18618 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Notices

Applicant

Scott Ellis plans to conduct nocturnal

black-footed ferret surveys on a 150-acre

prairie dog colony. Permit number PRT–

804124 has been assigned to this

applicant, and this permit is valid for a

period of 2 years.

Nancy M. Kaufman,

Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque,

New Mexico.

[FR Doc. 96–10325 Filed 4–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–55–P

Availability of a Revised Habitat

Conservation Plan and Supplement to

a Previously Circulated Environmental

Assessment Evaluating Proposed

Issuance of Incidental Take Permit

PRT–803743 to the City of Poway and

Its Redevelopment Agency in San

Diego County, CA

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

SUMMARY: The City of Poway and its

Redevelopment Agency (applicants)

have applied to the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (Service) for an

incidental take permit (PRT–803743)

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

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act). The application package

includes a Subarea Habitat Conservation

Plan (HCP) and Implementing

Agreement (IA). The proposed

incidental take would occur as a result

of habitat disturbance associated with

residential and limited municipal

development in the City of Poway, San

Diego County, California.

The requested permit would authorize

the incidental take of 4 animal species

listed as endangered and 2 animal

species listed as threatened. The

applicants also have requested coverage

for an additional 37 unlisted, sensitive

species (11 plant, 26 animal), including

three proposed endangered species. Of

these 43 species, 22 are known to occur

within the City of Poway. The June 21,

1995, Notice of Availability (60 FR

32337) inadvertently omitted mention of

the remaining 21 species. These 21

species either are not known to occur

within Poway or the impacts of the HCP

on the species were considered to be

insignificant (discountable, minor in

relationship to the species as a whole,

or not reasonably expected to occur).

The HCP proposes to conserve all 43

species according to standards required

for listed species under the Act. The

applicant has requested that all 43

species be included in the permit. In the

event that any of the 43 species that are

currently unlisted become listed in the

future, the permit would take effect

upon the listing of those species.

An Environmental Assessment/Initial

Study Mitigated Negative Declaration

(EA/IS) for the proposed permit

issuance and draft Subarea HCP was

circulated for public review in June,

1995, in accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and

California Environmental Quality Act

regulations (60 FR 32337). On August

15, 1995, the Poway City Council

approved the Subarea HCP with the

stipulation that participation in the HCP

by private property owners would be

optional, and not mandatory as

originally proposed. Private property

owners who do not wish to be included

in the Subarea HCP and want to develop

their property in a manner that would

result in take of a listed species would

obtain development approvals through

the traditional endangered species

permit process under either section 10

or section 7 of the Act. A supplemental

EA has been prepared to evaluate the

effects of changing the plan from

mandatory to voluntary private

landowner participation. The Subarea

HCP also has been revised accordingly

and an errata sheet prepared. This

notice advises the public that the

supplemental EA and revised HCP are

available for review and comment. All

comments received, including names

and addresses, will become part of the

administrative record and may be made

available to the public. This notice is

provided pursuant to section 10(c) of

the Act and NEPA regulations (40 CFR

1506.6).

DATES: Written comments should be

received on or before May 28, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding the

adequacy of the supplemental EA and

revised HCP should be addressed to Mr.

Gail Kobetich, Field Supervisor, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, 2730 Loker

Avenue West, Carlsbad, CA 92008; FAX

(619) 431–9618.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Nancy Gilbert, Fish and Wildlife

Biologist, at the above address,

telephone (619) 431–9440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Documents

Copies of the Supplemental EA and

HCP errata sheet will be sent to

everyone on the original distribution list

or who commented on the permit

application during the initial public

comment period. Other individuals who

wish to receive copies of the

supplemental EA or revised HCP for

review should immediately contact Ms.

Gilbert. Copies of the supplemental EA,

Subarea HCP, HCP errata sheet, and

original permit application also may be

viewed by appointment, during normal

business hours, at the above address.

Background

The EA/IS, circulated in June 1995,

evaluated four alternatives including the

proposed action (issuance of the

incidental take permit). The three

alternatives to the proposed action are

summarized below and incorporated by

reference in the supplemental EA, but

analysis of these alternatives is not

repeated in the supplemental EA. Under

the No Action Alternative, the proposed

HCP would not be implemented. The

applicants would either avoid take of

listed species within the planning area,

or apply for individual 10(a)(1)(B)

permits on a project-by-project basis.

Existing land use and environmental

regulations would apply to all projects

proposed within the planning area.

Existing regulatory practices require

mitigation for impacts to sensitive

species and habitats resulting in lands

being set aside for open-space

preservation; however, greater habitat

fragmentation would likely occur under

the No Action Alternative than the

Proposed Alternative because the lands

set aside for open-space preservation

would not be assembled in a

coordinated preserve system. Under a

100 Percent Preservation of Mitigation

Area Alternative, all identified habitat

and species within the Mitigation Area

would be preserved. Development

would be prohibited within the

proposed Mitigation Area boundary

except on already disturbed areas where

such development would not impact the

viability of the proposed Mitigation

Area. Under the Modified Mitigation

Area Alternative, the proposed

Mitigation Area boundary would consist

only of lands already preserved in

Poway; i.e., cornerstone lands as

identified in the Subarea HCP, parcels

purchased for mitigation of the ScrippsPoway Parkway Extension project, and

slopes over 45 percent within the

Mitigation Area.

Under the Proposed Alternative,

changing participation in the Subarea

HCP from mandatory to optional for

private property owners could modestly

increase impacts to native vegetation

and species, as well as fragmentation in

biological core and linkage areas

important to overall preserve design.

However, existing regulations that

afford protection to listed species would

reduce these effects. In cases where

private property owners choose not to

participate in the Subarea HCP,

preservation of open space and

avoidance or mitigation for biological

impacts would still occur in accordance
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 82 / Friday, April 26, 1996 / Notices 18619

with local, State, and Federal

regulations, but possibly in a less

organized, more piece-meal fashion.

