36248 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 

Comment: Twenty-five percent 

decline is too large of an interval to 

serve as a trigger mechanism for review. 

Response: The goal of the Plan is to 

detect a 25-percent or greater change in 

occupied bald eagle nests over any 

period, measured at 5–year intervals 

based on an 80 percent chance of 

detecting such a change. We believe this 

is a goal that both ensures continued 

recovery under the ESA and is costeffective. If a 25-percent decline is 

detected, it means a reduction to a level 

still recognized as recovered under the 

ESA. If such declines are detected, we, 

in conjunction with the States, will 

investigate causes of those declines. At 

the end of the 20–year monitoring 

program, we will coordinate with States 

and our other partners to conduct a final 

review and provide recommendations to 

ensure a properly managed population 

of the recovered bald eagle. 

Comment: Implementation involves 

potential sampling bias due to variable 

observer experience and familiarity with 

nesting territories. 

Response: We have structured 

training, pre-survey preparation, and 

survey protocols to minimize potential 

sampling bias. Though experienced bald 

eagle observers may be familiar with 

specific nests, pilot studies showed that 

the observers were able to change 

mindsets from ‘‘searching habitat’’ in 

Area plots to ‘‘determining the status of 

specific known list nests’’ in List plots, 

without issue. Using the dual-observer 

method to determine individual 

detection probabilities for observers will 

help account for differences in observer 

experience. In planning Area plots 

survey routes, observers will be given 

maps that show habitat, but not the 

location of nests, allowing survey route 

planning to be based on habitat 

characteristics. 

Comment: Conducting a large-scale 

monitoring project every 5 years could 

create staffing problems. 

Response: Staffing will require open 

and clear communication among the 

States, tribes, and the Service. If State 

staff are not available for surveys, we 

will draw upon local Service offices, 

tribal biologists, retired Service and 

State employees, and experienced 

volunteers to fill in as observers. 

Comment: There is a lack of a 

comprehensive monitoring program for 

environmental contaminants. 

Response: We worked with the U.S. 

Geological Survey to develop a 

searchable database/library dedicated to 

contaminants investigations of bald 

eagle, osprey, and peregrine falcons. 

The objective was to create a readily 

available source of information to 

consider should the bald eagle (or 

peregrine) population decline. This 

database provides biologists an 

overview of the most recent findings of 

contaminant effects on these species. If 

additional studies are needed during 

post-delisting monitoring, the database 

will clarify what has been studied and 

what has not. 

Comment: The phrase ‘‘broad 

geographic areas’’ in the section on 

Habitat implies that the analysis of 

survey data may be accomplished on 

something less than a rangewide scale. 

Response: This is correct. If trends in 

nest occupancy significantly decline 

over broad geographic areas, whether 

rangewide or more regionally, we will 

investigate a change in available nesting 

habitat as a possible cause and take 

appropriate actions, as feasible. 

Comment: Customized parameters 

may be required in certain local 

situations. 

Response: We agree and have 

modified the Plan accordingly. 

Comment: The definition of bald eagle 

habitat in the Plan, especially the size 

of water bodies required, may not be 

appropriate for some geographic 

regions, especially the Southwest. 

Response: We modified the Plan to 

reflect that local conditions may warrant 

modifications to the habitat being 

considered. Input from local eagle 

biologists will be necessary in these 

unique or localized conditions. 

Comment: Surveys based on Bird 

Conservation Regions (BCRs) will not 

work in some States (e.g., eagle 

distribution is linear and follows major 

waterways which cross multiple BCRs). 

Response: We recognize some of the 

limitations of this approach, but still 

maintain it is the most appropriate for 

application across broad geographic 

areas. We will work with local biologists 

to further refine the stratification on a 

local level. 

Comment: The boundary between the 

Northern Pacific Rainforest BCR and the 

Great Basin BCR, although correctly 

mapped in the Plan, is an incorrect 

depiction of the margin between the two 

ecoregions. This has resulted in 

inappropriate numbers being used in 

calculations of nests in the BCR tables 

in the Plan. 

Response: We have modified this 

portion of the Plan to reflect that we 

will work with local biologists and 

others to further refine the BCR 

boundaries to more accurately reflect 

habitat groupings and, as appropriate, 

modify calculations of nests and nest 

densities per BCR. 

We again invite comments concerning 

this information collection on: 

(1) Whether or not the collection of 

information is necessary, including 

whether or not the information will 

have practical utility; 

(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the 

burden for this collection of 

information; 

(3) Ways to enhance the quality, 

utility, and clarity of the information to 

be collected; and 

(4) Ways to minimize the burden of 

the collection of information on 

respondents. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this notice are a matter of 

public record. 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 OMB in your comment to 

withhold your personal identifying 

information from public review, we 

cannot guarantee that it will be done. 

Dated: June 23, 2009 

Hope Grey, 

Information Collection Clearance Officer, 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

FR Doc. E9–17387 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

U.S. Geological Survey 

Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Comment Request 

AGENCY: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of an extension of an 

information collection (1028–0082). 

SUMMARY: To comply with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(PRA), we are notifying the public that 

we have submitted to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) an 

information collection request (ICR) for 

the extension of the currently approved 

paperwork requirements for Bird 

Banding and Recovery Reports. This 

collection consists of two forms 

(Application for Federal Bird Banding 

or Marking Permit and Reporting 

Encounter of Marked Bird with a Metal 

Federal Band (Recovery Report) and an 

electronic database (Bandit). We may 

not conduct or sponsor and a person is 

not required to respond to a collection 

of information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number. 

