Notice of Intent to Conduct Public Scoping Meetings and to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Bi-State Water Diversion Habitat Conservation Plan for the Walla Walla River Basin, 69348-69350 [05-22632]
Download as PDF
69348
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices
Procedural
The meeting is open to the public.
Please note that the meeting may close
early if all business is finished. At the
Chair’s discretion, members of the
public may make oral presentations
during the meeting. If you would like to
make an oral presentation at the
meeting, please notify the Assistant
Executive Director (as provided above in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT) no
later than November 28, 2005. Written
material for distribution at the meeting
should reach the Coast Guard no later
than November 28, 2005.
Information on Services for Individuals
With Disabilities
For information on facilities or
services for individuals with disabilities
or to request special assistance at the
meeting, contact Mr. Miante at the
number listed in FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT as soon as
possible.
Dated: November 8, 2005.
Howard L. Hime,
Acting Director of Standards, Marine Safety,
Security and Environmental Protection.
[FR Doc. 05–22596 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
[I.D. 091305C]
Notice of Intent to Conduct Public
Scoping Meetings and to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement
Related to the Bi-State Water Diversion
Habitat Conservation Plan for the
Walla Walla River Basin
Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS), Interior; National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to conduct
scoping meetings.
AGENCIES:
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and National Marine Fisheries
Service (Services) advise interested
parties of their intent to conduct public
scoping under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to
gather information to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The Services anticipate receiving permit
applications from Gardena Farms
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Nov 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
Irrigation District (GFID), Hudson Bay
District Improvement Company
(HBDIC), and the Walla Walla River
Irrigation District (WWRID). Other
surface water diverters in the Walla
Walla Basin, such as independent
irrigators, ditch companies, and other
local governments, may also apply. The
permit applications would be submitted
under the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) for the incidental take of listed
species through actions associated with
the Bi-State Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) for the Walla Walla River Basin.
Given the present list of likely permit
applicants, the geographic scope of the
permit would be that portion of the
mainstem Walla Walla River
downstream from the Walla Walla River
Irrigation District’s diversion. If other
surface water diverters apply for
permits, the geographic scope would be
expanded accordingly to include those
stream reaches within the Walla Walla
Basin that are potentially affected by
those diversions. The proposed actions
to be covered by the permit would be
those activities undertaken by the
applicants that are associated with the
diversion and delivery of surface water.
DATES: Four scoping meetings will be
held in November 2005. They will
include one meeting for the
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation (CTUIR), one for all
interested and affected agencies, and
two for the public. Meeting locations
and times will be published in the local
newspapers of record:
1. Public scoping meeting, November
16, 2005, 7 p.m.–9 p.m.
2. Public scoping meeting, November
17, 2005, 7 p.m.–9 p.m.
3. Agency scoping meeting, November
17, 2005, 1:30 p.m.–3:30 p.m.
4. CTUIR scoping meeting, November
18, 2005, 9 a.m.–10 a.m.Written
comments should be received on or
before December 30, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The meeting locations are:
1. Public scoping meeting,Washington
State Department of Transportation
(Conference Room) 1210 G Street, Walla
Walla, WA 99362.
2. Public scoping meeting, Milton
Freewater Library (Albee Room), 8 SW
8th Avenue, Milton-Freewater, OR
97862.
3. Agency scoping meeting,
Washington State Department of
Transportation (Conference Room) 1210
G Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.
4. CTUIR scoping meeting, 73239
Confederated Way, Mission, OR 97801.
All comments concerning the
preparation of the EIS and the NEPA
process should be addressed to: Ms.
