Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog, Sonoma County, California, 18927-18929 [2014-07521]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Notices
Planning Division, or Eric Tattersall,
Deputy Assistant Field Supervisor, at
the address shown above or at (916)
414–6600 (telephone). If you use a
telecommunications device for the deaf,
please call the Federal Information
Relay Service at (800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R8–ES–2014–N043; FF08E00000–
FXES11120800000–145]
Proposed Low-Effect Habitat
Conservation Plan for the California
Red-Legged Frog, Sonoma County,
California
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; receipt of
permit application, proposed habitat
conservation plan; request for comment.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), have received
an application from Bradley Jacobs
(applicant) for a 5-year incidental take
permit under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The
application addresses the potential for
‘‘take’’ of one listed animal, the
California red-legged frog. The applicant
would implement a conservation
program to minimize and mitigate the
project activities, as described in the
applicant’s low-effect habitat
conservation plan (HCP). We request
comments on the applicant’s
application and HCP, and our
preliminary determination that the HCP
qualifies as a ‘‘low-effect’’ habitat
conservation plan, eligible for a
categorical exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA). We discuss our basis
for this determination in our
environmental action statement (EAS),
also available for public review.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please
send your written comments by May 5,
2014. We will make the final permit
decision no sooner than May 5, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submitting Comments:
Please address written comments to
Stephanie Jentsch, Coast Bay Forest
Foothills Division, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way,
W–2605, Sacramento, CA 95825.
Alternatively, you may send comments
by facsimile to (916) 414–6713.
Reviewing Documents: You may
obtain copies of the permit application,
HCP, and EAS from the individuals in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT, or
from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office Web site at https://www.fws.gov/
sacramento. Copies of these documents
are also available for public inspection,
by appointment, during regular business
hours, at the Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mike Thomas, Chief, Conservation
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
Introduction
We have received an application from
Bradley Jacobs (applicant) for a 5-year
incidental take permit under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The application
addresses the potential for ‘‘take’’ of one
listed animal, the California red-legged
frog. The applicant would implement a
conservation program to minimize and
mitigate the project activities, as
described in the applicant’s low-effect
habitat conservation plan (HCP). We
request comments on the applicant’s
application and HCP, and our
preliminary determination that the HCP
qualifies as a ‘‘low-effect’’ habitat
conservation plan, eligible for a
categorical exclusion under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as
amended (NEPA). We discuss our basis
for this determination in our
environmental action statement (EAS),
also available for public review.
Background Information
Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531–
1544 et seq.) and Federal regulations (50
CFR 17) prohibit the taking of fish and
wildlife species listed as endangered or
threatened under section 4 of the Act.
Take of federally listed fish or wildlife
is defined under the Act as to harass,
harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill,
trap, capture, or collect listed species, or
attempt to engage in such conduct. The
term ‘‘harass’’ is defined in the
regulations as to carry out actions that
create the likelihood of injury to listed
species to such an extent as to
significantly disrupt normal behavioral
patterns, which include, but are not
limited to, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term
‘‘harm’’ is defined in the regulations as
significant habitat modification or
degradation that results in death or
injury of listed species by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, or
sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). However,
under specified circumstances, the
Service may issue permits that allow the
take of federally listed species, provided
that the take that occurs is incidental to,
but not the purpose of, an otherwise
lawful activity.
Regulations governing permits for
endangered and threatened species are
at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18927
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains
provisions for issuing such incidental
take permits to non-Federal entities for
the take of endangered and threatened
species, provided the following criteria
are met:
(1) The taking will be incidental;
(2) The applicants will, to the
maximum extent practicable, minimize
and mitigate the impact of such taking;
(3) The applicants will develop a
proposed HCP and ensure that adequate
funding for the HCP will be provided;
(4) The taking will not appreciably
reduce the likelihood of the survival
and recovery of the species in the wild;
and
(5) The applicants will carry out any
other measures that the Service may
require as being necessary or
appropriate for the purposes of the HCP.
Proposed Project
The draft HCP addresses potential
effects to the California red-legged frog
that may result from proposed activities,
and the applicant seeks incidental take
authorization for covered activities
within 8.5 acres located at 24129 Turkey
Road, Sonoma County, California. The
federally threatened California redlegged frog (Rana draytonii) will be the
only covered species in the applicant’s
proposed HCP.
The applicant would seek incidental
take authorization for this one covered
species and would receive assurances
under our ‘‘No Surprises’’ regulations
(50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)).
