21426 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before June 27, 1996, and reply

comments on or before July 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In

addition to filing comments with the

FCC, interested parties should serve the

petitioner, or its counsel or consultant,

as follows: Patrick A. Mulreany,

President, Donegal Enterprises, Inc.,

P.O. Box 123, Smith, Nevada 89430

(Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,

(202) 418–2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No.

96–103, adopted April 22, 1996, and

released May 6, 1996. The full text of

this Commission decision is available

for inspection and copying during

normal business hours in the FCC

Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M

Street, NW., Washington, DC. The

complete text of this decision may also

be purchased from the Commission’s

copy contractor, International

Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857–

3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,

Washington, DC 20037.

Provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to

this proceeding.

Members of the public should note

that from the time a Notice of Proposed

Rule Making is issued until the matter

is no longer subject to Commission

consideration or court review, all ex

parte contacts are prohibited in

Commission proceedings, such as this

one, which involve channel allotments.

See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules

governing permissible ex parte contacts.

For information regarding proper

filing procedures for comments, see 47

CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.

Andrew J. Rhodes,

Acting Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and

Rules Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 96–11760 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AD20

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Proposed Special Rule for

the Conservation of the Northern

Spotted Owl on Non-Federal Lands

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed special rule;

additional information.

SUMMARY: On February 23, 1996, the

Service issued a Draft Environmental

Alternatives Analysis (EAA) for the

proposed special section 4(d)rule for the

conservation of the northern spotted

owl on non-Federal lands in California

and Washington. The proposed special

rule was published in the Federal

Register on February 17, 1995 (60 FR

9484). The comment period for the draft

EAA and the proposed rule was recently

extended, (61 FR 15452, April 8, 1996)

and is scheduled to end for both

documents on June 3, 1996.

The comment period was extended, in

part, to allow the public the opportunity

to review a proposal by the State of

Washington Forest Practices Board that

would address impacts of forest

practices to the northern spotted owl.

The state has asked the Service to

consider their proposed state rule as a

possible alternative to the current

special rule proposed by the Service.

The Service seeks additional comments

from the interested public, agencies, and

interest groups on the Draft EAA, the

proposed special rule, and on the State

of Washington’s proposed state rule as

a possible alternative to the rule

currently proposed by the Fish and

Wildlife. The purpose of this document

is to provide a summary of

Washington’s proposed rule, and a

comparison of that rule with the

Service’s proposed special rule.

DATES: The comment period for written

comments closes June 3, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments and materials

concerning the Draft Environmental

Alternatives Analysis, the proposed rule

and the potential use of the Washington

Forest Practices Board proposed rule as

an additional alternative should be sent

to Mr. Michael J. Spear, Regional

Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 911 N.E. 11th Avenue,

Portland, Oregon 97232–4181. The

complete file for this proposed rule will

be available for public inspection, by

appointment during normal business

hours, at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Office of Technical Support for

Forest Resources, 333 S.W. 1st Avenue,

4th Floor, Portland, Oregon 97204, (503/

326–6218).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Curt Smitch, Assistant Regional

Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 3704 Griffin Lane S.E.,

Suite 102, Olympia, Washington 98501,

(206/534–9330); or Ron Crete, Office of

Technical Support for Forest Resources,

333 S.W. 1st Avenue, Portland, Oregon

97232–4181, (503/326–6218).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

Service published its proposed rule

under section 4(d) of the Endangered

Species Act on February 17, 1995 (60 FR

9484), followed by the release of the

draft Environmental Alternatives

Analysis (EAA) which describes and

analyzes the potential environmental

effects of the proposed special rule and

six alternatives for the conservation of

the northern spotted owl on non-Federal

lands in Washington and California.

The State of Washington’s Forest

Practices Board (Board) began work in

1993 to develop a rule to address the

impacts of forest practices on northern

spotted owls in that state. Following the

publication of the Service’s proposed

rule, the Board accelerated work on the

current version of the proposed state

rule. The northern spotted owl is listed

as endangered by the Washington Fish

and Wildlife Commission. The state’s

proposed rule is similar in many ways

to the Service’s proposed 4(d) rule,

although there are some differences. The

state has asked the Service to consider

the state’s proposed rule as an

alternative to the Service’s current

proposed rule.