Michelle Eames, FWS, 1103 East
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Montgomery Drive, Spokane,
Washington 99206, facsimile 509–891–
6748; or Mr. Dale Bambrick, NMFS, 304
S. Water Street, Suite 200, Ellensburg,
WA 98926, facsimile 509–962–8544. Email comments may be submitted to the
following address:
WallaWallaHCP@fws.gov. In the subject
line of the e-mail, include the document
identifier: Walla Walla HCP-EIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michelle Eames, FWS, (509)-891–6839,
or Dale Bambrick, NMFS, (509) 962–
8911.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory Authority
Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR 17.21(c), 17.31(a)) prohibit the
‘‘taking’’ of animal species listed as
endangered or threatened. The term
‘‘take’’ is defined under the ESA to
mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or
to attempt to engage in any such
conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). ‘‘Harm’’ is
defined by FWS regulation to include
significant habitat modification or
degradation where it actually kills or
injures wildlife by significantly
impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, and
sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). NMFS’
definition of harm includes significant
habitat modification or degradation
where it actually kills or injures fish or
wildlife by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including
breeding, feeding, spawning, migrating,
rearing, and sheltering (64 FR 60727,
November 8, 1999).
Section 10 of the ESA and
implementing regulations provide for
the issuance of incidental take permits
(ITPs) to non-Federal applicants to
authorize incidental take of endangered
and threatened species (16 U.S.C.
1539(a); 50 CFR 17.22(b), 17.32(b)). Any
proposed take must be incidental to an
otherwise lawful activity, must not
appreciably reduce the likelihood of the
survival and recovery of the species in
the wild, and must be minimized and
mitigated to the maximum extent
practicable. In addition, an applicant
must prepare an HCP describing the
impact that will likely result from such
taking, a plan for minimizing and
mitigating the impacts of such
incidental take, the funding available to
implement the plan, alternatives to such
taking, and the reason such alternatives
are not being implemented.
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires
that Federal agencies conduct an
environmental analysis of their
proposed actions to determine if the
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices
actions may significantly affect the
human environment. Under NEPA, a
reasonable range of alternatives to the
proposed project is developed and
considered in the Services’ EIS.
Alternatives considered for analysis in
an EIS may include: variations in the
scope or types of covered activities;
variations in the location, amount, and
types of conservation measures; timing
of project activities; variations in permit
duration; or a combination of these
elements. In addition, an EIS will
identify potentially significant direct,
indirect, and cumulative effects on
biological resources, land use, air
quality, water quality, water resources,
socioeconomics, minority communities,
cultural resources, and other
environmental issues that could occur
with the implementation of the
applicant’s proposed actions and
alternatives. An EIS will identify all
potentially significant environmental
effects and what steps will be taken to
reduce these effects, where feasible, to
a level below significance.
Background
The proposed EIS would analyze the
potential issuance of two ITPs, one by
NMFS and one by the FWS. To obtain
an ITP, the applicants must prepare a
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that
meets the issuance criteria established
by the ESA and Service regulations (50
CFR 17.22(b)(2) 17.32(b), 222.307).
Should a permit or permits be issued,
the permit(s) may include assurances
under the Service’s ‘‘No Surprises’’
regulations. The NEPA scoping process
will identify and evaluate the range of
alternatives and issues to be addressed
in the EIS. If additional potential
applicants or conservation measures are
identified that are distinctly different
from those above, the scoping process
may be revisited.
The Walla Walla Basin is located in
southeast Washington and northeast
Oregon. The basin encompasses
approximately 1,800 square miles (4,698
Km) in Columbia and Walla Walla,
Counties in Washington, and Umatilla,
Union, and Wallowa Counties in
Oregon. The activities anticipated to be
covered include all activities associated
with the diversion and delivery of
surface water that have the potential to
affect species subject to protection
under the ESA, as well as other,
unlisted, species of concern to the
Services.
The species currently listed under the
ESA that are being proposed for
coverage under an ITP include the bull
trout (Salvelinus confluentus), under the
jurisdiction of the FWS, and the MidColumbia River evolutionarily
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:50 Nov 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
significant unit of steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), under the
jurisdiction of NMFS, both currently
listed as threatened. Other listed or
unlisted species may also be considered
and addressed.
Proposed conservation measures that
the applicants may incorporate include,
but are not limited to: curtailment of
surface diversions, seasonal diversion
reductions, water quality improvements,
and physical habitat enhancements.
A draft HCP, to be prepared by the
applicants in support of their ITP
applications, will describe the impacts
of take on the proposed covered species,
and will propose a conservation strategy
to minimize and mitigate impacts on
each covered species to the maximum
extent practicable. The draft will also
identify funding for the conservation
plan, as well as the HCP alternatives
and will explain why those alternatives
are not being utilized. The Services are
responsible for determining whether the
draft HCP satisfies ESA section 10
issuance criteria.
Under NEPA, a reasonable range of
alternatives to a proposed project must
be developed and considered in the
Services’ EIS. The Services have
identified the following preliminary
alternatives for public comment during
the public scoping period:
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative Under the No Action Alternative, an ITP
would not be issued and an HCP would
not be approved. The current FWS
Settlement Agreement (Agreement)
would continue through January 2007
and would need to either be extended
or renewed for an additional time
period, or end. If the Agreement is
renewed, it could include additional
instream flow requirements and/or other
requirements. If the Agreement is not
renewed or extended, then the districts
could be open to enforcement actions
due to ESA violations, and the stream
could be dewatered again, as it was
prior to 2001. Continued operational
and capital improvements could be
made by the districts.
Alternative 2: Proposed Action
Alternative - NMFS and the FWS would
each issue ESA incidental take permits,
and full implementation of the HCP
would occur. The HCP would include a
set of conservation measures specific to
each applicant that would minimize and
mitigate the impacts of the project to the
maximum extent practicable.
Alternative 3: Programmatic HCP
Alternative - Under this alternative,
independent irrigators, irrigation
districts, ditch companies, and/or
municipalities may participate in the
HCP described under the Proposed
Action Alternative. They would
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
69349
participate by either signing a Certificate
of Inclusion that would cover their
activities under another applicant’s
permit, rather than developing a
separate HCP; or through separate FWS
and NMFS authoization under ESA
Section 7 or 10 to cover their activities.
If these future participants do not adopt
the HCP described under the Proposed
Action, it is possible that additional
NEPA review would be required at the
time their request for ESA coverage is
received by the Services. If participants
choose to adopt the HCP, a site-specific
plan would be developed and approved
by both agencies. If the adoption
includes modifications to the HCP, the
Services would ensure that the NEPA
review for the HCP included these
conditions, and if not, would comply
with NEPA to provide a review on such
modifications.
Alternative 4: Reduced Take
Alternative - Under this alternative the
proposed HCP would be modified by
changing or adding measures to further
reduce the amount and risk of
incidental take. These measures could
include different conservation
measures, covered species, covered
lands, covered activities, and/or permit
duration. Additional project alternatives
may be developed based on input
received from the public scoping
process.
Request for Comments
The primary purpose of the scoping
process is for the public to assist the
Services in developing the EIS by
identifying important issues and
alternatives related to the proposed
action. Each scoping meeting will
allocate time for informal discussion
and questions with presentations by the
Services and potential applicants. All
comments and materials received,
including names and addresses, will
become part of the administrative record
and may be released to the public.
Comments and materials received will
be available for public inspection, by
appointment, during normal business
hours at the offices listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice.
The Services request that comments
be specific. In particular, we request
information regarding: direct, indirect,
and cumulative impacts that
implementation of the proposed HCP
could have on covered species and their
habitats and on the built, social,
economic, natural and cultural
environments; strategies for meeting the
purpose and need, in particular
strategies for improving instream flows;
potential adaptive management and/or
monitoring provisions; funding issues;
existing environmental conditions in
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
69350
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 219 / Tuesday, November 15, 2005 / Notices
the project area; other plans or projects
that might be relevant to this proposed
project; and minimization and
mitigation efforts. The Services estimate
that a draft EIS will be available for
public review late in 2006.
