25734 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices

MONTHLY FEDERAL REGISTER

REPORT—Continued

Permit

No. Date

February

Roger Gregg ............. 796328 2/03/95

Steven Rohrback ...... 796329 2/03/95

Lubee Foundation,

Inc. ......................... 797414 2/08/95

Carle Foundation ...... 691972 2/08/95

Charles Hawkey ........ 797694 2/08/95

John Shadd ............... 797900 2/13/95

David Owens ............ 792842 2/14/95

Kevin Thommes ........ 795000 2/17/95

Riverbanks Zoological

Park ....................... 799227 2/22/95

Int’l Wildlife Veterinary Services ........ 797485 2/22/95

March

Cincinnati Zoo ........... 792583 3/02/95

Keith Evans ............... 783660 3/03/95

Michelle Pomeroy ..... 794583 3/27/95

Wildlife Conservation

Society ................... 793320 3/29/95

Mark Rohde .............. 788774 3/39/95

Texas A & M University ......................... 796331 3/30/95

Michel Bergerac ........ 796661 3/30/95

Additional information on these

permit may be requested by contacting

the Office of Management Authority,

4401 North Fairfax Drive, room 432,

Arlington, Virginia 22203, telephone

(703/358–2104) during normal business

hours (7:45 a.m. 4:15 p.m.) weekdays.

Dated: May 8, 1995.

Caroline Anderson,

Chief, Branch of Permits, Office of

Management Authority.

[FR Doc. 95–11740 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

Availability of a Draft Environmental

Impact Report/Environmental Impact

Statement for Issuance of a Permit to

Allow Incidental Take of Threatened

and Endangered Species Within the

Multiple Species Conservation

Program Planning Area in San Diego

County, CA

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

availability of a draft joint

Environmental Impact Report/

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIR/

DEIS) for the proposed incidental take

of species listed pursuant to the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). The proposed take

would occur due to urban development

in southwestern San Diego County,

California. The County of San Diego and

cities of San Diego, Chula Vista,

Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Imperial

Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National

City, Poway, and Santee (applicants)

intend to apply to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service) for incidental

take permits pursuant to section

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act.

The Service anticipates that the

applicants will request permits for 10

listed animals: the threatened Western

snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus) and coastal California

gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica

californica); and the endangered

Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus

woottoni), California brown pelican

(Pelecanus occidentalis californicus),

bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),

light-footed clapper rail (Rallus

longirostris levipes), California least tern

(Sterna antillarum), southwestern

willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii

extimus), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii

pusillus), and Pacific pocket mouse

(Perognathus longimembris pacificus).

The Service also anticipates that the

applicants will request covered species

agreements for 3 endangered plants, 4

plants and 1 animal proposed for listing,

and 39 other unlisted species (26 plants,

9 birds, 2 reptiles, 1 mammal, and 1

invertebrate). The exact number of

species included in these covered

species agreements may change between

the draft and final EIR/EIS. The purpose

of the agreements is to conserve listed

and unlisted species, thereby reducing

the uncertainty associated with

development and future species’

listings.

The programmatic DEIR/DEIS

evaluates the effects on the human

environment expected to occur from

proposed issuance of the permits and

covered species agreements. Incidental

take would be minimized and mitigated

by implementation of the regional

Multiple Species Conservation Program

(MSCP) plan. This notice is provided

pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and

National Environmental Policy Act

regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

In addition, Federal approval of the

MSCP plan is required as part of the

special 4(d) rule for the California

gnatcatcher. Incidental take of the

gnatcatcher is allowed under section

4(d) of the Act if take results from

activities conducted pursuant to the

California Natural Community

Conservation Planning (NCCP) Act, the

NCCP Process Guidelines, and the

NCCP Southern California Coastal Sage

Scrub Conservation Guidelines.

