41970 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Notices

ADDRESSES) and should be received on

or before September 3, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review

the application, HCP, and EA may

obtain a copy by writing the Service’s

Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta,

Georgia. Documents will also be

available for public inspection by

appointment during normal business

hours at the Regional Office, 1875

Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta,

Georgia 30345 (Attn: Endangered

Species Permits), or Field Supervisor,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, South

Florida Ecosystem Office, Post Office

Box 2676, Vero Beach, Florida 32961–

2676. Written data or comments

concerning the application, EA, or HCP

should be submitted to the Regional

Office. Requests for the documentation

must be in writing to be processed.

Comments must be submitted in writing

to be processed. Please reference permit

number PRT–832536 in such comments,

or in requests of the documents

discussed herein.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Rick G. Gooch, Regional Permit

Coordinator, (see ADDRESSES above),

telephone: 404/679–7110; or Mr. Mike

Jennings, Fish and Wildlife Biologist,

South Florida Ecosystem Office , (see

ADDRESSES above), telephone: 561/

562–3909.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens

is geographically isolated from other

subspecies of scrub jays found in

Mexico and the Western United States.

The FSJ is found almost exclusively in

peninsular Florida and is restricted to

scrub habitat. The total estimated

population is between 7,000 and 11,000

individuals. Due to habitat loss and

degradation throughout the State of

Florida, it has been estimated that the

FSJ has been reduced by at least half in

the last 100 years.

The status of FSJs in southwest

Florida cannot accurately be estimated

because no historical biological data

exists with which to compare current

species status. Based on the information

identified in the Service’s EA, the

Service concludes that xeric habitats

have been destroyed or degraded

because of agricultural and urban uses,

but FSJ responses to habitat

disturbances are not well documented.

However, based on existing soils data,

the Service believes that much of the

FSJ habitat that was once widespread

along a narrow strip along coastal and

riverine portions of Lee, Charlotte, and

Sarasota counties has been lost. Because

of the loss in habitat, the Service

concludes that the number and

distribution of FSJs has also declined.

FSJ families occupying the Project site

and Manasota Gardens Subdivision are

part of a larger complex of FSJ families

that persist in southwest Sarasota and

northwest Charlotte counties. FSJ

inhabiting the Project site represent one

of eight confirmed FSJ families that

reside within the Manasota Gardens

Subdivision. The status of FSJ within

the Project site and adjacent areas is not

secure over the long term. Recent

biological studies of the FSJ population

suggests that FSJ families within

Manasota Gardens Subdivision will

likely decline in the future due to

decreasing habitat quality and

availability because of habitat

fragmentation associated with

residential development. The Service,

through consultation with other experts,

believes that FSJs will decline, over

time, in residential settings.

Construction of the Project’s

infrastructure and subsequent

construction of the individual homesites

will likely result in death of, or injury

to, Aphelocoma coerulescens

coerulescens incidental to the carrying

out of these otherwise lawful activities.

Habitat alteration associated with

property development will reduce the

availability of feeding, shelter, and

nesting habitat.

The EA considers the environmental

consequences of two alternatives. The

no action alternative may result in loss

of habitat for Aphelocoma coerulescens

coerulescens and exposure of the

Applicant under Section 9 of the Act.

The proposed action alternative is

issuance of the ITP. To compensate for

the destruction of 0.59 acres of FSJ

habitat and the take of one FSJ family,

the Applicant has proposed to preserve

0.10 acres of scrub on the Project site.

Further, clearing of vegetation and/or

construction would not be allowed

within 46 meters of any active FSJ nest

during the nesting season,

approximately March 1 to June 30 to

comply with State law. Based on the

Applicant’s HCP, financial

compensation was also offered to the

local chapter of the Audubon Society to

be used for FSJ monitoring in southern

Sarasota County, but the Audubon

Society rejected the offer. The Service

did not specifically request other

mitigation for the Project’s impacts and

no other compensation was offered by

the Applicant.

As stated above, the Service has made

a preliminary determination that the

issuance of the ITP is not a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment

within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C)

of NEPA. This preliminary information

may be revised due to public comment

received in response to this notice and

is based on information contained in the

EA and HCP. An appropriate excerpt

from the FONSI reflecting the Service’s

finding on the application is provided

below:

Based on the analysis conducted by

the Service, it has been determined that:

1. Issuance of an ITP would not have

significant effects on the human

environment in the project area.