Reasonable Accommodation
Persons needing reasonable
accommodations to attend and
participate in public meetings should
contact Michelle Eames (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). To
allow sufficient time to process
requests, please call no later than 1
week before the scheduled public
meeting. Information regarding this
proposed action is available in
alternative formats upon request. A
Spanish interpreter will be available at
all public meetings.
Dated: November 7, 2005.
Daniel H. Diggs,
Acting Deputy Regional Director, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
Dated: November 7, 2005.
Angela Somma,
Division Chief, Endangered Species Division,
Office of Protected Resources, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05–22632 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODES 3510–22–S, 4310–55–S
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[NV–010–06–1020PH]
Notice Public Meetings: Northeastern
Great Basin Resource Advisory
Council
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Fiscal Year 2006
Meetings Locations and Times for the
Northeastern Great Basin Resource
Advisory Council (Nevada).
AGENCY:
15:50 Nov 14, 2005
Jkt 208001
The RAC will meet three or four
times in Fiscal Year 2006: on February
16, 2006 at the BLM Battle Mountain
Field Office, 50 Bastian Road, Battle
Mountain, Nevada; tentatively on April
27 at the Eureka Opera House at 31
South Main, Eureka, Nevada; on June
15, 2006 at the Bristlecone Convention
Center, 150 6th Street, Ely, Nevada; and
on August 17 & 18 at the old El Rancho
Hotel, 1629 Lake Avenue, Wells,
Nevada. All meetings are open to the
public. Each meeting will last from 8
a.m. to 4 p.m. and will include a general
public comment period, where the
public may submit oral or written
comments to the RAC. Each public
comment period will begin at
approximately 1 p.m. unless otherwise
listed in each specific, final meeting
agenda.
Final detailed agendas, with any
additions/corrections to agenda topics,
locations, field trips and meeting times,
will be sent to local and regional media
sources at least 14 days before each
meeting, and hard copies can also be
mailed or sent via FAX. Individuals
who need special assistance such as
sign language interpretation or other
reasonable accommodations, or who
wish a hard copy of each agenda, should
contact Mike Brown, Elko Field Office,
3900 East Idaho Street, Elko, Nevada
89801, telephone (775) 753–0386 no
later than 10 days prior to each meeting.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUMMARY: In accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM) Nevada
Northeastern Great Basin Resource
Advisory Council (RAC), will meet as
indicated below. Topics for discussion
at each meeting will include, but are not
limited to: February 16, 2006 (Battle
Mountain, Nevada)—Land Tenure, Sage
Grouse Conservation Projects, Shoshone
Range Off-Highway Vehicle Trail;
tentatively April 27, 2006 (Eureka,
Nevada); June 15, 2006 (Ely, Nevada)—
Ely Resource Management Plan
Comments, Minerals activities update;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
August 17 & 18, 2006 (Wells, Nevada)—
Travel Management Planning, Spruce
Mountain Tour. Managers’ reports of
field office activities will be given at
each meeting. The council may raise
other topics at any of the three planned
meetings.
Mike Brown, Public Affairs Officer, Elko
Field Office, 3900 E. Idaho Street, Elko,
NV 89801. Telephone: (775) 753–0386.
E-mail: mbrown@nv.blm.gov.
The 15member Council advises the Secretary
of the Interior, through the Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), on a variety
of planning and management issues
associated with public land
management in Nevada. All meetings
are open to the public. The public may
present written comments to the
Northeastern Great Basin Resource
Advisory Council.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: November 7, 2005.
Helen Hankins,
Field Office Manager.
[FR Doc. 05–22594 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–HC–P
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of
Terminated Oil and Gas Lease NMNM
9023
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Under the provisions of
Section 371(a) of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, the lessee(s), Anderson Oil Ltd.,
John M. Beard Trust, and Patina
Oklahoma Corp., timely filed a petition
for reinstatement of oil and gas lease
NMNM 9023 in Lea County, NM. The
lessee paid the required rental accruing
from the date of termination, March 1,
2003. No leases were issued that affect
these lands. The lessee agrees to the
new lease terms for rentals and royalties
of $5 per acre and 162⁄3 percent or 4
percentages above the existing
competitive royalty rate. The lessee paid
the $500 administration fee for the
reinstatement of the lease and $166 cost
for publishing this Notice.
