53466 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 175 / Monday, September 11, 2006 / Notices 

Dated: August 25, 2006. 

Monica Farris, 

Senior Permit Biologist, Branch of Permits, 

Division of Management Authority. 

[FR Doc. E6–15007 Filed 9–8–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

[I.D.082906B] 

Notice of Intent to Conduct Public 

Scoping Meeting and Prepare an 

Environmental Document for the 

Stanford University Habitat 

Conservation Plan, Palo Alto, CA 

AGENCIES: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

(FWS), Interior; National Marine 

Fisheries Service, (NMFS), National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, (NOAA), Commerce. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service 

and National Marine Fisheries Service 

(Services) advise interested parties of 

their intent to conduct public scoping 

meeting under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

necessary to gather information to 

prepare an environmental assessment 

(EA) or environmental impact statement 

(EIS), (collectively referred to as 

‘‘environmental document’’). The 

Services anticipate permit applications 

from Stanford University (Stanford) 

submitted under the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA) for the incidental 

take of federally listed species. The 

permit applications would be associated 

with the Stanford University Habitat 

Conservation Plan (Plan) at Stanford in 

Palo Alto, CA. We provide this notice 

to: describe the proposed Plan and 

possible alternatives; advise other 

Federal and state agencies, affected 

Tribes, and the public of our intent to 

prepare an environmental document; 

announce the initiation of a public 

scoping period; obtain information to 

assist the Services in determining 

whether to write an EA or EIS; and 

obtain suggestions and information on 

the scope of issues to be included in the 

environmental document. 

DATES: A public meeting will be held on 

September 21, 2006, from 4 to 6 pm. 

Written comments should be received 

on or before October 11, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held on 

the Stanford Campus at Jordan Hall, 450 

Serra Mall, Building 420, Room 040, 

Stanford, CA. Written comments or 

questions relating to the preparation of 

an environmental document and the 

NEPA process should be addressed to: 

Ms. Lori Rinek, Chief, Conservation 

Planning and Recovery Division, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish 

and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, 

Room W–2605, Sacramento, CA 95825, 

facsimile 916–414–6713; Gary Stern, 

San Francisco Bay Region Team Leader, 

National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Santa Rosa Area Office, 777 Sonoma 

Avenue, Room 325, Santa Rosa, CA 

95404, facsimile 707–578–3435; or 

Stanford.HCP@NOAA.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sheila Larsen, Fish and Wildlife Service 

or Lori Rinek, Chief, Conservation 

Planning and Recovery Division, Fish 

and Wildlife Service, at the address 

shown above or at 916–414–6600, or 

Gary Stern, National Marine Fisheries 

Service, at the address shown or at 707–

575–6060. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1532 

et seq.) and implementing regulations 

prohibit the ‘‘taking’’ of fish and 

wildlife species listed as endangered or 

threatened . The term ‘‘take’’ is defined 

under the ESA to mean harass, harm, 

pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, 

capture, or collect, or to attempt to 

engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 

1532(19)). Harm is defined by the FWS 

to include significant habitat 

modification or degradation where it 

actually kills or injures wildlife by 

significantly impairing essential 

behavioral patterns, including breeding, 

feeding, and sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). 

NMFS’ definition of harm includes 

significant habitat modification or 

degradation where it actually kills or 

injures fish or wildlife by significantly 

impairing essential behavioral patterns, 

including breeding, feeding, spawning, 

migrating, rearing, and sheltering (64 FR 

60727, November 8, 1999). 

Section 10 of the ESA specifies 

requirements for the issuance of 

incidental take permits (permits) to nonFederal landowners for the take of 

endangered and threatened species. Any 

proposed take must be incidental to 

otherwise lawful activities, not 

appreciably reduce the likelihood of the 

survival and recovery of the species in 

the wild and minimize and mitigate the 

impacts of such take to the maximum 

extent practicable. In addition, an 

applicant must prepare a habitat 

conservation plan describing the impact 

that will likely result from such taking, 

the strategy for minimizing and 

mitigating the incidental take, the 

funding available to implement such 

steps, alternatives to such taking, and 

the reason such alternatives are not 

being implemented. To obtain a permit, 

the applicant must prepare a habitat 

conservation plan that meets the 

issuance criteria established by the 

Services (50 CFR 17.22(b)(2) and 

222.307). Should permits be issued, the 

permits would include assurances 

under the Services’ ‘‘No Surprises’’

regulations [50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 

17.32(b)(5)]. 

Currently, three federally listed 

species are proposed for coverage under 

the Plan, and one additional species that 

may be listed in the future is also 

proposed to be covered. The federally 

listed species are the threatened 

California red-legged frog (Rana aurora 

draytonii), California tiger salamander 

(Ambystoma californiense), and 

steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). The 

one unlisted species proposed for 

coverage is the western pond turtle 

(Clemmys marmorata). Species may be 

added or deleted during the course of 

Plan development based on further 

analysis. 

Proposed Plan 

Stanford is a major research 

university that owns 8,180 acres of 

contiguous land in northern Santa Clara 

County and southern San Mateo County. 

These lands consist of both developed 

and undeveloped areas. Most of the 

urban facilities, including academic 

buildings, housing, roads, pedestrian/ 

bicycle pathways, and recreational 

facilities are located in the central part 

of the campus. A generally undeveloped 

‘‘Academic Reserve’’ outside this core 

academic area is used for low intensity 

academic uses. Stanford maintains three 

open water reservoirs: Lagunita, Felt 

Lake, and Searsville. Some of Stanford’s 

lands are leased for interim nonacademic purposes. 

Activities proposed to be covered by 

the Plan (Covered Activities) are 

generally activities related to water 

management, academic uses, 

maintenance and construction of new 

urban infrastructure, recreational and 

athletic uses, campus management and 

maintenance, activities carried out by 

Stanford’s tenants and future 

development. 

The draft Plan to be prepared by 

Stanford in support of the permit 

applications will describe the impacts of 

take on proposed covered species, and 

will propose a conservation strategy to 

minimize and mitigate those impacts on 

each covered species to the maximum 

extent practicable. Components of a 


rwilkins on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 175 / Monday, September 11, 2006 / Notices 53467 

conservation program are now under 

consideration by the Services and 

Stanford. These components will likely 

include the following conservation 

strategy. Stanford has divided its 8,180 

acres into four zones according to their 

relative habitat value for the Covered 

Species. Zone 1 (approximately 1,150 

acres) supports, or provides critical 

resources for, one or more Covered 

Species. Zone 2 (approximately 1,260 

acres) is occasionally occupied by, or 

occasionally provides some of the 

resources used by, one or more Covered 

Species. Zone 3 (approximately 2,500 

acres) consists of generally undeveloped 

open space lands that have some 

biological value, but provide only 

limited and indirect benefit to the 

Covered Species. Zone 4 (approximately 

3,270 acres) consists of urbanized areas 

that do not provide any habitat value for 

any Covered Species. The draft Plan 

will identify alternatives considered by 

Stanford and will explain why those 

alternatives were not selected. 

To mitigate unavoidable impacts to 

proposed Covered Species from Covered 

Activities, the mitigation program will 

consist mainly of preserving large areas 

of the highest quality habitats and 

managing them for the benefit of the 

Covered Species. To ensure that 

mitigation precedes impacts, Stanford 

will designate several large preserve 

areas during the planning process and 

apply preservation ‘‘credits’’ against 

land development and related impacts 

over the course of the Plan. Stanford 

will also restore habitat values in certain 

areas in which habitat quality has been 

degraded over time through a variety of 

land uses. 

National Environmental Policy Act 

NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires 

that Federal agencies conduct an 

environmental analysis of their 

proposed actions to determine if the 

actions may significantly affect the 

human environment. To assist in 

determining whether this project would 

cause significant impacts that would 

result in the preparation of an EIS refer 

to 40 CFR 1508.27 or 40 CFR 1508.2. 