The rule proposed by the Washington

Forest Practices Board would classify

forest practices in spotted owl habitat as

‘‘Class IV-Special’’. Class IV-Special

designation includes forest practices

within critical wildlife habitats (state) of

species listed as threatened or

endangered under either the Federal

Endangered Species Act or state law,

and requires that certain forest practices

proposed to occur in these habitat areas

be evaluated relative to their potential to

have substantial impacts to the

environment. Such forest practices may

include timber harvesting, road

construction and aerial spraying of

pesticides, and are subject to

environmental review under the State

Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).

A review under SEPA involves a

detailed analysis of a proposed action to

determine if it will have a significant

impact on the environment. Should a

finding of significance be made, then an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21427

must be prepared before the Department

of Natural Resources (DNR) can act on

a forest practice application. Under

SEPA, the forest practice may be

conditioned or denied, if necessary, to

mitigate specific adverse environmental

impacts.

The Board’s goal in developing its

proposed rule was to ‘‘prepare a rule

that captures all forest practices that

have potential for a substantial adverse

impact on the environment. In the case

of the owl, any forest practice that

damages the long-term viability of the

northern spotted owl in Washington

State (WDNR 1996).’’ The Board also

adopted five objectives to support the

proposed rule (WDNR 1996):

(1) Define a level of [owl

conservation] contribution from

nonfederal lands that is essential to

complement the federal recovery and

conservation strategy for the northern

spotted owl population in Washington

State.

(2) Identify those landscapes that are

essential to complement the federal

conservation and recovery strategy.

Identify whether their primary function

is for dispersal or population

maintenance.

(3) Maximize the use of local planning

to promote flexibility. To do this,

provide as specific criteria as possible

for different levels of planning.

(4) Minimize conflicts between

federal and state standards.

(5) Minimize economic impacts.

Generally, the Board’s proposed rule

involves ten spotted owl special

emphasis areas (SOSEAs) that are made

up of all or parts of 13 landscapes

identified in the Spotted Owl Scientific

Advisory Group (SAG) Report (Hanson

et al. 1993). The proposed state rule

assigns specific owl conservation

functions or goals to the SOSEAs,

includes a small parcel exemption,

disturbance restrictions, and provides

provisions for optional landowner

conservation planning. Within the

SOSEAs, areas are designated for either

dispersal or demographic support, or a

combination of both. Figure 1 shows the

location of the SOSEAs.

Within all the SOSEAs, except the

one for the Entiat area, the proposed

state rule would designate harvesting,

road construction or aerial application

of pesticides on suitable spotted owl

habitat inside owl nesting circles (site

centers) with less than specified

amounts of suitable habitat as Class IVSpecial activities, triggering a review

under SEPA. Within the Entiat SOSEA,

the SEPA trigger would only apply on

suitable habitat inside owl circles and

inside the areas designated for

demographic support. The specified

amounts of suitable habitat include

5,863 acres within a 2.7 mile circle for

the Hoh- Clearwater/Coastal Link

SOSEA, and 2,605 acres within a 1.8

mile circle for all other SOSEAs.

Both inside and outside SOSEAs,

harvesting, road construction or aerial

application of pesticides between March

1 and August 31, on the 70 acres of

highest quality suitable owl habitat

surrounding the site center, would be

Class IV-Special actions.

The proposed state rule provides

several exemptions to the SEPA trigger

within the SOSEAs: an approved

landowner option plan (LOP); an

approved habitat conservation plan

(HCP) from the Fish and Wildlife

Service; pre-listing agreements or

habitat management plan accompanied

by a ‘‘no-take’’ letter from the Fish and

Wildlife Service; and the provisions of

a final 4(d) rule adopted by the Fish and

Wildlife Service. A small parcel

exemption is provided if a landowner

owns 500 acres or less within the

SOSEA and the proposed forest practice

is not within 0.7 mile of a northern

spotted owl site center.

The planning components of the

proposed state rule include the LOP and

the cooperative habitat enhancement

agreement (CHEA). The details of the

LOP process have not been finalized,

and may be added to the rule at a later

date. The CHEA option is available to

landowners not currently impacted by

owls, and is intended to preclude early

harvesting based on fear of regulatory

impact and to provide additional owl

habitat. Under the provisions of

Washington’s proposed rule, if habitat is

allowed to be harvested within an owl

circle through one of the planning

options (LOP, CHEA or HCP), the

harvested habitat will continue to be

counted in the calculation of suitable

habitat from the date of plan approval

and forward, even after harvest has

occurred. The state’s intent with this

provision is to prevent the transfer of

responsibility for maintenance of habitat

from one landowner within an owl

circle to another.

This state proposal also includes

disturbance restrictions inside SOSEAs

during nesting season that apply within

.25 mile of a site center between March

1 and August 31, unless affected owls

are not actively nesting.

It is important to note that the

Service’s proposed special 4(d) rule is

based on avoidance of incidental take

prohibitions for the owl. The State’s

proposed rule is based on the avoidance

of triggering the requirements of a

review under Washington’s SEPA rather

than on avoidance of incidental take

prohibitions.

A tabular comparison of the

Washington proposed rule and the

Service’s proposed 4(d) rule is provided

in Table 1.

TABLE 1

Rule provision Washington proposed rule Service proposed rule

1. Landscapes ..................... 10 SOSEAs: Columbia Gorge* ....................................... 6 SEAs: Columbia River Gorge/White Salmon.

Entiat* ..............................................................................

(Special SEPA trigger)

(Not proposed).

Finney Block ....................................................................

I–90 West ........................................................................

I–90 East* (includes Teanaway, Taneum, Easton)

Finney Block.

I–90 Corridor (includes I–90E, I–90W, Taneum, Easton, Blewett).

Mineral Block/Link ........................................................... Mineral Block (includes Mineral Link).

Siouxon* ..........................................................................

White Salmon *

North Blewett

Siouxon Creek (included in other SEA) (included in

other SEA).

Hoh-Clearwater/Coastal Link ........................................... Hoh-Clearwater.

* Means modified from original SAG boundaries ............

Note: SOSEA goals/functions are identified on Figure

1

SEAs may provide dispersal, demographic or combination support, to be decided on a case by case basis,

except in areas surrounded by or located in matrix or

AMA lands, except if sites are centered on reserve or

withdrawn areas.

2. Owl Circle Dimensions:
21428 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

TABLE 1—Continued

Rule provision Washington proposed rule Service proposed rule

Inside SOSEAs ............ All SOSEAs: All habitats within 0.7 miles/1,000 acres

retained.

Dimensions are discussed in the preamble to the proposed 4(d) rule and the DEAA.

Hoh-Clearwater SOSEA: 5,863 acres of suitable owl

habitat within median owl home range circle (2.7 mile

radius) must be retained.

Median annual home range, approximately the same

size as state proposal.

At least 40 percent suitable owl habitat within owl median home range must be retained.

All other SOSEAs: 2,605 acres of suitable owl habitat

within median owl home range circle (1.8 mile radius)

must be retained

Outside SOSEAs .......... The 70 acres highest quality habitat around the site

center must be retained from March 1 through Aug.

31.

The 70 acres of highest quality habitat closest to an owl

site center must be retained.

3. SEPA Trigger:

Within Important Landscapes.Within SOSEA boundaries harvesting, road construction

or aerial application of pesticides on suitable habitat

inside owl circles (except within the Entiat SOSEA

where the trigger applies only on suitable habitat inside owl circles and inside the areas indicated for demographic support.).

Federal permit requirement, no NEPA trigger exists.

Outside Important

Landscapes.

Outside of a SOSEA: harvesting, road construction, or

aerial application of pesticides between March 1 and

August 31, on the 70 acres of highest quality suitable

habitat

Exemptions to SEPA .... —Under an approved Landowner Option Plan

—HCP approved by USFWS

—Prelisting agreements or habitat management plan

accompanied by a ‘‘no-take’’ letter from the USFWS

—4(d) rule adopted by the USFWS

—Small parcel exemption

4. Prohibited Activities:

Within Important Landscapes.The SEPA triggers in the state proposal require SEPA

review, they do not prohibit activities.

Under the ESA, ‘‘incidental take’’ is generally prohibited

and is only allowed under limited circumstances.

Timber harvest activities are prohibited in SEAs if they

result in the incidental take of a spotted owl (a significant likelihood if suitable habitat drops below 40 percent within the median annual owl home range.)

Alternative proscription allows harvesting on non-Federal lands surrounded by or located in Federal matrix

or AMA lands if the Federal matrix or AMA prescriptions and restrictions are followed.

Outside Important

Landscapes.

(No equivalent) ................................................................ Timber harvest actions are prohibited if they result in

retention of less than 70 acres of highest quality suitable habitat closest to the site center or impact the

sites centered inside Federal Reserves, Administratively withdrawn lands or Congressionally reserved

lands (no seasonal restrictions).