DATES: You must submit comments on 

or before August 21, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Please submit written 

comments on this information 

collection directly to the Office of 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 22, 2009 / Notices 36249 

Management and Budget (OMB) Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attention: Desk Officer for the 

Department of the Interior via e-mail to 

OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or fax at 

202–395–5806; and identify your 

submission as 1028–1082. Please also 

submit a copy of your written comments 

to Phadrea Ponds, USGS Information 

Collection Clearance Officer, 2150–C 

Center Avenue, Fort Collins, CO 80525 

(mail); (970) 226–9230 (fax); or 

pponds@usgs.gov (e-mail). Use OMB 

Control Number 1028–0082 in the 

subject line. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bruce Peterjohn by mail at USGS 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 

12100 Beech Forest Rd., Laurel, MD 

20708, or by telephone at (301) 497– 

5646. 

I. Supplementary Information 

Abstract: The primary role of the Bird 

Banding Laboratory (BBL) is to support 

the use of bird banding and banding 

data by researchers and managers 

engaged in science, conservation, and 

management of birds. The BBL collects 

information using two forms and one 

electronic database: (1) Application for 

Federal Bird Banding or Marking 

Permit, (2) Reporting Encounter of 

Marked Bird with a Metal Federal Band 

(Recovery Report), and (3) Bandit. 

Application for Federal Bird Banding or 

Marking Permit is used to identify 

individuals and evaluate their purpose, 

need, and qualifications to hold a 

permit. The Recovery Report is used by 

individuals that encounter a banded 

bird to report the information to the 

banding lab. All of the information on 

the bird and the person reporting the 

bird are stored in the Bandit database. 

Bandit is an electronic database and is 

the latest in a long series of programs 

aimed at helping bird banders manage 

and submit their data for any number of 

banded birds. The principal use of 

Bandit is to store and transfer banding 

data to the BBL and the Canadian Bird 

Banding Office (BBO) during bird 

banding operations. 

II. Data 

OMB Control Number: 1028–0082. 

Title: Bird Banding and Recovery 

Reports. 

Type of Request: Extension of a 

currently approved collection. 

Respondent Obligation: The Recovery 

Report is voluntary. The Permit 

Application and Bandit are required to 

obtain or retain benefits. 

Frequency of Collection: On occasion. 

Affected Public: Individuals, 

businesses, universities, organizations, 

and States. 

Estimated Number of Responses: 

89,378. 

Annual Burden Hours: 28,048 (275 for 

applications; 4,250 for recovery reports; 

and 23,523 for Bandit). 

Estimated Reporting and 

Recordkeeping ‘‘Non-Hour Cost’’ 

Burden: We have not identified any 

‘‘non-hour cost’’ burdens associated 

with this collection of information. 

III. Request for Comments 

On February 6, 2009, we published a 

Federal Register notice (74 FR 6304) 

announcing that we would submit this 

ICR to OMB for approval and soliciting 

comments. The comment period closed 

on April 7, 2009. We did not receive any 

comments in response to that notice. 

We again invite comments concerning 

this ICR on: (a) Whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the agency to perform its duties, 

including whether the information is 

useful; (b) the accuracy of the agency’s 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collection of information; (c) ways to 

enhance the quality, usefulness, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the 

burden on the respondents, including 

the use of automated collection 

techniques or other forms of information 

technology. 

Comments that you submit in 

response to this notice are a matter of 

public record. 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 anytime. 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. 

USGS Information Collection 

Clearance Officer: Phadrea Ponds, 970– 

226–9445. 

Dated: July 14, 2009. 

Susan D. Haseltine, 

Associate Director for Biology, U.S. Geological 

Survey. 

[FR Doc. E9–17370 Filed 7–21–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4311–AM–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R1–R–2009–N110]; [1265–0000– 

10137–S3] 

Guam National Wildlife Refuge, Yigo, 

Guam 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability: draft 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment; notification 

of open house meetings; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of our draft comprehensive 

conservation plan and environmental 

assessment (Draft CCP/EA) for the Guam 

National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) for 

public review and comment. It describes 

our proposal for managing the Refuge 

for the next 15 years. In the Draft CCP/ 

EA we describe alternatives, including 

our preferred alternative, to manage the 

Refuge for the 15 years following 

approval of the final CCP. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, we 

need to receive your written comments 

by August 24, 2009. 

We will hold two public meetings; see 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for details. 

ADDRESSES: Additional information 

concerning the Refuge can be found on 

the Internet at http://www.fws.gov/ 

guam/. You may submit comments, 

requests for more information, or 

request for copies of the Draft CCP/EA 

by any of the following methods. 

E-mail: 

FW1PlanningComments@fws.gov. 

Include ‘‘Guam Refuge’’ in the subject 

line of the message. 

Fax: Attn: Project Leader, (671) 335– 

5098. 

U.S. Mail: Project Leader, Guam 

National Wildlife Refuge, P.O. Box 

8134, MOU–3, Dededo, Guam 96912. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Project Leader, (671) 355–5096. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

The unincorporated U.S. territory of 

Guahan (Guam) is the largest and 

southernmost island in the Marianas 

Archipelago, a chain of volcanic islands 

in Micronesia. Guahan Island is situated 

in the western Pacific Ocean, 

approximately 3,800 miles west of 

Honolulu and 1,500 miles south of 

Tokyo. The Refuge was established in 

1993. It is comprised of three units: The 

Andersen Air Force Base Overlay 

Refuge Unit, the Navy Overlay Refuge 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES