Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 1997 / Notices 5033

The EA considers the environmental

consequences of two alternatives. The

proposed action is the issuance of the

ITP based upon the submittal of the

HCP. This action is based on a

preliminary determination by the

Service that the HCP will satisfy the

requirements of Section 10(a)(2)(B) of

the Act. By this alternative, the HCP

conserves RHS by restricting timber

management activities in optimal and

moderately suitable habitat. Optimal

habitat occupies about 1,340 acres with

steep (> 27 degree) slopes, underlain by

the Tallahatta formation, with a forest

dominated by deciduous trees. Timber

harvests, if any, in optimal habitat will

be limited to single tree selection while

maintaining a forest canopy coverage

over at least 90 percent of a site. To

minimize disturbance to soils and

destruction of RHS burrows, no

vehicular logging equipment will

operate within optimal habitat. Felled

timber will be pulled from preferred

habitat by cable from vehicular or other

logging equipment located in adjacent

habitat. Also, timber regeneration will

occur naturally without site preparation

or planting. Moderately suitable RHS

habitat consists of slopes 18 to 27

degrees on either the Tallahatta or

Hatchetigbee formations, with naturally

occurring mixed hardwood-pine and

pine-hardwood forest types. Timber

harvests by single tree selection will be

conducted while maintaining a forest

canopy cover over at least 65 percent of

a site, followed by natural regeneration.

In marginally suitable to unsuitable RHS

habitat on slopes of less than 18 degrees

within the Tallahatta or Hatchetigbee

formations, the Applicant will use a full

array of forest management practices,

including uneven-aged management,

even-aged management with clear

cutting, site preparation, and artificial

and natural regeneration.

RHS populations in marginally

suitable habitat will be significantly

reduced or eliminated as a result of

clear cutting, site preparation, and

conversion to pine forests. Because RHS

are more common and abundant in

optimal habitat, the HCP will conserve

core RHS populations where most RHS

exist. The conservation of RHS in

optimal habitat is consistent with the

Service’s recovery plan for the species.

Populations in moderately suitable

habitat may be extirpated or they may

persist following timber harvests with

vehicular logging equipment and a

reduction in the forest canopy to 65

percent coverage of a site. The HCP also

includes maintaining forest buffer zones

adjacent to optimal habitat, staff training

to implement the conservation plan,

funding, and monitoring and reporting

of management actions.

The second alternative in the EA is

the no action alternative in which the

Service would not issue the ITP. The

basis for this alternative would be the

failure of the Applicant to satisfy

requirements of Section 10(a)(2)(B) of

the Act for permit issuance. Without the

authority to incidentally take RHS, the

Applicant is expected to avoid timber

harvesting and related forest

management actions in habitat occupied

by the RHS to reduce or eliminate the

possibility of illegally taking the RHS.

As stated above, the Service has made

a preliminary determination that the

issuance of this 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 and will result in the FONSI.

This preliminary determination is based

on information in the EA and HCP. The

determination may be revised due to

public comment received in response to

this notice. An 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 ensured that

adequate funding will be provided to

implement the measures proposed in

the submitted HCP.

4. Other than impacts to endangered

and threatened species as outlined in

the documentation of this decision, the

indirect impacts which may result from

issuance of the ITPs are addressed by

other regulations and statutes under the

jurisdiction of other government

entities. The validity of the Service’s

ITPs are contingent upon the

Applicants’ compliance with the terms

of their permits 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 Section 7 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: January 27, 1997.

Noreen K. Clough,

Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 97–2579 Filed 1–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of approved Tribal/State

Compact.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2710,

of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of

1988 (Pub. L. 100–497), the Secretary of

the Interior shall publish, in the Federal

Register, notice of approved Tribal/State

Compacts for the purpose of engaging in

Class III (casino) gambling on Indian

reservations. The Assistant Secretary—

Indian Affairs, Department of the

Interior, through her delegated

authority, has approved the Tribal/State

Gaming Compact between the Citizen

Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe and the

State of Oklahoma, which was executed

on December 5, 1996.

DATES: February 3 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George T. Skibine, Director, Indian

Gaming Management Staff, Bureau of

Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20240,

(202) 219–4068.

Dated: January 24, 1997.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 97–2551 Filed 1–31–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–P

Bureau of Land Management

[CA–067–7122–6606; CACA–35511]

Environmental Impact Statement/

Environmental Impact Report for the

Proposal Imperial Project, California

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Amendment.

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register of

November 1, 1996 (Vol. 61, p. 56567), a

notice was published pertaining to the

availability of the draft Environmental

Impact Statement/Environmental

Impact Report for the proposed Imperial

Project. This amends that notice.

Because of expressed interest, a

public hearing will be held at the

Barbara Worth Convention Center in

Holtville, California at 6:30 PST to 8:30

PST on Thursday February 6, 1997.

Furthermore, the comment period on