2. The proposed take is incidental to

an otherwise lawful activity.

3. The Applicant has minimized

impacts on the project site to the extent

practicable.

4. Other than impacts to the

threatened species as outlined in the

documentation of this decision, the

indirect impacts which may result from

issuance of the ITP are addressed by

other regulations and statutes under the

jurisdiction of other government

entities. The validity of the Service’s

ITP is contingent upon the Applicant’s

compliance with the terms of the permit

and all other laws and regulations under

the control of State, local, and other

Federal governmental entities.

The Service will also evaluate

whether the issuance of a Section

10(a)(1)(B) ITP complies with Section 7

of the Act by conducting an intraService Section 7 consultation. The

results of the biological opinion, in

combination with the above findings,

will be used in the final analysis to

determine whether or not to issue the

ITP.

Dated: July 25, 1997.

H. Dale Hall,

Acting Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 97–20433 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

Fish and Wildlife Service

[OR–015–97–1020–00: G7–0140]

Plan Amendment to the Warner Lakes

Management Framework Plan

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) and Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS), DOI.

ACTION: Notice of Intent, Plan

Amendment to the Warner Lake

Management Framework Plan and

Jurisdictional Land Exchange with the

Hart Mountain National Antelope

Refuge.

SUMMARY: The Lakeview District (BLM)

and Hart Mountain National Antelope
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Notices 41971

Refuge (USFWS) are initiating the

planning process for a proposed plan

amendment to the Warner Lakes

Management Framework Plan (MFP, as

amended) and jurisdictional land

exchange with the Hart Mountain

National Antelope Refuge. The

proposed amendment/land exchange

would transfer management jurisdiction

of approximately 10,932 acres of BLMadministered lands to the USFWS and

approximately 5,317 acres of USFWSadministered lands to the BLM.

DATES: This notice announces the

beginning of the public scoping

comment period on the proposal.

Interested individuals, organizations,

and other agencies are encouraged to

provide written comments within 30

days of the date of this notice to the

address below. Public meetings will be

held on the following dates:

August 14, 1997, 7 p.m.—USFWS

Office, Kietzke Plaza, 4600 Kietzke

Lane, Building B, Room 111, Reno,

Nevada

August 26, 1997, 7 p.m.—BLM,

Lakeview District Office conference

room, 1000 South Ninth Street,

Lakeview, Oregon

August 27, 1997, 7 p.m.—Bend

Welcome Center, 63085 North

Highway 97, Bend, Oregon.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed action consists of transferring

management jurisdiction of

approximately 10,932 of BLMadministered lands to the USFWS and

approximately 5,317 acres of USFWSadministered lands to BLM. The lands

proposed for transfer are located in

south central Lake County, Oregon, and

are legally described below:

Legal description

Acres of BLM

transferred to

USFWS

Acres of

USFWS transferred to BLM

T. 39S, R. 27E, Secs. 2, 10, and 11 ....................................................................................................................... 0 480

T. 38S, R. 26E, Secs. 1–4, 5, 6, and 8–16 ............................................................................................................. 5,169 134

T. 38S, R. 27E, Secs. 3–6, 12–14, 26, 35 and 36 .................................................................................................. 2,377 1,280

T. 37S, R. 25E, Sec. 30 ........................................................................................................................................... 0 168

T. 37S, R. 24E, Secs. 1, 2, and 12 ......................................................................................................................... 793 0

T. 36S, R. 24E, Secs. 8, 17–19, and 36 ................................................................................................................. 38 945

T. 36S, R. 28E, Secs. 6 and 8 ................................................................................................................................ 0 360

T. 35S, R. 25E, Secs. 1, 10, 11, 15, 20, 21, 29, and 32 ........................................................................................ 182 624

T. 34S, R. 28E, Secs. 5 and 6 ................................................................................................................................ 320 0

T. 34S, R. 26E, Secs. 2, 10, 11, 20, 28, 30, and 31 .............................................................................................. 6 604

T. 34S, R. 25E, Secs. 36 ......................................................................................................................................... 302 0

T. 32S, R. 26E, Secs. 24, 25, and 35 ..................................................................................................................... 320 29

T. 32S, R. 27E, Secs. 3, 9, 17–19 .......................................................................................................................... 1,425 650

Totals ............................................................................................................................................................. 10,932 5,317

A map showing the lands proposed

for jurisdictional transfer can be viewed

at the BLM or USFWS offices listed

below.

