Environmental Impact Statement and Habitat Conservation Plan for the Incidental Take of Seven Federally Listed Species by the Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program, 10305-10307 [2010-4583]
Download as PDF
10305
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Notices
Citation
30 CFR
Part 256 and NTLs
Reporting requirement
Hour burden
Average number of
annual responses
.................................................................................
................................
2 responses ...........
Citation 30 CFR Part
260
Reporting requirement
Hour burden
Average number of
annual reponses
124(a) .............................
Request MMS to reconsider field assignment of a
lease.
Total Reporting .......
.................................................................................
Subtotal ...................
Exempt under 5 CFR 1320.4(a)(2), (c).
9,553 Responses ...
................................
Annual burden
hours
2 hours.
Annual burden
hours
0.
15,732 Hours.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
$393,345 Non-Hour Cost Burdens
Estimated Reporting and
Recordkeeping Non-Hour Cost Burden:
We have identified three paperwork
non-hour cost burdens associated with
the collection of information. Sections
256.62 and 256.64(a) require
respondents to pay service fees when
submitting either a request for
assignment of record title interest,
assignment of operating rights interest,
and/or to file documents for record
purposes. The service fees are required
to recover the Federal Government’s
processing costs. We have not identified
any other non-hour cost burdens
associated with this collection of
information, and we estimate a total
reporting non-hour cost burden of
$393,345.
Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA
(44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.) provides that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. Until OMB approves a
collection of information, you are not
obligated to respond.
Comments: Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of
the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.)
requires each agency ‘‘* * * to provide
notice * * * and otherwise consult
with members of the public and affected
agencies concerning each proposed
collection of information * * *’’
Agencies must specifically solicit
comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the agency to perform its
duties, including whether the
information is useful; (b) evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information; (c) enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
minimize the burden on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
To comply with the public
consultation process, on October 6,
2009, we published a Federal Register
notice (74 FR 51316) announcing that
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Mar 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
we would submit this ICR to OMB for
approval. The notice provided the
required 60-day comment period. In
addition, § 256.0 provides the OMB
control number for the information
collection requirements imposed by the
30 CFR 256 regulations and their
associated forms. The regulation also
informs the public that they may
comment at any time on the collections
of information and provides the address
to which they should send comments.
We have received no comments in
response to these efforts.
If you wish to comment in response
to this notice, you may send your
comments to the offices listed under the
ADDRESSES section of this notice. The
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or
disapprove the information collection
but may respond after 30 days.
Therefore, to ensure maximum
consideration, OMB should receive
public comments by April 5, 2010.
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.
MMS Information Collection
Clearance Officer: Arlene Bajusz (202)
208–7744.
Dated: January 19, 2010.
William S. Hauser,
Acting Chief, Office of Offshore Regulatory
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2010–4695 Filed 3–4–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MR–P
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R2–ES–2009–N278; 20124–1112–
0000–F2]
Environmental Impact Statement and
Habitat Conservation Plan for the
Incidental Take of Seven Federally
Listed Species by the Edwards Aquifer
Recovery Implementation Program
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a
draft environmental impact statement
and draft habitat conservation plan;
announcement of public scoping
meetings; and request for comments.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), advise the
public that we intend to prepare a draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
to evaluate the impacts of, and
alternatives to, the proposed issuance of
an Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), section 10(a)(1)(B)
permit to one or more members of the
Edwards Aquifer Recovery
Implementation Program (the
‘‘Applicant(s)’’) for incidental take of
seven Federally listed species from
activities associated with management
and use of the Edwards Aquifer. The
Applicant may include, among others,
the Edwards Aquifer Authority (‘‘EAA’’).
DATES: Written comments on
alternatives and issues to be addressed
in the draft EIS must be received by
close of business on June 3, 2010. Public
scoping meetings will be held at seven
locations throughout South Central and
South Texas. Public meetings will be
held between 6 p.m. and 8 p.m. Exact
meeting locations and times will be
noticed within 2 weeks prior to each
event in local newspapers and at the
Austin Ecological Services Office Web
site, https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/
AustinTexas/.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments by
mail to Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field
E:\FR\FM\05MRN1.SGM
05MRN1
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
10306
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Notices
Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services
Field Office, 10711 Burnett Road, Suite
200, Austin, TX 78758–4460; telephone
512/490–0057; facsimile 512/490–0974;
or e-mail luela_roberts@fws.gov. Note
that your information request or
comments are in regards to the Edwards
Aquifer Recovery Implementation
Programs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor,
Austin Ecological Services Field Office,
10711 Burnett Road, Suite 200, Austin,
TX 78758–4460; telephone 512/490–
0057; facsimile 512/490–0974; or e-mail
luela_roberts@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notice is published in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.), and its implementing
regulations (40 CFR 1506.6) and section
10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531
et seq.). The Service intends to gather
the information necessary to determine
impacts and alternatives to support a
decision regarding the potential
issuance of an incidental take permit to
the Applicant(s), and the
implementation of the supporting draft
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
The Edwards Aquifer Recovery
Implementation Program (EARIP) is a
collaborative, consensus-based
stakeholder process to protect and
contribute to the recovery of the
Federally listed species associated with
the San Marcos and Comal Springs,
while also protecting the Edwards
Aquifer (also referred to as the Aquifer)
as a water supply source. The EARIP
consists of a diverse group of regional
stakeholders. The stakeholders that have
executed a Memorandum of Agreement
with the Service regarding participation
in the EARIP include: Aquifer Guardian
in Urban Areas, Alamo Cement
Company, Bexar County, Bexar
Metropolitan Water District, Carol G.
Patterson, City of Garden Ridge, City of
New Braunfels, City of San Marcos, City
of Victoria, Comal County, CPS Energy,
Dow Chemical, East Medina Special
Utility District, EAA, Gilleland Farms,
Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance,
Greater San Antonio Chamber of
Commerce, Guadalupe Basin Coalition,
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority,
Guadalupe County Farm Bureau, John
M. Donahue, PhD, Larry Hoffman, Mary
Q. Kelly, Nueces River Authority, New
Braunfels Utilities, Preserve Lake
Dunlap Association, Regional Clean Air
and Water Association, San Antonio
River Authority, San Antonio Water
System, San Marcos River Foundation,
South Central Texas Water Advisory
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Mar 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
Committee, South Texas Farm and
Ranch Club, Texas Bass Federation,
Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality, Texas Department of
Agriculture, Texas Living Waters
Project, Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, Texas Water Development
Board, and Texas Wildlife Association.
We also announce plans for a series
of public scoping meetings located
throughout the region served by the
EAA and affected by the management of
the Edwards Aquifer area and a public
comment period.
The Service intends to prepare a draft
EIS to evaluate the impacts of, and
alternatives to, the proposed issuance of
an incidental take permit under the Act
to the Applicant(s). The Applicant(s)
proposes to apply for an incidental take
permit through development and
implementation of an HCP. The
proposed HCP will include measures
necessary to minimize and mitigate the
impacts to the maximum extent
practicable of potential proposed taking
of Federally listed species and the
habitats upon which they depend by the
management and use of the Edwards
Aquifer and the areas associated with
the Comal and San Marcos springs.
Background
Section 9 of the Act prohibits ‘‘taking’’
of fish and wildlife species listed as
endangered or threatened under section
4 of the Act. Under the Act, the term
‘‘take’’ means to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
or collect, or attempt to engage in any
such conduct. The term ‘‘harm’’ is
defined in the regulations as significant
habitat modification or degradation that
results in death or injury to listed
species by significantly impairing
essential behavioral patterns, including
breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR
17.3). The term ‘‘harass’’ is defined in
the regulations as actions that create the
likelihood of injury to listed species to
such an extent as to significantly disrupt
normal behavioral patterns which
include, but are not limited to, breeding,
feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3).
