Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan; Receipt of Application for Incidental Take Permit; NiSource, Inc., 41288-41293 [2011-17419]
Download as PDF
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
41288
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
Fish and Wildlife Service’s Regional
Office, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite
200, Atlanta, GA 30345; or Field
Supervisor, Fish and Wildlife Service,
1601 Balboa Avenue, Panama City, FL
32405.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
David Dell, Regional HCP Coordinator,
(see ADDRESSES), telephone: 404/679–
7313; or Mr. Ben Frater, Field Office
Project Manager, at the Panama City
Field Office (see ADDRESSES), telephone:
850/769–0552, ext. 248.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We
announce the availability of four
proposed HCPs, accompanying
incidental take permit (ITP)
applications, and a joint environmental
assessment (EA), which analyze the take
of the Perdido Key beach mouse
incidental to each of the four planned
Projects. Patrick and Cheryl Whalen,
Larry K. and Dianna Evans, Christopher
Carbone, and Scott Stern (Applicants)
each request a 30-year ITP under section
10(a)(1)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.), as amended. The Applicants’
HCPs describe the mitigation and
minimization measures proposed to
address the effects on the species.
We specifically request information,
views, and opinions from the public via
this notice on our proposed Federal
action, including identification of any
other aspects of the human environment
not already identified in the EA
pursuant to National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) regulations in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40
CFR 1506.6. Further, we specifically
solicit information regarding the
adequacy of the HCPs per 50 CFR Parts
13 and 17.
An assessment of the likely
environmental impacts associated with
the implementation of the Applicants’
HCPs, the EA considers the
environmental consequences of the noaction alternative and the proposed
action. The proposed action alternative
is issuance of the ITPs and
implementation of the HCPs as
submitted by the Applicants. Each of
the four HCPs covers activities
associated with the construction and
occupancy of a single-family residence.
Avoidance, minimization and
mitigation measures include a reduced
design footprint, on-site land
management to maintain use of the site
by Perdido Key beach mice, and funding
off-site habitat acquisition and
management.
Public Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
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.
If you wish to comment, you may
submit comments by any one of several
methods. Please reference TE17700A–0,
TE17698A–0, TE43105A–0, or
TE17697A–0 in such comments. You
may mail comments to the Fish and
Wildlife Service’s Regional Office (see
ADDRESSES). You may also comment via
the internet to david_dell@fws.gov.
Please include your name and return
address in your internet message. If you
do not receive a confirmation from us
that we have received your internet
message, contact us directly at either
telephone number listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Finally, you may hand-deliver
comments to either of our offices listed
under ADDRESSES.
Covered Area
Perdido Key, a barrier island 16.9
miles long, constitutes the entire
historic range of the Perdido Key beach
mouse. The areas encompassed by the
HCPs and ITP applications are 1.26-acre
(Whalen) and 1.29-acre (Evans) parcels
located on the Gulf of Mexico on the
central portion of Perdido Key, a 0.13acre landlocked parcel (Stern) on the
eastern portion of Perdido Key, and a
0.16-acre landlocked parcel (Carbone)
on the central portion of Perdido Key.
Next Steps
We will evaluate each of these ITP
applications, including the HCPs and
any comments we receive, to determine
whether these applications meet the
requirements of section 10(a)(1)(B) of
the Act. We will also evaluate whether
issuance of each section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP
complies with section 7 of the Act by
conducting an intra-Service section 7
consultation on each action. We will
consider the results of each
consultation, in combination with the
above findings, in our final analysis to
determine whether or not to issue each
ITP. If we determine that the
requirements are met, we will issue the
ITPs for the incidental take of the
Perdido Key beach mouse.
Authority: We provide this notice under
section 10 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
and NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1506.6).
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: June 15, 2011.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2011–17578 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS–R3–ES–2011–N109; 30120–1122–
0000–F2]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
and Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan; Receipt of
Application for Incidental Take Permit;
NiSource, Inc.
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, have received an
application from NiSource, Inc.
(Applicant), for an incidental take
permit under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973 (ESA). If approved, the
permit would be for a 50-year period
and would authorize incidental take of
10 species, 9 of which are federally
listed and 1 of which is proposed.
The applicant has prepared a
multispecies habitat conservation plan
(MSHCP) to cover a suite of activities
associated with operation of a natural
gas pipeline system; the MSHCP also
analyzes 33 additional species and
provides for measures to avoid take of
those species. The Applicant has
requested concurrence with their
determination that activities will not
take these 33 species if implemented in
accordance with their MSHCP. We
request public comment on the
application and associated documents.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please
send your written comments on or
before October 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments via
U.S. mail to the Regional Director,
Midwest Region, Attn: Lisa Mandell,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Ecological Services, 5600 American
Blvd. West, Suite 990, Bloomington, MN
55437–1458, or by electronic mail to
permitsR3ES@fws.gov.
SUMMARY:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lisa
Mandell, (612) 713–5343.
We have
received an application from NiSource,
Inc., for an incidental take permit (ITP)
(TE02636A) under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.; ESA). If approved, the permit
would be for a 50-year period and
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
41289
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
would authorize incidental take of the
following 10 species:
Species
Current listing status
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis) .....................................................................................................................................................
Bog Turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii) ......................................................................................................................................
Madison cave isopod (Antrolana lira) ......................................................................................................................................
Nashville crayfish (Orconectes shoupi) ...................................................................................................................................
Clubshell (Pleurobema clava) ..................................................................................................................................................
Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria) ...............................................................................................................................................
James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) ...............................................................................................................................
Northern riffleshell (Epioblasma torulosa rangiana) ................................................................................................................
Sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus) .........................................................................................................................................
American burying beetle (Nicrophorus americanus) ...............................................................................................................
The Applicant has prepared an
MSHCP to cover a suite of activities
associated with operation of a natural
gas pipeline system in the States of
Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey, New
York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, and
West Virginia.
The MSHCP also analyzes 33
additional species and provides for
measures to avoid take of those species.
The Applicant has requested
concurrence with their determination
that activities will not take these 33
species if implemented in accordance
with their MSHCP:
Species
Current listing status
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel (Sciurus niger cinereus) ......................................................................................................
Gray bat (Myotis grisescens) ...................................................................................................................................................
Louisiana black bear (Ursus americanus luteolus) .................................................................................................................
Virginia big-eared bat (Plecotus townsendii virginianus) ........................................................................................................
West Indian manatee (Trichechus manatus) ..........................................................................................................................
Interior least tern (Sterna antillarum) .......................................................................................................................................
Lake Erie water snake (Nerodia spiedon insularum) ..............................................................................................................
Shenandoah salamander (Plethodon Shenandoah) ...............................................................................................................
Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon nettingi) ...................................................................................................................
Blackside dace (Phoximus cumberlandensis) .........................................................................................................................
Cumberland snubnose darter (Etheostoma susanae) ............................................................................................................
Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi) ........................................................................................................................
Maryland darter (Etheostoma sellare) .....................................................................................................................................
Scioto madtom (Noturus trautmani) ........................................................................................................................................
