51086 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

encompasses about 0.24 acre and the 

footprint of the home, infrastructure, 

and landscaping preclude retention of 

scrub-jay habitat on the project site. Onsite minimization may not be a 

biologically viable alternative because of 

increasing negative demographic effects 

caused by urbanization. 

Based on the above information, 

scrub-jays in the vicinity of the 

Applicant’s lot, currently have little 

long-term demographic value to the 

metapopulation overall. Consequently, 

the Service has determined that the loss 

of 0.24 acre of habitat is likely to result 

in only minor or negligible impacts on 

the species. 

The Applicant proposes to mitigate 

for the loss of 0.24 acre of scrub-jay 

habitat by contributing a total of $3,216 

to the Florida Scrub-jay Conservation 

Fund administered by the National Fish 

and Wildlife Foundation. Funds in this 

account are earmarked for use in the 

conservation and recovery of scrub-jays 

and may include habitat acquisition, 

restoration, and/or management. The 

$3,216 is sufficient to acquire and 

perpetually manage about 0.48 acre of 

suitable occupied scrub-jay habitat 

based on a replacement ratio of 2 

mitigation acres per 1 impact acre. The 

cost is based on previous acquisitions of 

mitigation lands in southern Brevard 

County at an average $5,700 per acre, 

plus a $1,000-per-acre management 

endowment necessary to ensure future 

management of acquired scrub-jay 

habitat. 

We have determined that the HCP is 

a low-effect plan that is categorically 

excluded from further NEPA analysis, 

and does not require the preparation of 

an EA or EIS. This preliminary 

determination may be revised based on 

our review of public comment we 

receive in response to this notice. Loweffect HCPs are those involving: (1) 

Minor or negligible effects on federally 

listed or candidate species and their 

habitats, and (2) minor or negligible 

effects on other environmental values or 

resources. The Applicant’s HCP 

qualifies for the following reasons: 

1. Issuance of the ITP would result in 

minor or negligible effects on the 

Florida scrub-jay population as a whole. 

We do not anticipate significant direct 

or cumulative effects to the Florida 

scrub-jay population as a result of the 

construction project. 

2. Issuance of the ITP would not have 

adverse effects on known unique 

geographic, historic, or cultural sites, or 

involve unique or unknown 

environmental risks. 

3. Issuance of the ITP would not 

result in any significant adverse effects 

on public health or safety. 

4. The project does not require 

compliance with Executive Order 11988 

(Floodplain Management), Executive 

Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), or 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 

nor does it threaten to violate a Federal, 

State, local or tribal law or requirement 

imposed for the protection of the 

environment. 

5. Issuance of the ITP would not 

establish a precedent for future action or 

represent a decision in principle about 

future actions with potentially 

significant environmental effects. 

We have determined that issuance of 

this incidental take permit 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). Therefore, 

no further NEPA documentation will be 

prepared. 

We will evaluate the HCP and 

comments submitted thereon to 

determine whether the application 

meets the requirements of section 10(a) 

of the Act. If it is determined that those 

requirements are met, the ITP will be 

issued for incidental take of the Florida 

scrub-jay. We will also evaluate whether 

issuance of the section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP 

complies with section 7 of the Act by 

conducting an intra-Service section 7 

consultation. The results of this 

consultation, in combination with the 

above findings, will be used in the final 

analysis to determine whether or not to 

issue the ITP. 

Dated: August 3, 2005. 

Sam D. Hamilton, 

Regional Director, Southeast Region. 