These sections provide information on 

how to determine whether effects are 

significant under NEPA and would 

therefore trigger the preparation of an 

EIS. Under NEPA, a reasonable range of 

alternatives to proposed projects is 

developed and considered in the 

Services environmental review. 

Alternatives considered for analysis in 

an environmental document may 

include: variations in the scope of 

covered activities; variations in the 

location, amount, and type of 

conservation; variations in permit 

duration; or, a combination of these 

elements. In addition, the 

environmental document will identify 

potentially significant direct, indirect, 

and cumulative impacts on biological 

resources, land use, air quality, water 

quality, water resources, and 

socioeconomics, as well as other 

environmental issues that could occur 

with the implementation of the 

proposed actions and alternatives. For 

all potentially significant impacts, the 

environmental document will identify 

avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation measures to reduce these 

impacts, where feasible, to a level below 

significance. 

The primary purpose of the scoping 

process is for the public to assist the 

Services in developing the EA or EIS by 

identifying important issues and 

alternatives related to the proposed 

action. The Services propose to serve as 

co-lead Federal agencies under NEPA 

for preparation of the environmental 

documents. Written comments from 

interested parties are welcome to ensure 

that the full range of issues related to 

the permit requests is identified. All 

comments and materials received, 

including names and addresses, will 

become part of the administrative record 

and may be released to the public. 

Comments and materials received will 

be available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours at the offices listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

The Services request that comments 

be specific. In particular, we request 

information regarding: the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative impacts that 

implementation of the proposed Plan 

could have on endangered and 

threatened and other covered species, 

and their communities and habitats; 

other possible alternatives that meet the 

purpose and need; potential adaptive 

management and/or monitoring 

provisions; funding issues; existing 

environmental conditions in the plan 

area; other plans or projects that might 

be relevant to this proposed project; and 

minimization and mitigation efforts. 

The environmental review of this 

project will be conducted in accordance 

with the requirements of the NEPA of 

1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 

seq.), Council on the Environmental 

Quality Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–

1508), other applicable Federal laws and 

regulations, and policies and procedures 

of the Services for compliance with 

those regulations. This notice is being 

furnished in accordance with 40 CFR 

1501.7 of NEPA to obtain suggestions 

and information from other agencies 

and the public on the scope of issues 

and alternatives to be addressed in the 

environmental document. 

Reasonable Accommodation 

Persons needing reasonable 

accommodations in order to attend and 

participate in the public meeting should 

contact Gary Stern at 707–575–6060 as 

soon as possible. In order to allow 

sufficient time to process requests, 

please call no later than one week before 

the public meeting. Information 

regarding this proposed action is 

available in alternative formats upon 

request. 

Dated: August 31, 2006. 

Paul Henson, 

Acting Deputy Manager, Fish and Wildlife 

Service, California/Nevada Operations Office. 

Dated: August 31, 2006. 

Angela Somma, 

Chief, Endangered Species Division, National 

Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected 

Resources. 

[FR Doc. 06–7572 Filed 9–8–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODES 4310–55–S, 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

National Park Service 

Notice of Inventory Completion: 

Kansas State University, Manhattan, 

KS 

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

Notice is here given in accordance 

with the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the 

completion of an inventory of human 

remains in the possession of Kansas 

State University, Manhattan, KS. The 

human remains were removed from 

McPherson and Rice Counties, KS. 

This notice is published as part of the 

National Park Service’s administrative 

responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 

U.S.C. 3003 (d)(3). The determinations 

in this notice are the sole responsibility 

of the museum, institution, or Federal 

agency that has control of the Native 

American human remains. The National 

Park Service is not responsible for the 

determinations in this notice. 

A detailed assessment of the human 

remains was made by Kansas State 

University professional staff in 

consultation with representatives of the 

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes (Wichita, 

Keechi, Waco & Tawakonie), Oklahoma. 

Sometime between 1928 and 1988, 

human remains representing a 

minimum of one individual were 

removed from site 14MP1, also known 

as Paint Creek site, McPherson County, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES