East Bay Municipal Utility District Habitat Conservation Plan, East Bay Watershed Lands, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, CA, 28495-28497 [E8-10994]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 96 / Friday, May 16, 2008 / Notices
underground. They inhabit caves and
mesocaverns (humanly impassable
voids in karst limestone) in Bexar
County, Texas. They are characterized
by small or absent eyes and pale
coloration. These species are Rhadine
exilis, Rhadine infernalis, Batrisodes
venyivi, Texella cokendolpheri,
Neoleptoneta microps, Cicurina baroni,
Cicurina madla, Cicurina venii, and
Cicurina vespera.
The draft recovery plan includes
scientific information about the species
and provides objectives and actions
needed to recover the Bexar County
karst invertebrates and to ultimately
remove them from the list of threatened
and endangered species. Recovery
actions designed to achieve these
objectives include reducing threats to
the species by securing an adequate
quantity and quality of habitat. This
includes selecting caves or cave clusters
that represent the range of the species
and potential genetic diversity for the
nine species, then preserving these karst
habitats by preserving their drainage
basins and surface communities upon
which they rely. Because many aspects
of the population dynamics and habitat
requirements of the species are poorly
understood, recovery is also dependant
on incorporating research findings into
adaptive management actions. Because
four of these species are known to occur
in only one cave, full recovery may not
be possible for these species.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Public Comments
To comment on the plan, please mail
comments to the Field Supervisor,
Attention Draft Bexar County Karst
Invertebrate Recovery Plan, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological
Services Field Office, 10711 Burnet
Road, Suite 200, Austin, Texas 78758.
You may also submit comments
electronically to
BexarKIrecplan@fws.gov or fax to 512–
490–0974.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail 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 we will try to honor your written
request to withhold your personal
identifying information from public
review, we cannot guarantee that we
will be able to do so.
Authority
The authority for this action is section
4(f) of the Endangered Species Act, 16
U.S.C. 1533(f).
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
Dated: April 24, 2008.
Christopher T. Jones,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2.
[FR Doc. E8–10996 Filed 5–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R8–ES–2008–N0082; 1112–0000–
81420–F2]
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Habitat Conservation Plan, East Bay
Watershed Lands, Alameda and Contra
Costa Counties, CA
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
Notice of availability: Proposed
low-effect habitat conservation plan;
request for comment.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The East Bay Municipal
Utility District, Oakland (EBMUD or
applicant) has applied to the Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for a 30-year
incidental take permit for seven species
pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
The application addresses the potential
for ‘‘take’’ of two listed animals, two
listed plants, and three currently
unlisted species. The applicant would
implement a conservation program to
minimize and mitigate the project
activities, as described in the East Bay
Municipal Utility District Low-Effect
East Bay Habitat Conservation Plan
(plan). We request comments on the
applicant’s application and plan, and
the preliminary determination that the
plan 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),
which is also available for public
review.
We must receive written
comments on or before June 16, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Please address written
comments to Sheila Larsen,
Conservation Planning Branch, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sheila Larsen, or Eric Tattersall, Branch
Chief, Conservation Planning Branch, at
the address shown above or at 916–414–
6600 (telephone).
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28495
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Documents
Copies of the permit application,
plan, and EAS can be obtained from the
individuals named above (see FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT). Copies
of these documents are available for
public inspection, by appointment,
during regular business hours, at the
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
(see ADDRESSES). Documents also are
available for public inspection, during
regular business hours, at the East Bay
Municipal Utility District, Orinda,
Natural Resources Department, 500 San
Pablo Dam Road, Orinda, CA 94563.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail 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.
Background Information
Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.) and its implementing Federal
regulations prohibit the ‘‘take’’ of fish or
wildlife species listed as endangered or
threatened. ‘‘Take’’ is defined under the
Act to include the following activities:
To harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture or collect
listed animal species, or to attempt to
engage in such conduct. However,
under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we
may issue permits to authorize
incidental take of listed species.
