21204 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Notices

Minnesota 55111–4056, Telephone:

612/713–5343, Fax: 612/713–5292.

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, East Lansing Field Office,

2651 Coolidge Rd., Suite 101, East

Lansing, Michigan 48823–6316,

Telephone: 517/351–6274.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pete

Fasbender, Regional HCP Coordinator,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort

Snelling, Minnesota, telephone 612/

713–5343.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under

Section 9 of the Act and applicable

federal regulations, the ‘‘taking’’ of a

species listed as endangered or

threatened is prohibited. However, the

Service, under limited circumstances,

may issue permits to ‘‘take’’ listed

species, provided such take is incidental

to, and not the purpose of, an otherwise

lawful activity. Regulations governing

permits for endangered species are

promulgated in 50 CFR 17.22

Regulations governing permits for

threatened species are promulgated in

50 CFR 17.32.

Background

Piping plovers are sensitive to human

disturbance and the effects of human

activity throughout the Great Lakes and

Atlantic Coast breeding range lead to its

listing as an endangered species in

1985. Human activity remains the

primary threat to the species survival in

the Great Lakes region. The proposed

residential development consists of 13

single family residences located within

the forested portion of a 91 acre tract at

the north end of Kehl Road in Leelanau

Township, Leelanau County, Michigan

(SW1⁄4SE1⁄4, SE1⁄4SW1⁄4 Section 14,

T32N R11W). Of the total 91 acre parcel

proposed for development, a maximum

of 3 acres may be potential piping

plover habitat. The shoreline beach/

dune area is an average of 85 feet wide

(1999) and consists of equal portions of

non-vegetated beach and vegetated low

dunes with an abrupt edge along the

forested area. The beach within the

proposed development is not good

nesting habitat and there are no records

of piping plover nesting or other use on

the property. Excellent nesting habitat

occurs 0.5 mile west of the proposed

development. Three and two pairs of

piping plovers nested within Leelanau

State Park in 1998 and 1999,

respectively. Seven young plovers

fledged in 1998, while seven hatched

but disappeared prior to fledging in

1999. The Service believes the

Applicant’s property provides valuable

foraging habitat for plovers nesting

nearby. There is also potential for future

plover nesting on the Applicant’s

property if an expanded plover

population exhibits variation in

breeding habitat characteristics or

natural forces alter current beach

characteristics.

The open dune portion of the

Applicant’s property contains several

hundred individual Pitcher’s thistle

(Cirsium pitcheri), a threatened plant

species. Boardwalks may be constructed

through the vegetated dunes, but

otherwise the project will not result in

any construction on or other physical

alteration of the beach portion of the

property. Construction of the proposed

project would result in human activity

along a section of beach presently

associated with undeveloped land. The

HCP provides conservation or protective

measures which would minimize or

avoid potential negative effects to

piping plovers of the proposed

development. Protective measures

include seasonal restriction of human

use of the beach, control of domestic

animals and other wild or feral

predators, control of garbage, and the

presence of a piping plover steward

during selected periods. Unregulated

trespass of the proposed development is

expected to be eliminated by the

presence of residence owners. No

critical habitat for listed species

currently occurs on the project site.

However its consideration as piping

plover critical habitat is expected by

June 2000. The Proposed Action

consists of the issuance of an incidental

take permit and implementation of the

HCP, which includes measures to

minimize or avoid impacts of the project

on the piping plover. The EA considers

four alternatives to the Proposed Action.

We will evaluate the permit application,

the HCP, and comments submitted

thereon to determine whether the

application meets the requirements of

section 10(a) of the Act. If the

requirements are met, the Service will

issue a permit to Magic Carpet Woods

Association for the incidental take of the

piping plover from human activity

associated with residential development

on the Association property. The final

permit decision will be made no sooner

than 30 days from the date of this

notice.

Dated: April 12, 2000.

T.J. Miller,

Acting Assistant Regional Director, Ecological

Services, Region 3, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

[FR Doc. 00–9673 Filed 4–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Availability of a Draft Environmental

Assessment, Preliminary Finding of No

Significant Impact, and Notice of

Receipt of an Application for an

Enhancement of Survival Permit by

The Nature Conservancy, Virginia

Chapter, To Administer a ‘‘Safe

Harbor’’ Program in Southeast Virginia

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Nature Conservancy,

Virginia Chapter, (Applicant) has

applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) for an enhancement of

survival permit (ESP) pursuant to

Section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered

Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act).

The proposed ESP would authorize the

incidental take of a federally

endangered species, the red-cockaded

woodpecker, Picoides borealis (RCW).

The permit would authorize incidental

take only on land that is enrolled in the

proposed Safe Harbor program. (See the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section

below.)

The Service also announces the

availability of a draft environmental

assessment (EA) and safe harbor plan for

the ESP application. Copies of the EA

and/or safe harbor plan may be obtained

by making a request to the Northeast

Regional Office (see ADDRESSES).

Requests must be in writing to be

processed. This notice also advises the

public that the Service has made a

preliminary determination that issuing

the ESP is not a major Federal action

significantly effecting the quality of the

human environment within the meaning

of Section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended (NEPA). The Finding of No

Significant Impact (FONSI) is based on

information contained in the EA and the

safe harbor plan. The final

determination will be made no sooner

than 30 days from the date of this

notice. An excerpt of the FONSI appears

in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this notice. This notice is

provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of

the Act and NEPA Regulations (40 CFR

1506.6).

DATES: Written comments on the permit

application, EA/FONSI, and safe harbor

plan should be sent to the Service’s

Northeast Regional Office (see

ADDRESSES) and should be received on

or before May 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review

the application, safe harbor plan, and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Notices 21205

EA may obtain a copy by writing the

Service’s Northeast Regional Office, 300

Westgate Center Drive, Hadley,

Massachusetts 01035. Documents will

also be available for public inspection

by appointment during normal business

hours at the Regional Office, (Attn:

Endangered Species Permits), or at the

following Field Offices: Field

Supervisor, Virginia Field Office, 6669

Short Lane, Gloucester, Virginia 23061;

or Red-cockaded Woodpecker Recovery

Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, College of Forest and

Recreational Resources, 261 Lehotsky

Hall, Box 341003, Clemson, South

Carolina 29634–1003 (telephone 864/

656–2432). Written data or comments

concerning the application, EA, or safe

harbor plan should be submitted to the

Regional Office. Requests for the

documents must be in writing to be

processed. Please reference permit

number TE–0015147 in such comments,

or in requests of the documents

discussed herein.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Diane Lynch, Regional Permit

Coordinator, (see ADDRESSES above),

telephone: 413–253–8628; or Karen

Mayne, Supervisor, Virginia Field

Office, (see ADDRESSES above),

telephone 804–693–6694 extension 103.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The RCW

is a territorial, nonmigratory breeding

bird species. RCWs live in social units

called groups which generally consist of

a breeding pair, the current year’s

offspring, and one or more helpers

(normally adult male offspring of the

breeding pair from previous years).

Groups maintain year-round territories

near their roost and nest trees. The RCW

is unique among the North American

woodpeckers in that it is the only

woodpecker that excavates its roost and

nest cavities in living pine trees. Each

group member has its own cavity,

although there may be multiple cavities

in a single pine tree. The aggregate of

cavity trees is called a cluster. RCWs

forage for insects almost exclusively on

pine trees and they generally prefer

pines greater than 10 inches diameter at

breast height. Foraging habitat is

contiguous with the cluster. The

number of acres required to supply

adequate foraging habitat depends on

the quantity and quality of the pine

stems available.

The RCW is endemic to the pine

forests of the Southeastern United States

and was once widely distributed across

16 states. The species evolved in a firemaintained mature pine forest

ecosystem. The RCW has declined

primarily due to the conversion of old

stand pine forests to young pine

plantations, agricultural fields, and

residential and commercial

developments, and to hardwood

encroachment in existing pine forests

due to fire suppression. The species is

still widely distributed (presently

occurs in 13 southeastern States), but

remaining populations are highly

fragmented and isolated. Presently, the

largest known populations occur on

federally owned lands such as military

installations and national forests.

