Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly and Serpentine Grasslands, City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County, California, 21946-21948 [2014-08851]

Agencies

• Fish and Wildlife Service
• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 75 (Friday, April 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21946-21948]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-08851]



[[Page 21946]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

[FWS-R8-ES-2014-N056; FF08E00000-FXES11120800000F2-145]


Proposed Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for the Bay 
Checkerspot Butterfly and Serpentine Grasslands, City of Santa Clara, 
Santa Clara County, California

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability; receipt of permit application, proposed 
habitat conservation plan; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: We, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have 
received an application from the City of Santa Clara, doing business as 
Silicon Valley Power (applicant), for a 30-year incidental take permit 
for five species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended 
(Act). The application addresses the potential for ``take'' of one 
listed animal and four listed plants. We request comments on the 
applicant's application and HCP, and our preliminary determination that 
the HCP qualifies as a ``low-effect'' habitat conservation plan, 
eligible for a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). We discuss our basis for this 
determination in our environmental action statement (EAS), also 
available for public review.

DATES: To ensure consideration, please send your written comments by 
May 19, 2014. We will make the final permit decision no sooner than May 
19, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submitting Comments: Please address written comments to 
Ellen McBride, Conservation Planning Division, Sacramento Fish and 
Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, W-2605, Sacramento, CA 95825. 
Alternatively, you may send comments by facsimile to (916) 414-6713.
    Reviewing Documents: You may obtain copies of the permit 
application, HCP, and EAS from the individuals in FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT, or from the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 
Web site at https://www.fws.gov/sacramento. Copies of these documents 
are also available for public inspection, by appointment, during 
regular business hours, at the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Thomas, Chief, Conservation 
Planning Division, or Eric Tattersall, Deputy Assistant Field 
Supervisor, at the address shown above or at (916) 414-6600 
(telephone). If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf, 
please call the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Introduction

    We have received an application from the City of Santa Clara, doing 
business as Silicon Valley Power (SVP; applicant), for a 30-year 
incidental take permit for five species under the Endangered Species 
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). The application addresses the potential 
for ``take'' of one listed animal, the Bay checkerspot butterfly, and 
four listed plants: the Santa Clara Valley dudleya (Dudleya abramsii 
ssp. setchellii), coyote ceanothus (Ceanothus ferrisae), Metcalf Canyon 
jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. albidus), and Tiburon paintbrush 
(Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta). Below, we refer to all five 
species, collectively the Covered Species. The applicant would 
implement a conservation program to minimize and mitigate the project 
activities, as described in the applicant's low-effect habitat 
conservation plan (HCP). We request comments on the applicant's 
application and HCP, and our preliminary determination that the HCP 
qualifies as a ``low-effect'' habitat conservation plan, eligible for a 
categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act of 
1969, as amended (NEPA). We discuss our basis for this determination in 
our environmental action statement (EAS), also available for public 
review.

Background Information

    Section 9 of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544 et seq.) and our 
regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17) prohibit the 
taking of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened 
under section 4 of the Act. Take of federally listed fish or wildlife 
is defined under the Act as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect listed species, or attempt to 
engage in such conduct. The term ``harass'' is defined in the 
regulations as to carry out 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). The term ``harm'' is 
defined in the regulations as significant habitat modification or 
degradation that results in death or injury of listed species by 
significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including 
breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). However, under 
specified circumstances, the Service may issue permits that allow the 
take of federally listed species, provided that the take that occurs is 
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 applicants will, to the maximum extent practicable, 
minimize and mitigate the impact of such taking;
    (3) The applicants will develop a proposed HCP and ensure that 
adequate funding for the HCP 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 applicants will carry out any other measures that the 
Service may require as being necessary or appropriate for the purposes 
of the HCP.
    Although take of listed plant species is not prohibited under the 
Act, and therefore cannot be authorized under an incidental take 
permit, plant species may be included on a permit in recognition of the 
conservation benefits provided to them under a habitat conservation 
plan.

Proposed Project

    The draft HCP addresses potential effects to the Covered Species 
that may result from the proposed covered activities. The applicant 
seeks incidental take authorization for covered activities within the 
2.86-acre Don Von Raesfeld Pico Power Plant (DVR), which is located 
west of the intersection of Lafayette Street and Duane Avenue and 
immediately north of SVP's Kifer Receiving Station, Santa Clara County, 
California. The following five federally listed species will be Covered 
Species in the applicant's proposed HCP:
     Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis) 
(threatened)
     Santa Clara Valley dudleya (Dudleya setchellii) 
(endangered)
     Coyote ceanothus (Ceanothus ferrisae) (endangered)
     Metcalf Canyon jewelflower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. 
albidus) (endangered)
     Tiburon paintbrush (Castilleja affinis ssp. neglecta) 
(endangered)
    The applicant would seek incidental take authorization for these 
five Covered Species and would receive assurances

[[Page 21947]]

under our ``No Surprises'' regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 
17.32(b)(5)).