However, the Service may, under
specified circumstances, issue permits
that allow the take of Federally listed
fish and wildlife, provided that the take
occurs incidental to, but not the purpose
of, an otherwise lawful activity.
Regulations governing permits for
endangered and threatened species are
at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains
provisions for issuing such incidental
take permits to non-Federal entities for
the take of endangered and threatened
species, provided the following criteria
are met: (1) The taking will be
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
incidental; (2) The applicant will, to the
maximum extent practicable, minimize
and mitigate the impact of such taking;
(3) The applicant will develop a draft
HCP 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 appropriate for the
purposes of the habitat conservation
plan.
Thus, the purpose of issuing a permit
is to allow management and use of the
Edwards Aquifer and the use of areas
associated with the Comal and San
Marcos springs, while preserving
protected species and their habitat that
are dependent on water from the
Aquifer. Adoption of a multispecies
habitat conservation approach, rather
than a species-by-species/project-byproject approach, will reduce the costs
of implementing species minimization
and mitigation measures, and eliminate
cost and time-consuming efforts
associated with processing individual
incidental take permits for each user of
the Edwards Aquifer. In addition, the
multispecies habitat conservation plan
approach provides a program including
avoidance, minimization and mitigation
for each species that is coordinated on
a landscape level and provides
increased benefits to the covered
species. The Service expects that the
Applicant(s) will request permit
coverage for a period of between 20 and
50 years.
Scoping Meetings
The purpose of the scoping meetings
is to provide the public with a general
understanding of the background of the
proposed HCP and activities that would
be covered by the draft HCP, alternative
proposals under consideration for the
draft EIS, and the Service’s role and
steps to be taken to develop the draft
EIS for the draft HCP. The meeting
format will consist of a one hour open
house prior to the formal scoping
meeting that will provide an
opportunity to learn about the proposed
action, permit area, and species covered.
The open house will be followed by a
formal presentation of the proposed
action, summary of the NEPA process,
and presentation of oral comments from
meeting participants. A court reporter
will be present at each meeting and an
interpreter will be present when
deemed necessary. The primary purpose
of these meetings and public comment
period is to solicit suggestions and
information on the scope of issues and
alternatives to consider when drafting
E:\FR\FM\05MRN1.SGM
05MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 43 / Friday, March 5, 2010 / Notices
the EIS. Oral and written comments will
be accepted at the meetings. Comments
can also be submitted to persons listed
in the addresses section above.
Once the draft EIS and draft HCP are
completed and noticed for review, there
will be additional opportunity for
public comment on the content of these
documents through an additional public
hearing and comment period.
Alternatives
The proposed action presented in the
draft EIS will be compared to the NoAction alternative. The No-Action
alternative represents estimated future
conditions to which the proposed
action’s estimated future conditions can
be compared.
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
No-Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative, the
management and use of the Edwards
Aquifer and the use of areas associated
with the Comal and San Marcos springs
would continue regardless of whether a
10(a)(1)(B) permit is sought or issued.
The Applicant(s), and those potentially
covered by the permit, would continue
to be subject to the take prohibition of
the ESA. Where potential impacts could
not be avoided, and where a Federal
nexus exists, measures designed to
minimize and mitigate for the impacts
would be addressed through individual
formal or informal consultation with the
Service. In the absence of a Federal
nexus, the Applicant(s), and other
parties in the region taking actions that
would affect the protected species,
would potentially need individual
section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take
permits on a project-by-project basis if
activities might result in the incidental
take of a Federally protected species
within the proposed permit area. This
project-by-project approach would be
more time-consuming, less efficient, and
could result in an isolated independent
mitigation approach, which might be
less beneficial to the covered species
than a regional permit.
Proposed Alternative
The proposed action is the issuance of
an incidental take permit for the
covered species within the proposed
permit area for a period of between 20
and 50 years. The proposed HCP, which
must meet the requirements in section
10(a)(2)(A) of the Act by providing
measures to minimize and mitigate the
effects of the potential incidental take of
covered species to the maximum extent
practicable, would be developed and
implemented by the Applicant(s). This
alternative could allow for a
comprehensive mitigation approach for
unavoidable impacts and also reduce
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:45 Mar 04, 2010
Jkt 220001
the permit processing effort for the
Service.
The actions to be covered under the
requested incidental take permit have
yet to be determined. They may include
general activities associated with the
management of the Aquifer, pumping
from the Aquifer, actions to protect
spring flow, land stewardship, and
recreational activities at and near the
San Marcos and Comal springs.
Construction activities covered for new
facilities may include construction of
recharge structures, well fields,
pipelines, and related types of activities.
The Applicant(s) expects to apply for
an incidental take permit for seven
species listed as endangered or
threatened within the permit area.
These species include: Fountain darter
(Etheostoma fonticola), San Marcos
salamander (Eurycea nana), San Marcos
gambusia (Gambusia georgei), Texas
blind salamander (Eurycea rathbuni),
Peck’s cave amphipod (Stygobromus
pecki), Comal Springs dryopid beetle
(Stygoparnus comalensis), and the
Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelemis
comalensis). Other species that are
currently not listed as threatened or
endangered may also be covered. The
Service will also evaluate possible
impacts to species not listed here, such
as the whooping crane.
Counties that may be included in the
proposed permit area are those counties
within the EAA’s jurisdiction to manage
the Edwards Aquifer including all, or
portions of, eight counties, including
Atascosa, Bexar, Caldwell, Comal,
Guadalupe, Hays, Medina and Uvalde
counties. Moreover, EAA’s organic
legislation establishes a five-mile buffer
beyond the jurisdictional boundary,
reflecting the existence of a contributing
zone to the aquifer recharge area, in
which EAA has authority to protect
water quality. Consequently, the permit
area may also include the eight counties
within the EAA’s jurisdiction proper
and the portions of the counties that
contain the EAA’s jurisdictional fivemile buffer located over the Edwards
Aquifer contributing zone.
Species not covered by the proposed
incidental take permit may also be
addressed in the draft HCP. These
species may include candidate species
and Federally listed species not likely to
be affected by the covered activities.
The purpose of addressing the
additional species is to explain why the
Applicant believe(s) these species will
not be impacted by the covered
activities.
Other alternatives considered will
also be addressed in the draft EIS,
including impacts associated with each
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
10307
alternative evaluated will be discussed
in the draft EIS.
Public Availability of Comments
Comments we receive become part of
the public record associated with this
action. Before including your address,
phone number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that the
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.
Environmental Review
The Service will conduct an
environmental review to analyze the
proposed action, as well as other
alternatives evaluated and the
associated impacts of each. The draft
EIS will be the basis for the impact
evaluation for each species covered and
the range of alternatives to be addressed.
The draft EIS is expected to provide
biological descriptions of the affected
species and habitats, as well as the
effects of the alternatives on other
resources such as vegetation, wetlands,
wildlife, geology and soils, air quality,
water resources, water quality, cultural
resources, land use, recreation, water
use, local economy, and environmental
justice.
Following completion of the
environmental review, the Service will
publish a notice of availability and a
request for comment on the draft EIS
and the Applicant(s)’ permit
application, which will include the
draft HCP. The draft EIS and draft HCP
are expected to be completed and
available to the public in September
2011.
Thomas L. Bauer,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2,
Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 2010–4583 Filed 3–4–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Notice of Availability of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for
Cape Hatteras National Seashore
AGENCY:
National Park Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Availability of a Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for
Cape Hatteras National Seashore.