‘‘Incidental take’’ is defined by the Act
as take that is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, carrying out an otherwise
lawful activity. Regulations governing
incidental take permits for endangered
and threatened species, respectively, are
in the Code of Federal Regulations at 50
CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32.
Although take of listed plant species
is not prohibited under the Act, 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 the incidental take permit would
receive assurances under the Services’
‘‘No Surprises’’ regulations (50 CFR
17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5).
The applicant seeks an incident take
permit for covered activities within
28,200 acres of watershed lands owned
E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM
16MYN1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
28496
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 96 / Friday, May 16, 2008 / Notices
by EBMUD located in Contra Costa and
Alameda Counties, California. EBMUD
is requesting permits for take of two
federally listed animal species, both
listed as threatened: California redlegged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and
Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis
lateralis euryxanthus). The two
federally listed plant species, both listed
as threatened, are Santa Cruz tarplant
(Holocarpha macradenia) and pallid
manzanita (Arctostaphylos pallida). The
proposed covered species also include
three wildlife species that are not
currently listed under the Act—western
pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata),
pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), and an
unlisted resident population of rainbow
trout (O. mykiss)—should these species
be listed during the life of the permit.
These rainbow trout are genetically
identical to steelhead, a fish species
federally listed as threatened. However,
these trout are landlocked above Upper
San Leandro Dam, and are considered
rainbow trout, not steelhead.
Collectively, all of these species are
referred to as ‘‘covered species’’ in the
plan.
EBMUD owns and manages watershed
lands in Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties, located in the San Francisco
Bay Area of California. These lands
surround five reservoirs (Briones, San
Pablo, Upper San Leandro, Chabot, and
Lafayette) and a portion of one basin
that does not have a reservoir (Pinole
Valley). EBMUD reservoirs store
drinking water and emergency water
supplies for 1.3 million people residing
in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
Covered activities include the
following watershed management and
maintenance activities: A biodiversity
program; forestry program; livestock
grazing; agricultural operations; fire and
fuels management; a trench spoils
storage and removal program for the
north and south watershed areas;
maintenance activities related to
recreational activities; and permitted
watershed access on fire roads and
designated trails. The implementation of
mitigation measures such as creek
restoration activities are also included
as covered activities. The covered
activities are described more fully in the
plan, and additional information on
EBMUD management activities can be
found in their East Bay Watershed
Master Plan, Fire Management Plan, and
EBMUD’s Range Resource Management
Plan. EBMUD’s watershed planning
documents are available at this link:
https://www.ebmud.com/water_&_
environment/environmental_
protection/.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:22 May 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
The applicant proposes to avoid,
minimize, and mitigate the effects to the
covered species associated with the
covered activities by fully implementing
the plan. To minimize and mitigate the
impacts of the covered activities, the
applicant will continue ongoing
conservation activities and develop
additional measures for the further
protection of covered species, if
necessary. Minimization measures will
include, but are not limited to, seasonal
restrictions on when work may be
conducted, preconstruction surveys,
and temporary removal of covered
species from work areas. General
mitigation measures will include
restoration of disturbed habitat,
improved grazing practices,
maintenance of stockponds for
California red-legged frogs and western
pond turtles, riparian restoration, and
conversion of non-native forests to
native species.
Santa Cruz tarplant is represented by
a single experimental population that
has not been observed for 10 years. It
will be adaptively managed to
encourage the re-establishment of this
fire-adapted species. Pallid manzanita
will not be affected by covered
activities, but competition with other
species will be reduced through pruning
of nearby vegetation. Rainbow trout
habitat will be improved through
revegetation of affected areas and
fencing of creek corridors, and
placement of spawning gravel to
provide substrate if no spawning is
observed on EBMUD lands. Coastal
scrub that provides habitat for Alameda
whipsnakes will be allowed to encroach
into grassland so that the overall
amount of this vegetation community
does not vary by more than 1 percent
due to covered activities. Mitigation
measures for pallid bat include
maintenance of moderate grazing levels;
education of grazing lessees, signage on
the known habitat, and installation of
bat boxes adjacent to the currently used
site.
Alternatives
The Service’s proposed action
consists approving the applicant’s plan
and issuance of an incidental take
permit for the applicant’s Covered
Activities. As required by the Act, the
applicant’s plan considers alternatives
to the take under the proposed action.
The plan considers the environmental
consequences of one alternative to the
proposed action, the No Action
alternative. Under the No Action
Alternative, no permit would be issued
and projects would be reviewed and
permitted on an individual basis. The
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
proposed action alternative consists of
issuance of the incidental take permit
for the applicant’s proposed project,
which includes the activities described
above.
National Environmental Policy Act
As described in our EAS, we have
made the preliminary determination
that approval of the proposed plan and
issuance of the permit would qualify as
a categorical exclusion under NEPA, as
provided by Federal regulations (40 CFR
1500, 5(k), 1507.3(b)(2), 1508.4) and the
Department of the Interior Manual (516
DM 2 and 516 DM 8). Our EAS found
that the proposed plan qualifies as a
‘‘low-effect’’ habitat conservation plan,
as defined by the Service’s Habitat
Conservation Planning Handbook
(November 1996). Determination of loweffect habitat conservation plans is
based on the following three criteria: (1)
Implementation of the proposed plan
would result in minor or negligible
effects on federally listed, proposed, and
candidate species and their habitats; (2)
implementation of the proposed plan
would result in minor or negligible
effects on other environmental values or
resources; and (3) impacts of the plan,
considered together with the impacts of
other past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable similarly situated 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.
We provide this notice pursuant to
section 10(c) of the Act and the NEPA
public-involvement regulations (40 CFR
1500.1(b), 1500.2(d), and 1506.6). We
will evaluate the permit application,
including the plan, and comments
submitted thereon 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, Alameda whipsnake,
western pond turtle, pallid bat, rainbow
trout, Santa Cruz tarplant, and pallid
manzanita, from the implementation of
the covered activities described in the
plan, or from mitigation conducted as
part of this plan. We will make the final
permit decision no sooner than 30 days
after the date of this notice.
E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM
16MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 96 / Friday, May 16, 2008 / Notices
Dated: May 12, 2008.
Susan K. Moore,
Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California.
[FR Doc. E8–10994 Filed 5–15–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R2–ES–2008–N0086; 20124–
11120000–F2]
Regional Habitat Conservation Plan,
Hays County, TX
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement;
announcement of public scoping
meeting; request for comments.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), advise the
public that we intend to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
to evaluate the impacts of, and
alternatives to, the proposed issuance of
an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973
(Act), as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.) to Hays County, Texas (Applicant).
We also announce a public scoping
meeting and public comment period.
DATES: We must receive written
comments on alternatives and issues to
be addressed in the EIS by July 18, 2008.
We will hold a public scoping meeting
on June 18, 2008, from 5:30 p.m. to 8:30
p.m. at the San Marcos Activity Center,
501 E. Hopkins Road, San Marcos, TX
78666.
ADDRESSES: Send your comments or
request for information by any one of
the following methods:
• U.S. mail: Field Supervisor, Fish
and Wildlife Service, 10711 Burnet
Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758.
• Facsimile: 512–490–0974.
• E-mail: info@hayscountyhcp.com.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
• EIS Information: Ms. Allison Arnold,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10711
Burnet Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX
78758; 512–490–0057 (phone); 512–
490–0974 (fax); or
Allison_Arnold@fws.gov (e-mail).
• Hays County RHCP Information:
County Judge Liz Sumter, 111 E. San
Antonio St., Suite 300, San Marcos, TX
78666; 512–393–2205 (phone); or 512–
393–2282 (fax).