In Virginia, the majority of the known

remaining RCWs (16 birds as of

December, 1999), including all of the

known breeding pairs, occur on The

Nature Conservancy’s Piney Grove

Preserve in Sussex County. This is the

northern most population of RCWs

remaining. The Virginia Department of

Game and Inland Fisheries, the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, and The

Nature Conservancy concur that the

future of the RCW in Virginia rests on

management of the Piney Grove

Preserve and the surrounding private

lands.

The Service and several other

agencies/organizations are working

cooperatively to further develop an

overall conservation strategy for the

RCW population and the ecosystem

upon which it depends. One component

of this strategy is to expand the safe

harbor program to other states and

regions within the RCW’s historic range.

The Service recognizes that landowners

presently have no legal or economic

incentive to undertake proactive

management actions, such as hardwood

midstory removal, prescribed burning,

or protecting future cavity trees, that

will benefit and help recover the RCW.

Indeed, landowners actually have a

disincentive to undertake these actions

because of land use limitations that

could result if their management

activities attract RCWs. However, some

Virginia private landowners near the

Piney Grove Preserve may be willing to

take or permit actions that would

benefit the RCW on their property if the

possibility of future land use limitations

could be reduced or eliminated.

Thus, the Applicant is proposing this

Safe Harbor program, which is designed

to encourage voluntary RCW habitat

restoration or enhancement activities by

relieving a landowner who enters into a

cooperative agreement with the Service

from any additional responsibility

under the Act beyond that which exists

at the time he or she enters into the

agreement; i.e., to provide a ‘‘safe

harbor.’’ The cooperative agreement will

identify any existing RCW clusters and

will describe the actions that the

landowner commits to take or allows to

be taken to improve RCW habitat on the

property (e.g., hardwood midstory

removal, establishment of cavities etc.),

and the time period within which those

actions are to be taken and maintained.

Participating landowners who enter into

cooperative agreements with the

applicant will be included within the

scope of the ESP by Certificates of

Inclusion administered by The Nature

Conservancy in coordination with the

Virginia Department of Game and

Inland Fisheries and the Service. A

participating landowner must maintain

the baseline habitat requirements on

his/her property (i.e., any existing RCW

groups and associated habitat), but will

be allowed to incidentally take RCWs at

some point in the future on other habitat

on the property if RCWs are attracted to

the site by the proactive management

measures undertaken by the landowner.

No incidental taking of any existing

RCW group is permitted under this

program. Further details about this

program are found in the safe harbor

plan.

The EA considers the environmental

consequences of two alternatives,

including the preferred alternative—to

implement the Safe Harbor program.

The likely effects of the no-action

alternative are the continued lack of

management to benefit the RCW in

many of the natural pine stands that

remain near the Piney Grove Preserve,

and the continued absence of RCWs on

those lands. The proposed action

alternative is the issuance of an

enhancement of survival permit and

implementation of the Safe Harbor

program. The Service believes that the

Safe Harbor will benefit the RCW in

Virginia by providing additional habitat

for future growth of the population.

The Service has made a preliminary

determination that the issuance of the

ESP is not a major Federal action

significantly effecting 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

safe harbor plan. 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 ESP would not have

significant effects on the human

environment in the project area.

2. Implementation of the safe harbor

plan will result in a net conservation

benefit for the RCW.

3. The proposed take will not

appreciably reduce the likelihood of

21206 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Notices

survival and recovery of the species in

the wild.

4. The indirect impacts that may

result from issuance of the ESP are

addressed by other regulations and

statutes under the jurisdiction of other

government entities. The validity of the

Service’s ESP 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)(A) ESP 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

ESP.

Dated: April 12, 2000.

Mamie Parker,

Deputy Regional Director, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 00–9888 Filed 4–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

The Rhinoceros and Tiger

Conservation Act of 1998; Request for

Public Input Into the Development and

Execution of an Educational Outreach

Program Action Plan; Announcement

of Two Public Meetings

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Rhinoceros and Tiger

Conservation Act of 1994 was amended

in 1998 to prohibit the sale, importation,

or exportation of products labeled or

advertised as containing rhinoceros or

tiger products, and to carry out an

associated educational outreach

program. Prior to developing and

carrying out such an educational

outreach effort, we seek input and

guidance from the public on the needed

components for such an effort. To guide

this effort, we have developed a draft

interim educational plan with the goals

of a long-term plan clearly identified but

action items developed only for a short

time frame until we can meet with the

public and solicit input for the

development of future action items.