E:\FR\FM\05MRN1.SGM
05MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 43 (Friday, March 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10305-10307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-4583]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R2-ES-2009-N278; 20124-1112-0000-F2]
Environmental Impact Statement and Habitat Conservation Plan for
the Incidental Take of Seven Federally Listed Species by the Edwards
Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare a draft environmental impact
statement and draft habitat conservation plan; announcement of public
scoping meetings; and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), advise the
public that we intend to prepare a draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS) to evaluate the impacts of, and alternatives to, the proposed
issuance of an Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act),
section 10(a)(1)(B) permit to one or more members of the Edwards
Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (the ``Applicant(s)'') for
incidental take of seven Federally listed species from activities
associated with management and use of the Edwards Aquifer. The
Applicant may include, among others, the Edwards Aquifer Authority
(``EAA'').
DATES: Written comments on alternatives and issues to be addressed in
the draft EIS must be received by close of business on June 3, 2010.
Public scoping meetings will be held at seven locations throughout
South Central and South Texas. Public meetings will be held between 6
p.m. and 8 p.m. Exact meeting locations and times will be noticed
within 2 weeks prior to each event in local newspapers and at the
Austin Ecological Services Office Web site, https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/AustinTexas/.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments by mail to Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field
[[Page 10306]]
Supervisor, Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnett
Road, Suite 200, Austin, TX 78758-4460; telephone 512/490-0057;
facsimile 512/490-0974; or e-mail luela_roberts@fws.gov. Note that
your information request or comments are in regards to the Edwards
Aquifer Recovery Implementation Programs.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Adam Zerrenner, Field Supervisor,
Austin Ecological Services Field Office, 10711 Burnett Road, Suite 200,
Austin, TX 78758-4460; telephone 512/490-0057; facsimile 512/490-0974;
or e-mail luela_roberts@fws.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in compliance with
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and its implementing regulations (40 CFR 1506.6)
and section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(Act; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Service intends to gather the
information necessary to determine impacts and alternatives to support
a decision regarding the potential issuance of an incidental take
permit to the Applicant(s), and the implementation of the supporting
draft Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
The Edwards Aquifer Recovery Implementation Program (EARIP) is a
collaborative, consensus-based stakeholder process to protect and
contribute to the recovery of the Federally listed species associated
with the San Marcos and Comal Springs, while also protecting the
Edwards Aquifer (also referred to as the Aquifer) as a water supply
source. The EARIP consists of a diverse group of regional stakeholders.
The stakeholders that have executed a Memorandum of Agreement with the
Service regarding participation in the EARIP include: Aquifer Guardian
in Urban Areas, Alamo Cement Company, Bexar County, Bexar Metropolitan
Water District, Carol G. Patterson, City of Garden Ridge, City of New
Braunfels, City of San Marcos, City of Victoria, Comal County, CPS
Energy, Dow Chemical, East Medina Special Utility District, EAA,
Gilleland Farms, Greater Edwards Aquifer Alliance, Greater San Antonio
Chamber of Commerce, Guadalupe Basin Coalition, Guadalupe-Blanco River
Authority, Guadalupe County Farm Bureau, John M. Donahue, PhD, Larry
Hoffman, Mary Q. Kelly, Nueces River Authority, New Braunfels
Utilities, Preserve Lake Dunlap Association, Regional Clean Air and
Water Association, San Antonio River Authority, San Antonio Water
System, San Marcos River Foundation, South Central Texas Water Advisory
Committee, South Texas Farm and Ranch Club, Texas Bass Federation,
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Texas Department of
Agriculture, Texas Living Waters Project, Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department, Texas Water Development Board, and Texas Wildlife
Association.
We also announce plans for a series of public scoping meetings
located throughout the region served by the EAA and affected by the
management of the Edwards Aquifer area and a public comment period.