Consistent standards may not be

followed, and open space linkages may

be more difficult to plan, assemble, and

maintain. In many cases, however,

participation in the voluntary HCP is

likely to benefit landowners in terms of

time and money relative to obtaining

individual permits under the Act,

resulting in a strong incentive for

owners of parcels supporting listed

species to participate in the Subarea

HCP. Given the large amount of public

land dedicated as biological open space

in Poway, the relatively low level of

habitat impacts expected on private

lands, and the strength of existing local,

State, and Federal environmental

protection regulations, adverse effects

on listed species of changing the

Subarea HCP to optional participation

for private property owners are expected

to be minimal.

Dated: April 22, 1996.

Thomas J. Dwyer,

Deputy Regional Director, Region 1, Portland,

Oregon.

[FR Doc. 96–10358 Filed 4–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Request for Public Comment on Indian

Education Topics

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Tribal Consultation on

Indian Education Topics and Comment

Period.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) will

conduct tribal consultation meetings to

obtain comments concerning potential

issues in Indian education programs. In

addition to issues which may be raised

by tribes and tribal organizations, the

BIA has identified the following issues

to be addressed at these meetings:

School Attendance Boundaries, Element

10 Formula, National Performance

Review Project and School Reform

Initiative.

DATES: The dates and locations of the

tribal consultation meetings are listed

below. All meetings will begin at 9:00

a.m. and continue until 3:00 p.m., local

time.

Date Location BIA contact and telephone number

May 1, 1996 UTEC, Bismarck, North Dakota .............................................................................................. Cherie Farlee, (605) 964–8722.

May 2, 1996 Rode Way Inn, Green Bay, Wisconsin ................................................................................... Terry Portra, (612) 373–1090.

May 2, 1996 Southern Pueblos Agency, Albuquerque, New Mexico ......................................................... Benjamin Atencio, (505) 766–3034.

May 2, 1996 Holiday Inn, Gallup, New Mexico ........................................................................................... Andrew Tah, (520) 283–2218.

May 7, 1996 Tribal Council, Cherokee, North Carolina .............................................................................. LaVonna Weller, (703) 235–3233.

May 9, 1996 Marriott, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma ....................................................................................... Judy Littleman, (405) 945–6051.

May 10, 1996 Area Office, Billings, Montana ................................................................................................ Larry Parker, (406) 247–7953.

May 13, 1996 Area Office, Anchorage, Alaska ............................................................................................. Robert Pringle, (907) 271–4115.

May 14, 1996 Holiday Inn, Phoenix, Arizona ................................................................................................ Angelita Felix, (520) 262–3557.

May 15, 1996 Area Office, Sacramento, California ....................................................................................... Fayetta Babby, (916) 979–2560.

May 21, 1996 Red Lion, Pendelton, Oregon ................................................................................................. John Reimer, (503) 872–2743.

All comments must be received by the

close of business June 15, 1996. Written

comments must be mailed to the Office

of Indian Education Programs, MS–

3512–MIB, OIE–32, 1849 C Street, NW,

Washington, D.C. 20240, Attn: Mr.

Goodwin K. Cobb III, or hand delivered

to Room 3512 at the same address.

Telefax responses may be transmitted to

Mr. Cobb at (202) 273–0030.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Goodwin K. Cobb III or Dr. Jim Martin

at the above address or call (202) 208–

3550.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These

tribal consultation meetings are a

follow-up to similar meetings conducted

by the BIA since 1990. The purpose of

the tribal consultation, as required by 25

U.S.C. 2011(b), is to provide Indian

tribes, school boards, parents, Indian

organizations and other interested

parties with an opportunity to comment

on potential issues raised during

previous consultation meetings or being

considered by the BIA regarding Indian

education programs. A consultation

booklet is being distributed to federally

recognized Indian tribes, BIA Area and

Agency Offices and BIA-funded schools.

The booklets will also be available from

local contact persons prior to and at

each meeting.

Dated: April 17, 1996.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 96–10303 Filed 4–25–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02–M

Bureau of Land Management

[MT–924–1430–01; MTM 83069]

Opening of Land in a Proposed

Withdrawal; Montana

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management,

Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The temporary 2-year

segregation of a proposed withdrawal of

1,800.10 acres of National Forest System

land for the Cave Mountain Research

Natural Area expires on June 15, 1996,

and the land will be open to mining. It

has been and remains open to surface

entry and mineral leasing.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 15, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandra Ward, BLM Montana State

Office, P.O. Box 36800, Billings,

Montana 59107, 406–255–2949.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A Notice

of proposed withdrawal was published

in the Federal Register, 59 FR 30951,

June 16, 1994, which segregated the

land described therein for up to 2 years

from location and entry under the

mining laws, subject to valid existing

rights, but not from other forms of

disposition which may by law be made

of National Forest System land. The 2-

year segregation expires June 15, 1996.

The withdrawal application will

continue to be processed, unless it is

canceled or denied. The land is

described as follows:

Principal Meridian, Montana

T. 10 S., R. 1 W.,

Sec. 31, lots 3 and 4, E1⁄2, and E1⁄2SW1⁄4;

Sec. 32, NE1⁄4, W1⁄2, NE1⁄4SE1⁄4, and

W1⁄2SE1⁄4.

T. 11 S., R 1 W.,

Sec. 5, W1⁄2NE1⁄4 and NW1⁄4;

Sec. 6, N1⁄2 and N1⁄2S1⁄2.

The area described contains 1,800.10 acres

in Madison County.

At 9 a.m., on June 15, 1996, the land

will be opened to location and entry

under the United States mining laws,

subject to valid existing rights, the