Slackwater darter (Etheostoma boschungi) ............................................................................................................................
Birdwing pearlymussel (Lemiox rimosus) ................................................................................................................................
Cracking pearlymussel (Hemistena lata) .................................................................................................................................
Cumberland bean pearlymussel (Villosa trabalis) ...................................................................................................................
Cumberland monkeyface pearlymussel (Quadrula rafinesque) ..............................................................................................
Dromedary pearlymussel (Dromus dromas) ...........................................................................................................................
Louisiana pearlshell (Margaritifera hembeli) ...........................................................................................................................
Oyster mussel (Epioblasma capsaeformis) .............................................................................................................................
Pale Lilliput pearlymussel (Toxolasma cylindrellus) ................................................................................................................
Purple cat’s paw pearlymussel ................................................................................................................................................
(Epioblasma obliquata) ............................................................................................................................................................
Tan riffleshell (Epioblasma florentina walkeri) .........................................................................................................................
White cat’s paw pearlymussel (Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua) .........................................................................................
White wartyback pearlymussel (Plethobasus cicatriocosus) ...................................................................................................
Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides melissa samuelis) ................................................................................................................
Mitchell’s satyr butterfly (Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii) ......................................................................................................
Puritan tiger beetle (Cicindela puritana) ..................................................................................................................................
Braun’s rock cress (Arabis perstellata) ...................................................................................................................................
Pitcher’s (sand dune) thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) .......................................................................................................................
Mead’s milkweed (Asclepias meadii) ......................................................................................................................................
Under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and the Endangered Species Act
(ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), we
announce that we have gathered the
information necessary to:
(1) Determine the impacts and
formulate alternatives for an
environmental impact statement related
to:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
(a) Issuance of an incidental take
permit to the Applicant for the take of
nine federally listed species and one
species that is proposed for listing and
(b) Implementation of the associated
MSHCP, which includes the evaluation
of 33 other listed species that may occur
in the MSHCP covered lands; and
(2) Evaluate the application for permit
issuance, including the MSHCP, which
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Endangered.
Threatened.
Threatened.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Proposed for listing.
Endangered.
Sfmt 4703
Endangered.
Endangered.
Threatened.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Threatened.
Threatened.
Threatened.
Threatened.
Candidate.
Threatened.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Threatened.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Endangered.
Threatened.
Endangered.
Threatened.
Threatened.
provides measures to minimize and
mitigate the effects of the proposed
incidental take of the 10 species and to
avoid take of the remaining 33 species
included in the MSHCP.
Background
NiSource Inc., headquartered in
Merrillville, Indiana, is engaged in
natural gas transmission, storage, and
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
41290
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
distribution, as well as electric
generation, transmission, and
distribution. NiSource Inc.’s wholly
owned pipeline subsidiaries, Columbia
Gas Transmission, LLC; Columbia Gulf
Transmission Company; Crossroads
Pipeline Company; Central Kentucky
Transmission Company; and NiSource
Gas Transmission and Storage Company
(companies referred to collectively as
‘‘NiSource’’ throughout the MSHCP), are
interstate natural gas companies whose
primary operations are subject to the
Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717) and fall
under the jurisdiction of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
and the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT). NiSource is
seeking coverage under an Incidental
Take Permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of
the ESA to take species in the course of
engaging in gas transmission and storage
operations activities (‘‘activities’’).
NiSource contacted the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) in late 2005 to
discuss options under which it could
receive authorization under the ESA to
take federally listed species incidental
to engaging in certain natural gas
transmission activities. Operation and
maintenance of NiSource’s facilities
requires numerous activities conducted
on an annual basis. On average,
NiSource has approximately 400
projects annually that require some form
of review pursuant to the ESA, typically
under Section 7 of the ESA. Most of
these consultations have resulted in a
determination that projects either would
not affect or would not likely adversely
affect listed species or critical habitat.
The majority of these projects have been
addressed through informal
consultations with the Service Field
Offices. These activities include routing
right-of-way (ROW) maintenance;
facility inspection, upgrade, and
replacement; forced relocations; and
expansion projects.
Specifically, NiSource wanted to
explore options for ESA compliance
because it believes that its numerous
individual project-focused ESA Section
7 consultations are inefficient and time
consuming, and that the traditional
consultation approach to regulatory
compliance may be too limited a tool to
achieve the ESA’s conservation goals.
For example, when the impacts of
natural gas pipeline activities on
protected species are quantified for a
discrete project, the conservation
benefits provided to the species are
similarly discrete. Further, the projectby-project approach does not provide
the tools necessary to take a holistic,
landscape approach to species
protection.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
NiSource’s MSHCP analyzes impacts
to the 43 species resulting from three
general categories of activities related to
NiSource’s natural gas systems: (1)
General operation and maintenance; (2)
safety-related repairs, replacements, and
maintenance; and (3) expansion. The
covered activities addressed in the
MSHCP are those activities necessary
for safe and efficient operation of
NiSource’s pipeline system, many of
which are performed pursuant to the
regulations and guidance of the FERC
and the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT), and other
regulatory authorities. The geographic
scope of this MSHCP will extend across
the Service’s Midwest, Southeast, and
Northeast Regions, covering the general
area stretching from Louisiana
northeastward to New York where
NiSource natural gas systems are in
place. For purposes of this MSHCP,
NiSource’s natural gas pipeline system
does not include any electric
transmission lines that support the
transmission of natural gas.
The MSHCP provides both enhanced
conservation of listed species and
streamlined regulatory compliance
requirements for NiSource’s activities,
as well as a means to avoid, minimize,
and/or mitigate for take of the 10 species
caused by covered activities. It also
documents measures to be undertaken
to avoid adverse effects to the remaining
33 species for which take is not
anticipated. The goals of the MSHCP’s
conservation strategy are to protect
MSHCP species and their habitats
through the implementation of an
environmental compliance program
(e.g., practices, standards, training, etc.)
that meets or exceeds Federal, State, and
local regulations and requirements; to
enhance the conservation of MSHCP
species through the application of
rigorous planning, adaptive
management, and sound scientific
principles; and to support species
conservation actions using a landscape
approach, maximizing conservation
benefits to take species and the
ecosystems that support them. The
MSHCP is intended to satisfy applicable
provisions of the ESA pertaining to
federally listed species protection, while
improving the permitting efficiency for
the construction, operation, and
maintenance of NiSource’s natural gas
pipelines and ancillary facilities
through a predictable and accepted
structure under which its activities may
proceed.
Purpose and Need for Action
In accordance with NEPA, we have
prepared an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to analyze the impacts
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
to the human environment that would
occur if the requested permit were
issued and the associated MSHCP were
implemented. The EIS for this action is
intended to function programmatically.
Specifically, it will provide a general
evaluation of impacts. Due to the broad
scope of the action, however, future,
site-specific evaluations of impacts will
be more fully evaluated and analyzed
later through the tiering process.
Traditionally, tiered NEPA analyses are
completed by the agency that issues the
programmatic EIS and Record of
Decision (ROD). Here, the Service will
issue a ROD on the environmental
impacts of the proposed action, i.e.,
issuance of the incidental take permit.
We do not anticipate that the
cooperating agencies responsible for
authorizing, permitting, or licensing
aspects of NiSource’s future activities,
such as FERC, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS), and the National Park
Service (NPS), will sign or adopt that
ROD. Rather, pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality’s NEPA
regulations, such agencies will be
encouraged to ‘‘tier’’ off the
programmatic EIS by adopting relevant
portions of that document. Given the
very general nature of the EIS’ analysis,
cooperating agencies will be required to
analyze project impacts more
comprehensively as part of their
respective permitting processes. The
level of such review will depend on the
scope and impacts of the specific
NiSource project under consideration.
Proposed Action
Section 9 of the Act prohibits the
‘‘taking’’ of threatened and endangered
species. However, provided certain
criteria are met, we are authorized to
issue permits under section 10(a)(1)(B)
of the Act for take of federally listed
species, when, among other things, such
a taking is incidental to, and not the
purpose of, otherwise lawful activities.
Under the Act, the term ‘‘take’’ means
to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect
endangered and threatened species, or
to attempt to engage in any such
conduct. Our implementing regulations
define ‘‘harm’’ 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).
Harass, as defined, means ‘‘an
intentional or negligent act or omission
which creates the likelihood of injury to
wildlife by annoying it to such an extent
as to significantly disrupt normal
behavioral patterns which include, but
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or
sheltering’’ (50 CFR 17.3).
The MSHCP analyzes, and the ITP
would cover, the various manifestations
of take attributable to NiSource
activities. For the 10 take species, this
would primarily involve harassment,
harm, and killing, and, for most species,
the take that would occur would
include all three subcategories
depending on the specific action. If
issued, the ITP would authorize
incidental take consistent with the
Applicant’s MSHCP and the permit. To
issue the permit, the Service must find
that NiSource’s application, including
its MSHCP, satisfies the criteria of
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and the
Service’s implementing regulations at
50 CFR 13, 17.22, and 17.32.
The areas covered (‘‘covered lands’’)
by the Applicant’s MSHCP include
much of NiSource’s pipeline system.
NiSource’s operating territory traverses
14 States, ranging from New York to
Louisiana. The covered lands overlay
NiSource’s onshore pipeline system in
the States of Delaware, Indiana,
Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Mississippi, New Jersey, New York,
North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
This pipeline system includes
approximately 15,562 miles of buried
steel pipe ranging in diameter from 2 to
36 inches, 117 compressor stations, and
6,236 measuring and regulating stations.
In addition, NiSource operates and
maintains underground natural gas
storage fields in conjunction with its
pipeline system. Currently, NiSource
operates 36 storage fields comprised of
approximately 3,600 individual storage
wells in Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and New York.
Approximately 95 percent of NiSource’s
annual projects will occur within its
existing ROW (typically 50 feet wide,
with the buried pipe(s) generally in the
center) and result in little ground
disturbance.
A portion of NiSource’s annual
activities to operate, maintain, and
expand its natural gas transmission
system will likely deviate from
NiSource’s existing ROW. Therefore,
NiSource has proposed a 1-mile-wide
corridor centered on NiSource’s existing
facilities as the best approach for
defining this portion of the covered
lands. This 1-mile-wide corridor
encompasses all of NiSource’s onshore
pipeline facilities and the majority of its
existing storage fields. However, 9 large
storage fields that NiSource wishes to
expand are located outside the corridor
in 12 counties, namely Hocking,
Fairfield, Ashland, Knox, and Richland
Counties, Ohio; Bedford County,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
Pennsylvania; Allegany County,
Maryland; and Kanawha, Jackson,
Preston, Marshall and Wetzel Counties,
West Virginia. NiSource has not
identified, for the Service or the public,
the locations of the storage fields in
these counties, based on its
determination that the information is
highly sensitive (for Homeland Security
purposes) and constitutes confidential
business information. Therefore, the
covered lands identified in the MSHCP
and DEIS have been defined broadly to
include, in their entirety, each of the 12
counties in which these storage fields
occur.
Although a 1-mile-wide corridor and
the boundaries of the 12 counties are
used to delineate the covered lands and
to identify the potential presence of
threatened and endangered species for
inclusion in this MSHCP, the MSHCP
does not contemplate unlimited
construction or other surface
disturbance within the corridor or the
counties. NiSource will not utilize,
clear, or disturb the entire 1-mile-wide
corridor or the storage field counties, or
even a significant portion of such
corridor or counties. The 1-mile-wide
corridor and county boundaries were
chosen to provide needed flexibility for
both the realignment of existing
facilities to accommodate future forced
relocations (typically resulting from
public road construction/maintenance
projects) and the minimization of
environmental impacts while aligning
future replacement and expansion
projects.
Because of the nature of this MSHCP,
in terms of the scope of covered lands
and permit duration, NiSource has not
been able to predict with certainty
where or when a given covered activity
would occur. Thus, the species analyses
rely on multiple assumptions to
estimate the reasonable worst-casescenario take for each species
considered. Given the uncertainty of
certain assumptions, it is possible that
the modeling may underestimate the
amount of take. To address this, Chapter
7 of the MSHCP provides adaptive
management to assess the validity of
assumptions and implement specified
contingencies. On the other hand, the
reasonable worst case scenarios may err
on the side of overestimating impacts of
the covered activities on the take
species. In practice, as the MSHCP is
implemented, NiSource anticipates that
by utilizing avoidance and
minimization measures, the actual take
numbers will be much less than the
amount estimated. However, obtaining
the take authorization and having a
process to avoid, minimize, and mitigate
the impact of take that does occur will
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41291
provide NiSource with the flexibility to
be efficient in its operations, while
providing a benefit to the take species
through the MSHCP’s landscape-level
conservation approach and mitigation
strategy.
NiSource’s landscape-level mitigation
goal for this MSHCP may be facilitated
by the use of a green infrastructure
assessment for strategic conservation
planning developed for NiSource by
The Conservation Fund (TCF), with
input from all 14 cooperating States.
Green infrastructure offers a conceptual
approach for identifying mitigation
opportunities at an ecosystem level.
Specifically, it is a strategically planned
and managed network of natural lands,
working landscapes, and other open
spaces that conserve ecosystem values
and functions and provide associated
incidental benefits to human
populations. The MSHCP articulates
strict criteria for the selection of future
mitigation projects. The Green
Infrastructure Assessment will assist
NiSource in identifying the most
beneficial projects to be implemented,
consistent with the MSHCP’s mitigation
prescriptions.
NiSource and the Service sought
input from the Federal agency
cooperators (the Service, FERC, USACE,
USFS, and NPS) on the MSHCP and the
agencies’ NEPA approach. The MSHCP
also has a variety of components for
which we seek public review and input.
The Madison Cave Isopod, for example,
is an elusive underground species that
dwells in karst (cave) habitats. The
Service has limited understanding of the
effect of pipeline activities on some
species, such as Madison Cave Isopod,
particularly with respect to such things
as the reach of surface disturbance on
the karst systems. Moreover, the large
scale, both geographic and temporal, of
the MSHCP brings with it uncertainty
and the need to make assumptions in
the absence of absolute scientific data.
We, therefore, seek input on calculation
of the reasonable worst-case scenarios to
assess the anticipated amount of take,
the mitigation approach, specific criteria
to be used to select future projects to
compensate for the impacts of the
takings, and the adequacy of the
proposed funding mechanism, in
addition to the adaptive management
strategy and approach that NiSource
will use to address changed
circumstances over the life of the plan.
Alternatives in the Draft EIS
Three alternatives were fully
evaluated in the environmental impact
statement prepared for this action:
(1) No Action Alternative—NiSource
compliance with the ESA would
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
41292
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
continue ‘‘status quo’’ through informal
and formal Section 7 ESA consultations
between cooperating agencies and the
USFWS on a project-by-project basis
(FERC is the lead agency that regulates
NiSource activities). NiSource activities
with a Federal nexus (e.g., FERC
authorizations, USACE authorizations,
and USFS and NPS permitting) would
continue to require individual Section 7
ESA consultations to comply with the
ESA. NiSource activities with no
Federal nexus would continue to be
constrained by the lack of any
authorization to take listed species
protected by the ESA.
(2) Issuance of a 50-year ITP and
Approval of the NiSource MSHCP
(Proposed Action)—NiSource has
sought to address the full range of its
ongoing activities holistically as well as
identify and manage species and their
habitat impacts systemwide. The
Service agreed that a multispecies
habitat conservation plan developed
under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA
could provide a new opportunity to
address and contribute to the
conservation and recovery needs of
listed species and habitats within the
covered lands. Accordingly, NiSource
coordinated with the Service to develop
its MSHCP to cover a wide array of
natural gas pipeline activities over a
broad geographic region. Through the
MSHCP, NiSource intends to implement
a plan that:
• Identifies conservation measures
and Best Management Practices to avoid
and minimize impacts on species
identified in NiSource’s MSHCP;
• Identifies mitigation needs of
populations where impacts occur; and
• Implements more comprehensive
conservation actions and mitigation for
its entire system for 50 years.
Alternative 2 involves issuance of an
ITP for the requested 50-year term,
including approval of the NiSource
MSHCP, associated IA, and acceptance
by the Cooperating Agencies and the
Service that ITP issuance and MSHCP
compliance fulfill the agencies’
obligations under Section 7 of the ESA.
At this time, NiSource is requesting
incidental take authorization for 10
species resulting from NiSource’s
activities within the specified operating
territory. An ITP would be issued to
NiSource for its activities specific to (1)
General Operation and Maintenance
(O&M) activities that do not require
excavation or significant earth
disturbance; (2) safety-related repairs,
replacements, and maintenance; and (3)
construction and expansion. The
proposed area to be covered by the ITP
and associated HCP would include a 1mile-wide corridor centered upon a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
majority of NiSource’s existing
interstate natural gas transmission
(INGT) system in 14 States (Louisiana,
Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky,
Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina,
Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York,
New Jersey, Delaware and Maryland) for
approximately 15,650 miles. In addition
to the designated 1-mile-wide corridor,
the ITP and associated MSHCP would
also cover 12 counties in Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West
Virginia, in their entireties, where
NiSource operates and intends to
expand some of its underground natural
gas storage fields. The specific counties
this includes are Hocking, Fairfield,
Ashland, Knox, and Richland Counties
in Ohio; Bedford County in
Pennsylvania; Allegany County in
Maryland; and Kanawha, Jackson,
Preston, Marshall, and Wetzel Counties
in West Virginia.
3. Issuance of a 10-year ITP and
Approval of the NiSource MSHCP—
Alternative 3 involves the same
issuance, approval, and acceptance
actions detailed above in Alternative 2.
However, Alternative 3 considers a
permit duration of 10 years, subject to
ITP renewal and potential amendments
to the MSHCP by NiSource. This
alternative would cause a reduced
amount of take over a shorter period of
time. For a permit duration of 10 years,
uncertainty about the MSHCP
implementation and environmental
consequences would be somewhat
reduced. Upon receipt of a request to
renew the permit, the Service would reexamine the operating conservation
plan to determine whether the
biological goals are being met, whether
the mitigation approach is functioning
as envisioned, whether mitigation is
compensating for the take that has
occurred over the first 10 years, and
whether any adjustment to the
incidental take authority may be
required as a condition to permit
renewal. One result of choosing this
alternative, however, is that the
mitigation strategy presented in the
MSHCP would also be altered, thus
involving fewer acres of mitigation for
O&M activities at the outset of
implementation of the plan. Under this
alternative, there also would be a
formalized application review process
built in by regulation. The Service’s
permit regulations require that an
application for permit renewal or
amendment must be made available for
public review and comment. The
Service also would need to reevaluate
the completed NEPA analysis to
determine whether the EIS was
sufficient in its analysis of project
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
impacts beyond the initial term of the
permit. Review of the EIS would be
subject to public review concurrent with
the permit renewal application.
In addition to the three alternatives
described above, the Service considered
several alternatives in conjunction with
MSHCP development that are described
in the draft EIS but dismissed from
further consideration. They include
alternatives that considered such things
as variations on the breadth of covered
activities, implementation approach,
and covered species.
Reviewing Documents and Submitting
Comments
Please refer to TE02636A when
submitting comments. The permit
application and supporting documents
(ITP application, MSHCP, draft EIS,
Implementing Agreement, and summary
documents) may be obtained on the
Internet at the following address:
https://www.fws.gov/midwest/
endangered/permits/hcp/r3hcps.html.
Please make it clear when
commenting whether your comments
address the HCP, the draft EIS, both the
HCP and draft EIS, or other supporting
documents.
Persons without access to the Internet
may obtain copies of the documents
(application, draft HCP, and draft EIS)
by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, 5600
American Blvd. W., Suite 990,
Bloomington, MN 55437–1458 (612–
713–5350, voice; 612–713–5292, fax).
The documents will also be available for
public inspection, by appointment,
during normal business hours (8 a.m. to
4 p.m.) at the following Regional
Offices:
Midwest Region Office: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Ecological Services,
10th Floor—5600 American Blvd. W.,
Bloomington, MN 55437 (612–713–
5350, voice; 612–713–5292, fax);
Southeast Region: 1875 Century Blvd,
Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345–3319
(404–679–7140, voice; 404–679–7081,
fax);
Northeast Region: 300 Westgate
Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035–9589
(413–253–8304, voice; 413–253–8293,
fax).
Written comments will be accepted as
described under ADDRESSES, above.
Public Meetings
Public meetings will be held at three
locations in proximity to the proposed
covered lands for this MSHCP. Meetings
will be held in Columbus, Ohio;
Lexington, Kentucky; and Charleston,
West Virginia as follows:
• August 16, 2011, 7 p.m., University
Plaza Hotel and Conference Center,
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 134 / Wednesday, July 13, 2011 / Notices
3110 Olentangy River Road, Columbus,
OH 43202.