Proposed Covered Activities
The following actions are proposed as
the ‘‘Covered Activities’’ under the HCP:
Approximately 4.75 acres of upland
grassland habitat for California redlegged frog will be developed with a
residence and vineyard, and 0.15 acre of
grassland will be temporarily disturbed
to install utilities. This will include the
construction of an approximately 3,500square-foot house, construction of a
1,800-square-foot agricultural building,
construction of a gravel road and turnaround, the installation of a sewage
disposal system, and the planting of a
4.5-acre vineyard within the 8.5-acre
undeveloped site. The applicant seeks a
5-year permit to cover the activities
associated with this proposed
development within the 8.5-acre site
(the permit area).
Proposed Mitigation Measures
The applicant proposes to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate the effects to the
covered species associated with the
Covered Activities by fully
implementing the HCP. The following
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
18928
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Notices
mitigation and minimization measures
will be implemented:
• Purchase of 0.75-acres of California
red-legged frog credits at a Serviceapproved conservation bank;
• A pre-construction survey by a
qualified biologist prior to start of work;
• An employee education program;
• Presence of an on-site biological
monitor during initial grading and
vegetation clearing;
• Survey of equipment and trenches
by a biological monitor prior to start of
work each day;
• Implementation of an erosion and
sediment control plan that does not use
materials that could entrap or injure
California red-legged frogs;
• Implementation of Best
Management Practices to prevent any
construction debris or sediment from
impacting adjacent habitat;
• Limiting access routes and staging
areas to the minimum necessary;
• Storing food-related trash in sealed
containers and removing trash every 3
days;
• Prohibiting pets in the project site
during construction;
• Enforcing a speed limit of 15 miles
per hour on dirt roads;
• Maintaining all equipment to
prevent leaks;
• Storing hazardous materials in
sealed containers in a designated
location at least 200 feet from aquatic
habitat;
• Conducting grading between April
15 and October 15;
• Re-vegetating temporarily disturbed
areas with appropriate native seed
mixtures.
Proposed Action and Alternatives
Our proposed action (see below) is
approving the applicant’s HCP and
issuance of an incidental take permit for
the applicant’s Covered Activities. As
required by the Act, the applicant’s HCP
considers alternatives to the take under
the proposed action. The HCP considers
the environmental consequences of two
alternatives to the proposed action: (1)
The No Action Alternative; and (2) the
Reduced Development Alternative.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, we
would not issue an incidental take
permit; the applicant would not build
the proposed residence and vineyard;
the project area would remain
undeveloped; and the applicant would
not implement proposed mitigation
measures. While this No-Action
Alternative would avoid take of
covered-species, it is considered
infeasible because it would result in
unnecessary economic burden on the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
applicant. It also could result in the
transfer of the parcel to a party that
would fully develop the property
without maintaining any habitat on site.
For these reasons, the No-Action
Alternative has been rejected.
Reduced Development Alternative
Under the Reduced Development
Alternative, the access roadway and
vineyard would remain the same as in
the proposed action, but the proposed
structures would be reduced in size,
thereby reducing the total amount of
grassland developed. The Service would
issue a permit, and the applicant would
implement the proposed mitigation
measures. While this Reduced
Development Alternative would reduce
the loss of grassland habitat, it would
still potentially result in take of the
California red-legged frog, and it would
not reduce the project footprint to a
biologically meaningful extent. In
addition, this alternative would require
the employment of a vineyard
management company, resulting in
unnecessary economic burden to the
applicant and in increased traffic in the
permit area. For these reasons, the
Reduced Development Alternative has
been rejected.
Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action
Alternative, we would issue an
incidental take permit for the
applicant’s proposed project, which
includes the activities described above.
The Proposed Action Alternative would
result in the permanent loss of 0.25acres of upland habitat for California
red-legged frog that would be converted
to buildings or roads. Approximately
0.15-acres of upland habitat would be
temporarily disturbed but would then
be reseeded to grassland. An additional
4.5 acres of grassland would be
converted to vineyard, thereby
decreasing the quality of upland habitat
for California red-legged frog in the
permit area. To mitigate for these
effects, the applicant proposes to
purchase 0.75-acres of credits for
California red-legged frog at a Serviceapproved conservation bank. In
addition, the on-site pond and
surrounding grassland in the
northwestern corner of the property will
not be developed and will be managed
according to a Service-approved plan
that would improve habitat conditions
for California red-legged frog.
