Proposed Programmatic Statewide Red-cockaded Woodpecker Safe Harbor Agreement, Florida, 3882-3883 [E6-797]
Download as PDF
3882
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 / Notices
public access and use under this
alternative would continue; to gain
access to many areas would remain by
boat only from the reservoir. Many more
environmental education opportunities
both on and off the refuge would be
pursued.
Even under Alternative D, isolation of
the refuge from its headquarters would
continue to hamper hands-on refuge
management. The alternative would add
one assistant refuge manager with law
enforcement collateral duty, and one
wildlife biologist with visitor services
collateral duty; and would also
investigate sharing a forester with other
refuges. Recommended staffing would
be six: Refuge manager, assistant refuge
manager, and office assistant at refuge
headquarters, and a biologist and two
maintenance workers on the refuge.
Authority: This notice is published under
the authority of the National Wildlife Refuge
System Improvement Act of 1997, Public
Law 105–57.
Dated: July 25, 2005.
Linda H. Kelsey,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 06–616 Filed 1–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Proposed Programmatic Statewide
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Safe
Harbor Agreement, Florida
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of permit application.
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Florida Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission (FFWC or
Applicant) has applied to the Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for an
enhancement of survival permit (ESP)
pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The ESP application includes a
proposed Safe Harbor Agreement
(Agreement) for the endangered redcockaded woodpecker, (Picoides
borealis) (RCW), for a period of 99 years.
If approved, the Agreement would allow
the Applicant to issue Certificates of
Inclusion (CI) throughout the State of
Florida to eligible non-Federal
landowners that complete an approved
Safe Harbor Management Agreement
(SHMA).
We announce the opening of a 30-day
comment period and request comments
from the public on the Applicant’s ESP
application; the accompanying
proposed Agreement, and the
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Jan 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
supporting Environmental Action
Statement (EAS) Screening Form. All
comments received, including names
and addresses, will become part of the
official administrative record and may
be made available to the public, subject
to the requirements of the Privacy Act
and Freedom of Information Act. For
further information and instructions on
reviewing and commenting on this
application, see the ADDRESSES section,
below.
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before February 23, 2006.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of
the information available by contacting
the Service’s Regional Safe Harbor
Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite
200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345, or Field
Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services Field
Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama
City, Florida 32405. Alternatively, you
may set up an appointment to view
these documents at either location
during normal business hours. Written
data or comments should be submitted
to the Atlanta, Georgia, Regional Office.
Requests for the documentation must be
in writing to be processed, and
comments must be in writing to be
considered. When you are requesting or
reviewing the information provided in
this notice, please reference ‘‘Proposed
Programmatic Statewide Red-cockaded
Woodpecker Safe Harbor Agreement,
Florida’’ in any correspondence.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Richard Gooch, Regional Safe Harbor
Program Coordinator at the Service’s
Southeast Regional Office (see
ADDRESSES above), telephone (404) 679–
7124; or Mr. Stan Simpkins, Ecologist,
Panama City Ecological Services Field
Office (see ADDRESSES above), telephone
(850) 769–0552.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Primary
threats to the RCW throughout its range
all have the same basic cause: lack of
suitable habitat. To help address this
threat, the Service has previously
entered into programmatic Safe Harbor
Agreements in Georgia, Louisiana, and
South Carolina. These previous
agreements are similar to the Agreement
that is being proposed by FFWC.
Under a Safe Harbor Agreement,
participating property owners
voluntarily undertake management
activities on their property to enhance,
restore, or maintain habitat benefiting
species listed under the Act. Safe
Harbor Agreements encourage private
and other non-Federal property owners
to implement conservation efforts for
listed species by assuring property
owners they will not be subjected to
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
increased property use restrictions if
their efforts attract listed species to their
property or increase the numbers or
distribution of listed species already on
their property. Application
requirements and issuance criteria for
ESPs through Safe Harbor Agreements
are found in 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32.
The FFWCs proposed state-wide
Agreement is designed to encourage
voluntary RCW habitat restoration or
enhancement activities by relieving a
landowner who enters into a
landowner-specific agreement (the
SHMA) from any additional
responsibility under the Act beyond that
which exists at the time he or she enters
into the program. The SHMA will
identify any existing RCWs and any
associated habitat (the baseline) and
will describe the actions that the
landowner commits to take (e.g.,
hardwood midstory removal, cavity
provisioning, prescribed burning, etc.)
or will allow to be taken to improve
RCW habitat on the property, and the
time period within which those actions
are to be taken and maintained. A
participating landowner must maintain
the baseline on his/her property (i.e.,
any existing RCW groups and/or
associated habitat), but may be allowed
the opportunity to incidentally take
RCWs at some point in the future if
above baseline RCWs are attracted to
that site by the proactive management
measures undertaken by the landowner.
It is important to note that the
Agreement does not envision, nor will
it authorize, incidental take of any preSHMA existing RCW group with one
exception. This exception is incidental
take related to a baseline shift; in this
circumstance the baseline will be
maintained but redrawn or shifted on
that landowner’s property. Among the
minimization measures proposed by the
Applicant are no incidental take of
RCWs during the breeding season,
consolidation of small, isolated RCW
populations at sites capable of
supporting a viable RCW population,
and measures to improve current and
potential habitat for the species. Further
details on the topics described above are
found in the aforementioned documents
available for review under this notice.
The geographic scope of the
Applicant’s Agreement is the entire
State of Florida, but the Agreement
would only authorize the future
incidental take of above-baseline RCW
groups on lands for which a CI has been
issued. Lands potentially eligible for
inclusion include all privately owned
lands and public lands owned by cities,
counties, and municipalities, with
potentially suitable RCW habitat in
Florida.
E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM
24JAN1
rmajette on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 15 / Tuesday, January 24, 2006 / Notices
The agreement is expected to attract
sufficient interest among Florida
landowners to generate substantial
conservation benefits to the RCW on a
landscape scale. FFWCs agreement was
developed in an adaptive management
framework to allow changes in the
program based on new scientific
information including, but not limited
to, biological needs and management
actions proven to benefit the species or
its habitat.
We have made a preliminary
determination that issuance of the ESP
will not result in significant
environmental, economic, social,
historical, cultural impacts and is
therefore, categorically excluded from
review under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of
1969, as amended pursuant to 516
Department Manual 2, Appendix 1 and
516 Department Manual 6 Appendix 1.
In addition, we have evaluated the
proposed ESP under section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act and
have concluded that this Agreement
will not affect cultural resources on or
eligible for, the National Historic
Register of Historic Places. We base our
conclusions on our review of the
process for protection and consideration
of cultural resources included in the
associated Agreement as well as the
scope of the voluntary management
actions identified in the Agreement. We
have consulted with the Florida State
Historic Preservation Officer and have
received concurrence with our
conclusion. We have also consulted
with the appropriate Tribal Preservation
Officers.
We provide this notice pursuant to
section 10(c) of the Act and pursuant to
implementing regulations for NEPA (40
CFR 1506.6). We will evaluate the
proposed Agreement, associated
documents, and comments submitted
thereon to determine whether the
requirements of section 10(a) of the Act
and NEPA have been met. If we
determine that the requirements are
met, we will issue an ESP under section
10(a)(1)(A) of the Act to the Applicant
in accordance with the terms of the
Agreement and specific terms and
conditions of the authorizing ESP. We
will not make our final decision until
after the end of the 30-day comment
period and will fully consider all
comments received during the comment
period.
Dated: December 28, 2005.
Cynthia K. Dohner,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. E6–797 Filed 1–23–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:44 Jan 23, 2006
Jkt 208001
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Proposed Information Collection Under
the Paperwork Reduction Act;
Comment Request
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) invites
comments on two information
collection requests which will be
renewed. The two collections are: Class
III Gaming Procedures, 1076–0149, and
Tribal Revenue Allocation Plans, 1076–
0150.
DATES: Submit your comments and
suggestions on or before March 27,
2006, to be assured of consideration.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent
to: George Skibine, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Office of Indian Gaming
Management, Mail Stop 4600–MIB,
1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC
20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Interested persons may get copies of the
information collection requests without
charge by contacting George Skibine at
(202) 219–4066 or facsimile number
(202) 273–3153.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
provides an opportunity for interested
parties to comment on proposed
information collection requests. The
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of
Indian Gaming Management is
proceeding with this public comment
period as the first step in getting a
normal information collection clearance
from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Each request contains (1)
type of review, (2) title, (3) summary of
the collection, (4) respondents, (5)
frequency of collection, (6) reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Please note that we will not sponsor
nor conduct, and you need not respond
to, a request for information unless we
display the OMB control number and
the expiration date.
Class III Gaming Procedures
Type of review: Renewal.