• August 17, 2011, 7 p.m., Ramada
Conference Center, 2143 N. Broadway,
Lexington, KY 40505.
• August 18, 2011, 7 p.m., Charleston
Ramada Plaza, 400 2nd Ave., S.
Charleston, WV 25303.
Public Availability of Comments
Written 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
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.
Authority
We provide this notice under section
10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)
and its implementing regulations (50
CFR 17.22), and NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4371
et seq.) and its implementing
regulations (40 CFR 1506.6; 43 CFR part
46).
Dated: June 21, 2011.
Richard D. Schultz,
Acting Regional Director, Midwest Region,
Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. 2011–17419 Filed 7–12–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Solicitation of Proposals for Technical
Assistance Funding From the Native
American Business Development
Institute
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Office of Indian Energy
and Economic Development (IEED),
through its Native American Business
Development Institute (NABDI), is
soliciting proposals from federally
recognized American Indian tribes for
technical assistance funding to hire
consultants to perform feasibility
studies of economic development
opportunities or long-term, strategic,
reservation-wide economic
development plans. These feasibility
studies will empower American Indian
tribes and tribal businesses to make
informed decisions regarding their
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:36 Jul 12, 2011
Jkt 223001
economic futures. Feasibility studies
may concern the viability of an
economic development project or
business or the practicality of a
technology a tribe may choose to
pursue. The IEED will use a competitive
evaluation process to select several
proposed projects to receive an award.
DATES: Submit grant proposals on or
before August 12, 2011. We will not
consider grant proposals received after
this date.
ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-carry grant
proposals to the Department of the
Interior, Office of Indian Energy and
Economic Development, Attention:
Victor Christiansen, 1951 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20245,
or e-mail at
Victor.Christiansen@bia.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Victor Christiansen (202) 219–0739.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
B. Items to Consider Before Preparing an
Application for NABDI Technical
Assistance Funding.
C. How to Prepare an Application for NABDI
Technical Assistance Funding
D. Submission of Application in Digital
Format
E. Application Evaluation and
Administrative Information
F. When to Submit
G. Where to Submit
H. Transfer of Funds
I. Reporting Requirements for Award
Recipients
J. Requests for IEED Assistance
A. Background
The IEED established NABDI to
provide technical assistance funding on
a competitive basis to federally
recognized American Indian tribes
seeking to retain consultants to perform
feasibility studies of economic
development opportunities or longterm, strategic, reservation-wide
economic development plans.
Consultants may include universities
and colleges, private consulting firms,
non-academic/non-profit entities, or
others. The feasibility studies will
empower American Indian tribes and
tribal businesses to make informed
decisions regarding their economic
futures. Feasibility studies may concern
the viability of an economic
development project or business or the
practicality of a technology a tribe may
choose to pursue.
This is an annual program whose
primary objective is to create jobs and
foster economic activity within tribal
communities. When funding is
available, IEED will solicit proposals for
feasibility studies and reservation-wide
economic development plans. To
PO 00000
Frm 00108
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
41293
receive these funds, tribes may use the
contracting mechanism established by
Public Law 93–638, the Indian SelfDetermination Act or may obtain
adjustments to their funding from the
Office of Self-Governance. See 25 U.S.C.
450 et seq.
The NABDI program is funded under
the non-recurring appropriation of the
Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) budget.
Congress appropriates funds on a yearto-year basis. Thus, while some projects
may extend over several years, funding
for successive years depends on each
fiscal year’s appropriations.
The information collection
requirements contained in this notice
have been reviewed and approved by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3504(h). The OMB
control number is 1076–0178. The
authorization expires on July 31, 2014.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and you are not required to respond to,
any information collection that does not
display a currently valid OMB Control
Number.
B. Items To Consider Before Preparing
an Application for NABDI Technical
Assistance Funding
1. Trust Land Status
The NABDI technical assistance
funding can only be made available to
tribes whose lands are held in trust or
restricted fee by the Federal
government.
2. Tribes’ Compliance History
The EED will monitor all NABDI
technical assistance funding for
statutory and regulatory compliance to
assure that awarded funds are correctly
applied to approved projects. Tribes that
expend funds on unapproved functions
may forfeit remaining funds in that
proposal year, and possibly for any
future NABDI technical assistance
funding. Consequently, IEED may
request a tribe to provide a summary of
any funds it has received in past years
through other projects approved by
IEED, and IEED may conduct a review
of prior award expenditures before
making a decision on current year
proposals.
3. BIA Sanction List
Tribes that are currently under BIA
sanction resulting from non-compliance
with the Single Audit Act may be
ineligible from being considered for an
award.
4. Completion of Previous NABDI
Technical Assistance Projects
Generally, the IEED will not support
nor recommend additional funding for a
E:\FR\FM\13JYN1.SGM
13JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 13, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41288-41293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17419]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
[FWS-R3-ES-2011-N109; 30120-1122-0000-F2]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Multi-Species Habitat
Conservation Plan; Receipt of Application for Incidental Take Permit;
NiSource, Inc.
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received an
application from NiSource, Inc. (Applicant), for an incidental take
permit under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA). If approved, the
permit would be for a 50-year period and would authorize incidental
take of 10 species, 9 of which are federally listed and 1 of which is
proposed.
The applicant has prepared a multispecies habitat conservation plan
(MSHCP) to cover a suite of activities associated with operation of a
natural gas pipeline system; the MSHCP also analyzes 33 additional
species and provides for measures to avoid take of those species. The
Applicant has requested concurrence with their determination that
activities will not take these 33 species if implemented in accordance
with their MSHCP. We request public comment on the application and
associated documents.
DATES: To ensure consideration, please send your written comments on or
before October 11, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments via U.S. mail to the Regional
Director, Midwest Region, Attn: Lisa Mandell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American Blvd. West, Suite 990,
Bloomington, MN 55437-1458, or by electronic mail to
permitsR3ES@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Mandell, (612) 713-5343.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We have received an application from
NiSource, Inc., for an incidental take permit (ITP) (TE02636A) under
the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; ESA). If
approved, the permit would be for a 50-year period and
[[Page 41289]]
would authorize incidental take of the following 10 species:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Current listing status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana bat (Myotis sodalis)........ Endangered.
Bog Turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii). Threatened.
Madison cave isopod (Antrolana lira) Threatened.
Nashville crayfish (Orconectes Endangered.
shoupi).
Clubshell (Pleurobema clava)........ Endangered.
Fanshell (Cyprogenia stegaria)...... Endangered.
James spinymussel (Pleurobema Endangered.
collina).
Northern riffleshell (Epioblasma Endangered.
torulosa rangiana).
Sheepnose (Plethobasus cyphyus)..... Proposed for listing.
American burying beetle (Nicrophorus Endangered.
americanus).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Applicant has prepared an MSHCP to cover a suite of activities
associated with operation of a natural gas pipeline system in the
States of Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,
Mississippi, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The MSHCP also analyzes 33 additional species and provides for
measures to avoid take of those species. The Applicant has requested
concurrence with their determination that activities will not take
these 33 species if implemented in accordance with their MSHCP:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Current listing status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Delmarva Peninsula fox squirrel Endangered.