DATES: Written comments on the DEIR/

DEIS should be received on or before

June 26, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

addressed to Mr. Gail Kobetich, Field

Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 2730 Loker Avenue, Carlsbad,

California 92008. Comments also may

be sent by facsimile to telephone (619)

431–9618.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Nancy Gilbert, Fish and Wildlife

Biologist, at the above address,

telephone (619) 431–9440. Individuals

wishing copies of the DEIR/DEIS should

immediately contact Ms. Gilbert. Copies

of the DEIR/DEIS have been sent to City

and County libraries in the greater San

Diego area, and to all agencies and

individuals who participated in the

scoping process or requested copies. In

addition, copies of the draft MSCP Plan

are available at public libraries and can

be obtained by contacting the City of

San Diego Clean Water Program, 600 B

Street, Suite 500, San Diego, California

92101, telephone (619) 533–4200. Upon

receipt of an official permit application,

the Service will officially announce

availability of the final MSCP Plan for

public review as required by section

10(c) of the Act.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

section 9 of the Act and its

implementing regulations, wildlife

listed as threatened or endangered are

protected from ‘‘taking.’’ The Act

defines take, in part, as killing, harming,

or harassing listed wildlife. Service

regulations further define harm to

include significant habitat modification

that results in death or injury of listed

wildlife (50 CFR 17.3). Under limited

circumstances, the Service may issue

permits to take listed wildlife if such

taking is incidental to, and not the

purpose of, otherwise lawful activities.

The taking prohibitions of the Act do

not apply to listed plants on private

lands unless such take would violate

State law. Regulations governing

permits are in 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32.

Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, the

Service may issue incidental take

permits for listed animals with an

approved conservation plan. Among

other criteria, issuance of such permits

must not jeopardize the existence of

listed species, both plant and animal.

The proposed action would allow

incidental take of listed animals over a

30-year period. Take would occur on

approximately 314,900 acres of habitat

within the 581,600-acre planning area.

Approximately 102,400 acres of the

planning area is already developed. To

mitigate the impacts of the proposed

take, the applicants propose

establishment of a 164,300-acre preserve

within the boundaries of a Multiple

Habitat Planning Area (MHPA).

According to the draft MSCP plan, 24

habitats would be conserved under the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 1995 / Notices 25735

MHPA, including 6 rare or protected

habitats. Fifty-seven species are

proposed to be adequately protected

under the MHPA. The Service would

issue incidental take permits for listed

animal species and covered species

agreements for listed and unlisted plant

and animal species that are adequately

protected.

The DEIR/DEIS considers the

environmental consequences of 5

alternatives, including the proposed

action and no action alternatives. Under

the no action or no project alternative,

the regional MSCP would not be

implemented. Jurisdictions would either

avoid take of listed species within the

planning area or apply for individual

10(a) permits on a project-by-project

basis. Existing land use and

environmental regulations would apply

to all projects proposed within the

planning area. Existing regulatory

practices require mitigation for impacts

to sensitive species and habitats

resulting in lands being set aside for

open-space preservation. Analyses

indicate that the amount of land

potentially conserved within the MSCP

planning area under the no action

alternative would be similar to that

conserved under the proposed action

(MHPA). However, under the no action

alternative, greater habitat fragmentation

would likely occur because the lands set

aside for open-space preservation would

not be assembled in coordination with

a regional preserve design.

Other alternatives consider different

preserve configurations. The coastal

sage scrub (CSS) scenario would

conserve 84,900 acres. According to the

MSCP plan, CSS would include 21

habitats, providing adequate protection

for 2 habitats, neither of which is rare.

Twenty-six species would be covered

under CSS. The biologically preferred

(BP) scenario would conserve 167,000

acres. According to the MSCP plan, BP

would include 24 habitats, adequately

protecting 9. Of these 9 habitats, 7 are

considered rare. Seventy-three species

are proposed to be adequately protected

under BP. The public lands (PL)

scenario would conserve 147,000 acres.

According to the MSCP plan, PL would

include 24 habitats and adequately

protect 6, all of which are rare. Thirtyfive species are proposed to be

adequately protected under PL.

Local jurisdictions would implement

their respective portions of the MSCP

plan. Preserve establishment would be a

cooperative effort among Federal, State,

and local governments and private

landowners. These groups would

manage habitat on certain lands they

currently own and on additional lands

acquired for the preserve. Additional

lands within the preserve would be

acquired as compensation for impacts to

habitat both inside and outside the

preserve.