• Other Information: You may obtain
additional information on the Hays
County RHCP on the Internet at https://
www.hayscountyhcp.com.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
16:18 May 15, 2008
Jkt 214001
We intend
to prepare an EIS to evaluate the
impacts of, and alternatives to, the
proposed issuance of an ITP under the
Act, to the Applicant. We also announce
a public scoping meeting and public
comment period. The Applicant
proposes to apply for an ITP supported
by development and implementation of
the Hays County Regional Habitat
Conservation Plan (RHCP). The Hays
County RHCP will include measures
necessary to minimize and mitigate the
impacts of the proposed taking on the
federally-listed species. We furnish this
notice in compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.), and its implementing regulations
(40 CFR 1500–1508), in order to: (1)
Advise other Federal and state agencies,
affected tribes, and the public of our
intent to prepare an EIS; (2) announce
the initiation of a public scoping period;
and (3) obtain suggestions and
information on the scope of issues and
alternatives we will consider in our EIS.
We intend to gather the information
necessary to determine impacts and
alternatives for an EIS regarding our
potential issuance of an ITP to the
Applicant, and the implementation of
the Hays County RHCP.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Purpose and Need for Action
Section 9 of the Act and its
implementing regulations prohibit take
of species listed under the Act as
endangered or threatened. The
definition of ‘‘take’’ under the Act
includes the following activities: To
harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect
listed animal species, or attempt to
engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C.
1538). Regulations define ‘‘harm’’ as
significant habitat modification or
degradation that results in actual death
or injury to the listed species by
significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act requires
us to issue ITPs to non-Federal entities
for take of endangered and threatened
species, provided the following criteria
are met: (1) The taking will be
incidental; (2) the applicant will, to the
maximum extent practicable, minimize
and mitigate the impact of such taking;
(3) the applicant will develop a habitat
conservation plan and ensure that
adequate funding for the plan 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 applicant will carry
out any other measures that we may
require as being necessary or
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
28497
appropriate for the purposes of the
habitat conservation plan.
We anticipate that under the ITP, the
Applicant will request coverage for a
period of 30 years from the date of the
RHCP approval. Implementation of the
Hays County RHCP would result in the
establishment of preserves intended to
provide for the conservation of the
covered species occupying those
preserves. Research, monitoring, and
adaptive management would be used to
facilitate accomplishment of these goals.
Proposed Action
The proposed action is the issuance of
an ITP for the covered species in Hays
County. The Applicant would develop
and implement the Hays County RHCP,
which must meet the requirements in
section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act by
providing measures necessary to
minimize and mitigate the impacts of
the proposed taking on the covered
species.
Activities proposed for coverage
under the ITP include otherwise lawful
activities that would occur consistent
with the Hays County RHCP and
include, but are not limited to,
construction and maintenance of public
projects and infrastructure as well as
residential, commercial, and industrial
development.
Species the Applicant has
recommended for inclusion as covered
species in the Hays County RHCP
include the golden-cheeked warbler
(Dendroica chrysoparia) and blackcapped vireo (Vireo atricapilla). For
these covered species, Hays County
would seek incidental take
authorization. The Hays County RHCP
would also address 40 ‘‘evaluation
species’’ (39 terrestrial or aquatic karst
species and the Cagle’s map turtle
(Graptemys caglei)) and 15 ‘‘additional
species’’ (6 listed aquatic species, 3
unlisted plants, and 6 unlisted surface
aquatic species). Incidental take
authorization for the evaluation species
may become necessary to include in the
proposed ITP over the term of the Hays
County RHCP; however, these species
will not be initially included as
‘‘covered’’ species. Evaluation species
may be currently unlisted, but could
become listed in the foreseeable future.