(Sciurus niger cinereus).
Gray bat (Myotis grisescens)........ Endangered.
Louisiana black bear (Ursus Threatened.
americanus luteolus).
Virginia big-eared bat (Plecotus Endangered.
townsendii virginianus).
West Indian manatee (Trichechus Endangered.
manatus).
Interior least tern (Sterna Endangered.
antillarum).
Lake Erie water snake (Nerodia Threatened.
spiedon insularum).
Shenandoah salamander (Plethodon Threatened.
Shenandoah).
Cheat Mountain salamander (Plethodon Threatened.
nettingi).
Blackside dace (Phoximus Threatened.
cumberlandensis).
Cumberland snubnose darter Candidate.
(Etheostoma susanae).
Gulf sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus Threatened.
desotoi).
Maryland darter (Etheostoma sellare) Endangered.
Scioto madtom (Noturus trautmani)... Endangered.
Slackwater darter (Etheostoma Threatened.
boschungi).
Birdwing pearlymussel (Lemiox Endangered.
rimosus).
Cracking pearlymussel (Hemistena Endangered.
lata).
Cumberland bean pearlymussel Endangered.
(Villosa trabalis).
Cumberland monkeyface pearlymussel Endangered.
(Quadrula rafinesque).
Dromedary pearlymussel (Dromus Endangered.
dromas).
Louisiana pearlshell (Margaritifera Endangered.
hembeli).
Oyster mussel (Epioblasma Endangered.
capsaeformis).
Pale Lilliput pearlymussel Endangered.
(Toxolasma cylindrellus).
Purple cat's paw pearlymussel....... Endangered.
(Epioblasma obliquata).............. Endangered.
Tan riffleshell (Epioblasma Endangered.
florentina walkeri).
White cat's paw pearlymussel Endangered.
(Epioblasma obliquata perobliqua).
White wartyback pearlymussel Endangered.
(Plethobasus cicatriocosus).
Karner blue butterfly (Lycaeides Endangered.
melissa samuelis).
Mitchell's satyr butterfly Endangered.
(Neonympha mitchellii mitchellii).
Puritan tiger beetle (Cicindela Threatened.
puritana).
Braun's rock cress (Arabis Endangered.
perstellata).
Pitcher's (sand dune) thistle Threatened.
(Cirsium pitcheri).
Mead's milkweed (Asclepias meadii).. Threatened.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
et seq.) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.),
we announce that we have gathered the information necessary to:
(1) Determine the impacts and formulate alternatives for an
environmental impact statement related to:
(a) Issuance of an incidental take permit to the Applicant for the
take of nine federally listed species and one species that is proposed
for listing and
(b) Implementation of the associated MSHCP, which includes the
evaluation of 33 other listed species that may occur in the MSHCP
covered lands; and
(2) Evaluate the application for permit issuance, including the
MSHCP, which provides measures to minimize and mitigate the effects of
the proposed incidental take of the 10 species and to avoid take of the
remaining 33 species included in the MSHCP.
Background
NiSource Inc., headquartered in Merrillville, Indiana, is engaged
in natural gas transmission, storage, and
[[Page 41290]]
distribution, as well as electric generation, transmission, and
distribution. NiSource Inc.'s wholly owned pipeline subsidiaries,
Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC; Columbia Gulf Transmission Company;
Crossroads Pipeline Company; Central Kentucky Transmission Company; and
NiSource Gas Transmission and Storage Company (companies referred to
collectively as ``NiSource'' throughout the MSHCP), are interstate
natural gas companies whose primary operations are subject to the
Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717) and fall under the jurisdiction of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT). NiSource is seeking coverage under an
Incidental Take Permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA to take
species in the course of engaging in gas transmission and storage
operations activities (``activities'').
NiSource contacted the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) in
late 2005 to discuss options under which it could receive authorization
under the ESA to take federally listed species incidental to engaging
in certain natural gas transmission activities. Operation and
maintenance of NiSource's facilities requires numerous activities
conducted on an annual basis. On average, NiSource has approximately
400 projects annually that require some form of review pursuant to the
ESA, typically under Section 7 of the ESA. Most of these consultations
have resulted in a determination that projects either would not affect
or would not likely adversely affect listed species or critical
habitat. The majority of these projects have been addressed through
informal consultations with the Service Field Offices. These activities
include routing right-of-way (ROW) maintenance; facility inspection,
upgrade, and replacement; forced relocations; and expansion projects.
Specifically, NiSource wanted to explore options for ESA compliance
because it believes that its numerous individual project-focused ESA
Section 7 consultations are inefficient and time consuming, and that
the traditional consultation approach to regulatory compliance may be
too limited a tool to achieve the ESA's conservation goals. For
example, when the impacts of natural gas pipeline activities on
protected species are quantified for a discrete project, the
conservation benefits provided to the species are similarly discrete.
Further, the project-by-project approach does not provide the tools
necessary to take a holistic, landscape approach to species protection.
NiSource's MSHCP analyzes impacts to the 43 species resulting from
three general categories of activities related to NiSource's natural
gas systems: (1) General operation and maintenance; (2) safety-related
repairs, replacements, and maintenance; and (3) expansion. The covered
activities addressed in the MSHCP are those activities necessary for
safe and efficient operation of NiSource's pipeline system, many of
which are performed pursuant to the regulations and guidance of the
FERC and the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), and other
regulatory authorities. The geographic scope of this MSHCP will extend
across the Service's Midwest, Southeast, and Northeast Regions,
covering the general area stretching from Louisiana northeastward to
New York where NiSource natural gas systems are in place. For purposes
of this MSHCP, NiSource's natural gas pipeline system does not include
any electric transmission lines that support the transmission of
natural gas.
The MSHCP provides both enhanced conservation of listed species and
streamlined regulatory compliance requirements for NiSource's
activities, as well as a means to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate for
take of the 10 species caused by covered activities. It also documents
measures to be undertaken to avoid adverse effects to the remaining 33
species for which take is not anticipated. The goals of the MSHCP's
conservation strategy are to protect MSHCP species and their habitats
through the implementation of an environmental compliance program
(e.g., practices, standards, training, etc.) that meets or exceeds
Federal, State, and local regulations and requirements; to enhance the
conservation of MSHCP species through the application of rigorous
planning, adaptive management, and sound scientific principles; and to
support species conservation actions using a landscape approach,
maximizing conservation benefits to take species and the ecosystems
that support them. The MSHCP is intended to satisfy applicable
provisions of the ESA pertaining to federally listed species
protection, while improving the permitting efficiency for the
construction, operation, and maintenance of NiSource's natural gas
pipelines and ancillary facilities through a predictable and accepted
structure under which its activities may proceed.
Purpose and Need for Action
In accordance with NEPA, we have prepared an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) to analyze the impacts to the human environment that
would occur if the requested permit were issued and the associated
MSHCP were implemented. The EIS for this action is intended to function
programmatically. Specifically, it will provide a general evaluation of
impacts. Due to the broad scope of the action, however, future, site-
specific evaluations of impacts will be more fully evaluated and
analyzed later through the tiering process. Traditionally, tiered NEPA
analyses are completed by the agency that issues the programmatic EIS
and Record of Decision (ROD). Here, the Service will issue a ROD on the
environmental impacts of the proposed action, i.e., issuance of the
incidental take permit.
