36500 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Notices 

Form No. 

Burden 

estimate 

per form 

(in minutes) 

Annual 

number of 

respondents 

Annual burden 

on 

respondents 

(in hours) 

7–2534 (Part I, Managing Partners) ............................................................................................ 30 167 84 

7–2535 (Part II, Concessionaires) ............................................................................................... 30 115 58 

Total burden hours ............................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ 142 

Comments: 

Reclamation invites your comments 

on: 

(a) Whether the proposed collection of 

information is necessary for the proper 

performance of our functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical use; 

(b) the accuracy of our burden 

estimate for 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 of 

the information collection on 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

An agency 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. Reclamation will 

display a valid OMB control number on 

Forms 7–2534 and 7–2535, OMB 

Control Number: 1006–0002. 

A Federal Register notice with a 60- 

day comment period soliciting 

comments on this collection of 

information was published in the 

Federal Register (74 FR 9634, March 5, 

2009). No public comments were 

received. 

OMB has up to 60 days to approve or 

disapprove this information collection, 

but may respond after 30 days; 

therefore, public comment should be 

submitted to OMB within 30 days in 

order to assure maximum consideration. 

Before including your address, 

telephone 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. 

Roseann Gonzales, 

Director, Policy and Program Services, Denver 

Office. 

[FR Doc. E9–17563 Filed 7–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R5–R–2008–N0189; BAC–4311–K9– 

S3] 

Rappahannock River Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge, Caroline, Essex, King 

George, Lancaster, Middlesex, 

Richmond, and Westmoreland 

Counties, VA 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft 

comprehensive conservation plan and 

environmental assessment; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce the 

availability of the draft comprehensive 

conservation plan (CCP) and draft 

environmental assessment (EA) for 

Rappahannock River Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge (NWR) for a 30-day 

public review and comment period. In 

this draft CCP/EA, we describe three 

alternatives, including our Servicepreferred Alternative B, for managing 

this refuge for the next 15 years. Also 

available for public review and 

comment are the draft compatibility 

determinations, which are included as 

Appendix B in the draft CCP/EA. 

DATES: To ensure our consideration of 

your written comments, we must 

receive them by August 24, 2009. We 

will also hold public meetings in 

Warsaw and Richmond, Virginia, during 

the 30-day review period to receive 

comments and provide information on 

the draft plan. We will announce and 

post details about public meetings in 

local news media, via our project 

mailing list, and on our regional 

planning Web site, http://www.fws.gov/ 

northeast/planning/rappahannock/ 

ccphome.html. 

ADDRESSES: Send your comments or 

requests for copies of the draft CCP/EA 

by any of the following methods. You 

may also drop off comments in person 

at Rappahannock River Valley NWR 

headquarters, located at 336 Wilna Road 

in Warsaw, Virginia. 

U.S. Mail: Nancy McGarigal, Natural 

Resource Planner, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 300 Westgate Center 

Drive, Hadley, Massachusetts 01035. 

Fax: Attention: Nancy McGarigal, 

413–253–8468. 

E-mail: northeastplanning@fws.gov. 

Include ‘‘Rappahannock NWR CCP’’ in 

the subject line of your e-mail. 

Agency Web site: View or download 

the draft document at http:// 

www.fws.gov/northeast/planning/ 

Rappahannock.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph McCauley, Project Leader, 

Eastern Virginia Rivers NWR Complex, 

336 Wilna Road, P.O. Box 1030, 

Warsaw, VA 22572–1030; (804) 333– 

1470 (phone); 804–333–3396 (fax); 

fw5rw_evrnwr@fws.gov (e-mail). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

With this notice, we continue the CCP 

process for Rappahannock River Valley 

NWR, which was started with the notice 

of intent we published in the Federal 

Register (70 FR 65931) on November 1, 

2005. We prepared the draft CCP in 

compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and 

the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966, as amended 

by the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997. This refuge is 

the newest of the four refuges that 

comprise the Eastern Virginia Rivers 

NWR Complex. The other three are the 

James River, Plum Tree Island, and 

Presquile NWRs. 

Rappahannock River Valley NWR, 

currently 7,711 acres, was established in 

1996 to conserve and protect fish and 

wildlife resources, including 

endangered and threatened species, and 

wetlands. Refuge habitats include 

freshwater tidal marsh, forested swamp, 

upland deciduous forest, mixed pine 

forest, and managed grassland. Two 

Federally listed species are found on the 

refuge, the endangered shortnose 

sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) and 

threatened Sensitive joint-vetch 

(Aeschynomene virginica). The State of 

Virginia’s largest wintering population 

of bald eagles is located within the 

refuge boundary. Neotropical migratory 

songbirds, shorebirds, raptors, and 

marsh birds also rely on the 

Rappahannock River corridor during 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Notices 36501 

their spring and fall migrations. With 

help from partners and volunteers, we 

are restoring native grasslands and 

riparian forests along the river and its 

tributary streams to provide additional 

habitat for these important species. 

Although wildlife and habitat 

conservation is the refuge’s first priority, 

the public can observe and photograph 

wildlife, fish, hunt, or participate in 

environmental education and 

interpretation on several units of the 

refuge. The refuge contains three sites 

on the Virginia Birding and Wildlife 

Trail. The Wilna Unit, located in 

Richmond County, offers accessible 

fishing, excellent wildlife observation 

opportunities, and accessible nature 

trails. Other units of the refuge are open 

for visits by reservation. 

Background 

The CCP Process 

The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 (16 U.S.C. 

668dd–668ee) (Improvement Act), 

which amended the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 

1966, requires us to develop a CCP for 

each national wildlife refuge. The 

purpose for developing CCPs is to 

provide refuge managers with 15-year 

plans for achieving refuge purposes and 

the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, in conformance 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 and photography, 

and environmental education and 

interpretation. We will review and 

update each CCP at least every 15 years, 

in accordance with the Improvement 

Act. 

Public Outreach 

In conjunction with our November 

2005, Federal Register notice 

announcing our intent to begin the CCP 

process, we distributed a newsletter to 

more than 300 State agencies, 

organizations, and individuals on our 

project mailing list, asking about their 

interest in the refuge and whether they 

had issues or concerns they would like 

us to address. We distributed another 

newsletter in December 2005, providing 

more detailed information on the refuge 

and the planning process. In that 

newsletter, we also asked people to 

share their vision for the future of the 

refuge and provide us with feedback or 

comments on its management. Also in 

December 2005, we held three public 

scoping meetings, in Richmond, Port 

Royal, and Warsaw, Virginia. We asked 

those who attended to identify issues 

and concerns they would like us to 

address and to comment on the draft 

vision, goals and objectives we had at 

that time. Forty-five people attended 

those meetings. In 2006, we sponsored 

a survey of 1,200 local residents, 

randomly selected, asking specific 

questions about their recreation on the 

Rappahannock River, their preferences 

for future wildlife-dependent recreation 

on the refuge, and whether they knew 

about refuge opportunities. Throughout 

the process, we have conducted 

additional outreach via newsletters and 

participation in meetings, community 

events and other public forums, and 

continued to request public input on 

refuge management and programs. 

Some of the key issues identified 

include the amount of grassland to 

manage, other priority habitat types to 

conserve, land protection and 

conservation priorities, improving the 

visibility of the Service and refuge, 

providing desired facilities and 

activities, and ways to improve 

opportunities for public use while 

ensuring the restoration and protection 

of priority resources. 

CCP Actions We Are Considering, 

Including the Service-Preferred 

Alternative 

We developed three management 

alternatives based on the purposes for 

establishing the refuge, its vision and 

goals, and the issues and concerns the 

public, State agencies, and the Service 

identified during the planning process. 

The alternatives have some actions in 

common, such as protecting and 

monitoring Federally listed species and 

the regionally significant bald eagle 

population, controlling invasive plants 

and wildlife diseases, encouraging 

research that benefits our resource 

decisions, protecting cultural resources, 

continuing to acquire land from willing 

sellers within our approved refuge 

boundary, and distributing refuge 

revenue sharing payments to counties. 

Other actions distinguish the 

alternatives. The draft CCP/EA describes 

the alternatives in detail, and relates 

them to the issues and concerns we 

identified. Highlights follow. 

Alternative A (Current Management) 

This alternative is the ‘‘No Action’’ 

alternative required by the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4347, as amended). 

Alternative A defines our current 

management activities, and serves as the 

baseline against which to compare the 

other alternatives. Our habitat 

management focus on the 700 acres of 

grasslands and old fields would 

continue, and we would continue to use 

tools such as prescribed fire, mowing, 

herbicides and disking to keep them in 

an early stage of succession and increase 

plant diversity. We intend to phase out 

our cooperative farming program on 

another 200 acres over the next 5 years 

and convert to grasslands. We would 

continue to monitor our forests and 

wetlands for invasive plants and 

disease, and treat them if we have 

available funding and staffing. Our 

biological monitoring and inventory 

program would continue at its current 

levels, focusing on surveys of breeding 

and wintering birds. 

Our visitor services programs would 

not change; we would conduct most of 

the activities on the Wilna Unit. The 

Wilna Unit is the only refuge unit open 

7 days a week, from sunrise to sunset. 

The other units are open by reservation 

only. Wildlife observation and 

photography, white-tailed deer hunting, 

and fishing are the most popular 

activities. Our staffing and facilities 

would remain the same. Seven staff 

positions for the refuge complex would 

remain in place, and the headquarters 

would remain at the historic Wilna 

House. 

Alternative B (Enhanced Habitat 

Diversity and the Service-Preferred 

Alternative) 

This alternative is the one we propose 

as the best way to manage this refuge 

over the next 15 years. It includes an 

array of management actions that, in our 

professional judgment, works best 

toward achieving the refuge purposes, 

our vision and goals, and the goals of 

other State and regional conservation 

plans. We also believe it most 

effectively addresses the key issues 

raised during the planning process. 

Our habitat management program 

would expand to include up to 1,200 

acres of managed grasslands and old 

fields, primarily through new 

acquisitions from willing sellers within 

our approved refuge boundary. We 

would use all the tools identified under 

Alternative A. We would also phase out 

our cooperative farming program within 

5 years and convert it to grasslands, 

although we may maintain a minimal 

number of acres if we determine it 

would be useful in our interpretation 

program, or would provide benefits for 

other programs. We would manage our 

existing planted pine stands through 

thinning, to facilitate their growth into 

a healthy, mature, mixed forest. As in 

Alternative A, we would continue to 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
36502 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 140 / Thursday, July 23, 2009 / Notices 

monitor our forests and wetlands for 

invasive plants and disease, and treat 

them to the extent our funding allows. 

Protecting and enhancing riparian and 

wetlands habitat would be a priority. 

We would also continue our monitoring 

and inventory program, but regularly 

evaluate the results to help us better 

understand the implications of our 

management actions and identify ways 

to improve their effectiveness. 

We would expand opportunities for 

all six priority public uses. We would 

seek partnerships to help us achieve any 

new or expanded programs, including 

interpretive trails construction, adding a 

self-guided canoe trail, and leading 

environmental education programs 

using the refuge as a living laboratory. 

We plan to further evaluate 

opportunities for waterfowl and turkey 

hunting. We would also improve and 

expand access for freshwater fishing. If 

we can secure permanent funding, we 

would fill up to four new staff positions 

to provide depth to our programs and 

achieve our goals and objectives. We 

also propose to construct a new, 

Service-standard small refuge 

headquarters and visitor contact facility 

on the Hutchinson tract to increase our 

visibility and improve public access to 

refuge land. 

Alternative C (Forest Management 

Emphasis) 

This alternative resembles Alternative 

B in its refuge administration, facilities, 

and visitor services programs, but 

differs in its habitat management. 

Under Alternative C, we would allow 

grasslands, old fields, and croplands to 

revert to shrub and forest, 

supplementing that process with such 

activities as plantings, applying 

herbicides, and cutting or brush-hogging 

(mowing) as necessary to achieve the 

desired results. As in Alternative B, we 

would protect and enhance riparian and 

wetlands habitats as a priority. We also 

propose to manage our existing planted 

pine stands as in Alternative B, and 

continue to monitor our forests and 

wetlands for invasive plants and disease 

and treat them to the extent funding 

allows. Protecting and enhancing 

riparian and wetland habitats would 

also be a priority. Compared to 

Alternative B, we would conduct a more 

intensive, focused monitoring and 

inventory program designed to address 

more specific questions about habitat 

quality and the response of wildlife 

populations. In the near term, 

monitoring would be aimed specifically 

at documenting the transition from 

grasslands, old fields, and croplands to 

shrub and young forest. Under 

Alternative C, our public use programs 

would be similar to those proposed 

under Alternative B, including our 

plans to pursue a new headquarters and 

visitor contact facility. 

Public Meetings 

We will give the public opportunities 

to provide input at two public meetings 

in Warsaw and Richmond, Virginia. You 

can obtain the schedule from the project 

leader or natural resource planner (see 

ADDRESSES or FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT, above). You may also submit 

comments at any time during the 

planning process by any means shown 

in the ADDRESSES section. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comments, 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: May 8, 2009. 

Wendi Weber, 

Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Hadley, MA 01035. 

[FR Doc. E9–17546 Filed 7–22–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

[FWS–R1–ES–2009–N123; 14420–1115– 

1SGR–A2] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Permit Application; Greater 

Sage-Grouse; Washington, Adams, 

Gem, and Payette Counties, Idaho 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Receipt of application for 

enhancement of survival permit; notice 

of availability of programmatic 

candidate conservation agreement with 

assurances and draft environmental 

assessment. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce 

receipt of an application for an 

enhancement of survival permit (permit) 

under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (ESA). The permit application 

includes a proposed programmatic 

candidate conservation agreement with 

assurances (CCAA) for the Greater sage 

grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus; 

hereafter, sage-grouse) between us and 

the Idaho Department of Fish and Game 

(IDFG). The term of the proposed CCAA 

is 30 years, and the requested term of 

the permit is 30 years. Consistent with 

the requirements of the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA), we have prepared a draft 

environmental assessment (EA) of the 

impacts of the proposed CCAA and 

permit application. We are accepting 

comments on the application, the 

proposed CCAA, and the draft EA. 

DATES: We will consider comments we 

receive on or before August 24, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Address any written 

comments concerning this notice to 

Kendra Womack, Idaho Fish and 

Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 1387 S Vinnell Way, Room 368, 

Boise, ID 83709. Alternatively, fax 

written comments to 208–378–5262, or 

e-mail comments to 

fw1srbocomment@fws.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kendra Womack, 208–378–5243. If you 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD), you may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Document Availability 

Copies of the permit application, the 

draft CCAA, and the draft EA are 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, at the Idaho Fish and 

Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES), or you 

may view them on the Internet at 

http://www.fws.gov/idaho. We furnish 

this notice to provide the public, other 

State and Federal agencies, and 

interested Tribes an opportunity to 

review and comment on the draft 

CCAA, permit application, and draft EA. 

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. 

Background 

Candidate Conservation Agreements 

with Assurances encourage non-Federal 

property owners to implement 

conservation efforts for candidate or atrisk species by assuring property owners 

they will not be subjected to increased 

property use restrictions if the covered 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES