Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan and Receipt of Application for an Incidental Take Permit From the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water District, Contra Costa County, CA, 10781-10784 [E7-4252]

Download as PDF jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices (1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Overview of this information collection: (1) Type of Information Collection: Extension of a currently approved information collection. (2) Title of the Form/Collection: Request for Certification of Military or Naval Service. (3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the Department of Homeland Security sponsoring the collection: Form N–426. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or Households. This form will be used by USCIS to request a verification of the military or naval service claim by an applicant filing for naturalization on the basis of honorable service in the U.S. armed forces. (5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: 45,000 responses at 45 minutes (.75) per response. (6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: 33,750 annual burden hours. If you have additional comments, suggestions, or need a copy of the information collection instrument, please contact Richard A. Sloan, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, 111 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, 3rd Floor, Suite 3008, Washington, DC 20529; Telephone number 202–272– 8377. VerDate Aug<31>2005 21:24 Mar 08, 2007 Jkt 211001 Dated: March 6, 2007. Richard A. Sloan, Chief, Regulatory Management Division, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. [FR Doc. E7–4280 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–10–P DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT [Docket No. FR–5125–N–10] Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, HUD. AGENCY: Notice. SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible use to assist the homeless. DATES: Effective Date: March 9, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, NW., Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708–1234; TTY number for the hearing- and speech-impaired (202) 708–2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1–800–927–7588. In accordance with the December 12, 1988 court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans Administration, No. 88–2503–OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today’s Notice is for the purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been determined suitable or unsuitable this week. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: March 1, 2007. Mark R. Johnston, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs. [FR Doc. 07–1002 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4210–67–M PO 00000 Frm 00152 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report for the East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan and Receipt of Application for an Incidental Take Permit From the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water District, Contra Costa County, CA Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of availability. AGENCY: Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless ACTION: 10781 SUMMARY: This notice announces the receipt of an application from the Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water District (Flood Control District) and the availability of the final Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (Plan), and Implementing Agreement (IA) for public review and comment. A notice of availability of the draft EIS/EIR was published in the Federal Register on September 2, 2005. The application described in that notice did not include the Flood Control District, which has since been added to the list of proposed permittees. The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is considering the proposed action of issuing a 30-year incidental take permit for 28 species in response to the application. The proposed permittees are: Contra Costa County (County); the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg (cities); the Flood Control District; East Bay Regional Park District; and an Implementing Entity to be formed by the County and the cities to implement certain aspects of the Plan. The proposed permit would authorize the incidental take of individual members of species listed under the ESA. The permit is needed because take of species could occur during proposed urban development activities, rural infrastructure projects, and preserve management activities within a 174,018acre planning area located in eastern Contra Costa County, California. DATES: The 30-day waiting period will end on April 9, 2007. Written comments should be received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: Send comments by mail or facsimile to: (1) Lori Rinek, Chief, Conservation Planning and Recovery Division, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W– E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 10782 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices 2605, Sacramento, California 95825; facsimile 916–414–6713; and/or (2) John Kopchik, Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Community Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Fourth Floor Northwest, Martinez, CA 94553; facsimile 925–335–1299. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) Sheila Larsen, Wildlife Biologist, or Lori Rinek, Chief, Conservation Planning and Recovery Division, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, telephone 916–414– 6600; or (2) John Kopchik, Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Community Development Department, telephone 925–335–1227. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Availability of Documents Copies of the Plan, IA and Final EIS/ EIR are available for public review from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., at the Contra Costa County Community Development Department (see ADDRESSES). These documents also are available on the Association’s Web site: https:// www.cocohcp.org. In addition, copies of all documents are also available at the following local agency offices: (1) City of Brentwood, Community Development Dept., 104 Oak Street, Brentwood, CA 94513. (2) City of Clayton, Community Development Department, 6000 Heritage Trail, Clayton, CA 94517. (3) City of Oakley, Community Development Department, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561. (4) City of Pittsburg, Planning Department, 65 Civic Drive, Pittsburg, CA 94565. (5) East Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, Oakland, CA 94605. The documents are also available at the following Contra Costa Library locations: (6) 751 Third Street, Brentwood, CA. (7) 6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, CA. (8) Freedom High School, 1050 Neroly Road, Oakley, CA. (9) 80 Power Avenue, Pittsburg, CA. (10) Riverview Middle School, 205 Pacifica Avenue, Bay Point, CA. You also may obtain copies of these documents for review by contacting Sheila Larsen [see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT]. Documents also will be available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office [see ADDRESSES]. Background Information Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the take of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or VerDate Aug<31>2005 21:24 Mar 08, 2007 Jkt 211001 threatened (16 U.S.C. 1538). The term ‘‘take’’ means to 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). Harm includes significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, and sheltering [50 CFR 17.3(c)]. Under limited circumstances, the Service may issue permits to authorize incidental take of listed fish or wildlife; i.e., take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and endangered species are found in 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively. Although take of listed plant species is not prohibited under the ESA, and therefore cannot be authorized under an incidental take permit, plant species may be included on a permit in recognition of the conservation benefits provided to them under a habitat conservation plan. All species included on an incidental take permit would receive assurances under the Services ‘‘No Surprises’’ regulation [50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)]. In response to the proposed permittees’ application, the Service proposes to issue an incidental take permit to the following local agencies: Contra Costa County (County); the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg (cities); Flood Control District; and East Bay Regional Park District. An incidental take permit is also proposed to be issued to an Implementing Entity to be formed by the County and cities to implement certain aspects of the Plan. The local agencies and the Implementing Entity are collectively referred to as the ‘‘permittees’’. The Association has prepared the Plan on behalf of the permittees to satisfy the application requirements for a section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit under the ESA and a section 2835 permit under the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2003 (NCCPA). Thus, the Plan constitutes a Habitat Conservation Plan pursuant to the ESA, and a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) pursuant to the California NCCPA. The permittees seek a 30-year incidental take permit for covered activities within a proposed 174,018acre planning area, located entirely in eastern Contra Costa County, California. They are requesting a permit for 28 species, 8 of which are currently listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. Of these 28 species, the Association requests a permit and PO 00000 Frm 00153 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 assurances for 17 animal species and assurances for 11 plant species. Proposed covered species include 3 wildlife species, currently listed as endangered under the ESA [San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotus mutica), longhorn fairy shrimp (Brachinecta longiantenna), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi)] and 5 wildlife species currently listed as threatened under the Federal ESA [Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Brachinecta lynchi)]. The proposed covered species also include 9 wildlife species and 11 plant species that are not currently listed under the ESA: Townsend’s western big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsonii), silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), midvalley fairy shrimp (Brachinecta mesovallensis), Mount Diablo manzanita (Arctostaphylos auriculata), brittlescale (Atriplex depressa), San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joanquiniana), big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa ssp. plumosa), Mount Diablo fairy lantern (Calochortus pulchellus), recurved larkspur (Delphinium recurvatum), round-leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum), Diablo helianthella (Helianthella castanea), Brewer’s dwarf flax (Hesperolinon breweri), showy madia (Madia radiata), and adobe navarretia (Navarretia nigelliformis ssp. nigelliformis). If the proposed Plan is approved and the permit issued, take authorization of covered listed wildlife species would be effective at the time of permit issuance. Take of the currently non-listed covered wildlife species would be authorized concurrent with the species’ listing under the ESA, should they be listed during the duration of the permit. Collectively, the 28 listed and unlisted species are referred to as the ‘‘covered species’’ in the Plan. The applicants propose to minimize and mitigate the effects to covered species associated with the covered activities by participating in the Plan. The proposed Plan is intended to be a comprehensive and multi-jurisdictional document, providing for regional species conservation and habitat planning, while allowing the prospective permittees to better manage E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices anticipated growth and development. The proposed Plan also is intended to provide a coordinated process for permitting and mitigating the take of covered species as an alternative to the current project-by-project approach. In order to define a reasonable range of expected growth, the proposed Plan defines two permit areas: the initial urban development area and the maximum urban development area. Although the initial and maximum urban development areas bound the range of the proposed permit area, the final permit area may lie somewhere in between, depending on local land use decisions that occur during the proposed 