We do not anticipate that the cooperating agencies responsible for
authorizing, permitting, or licensing aspects of NiSource's future
activities, such as FERC, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the
U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and the National Park Service (NPS), will
sign or adopt that ROD. Rather, pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations, such agencies will be
encouraged to ``tier'' off the programmatic EIS by adopting relevant
portions of that document. Given the very general nature of the EIS'
analysis, cooperating agencies will be required to analyze project
impacts more comprehensively as part of their respective permitting
processes. The level of such review will depend on the scope and
impacts of the specific NiSource project under consideration.
Proposed Action
Section 9 of the Act prohibits the ``taking'' of threatened and
endangered species. However, provided certain criteria are met, we are
authorized to issue permits under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Act for
take of federally listed species, when, among other things, such a
taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, otherwise lawful
activities. Under the Act, the term ``take'' means to harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect endangered
and threatened species, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.
Our implementing regulations define ``harm'' 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). Harass, as
defined, means ``an intentional or negligent act or omission which
creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an
extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which
include, but
[[Page 41291]]
are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering'' (50 CFR 17.3).
The MSHCP analyzes, and the ITP would cover, the various
manifestations of take attributable to NiSource activities. For the 10
take species, this would primarily involve harassment, harm, and
killing, and, for most species, the take that would occur would include
all three subcategories depending on the specific action. If issued,
the ITP would authorize incidental take consistent with the Applicant's
MSHCP and the permit. To issue the permit, the Service must find that
NiSource's application, including its MSHCP, satisfies the criteria of
section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and the Service's implementing
regulations at 50 CFR 13, 17.22, and 17.32.
The areas covered (``covered lands'') by the Applicant's MSHCP
include much of NiSource's pipeline system. NiSource's operating
territory traverses 14 States, ranging from New York to Louisiana. The
covered lands overlay NiSource's onshore pipeline system in the States
of Delaware, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New
Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee,
Virginia, and West Virginia. This pipeline system includes
approximately 15,562 miles of buried steel pipe ranging in diameter
from 2 to 36 inches, 117 compressor stations, and 6,236 measuring and
regulating stations. In addition, NiSource operates and maintains
underground natural gas storage fields in conjunction with its pipeline
system. Currently, NiSource operates 36 storage fields comprised of
approximately 3,600 individual storage wells in Maryland, West
Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. Approximately 95 percent of
NiSource's annual projects will occur within its existing ROW
(typically 50 feet wide, with the buried pipe(s) generally in the
center) and result in little ground disturbance.
A portion of NiSource's annual activities to operate, maintain, and
expand its natural gas transmission system will likely deviate from
NiSource's existing ROW. Therefore, NiSource has proposed a 1-mile-wide
corridor centered on NiSource's existing facilities as the best
approach for defining this portion of the covered lands. This 1-mile-
wide corridor encompasses all of NiSource's onshore pipeline facilities
and the majority of its existing storage fields. However, 9 large
storage fields that NiSource wishes to expand are located outside the
corridor in 12 counties, namely Hocking, Fairfield, Ashland, Knox, and
Richland Counties, Ohio; Bedford County, Pennsylvania; Allegany County,
Maryland; and Kanawha, Jackson, Preston, Marshall and Wetzel Counties,
West Virginia. NiSource has not identified, for the Service or the
public, the locations of the storage fields in these counties, based on
its determination that the information is highly sensitive (for
Homeland Security purposes) and constitutes confidential business
information. Therefore, the covered lands identified in the MSHCP and
DEIS have been defined broadly to include, in their entirety, each of
the 12 counties in which these storage fields occur.
Although a 1-mile-wide corridor and the boundaries of the 12
counties are used to delineate the covered lands and to identify the
potential presence of threatened and endangered species for inclusion
in this MSHCP, the MSHCP does not contemplate unlimited construction or
other surface disturbance within the corridor or the counties. NiSource
will not utilize, clear, or disturb the entire 1-mile-wide corridor or
the storage field counties, or even a significant portion of such
corridor or counties. The 1-mile-wide corridor and county boundaries
were chosen to provide needed flexibility for both the realignment of
existing facilities to accommodate future forced relocations (typically
resulting from public road construction/maintenance projects) and the
minimization of environmental impacts while aligning future replacement
and expansion projects.
Because of the nature of this MSHCP, in terms of the scope of
covered lands and permit duration, NiSource has not been able to
predict with certainty where or when a given covered activity would
occur. Thus, the species analyses rely on multiple assumptions to
estimate the reasonable worst-case-scenario take for each species
considered. Given the uncertainty of certain assumptions, it is
possible that the modeling may underestimate the amount of take. To
address this, Chapter 7 of the MSHCP provides adaptive management to
assess the validity of assumptions and implement specified
contingencies. On the other hand, the reasonable worst case scenarios
may err on the side of overestimating impacts of the covered activities
on the take species. In practice, as the MSHCP is implemented, NiSource
anticipates that by utilizing avoidance and minimization measures, the
actual take numbers will be much less than the amount estimated.
However, obtaining the take authorization and having a process to
avoid, minimize, and mitigate the impact of take that does occur will
provide NiSource with the flexibility to be efficient in its
operations, while providing a benefit to the take species through the
MSHCP's landscape-level conservation approach and mitigation strategy.
NiSource's landscape-level mitigation goal for this MSHCP may be
facilitated by the use of a green infrastructure assessment for
strategic conservation planning developed for NiSource by The
Conservation Fund (TCF), with input from all 14 cooperating States.
Green infrastructure offers a conceptual approach for identifying
mitigation opportunities at an ecosystem level. Specifically, it is a
strategically planned and managed network of natural lands, working
landscapes, and other open spaces that conserve ecosystem values and
functions and provide associated incidental benefits to human
populations. The MSHCP articulates strict criteria for the selection of
future mitigation projects. The Green Infrastructure Assessment will
assist NiSource in identifying the most beneficial projects to be
implemented, consistent with the MSHCP's mitigation prescriptions.
NiSource and the Service sought input from the Federal agency
cooperators (the Service, FERC, USACE, USFS, and NPS) on the MSHCP and
the agencies' NEPA approach. The MSHCP also has a variety of components
for which we seek public review and input. The Madison Cave Isopod, for
example, is an elusive underground species that dwells in karst (cave)
habitats. The Service has limited understanding of the effect of
pipeline activities on some species, such as Madison Cave Isopod,
particularly with respect to such things as the reach of surface
disturbance on the karst systems. Moreover, the large scale, both
geographic and temporal, of the MSHCP brings with it uncertainty and
the need to make assumptions in the absence of absolute scientific
data. We, therefore, seek input on calculation of the reasonable worst-
case scenarios to assess the anticipated amount of take, the mitigation
approach, specific criteria to be used to select future projects to
compensate for the impacts of the takings, and the adequacy of the
proposed funding mechanism, in addition to the adaptive management
strategy and approach that NiSource will use to address changed
circumstances over the life of the plan.