[FR Doc. 05–17068 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Receipt of Two Applications for 

Incidental Take Permits for 

Construction of Single-Family Homes 

in Brevard County, FL 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Maronda Homes, Inc. of 

Florida and Duke Construction 

Corporation (Applicants) each request 

an incidental take permit (ITP) pursuant 

to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (U.S.C. 1531 et 

seq.), as amended (Act). The Applicants 

anticipate taking a combined total of 

about 0.48 acre of Florida scrub-jay 

(Aphelocoma coerulescens) (scrub-jay) 

foraging, sheltering, and possibly 

nesting habitat incidental to lot 

preparation for the construction of 

single-family homes and supporting 

infrastructure in Brevard County, 

Florida (Project). The destruction of 0.48 

acre of foraging, sheltering, and possibly 

nesting habitat is expected to result in 

the take of one family of scrub-jays over 

requested permit terms of 10 years 

(Maronda) and 2 years (Duke). 

The Applicants’ Habitat Conservation 

Plans (HCPs) describe the mitigation 

and minimization measures proposed to 

address the effects of the Projects to the 

Florida scrub-jay. These measures are 

outlined in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section below. We have 

determined that the Applicants’

proposals, including the proposed 

mitigation and minimization measures, 

will individually and cumulatively have 

a minor or negligible effect on the 

species covered in the HCPs. Therefore, 

the ITPs are ‘‘low-effect’’ projects and 

qualify as categorical exclusions under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA), as provided by the Department 

of Interior Manual (516 DM 2, Appendix 

1 and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1). Copies 

of the HCPs may be obtained by making 

a request to the Regional Office (see 

ADDRESSES). Requests must be in writing 

to be processed. This notice is provided 

pursuant to Section 10 of the 

Endangered Species Act and NEPA 

regulations (40 CFR 1506.6). 

DATES: Written comments on the ITP 

applications and HCPs should be sent to 

the Service’s Regional Office (see 

ADDRESSES) and should be received on 

or before September 28, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review 

the applications and HCPs may obtain a 

copy by writing the Service’s Southeast 

Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia. Please 

reference permit number TE099862–0, 

for Maronda Homes and number 

TE099859–0, for Duke Construction in 

such requests. 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, 6620 

Southpoint Drive South, Suite 310, 

Jacksonville, Florida 32216–0912. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

David Dell, Regional HCP Coordinator, 

(see ADDRESSES above), telephone: 404/ 

679–7313, facsimile: 404/679–7081; or 

Ms. Erin Gawera, General Biologist, 

Jacksonville Field Office, Jacksonville, 

Florida (see ADDRESSES above), 

telephone: 904/232–2580, ext. 121. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If you 

wish to comment, you may submit 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 51087 

comments by any one of several 

methods. Please reference permit 

number TE099862–0, for Maronda 

Homes and number TE099859–0, for 

Duke Construction in such requests. 

You may mail comments to the 

Service’s Regional Office (see 

ADDRESSES). You may also comment via 

the Internet to david_dell@fws.gov. 

Please submit comments over the 

Internet as an ASCII file avoiding the 

use of special characters and any form 

of encryption. Please also include your 

name and return address in your 

Internet message. If you do not receive 

a confirmation from us that we have 

received your Internet message, contact 

us directly at either telephone number 

listed below (see FURTHER INFORMATION). 

Finally, you may hand deliver 

comments to either Service office listed 

below (see ADDRESSES). Our practice is 

to make comments, including names 

and home addresses of respondents, 

available for public review during 

regular business hours. Individual 

respondents may request that we 

withhold their home address from the 

administrative record. We will honor 

such requests to the extent allowable by 

law. There may also be other 

circumstances in which we would 

withhold from the administrative record 

a respondent’s identity, as allowable by 

law. If you wish us to withhold your 

name and address, you must state this 

prominently at the beginning of your 

comments. We will not, however, 

consider anonymous comments. We 

will make all submissions from 

organizations or businesses, and from 

individuals identifying themselves as 

representatives or officials of 

organizations or businesses, available 

for public inspection in their entirety. 

