10400 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices

established for issuance of an incidental

take permit will be fully satisfied.

Alternatives Considered

1. Proposed action,

2. No action,

3. Alternate project design,

4. Wait for the City of Austin’s Regional

Conservation Plan.

Determination

Based upon information contained in

the Environmental Assessment/Habitat

Conservation Plan, the Service has

determined that this action is not a

major Federal action which would

significantly affect the quality of the

human environment with the meaning

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

Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Accordingly, the preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement on the

proposed action is not warranted.

It is my decision to issue the Section

10(a)(1)(B) permit for the construction

and operation of the Barton Creek

Property development, southwest of

Austin, Travis County, Texas.

John G. Rogers,

Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque,

New Mexico.

[FR Doc. 95–4541 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–M

Availability of an Environmental

Assessment and an Application for an

Incidental Take Permit to Implement

the Red-cockaded Woodpecker ‘‘Safe

Harbor’’ Program in the Sandhills

Region of North Carolina

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service’s (Service) Red-cockaded

Woodpecker Recovery Coordinator

(Applicant) is seeking an incidental take

permit pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). The permit would

authorize the take of the federally

endangered red-cockaded woodpecker

Picoides borealis (RCW) at some point

in the future, incidental to such lawful

activities as timber harvesting,

residential development, etc., on private

and other public land (excluding

Federal land and the Sandhills Game

Lands, which are managed by the North

Carolina Wildlife Resources

Commission) in the six-county

Sandhills Region of North Carolina.

Specifically, the plan area boundary

includes land south of N.C. Highway

24/27 in Moore County; east of U.S.

Highway 220 and north of U.S. Highway

74 in Richmond County; north of U.S.

Highways 74 and 401 in Scotland

County; north of U.S. Highway 401 in

Hoke County; west of Interstate 95 in

Cumberland County; and south of N.C.

Highway 27 and west of U.S. Highway

401 in Harnett County. The permit

would authorize incidental take only on

land that is enrolled in the proposed

‘‘safe harbor’’ program, which is

described in the Supplementary

Information Section below.

The Service also announces the

availability of an environmental

assessment (EA) and habitat

conservation plan (HCP) for the

incidental take application. Copies of

the EA or HCP may be obtained by

making a request to the Regional Office

address below. This notice also advises

the public that the Service has made a

preliminary determination that issuing

the incidental take permit is not a major

Federal action significantly affecting the

quality of the human environment

within the meaning of Section 102(2)(C)

of the National Environmental Policy

Act of 1969, as amended. The Finding

of No Significant Impact is based on

information contained in the EA and

HCP. The final determination will be

made no sooner than 30 days from the

date of this notice. This notice is

provided pursuant to Section 10(c) of

the Act and National Environmental

Policy Act Regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).

DATES: Written comments on the permit

application, EA, and HCP should be

sent to the Regional Permit Coordinator

in Atlanta, Georgia, at the address

shown below and should be received on

or before March 27, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review

the application, HCP, and EA may

obtain a copy by writing the Service’s

Southeast Regional Office, 1875 Century

Boulevard, Atlanta, Georgia 30345.

Documents will also be available for

public inspection by appointment

during normal business hours at the

Regional Office; the Sandhills Field

Office in Southern Pines, North

Carolina; or the Asheville, North

Carolina, Field Office. Written data or

comments concerning the application,

EA, or HCP should be submitted to the

Regional Office. Please reference permit

number PRT–798839 in such comments.

Regional Permit Coordinator, U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century

Boulevard, Suite 210, Atlanta, Georgia

30345 (Telephone 404/679–7110, Fax

404/679–7280).

Sandhills RCW Biologist, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, P.O. Box 119, 225 N.

Bennett Street, Southern Pines, North

Carolina 28388 (Telephone/Fax 910/

695–3323).

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 330 Ridgefield Court,

Asheville, North Carolina 28806

(Telephone 704/665–1195, Fax 704/

665–2782).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mark Cantrell at the Sandhills Redcockaded Woodpecker Field Office in

Southern Pines, North Carolina; Ms.

Janice Nicholls at the Asheville Field

Office, Asheville, North Carolina; or Mr.

Rick G. Gooch at the Southeast Regional

Office, Atlanta, Georgia.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Sandhills area of North Carolina

supports one of the largest remaining

populations of federally endangered

red-cockaded woodpeckers (RCWs) in

the nation and is identified in the RCW

recovery plan as 1 of the 15 populations

across the species’ range that must be

viable in order to recover the species.

Unlike the other 14 recovery

populations, however, a significant

portion (approximately 30 percent) of

the Sandhills RCW groups known are on

private land and could potentially

contribute to a Sandhills recovery

population. RCWs on private land in the

Sandhills have declined significantly

over the past decade. Thus, the recovery

of the RCW in the Sandhills is likely to

be influenced significantly by the land

management decisions of private

landowners.