National Environmental Policy Act
As described in our EAS, we have
made the preliminary determination
that approval of the proposed HCP and
issuance of the permit would qualify as
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
a categorical exclusion under NEPA (42
U.S.C. 4321–4347 et seq.), as provided
by NEPA implementing regulations in
the Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR
1500.5(k), 1507.3(b)(2), 1508.4), by
Department of Interior regulations (43
CFR 46.205, 46.210, 46.215), and by the
Department of the Interior Manual (516
DM 3 and 516 DM 8). Our EAS found
that the proposed HCP qualifies as a
‘‘low-effect’’ habitat conservation plan,
as defined by our ‘‘Habitat Conservation
Planning and Incidental Take Permitting
Process Handbook’’ (November 1996).
Determination of whether a habitat
conservation plan qualifies as low-effect
is based on the following three criteria:
(1) Implementation of the proposed HCP
would result in minor or negligible
effects on federally listed, proposed, or
candidate species and their habitats; (2)
implementation of the proposed HCP
would result in minor or negligible
effects on other environmental values or
resources; and (3) impacts of the HCP,
considered together with the impacts of
other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable projects, would not result,
over time, in cumulative effects to
environmental values or resources that
would be considered significant. Based
upon the preliminary determinations in
the EAS, we do not intend to prepare
further NEPA documentation. We will
consider public comments when making
the final determination on whether to
prepare an additional NEPA document
on the proposed action.
Public Comments
We request data, comments, new
information, or suggestions from the
public, other concerned governmental
agencies, the scientific community,
Tribes, industry, or any other interested
party on this notice. We particularly
seek comments on the following:
(1) Biological information concerning
the species;
(2) Relevant data concerning the
species;
(3) Additional information concerning
the range, distribution, population size,
and population trends of the species;
(4) Current or planned activities in the
subject area and their possible impacts
on the species; and
(5) Identification of any other
environmental issues that should be
considered with regard to the proposed
transmission line and permit action.
You may submit your comments and
materials by one of the methods listed
above in ADDRESSES. Comments and
materials we receive, as well as
supporting documentation we used in
preparing the EAS, will be available for
public inspection by appointment,
during normal business hours, at our
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Notices
office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT).
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—might be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Next Steps
We will evaluate the permit
application, including the HCP, and
comments we receive to determine
whether the application meets the
requirements of section 10(a) of the Act.
If the requirements are met, we will
issue a permit to the applicant for the
incidental take of the California redlegged frog from the implementation of
the covered activities described in the
Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan
for California Red-legged Frog, Level 1
New Vineyard, 24129 Turkey Road,
Sonoma County, California. We will
make the final permit decision no
sooner than 30 days after publication of
this notice in the Federal Register.
Authority
We publish this notice under the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321–4347
et seq.; NEPA), and its implementing
regulations in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 40 CFR 1500–1508,
as well as in compliance with section
10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16
U.S.C. 1531–1544 et seq.; Act).
Dated: March 31, 2014.
Jennifer M. Norris,
Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California.
[FR Doc. 2014–07521 Filed 4–3–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[NPS–IMR–GRCA–0014472; PPWONRADE2,
PMP00EI05.YP0000, 13XP103905]
Environmental Impact Statement for a
Bison Management Plan, Grand
Canyon National Park, Arizona
National Park Service,
Department of the Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Intent.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:37 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42
U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), the National Park
Service (NPS) is preparing an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
for a plan to address the impacts of the
current abundance, distribution, and
movement of bison on the natural and
cultural resources of the North Rim of
Grand Canyon National Park (GRCA).
DATES: Interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies are
encouraged to provide written
comments regarding the scope of issues
to be addressed in the EIS. To be most
helpful to the planning process, the NPS
requests comments be submitted by
June 3, 2014. The NPS intends to hold
public scoping meetings on the Bison
Management Plan EIS during this period
and has tentatively identified the
following locations for the meetings:
Kanab, Utah; Flagstaff, Arizona, and
Phoenix, Arizona. Specific dates, times,
and locations will be made available via
a press release to local media, a public
scoping newsletter to be mailed or
emailed to interested parties, and on the
NPS’s Planning, Environment and
Public Comment (PEPC) Web site at
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/grca_
bison_eis. The NPS will provide
additional opportunities for the public
to offer written comments upon
publication of the draft EIS.