An integrated planning and National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

document will be prepared in

accordance with applicable planning

and NEPA regulations which will

evaluate the potential impacts of the

jurisdictional land transfer. USFWS

lands located along the western

boundary of the Hart Mountain National

Antelope Refuge transferred to the BLM

which fall within the boundary of the

Warner Wetlands Areas of Critical

Environmental Concern (ACEC) would

be managed in accordance with the

Warner Lakes Plan Amendment for

Wetlands and Associated Uplands

(1989), the Warner Wetlands ACEC

Management Plan (1990), and

subsequent activity level management

plans (1990). Isolated parcels of USFWS

land location south of the refuge (i.e.

Shirk Ranch) transferred to the BLM

would be managed in accordance with

the Warner Lakes MFP (1983) and

Lakeview Grazing Management Final

Environmental Impact Statement/

Record of Decision (1982). Additional

details of the related, but separate ongoing effort to develop an allotment

management plan and environmental

impact statement for the Beaty Butte

allotment (0600) located south and east

of the refuge in southeastern Lake

County and southwestern Harney

County, Oregon (see Federal Register,

Vol 61, No. 246). All BLM lands

transferred to the USFWS would be

managed in accordance with the Hart

Mountain National Antelope Refuge

Comprehensive Management Plan Final

Environmental Impact Statement and

Record of Decision (1994).

Currently, three preliminary issues

have been identified. These include: (1)

How would the lands be managed once

the transfer is completed? (2) how will

the transfer improve management?, and

(3) how would the transfer affect current

uses (i.e. off-highway vehicle use,

mineral management, and livestock

grazing)?

Only two preliminary alternatives

have been identified: (1) no action (i.e.

do not conduct the transfer and

continue current management), (2)

transfer management jurisdiction of the

described lands between the two

agencies through formal land

withdrawals, withdrawal revocations, or

other title transfer, as appropriate.

At this time, individuals,

organizations, agencies, and tribal

government are invited to provide input

on the preliminary issues, alternatives

to be considered, and other aspects of

the proposal that they feel should be

addressed. All comments should be

submitted in writing to the attention of

Scott Florence, at the BLM address

listed below within 30 days after this

notice appears in the Federal Register.

Comments, including the names and

street addresses of respondents, will be

available for public review during

regular business hours (8 a.m. to 4:30

p.m.), Monday through Friday, except

holidays, and may be published as part

of the NEPA/planning document.

Individual respondents may request

confidentiality. If you wish to withhold

your name or address from public

review or from disclosure under the

Freedom of Information Act, you must

state this prominently at the beginning

of your written comment. Such requests

will be honored to the extent allowed by

law. All submissions from businesses,

organizations, and individuals

identifying themselves as

representatives of officials of

organizations or businesses, will be

made available for public inspection in

their entirety.

Persons wishing to be added to the

mailing list for the plan amendment/
41972 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 149 / Monday, August 4, 1997 / Notices

NEPA document may do so by

contacting Paul Whitman at the BLM

address below. The draft document is

expected to be available for review

during the fall of 1997 and will have a

minimum 45-day comment period

starting on the date the Notice of

Availability appears in the Federal

Register. The supporting planning

record will be maintained at the BLM

and USFWS Offices below and will be

available for public inspection during

normal business hours. Because of

recent court rulings, it is very important

that those interested in the proposed

action participate during appropriate

comment opportunities, so that any

substantive comments are provided at a

time when the BLM and USFWS can

meaningfully consider them.

ADDRESSES: BLM, Lakeview District

Office, P.O. Box 151, Lakeview, Oregon,

97630, Telephone: (541)–947–2177, or

Hart Mountain National Antelope

Refuge, Post Office Building, Lakeview,

Oregon, 97630, Telephone: (541)–947–

3315.

Dated: July 14, 1997.

Scott R. Florence,

Area Manager.

[FR Doc. 97–20446 Filed 8–1–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–33–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. Geological Survey

Federal Geographic Data Committee

(FGDC); Public Comment on the

Proposal to Develop the ‘‘Content

Standard for Remote Sensing Swath

Data’’ as a Federal Geographic Data

Committee Standard

ACTION: Notice; Request for comments.