Proposed Covered Activities

    The following actions are proposed as the ``Covered Activities'' 
under the HCP: Approximately 40 acres of serpentine habitat for the 
covered species will be indirectly affected through nitrogen oxide 
(NOX) deposition and NH3 emissions resulting from 
pollution control processes. The applicant proposes to continue to 
operate a 2.86-acre electric power plant, which is a natural gas-fired, 
combined-cycle electric generating facility with two General Electric 
LM-6000PC Spring combustion turbine generators, a single condensing 
steam turbine generator, deaerating surface condenser, mechanical draft 
plume-abated cooling tower, and associated support equipment. The plant 
is rated at nominal net generating capacity of 122 megawatts (MW), with 
the ability to peak fire at 147 MW. The plant has an emission-reduction 
system, which includes water injection and a selective catalytic 
reduction unit to control nitrogen oxides, and an oxidation catalyst to 
control carbon monoxide. The power plant will not directly affect 
serpentine species, but emissions from the power plant could result in 
indirect effects. The applicant seeks a 30-year permit to cover the 
deposition and emissions associated with the operations of this 
proposed development within the 40 acres surrounding the development 
site. The power plant is not expected to cause direct effects to 
covered species or their habitat.

Proposed Mitigation Measures

    The applicant proposes to avoid, minimize, and mitigate the effects 
to the covered species associated with the Covered Activities by fully 
implementing the HCP. The following mitigation and minimization 
measures will be implemented:
     Acquisition of and placing a conservation easement on 40 
acres of serpentine habitat on the nearby DVR Ecological Preserve for 
protection of the serpentine-endemic species;
     Purchase of Bay Area Air Quality Management District 
(BAAQMD) air pollution credits in the amount of 43.3 tons for 
NOX;
     Population monitoring on the preserve site, including 
adaptive management;
     Invasive weed management;
     Controlled grazing; and
     Vegetation monitoring.
    General minimization measures will include:
     Limiting vehicular access of the preserve to existing 
paved roads; and
     Maintenance of all equipment for accessing the preserve to 
avoid fluid leaks.

Proposed Action and Alternatives

    Our proposed action (see below) is approving the applicant's HCP 
and issuance of an incidental take permit for the applicant's Covered 
Activities. As required by the Act, the applicant's HCP considers 
alternatives to the take under the proposed action. The HCP considers 
the environmental consequences of one alternative to the proposed 
action, the No Action Alternative, as well as alternatives for power 
supplied to Silicon Valley Power's customers.
No-Action Alternative
    Under the No-Action Alternative, we would not issue an incidental 
take permit, the applicant would cease operations of the power plant, 
the project area would continue to experience nitrogen deposition from 
vehicular use along nearby highways, and no take would occur for the 
operation of the power plant. While the No-Action Alternative would 
avoid take of covered species, it is inconsistent with one of the 
primary objectives of Silicon Valley Power's program to provide 
electrical power to its business customers and to replace the power 
obtained through a long-term sales agreement that expired in 2005, 
after the DVR came on line. In addition, the No-Action Alternative 
could result in greater fuel consumption and air pollution in the 
State, because older, less efficient plants with higher air emissions 
would continue to generate power instead of being replaced with 
cleaner, more efficient plants, such as the DVR. It also could result 
in the transfer of the mitigation property, the DVR Ecological 
Preserve, to a party that would fully develop the property without 
maintaining any habitat or federally listed species on site. Also, 
during limited availability of in-state generated electricity, imported 
electrical energy has proven to be expensive and not always available. 
Additionally, under the No-Action Alternative, the 40-acre DVR 
Ecological Preserve for serpentine endemic species would not be 
acquired or set up for management in perpetuity. For these reasons, the 
No-Action Alternative has been rejected.
Power Supply Alternative
    Similarly, alternative routes for the natural gas pipeline, 
electric transmission line, and waste water pipeline were also reviewed 
and found either to be infeasible, to fail to avoid or minimize any 
potential significant environmental effects, or to have the potential 
to cause significant environmental effects that are otherwise avoided 
or minimized by the DVR.
    Various alternative technologies, scaled to meet the DVR 
objectives, with the technology of the DVR were compared. Technologies 
examined were those principal electricity generation technologies that 
do not burn natural gas: solar, wind, and biomass. Both solar and wind 
generation result in the absence or reduction in air pollutant 
emissions, visible plumes, and need for emissions control. Water 
consumption for both wind and solar generation is substantially less 
than for a natural, gas-fired plant because there is no thermal cooling 
requirement.
    However, solar and wind resources would require large land areas in 
order to generate 122 MW of electricity. Specifically, central receiver 
solar thermal projects require approximately 5 acres per megawatt; 
therefore, 122 MW would require approximately 610 acres, or over 200 
times the amount of land area taken by the DVR site and linear 
facilities. Parabolic trough solar thermal technology requires similar 
acreage per megawatt. Wind generation ``farms'' generally require 
between 5 to 17 acres per megawatt, with 122 MW requiring between 610 
and 2,074 acres. Additionally, solar and wind energy technologies 
cannot provide full-time availability due to the natural intermittent 
availability of the source.
    Although air emissions are significantly reduced or eliminated for 
both wind and solar facilities, both can have significant visual 
effects. Wind facilities can also affect birds and bats, depending on 
the turbine technology, and solar facilities typically have associated 
land disturbance that may affect other listed species.
    For biomass generation, a fuel source such as wood chips (the 
preferred source) or agricultural waste is necessary. Biomass 
facilities generate substantially greater quantities of air pollutant 
emissions. In addition, biomass plants are typically sized to generate 
less than 20 MW, which is substantially less than the capacity of the 
122-MW DVR project. In order to generate 122 MW, six biomass facilities 
each generating 20 MW would be required.
    Because of the typically lower efficiencies and intermittent 
availability of alternative generation technologies, they do not 
fulfill a basic objective of this plant: to provide power from a load-
following facility to meet the growing demands for reliable power 
within the City of Santa Clara. Consequently, it has