The Florida scrub-jay (scrub-jay) is 

geographically isolated from other 

species of scrub-jays found in Mexico 

and the western United States. The 

scrub-jay is found exclusively in 

peninsular Florida and is restricted to 

xeric uplands (predominately in oakdominated scrub). Increasing urban and 

agricultural development have resulted 

in habitat loss and fragmentation which 

has adversely affected the distribution 

and numbers of scrub-jays. The total 

estimated population is between 7,000 

and 11,000 individuals. 

The decline in the number and 

distribution of scrub-jays in east central 

Florida has been exacerbated by 

tremendous urban growth in the past 50 

years. Much of the historic commercial 

and residential development has 

occurred on the dry soils which 

previously supported scrub-jay habitat. 

Based on existing soils data, much of 

the historic and current scrub-jay 

habitat of coastal east-central Florida 

occurs proximal to the current shoreline 

and larger river basins. Much of this 

area of Florida was settled early because 

few wetlands restricted urban and 

agricultural development. Due to the 

effects of urban and agricultural 

development over the past 100 years, 

much of the remaining scrub-jay habitat 

is now relatively small and isolated. 

What remains is largely degraded due to 

the exclusion of fire which is needed to 

maintain xeric uplands in conditions 

suitable for scrub-jays. 

Residential construction for Maronda 

Homes will take place within Section 

23, Township 23 South, Range 35 East, 

Port St. Johns, Brevard County, Florida, 

on Lot 19, Block 67. Residential 

construction for Duke Construction will 

take place within Section 23, Township 

34 South, Range 23 East, Port St. Johns, 

Brevard County, Florida, on Lot 15, 

Block 43. Each of these lots are within 

locations where scrub-jays were sighted 

during surveys for this species from 

1999–2003. 

Scrub-jays affected by the issuance of 

this permit are found on the extreme 

western edge of a large area supporting 

a 16-family cluster of birds that inhabits 

urban areas, commercial development, 

and undeveloped native habitat in the 

‘‘Tico’’ and ‘‘Grissom’’ territory cluster 

just south of Port St. John, Florida. This 

cluster of scrub-jays is part of a larger 

metapopulation complex of scrub-jays 

that persists in northern Brevard 

County. The number of scrub-jay 

families in the vicinity of the project site 

and in the northern Brevard County 

metapopulation has declined in recent 

years. Survey results indicate that the 

number of scrub-jay families has 

declined in the Tico and Grissom 

cluster from 72 in the early 1990s to 47 

in 2002 (33 percent decline). Similarly, 

the number of families of scrub-jays 

within the northern Brevard County 

metapopulation, which includes the 

Tico and Grissom territory cluster, has 

declined from 102 to 67 families (34 

percent decline) during this same time 

period. Both of these observed rates of 

decline approximate the four percent 

per year decline estimated by recent 

research findings. 

The decline in numbers of scrub-jay 

families in northern Brevard County is 

the cumulative result of habitat 

destruction, fragmentation, and 

degradation. Metapopulation viability 

analysis suggests that this 

metapopulation of scrub-jays has a high 

quasi-extinction risk if no further 

conservation efforts are undertaken to 

acquire and manage land for the benefit 

of scrub-jays. However, with active 

acquisition and management of habitat 

in the metapopulation, the quasiextinction risk decreases substantially. 

The demographic viability, and thus 

future biological value, of scrub-jays 

within highly urbanized areas (e.g., 

residential areas, industrial sites, and 

other commercial development) is 

problematic in most situations but the 

contribution urban scrub-jays have on 

metapopulation dynamics is not certain. 

Research conducted in central Florida 

suggests that juvenile and adult scrubjays living within urban areas have low 

survival rates and that the persistence of 

scrub-jays in these environments is 

largely dependent on immigration from 

other low-quality habitat. In this 

instance, urban scrub-jays may have a 

negative impact on the demographic 

viability of the overall metapopulation 

since available breeders are essentially 

lost to habitats in which mortality 

exceeds recruitment. Other research 

conducted in east-central Florida 

suggests that recruitment will exceed 

mortality if optimal habitat conditions 

exist, regardless of whether the habitat 

is in a pristine or urban setting. In this 

case, urban scrub-jays would be as 

demographically important as scrub-jays 

in more pristine habitats. 