ADDRESSES: Information will be
available for public review online at
https://parkplanning.nps.gov/grca_
bison_eis; in the NPS and USFS offices
at 1824 Thompson Street, Flagstaff,
Arizona 86001; the USFS North Kaibab
Ranger District offices at 430 South
Main Street, Fredonia, Arizona 86022;
and in the Arizona Game and Fish
Department offices at 3500 South Lake
Mary Road, Flagstaff, Arizona 86001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A herd of
bison was brought to the Grand Canyon
region in the early 1900’s as part of a
private bison-cattle breeding
experiment. The herd was eventually
sold to the state of Arizona in 1925 and
subsequently came under the
jurisdiction of the Arizona Game and
Fish Department (AGFD). In 1950, the
AGFD (through an agreement with the
U.S. Forest Service ((USFS)) established
the House Rock Wildlife Area (HRWA)
near GRCA as a place for the bison to
reside. The AGFD managed the herd at
a stable level (around 100 animals)
through annual roundups and culling
until the early 1970s, when they
transitioned to public hunting as the
sole means of managing the bison
population.
Between the late 1990’s and 2000,
fires in the area created opportunities
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18929
for the bison herd to move out of the
HRWA, onto the Kaibab Plateau of the
Kaibab National Forest, and into the
park. Initially, bison would return to the
HRWA to calve; however, over the past
eight years, very few have returned to
HRWA and most now spend a majority
of their time inside GRCA, with many
not leaving the park at all. In the last
few years, the abundance, distribution,
and movement of bison in and near the
park have affected the NPS’s ability to
conserve the natural and cultural
resources on the North Rim of GRCA. In
addition, the current situation limits the
ability of the AGFD and USFS to meet
their goal for managing a huntable, freeranging bison herd on the Kaibab
National Forest. Since 2008, a
workgroup consisting of staff from NPS
(GRCA), AGFD, and USFS, has
identified research needs and
administrative and operational
challenges of long-term cooperative
management. As the lead agency in this
planning and EIS process, the NPS has
invited the AGFD and the USFS to be
cooperating agencies. Ultimately, the
NPS selected action will provide the
basis for GRCA’s participation in a longterm, interagency approach to manage
the current and future impacts of bison
in the park, while supporting AGFD and
USFS goals for a free-ranging bison
population on the Kaibab National
Forest.
If you wish to comment during the
scoping process, you may use any one
of several methods. The preferred
method for submitting comments is on
the NPS PEPC Web site at https://
parkplanning.nps.gov/grca_bison_eis.
You may also mail or hand-deliver your
comments to the Superintendent, Grand
Canyon National Park, P.O. Box 129,
Grand Canyon, Arizona 86023.
Comments will also be accepted during
public meetings; however, comments in
any format (hard copy or electronic)
submitted on behalf of others will not be
accepted. Before including your
address, phone number, email address,
or other personal identifying
information in your comment, you
should be aware that your entire
comment—including your personal
identifying information—may be made
publicly available at any time. While
you can ask us in your comment to
withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Martha Hahn, Grand Canyon National
Park Chief of Science and Resource
Management, P.O. Box 129, Grand
E:\FR\FM\04APN1.SGM
04APN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18927-18929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07521]
[[Page 18927]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R8-ES-2014-N043; FF08E00000-FXES11120800000-145]
Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the California
Red-Legged Frog, Sonoma County, California
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability; receipt of permit application, proposed
habitat conservation plan; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have
received an application from Bradley Jacobs (applicant) for a 5-year
incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). The application addresses the potential for ``take'' of
one listed animal, the California red-legged frog. The applicant would
implement a conservation program to minimize and mitigate the project
activities, as described in the applicant's low-effect habitat
conservation plan (HCP). We request comments on the applicant's
application and HCP, and our preliminary determination that the HCP
qualifies as a ``low-effect'' habitat conservation plan, eligible for a
categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA). We discuss our basis for this determination in
our environmental action statement (EAS), also available for public
review.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by
May 5, 2014. We will make the final permit decision no sooner than May
5, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Submitting Comments: Please address written comments to
Stephanie Jentsch, Coast Bay Forest Foothills Division, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage
Way, W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825. Alternatively, you may send comments
by facsimile to (916) 414-6713.