The Hays County RHCP may include
conservation measures to benefit
evaluation species, where practicable,
and support research to help fill data
gaps regarding the biology, habitat,
distribution, or management of these
species. The research supported by the
RHCP may aide in the conservation of
these species or facilitate obtaining
incidental take coverage, if these species
become listed in the future. For the 15
E:\FR\FM\16MYN1.SGM
16MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 96 (Friday, May 16, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28495-28497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-10994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R8-ES-2008-N0082; 1112-0000-81420-F2]
East Bay Municipal Utility District Habitat Conservation Plan,
East Bay Watershed Lands, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, CA
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability: Proposed low-effect habitat
conservation plan; request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The East Bay Municipal Utility District, Oakland (EBMUD or
applicant) has applied to the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for a
30-year incidental take permit for seven species pursuant to section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16
U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The application addresses the potential for
``take'' of two listed animals, two listed plants, and three currently
unlisted species. The applicant would implement a conservation program
to minimize and mitigate the project activities, as described in the
East Bay Municipal Utility District Low-Effect East Bay Habitat
Conservation Plan (plan). We request comments on the applicant's
application and plan, and the preliminary determination that the plan
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), which is also available for
public review.
DATES: We must receive written comments on or before June 16, 2008.
ADDRESSES: Please address written comments to Sheila Larsen,
Conservation Planning Branch, 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sheila Larsen, or Eric Tattersall,
Branch Chief, Conservation Planning Branch, at the address shown above
or at 916-414-6600 (telephone).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Availability of Documents
Copies of the permit application, plan, and EAS can be obtained
from the individuals named above (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Copies of these documents are available for public inspection, by
appointment, during regular business hours, at the Sacramento Fish and
Wildlife Office (see ADDRESSES). Documents also are available for
public inspection, during regular business hours, at the East Bay
Municipal Utility District, Orinda, Natural Resources Department, 500
San Pablo Dam Road, Orinda, CA 94563.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone number, e-mail 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.
Background Information
Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and its implementing
Federal regulations prohibit the ``take'' of fish or wildlife species
listed as endangered or threatened. ``Take'' is defined under the Act
to include the following activities: To harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect listed animal species, or
to attempt to engage in such conduct. However, under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act, we may issue permits to authorize incidental
take of listed species. ``Incidental take'' is defined by the Act as
take that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an
otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take
permits for endangered and threatened species, respectively, are in the
Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.22 and 50 CFR 17.32.
Although take of listed plant species is not prohibited under the
Act, 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 the incidental take permit would receive
assurances under the Services' ``No Surprises'' regulations (50 CFR
17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5).
The applicant seeks an incident take permit for covered activities
within 28,200 acres of watershed lands owned
[[Page 28496]]
by EBMUD located in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, California.
EBMUD is requesting permits for take of two federally listed animal
species, both listed as threatened: California red-legged frog (Rana
aurora draytonii) and Alameda whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis
euryxanthus). The two federally listed plant species, both listed as
threatened, are Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) and pallid
manzanita (Arctostaphylos pallida). The proposed covered species also
include three wildlife species that are not currently listed under the
Act--western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata), pallid bat (Antrozous
pallidus), and an unlisted resident population of rainbow trout (O.
mykiss)--should these species be listed during the life of the permit.
These rainbow trout are genetically identical to steelhead, a fish
species federally listed as threatened. However, these trout are
landlocked above Upper San Leandro Dam, and are considered rainbow
trout, not steelhead. Collectively, all of these species are referred
to as ``covered species'' in the plan.
EBMUD owns and manages watershed lands in Alameda and Contra Costa
Counties, located in the San Francisco Bay Area of California. These
lands surround five reservoirs (Briones, San Pablo, Upper San Leandro,
Chabot, and Lafayette) and a portion of one basin that does not have a
reservoir (Pinole Valley). EBMUD reservoirs store drinking water and
emergency water supplies for 1.3 million people residing in Alameda and
Contra Costa Counties.