The lessee met the requirements for
reinstatement of the lease per Sec. 31(e)
of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 (30
U.S.C. 188(e)). We are proposing to
reinstate the lease, effective the date of
termination subject to:
• The original terms and conditions
of the lease;
• The increased rental of $5 per acre;
• The increased royalty of 162⁄3
percent or 4 percentages above the
existing competitive royalty rate; and
• The $166 cost of publishing this
Notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico
State Office, (505) 438–7586.
Dated: October 27, 2005.
Lourdes B. Ortiz,
Land Law Examiner.
[FR Doc. 05–22623 Filed 11–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–FB–M
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of
Terminated Oil and Gas Lease TXNM
100506
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Under the provisions of
Section 371(a) of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, the lessee, Chief Oil and Gas
LLC, timely filed a petition for
reinstatement of oil and gas lease TXNM
100506 in Wise County, TX. The lessee
paid the required rental accruing from
the date of termination, March 1, 2002.
E:\FR\FM\15NON1.SGM
15NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 15, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69348-69350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22632]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 091305C]
Notice of Intent to Conduct Public Scoping Meetings and to
Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Bi-State Water
Diversion Habitat Conservation Plan for the Walla Walla River Basin
AGENCIES: Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Interior; National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to conduct scoping meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine
Fisheries Service (Services) advise interested parties of their intent
to conduct public scoping under the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), to gather information to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS). The Services anticipate receiving permit applications
from Gardena Farms Irrigation District (GFID), Hudson Bay District
Improvement Company (HBDIC), and the Walla Walla River Irrigation
District (WWRID). Other surface water diverters in the Walla Walla
Basin, such as independent irrigators, ditch companies, and other local
governments, may also apply. The permit applications would be submitted
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the incidental take of
listed species through actions associated with the Bi-State Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Walla Walla River Basin. Given the
present list of likely permit applicants, the geographic scope of the
permit would be that portion of the mainstem Walla Walla River
downstream from the Walla Walla River Irrigation District's diversion.
If other surface water diverters apply for permits, the geographic
scope would be expanded accordingly to include those stream reaches
within the Walla Walla Basin that are potentially affected by those
diversions. The proposed actions to be covered by the permit would be
those activities undertaken by the applicants that are associated with
the diversion and delivery of surface water.
DATES: Four scoping meetings will be held in November 2005. They will
include one meeting for the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation (CTUIR), one for all interested and affected agencies, and
two for the public. Meeting locations and times will be published in
the local newspapers of record:
1. Public scoping meeting, November 16, 2005, 7 p.m.-9 p.m.
2. Public scoping meeting, November 17, 2005, 7 p.m.-9 p.m.
3. Agency scoping meeting, November 17, 2005, 1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.
4. CTUIR scoping meeting, November 18, 2005, 9 a.m.-10 a.m.Written
comments should be received on or before December 30, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The meeting locations are:
1. Public scoping meeting,Washington State Department of
Transportation (Conference Room) 1210 G Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.
2. Public scoping meeting, Milton Freewater Library (Albee Room), 8
SW 8th Avenue, Milton-Freewater, OR 97862.
3. Agency scoping meeting, Washington State Department of
Transportation (Conference Room) 1210 G Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362.
4. CTUIR scoping meeting, 73239 Confederated Way, Mission, OR
97801.