30-year permit term. The proposed Plan, therefore, encompasses a range of alternative permit areas. Both the initial and maximum urban development areas are based on current general plans of the local jurisdictions. The proposed initial urban development area is defined by: (1) The Urban Limit Line (ULL) of Contra Costa County and the city limits of the participating cities (Pittsburg, Clayton, Oakley, and Brentwood), whichever is largest; (2) the footprint of specific rural infrastructure projects outside the ULL and the city limits of participating cities; and (3) the boundary of any land acquired in fee title or conservation easement and managed under the Plan. Up to 8,670 acres of grounddisturbing urban development activities within the ULL are proposed to be permitted under the initial urban development. The proposed maximum urban development area is the largest extent to which urban development could expand under the terms of the proposed Plan. Under this scenario, up to 11,853 acres of ground-disturbing urban development activities within the permit area could be allowed, as long as the conditions of the Plan are met. With either urban development area, an additional 1,126 acres of impact are expected from rural infrastructure projects and activities within the Plan’s preserves. Thus, total impacts allowed under the Plan, are 9,796 acres and 13,029 acres with the initial and maximum urban development areas, respectively. The conservation strategy was designed to minimize and mitigate the impacts of covered activities, contribute to the recovery of listed covered species, and protect and enhance populations of non-listed covered species, as proposed. The proposed conservation strategy provides for the establishment, enhancement, and long-term management of the preserves for the benefit of covered vegetation communities, covered species, and VerDate Aug<31>2005 21:24 Mar 08, 2007 Jkt 211001 overall biodiversity and ecosystem functions. The proposed preserves would also serve to achieve other complementary goals such as recreation, grazing, and crop production, as long as the primary biological goals of the Plan are met and not compromised. The system of new preserves would likely be linked to existing protected lands to form a network of protected areas outside the area where new urban growth is proposed to be permitted under the Plan. On September 2, 2005, a notice was published in the Federal Register (70 FR 52434) announcing that the Service had received an application for an incidental take permit from the Association and the availability of the draft EIS/EIR. The draft EIS/EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts that may result from the Federal action of authorizing incidental take associated with implementation of the Plan and the identified alternatives. We received a total of 18 comment letters on the draft EIS/EIR. A response to each comment received has been included in the final EIS/EIR. Alternatives The draft EIS/EIR analyzed three alternatives in addition to the proposed Plan described above. The proposed Plan was identified as Alternative 1 (also referred to as Conservation Strategy A). The three other alternatives are described below. Alternative 2 (also referred to as Conservation Strategy B) would provide for the same size planning area, located entirely in eastern Contra Costa County, with the same preserve size as the proposed Plan, except that the location of the preserve would be modified. Modification of the preserve locations would result in increased protection of chaparral and cultivated agriculture and decreased protection of grassland. This alternative would also involve less riparian restoration than the proposed Plan. Other elements of the proposed Plan would remain the same, including species and communities covered, conservation measures, monitoring and adaptive management, and implementation approach. Compared to the Proposed Plan, Alternative 3 (the Reduced Development Area Alternative) would provide for a reduced level of take due to a reduced permit area. Existing open space or agricultural lands within the ULL that are not currently designated for development would be conserved. Under this alternative, the permit area would be 6,991 acres. Other elements of the proposed Plan would remain the same including the species and PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 10783 communities covered, conservation measures, monitoring and adaptive management, and implementation approach. Under the Alternative 4 (the NoAction/No-Project alternative), the proposed Plan would not be adopted, and permits pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 2835 of the NCCPA would not be issued by the Service and California Department of Fish and Game, respectively. Compliance with the ESA would continue to be addressed on a case-bycase basis. National Environmental Policy Act Proposed permit issuance triggers the need for compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Accordingly, a joint final NEPA/CEQA document has been prepared. The Service is the Lead Agency responsible for compliance under NEPA, and the Association is the Lead Agency with responsibility for compliance with CEQA. As NEPA Lead Agency, the Service is providing notice of the availability of the final EIS/EIR and is making available for public review the responses to comments on the draft EIS/EIR. Public Review The Service and Association invite the public to review the final Plan, final EIS/EIR, and final IA during a 30-day public waiting period [see DATES]. Any comments received, including names and addresses, will become part of the administrative record and may be made available to the public. Our practice is to make comments, including names, home addresses, home telephone numbers, and email addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold their names and/or home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to consider withholding this information you must state this prominently at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present a rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be released. We will always make submissions from organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives of or officials of organizations or businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety. E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM 09MRN1 10784 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 46 / Friday, March 9, 2007 / Notices The Service will evaluate the application, associated documents, and comments submitted to them to prepare a Record of Decision. A permit decision will be made no sooner than 30 days after the publication of the final EIS/EIR and completion of the Record of Decision. This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the ESA and Service regulations for implementing NEPA, as amended (40 CFR 1506.6). We provide this notice in order to allow the public, agencies, or other organizations to review these documents. Dated: March 5, 2007. Polly Wheeler, Acting Deputy Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office, Sacramento, CA. [FR Doc. E7–4252 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] Civic Center, 19005 East K-Mine Road Center, Black Canyon City, Arizona. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rich Hanson, Bureau of Land Management, 21605 North 7th Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85027, 623–580–5500. Clay Templin, Field Manager. [FR Doc. E7–4245 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–32–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [OR–936–1430–FQ; HAG–07–0073; OR– 20301 et al] Public Land Order No. 7616; Partial Revocation of 7 Secretarial Orders; Oregon; Correction BILLING CODE 4310–55–P Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Correction. AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management [AZ–210–07–1220–DA–241A] Notice of Public Meetings for Route Designation Bureau of Land Management, Interior. ACTION: Notice of public meeting, offroad vehicle route designations. AGENCY: SUMMARY: To comply with CFR 8340, Off-Road Vehicles, and land use planning for the Bureau of Land Management, Phoenix District, Hassayampa Field Office, Arizona, three route designation public meetings will be held. The purpose of these meetings is to inform the public of the process that will be used, the type of input from the public that would be helpful, and the general schedule leading to final route designations. Maps will be available. Input from the public regarding route connectivity, existing conflicts, and current or desired access will be taken. DATES: Meetings will be held beginning at 6:30 p.m. and conclude at 8 p.m. as follows: April 24, 2007, at Deer Valley Senior Center, 2001 West Wahalla Lane, Phoenix, Arizona; April 25, 2007, at Morristown Elementary School, 25950 Rockaway Hills Drive, Morristown, Arizona; and April 26, 2007, at Albins SUMMARY: In the Public Land Order No. 7616, 69 FR 59951–59953, published October 6, 2004, as FR Doc. 04 22391, make the following corrections: On page 59951, in the Title, and in the Summary, ‘‘7 Secretarial Orders’’, should read ‘‘5 Secretarial Orders’’. In the Summary, ‘‘17,789.94 acres’’, and ‘‘7,975.30 acres’’, should read ‘‘17,769.94 acres’’, and ‘‘7,955.30 acres’’, respectively. In paragraph 2 of the Order, delete ‘‘September 2, 1914, November 4, 1914,’’. On page 59952, column 1, in T. 20 S., R. 46 E., delete ‘‘Sec. 20, S1⁄2SW1⁄4NE1⁄4’’. In column 3, ‘‘7,975.30 acres’’, should read ‘‘7,955.30 acres’’. Dated: March 5, 2007. Fred O’Ferrall, Chief, Branch of Land and Mineral Resources. [FR Doc. E7–4253 Filed 3–8–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–33–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Minerals Management Service Environmental Documents Prepared for Proposed Oil and Gas Operations on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior. Notice of the availability of environmental documents; prepared for OCS mineral proposals on the Gulf of Mexico OCS. ACTION: SUMMARY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), in accordance with Federal Regulations that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), announces the availability of NEPArelated Site-Specific Environmental Assessments (SEA) and Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI), prepared by MMS for the following oil and gas activities proposed on the Gulf of Mexico OCS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Public Information Unit, Information Services Section at the number below. Minerals Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, Attention: Public Information Office (MS 5034), 1201 Elmwood Park Boulevard, Room 114, New Orleans, Louisiana 70123–2394, or by calling 1–800–200–GULF. MMS prepares SEAs and FONSIs for proposals that relate to exploration for and the development/production of oil and gas resources on the Gulf of Mexico OCS. These SEAs examine the potential environmental effects of activities described in the proposals and present MMS conclusions regarding the significance of those effects. Environmental Assessments are used as a basis for determining whether or not approval of the proposals constitutes major Federal actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment in the sense of NEPA Section 102(2)(C). A FONSI is prepared in those instances where MMS finds that approval will not result in significant effects on the quality of the human environment. The FONSI briefly presents the basis for that finding and includes a summary or copy of the SEA. This notice constitutes the public notice of availability of environmental documents required under the NEPA Regulations. This listing includes all proposals for which the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region prepared a FONSI in the period subsequent to publication of the preceding notice. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: jlentini on PROD1PC65 with NOTICES Activity/operator Location Apache Corporation, Structure Removal SEA ES/SR 06–120. Maritech Resources, Inc., Structure Removal SEA ES/SR 06–131. Maritech Resources, Inc., Structure Removal SEA ES/SR 06–133, 06–134. Ship Shoal, Block 292, Lease OCS–G 12000, located 55 miles from the nearest Louisiana shoreline. Galveston, Block 273, Lease OCS–G 09037, located 12 miles from the nearest Texas shoreline. Galveston, Block 363, Lease OCS–G 06113, located 13 and 15 miles, respectively, from the nearest Texas shoreline. VerDate Aug<31>2005 21:24 Mar 08, 2007 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00155 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\09MRN1.SGM Date 09MRN1 8/23/2006 10/4/2006 10/5/2006

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 46 (Friday, March 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10781-10784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4252]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report for the East Contra Costa County Habitat 
Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan and Receipt 
of Application for an Incidental Take Permit From the Contra Costa 
County Flood Control and Water District, Contra Costa County, CA

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This notice announces the receipt of an application from the 
Contra Costa County Flood Control and Water District (Flood Control 
District) and the availability of the final Environmental Impact 
Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR), East Contra Costa 
County Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation 
Plan (Plan), and Implementing Agreement (IA) for public review and 
comment. A notice of availability of the draft EIS/EIR was published in 
the Federal Register on September 2, 2005. The application described in 
that notice did not include the Flood Control District, which has since 
been added to the list of proposed permittees. The Fish and Wildlife 
Service (Service) is considering the proposed action of issuing a 30-
year incidental take permit for 28 species in response to the 
application. The proposed permittees are: Contra Costa County (County); 
the cities of Brentwood, Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg (cities); the 
Flood Control District; East Bay Regional Park District; and an 
Implementing Entity to be formed by the County and the cities to 
implement certain aspects of the Plan. The proposed permit would 
authorize the incidental take of individual members of species listed 
under the ESA. The permit is needed because take of species could occur 
during proposed urban development activities, rural infrastructure 
projects, and preserve management activities within a 174,018-acre 
planning area located in eastern Contra Costa County, California.

DATES: The 30-day waiting period will end on April 9, 2007. Written 
comments should be received on or before this date.

ADDRESSES: Send comments by mail or facsimile to: (1) Lori Rinek, 
Chief, Conservation Planning and Recovery Division, Sacramento Fish and 
Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-

[[Page 10782]]

2605, Sacramento, California 95825; facsimile 916-414-6713; and/or (2) 
John Kopchik, Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Community 
Development Department, 651 Pine Street, Fourth Floor Northwest, 
Martinez, CA 94553; facsimile 925-335-1299.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: (1) Sheila Larsen, Wildlife Biologist, 
or Lori Rinek, Chief, Conservation Planning and Recovery Division, 
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, telephone 916-414-6600; or (2) 
John Kopchik, Principal Planner, Contra Costa County Community 
Development Department, telephone 925-335-1227.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Availability of Documents

    Copies of the Plan, IA and Final EIS/EIR are available for public 
review from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., at the Contra Costa County Community 
Development Department (see ADDRESSES). These documents also are 
available on the Association's Web site: https://www.cocohcp.org.
    In addition, copies of all documents are also available at the 
following local agency offices:
    (1) City of Brentwood, Community Development Dept., 104 Oak Street, 
Brentwood, CA 94513.
    (2) City of Clayton, Community Development Department, 6000 
Heritage Trail, Clayton, CA 94517.
    (3) City of Oakley, Community Development Department, 3231 Main 
Street, Oakley, CA 94561.
    (4) City of Pittsburg, Planning Department, 65 Civic Drive, 
Pittsburg, CA 94565.
    (5) East Bay Regional Park District, 2950 Peralta Oaks Court, 
Oakland, CA 94605.
    The documents are also available at the following Contra Costa 
Library locations:
    (6) 751 Third Street, Brentwood, CA.
    (7) 6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, CA.
    (8) Freedom High School, 1050 Neroly Road, Oakley, CA.
    (9) 80 Power Avenue, Pittsburg, CA.
    (10) Riverview Middle School, 205 Pacifica Avenue, Bay Point, CA.
    You also may obtain copies of these documents for review by 
contacting Sheila Larsen [see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT]. 
Documents also will be available for public inspection during normal 
business hours at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office [see 
ADDRESSES].

Background Information

    Section 9 of the ESA and Federal regulations prohibit the take of 
fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened (16 U.S.C. 
1538). The term ``take'' means to 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). Harm includes significant habitat 
modification or degradation that actually kills or injures listed 
wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, 
including breeding, feeding, and sheltering [50 CFR 17.3(c)]. Under 
limited circumstances, the Service may issue permits to authorize 
incidental take of listed fish or wildlife; i.e., take that is 
incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful activity. 
Regulations governing incidental take permits for threatened and 
endangered species are found in 50 CFR 17.32 and 17.22, respectively.
    Although take of listed plant species is not prohibited under the 
ESA, and therefore cannot be authorized under an incidental take 
permit, plant species may be included on a permit in recognition of the 
conservation benefits provided to them under a habitat conservation 
plan. All species included on an incidental take permit would receive 
assurances under the Services ``No Surprises'' regulation [50 CFR 
17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)].
    In response to the proposed permittees' application, the Service 
proposes to issue an incidental take permit to the following local 
agencies: Contra Costa County (County); the cities of Brentwood, 
Clayton, Oakley, and Pittsburg (cities); Flood Control District; and 
East Bay Regional Park District. An incidental take permit is also 
proposed to be issued to an Implementing Entity to be formed by the 
County and cities to implement certain aspects of the Plan. The local 
agencies and the Implementing Entity are collectively referred to as 
the ``permittees''. The Association has prepared the Plan on behalf of 
the permittees to satisfy the application requirements for a section 
10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permit under the ESA and a section 2835 
permit under the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act 
of 2003 (NCCPA). Thus, the Plan constitutes a Habitat Conservation Plan 
pursuant to the ESA, and a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) 
pursuant to the California NCCPA.
    The permittees seek a 30-year incidental take permit for covered 
activities within a proposed 174,018-acre planning area, located 
entirely in eastern Contra Costa County, California. They are 
requesting a permit for 28 species, 8 of which are currently listed as 
threatened or endangered under the ESA. Of these 28 species, the 
Association requests a permit and assurances for 17 animal species and 
assurances for 11 plant species. Proposed covered species include 3 
wildlife species, currently listed as endangered under the ESA [San 
Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotus mutica), longhorn fairy shrimp 
(Brachinecta longiantenna), and vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus 
packardi)] and 5 wildlife species currently listed as threatened under 
the Federal ESA [Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus), 
giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas), California tiger salamander 
(Ambystoma californiense), California red-legged frog (Rana aurora 
draytonii), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Brachinecta lynchi)]. The 
proposed covered species also include 9 wildlife species and 11 plant 
species that are not currently listed under the ESA: Townsend's western 
big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii), tricolored 
blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), 
western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugea), Swainson's hawk 
(Buteo swainsonii), silvery legless lizard (Anniella pulchra pulchra), 
western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), foothill yellow-legged frog 
(Rana boylii), midvalley fairy shrimp (Brachinecta mesovallensis), 
Mount Diablo manzanita (Arctostaphylos auriculata), brittlescale 
(Atriplex depressa), San Joaquin spearscale (Atriplex joanquiniana), 
big tarplant (Blepharizonia plumosa ssp. plumosa), Mount Diablo fairy 
lantern (Calochortus pulchellus), recurved larkspur (Delphinium 
recurvatum), round-leaved filaree (Erodium macrophyllum), Diablo 
helianthella (Helianthella castanea), Brewer's dwarf flax (Hesperolinon 
breweri), showy madia (Madia radiata), and adobe navarretia (Navarretia 
nigelliformis ssp. nigelliformis).
    If the proposed Plan is approved and the permit issued, take 
authorization of covered listed wildlife species would be effective at 
the time of permit issuance. Take of the currently non-listed covered 
wildlife species would be authorized concurrent with the species' 
listing under the ESA, should they be listed during the duration of the 
permit. Collectively, the 28 listed and unlisted species are referred 
to as the ``covered species'' in the Plan.
    The applicants propose to minimize and mitigate the effects to 
covered species associated with the covered activities by participating 
in the Plan. The proposed Plan is intended to be a comprehensive and 
multi-jurisdictional document, providing for regional species 
conservation and habitat planning, while allowing the prospective 
permittees to better manage

[[Page 10783]]

anticipated growth and development. The proposed Plan also is intended 
to provide a coordinated process for permitting and mitigating the take 
of covered species as an alternative to the current project-by-project 
approach.
    In order to define a reasonable range of expected growth, the 
proposed Plan defines two permit areas: the initial urban development 
area and the maximum urban development area. Although the initial and 
maximum urban development areas bound the range of the proposed permit 
area, the final permit area may lie somewhere in between, depending on 
local land use decisions that occur during the proposed 30-year permit 
term. The proposed Plan, therefore, encompasses a range of alternative 
permit areas. Both the initial and maximum urban development areas are 
based on current general plans of the local jurisdictions.
    The proposed initial urban development area is defined by: (1) The 
Urban Limit Line (ULL) of Contra Costa County and the city limits of 
the participating cities (Pittsburg, Clayton, Oakley, and Brentwood), 
whichever is largest; (2) the footprint of specific rural 
infrastructure projects outside the ULL and the city limits of 
participating cities; and (3) the boundary of any land acquired in fee 
title or conservation easement and managed under the Plan.
    Up to 8,670 acres of ground-disturbing urban development activities 
within the ULL are proposed to be permitted under the initial urban 
development. The proposed maximum urban development area is the largest 
extent to which urban development could expand under the terms of the 
proposed Plan. Under this scenario, up to 11,853 acres of ground-
disturbing urban development activities within the permit area could be 
allowed, as long as the conditions of the Plan are met. With either 
urban development area, an additional 1,126 acres of impact are 
expected from rural infrastructure projects and activities within the 
Plan's preserves. Thus, total impacts allowed under the Plan, are 9,796 
acres and 13,029 acres with the initial and maximum urban development 
areas, respectively.
    The conservation strategy was designed to minimize and mitigate the 
impacts of covered activities, contribute to the recovery of listed 
covered species, and protect and enhance populations of non-listed 
covered species, as proposed. The proposed conservation strategy 
provides for the establishment, enhancement, and long-term management 
of the preserves for the benefit of covered vegetation communities, 
covered species, and overall biodiversity and ecosystem functions. The 
proposed preserves would also serve to achieve other complementary 
goals such as recreation, grazing, and crop production, as long as the 
primary biological goals of the Plan are met and not compromised. The 
system of new preserves would likely be linked to existing protected 
lands to form a network of protected areas outside the area where new 
urban growth is proposed to be permitted under the Plan.
    On September 2, 2005, a notice was published in the Federal 
Register (70 FR 52434) announcing that the Service had received an 
application for an incidental take permit from the Association and the 
availability of the draft EIS/EIR. The draft EIS/EIR analyzed the 
potential environmental impacts that may result from the Federal action 
of authorizing incidental take associated with implementation of the 
Plan and the identified alternatives. We received a total of 18 comment 
letters on the draft EIS/EIR. A response to each comment received has 
been included in the final EIS/EIR.