SUMMARY: The FGDC is soliciting public

comments on the proposal to develop a

‘‘Content Standard for Remote Sensing

Swath Data.’’ If the proposal is

approved, the standard will be

developed following the FGDC

standards development and approval

process. If the standard is adopted by

the FGDC, it must be followed by all

Federal agencies collecting remotely

sensed swath data directly or indirectly,

through grants, partnerships, or

contracts.

In its assigned leadership role for

developing the National Spatial Data

Infrastructure (NSDI), the FGDC

recognizes that the standards must also

meet the needs and recognize the views

of State and local governments,

academia, industry, and the public. The

purpose of this notice is to solicit such

views. The FGDC invites the community

to review the proposal and comment on

the objectives, scope, approach, and

usability of the proposed standard;

identify existing related standards; and

indicate their interest in participating in

the development of the standard.

Title: Remote Sensing Swath Data

Content Standard.

Date of Proposal: July 3, 1997.

Type of Standard: Content standard

for remote sensing swath data.

Submitting Organization: National

Aeronautics and Space Administration

(NASA).

Point of Contact: Candace Carlisle,

NASA Goddard Space Flight Center,

Code 505, Greenbelt, MD 20771. Phone:

(301) 614–5186.

Objectives

The primary objective of this

proposed standard is to define the

content for remote sensing swath data

(subsequently called the swath data

model), thereby providing a solid basis

from which to develop interoperable

data formats for this common form of

remote sensing data. The data model

shall define the minimal content

requirements for a swath and the

relationships among its individual

components. It shall also discuss the

treatment of optional supporting

information within the swath model.

Project Scope

As stated in Executive Order 12906,

dated April 13, 1994, the FGDC shall

coordinate the Federal Government’s

development of the National Spatial

Data Infrastructure (NSDI). The

Executive Order is intended to

strengthen and enhance the general

policies described in OMB Circulars A–

16 and A–119. The swath data model for

remote sensing supports the

development of the NSDI by providing

a common framework for the

organization of a wide range of remotely

sensed data. The model will be

particularly useful for data from

scanning, profiling, staring, or pushbroom type remote sensing instruments,

whether they be ground based,

shipboard, airborn, or spaceborne.

The Committee on Earth Observing

Satellites (CEOS), an international

standards body, has endorsed the

development of data models for

remotely sensed swath through its

Working Group on Information Systems

and Services (WGISS) Data Subgroup.

Justification/Benefit

In order to facilitate interoperability

among agencies with remote sensing

data holdings and member agencies of

international remote sensing groups,

participants must first be able to

exchange information. Ideally, data from

one organization should be easily

useable by other organizations

performing similar work. In practice,

however, each organization has

developed its own methods of encoding

data that are generally not particularly

compatible with those developed by

other organizations. The unfortunate

results are that data are generally not

easily shared among these groups and

that researchers who wish to use data

from multiple sources find the task of

reconciling the data particularly

daunting. Clearly, it is in the interest of

the entire remote sensing community

that there be a common data encoding

mechanism in use by many

organizations. Before such an encoding

mechanism can become widely

accepted, however, each party must

share a common conceptual model of

the data in question. This is exactly the

purpose of the swath data model or

content standard. It will provide a

common conceptual framework, within

which the sharing of remote sensing

swath data will become possible.

Development Approach

The data standardization and

modeling are major research issues

within the Earth Observing System Data

and Information System (EOSDIS). The

Earth Science Data and Information

System (ESDIS) Project is responsible

for EOSDIS and has already sponsored

much preliminary research into these

issues for remote sensing applications.

Some early results of the research are

presented in EOSDIS Version 0 FY92

Data Structures Report, an internal

ESDIS report. Those early results have

been further developed into data

standards for the EOSDIS Core System

(ECS) through soliciting input and

comments from scientists around the

world and from EOSDIS’s Data Model

Working Group. As one of the efforts to

publicize the EOSDIS data standards

and solicit comments, NASA plans to

have a software vendor workshop on

EOSDIS data standards during this year.

The proposed FGDC content standard

for remotely sensed swath data will

based on the ECS swath data standard.

Related Standards

The proposed standard will be based

on the NASA EOSDIS standards for

remote sensing swath data. The NASA

standard specifies the minimal content

requirements for a swath and the

relationships among its individual

components. Based on the standard,

ESDIS project has developed an

encoding mechanism and a set of

software tools for EOSDIS.