All comments concerning the preparation of the EIS and the NEPA
process should be addressed to: Ms. Michelle Eames, FWS, 1103 East
Montgomery Drive, Spokane, Washington 99206, facsimile 509-891-6748; or
Mr. Dale Bambrick, NMFS, 304 S. Water Street, Suite 200, Ellensburg, WA
98926, facsimile 509-962-8544. E-mail comments may be submitted to the
following address: WallaWallaHCP@fws.gov. In the subject line of the e-
mail, include the document identifier: Walla Walla HCP-EIS.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Eames, FWS, (509)-891-6839,
or Dale Bambrick, NMFS, (509) 962-8911.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Statutory Authority
Section 9 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1538) and its implementing
regulations (50 CFR 17.21(c), 17.31(a)) prohibit the ``taking'' of
animal species listed as endangered or threatened. The term ``take'' is
defined under the ESA to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound,
kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such
conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). ``Harm'' is defined by FWS regulation to
include significant habitat modification or degradation where it
actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, and sheltering (50
CFR 17.3). NMFS' definition of harm includes significant habitat
modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures fish or
wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns,
including breeding, feeding, spawning, migrating, rearing, and
sheltering (64 FR 60727, November 8, 1999).
Section 10 of the ESA and implementing regulations provide for the
issuance of incidental take permits (ITPs) to non-Federal applicants to
authorize incidental take of endangered and threatened species (16
U.S.C. 1539(a); 50 CFR 17.22(b), 17.32(b)). Any proposed take must be
incidental to an otherwise lawful activity, must not appreciably reduce
the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild,
and must be minimized and mitigated to the maximum extent practicable.
In addition, an applicant must prepare an HCP describing the impact
that will likely result from such taking, a plan for minimizing and
mitigating the impacts of such incidental take, the funding available
to implement the plan, alternatives to such taking, and the reason such
alternatives are not being implemented.
NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) requires that Federal agencies
conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to
determine if the
[[Page 69349]]
actions may significantly affect the human environment. Under NEPA, a
reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project is developed
and considered in the Services' EIS. Alternatives considered for
analysis in an EIS may include: variations in the scope or types of
covered activities; variations in the location, amount, and types of
conservation measures; timing of project activities; variations in
permit duration; or a combination of these elements. In addition, an
EIS will identify potentially significant direct, indirect, and
cumulative effects on biological resources, land use, air quality,
water quality, water resources, socioeconomics, minority communities,
cultural resources, and other environmental issues that could occur
with the implementation of the applicant's proposed actions and
alternatives. An EIS will identify all potentially significant
environmental effects and what steps will be taken to reduce these
effects, where feasible, to a level below significance.
Background
The proposed EIS would analyze the potential issuance of two ITPs,
one by NMFS and one by the FWS. To obtain an ITP, the applicants must
prepare a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) that meets the issuance
criteria established by the ESA and Service regulations (50 CFR
17.22(b)(2) 17.32(b), 222.307). Should a permit or permits be issued,
the permit(s) may include assurances under the Service's ``No
Surprises'' regulations. The NEPA scoping process will identify and
evaluate the range of alternatives and issues to be addressed in the
EIS. If additional potential applicants or conservation measures are
identified that are distinctly different from those above, the scoping
process may be revisited.
The Walla Walla Basin is located in southeast Washington and
northeast Oregon. The basin encompasses approximately 1,800 square
miles (4,698 Km) in Columbia and Walla Walla, Counties in Washington,
and Umatilla, Union, and Wallowa Counties in Oregon. The activities
anticipated to be covered include all activities associated with the
diversion and delivery of surface water that have the potential to
affect species subject to protection under the ESA, as well as other,
unlisted, species of concern to the Services.
The species currently listed under the ESA that are being proposed
for coverage under an ITP include the bull trout (Salvelinus
confluentus), under the jurisdiction of the FWS, and the Mid-Columbia
River evolutionarily significant unit of steelhead (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), under the jurisdiction of NMFS, both currently listed as
threatened. Other listed or unlisted species may also be considered and
addressed.
Proposed conservation measures that the applicants may incorporate
include, but are not limited to: curtailment of surface diversions,
seasonal diversion reductions, water quality improvements, and physical
habitat enhancements.