Incidental take of owls is not authorized for owls whose

site center is located within or along the boundary of

a Federal reserve or Administratively withdrawn lands

or Congressionally reserved lands (except on the

Olympic Peninsula), or along or within the boundary

of an SEA.

Exemptions to Prohibitions.(No equivalent) ................................................................ Harvest is allowed:

—With an approved HCP;

—With an approved Local Option Plan;

—With a Spotted Owl Habitat Enhancement Agreement.

5. Planning Components

Needed to Authorize Incidental Take:.

Establishes a process for the development of the Landowner Option Plan (LOP):.

—Description of area;

—Identifies elements that are to be included in a LOP:

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) required for owners of

more than 5,000 acres. HCPs must include:

—Goals and objectives

—Planning area description

—Physical features

—Current spotted owl habitat status

—Current owl status

—Management proposals and operation plans

—Projected spotted owl habitats

—Training

—Monitoring

—Reporting
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules 21429

TABLE 1—Continued

Rule provision Washington proposed rule Service proposed rule

—Plan modification

—Plan duration

—Approval process

—Enforcement process

(No equivalent) ................................................................ Proposes a Local Option Conservation Plan (ShortForm HCP) for Owners of 80–5,000 acres. Basic criteria generally same as for regular HCP although the

application process will be streamlined.

Establishes a process for the development of Cooperative Habitat Enhancement Agreements.Proposes similar Habitat Enhancement Agreement

process.

Identified elements:

—Description of agreement area

—Current owl habitat status

—Management proposals

—Projected habitat development

—Agreement modification

—Agreement duration

—Approval process

—Enforcement process

Agreement to be approved by DNR in consultation with

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, others..

6. Disturbance ..................... Road construction within SOSEA boundary restricted

within .25 miles of site center between March 1 and

August 31, unless owls are not actively nesting.

(No equivalent proposal).

Felling and bucking within SOSEA boundary restricted

within .25 miles of site center between March 1 and

August 31, unless owls are not actively nesting.

Cable yarding within a SOSEA boundary restricted

within .25 miles of site center between March 1 and

August 31, unless owls are not actively nesting..

Helicopter yarding within SOSEA boundary restricted

within .25 miles of site center between March 1 and

August 31, unless the owls are not actively nesting..

Tractor and wheel skidding systems operations of

heavy equipment within a SOSEA boundary restricted within .25 miles of site center between March

1 and August 31, unless the owls are not actively

nesting..

Slash disposal or prescribed burning within a SOSEA

boundary restricted within .25 miles of site center between March 1 and August 31, unless the owls are

not actively nesting..

7. Small Landowner Exemption.Provides for small parcel exemption: ..............................

—If a landowner owns or controls 500 acres or less

within the SOSEA; and

—The forest practice is not within .7 mile of a site center

Owners of not more than 80 acres of forest land not restricted as long as harvest does not destroy or degrade the 70 acres of suitable habitat closest to the

owl site center.

The Service is in the process of

analyzing the state’s proposed rule as a

possible alternative to the Service’s

proposed 4(d) rule published February

17, 1995. The state’s comment period

for their proposed rule has expired,

however, the Service is interested in

receiving comment from the interested

public regarding the advisability of

adapting some or all of the Washington

state rule in any final 4(d) rule that the

Service may publish. To receive an

actual copy of the State of Washington

proposed rule and the state’s

Supplemental Draft Environmental

Impact Statement, write to Washington

State Department of Natural Resources,

Forest Practices Division, P.O. Box

47012, Olympia, WA 98504–7012, Attn:

Judith Holter.

The Service’s Draft EAA, including all

maps, tables, charts, and graphs,

remains available on the Internet’s

World Wide Web at http://

www.r1.fws.gov/4deaa/welcome.html.

References Cited

Hanson, E., Hays, D., Hicks, L., Young, L.,

and J. Buchanan. 1993. Spotted owl

habitat in Washington: a report to the

Washington Forest Practices Board.

Washington Forest Practices Board

Spotted Owl Advisory Group. Olympia,

Washington.

WDNR. 1996. Supplemental draft

environmental impact statement and

appendices on forest practices rule

proposals for the northern spotted owl.

Washington Forest Practices Board,

Washington Department of Natural

Resources. Olympia, Washington.

Dated: April 30, 1996.

Thomas Dwyer,

Acting Regional Director, U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service Region 1, Portland, Oregon.

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
21430 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 92 / Friday, May 10, 1996 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 96–11213 Filed 5–9–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–C