Alternatives

    The draft EIS/EIR analyzed three alternatives in addition to the 
proposed Plan described above. The proposed Plan was identified as 
Alternative 1 (also referred to as Conservation Strategy A). The three 
other alternatives are described below.
    Alternative 2 (also referred to as Conservation Strategy B) would 
provide for the same size planning area, located entirely in eastern 
Contra Costa County, with the same preserve size as the proposed Plan, 
except that the location of the preserve would be modified. 
Modification of the preserve locations would result in increased 
protection of chaparral and cultivated agriculture and decreased 
protection of grassland. This alternative would also involve less 
riparian restoration than the proposed Plan. Other elements of the 
proposed Plan would remain the same, including species and communities 
covered, conservation measures, monitoring and adaptive management, and 
implementation approach.
    Compared to the Proposed Plan, Alternative 3 (the Reduced 
Development Area Alternative) would provide for a reduced level of take 
due to a reduced permit area. Existing open space or agricultural lands 
within the ULL that are not currently designated for development would 
be conserved. Under this alternative, the permit area would be 6,991 
acres. Other elements of the proposed Plan would remain the same 
including the species and communities covered, conservation measures, 
monitoring and adaptive management, and implementation approach.
    Under the Alternative 4 (the No-Action/No-Project alternative), the 
proposed Plan would not be adopted, and permits pursuant to Section 
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act and Section 2835 of the NCCPA would not be 
issued by the Service and California Department of Fish and Game, 
respectively. Compliance with the ESA would continue to be addressed on 
a case-by-case basis.

National Environmental Policy Act

    Proposed permit issuance triggers the need for compliance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California 
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Accordingly, a joint final NEPA/CEQA 
document has been prepared. The Service is the Lead Agency responsible 
for compliance under NEPA, and the Association is the Lead Agency with 
responsibility for compliance with CEQA. As NEPA Lead Agency, the 
Service is providing notice of the availability of the final EIS/EIR 
and is making available for public review the responses to comments on 
the draft EIS/EIR.

Public Review

    The Service and Association invite the public to review the final 
Plan, final EIS/EIR, and final IA during a 30-day public waiting period 
[see DATES]. Any comments received, including names and addresses, will 
become part of the administrative record and may be made available to 
the public. Our practice is to make comments, including names, home 
addresses, home telephone numbers, and email addresses of respondents, 
available for public review. Individual respondents may request that we 
withhold their names and/or home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to 
consider withholding this information you must state this prominently 
at the beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present a 
rationale for withholding this information. This rationale must 
demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted 
invasion of privacy. Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. 
In the absence of exceptional, documentable circumstances, this 
information will be released. We will always make submissions from 
organizations and businesses, and from individuals identifying 
themselves as representatives of or officials of organizations or 
businesses, available for public inspection in their entirety.

[[Page 10784]]

    The Service will evaluate the application, associated documents, 
and comments submitted to them to prepare a Record of Decision. A 
permit decision will be made no sooner than 30 days after the 
publication of the final EIS/EIR and completion of the Record of 
Decision.
    This notice is provided pursuant to section 10(a) of the ESA and 
Service regulations for implementing NEPA, as amended (40 CFR 1506.6). 
We provide this notice in order to allow the public, agencies, or other 
organizations to review these documents.

    Dated: March 5, 2007.
Polly Wheeler,
Acting Deputy Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office, Sacramento, 
CA.
[FR Doc. E7-4252 Filed 3-8-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.