In addition to off-site mitigation, take

within the preserve would be avoided or

minimized through local land-use

regulation, environmental review, and

resource protection guidelines. Landuse regulations would emphasize

avoidance by limiting encroachment

onto sensitive biological resources.

Long-term preserve management plans

would be prepared to address habitat

management and land-use issues. The

MSCP plan provides guidelines for

vegetative restoration and

reintroduction, fencing, signs, fire

management, grazing, predator and

exotic species control, insects and

disease, lighting, and other factors.

Each jurisdiction would sign an

individual implementing agreement (IA)

with the Service and California

Department of Fish and Game to (1)

obtain permits to take listed animals, (2)

obtain covered species agreements and

assurances for listed plants and unlisted

plants and animals, and (3) identify the

specific responsibilities of each party in

implementing the MSCP plan. Each

jurisdiction would then exercise its

land-use review and approval powers in

accordance with its IA and the MSCP.

The 5 percent limit on interim take of

coastal sage scrub, imposed as part of

the NCCP program and special 4(d) rule,

would be replaced by the conditions of

each jurisdiction’s IA.

Each jurisdiction would be expected

to adopt the final configuration of the

MSCP preserve within its boundary and

adopt the recommendations of the

MSCP through amendment of its

General plan or other applicable plans.

Zoning would be retained or properties

rezoned, as needed, and zoning

regulations amended to reflect the

preserve boundaries and to achieve

consistency with the MSCP plan. The

MSCP guidelines for compatible land

uses in and adjacent to the preserve are

expected to be incorporated into the

General Plan, zoning regulations, and

approval process for projects, including

adoption of appropriate mitigation

guidelines. Procedures and regulations

for interim controls will be necessary to

address activities that would potentially

impact sensitive habitats prior to

issuance of permits to individual

jurisdictions.

Dated: May 4, 1995.

Thomas Dwyer,

Deputy Regional Director, Region 1, Portland,

Oregon

[FR Doc. 95–11630 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Sport Fishing and Boating Partnership

Council; Notice of Meeting

Summary: Pursuant to Section

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App., this

notice announces a regularly scheduled

meeting of the Sport Fishing and

Boating Partnership Council. This

meeting is sponsored by the Council.

Interested persons may attend, make

oral statements to the Council or may

file written statements for consideration.

Summary minutes of the meeting will

be maintained by the Coordinator for

the Council at 4040 North Fairfax Drive,

Arlington, VA 22203, and will be

available for public inspection during

regular business hours (7:30–4:00)

Monday through Friday within 30 days

following the meeting. Personal copies

may be purchased for the cost of

duplication.

Date: The meeting will be held on

June 6, 1995, from 12:30 p.m.–5:00 p.m.

Place: The meeting will be held at the

American Automobile Association

Hdqtrs., 1440 New York Avenue, NW,

Suite 200, Washington, D.C.

Agenda: The Council will receive

reports from the Initiatives, Boating,

Ethics, and Education Committees.

Contact Person for More Information:

For further information individuals may

contact Chris Dlugokenski, Council

Coordinator, at 703 358–1777.

Dated: May 2, 1995.

Mollie H. Beattie,

Director.

[FR Doc. 95–11700 Filed 5–11–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

Minerals Management Service

Announcement of Workshop on

Proposed Policy Options for Outer

Continental Shelf (OCS) Natural Gas

and Oil Resource Management

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service,

Interior.

ACTION: The Minerals Management

Service (MMS) will hold a workshop at

the Gulf of Mexico Regional Office

located at 1201 Elmwood Park

Boulevard, Jefferson, Louisiana 70123,

on June 12–13, 1995.

The agenda will cover the following

policies:

• Bid Adequacy Procedures (bidding

methods and number of bid and

geometric average evaluation of the tract

rules).

• Increased Flexibility in Length of

Lease Terms, with Possible Changes in

Rental Rates and Minimum Bids (and

provision for suspension and