With this notice, we request your

comments and input on the draft

Educational Outreach Program Interim

Action Plan and seek partnerships to

carry out the final plan, and we

announce two public meetings to

discuss the draft Educational Outreach

Program Interim Action Plan and

suggested modifications for future

activities under a long-term plan.

DATES: (1) Draft Educational Outreach

Program Interim Action Plan review: If

you wish to view a copy of the draft

Educational Outreach Program Interim

Action Plan, please submit a written

request for a copy of this document to

the address listed below within 30 days

of the date of publication of this notice.

We will consider written comments and

suggestions you submit regarding the

Educational Outreach Program Interim

Action Plan if we receive them by June

19, 2000.

(2) Public Meetings: You are invited

to participate in one or both of our

Educational Outreach Action Plan

public meetings, one to be held on the

east coast on May 18, 2000, 1:30–4:30

p.m., and the second to be held on the

west coast on June 4, 2000, 1:30–4:30

p.m.

ADDRESSES: (1) Educational Outreach

Program Interim Action Plan review:

Office of Management Authority; U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 North

Fairfax Drive; Room 700; Arlington, VA

22203. Comments on the draft

Educational Outreach Program Interim

Action Plan may be submitted by any

one of several methods. You may mail

comments to the above address. You

may also comment via E-mail to

r9omalcites@fws.gov. Please submit Email comments as an ASCII file,

avoiding the use of special characters

and any form of encryption. Please also

include ‘‘Attn: Rhinoceros and Tiger

Conservation Act of 1998’’ and your

name and return address in your E-mail

message. If you do not receive a

confirmation from the system that we

have received your E-mail message,

contact us directly at the telephone

number listed below. Finally, you may

hand-deliver comments to the above

address.

Comments and materials received will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, at the above

address.

(2) Public Meetings: The two public

meetings will be held (see DATES above)

to discuss the Educational Outreach

Action Plan. The first meeting will be

held in New York at The College of

Insurance, 101 Murray Street, New

York, NY and the second in San

Francisco at The Galleria Park Hotel,

191 Sutter Street, San Francisco, CA.

Directions to either location can be

obtained by contacting the Office of

Management Authority (see FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT below).

Please note that both locations are

accessible to the handicapped and all

persons planning to attend the meeting

will be required to present photo

identification when entering the

building. Persons planning to attend the

meeting who require interpretation for

the hearing impaired should notify the

Office of Management Authority as soon

as possible.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Teiko Saito, Chief, Office of

Management Authority, Branch of

CITES Operations, phone 703/358–

2095, fax 703/358–2298, E-mail:

r9omalcites@fws.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Congress passed the Rhinoceros and

Tiger Conservation Act of 1994 (the Act)

to assist in the conservation of

rhinoceroses and tigers by supporting

critical conservation programs in

nations whose activities directly or

indirectly affect rhino and tiger

populations. The Act also established

the Rhinoceros and Tiger Conservation

Fund to provide financial resources for

on-the-ground conservation programs

and to promote education to increase

public awareness of the plight of rhinos

and tigers in the wild.

Rhinoceroses and tigers are among the

most critically endangered large

mammals in the world and are the focus

of extensive global conservation efforts

aimed at halting their decline.

Consumer demand for and trade in the

parts and products of these species

supply luxury markets as well as

markets for cultural and medicinal

needs. One of the most complex and farreaching of these demands is for use in

traditional medicines.

Commercial international trade of raw

rhino horn and tiger bone and their

derivative products is prohibited by the

Convention on International Trade in

Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and

Flora (CITES), in addition to domestic

legislation in the United States and

China. The Act of 1994 was amended

and strengthened by the Rhinoceros and

Tiger Conservation Act of 1998, which

(a) outlined specific trade prohibitions

of rhino and tiger products and (b)

mandated a national educational

outreach program.

(a) The Act of 1998 ‘‘prohibits the

sale, importation, exportation, or

attempts to sell, import, or export, any

product, item, or substance intended for

human consumption or application,

containing, or labeled or advertised as

containing, any substance derived from

any species of rhinoceros or tiger.’’