The Service and several other

agencies/organizations are working

cooperatively to develop an overall

conservation strategy for the Sandhills

RCW population and the longleaf pine

ecosystem. One component of this

strategy is a habitat conservation plan

that will implement the proposed ‘‘safe

harbor’’ program. 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

Sandhills landowners 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 Service is proposing the

‘‘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
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices 10401

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 (e.g., hardwood midstory removal,

cavity provisioning, etc.) or allows to be

taken to improve RCW habitat on the

property and the time period within

which those actions are to be taken and

maintained. Participating landowners

who enter into cooperative agreements

with the Service will be included within

the scope of the incidental take permit

by Certificates of Inclusion. 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 they 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 except under the special

circumstances that are described in the

HCP. Further details about this program

are found in the HCP.

The EA considers the environmental

consequences of three alternatives,

including the preferred alternative—to

implement the ‘‘Safe Harbor’’ program.

The likely effects of the no-action

alternative are the continued decline of

the Sandhills RCW population on

private land and the continued lack of

management of many of the longleaf

pine stands that remain in the

Sandhills. The third alternative involves

offering interested landowners financial,

rather than regulatory, incentives to

undertake the desired land management

activities for RCWs. This alternative is

not being pursued because the Service

is presently unable at present to fund

such a program. The proposed action

alternative is the issuance of an

incidental take permit and

implementation of the ‘‘Safe Harbor’’

program.

Dated: February 16, 1995.

Noreen Clough,

Acting Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 95–4543 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Extension of the Public Comment

Period—Availability of an

Environmental Assessment and

Receipt of an Application for an

Incidental Take Permit from Mr. D.

Gregory Luce, in Baldwin County,

Alabama

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of extension of the public

comment period.

SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service

gives notice that the pubilc comment

period on the environmental

assessment/habitat conservation plan

for Mr. D. Gregory Luce’s (Applicant)

application for an incidental take permit

pursuant to Section 10(a) of the

Endangered Species Act (Act) is being

extended. The Applicant has been

assigned permit number PRT–797979.

The original 30-day comment period

closed on February 8, 1995 (Federal

Register 60:2400–2401). During the

original comment period, numerous

public commentors requested an

extension to more fully address the

potential impacts to the Bon Secour

National Wildlife Refuge.

DATES: The public comment period for

this proposal, which originally closed

on February 8, 1995, is now extended

until March 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Persons wishing to review

the application may obtain a copy by

writing the Service’s Southeast Regional

Office, Atlanta, Georgia. Persons

wishing to review the EA or HCP may

obtain a copy by writing the Regional

Office or the Jackson, Mississippi, Field

Office. Documents will also be available

for public inspection, by appointment,

during normal business hours at the

Regional Office, or the Field Office.

Written data or comments concerning

the application, EA, or HCP should be

submitted to the Regional Office. Please

reference permit under PRT–797979 in

such comments.

Regional Permit Coordinator (TE), U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875

Century Boulevard, Suite 210,

Atlanta, Georgia 30345, (telephone

404/679–7110, FAX 404/679–7280)

Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, 6578 Dogwood View

Parkway, Suite A, Jackson,

Mississippi 39213 (telephone 601/

965–4900, FAX 601/965–4340).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Will

McDearman at the above Jackson,

Mississippi, Field Office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Alabama Beach Mouse (ABM),

Peromyscus polionotus ammobates, is a

subspecies of the common oldfield

mouse Peromyscus polionotus and is

restricted to the dune systems of the

Gulf Coast of Alabama. The known

current range of ABM extends from Fort

Morgan eastward to the western

terminus of Alabama Highway 182,

including the Perdue Unit on the Bon

Secour National Wildlife Refuge. The

sand dune systems inhabited by this

species are not uniform; several habitat

types are distinguishable. The species

inhabits primary dunes, interdune areas,

secondary dunes, and scrub dunes. The

depth and area of these habitats from

the beach inland varies. Population

surveys indicate that this subspecies is

usually more abundant in primary

dunes than in secondary dunes, and

usually more abundant in secondary

dunes than in scrub dunes. Optimal

habitat consists of dune systems with all

dune types. Though fewer ABM inhabit

scrub dunes, these high dunes can serve

as refugia during devastating hurricanes

that overwash, flood, and destroy or

alter secondary and frontal dunes. ABM

surveys have not been conducted on the

Applicant’s property. The ABM

occupied adjacent and nearby dunes of

the Bon Secour National Wildlife

Refuge. Suitable habitat in the form of

secondary and scrub dunes exist on the

Applicant’s property. These habitats are

likely to be occupied by ABM. None of

the Applicant’s property resides in

designated critical habitat for the ABM.

Construction of the single family

residence on about 0.1–0.2 acres of the

Applicant’s property may result in the

death of, or injury to, ABM. Habitat

alterations due to house placement and

its subsequent use may reduce available

habitat for food, shelter, and

reproduction.

The EA considers the environmental

consequences of three alternatives. The

proposed action alternative is the

issuance of the incidental take permit.

This provided for restrictions that

include house placement landward of

the frontal crest of the scrub dune line,

establishment of a walkover structure

across that scrub dune, a prohibition

against housing or keeping pet cats,

scavenger-proof garbage containers, no

landscaping, and the minimization and

control of outdoor lighting. The HCP

provides a funding source for these

mitigation measures.

Dated: February 16, 1995.

Noreen K. Clough,

Acting Regional Director.

[FR Doc. 95–4542 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P