A draft HCP, to be prepared by the applicants in support of their
ITP applications, will describe the impacts of take on the proposed
covered species, and will propose a conservation strategy to minimize
and mitigate impacts on each covered species to the maximum extent
practicable. The draft will also identify funding for the conservation
plan, as well as the HCP alternatives and will explain why those
alternatives are not being utilized. The Services are responsible for
determining whether the draft HCP satisfies ESA section 10 issuance
criteria.
Under NEPA, a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed
project must be developed and considered in the Services' EIS. The
Services have identified the following preliminary alternatives for
public comment during the public scoping period:
Alternative 1: No Action Alternative - Under the No Action
Alternative, an ITP would not be issued and an HCP would not be
approved. The current FWS Settlement Agreement (Agreement) would
continue through January 2007 and would need to either be extended or
renewed for an additional time period, or end. If the Agreement is
renewed, it could include additional instream flow requirements and/or
other requirements. If the Agreement is not renewed or extended, then
the districts could be open to enforcement actions due to ESA
violations, and the stream could be dewatered again, as it was prior to
2001. Continued operational and capital improvements could be made by
the districts.
Alternative 2: Proposed Action Alternative - NMFS and the FWS would
each issue ESA incidental take permits, and full implementation of the
HCP would occur. The HCP would include a set of conservation measures
specific to each applicant that would minimize and mitigate the impacts
of the project to the maximum extent practicable.
Alternative 3: Programmatic HCP Alternative - Under this
alternative, independent irrigators, irrigation districts, ditch
companies, and/or municipalities may participate in the HCP described
under the Proposed Action Alternative. They would participate by either
signing a Certificate of Inclusion that would cover their activities
under another applicant's permit, rather than developing a separate
HCP; or through separate FWS and NMFS authoization under ESA Section 7
or 10 to cover their activities. If these future participants do not
adopt the HCP described under the Proposed Action, it is possible that
additional NEPA review would be required at the time their request for
ESA coverage is received by the Services. If participants choose to
adopt the HCP, a site-specific plan would be developed and approved by
both agencies. If the adoption includes modifications to the HCP, the
Services would ensure that the NEPA review for the HCP included these
conditions, and if not, would comply with NEPA to provide a review on
such modifications.
Alternative 4: Reduced Take Alternative - Under this alternative
the proposed HCP would be modified by changing or adding measures to
further reduce the amount and risk of incidental take. These measures
could include different conservation measures, covered species, covered
lands, covered activities, and/or permit duration. Additional project
alternatives may be developed based on input received from the public
scoping process.
Request for Comments
The primary purpose of the scoping process is for the public to
assist the Services in developing the EIS by identifying important
issues and alternatives related to the proposed action. Each scoping
meeting will allocate time for informal discussion and questions with
presentations by the Services and potential applicants. All comments
and materials received, including names and addresses, will become part
of the administrative record and may be released to the public.
Comments and materials received will be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours at the offices
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.
The Services request that comments be specific. In particular, we
request information regarding: direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts
that implementation of the proposed HCP could have on covered species
and their habitats and on the built, social, economic, natural and
cultural environments; strategies for meeting the purpose and need, in
particular strategies for improving instream flows; potential adaptive
management and/or monitoring provisions; funding issues; existing
environmental conditions in
[[Page 69350]]
the project area; other plans or projects that might be relevant to
this proposed project; and minimization and mitigation efforts. The
Services estimate that a draft EIS will be available for public review
late in 2006.
Reasonable Accommodation
Persons needing reasonable accommodations to attend and participate
in public meetings should contact Michelle Eames (see FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT). To allow sufficient time to process requests,
please call no later than 1 week before the scheduled public meeting.
Information regarding this proposed action is available in alternative
formats upon request. A Spanish interpreter will be available at all
public meetings.
Dated: November 7, 2005.
Daniel H. Diggs,
Acting Deputy Regional Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1,
Portland, Oregon.
Dated: November 7, 2005.
Angela Somma,
Division Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office of Protected
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 05-22632 Filed 11-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODES 3510-22-S, 4310-55-S