Regardless of whether the breeding 

territory is in an urbanized area or more 

pristine natural area, the success of a 

breeding pair is highly dependent on 

the quality of habitat within the 

territory. In most instances, scrub-jay 

habitat in urban settings is degraded due 

to long-term fire suppression and there 

is no indication that habitat in these 

settings will be managed in the future. 

Thus, we generally believe, and existing 

research supports, that in most urban 

settings, scrub-jays occupy less than 

optimal habitat and are therefore less 

demographically viable than birds 

occupying habitat in areas that are 

actively managed. Consequently, scrubjays living within suburban areas of Port 

St. John and urbanized areas of Brevard 

County appear to be demographically 

doomed over the long term and the only 

potential biological value these birds 

currently have is in providing a source 

of breeders for other adjacent lands that 

are actively managed for conservation 

purposes. One such site is located 

approximately two miles north off of 

County Road 50 in the southern end of 

Titusville. The 52 acres of scrub at this 

site is managed for scrub-jays through 

Brevard County’s Environmentally 

Endangered Lands Program (EELS). 

Future acquisition is proposed by EELS 

for areas northwest and south of the 

project site, but until these lands are 

secured and managed, dispersing scrubjays from the city may not find suitable 

habitat. 

51088 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 166 / Monday, August 29, 2005 / Notices 

The Applicants agree to avoid 

construction during the nesting season 

if active nests are found onsite, but no 

other on-site minimization measures are 

proposed to reduce take of scrub-jays. 

The lots combined encompass about 

0.48 acre (0.24 acre each) and the 

footprint of the homes, infrastructure, 

and landscaping preclude retention of 

scrub-jay habitat. On-site minimization 

may not be a biologically viable 

alternative due to increasing negative 

demographic effects caused by 

urbanization. 

Based on the above information, we 

believe that scrub-jays in the vicinity of 

the Applicant’s lots, currently have little 

long-term demographic value to the 

metapopulation overall. Consequently, 

we feel that the loss of 0.48 acres of 

habitat is likely to result in only minor 

or negligible impacts on the species. 

In combination, the Applicants 

propose to mitigate for the loss of 0.48 

acres of scrub-jay habitat by 

contributing a total of $6,432 ($3,216 for 

Maronda Homes and $3,216 for Duke 

Construction) to the Florida Scrub-jay 

Conservation Fund administered by the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

Funds in this account are ear-marked for 

use in the conservation and recovery of 

scrub-jays and may include habitat 

acquisition, restoration, and/or 

management. The $6,432 is sufficient to 

acquire and perpetually manage about 

0.96 acres of suitable occupied scrub-jay 

habitat based on a replacement ratio of 

two mitigation acres per one impact 

acre. The cost is based on previous 

acquisitions of mitigation lands in 

southern Brevard County at an average 

$5,700 per acre, plus a $1,000 per acre 

management endowment necessary to 

ensure future management of acquired 

scrub-jay habitat. 

We have determined that the HCPs 

are low-effect plans that are 

categorically excluded from further 

NEPA analysis, and do not require the 

preparation of an EA or EIS. This 

preliminary information may be revised 

due to public comment received in 

response to this notice. Low-effect HCPs 

are those involving: (1) minor or 

negligible effects on federally listed or 

candidate species and their habitats, 

and (2) minor or negligible effects on 

other environmental values or 

resources. The Applicants’ HCPs qualify 

for the following reasons: 

1. Approval of each of the HCPs 

would result in minor or negligible 

effects on the Florida scrub-jay 

population as a whole. We do not 

anticipate significant direct or 

cumulative effects to the Florida scrubjay population as a result of the 

construction projects. 

2. Approval of each of the HCPs 

would not have adverse effects on 

known unique geographic, historic or 

cultural sites, or involve unique or 

unknown environmental risks. 

3. Approval of each of the HCPs 

would not result in any significant 

adverse effects on public health or 

safety. 

4. The projects do not require 

compliance with Executive Order 11988 

(Floodplain Management), Executive 

Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands), or 

the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 

nor do they threaten to violate a Federal, 

State, local or tribal law or requirement 

imposed for the protection of the 

environment. 

5. Approval of the Plans would not 

establish a precedent for future action or 

represent a decision in principle about 

future actions with potentially 

significant environmental effects. 

We have determined that issuance of 

these incidental take permits qualify as 

a categorical exclusion under the NEPA, 

as provided by the Department of the 

Interior Manual (516 DM 2, Appendix 1 

and 516 DM 6, Appendix 1). Therefore, 

no further NEPA documentation will be 

prepared. 

We will evaluate the HCPs and 

comments submitted thereon to 

determine whether the applications 

meet the requirements of section 10(a) 

of the Act. If it is determined that those 

requirements are met, the ITPs will be 

issued for the incidental take of the 

Florida scrub-jay. We will also evaluate 

whether issuance of the section 

10(a)(1)(B) ITPs comply with section 7 

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

results of this consultation, in 

combination with the above findings, 

will be used in the final analysis to 

determine whether or not to issue the 

ITPs. 

Dated: August 11, 2005. 

Cynthia K. Dohner, 

Acting Regional Director. 

[FR Doc. 05–17077 Filed 8–26–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

Notice of Availability of a Proposed 

Amendment to Environmental Defense, 

Inc.’s Safe Harbor Agreement 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of availability and 30-day 

public comment period. 

SUMMARY: Environmental Defense, Inc. 

(ED) has submitted to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service) a request to 

amend their Safe Harbor Agreement 

(SHA) and associated Endangered 

Species Act (Act) Section 10(a)(1)(A) 

Safe Harbor Enhancement of Survival 

permit (Permit) for habitat restoration 

activities on private lands for the 

endangered Black-capped vireo (Vireo 

atricapilla) (BCVI) and Golden-cheeked 

warbler (Dendroica chrysoparia) 

(GCWA) in the Hill Country of Texas to 

include twelve additional counties, 

along with amending language in 

Attachment 2 of their SHA. The 

amendment would allow the Safe 

Harbor program to expand onto 

additional private lands in Texas, thus 

furthering the conservation of BCVIs 

and GCWAs. 

DATES: To ensure consideration, written 

comments must be received on or before 

September 28, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review 

the application may obtain copies by 

calling or faxing a request to the Service 

at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Austin Office, 10711 Burnet Road, Suite 

200, Austin, Texas 78758, (512/490–

0057 voice, 512/490–0974 fax). The 

amendment request will also be 

available for public inspection, by 

appointment, during normal business 

hours (8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.) at the Fish 

and Wildlife Service Austin Office. 

During the 30-day public comment 

period, written comments or data 

should be submitted to the Field 

Supervisor at the above address. Please 

refer to the amendment to ED’s SHA in 

the Texas Hill Country (TE–024875–1). 

All comments received, including 

names and addresses, will become a 

part of the official administrative record 

and may be made available to the 

public. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christina Williams at the Fish and 

Wildlife Service Austin Office, 10711 

Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 

78758, (512/490–0057 voice, 512/490–

0974 fax). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

addition to the 25 counties covered 

under their current permit, habitat 

enhancement activities could now occur 

in any or all of the following additional 

counties: Bexar, Callahan, Coke, 

Concho, Hamilton, Hood, Kinney, 

McLennan, Palo Pinto, Runnels, Taylor, 

and Tom Green. Habitat enhancement 

activities could include, but are not 

limited to, prescribed burning, selective 

Ashe juniper thinning, rotational 

grazing, cowbird trapping, and 

hardwood regeneration.