Reviewing Documents: You may obtain copies of the permit
application, HCP, and EAS from the individuals in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT, or from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
Web site at https://www.fws.gov/sacramento. Copies of these documents
are also available for public inspection, by appointment, during
regular business hours, at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Thomas, Chief, Conservation
Planning Division, or Eric Tattersall, Deputy Assistant Field
Supervisor, at the address shown above or at (916) 414-6600
(telephone). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf,
please call the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
We have received an application from Bradley Jacobs (applicant) for
a 5-year incidental take permit under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act). The application addresses the potential for
``take'' of one listed animal, the California red-legged frog. The
applicant would implement a conservation program to minimize and
mitigate the project activities, as described in the applicant's low-
effect habitat conservation plan (HCP). We request comments on the
applicant's application and HCP, and our preliminary determination that
the HCP qualifies as a ``low-effect'' habitat conservation plan,
eligible for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). We discuss our basis for this
determination in our environmental action statement (EAS), also
available for public review.
Background Information
Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 et seq.) and Federal
regulations (50 CFR 17) prohibit the taking of fish and wildlife
species listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Act.
Take of federally listed fish or wildlife is defined under the Act as
to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or
collect listed species, or attempt to engage in such conduct. The term
``harass'' is defined in the regulations as to carry out actions that
create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as
to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but
are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The
term ``harm'' is defined in the regulations as significant habitat
modification or degradation that results in death or injury of listed
species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). However,
under specified circumstances, the Service may issue permits that allow
the take of federally listed species, provided that the take that
occurs is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful
activity.
Regulations governing permits for endangered and threatened species
are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Act contains provisions for issuing such incidental take permits to
non-Federal entities for the take of endangered and threatened species,
provided the following criteria are met:
(1) The taking will be incidental;
(2) The applicants will, to the maximum extent practicable,
minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking;
(3) The applicants will develop a proposed HCP and ensure that
adequate funding for the HCP will be provided;
(4) The taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the
survival and recovery of the species in the wild; and
(5) The applicants will carry out any other measures that the
Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes
of the HCP.
Proposed Project
The draft HCP addresses potential effects to the California red-
legged frog that may result from proposed activities, and the applicant
seeks incidental take authorization for covered activities within 8.5
acres located at 24129 Turkey Road, Sonoma County, California. The
federally threatened California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) will
be the only covered species in the applicant's proposed HCP.
The applicant would seek incidental take authorization for this one
covered species and would receive assurances under our ``No Surprises''
regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)).
Proposed Covered Activities
The following actions are proposed as the ``Covered Activities''
under the HCP: Approximately 4.75 acres of upland grassland habitat for
California red-legged frog will be developed with a residence and
vineyard, and 0.15 acre of grassland will be temporarily disturbed to
install utilities. This will include the construction of an
approximately 3,500-square-foot house, construction of a 1,800-square-
foot agricultural building, construction of a gravel road and turn-
around, the installation of a sewage disposal system, and the planting
of a 4.5-acre vineyard within the 8.5-acre undeveloped site. The
applicant seeks a 5-year permit to cover the activities associated with
this proposed development within the 8.5-acre site (the permit area).
Proposed Mitigation Measures
The applicant proposes to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the effects
to the covered species associated with the Covered Activities by fully
implementing the HCP. The following
[[Page 18928]]
mitigation and minimization measures will be implemented:
Purchase of 0.75-acres of California red-legged frog
credits at a Service-approved conservation bank;
A pre-construction survey by a qualified biologist prior
to start of work;
An employee education program;
Presence of an on-site biological monitor during initial
grading and vegetation clearing;
Survey of equipment and trenches by a biological monitor
prior to start of work each day;
Implementation of an erosion and sediment control plan
that does not use materials that could entrap or injure California red-
legged frogs;
Implementation of Best Management Practices to prevent any
construction debris or sediment from impacting adjacent habitat;
Limiting access routes and staging areas to the minimum
necessary;
Storing food-related trash in sealed containers and
removing trash every 3 days;
Prohibiting pets in the project site during construction;
Enforcing a speed limit of 15 miles per hour on dirt
roads;
Maintaining all equipment to prevent leaks;
Storing hazardous materials in sealed containers in a
designated location at least 200 feet from aquatic habitat;
Conducting grading between April 15 and October 15;
Re-vegetating temporarily disturbed areas with appropriate
native seed mixtures.
Proposed Action and Alternatives
Our proposed action (see below) is approving the applicant's HCP
and issuance of an incidental take permit for the applicant's Covered
Activities. As required by the Act, the applicant's HCP considers
alternatives to the take under the proposed action. The HCP considers
the environmental consequences of two alternatives to the proposed
action: (1) The No Action Alternative; and (2) the Reduced Development
Alternative.