Title: Class III Gaming Procedures, 25
CFR 291.
Summary: The collection of
information will ensure that the
provisions of IGRA, the relevant
provisions of State laws, Federal law
and the trust obligations of the United
States are met when federally
recognized tribes submit Class III
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
3883
procedures for review and approval by
the Secretary of the Interior. Sections
291.4, 291.10, 291.12 and 291.15 of 25
CFR Part 291, Class III Gaming
Procedures, specifies the information
collection requirement. An Indian tribe
must ask the Secretary to issue Class III
gaming procedures. The information to
be collected includes: The name of
Tribe and the State, tribal documents,
State documents, regulatory schemes,
the proposed procedures and other
documents deemed necessary.
Collection of this information is
currently authorized under an approval
by OMB (OMB Control Number 1076–
0149). All information is collected when
the tribe makes a request for Class III
gaming procedures. Annual reporting
and recordkeeping burden for this
collection of information is estimated to
occur one time on an annual basis. The
estimated number of annual requests is
12 tribes seeking Class III gaming
procedures. The estimated time to
review instructions and complete each
application is 320 hours. Thus, the total
annual reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection is estimated to
be 3,840 hours.
Frequency of Collection: Annually.
Description of Respondents: Federally
recognized tribes.
Total Respondents: 12.
Burden Hours per Application: 320.
Total Annual Burden Hours: 3,840
hours.
Tribal Revenue Allocation Plans
Type of review: Extension of a
currently-approved collection.
Title: Tribal Revenue Allocation
Plans, 25 CFR 290.
Summary: In order for Indian tribes to
distribute net gaming revenues in the
form of per capita payments,
information is needed by the BIA to
ensure that Tribal Revenue Allocation
Plans include assurances that certain
statutory requirements are met, a
breakdown of the specific uses to which
net gaming revenues will be allocated,
eligibility requirements for
participation, tax liability notification
and the assurance of the protection and
preservation of the per capita share of
minors and legal incompetents. Sections
290.12, 290.17, 290.24 and 290.26 of 25
CFR Part 290, Tribal Revenue Allocation
Plans, specifies the information
collection requirement. An Indian tribe
must ask the Secretary to approve a
Tribal Revenue Allocation Plan. The
information to be collected includes:
name of Tribe, tribal documents, the
allocation plan and other documents
deemed necessary. Collection of this
information is currently authorized
under an approval by OMB (OMB
E:\FR\FM\24JAN1.SGM
24JAN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 15 (Tuesday, January 24, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3882-3883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-797]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Proposed Programmatic Statewide Red-cockaded Woodpecker Safe
Harbor Agreement, Florida
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of permit application.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWC or
Applicant) has applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for
an enhancement of survival permit (ESP) pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A)
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.). The ESP application includes a proposed Safe Harbor Agreement
(Agreement) for the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, (Picoides
borealis) (RCW), for a period of 99 years. If approved, the Agreement
would allow the Applicant to issue Certificates of Inclusion (CI)
throughout the State of Florida to eligible non-Federal landowners that
complete an approved Safe Harbor Management Agreement (SHMA).
We announce the opening of a 30-day comment period and request
comments from the public on the Applicant's ESP application; the
accompanying proposed Agreement, and the supporting Environmental
Action Statement (EAS) Screening Form. All comments received, including
names and addresses, will become part of the official administrative
record and may be made available to the public, subject to the
requirements of the Privacy Act and Freedom of Information Act. For
further information and instructions on reviewing and commenting on
this application, see the ADDRESSES section, below.
DATES: Written comments should be received on or before February 23,
2006.
ADDRESSES: You may obtain a copy of the information available by
contacting the Service's Regional Safe Harbor Coordinator, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta,
Georgia 30345, or Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ecological Services Field Office, 1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City,
Florida 32405. Alternatively, you may set up an appointment to view
these documents at either location during normal business hours.
Written data or comments should be submitted to the Atlanta, Georgia,
Regional Office. Requests for the documentation must be in writing to
be processed, and comments must be in writing to be considered. When
you are requesting or reviewing the information provided in this
notice, please reference ``Proposed Programmatic Statewide Red-cockaded
Woodpecker Safe Harbor Agreement, Florida'' in any correspondence.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Gooch, Regional Safe
Harbor Program Coordinator at the Service's Southeast Regional Office
(see ADDRESSES above), telephone (404) 679-7124; or Mr. Stan Simpkins,
Ecologist, Panama City Ecological Services Field Office (see ADDRESSES
above), telephone (850) 769-0552.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Primary threats to the RCW throughout its
range all have the same basic cause: lack of suitable habitat. To help
address this threat, the Service has previously entered into
programmatic Safe Harbor Agreements in Georgia, Louisiana, and South
Carolina. These previous agreements are similar to the Agreement that
is being proposed by FFWC.
