right-ofway permit to construct and operate a 

WTF could be sited and would be 

subject to certain permit terms and 

conditions specific to the area or zone 

proposed for the facility. This 

alternative was not selected because it 

does not best address how in-car 

coverage gaps will be addressed. 

Both of these alternatives would 

result in a less efficient use of National 

Park Service time and staff than the 

selected alternative. 

Dated: April 22, 2009. 

Margaret O’Dell. 

Regional Director, National Capital Region. 

[FR Doc. E9–11376 Filed 5–14–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

General Management Plan/ 

Environmental Assessment, Carter G. 

Woodson Home National Historic Site, 

District of Columbia 

AGENCY: National Park Service, 

Department of the Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent to Prepare an 

Environmental Assessment for the 

General Management Plan, Carter G. 

Woodson Home National Historic Site. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the 

National Environmental Policy Act, the 

National Park Service (NPS) is preparing 

an Environmental Assessment (EA) for 

the General Management Plan (GMP) for 

Carter G. Woodson Home National 

Historic Site. The GMP will prescribe 

the resource conditions and visitor 

experiences that are to be achieved and 

maintained in the national historic site 

over the next 20 years. Based on 

determinations of desired conditions, 

the GMP will outline the kinds of 

resource management activities, visitor 

activities, land acquisition and 

development that would be appropriate 

in the park in the future. The 

responsible official for the EA is the 

Regional Director, National Capital 

Region. To date, the NPS has conducted 

two public scoping meetings. 

DATES: As part of the initial planning 

efforts, the NPS initiated public scoping 

for this project on October 2, 2008, with 

a public scoping meeting held at the 

93rd Annual Association for the Study 

of African American Life and History 

(ASALH) Convention in Birmingham, 

Alabama. An additional public scoping 

meeting was held in the District of 

Columbia on November 12, 2008. The 

NPS will continue public scoping for an 

additional 45 days from the date of 

publication of this notice in the Federal 

Register. 

ADDRESSES: There are two opportunities 

to formally comment on the project— 

during this public scoping period and 

again following release of the draft