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, we would not issue an incidental
take permit; the applicant would not build the proposed residence and
vineyard; the project area would remain undeveloped; and the applicant
would not implement proposed mitigation measures. While this No-Action
Alternative would avoid take of covered-species, it is considered
infeasible because it would result in unnecessary economic burden on
the applicant. It also could result in the transfer of the parcel to a
party that would fully develop the property without maintaining any
habitat on site. For these reasons, the No-Action Alternative has been
rejected.
Reduced Development Alternative
Under the Reduced Development Alternative, the access roadway and
vineyard would remain the same as in the proposed action, but the
proposed structures would be reduced in size, thereby reducing the
total amount of grassland developed. The Service would issue a permit,
and the applicant would implement the proposed mitigation measures.
While this Reduced Development Alternative would reduce the loss of
grassland habitat, it would still potentially result in take of the
California red-legged frog, and it would not reduce the project
footprint to a biologically meaningful extent. In addition, this
alternative would require the employment of a vineyard management
company, resulting in unnecessary economic burden to the applicant and
in increased traffic in the permit area. For these reasons, the Reduced
Development Alternative has been rejected.
Proposed Action
Under the Proposed Action Alternative, we would issue an incidental
take permit for the applicant's proposed project, which includes the
activities described above. The Proposed Action Alternative would
result in the permanent loss of 0.25-acres of upland habitat for
California red-legged frog that would be converted to buildings or
roads. Approximately 0.15-acres of upland habitat would be temporarily
disturbed but would then be reseeded to grassland. An additional 4.5
acres of grassland would be converted to vineyard, thereby decreasing
the quality of upland habitat for California red-legged frog in the
permit area. To mitigate for these effects, the applicant proposes to
purchase 0.75-acres of credits for California red-legged frog at a
Service-approved conservation bank. In addition, the on-site pond and
surrounding grassland in the northwestern corner of the property will
not be developed and will be managed according to a Service-approved
plan that would improve habitat conditions for California red-legged
frog.
National Environmental Policy Act
As described in our EAS, we have made the preliminary determination
that approval of the proposed HCP and issuance of the permit would
qualify as a categorical exclusion under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 et
seq.), as provided by NEPA implementing regulations in the Code of
Federal Regulations (40 CFR 1500.5(k), 1507.3(b)(2), 1508.4), by
Department of Interior regulations (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, 46.215), and
by the Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 3 and 516 DM 8). Our
EAS found that the proposed HCP qualifies as a ``low-effect'' habitat
conservation plan, as defined by our ``Habitat Conservation Planning
and Incidental Take Permitting Process Handbook'' (November 1996).
Determination of whether a habitat conservation plan qualifies as
low-effect is based on the following three criteria: (1) Implementation
of the proposed HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on
federally listed, proposed, or candidate species and their habitats;
(2) implementation of the proposed HCP would result in minor or
negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3)
impacts of the HCP, considered together with the impacts of other past,
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result, over
time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources that
would be considered significant. Based upon the preliminary
determinations in the EAS, we do not intend to prepare further NEPA
documentation. We will consider public comments when making the final
determination on whether to prepare an additional NEPA document on the
proposed action.
Public Comments
We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the
public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific
community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this
notice. We particularly seek comments on the following:
(1) Biological information concerning the species;
(2) Relevant data concerning the species;
(3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution,
population size, and population trends of the species;
(4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their
possible impacts on the species; and
(5) Identification of any other environmental issues that should be
considered with regard to the proposed transmission line and permit
action.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods listed
above in ADDRESSES. Comments and materials we receive, as well as
supporting documentation we used in preparing the EAS, will be
available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business
hours, at our
[[Page 18929]]
office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, or other personal
identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--might
be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your
comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Next Steps
We will evaluate the permit application, including the HCP, and
comments we receive to determine whether the application meets the
requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If the requirements are met,
we will issue a permit to the applicant for the incidental take of the
California red-legged frog from the implementation of the covered
activities described in the Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for
California Red-legged Frog, Level 1 New Vineyard, 24129 Turkey Road,
Sonoma County, California. We will make the final permit decision no
sooner than 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal
Register.
Authority
We publish this notice under the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347 et seq.; NEPA), and its
implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40
CFR 1500-1508, as well as in compliance with section 10(c) of the
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 et seq.; Act).
Dated: March 31, 2014.
Jennifer M. Norris,
Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento,
California.
[FR Doc. 2014-07521 Filed 4-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P