Under a Safe Harbor Agreement, participating property owners
voluntarily undertake management activities on their property to
enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting species listed under
the Act. Safe Harbor Agreements encourage private and other non-Federal
property owners to implement conservation efforts for listed species by
assuring property owners they will not be subjected to increased
property use restrictions if their efforts attract listed species to
their property or increase the numbers or distribution of listed
species already on their property. Application requirements and
issuance criteria for ESPs through Safe Harbor Agreements are found in
50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32.
The FFWCs proposed state-wide Agreement is designed to encourage
voluntary RCW habitat restoration or enhancement activities by
relieving a landowner who enters into a landowner-specific agreement
(the SHMA) from any additional responsibility under the Act beyond that
which exists at the time he or she enters into the program. The SHMA
will identify any existing RCWs and any associated habitat (the
baseline) and will describe the actions that the landowner commits to
take (e.g., hardwood midstory removal, cavity provisioning, prescribed
burning, etc.) or will allow to be taken to improve RCW habitat on the
property, and the time period within which those actions are to be
taken and maintained. A participating landowner must maintain the
baseline on his/her property (i.e., any existing RCW groups and/or
associated habitat), but may be allowed the opportunity to incidentally
take RCWs at some point in the future if above baseline RCWs are
attracted to that site by the proactive management measures undertaken
by the landowner. It is important to note that the Agreement does not
envision, nor will it authorize, incidental take of any pre-SHMA
existing RCW group with one exception. This exception is incidental
take related to a baseline shift; in this circumstance the baseline
will be maintained but redrawn or shifted on that landowner's property.
Among the minimization measures proposed by the Applicant are no
incidental take of RCWs during the breeding season, consolidation of
small, isolated RCW populations at sites capable of supporting a viable
RCW population, and measures to improve current and potential habitat
for the species. Further details on the topics described above are
found in the aforementioned documents available for review under this
notice.
The geographic scope of the Applicant's Agreement is the entire
State of Florida, but the Agreement would only authorize the future
incidental take of above-baseline RCW groups on lands for which a CI
has been issued. Lands potentially eligible for inclusion include all
privately owned lands and public lands owned by cities, counties, and
municipalities, with potentially suitable RCW habitat in Florida.
[[Page 3883]]
The agreement is expected to attract sufficient interest among
Florida landowners to generate substantial conservation benefits to the
RCW on a landscape scale. FFWCs agreement was developed in an adaptive
management framework to allow changes in the program based on new
scientific information including, but not limited to, biological needs
and management actions proven to benefit the species or its habitat.
We have made a preliminary determination that issuance of the ESP
will not result in significant environmental, economic, social,
historical, cultural impacts and is therefore, categorically excluded
from review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969,
as amended pursuant to 516 Department Manual 2, Appendix 1 and 516
Department Manual 6 Appendix 1. In addition, we have evaluated the
proposed ESP under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and have concluded that this Agreement will not affect cultural
resources on or eligible for, the National Historic Register of
Historic Places. We base our conclusions on our review of the process
for protection and consideration of cultural resources included in the
associated Agreement as well as the scope of the voluntary management
actions identified in the Agreement. We have consulted with the Florida
State Historic Preservation Officer and have received concurrence with
our conclusion. We have also consulted with the appropriate Tribal
Preservation Officers.
We provide this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and
pursuant to implementing regulations for NEPA (40 CFR 1506.6). We will
evaluate the proposed Agreement, associated documents, and comments
submitted thereon to determine whether the requirements of section
10(a) of the Act and NEPA have been met. If we determine that the
requirements are met, we will issue an ESP under section 10(a)(1)(A) of
the Act to the Applicant in accordance with the terms of the Agreement
and specific terms and conditions of the authorizing ESP. We will not
make our final decision until after the end of the 30-day comment
period and will fully consider all comments received during the comment
period.
Dated: December 28, 2005.
Cynthia K. Dohner,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. E6-797 Filed 1-23-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P