24150 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice is to announce the

availability of a Final Environmental

Assessment and a Finding of No

Significant Impact of take of nestling

American Peregrine Falcons (Falco

peregrinus anatum) for falconry. We

published the Draft Environmental

Assessment in July 2000. We considered

352 comments in revising the

assessment. After completion of the

Final Environmental Assessment, we

also produced a Finding of No

Significant Impact for the action.

ADDRESSES: The documents are

available from the Division of Migratory

Bird Management, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 4401 North Fairfax

Drive, Room 634, Arlington, Virginia

22203–1610. They also are available on

the Division of Migratory Bird

Management web pages at http://

migratorybirds.fws.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

George T. Allen, Division of Migratory

Bird Management, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, at 703/358–1714.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

draft Environmental Assessment, we

considered six alternatives for take of

nestling American peregrine falcons

(Falco peregrinus anatum) in the

western United States and Alaska. We

received 352 electronic or written

comment letters on the draft

Environmental Assessment. Seventeen

were from State or Federal agencies; 335

were from individuals and

organizations. Fifteen agency responses

favored allowing take of nestlings, and

2 responses were neutral. Of the

individual and organization comments

received, 21 opposed take of nestlings

and 314 supported allowing take. We

modified the Environmental Assessment

to respond to concerns expressed by

agencies, organizations, and

individuals.

Having reviewed the comments on the

draft, our preferred alternative is to

allow take of up to 5% of the American

peregrine falcon nestlings produced in

the States west of 100° longitude, at the

discretion of each State. These States

include Alaska, Arizona, California,

Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New

Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and

Wyoming. We believe that a

conservative level of take is appropriate

for a species recently removed from the

List of Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife and Plants, and will have no

discernible effect on the American

peregrine falcon population in the

western United States.

Dated: May 1, 2001.

Marshall P. Jones, Jr.,

Acting Director, Fish and Wildlife Service.

[FR Doc. 01–11960 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

Availability of a Habitat Conservation

Plan and Receipt of an Application for

an Incidental Take Permit for Deer

Canyon Park Preserve in the City of

Anaheim, Orange County, CA

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: This notice advises the public

that the City of Anaheim (Applicant)

has applied to the Fish and Wildlife

Service (Service) for an incidental take

permit pursuant to section 10 (a) 1 (B)

of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,

as amended. The proposed permit

would authorize the incidental take of

the federally threatened coastal

California gnatcatcher (Polioptila

californica californica) in Deer Canyon

Park Preserve, in the City of Anaheim,

Orange County, California. Take would

occur through the permanent loss of

1.39 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat

during facility development and fuel

management. The Applicant seeks a

permit for a period of 30 years.

We request comments from the public

on the permit application, which is

available for review. The application

also includes a Habitat Conservation

Plan (HCP). The HCP describes the

proposed project and the measures that

the Applicant would undertake to

minimize and mitigate take of coastal

California gnatcatcher. We also request

comments on our preliminary

determination that the HCP qualifies as

a ‘‘low-effect’’ habitat conservation HCP,

eligible for a categorical exclusion under

the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA).

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before June 11, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to the Field Supervisor,

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker

Avenue West, Carlsbad, California

92008. Comments may be sent by

facsimile to telephone (760) 431–9624.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Evans, Division Chief, Los

Angeles and Orange Counties, at the

above address or call (760) 431–9440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Documents

You may obtain copies of the

documents for review by calling the

Service’s Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife

Office at the above referenced telephone

number. Documents also are available

for public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

above address.

Background

Section 9 of the Endangered Species

Act, and its implementing regulations,

prohibit the ‘‘take’’ of fish or wildlife

species listed as endangered or

threatened species. Take means to

harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,

wound, kill, trap, capture or collect

listed animal species, or attempt to

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

1538). Harm may include significant

habitat modification where it actually

kills or injures wildlife by significantly

impairing essential behavioral patterns,

including breeding, feeding, and

sheltering [50 CFR 17.3(c)]. The Service

may, under certain circumstances, issue

permits to authorize take of endangered

or threatened wildlife species incidental

to, and not the purpose of, otherwise

lawful activities. Regulations governing

permits for endangered or threatened

species are found at 50 CFR 17.22 and

17.32.

Under the proposed action,

improvement of park facilities and fire

management activities would directly

impact the coastal California

gnatcatcher by removing 1.39 acres of

coastal sage scrub vegetation utilized by

coastal California gnatcatchers. The

Deer Canyon Park Preserve totals

approximately 130 acres. The

Applicant’s HCP describes

consideration of alternatives to the

action and provisions for minimization

and mitigation of impacts.

The HCP is further designed to assure

that this action does not reduce the

potential for survival and recovery of

the coastal California gnatcatcher in the

wild, as mandated by requirements of

50 CFR Part 17.22(b)(1)(iii).

The HCP proposes the following

measures to minimize the impacts of the

project on coastal California

gnatcatchers: (1) Fuel modification and

clearing of coastal sage scrub will be

conducted outside the gnatcatcher

breeding season. If it is necessary to

clear coastal sage scrub during the

breeding season, surveys by a qualified

biologist must demonstrate that

gnatcatchers are not nesting or rearing

chicks in the affected area; (2) a project

monitor will be present during all

clearing activities to make sure no birds

or nests are directly harmed or

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 92 / Friday, May 11, 2001 / Notices 24151

destroyed; (3) construction limits will

be fenced or flagged prior to

construction activities to avoid

inadvertent disturbance of areas outside

the construction zone; (4) the proper use

and disposal of oil and gasoline will be

enforced; and (5) all trash associated

with construction activities will be

properly contained and disposed.

To mitigate for the permanent loss of

occupied habitat due to the proposed

activities, the Applicant proposes to

revegetate 6.0 acres of non-native

grassland in Deer Canyon Park Preserve

with coastal sage scrub vegetation. The

revegetated area would connect patches

of fragmented coastal sage scrub that lie

to the north and south. A restoration

HCP will be developed that includes

performance criteria, such as percent

cover by native and non-native plants,

native plant diversity, and evidence of

natural reproduction, which must be

met. The restoration plan must be

reviewed and approved by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service.

The HCP considered the following

alternatives: (1) The proposed project;

(2) use of a mitigation fee; (3) redesign

of the project; and (4) no project or no

action alternative.

The proposed project involves the

issuance of a permit under section

10(a)(1)(B) of the Act to authorize the

incidental take of the threatened coastal

California gnatcatcher during facilities

improvement and fire management

activity. The project impacts 1.39 acres

of coastal sage scrub occupied by the

coastal California gnatcatcher.

Mitigation for the project is the

revegetation of 6.0 acres of non-native

grassland with coastal sage scrub

vegetation.

The use of a mitigation fee to

compensate for the loss of coastal sage

scrub, as outlined in the Central and

Coastal Orange County Natural

Community Conservation Plan (NCCP),

is not authorized for this project because

Deer Canyon Park Preserve is designated

as an Existing Use Area, and the in-lieu

fee mitigation program is not available

to mitigate for take of gnatcatchers

within Existing Use Areas unless

specifically authorized by the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service and California

Department of Fish and Game.

Under the redesign alternative, the

applicant would redesign the project to

further reduce impacts to coastal sage

scrub vegetation. The applicant states

that it is not possible to further redesign

the project and meet project goals.

Under the No Project alternative the

project would not occur. Therefore an

incidental take permit would not be

required and the Applicant would

abandon the proposed project.

The Service has determined that the

HCP qualifies as a ‘‘Low Effect’’ Habitat

Conservation Plan as defined by the

Fish and Wildlife Service’s Habitat

Conservation Planning Handbook

(November 1996). Our determination

that a habitat conservation plan

qualifies as a low-effect plan is based on

the following three criteria: (1)

Implementation of a plan would result

in minor or negligible effects on

federally listed, proposed, and

candidate species and their habitats; (2)

implementation of a plan would result

in minor or negligible effects on other

environmental values or resources; and

(3) impacts of a plan, considered

together with the impacts of other past,

present and reasonably foreseeable

similarly situated projects would not

result, over time, in cumulative effects

to environmental values or resources

which would be considered significant.

The Service therefore has made a

preliminary determination that approval

of the HCP qualifies as a categorical

exclusion under NEPA, as provided by

the Department of the Interior Manual

(516 DM 2, Appendix 1 and 516 DM 6,

Appendix 1). Based on this preliminary

determination, we do not intend to

prepare further NEPA documentation.

The Service will consider public

comments in making its final

determination on whether to prepare

such additional documentation.

This notice is provided pursuant to

section 10(a) of the Endangered Species

Act and Service regulations for

implementing the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (40

CFR 1506.6). The Service will evaluate

the permit application, the HCP, and the

associated documents and comments

submitted thereon to determine whether

the application meets the requirements

of section 10(a) of the Endangered

Species Act. If we determine that the

requirements are met, we will issue a

permit for the incidental take of the

coastal California gnatcatcher. A final

decision on permit issuance will be

made no sooner than 30 days from the

date of this notice.

Dated: April 23, 2001.

Jill Parker,

Acting Deputy Manager, California/Nevada

Operations Office, Fish and Wildlife Service,

Sacramento, California.

[FR Doc. 01–11897 Filed 5–10–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NV–030–1990–EX]

Notice of Availability for the Oil-Dri

Corporation of Nevada’s Reno Clay

Plant Project Draft Environmental

Impact Statement

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Department of the Interior.

COOPERATING AGENCIES: U.S. Bureau of

Indian Affairs, Reno-Sparks Indian

Colony, and Washoe County, Nevada.

ACTION: Notice of availability of a draft

environmental impact statement (EIS)

for the Oil-Dri Corporation of Nevada

Reno Clay Plant Project, notice of public

meeting, and initiation of a 60-day

public comment period.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) and 40 CFR 1500–1508

Council on Environmental Quality

Regulations (CEQ), and 43 CFR 3809

Surface Management Regulations, notice

is given that the Bureau of Land

Management (BLM) Carson City Field

Office has prepared, with the assistance

of a third-party consultant, a Draft EIS

on the proposed Reno Clay Plant

Project, and has made the document

available for public and agency review.

DATES: Written comments on the Draft

EIS must be submitted or postmarked to

the BLM no later than July 10, 2001.

Written comments may also be

presented at a public open house that is

scheduled for May 30, 2001, from 5 pm

to 7 pm, at the BLM Nevada State

Office, 1340 Financial Boulevard, Reno,

NV.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

Draft EIS should be addressed to:

Bureau of Land Management, Carson

City Field Office, 5665 Morgan Mill

Road, Carson City, NV 89701, Attn:

Terri Knutson, Oil-Dri EIS Project

Manager. Comments may also be sent

via electronic mail to the following

address: tknutson@nv.blm.gov or via

fax: (775) 885–6147. A limited number

of copies of the Draft EIS may be

obtained at the above BLM Field Office

in Carson City, NV. In addition, the

Draft EIS is available on the internet via

the Carson City Field Office Home Page

at: www.nv.blm.gov/carson.

Comments, including names and

addresses of respondents, will be

available for public review at the above

address during regular business hours

(7:30 a.m.–5 p.m.), Monday through

Friday, except holidays, and may be

published as part of the EIS. Individual

respondents may request