Covered activities include the following watershed management and
maintenance activities: A biodiversity program; forestry program;
livestock grazing; agricultural operations; fire and fuels management;
a trench spoils storage and removal program for the north and south
watershed areas; maintenance activities related to recreational
activities; and permitted watershed access on fire roads and designated
trails. The implementation of mitigation measures such as creek
restoration activities are also included as covered activities. The
covered activities are described more fully in the plan, and additional
information on EBMUD management activities can be found in their East
Bay Watershed Master Plan, Fire Management Plan, and EBMUD's Range
Resource Management Plan. EBMUD's watershed planning documents are
available at this link: https://www.ebmud.com/water_&_environment/
environmental_ protection/.
The applicant proposes to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the effects
to the covered species associated with the covered activities by fully
implementing the plan. To minimize and mitigate the impacts of the
covered activities, the applicant will continue ongoing conservation
activities and develop additional measures for the further protection
of covered species, if necessary. Minimization measures will include,
but are not limited to, seasonal restrictions on when work may be
conducted, preconstruction surveys, and temporary removal of covered
species from work areas. General mitigation measures will include
restoration of disturbed habitat, improved grazing practices,
maintenance of stockponds for California red-legged frogs and western
pond turtles, riparian restoration, and conversion of non-native
forests to native species.
Santa Cruz tarplant is represented by a single experimental
population that has not been observed for 10 years. It will be
adaptively managed to encourage the re-establishment of this fire-
adapted species. Pallid manzanita will not be affected by covered
activities, but competition with other species will be reduced through
pruning of nearby vegetation. Rainbow trout habitat will be improved
through revegetation of affected areas and fencing of creek corridors,
and placement of spawning gravel to provide substrate if no spawning is
observed on EBMUD lands. Coastal scrub that provides habitat for
Alameda whipsnakes will be allowed to encroach into grassland so that
the overall amount of this vegetation community does not vary by more
than 1 percent due to covered activities. Mitigation measures for
pallid bat include maintenance of moderate grazing levels; education of
grazing lessees, signage on the known habitat, and installation of bat
boxes adjacent to the currently used site.
Alternatives
The Service's proposed action consists approving the applicant's
plan and issuance of an incidental take permit for the applicant's
Covered Activities. As required by the Act, the applicant's plan
considers alternatives to the take under the proposed action. The plan
considers the environmental consequences of one alternative to the
proposed action, the No Action alternative. Under the No Action
Alternative, no permit would be issued and projects would be reviewed
and permitted on an individual basis. The proposed action alternative
consists of issuance of the incidental take permit for the applicant's
proposed project, which includes the activities described above.
National Environmental Policy Act
As described in our EAS, we have made the preliminary determination
that approval of the proposed plan and issuance of the permit would
qualify as a categorical exclusion under NEPA, as provided by Federal
regulations (40 CFR 1500, 5(k), 1507.3(b)(2), 1508.4) and the
Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 2 and 516 DM 8). Our EAS
found that the proposed plan qualifies as a ``low-effect'' habitat
conservation plan, as defined by the Service's Habitat Conservation
Planning Handbook (November 1996). Determination of low-effect habitat
conservation plans is based on the following three criteria: (1)
Implementation of the proposed plan would result in minor or negligible
effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their
habitats; (2) implementation of the proposed plan would result in minor
or negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and
(3) impacts of the plan, considered together with the impacts of other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated 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.
We provide this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the Act and the
NEPA public-involvement regulations (40 CFR 1500.1(b), 1500.2(d), and
1506.6). We will evaluate the permit application, including the plan,
and comments submitted thereon 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, Alameda whipsnake, western pond
turtle, pallid bat, rainbow trout, Santa Cruz tarplant, and pallid
manzanita, from the implementation of the covered activities described
in the plan, or from mitigation conducted as part of this plan. We will
make the final permit decision no sooner than 30 days after the date of
this notice.
[[Page 28497]]
Dated: May 12, 2008.
Susan K. Moore,
Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento,
California.
[FR Doc. E8-10994 Filed 5-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