Alternatives in the Draft EIS
Three alternatives were fully evaluated in the environmental impact
statement prepared for this action:
(1) No Action Alternative--NiSource compliance with the ESA would
[[Page 41292]]
continue ``status quo'' through informal and formal Section 7 ESA
consultations between cooperating agencies and the USFWS on a project-
by-project basis (FERC is the lead agency that regulates NiSource
activities). NiSource activities with a Federal nexus (e.g., FERC
authorizations, USACE authorizations, and USFS and NPS permitting)
would continue to require individual Section 7 ESA consultations to
comply with the ESA. NiSource activities with no Federal nexus would
continue to be constrained by the lack of any authorization to take
listed species protected by the ESA.
(2) Issuance of a 50-year ITP and Approval of the NiSource MSHCP
(Proposed Action)--NiSource has sought to address the full range of its
ongoing activities holistically as well as identify and manage species
and their habitat impacts systemwide. The Service agreed that a
multispecies habitat conservation plan developed under Section
10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA could provide a new opportunity to address and
contribute to the conservation and recovery needs of listed species and
habitats within the covered lands. Accordingly, NiSource coordinated
with the Service to develop its MSHCP to cover a wide array of natural
gas pipeline activities over a broad geographic region. Through the
MSHCP, NiSource intends to implement a plan that:
Identifies conservation measures and Best Management
Practices to avoid and minimize impacts on species identified in
NiSource's MSHCP;
Identifies mitigation needs of populations where impacts
occur; and
Implements more comprehensive conservation actions and
mitigation for its entire system for 50 years.
Alternative 2 involves issuance of an ITP for the requested 50-year
term, including approval of the NiSource MSHCP, associated IA, and
acceptance by the Cooperating Agencies and the Service that ITP
issuance and MSHCP compliance fulfill the agencies' obligations under
Section 7 of the ESA. At this time, NiSource is requesting incidental
take authorization for 10 species resulting from NiSource's activities
within the specified operating territory. An ITP would be issued to
NiSource for its activities specific to (1) General Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) activities that do not require excavation or
significant earth disturbance; (2) safety-related repairs,
replacements, and maintenance; and (3) construction and expansion. The
proposed area to be covered by the ITP and associated HCP would include
a 1-mile-wide corridor centered upon a majority of NiSource's existing
interstate natural gas transmission (INGT) system in 14 States
(Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, West Virginia,
North Carolina, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey,
Delaware and Maryland) for approximately 15,650 miles. In addition to
the designated 1-mile-wide corridor, the ITP and associated MSHCP would
also cover 12 counties in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West
Virginia, in their entireties, where NiSource operates and intends to
expand some of its underground natural gas storage fields. The specific
counties this includes are Hocking, Fairfield, Ashland, Knox, and
Richland Counties in Ohio; Bedford County in Pennsylvania; Allegany
County in Maryland; and Kanawha, Jackson, Preston, Marshall, and Wetzel
Counties in West Virginia.
3. Issuance of a 10-year ITP and Approval of the NiSource MSHCP--
Alternative 3 involves the same issuance, approval, and acceptance
actions detailed above in Alternative 2. However, Alternative 3
considers a permit duration of 10 years, subject to ITP renewal and
potential amendments to the MSHCP by NiSource. This alternative would
cause a reduced amount of take over a shorter period of time. For a
permit duration of 10 years, uncertainty about the MSHCP implementation
and environmental consequences would be somewhat reduced. Upon receipt
of a request to renew the permit, the Service would re-examine the
operating conservation plan to determine whether the biological goals
are being met, whether the mitigation approach is functioning as
envisioned, whether mitigation is compensating for the take that has
occurred over the first 10 years, and whether any adjustment to the
incidental take authority may be required as a condition to permit
renewal. One result of choosing this alternative, however, is that the
mitigation strategy presented in the MSHCP would also be altered, thus
involving fewer acres of mitigation for O&M activities at the outset of
implementation of the plan. Under this alternative, there also would be
a formalized application review process built in by regulation. The
Service's permit regulations require that an application for permit
renewal or amendment must be made available for public review and
comment. The Service also would need to reevaluate the completed NEPA
analysis to determine whether the EIS was sufficient in its analysis of
project impacts beyond the initial term of the permit. Review of the
EIS would be subject to public review concurrent with the permit
renewal application.
In addition to the three alternatives described above, the Service
considered several alternatives in conjunction with MSHCP development
that are described in the draft EIS but dismissed from further
consideration. They include alternatives that considered such things as
variations on the breadth of covered activities, implementation
approach, and covered species.
Reviewing Documents and Submitting Comments
Please refer to TE02636A when submitting comments. The permit
application and supporting documents (ITP application, MSHCP, draft
EIS, Implementing Agreement, and summary documents) may be obtained on
the Internet at the following address: https://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/permits/hcp/r3hcps.html.
Please make it clear when commenting whether your comments address
the HCP, the draft EIS, both the HCP and draft EIS, or other supporting
documents.
Persons without access to the Internet may obtain copies of the
documents (application, draft HCP, and draft EIS) by contacting the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological Services, 5600 American
Blvd. W., Suite 990, Bloomington, MN 55437-1458 (612-713-5350, voice;
612-713-5292, fax). The documents will also be available for public
inspection, by appointment, during normal business hours (8 a.m. to 4
p.m.) at the following Regional Offices:
Midwest Region Office: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ecological
Services, 10th Floor--5600 American Blvd. W., Bloomington, MN 55437
(612-713-5350, voice; 612-713-5292, fax);
Southeast Region: 1875 Century Blvd, Suite 200, Atlanta, GA 30345-
3319 (404-679-7140, voice; 404-679-7081, fax);
Northeast Region: 300 Westgate Center Drive, Hadley, MA 01035-9589
(413-253-8304, voice; 413-253-8293, fax).
Written comments will be accepted as described under ADDRESSES,
above.
Public Meetings
Public meetings will be held at three locations in proximity to the
proposed covered lands for this MSHCP. Meetings will be held in
Columbus, Ohio; Lexington, Kentucky; and Charleston, West Virginia as
follows:
August 16, 2011, 7 p.m., University Plaza Hotel and
Conference Center,
[[Page 41293]]
3110 Olentangy River Road, Columbus, OH 43202.
August 17, 2011, 7 p.m., Ramada Conference Center, 2143 N.
Broadway, Lexington, KY 40505.
August 18, 2011, 7 p.m., Charleston Ramada Plaza, 400 2nd
Ave., S. Charleston, WV 25303.
Public Availability of Comments
Written 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 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.
Authority
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the ESA (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 17.22), and NEPA
(42 U.S.C. 4371 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (40 CFR
1506.6; 43 CFR part 46).
Dated: June 21, 2011.
Richard D. Schultz,
Acting Regional Director, Midwest Region, Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
[FR Doc. 2011-17419 Filed 7-12-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P