[[Page 21948]]

been concluded that geothermal, hydroelectric, solar, wind, and biomass 
technologies do not present feasible alternatives to the DVR.
    For the above reasons, the various alternatives to power delivery 
for Silicon Valley Power's customers were rejected.
Proposed Action
    Under the Proposed Action Alternative, we would issue an incidental 
take permit for the applicant's proposed project, which includes the 
activities described above. The Proposed Action Alternative would 
result in an estimated permanent loss through indirect effects to 40 
acres of grassland habitat for the Bay checkerspot butterfly, Santa 
Clara Valley dudleya, Metcalf Canyon jewelflower, Coyote ceanothus, and 
Tiburon paintbrush. To mitigate for these effects, the applicant 
proposes to protect, enhance, and manage in perpetuity 40 acres of 
nearby serpentine grassland.

National Environmental Policy Act

    As described in our EAS, we have made the preliminary determination 
that approval of the proposed Plan and issuance of the permit would 
qualify as a categorical exclusion under NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), 
as provided by NEPA implementing regulations in the Code of Federal 
Regulations (40 CFR 1500.5(k), 1507.3(b)(2), 1508.4), by Department of 
Interior regulations (43 CFR 46.205, 46.210, 46.215), and by the 
Department of the Interior Manual (516 DM 3 and 516 DM 8). Our EAS 
found that the proposed HCP qualifies as a ``low-effect'' habitat 
conservation plan, as defined by our ``Habitat Conservation Planning 
and Incidental Take Permitting Process Handbook'' (November 1996).
    Determination of whether a habitat conservation plan qualifies as 
low effect is based on the following three criteria: (1) Implementation 
of the proposed HCP would result in minor or negligible effects on 
federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; 
(2) implementation of the proposed plan would result in minor or 
negligible effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) 
impacts of the HCP, considered together with the impacts of other past, 
present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, would not result, over 
time, in cumulative effects to environmental values or resources that 
would be considered significant. Based upon the preliminary 
determinations in the EAS, we do not intend to prepare further NEPA 
documentation. We will consider public comments when making the final 
determination on whether to prepare an additional NEPA document on the 
proposed action.

Public Comments

    We request data, comments, new information, or suggestions from the 
public, other concerned governmental agencies, the scientific 
community, Tribes, industry, or any other interested party on this 
notice. We particularly seek comments on the following:
    (1) Biological information concerning the species;
    (2) Relevant data concerning the species;
    (3) Additional information concerning the range, distribution, 
population size, and population trends of the species;
    (4) Current or planned activities in the subject area and their 
possible impacts on the species; and
    (5) Identification of any other environmental issues that should be 
considered with regard to the proposed DVR operations and permit 
action.
    You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods 
listed above in ADDRESSES. Comments and materials we receive, as well 
as supporting documentation we used in preparing the EAS, will be 
available for public inspection by appointment, during normal business 
hours, at our office (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).

Public Availability of Comments

    Before including your address, phone number, or other personal 
identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your 
entire comment--including your personal identifying information--might 
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.

Next Steps

    We will evaluate the permit application, including the HCP, and 
comments we receive to determine whether the application meets the 
requirements of section 10(a) of the Act. If the requirements are met, 
we will issue a permit to the applicant for the incidental take of the 
Bay checkerspot butterfly from the implementation of the covered 
activities described in the Low-Effect Habitat Conservation Plan for 
the Bay Checkerspot Butterfly and Serpentine Grasslands, City of Santa 
Clara, Santa Clara County, California. We will make the final permit 
decision no sooner than 30 days after publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register.

Authority

    We publish this notice under the National Environmental Policy Act 
of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; NEPA), and its 
implementing regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 40 
CFR 1500-1508, as well as in compliance with section 10(c) of the 
Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.; Act).

    Dated: April 14, 2014.
Jennifer M. Norris,
Field Supervisor, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, 
California.
[FR Doc. 2014-08851 Filed 4-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P