The Service intends to prepare a draft EIS to evaluate the impacts
of, and alternatives to, the proposed issuance of an incidental take
permit under the Act to the Applicant(s). The Applicant(s) proposes to
apply for an incidental take permit through development and
implementation of an HCP. The proposed HCP will include measures
necessary to minimize and mitigate the impacts to the maximum extent
practicable of potential proposed taking of Federally listed species
and the habitats upon which they depend by the management and use of
the Edwards Aquifer and the areas associated with the Comal and San
Marcos springs.
Background
Section 9 of the Act prohibits ``taking'' of fish and wildlife
species listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the Act.
Under the Act, the term ``take'' means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt,
shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in
any such conduct. The term ``harm'' is defined in the regulations as
significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death
or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential
behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR
17.3). The term ``harass'' is defined in the regulations as actions
that create the likelihood of injury to listed species to such an
extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which
include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50
CFR 17.3). However, the Service may, under specified circumstances,
issue permits that allow the take of Federally listed fish and
wildlife, provided that the take occurs incidental to, but not the
purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing permits
for endangered and threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32,
respectively.
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act contains provisions for issuing such
incidental take permits to non-Federal entities for the take of
endangered and threatened species, provided the following criteria are
met: (1) The taking will be incidental; (2) The applicant will, to the
maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impact of such
taking; (3) The applicant will develop a draft HCP 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 appropriate for the
purposes of the habitat conservation plan.
Thus, the purpose of issuing a permit is to allow management and
use of the Edwards Aquifer and the use of areas associated with the
Comal and San Marcos springs, while preserving protected species and
their habitat that are dependent on water from the Aquifer. Adoption of
a multispecies habitat conservation approach, rather than a species-by-
species/project-by-project approach, will reduce the costs of
implementing species minimization and mitigation measures, and
eliminate cost and time-consuming efforts associated with processing
individual incidental take permits for each user of the Edwards
Aquifer. In addition, the multispecies habitat conservation plan
approach provides a program including avoidance, minimization and
mitigation for each species that is coordinated on a landscape level
and provides increased benefits to the covered species. The Service
expects that the Applicant(s) will request permit coverage for a period
of between 20 and 50 years.
Scoping Meetings
The purpose of the scoping meetings is to provide the public with a
general understanding of the background of the proposed HCP and
activities that would be covered by the draft HCP, alternative
proposals under consideration for the draft EIS, and the Service's role
and steps to be taken to develop the draft EIS for the draft HCP. The
meeting format will consist of a one hour open house prior to the
formal scoping meeting that will provide an opportunity to learn about
the proposed action, permit area, and species covered. The open house
will be followed by a formal presentation of the proposed action,
summary of the NEPA process, and presentation of oral comments from
meeting participants. A court reporter will be present at each meeting
and an interpreter will be present when deemed necessary. The primary
purpose of these meetings and public comment period is to solicit
suggestions and information on the scope of issues and alternatives to
consider when drafting
[[Page 10307]]
the EIS. Oral and written comments will be accepted at the meetings.
Comments can also be submitted to persons listed in the addresses
section above.
Once the draft EIS and draft HCP are completed and noticed for
review, there will be additional opportunity for public comment on the
content of these documents through an additional public hearing and
comment period.
Alternatives
The proposed action presented in the draft EIS will be compared to
the No-Action alternative. The No-Action alternative represents
estimated future conditions to which the proposed action's estimated
future conditions can be compared.
No-Action Alternative
Under the no action alternative, the management and use of the
Edwards Aquifer and the use of areas associated with the Comal and San
Marcos springs would continue regardless of whether a 10(a)(1)(B)
permit is sought or issued. The Applicant(s), and those potentially
covered by the permit, would continue to be subject to the take
prohibition of the ESA. Where potential impacts could not be avoided,
and where a Federal nexus exists, measures designed to minimize and
mitigate for the impacts would be addressed through individual formal
or informal consultation with the Service. In the absence of a Federal
nexus, the Applicant(s), and other parties in the region taking actions
that would affect the protected species, would potentially need
individual section 10(a)(1)(B) incidental take permits on a project-by-
project basis if activities might result in the incidental take of a
Federally protected species within the proposed permit area. This
project-by-project approach would be more time-consuming, less
efficient, and could result in an isolated independent mitigation
approach, which might be less beneficial to the covered species than a
regional permit.
Proposed Alternative
The proposed action is the issuance of an incidental take permit
for the covered species within the proposed permit area for a period of
between 20 and 50 years. The proposed HCP, which must meet the
requirements in section 10(a)(2)(A) of the Act by providing measures to
minimize and mitigate the effects of the potential incidental take of
covered species to the maximum extent practicable, would be developed
and implemented by the Applicant(s). This alternative could allow for a
comprehensive mitigation approach for unavoidable impacts and also
reduce the permit processing effort for the Service.
The actions to be covered under the requested incidental take
permit have yet to be determined. They may include general activities
associated with the management of the Aquifer, pumping from the
Aquifer, actions to protect spring flow, land stewardship, and
recreational activities at and near the San Marcos and Comal springs.
Construction activities covered for new facilities may include
construction of recharge structures, well fields, pipelines, and
related types of activities.
The Applicant(s) expects to apply for an incidental take permit for
seven species listed as endangered or threatened within the permit
area. These species include: Fountain darter (Etheostoma fonticola),
San Marcos salamander (Eurycea nana), San Marcos gambusia (Gambusia
georgei), Texas blind salamander (Eurycea rathbuni), Peck's cave
amphipod (Stygobromus pecki), Comal Springs dryopid beetle (Stygoparnus
comalensis), and the Comal Springs riffle beetle (Heterelemis
comalensis). Other species that are currently not listed as threatened
or endangered may also be covered. The Service will also evaluate
possible impacts to species not listed here, such as the whooping
crane.
Counties that may be included in the proposed permit area are those
counties within the EAA's jurisdiction to manage the Edwards Aquifer
including all, or portions of, eight counties, including Atascosa,
Bexar, Caldwell, Comal, Guadalupe, Hays, Medina and Uvalde counties.
Moreover, EAA's organic legislation establishes a five-mile buffer
beyond the jurisdictional boundary, reflecting the existence of a
contributing zone to the aquifer recharge area, in which EAA has
authority to protect water quality. Consequently, the permit area may
also include the eight counties within the EAA's jurisdiction proper
and the portions of the counties that contain the EAA's jurisdictional
five-mile buffer located over the Edwards Aquifer contributing zone.
Species not covered by the proposed incidental take permit may also
be addressed in the draft HCP. These species may include candidate
species and Federally listed species not likely to be affected by the
covered activities. The purpose of addressing the additional species is
to explain why the Applicant believe(s) these species will not be
impacted by the covered activities.
Other alternatives considered will also be addressed in the draft
EIS, including impacts associated with each alternative evaluated will
be discussed in the draft EIS.
Public Availability of Comments
Comments we receive become part of the public record associated
with this action. Before including your address, phone number, e-mail
address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you
should be aware that the 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.
Environmental Review
The Service will conduct an environmental review to analyze the
proposed action, as well as other alternatives evaluated and the
associated impacts of each. The draft EIS will be the basis for the
impact evaluation for each species covered and the range of
alternatives to be addressed. The draft EIS is expected to provide
biological descriptions of the affected species and habitats, as well
as the effects of the alternatives on other resources such as
vegetation, wetlands, wildlife, geology and soils, air quality, water
resources, water quality, cultural resources, land use, recreation,
water use, local economy, and environmental justice.
Following completion of the environmental review, the Service will
publish a notice of availability and a request for comment on the draft
EIS and the Applicant(s)' permit application, which will include the
draft HCP. The draft EIS and draft HCP are expected to be completed and
available to the public in September 2011.
Thomas L. Bauer,
Acting Regional Director, Region 2, Albuquerque, New Mexico.
[FR Doc. 2010-4583 Filed 3-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P